Eric Member Username: Eric
Post Number: 879 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 2:37 pm: | |
Has there been any recent attempt to repass the DARTA bill? With all the talk and studies about commuter and light rail it makes sense that we put the laws in place that would allow DDOT and SMART to merge. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1287 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 3:04 pm: | |
No, but Hertel is working on a plan to help the RTCC implement much of DARTA anyways (outside of governance issues), and SEMCOG is making some progress on the firs regional priority corridor (Michigan). Why Michigan?? Because that the one that Levin got Study money for! |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1133 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 3:06 pm: | |
DARTA wanted to put buses in special concrete lanes. It was the perfect proposal for carheads and busheads, and it disgusted a fair number of rail proponents. To me, it seemed it was more of a divide-and-conquer proposal, as it didn't threaten the road lobby and didn't appeal to many serious transit advocates. If that's what we can expect from further DARTA work, forget it. |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 512 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 5:16 pm: | |
DARTA never wanted any such thing. SEMCOG commissioned a study which produced that result, and the concept fell flat with the public and media. DARTA never existed long enough or certainly enough to want anything. |
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo
Post Number: 127 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 5:31 pm: | |
Trainman? What say you? |
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1104 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 5:54 pm: | |
He's busy posting gibberish in threads that have nothing to do with transit. He'll be here about 2 weeks after this thread dies. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1288 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 7:33 pm: | |
BRT was only one of several alternatives that were going to be studied by SEMCOG for the highest level corridors. SEMCOG's plan would have improved paratransit service, the linehaul buses that would feed into the highest level as well as the high level service along the major arteries. BRT was highlighted as a low cost alternative, but the Plan mentions that all feasible alternatives would be studied on a corridor by corridor basis before a final one is selected (why do you think the SEMCOG is trying to implement the Michigan line as a train if what they really want is BRT?). It is because rail may be feasible along the route, thats why! |
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3
Post Number: 75 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 8:11 pm: | |
DetroitPlanner - absolutely NO disrespect here...Or are they just sucking valuable money away from what matters most in a transit line? Strategic alliances. We all know that rail is feasible, don't we? We all know that without rail we continue to dig more shovels full out of our grave. It is political mumbo jumbo to say that rail 'may' be feasible. Instead of wasting time and money on another study we all know will never come to fruition, give us the BRT at least. Get GM to finance it, Matt Cullen owes the city $30 million right now anyway. Is Ferndale opposed to rapid transit? Noooo. Would their DDA be willing to help finance the costs, probably. Is Royal Oak opposed to rapid transit? Nooo, would their DDA be willing to help finance the costs, probably. Is Ann Arbor opposed to rapid Transit.... Sorry, had to get it out. Please continue. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1292 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 9:05 am: | |
Here is the rub. Levin got the line several million in 'study money' with the promise of over $100 million to build it once it proves itself. The money is earmarked for Detroit to Ann Arbor via the Airport. Since that corridor is consistent with the overall plan it is the one moving forward. Some have agued it is the best corridor for business, others such as yourself want to have something more suited to tie the urban nodes along Woodward. Well those same nodes exist along Michigan, Gratiot, and Fort as well. Patience is what is needed here. Its a long process with lots of talking going on between SEMCOG, AMTRAK, SMART, DDOT and freight RR's. Each has a different position and brings something different to the table. It needs to be worked out. Finally, making this more complex is the fact that govt around here is broke. Most DDA's are not there to invest funds captured from business within a district and invest it in anything else but business. If the DDA can see transit as a helper of business, your point may be well taken, but I would assume that most businesses would prefer more parking, a streetscape, marketing over folks using transit. DDA's do not have real deep pockets either, so the rest of the funds would need to be found. (Message edited by Detroitplanner on July 04, 2007) |
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3
Post Number: 86 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 1:07 pm: | |
