It WAS nice to dream for a second on transit.

[mrpatlast]

Greetings

I recently signed up on the site but have been following DetroitYes for about four years now. I have a Graduate Degree from Wayne State in Urban Planning and am currently living in Flint but plan to move either back to Detroit or out of state before the end of the year.

Personally, Buinessmen are not planners, they are businessmen. I knew from the second private money was involved in this project that it would either not happen or become People Mover II. Now, after keeping afoot with all the new information coming out about the project, I hope it doesn't happen. If we fail on transit this time, we won't try it again for 30 years. The Feds are not going to keep giving a city losing population money for transit.

I wish they would have gone after a BRT. I know it has been said on this thread already but it would have drawn alot less attention and needed little if any subsidy from the private market. $150 million barely gets you a quarter of the LRT they want to build whereas that same amount will build your entire BRT system from 8 mile to Hart Plaza. Once ridership stabilizes and increases, than you go for the LRT. If ridership doesn't stabilize or falls, you suffer alot less of a blow on the BRT than if the LRT's numbers go through the floor once the "Cool & New" period passes.

I agree with Ghettopalmetto. The problem with Michiganders is that we never leave. We never see what other communities have and how the Subway is not a tourist attraction, it's a functional piece of infrastructure which has lead to some of the most efficient land-use in the world. If we do leave, we never come back [[young professionals). Our mentality is that everything that happens in metro-Detroit must be the status-quo everywhere else.

I drove truck cross country in the summers to pay for grad school. Cities half the size of Detroit have twice the transit infrastructure. Hell even Phoenix [[Sunbelt Sprawl City) has a LRT that is going to be more functional than the M1 line if they build it curb-side.

Sorry for the long rant / intro.

Happy to be aboard.

[professorscott]

The fact of the matter is that either system would "work" in some sense; the argument is at a higher level than engineering, it is at the level of purpose. What is the purpose of this system?

If the purpose is just to move people into and out of downtown quickly, then clearly the correct design is to have it in the median running at a fairly good clip, and not stopping very often. But under that description of the purpose, it makes absolutely no sense at all to run it only out to the fairgrounds; it must go into the suburbs.

If the purpose is to promote urban redevelopment by giving people access to decent transportation within a small area, then the correct design is to have it running curbside at lower speeds and with more frequent stops.

Now, the original M1 Rail project was all about redevelopment, and the original DTOGS project was about transportation purely. Now they are trying to blend the two, but the two original ideas were not meant to serve the same need.

Assuming that the M1 Rail group is interested in the revitalization of Detroit, and that they see the slower curb-running service as being more aligned with their vision, of course they will press to have the system work that way. And DDOT's job is to move people from A to B, nothing more or less, so of course they will press to have the system work the other way. None of this is in the least surprising.

[midtown1982]

The fact of the matter is that either system would "work" in some sense; the argument is at a higher level than engineering, it is at the level of purpose. What is the purpose of this system?

If the purpose is just to move people into and out of downtown quickly, then clearly the correct design is to have it in the median running at a fairly good clip, and not stopping very often. But under that description of the purpose, it makes absolutely no sense at all to run it only out to the fairgrounds; it must go into the suburbs.

If the purpose is to promote urban redevelopment by giving people access to decent transportation within a small area, then the correct design is to have it running curbside at lower speeds and with more frequent stops.

Now, the original M1 Rail project was all about redevelopment, and the original DTOGS project was about transportation purely. Now they are trying to blend the two, but the two original ideas were not meant to serve the same need.

Assuming that the M1 Rail group is interested in the revitalization of Detroit, and that they see the slower curb-running service as being more aligned with their vision, of course they will press to have the system work that way. And DDOT's job is to move people from A to B, nothing more or less, so of course they will press to have the system work the other way. None of this is in the least surprising.

Well said, professorscott. Sounds like we have a tendancy to overreact to news like this simply because the region has such a bad history on this type of issue. While I may prefer that the thing go as fast as possible, I think there a substantial gap between "curb side service" and "peoplemover II"

[professorscott]

Well said, professorscott. Sounds like we have a tendancy to overreact to news like this simply because the region has such a bad history on this type of issue. While I may prefer that the thing go as fast as possible, I think there a substantial gap between "curb side service" and "peoplemover II"

Right, midtown, and to make the argument sound even sillier, from one point of view the whole question is "does the train take 15% less time to get downtown than the bus, or does it take 20% less time?" Over this thread hangs a hundred million simoleons.

[Wesley Mouch]

The fact of the matter is that either system would "work" in some sense; the argument is at a higher level than engineering, it is at the level of purpose. What is the purpose of this system?
...

So which of the two purposes do you think best serves our needs?

