Where Detroit public transportation goes from here.

[Flintoid]

House passed SB 912 and 967 last night which allow Bus Rapid Transit to operate in its own separate lane on major roads and allows the RTA to usurp local zoning laws. All 5 bills got passed!

[stasu1213]

Once Detroit get a Mayor and council that are pro transit instead of anti transit, due to those who funded their campaign, there will be an aggressive move toward building a transit system for Detroit and Southeastern Michigan

[Novine]

All this time, I thought it was Brooks and county interests outside of Detroit holding up transit improvements when it's really the Mayor and Council in Detroit who are the problem.

[tkelly1986]

All this time, I thought it was Brooks and county interests outside of Detroit holding up transit improvements when it's really the Mayor and Council in Detroit who are the problem.

I'm not sure if this is meant to be sarcastic...but it is indeed the situation. The city has been the biggest obstacle. I cannot tell you how many people involved with the RTA, M1, State, the Fed ect…have said that the city is the problem due to incompetence, not returning phone calls, demanding the moon, but not wanting to pay for it, or reserving rooms for meetings. Honestly, the city is who dropped the ball here. It’s embarrassing that we still employ many of these clowns.

[Det_ard]

Well, since Oakland is on board and Ann Arbor is grumbling now some folks will have to find a "Brooks" of Washtenaw to rail against.

[Novine]

Yes, it was sarcastic. For all its shortcomings, Detroit actually has a transit system. Oakland County does not and what we do have in SMART is despite Brooks Patterson, not thanks to him.

[Detroitdave]

OK I'm trying to be clear on this ? once any rail lines comes into the city and hits Grand Blvd, will there be two lines? ,meaning "local" city line and a express line [[m1) only stopping at 3/4 stops until it ends downtown ?
It's not making sense to me? I'm sure this can't ,be Woodward it's that big down there . So I'm sure I'm reading this or not getting this

[Detroitnerd]

COUNTY POLITICIAN: Well, boys, I've tried to hold them off as long as possible, but it looks like they're determined to build mass transit in the region.

CONCRETE COMPANY EXECUTIVE: That's horrible!

RUBBER COMPANY EXECUTIVE: Damn them!

AUTOMOTIVE EXECUTIVE: After all the money we spent to convince them otherwise!

COUNTY POLITICIAN: Now, boys ...

CONCRETE COMPANY EXECUTIVE: Are you telling me we're not going to be able to lay the same cheap concrete every few years because everybody will be riding trains?

RUBBER COMPANY EXECUTIVE: And what about my tire sales?

AUTOMOTIVE EXECUTIVE: We don't make any TRAINS! We make cars!

COUNTY POLITICIAN: Now, you boys calm down. I have talked with our buddies in Lansing and I think we've figured out a way to neutralize its impact on you fellers. First of all, there won't be any trains in the county!

EXECUTIVES: WHEW!

COUNTY POLITICIAN: What we're going to do is run a system of buses, which means we'll need to buy a bunch of the biggest buses your auto company makes. You'll have to put fancy paint jobs on them to make them look like trains, but that about it. Now, of course, we'll need lots and lots of your rubber company's tires. And the whole project will require lots of special concrete construction to berm them off from the rest of the road, lots of concrete stations, and -- the way you lay it -- fat repair contracts. [laughter]

AUTOMOTIVE EXECUTIVE: But, I still gotta say, I'm worried. What if they see the impact of safe reliable mass transit and decide to actually use the system?

COUNTY POLITICIAN: [laughs] All that's been figured out. First of all, this kind of bus system is loaded with goodies for you guys but really, it's still a loser cruiser. [laughter] Nobody will actually choose to ride this thing. It's expensive, but then again we needed a way to feed you this money from the RTA and that's what it does. Other than that, it's slow, bumpy and not really all that rapid.

RUBBER COMPANY EXECUTIVE: But if it DID work ... what then?

COUNTY POLITICIAN: Well, see, that's why we've placed it out on this road that transit riders will never use. Once people see all the money we spent on this loser system that nobody uses, it will set the cause of transit back another 20 years in this county. And that's good news for all of us!

[laughter, applause]

THE END

[Jimaz]

LOL!

... RUBBER COMPANY EXECUTIVE: And what about my tire sales?...

