Q Line "Constructive Criticism"

[bust]

My wife and I are two people who'd potentially be happy if commuter rail service were provided to Ann Arbor. We are not low income.

My wife doesn't drive. I drive but haven't owned a car for a very long time and would strongly prefer not to live where there are no other good options. One of the most important things we look for in a neighborhood is the ability to access most of our usual needs within walking distance.

If we were to move to the Detroit area Ann Arbor is one of the top places we'd consider. And if we were to move to the Detroit area it's likely that at least one of us would work in Detroit. If not, we'd want to visit often and conveniently.

And before you say bus routes could serve us as well as a train, would be much cheaper to build, and can be easily re-routed, a bus would not make us happy. We take buses when we have to but avoid them whenever we can. I had to commute daily by bus from NYC to New Jersey when my job was relocated there. I take subways regularly, but resolved never to repeat that bus experience again. The swerving, stopping and starting, jostling, shaking, noisy ride was terrible. So was the bus station.

When you evaluate a person's daily commute time required is one important consideration. But wasted time is even more important. Trains allow commuters to work if they want to. And in a comfortable environment, with a smooth ride, and potentially wi-fi and a power plug. Boarding the train can be practically like arriving at the office. Until driverless cars, the most productive use of a car commute is a phone call, podcast, or an audiobook. And I'd get a headache if not carsick if I tried to work from a bus seat. Comfort is another important consideration too. I look forward to a commute by train.

I realize there are not currently a lot of people like my wife and me in the Detroit area. But you may be surprised how many there are in denser, more walkable cities. And I'll bet many people in the Detroit area would happily adapt to this lifestyle were it available to them. I suggest the trend is clear for there to exist more people like us, and fewer who don't mind needing a car everywhere they go.

Compared to many other cities, Detroit is a very unattractive option for people who prefer an urban, self-propelled and transit-oriented lifestyle. I wouldn't consider it if I weren't originally from there. My wife is resistant to the idea. A commuter train to Ann Arbor would be a big help.

Lastly, I totally agree a train terminus downtown would be much better location than New Center. But mitigating that somewhat, development occurs around popular transit centers [[though not so much bus stations). If New Center becomes a transit hub it will spur lots more development there.

Employers are increasingly favoring locations convenient for their employees, well-served by transit. And vibrant with services, retail, dining, and leisure options. It helps them attract talent. Parking lots, expressway barriers, and wide rivers of cars are antithetical to that.

And like the demographic trend of energetic well-educated people migrating toward walkable neighborhoods, I suggest the companies that are participating in this trend are many of the most forward-thinking. Lack of good transit is one more reason Detroit is a less attractive location for them.

If Detroit doesn't get on board and start adapting to these clear social and economic trends it doesn't bode well for its future.

The People Mover and Q Line are just scratching the surface addressing these needs and should just be the start.

Of course ridership numbers are relatively small now. Detroit's transit system is nowhere near achieving critical mass.

[RO_Resident]

They are permanently closing the Hudsons garage? What was the point of building it? It's like 15 years old, max. Around 1,000 spaces.

I thought the garage was supposed to stay provided the site is ever developed. Given the site proposal don't even have financing yet, seems bizarre to shut the garage. And, if something is built, the garage should still be there.

Also, it's a city-owned garage. Are there any adults in charge downtown anymore, or has the whole city been given away to Gilbert and Illitch?

A garage will still be there. The number of spaces will be reduced to 800+.

The garage was built anticipating a 15 to 20 story structure.

Gilbert is putting two structures on the site. One midrise on the northern portion of the site. Based on the renderings, the building is slightly shorter that the 1 Campus Martius/Compuware building. So, it probably is at the upper limit of the existing pilings.

The southern end of the site will have an 800' residential tower. Well outside of the bounds of the existing structure.

The structure has been closed to public parking for a number of weeks. Construction workers for the Shinola hotel and now the Hudson's site are using the surface level for parking.

The lot will be closed for the next ~3.5 years as construction happens there.

