"Golden Triangle" a golden joke?

[Detroitnerd]

If we implemented every wet dream that every transit activist has put forth in the last 10 years or so, Detroit would still have 30%+ unemployment and the state would still be looking at 15% overall. Why? because michigan and detroit are run by dullards who think that at some point the factories will start hiring again and everything will be alright so there is no need to change how Michigan does business. The state is wedded to one industry and to jobs that are NOT COMING BACK. The only 'new' industry we've managed to attract here only came with a 45% tax credit....and as soon as that is nixed, which is apparently going to be soon, we can all say goodbye to those snazzy new studios in Allen Park.

I sometimes think people are happy living next to a disinvested city because it confirms their political point of view, whether these are views about Democrats, minorities, cities or transit at all. Unfortunately, the rest of the country sees it more as it is: regional failure.

[bailey]

I sometimes think people are happy living next to a disinvested city because it confirms their political point of view, whether these are views about Democrats, minorities, cities or transit at all. Unfortunately, the rest of the country sees it more as it is: regional failure.

You did read that part where I said "Michigan" too right?

[Detroitnerd]

You did read that part where I said "Michigan" too right?

Yeah, I'm not necessarily talking about you, Bailey, though your remarks call the type of person to mind. I mean, what's the difference, really? Too often the regional solution to our regional problems is to throw up one's hands, say there's no answer, and rely on the unsatisfactory status quo, isn't it?

[ghettopalmetto]

Yeah, I'm not necessarily talking about you, Bailey, though your remarks call the type of person to mind. I mean, what's the difference, really? Too often the regional solution to our regional problems is to throw up one's hands, say there's no answer, and rely on the unsatisfactory status quo, isn't it?

I do not think, however, that $900 million for buses with sexy paint jobs is any kind of "solution".

[Stosh]

I am just appalled at the people here sometimes. Pissing contests about transit... I mean, just wow.

Let me join in, if you all don't mind.

First off, transit won't save Detroit. It's a means to an end, just like any other transportation choice that is made by anyone. There actually has to be a destination in mind when using any kind of transit opportunity. Detroit is economically disadvantaged due to it's regressive tax structure. Once that is repaired, there may [[or not) be investment around these rail lines.

The investment would be in private homes as well as businesses. Given the current situation in Detroit [[and elsewhere), I'd be hard pressed to open a business in the area that sells something that could be carried off. It's an epidemic of some proportion, and is hurting investement anywhere. To suppose that transit line will magically change things is incredible, to say the least.

And lastly, every single one of these supposed rail lines has a bus line currently running on it excepting M 59. Does that improve the business climate and attract ridership? Even Chene street has a bus line, and look at that situation.

I applaud them for putting those lines in. Where they are. And they should improve the bus service down the rest of the arteries, like they ORIGINALLY planned for when DARTA was axed.

[Fury13]

...michigan and detroit are run by dullards who think that at some point the factories will start hiring again and everything will be alright so there is no need to change how Michigan does business. The state is wedded to one industry and to jobs that are NOT COMING BACK.

Ah yes... see the "Toyota's Woes" thread.

[Detroitnerd]

I do not think, however, that $900 million for buses with sexy paint jobs is any kind of "solution".

Loud and clear, GP. Don't get me wrong; I'm opposed to this half-measure, which is poorly disguised as a bold plan. It has all the things we don't need: buses, "mass" transit in low-density, car-formed areas, "flexibility," dedicated right-of-way, etc. This plan is a stinker, and the only reason they're proposing it here, in my opinion, is because it's a giveaway to the road lobbies and the electorate is still relatively uninformed about or intimidated by mass transit.

As for "bickering" about modalities, different modes of transit are like different "tools" in a toolbox. They help create things. Light-rail helps create density along thoroughfares. Buses are good feeder vehicles. Heavy rail supports a commuter population. Good streets and urban design standards make walking a pleasure. Arguing over modes is important, not a pissing contest.

Unfortunately, our local leaders are determined to keep using anything but the "right" tools for each individual job. I will not cheer because they are reaching for a different tool if it isn't the right one. Disagree? Well, try sawing a clean plank with a ball peen hammer, then get back to me.

[Stosh]

Loud and clear, GP. Don't get me wrong; I'm opposed to this half-measure, which is poorly disguised as a bold plan. It has all the things we don't need: buses, "mass" transit in low-density, car-formed areas, "flexibility," dedicated right-of-way, etc. This plan is a stinker, and the only reason they're proposing it here, in my opinion, is because it's a giveaway to the road lobbies and the electorate is still relatively uninformed about or intimidated by mass transit.

