Woodward Line Stations

**casscorridor** · January-07-10, 05:26 PM

I have a question about station alignments for the Woodward Line light-rail.
DTOGS vs. M1* I don't think the final station alignments have been announced.

Foxtown [[I hate this name and propose moving it to Grand Circus Park for DPM connection)
Temple*
MLK/Mack [[Medical Center South)
Canfield [[Medical Center North)*
Warren [[Cultural Center)
Palmer [[Wayne State University)*
Piquette
Grand
Euclid - my proposed new station
Hazelwood [[my proposed change location 2 block north to Clairmount)
Calvert
Glendale
Manchester
McNichols
7 Mile
Fairgrounds

Grand Blvd/New Center station just south of Grand Blvd. I think this is too far from the next proposed station, Hazelwood [[.8 Miles), so I recomend adding a station at Euclid [[.5 miles) and moving the next station 2 blocks north of Hazelwood, which is Clairmount [[.45 miles from previous station, Euclid and .5 miles to next station, Clavert). After that the stations would begin getting further apart. Especialy after McNichols, where 1 mile spacing would begin.

It is my opinion, that if the entire track has an exclusive Right-of-way, with traffic signal priority, and that if the train is light-rail and not street car, it can be superior to driving, even with added stations. Stations closer together maxamizes their impact on the neighborhoods. Let's count on a seperate commuter rail for commuter traffic from northern Oakland county. The Fairgrounds station is close enough to the Southern Oakland county suburbs to park and ride.

Anyway, my question is, What do you all think?

**MotownSpartan** · January-07-10, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

It is my opinion, that if the entire track has an exclusive Right-of-way, with traffic signal priority, and that if the train is light-rail and not street car, it can be superior to driving, even with added stations. Stations closer together maxamizes their impact on the neighborhoods. Let's count on a seperate commuter rail for commuter traffic from northern Oakland county. The Fairgrounds station is close enough to the Southern Oakland county suburbs to park and ride.

Anyway, my question is, What do you all think?

I don't know that given the unique circumstances of this region it will start off as a "superior" system. However, I think it may be very successful in the sense that it improves neighborhoods and the Woodward corridor as well as assisting in the creation of the type of urban environment that will be a huge draw to the younger [[and others) crowd.

I also wonder whether most people in Oakland County would ever use the park & ride system as a part of their normal commuting routine [[i.e. other than for sporting or other special events downtown). That's because you'd probably have to pay for parking at the park & ride garage, and then pay for the mass transit system [[plus the People Mover?) and by this time it may not end up being significantly cheaper than driving [[especially if your car gets good mileage). Furthermore, if your job requires you to leave the downtown area at all [[need to visit colleagues in an Oakland County office park [[where most of the business community is located)) you'd be pretty stuck without a car. I also have to believe that more people in OC might ride the train if it didn't involve having to drive to it. By the time you're already in a car, why not just drive the extra 10 minutes downtown? Having to stop, park, get out in the cold in the winter, wait for the train, etc. could be a hassle. However, if people could get right on the thing in or near downtown Ferndale, Royal Oak, Berkely, Birmingham, etc. and not have to ever get in their cars [[or just drive a few blocks to the local train station) it may prove to lessen any sort of psychological/cultural barrier to using mass transit.

**Gsgeorge** · January-07-10, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

I have a question about station alignments for the Woodward Line light-rail.
DTOGS vs. M1* I don't think the final station alignments have been announced.

Anyway, my question is, What do you all think?

I think you're absolutely right. I was always surprised that the first stop outside of downtown would be MLK/Mack, and then the next Warren. Those seem like enormous distances that are not covered by the system being totally skipped, forcing people to walk. Why would they take the light rail if they have to walk more than 1/3 the distance?

Additional stations at Temple & Canfield are great ideas.

Bearinabox · January-08-10, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by MotownSpartan

That's because you'd probably have to pay for parking at the park & ride garage...

I'm curious as to why you say this.

LodgeDodger · January-08-10, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

I have a question about station alignments for the Woodward Line light-rail.
DTOGS vs. M1* I don't think the final station alignments have been announced.

