Detroit Public Transportation: 2014 and beyond.

[dtowncitylover]

From the Free Press on Sunday:

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...roit/82760008/

I've decided not to read any of the comments in the comment section. Looks like we will hear about the RTA's plan and millage proposal on May 31.

I am still opposed to BRT however. I find it lacking in what we truly need and ineffectual. But that's Detroit. BUT, if they want this to succeed then they better build like they show in the video. It needs to be down the middle, separated from traffic, and have the ability to change upcoming lights to green.

Also, it was really neat to see an actual transit map. My friends and I went downtown last night from their home in Eastpointe and I was thinking how nice it would've been to leave our cars parked and walk to Gratiot and catch this to downtown.

[dtowncitylover]

Totally agree. Just don't ask us visitors to pay for it Design and build for you...pay by you [[or those private entrepreneurs willing to risk their dime).

Luckily that's not the point of REGIONAL transit.

[mtburb]

One thing I just noticed a few days ago was how the 140 no longer stopped right in front of the Henry Ford Museum like it did when I went in 2011. When did this happen?

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

From the Free Press on Sunday:

I am still opposed to BRT however. I find it lacking in what we truly need and ineffectual. But that's Detroit. BUT, if they want this to succeed then they better build like they show in the video. It needs to be down the middle, separated from traffic, and have the ability to change upcoming lights to green.

I'm curious, dtcitylover, what is it you perceive to be lacking and ineffectual? I've come around on BRT. I originally thought it was a half-assed, slow and unseemly attempt at regional transit. But that's not what it is at all.

First, it's relatively affordable. Pie-in-the-Sky talk can be fun, but there is no realistic prospect of a widespread rail system over SE Michigan; not light rail, heavy rail, underground rail, or elevated rail. There may be some rail; hell, there IS some rail. People Mover, QLine, possibly Detroit-Ann Arbor rail service. But there is no possible source of enough money to build very lengthy rail lines all over Metro Detroit. The state doesn't have the money. Local voters would never approve that large and long-term a tax hike. Washington won't help to the tune of many, many billions of dollars. Complain as much as we want, the Metro Detroit Comprehensive Subway and Light Rail Plan is fiction. Fanciful, fun, but ultimately frivolous fiction. That being said, what kind of transit can we have?

In answer to that question, we have some good choices still available. I think several major BRT lines running roughly as the proposal shows [[integrated with local bus service, an airport connection, Amtrak stations, QLine, People Mover, Detroit-AA rail, along with park & ride lots and ample pedestrian access) is a great choice.

BRT can be made to be efficient, relatively fast and we can afford it. As demonstrated by the plan in the article it can be made to look attract and user friendly, too. The answer as to where it should run [[center or curb, dedicated or non-dedicated lanes, etc) would probably vary depending on what expected neighborhood, street and traffic studies determine, and would possibly change over the course of the route. Also, while there is some infrastructure cost to set up, it is not prohibitive so changes to the design can be made in the future depending on changing traffic patterns.

Despising BRT for not being ideal while it is pretty good is quite counter-productive to the cause for mass transit in Detroit. And, ultimately, threatens most those who need mass transit. It will allow people in Detroit and Pontiac much easier access to opportunities in the burbs, in addition to facilitating people's traditional commute into downtown. BRT can help meet area transit needs, and we could afford to do it. While we need to make sure good decisions are made regarding BRT, I'm fully on board moving forward with a BRT-based regional transit network.

[dtowncitylover]

I'm curious, dtcitylover, what is it you perceive to be lacking and ineffectual? I've come around on BRT. I originally thought it was a half-assed, slow and unseemly attempt at regional transit. But that's not what it is at all.

First, it's relatively affordable. Pie-in-the-Sky talk can be fun, but there is no realistic prospect of a widespread rail system over SE Michigan; not light rail, heavy rail, underground rail, or elevated rail. There may be some rail; hell, there IS some rail. People Mover, QLine, possibly Detroit-Ann Arbor rail service. But there is no possible source of enough money to build very lengthy rail lines all over Metro Detroit. The state doesn't have the money. Local voters would never approve that large and long-term a tax hike. Washington won't help to the tune of many, many billions of dollars. Complain as much as we want, the Metro Detroit Comprehensive Subway and Light Rail Plan is fiction. Fanciful, fun, but ultimately frivolous fiction. That being said, what kind of transit can we have?