As soon as I read that I thought about all the old tire piles laying around Detroit. Oh! That's where they came from. Of course!

[tkelly1986]

M1 will be the "local" service, while the BRT will be the express. And yes, as it stands they will operate concurrently, unless folks push strongly for an integrated rail system.

[Detroitdave]

BRAVO ! BRAVO ! and the region still suffers and loses people to other states and cities with mass transit , OH ??? huh ??
I'd like to see them try selling that in Chicago, NYC ,Boston, SF, Seattle , Philly, Portland ect

[Bham1982]

BRAVO ! BRAVO ! and the region still suffers and loses people to other states and cities with mass transit , OH ??? huh ??
I'd like to see them try selling that in Chicago, NYC ,Boston, SF, Seattle , Philly, Portland ect

This talking point is repeated ad-nauseam, and is 100% false.

For the hundred-millionth time, the region isn't losing people because of lack of mass transit, and the places where Michiganders move to don't have better transit than ours. Florida and North Carolina and Texas have horrible mass transit.

In any case, there is no correlation between growth rates and mass transit [[to say nothing of causation, which is even sillier). The fastest growing cities almost all have terrible mass transit [[though I am not arguing causation, only correlation).

And, for the millionth time, we have mass transit. Whether or not we also get a light rail line won't make a big difference. Light rail isn't appreciably higher capacity transit than bus transit. The only real mega-upgrade would be to heavy rail, and we won't be getting heavy rail in the next bajillion years, so any fantasies about Boston Edison turning into Brooklyn will have to be deferred for a couple million generations.

[ghettopalmetto]

This talking point is repeated ad-nauseam, and is 100% false.

For the hundred-millionth time, the region isn't losing people because of lack of mass transit, and the places where Michiganders move to don't have better transit than ours. Florida and North Carolina and Texas have horrible mass transit.

In any case, there is no correlation between growth rates and mass transit [[to say nothing of causation, which is even sillier). The fastest growing cities almost all have terrible mass transit [[though I am not arguing causation, only correlation).

And, for the millionth time, we have mass transit. Whether or not we also get a light rail line won't make a big difference. Light rail isn't appreciably higher capacity transit than bus transit. The only real mega-upgrade would be to heavy rail, and we won't be getting heavy rail in the next bajillion years, so any fantasies about Boston Edison turning into Brooklyn will have to be deferred for a couple million generations.

I think your pride got in the way of facts in your response.

Michiganders are moving to places beyond "Florida and North Carolina and Texas". The Washington, DC area has a U of M Alumni Club chapter of over 6,000 people--all with college degrees. And that's just from U of M. New York and Chicago also have enormous U of M Clubs [[even though they might not be "growing"). I'm sure there are a few thousand more native Michiganders in each of those metropolises, each seeking something they couldn't find in their home state.

And while we're at it: A town that grows from 5 people to 10 has grown 100%. That growth rate doesn't make it a far better place to live than say, Brooklyn. Growth rates are overrated--people don't look at statistical PR bullshit mumbo-jumbo when they relocate; they look at quality of life and quality of *place*.

It's not the transit itself, per se, but what the transit enables you to do. It enables you to live as a family with 1 or even 0 cars. It enables walkable places and cohesive communities. THIS is why 20-and-30-something professionals leave--they want more than cruising past the chain-store strip mall at 50 miles an hour. They'd like to walk down the block from their home to the coffee shop or bookstore, rather than get in the car and schlep out of Vinyl-Sided Preserve onto the traffic-clogged eight-lane highway every time they want to go somewhere.

For what it's worth, though, Charlotte, Houston, and Dallas all have better transit than Detroit. And light rail *does* have a higher capacity than buses--about several thousand people an hour more.

[TexasT]

I think your pride got in the way of facts in your response.

Michiganders are moving to places beyond "Florida and North Carolina and Texas". The Washington, DC area has a U of M Alumni Club chapter of over 6,000 people--all with college degrees. And that's just from U of M. New York and Chicago also have enormous U of M Clubs [[even though they might not be "growing"). I'm sure there are a few thousand more native Michiganders in each of those metropolises, each seeking something they couldn't find in their home state.

