What light rail will do for Detroit

**bailey** · May-19-10, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

The plan will only be materialized if the Regional Transit Authority is implemented. Please call your legislator and urge him/her to vote "yes" on the RTA. The RTA includes 1) building the light rail line and 2) improving service on the arterial bus lines.

As for BRT, that is not true that the other line will be serviced by only BRT. Going to the meeting and hearing the speaker, they said that they would much rather prefer LRT, but BRT right now is cost-effective, but they believe that LRT might be warranted on Gratiot and some other major thoroughfares. Just looking at a plan and actually going to some meetings are two very different things.

Ok so let me see if I'm clear. The PLAN says BRT, but the speaker would PREFER LRT but it's too expensive.. What do you think is going to actually get built?

**iheartthed** · May-19-10, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I'm not blaming him individually. It's hard to argue that "there's no money" for rail when clearly there is plenty of money available for:

1. Running expensive buses through sparsely-populated suburbs, at the longest average trip lengths in the nation.

2. Construction of I-696

3. Reconstruction of I-75

4. New terminals at Metro Airport

5. Construction of th M-59 freeway

6. Subsidies for Comerica Park and Ford Field

7. Demolition of historic structures

8. Purchase of properties on the East Riverfront, to be handed directly to casinos [[which was completely bungled, thanks to the ever-skillful Dennis Archer)

9. Planned expansion of an enormous exhibition hall that gets used once a year.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

Bearinabox · May-19-10, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

How will "rail" fix the buses? Rail is just a bus on rails. If the buses are mismanaged, so too will the rail be mismanaged.

If the buses are unpleasant or unsafe [[or both) to ride, why will the rail [[with the same riders) not also be unpleasant or unsafe to ride?

Rail is more pleasant to ride; that is an objective fact. Steel on steel produces a more comfortable ride than rubber on asphalt, and electric motors are quieter and don't smell.

The real problem with Detroit transit, though, is not that it's unpleasant or unsafe, it's that it's not an effective way to get around the city. I don't think it's primarily a management problem, either. The real issue is that we're paying for a small-city transit system and expecting it to effectively serve what is still a relatively big city. I think many city residents would be willing to pay more for better service, but somehow nobody's ever thought to ask them.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-19-10, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

Ok so let me see if I'm clear. The PLAN says BRT, but the speaker would PREFER LRT but it's too expensive.. What do you think is going to actually get built?

The SEMCOG Plan, for some reason, assumes that the capital costs of BRT are inherently less than those for rail. You can't just give a bus a paint job and call it "rapid transit", and expect it to perform at the same level as rail. Experience has shown that capital costs of BRT projects that provide true "rapid transit" are at least as expensive as light rail projects. If the costs are lower, don't expect to be comparing apples-to-apples. I have every reason to think SEMCOG is considering the cheapo version of BRT, hoping Detroiters will be too stupid to know the difference.

When it comes to operating costs, it's no comparison. BRT doesn't even come close to achieving the operating efficiency of rail.

**bailey** · May-19-10, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

Rail is more pleasant to ride; that is an objective fact. Steel on steel produces a more comfortable ride than rubber on asphalt, and electric motors are quieter and don't smell.

The real problem with Detroit transit, though, is not that it's unpleasant or unsafe, it's that it's not an effective way to get around the city. I don't think it's primarily a management problem, either. The real issue is that we're paying for a small-city transit system and expecting it to effectively serve what is still a relatively big city. I think many city residents would be willing to pay more for better service, but somehow nobody's ever thought to ask them.

I think that is the most common complaint from city residents... they pay too much as it is and get too little in return. You'd have to convince them that they'd actually get what they are being asked to pony up for.

**iheartthed** · May-19-10, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Most places that have built transit lines through their downtown have something downtown where people want to go and where the transit line expedites them going downtown. Not sure how much traffic the David Broderik Tower generates anymore.

If only they used the same reasoning to build roads... Detroit might not be in such a predicament.