As for "bickering" about modalities, different modes of transit are like different "tools" in a toolbox. They help create things. Light-rail helps create density along thoroughfares. Buses are good feeder vehicles. Heavy rail supports a commuter population. Good streets and urban design standards make walking a pleasure. Arguing over modes is important, not a pissing contest.

Unfortunately, our local leaders are determined to keep using anything but the "right" tools for each individual job. I will not cheer because they are reaching for a different tool if it isn't the right one. Disagree? Well, try sawing a clean plank with a ball peen hammer, then get back to me.

And a one size fit's all approach won't work either. Busses are a needed component of this, we cannot AFFORD to put down miles of track to make you happy.

And have you ever lived in close proximity to a train track? Better get some earplugs.

[Detroitnerd]

And a one size fit's all approach won't work either. Busses are a needed component of this, we cannot AFFORD to put down miles of track to make you happy.

We have a one-size-fits-all approach right now: We use our cars for everything and let a few underfunded bus companies move the poor.

Yes, buses are a necessary component: They make excellent feeder vehicles, bringing riders to the light-rail-served thoroughfares.

Haha. Oh, this is all about my "happiness." Nice try, Stosh. That is the most useless remark I've heard in debate in some time. Romper Room is down the hall ...

[Stosh]

We have a one-size-fits-all approach right now: We use our cars for everything and let a few underfunded bus companies move the poor.

Yes, buses are a necessary component: They make excellent feeder vehicles, bringing riders to the light-rail-served thoroughfares.

Haha. Oh, this is all about my "happiness." Nice try, Stosh. That is the most useless remark I've heard in debate in some time. Romper Room is down the hall ...

Well yes, it seems to be. You are the one whining about the uselessness of the plan as it is. Try running for office and change it if you don't like it. Posting on a message board is probably the least effective method of change imaginable.

Edit: And yes, your, and others, happiness. Most people here think that trolleys and their ilk are a do all and end all method of transport.

And who is debating you? You actually have a point that you wish to get across? Maybe you should state it more clearly. First you state that you don't need busses, then you say that you do. Go back to your original post and re read it.

Romper room? Lord... that's all you have?

[Hermod]

If you want to experiment with consumer demand for radial rapid transit, you could have heavy rail commuter service along Woodward from Pontiac to Detroit and along Gratiot from Port Huron to Detroit using the CN/GTW tracks which closely parallel those streets.

[Stosh]

If you want to experiment with consumer demand for radial rapid transit, you could have heavy rail commuter service along Woodward from Pontiac to Detroit and along Gratiot from Port Huron to Detroit using the CN/GTW tracks which closely parallel those streets.

Precisely. I am assuming that is the AMTRAK train that plows through Ferndale empty most days...

[Detroitnerd]

Well yes, it seems to be. You are the one whining about the uselessness of the plan as it is. Try running for office and change it if you don't like it. Posting on a message board is probably the least effective method of change imaginable.

Edit: And yes, your, and others, happiness. Most people here think that trolleys and their ilk are a do all and end all method of transport.

And who is debating you? You actually have a point that you wish to get across? Maybe you should state it more clearly. First you state that you don't need busses, then you say that you do. Go back to your original post and re read it.

Romper room? Lord... that's all you have?

So, um, were you the one complaining about pissing contests? The restroom is also down the hall ...

[Stosh]

So, um, were you the one complaining about pissing contests? The restroom is also down the hall ...

And I thought that this was the "Golden Triangle" thread. Showers are down the hall as well.

And yes, I mentioned the pissing contests... but I also said I would join in. Re read my original post.

[Detroitnerd]

If you want to experiment with consumer demand for radial rapid transit, you could have heavy rail commuter service along Woodward from Pontiac to Detroit and along Gratiot from Port Huron to Detroit using the CN/GTW tracks which closely parallel those streets.

Wouldn't that be a lousy experiment though? You'd have it all stacked against you. Even Amtrak doesn't have priority on those lines, let alone some new authority. When did they end that commuter train, 1983?