Foxtown [[I hate this name and propose moving it to Grand Circus Park for DPM connection)
Temple*
MLK/Mack [[Medical Center South)
Canfield [[Medical Center North)*
Warren [[Cultural Center)
Palmer [[Wayne State University)*
Piquette
Grand
Euclid - my proposed new station
Hazelwood [[my proposed change location 2 block north to Clairmount)
Calvert
Glendale
Manchester
McNichols
7 Mile
Fairgrounds

Grand Blvd/New Center station just south of Grand Blvd. I think this is too far from the next proposed station, Hazelwood [[.8 Miles), so I recomend adding a station at Euclid [[.5 miles) and moving the next station 2 blocks north of Hazelwood, which is Clairmount [[.45 miles from previous station, Euclid and .5 miles to next station, Clavert). After that the stations would begin getting further apart. Especialy after McNichols, where 1 mile spacing would begin.

It is my opinion, that if the entire track has an exclusive Right-of-way, with traffic signal priority, and that if the train is light-rail and not street car, it can be superior to driving, even with added stations. Stations closer together maxamizes their impact on the neighborhoods. Let's count on a seperate commuter rail for commuter traffic from northern Oakland county. The Fairgrounds station is close enough to the Southern Oakland county suburbs to park and ride.

Anyway, my question is, What do you all think?

Is it me, or is that train unusually narrow? My butt wouldn't fit into that thing!

**Detroitnerd** · January-08-10, 09:45 AM

I think the people behind this simply do not believe that if they build it, the "dead zone" between Charlotte and the freeway will fill in.

**Gsgeorge** · January-08-10, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I think the people behind this simply do not believe that if they build it, the "dead zone" between Charlotte and the freeway will fill in.

The point is that with a LR station there, it will fill in faster than they can say "urban blight".

**Detroitnerd** · January-08-10, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge

The point is that with a LR station there, it will fill in faster than they can say "urban blight".

I know. It's like Detroit's leaders are terrified of building a traditional light rail line that works. The worst threat of all is that of a good example, right?

**casscorridor** · January-08-10, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by MotownSpartan

I don't know that given the unique circumstances of this region it will start off as a "superior" system. However, I think it may be very successful in the sense that it improves neighborhoods and the Woodward corridor as well as assisting in the creation of the type of urban environment that will be a huge draw to the younger [[and others) crowd.

I also wonder whether most people in Oakland County would ever use the park & ride system as a part of their normal commuting routine [[i.e. other than for sporting or other special events downtown). That's because you'd probably have to pay for parking at the park & ride garage, and then pay for the mass transit system [[plus the People Mover?) and by this time it may not end up being significantly cheaper than driving [[especially if your car gets good mileage). Furthermore, if your job requires you to leave the downtown area at all [[need to visit colleagues in an Oakland County office park [[where most of the business community is located)) you'd be pretty stuck without a car. I also have to believe that more people in OC might ride the train if it didn't involve having to drive to it. By the time you're already in a car, why not just drive the extra 10 minutes downtown? Having to stop, park, get out in the cold in the winter, wait for the train, etc. could be a hassle. However, if people could get right on the thing in or near downtown Ferndale, Royal Oak, Berkely, Birmingham, etc. and not have to ever get in their cars [[or just drive a few blocks to the local train station) it may prove to lessen any sort of psychological/cultural barrier to using mass transit.

I don't see how park-and-ride at Fairgrounds is any different than at Ferndale, Royal Oak or Birmingham. After McNichols, Woodward Ave is like a freeway, people go 50+ mph, so it really doesn't take that long at all to Fairgrounds from those places. I also feel like you are assuming there are more people living in downtown Ferndale, Royal Oak and Birmingham than there really are. There aren't many at all, especialy ones that currently ride transit. If you want proof that park-and-ride works, look people who do it right now on SMART or folks in DC who ride the Metro every day into work. The SMART riders will be the first to use the park-and-ride lot at the Fairgrounds station.

As far as your concern that people need a car during work, I don't think thats a big concern. How many people really have that senerio? And if so, why can't they just ride back to the park-and-ride lot and drive?

My final point, is to say I don't think park-and-ride is the main thing here, the main goal should be improving the Woodward corridor with light-rail, which will mostly serve residents living in the corridor, in Detroit. Many of whom currently use the bus frequently. Fairgrounds will probably be the only station with a park-and-ride lot until any extention into Oakland County [[don't count on the extention), so all the other stations will be people walking/biking/bussing to and from them. This is going to be a huge improvement from car-based everything.

I think developers will be less concerned about parking lots once the rail goes through and becomes popular, they know that parking won't matter when 80% of their customers are walking/biking/bussing/or taking the light-rail.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-08-10, 12:33 PM

^^^Well put. It would be a gross mistake to plan, design, and construct a light-rail line predicated on automobile use!

