What light rail will do for Detroit

[Hermod]

The way you fix the buses is by adding rail.

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?

[ghettopalmetto]

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?

I recommend you search any number of previous threads on this topic for the answers you seek.

But again, with the excuses.... Yet we wonder why Detroit looks like Warszawa in 1945, and the entire region of Southeast Michigan is on the precipice of permanent and catastrophic economic collapse.

Best of luck, Michissippians.

[maxx]

I recommend you search any number of previous threads on this topic for the answers you seek.

But again, with the excuses.... Yet we wonder why Detroit looks like Warszawa in 1945, and the entire region of Southeast Michigan is on the precipice of permanent and catastrophic economic collapse.

Best of luck, Michissippians.

So you're saying there are few grocery stores in Detroit because there isn't any train?

[Bearinabox]

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.

[bailey]

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.

[Bearinabox]

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]

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.

[Hermod]

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]

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]

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.

[Hermod]

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.

On the contrary, rail lines require constant maintenance. If there is a dip in the road or a pothole, you can still use it or drive around it. Railroads have a constant battle to maintain the track geometry. If you don't, you have a derailment at any speed. Yes, there are badly maintained secondary rail lines and spurs, but these are "slow order" areas where the speed is limited to 10 MPH. The track is constantly getting out of level as the weight of the trains crushes the ballast under the tracks. Replacement of ties is a constant process, especially if they are wood. As the wheels of the cars wear the rail, the rail must be reground by a "rail grinder". The railroads are in a constant process of taking worn rail off the main lne and replacing it with new rail. The worn rail is then handed down and relaid on the secondary lines and the secondary line rail is scrapped or goes to industrial spurs.

METRA, the Chicago area commuter line, spent $258 million in 2009 on track and bridge maintenance to include replacement of 50,000 ties and resurfacing of 160 miles of track.

AMTRAK has a M-O-W budget of $441.7 million for track maintenance in 21010. Most of the track AMTRAK owns is in the northeast corridor. this includes the installation of 162,000 ties.

[SpartanTom]

On the contrary, rail lines require constant maintenance. If there is a dip in the road or a pothole, you can still use it or drive around it. Railroads have a constant battle to maintain the track geometry. If you don't, you have a derailment at any speed. Yes, there are badly maintained secondary rail lines and spurs, but these are "slow order" areas where the speed is limited to 10 MPH. The track is constantly getting out of level as the weight of the trains crushes the ballast under the tracks. Replacement of ties is a constant process, especially if they are wood. As the wheels of the cars wear the rail, the rail must be reground by a "rail grinder". The railroads are in a constant process of taking worn rail off the main lne and replacing it with new rail. The worn rail is then handed down and relaid on the secondary lines and the secondary line rail is scrapped or goes to industrial spurs.

METRA, the Chicago area commuter line, spent $258 million in 2009 on track and bridge maintenance to include replacement of 50,000 ties and resurfacing of 160 miles of track.

AMTRAK has a M-O-W budget of $441.7 million for track maintenance in 21010. Most of the track AMTRAK owns is in the northeast corridor. this includes the installation of 162,000 ties.

You are talking about freight/commuter rail. Light rail has nowhere near that amount of maintenance, mostly because it is LIGHT compared to traditional rail. It would also not be on wood, but in pavement. Much MUCH less expensive to maintain.


Some numbers from Wikipedia:

Over the U.S. as a whole, excluding Seattle, new light rail construction costs average about $35 million per mile. By comparison, a freeway lane expansion typically costs $20 million per lane mile for two directions. Since a light rail track can carry up to 20,000 people per hour as compared with 2,400 people per hour for a freeway lane, light rail could theoretically deliver 4 times the congestion-reduction potential per dollar as incremental freeway lanes in congested urban areas.

So, in high traffic corridors, spending our money on LRT instead of another lane of highway would be more efficient.

Combining highway expansion with LRT construction can save costs by doing both highway improvements and rail construction at the same time. As an example, Denver's T-REX [[Transportation Expansion) project rebuilt interstate highways 25 and 225 and added a light-rail expansion for a total cost of $1.67 billion over five years. The cost of 17 miles [[27 km) of highway improvements and 19 miles [[31 km) of double-track light rail worked out to $19.3 million per highway lane-mile and $27.6 million per LRT track-mile. The project came in under budget and 22 months ahead of schedule.

I believe this is what is planned for the M-1 portion of LRT in Detroit. Woodward will undergo a "long-term rehabilitation" in conjunction with the construction of the LRT. This will help keep initial costs down.

Other ways to keep costs down are to minimize underground or elevated tracks, which I think there are none proposed here. The LRT in Calgary operates at only 27 cents per ride, compared to $1.50 per ride for it's bus service.

[iheartthed]

On the contrary, rail lines require constant maintenance. If there is a dip in the road or a pothole, you can still use it or drive around it.

Have you ever hit a pothole at 70 MPH? It is a safety hazard, and just driving "around it" is not a satisfactory solution, temporary or otherwise. And rarely does ever just one pothole develop.

Railroads have a constant battle to maintain the track geometry. If you don't, you have a derailment at any speed. Yes, there are badly maintained secondary rail lines and spurs, but these are "slow order" areas where the speed is limited to 10 MPH. The track is constantly getting out of level as the weight of the trains crushes the ballast under the tracks. Replacement of ties is a constant process, especially if they are wood. As the wheels of the cars wear the rail, the rail must be reground by a "rail grinder". The railroads are in a constant process of taking worn rail off the main lne and replacing it with new rail. The worn rail is then handed down and relaid on the secondary lines and the secondary line rail is scrapped or goes to industrial spurs.

METRA, the Chicago area commuter line, spent $258 million in 2009 on track and bridge maintenance to include replacement of 50,000 ties and resurfacing of 160 miles of track.

AMTRAK has a M-O-W budget of $441.7 million for track maintenance in 21010. Most of the track AMTRAK owns is in the northeast corridor. this includes the installation of 162,000 ties.

I don't have time right now to dig through the particulars, but according to this document that I'm going to link, MDOT spent $2.8B on roads [[presumably the majority of that goes to maintenance in the Detroit area), and $307M on public transportation [[presumably the majority of that goes to maintain the DDOT and SMART all bus fleets). So Michigan spent almost as much on buses as Amtrak spent maintaining all of the tracks that it owns nationwide.

http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa/briefing...10%20final.pdf

[Russix]

...
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.

Or we can say F#@K what the people want, let's build a microsystem and make'em pay for it anyway.

Join the "I Hate M1 Rail" facebook group!!!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gi...0362027&ref=mf

[ghettopalmetto]

Gee, you guys are right. Better not build ANY light rail unless we can afford to build a zillion miles of it all at once! Lord knows it's far better to keep demolishing buildings for new parking lots.