Gilbert makes pitch for expanded mass transit in metro Detroit

[swingline]

Expanded and improved mass transit remains an important issue in Detroit. We're always going to have an unacceptably lower ceiling to the regional economy if we remain 99% automobile-centric. Keeping the discussion in the public consciousness is also important. To that end, I saw that the WDIV Flashpoint show on Sunday had Michael Griffie and Sheila Cockrel on to discuss the issue. It's great that Mr. Gilbert understands this. One thing that needs to be eliminated from the local discussion however is the word "subway". There are several modes of mass transit and they are very different from each other and of course their costs vary wildly. A subway, that is, a subterranean heavy rail system, is simply a non-starter due to the costs and insufficient ridership density in this region. The use of that term to promote possible mass transit solutions destroys the credibility of the proponent. We have to focus on what is possible and what has worked in other places. We gotta stop talking about subways.

[ABetterDetroit]

One thing that needs to be eliminated from the local discussion however is the word "subway". There are several modes of mass transit and they are very different from each other and of course their costs vary wildly. A subway, that is, a subterranean heavy rail system, is simply a non-starter due to the costs and insufficient ridership density in this region. The use of that term to promote possible mass transit solutions destroys the credibility of the proponent.

I disagree. The word “subway” isn’t the lighting rod that has ground all transit ideas to a halt here. In fact it is far from it. What has repeatedly destroyed all transit initiatives here for 50 years is “Property Tax Milage.” That is exactly what absolutely needs to be dumped in the garbage if transit is to move forward. Hell, the Mayor of Detroit is in the middle of trying to lower taxes on homeowners, what does that tell us? It speaks volumes. A new tax vehicle absolutely has to be floated to raise local funds so bonds can be sold against the income and federal matching funds can be secured. It’s the only way forward. Beating ones head against a brick wall will fail again. Something else needs to be tried.

[Canadian Visitor]

I disagree. The word “subway” isn’t the lighting rod that has ground all transit ideas to a halt here. In fact it is far from it. What has repeatedly destroyed all transit initiatives here for 50 years is “Property Tax Milage.” That is exactly what absolutely needs to be dumped in the garbage if transit is to move forward. Hell, the Mayor of Detroit is in the middle of trying to lower taxes on homeowners, what does that tell us? It speaks volumes. A new tax vehicle absolutely has to be floated to raise local funds so bonds can be sold against the income and federal matching funds can be secured. It’s the only way forward. Beating ones head against a brick wall will fail again. Something else needs to be tried.

While I agree w/your statement overall, I do think its important to say this..

Subways/Metros don't exist in a vacuum. You have to get to a station and from a station at each end of your journey, and in most cases, at least one of those 'last mile' connections is too length to be walked.

Its very important to build up the bus system to the point where its an attractive option to feed into a metro/subway.

A train running every 5 minutes sounds great; until you get to your destination station and need to connect to a bus that won't arrive for 30 minutes.

Worst case, every major bus route feeding into/crossing a Metro line needs to be every 15 minutes or better off-peak; and every 10 minutes or better in rush hours.

Without that, the train simply isn't a competitive commuting experience.

[Canadian Visitor]

One thing that needs to be eliminated from the local discussion however is the word "subway". There are several modes of mass transit and they are very different from each other and of course their costs vary wildly. A subway, that is, a subterranean heavy rail system, is simply a non-starter due to the costs and insufficient ridership density in this region. The use of that term to promote possible mass transit solutions destroys the credibility of the proponent. We have to focus on what is possible and what has worked in other places. We gotta stop talking about subways.

The word subway is generally used interchangeably with the word 'Metro' in much of the world.

Clearly, the word does originate in reference to tunnels, but many lines understood to be 'subways' including portions of the NYC system and the majority of Chicago's system, are in fact, above ground.

I wouldn't get too tied up in the terminology.

The goal, eventually, would be higher-order transit, on rails, that is entirely grade-separated [[does not share the road with other traffic and does not stop for traffic lights).

Whether one achieves this via an open trench, a tunnel, an elevated guideway, or some combination of these isn't overly important, though any choice will have trade-offs, including costs.

