Detroit Public Transportation: 2014 and beyond.

[Detroitnerd]

Yes, because as everyone knows, jobs left the City because there aren't enough lanes on the expressways.

Ha! Instead of posting paragraphs, I think you did better in one sentence. Clearly, the establishment is grasping at straws to explain why we need this thing.

[ghettopalmetto]

We are going to four lanes which is 48 feet plus a 4 foot inside shoulder and an 8 foot outside shoulder which is a sixty foot maximum clear span from one pier to another with two people abreast at four foot intervals or thirty people at, say, 180 pounds, which is 5400 pounds of live weight. Not much of a beam required for a sixty foot span at that weight. It is pretty cheap when considering the total cost of the widening.

Yeah, 60 foot beams...those are cheap and easy. No big whoop. Just do some mathematical guesswork, post it on the internet, and all is good.

I mean, it's not like steel costs money or anything. I heard they recycle steel now, so maybe we can take some girders from an empty factory.

[Hermod]

Yeah, 60 foot beams...those are cheap and easy. No big whoop. Just do some mathematical guesswork, post it on the internet, and all is good.

I mean, it's not like steel costs money or anything. I heard they recycle steel now, so maybe we can take some girders from an empty factory.

It costs money. Nothing is free. It will cost one hell of a lot less to put up half a dozen or even a dozen pedestrian bridges than to replace one of the vehicular bridges they are removing. The live load on the pedestrian bridges isn't that much, you are pretty much designing around the dead load.

[ghettopalmetto]

It costs money. Nothing is free. It will cost one hell of a lot less to put up half a dozen or even a dozen pedestrian bridges than to replace one of the vehicular bridges they are removing. The live load on the pedestrian bridges isn't that much, you are pretty much designing around the dead load.

You know what costs even less? Not proceeding with the damned widening project in the first place. How's that for Value Engineering?

For a pedestrian bridge, you're looking at a live load of 100 psf [[equivalent to the self-weight of an 8" thick concrete slab). That's not my GUESS--that is the minimum requirement of ASCE-7.

Never mind that, at a 60-foot span, you have serious serviceability considerations [[deflections, vibrations). So go ahead--"pretty much" design around the dead load, and see how many people die. Engineering is a freaking piece of cake, right?

[RO_Resident]

It costs money. Nothing is free. It will cost one hell of a lot less to put up half a dozen or even a dozen pedestrian bridges than to replace one of the vehicular bridges they are removing. The live load on the pedestrian bridges isn't that much, you are pretty much designing around the dead load.

No, not really.

Bridges have huge costs for mobilization, abutments, and piers. The average cost of building a pedestrian bridge is typically 50 to 70 percent higher per square foot of deck area compared to the 'standard' bridge.

Bridges, in general, are expensive to build and maintain. Pedestrian bridges are surprisingly expensive to build.

[professorscott]

Bridges, in general, are expensive to build and maintain. Pedestrian bridges are surprisingly expensive to build.

I think, in the context of the overall project, pedestrian bridges aren't a major factor in the total expense, but the detail misses the larger and more important point.

You can design a city for people, or you can design it for cars. There does not seem to be any excellent "balance point" at which a city functions well for both people and cars. Detroit has gone full tilt, for a hundred and more years, in the "designing city for cars" direction. So there are lots of cars in Detroit - a great many, at any given time, simply driving through it - but there are only a bit more than a third as many people as there used to be.

And yet, here we are, deciding that what Detroit needs is to be a better city for cars than it already is. Astonishing. I would think, if you have touched the hot stove and hurt your hand enough times, eventually you would stop doing that. But I'd be wrong.

[Detroitnerd]

I think, in the context of the overall project, pedestrian bridges aren't a major factor in the total expense, but the detail misses the larger and more important point.

You can design a city for people, or you can design it for cars. There does not seem to be any excellent "balance point" at which a city functions well for both people and cars. Detroit has gone full tilt, for a hundred and more years, in the "designing city for cars" direction. So there are lots of cars in Detroit - a great many, at any given time, simply driving through it - but there are only a bit more than a third as many people as there used to be.

