If Detroit is too big for itself...

[royce]

Maybe, but it seems unlikely. It isn't as if having the Lodge means you don't need the Chrysler. However, you might need fewer lanes, so if someone wanted to run a commuter rail or dedicated express bus lane or something running down them, that could be sensible.

Given the amount of lanes [[four) on I-75, I-96, and I-696, a commuter rail line down the far left lane could do wonders for the region. Yes, a line from Ann Arbor to Downtown Detroit along 96/M14 would be great. A line from Novi to Gratiot in Roseville along 696 would be extremely beneficial in reducing the congestion along 696. A line from Pontiac/Auburn Hills or Oakland Mall to Downtown Detroit along 75/375 would be cool, especially for sports fans going to and from Lions and Tigers' games. If the region would make an effort to relocate major office tenants back downtown, such a rail system could be very practical.

BTW, I think it's time that the 75/375 spur at Jefferson be closed so that Jefferson can be narrowed just east of the RenCen so that the area can become pedestrian friendly again. The freeway can be exited and entered at Congress/Larned. The entrance to the freeway along Jefferson, heading north, could simply use left turn lanes, allowing two lanes of traffic to turn on a left-turn arrow. Getting on and off the freeway may take a little longer, but the improved pedestrian access from the east and to the riverfront would be worth it.

[lefty]

RE: If Detroit is too big for itself...
Interesting question or point,
I think it is more of a question of a business entity, ie: a government corporate entity, just like any private or public company, expanding or contracting with the needs and economic constraints of the people they are trying to serve.
The big three face stiff competition, just like cities and states face stiff competition,
so they need to adjust their business plan or budget plans accordingly.

Problem is that as far as government is concerned, they seem to grow and grow without concern to those who fund it and are not accountable to anyone, unless elected.

[DetroitDad]

Expanding the freeways is another thing we don't need, but it keeps getting proposed. Usually, the freeways are only congested in one direction twice a day. Why not make lanes that can be used for, say, South bound traffic on I-75 in the morning, then switched over to be used for the North bound side in the afternoon rush?

I remember Denver using something like this for it's car pool lanes.

[ghettopalmetto]

Given the amount of lanes [[four) on I-75, I-96, and I-696, a commuter rail line down the far left lane could do wonders for the region. Yes, a line from Ann Arbor to Downtown Detroit along 96/M14 would be great. A line from Novi to Gratiot in Roseville along 696 would be extremely beneficial in reducing the congestion along 696. A line from Pontiac/Auburn Hills or Oakland Mall to Downtown Detroit along 75/375 would be cool, especially for sports fans going to and from Lions and Tigers' games. If the region would make an effort to relocate major office tenants back downtown, such a rail system could be very practical.

How did anyone ever get the idea that a freeway was the proper place to operate a passenger rail line?

[Rideron]

HEY , wahts the matter with youse people eh??? We need MORE freeways, not less!; and... and more office space too! Yeah!!! More space means ya can put more people in em and more people means more $$$ ya know!! Ain't youse always complaining about needing jobs jobs jobs????

And....and we need to boost the income and real estate taxes in Detroit to fund these expansions.... and, and we need something like a central PARK like New York!! We can dump landfill right in the damn river.... call it ...ah...BELLE ISLE... or something like that!!

Yeah! it'd be GREAT!!! If ya wanna BE big, ya gotta ACT big!!!

YEAHHHHHH!!!!..

[royce]

How did anyone ever get the idea that a freeway was the proper place to operate a passenger rail line?

Ghettopalmetto, ever been to Chicago along their I-94?

[ghettopalmetto]

Ghettopalmetto, ever been to Chicago along their I-94?

Yes, I have. Is that supposed to mean it's a good idea? Would you like my treatise on the South Side Red Line? Or can you figure it out just by observing that:

1. The powers-that-be didn't do the same on the North Side?
2. The people waiting on the platforms on the South Side Red Line are almost 100% poor minorities
3. It's a good 1/2 mile walk from any of those platforms to the nearest building.
4. The South Side Red Line looks like Dresden circa 1945 compared to the rest of the city.

