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

[nain rouge]

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

People need cars so they can spend hours driving around so they can live somewhere with a big yard/moat they don't use 99.9% of the time but might need for the party or 2 they host a year. It's pretty simple. Or they do it for the kids, but the kids would probably be happier with smaller yards and more kids to play with it. But go figure. Parents know best.

[nain rouge]

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.

But when we run low on fuel and prices go up and up, you'll be the first in line to yell at the government for not doing anything about it. Didn't those idiots see this coming?

[bailey]

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.

Stupid is painful. We've designed a region stupidly...to fix it will require pain. Or we can just continue the status quo with shitty pothole strewn roads and shitty mass transit and unregulated sprawl compounding the problems.

[Scottathew]

Basically, I want to see light rail and city development plans that are flagrantly disrespectful to the needs of an auto-dominated society.

I don't think we need to go THAT far, but I think it would be appropriate to use eminent domain to implement a rail system in the same way that we used it to create the freeways.

Light rail, if implemented properly, would actually raise land values near stations, as it's desirable to be near it.

Right now we're trying to make rail work within existing ROW's.

Also, I think curb-side is a big mistake, but hopefully I'm wrong.

[Bham1982]

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.

Technically true, in theory, but not in practice.

Outside of NYC, almost all the major transit systems in the U.S. run 4-6 car heavy rail service, and 1-2 car light rail service. NYC runs 10-11 car trains on the subway, and some of the commuter rail lines.

Also, there can be a big difference in relative car size. Chicago's CTA, for example, has smaller cars than most heavy rail systems, so a "per car" comparison isn't particularly useful.

So I would say that yes, in theory, rail service, especially heavy rail service, has much greater capacity. In practice, though, outside of NYC, U.S. rail systems do not generally run at much higher capacities than bus service.

In places like Mexico City and Bogota, they have individual BRT lines running at higher capacity than basically any U.S. rail line outside the NYC area.

[Bham1982]

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.

Exactly. In the U.S. the thinking on rail is completely ass-backwards.

You get rail ridership by creating conditions suitable for rail ridership. You do not get rail riderships by building choo-choo trains in whatever random burg has the influence in Congress to get transit bucks.

That's why we're getting random, highly questionable light rail in Phoenix, Cincy, Detroit, Charlotte, and other cities that do not have the present conditions for transit orientation. We're even getting Uncle Sam to pony up for commuter rail in Nashville, Orlando and Albuquerque of all places.

If you really, truly want rail ridership you make it difficult to drive. It's as simple as that. You can build 5,000 miles of gold-plated light rail across Southeast Michigan, it won't deliver high ridership until you make driving a chore.

People don't use transit in NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo and the like because they have good transit systems. They use it because there isn't an alternative. The "costs" to using a personal car are outlandishly high.

[iheartthed]

Technically true, in theory, but not in practice.

Outside of NYC, almost all the major transit systems in the U.S. run 4-6 car heavy rail service, and 1-2 car light rail service. NYC runs 10-11 car trains on the subway, and some of the commuter rail lines.

Also, there can be a big difference in relative car size. Chicago's CTA, for example, has smaller cars than most heavy rail systems, so a "per car" comparison isn't particularly useful.

So I would say that yes, in theory, rail service, especially heavy rail service, has much greater capacity. In practice, though, outside of NYC, U.S. rail systems do not generally run at much higher capacities than bus service.

In places like Mexico City and Bogota, they have individual BRT lines running at higher capacity than basically any U.S. rail line outside the NYC area.

No train system in the world runs a train that doesn't have more capacity than the largest bus.

[Bham1982]

No train system in the world runs a train that doesn't have more capacity than the largest bus.

We are talking routes, not individual components of the route.

The BRT lines in Mexico City, Santiago, Bogota, Sao Paulo, basically destroy any rail line in the U.S. outside of NYC [[and maybe the Red Line in DC). They have much, much higher capacity.

They're are running special high-capacity buses, one after the other, in their own, grade separated lane. They're comfortable and fabulously successful.

[DetroitPlanner]

No train system in the world runs a train that doesn't have more capacity than the largest bus.

You have never been on Dinky! http://www.princeton.edu/main/visiting/travel/trains/

[nain rouge]

If you really, truly want rail ridership you make it difficult to drive. It's as simple as that. You can build 5,000 miles of gold-plated light rail across Southeast Michigan, it won't deliver high ridership until you make driving a chore.

I think there a lot of Metro Detroiters that view the automobile lifestyle as a costly burden. I think many of them could be convinced to support good transit if you educated them properly on the benefits. Too many here have spent their entire lives surrounded by astoundingly bad public transportation options, and as a result can't conceive of how they could benefit by ditching cars.