In general, tunneling is more expensive; however, going in a trench or above ground requires a great deal more property to be acquired. If that property can be found in an existing rail corridor, or highway corridor, and those make sense from a route perspective, then that may help save a lot of money.

However, if one has to buy up existing buildings and knock them down to build a new guideway, that can can be quite pricey.

Equally, when a guideway goes into a highway corridor, elevated or at highway grade, it doesn't tend to be seen as anymore of an eyesore than the highway itself; however, stations in the middle of highway overpasses are often not that appealing as walk-up locations for riders, who have to cross highway on/off ramps, and building bus terminals is complex and expensive [[decking over the highway).

An elevated Guideway beside homes can be seen as overbearing, casting large shadows, creating privacy issues, and the support columns can be graffiti magnets.

They can also be seen as psychological barriers between neighbourhoods, the same way as highways can.

That isn't an argument against going elevated by the way, just an illustration of the types of trade offs one must consider.

A big part of any plan needs to envision what you want the communities served by any new transit line to look like, once presumed gentrfication/redevelopment occurs.

How will the line induce and work with, what you want to see happen?

I suspect that the most likely scenario for Detriot would be a buried/tunneled line right in the downtown area, but one that climbs to either a trench or an elevated guideway once beyond the inner core.

[canuck]

The word subway is generally used interchangeably with the word 'Metro' in much of the world.

Clearly, the word does originate in reference to tunnels, but many lines understood to be 'subways' including portions of the NYC system and the majority of Chicago's system, are in fact, above ground.

I wouldn't get too tied up in the terminology.

The goal, eventually, would be higher-order transit, on rails, that is entirely grade-separated [[does not share the road with other traffic and does not stop for traffic lights).

Whether one achieves this via an open trench, a tunnel, an elevated guideway, or some combination of these isn't overly important, though any choice will have trade-offs, including costs.

In general, tunneling is more expensive; however, going in a trench or above ground requires a great deal more property to be acquired. If that property can be found in an existing rail corridor, or highway corridor, and those make sense from a route perspective, then that may help save a lot of money.

However, if one has to buy up existing buildings and knock them down to build a new guideway, that can can be quite pricey.

Equally, when a guideway goes into a highway corridor, elevated or at highway grade, it doesn't tend to be seen as anymore of an eyesore than the highway itself; however, stations in the middle of highway overpasses are often not that appealing as walk-up locations for riders, who have to cross highway on/off ramps, and building bus terminals is complex and expensive [[decking over the highway).

An elevated Guideway beside homes can be seen as overbearing, casting large shadows, creating privacy issues, and the support columns can be graffiti magnets.

They can also be seen as psychological barriers between neighbourhoods, the same way as highways can.

That isn't an argument against going elevated by the way, just an illustration of the types of trade offs one must consider.

A big part of any plan needs to envision what you want the communities served by any new transit line to look like, once presumed gentrfication/redevelopment occurs.

How will the line induce and work with, what you want to see happen?

I suspect that the most likely scenario for Detriot would be a buried/tunneled line right in the downtown area, but one that climbs to either a trench or an elevated guideway once beyond the inner core.

Yes, your mention of elevated guideways is pretty relevant to issues pertaining to social acceptability. Questions like privacy, aesthetics, noise abatement among other things are part of the mix. A second pahase pf the REM called; the REM de l’Est came about from CDPQ Infra, and was rejected by city urbanists and the mayor, Valérie Plante, because there was a proposed elevated way along a major thoroughfare downtown that was deemed unacceptable. Then came another solution, but that alternative was found to be too unpredictable, and dangerous. The agency proposed an underground link from east of downtown into the core, but the existence of the metro lines, the underground expressway [[Ville-Marie expressway), and the underground train tunnel leading to Central station were proving hard to overcome. So, even now, the idea of an elevated railway is not seen positively by the East End folk who live next to the existing freight railway that would be appropriated to that end. Then, our prime minister got a quote for an extensive, all stops pulled projection of costs that gave a predicted cost of 29 billion. That dumped a nice cold shower on the idea. We are still waiting for another more attainable estimate.