And while we're at it: A town that grows from 5 people to 10 has grown 100%. That growth rate doesn't make it a far better place to live than say, Brooklyn. Growth rates are overrated--people don't look at statistical PR bullshit mumbo-jumbo when they relocate; they look at quality of life and quality of *place*.

Yep. In Texas 89% of our growth has been from growing minority populations, especially Hispanic, and immigration from Mexico and Central America. I'm not saying that's "bad" growth, but there seems to be this myth that people are flocking from all over the United States to Texas because of its policies. Our growth stems largely from our proximity to the border, cheap housing, and ability to pay illegal immigrants under the table [[even larger companies). We aren't necessarily attracting a ton of people from other states is my point.

For what it's worth, though, Charlotte, Houston, and Dallas all have better transit than Detroit. And light rail *does* have a higher capacity than buses--about several thousand people an hour more.

Does Houston? People don't use the ONE train that we have except suburbanites who use it to park and ride to Reliant Stadium for special events. People don't use it for real transportation. We don't have a contiguous section like Detroit has [[or can have) in Woodward, with downtown, Midtown, Museums/DMC, and New Center. Houston's doesn't really pass through residential areas, except one neighborhood down near the end.

I guess it's technically better because it exists, but it ain't much!

That being said, it was a true clusterfuck to get that ONE train in Houston - about two decades in the making. If Houston can do it, Detroit can do it. And Detroit has much better bones for building a dense city than Houston [[esp considering it's already 2.5x as dense, as it currently stands).

[ghettopalmetto]

Does Houston? People don't use the ONE train that we have except suburbanites who use it to park and ride to Reliant Stadium for special events. People don't use it for real transportation. We don't have a contiguous section like Detroit has [[or can have) in Woodward, with downtown, Midtown, Museums/DMC, and New Center. Houston's doesn't really pass through residential areas, except one neighborhood down near the end.

I guess it's technically better because it exists, but it ain't much!

That being said, it was a true clusterfuck to get that ONE train in Houston - about two decades in the making. If Houston can do it, Detroit can do it. And Detroit has much better bones for building a dense city than Houston [[esp considering it's already 2.5x as dense, as it currently stands).

The existing 7-1/2 mile Metrorail carries almost as many people [[37,000 a day) as suburban Detroit's entire SMART bus system. I'd say that's pretty successful. Not to mention that this:

http://www.gometrorail.org/go/doc/2491/1323787/

is leagues beyond what Detroit is showing right now: a PLAN.

[Richard]

The only real mega-upgrade would be to heavy rail, and we won't be getting heavy rail in the next bajillion years, so any fantasies about Boston Edison turning into Brooklyn will have to be deferred for a couple million generations.

Bajillion years what is that? so one year equals 1/2 of a bajillion year?

The cars are already being built for a 2014 launch ,granted 100 mph is not quite high speed but it is at least faster then 25 mph.

In dense populated cities there are lots of commuters that jump on and off heavy rail or Amtrak for 5,10 and 20 mile rides.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...it-chicago.pdf

http://www.michiganradio.org/post/de...passenger-rail

http://www.annarbor.com/news/commute...=RSS_link_news

Taking light rail or streetcars to heavy rail for long trips is kinda no different then driving to the airport ,other then the parking and strip search's.

You do not read about it but Central Fla transit connecting downtown and the other close cities is already started construction and the run from Orlando to Tampa is on track

[Eber Brock Ward]

BRAVO ! BRAVO ! and the region still suffers and loses people to other states and cities with mass transit , OH ??? huh ??
I'd like to see them try selling that in Chicago, NYC ,Boston, SF, Seattle , Philly, Portland ect

Chicago, for one, has a form of BRT, even if not Curitaba-style. Last year, when I was still there, I drafted the MOU between the RTA, Pace, IL State Police, etc. that provides for the operation of Bus-on-Shoulder service in Chicagoland. [[http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...beat-rush/478/).

Additionally, when I left in May, we were working on signal prioritization and BRT down Ashland and/or Western [[two streets running n/s on the west side) and on the Jeffrey route [[between downtown and the south side).

I know that transit advocates in this region find non-rail transit undesirable, but it's not like BRT is some sort of black sheep that only our area is interested in.

[ghettopalmetto]

Chicago, for one, has a form of BRT, even if not Curitaba-style. Last year, when I was still there, I drafted the MOU between the RTA, Pace, IL State Police, etc. that provides for the operation of Bus-on-Shoulder service in Chicagoland.