In answer to that question, we have some good choices still available. I think several major BRT lines running roughly as the proposal shows [[integrated with local bus service, an airport connection, Amtrak stations, QLine, People Mover, Detroit-AA rail, along with park & ride lots and ample pedestrian access) is a great choice.

BRT can be made to be efficient, relatively fast and we can afford it. As demonstrated by the plan in the article it can be made to look attract and user friendly, too. The answer as to where it should run [[center or curb, dedicated or non-dedicated lanes, etc) would probably vary depending on what expected neighborhood, street and traffic studies determine, and would possibly change over the course of the route. Also, while there is some infrastructure cost to set up, it is not prohibitive so changes to the design can be made in the future depending on changing traffic patterns.

Despising BRT for not being ideal while it is pretty good is quite counter-productive to the cause for mass transit in Detroit. And, ultimately, threatens most those who need mass transit. It will allow people in Detroit and Pontiac much easier access to opportunities in the burbs, in addition to facilitating people's traditional commute into downtown. BRT can help meet area transit needs, and we could afford to do it. While we need to make sure good decisions are made regarding BRT, I'm fully on board moving forward with a BRT-based regional transit network.

I'm not sold that it will return the most possible amount of investment as rail can. The fact that we really only looked to Cleveland for BRT inspiration really tells us how much they investigated the entirety of transit. I remember going to some transit meetings over the past 2 years and just being so put off by the fact that BRT was almost choice we were allowed to comment on. LRT was rarely mentioned and if it was the people running the meeting would skirt around it and change the subject.

I'm also upset that the RTA legislation, of course written by politicians, makes BRT nearly the only choice of "rapid" transit. Why is this? No one can tell me. I'm not convinced that the RTA can't build LRT. I'm not looking to build a subway, that is way too expensive. But in true Detroit fashion, we are selling ourselves short.

They showed a future Manchester Parkway station on the Woodward line with all these new apartments surrounding it. I'm thinking, "No, I don't believe it."

I also wish the RTA would have the balls to imply they would be taking over M-1 Rail service. This could've been done by investigating and studying new streetcar lines for the city and could have presented them in this package.

I hope I'm proven wrong.

[Junjie]

I'm curious, dtcitylover, what is it you perceive to be lacking and ineffectual? I've come around on BRT. I originally thought it was a half-assed, slow and unseemly attempt at regional transit. But that's not what it is at all.... While we need to make sure good decisions are made regarding BRT, I'm fully on board moving forward with a BRT-based regional transit network.

Well, I think the skepticism comes down to your last line there about "good decisions." Usually BRT in the US progresses like this:

1. Tell people it will run in dedicated lanes down the median with frequent buses.
2. Change to curb running and/or mixed traffic to "save costs".
3. Reduce frequency to bare minimum for rapid transit [[this has already happened in the RTA proposal - 15 minutes' wait for a vehicle is the very outside edge of "rapid transit" service. Needs to be every 12 minutes or less and better at rush hour.)
4. Service ends up being slightly faster regular buses with signal priority. Few new riders because the buses don't come that often and hardly go any faster than existing local buses.
5. If any dedicated lanes remain, wait for complaints to mount from drivers about "empty buses". After two-three years, remove dedicated lanes and/or continue to reduce frequency.
6. System becomes further "proof" that "transit is useless/a white elephant/only for poor people".

So yeah, if it's like the video shows with dedicated center lanes, signal priority, enclosed stations with pre-boarding fare payment, etc. down basically the entire route for all three lines [[of course some exceptions will be needed downtown or other places where space gets very tight) then BRT will be great. If it goes more like the above, then all the money spent on BRT would have been better spent on a single rail lane from downtown to Royal Oak, in my view.

Rail is also higher capacity which is not insignificant both practically and for future dense development around stations. One small example: a baseball game in DC basically overwhelms the Navy Yard metro and those trains have a capacity around ten times what these buses will, arriving every five minutes or so. If a Woodward BRT bus is coming every fifteen minutes, it will be Lord of the Flies for people leaving a Tigers game if any significant number wanted to take it back to Oakland County. More likely, no one will bother to take it because waiting fifteen minutes to try to jam on a bus sucks.