And yet, here we are, deciding that what Detroit needs is to be a better city for cars than it already is. Astonishing. I would think, if you have touched the hot stove and hurt your hand enough times, eventually you would stop doing that. But I'd be wrong.

"When you seek to solve a problem by deepening and expanding the problem, you can tell a deep-seated process is at work." -Lewis Mumford

[Wesley Mouch]

I think, in the context of the overall project, pedestrian bridges aren't a major factor in the total expense, but the detail misses the larger and more important point.

You can design a city for people, or you can design it for cars. There does not seem to be any excellent "balance point" at which a city functions well for both people and cars. Detroit has gone full tilt, for a hundred and more years, in the "designing city for cars" direction. So there are lots of cars in Detroit - a great many, at any given time, simply driving through it - but there are only a bit more than a third as many people as there used to be.

And yet, here we are, deciding that what Detroit needs is to be a better city for cars than it already is. Astonishing. I would think, if you have touched the hot stove and hurt your hand enough times, eventually you would stop doing that. But I'd be wrong.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

We did focus too much on automobiles. We need to include pedestrians and public transit in our future. That doesn't mean we should stop maintenance and improvements to roads.

Moderation in all things.

[Detroitnerd]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

We did focus too much on automobiles. We need to include pedestrians and public transit in our future. That doesn't mean we should stop maintenance and improvements to roads.

Moderation in all things.

Nobody is saying stop maintenance to roads. What many are saying is that the "improvement" is unnecessary, expensive and, contrary to your first sentence, diametrically opposed to the mobility of pedestrians and cyclists.

You know what I hate these days more than anything else? Glibness. What you posted is precisely the kind of glib nonsense that infuriates me. You propose "moderation" even as you apparently line up behind a plan costing hundreds of millions of dollars that would mean some rather extreme changes.

Like, whatever, I'm going to say one thing and totally mean another and expect everybody to take me very seriously...

Pfftttt...

[rooms222]

But think of all the Waffle Houses and gas stations you can build once you complete scorched-earth bulldozing!

If Detroit is going to get it's first Waffle House, just tell me how to vote!

[professorscott]

Nobody is saying stop maintenance to roads. What many are saying is that the "improvement" is unnecessary, expensive and, contrary to your first sentence, diametrically opposed to the mobility of pedestrians and cyclists.

Spot on. I agree that a lot of the highways and bridges are in bad shape and ought to be repaired and maintained, and I have no problem with money spent on that. It's the widening that is unnecessary and a bad misuse of money. And, as 'nerd points out, a wider freeway is bad for everybody except the motorists using the freeway... and only good for them for a short time, if at all.

Meanwhile, while this is happening, nobody could come up with a couple million dollars so John Hertel could hire a fucking staff.

[That Great Guy]

Meanwhile, while this is happening, nobody could come up with a couple million dollars so John Hertel could hire a fucking staff.

Maybe he should Get SMART and oppose the freeways in their present form ?

[rb336]

Wired has its fake transit systems maps up, this is Detroit's:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wi...oitMetro20.png

So thoroughly rational that it can never exist

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...-transit-maps/

[DetroitPlanner]

Interesting. http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/...ment12114.aspx

[Khorasaurus]

Wired has its fake transit systems maps up, this is Detroit's:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wi...oitMetro20.png

So thoroughly rational that it can never exist

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...-transit-maps/

That's great, but why don't the red and blue lines extend into Grosse Pointe?

[downtownguy]

Wired has its fake transit systems maps up, this is Detroit's:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wi...oitMetro20.png

Boy, that just makes me... I don't know what. Cry?

[professorscott]

Boy, that just makes me... I don't know what. Cry?

There's no part of that we couldn't build, if you like light rail. If you prefer commuter rail, which would be even easier to do [[and by a huge factor), check out Neil Greenberg's "Fresh Water Railway" web site, www.fwrail.org.

There is absolutely nothing holding us back except political will, a failure of leadership. A state which can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to unnecessarily widen expressways can choose to spend money providing decent transit.

Don't cry; fight.

[Eber Brock Ward]

I realize that it's the equivalent of a "concept car", but Neil doesn't seem to consider Title VI implications in putting together his freshwater plan, unless he'd plan to privately fund it. Civil rights lawyers and the government would have a feeding frenzy on his city transit map, in particular.

