"Golden Triangle" a golden joke?

**Scottathew** · February-10-10, 07:50 AM

I live in the 'Burbs [[Warren). It's very convenient to drive up Mound Road and hit up all the shops at M-59. My wife and I frequently go there.

I would NOT want to see mass transit put on M59. If we're going to spend money there in the future let's expand out the freeway to I-94 in that huge median.

Our top mass transit priority should be to get transit lines going from downtown Detroit to the various suburbs. Woodward obviously needs to be done first, and it needs to be done from downtown all the way to Pontiac. Next I'd love to see Gratiot from downtown to Mount Clemens. Then after that we need to do a line on Jefferson or Fort to go between downtown and downriver.

Those I feel those should be our three priorities, that and a bus system to feed the main lines.

I love the suburbs and grew up there and live there now, but M59 just doesn't make sense to me. We need a strong Detroit to make our region better, and mass transit that can get you downtown FASTER THAN DRIVING is the way to do it. We need light rail that is either elevated, underground, or has dedicated right of way.

This is one of the reasons why mass transit is so popular in other cities, it's actually faster to use it than driving. Folks in the suburbs will not use mass transit if it doubles their commute time. That's why we need to make sure our light rail or trolleys or whatever we do does not compete with street traffic.

**Hermod** · February-10-10, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by 48091

That why we need to make sure our light rail or trolleys or whatever we do does not compete with street traffic.

Light rail will only achieve speed if it is on a private right of way. Street running kills any advantage that rail has over buses.

**Fury13** · February-10-10, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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.

[[[[[[applause)))

**Fury13** · February-10-10, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Light rail will only achieve speed if it is on a private right of way. Street running kills any advantage that rail has over buses.

The solution is to elevate the line, and have it run parallel to the major street route it follows, maybe in an alley a half-block away or above a side street [[again, parallel to a major route). Stations would be accessible from the major street route, with a walkway and stairs up to the platform. This is the model in the Chicago and NYC neighborhoods.

**Fury13** · February-10-10, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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.

That's significant.

BRT will NOT work effectively. People won't ride it, and it will be a huge money pit.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-10-10, 09:01 AM

Thank you for being voices of reason, Bearinabox and 48091.

I think most reasonable people agree with your logic--and if you watched the PBS documentary, you know that such a plan makes perfect sense.

I have this fear that bus "rapid" transit is going to spell doom for transit in Detroit. SEMCOG has spent a lot of time and money already to rehash a failed technology and force it upon the metropolis. It doesn't solve any of the problems that currently plague Detroit's transit system, which include long average trips, high operating costs per passenger mile, low ridership, reliability, and lack of redundancy in the network. I think that by trying to wedge frequent transit service into heavily automobile-oriented areas, you're begging for public money to be wasted, and the taxpayers will never again have confidence in their leaders to establish *reasonable* transit alternatives. Given the current state of Southeastern Michigan, I think it would be a death knell for the region.

I think there is a place for good bus service. It's interesting that all of the "features" of BRT that its supporters tout can be implemented on a regular bus route. There's no reason you can't introduce regular, frequent service. There's no reason you can't build shelters at existing bus stops, and place maps and schedules [[or published frequencies) at those stations. There's no reason you can't introduce pre-payment or smartcard technology for fare collection. There's no reason you can't have traffic signal pre-emption, or dedicated bus lanes. There's no reason you can't have low-floor vehicles with multiple boarding doors. All of this is already possible--you don't need to spend $300 million on a paint job and pretend you're building "rapid" transit in order to take these steps.

The major problems that need to be solved in the transit network are the trip times, operating costs per passenger mile, and reliability of service. Regardless of what SEMCOG thinks, buses aren't going to get this done.

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-10, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Thank you for being voices of reason, Bearinabox and 48091.

I think most reasonable people agree with your logic--and if you watched the PBS documentary, you know that such a plan makes perfect sense.

I have this fear that bus "rapid" transit is going to spell doom for transit in Detroit. SEMCOG has spent a lot of time and money already to rehash a failed technology and force it upon the metropolis. It doesn't solve any of the problems that currently plague Detroit's transit system, which include long average trips, high operating costs per passenger mile, low ridership, reliability, and lack of redundancy in the network. I think that by trying to wedge frequent transit service into heavily automobile-oriented areas, you're begging for public money to be wasted, and the taxpayers will never again have confidence in their leaders to establish *reasonable* transit alternatives. Given the current state of Southeastern Michigan, I think it would be a death knell for the region.