**Detroitnerd** · January-08-10, 12:33 PM

Until we build a successful light rail line in the Detroit area, people are going to fret over it in unnecessary ways. When it's built, a lot of people will realize they were WAY too cautious about what people need to be convinced to use a streetcar. Here's a simple primer.

1) Build the streetcar so it stops within two or three blocks of where they live or where a feeder bus line goes.

2) People get on the streetcar leaving their cars at home, and then shop after work at stores near their stop.

3) Developers build new things because the streetcar is there. Land value rises. Density increases.

4) We try to remember why we were so concerned about meeting ridership goals that were blown away the first month.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-08-10, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Until we build a successful light rail line in the Detroit area, people are going to fret over it in unnecessary ways. When it's built, a lot of people will realize they were WAY too cautious about what people need to be convinced to use a streetcar. Here's a simple primer.

1) Build the streetcar so it stops within two or three blocks of where they live or where a feeder bus line goes.

2) People get on the streetcar leaving their cars at home, and then shop after work at stores near their stop.

3) Developers build new things because the streetcar is there. Land value rises. Density increases.

4) We try to remember why we were so concerned about meeting ridership goals that were blown away the first month.

Just keep thinking, "If Houston can do it, so can Detroit!"

**jtf1972** · January-08-10, 03:50 PM

Foxtown - As long as the parking lot king [[he makes buildings into them and makes pizza's that taste like 'em!) is around, we're stuck with the stupid name "Foxtown."

Excellent suggestions though. When NYC built the initial subway line, it was determined that 10 city blocks should be the longest distance between stops. 10 blocks happens to be 1/2 mile.

Personally, I'd prefer to see an elevated line built on Cass up Amsterdam or Baltimore, where it would cut across Woodward to John R. [[in Highland Park cut between the shopping center & the industrial building at Manchester) then up to McNichols where it would move to Woodward. Eventually this could be replaced by an actual underground Woodward line south of McNichols. I like to dream.

**Detroitnerd** · January-08-10, 03:55 PM

Why are people determined to build elevated railways here? New York City tore the last of its els out in 1938.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-08-10, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Why are people determined to build elevated railways here? New York City tore the last of its els out in 1938.

Because:

1. For some reason, people think elevated railways are cheap to construct and
2. They have this stupid-ass paradigm in their heads that transit is okay, *as long as it doesn't dare compromise my ability to drive my car down the wide-open road at 1000 mph*.

**jtf1972** · January-08-10, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Why are people determined to build elevated railways here? New York City tore the last of its els out in 1938.

That is untrue. I ride the 4 train practically every day. It is elevated through most of the Bronx. There are many sections of the subway that use elevated track. Underground is preferable, but costs a great deal more to construct. With an elevated line you don't have the obvious problems at-grade crossings produce.

Whatever is done, they should use standardized cars, tracks & equipment. Learn from the mistakes SEMTA made with the People Mover.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-08-10, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by jtf1972

That is untrue. I ride the 4 train practically every day. It is elevated through most of the Bronx. There are many sections of the subway that use elevated track. Underground is preferable, but costs a great deal more to construct. With an elevated line you don't have the obvious problems at-grade crossings produce.

Whatever is done, they should use standardized cars, tracks & equipment. Learn from the mistakes SEMTA made with the People Mover.

I think he meant that Manhattan removed the last of its els in 1938 [[As I understand it, the last section of the Third Avenue El in Manhattan was removed in 1955. It was supposed to remain until the Second Avenue Subway was constructed).

Bear in mind that Detroit is not building a grade-separated heavy rail system, which would not be justifiable given the construction costs and population density along the Woodward corridor. It's not an "el or subway" project. It will be at-grade light rail, with lateral separation from automobile traffic.

**Detroitnerd** · January-08-10, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by jtf1972

That is untrue. I ride the 4 train practically every day. It is elevated through most of the Bronx. There are many sections of the subway that use elevated track. Underground is preferable, but costs a great deal more to construct. With an elevated line you don't have the obvious problems at-grade crossings produce.

Sorry jtf1972, I meant to say Manhattan. Slip of the keys.

Originally Posted by jtf1972

Whatever is done, they should use standardized cars, tracks & equipment. Learn from the mistakes SEMTA made with the People Mover.

Yes, just build light rail on the ground and don't get some boutique system.

