"Golden Triangle" a golden joke?

[jcole]

So a Sterling Heights resident is going to drive 5 miles to a bus stop on Hall Road, ride the bus down the road a couple more miles, and then walk at least 1/2 mile to their destination in an environment completely inhospitable to pedestrians?

Yeah, that's worth 300 million bucks.

Why would the environment have to be completely inhospitable to pedestrians. I'm sure there are a great number of people who live in Mount Clemens and work at Lakeside or Partridge Creek that would love to not have to fight the traffic on Hall Rd everyday. I'm also sure there are people in Romeo who wouldn't mind driving down to M-59 and Van Dyke to catch a ride over to Oakland County [[Auburn Hills, Rochester, etc)and then pick up a car pool at the park and ride to get to their office.
Just a couple examples.

[ghettopalmetto]

A lot of people on here have suggested that a park and ride lot at the Fairgrounds would never attract suburban riders to a Woodward rail line. Usually the rationale goes something like "once you're in your car, why not just keep going?"

I guess most people aren't aware that SMART already operates several park-and-ride routes [[explicitly designated as such) that serve downtown commuters from the northwestern and downriver suburbs, and nobody seems to have trouble with those. Except apparently those routes don't really exist because Hermod says nobody actually works downtown anymore...sorry, I'm being sarcastic again, aren't I? Hard to resist sometimes.

Nobody works downtown anymore because nobody lives in Detroit proper anymore.

[Stosh]

A lot of people on here have suggested that a park and ride lot at the Fairgrounds would never attract suburban riders to a Woodward rail line. Usually the rationale goes something like "once you're in your car, why not just keep going?"

I guess most people aren't aware that SMART already operates several park-and-ride routes [[explicitly designated as such) that serve downtown commuters from the northwestern and downriver suburbs, and nobody seems to have trouble with those. Except apparently those routes don't really exist because Hermod says nobody actually works downtown anymore...sorry, I'm being sarcastic again, aren't I? Hard to resist sometimes.

While I don't work downtown, I have taken public transportation in the past to events there. Park and ride is an option to me. Better yet, walk, ride [[bus) to the station, then ride the rails downtown. which is why a dependable BUS service is important, and a timely, rail component could be possible.

One question I would have is this... what happens to the Woodward and Gratiot bus lines once said transportation system is installed... anyone?

[ghettopalmetto]

Why would the environment have to be completely inhospitable to pedestrians.

The environment doesn't have to be completely inhospitable to pedestrians, but it is. Thank MDOT and local zoning regulations for that. When you drive down Hall Road, how many people do you see on foot versus the number of cars screaming down the highway?

I'm sure there are a great number of people who live in Mount Clemens and work at Lakeside or Partridge Creek that would love to not have to fight the traffic on Hall Rd everyday. I'm also sure there are people in Romeo who wouldn't mind driving down to M-59 and Van Dyke to catch a ride over to Oakland County [[Auburn Hills, Rochester, etc)and then pick up a car pool at the park and ride to get to their office.
Just a couple examples.

Anyone know what the ridership of the current SMART 559 route is? Is this a service that can justify a $300 million paint job?

Jcole, let us know the results of your field research.

[jcole]

The environment doesn't have to be completely hospitable to pedestrians, but it is. Thank MDOT and local zoning regulations for that. When you drive down Hall Road, how many people do you see on foot versus the number of cars screaming down the highway?




Anyone know what the ridership of the current SMART 559 route is? Is this a service that can justify a $300 million paint job?

Jcole, let us know the results of your field research.

You know, I'm pretty sure there are sections of Detroit that are 'completely inhospitable to pedestrians' too.
Next time you come up to Detroit or even Michigan, let me know how your field research goes.

[ghettopalmetto]

You know, I'm pretty sure there are sections of Detroit that are 'completely inhospitable to pedestrians' too.
Next time you come up to Detroit or even Michigan, let me know how your field research goes.

