Gilbert makes pitch for expanded mass transit in metro Detroit

[renf]

Thank you very much for posting all of the interesting and valuable
information about the impressive new REM line in Montreal. It appears
to be a model for what can be accomplished to greatly improve
urban transit in a major city at a reasonable cost. It may be a model
for new transit systems in many North American cities.

[Canadian Visitor]

For those interested in the REM in Montreal as a template; the Wikipedia entry on the project may be instructive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A...%A9tropolitain

To date the project has a running total cost of about 8B CAD or about or about 5.9B USD

The cost per km to build is around 120M CAD, thus far, while the final bill will likely be a bit higher, its also still likely to be well below the cost of a typical subway build.

****

The builder merits a bit more of a mention. The builder is CDPQ Infra.

Which is the infrastructure arm of the Quebec Pension Plan [[the local answer to your Social Security).

Like the Canada Pension Plan, in Canada, gov't pensions which are fully funded, have been manage by active investment strategies. They've been builders of toll highways, investors in shopping malls and are stock holders in countless businesses.

That said, Quebec's pension plan [[and I don't say this in a bad way) has always had something of a political homerism to it. In that it sees its role as finding ways to boost Quebec business [[while making a return)

The important bit here though is that its a pension fund, which means it has a long time horizon on its investments. Its not a day trader, its looking at how its investments will produce returns for decades to come.

[renf]

Thank you for the information about the funding of the apparently very successful REM transportation system in Montreal. I am anxious to get
there and try it.

[Burnsie]

I mean GM was making pretty good busses for a long time and were not motivated to keep that going, you can decide for yourself if it’s a conspiracy, it looks like it to me.

"Conspiracy"? All evidence points to the reason being far more bland. The 1987 sale of transit bus manufacturing to MCI was just another cutback to focus more on GM's core business. GM's transit bus production rose to about 3,000 by 1981 after the 1977 introduction of the RTS model, but then tanked to about 600 by 1986 as cities finished buying what they needed to replace the old GMC "fishbowl" buses. It was no more a "conspiracy" than GM's sale of Frigidaire to White Consolidated in 1979, the Terex earth moving division to IBH AG in 1981, and the semi-truck business to Volvo in 1988.

[canuck]

"Conspiracy"? All evidence points to the reason being far more bland. The 1987 sale of transit bus manufacturing to MCI was just another cutback to focus more on GM's core business. GM's transit bus production rose to about 3,000 by 1981 after the 1977 introduction of the RTS model, but then tanked to about 600 by 1986 as cities finished buying what they needed to replace the old GMC "fishbowl" buses. It was no more a "conspiracy" than GM's sale of Frigidaire to White Consolidated in 1979, the Terex earth moving division to IBH AG in 1981, and the semi-truck business to Volvo in 1988.

Perhaps. They have a habit of shedding a lot to focus on their core business, until there isn’t much left to the core.

[ABetterDetroit]

Back to Montreal. Amazing how cost effective the new express is compared to the Blue Line extension. 67 klicks vs 6 for a similar 7 Billion CAD construction cost. Quite the contrast.

[Richard]

Back to Montreal. Amazing how cost effective the new express is compared to the Blue Line extension. 67 klicks vs 6 for a similar 7 Billion CAD construction cost. Quite the contrast.

The 67-kilometre [[42 mi) light metro rail system is projected to cost CA$7.95billion.

But yet private money built Brightline in Florida from scratch a total of 320 miles plus a future 84 miles extension connecting Orlando and Tampa for a total of $8 billion ……

[royce]

How would whatever the answer is to this question be financially relevant as an argument disregarding capital cost?. Subway lines cost Billions to build. Literally multiples of several thousands of the capital to add a bus line. It would be like arguing about the per hour cost on a flight to Mars vs. a flight to New York. What would be the logic?

So, ABetterDetroit, to build and maintain a subway system vs a bus system costs billions. Like I said, I don't know the exact costs, but building a subway system here in Metro Detroit is problematic because the majority of metro Detroiters believe it's too expensive. But is it? Again, does anyone have the numbers where you can compare the costs of both systems, say over 50 years? What is the budget for DDOT vs the budget for a city with a subway system that has a similar metro population?

