  Detroitman Member Username: Detroitman Post Number: 1086 Registered: 06-2004 |
3 cities look to land key train stop BY CECIL ANGEL • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • May 12, 2008 http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20080512/NEW S05/805120367 | ||
W_chicago Member Username: W_chicago Post Number: 27 Registered: 01-2008 |
Why make it so hard?••• Just put a stop at all three!•••••• | ||
Malcovemagnesia Member Username: Malcovemagnesia Post Number: 76 Registered: 12-2005 |
The more stops that are added, the slower the train is going to take to get between A2 & Detroit. And that's not going to help motivate people to rely on taking a commuter train versus doing the long drive. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 8653 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Unless, of course, it allows more accommodation for those along the route to actually use the system. The area might be better served by smaller stations at those three locations rather than more congestion at one large station contributing to expansion of roads leading to it, as well as greater need for larger parcels of land required for parking cars at just one location. | ||
The_rock Member Username: The_rock Post Number: 2335 Registered: 11-2003 |
From the stop at Dearborn to actually pulling in at the Amtrak station at Woodward, it seems like an eternity. Talk about creeping along . And pull your shade down, as the view out the window is a depressing as you can have as far as an orientation to Detroit is concerned. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 1675 Registered: 11-2004 |
Also realize that most of the passengers wont be traveling from Ann Arbor to Detroit and vice versa. Most will be going between a couple of stations between those two ends of the line. For example there will probably be many more people getting on in Ann Arbor to go to Ypsilanti or the airport or Dearborn than all the way to Detroit. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4768 Registered: 02-2005 |
The_rock, I think the slowness is the main problem. I took it on Friday and I think that was the slowest crawl ever. Personally I like the view, and the fact that you can't get those views on the highway. I think there should be even more stops than currently planned. The speed situation in the CoD needs to be remedied, and that will make up for the "loss" of time. There's no reason a station stop should be a big to-do. It should basically be a one-minute thing, if that. Look at how other cities' subways work, or look at NJ Transit or Philly's SEPTA main line to see examples of appropriate spacing on commuter rail. I would plan for stops at the current A2 station, a new stop at the east end of the UM Medical Center, a new stop at Depot Town in Ypsi, stops in Westland and Wayne (hell, put one in Canton and see if we can encourage denser development there), and maybe a stop near the downtown strip in Dearborn in addition to the current stop. I could also see a stop at Junction St. in Detroit, which would encourage rapid infill moving northwards from W. Vernor in Mexicantown. Stop frequency is just as important as speed. Look at any great transit system- bus, rail, or subway. | ||
Grumpyoldlady Member Username: Grumpyoldlady Post Number: 82 Registered: 06-2005 |
I don't know what train service is like now in Michigan, but here in Minnesota, you are lucky if the last person to get on is all the way up the steps before the train starts moving again. The train conductors/workers are on the platform urging people to hurry and practically pushing them up the steps...I've seen them load about 20 people in less than 2 minutes. | ||
Fmstack Member Username: Fmstack Post Number: 66 Registered: 06-2007 |
It seems like the best money-is-no-object answer here would be to put in three stops, and run some of the rush-hour trains as express services that skip all but one (Dearborn, or maybe Wayne). Granted, though, I'm guessing building extra stations costs some cash that might be best invested elsewhere -- like in fixing the trackage between Dearborn and downtown. | ||
Gianni Member Username: Gianni Post Number: 357 Registered: 05-2004 |
The answer to the speed question is simple: you have express and local trains. But there must enough ridership to justify additional trains. If it is only a local train all the time, I agree it would be too slow and end up discouraging ridership. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3091 Registered: 04-2006 |
I think the reason that all 3 cities won't get one is because they don't need 3 stops so close together. | ||
Ljbad89 Member Username: Ljbad89 Post Number: 6 Registered: 10-2007 |
"From the stop at Dearborn to actually pulling in at the Amtrak station at Woodward, it seems like an eternity. Talk about creeping along." The rock: The main reason behind the train going so slow between Dearborn and Detroit is the sharp, 90 degree, massive S-curve when the train turns north from Norfolk Southern to Canadian National tracks. You go 10 mph for 9 minutes. The total time between Dearborn and Detroit is about 20 minutes at this point. However, there is a plan in which a mile connection of new track will be laid. You can see what I mean in the second link below. The first one is from a month ago and the last report of progress we got from SEMCOG. I imagine that we should get another report within the next few weeks... I hope. http://www.semcog.org/uploaded Files/Programs_and_Projects/Pl anning/Corridor_Studies/Steeri ngCommitteeUpdate_20080409.pdf http://www.semcog.org/uploaded Files/Programs_and_Projects/Pl anning/Corridor_Studies/Map_20 080409.pdf | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 108 Registered: 02-2008 |
What sort of trains would be used? Something like the SEMTA...?? | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4769 Registered: 02-2005 |
Thanks for those valuable links. That upgrade at Junction is much-needed. That memo hints at only 8 trips a day for the commuter rail. I find that to be rather unsubstantial, but obviously better than three. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1269 Registered: 12-2006 |
The 8 trips is probably a cost constraint. Originally they were looking at either 8 or 15. The concern I have is that CN will give them a number "probably" less than eight, which we are then stuck with unless they try to force CN to allow more, or build a parallel track. The parallel track is the answer, but ups the cost a good bit as you can imagine. My concern with 8 trips a day is that it is better than nothing but not much of a service. We are going to kill ourselves trying to do transit on the dirt-cheap. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4324 Registered: 10-2003 |