I think it's nice in a technical sense, but pretty offensive from an equity and race sense, and I usually scoff at racialist approaches to policy. Such is the problem when you give planners or engineers, or other technical types, free reign.

But again, great thought exercise/inspirational item. If it gets even one person on board [[pun intended) with increased transit funding for the region, then good.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

In the last week, there have been reports of more problems for four major transit projects in this country:
1) NY's "East Side Side Access" project will come in a further $2B and 2+years later [[note, it was already billions over budget and years late).
2) Also in NY, the #7 trains 1-stop extension will not be operation for at least an additional six month. That single stop will have cost $2.4B [[if it has no further overruns) to go a single mile. And it was scheduled to be completed for the 2012 Olympics [[good thing London won the games!).
3) California's High Speed Rail has had 5 court rulings against it from different angles, but the most significant of them basically refuses to allow the state's High Speed Rail Authority to sell any bonds [[$9B approved by voters) until they can prove they will be able to raise the remainder of the money to build the system [[$59B for the truncated version of the system, assuming- hahahahaha- that it stays on budget). If the plan goes forward and is built, it will open, if it is on schedule, in the mid 2030s.
4) DC's Metro Silver Line [[first phase), already supposed to be operating, will need at least another 90 days of testing before service begins. Every month that it is not online means another $2-3M in losses, because the staff to run the trains is currently being paid, even if there are no trains [[and fare revenue).

THE US HAS NO HISTORY OF ON TIME, ON BUDGET LARGE TRANSIT PROJECTS. ALL PROJECTIONS ARE OPTIMISTIC. SOME PROJECTS DO MERIT SUPPORT, BUT DON'T FOOL YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH IT WILL COST AND HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO BUILD. TO BE RESPONSIBLE, THE BUILDING AGENCY OR GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO IDENTIFY IN ADVANCE THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY TO FINISH THE JOB, WHEN IT INEVITABLY GOES OVER BUDGET.

[ghettopalmetto]

In the last week, there have been reports of more problems for four major transit projects in this country:
1) NY's "East Side Side Access" project will come in a further $2B and 2+years later [[note, it was already billions over budget and years late).
2) Also in NY, the #7 trains 1-stop extension will not be operation for at least an additional six month. That single stop will have cost $2.4B [[if it has no further overruns) to go a single mile. And it was scheduled to be completed for the 2012 Olympics [[good thing London won the games!).
3) California's High Speed Rail has had 5 court rulings against it from different angles, but the most significant of them basically refuses to allow the state's High Speed Rail Authority to sell any bonds [[$9B approved by voters) until they can prove they will be able to raise the remainder of the money to build the system [[$59B for the truncated version of the system, assuming- hahahahaha- that it stays on budget). If the plan goes forward and is built, it will open, if it is on schedule, in the mid 2030s.
4) DC's Metro Silver Line [[first phase), already supposed to be operating, will need at least another 90 days of testing before service begins. Every month that it is not online means another $2-3M in losses, because the staff to run the trains is currently being paid, even if there are no trains [[and fare revenue).

THE US HAS NO HISTORY OF ON TIME, ON BUDGET LARGE TRANSIT PROJECTS. ALL PROJECTIONS ARE OPTIMISTIC. SOME PROJECTS DO MERIT SUPPORT, BUT DON'T FOOL YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH IT WILL COST AND HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO BUILD. TO BE RESPONSIBLE, THE BUILDING AGENCY OR GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO IDENTIFY IN ADVANCE THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY TO FINISH THE JOB, WHEN IT INEVITABLY GOES OVER BUDGET.

Of course, you conveniently ignore the dozens of transit projects that get completed on time, under budget, and with higher-than-projected ridership. You also ignore numerous highway projects that come in late and over budget, most notably, Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel project.

We get it. You're an idealogue.

[Eber Brock Ward]

Of course, you conveniently ignore the dozens of transit projects that get completed on time, under budget, and with higher-than-projected ridership. You also ignore numerous highway projects that come in late and over budget, most notably, Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel project.