I think there is a place for good bus service. It's interesting that all of the "features" of BRT that its supporters tout can be implemented on a regular bus route. There's no reason you can't introduce regular, frequent service. There's no reason you can't build shelters at existing bus stops, and place maps and schedules [[or published frequencies) at those stations. There's no reason you can't introduce pre-payment or smartcard technology for fare collection. There's no reason you can't have traffic signal pre-emption, or dedicated bus lanes. There's no reason you can't have low-floor vehicles with multiple boarding doors. All of this is already possible--you don't need to spend $300 million on a paint job and pretend you're building "rapid" transit in order to take these steps.

The major problems that need to be solved in the transit network are the trip times, operating costs per passenger mile, and reliability of service. Regardless of what SEMCOG thinks, buses aren't going to get this done.

Well put, GP. I think this is why it's important to get moving on M1, configuration be damned. Once you show what light rail can do, it will be expanded. And an added benefit would be that it will effectively bury the BRT plans. In the meanwhile, I urge everybody to write their representatives and thank them for their interest in transportation alternatives, but tell them to kill this loser plan.

For the most part, a great discussion, folks.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-10-10, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Well put, GP. I think this is why it's important to get moving on M1, configuration be damned. Once you show what light rail can do, it will be expanded. And an added benefit would be that it will effectively bury the BRT plans. In the meanwhile, I urge everybody to write their representatives and thank them for their interest in transportation alternatives, but tell them to kill this loser plan.

For the most part, a great discussion, folks.

I looked at the SEMCOG plan again today, and I found an interesting self-contradiction. SEMCOG cites the long trip averages on the bus network, and the resulting high operating costs. They acknowledge that rail is necessary in order to decrease these operating costs.

But then they do something curious by proposing a 23-mile long "rapid" bus line along an automobile-oriented corridor that approximates an interstate highway in places. How does adding a 23-mile-long bus line decrease trip times and save on operating costs???

**Hermod** · February-10-10, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I looked at the SEMCOG plan again today, and I found an interesting self-contradiction. SEMCOG cites the long trip averages on the bus network, and the resulting high operating costs. They acknowledge that rail is necessary in order to decrease these operating costs.

But then they do something curious by proposing a 23-mile long "rapid" bus line along an automobile-oriented corridor that approximates an interstate highway in places. How does adding a 23-mile-long bus line decrease trip times and save on operating costs???

Are they advocating running the line down the expressway or do they have the bus line jog north to Auburn Road when M59 becomes limited access?

Bearinabox · February-10-10, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Are they advocating running the line down the expressway or do they have the bus line jog north to Auburn Road when M59 becomes limited access?

I don't know the answer to this, but to me that idea makes even less sense than running it along the expressway. At least if it took the expressway it could get from Utica to Pontiac relatively quickly, and maybe pull off to stop at Squirrel for OCC and Chrysler. Auburn Road is a mostly residential two-lane with almost no destinations on it, so it seems like routing it along there would 1) require a major widening project if the BRT is going to have its own lanes, and 2) increase travel time considerably without really increasing ridership.

**Warrenite84** · February-10-10, 12:38 PM

I can understand why they wish to connect "nodes" such as Pontiac and Mt. Clemens with a BRT on M-59.

I would prefer an East-West connector that would have the opportunity to connect more than Pontiac and Mt. Clemens. 12 Mile Rd. would be best because it would connect [[within one mile either side of the line), Jefferson Ave., Macomb Mall, Macomb Community College, Downtown Warren, The GM Tech Center, all the businesses at the Tank Plant property, Clawson/Royal Oak, The Zoo, and several other points West.

Some would argue that 8 Mile or 16 Mile or Telegraph would be better but I see why they wanted as large a triangle as possible so transit could grow inward and outward from the bones of this plan.

Stosh · February-10-10, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Warrenite84

I can understand why they wish to connect "nodes" such as Pontiac and Mt. Clemens with a BRT on M-59.

I would prefer an East-West connector that would have the opportunity to connect more than Pontiac and Mt. Clemens. 12 Mile Rd. would be best because it would connect [[within one mile either side of the line), Jefferson Ave., Macomb Mall, Macomb Community College, Downtown Warren, The GM Tech Center, all the businesses at the Tank Plant property, Clawson/Royal Oak, The Zoo, and several other points West.

Some would argue that 8 Mile or 16 Mile or Telegraph would be better but I see why they wanted as large a triangle as possible so transit could grow inward and outward from the bones of this plan.

You are wasting your time attempting to explain this to these people.
They obviously know far more about this subject than you and I.
They all must have stayed at a Holiday Inn express the past few days.

