Bus [[not so) Rapid transit in grand rapids, light rail the way to go?

**SpartanDawg** · September-11-14, 01:26 PM

"Sources say the $40 million Silver Line takes twice as long to complete its route as a trip by car, and shaves just one minute off the trip when compared to the route's already existing bus line, which includes more stops"

http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/arch...pid-brt-system

light rail all day

.

**Bham1982** · September-11-14, 01:34 PM

There's nothing inherently slower about BRT compared to LRT.

And if the GR bus project is a failure, that does not mean a rail project would be a success.

GR is extremely auto oriented, decentralized, and has poor transit ridership, so its transit prospects are probably similar to that of Metro Detroit [[which is to say general waste of time).

**Scottathew** · September-11-14, 01:41 PM

Buses that make stops take longer than a dedicated vehicle!?!? NO WAY!

I simply don't believe the sources on the "1 minute shorter than normal buses" claim. It's being pushed by a "conservative" group, and "conservatives" HATE mass transport almost as much as they hate brown immigrants.

**DetroitPlanner** · September-11-14, 01:46 PM

We need to replicate the people mover EVERYWHERE!

Comparing BRT to a car is stupid. Of Course a car is faster. You should compare it against walking, as most transit riders [[except for the 'choice' ones) would have no other option. It is there to move people, not move cars.

**iheartthed** · September-11-14, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by SpartanDawg

http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/arch...pid-brt-system

"Sources say the $40 million Silver Line takes twice as long to complete its route as a trip by car, and shaves just one minute off the trip when compared to the route's already existing bus line, which includes more stops"

light rail all day

.

That's pretty odd to measure the effectiveness of a transit line by how long it takes to get from end to end by car. I doubt there is a single transit line on Earth where you can get from end to end faster on the bus or train than by driving a car.

**bailey** · September-11-14, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by SpartanDawg

http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/arch...pid-brt-system

"Sources say the $40 million Silver Line takes twice as long to complete its route as a trip by car, and shaves just one minute off the trip when compared to the route's already existing bus line, which includes more stops"

light rail all day

.

But how is light rail any different from a timing perspective? This seems to be more anti mass transit in general. OF COURSE it'll take longer by a mode that makes stops. All this is possibly saying is that the BRT makes too many stops already served by the local.

**Bham1982** · September-11-14, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's pretty odd to measure the effectiveness of a transit line by how long it takes to get from end to end by car. I doubt there is a single transit line on Earth where you can get from end to end faster on the bus or train than by driving a car.

Exactly. In theory, you can probably cross Paris or Hong Kong or Tokyo or New York faster on an expressway than on transit during most hours of the day, but that isn't an indictment of transit.

**ghettopalmetto** · September-11-14, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by SpartanDawg

http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/arch...pid-brt-system

"Sources say the $40 million Silver Line takes twice as long to complete its route as a trip by car, and shaves just one minute off the trip when compared to the route's already existing bus line, which includes more stops"

light rail all day

.

But how can this be??? It's like a TRAIN, BUT ON TIRES! You must be wrong! Wrong wrong wrong! Because!

Do you mean to say that the *exact same thing* happened in Grand Rapids that happened in Cleveland? Gee, I wish someone would have warned about that ahead of time! And public officials are too embarrassed [[or too stupid) about the shittier-than-expected outcome, so they market the hell out of it anyway?

The road contractors thank you for scoring them $40 million in transit dollars.

**ghettopalmetto** · September-11-14, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

There's nothing inherently slower about BRT compared to LRT.

There is. But to understand why requires a fundamental understanding of elementary mechanics--something you've completely ignored or willingly overlooked when I've explained it in the past.

**Bham1982** · September-11-14, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

There is. But to understand why requires a fundamental understanding of elementary mechanics--something you've completely ignored or willingly overlooked when I've explained it in the past.

Is this some new physics or something? There are plenty of very fast bus lines and very slow train lines.

Why don't you explain to us how a vehicle running on tires is incapable of reaching or surpassing speeds of a vehicle running on rails?

**ghettopalmetto** · September-11-14, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Is this some new physics or something? There are plenty of very fast bus lines and very slow train lines.

Why don't you explain to us how a vehicle running on tires is incapable of reaching or surpassing speeds of a vehicle running on rails?

Nope. Same old physics you've always ignored, and would continue to ignore if I stated it again.

But, Train on Tires! It's revolutionary! WHEEEEEE!

This is a journal [[read: peer-reviewed) piece by Prof. Vukan Vuchic, who literally wrote the book on urban public transit systems. Have fun. http://nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%205-21%20Vuchic.pdf

**DetroitPlanner** · September-11-14, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

But how is light rail any different from a timing perspective? This seems to be more anti mass transit in general. OF COURSE it'll take longer by a mode that makes stops. All this is possibly saying is that the BRT makes too many stops already served by the local.

Metro Times is anti transit!

**Scottathew** · September-11-14, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Metro Times is anti transit!

And they're quoting Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

**bailey** · September-11-14, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Metro Times is anti transit!

The metro times posted the link to the Mackinaw Center's "study" and the "kent county taxpayer's alliance" press release without any further comment.

So, I guess that would either mean; yes, they are on board [[pun intended) with the Mack's and the KCTA anti public spending on anything but taxbreaks for the 1%.... or the are so bereft of journalistic standards they've just stopped caring and slap on their site whatever clickbait comes across their twitter.

