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

[iheartthed]

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.

Capacity is what really makes buses inefficient. Buses will never be able to match the capacity of trains, and that is why they do not work for high capacity networks.

A single 10 car train on most systems, such as SF's BART, NYC's subway, Chicago's el, etc., can carry roughly 2,500 people at any single moment. Using the highest capacity buses, which can carry from 80-100 people at a time, you would need roughly 30 buses to match the capacity of a single train. It is physically impossible to move 30 buses along a transit line as fast as you can move a single train.

[nain rouge]

Definitely. That's the other side of the coin.

[ghettopalmetto]

Capacity is what really makes buses inefficient. Buses will never be able to match the capacity of trains, and that is why they do not work for high capacity networks.

A single 10 car train on most systems, such as SF's BART, NYC's subway, Chicago's el, etc., can carry roughly 2,500 people at any single moment. Using the highest capacity buses, which can carry from 80-100 people at a time, you would need roughly 30 buses to match the capacity of a single train. It is physically impossible to move 30 buses along a transit line as fast as you can move a single train.

Even a 2-car light-rail train can carry up to 400 people. So really, you're saving 70-80% labor costs to transport the same number of people. Because the risk of collision is lessened with fewer transit vehicles operating along the same route, you can increase frequency of a rail vehicle when necessary [[say, after a Tigers or Lions game).

And as nain rouge implied with regard to the Twin Cities--people are more apt to ride light rail [[or streetcars) because they know *exactly* where it's going to go, and where it's going to stop. "Flexibility" [[not to be confused with "redundancy")is a horrible, horrible aspect when it comes to transportation . You want to get where you want to go in a relatively predictable manner. I mean, think about whether you'd be willing to drive if the road network suddenly changed or moved.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go paint my pickemup truck to look like a rocket.

[Wesley Mouch]

Even a 2-car light-rail train can carry up to 400 people. So really, you're saving 70-80% labor costs to transport the same number of people. Because the risk of collision is lessened with fewer transit vehicles operating along the same route, you can increase frequency of a rail vehicle when necessary [[say, after a Tigers or Lions game).

And as nain rouge implied with regard to the Twin Cities--people are more apt to ride light rail [[or streetcars) because they know *exactly* where it's going to go, and where it's going to stop. "Flexibility" [[not to be confused with "redundancy")is a horrible, horrible aspect when it comes to transportation . You want to get where you want to go in a relatively predictable manner. I mean, think about whether you'd be willing to drive if the road network suddenly changed or moved.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go paint my pickemup truck to look like a rocket.

Or on some systems, you save 100% on labor, by eliminating the drivers -- see Vancouver for example -- which is People Mover on massive scale.

As to flexibility, I don't think 'sudden movements' of path are what's meant by flexibility. Flexibility means you could adjust a route as long-term trends emerge, or more likely extend a route without heavy construction. But mostly I think it just means easy redeployment of resources. Purchasing a new rail car for your light rail and moving it from one line to another is non-trivial. Adding busses is nearly trivial. A train may have 2,500 person capacity on BART. But if you can't add one easily, it has zero capacity. Flexibility has value.

[nain rouge]

Even a 2-car light-rail train can carry up to 400 people. So really, you're saving 70-80% labor costs to transport the same number of people. Because the risk of collision is lessened with fewer transit vehicles operating along the same route, you can increase frequency of a rail vehicle when necessary [[say, after a Tigers or Lions game).

Interesting you would say that. Another thing I discovered in the Twin Cities is that the light rail there is having huge issues with car collisions. Again, it goes back to establishing proper right of way. Treating light rail as if it's a glorified bus system in today's cities is a horrible, terribly inefficient idea. Yes, people prefer the dependability and increased space of trains. But if we're going to spend all this money installing light rail, perhaps we should do it right.

[ghettopalmetto]

Or on some systems, you save 100% on labor, by eliminating the drivers -- see Vancouver for example -- which is People Mover on massive scale.

As to flexibility, I don't think 'sudden movements' of path are what's meant by flexibility. Flexibility means you could adjust a route as long-term trends emerge, or more likely extend a route without heavy construction.