When I think about the costs associated with one bus line, like the Gratiot bus line, I just wonder if you compare it to the costs of one subway line, which one is cheaper? And, is this just an apples and oranges argument? Again, I'm looking for someone to give me some "lay man term" answers. Thx.

[Richard]

Because it’s government run projects.

NY spent $3.7 billion per mile while in London,Berlin,Milan,Naples they do the exact same thing ranging from $175 million to the max in London at $1.3 billion per mile.

Depends on the state also and who gets to get involved.

NY 20% of the build costs was because of consultants,1300 of them where as somewhere else a team of 10 got the job done.

I posted how much it cost when private for profit industry built a line the difference is when local government gets involved it has nothing to do with providing a service,it’s more about spreading the wealth.

NY spent over $100 k for 3 screen doors and had 3 different companies install 3 different escalator systems,which all involved different consultants,designers etc when they could have used the same system X 3.

A local city will look at it as a stimulus package which drives things up through the roof.

When the rest of the developed world can build systems for an average of $350 mil per mile compared to the U.S. at $3.7 billion per mile somebody is getting screwed.

When a private company can run 400 miles of transit starting from scratch for $8 billion compared to a city government run project that runs 5 miles for the same money,you begin to comprehend the amount of money involved that has little to do with actual transportation goals.

Look at your local spite bridge,it went from original build cost of $2.6 billion and is now approaching $6 billion.

[canuck]

In the Montreal REM project, a third of it was rehabbing existing railway and tacking on infrastructure for catenaries. A hundred and ten year old tunnel had to be reinforced, under downtown and Mount Royal and a very deep station had to be built from scratch and connect to metro stations nearby.


There are 212 cars to the Florida Brightline’s 60 cars and 10 locomotives. The savings in building the REM were tied to using the Government’s right of way in the middle or side of Quebec highways, and a federally owned new bridge, the Champlain, which is a similar span to Detroit’s Gordie Howe. The other sections in the West Island section of Montreal are mostly elevated, and therefore pretty expensive to build with a twin track. The trainsets have a frequency of one every 2 1/2 minutes at rush hour, the Brightline is an intercity with 1 per hour departures. The REM is fully automated, and the Brightline has the same engines and cars used by Viarail on the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, the Siemens materiel also bought by Amtrak. These are the latest models of rolling stock built in Sacramento. My wife works on them, and so do my two sons…

The ridership on the Brightline will continue growing but it’s still not quite enough. In the long run they may add more trainsets to respond to demand. For comparison’s sake, Viarail has 32 5-car trainsets to the Brightline’s 10 6-car sets. Even Montreal’s conventional suburban rail is up to purchasing an order or 10 Charger locomotives [[unspecified model) to the Brightline’s 21 engines. So, the need for more rolling stock on urban/suburban transit schemes is justified by the objective of frequency, among other things.

[swingline]

Expanded and improved mass transit remains an important issue in Detroit. We're always going to have an unacceptably lower ceiling to the regional economy if we remain 99% automobile-centric. Keeping the discussion in the public consciousness is also important. To that end, I saw that the WDIV Flashpoint show on Sunday had Michael Griffie and Sheila Cockrel on to discuss the issue. It's great that Mr. Gilbert understands this. One thing that needs to be eliminated from the local discussion however is the word "subway". There are several modes of mass transit and they are very different from each other and of course their costs vary wildly. A subway, that is, a subterranean heavy rail system, is simply a non-starter due to the costs and insufficient ridership density in this region. The use of that term to promote possible mass transit solutions destroys the credibility of the proponent. We have to focus on what is possible and what has worked in other places. We gotta stop talking about subways.

[Richard]

In the Montreal REM project, a third of it was rehabbing existing railway and tacking on infrastructure for catenaries. A hundred and ten year old tunnel had to be reinforced, under downtown and Mount Royal and a very deep station had to be built from scratch and connect to metro stations nearby.


