Light Rail in Fast Lane

[rsa.313]

ok, there seems to be some critical information left out here. option B places the rail line in the first traffic lane out from the curb. it will not comingle with turning lanes, parking lanes, or bus stops [[whether there still will be a bus route down woodward remains to be seen). curbs and sidewalks will be built out to the edge of the first lane to meet the second lane [[first traffic lane) at the rail stops/stations. this would effectively cut off the first lane as any type of travel lane.

option A does not address turning lanes. how are people going to turn left on sidestreets? into businesses? are they installing a median? would this increased infrastructure increase the cost? does this mean we'd get one less travel lane of traffic on each direction of woodward?

it seems to me that option A would have the higher potential to be delayed simply by turning left, regardless of the solution. option B would only be delayed by possible illegal double parking and in instances of high traffic, which might be remedied by restricting lane useage and timing of the lights. option B is also the least intrusive and will cost less in infrastructure installation and/or modification.

i'm not beating my head against a wall in proponent of either plan, but it seems like no one is asking critical questions or bringing up the possible benefits of option B.

[Gistok]

Did a mention of the Thanksgiving Day Parade reroute come up?

[professorscott]

From studying all the various options and plans, at different stages in the development of all of this, I can give a few facts and opinions.

First of all, north of Grand Boulevard, there is just about zero debate that the trains will run in dedicated running-way in the median of Woodward. There are some engineering details to be worked out, but that alignment seems to be a settled fact.

Second, light rail systems exist in all of these configurations, and they all work, but they all operate differently. Of course, if the light rail is mixed with street traffic, then any time you have a traffic jam [[end of a Tigers game, for instance), the trains are exactly as stuck-in-traffic as are the cars. For that reason, I've always been a fan of dedicated running-way, but I don't think it much matters whether it's in the center of the street or toward the outside.

There are signaling and control systems that work well with every possible configuration of this. One poster mentioned having the train operator signal the traffic lights; actually this is common but is done automatically; the TO doesn't have to do anything.

With regard to the downtown alignments, I have always felt Campus Martius was going to be a technical nightmare, so I favor either of the alignments which veer off Woodward to Rosa Parks Transit Center and then back into the core of downtown.

So if I'm voting, my votes are:
1. Dedicated running-way all the way: figure it out and get it done. Even downtown; in fact, especially downtown. Make one of the cross-streets a dedicated transitway if you have to.
2. South of Grand Blvd., I don't think it makes much difference where the tracks are, so long as you conform to point #1 above.
3. Downtown, keep away from Campus Martius.

But of course that's just my vote - and what do I know about light rail

[fryar]

I don't even care if it stops at GCP. Just get people from downtown to New Center quickly and efficiently.

[jtf1972]

The people in this functioning, bustling downtown seemed to be able to do it, and there's a lot more of them than I ever see in downtown Detroit on a workday.

http://www.shorpy.com/node/7136

I don't see any that look like me though.

[mwilbert]

I don't see any that look like me though.

I don't see any who look like anybody--everybody has a hat and their faces are shaded and indistinguishable.

[jtf1972]

I don't see any who look like anybody--everybody has a hat and their faces are shaded and indistinguishable.

I tend to wear a hat and have a fairly indistinguishable face. I meant that there is nobody morbidly obese!

[Warrenite84]

Why I choose Mainline option B: LRT will already run with traffic below Foxtown. During Rush Hour, every other train could run as a limited with the ability to bypass trains at local stops. [[Double track at stops to be bypassed). Also to promote city development to be linear from Downtown thru Midtown to New Center. Special Limited stop trains can be added for special events.

Why I choose Downtown Design #1: Spread out transit stops to correlate with the Detroit People Mover and limit trains stuck in traffic on lower Woodward. Option #3 is no good because transit Downtown would be too concentrated on Woodward. Transit and development must be spread out in CBD to ensure even developmentand transit access there.

[Russix]

I don't see any that look like me though.

Can you please elaborate on why people who "look like me" is important to this discussion?

[Russix]

Why I choose Mainline option B: LRT will already run with traffic below Foxtown. During Rush Hour, every other train could run as a limited with the ability to bypass trains at local stops. [[Double track at stops to be bypassed). Also to promote city development to be linear from Downtown thru Midtown to New Center. Special Limited stop trains can be added for special events.

...

There is no double tracking mentioned in any of these plans[[unless provided you plan on stepping forward and financing these philanthropically proposed ideals). A system that has ROW for 90% of its initial design committed to the fastest operation has the greatest potential for expansion and subsequent implementation onto other corridors. Plus we already have the largest convergence of public bus lines in the country providing exactly what you specified.

[Hermod]

option A does not address turning lanes. how are people going to turn left on sidestreets? into businesses? are they installing a median? would this increased infrastructure increase the cost? does this mean we'd get one less travel lane of traffic on each direction of woodward?

it seems to me that option A would have the higher potential to be delayed simply by turning left, regardless of the solution. option B would only be delayed by possible illegal double parking and in instances of high traffic, which might be remedied by restricting lane useage and timing of the lights. option B is also the least intrusive and will cost less in infrastructure installation and/or modification.