Thanks UrbanPlanner, it's hard to be patient after so many years. I have no problem with an Ann Arbor line, i think it is a great step forward. I'm extremely worried about it's potential to consume the focus of our planners and transit authorities though. I'd hate to see everyone get so wrapped up in it that they don't have the money or resources to look to improving the actual city. Regional is fine and i look forward to it, but local is needed more right now. $100 million won't go very far to construct a high speed rail, soooo that means we'll be financing the Ann Arbor line and not working with local gov's about a local line. I hear you on the DDA spending ability, but i think what is missing here is that banks see profit in areas like Royal Oak, Ferndale, Clawson, Troy... So while those DDA's definetley don't have the kind of money necessary for rail, they do have the borrowing power for it. I'd be willing to bet that the businessess in those areas would be willing to get on board with that, but where is SEMCOG in coming to them with a plan? Nowhere, they are too wrapped up in the Ann Arbor line or too wrapped up in themselves trying to secure political positioning to further their careers i imagine. |
Bob Member Username: Bob
Post Number: 1500 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 1:52 pm: | |
Detroitplanner makes some great points. With the AA to Detroit commuter line, we are seeing the most potential of something actually happening besides the current status quo of SMART and DDOT. It is just nice to see something going past the planning stages. |
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3
Post Number: 87 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 3:40 pm: | |
It's very nice to see. Too bad we were too pathetic to be able to do it ourselves and have to have the government do it for us. In the meantime our state is planning on funding infrastructure costs for more and more sprawl, i.e. an amusement park in Grayling. Is the AA line actually coming to the D? Or is it stopping at the Airport? |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1245 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 3:52 pm: | |
yes and yes |
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3
Post Number: 89 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 4:23 pm: | |
Thanks Charlottepaul! Sounds like we'll get bus service from downtown to the airport and rail service from the airport to google, i mean ann arbor. Definitely a worthy goal to keep all of SEMCOG occupied with (that was sarcasm). Or at least enough to keep two guys busy full time with another thirty or so sticking their noses in. Wow, i'm way to cynical. |
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 879 Registered: 09-2005
| Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 4:44 pm: | |
Jb3, the plan is to have commuter rail service from Detroit (Amtrak station) to DTW (shuttle bus from station to airport) to Ann Arbor. |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1249 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 4:54 pm: | |
Yeah true. It doesn't quite hit up downtown. |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 6153 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 5:25 pm: | |
DARTA is not going to work! those folks who started that proposal have violated mass transit guildelines. So leave that proposal DEAD. I'll stick with the good ol' D-DOT and SMART bus. |
Trainman Member Username: Trainman
Post Number: 435 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 5:59 pm: | |
I agree that DDOT and SMART should remain separate. They could do more to save money. For example, they both run buses along Michigan Ave and could share this route with a common schedule. The buses basically work, so if it works then don't fix it applies. I do not agree with MDOT cutting off or replacing funding to our transit providers. I would like to see the taxpayers get more for their limited transportation tax dollars by seeing everyone do more to help out so Livonia and other cites opt into their county transit authority and not out. I’m hoping a lot more is done before 2010, so Livonia comes back and gets the good bus service we once had from SMART. |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 6154 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 9:33 pm: | |
Trainman, It's not going to work. DARTA IS DEAD! |
Trainman Member Username: Trainman
Post Number: 436 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 11:37 pm: | |
Danny, I totally agree It was DARTA that killed the SMART buses in Livonia. DARTA officials made Livonia residents VERT angry because they openly and publicly stated that merging with DDOT with Livonia property taxes without state funds was possible and necessary to save SMART. It was a lie, illegal, immoral and was discrimination against all people. |
Jb3 Member Username: Jb3
Post Number: 91 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 5:32 am: | |
-"Jb3, the plan is to have commuter rail service from Detroit (Amtrak station) to DTW (shuttle bus from station to airport) to Ann Arbor." That exists already doesn't it? But it costs like $12 an amtrack ride, not very accesible for mass transit. At the moment though, they have not adopted any plan. Right now they are 'exploring alternative plans'. Which Detroitplanner mentioned earlier about the BRT's. Being a true Detroit pessimist, i can say in fair confidence that there will never be efficient, affordable rail line from the airport to downtown, or from downtown to anywhere for that matter. I hope i'm wrong, but their going to have to prove it to me. Which i don't think is high on their priority list (proving anything to me, that is). |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1295 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 8:27 am: | |
