Detroit Public Transportation: 2014 and beyond.

[mtburb]

I'm just curious, Bham1982. Where are Dearborn's two downtowns located?

Both are on Michigan Avenue, there is one at Schaefer and one between Telegraph and Evergreen.

[dtowncitylover]

Which urban cores don't have on street parking on many streets? If you take a look at areas in Metro Detroit that are considered walkable, there is on street parking. Downtown Royal Oak has on-street parking on its main drag: Main Street. In Ann Arbor there is on-street parking on most of it's Main Street. On-street parking lets people know that other people frequent the area and that makes people feel safe. I've already mentioned how on-street parking acts as a buffer for people walking on sidewalks. It makes people feel safe from on-coming traffic. Also, on-street parking to me is just as important as a good street-wall. People just feel more comfortable when these things are in place in cities. I know I feel more at ease in such areas.

I just hate walking down Michigan Avenue in Dearborn where the street narrows around Les Standford car dealership and Westborn Market. I don't feel safe because at any moment a car could lose control and run up on the curb and sidewalk in a heartbeat. Also, notice how you don't see anybody walking along that stretch of Michigan, yet you see hundreds of people walking along the Main Streets in Royal Oak and Ann Arbor. Which scenario would you prefer to be in?

Royal Oak and Dearborn are not comparable urban cores. I am taking about Yonge and Dundas, Madison and State, or Market and 4th. These places to do not have street parking. People park in lots, take transit, or live there. Seeing throngs of people NOT cars makes me people feel safe.

I prefer to be in an urban core where most speed limits are 25-30 mph, no different than a suburban sidestreet.

Seriously, there is not "hundreds" of people at Main and 4th in Royal Oak on a Thursday at 2pm.

[royce]

Royal Oak and Dearborn are not comparable urban cores. I am taking about Yonge and Dundas, Madison and State, or Market and 4th. These places to do not have street parking. People park in lots, take transit, or live there. Seeing throngs of people NOT cars makes me people feel safe.

I prefer to be in an urban core where most speed limits are 25-30 mph, no different than a suburban sidestreet.

Seriously, there is not "hundreds" of people at Main and 4th in Royal Oak on a Thursday at 2pm.

Seriously? You would pick a 2 p.m. time-slot on a Thursday to comment about the amount of people on the streets in downtown Royal Oak. How about Saturday at 2:00 p.m? Also, the Yonge and Dundas intersection in Toronto is a poor example of streets with no street parking. Each street is only four lanes wide. Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward are nine lanes wide. On-street parking and a dedicated bus lane for BRT can exist simultaneously on those streets. A dedicated bike lane for Gratiot and parts of Woodward and Michigan is problematic. A bike lane on Gratiot Avenue would be insane. Cars travel too fast on Gratiot for a bike lane to exist. I know. I grew up two blocks from Gratiot near Van Dyke. So, it's clear that my preference is to have on-street parking over a dedicated bike lane that replaces it. If bikers want to travel down Woodward, Gratiot, or Michigan, then on some parts they'll just have to use the sidewalks. Again, let's not give up all areas of on-street parking for biking. That to me is just too extreme.

[Bham1982]

Seriously? You would pick a 2 p.m. time-slot on a Thursday to comment about the amount of people on the streets in downtown Royal Oak. How about Saturday at 2:00 p.m?

I'm not there very often these days, but I don't recall downtown RO ever being busy during the daytime.

Maybe 30 years ago, when there was still normal retail [[I think there was even a downtown JCPenney back then), but RO has been nightlife-oriented for basically my entire life. It's extremely restaurant-bar oriented.

[emu steve]

Both are on Michigan Avenue, there is one at Schaefer and one between Telegraph and Evergreen.

FWIW, isn't there a new hotel being built at Telegraph and Michigan Ave.?

[emu steve]

FWIW2:

Here is Wikipedia's entry for the Purple Line in the D.C. suburbs [[Maryland) connecting subway stations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_[[Maryland)

16 miles. 3.3B to build and operate over 36 years.

And the cars will be a single, very long car [[136 feet, compared to 75 for the D.C. subway system).

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...gest-railcars/

Bottom line: This is a 3B+ LRT system which goes 16 miles point to point between two points.