[professorscott]

So which of the two purposes do you think best serves our needs?

That's very tricky. We need both. The difficulty is, this is the only enhanced transit project on the horizon for the entire region; nobody is seriously considering implementing any of the other items in the 2008 RTCC plan [[so far as I can tell anyhow). If we had some regional rapid transit, a local midtown-downtown circulator would be an awesome addition to it, and would serve the same purpose as the Portland Streetcar which is hugely popular and very slow.

Without any other transit enhancements likely in the next five or ten years at least, it might make more sense to let this be the rapid transit, such as it is, and go for the median plan.

As you can tell, I am somewhat torn. In any event, this project by itself is hardly sufficient, but is likely to be the only thing we get, if we even get that much.

[Richard]

If you are replacing the currant bus system already in place the street car should match what is already in place in terms of speed,In Tampa I can take the street car from Ybor City where I live to downtown Tampa which is four miles and it take s 15 minutes fully loaded with scheduled stops which are spaced a bit farther apart in the non dense areas verses pretty much every 4th block in the dense parts.

http://www.tecolinestreetcar.org/

Large mix of riders tourists,locals of all walks of life.

[midtown1982]

OK, so I admit I don't know anything about transit, but is it impossible to have the 2 trains use the same light rail line with a slightly different schedule? Obviously it's done with express subway lines that skip certain stations. The timing would be important [[as it would make no sense if the "express" [[slightly faster) line got stuck waiting on the train before it). You could even give them different colors/numbers so people know which one is more local.

Am I crazy? Or can that not be done with this type of system?

[ghettopalmetto]

Here's the problem as I see it:

The City of Detroit, through the DTOGS project, wants to construct light rail, to serve as the backbone of a regional rapid transit system.

The M1 Rail group wants a streetcar to promote increased property values and business development in the CBD.

While the track gauges are the same, the power source is the same, and the vehicles can be the same, it's clear that the operational characteristics are not. Normally, a streetcar and a light rail system would be separate from each other--as in Portland--since they serve different purposes. The crux of the problem is that Detroit already has an existing [[and underutilized) downtown circulator. A streetcar through downtown would thus be unnecessarily redundant.

Baltimore is a shining example of what NOT to do with light rail--that damned thing crawls so slowly through the downtown area, it's agonizing. To boot, it was not originally planned to link-up with Penn Station [[duh!), and it still doesn't connect to the Metro subway. Detroit would be wise to avoid repeating these mistakes.

If downtown Detroit is to enjoy a sustained rebirth of foot traffic, then you need to allow for people to actually *walk*. The M1 proposal, by dropping off people at the front door of every damned place downtown, fails to do that. I fear this segment would slow operations enough to significantly discourage ridership on the system as a whole.

[Richard]

Here's the problem as I see it:

The City of Detroit, through the DTOGS project, wants to construct light rail, to serve as the backbone of a regional rapid transit system.

The M1 Rail group wants a streetcar to promote increased property values and business development in the CBD.

While the track gauges are the same, the power source is the same, and the vehicles can be the same, it's clear that the operational characteristics are not. Normally, a streetcar and a light rail system would be separate from each other--as in Portland--since they serve different purposes. The crux of the problem is that Detroit already has an existing [[and underutilized) downtown circulator. A streetcar through downtown would thus be unnecessarily redundant.

Baltimore is a shining example of what NOT to do with light rail--that damned thing crawls so slowly through the downtown area, it's agonizing. To boot, it was not originally planned to link-up with Penn Station [[duh!), and it still doesn't connect to the Metro subway. Detroit would be wise to avoid repeating these mistakes.

If downtown Detroit is to enjoy a sustained rebirth of foot traffic, then you need to allow for people to actually *walk*. The M1 proposal, by dropping off people at the front door of every damned place downtown, fails to do that. I fear this segment would slow operations enough to significantly discourage ridership on the system as a whole.

Perfect,that is why Fla got shut down is because people were getting confused on the difference and their roles.To me it would be pointless to run light rail down woodward.

Suburbs could connect for now with either existing bus or free park and ride lots. Then add one block over if the demand calls for it express light rail ,not sure if woodward is wide enough or the safety factor of running three sets of three rails.

[ghettopalmetto]

Suburbs could connect for now with either existing bus or free park and ride lots. Then add one block over if the demand calls for it express light rail ,not sure if woodward is wide enough or the safety factor of running three sets of three rails.

The DTOGS project was never intended to be suburban-oriented. The entire purpose is to move Detroiters [[i.e. existing DDOT riders) up-and-down Woodward at a higher rate of speed, and at a lower operational cost. And yes, there are anticipated economic development benefits due to the permanence of the track.