[professorscott]

I live in Ypsi and work in midtown. I'm not the only one. Do you realize how freaking far it is between Dearborn and Ann Arbor? Without the Ypsi station you would be eliminating a huge number of potential users who don't want to drive 15+ miles out of the way to take a train. Not to mention, nobody in their right mind would battle Ann Arbor traffic every morning [[which is usually more congested between US 23 and State Street than anything I normally see commuting to Detroit) to get on a train.

Thank you, drjeff, for allowing me to convey some good news, which is vanishingly rare these days. The commuter rail plan absolutely includes an Ypsilanti station in downtown Ypsi; it is not going to only use the Amtrak stations, though it will use them. There will also be a station somewhere near the airport. There may be one additional station as well, but I haven't looked at the detailed plan in quite a while.

[Jason]

My preferred alignment would be a ramp from Times Square into a subway under Bagley and Michigan through corktown, then turning down Vernor at MCS through Southwest, jogging onto dix and then rising onto an elevated in South Dearborn, before turning North along Miller past the Rouge plant, then turning West onto the CN tracks all the way through downtown dearborn to Telegraph, heading on an elevated down Telegraph before heading west onto I-94 straight to the airport terminals.

It goes without saying that going underground would be really expensive, but Vernor isn't physically wide enough. It's just big enough for the tracks but not enough for the stations. And while SW Detroit is a logical place to connect, imo it's one of the only places in the city where gentrification is an authentic threat.

[MicrosoftFan]

It goes without saying that going underground would be really expensive, but Vernor isn't physically wide enough. It's just big enough for the tracks but not enough for the stations. And while SW Detroit is a logical place to connect, imo it's one of the only places in the city where gentrification is an authentic threat.

It is, however, one of the most densely populated parts of the city. Which would be perfect for transit. That said, Vernor is tiny and any Q Line extension down this street would be s l o w. So the only logical alternative would be to go underground- which, yes, would be really expensive. If Detroit wanted to cut construction costs we could go cut-and-cover, which would eliminate the costs of a huge TBM. But there would be many construction interruptions and without rebuilding Vernor as a bridge over a trench, it wouldn’t be feasibly possible without closing Vernor for a year.

[Atticus]

My wife and I are two people who'd potentially be happy if commuter rail service were provided to Ann Arbor. We are not low income.

My wife doesn't drive. I drive but haven't owned a car for a very long time and would strongly prefer not to live where there are no other good options. One of the most important things we look for in a neighborhood is the ability to access most of our usual needs within walking distance.

If we were to move to the Detroit area Ann Arbor is one of the top places we'd consider. And if we were to move to the Detroit area it's likely that at least one of us would work in Detroit. If not, we'd want to visit often and conveniently.

And before you say bus routes could serve us as well as a train, would be much cheaper to build, and can be easily re-routed, a bus would not make us happy. We take buses when we have to but avoid them whenever we can. I had to commute daily by bus from NYC to New Jersey when my job was relocated there. I take subways regularly, but resolved never to repeat that bus experience again. The swerving, stopping and starting, jostling, shaking, noisy ride was terrible. So was the bus station.

When you evaluate a person's daily commute time required is one important consideration. But wasted time is even more important. Trains allow commuters to work if they want to. And in a comfortable environment, with a smooth ride, and potentially wi-fi and a power plug. Boarding the train can be practically like arriving at the office. Until driverless cars, the most productive use of a car commute is a phone call, podcast, or an audiobook. And I'd get a headache if not carsick if I tried to work from a bus seat. Comfort is another important consideration too. I look forward to a commute by train.

I realize there are not currently a lot of people like my wife and me in the Detroit area. But you may be surprised how many there are in denser, more walkable cities. And I'll bet many people in the Detroit area would happily adapt to this lifestyle were it available to them. I suggest the trend is clear for there to exist more people like us, and fewer who don't mind needing a car everywhere they go.