I don't think anyone thinks that a massive subway system is reasonable, including myself. I am excited by the RTA proposal and really, really hope it succeeds. But feet need to be held to the fire, long term, on the type of system that ends up being built and operated. Buses are just way too easy to water down into something that has no relationship to "rapid transit." Hence the skepticism.

[Bham1982]

Despising BRT for not being ideal while it is pretty good is quite counter-productive to the cause for mass transit in Detroit. And, ultimately, threatens most those who need mass transit. It will allow people in Detroit and Pontiac much easier access to opportunities in the burbs, in addition to facilitating people's traditional commute into downtown. BRT can help meet area transit needs, and we could afford to do it. While we need to make sure good decisions are made regarding BRT, I'm fully on board moving forward with a BRT-based regional transit network.

And, if the rail proponents on this thread are right, then BRT could be a potential gateway to rail. If you really build a bunch of BRT lines and they generate strong ridership, it's at least plausible that a regional rail system could be implemented.

I don't think the rail proponents are right, but that's neither here nor there. If they're right, BRT is solid incrementalism towards rail.

[Junjie]

And, if the rail proponents on this thread are right, then BRT could be a potential gateway to rail. If you really build a bunch of BRT lines and they generate strong ridership, it's at least plausible that a regional rail system could be implemented.

I don't think the rail proponents are right, but that's neither here nor there. If they're right, BRT is solid incrementalism towards rail.

As a "rail proponent", I agree with this 100%. That's part of why it's so critical to have the service quality actually approach rail - dedicated lanes, pre-boarding payment, and frequent service. LA is currently proposing to convert the Orange Line [[fully dedicated busway BRT) to rail as part of their transit tax proposal being voted on this fall.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Junjie and Bham, I will qualify my remarks with this statement: The is no prospect of money for a widespread rail-based transit system in SE Michigan for the next 25 years, even if BRT is done right and becomes heavily traveled.

I am a rail fan. When I lived in NYC I rode the subway every single day. I used commuter a decent amount as well, when I would head out of the city. But one thing rail transit is: EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. Certainly to build, but also to operate and maintain. The New York-area transit system[[s) have a ridership at least dozens, if not hundreds of times, more than the most optimistic Detroit area system could possibly have. And they have tons of ads and sponsorships. And it is still massively subsidized to operate, by local, federal and state sources. I just don't see how we could afford to build and operate a system like that here. The money involved is staggering. So while dreaming of a mansion can be wonderful, I say let's just build a nice but practical house. If there is some unexpected pot of money in the future, maybe we can then act differently. But we shouldn't hold onto the expectation of a surprise inheritance to plan our mass transit. BRT works just fine.

[ABetterDetroit]

As a "rail proponent", I agree with this 100%. That's part of why it's so critical to have the service quality actually approach rail - dedicated lanes, pre-boarding payment, and frequent service. LA is currently proposing to convert the Orange Line [[fully dedicated busway BRT) to rail as part of their transit tax proposal being voted on this fall.

What are they proposing to tax for their transit improvement?

[Junjie]

What are they proposing to tax for their transit improvement?

They're allowed to do local sales taxes in California, so that's what they've been using for transit expansion in LA. Much better in my opinion, cuts the legs out of the "rich people paying for transit for poor people" arguments you get with property taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_R
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...319-story.html

[Junjie]

Junjie and Bham, I will qualify my remarks with this statement: The is no prospect of money for a widespread rail-based transit system in SE Michigan for the next 25 years, even if BRT is done right and becomes heavily traveled.

I am a rail fan. When I lived in NYC I rode the subway every single day. I used commuter a decent amount as well, when I would head out of the city. But one thing rail transit is: EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. Certainly to build, but also to operate and maintain. The New York-area transit system[[s) have a ridership at least dozens, if not hundreds of times, more than the most optimistic Detroit area system could possibly have. And they have tons of ads and sponsorships. And it is still massively subsidized to operate, by local, federal and state sources. I just don't see how we could afford to build and operate a system like that here. The money involved is staggering. So while dreaming of a mansion can be wonderful, I say let's just build a nice but practical house. If there is some unexpected pot of money in the future, maybe we can then act differently. But we shouldn't hold onto the expectation of a surprise inheritance to plan our mass transit. BRT works just fine.