[kraig]

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...02079976/1069#

About the "golden triangle" proposal
• Total cost: $927 million [[$52 million planning, $875 million capital)

• Funding source: 80 percent federal, 20 percent state/local for capital costs; some type of local/regional tax and state appropriation for operating costs

• Timeline: 69-72 months

• Length: 67.3 miles in three segments:

Woodward Avenue corridor — Grand Boulevard to M-59 [[19.5 miles, $15 million in planning costs and $253.5 million in capital costs)

Gratiot Avenue corridor — Woodward to M-59 [[23.5 miles, $18 million, $305.5 million)

M-59 corridor — Gratiot to Woodward [[24.3 miles, $19 million, $315.9 million)

• A segment of Woodward from Gratiot to Grand Boulevard would be served by a separate light line service.

• Corridors would use reserved traffic lanes with signal priority.

• There would be passenger stations with tickets and route info. If the routes use dedicated lanes in the median, there would be 60 stations. Curbside lanes would need 120 stations.

• Backers said the corridors would create 20,000 new jobs with $900 million in payroll, 7,000 new housing units and $1.3 billion in new development value.

• Supporters also predict $160 million in new annual retail sales because of the lines and $60 million in new state and local tax revenue.

Source: Macomb County


PLEASE TELL ME WHY THERE IS SO MUCH EMPHASIS ON M-59?

What I keep thinking is that yet again, we have a few rich ass powerful elites that have no idea what they are doing. It's like they picked M-59 out of a hat or something. There are corridors that need to come first, most importantly light-rail on Jefferson Ave. Michigan Ave and Grand River Ave would also come first. And Fort Street.

The problem with M-59 is that it is completely suburban for the entire route, and currently some parts don't have buses at all, and the parts that do are extremely infrequent. 99.9 percent of trips are done in car. Contrast this with Jefferson Ave, where there is high-density housing, a 24 hour route that runs ever 20 minutes, that crosses many other routes, runs parallel to other routes, and also is served by SMART routes.

I am not against bus service improving for the far flung suburbs, but why does such a route as M-59 get so much priority when there are other corridors which already have way more daily riders, and would have a much greater impact. Service can still be improved on M-59, but is bus rapid transit necessary?

How many people are going to be willing to walk a miles from their McMansion and their subdivision to get to this transit route? I doubt many. I think a much better alternative is focusing money on inner-city rail for Detroit and some inner suburbs, and commuter/regional rail for the suburbs and exurbs and close by cities.

Why not run a commuter rail up to M-59 and have a station there, with regular 'ol local buses serving as feeders? Why do we need this "BRT" thing that no one is going to use??

I think a route that needs BRT wayyyyy more is Grand River Ave, which has a bus running every 10 minutes, sometimes 5 minutes during rush hour. A dedicated lane and traffic signal priority would help this route that THOUSANDS of people ride every day.... how many people ride from the M-59 area? A dozen total?

The route has to sufficiently serve the City of Detroit along with Wayne, Macomb and Oakland Counties in order to have the buy in needed. The route chosen also runs parallel with I-75, I -94 and I-696. Between those three areas, the volume of traffic on average is easily between 200-500,000 vehicles per day. That kind of traffic volume makes a whole lot of sense for the price tag of 927 million. Which could be considered a bargain when compared with a project like the DRIC that is currently price tagged at 5 billion and will only serve about 10,000 vehicles per day.

[ghettopalmetto]

The route has to sufficiently serve the City of Detroit along with Wayne, Macomb and Oakland Counties in order to have the buy in needed. The route chosen also runs parallel with I-75, I -94 and I-696. Between those three areas, the volume of traffic on average is easily between 200-500,000 vehicles per day. That kind of traffic volume makes a whole lot of sense for the price tag of 927 million. Which could be considered a bargain when compared with a project like the DRIC that is currently price tagged at 5 billion and will only serve about 10,000 vehicles per day.

WHY OH WHY do people insist on thinking of transit in terms of moving cars???

[Detroitnerd]

WHY OH WHY do people insist on thinking of transit in terms of moving cars???

Because, to the untrained eye, you figure, "Well, there are lots of CARS on this road, so it only makes sense it would be a good fit for TRANSIT here."

I do agree, though, it is odd that the very same people who champion cars for their ability to offer point-to-point transportation simply don't take that into account when they see vehicles-per-hour figures for a trunk or connector road.

[Stosh]

Because, to the untrained eye, you figure, "Well, there are lots of CARS on this road, so it only makes sense it would be a good fit for TRANSIT here."

