Qline Rough Ride

[Pat001]

I'm still not a huge fan of the qLine. Here's what I would change:

- Make it center-run, not on the shoulders, the entire length
- Have it go further north [[at least to 12 mile)
- In the suburbs add commuter lots so suburban folks can park and go to work downtown
- Give it signal priority
- Give the qLine and buses a dedicated lane
- Have the station TV's that display the next arrival time actually be accurate [[right now there is no link between the estimated arrival times and reality)

For me the biggest drawbacks is that it doesn't take me anywhere that isn't well within walking distance from my workplace and it's too darn slow.

All excellent suggestions but implementing them would cost a zillion dollars. Also, I still don't get what the Qline does that a bus can't do.

[Tig3rzhark]

Compared to repaving I-96, I-75, I-94, and M-10 every year, the cost of Q-Line expansion shouldn't be much. Not only that, anyone here still paying high prices on their parking downtown?

[casscorridor]

Compared to repaving I-96, I-75, I-94, and M-10 every year, the cost of Q-Line expansion shouldn't be much. Not only that, anyone here still paying high prices on their parking downtown?

The problem is that the line wasn't built to be a commuter system. It's basically just another downtown circulator along with the People Mover. It could be expanded, but only for additional areas of the greater Downtown [[i.e. Corktown, Eastern Market, Riverfront etc), not for commuting to/from the suburbs.

[Bham1982]

Compared to repaving I-96, I-75, I-94, and M-10 every year, the cost of Q-Line expansion shouldn't be much.

Except people actually, you know, use those freeways. How many people are relying on the QLine to get to work, or to drop off their kids? Millions of Metro Detoiters are on the region's highways every day.

And freeways are repaved every year? Who knew!

[masterblaster]

Except people actually, you know, use those freeways. How many people are relying on the QLine to get to work, or to drop off their kids? Millions of Metro Detoiters are on the region's highways every day.

And freeways are repaved every year? Who knew!

You and your pompous responses. Why are you like that???

Right now, the QLine only goes 2.5 miles north of downtown. If QLine was extended to Royal Oak, and all of the measures suggested by poster 48307, such as center-running & signal priority, were implemented, then it would be a viable commuting alternative for people who live in north central Detroit, Ferndale, Pleasant Ridge, Huntington Woods, Berkley, Royal Oak, and even residents of city neighborhoods/suburbs to the east and west where someone could take the SMART 10 Mile Bus route to the QLine station.

[iheartthed]

I'm still not a huge fan of the qLine. Here's what I would change:

- Make it center-run, not on the shoulders, the entire length
- Have it go further north [[at least to 12 mile)
- In the suburbs add commuter lots so suburban folks can park and go to work downtown
- Give it signal priority
- Give the qLine and buses a dedicated lane
- Have the station TV's that display the next arrival time actually be accurate [[right now there is no link between the estimated arrival times and reality)

For me the biggest drawbacks is that it doesn't take me anywhere that isn't well within walking distance from my workplace and it's too darn slow.

What you want is a grade separated rail line. Either underground or elevated. You do not want an at-grade train line going such a long distance.

If the QLine went from downtown to Royal Oak, it would be among the longest at-grade rail lines in the world. And everybody would constantly complain about how terrible and useless it is because it's a really bad idea to run a rail line at-grade for such a distance.

[masterblaster]

The problem is that the line wasn't built to be a commuter system. It's basically just another downtown circulator along with the People Mover. It could be expanded, but only for additional areas of the greater Downtown [[i.e. Corktown, Eastern Market, Riverfront etc), not for commuting to/from the suburbs.

The original DTOGS [[Detroit Transit Options for Growth Study) Woodward Light Rail line proposed by the Detroit Department of Transportation around 2007ish time frame was a center-running LIGHT RAIL line [[so larger and faster train cars than the QLine streetcars) that was proposed to run from downtown to 8 Mile.

At around the same time, the private investors like Gilbert and the Ilitches were developing their own plan to build a 3.3 mile Light Rail Line and in an effort to merge the two rail transit efforts, at first proposed to build the 3.3 Mile line AS PHASE ONE OF THE LIGHT RAIL LINE that would eventually go to 8 Mile.

See please page 20 of the U of D-Mercy Transit report:
http://eng-sci.udmercy.edu/opportuni...AL_7-30-13.pdf

"June 2010 - M-1 RAIL becomes Phase 1 of the 9 mile City Project [[Detroit Transportation Opportunities for Growth Study) "

"M-1 RAIL becomes investor in City of Detroit Woodward Light Rail Plan"

But because Detroit was broke at the time, the private investors took over the rail project because they had the money.

[masterblaster]

What you want is a grade separated rail line. Either underground or elevated. You do not want an at-grade train line going such a long distance.

If the QLine went from downtown to Royal Oak, it would be among the longest at-grade rail lines in the world. And everybody would constantly complain about how terrible and useless it is because it's a really bad idea to run a rail line at-grade for such a distance.