Compared to many other cities, Detroit is a very unattractive option for people who prefer an urban, self-propelled and transit-oriented lifestyle. I wouldn't consider it if I weren't originally from there. My wife is resistant to the idea. A commuter train to Ann Arbor would be a big help.

Lastly, I totally agree a train terminus downtown would be much better location than New Center. But mitigating that somewhat, development occurs around popular transit centers [[though not so much bus stations). If New Center becomes a transit hub it will spur lots more development there.

Employers are increasingly favoring locations convenient for their employees, well-served by transit. And vibrant with services, retail, dining, and leisure options. It helps them attract talent. Parking lots, expressway barriers, and wide rivers of cars are antithetical to that.

And like the demographic trend of energetic well-educated people migrating toward walkable neighborhoods, I suggest the companies that are participating in this trend are many of the most forward-thinking. Lack of good transit is one more reason Detroit is a less attractive location for them.

If Detroit doesn't get on board and start adapting to these clear social and economic trends it doesn't bode well for its future.

The People Mover and Q Line are just scratching the surface addressing these needs and should just be the start.

Of course ridership numbers are relatively small now. Detroit's transit system is nowhere near achieving critical mass.

Bust-
I really appreciate the insight, and thank you for taking the time in responding to my earlier posts. I had not considered the spousal/family situation, where one individual may work in Ann Arbor, and another in Detroit, and thus the commuter rail provides the link so both individuals could live in one place or the other without cars.

I do want to clarify that my earlier posts were not meant as an attack on the concept of commuter rail as a mode of transportation either. You it articulated the great benefits of commuter rail far better than I ever could, and I have witnessed those benefits first hand when riding well designed commuter rail myself. Rather, my strong criticism of the commuter rail proposed between Detroit and Ann Arbor has much more to do with it being a design that I believe is destined for failure.

Let me explain further. The Ann Arbor station it appears will be placed next to UofM hospital. The benefit is that hospital workers could theoretically use this rail, but the problem is that the surrounding land uses [[and property being owned by UofM) prevent much future residential development from occurring near this station. Essentially, most Ann Arbor residents wishing to use the service would have to take "The Ride" bus to the Ann Arbor station, and then take the rail, and then take the Q-Line once in Detroit. I get people not wanting to drive/own a car. But at what point does the "too many connections" and "length of commute is too long on transit" kick in?

The Dearborn station also has a similar issue in that there is not much residential surrounding the station, and if you look at the land use and property owners, there is very limited amount of nearby land that could be developed into dense residential that is within walking distance of the station. This means people are driving from their home to the station, and riding from there. I get what you are saying about how once you are on the train you are effectively at work. But if someone has to drive some distance to get to the station anyway, and the drive into Downtown really isn't that bad, why would they not just complete the drive and not have to make the Q-Line connection? It is kind of like, once they are in the car and have to drive a portion of it anyway... I have to believe most people will just then drive the whole thing.

Finally, there is the problem of the Detroit station being at New Center and not downtown, which has been discussed a lot already.

And I get that Detroit not having transit is a huge turn off to many people. But I just worry this system is getting built so Detroit can advertise "look, we have transit!", as opposed to actually building a transit service that serves a purpose. And while advertising that may be able to attract some people back here, I worry that once they got here they would find out that this service isn't able to meet their needs.

[Atticus]

It goes without saying that going underground would be really expensive, but Vernor isn't physically wide enough. It's just big enough for the tracks but not enough for the stations. And while SW Detroit is a logical place to connect, imo it's one of the only places in the city where gentrification is an authentic threat.

This is a great point Jason. SW Detroit is one of the few remaining functional areas of the city that caters to low and moderate income groups. It would be a shame to see gentrification be facilitated by transit.

If I could build one transit line in Detroit, here is what I would do:

Light Rail, connecting downtown to DTW airport. The route would be down a [[new) median of Fort Street from Campus Martius to Rosa Parks. At Rosa Parks, the route would follow the abandoned rail bed and tracks past MCS. Just west of MCS, the light rail would then follow the Amtrak route through Dearborn to near Merriman Road. Near Merriman, the light rail would turn south and roughly parallel Merriman to the two airport terminals.