Bearinabox · May-19-10, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

I think that is the most common complaint from city residents... they pay too much as it is and get too little in return. You'd have to convince them that they'd actually get what they are being asked to pony up for.

The most common complaint I've heard from city residents who ride transit is that the service keeps getting cut. People may not always understand why it keeps getting cut, but if you explain in plain English what is screwed up about DDOT's funding structure relative to systems that work well, and propose a plan to fix it, I think people will be receptive.

**iheartthed** · May-19-10, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

Rail is more pleasant to ride; that is an objective fact. Steel on steel produces a more comfortable ride than rubber on asphalt, and electric motors are quieter and don't smell.

The real problem with Detroit transit, though, is not that it's unpleasant or unsafe, it's that it's not an effective way to get around the city. I don't think it's primarily a management problem, either. The real issue is that we're paying for a small-city transit system and expecting it to effectively serve what is still a relatively big city. I think many city residents would be willing to pay more for better service, but somehow nobody's ever thought to ask them.

In addition...

Rail is also a LOT more efficient than buses, which is why it is so widely used. Train cars carry more people than buses, and in a faster time frame [[when designed correctly). Buses do serve a purpose as feeders into a rail line from smaller arteries. This is how it has worked in every single major city I have ever visited that has a reliable transit system. The cities with the most unreliable transit systems are either fully bus, or predominantly bus systems.

It is also cheaper to move people by train than it is by bus. Rail lines have to be repaired/replace once a century, versus roads being re-paved every 10 years and completely replaced every 40 years. Rail cars also have roughly a 40 year lifespan, versus maybe 10-15[[?) for a bus.

Third, and I think this needs to be said... again... No population in any well-functioning city uses one single mode of transportation. Nobody is advocating that Detroit shut down its roads and force everyone to turn in their keys and get on a train. What makes transit in other cities work is that there is a diverse option of modes of transport. This morning I had the option of getting to work by taking a cab, taking the train or taking the bus. I could have also asked someone to drive me to work. I chose the train because it was the most balanced of price, convenience, and speed. Five million of the other 20 million residents in this region felt the same.

**esp1986** · May-19-10, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

The SEMCOG Plan, for some reason, assumes that the capital costs of BRT are inherently less than those for rail. You can't just give a bus a paint job and call it "rapid transit", and expect it to perform at the same level as rail. Experience has shown that capital costs of BRT projects that provide true "rapid transit" are at least as expensive as light rail projects. If the costs are lower, don't expect to be comparing apples-to-apples. I have every reason to think SEMCOG is considering the cheapo version of BRT, hoping Detroiters will be too stupid to know the difference.

When it comes to operating costs, it's no comparison. BRT doesn't even come close to achieving the operating efficiency of rail.

Bingo. And there are inherent worries about buses. Today, buses are viewed as scummy, and most people feel above them. I will not even begin to say that I would ride a bus, I wouldn't, not as mass transit anyway. The problem with BRT, is that it is still a friggin bus, and people will always look at it this way. It was recently suggested that they should begin the M-1 Rail project by using buses to build up ridership then estimate the feasibility of the rail project itself. But the problem is, a lot of people won't ride buses these days, while they would ride rail.

And 'ghetto' has it right. The rail is ever so much more reliable than a bus and people more people will ride the rails than buses.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-19-10, 01:45 PM

Let's put it this way, esp1986.

A few weeks ago, I was in a foreign city in a foreign country. I knew maybe 20 words of the language. To get around, when I wasn't on foot, I had a choice between taxis, buses, trams, or subway.

I was not about to get ripped off by a taxi, since I didn't understand much of the language.

The subway was limited in its reach.

The buses stopped at most of the same places the trams did. They cost the same fare. Methods of fare payment were identical. The signage was the same. Schedules were posted for both at each stop. I took the trams, simply because I KNEW where the tram was going to go, and the ride quality would be far better--even if the trams themselves looked like they were about 50 years old.

Bearinabox · May-19-10, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

--even if the trams themselves looked like they were about 50 years old.