Phoenix's light rail line is at-grade, and in the middle of the road, and a lot Houston's Metro Rail is like that as well. Being center-running [[having its own lane) and with signal priority, it still would have been much faster than a bus. In addition, north of 6 Mile, the train would run in the median of Woodward, which would have it separated from traffic.

It was far better than nothing. Subways cost like $150 million per mile.

[iheartthed]

Phoenix's light rail line is at-grade, and in the middle of the road, and a lot Houston's Metro Rail is like that as well. Being center-running [[having its own lane) and with signal priority, it still would have been much faster than a bus. In addition, north of 6 Mile, the train would run in the median of Woodward, which would have it separated from traffic.

It was far better than nothing. Subways cost like $150 million per mile.

So at $150M per mile, they could build a subway line from downtown to Royal Oak for less than the price of widening I-94 in Detroit. Priorities.

Toronto's 501 Queen line is apparently the longest street car route in the world at 15.4 miles. Downtown Detroit to downtown Royal Oak is about 14 miles. QLine system should be expanded around core Detroit. Long distance to Royal Oak should be something that is actually suited for such a commute.

[masterblaster]

So at $150M per mile, they could build a subway line from downtown to Royal Oak for less than the price of widening I-94 in Detroit. Priorities.

Toronto's 501 Queen line is apparently the longest street car route in the world at 15.4 miles. Downtown Detroit to downtown Royal Oak is about 14 miles. QLine system should be expanded around core Detroit. Long distance to Royal Oak should be something that is actually suited for such a commute.

According to Google Maps, via Woodward and Main Street, downtown Detroit is 12.0 Miles from Downtown Royal Oak.

The Streetcar as proposed by 48307 and I, would have rapid transit [[Light Rail) elements, like its own lane, signal priority, raised platform boarding [[the QLine already has this for quick entry into the streetcar).

[[From the 2 times I used it in November) The Toronto Streetcar does not have its own lane, does not have signal priority, and does not have raised platform boarding [[so people have to step up into the streetcar to get on and folks in wheelchairs have to have that ramp which takes a lot of time).

Also, from 6 Mile to 10 Mile, the streetcar could run in the median, completely separated from traffic, IF you eliminate the Michigan left turns and only allow cars to allow turn around at the mile/half-mile roads.

This is how the interurban rail lines ran along the median of Woodward and the other arterials like Gratiot after all of the arterials were widened in the late 1920's and 1930's. See photos #2 and #3 and #5 of the linked page.

[iheartthed]

According to Google Maps, via Woodward and Main Street, downtown Detroit is 12.0 Miles from Downtown Royal Oak.

The Streetcar as proposed by 48307 and I, would have rapid transit [[Light Rail) elements, like its own lane, signal priority, raised platform boarding [[the QLine already has this for quick entry into the streetcar).

[[From the 2 times I used it in November) The Toronto Streetcar does not have its own lane, does not have signal priority, and does not have raised platform boarding [[so people have to step up into the streetcar to get on and folks in wheelchairs have to have that ramp which takes a lot of time).

Also, from 6 Mile to 10 Mile, the streetcar could run in the median, completely separated from traffic, IF you eliminate the Michigan left turns and only allow cars to allow turn around at the mile/half-mile roads.

This is how the interurban rail lines ran along the median of Woodward and the other arterials like Gratiot after all of the arterials were widened in the late 1920's and 1930's. See photos #2 and #3 and #5 of the linked page.

An interurban to Royal Oak seems like a waste of money. And by definition this is not a rapid-transit mass transit system, which I think is the objective.

Rapid transit or mass rapid transit [[MRT), also known as heavy rail, metro, subway, tube, U-Bahn or underground, is a type of high-capacity public transport generally found in urban areas.^[1][2][3] Unlike buses or trams, rapid transit systems are electric railways that operate on an exclusive right-of-way, which cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort,^[4] and which is often grade separated in tunnels or on elevated railways.

Modern services on rapid transit systems are provided on designated lines between stations typically using electric multiple units on rail tracks, although some systems use guided rubber tires, magnetic levitation, or monorail. The stations typically have high platforms, without steps inside the trains, requiring custom-made trains in order to minimize gaps between train and platform. They are typically integrated with other public transport and often operated by the same public transport authorities. However, some rapid transit systems have at-grade intersections between a rapid transit line and a road or between two rapid transit lines.^[5] It is unchallenged in its ability to transport large numbers of people quickly over short distances with little to no use of land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit

[masterblaster]

An interurban to Royal Oak seems like a waste of money. And by definition this is not a rapid-transit mass transit system, which I think is the objective.

The Woodward Subway proposed by Coleman Young in the late 1970s, prompted by the $600 million subway offer from President Ford in 1976, would have been an underground subway from downtown to Six Mile and an at-grade train running in the median, in its own exclusive right-of-way, from 6 Mile to Royal Oak. This is the best we can hope for, but this would mean completely scrapping the $150 million QLine investment.

[[I don't know if you objecting to trains running in the medians. Running underground north of Six Mile would be senseless since the medians were intended for rapid transit trains. This is outlined in the 1924 Detroit Super Highways plan released by the Detroit Rapid Transit Commission. Please see the linked document, it is fascinating. Concerning the medianed, 204-foot wide arterials that were built as a result of this plan, the document states:

The Super-Highway System has been evolved as a result of planning for rapid transit....