Long-term trends? Like, if downtown Detroit suddenly picks up and moves to Lapeer County? I don't get it. As I've stated--route flexibility is BAD; it makes the system far less predictable and permanent.

Does MDOT build freeways with the goal of "flexibility" [[whatever the hell that word even means)???

But mostly I think it just means easy redeployment of resources. Purchasing a new rail car for your light rail and moving it from one line to another is non-trivial.

It is? Oh, please do explain how difficult it is to add/subtract trains, or send them through switches to redeploy them to a different route. I mean, it's not like every system in the world doesn't do this every single day. The fact that 100% of global rail transit systems are able to adjust service levels for rush hour twice a day makes this sound pretty trivial to me.

Now, running a bus down a street where it's not expected to go? Yeah, your ridership might be confused, lost, and perplexed.

Stop reinventing the damn wheel.

[ghettopalmetto]

Interesting you would say that. Another thing I discovered in the Twin Cities is that the light rail there is having huge issues with car collisions. Again, it goes back to establishing proper right of way. Treating light rail as if it's a glorified bus system in today's cities is a horrible, terribly inefficient idea. Yes, people prefer the dependability and increased space of trains. But if we're going to spend all this money installing light rail, perhaps we should do it right.[/COLOR]

Houston had the same problems when its light rail line opened. That's not a transit problem, though--that's a driver problem. Once enough drivers realize that their vehicle doesn't stand a chance against a rail vehicle, they'll wake up behind the wheel and pay attention to the signals.

[nain rouge]

Yes, usually its the driver or pedestrian that's at fault. Still, I believe good light rail would have the right of ways to not only minimize the possibility of accidents, but to increase speed over buses. The problem we have is that its difficult to fund good transit with the relative lack of population density in modern America. We're trying to have the best of all worlds, when in fact we're diluting all of our transportation options. We have to pick a winner and stick with it.

[ghettopalmetto]

Yes, usually its the driver or pedestrian that's at fault. Still, I believe good light rail would have the right of ways to not only minimize the possibility of accidents, but to increase speed over buses. The problem we have is that its difficult to fund good transit with the relative lack of population density in modern America. We're trying to have the best of all worlds, when in fact we're diluting all of our transportation options. We have to pick a winner and stick with it.

The lack of population density makes transit all-but-impossible in most post-WWII suburbs. Most American cities [[especially older ones, like Detroit) still have sufficient population density to justify, nay require, transit investment. If sprawling Phoenix, Salt Lake, and Charlotte can justify light rail, so can Detroit.

It's not a demographic problem so much as it is one of political will. The rules are rigged against transit and in favor of highways at every level. And the Baby Boomers in charge at most state DOTs are one-trick ponies who only know how to design roads. U.S. DOT will fund 80% of a highway project, but only up to 50% of a transit project. And that's if--*IF*--you meet very strict criteria for a particular mode [[the formulas were changed under the Bush Administration to favor this bullshit bus "rapid" transit over rail).

The other option, of course, is bypassing federal funding. But since MDOT is too busy dreaming of Billion Dollar Freeway Expansions, I doubt the State of Michigan can collectively get off its complacent ass long enough to make things happen on its own.

[Bham1982]

Buses use traffic lanes and are affected by traffic. Rail runs in its own right of way. It is inherently more efficient.

Not true. Rail can run in traffic lanes, and buses can run outside of traffic lanes.

Again, there is nothing inherently faster about rail vs. buses.

[ghettopalmetto]

Not true. Rail can run in traffic lanes, and buses can run outside of traffic lanes.

Again, there is nothing inherently faster about rail vs. buses.

Which is precisely why Europe has spent several decades and billions of euros developing its vaunted High Speed Bus network. But I digress.

I love how you guys come up with so many excuses for being cheap.

[nain rouge]

Most American cities [[especially older ones, like Detroit) still have sufficient population density to justify, nay require, transit investment. If sprawling Phoenix, Salt Lake, and Charlotte can justify light rail, so can Detroit.

Detroit has 5,000 people per square mile. You can't financially support great transit at that level. Tokyo, by comparison, has a density of 16,000 per square mile at a population of 13,000,000. Paris has an urban area of 10,000,000 with a population density of 9,500 per square mile. We're not even discussing the densities of the inner cities yet.