You're proposing to use freeway right-of-way to move people who are essentially travelling on foot. Please explain how that's supposed to work.

[Retroit]

Doesn't much of Chicago's Blue Line go down the center of I-90/94?

[ghettopalmetto]

Doesn't much of Chicago's Blue Line go down the center of I-90/94?

It does. The Red Line runs down the median of the Dan Ryan on the South Side, and the Blue Line runs down the median of the Eisenhower and the Kennedy.

[royce]

Yes, I have. Is that supposed to mean it's a good idea? Would you like my treatise on the South Side Red Line? Or can you figure it out just by observing that:

1. The powers-that-be didn't do the same on the North Side?
2. The people waiting on the platforms on the South Side Red Line are almost 100% poor minorities
3. It's a good 1/2 mile walk from any of those platforms to the nearest building.
4. The South Side Red Line looks like Dresden circa 1945 compared to the rest of the city.

You're proposing to use freeway right-of-way to move people who are essentially travelling on foot. Please explain how that's supposed to work.

Ghettopalmetto, it's simple. Platforms for passengers are built between the inner shoulders of the freeways. The trains would travel on what is now the far left lane. A cement barrier like those used during contruction, is put up along the outer rim of that left lane. Ticket booths are set up on various overpasses and people enter the platforms from stairs leading from the overpasses. That's it. Very similar to how it's done along the red line in Chicago.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ghettopalmetto, it's simple. Platforms for passengers are built between the inner shoulders of the freeways. The trains would travel on what is now the far left lane. A cement barrier like those used during contruction, is put up along the outer rim of that left lane. Ticket booths are set up on various overpasses and people enter the platforms from stairs leading from the overpasses. That's it. Very similar to how it's done along the red line in Chicago.

So you're going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars building a train that nobody can get to without an ordeal. That's just fantastic. Who do you think is going to schlep 1/2 mile or more from the nearest building to wait on a train platform, watching cars whiz by at 60 mph?

And about about leveraging transit to encourage economic development, which is perhaps the bigger return on investment? What kind of economic development are you going to have in a freeway right-of-way?

Why don't you start thinking about moving PEOPLE instead of CARS?

[Retroit]

It does. The Red Line runs down the median of the Dan Ryan on the South Side, and the Blue Line runs down the median of the Eisenhower and the Kennedy.

Wouldn't you say that the socio-racio-economical demographics are different between the Blue and Red Lines, thus disproving your point?

[[Or have I completely missed your point? )

[ghettopalmetto]

Yes, you've completely missed my point.

[Retroit]

Well then, if a poor minority has to walk 1/2 mile to get to the train platform, what difference is it where that platform is located [[center of expressway vs. center of ? )?

And if a non-poor, non-minority has to walk 1/2 mile to get to the train platform, what difference is it where that platform is located?

[ghettopalmetto]

Okay, you first.

[Retroit]

I don't see a difference where the platform is located and I don't see a difference between the Blue Line and the Red Line.

It sounded to me like you were insinuating that the Red Line built in the center of the expressway was some kind of conspiracy by the supposedly white "powers-that-be"? Am I wrong? If so, please explain:

1. The powers-that-be didn't do the same on the North Side?
2. The people waiting on the platforms on the South Side Red Line are almost 100% poor minorities
3. It's a good 1/2 mile walk from any of those platforms to the nearest building.
4. The South Side Red Line looks like Dresden circa 1945 compared to the rest of the city.

[EastsideAl]

I would agree with Palmetto, except that the freeways are already there as cleared and grade separated corridors through the city, making mass transit much much cheaper to build there. Given the cost barriers to building rapid transit elsewhere, I don't think that the advantages of building along a readily available corridor can be ignored. Other than Chicago, there are a number of places in the country that have leveraged this advantage, and hardly all of them in poorer areas. The Washington Metro orange line runs down the middle of a freeway in suburban Virginia, BART trains run down the freeway rights-of-way in the East Bay, etc. These are very busy lines, as are the Chicago lines, so it doesn't seem that this sort of location has any serious impact on ridership.