**professorscott** · September-11-14, 03:47 PM

Given who wrote the article it's no surprise how it came out. The fact is, there is nothing inherently slow or fast about either buses or trains. The Portland Streetcar is a wildly popular neighborhood circulator, is a true streetcar [[that is, steel wheels on rails) and is the slowest damned transit vehicle I have ever seen in my entire life. Trains can be fast or slow, depending on the design of the entire system, and buses can be fast or slow, depending on the design of the entire system. What makes any transit system popular is a combined perspective of safety, reliability, frequency and stops where people actually need to get on and off.

The Woodward project, at this point in its development, is going to be either BRT or no project at all. Gratiot, once that study begins, may actually point to light rail; it's hard to tell without the updated data. It'll be close. But Gratiot is the only corridor where we are likely to qualify for Federal assistance building light rail for the foreseeable future. And any of this is predicated on the RTA successfully getting the citizens vote to cough up extra money.

Now if we just have our own money and don't mind spending it, we can build whatever we like. But since we don't, we have to follow the Federal rules and formulas, like it or not.

**Wesley Mouch** · September-11-14, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's pretty odd to measure the effectiveness of a transit line by how long it takes to get from end to end by car. I doubt there is a single transit line on Earth where you can get from end to end faster on the bus or train than by driving a car.

Depends on surface congestion. Try taking the A train to Harlem [[say, 42nd to 125th) most times of the day. Train wins most battles in NYC itself.

But I agree that this statistic seems like a 'damned lie' -- or at least broadly out of context. The purpose of any transit is not solely end-to-end times. In Ann Arbor, I used to spend nearly 10 minutes each day driving up 8 levels of parking to get to a space, and then walk down. Should that be included? Or the time waiting for the bus? Or .....

What I'd like to hear from the right on this is a willingness to allow diversity of options for transit. Uber? Lyft [[is is)? Now some woman only taxi option. Let everyone run busses wherever they want. No bus to DTW? I'll use my van and sell spaces on the internet. The transit monopoly needs to be broken.

**jt1** · September-11-14, 04:48 PM

If only those poor people would get jobs so they could afford a car to get to their job then we wouldn't need any type of mass transit.

**iheartthed** · September-11-14, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Depends on surface congestion. Try taking the A train to Harlem [[say, 42nd to 125th) most times of the day. Train wins most battles in NYC itself.

"End to end." So it would be like comparing the time it takes the A train to go from Far Rockaway, Queens to Inwood, Manhattan, to the time it takes someone to drive between the two points. It takes the A train at least two hours to make that trip from end to end, but it only takes about 40-45 minutes to drive the distance with light traffic.

**Danny** · September-11-14, 08:28 PM

Just what Grand Rapids needs, a people mover.

**Wesley Mouch** · September-12-14, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

"End to end." So it would be like comparing the time it takes the A train to go from Far Rockaway, Queens to Inwood, Manhattan, to the time it takes someone to drive between the two points. It takes the A train at least two hours to make that trip from end to end, but it only takes about 40-45 minutes to drive the distance with light traffic.

ok, let's descend into utter irrelevance. how long would the car trip take in rush hour traffic, following the exact same route?

**Gpwrangler** · September-12-14, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

But how is light rail any different from a timing perspective? This seems to be more anti mass transit in general. OF COURSE it'll take longer by a mode that makes stops. All this is possibly saying is that the BRT makes too many stops already served by the local.

Buses use traffic lanes and are affected by traffic. Rail runs in its own right of way. It is inherently more efficient. Bus lanes can help but the cost would be prohibitive especially when more lanes are already needed for cars.

**bailey** · September-12-14, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Gpwrangler

Buses use traffic lanes and are affected by traffic. Rail runs in its own right of way. It is inherently more efficient. Bus lanes can help but the cost would be prohibitive especially when more lanes are already needed for cars.

correct me if I'm wrong, but the BRT in question has it's own lane and signal overrides. doesn't it?

**nain rouge** · September-12-14, 06:55 AM

The issue with both BRT and light rail is right of way. Trying to run either down today's roads engineered for heavy automobile use and you have a model of inefficiency. It doesn't matter what form of public transit you throw at it. It's gonna run slow.

In Cleveland, if you want to take Euclid from East Cleveland to downtown, the old Red Line light rail CRUSHES the new Health Line BRT despite taking a less direct route. Why? Because it has a far superior right of way, utilizing historic rail lines. It'd be interesting to see what sort of public transit system you could cook up in Detroit if you used old railroad right of ways and frequent connector bus service.

**ghettopalmetto** · September-12-14, 07:06 AM

I'm just shocked. Shocked, I tell you. Grand Rapids went through all the effort of painting buses to make them look like trains, and it only goes 1 minute faster along its entire trip length? Well, looks like I'm just going to have to go make up some information that proves buses are just as good!

Originally Posted by nain rouge

The issue with both BRT and light rail is right of way. Trying to run either down today's roads engineered for heavy automobile use and you have a model of inefficiency. It doesn't matter what form of public transit you throw at it. It's gonna run slow.

In Cleveland, if you want to take Euclid from East Cleveland to downtown, the old Red Line light rail CRUSHES the new Health Line BRT despite taking a less direct route. Why? Because it has a far superior right of way, utilizing historic rail lines. It'd be interesting to see what sort of public transit system you could cook up in Detroit if you used old railroad right of ways and frequent connector bus service.

Don't be coming 'round here with all your facts and whatnot! Why you trying to say Detroit can't spend millions of dollars on curbs and sexy buses and expect them to move like rocketships?

**nain rouge** · September-12-14, 07:24 AM

The only thing I can say in defense of the latest batch of light rail construction in this country is that people living in the city love it. I was in the Twin Cities recently, and despite the fact that the new Green Line is slower than the bus, people were eating it up. It was a more spacious and pleasant ride, to be sure.