Believe me, I'm not advocating for a New York-sized subway network in Detroit. [[Detroit missed its chance in the 1970s for an Atlanta or DC-sized network, which would still be utterly reasonable if funding were available, but that's neither here nor there.)

My point is that you are making an assumption when you say "BRT works just fine" that has rarely been borne out in practice. Again, I support the RTA proposal, whether or not it ever leads to rail. It would be a very large step forward. Gold-standard BRT lines combined with local streetcar downtown could be the basis of a great public transit network in a region as spread out as SE Michigan. But high-quality implementation will be critical and is not guaranteed.

Keep in mind that this is not just about responding to existing demand. Transportation networks drive development patterns [[e.g. interstates -> 60 years of sprawl along interstates). If service is not very good, then the system will have little power to concentrate businesses and residents around stations - a process that would do a lot of good for the city. Buses start at a disadvantage here [[lower capacity, bus stigma, noise and exhaust versus electrified rail). But like you, I'm happy to accept what's practical as long as it is built to a high enough standard to validate the investment, not only with increased mobility but with economic returns to the region. Starting with e.g. "buses every 15 minutes" does not fill me with optimism. The renderings are good though. So I will hope for the best.

Edit: Last thing, just to give a point of comparison. At the rate for light rail quoted in the LA Times article I linked and with the amount of money quoted as being the RTA's approximate ask by the Freep, you could build light rail up Woodward to Royal Oak and out Michigan to Dearborn [[Greenfield). Not as extensive as the BRT lines but not exactly nothing, and higher quality service with higher capacity. Yes, yes, I know there's no practical chance of building rail at this juncture. Just illustrating that a choice is being made here, so if we're going to choose buses let's make sure it's done right.

[dtowncitylover]

They're allowed to do local sales taxes in California, so that's what they've been using for transit expansion in LA. Much better in my opinion, cuts the legs out of the "rich people paying for transit for poor people" arguments you get with property taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_R
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...319-story.html

Are local sales taxes allowed in Michigan? I wish the quad-counties under the RTA would impose a .5 or 1% sales tax so we didn't have to use property taxing.

[professorscott]

Sigh.

This is one of those instances where everybody disagrees but everyone is somewhat correct, in the mode of the blind man and the elephant. Couple facts to explain how this can be:

1. BRT vs. Light Rail - the legislation that created the RTA makes it all but impossible to build light rail. So essentially it's BRT or nothing, and all the arguments as to which is better are rendered moot by this simple fact. Even if everyone agreed an LRT system would be vastly superior [[and I'm not making that claim) it would still not matter; it can't be built.

2. BRT and the problem with value engineering - this is a real problem and one that everyone will have to be vigilant about. The difficulty most US cities have had with BRT is that the original plan, before anyone does any actual work, looks great, but then the value engineering creeps in: it's too hard to get the right of way in this particular mile, we can't lose our parking spaces on the street, and a thousand other reasons to let the high concept fall to crap. [[Imagine designing interstate 75, and then there are a half dozen places where we "have to" have a traffic signal instead of exit ramps for this-or-that reason.) So we have to count on TRU and other advocacy groups and ourselves to ride the political leadership and the [[inevitable) consultants and make sure that what is built is actually BRT, and not just an expensive version of the SMART 565.

BRT is not, per se, good or bad until you look at the details. So the details will matter, and that is what we are going to have to keep on Mr. Ford and others who are, or will become, involved, about. We can build the best BRT system in North America, or a typical slimmed-down and cheapened version, or a VERY slimmed-down and cheapened version. So, you know, continue to speak truth to power.

[mtburb]

the quad-counties under the RTA

...on a semi-related subject how come Monroe and Saint Clair Counties aren't part of the RTA service area? They each have sizeable fixed-route transit systems in the respective form of Lake Erie Transit* and Blue Water Area Transit, in fact, two BWAT routes even connect to SMART 560 and 565.

*yes, even though LET is far isolated from the rest of the RTA agencies

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Junjie- I can't really argue with anything you wrote.

Dtcitylover- I think local sales taxes are allowed in Michigan, but they need to be implemented by the state legislature, after local request. I, personally, vastly prefer a sales tax to any hikes in property tax to pay for things like transit. I've always kind of assumed there was no political will to implement them.