That sounds like "bus on a shoulder". Ain't quite the same as "rapid transit".

[Eber Brock Ward]

Not all BRT is BOS, but BOS is a form of BRT.

Here's a good article about BOS as a form of BRT: http://www.its.umn.edu/Research/Proj...tml?id=2001046

[Detroitdave]

I'll take that over 8 mile and haggerty, haggerty and ford road , m 59 and Van dyke, anything on Hall road , and any of the poorly planned "new" suburbs anywhere in the US.
Just my personal feeling

[Detroitdave]

I remember when they were building the rail line in LA the first line was the blue line from Downtown to Long Beach.
Then the bigger more expensive subway from Downtown to Hollywood/North Hollywood , you should had heard all the arguing over that one .
see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_R...eles_County%29
"no one is EVER going to ride a subway / trains in LA ?"
Wanna bet ! people couldn't image LA now with out it
I've seen it change right in front of my eyes it does work for the better .
trust me you build it they WILL come !

[Detroitnerd]

I remember when they were building the rail line in LA the first line was the blue line from Downtown to Long Beach.
Then the bigger more expensive subway from Downtown to Hollywood/North Hollywood , you should had heard all the arguing over that one .
see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_R...eles_County%29
"no one is EVER going to ride a subway / trains in LA ?"
Wanna bet ! people couldn't image LA now with out it
I've seen it change right in front of my eyes it does work for the better .
trust me you build it they WILL come !

There are different ways transit affects where people live, work and build.

One obvious way to plan transit for best effect is to look at existing ridership and find where the ridership is high enough to merit an upgrade to a better system. Many knowledgeable people, for instance, agree that ridership on Woodward Avenue in Detroit is high enough to where an upgrade to light rail makes sense.

I haven't seen ridership statistics for Hall Road. I'm not sure there are any, because all SMART runs is a 510 connector on Hall as far as I can see. But the point is, to offer an "upgrade" on a route where there is no demonstrable ridership is kinda unheard of. It's enough to make even transit-boosters groan, and it strengthens the impression that this is really just county payola.

Now, sometimes, you'll build an ambitious, regionwide system with a PLAN. I can respect that seems to be the path L.A. and Houston are taking. When you put some rail [[especially heavy rail or subways) on the ground, people, especially developers, are going to sit up and take notice. That could be enough to alter the landscape itself, bringing transit-oriented development into the picture. That's not "if you build it they will come." That's "if you build it they will BUILD."

But a BRT project probably isn't going to spur anybody to remake Hall Road into a pedestrian-friendly, build-to-the-sidewalk [[or, heck, built-sidewalk!) kind of place.

So while I respect that, done intelligently, transit systems can spur development, it has to be done right.

That is, unless your goal is to build a boondoggle that will enrich your buddies while making transit a laughingstock for another generation...

[Detroitnerd]

Thanks for the insights, Tex!

[TexasT]

Thanks for the insights, Tex!

No problem. There are so many parallels between Houston and Detroit - it's fascinating for me.

One of the big differences though is the way Detroit was built - it's got the bones to be a great city, in terms of the way it was designed. I'm no urban planner, but I love the layout and I think downtown is beautiful. I'm a Texan with a good dose of Texas pride, but Houston blew up in a time when building design and city planning was vastly different [[and in my opinion, much less aesthetically pleasing!).

[Detroitnerd]

No problem. There are so many parallels between Houston and Detroit - it's fascinating for me.

One of the big differences though is the way Detroit was built - it's got the bones to be a great city, in terms of the way it was designed. I'm no urban planner, but I love the layout and I think downtown is beautiful. I'm a Texan with a good dose of Texas pride, but Houston blew up in a time when building design and city planning was vastly different [[and in my opinion, much less aesthetically pleasing!).

I know what you mean. Writer Joel Garreau posited that it was 1915, the year the 1 millionth Ford rolled off the line, that Americans abandoned the way cities had been built for hundreds of years. Instead of balanced planning, you got what writer Lewis Mumford called "loose masses of urbanoid tissue." Detroit was lucky in that it had largely taken its basic shape by 1914, and in that its radial road system was an inheritance from before Europeans had set foot on its land.