The stations would include [[among others): Campus Martius, Wayne Community College, MCS/Corktown, New carpool parking lot constructed near I-94/US-12 interchange, existing Dearborn station by Henry Ford, North DTW terminal, McNamara DTW terminal.

[Canadian Visitor]

Bust-
I really appreciate the insight, and thank you for taking the time in responding to my earlier posts. I had not considered the spousal/family situation, where one individual may work in Ann Arbor, and another in Detroit, and thus the commuter rail provides the link so both individuals could live in one place or the other without cars.

I do want to clarify that my earlier posts were not meant as an attack on the concept of commuter rail as a mode of transportation either. You it articulated the great benefits of commuter rail far better than I ever could, and I have witnessed those benefits first hand when riding well designed commuter rail myself. Rather, my strong criticism of the commuter rail proposed between Detroit and Ann Arbor has much more to do with it being a design that I believe is destined for failure.

Let me explain further. The Ann Arbor station it appears will be placed next to UofM hospital. The benefit is that hospital workers could theoretically use this rail, but the problem is that the surrounding land uses [[and property being owned by UofM) prevent much future residential development from occurring near this station. Essentially, most Ann Arbor residents wishing to use the service would have to take "The Ride" bus to the Ann Arbor station, and then take the rail, and then take the Q-Line once in Detroit. I get people not wanting to drive/own a car. But at what point does the "too many connections" and "length of commute is too long on transit" kick in?

The Dearborn station also has a similar issue in that there is not much residential surrounding the station, and if you look at the land use and property owners, there is very limited amount of nearby land that could be developed into dense residential that is within walking distance of the station. This means people are driving from their home to the station, and riding from there. I get what you are saying about how once you are on the train you are effectively at work. But if someone has to drive some distance to get to the station anyway, and the drive into Downtown really isn't that bad, why would they not just complete the drive and not have to make the Q-Line connection? It is kind of like, once they are in the car and have to drive a portion of it anyway... I have to believe most people will just then drive the whole thing.

Finally, there is the problem of the Detroit station being at New Center and not downtown, which has been discussed a lot already.

And I get that Detroit not having transit is a huge turn off to many people. But I just worry this system is getting built so Detroit can advertise "look, we have transit!", as opposed to actually building a transit service that serves a purpose. And while advertising that may be able to attract some people back here, I worry that once they got here they would find out that this service isn't able to meet their needs.

I'm not familiar enough w/all of Detroit [[and Ann Arbor's) intricacies to be thoughtful on every detail of this proposal.

However, I think I have something to add in respect of the relative import of station location.

Though, most of us would agree, ideally, station locations would reflect nodes of density, or potential density, it really isn't intrinsic to their success.

Toronto's GO transit is entirely based on the routes of current or former freight services. While some manage to hit key nodes, notably downtown Toronto. A good chunk of these routes both in the City and suburbia pass by currently or formerly industrial areas, while a few of the more remote stations are plunked down in the middle of farm country.

Needless to say, the stations that most of us would think of as poorly sited are typically poorly served by transit, if at all, and have very limited 'walk-up' business.

Yet, many of those same stations are extremely well patronized by motorists, either those parking at said stations, which often have vast lots; or by those dropping someone off at a station, then continuing on to their destination by car, or returning home in some cases.

Its certainly not ideal from an urban planning perspective to build a station in a field, or one w/limited potential for densification. But neither does it condemn a station to failure. However, one must make sure if the object will be to attract the car-based, choice commuter that that commuter's needs [[parking, passenger pick up/drop off area) are met; While ideally making some sort of transit connection practical and pleasant and allowing for w/e future growth in possible at said location.

[Canadian Visitor]

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.94057.../data=!3m1!1e3

GO Transit's newest station, about 30m north of Toronto by highway.

Note the surrounding farms.

Google's photo still shows this as construction, but it opened in 2017.