Bearinabox · February-10-10, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Stosh

You are wasting your time attempting to explain this to these people.
They obviously know far more about this subject than you and I.
They all must have stayed at a Holiday Inn express the past few days.

Explain what to us? Why improved transit on 12 Mile makes more sense than on M-59? I completely agree with that. The SMART 740 is actually a pretty useful route, and it's a shame that its service isn't better. I still think that the spoke roads in and out of downtown should be the top priority, and then maybe 7 Mile because of all the bunching and overcrowding issues, but 12 Mile is a better candidate than most for some sort of upgrade.

Stosh · February-10-10, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

Explain what to us? Why improved transit on 12 Mile makes more sense than on M-59? I completely agree with that. The SMART 740 is actually a pretty useful route, and it's a shame that its service isn't better. I still think that the spoke roads in and out of downtown should be the top priority, and then maybe 7 Mile because of all the bunching and overcrowding issues, but 12 Mile is a better candidate than most for some sort of upgrade.

That connector makes sense, as Warrenite has stated, since it connects two of the major cities in Oakland and Macomb counties, not to mention the county seats of both.

You think that I'd not like to see improved service along all feeder lines? I can't think of anyone that would not. But that wasn't under discussion previously. Bring back the DARTA concept.

Bearinabox · February-10-10, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Stosh

That connector makes sense, as Warrenite has stated, since it connects two of the major cities in Oakland and Macomb counties, not to mention the county seats of both.

Do people commonly go back and forth between the two? For all the harping going on in this thread about how nobody ever commutes in and out of downtown, I'd wager there's a hell of a lot more of that going on than commutes between Pontiac and Mt. Clemens. Most folks I know from central Oakland County couldn't find Mt. Clemens if their lives depended on it.

**Scottathew** · February-10-10, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

Do people commonly go back and forth between the two? For all the harping going on in this thread about how nobody ever commutes in and out of downtown, I'd wager there's a hell of a lot more of that going on than commutes between Pontiac and Mt. Clemens. Most folks I know from central Oakland County couldn't find Mt. Clemens if their lives depended on it.

It's on Van Dyke, right? jkjk

I agree, with the knowledge that I have, I don't think we currently need a Pontiac-Mt. Clemens bus line.

The absolute priority is to get a light rail system on the spokes. Connecting Pontiac and Detroit [[and all the communities inbetween) is much more desirable. And if you connect Detroit with Pontiac and Mt. Clemens with a real light rail system I bet you could get between Pontiac and Mt. Clemens [[via Detroit) faster than a bus could get you directly between the two.

The company I work for is relocating the office I work in to downtown. I one day want to live further north in the nice 'burb [[Troy\Royal Oak\Clawson area). If there was a Woodward light rail line and I worked in downtown I most certainly wouldn't mind walking or bussing to Woodward and then riding downtown.

**dtowncitylover** · February-10-10, 02:26 PM

Excuse me if I'm mistaken but light rail isn't for a long distance haul like Detroit-Pontiac, or Detroit-Mt. Clemens. That's what commuter rail is for. I could see a Woodward Line to 11 Mile [[the 1980s SEMTA plan had it going to 11 Mile) or to even to Birmingham and the Gratiot Line to 8 Mile. Pontiac can be a stop en route to Flint and Mt. Clemens can be a stop en route to Port Huron. I wouldn't be against LRT lines ending in Pontiac or Mt. Clemens, but I thought commuter rail was the long distance runner, so to speak.

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-10, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Excuse me if I'm mistaken but light rail isn't for a long distance haul like Detroit-Pontiac, or Detroit-Mt. Clemens. That's what commuter rail is for. I could see a Woodward Line to 11 Mile [[the 1980s SEMTA plan had it going to 11 Mile) or to even to Birmingham and the Gratiot Line to 8 Mile. Pontiac can be a stop en route to Flint and Mt. Clemens can be a stop en route to Port Huron. I wouldn't be against LRT lines ending in Pontiac or Mt. Clemens, but I thought commuter rail was the long distance runner, so to speak.

Good point. Longer distances and city-to-city travel are best served by heavy rail with limited stops. The only system I know of that splits the difference between light and heavy rail well is New York's subway. It operates four tracks, two local, two express, allowing people to travel longer distances more quickly. It's frightfully expensive, though, one of the reasons why [[to my knowledge) New York is the only city with a subway like it.