The fact that they were still running after that long is pretty amazing, considering the oldest buses in DDOT's fleet are only about 15 years old and they're falling apart. I've ridden several transit systems with trams and subways dating back to the 70s, and they usually seem to work quite well, but I've never seen a bus in service that was anywhere near that old. I don't know why that is, but it's interesting.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-19-10, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

The fact that they were still running after that long is pretty amazing, considering the oldest buses in DDOT's fleet are only about 15 years old and they're falling apart. I've ridden several transit systems with trams and subways dating back to the 70s, and they usually seem to work quite well, but I've never seen a bus in service that was anywhere near that old. I don't know why that is, but it's interesting.

Moving engine parts, my friend. Moving engine parts.

**Hermod** · May-19-10, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It is also cheaper to move people by train than it is by bus. Rail lines have to be repaired/replace once a century, versus roads being re-paved every 10 years and completely replaced every 40 years. Rail cars also have roughly a 40 year lifespan, versus maybe 10-15[[?) for a bus.

Rail line require constant maintenance to keep them in line and to avoid derailments. You also need to buy or lease metal flaw detectors to assure the integrity of the rail. On electric rail lines, maintenance of the over head wire is a constant worry and expense. You can't run third rail unless you have a completely secured right of way like Washington Metro 40 years versus 10-15 years then figure out the cost per year.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-19-10, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Rail line require constant maintenance to keep them in line and to avoid derailments. You also need to buy or lease metal flaw detectors to assure the integrity of the rail. On electric rail lines, maintenance of the over head wire is a constant worry and expense. You can't run third rail unless you have a completely secured right of way like Washington Metro 40 years versus 10-15 years then figure out the cost per year.

And how would you say rail compares to roadways in terms of the level of maintenance required?

**iheartthed** · May-19-10, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Rail line require constant maintenance to keep them in line and to avoid derailments. You also need to buy or lease metal flaw detectors to assure the integrity of the rail. On electric rail lines, maintenance of the over head wire is a constant worry and expense. You can't run third rail unless you have a completely secured right of way like Washington Metro 40 years versus 10-15 years then figure out the cost per year.

They should be monitored for deficiencies, yes. But so should buses. And roads. And bridges.

The fact remains that you don't have to replace rails anywhere near as much as you do both buses and roads. And I believe that rail is also cheaper to construct than roads, even when the decision is made to subway or elevate the line. Not to say that we don't need roads, but if the argument is to be made that we can't afford rails, then we sure as hell can't afford to keep as many roads as we have... So southeast Michigan would be best served by devoting more resources towards diversifying your modes of transportation.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-19-10, 02:28 PM

And then there's this [[from a planning document in Muenster, Germany):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/russnelson/4480318327/

NOTE: You can easily substitute the word "streetcar" for the word "bus" in the photos.

**esp1986** · May-19-10, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Let's put it this way, esp1986.

A few weeks ago, I was in a foreign city in a foreign country. I knew maybe 20 words of the language. To get around, when I wasn't on foot, I had a choice between taxis, buses, trams, or subway.

I was not about to get ripped off by a taxi, since I didn't understand much of the language.

The subway was limited in its reach.

The buses stopped at most of the same places the trams did. They cost the same fare. Methods of fare payment were identical. The signage was the same. Schedules were posted for both at each stop. I took the trams, simply because I KNEW where the tram was going to go, and the ride quality would be far better--even if the trams themselves looked like they were about 50 years old.

professorscott said it earlier... every major US metro area has a viable mass transit system, except for detroit, and by viable, I mean dedicated rail lines. Denver, Portland, etc. It is no surprise that cities like Detroit and Cleveland are in as bad of shape as they are. If these cities had at lease some sort of viable transit, into and out of town, then the possibilities would be endless. M-1 Rail in Detroit would be huge, but it is just a starting point for a viable system. The people mover was a half-assed, over-priced, underfunded attempt at this, which is why it didnt work, but LRT is our best bet. It may not be as great as a subway system, but it is a relatively affordable system, which can cut down on traffic and bring business back into the city.