Transit in general is not efficient or affordable. It is a money-loser when seen by itself. However, what are the benefits to the region of the following: - getting folks out of single occupancy vehicles and commuting together where they can relax or plan the days work before getting to the office? - linking the Airport with downtown without the oddball transfer at Ford Rd/Middlebelt? - demonstrating to the rest of the region that mass transit is possible? - linking the universities of Michigan with WSU? - what are the possible benefits of having a train station within walking distance of New Center? Depot Town? |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1139 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 10:16 am: | |
The last I heard of DARTA, its name was on the front of the pamphlet for the BRT project, so that's what has left the unpleasant aftertaste for me. If they only did it because bad ol' SEMCOG made them do it, then that's another thing. Sorry for any miscast aspersions... |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2837 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 10:35 am: | |
Jb3, Amtrak isn't commuter rail.
quote:Transit in general is not efficient or affordable. Detroitplanner, you've just never had the benefit of using a transit system that IS efficient. And I would dare say that taking transit is a lot more affordable than driving. Even based on system capacity, transit can move far more people than an interstate highway, at a lower capital cost. The problem is, most cities in the U.S. presume that most people will still drive, so they half-ass the transit, and get a subpar product. No surprises there. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1068 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 10:45 am: | |
"Transit in general is not efficient or affordable." I assume you mean mass transit. What are you comparing this against? Cost of building a highway infrastructure? |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1140 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 10:46 am: | |
Remember, the bus isn't just for poor people to take to work. It's for them to take to school, and to the movies, and to the supermarket, too. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1296 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 11:36 am: | |
Dan, my point was that if all you're looking at is a simple cost benefit analysis that nearly every transportation project is a dog. That would go for road preservation or nonmotorized projects as well. It does not mean that investing in transportation is not important. Investments pay out in terms of increases in economic activity and quality of life; things that are not easily measured or recognized at the project level. |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 515 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 11:56 am: | |
Basically it makes sense to evaluate infrastructure projects in terms of overall cost-benefit, not project cost-benefit. Transportation infrastructure (of all kinds, except toll roads) is a government-paid-for operation, like police departments and libraries. Light rail systems generally have, over the past 25 years or so, provided anywhere from a 6 to 1 to a 10 to 1 return on investment, in terms of economic development in the corridor as a result of the rail implementation. Planner, when I complained earlier in the thread about the SEMCOG-commissioned study, I was serious and I think you are underplaying the effects of that. SpeedLink focused almost blindly on improved bus service (bus rapid transit, as it is often and not-quite-correctly known) at the expense of every other prospect. I have read it, cover to cover. I have a copy in my office. While it certainly "allowed for" other possibilities, it very heavily pushed the bus option, which was inappropriate at that level of study and which was very poorly received by the public and media. I certainly can see the benefit of an improved bus service on the second-tier transit corridors in the region, such as the Detroit-Utica corridor along Van Dyke or the Roseville-Royal Oak corridor along 10 or 11 mile roads. But for the major transportation corridors, rail transit is the only solution that will put us on a par with some of the regions we compete against for jobs and people. |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 6155 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 12:34 pm: | |
DARTA is not in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb County's agenda. DARTA is not on Detroit and the suburbs agenda and DARTA is definately not on GRANHOLM'S agenda. Coming up with proposal for regional transit takes bureaucratic agenda. If the public don't lobby about it, forget about it. Mass transit is not in my agenda and so it DARTA its dead and long gone. Go back to the drawing board. |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 516 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 12:38 pm: | |