**Hermod** · February-10-10, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Excuse me if I'm mistaken but light rail isn't for a long distance haul like Detroit-Pontiac, or Detroit-Mt. Clemens. That's what commuter rail is for. I could see a Woodward Line to 11 Mile [[the 1980s SEMTA plan had it going to 11 Mile) or to even to Birmingham and the Gratiot Line to 8 Mile. Pontiac can be a stop en route to Flint and Mt. Clemens can be a stop en route to Port Huron. I wouldn't be against LRT lines ending in Pontiac or Mt. Clemens, but I thought commuter rail was the long distance runner, so to speak.

The Detroit United Interurban line out Woodward only ran to Pontiac. In Royal Oak, there was a junction and the Flint line ran from Royal Oak to Rochester-Lake Orion-Oxford to Flint. Just north of Rochester there was a junction and a branch line went out to Romeo and Imlay City.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-10-10, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Good point. Longer distances and city-to-city travel are best served by heavy rail with limited stops. The only system I know of that splits the difference between light and heavy rail well is New York's subway. It operates four tracks, two local, two express, allowing people to travel longer distances more quickly. It's frightfully expensive, though, one of the reasons why [[to my knowledge) New York is the only city with a subway like it.

If I might make a gentleman's amendment, I think you mean "commuter" or "regional" rail instead of "heavy" rail. The NYC Subway is heavy rail. Metro North, LIRR, and NJ Transit trains into Penn Station are commuter [[regional) rail.

I only say this because there tends to be a lot of confusion about modes on these threads.

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-10, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

If I might make a gentleman's amendment, I think you mean "commuter" or "regional" rail instead of "heavy" rail. The NYC Subway is heavy rail. Metro North, LIRR, and NJ Transit trains into Penn Station are commuter [[regional) rail.

I only say this because there tends to be a lot of confusion about modes on these threads.

Haha. It even confuses ME sometimes. CMIIW, but what we call commuter, regional and subways are "heavy" rail, yes?

**ghettopalmetto** · February-10-10, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Haha. It even confuses ME sometimes. CMIIW, but what we call commuter, regional and subways are "heavy" rail, yes?

Subways and elevated trains [[as in Chicago) are heavy rail. Think third-rails and frequent, high-platform operation.

Commuter and regional rail are a different animal from heavy rail. They can be diesel or electric, high or low platform. The distinguishing characteristics are that they operate on standard railroad track [[which can be shared with freight), have station spacing of several miles, higher top speeds [[some U.S. commuter rail trains run up to 110 mph), higher fares [[which lead to higher farebox recovery ratios) and a focus on a central hub destination, with outlying stations typically being located in outlying town centers and/or having park-and-ride lots.

The two modes serve different functions and are meant to complement each other.

Bearinabox · February-10-10, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Excuse me if I'm mistaken but light rail isn't for a long distance haul like Detroit-Pontiac, or Detroit-Mt. Clemens. That's what commuter rail is for. I could see a Woodward Line to 11 Mile [[the 1980s SEMTA plan had it going to 11 Mile) or to even to Birmingham and the Gratiot Line to 8 Mile. Pontiac can be a stop en route to Flint and Mt. Clemens can be a stop en route to Port Huron. I wouldn't be against LRT lines ending in Pontiac or Mt. Clemens, but I thought commuter rail was the long distance runner, so to speak.

Wait, you mean different modes have different uses? We don't have to use the same mode for absolutely everything? Wow, that's almost like what they do in cities with real public transit systems!

**dtowncitylover** · February-10-10, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

Wait, you mean different modes have different uses? We don't have to use the same mode for absolutely everything? Wow, that's almost like what they do in cities with real public transit systems!

LOL. I know most starter LRT lines are 20 miles long, or they are finally finished to be 20-30 miles long, that's ONE line remember.

I don't think a LRT line to Pontiac or Mt. Clemens is necessary.

**Detroitnerd** · February-10-10, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Subways and elevated trains [[as in Chicago) are heavy rail. Think third-rails and frequent, high-platform operation.

Commuter and regional rail are a different animal from heavy rail. They can be diesel or electric, high or low platform. The distinguishing characteristics are that they operate on standard railroad track [[which can be shared with freight), have station spacing of several miles, higher top speeds [[some U.S. commuter rail trains run up to 110 mph), higher fares [[which lead to higher farebox recovery ratios) and a focus on a central hub destination, with outlying stations typically being located in outlying town centers and/or having park-and-ride lots.

The two modes serve different functions and are meant to complement each other.

That helps clear things up a bit. But then what do you call Amtrak? Or Acela? [[Sometimes answers raise more questions ...)