****

Likewise, Meadowvale station, located in the suburb of Mississauga, much older, surrounded by industry, and sprawling subdivisions.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.59571.../data=!3m1!1e3

[masterblaster]

I'm not familiar enough w/all of Detroit [[and Ann Arbor's) intricacies to be thoughtful on every detail of this proposal.

However, I think I have something to add in respect of the relative import of station location.

Though, most of us would agree, ideally, station locations would reflect nodes of density, or potential density, it really isn't intrinsic to their success.

Toronto's GO transit is entirely based on the routes of current or former freight services. While some manage to hit key nodes, notably downtown Toronto. A good chunk of these routes both in the City and suburbia pass by currently or formerly industrial areas, while a few of the more remote stations are plunked down in the middle of farm country.

Needless to say, the stations that most of us would think of as poorly sited are typically poorly served by transit, if at all, and have very limited 'walk-up' business.

Yet, many of those same stations are extremely well patronized by motorists, either those parking at said stations, which often have vast lots; or by those dropping someone off at a station, then continuing on to their destination by car, or returning home in some cases.

Its certainly not ideal from an urban planning perspective to build a station in a field, or one w/limited potential for densification. But neither does it condemn a station to failure. However, one must make sure if the object will be to attract the car-based, choice commuter that that commuter's needs [[parking, passenger pick up/drop off area) are met; While ideally making some sort of transit connection practical and pleasant and allowing for w/e future growth in possible at said location.

Thank you Mr. Visitor - you are very correct. A lot of commuter rail lines in the U.S. are built on former freight lines where all of the stations aren't in walkable or densely-developed areas. The fairly recent commuter rail lines in Nashville [[Music City Star) and Dallas [[Trinity Railway Express) come to mind. Even large sections of St. Louis' 2 light rail lines are built on former freight railroad lines - one of the lines even cross state lines into Illinois.

The most important distinction is that Ann Arbor-Detroit is a commuter line. Commuter line usually go long distances like 30 to 60 miles, have only 4 or 5 stops and typically only run during commuter hours. They are geared more toward commuters going to/from work, not people seeking an urban lifestyle.

[masterblaster]

Bust-
I really appreciate the insight, and thank you for taking the time in responding to my earlier posts. I had not considered the spousal/family situation, where one individual may work in Ann Arbor, and another in Detroit, and thus the commuter rail provides the link so both individuals could live in one place or the other without cars.

I do want to clarify that my earlier posts were not meant as an attack on the concept of commuter rail as a mode of transportation either. You it articulated the great benefits of commuter rail far better than I ever could, and I have witnessed those benefits first hand when riding well designed commuter rail myself. Rather, my strong criticism of the commuter rail proposed between Detroit and Ann Arbor has much more to do with it being a design that I believe is destined for failure.

Let me explain further. The Ann Arbor station it appears will be placed next to UofM hospital. The benefit is that hospital workers could theoretically use this rail, but the problem is that the surrounding land uses [[and property being owned by UofM) prevent much future residential development from occurring near this station. Essentially, most Ann Arbor residents wishing to use the service would have to take "The Ride" bus to the Ann Arbor station, and then take the rail, and then take the Q-Line once in Detroit. I get people not wanting to drive/own a car. But at what point does the "too many connections" and "length of commute is too long on transit" kick in?

The Dearborn station also has a similar issue in that there is not much residential surrounding the station, and if you look at the land use and property owners, there is very limited amount of nearby land that could be developed into dense residential that is within walking distance of the station. This means people are driving from their home to the station, and riding from there. I get what you are saying about how once you are on the train you are effectively at work. But if someone has to drive some distance to get to the station anyway, and the drive into Downtown really isn't that bad, why would they not just complete the drive and not have to make the Q-Line connection? It is kind of like, once they are in the car and have to drive a portion of it anyway... I have to believe most people will just then drive the whole thing.

Finally, there is the problem of the Detroit station being at New Center and not downtown, which has been discussed a lot already.