[ghettopalmetto]

I would agree with Palmetto, except that the freeways are already there as cleared and grade separated corridors through the city, making mass transit much much cheaper to build there. Given the cost barriers to building rapid transit elsewhere, I don't think that the advantages of building along a readily available corridor can be ignored. Other than Chicago, there are a number of places in the country that have leveraged this advantage, and hardly all of them in poorer areas. The Washington Metro orange line runs down the middle of a freeway in suburban Virginia, BART trains run down the freeway rights-of-way in the East Bay, etc. These are very busy lines, as are the Chicago lines, so it doesn't seem that this sort of location has any serious impact on ridership.

Freeway corridors are meant to conduct automobile traffic. The spatial arrangement is geared specifically for cars, not people on foot.

The empirical data show that most economic development around transit stations occurs within a 1/2 mile radius [[10-minute walk) of the station. If the entirety of the 1/2 mile walk from the station is nothing but a pedestrian bridge over the freeway, you're not going to see economic development, and the only passengers you'll see are the poor, destitute, and transit-dependent. Compare the Dan Ryan leg of Chicago's Red Line to the Howard leg on the North Side--it's night and day.

And yes, Fairfax County, Virginia did construct it's segment of the Orange Line of the Metro in the median of I-66. This was a huge mistake. The only development within walking distance of those four stations is a series of massive parking garages owned by Metro--at a present-day value of $20,000+ a parking space. Because there is so little activity at these stations, the inbound ridership peaks in the morning, and is virtually nothing the rest of the day. Similarly, outbound ridership has a huge peak in afternoon rush, and is virtually nothing the rest of the day. This is a horribly inefficient use of a multi-billion dollar investment. The overall ridership numbers at these four stations [[with perhaps the exception of the terminal station- Vienna/Fairfax/GMU) are impotent compared to stations located in nodes of dense activity.

Compare Fairfax's segment of the Orange Line to the segment in Arlington, where they chose to route the Orange Line beneath city streets. The construction costs were more expensive, but Arlington has seen enormous commercial and residential development along the corridor as a result. The 2-mile Ballston-Rosslyn corridor accounts for some 80% of Arlington's property tax revenue. Furthermore, it keeps development pressures from spreading to the remainder of the county, which is more suburban in character.

Back in the 1950s, Cuyahoga County [[Ohio) Engineer Albert Porter single-handedly overruled the desires of voters, and directed the Cleveland Transit System to construct the Red Line in a railroad right-of-way, instead of the subway that voters had approved. His reasoning was that it would be cheaper to build in the railroad right-of-way. At present, the Red Line has about 20,000 riders a day--perhaps the lowest ridership of any heavy-rail line in the world. Simply stated, the line connects a series of parking lots, with less than a handful of activity nodes adjacent to the stations.

If you're going to copy ideas, at least copy the good ideas.

[mwilbert]

It depends on your notion of what the train is supposed to do. Trains running on freeway right-of-ways probably don't do much of anything for development in adjacent areas. They are a pain to get to, so very few people would to use them for short trips, even if there were something near them. This is a commuter rail type model, and what it can do is move people quickly from one part of a metropolitan area to another. Without either a really nearby destination at the end, or some other kind of pretty efficient transit available to hand them off to, they aren't going to be much use.

The Detroit area doesn't have a lot of plausible endpoints where this would make sense and where people would take it in preference to driving. I could see this possibly making sense in a I-94 Midtown-Airport-Ann Arbor route that didn't have to deal with delays caused by freight trains. I stress the "possibly", but I have a hard time thinking of any other route that seems likely to get significant use.