There are 212 cars to the Florida Brightline’s 60 cars and 10 locomotives. The savings in building the REM were tied to using the Government’s right of way in the middle or side of Quebec highways, and a federally owned new bridge, the Champlain, which is a similar span to Detroit’s Gordie Howe. The other sections in the West Island section of Montreal are mostly elevated, and therefore pretty expensive to build with a twin track. The trainsets have a frequency of one every 2 1/2 minutes at rush hour, the Brightline is an intercity with 1 per hour departures. The REM is fully automated, and the Brightline has the same engines and cars used by Viarail on the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, the Siemens materiel also bought by Amtrak. These are the latest models of rolling stock built in Sacramento. My wife works on them, and so do my two sons…

The ridership on the Brightline will continue growing but it’s still not quite enough. In the long run they may add more trainsets to respond to demand. For comparison’s sake, Viarail has 32 5-car trainsets to the Brightline’s 10 6-car sets. Even Montreal’s conventional suburban rail is up to purchasing an order or 10 Charger locomotives [[unspecified model) to the Brightline’s 21 engines. So, the need for more rolling stock on urban/suburban transit schemes is justified by the objective of frequency, among other things.

The thing about Brightline is it is owned by Fortress Capital,a real estate development fund.

They not only own exclusive ROW but also development rights of the land surrounding the stations which will offset low ridership rates until they build up.

A couple of cities spent over $8 million fighting them.

But it shows two things

Private funded rail can be done and real estate values and potential uses increases along the rails.

So now there is Brightline running the east coast and Amtrak on the west.

Brightline is also running the first ground up high speed rail from LA to Las Vegas.

The biggest question is,why do cities go so far out of their way in order to prevent private funded rail systems?

The proof is there that government implemented systems cost double of private systems that use little to no taxpayer dollars.

To many people come up with reasons why something cannot be done instead of getting them done.

I agree the discussion of subway systems in Detroit is a non starter and clouds the discussion and focus,the amount of time and interruption makes it not even feasible,maybe in the future when something is already established.

[ABetterDetroit]

One thing that needs to be eliminated from the local discussion however is the word "subway". There are several modes of mass transit and they are very different from each other and of course their costs vary wildly. A subway, that is, a subterranean heavy rail system, is simply a non-starter due to the costs and insufficient ridership density in this region. The use of that term to promote possible mass transit solutions destroys the credibility of the proponent.

I disagree. The word “subway” isn’t the lighting rod that has ground all transit ideas to a halt here. In fact it is far from it. What has repeatedly destroyed all transit initiatives here for 50 years is “Property Tax Milage.” That is exactly what absolutely needs to be dumped in the garbage if transit is to move forward. Hell, the Mayor of Detroit is in the middle of trying to lower taxes on homeowners, what does that tell us? It speaks volumes. A new tax vehicle absolutely has to be floated to raise local funds so bonds can be sold against the income and federal matching funds can be secured. It’s the only way forward. Beating ones head against a brick wall will fail again. Something else needs to be tried.

[Canadian Visitor]

The 67-kilometre [[42 mi) light metro rail system is projected to cost CA$7.95billion.

But yet private money built Brightline in Florida from scratch a total of 320 miles plus a future 84 miles extension connecting Orlando and Tampa for a total of $8 billion ……

So you're comparing a rail line [[Brightline) which moved 17,000 passengers in its first month of operation, to REM which is designed to move 170,000 per Day

Right.......you don't know what you're talking about, as usual.

[Canadian Visitor]

.....But it shows two things

Private funded rail can be done and real estate values and potential uses increases along the rails.

The public sector can employ the real estate revenue model to, and it has, in Hong Kong, where MTR is both the transit operator and a very large developer/property owner.

There is nothing intrinsic to private-sector operations using this strategy. Its merely that governments in many jurisdictions bow to powerful development interests and stay out of their line of business.

The biggest question is,why do cities go so far out of their way in order to prevent private funded rail systems?

There are no serious proposals by a private corporation to build and operate subways or similar rapid transit in the United States, currently, so far as I'm aware. If I am incorrect on that, please provide examples.

The proof is there that government implemented systems cost double of private systems that use little to no taxpayer dollars.

What similar projects are you comparing. A subway buried under Manhattan is not the same as conventional rail going through the countryside, or along a highway ROW.

These are not at all similar.

[Canadian Visitor]

One thing that needs to be eliminated from the local discussion however is the word "subway". There are several modes of mass transit and they are very different from each other and of course their costs vary wildly. A subway, that is, a subterranean heavy rail system, is simply a non-starter due to the costs and insufficient ridership density in this region. The use of that term to promote possible mass transit solutions destroys the credibility of the proponent. We have to focus on what is possible and what has worked in other places. We gotta stop talking about subways.