Generally, Danny, we would expect our leaders to lead and not rely on the public to do their job for them. The public should not have to lobby the government to get it to provide basic services. |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 6156 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 12:43 pm: | |
Professorscott, If private health insurance companies can lobby congress to keep Hillary R. Clinton to shut her mouth about supporting Universal Health Care. I'm sure that the public can lobby for mass transit. After all, election year is just around the corner. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1297 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 1:39 pm: | |
Page 40 of the plan lists BRT as only one of several options for the Transit Plan along high level corridors. Page 69 is a table that demonstrates a what if scenario: one chooses all BRT, the other chooses all light rail. This was done to give a large range, not as a way to pre-determine the best mode (that is left for the EIS level), to preselect is premature. http://www.semcog.org/Products /pdfs/transitplan10-01.pdf |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 517 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 2:14 pm: | |
OK, how about this, a directly lifted quote: "Research done as part of MAC’s SpeedLink project concluded that, based on Southeast Michigan’s demographic and travel characteristics, BRT is capable of doing everything LRT can, at a much lower cost. The final decision on the transit mode for each corridor will actually be made at the later, federally required, detailed alternatives-analysis phase of implementation. However, current information supports the use of BRT. As it does not require construction of tracks, BRT can be implemented more quickly than LRT. In fact, the SpeedLink study concluded that three-to-five BRT lines could be implemented for every LRT line." That, my friend, is a heavy push for BRT, which if implemented cheaply (as is suggested here) does not provide the same service level as light rail and is nowhere near as popular with the public (as demonstrated by ridership levels in regions with both services such as Boston and Los Angeles). For BRT to provide the same type of service as light rail, it needs dedicated right of way which must be constructed. The media picked up on this obvious hard push for BRT, and panned it, as did (and do) I. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1298 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 2:27 pm: | |
If SEMCOG is pushing so hard for BRT, how come the first corridor is shaping up to be commuter rail? It seems to me that your opinions don't hold water. MAC is not the MPO SEMCOG is. MAC may share the same office address, but its staff and boards are completely separate. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1141 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 2:31 pm: | |
Right, they didn't push for BRT. And they'll never push for it again, either. |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 518 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 2:41 pm: | |
And Detroitplanner, Neither MAC nor SEMCOG is DARTA, which is what this thread purported to be about I agree, I know a few of the people at SEMCOG, and they are taking this seriously. The current attempt, to provide a commuter-rail-ish service on the D-AA line, is largely an attempt to demonstrate the potential ridership in order to unlock some or all of the $100M "soft earmark", and it won't be a full-featured commuter rail service, but at least it's a start. I have been trying to get a status on that, but no information is forthcoming - do you have any updated info? |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1299 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 3:11 pm: | |
SEMCOG website says: "Ann Arbor to Detroit Regional Rail Demonstration Project Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) Description This is a three-year demonstration project to provide regional rail service in the Ann Arbor - Detroit corridor using existing infrastructure whenever possible. This includes using current Amtrak stations in Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Detroit (New Center) and adding locations in Ypsilanti and at Detroit Metro Airport. The project is intended to illustrate how rapid transit can serve Southeast Michigan. Ridership data will be collected to both better customize the service to passenger needs and provide a more accurate basis to analyze options for expansion. The project is being managed by SEMCOG with the assistance of a steering committee that includes representatives of all communities in the corridor, Wayne and Washtenaw County officials, state and federal representatives, Michigan Department of Transportation, the local transit operators (DDOT and SMART) and members of the private sector. Status Meetings are being scheduled with the host railroads to begin negotiations regarding the use of their rail lines for passenger rail service. Other activities include researching equipment costs, determining land ownership, developing ridership estimates, building potential service schedules, and exploring funding options." |
Bob Member Username: Bob
Post Number: 1504 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 3:37 pm: | |
And didn't someone (maybe Wayne County) buy some land at the corner of Michigan Ave and Merriman for a potential station that will connect with the shuttle bus to the airport. |