In America, with light rail, we're putting the cart before the horse, cutting corners the whole way, and hoping the horse magically shows up. If we want good transit in Detroit, we first need to ask how we can get the urban area of our metro up to at least 5,000 people per square mile. Right now, we're at 2,700 per square mile with a population of 3,700,000. Whatever light rail we can scrounge together is going to be an ineffective mess that will only look good in comparison to the complete, abject failure we're deploying on the streets right now.

Truth is, to get density up in Metro Detroit, we'd either need to abandon big chunks of the suburbs or big chunks of Detroit. Right now, we're abandoning Detroit and pursuing even lower density. We need to prioritize one way or the other.

[SDCC]

Rapid buses in San Diego have access to the Diamond lanes; which are virtually empty

[ghettopalmetto]

Detroit has 5,000 people per square mile. You can't financially support great transit at that level. Tokyo, by comparison, has a density of 16,000 per square mile at a population of 13,000,000. Paris has an urban area of 10,000,000 with a population density of 9,500 per square mile. We're not even discussing the densities of the inner cities yet.

In America, with light rail, we're putting the cart before the horse, cutting corners the whole way, and hoping the horse magically shows up. If we want good transit in Detroit, we first need to ask how we can get the urban area of our metro up to at least 5,000 people per square mile. Right now, we're at 2,700 per square mile with a population of 3,700,000. Whatever light rail we can scrounge together is going to be an ineffective mess that will only look good in comparison to the complete, abject failure we're deploying on the streets right now.

Truth is, to get density up in Metro Detroit, we'd either need to abandon big chunks of the suburbs or big chunks of Detroit. Right now, we're abandoning Detroit and pursuing even lower density. We need to prioritize one way or the other.

Are you sure you aren't setting an artificially high threshold? I mean, you've only cited two of the most densely-populated cities--with two of the busiest transit systems--in the entire world. Ninety-nine percent of the world doesn't compare to Tokyo and Paris. That doesn't mean transit won't work anywhere else [[which is pretty obvious if you look around).

What matters is not the *average* population density, but whether or not there is sufficient population and job density along transit *corridors*. Woodward, as demonstrated by existing bus ridership, definitely qualifies. I imagine several other corridors [[Gratiot, Michigan?) would justify higher-level service.

Charlotte [[2663 people per square mile), Salt Lake [[1666 ppsm), Phoenix [[518 ppsm) all have successful light rail lines. These artificial metrics have really got to stop. It's almost like Detroit is *trying* to not be a functional, modern city.

[nain rouge]

OK, fine, how about Stockholm? Is that small enough for you? It has an urban area population of 1,400,000 million and a density of 9,300 ppsm. And it has great transit. I'm not convinced that Phoenix - for example - has a great transportation system, and certainly not one that benefits the majority of its populace. I think increasing density is priority #1, beyond light rail. Phoenix is still predicated on sprawl, and as a result its transit systems will never bring good returns on the investment.

At one point, American cities were convinced that you had to run freeways through urban areas to function as a modern city. Maybe we need to be more realistic.

[nain rouge]

Basically, I want to see light rail and city development plans that are flagrantly disrespectful to the needs of an auto-dominated society. Otherwise, you're just making a mess of public transportation and car traffic. No one wins.

Edit: We need to say, as metro areas, that we're not going to make many streets wide enough for massive car traffic, and we're not going to provide enough parking. Sorry, but we can't afford that paradigm long-term.

If you're not willing to take that step in support of density, then you're wasting our time and money.

[bailey]

Basically, I want to see light rail and city development plans that are flagrantly disrespectful to the needs of an auto-dominated society. Otherwise, you're just making a mess of public transportation and car traffic. No one wins.

Edit: We need to say, as metro areas, that we're not going to make many streets wide enough for massive car traffic[or add lanes to 94 or 75], and we're not going to provide enough parking. Sorry, but we can't afford that paradigm long-term.

If you're not willing to take that step in support of density, then you're wasting our time and money.

100% agree here. I'd again add .50-1.00 to the gas tax too. There will be no move to mass transit or any demand it function as something more than a downtown parking shuttle until having a car is a painful thing for most of the populace. The local populace in the aggregate is too stupid to do anything unless motivated by a crisis.