The word subway is generally used interchangeably with the word 'Metro' in much of the world.

Clearly, the word does originate in reference to tunnels, but many lines understood to be 'subways' including portions of the NYC system and the majority of Chicago's system, are in fact, above ground.

I wouldn't get too tied up in the terminology.

The goal, eventually, would be higher-order transit, on rails, that is entirely grade-separated [[does not share the road with other traffic and does not stop for traffic lights).

Whether one achieves this via an open trench, a tunnel, an elevated guideway, or some combination of these isn't overly important, though any choice will have trade-offs, including costs.

In general, tunneling is more expensive; however, going in a trench or above ground requires a great deal more property to be acquired. If that property can be found in an existing rail corridor, or highway corridor, and those make sense from a route perspective, then that may help save a lot of money.

However, if one has to buy up existing buildings and knock them down to build a new guideway, that can can be quite pricey.

Equally, when a guideway goes into a highway corridor, elevated or at highway grade, it doesn't tend to be seen as anymore of an eyesore than the highway itself; however, stations in the middle of highway overpasses are often not that appealing as walk-up locations for riders, who have to cross highway on/off ramps, and building bus terminals is complex and expensive [[decking over the highway).

An elevated Guideway beside homes can be seen as overbearing, casting large shadows, creating privacy issues, and the support columns can be graffiti magnets.

They can also be seen as psychological barriers between neighbourhoods, the same way as highways can.

That isn't an argument against going elevated by the way, just an illustration of the types of trade offs one must consider.

A big part of any plan needs to envision what you want the communities served by any new transit line to look like, once presumed gentrfication/redevelopment occurs.

How will the line induce and work with, what you want to see happen?

I suspect that the most likely scenario for Detriot would be a buried/tunneled line right in the downtown area, but one that climbs to either a trench or an elevated guideway once beyond the inner core.

[Canadian Visitor]

I disagree. The word “subway” isn’t the lighting rod that has ground all transit ideas to a halt here. In fact it is far from it. What has repeatedly destroyed all transit initiatives here for 50 years is “Property Tax Milage.” That is exactly what absolutely needs to be dumped in the garbage if transit is to move forward. Hell, the Mayor of Detroit is in the middle of trying to lower taxes on homeowners, what does that tell us? It speaks volumes. A new tax vehicle absolutely has to be floated to raise local funds so bonds can be sold against the income and federal matching funds can be secured. It’s the only way forward. Beating ones head against a brick wall will fail again. Something else needs to be tried.

While I agree w/your statement overall, I do think its important to say this..

Subways/Metros don't exist in a vacuum. You have to get to a station and from a station at each end of your journey, and in most cases, at least one of those 'last mile' connections is too length to be walked.

Its very important to build up the bus system to the point where its an attractive option to feed into a metro/subway.

A train running every 5 minutes sounds great; until you get to your destination station and need to connect to a bus that won't arrive for 30 minutes.

Worst case, every major bus route feeding into/crossing a Metro line needs to be every 15 minutes or better off-peak; and every 10 minutes or better in rush hours.

Without that, the train simply isn't a competitive commuting experience.

[canuck]

The word subway is generally used interchangeably with the word 'Metro' in much of the world.

Clearly, the word does originate in reference to tunnels, but many lines understood to be 'subways' including portions of the NYC system and the majority of Chicago's system, are in fact, above ground.

I wouldn't get too tied up in the terminology.

The goal, eventually, would be higher-order transit, on rails, that is entirely grade-separated [[does not share the road with other traffic and does not stop for traffic lights).

Whether one achieves this via an open trench, a tunnel, an elevated guideway, or some combination of these isn't overly important, though any choice will have trade-offs, including costs.

In general, tunneling is more expensive; however, going in a trench or above ground requires a great deal more property to be acquired. If that property can be found in an existing rail corridor, or highway corridor, and those make sense from a route perspective, then that may help save a lot of money.

However, if one has to buy up existing buildings and knock them down to build a new guideway, that can can be quite pricey.

Equally, when a guideway goes into a highway corridor, elevated or at highway grade, it doesn't tend to be seen as anymore of an eyesore than the highway itself; however, stations in the middle of highway overpasses are often not that appealing as walk-up locations for riders, who have to cross highway on/off ramps, and building bus terminals is complex and expensive [[decking over the highway).