And I get that Detroit not having transit is a huge turn off to many people. But I just worry this system is getting built so Detroit can advertise "look, we have transit!", as opposed to actually building a transit service that serves a purpose. And while advertising that may be able to attract some people back here, I worry that once they got here they would find out that this service isn't able to meet their needs.

Like I said in the above posts, I don't think commuter rail lines are really geared toward those seeking an urban lifestyle. They are for commuters. The best we can hope for commuter rail here would be 1 train per hour between 5 am and midnight.

I do think that an Ann Arbor-Detroit line would still find utility. I think you are underestimating the speed of the trip. The commuter rail line is completely grade separated/own right of way so trains can go like 90 mph. Plus with stops only in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Wayne [[for a DTW bus shuttle), Dearborn, and New Center - that is only 5 stops in a 40+ mile distance. The limited # of stations is a hallmark of commuter rail systems.

A stop in downtown would be ideal, but it's not like New Center is in the hinterlands, and the Qline terminus is right there to take them to other locations of interest - New Center, Wayne State, Cultural Center, DMC, District Detroit, downtown, and the riverfront. With some Qline improvements [[Traffic signal prioritization, maybe close a few stops), I think that the New Center location won't be a problem too much a problem.

[Canadian Visitor]

Like I said in the above posts, I don't think commuter rail lines are really geared toward those seeking an urban lifestyle. They are for commuters. The best we can hope for commuter rail here would be 1 train per hour between 5 am and midnight.

I do think that an Ann Arbor-Detroit line would still find utility. I think you are underestimating the speed of the trip. The commuter rail line is completely grade separated/own right of way so trains can go like 90 mph. Plus with stops only in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Wayne [[for a DTW bus shuttle), Dearborn, and New Center - that is only 5 stops in a 40+ mile distance. The limited # of stations is a hallmark of commuter rail systems.

A stop in downtown would be ideal, but it's not like New Center is in the hinterlands, and the Qline terminus is right there to take them to other locations of interest - New Center, Wayne State, Cultural Center, DMC, District Detroit, downtown, and the riverfront. With some Qline improvements [[Traffic signal prioritization, maybe close a few stops), I think that the New Center location won't be a problem too much a problem.

I'll add a Toronto comparison again here.

GO Transit [[Toronto's commuter train system) has multiple lines w/varying degrees of service.

The Kitchener and Barrie lines are 63 miles each, both have 12 stations. [[both used to have less, but infill is occurring as the region develops)

At the outer ends of the line, there is rush-hour only service, one-direction [[to downtown Toronto), 4 trains and 7 trains respectively; with both lines offering more frequent [[hourly) service, bi-directionally on interior parts of the line[[s).

Only the Lakeshore line in Toronto runs more frequent all-day service [[every 7m or so in rush hour and 30m all-day frequency).

Though i will add for clarity that it is currently the plan that the 4 busiest GO lines will become 15M frequency all-day by 2024

[M. Brown]

Just by looking at google maps, it looks like that same rail line that goes to new center also forks off to the old Michigan Central Train Station [[would be closer to downtown?) To me, I think it would be good to rehab this old station have this potential commuter rail go here for a downtown station. But I guess I am just dreaming here .

[Atticus]

Just by looking at google maps, it looks like that same rail line that goes to new center also forks off to the old Michigan Central Train Station [[would be closer to downtown?) To me, I think it would be good to rehab this old station have this potential commuter rail go here for a downtown station. But I guess I am just dreaming here .

MCS presents the same challenge as New Center, with the main issue being that someone couldn’t walk off the commuter train and then walk to work. MCS is closer to downtown, but still not close enough to make the walk.

[casscorridor]

I'll add a Toronto comparison again here.

GO Transit [[Toronto's commuter train system) has multiple lines w/varying degrees of service.

The Kitchener and Barrie lines are 63 miles each, both have 12 stations. [[both used to have less, but infill is occurring as the region develops)

At the outer ends of the line, there is rush-hour only service, one-direction [[to downtown Toronto), 4 trains and 7 trains respectively; with both lines offering more frequent [[hourly) service, bi-directionally on interior parts of the line[[s).