...There are five types of rapid transit construction to choose from, namely: tunnel, subway, open-cut, elevated, and surface construction...

...But Detroit is only concerned with the 2 types that are most desirable for use inside and outside the city, namely: underground lines inside the city and surface rapid transit on exclusive right of ways outside the city...

...Outside of the city the surface type has been adopted and the lines should be constructed on their exclusive rights of way....

...A right of way width of 84 feet is needed for this purpose...

...Landscaped in the manner described, a surface rapid transit line has all the advantages of both subway and elevated lines and none of the disadvantages either...

...a Super-Highway 204 feet wide is thus evolved, subdivided as follows: A central space of 84 feet for the exclusive use of rapid transit lines on rails....

https://books.google.com/books?id=xwlPAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=g bs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)

[Bham1982]

[[From the 2 times I used it in November) The Toronto Streetcar does not have its own lane, does not have signal priority, and does not have raised platform boarding [[so people have to step up into the streetcar to get on and folks in wheelchairs have to have that ramp which takes a lot of time).

This is generally true, but it varies. Toronto even has some underground-running streetcar segments [[near the lakefront and along Eglinton).

In any case, the Toronto streetcar is more for local travel and not really analagous to longer-distance rapid transit [[though Toronto has that too, obviously).

And any Metro Detroit light rail planning would likely have to discard
the Q-line as a one-off [[basically People Mover 2.0). It isn't rapid transit.

[iheartthed]

The Woodward Subway proposed by Coleman Young in the late 1970s, prompted by the $600 million subway offer from President Ford in 1976, would have been an underground subway from downtown to Six Mile and an at-grade train running in the median, in its own exclusive right-of-way, from 6 Mile to Royal Oak. This is the best we can hope for, but this would mean completely scrapping the $150 million QLine investment.

The QLine doesn't have to be scrapped. It is a streetcar and it is fine for a local transit option. I even think the QLine should be built out around inner-areas of Detroit. And, I also think the comparisons of it to the DPM are a bit off base. QLine connects residential areas to downtown and this is where the DPM is severely lacking.

All that said, QLine it is not a rapid transit line. It cannot be a rapid transit line without grade separation, either by elevating or submerging it.

[[I don't know if you objecting to trains running in the medians. Running underground north of Six Mile would be senseless since the medians were intended for rapid transit trains. This is outlined in the 1924 Detroit Super Highways plan released by the Detroit Rapid Transit Commission. Please see the linked document, it is fascinating. Concerning the medianed, 204-foot wide arterials that were built as a result of this plan, the document states:

The Super-Highway System has been evolved as a result of planning for rapid transit....

...There are five types of rapid transit construction to choose from, namely: tunnel, subway, open-cut, elevated, and surface construction...

...But Detroit is only concerned with the 2 types that are most desirable for use inside and outside the city, namely: underground lines inside the city and surface rapid transit on exclusive right of ways outside the city...

...Outside of the city the surface type has been adopted and the lines should be constructed on their exclusive rights of way....

...A right of way width of 84 feet is needed for this purpose...

...Landscaped in the manner described, a surface rapid transit line has all the advantages of both subway and elevated lines and none of the disadvantages either...

...a Super-Highway 204 feet wide is thus evolved, subdivided as follows: A central space of 84 feet for the exclusive use of rapid transit lines on rails....

https://books.google.com/books?id=xwlPAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=g bs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)

I believe the plan for the 1970s subway was subway in core Detroit and elevated north of 6 Mile, no? I thought Detroit's plan was similar to the Altanta MARTA, D.C. Metro, and SF BART, which all are submerged in the city and elevated in the outer areas.

[masterblaster]

I believe the plan for the 1970s subway was subway in core Detroit and elevated north of 6 Mile, no? I thought Detroit's plan was similar to the Altanta MARTA, D.C. Metro, and SF BART, which all are sub-merged in the city and elevated in the outer areas.

I cannot definitively answer that, but a 2014 Metrotimes article does offer the following concerning the 1970's subway plan:

Scott Wagner, then an assistant manager for rail technology with SEMTA, recalls the plans with fervor. The main piece of the project, a Woodward Avenue subway line, would’ve run from the Renaissance Center to McNichols Road, where it would surface and follow the corridor’s median. Then, Wagner says, the service would continue northbound into Royal Oak, where it would shift toward Main Street or Washington Avenue [[“We were still negotiating with Royal Oak”), and eventually link up with an existing commuter rail service between Pontiac and Detroit.


It didn’t end there. Rail lines were intended to run along Gratiot Avenue as far northeast as the I-94 freeway, according to a story from the Ann Arbor Sun. An additional commuter line between Port Huron and Detroit would’ve been constructed. A flush light rail system would’ve extended into the suburbs. And, yes, downtown’s People Mover was in the pipeline as a way to link these systems up where they converged.

https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/h...nt?oid=2143889