It is a far cry from a system which would go to 8 mile, or out Gratiot or E. Jefferson or out Michigan Ave. to say Dearborn [[or beyond).

I don't know how to calculate marginal costs, say it the D.C. wished to extend it say another 8 miles. Does it cost 50% more or are there real dollar savings, say 33%, for 50% more miles of rail?

But a system which goes to 8 Mile, Gratiot and Michigan Ave. would easily be say 3 - 4B.

[dtowncitylover]

Seriously? You would pick a 2 p.m. time-slot on a Thursday to comment about the amount of people on the streets in downtown Royal Oak. How about Saturday at 2:00 p.m? Also, the Yonge and Dundas intersection in Toronto is a poor example of streets with no street parking. Each street is only four lanes wide. Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward are nine lanes wide. On-street parking and a dedicated bus lane for BRT can exist simultaneously on those streets. A dedicated bike lane for Gratiot and parts of Woodward and Michigan is problematic. A bike lane on Gratiot Avenue would be insane. Cars travel too fast on Gratiot for a bike lane to exist. I know. I grew up two blocks from Gratiot near Van Dyke. So, it's clear that my preference is to have on-street parking over a dedicated bike lane that replaces it. If bikers want to travel down Woodward, Gratiot, or Michigan, then on some parts they'll just have to use the sidewalks. Again, let's not give up all areas of on-street parking for biking. That to me is just too extreme.

Even at 2 pm on a Saturday there are not throngs people on the same level as a major metropolitan city. In fact I would say on street parking attracts the "in and out" visitor as opposed to those who stay and wander about.

And I'm really just talking about street parking in the immediate downtown area. Midtown Toronto Yonge St. has on street parking and it works. But downtown Yonge St. does not. This is a case of "just because we do, doesn't mean we should". The on street parking along Woodward in downtown Detroit and even through Midtown is not going to deter people from stopping. I'm advocating ridding the entire downtown of on street parking just those routes in which cars, bikes, and BRT has to share.

[professorscott]

16 miles. 3.3B to build and operate over 36 years.


Bottom line: This is a 3B+ LRT system which goes 16 miles point to point between two points.

I don't know how to calculate marginal costs, say it the D.C. wished to extend it say another 8 miles. Does it cost 50% more or are there real dollar savings, say 33%, for 50% more miles of rail?

But a system which goes to 8 Mile, Gratiot and Michigan Ave. would easily be say 3 - 4B.

Well, step back a minute. The Maryland Purple Line has one cost that would not be as significant if we were to try to build up Woodward or Gratiot: it passes through some of the most expensive real estate outside Manhattan or Japan, and is not for the most part within any already-owned right of way. Land acquisition is going to be a chunk of money there.

The savings as you extend lines, if you've properly planned, are that you don't have to go through the extensive procurement process for vehicles [[you just buy more of the same) and don't need another maintenance/storage facility, you already have your project management down pat, know which contractors to use and so forth, but that doesn't come close to a 33% savings. More like 10% if that.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

This article from the Washington Post is a cautionary tale for all transit projects. The caution should not be exercised by not building a transit system. But it should be built and planned with necessary maintenance and operations factored in. Obviously, that calls for a generous and ongoing fund for repairs, equipment replacement and technology upgrades. Washington's Metro system has come under withering [[and justified) criticism for letting the system fall into tremendous disrepair while pushing ahead with significant and expensive system expansion. As anyone who visits DC [[or who lives there) is well aware, service disruptions, late trains, broken elevators & escalators are just the tip of the iceberg. Significant safety problems have emerged of course, too. I'm reminded of the old phrase "proper planning prevents problems." Let's plan properly in Detroit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...8dc_story.html

[professorscott]

This article from the Washington Post is a cautionary tale for all transit projects. The caution should not be exercised by not building a transit system... I'm reminded of the old phrase "proper planning prevents problems." Let's plan properly in Detroit.

I think if you watch the conclusion of construction of M1 Rail and the art of operation of the Q Line, because I know the people who are involved, I think you will get an idea of what a properly run, upgraded transportation system will look like. By saying this I'm not dissing the people who operate SMART or DDOT, or for that matter the PeopleMover, but the PeopleMover's operation is too simple to be a good analogy, and SMART and DDOT do not operate any infrastructure, just vehicles, and are chronically underfunded.