Only the Lakeshore line in Toronto runs more frequent all-day service [[every 7m or so in rush hour and 30m all-day frequency).

Though i will add for clarity that it is currently the plan that the 4 busiest GO lines will become 15M frequency all-day by 2024

But Toronto is a thriving city and has a thriving public transport system to match it. In many ways, it's what Detroit would look like today if it kept growing rather than shrunk.

For public transport to be effective it needs to be the following:
- reliable [[rail is much more reliable than a bus)
- frequent [[1 train per hour is not frequent. there needs to be at least 4)
- fast [[people generally won't commute more than 1 hr 15 min)

[MicrosoftFan]

MCS presents the same challenge as New Center, with the main issue being that someone couldn’t walk off the commuter train and then walk to work. MCS is closer to downtown, but still not close enough to make the walk.

If only the Dequindre Cut was still a rail line....

[douglasm]

As to the Dequindre Cut, yes but.......

The biggest problem with the idea of a downtown trminal is that the rail lines don't meet downtown...and never did. The Grand Trunk line ended at Brush Street, and the NYC at the old freight house on Third. The advantage of the New Center area for a station is that it is the closest place to downtown that the rail lines go cross town. If one were to put a transit hub of some sort at New Center, it would solve the problem.

Back when the GTW commuter trains ran, DSR busses would meet the trains at Milwaukee Junction and head towards New Center. It worked then, so why not now?

[professorscott]

If one were to put a transit hub of some sort at New Center, it would solve the problem. Back when the GTW commuter trains ran, DSR busses would meet the trains at Milwaukee Junction and head towards New Center. It worked then, so why not now?

Well, if you're willing to walk about a block, it already is a de facto transit hub. QLine is right there as is the DDOT Woodward bus; the DDOT Dexter and Mid City Loop buses are not far, plus a couple of the new DDOT express bus routes just a short distance to the west, plus the new SMART "FAST Woodward" route.

[Canadian Visitor]

But Toronto is a thriving city and has a thriving public transport system to match it. In many ways, it's what Detroit would look like today if it kept growing rather than shrunk.

For public transport to be effective it needs to be the following:
- reliable [[rail is much more reliable than a bus)
- frequent [[1 train per hour is not frequent. there needs to be at least 4)
- fast [[people generally won't commute more than 1 hr 15 min)

While its certainly true that Toronto and Detroit are not in the same place currently, I was offering the comparison of what Commuter rail can look like.

I point out that service from as far out as Ann Arbor is from Detroit works well; that it does so providing as few as 4 rush-hour only departures, in one direction.

In Toronto's case, GO Transit uses very large trains [[12 double-decker cars) which hold up to 2,000 people.

Of course only a small portion of these board at the terminal stations.

More frequent service is ideal, to be sure, but not necessarily essential.

[MicrosoftFan]

In my opinion, the best new commuter rail line in the country are the lines being built in Denver. They are electric and have frequent departures during rush hour. They have more frequent stops [[every 2 miles ish) and connects to the airport. The electric traction allows for quicker acceleration from stations-something diesel is bad at doing. Not to mention fast. I could possibly see a rail line like this working along the rail line that parallels I-94 to the airport.

[ndavies]

In my opinion, the best new commuter rail line in the country are the lines being built in Denver. They are electric and have frequent departures during rush hour. They have more frequent stops [[every 2 miles ish) and connects to the airport. The electric traction allows for quicker acceleration from stations-something diesel is bad at doing. Not to mention fast. I could possibly see a rail line like this working along the rail line that parallels I-94 to the airport.

Almost all modern trains are electric. Even the diesels are hybrids. They have a diesel engine driving an electric generator feeding electrc traction motors. The only difference is the source of the electricity.