LEFT TURNS: Under option A, just prohibit left turns the length of Woodward. Left turns are accomplished by a series of three right turns [[four if you want a destination on the opposite side of Woodward).

Option B conflicts with both left AND right turns.

The only downer to A is pedestrian crossing thre streets.

DOUBLE TRACKS: Double track from the start. If you don't, the line can be really clogged up.

[Russix]

...
The only downer to A is pedestrian crossing thre streets.
...

The whole curb ideal is great until, um, you have to cross the street to go the other way. If you can't figure out how to cross a street safely, you’re never ever going to dare ride this thing, so this whole pedestrian safety argument is DOA.

[gnome]

Can you please elaborate on why people who "look like me" is important to this discussion?

i believe jtf is making a humorous reference to a previous thread about the shorpy 1917 pic. iirc, all was going fine when someone threw in that race-grenade of no one looks like me.

----
I believe the issue of which lane has been settled by other communities. It goes in the first lane of travel and yes it will be a pain in the ass for people parking, for trucks making deliveries, etc. In time folks will learn to deal with it.

The fee collection should happen at kiosks where one buys a rider-pass for x,y,or z dollars. Once you board the train you insert your rider-pass into a card reader.

This is standard proceedure around the world. No need to get all double-thinky about it.

[Hermod]

i
The fee collection should happen at kiosks where one buys a rider-pass for x,y,or z dollars. Once you board the train you insert your rider-pass into a card reader.

This is standard proceedure around the world. No need to get all double-thinky about it.

Not exactly the standard procedure. On the Washington Metro, you board at an access controlled station where you need to swipe your ticket to get near the trains [[and record your point of origin). You swipe your ticket at the destination to deduct the fare for the distance traveled and to allow you to exit the station.

Florida Tri-Rail you purchase a ticket for the trip you want, then just board the train on sort of an "honor" system. Random ticket checks on the train and significant fines for cheaters are the enforcement tools.

Another approach is to swipe your ticket to enter a "holding pen" which can then board quickly when the train arrives.

[Warrenite84]

Russix, I am aware the proposals do not have a double track included in their plans. This is only an opportunity to address the public's preferences. This is mine. My rationale is this: IF these trains are able to quickly move without traffic interference above the Foxtown station, that once they get there, they will bunch up in the CBD due to rush hour traffic. This would cause, IMHO, larger gaps in service for outbound trains.

I am not dead set against a median-based LRT. The question I ask is that we decide if the final destination of most riders primarily in the CBD or linear in nature to also include extra stops from Foxtown to New Center?


IMHO, the answer to this question may determine in part wether we as a group prefer a maximum density of development in the CBD exsclusively, or to finally stitch together Downtown with New Center and increased development between the two. I believe the extra stops wether curbside or median would increase development in this area.

With increased stops, I believe the curbside option is more pedestrian friendly.

[professorscott]

Ah, that's the yin and the yang of it. There are two competing needs rubbing up against each other here.

On the one hand, we want the system to be as rapid as it can be, which calls for the fewest stops possible.

On the other hand, development tends to occur only near stations, so if we want the system to spur redevelopment, then we would like to see very many stops.

There is no way to perfectly rectify this; we just have to find some way to balance the competing demands. If we make it very rapid with very few stops, then the opportunity for redevelopment is severely curtailed; on the other hand, if we put in very many stops, then the whole thing is no faster than a local bus, so who would use it?

Just one of many problems which needs to be worked through, somehow. But gladly, there are people working on it!

[Parkguy]

Typically, streetcars use first lane arrangements and light rail uses center median tracks. Here's the setup in Seattle on the South Lake Union Streetcar:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1092154...7603598508369/

Note that the train doesn't run in the parking [[curb) lane, but in the first traffic lane. Bumpouts cut through the parking lane for stops, so patrons are able to step from the curb directly into the train.

[Russix]

5 days left.

[Hypestyles]

for the stops that will be built, auction off naming rights for them to companies to help offset costs of building/maintaining.. also enact a city sales/service tax of 1%..

[DetroitPlanner]

for the stops that will be built, auction off naming rights for them to companies to help offset costs of building/maintaining.. also enact a city sales/service tax of 1%..

First idea is already done.

Second idea can't be done as the State does not allow a local sales tax.

[Hypestyles]

make it a regional-wide sales tax..

[fryar]

First idea is already done.

Second idea can't be done as the State does not allow a local sales tax.

What a PITA, this dang state. First you can't use eminent domain, now you can't institute a local sales tax.

[Russix]

You have till midnight!

[rbdetsport]

PEOPLE! Let your voices be heard!

[BrushStart]

Someone quickly convince me that Option A is the best. I had my mind set on Option B due to the development that will likely come from having more than 2 stops in all of midtown, but now I'm starting to think Option A is better. Since my g/f will undoubtedly vote the same as me, your persuasion will actually be affecting 2 votes.