ProfessorScott- I agree entirely that the details really matter. It will be the little things that add up to fast & convenient, or not.

mtburb- I assume the legislature didn't include them in the law authorizing it. I've not paid too much attention to them, personally, as they pertain to SE Michigan transit. I suppose the thinking was that their transit systems were a little too far away to integrate into Metro Detroit's system. They could always amend the law if that thinking changed.

[Junjie]

Sigh.
...

Haha... thanks for your patience in writing out informative responses to the same tired debates over and over. Seriously, it's appreciated.

Despite going on about rail I do recognize Detroit has an opportunity here to do a really excellent BRT system that could be nation-leading. Lots of road space on most of the corridors and a "blank canvas" in terms of existing rapid transit. I very sincerely hope the region can grasp it.

[ABetterDetroit]

They're allowed to do local sales taxes in California, so that's what they've been using for transit expansion in LA. Much better in my opinion, cuts the legs out of the "rich people paying for transit for poor people" arguments you get with property taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_R
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...319-story.html

Thanks for the links.

[royce]

Seriously? On street parking? Many urban cores don't have on street parking on many streets. Whoever is doing 50 mph on Woodward between CM and Grand Boulevard is nuts because it would feel like driving through a battlefield. Have fun fixing those tires! I walk on my suburban thoroughfare all the time with cars doing 30-35 mph and never batted an eye.

This is Detroit's problem is that were are still worrying about the car when we need to rebuild our city around a human not a car. Detroit needs to stop being designed for the Troy, Canton, or Novi visitor and be built for those that live there!

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?

[royce]

I have another issue with BRT. The dedicated lanes to me seem so unnecessary. How much faster are these busses going to travel in these lanes than the regulate street lanes? Now, if the busses did curb-side pick up then they're going to be no faster than a regular DDOT or Smart bus. However, if there is center pick up station, then I don't think a shared lane is going to be that much slower than a dedicated lane. If busses have the ability to change the traffic lights, it should benefit all traffic going in that direction. I mean every once in awhile you might get a slow car in front of a bus that slows the bus's travel time. However, just like the rule that states slower traffic should merge to the right when faster traffic approaches, the same should apply when motorists see the busses coming up behind them. To take a whole lane of traffic for a vehicle [[a bus in this case) that only comes around every 15 minutes is a waste of space and good traffic lane. How many cars could travel in that lane in an hour compared to a BRT bus?

The other issue that I have with BRT concerns dedicated-lanes and left-turn lanes. I mentioned in an earlier post how scary it would be to make a left turn at that BRT stop in Dearborn in front of the old city hall and old Montgomery Ward's. As a driver I would much rather make that left turn in the dedicated-lane [[it wouldn't be a dedicated bus lane just a regular left-turn lane) than turn left with the possibility of the bus running into me from either direction. Also, the idea of putting the BRT dedicated-lanes in the medians where medians exist concerns me. How does a motorists navigate a Michigan left? I mean you have to look in your driver's side mirror to see if a bus is coming from behind you and then at the same time look straight ahead to see if a bus is coming towards you from the opposite direction. That scenario is also a scary one. It would be simpler to just have the busses use the outer lane along the median and have the stops on the medians, not interfering with a Michigan-left left turn.

If we here in Michigan truly want "rapid" transit, then we should devote our energies and money to building subway lines, elevated-rail, or commuter rail [[some on the freeways). Anything we design beyond the current transit options could be good transit but it's not going to ever be "rapid" transit.

[Junjie]

I have another issue with BRT. The dedicated lanes to me seem so unnecessary. How much faster are these busses going to travel in these lanes than the regulate street lanes? Now, if the busses did curb-side pick up then they're going to be no faster than a regular DDOT or Smart bus. However, if there is center pick up station, then I don't think a shared lane is going to be that much slower than a dedicated lane. If busses have the ability to change the traffic lights, it should benefit all traffic going in that direction. I mean every once in awhile you might get a slow car in front of a bus that slows the bus's travel time. However, just like the rule that states slower traffic should merge to the right when faster traffic approaches, the same should apply when motorists see the busses coming up behind them. To take a whole lane of traffic for a vehicle [[a bus in this case) that only comes around every 15 minutes is a waste of space and good traffic lane. How many cars could travel in that lane in an hour compared to a BRT bus?