[royce]

Ghettopalmetto, you act as if a commuter train on a freeway is absolutely impossible. Yet, there are examples that it exists and obviously functions successfully or it wouldn't still exists. A commuter line on the freeway would be designed for the strict purpose of moving people and not cars. The statement that you made to this effect doesn't make sense. The whole purpose of a commuter or light rail line is to move people, not cars. Also, a commuter line along the freeway is not designed to create development. It's designed to get fewer people in cars causing major traffic tie-ups on the freeway. At several stops there can be park and ride parking lots or parking structures. Imagine a commuter line stop at Woodward and I-696. There is an unused parcel of land on the northeast corner that could serve as a transit center for both commuter rail, along the freeway, and light rail, along Woodward.And yes, Ghettopalmetto, it will cost some money to implement this system. However, if Southeast Michigan ever decides to implement some kind of mass transit plan, this is just a cheaper and efficient way to do it. I never claimed that it was a perfect plan.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ghettopalmetto, you act as if a commuter train on a freeway is absolutely impossible.

I didn't say it was impossible. I said it was stupid.

Yet, there are examples that it exists and obviously functions successfully or it wouldn't still exists.

At what cost? Outside of rush hours, does it make any sense for the Washington Metro to run trains all the way out to Vienna/Fairfax? Does it make sense to subsidize park-and-ride commuting to the tune of $20,000 per car, when daily vehicle parking charges wouldn't even cover the maintenance cost of the parking facilities?

A commuter line on the freeway would be designed for the strict purpose of moving people and not cars.

And where are you moving these people to-and-from? From the median of one freeway to the median of another? Do you understand the concept of "activity nodes", meaning "origins" and "destinations"? Do you live in a freeway median? Do you work in a freeway median? Do you shop in a freeway median?

Also, a commuter line along the freeway is not designed to create development.

No shit, Sherlock.

However, if Southeast Michigan ever decides to implement some kind of mass transit plan, this is just a cheaper and efficient way to do it.

It's cheaper, for sure, but you can't call it "efficient" if nobody rides the damned train to nowhere.

[ghettopalmetto]

Here's a link to a blog that discusses issues of urbanism in the DC area. The writer has included photos from a presentation given by Chris Zimmerman, who sits on the Board of Arlington County, Virginia, and WMATA.

http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot...ange-line.html

[iheartthed]

^But we're talking about commuter rail. Commuter rail in general is meant to connect moderately populated [[read suburban) areas with the dense core of a city. Most commuter rail stations are surrounded by parking lots and don't spin off much retail development except for at the main hubs.

So with all that said, I don't see much of a problem with located a commuter rail along the ROW of a freeway.

But if we're talking about an urban rapid transit line... Well, yeah that's just stupid.

[ghettopalmetto]

^But we're talking about commuter rail. Commuter rail in general is meant to connect moderately populated [[read suburban) areas with the dense core of a city. Most commuter rail stations are surrounded by parking lots and don't spin off much retail development except for at the main hubs.

So with all that said, I don't see much of a problem with located a commuter rail along the ROW of a freeway.

But if we're talking about an urban rapid transit line... Well, yeah that's just stupid.

There was a deviation above that mentioned the Red Line in Chicago as an example of running "commuter rail" down a freeway median. I agree the two modes are completely different.

However, that doesn't mean it's okay to neglect the potential of using commuter rail as an economic development tool. For one, running commuter rail down freeway right-of-way is even stupider than running rapid transit down the right-of-way, for the simple reason that Detroit already has miles of existing trackage that can be upgraded and used for commuter rail. Why build new if you can improve what you already have, and at a far lower cost?

Commuter rail stations, similar to light rail or heavy rail stations, can be used to generate walkable economic development. Look at Metra on the North Shore of Chicago, the Long Island Railroad, or Metro North. When you alight the train at most stations, you are in the middle of a "village", with stores, offices, and residences within walking distance and clustered around the station. These businesses not only draw customers who are on their way to and from the rail station, but they *pay taxes*--something parking lots don't do very well. I understand with commuter rail that parking would be necessary, but it shouldn't come at the expense of other modes of transportation, such as walking, cycling, or bus connections.

[iheartthed]

For one, running commuter rail down freeway right-of-way is even stupider than running rapid transit down the right-of-way, for the simple reason that Detroit already has miles of existing trackage that can be upgraded and used for commuter rail. Why build new if you can improve what you already have, and at a far lower cost?

We are in total agreement there. I was wondering when someone would mention that.