If we decide to upgrade regional transit, you could do a lot worse than to just contract the whole shebang out to Paul Childs and the M1 board of directors and let them have at it. [[I include the board because governance is a huge part of DC Metro's problem. Three jurisdictions, often at loggerheads with each other, and a Rube Goldbergesque set of funding mechanisms, or lack thereof. Plus Uncle Sam gets seats on the board because it wasn't already effed up enough.)

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Professor you are entirely correct about the DC Metro's problems. As the article makes clear, all of the massive and expensive problems they have were identified decades ago, but overlooked. It is going to be a decade to get the DC metro running correctly, provided they can get the money and spend it wisely [[no guarantees on either of those).

[tkelly1986]

Professor you are entirely correct about the DC Metro's problems. As the article makes clear, all of the massive and expensive problems they have were identified decades ago, but overlooked. It is going to be a decade to get the DC metro running correctly, provided they can get the money and spend it wisely [[no guarantees on either of those).

I split my time between DC and Detroit and while I dream for even a broken down system like the DC Metro for Detroit, one thing that needs to get more attention is the incompetent management of the Metro system in years past. Moreover, it's a game of nepotism, and the "leaders" were more interested in puffing out chests and peacocking around than making decisions.

It looks like the DC Metro finally got someone to head up the agency that will bring about the necessary changes. I wish him the best of luck, and hope he ignores the old DC [[local government) way of "doing business".

[mtburb]

Version 2 of my Southeastern Michigan Transit Map has been released and features service changes for DDOT, SMART and AAATA as of May 1 plus additions of Transit Windsor and Flint MTA.

Link is unchanged, but if you forgot, here you go: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1iE...Ks&usp=sharing

[Jimaz]

Recent video from Vox: How highways wrecked American cities

Paradise Valley and Black Bottom are mentioned.

[dtowncitylover]

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...rail/84639168/

I just wanted to post this article because WWJ mentioned it on the radio this morning, I read the article and I'm thinking, "Yeah, we know. This isn't news." Unless the RTA is starting to leak information for the upcoming plan reveal?

[casscorridor]

Under the plan, there will be rail service between the cities eight times a day: three rides during morning and afternoon rush hours, and one in the afternoon and evening. The line will start at the Amtrak Ann Arbor station with stops in Ypsilanti, Wayne, Dearborn and New Center in Detroit.

Eight times a day.... lol

[casscorridor]

Eight times a day.... lol

I'm surprised the lack of concern with this level of frequency. 8 trains per day doesn't cut it.

To be an effective, it needs to run at least twice per hour [[so from 6 AM - 12 AM there would be 36 trains per day). Especially considering it could serve the airport. Visitors aren't going to wait half a day to ride the train into the city. Moreover, commuting and work patterns have changed so many people no longer work 9-5 jobs making traditional "commuter rail" an outdated idea. It needs to serve people wherever they are going and at whatever time. It could also use a few more stations to increase ridership.

Of course, 36 trains per day probably isn't "feasible" so we will put something that is, but will be so underwhelming and ineffective that no one will want to spend money on more "useless" public transport.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I'm surprised the lack of concern with this level of frequency. 8 trains per day doesn't cut it.

I agree with this entirely. Although some commuters will use it get to and from work, I think if the service is frequent enough [[more on that below), the airport will be the biggest embarkation point and destination.

As for frequency of service, I think how often is needed will depend on time of day. I like the idea of a schedule similar to the Staten Island Ferry: every 20 minutes during morning & evening rush; every half hour during non-rush hours; hourly overnight. Probably not affordable, but I think that would be a perfect schedule.

[casscorridor]

I agree with this entirely. Although some commuters will use it get to and from work, I think if the service is frequent enough [[more on that below), the airport will be the biggest embarkation point and destination.

As for frequency of service, I think how often is needed will depend on time of day. I like the idea of a schedule similar to the Staten Island Ferry: every 20 minutes during morning & evening rush; every half hour during non-rush hours; hourly overnight. Probably not affordable, but I think that would be a perfect schedule.