The other issue that I have with BRT concerns dedicated-lanes and left-turn lanes. I mentioned in an earlier post how scary it would be to make a left turn at that BRT stop in Dearborn in front of the old city hall and old Montgomery Ward's. As a driver I would much rather make that left turn in the dedicated-lane [[it wouldn't be a dedicated bus lane just a regular left-turn lane) than turn left with the possibility of the bus running into me from either direction. Also, the idea of putting the BRT dedicated-lanes in the medians where medians exist concerns me. How does a motorists navigate a Michigan left? I mean you have to look in your driver's side mirror to see if a bus is coming from behind you and then at the same time look straight ahead to see if a bus is coming towards you from the opposite direction. That scenario is also a scary one. It would be simpler to just have the busses use the outer lane along the median and have the stops on the medians, not interfering with a Michigan-left left turn.

If we here in Michigan truly want "rapid" transit, then we should devote our energies and money to building subway lines, elevated-rail, or commuter rail [[some on the freeways). Anything we design beyond the current transit options could be good transit but it's not going to ever be "rapid" transit.

If you want it to be really "rapid", why are you arguing against dedicated lanes? That's probably the biggest thing you can do to make it rapid. Any time traffic slows down or is congested, for any reason, the bus keeps moving.

Rail isn't happening. It requires a unanimous agreement by the RTA and an amount of money [[for a full system) that's not forthcoming. Since we aren't going to have vehicles separated from traffic in tunnels or on elevated viaducts, the next best thing is to have vehicles separated from traffic in their own lanes.

[Bham1982]

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?

I don't think it has much to do with the road configuration. Ann Arbor is the state's leading university town, and has a 50,000 student university. Royal Oak is a major nightlife center, and isn't particularly vibrant during the day.

Dearborn has no special draw, doesn't really have favorable demographics, and doesn't have a particularly large or interesting downtown [[really both Dearborn downtowns are unremarkable). I don't think modifications to the road configuration play much of a role.

[royce]

If you want it to be really "rapid", why are you arguing against dedicated lanes? That's probably the biggest thing you can do to make it rapid. Any time traffic slows down or is congested, for any reason, the bus keeps moving.

Rail isn't happening. It requires a unanimous agreement by the RTA and an amount of money [[for a full system) that's not forthcoming. Since we aren't going to have vehicles separated from traffic in tunnels or on elevated viaducts, the next best thing is to have vehicles separated from traffic in their own lanes.

Actually, I'm not arguing against dedicated lanes because I want "rapid" transit. I think if you're going to have BRT, then the busses should drive in the traffic lane next to the left-turn lane, not in a dedicated lane that no one else can use. If the busses can change the traffic signals as they approach them, then the traffic will move along as the bus moves, mitigating some of the traffic congestion. The dedicated lanes for me are a waste of space and a good traffic lane. Also, there's too much of a risk of BRT busses running into cars when cars attempt to make regular left turns as well as Michigan-left left turns. That's what I was getting at in my last post.

[professorscott]

Actually, I'm not arguing against dedicated lanes because I want "rapid" transit. I think if you're going to have BRT, then the busses should drive in the traffic lane next to the left-turn lane, not in a dedicated lane that no one else can use. If the busses can change the traffic signals as they approach them, then the traffic will move along as the bus moves, mitigating some of the traffic congestion. The dedicated lanes for me are a waste of space and a good traffic lane. Also, there's too much of a risk of BRT busses running into cars when cars attempt to make regular left turns as well as Michigan-left left turns. That's what I was getting at in my last post.

I see your point, but the data doesn't back you up on this. BRT has been studied, and very extensively so. The studies all show that there are four characteristics of BRT that are essential if you want the "R" to mean anything: dedicated right-of-way, the ability to change traffic signals ahead of the vehicle [[or right-of-way that avoids traffic signals entirely, which isn't likely here), limited stops, and having people pay before they board the bus rather than on board. If you lose any of these four items, then you are paying hundreds of millions of dollars for a very slight upgrade over an express bus.

[royce]

I don't think it has much to do with the road configuration. Ann Arbor is the state's leading university town, and has a 50,000 student university. Royal Oak is a major nightlife center, and isn't particularly vibrant during the day.Dearborn has no special draw, doesn't really have favorable demographics, and doesn't have a particularly large or interesting downtown [[really both Dearborn downtowns are unremarkable). I don't think modifications to the road configuration play much of a role.

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