In summary, here's the point I'm trying to make:

The existing SMART 559 that runs on M59 is a Monday-through-Friday rush-hour-only service. This hardly seems the place to start major transit improvements costing hundreds of millions of dollars. In sections, M59 is damn near Interstate Highway standards of construction. Nobody in their right mind is going to navigate that area on foot, let alone wait for a bus to transport them to their next Herculean hike. I don't know why you find this so incomprehensible.

I went without a car for three years. I know what it's like to navigate automobile-oriented areas on foot, what it does to the psyche, and how horribly inefficient it is. If you wish to support a $300 million investment in pretty buses for Hall Road, at least be man enough to undertake the cause you support to see first-hand of what you write.

Transit improvements need to begin where there is already a ridership base, and that is in the urban core. DDOT, as incomplete as its system may be, transports more than 3 times as many people within the city limits as SMART does in the remaining tri-county area.

Trying to accommodate every possible commute in an area as sprawling and automobile-dependent as Southeast Michigan is a recipe for failure, plain and simple.

[Stosh]

In summary, here's the point I'm trying to make:

The existing SMART 559 that runs on M59 is a Monday-through-Friday rush-hour-only service. This hardly seems the place to start major transit improvements costing hundreds of millions of dollars. In sections, M59 is damn near Interstate Highway standards of construction. Nobody in their right mind is going to navigate that area on foot, let alone wait for a bus to transport them to their next Herculean hike. I don't know why you find this so incomprehensible.

Transit improvements need to begin where there is already a ridership base, and that is in the urban core. DDOT, as incomplete as its system may be, transports more than 3 times as many people within the city limits as SMART does in the remaining tri-county area.

Trying to accommodate every possible commute in an area as sprawling and automobile-dependent as Southeast Michigan is a recipe for failure, plain and simple.

So what happened to the "if they build it, density will come" theory? Just because it's not in Detroit, suddenly it's a bad thing? It's amazing to me how hypocritical this post is. There ARE other people here in the region you know... maybe when you come up here you can figure that out, like Jcole said..

And just for your information, has anyone here ever considered right of way issues? Think of a better spot for this then, if you have any ideas.

[ghettopalmetto]

So what happened to the "if they build it, density will come" theory? Just because it's not in Detroit, suddenly it's a bad thing? It's amazing to me how hypocritical this post is.

What happened to the "If they build it, density will come" theory?

1. Hall Road is an eight-lane highway, with portions up to ten lanes and divided, and high speed limits for automobiles. Nothing about the roadway geometry is conducive to pedestrian traffic.

Compare these two locations:

A. M59 and M53: http://tinyurl.com/ykvclt7
B. Woodward and Grand Boulevard: http://tinyurl.com/ykauu9l


2. Sidewalks? Got 'em?

3. Creating density along the M59 corridor would require BILLIONS of dollars of investment--including demolition of thousands of existing structures--and a complete overhaul of local zoning regulations.

4. BUSES. DO. NOT. CREATE. DENSITY. This is due to their lack of permanence. Not even pretty $300 million buses are going to do a damned thing to change this.

[Stosh]

What happened to the "If they build it, density will come" theory?

1. Hall Road is an eight-lane highway, with portions up to ten lanes and divided, and high speed limits for automobiles. Nothing about the roadway geometry is conducive to pedestrian traffic.

Compare these two locations:

A. M59 and M53: http://tinyurl.com/ykvclt7
B. Woodward and Grand Boulevard: http://tinyurl.com/ykauu9l


2. Sidewalks? Got 'em?

3. Creating density along the M59 corridor would require BILLIONS of dollars of investment--including demolition of thousands of existing structures--and a complete overhaul of local zoning regulations.

4. BUSES. DO. NOT. CREATE. DENSITY. This is due to their lack of permanence. Not even pretty $300 million buses are going to do a damned thing to change this.

In response to #4:
WHO.GIVES.A.SHIT?

There are people that live out there. Their tax dollars are to be answered for.
Where are yours?