Yeah. This sort of schedule is what they RTA should be aiming for. There may not be demand at this point, but it will build up over time. It will never grow if the service is inconvenient. Unfortunately, the RTA lacks this sort of vision or political will.

[professorscott]

It will never grow if the service is inconvenient. Unfortunately, the RTA lacks this sort of vision or political will.

Unfortunately it isn't a matter of vision or political will, but something much simpler: track usage rights. The tracks are owned by the freight railways. People have been negotiating with the freight railways for years and years about this, and the sticking point is always the same thing, and always will be: the freight railways carry a lot of freight traffic over those tracks, and are only willing to make limited slots available for passenger traffic.

It's not regional rail, it's commuter rail: specifically, a way for people to get to and from work for the most part during rush hour. Given the limited availability of passenger slots, unless you are willing to cough up a few billion to build additional tracks and to buy up the land for those tracks, you have to share tracks with CN and so forth, and you take what crumbs they give you.

[casscorridor]

Unfortunately it isn't a matter of vision or political will, but something much simpler: track usage rights. The tracks are owned by the freight railways. People have been negotiating with the freight railways for years and years about this, and the sticking point is always the same thing, and always will be: the freight railways carry a lot of freight traffic over those tracks, and are only willing to make limited slots available for passenger traffic.

It's not regional rail, it's commuter rail: specifically, a way for people to get to and from work for the most part during rush hour. Given the limited availability of passenger slots, unless you are willing to cough up a few billion to build additional tracks and to buy up the land for those tracks, you have to share tracks with CN and so forth, and you take what crumbs they give you.

Build new tracks then!

But seriously, done with this city and this region. Denver just built a massive light rail system in a matter of a decade, and Los Angeles, and Seattle. You can come up with as many excuses you want, but there is always a solution. It ultimately does come down to vision and political will.

[SDCC]

Build new tracks then!

But seriously, done with this city and this region. Denver just built a massive light rail system in a matter of a decade, and Los Angeles, and Seattle. You can come up with as many excuses you want, but there is always a solution. It ultimately does come down to vision and political will.

And perhaps a dollar or two; money is part of the equation.
When San Diego ventured into trolley's; the first track - from downtown to the Mexican border - they used existing tracks that were available to them, saving a boat load.
Detroit has a to do list that is pages and pages long, trolley tracks is somewhere on that list, not sure what page.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Build new tracks then!

But seriously, done with this city and this region. Denver just built a massive light rail system in a matter of a decade, and Los Angeles, and Seattle. You can come up with as many excuses you want, but there is always a solution. It ultimately does come down to vision and political will.

One advantage Denver had is that the substantial length of the new line was made up in large part of a stretch of open land, readily able to be built upon. They didn't have to deal with acquiring land that was being used otherwise until the line neared the city. Running X number of miles of track is not too difficult or expensive through open plain. Through existing infrastructure, though, and it gets pricey. Vision & political will are important, yes. But the money also needs to come from somewhere.

[dtowncitylover]

Build new tracks then!

But seriously, done with this city and this region. Denver just built a massive light rail system in a matter of a decade, and Los Angeles, and Seattle. You can come up with as many excuses you want, but there is always a solution. It ultimately does come down to vision and political will.

And I'm pretty sure the land around the tracks are owned by the rail company as well. It's not as easy as "building new tracks". Instead of being fed up with the city and region [[though there's plenty of other reasons to be) you need to be fed up with CN or Norfolk Southern. Hopefully the RTA, with new funding and greater resources come November will be able to strong-arm them into providing metro Detroit with commuter rail.

[royce]

And I'm pretty sure the land around the tracks are owned by the rail company as well. It's not as easy as "building new tracks". Instead of being fed up with the city and region [[though there's plenty of other reasons to be) you need to be fed up with CN or Norfolk Southern. Hopefully the RTA, with new funding and greater resources come November will be able to strong-arm them into providing metro Detroit with commuter rail.

The solution is to build tracks on land we own. Guess where that is, on our freeways. Forget about CN and Norfolk Southern giving the RTA , Amtrak, or anybody else permission to use their tracks. I have suggested on several past topics that the solution is to put rail lines down the center of I-96/M14 to Ann Arbor, period. The freeway is wide enough to give up a lane for a commuter rail. It could work but the asshats at MDOT have to see beyond their noses.