[royce]

My preferred alignment would be a ramp from Times Square into a subway under Bagley and Michigan through corktown, then turning down Vernor at MCS through Southwest, jogging onto dix and then rising onto an elevated in South Dearborn, before turning North along Miller past the Rouge plant, then turning West onto the CN tracks all the way through downtown dearborn to Telegraph, heading on an elevated down Telegraph before heading west onto I-94 straight to the airport terminals.

Platforms would have to be extended and I can imagine that Millender Center station would have to go. Perhaps Michigan Ave and Times Square close down and reopen as a Rosa Parks TTC station.

An interesting commuter route. At some point in the past on this forum, I wrote about a proposed commuter route to and from Detroit-Ann Arbor. It might have been earlier in this thread. At any rate, this is my proposal. Create a commuter line on the freeways: I-75, 1-96, and M-14. If a commuter rail needs to go directly downtown, then the one I propose would start/finish at Woodward and the Fisher/I-75 freeway. It would then travel along I-96 West and continue along M14 to Main Street in Ann Arbor. The rail would then go under Main Street and stop just passed the downtown area.This proposal would eliminate trying to get the freight lines to use a commuter rail on their tracks. I think this proposal warrants consideration.

[Bham1982]

Not sure why people are talking about GO Transit and Toronto. Detroit has nothing to do with Toronto.

High volume commuter rail exists for at least one of three reasons: 1. Horrible congestion, B. Centralized employment, C. Low income-to-housing ratio.

Toronto has all three characteristics. Detroit has no such characteristics. Commuter rail makes sense in GTA, makes no sense in Detroit.

Also, would note that even though Toronto has ideal conditions [[for North America) for commuter rail, their ridership numbers are still a joke by global standards. They have like half the commuter rail ridership of Chicago, and like 1/15 the ridership of a NYC or London.

[Canadian Visitor]

Not sure why people are talking about GO Transit and Toronto. Detroit has nothing to do with Toronto.

High volume commuter rail exists for at least one of three reasons: 1. Horrible congestion, B. Centralized employment, C. Low income-to-housing ratio.

Toronto has all three characteristics. Detroit has no such characteristics. Commuter rail makes sense in GTA, makes no sense in Detroit.

Also, would note that even though Toronto has ideal conditions [[for North America) for commuter rail, their ridership numbers are still a joke by global standards. They have like half the commuter rail ridership of Chicago, and like 1/15 the ridership of a NYC or London.

Bham, you so often chime in just to remind everyone what a jerk you are and for no other reason.

If you think have something legitimate to contribute [[in my experience this is rare from you); then do so politely, and respectfully, otherwise, please exercise your right to remain silent, both literally and figuratively.

Toronto was brought up in the context of a general discussion on where and when Commuter rail can work.

You would know that if you read and comprehended the posts before your own.

The only basis for such a discussion is to look at places where it does work.

Your complaints about the Toronto comparison may be dismissed for the following reasons:

Because the discussion here is about getting a single commuter train line up and running.

So to fairly compare it with Toronto, you would compare it Toronto when GO Transit ran its first train.

GO started, in 1967, when Toronto was not yet a million people; and Detroit was the larger metropolitan area.

Put another way, Metro Detroit today is substantially larger than Toronto was when GO ran its first trains.

Needless to say, the income to housing ratio was far different then as well.

Detroit does have sufficient central employment to justify such a service, provided, the stations can be sensibly located, and appropriate feeder and connecting services put in place.

[Bham1982]

Yet, many of those same stations are extremely well patronized by motorists, either those parking at said stations, which often have vast lots; or by those dropping someone off at a station, then continuing on to their destination by car, or returning home in some cases.

Well, yeah. The vast majority of suburban commuter rail riders will be living typical suburban lifestyles, and taking cars from residence to rail station.

Many North American suburban stations with the highest ridership are in extreme car-oriented locations, with huge parking facilities. This is especially true outside the Northeast Corridor, which tends to have more of the older railroad suburb typology [[though, even there, certain stations built for the car riders, such as Metropark, in NJ, have extremely heavy ridership).