[dtowncitylover]

Would you rather ride a school bus or a charter bus? Would you rather ride a SMART/DDOT bus or a BRT bus? Would you rather stand at a pole, subject to the elements or inside a station or covered over? IMO, it's as easy as that. SMART/DDOT buses do not create density. BRT buses are not regular buses. Attractiveness is what it's all about. Yes, there will be rail, but why not be a pioneer is BRT? Cleveland, Boston, Philly all have running BRT, and they seem have kept it. Ottawa has a highly successful BRT system.

I'll be honest in saying I don't think M-59 will work. How 'bout just starting a Gratiot line busway? Woodward should have light rail, then connect the two via Big Beaver/Metro Pkwy. M-59 is freeway, not a transit route.

[ghettopalmetto]

In response to #4:
WHO.GIVES.A.SHIT?

There are people that live out there. Their tax dollars are to be answered for.
Where are yours?

So the answer is to squander hundreds of millions of dollars on a service that will remain permanently irrelevant in that location?

Why not just build a rocket launchpad? That'll spend tax dollars too, right?

I'll remind you that those people in that area CHOSE to live in an automobile-oriented environment. Now you want to throw buses at them. Terrific.

[Stosh]

So the answer is to squander hundreds of millions of dollars on a service that will remain permanently irrelevant in that location?

Why not just build a rocket launchpad? That'll spend tax dollars too, right?

I'll remind you that those people in that area CHOSE to live in an automobile-oriented environment. Now you want to throw buses at them. Terrific.

Somehow, I dont feel that will remain irrelevant long. Nice thing about that is, if ridership don't match expectations, they can always move the busses elsewhere. Not so much for the trolleys.

I like rockets, by the way. I think it's a great idea. You first.

Those people chose to live where they do because of factors as varied as there are grains of sand on a beach. You are as myopic as they come in this regard. It might surprise you when this becomes a more popular bus line. And you obviously haven't heard of transit oriented development. I wonder whether that is more possible there, or in Detroit?

[ghettopalmetto]

BRT buses are not regular buses. Attractiveness is what it's all about. Yes, there will be rail, but why not be a pioneer is BRT? Cleveland, Boston, Philly all have running BRT, and they seem have kept it. Ottawa has a highly successful BRT system.

There is nothing "pioneering" about BRT. It has seen some success in poor third world South American countries where people have no other means of transportation. That success has also occurred with massive crowding that Americans would never tolerate, and strict zoning regulations along BRT corridors, which American localities appear loathe to enact. Even some cities with extensive BRT, like Curitiba, Brazil, are considering construction of rail lines.

BRT *is* regular buses. Go down to Cleveland and ride the Euclid Avenue line. It doesn't run on space dust. It's a regular damned diesel bus, albeit an articulated one. That six-mile line cost $250 million, mind you, most of it for rebuilding Euclid Avenue and installing landscaping. Of course the #6 on Euclid was already RTA's busiest route--it wasn't located in the suburbs in Medina County, which would be the Hall Road analogue.

Ottawa is converting its BRT system to rail. Boston has discussed doing the same. I'm not sure where Philadelphia has this alleged BRT line, but they recently reopened the #15 Girard streetcar line. And they already have an extensive commuter rail system and pedestrian-friendly city.

There is yet no case in the United States where a bus line--even so-called Bus Rapid Transit--increases development in proximity to the transit line.

In short, BRT has all the costs of light rail, and none of the performance. But hey, I'm just one guy with an opinion who studies these things.

[ghettopalmetto]

Somehow, I dont feel that will remain irrelevant long. Nice thing about that is, if ridership don't match expectations, they can always move the busses elsewhere. Not so much for the trolleys.

Flexibility is a negative characteristic as pertains to transportation networks.

The following table is from this link: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm Does the M59 corridor even come close to having 15 dwelling units per acre?


Table 2 Transit Density Requirements [[based on Pushkarev and Zupan 1977)

Mode

Service Type

Minimum Density

[[Dwelling Units Per Acre)

Area and Location

Dial-a-Bus
Demand response serving general public [[not just people with disabilities.