An elevated Guideway beside homes can be seen as overbearing, casting large shadows, creating privacy issues, and the support columns can be graffiti magnets.

They can also be seen as psychological barriers between neighbourhoods, the same way as highways can.

That isn't an argument against going elevated by the way, just an illustration of the types of trade offs one must consider.

A big part of any plan needs to envision what you want the communities served by any new transit line to look like, once presumed gentrfication/redevelopment occurs.

How will the line induce and work with, what you want to see happen?

I suspect that the most likely scenario for Detriot would be a buried/tunneled line right in the downtown area, but one that climbs to either a trench or an elevated guideway once beyond the inner core.

Yes, your mention of elevated guideways is pretty relevant to issues pertaining to social acceptability. Questions like privacy, aesthetics, noise abatement among other things are part of the mix. A second pahase pf the REM called; the REM de l’Est came about from CDPQ Infra, and was rejected by city urbanists and the mayor, Valérie Plante, because there was a proposed elevated way along a major thoroughfare downtown that was deemed unacceptable. Then came another solution, but that alternative was found to be too unpredictable, and dangerous. The agency proposed an underground link from east of downtown into the core, but the existence of the metro lines, the underground expressway [[Ville-Marie expressway), and the underground train tunnel leading to Central station were proving hard to overcome. So, even now, the idea of an elevated railway is not seen positively by the East End folk who live next to the existing freight railway that would be appropriated to that end. Then, our prime minister got a quote for an extensive, all stops pulled projection of costs that gave a predicted cost of 29 billion. That dumped a nice cold shower on the idea. We are still waiting for another more attainable estimate.

[Richard]

The public sector can employ the real estate revenue model to, and it has, in Hong Kong, where MTR is both the transit operator and a very large developer/property owner.

There is nothing intrinsic to private-sector operations using this strategy. Its merely that governments in many jurisdictions bow to powerful development interests and stay out of their line of business.



There are no serious proposals by a private corporation to build and operate subways or similar rapid transit in the United States, currently, so far as I'm aware. If I am incorrect on that, please provide examples.



What similar projects are you comparing. A subway buried under Manhattan is not the same as conventional rail going through the countryside, or along a highway ROW.

These are not at all similar.

Read the thread subject in the header,then do try and follow the bouncing ball,or maybe we need to keep it inches from the surface so you can reach it.

There is a good reason no private investors have proposed funding subway systems.

You need to inform the rest of the world Canada is that special when it comes to implementing mass transit systems it is up to 3 times the cost to implement.

You do not think places like London and Berlin would face the same challenges implementing subways systems as Canadian cities?

You are going off on silly tangents when the discussion is about implementing cost effective mass transit in Detroit without taxing the citizens to death like Canada does.

Today not 10 years from now that it takes to dig tunnels.

Detroit is not Manhattan nor does it have the deep pockets they do so why even justify projects that will never happen,try and focus on what is actually feasible.

You guys managed to Jack a 2 billion dollar bridge up to 6 billion,my guess that was so you could screw the Detroit taxpayers into paying for the whole thing while pretending they only had to pay for 1/2.

They need to implement something that is reasonably priced and reliable that provides the greatest impact to get things established they can always upgrade to the price has no bearing Canadian way of doing things because it is free money.

[ABetterDetroit]

The Édouard Montpetit Station on the Montreal REM is some impressive engineering and construction.

https://tunnelingonline.com/undergro...opolitain-rem/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOgeYxPHVQs

[canuck]

The Édouard Montpetit Station on the Montreal REM is some impressive engineering and construction.

https://tunnelingonline.com/undergro...opolitain-rem/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOgeYxPHVQs

Yes, quite a feat of engineering. I read the article and noticed they had microblasted the bedrock to avoid damaging/disturbing nearby buildings on UdeM campus. There is a phase of another line to the airport that is being dug out by tunnel boring machine. They will also be using it for the metro's new extension in the East End of the city. I read the cost of leasing it will be 1 billion dollars for the duration.

This got me thinking aboutthe salt mines deep below Detroit. I wonder what the soil, and rock samples would yield for a projected subway.

The Paris metro was dug through very chalky soil. That, and the chunnel were dug through the same kind of substrate as far as I know. Plaster of Paris and White Cliffs of Dover give a good idea of the environment they needed to dig into to structure their tunnels. They are much softer, but of course contain their own peculiar set of problems.