We get it. You're an idealogue.

Nailed it. You win the hammer/nail neon for the day.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Of course, you conveniently ignore the dozens of transit projects that get completed on time, under budget, and with higher-than-projected ridership. You also ignore numerous highway projects that come in late and over budget, most notably, Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel project.

We get it. You're an idealogue.

I have never said that I am not an ideologue. But I am not anti-transit. I am for reasonable and responsible spending of our limited transit resources. Hugely expensive pie-in-the-sky plans with price tags in the billions would never be merited by the ridership they would have in Detroit. Of course, these discussions are academic because there is no real chance that we'll have have a massive transit system centered on a majestic and jewel-encrusted Michigan Central Station. If we want more people to have access to good public transportation, the best way to do that is to have a SE Michigan network of clean, modern, safe, on time buses, coordinated with limited rail [[M1 Rail, possibly Detroit-Ann Arbor rail, People Mover) and BRT service. Nice stations & bus shelters, well placed stops. That is achievable. And it would benefit a great many people.

But, I understand. Living in a pretend world can be fun. When I'm on my way home in my flying car, I'll be thinking about how I would rather be riding the solar-powered subway from Flint to Windsor.

P.S. I am not for wasteful spending on road projects either. There just aren't a lot of threads here demanding ridiculous road projects. And ghettopalmetto, please provide the list of big transit projects that are on time and under budget. I am truly not aware of them. If they are out there, let's hire the people that ran them! And the "bad news" examples I cited above did not need to be searched out. They were all in the news in the last week or so.

[DetroitPlanner]

Of course, you conveniently ignore the dozens of transit projects that get completed on time, under budget, and with higher-than-projected ridership. You also ignore numerous highway projects that come in late and over budget, most notably, Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel project.

We get it. You're an idealogue.

You mean the people mover? You can cherry pick projects from both lists to make your point. It won't be vaild though.

[Junjie]

I have never said that I am not an ideologue. But I am not anti-transit. I am for reasonable and responsible spending of our limited transit resources. Hugely expensive pie-in-the-sky plans with price tags in the billions would never be merited by the ridership they would have in Detroit. Of course, these discussions are academic because there is no real chance that we'll have have a massive transit system centered on a majestic and jewel-encrusted Michigan Central Station. If we want more people to have access to good public transportation, the best way to do that is to have a SE Michigan network of clean, modern, safe, on time buses, coordinated with limited rail [[M1 Rail, possibly Detroit-Ann Arbor rail, People Mover) and BRT service. Nice stations & bus shelters, well placed stops. That is achievable. And it would benefit a great many people.

But, I understand. Living in a pretend world can be fun. When I'm on my way home in my flying car, I'll be thinking about how I would rather be riding the solar-powered subway from Flint to Windsor.

Hey, this is Jackson Woods - the guy who made the fantasy map that was linked in this thread [[Detroit Metro). I just wanted to pipe up to say that the intent was never to say that Detroit either needs or can easily build world-class stations, subway lines, etc.

I actually think I mostly agree with your point. I intentionally didn't reference specific technologies like light rail or subway. Feel free to see it as an aspirational BRT map, or even just express buses. Station could mean a subway station. Or it could mean a curbside stop with a bench. Whatever you like. The point is the network and the quality of the system, which is intended to come through in the map's design.

I wanted to show people the possibilities that a high quality transit network offers the region. What they could get for their money if the money were spent in the right way. The I94/I75 widening projects are estimated at about $4 billion total, right? People threw around $0.5 billion in the news for the BRT plan covering Woodward, Gratiot, Michigan to Ann Arbor, and M59 which is probably around 60-70% of the mileage on my map. If those figures aren't too far off, then saying, for example "you could buy this network of BRT for half the cost of those highway widenings" might be a meaningful point to make in the argument for enhanced public transit in the area.

Insofar as I had aspirations beyond just making a fun map - and a lot of it was just because I really like transit maps - that'd be it.

[[And as a Kalamazoo native, apologies if I badly screwed up any local place names etc.)

[downtownguy]

^^Kind of reminds me of the scene in "Annie Hall" with Marshall McLuhan.

"You know nothing of my work!"

http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E