3.5 to 6

Community-wide

“Minimum” Local Bus
1/2-mile route spacing, 20 buses per day

4

Neighborhood

“Intermediate” Local Bus
1/2-mile route spacing, 40 buses per day

7

Neighborhood

“Frequent” Local Bus
1/2-mile route spacing, 120 buses per day

15

Neighborhood

Express Bus – Foot access
Five buses during two-hour peak period

15

Average density over 20-square-mile area within 10 to 15 miles of a large downtown

Express Bus – Auto access
Five to ten buses during two-hour peak period

15

Average density over 20-square-mile tributary area, within 10 to 15 miles of a large downtown

Light Rail
Five minute headways or better during peak hour.

9

Within walking distance of transit line, serving large downtown.

Rapid Transit
Five minute headways or better during peak hour.

12

Within walking distance of transit stations serving large downtown.

Commuter Rail
Twenty trains a day.

1 to 2

Serving very large downtown.

[Stosh]

All I'm seeing here is blah blah blah.

Also using outdated 34 year old ridership standards is rather useless, isnt it?
I mean, come on, you can do better than that. Try SEMCOG for more recent data.
Visiting the site, their words are:

Transit Oriented Development generally requires at least 6 residential units per acre in residential areas and 25 employees per acre in Commercial Centers, and about twice that for premium quality transit, such as rail service

So, in a nutshell, it takes 12 residential units per acre and 50 employees per acre...

I wonder if you can get that number along stretches of Woodward and Gratiot in Detroit?

[ghettopalmetto]

All I'm seeing here is blah blah blah.

Also using outdated 34 year old ridership standards is rather useless, isnt it?
I mean, come on, you can do better than that.

The data is outdated? Please educate me on how the methodology for calculating these metrics has changed since this research was conducted. I want to base my opinion on relevant, factual data, so if you have a methodology that is supported by more recent research, I certainly would be interested.

The table I quoted cites 15 dwelling units per acre as a minimum requirement for frequent bus service, i.e. what is proposed for the M59 corridor. I have seen figures in other sources that require a minimum of 7 dwelling units per acre to justify ANY level of bus service, let alone a $300 million lipsticked pig.

[dtowncitylover]

There is nothing "pioneering" about BRT. It has seen some success in poor third world South American countries where people have no other means of transportation. That success has also occurred with massive crowding that Americans would never tolerate, and strict zoning regulations along BRT corridors, which American localities appear loathe to enact. Even some cities with extensive BRT, like Curitiba, Brazil, are considering construction of rail lines.

BRT *is* regular buses. Go down to Cleveland and ride the Euclid Avenue line. It doesn't run on space dust. It's a regular damned diesel bus, albeit an articulated one. That six-mile line cost $250 million, mind you, most of it for rebuilding Euclid Avenue and installing landscaping. Of course the #6 on Euclid was already RTA's busiest route--it wasn't located in the suburbs in Medina County, which would be the Hall Road analogue.

Ottawa is converting its BRT system to rail. Boston has discussed doing the same. I'm not sure where Philadelphia has this alleged BRT line, but they recently reopened the #15 Girard streetcar line. And they already have an extensive commuter rail system and pedestrian-friendly city.

There is yet no case in the United States where a bus line--even so-called Bus Rapid Transit--increases development in proximity to the transit line.

In short, BRT has all the costs of light rail, and none of the performance. But hey, I'm just one guy with an opinion who studies these things.

Fine there's nothing pioneering, big whoop.

I think must of us here are much more in favor of LRT than BRT, I am.

SEPTA Route 103 is a former streetcar line turned BRT route, called the Admore Busway.

Sorry, I didn't we all had to know that your the transit expert around here. And because of that, while I disagree with some "facts" of yours, I don't feel like debating cause it's pointless [[it's not about development!)

[ghettopalmetto]

Fine there's nothing pioneering, big whoop.

I think must of us here are much more in favor of LRT than BRT, I am.

SEPTA Route 103 is a former streetcar line turned BRT route, called the Admore Busway.

Sorry, I didn't we all had to know that your the transit expert around here. And because of that, while I disagree with some "facts" of yours, I don't feel like debating cause it's pointless [[it's not about development!)