[stasu1213]

What had happened to the onboard Attendant that were on the QLine? There were an article written recently of an out of town reporter experience on the QLine. He witnessed undesirable threatening to go inside the driver's booth then said that he was joking after noticing other passengers disapproval. Then the riff raff then begin talking loud with others of the like on the train being offensive. Is there a push to make riding the QLine unpleasant to ride? I understand that it's free but if us taxpayers are flipping the cost why not reinstall attendants on the trains

[K-slice]

Unlike in most large cities, it would be so easy to figure this out in Detroit. We have thousands of miles of underused, or unused, right-of-way including railroads where tracks have been removed and surface streets that are 3X wider than they need to be. You could start by taking every spoke road [[with the exception of Woodward) and eliminate half the car lanes and convert to rail.

I'd still rather see the area contained within Grand Blvd connected with additional streetcar lines to bring together our cities greatest assets and re-densify the core, but that will probably never happen.

[Jason]

For specific cost numbers, it can be hard to get them because each project is unique, and because costs are the accumulation of a lot of small things rather than one generic number. But it's possible to get ballpark numbers.


Capital Costs:

In some of the planning documents, the Vancouver SkyTrain has listed the costs that they use in their own high level planning. The specific numbers they use are:

$80 million per kilometer for at grade
$140 million per kilometer for elevated
$50 million for an elevated station with 80m/263' platforms
$160 million per kilometer for underground
$100 million per underground station
$3.5 million per vehicle
$0.65 million per train for an OMF [[operations and maintenance facility)

They take the guideway, stations, and OMF, add 12% for project management. Then they add the vehicles, and any property acquisition costs. Then they add another 40-60% for contingency and inflation during the construction period.

This is in 2018 Canadian dollars. Note that a station half as big would cost about half as much, so use $25 million per elevated station with 120' platforms [[although this can be reduced further with simpler station design).


Operating Costs:

For non-automated transit, the more service hours, the higher the cost. Drivers are paid by the hour, and every bus needs one. And the more service hours you have, the bigger bus fleet you need, and the more mechanics you need. So the cost is all pretty linear. For DDOT in 2018 it was $110 USD per vehicle revenue hour, and in 2022 it was $172.


With automated transit, you still need workers for each vehicle, but once you have the control room staffed, actually putting them into service costs very little. Doubling the number of vehicles in service doesn't double the operating costs. So for this it makes more sense to take the total operating costs of a comparable system and divide it by the length of the system, to get a generic operating cost per system mile number.

In 2018, the SkyTrain's total operating costs [[for the Expo and Millennium lines, the Canada Line is operated by a private operator) was $172.5 million, for 38.4 miles. That's $4.5 CAD million per mile, for trains every few minutes all day except for a few hours at night.

That number includes all of the costs associated with running the OMFs. One of their recent extensions was small enough to not require a new OMF. They estimated it would cost $10.2 million [[2007 CAD) for 6.75 mile extension. That's only $1.5 million per mile, which is $1.8 million in 2018 CAD [[just trying to keep the numbers consistent for comparison).

The People Mover already has an OMF, with enough space for double the current number of vehicles. It's also possible to include sidings in an extension for some extra storage.

If you take the People Mover's existing operating costs, and use the non-OMF operating costs for an extension, the total system's operating costs would be about the same as the SkyTrain's. That would indicate some level of economy of scale has been reached, which seems reasonable to me.


Alternatives:

From there you need to put together different options [["alternatives") to compare, and then add up the total costs over a certain period of time.

- Do Nothing. Current bus service. For the Woodward corridor, this would include Woodward itself, but also portions of the Dexter, Mack, and other bus routes.

- Better Bus. Improved bus service.

- Metro.


To see which alternative is the best for us, we need to know the cost specifically to us [[how much the City of Detroit would need to pay), not the total cost in general. Take 60% off capital costs [[FTA New Starts grant) and 30% off operating costs [[Michigan operating subsidy). There are other grants which may apply, but it's hard to tell. DDOT also has a federal bus operating subsidy which changes from year to year but we'll say it's 10%.

At this point there should be a relatively straightforward comparison for the cost side of things. But the benefits need to be quantified in order to properly compare the alternatives.