I've ridden the streetcar down four-lane streets in downtown Krakow, with a pair of streetcar tracks and on-street parking. I'm just sayin. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sludgeulper/4469050437/

[Atticus]

The problem with the curb running is it becomes in many way impractical [[from an engineering sense) to build. The curb running option is actually a combination of curb running and median running. The median running option is exclusively median running [[north of Grand Circus Park).

There are just to many logistical problems with the curb running option, such as:

1- How do you actually make the switch from median to curb running. Basically, the rail cars can't switch lanes on a dime, and you need a lengthy section to move the rail car from the median to the curb. In doing so, you have a diagonal section of rail cutting across vehcular traffic lanes. How do you stop vehicles for the rail car to make the switch. You would essentially have to shut down an entire block or two of Woodward for vehicles. Practially, you can't do it.

2- To make it fit in the existing Woodward right-of-way, you need the 'shared' space of the median boarding platform. With median running, you can share a central platform for both NB & SB trains. For curb running, you need two platforms, which means another traffic lane you have to gobble up. I am all for traffic calming and road diets, but to pull this off, you would need to reduce Woodward to one vehicular lane for one of the directions. That will not fly outside of downtown.

3- As mentioned earlier, it just takes one poorly parked car to clog up the whole system until the car is moved or towed. Big time delays, and frequent break down of service, which is not good for business.

4- Median running distances the train from vehicles on the side street. Again, one car who stops a little to far in front of the stop bar, or who is pulled forward looking to make a right turn on red is now sitting on the rail tracks.

5- Under the railroad bridges near New Center, you are going to have to lower the rail tracks to provide the necessary vertical clearance for the train and electric cables. From a structural standpoint, you need to run the trains down the median, otherwise you will hit the bridge footing foudations if you lower the outside lane, and now you are replacing the entire railroad bridge. This would add a huge cost.


There are just to many logistical issues to not run it down the median.

[szla]

Slow does not produce economic activity in any sense. It should be the absolutely fastest system they can build with a limited number of stops-so it's faster. Light rail is the begining of a comprehensive metro system which most people on this board seem to believe would be desirable. The train ultimately should go to Pontiac. Two hours to get to Pontiac is beyond unacceptable. Down the middle and fast. What did the people mover or the trolley down Washington Boulevard actually produce.

[English]

I thought that it had already been decided that it would run down the middle. Wow.

[ghettopalmetto]

I thought that it had already been decided that it would run down the middle. Wow.

The discrepancy is where the rails are placed once you get south of I-75.

[Rocko]

What did the people mover or the trolley down Washington Boulevard actually produce.

Well, since the Washington Blvd. historic trolleys were never meant to be a transit method, they produced exactly what was put into them. They were a tourist circulator, primarily. Figures I saw estimated the trolleys carried 75,000 passengers per year in the late 70s. The line was extended down Jefferson to the Mariner's Church in 1980. By around 2000, the number of trolleys operating had dropped significantly as had the number of days and hours they operated, and they carried about 3,500 passengers per year. The trolley was not a transit method.

I've looked at the proposed plans for what to do about the downtown routing for the M1 and I preferred one of the loop options utilizing Washington Blvd. with Larned and Congress, but I don't remember which one. Regardless, with all options I had mixed feeling about station choice south of 75. I would have placed some of them elsewhere. Not my call.....but I work for FREE

[erikd]

The debate over curbside vs median should be obvious to everyone. It is obvious that median running is the way to go. I haven't read anything that makes a valid point for a curb running system.

The only argument that I have heard in favor of curb running is that people won't have to cross the street, but that argument doesn't even make sense.

If you were taking a curbside train downtown to go to Comerica Park, you would have to get off the train in front of the Fox Theatre, and then have to CROSS THE STREET to get to the ballpark. If you were taking the train to the Fox Theatre, you would have to CROSS THE STREET to get back on the train to go back up Woodward.

Perhaps the private M1 backers have never crossed a two-way, seven-lane street, such as Woodward, on foot, because any person who has actually crossed such a street on foot will tell you that it is much easier to cross three lanes of one-way traffic two times, than it is to cross a two-way, seven lane street, without a median, once.

The median running train will be faster, safer, more convenient, will result in higher usage, higher property values, and be a better return on investment for everybody, including the private M1 backers.

This is a no-brainer.

[professorscott]

1- How do you actually make the switch from median to curb running.

Easy: you run the track at an angle and you control traffic with signals, the same as it's done everywhere else in the world where a railroad track cuts across a street at an angle. This is not in the least unusual.

2- For curb running, you need two platforms, which means another traffic lane you have to gobble up.