The Ardmore Busway also lost 15% of its ridership once it converted from streetcar to bus, and its operating costs increased due to the need to provide more vehicles [[and operators) to carry the passenger load.

I wouldn't say I'm an expert on transit issues, but I've studied it informally for well over 10 years. With that said, I don't see any indicators that would justify frequent, expensive bus service on the M59 Corridor.

[Stosh]

The data is outdated? Please educate me on how the methodology for calculating these metrics has changed since this research was conducted. I want to base my opinion on relevant, factual data, so if you have a methodology that is supported by more recent research, I certainly would be interested.

The table I quoted cites 15 dwelling units per acre as a minimum requirement for frequent bus service, i.e. what is proposed for the M59 corridor. I have seen figures in other sources that require a minimum of 7 dwelling units per acre to justify ANY level of bus service, let alone a $300 million lipsticked pig.

Try this from 2003. Do some research and report back.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs...p_rpt_90v1.pdf

[dtowncitylover]

The Ardmore Busway also lost 15% of its ridership once it converted from streetcar to bus, and its operating costs increased due to the need to provide more vehicles [[and operators) to carry the passenger load.

I wouldn't say I'm an expert on transit issues, but I've studied it informally for well over 10 years. With that said, I don't see any indicators that would justify frequent, expensive bus service on the M59 Corridor.

Hey, I don't either on the second point.

[ghettopalmetto]

Try this from 2003. Do some research and report back.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs...p_rpt_90v1.pdf

There's a flaw in the "study", in that it only considers existing BRT systems, most of which are far from "rapid" transit. In general, that's half the problem of BRT--politicians tout its performance as equivalent to rail, but in order to get those levels of performance, you need to expend capital costs that approach or exceed the capital costs of light rail, such as dedicated grade-separated right-of-ways.

The clincher for me is the cited average operating speed of 14 mph, which is half the average operating speed of a good rail system.

The Washington, DC study of BRT that the report cites [[Mass Transportation Survey for the National Capital Region, 1956-1959) led to the creation of the Metro system.

[Stosh]

There's a flaw in the "study", in that it only considers existing BRT systems, most of which are far from "rapid" transit. In general, that's half the problem of BRT--politicians tout its performance as equivalent to rail, but in order to get those levels of performance, you need to expend capital costs that approach or exceed the capital costs of light rail, such as dedicated grade-separated right-of-ways.

The clincher for me is the cited average operating speed of 14 mph, which is half the average operating speed of a good rail system.

Are you sure that you are not Trainman? Where's the tax statement?

When you pay taxes here, then I'll listen to your opinions. Until then ...

[ghettopalmetto]

Are you sure that you are not Trainman? Where's the tax statement?

When you pay taxes here, then I'll listen to your opinions. Until then ...

I guess that's why Detroit is the ever-living shit of the earth, then. Y'all already got everything all figured out, and don't need no fancy book learnin or nuttin like that.

[Stosh]

I guess that's why Detroit is the ever-living shit of the earth, then. Y'all already got everything all figured out, and don't need no fancy book learnin or nuttin like that.

Certainly not. Thanks for playing.

It's always nice to get advice from people with a superiority complex and more time on their hands than sense. Priceless...

And also just as special to know how you really feel about the area...

[Bearinabox]

Are you sure that you are not Trainman? Where's the tax statement?

When you pay taxes here, then I'll listen to your opinions. Until then ...

Okay, if we're going to go there: I pay taxes here, so I guess I'm qualified to comment on this. Investing in transit in places where it makes sense to have transit is not some conspiracy to slight Shelby fucking Township. Come on. You're smarter than that.

The M-59 corridor is built for cars. Woodward in the city was built for transit, and then later adapted to cars, and that's why it doesn't work very well as an automobile corridor. Building transit there makes sense. It will allow that area to thrive. Transit on M-59 will always be an afterthought unless the entire road and all the buildings along it are bulldozed and rebuilt from scratch. I don't know of any city that has built a successful transit system by starting in the outer suburbs and completely ignoring the central city and inner ring and every other place with a remotely urban development pattern. It doesn't make sense.