What really sucks, is that I recently heard that the automakers, notably GM are lobbying against it once again. Everybody in Detroit already has to have a car, regardless of LRT. It's just the way this region was built. If that is ever going to change, it won't be for a hundred years or more. Everyone isn't going to immediately move back to the city and dump their car, especially when so much in Detroit is still in the suburbs. It really is sad that people are against it, and for reasons that aren't really making any sense... the region is losing population, and somehow the automakers think they can still grow this market. Sad.

**FerndaleDamon** · May-19-10, 06:21 PM

Don't mean to disturb guys, but like I asked several threads before- has anybody seen any evidence of construction on the rail project? It seems if your'e not in the "academic/political" clique on this thread, your inquiry goes unanswered. What's up with that?

**dtowncitylover** · May-19-10, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by FerndaleDamon

Don't mean to disturb guys, but like I asked several threads before- has anybody seen any evidence of construction on the rail project? It seems if your'e not in the "academic/political" clique on this thread, your inquiry goes unanswered. What's up with that?

Hasn't that already been answered. Is not the answer that construction can't start until the RTA is approved and implemented? As in the new RTA thread it is headed to the legislature...call your legislator and tell him/her to vote YES [[....i know, I sound like trainman...

)

**bailey** · May-20-10, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Hasn't that already been answered. Is not the answer that construction can't start until the RTA is approved and implemented? As in the new RTA thread it is headed to the legislature...call your legislator and tell him/her to vote YES [[....i know, I sound like trainman...

)

The legislature is too busy debating the legalization of certain currently banned fireworks.

**Warrenite84** · May-20-10, 08:45 AM

Admittedly, Downtown Detroit is more sparse in many aspects compared to other cities but we also have fallen farther than the others. This LRT system isn't a train to nowhere either, but it opens detroit up to people who want to come downtown but not deal with the hassles or costs of parking, and increase the mobility of residents who don't have cars.

When LRT or BRT systems go in, bus routes become feeders of the system, channeling riders to the higher capacity systems. It increases the territory of customers the LRT or BRT can serve. That is why the flexibility of busses and the high volume of LRT's are needed to maximize a population's mobility.

**Warrenite84** · May-20-10, 08:53 AM

FerndaleDamon, I have seen quite a bit of infrastructure improvements along Woodward in the Boston/Edison District Area and down to John R.?/GrandRiver but I cannot say if these are directly tied to LRT preparations or not. Some are new curbs and sidewalks and a blacktop cap for the roadway up by B/E. District.

**dtowncitylover** · May-20-10, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

The legislature is too busy debating the legalization of certain currently banned fireworks.

I heard that's dead, won't be in time for July 4! But I digress...

**daddeeo** · May-20-10, 10:48 AM

I have a friend who worked over 20 years at SEMCOG and I asked him about this latest plan and he just sadly laughed. You have a better chance of swimming across the ocean than you do of ever seeing a rapid transit system in Detroit.

No one is going to tell their congressman to raise their taxes to pay for this. It's just not going to happen. You can also forget about getting any money out of the existing transportation funds either. Fixing of roads, we have, is backlogged for years.

**dtowncitylover** · May-20-10, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by daddeeo

I have a friend who worked over 20 years at SEMCOG and I asked him about this latest plan and he just sadly laughed. You have a better chance of swimming across the ocean than you do of ever seeing a rapid transit system in Detroit.

No one is going to tell their congressman to raise their taxes to pay for this. It's just not going to happen. You can also forget about getting any money out of the existing transportation funds either. Fixing of roads, we have, is backlogged for years.

So does he currently work for SEMCOG or is he retired? Is/was he part of the process to get this done? I know the sentiment of anti-transit, but we need to wake up and smell the investments. I ask my state senator, a Republican, to support the RTA and vote against any appropriations that take funding away from public transportation. I would be very willing to raise my taxes in order to get a mass transit system, because I know the results.