You haven't seen the plans, I think. The platforms would be bump-outs of the sidewalk space, and would only take up a couple cars worth of parking space. They would not jut into the travel lanes at all.

3- As mentioned earlier, it just takes one poorly parked car to clog up the whole system until the car is moved or towed. Big time delays, and frequent break down of service, which is not good for business.

I agree. I always thought the curbside idea would have been improved by making that a transit-only lane. This system is employed elsewhere, by the way, and your fear of massive service disruptions simply isn't a problem in real life.

4- Median running distances the train from vehicles on the side street. Again, one car who stops a little to far in front of the stop bar, or who is pulled forward looking to make a right turn on red is now sitting on the rail tracks.

Again, theoretically a problem, but not so in real life. And, no different than someone who stops on median tracks. Whenever you have surface tracks near streets you risk this.

5- Under the railroad bridges near New Center, you are going to have to lower the rail tracks to provide the necessary vertical clearance for the train and electric cables. From a structural standpoint, you need to run the trains down the median, otherwise you will hit the bridge footing foudations if you lower the outside lane, and now you are replacing the entire railroad bridge. This would add a huge cost.

Actually the railroad bridges are a big engineering challenge no matter what. I don't recall, though, are those railroad bridges supported only at the outside of Woodward?

So, summing up, Atticus, you make some good points, but your central thesis is that it is impossible to use the second-lane option. I disagree, and I know other people with good expertise who also disagree. The only valid argument is over which alignment is preferable; either is possible, and feasible.

[Richard]

Where the overhead wires are concerned there is technology that uses a center non energized rail, and magnets that create the connection so no need to run over head and actually way less install costs and future maintenance costs.

[Richard]

OK, so I admit I don't know anything about transit, but is it impossible to have the 2 trains use the same light rail line with a slightly different schedule? Obviously it's done with express subway lines that skip certain stations. The timing would be important [[as it would make no sense if the "express" [[slightly faster) line got stuck waiting on the train before it). You could even give them different colors/numbers so people know which one is more local.

Am I crazy? Or can that not be done with this type of system?

To many variables in the timing,somebody takes a bit longer to load the stroller etc. An example would be the currant shared passenger and freight rails,the freight companies who own the rails get upset because they are their rails paid for and they have to sit and wait off to the side until the passenger train passes out of time,it costs them time and money to sit.

The key to transit is reliability if it says it will be at the station at 6:01 it needs to be there at that time.

[ghettopalmetto]

OK, so I admit I don't know anything about transit, but is it impossible to have the 2 trains use the same light rail line with a slightly different schedule? Obviously it's done with express subway lines that skip certain stations. The timing would be important [[as it would make no sense if the "express" [[slightly faster) line got stuck waiting on the train before it). You could even give them different colors/numbers so people know which one is more local.

Am I crazy? Or can that not be done with this type of system?

Baltimore tried single-tracking their light rail line through the center city in the 1980s. It became so cumbersome, that about 10 years later, they went back and double-tracked the entire line at greater expense [[and travel delays). By that time, however, the public already had a perception that the light rail was slow and cumbersome to use.

[Bham1982]

If we feel these rich folks are really idiots, we should let them know and return their $100 million.

Obviously they aren't giving this money on a whim. If we don't think their wants intersect with public policy goals [[and why would they?) then go on without them.

[Bham1982]

Well, since the Washington Blvd. historic trolleys were never meant to be a transit method, they produced exactly what was put into them.

The trolleys weren't for transit? LOL

I can see some folks are already lining up their excuses for the likely outcome. If it fails, it has nothing to do with mobility preferences in the area, right?

Obviously the People Mover and Trolleys failed because they weren't really intended for transit, I guess?

[ghettopalmetto]

If we feel these rich folks are really idiots, we should let them know and return their $100 million.

Obviously they aren't giving this money on a whim. If we don't think their wants intersect with public policy goals [[and why would they?) then go on without them.

There is [[mostly) public money involved in this project, and the project itself is for the public good. Why then, should a handful of billionaires get to dictate the terms on which a public project is constructed? Your implication that "people with money should be able to do whatever they want" is selfish, irresponsible, sickening, and horribly naive.

Sorry--I can't help but read your posts and think that you grew up a sheltered, spoiled brat. Please join us in the real world anytime you feel like it.

[Bham1982]

Your implication that "people with money should be able to do whatever they want" is selfish, irresponsible, sickening, and horribly naive.

That's the complete opposite of my argument, but feel free to invent straw men.

I am saying that, if this is a public policy project, then public policy should be the guiding force.

If, however, this is intended to serve the interests of these rich folks, then obviously the guiding force is very different.

If it's agreed that these wants are different [[and why would they be the same?) then it's one or the other.