I believe, however, that the only way we can prove the benefits of light rail is if we crammed pro-density and pro-public transit agendas down the public's throats. As noted, most of the light rail projects in this country are designed to be as inoffensive to the automobile paradigm as possible. Consequently, those projects suck as good public transportation and further tarnish its image.

LA is one of the only newer boom cities to get it somewhat. It's been increasing in density for decades and now even has subway lines. Sure, it's also had issues with sprawl, but it hasn't given up on high density. And wouldn't you know it, it's one of the most popular cities in the country, while Detroit continues to diminish in stature.

[iheartthed]

We are talking routes, not individual components of the route.

The BRT lines in Mexico City, Santiago, Bogota, Sao Paulo, basically destroy any rail line in the U.S. outside of NYC [[and maybe the Red Line in DC). They have much, much higher capacity.

They're are running special high-capacity buses, one after the other, in their own, grade separated lane. They're comfortable and fabulously successful.

No, we're talking trains. Just because a bus line in Latin America may have higher usage than a train line in North America does not mean that the capacity of that bus line is higher than any train line.

[Gpwrangler]

But when we run low on fuel and prices go up and up, you'll be the first in line to yell at the government for not doing anything about it. Didn't those idiots see this coming?[/COLOR]

There's enough fuel to last eons, including bio and electric. The only time I'll complain is if someone tries to tack on a buck a gallon to pay for bus service that, frankly, is unsafe to use around here.

[Gpwrangler]

People need cars so they can spend hours driving around so they can live somewhere with a big yard/moat they don't use 99.9% of the time but might need for the party or 2 they host a year. It's pretty simple. Or they do it for the kids, but the kids would probably be happier with smaller yards and more kids to play with it. But go figure. Parents know best.[/COLOR]

I started to reply to this, then caught myself. This is possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've read on here.

[nain rouge]

There's enough fuel to last eons, including bio and electric. The only time I'll complain is if someone tries to tack on a buck a gallon to pay for bus service that, frankly, is unsafe to use around here.

Electric cars... well, if you think that's the answer, get ready to burn coal like no one's business, since no one wants nuclear power anymore. That'll kick the can down the road some more, until we we mine all the easily extracted coal in 20-30 years [[that's assuming a society dominated by electric cars that refuses to use nuclear energy). Then it's time for the coal wars. We'll forget about the Middle East and convince the public that it's about time we did something about Russia and China...

All so you can drive to work instead of taking public transit. If car companies viewed their business more as transportation-based than "OMG WE NEED CARS OR ITZ ALL OVER", maybe they could stop costing us so much money.

[Gpwrangler]

Electric cars... well, if you think that's the answer, get ready to burn coal like no one's business, since no one wants nuclear power anymore. That'll kick the can down the road some more, until we we mine all the easily extracted coal in 20-30 years [[that's assuming a society dominated by electric cars that refuses to use nuclear energy). Then it's time for the coal wars. We'll forget about the Middle East and convince the public that it's about time we did something about Russia and China...

All so you can drive to work instead of taking public transit.

Obviously you haven't smelled or seen bus exhaust lately. Society needs a mix of fuels including nuclear. I'm not willing to give up a thriving economy and live like a hippie. But have at it, and good luck.

[nain rouge]

Gpwrangler: Yes, living like they do in New York or Tokyo - sounds hippie. Light rail? Hippie as hemp oil! Don't even get me started on a subway. I'd never ride one just to avoid the stench of patchouli.

C'mon, man. You're right that buses could be more environmentally friendly. That said, isn't that a job for the auto companies? And also, wouldn't most transit advocates prefer rail to buses? And a bus is still better than the dozens of cars it would take to transport riders instead.

The idea that our economy can't thrive unless we consume as many resources as possible as quick as possible is fallacious. Many of us think that lifestyle makes us poorer in more ways than it makes us richer. You have to look at the bigger picture. Someone in NYC consumes less resources on average than someone in Metro Detroit, and those people are hardly living a deprived lifestyle.

[Hermod]

Electric cars... well, if you think that's the answer, get ready to burn coal like no one's business, since no one wants nuclear power anymore. That'll kick the can down the road some more, until we we mine all the easily extracted coal in 20-30 years [[that's assuming a society dominated by electric cars that refuses to use nuclear energy). Then it's time for the coal wars. We'll forget about the Middle East and convince the public that it's about time we did something about Russia and China...

All so you can drive to work instead of taking public transit. If car companies viewed their business more as transportation-based than "OMG WE NEED CARS OR ITZ ALL OVER", maybe they could stop costing us so much money.

The US sits on about a thousand years of coal.