**jtf1972** · January-09-10, 05:41 AM

I realize that my personal preference for an elevated line [[which isn't happening) is based on experience here in NYC. I do not have any experience with light rail as is proposed, and I hope does become a reality. My thoughts on this is that long-term a subway is preferable to a light-rail system. It was mentioned that in Manhattan there are no elevated lines [[untrue also, as the 1 train is elevated at 125th St. and again once it gets up to Inwood.) Manhattan doesn't have at-grade crossings. I'm happy to see something getting done, but I'd prefer to see something that is seen as a first step, with more to come. I fear this will be yet another flawed project that is designed to fail or impede further progress.

Hopefully this will connect with free transfers to the People Mover [[and that can be renamed to something more proper and descriptive such as "The Downtown Loop") and be successful enough that more lines will be build to feed this main artery. I just want this to succeed.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-09-10, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by jtf1972

I realize that my personal preference for an elevated line [[which isn't happening) is based on experience here in NTC. I do not have any experience with light rail as is proposed, and I hope does become a reality. My thoughts on this is that long-term a subway is preferable to a light-rail system. It was mentioned that in Manhattan there are no elevated lines [[untrue also, as the 1 train is elevated at 125th St. and again once it gets up to Inwood.) Manhattan doesn't have at-grade crossings. I'm happy to see something getting done, but I'd prefer to see something that is seen as a first step, with more to come. I fear this will be yet another flawed project that is designed to fail or impede further progress.

Hopefully this will connect with free transfers to the People Mover [[and that can be renamed to something more proper and descriptive such as "The Downtown Loop") and be successful enough that more lines will be build to feed this main artery. I just want this to succeed.

The need to have transit succeed in Detroit is precisely why the Woodward Line will be light rail, and not heavy rail. A light rail line can be built for $40 million / mile or so, whereas heavy rail would cost five times as much [[Look at the Second Avenue Subway construction). The ridership needed to justify a heavy rail line is about equivalent to the ridership of the entire existing DDOT bus system--it would be complete overkill.

**tkelly1986** · January-09-10, 11:47 AM

I am kind of confused about the timetable and the combination of the DDOT and M1 plans. I understand that the 1st phase, which is funded by M1, but compatible with DDOT will go from Hart Plaza to Midtown/Grand River and the extension [[second phase) to 8 mile/Fairgrounds; correct so far? Anyway, if this second phase is funded by the matching funds, how soon after the first phase stars will this one break ground? Will there be a lag of some years or could this entire line [[Hart Plaza to 8 mile) feasibly be constructed at the same time?

**professorscott** · January-09-10, 11:56 AM

The private portion of the line, which is calling itself M1 Rail, can be constructed pretty quickly since it is not using Federal funds. The public portion which DDOT has studied and is referred to as "DTOGS" [[which was the name of the study) is using Federal funds and so will have to go through the Federal Transit Administration "New Starts" program, which takes several years.

So the two parts can't be constructed at one time unless the backers of the private portion want to wait for the public portion to be ready to build, and I doubt that is the case.

**Gsgeorge** · January-09-10, 12:24 PM

But I guess the big question is -- is this happening FOR SURE? And if so, when will construction start?

**casscorridor** · January-09-10, 12:38 PM

I think DTOGS should be really close to finishing. Let's say the M1 [[private) section begins in June and is completed 18 months later in December 2011. I cant see how the extention would not be ready by then... could it not be built right after the first section opens? Would the second part take 18 months too? That would put it around summer 2013 for final completion. I was hoping for a third phase by then down Jefferson hopefully.

As far as heavy rail elevated of underground, I think Woodward corridor could justify it. I have a feeling the light-rail will be at capacity relatively quickly. Hopefully it will have short headways. Maybe in 20 or 30 years it can be upgraded to elevated/underground metro.

One last point: I wish this was being built as a system from the start, rather than 1 line at a time with no real plans for expansion. Built along Michigan, Jefferson, Grand River, Gratiot and Fort and end at Grand Blvd. Phase two can take us to the city limits. Then we would have a REAL system, not one line per decade.

Bearinabox · January-09-10, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

One last point: I wish this was being built as a system from the start, rather than 1 line at a time with no real plans for expansion. Built along Michigan, Jefferson, Grand River, Gratiot and Fort and end at Grand Blvd. Phase two can take us to the city limits. Then we would have a REAL system, not one line per decade.

The whole point of rapid transit is that it covers longer distances relatively quickly and efficiently. If the city stopped at the Boulevard, an all-bus system would be perfectly adequate. Still, if you have a viable plan for funding five more rail lines in the immediate future, I'm sure DDOT would be happy to hear you out.