The sources of new revenue are fares from new riders, income tax from new residents from new developments, and property tax from new developments plus a general increase over current taxable value.

It's also possible to quantify things like the value of people's travel time, reduction in air and noise pollution, and things like that, but those don't directly translate into revenue, so I'm not including them.

[Jason]

A metro line down Woodward to New Center would probably be cost neutral. The line would start at a new station at Rosa Parks Transit Center, and would go up Cass to New Center, jogging over to John R between Mack and Warren.

Metro Capital Costs:

5.3km x $140 per km = $742
7 stations x $25 per station = $175
Subtotal: $917
Project Management [[12%): $1,027

3.3 miles to New Center at 25 mph would take 8 minutes. Half of the current loop is also 8 minutes. So from the Ren Cen to New Center would take about 16 minutes. Full round trip would be 32 minutes. 8 trains would be needed for 4 minute headways. Current trains are 2 vehicles long, but imo it would be better to build for 3 vehicle long trains and extend the old platforms over time as needed. So 8 x 3 is 24 vehicles.

24 vehicles x $3.5 per vehicle = $84 million
Negligible property acquisition = $0
Use existing OMF plus storage sidings = $0

Total base cost: $1,111
Contingency/Inflation [[50%): $1,666 million
Convert from CAD to USD: $1,226
USD inflation from 2018-2023: $1,518

Metro Operating Costs:

3.3 miles x $1.8-4.5 per mile = $5.9-14.8
Convert from CAD to USD: $4.3-10.9
USD inflation from 2018-2023: $5.3-13.5
For 40 years: $212-540

Metro Total Costs:

Capital Costs: $1,518
Capital Costs after 60% New Starts Grant: $607.2
Operating Costs: $212-540
Operating Costs after 30% State Subsidy: $148-378

Total cost over 40 years: $1,730-2,058
Total cost over 40 years to the City of Detroit: $755-985


Bus Costs:

Whew. So now the bus alternatives. To keep things simple I'm going to use the weekday schedule and multiply it by 365, even though it will slightly overestimate bus costs. Operating costs will be going up when bus driver pay is increased anyway, so this is probably an acceptable ballpark for the immediate future.

Woodward bus from Grand Boulevard to Larned takes 19 minutes, and there are 136 trips per day. So 43 vehicle revenue hours, at $172 per hour is $2.7 million per year.

Dexter from Grand Boulevard to Jefferson takes 22 minutes, and there are 92 trips per day. $2.2 million per year.

Mack from Mack to Rosa Parks Transit Center is 8 minutes and there are 60 trips per day. $0.5 million per year.

The QLine costs $10 million a year. It [[and SMART) aren't under the city, so I'm not including them.

So $5.4 million per year, for 40 years is $216 million. $129 to the city.

For the Better Bus alternative, doubling current service would bring service up to appropriate levels. So $258. Naturally, you can't just double service over a short portion of a bus route, you'd increase service across the entire route which would cost a lot more, but this number is fine.


So we're at:

Do Nothing: $129 million, or $3.2 million per year
Better Bus: $258 million, or $6.4 million per year
Metro: $755 million, or $18.9 million per year

That sounds like a huge gap, but it's not.

The People Mover gets around 5,000 rides per day going around in a circle at a $0.75 cent fare. The QLine about 3,200. If the People Mover extension increased transit ridership by 10,000 per day on average, at a $2 fare, that would be $7.3 million per year. The 10,000 wouldn't have to be just on the metro, it could be an increase in ridership on buses. For example, more people taking the Warren bus to get downtown, since the metro would be faster and more reliable than transferring to the bus downtown. Or people taking Gratiot bus downtown and then transferring to the metro to get to WSU.

If the metro inspired a $250 million dollars worth of new property value [[either in the form of new developments, or as an increase in existing values), and a TIF were made along the route, that would raise $8.75 million per year.

If the metro, through development, increased the population by 2,000 households and non-resident employment by 1,000, and they all made $40,000 a year, that would be $2.4 million per year.


For Woodward, going past New Center isn't as favorable. It would require a net increase in spending. Jefferson to Van Dyke also works. In general it only works in places where there are existing high value properties and development opportunities, existing bus operating costs to use for metro, and enough "stuff" to increase ridership.