[nain rouge]

Hermod: Maybe theoretically. However, even the World Coal Association believes we only have enough coal for 112 years at CURRENT rates of production and consumption: http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/ . Fact is, once we run low on oil and gas, demand for coal will surge and noticeably shorten the lifespan of our coal reserves. Sooner rather than later, we'll reach a point similar to oil and gas, where we're fighting wars over it and using environmentally dangerous techniques like fracking to extract increasingly harder to get reserves. It's hardly sustainable to run the world on coal and it would be a last ditch effort to the kick the can down the road before we have to switch to nuclear. And you know poorer countries and regions are gonna mess up with nuclear.

[Cliffy]

Someone in NYC consumes less resources on average than someone in Metro Detroit, and those people are hardly living a deprived lifestyle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5240355.html

I know you'll brush it off but reality is that people struggle like hell in big cities because of expensive ass rent, high taxes etc... So the only people that would be bar hopping and having a great time would be the people who work 40 hours a week and make $150k and up. The rest of the peasants on here would be struggling to get by.

[Scottathew]

Hermod: Maybe theoretically. However, even the World Coal Association believes we only have enough coal for 112 years at CURRENT rates of production and consumption: http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/ . Fact is, once we run low on oil and gas, demand for coal will surge and noticeably shorten the lifespan of our coal reserves. Sooner rather than later, we'll reach a point similar to oil and gas, where we're fighting wars over it and using environmentally dangerous techniques like fracking to extract increasingly harder to get reserves. It's hardly sustainable to run the world on coal and it would be a last ditch effort to the kick the can down the road before we have to switch to nuclear. And you know poorer countries and regions are gonna mess up with nuclear.

I don't understand why the US can't be like France. We should be huge on nuclear. Our electric use has leveled off due to more efficient light bulbs and appliances. We ought to stimulate this economy by building out an entire sustainable power infrastructure.

I was very disappointed with the stimulus we did after the great recession.

[Gpwrangler]

I don't understand why the US can't be like France. We should be huge on nuclear. Our electric use has leveled off due to more efficient light bulbs and appliances. We ought to stimulate this economy by building out an entire sustainable power infrastructure.

I was very disappointed with the stimulus we did after the great recession.

Amen. Fire up the nukes.

[Gpwrangler]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5240355.html

I know you'll brush it off but reality is that people struggle like hell in big cities because of expensive ass rent, high taxes etc... So the only people that would be bar hopping and having a great time would be the people who work 40 hours a week and make $150k and up. The rest of the peasants on here would be struggling to get by.

Those people went to college and worked their asses of to get those salaries. Not gonna fault them for it.

[Cliffy]

Those people went to college and worked their asses of to get those salaries. Not gonna fault them for it.

Look, you are missing the point. Some people in here are acting like NYC is some nirvana and they are going to save all this money without a car and go out every night to the chocolate making class and then go the bar. Reality is that NYC is a tough place. Its not all museums and taxi cabs and train rides. Its being middle class and struggling to put anything away for retirement because everything you make is being spent to survive. A lot of stress living there....

[ghettopalmetto]

We are talking routes, not individual components of the route.

The BRT lines in Mexico City, Santiago, Bogota, Sao Paulo, basically destroy any rail line in the U.S. outside of NYC [[and maybe the Red Line in DC). They have much, much higher capacity.

They're are running special high-capacity buses, one after the other, in their own, grade separated lane. They're comfortable and fabulously successful.

And you know this how? Because you've ridden buses in the Third World? Ha!

The truth is, Americans wouldn't tolerate the crush capacities that Brazilian bus routes experience on a daily basis. Nor would Americans be so inclined to adopt the rigid, wholesale changes in zoning regulations and restrictions on development that make the success of these bus routes possible in the first place. Even still, Mexico City has an extensive Metro system. Curitiba, Brazil--the poster child for BRT--is converting to light rail [[because, you know, buses are *just as good*). They're not just saying, "Here, ride this crappy-ass bus because we're too cheap and lazy to do things properly." And those countries are far poorer than the United States. But I understand that Detroit is different. Detroit can't spend money on transit, because it needs the cash to demolish more buildings--for parking lots.

Woodward Avenue is a prime candidate for light rail, given the ridership on the existing bus route. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

But Christ on Toast, I'm tired of all these excuses for our stupid, broken, underinvested infrastructure. This in the wealthiest society that has ever existed on God's Green Earth. Latvia has better public transportation than Detroit, and it's really not even close.

[professorscott]

Woodward Avenue is a prime candidate for light rail, given the ridership on the existing bus route. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

Really? Here: http://www.woodwardanalysis.com/evaluation/

If you want Uncle Sugar's money, you have to play the game by his rules, and we did, and here's the outcome. You can argue about the specific details of the analysis all you want, but there it is.