I do agree, though, it is odd that the very same people who champion cars for their ability to offer point-to-point transportation simply don't take that into account when they see vehicles-per-hour figures for a trunk or connector road.

It would only make sense for them to have the transit where the cars are, since that is where all the present development is now. Makes sense huh?

[kraig]

WHY OH WHY do people insist on thinking of transit in terms of moving cars???

I'm not thinking in terms of cars. You can't pitch a project of this magnitude and not illustrate who the potentials riders would be. You're pitching the area and those that are in the area. You then make comparisons with other projects to show your terms of scale, in order to illustrate the soundness of the investment. Telling any money person that they can serve 20 times as many people for 20% of the cost, works.

[kraig]

It would only make sense for them to have the transit where the cars are, since that is where all the present development is now. Makes sense huh?

It makes sense to sensible people. I think a couple of people posting here would be happy to design a "transit line to nowhere".

[ghettopalmetto]

It would only make sense for them to have the transit where the cars are, since that is where all the present development is now. Makes sense huh?

No, it does not make sense. There are lots of cars that drive through the I-75 / I-696 interchange. Does that make it the ideal location for a transit station?

Our roadway and air networks were not designed with considerations for the train systems that existed at the time. Why should the converse apply?

It's very simple: Transit networks need to connect nodes of activity. These nodes of activity need to be accessible to pedestrians, who board and alight transit vehicles on foot.

Trying to configure a transit network based on the existing Interstate highway system just introduces unneeded complexity that is sure to distort the focus, intent, and effectiveness of the transit network.

[Detroitnerd]

I'm not thinking in terms of cars. You can't pitch a project of this magnitude and not illustrate who the potentials riders would be. You're pitching the area and those that are in the area. You then make comparisons with other projects to show your terms of scale, in order to illustrate the soundness of the investment. Telling any money person that they can serve 20 times as many people for 20% of the cost, works.

I think I see where you're coming from, but I still beg to differ. You want "buy-in" from the suburbs. I think that's a logical thing to want.

But the cost of this plan is that we'd have to water the idea of mass transit to the point where we're no longer building mass transit, we're building some glorified bus system!

What's wrong with that? Well, when you run a bus system through Detroit, you are not demonstrating to the developers [[the people we are hoping will spend billions of dollars to build new, denser developments) the same level of commitment to providing transit that goes with laying rail. What's more, you forestall the possibility of real light rail, and, still worse, will likely have a failure that future mass transit advocates will have to overcome. [["What? They want to build a transit system? That last one didn't work!")

And what do the suburbs get out of the bargain? It's a fig leaf for expanding Hall Road, a salve for the conscience of every motorist who sees it, as they never stop driving and use it. For the same reasons outlined above, it will not attract denser development. So what good is it?

My point being that there are other ways to get "buy-in" on a project, ways that come at a much smaller cost that building something that will sell but won't work.

[kraig]

No, it does not make sense. There are lots of cars that drive through the I-75 / I-696 interchange. Does that make it the ideal location for a transit station?

Our roadway and air networks were not designed with considerations for the train systems that existed at the time. Why should the converse apply?

It's very simple: Transit networks need to connect nodes of activity. These nodes of activity need to be accessible to pedestrians, who board and alight transit vehicles on foot.

Trying to configure a transit network based on the existing Interstate highway system just introduces unneeded complexity that is sure to distort the focus, intent, and effectiveness of the transit network.

So. What kind of nodes are you talking here? Control or Object. How would you design it? Keeping in mind that if you don't satisfy the wants and needs of Detroit, Macomb, Oakland and Wayne, you're project falls into the snowball's chance in hell category.

[Stosh]

No, it does not make sense. There are lots of cars that drive through the I-75 / I-696 interchange. Does that make it the ideal location for a transit station?

Our roadway and air networks were not designed with considerations for the train systems that existed at the time. Why should the converse apply?

It's very simple: Transit networks need to connect nodes of activity. These nodes of activity need to be accessible to pedestrians, who board and alight transit vehicles on foot.

Trying to configure a transit network based on the existing Interstate highway system just introduces unneeded complexity that is sure to distort the focus, intent, and effectiveness of the transit network.

The whole purpose of transit is to transport people between nodes of activity. Due to the automobile, those nodes have gravitated toward the interstate/freeway system, why reinvent the wheel?

And for my money, I would prefer electrified bus lines. They existed here once.