[Hermod]

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.

Rail does not necessarily run in its own right-of-way. Rail can run in the streets and be impeded by [[and impede) traffic. The interurbans of Detroit's yesteryear used to make good time through the farming country then painfully inch their way downtown behind a streetcar stopping every two blocks. A bus with its own right of way and limited stops can equal rail [[yes, GP, I do know the physics of differential friction of steel wheel on steel rail versus rubber tire on concrete). Speed of buses and rail is dependent more on traffic congestion and number of stops than it is on the inherent technological difference between them.

How fast does this go?

Attachment 24389

[SDCC]

Rail does not necessarily run in its own right-of-way. Rail can run in the streets and be impeded by [[and impede) traffic. The interurbans of Detroit's yesteryear used to make good time through the farming country then painfully inch their way downtown behind a streetcar stopping every two blocks. A bus with its own right of way and limited stops can equal rail [[yes, GP, I do know the physics of differential friction of steel wheel on steel rail versus rubber tire on concrete). Speed of buses and rail is dependent more on traffic congestion and number of stops than it is on the inherent technological difference between them.

How fast does this go?

Attachment 24389

As there are individuals hanging on for fear of falling off I would say 5 mph...but that photo looks like it's from the guilded age

[ghettopalmetto]

A bus with its own right of way and limited stops can equal rail [[yes, GP, I do know the physics of differential friction of steel wheel on steel rail versus rubber tire on concrete). Speed of buses and rail is dependent more on traffic congestion and number of stops than it is on the inherent technological difference between them.

That must be why Ottawa is spending scads of money replacing its bus rapid transit with rail. Because, you know, they're the exact same thing.

It must also by why dozens of cities across the United States are building rail lines, but only Cleveland is smart enough to make buses the backbone of its new "rapid transit" network.

[DetroitPlanner]

That must be why Ottawa is spending scads of money replacing its bus rapid transit with rail. Because, you know, they're the exact same thing.

It must also by why dozens of cities across the United States are building rail lines, but only Cleveland is smart enough to make buses the backbone of its new "rapid transit" network.

Cleveland also has heavy rail and LRT. What it has is a multi-modal system because it knows one size does not fit all.

[Hermod]

That must be why Ottawa is spending scads of money replacing its bus rapid transit with rail. Because, you know, they're the exact same thing.

It must also by why dozens of cities across the United States are building rail lines, but only Cleveland is smart enough to make buses the backbone of its new "rapid transit" network.

If I was Detroit, I would build light rail in the alley behind Woodward or maybe up John R [[and close John R. to vehicular traffic). I would give the train signal preemption at all cross streets. Running it up Woodward will not give us fast trains.

[Gpwrangler]

Rapid buses in San Diego have access to the Diamond lanes; which are virtually empty

We can build bus lanes when all the traffic lanes we need are done.

[Gpwrangler]

Rail does not necessarily run in its own right-of-way. Rail can run in the streets and be impeded by [[and impede) traffic. The interurbans of Detroit's yesteryear used to make good time through the farming country then painfully inch their way downtown behind a streetcar stopping every two blocks. A bus with its own right of way and limited stops can equal rail [[yes, GP, I do know the physics of differential friction of steel wheel on steel rail versus rubber tire on concrete). Speed of buses and rail is dependent more on traffic congestion and number of stops than it is on the inherent technological difference between them.

How fast does this go?

Attachment 24389

True light rail has a right of way over traffic. I'm not talking about a trolley. I'm talking light rail with service to suburbs etc. to get people out their cars you need to go where the traffic goes, and fast.

Nowadays most people need a car to get places anyway. It's how transportation has evolved.

[Gpwrangler]

100% agree here. I'd again add .50-1.00 to the gas tax too. There will be no move to mass transit or any demand it function as something more than a downtown parking shuttle until having a car is a painful thing for most of the populace. The local populace in the aggregate is too stupid to do anything unless motivated by a crisis.

The vast majority of us own cars and purchase fuel; hell some of us even build or design cars, or make parts for them. It will never happen. You want to cause a crisis for the entire economy? Try to put a tax like that in place to pay for mass transit around here.