I agree that stop density is key. For commuter rail, distances of 3-5 miles between stops are pretty typical, considering that most riders will park-and-ride. This shouldn't negate coordinating bus service with the trains, however. Let's be honest, though--with gasoline approaching $4/gallon, this line is going to succeed even if it is a bit slower than driving I-94. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1270 Registered: 12-2006 |
What surprises me is that Dearborn wants to put a new station out in the same middle-of-the-woods location that the existing station is in. Dearborn has two separate busy, walkable downtown areas, yet is choosing to locate its station in a place where nobody can walk to anything. I fear Dearborn doesn't "get it" completely. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1785 Registered: 11-2003 |
This is a good sign that cities are fighting over who gets the station. When this thing starts operating, let's have some ridership, which will convince people to expand service, add more stations, etc. And having those statistics opens up more federal funding. Isn't that the reason it took so long to do the studies is the lack on comparable data on transit service in the area? This and the light-rail line on Woodward is the closest we have actually come to having mass transit in Detroit. | ||
Elsuperbob Member Username: Elsuperbob Post Number: 122 Registered: 03-2007 |
Professorscott, the current station is just west of Greenfield in a relatively hard to walk to location like you say. The proposed station would be at the very edge of the West Dearborn Michigan Ave. area, about a mile and a half west of where it is now and only a third of a mile from Monroe/Michigan Ave. It's right on the edge of the West Dearborn downtown area. So it's not in the "middle-of-the-woods" like the current one. But I guess it wouldn't be as integrated as a station at say Monroe and the tracks would be. I think the city is putting it at the edge is because of all the space available there and the potential to eventually develop that end of the downtown area. It also has easy access to Greenfield Village from there. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 6487 Registered: 11-2003 |
Ann Arbor is NOT a suburb. Let's extablish that, eh. jjaba. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4325 Registered: 10-2003 |
Would the proposed Dearborn Station be located at the existing Greenfield Village Amtrak station? It seems if that's the case, they might be trying to take advantage of the huge parking lot there. IMHO, though, Dearborn would be more of an "urban" station--I'm thinking of Silver Spring, Maryland--where you'd want to cluster offices, retail, and higher-density housing around the station, rather than kowtow to park-and-riders. Regardless, that's still not a bad location. You can walk 2 blocks to Michigan Ave (perhaps buses can be routed to serve the station during rush hours?), and there are a plethora of surface parking lots that can be developed. It seems that Wayne has the right idea in their desire for a station, but I thought the actual routing was to proceed closer to the airport? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1272 Registered: 12-2006 |
Bob said "Isn't that the reason it took so long to do the studies..." Worse than that, Bob, the lack of ridership data is what is keeping that $100M out of our hands. The FTA does not consider an Ann Arbor to Detroit line competitive for funding, because its formulas assume an improved service will generate some percentage increase in ridership - and since there is today no transit service at all between those cities, any percentage increase from zero is still zero. Elsuper, a third of a mile is longer than a lot of people will walk to get into an area. Far better to drop people off right in the middle of someplace. I'll bus it out to Mich/Elm later to take a look, though, I haven't paid attention to that location so what I say is somewhat speculative. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1273 Registered: 12-2006 |
Jjaba, That commuter train is not primarily designed to link Ann Arbor to Detroit, though that is one thing it will do. It has two almost separate purposes: first, provide for trips in Washtenaw County and between AA/Ypsi and the airport; second, provide a Michigan Avenue rapid-transit service between Dearborn and Detroit and from those communities to the airport. I'd be surprised if great numbers of people ride that train past the airport in either direction. | ||
W_chicago Member Username: W_chicago Post Number: 28 Registered: 01-2008 |
I think this would be good-- New Center Junction St (or anywhere near southwest Detroit) Dearborn (east) Inkster Westland Wayne Canton Ypsilanti Ann Arbor +eventually both the Dearborn stop and the New center stop could have light-rail transfer (Michigan and Woodward lines, respectively) We have to balance both increasing ridership (w/ more stops) with decreasing travel time (w/ improvements to tracks, stations, etc). Also I think it is important to think about who these stations will be serving-- mostly low-income/working-class people, many of whom do not have cars, or who decide driving is just too expensive. By adding more stations, we make transit more accessible to those who need it most. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1274 Registered: 12-2006 |
W_chi, it's also important to have a couple stops west of A-squared. Dexter, Chelsea, for instance. But the current project, methinks, is severely cost constrained which is why they plan to add just an airport stop. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4327 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I think that's a dangerous assumption. In my experience, most commuter rail passengers are "choice" riders. | ||
W_chicago Member Username: W_chicago Post Number: 29 Registered: 01-2008 |
"I think that's a dangerous assumption. In my experience, most commuter rail passengers are "choice" riders." Its not dangerous to assume those who currently live near these stations are working-class people... because its true. I said "many" don't have cars, not all. I also said, they may "decide" (which implies a choice) that driving is too expensive, which it is. Ultimately, almost all the riders will be "choice" riders, but different riders will have different motivations for choosing to ride. Some will choose because of convenience, others because of financial reasons, others because they just darned love transit. But remember, that freep article talked about how only 1 and 3 folks in Inkster have cars. Building a commuter rail with a station in Inkster gives them the "choice" to ride a commuter rail, and to work/visit other places without having to walk or take the bus... it's still a choice. | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 231 Registered: 10-2006 |
Commuter rail passengers in the U.S., in contrast to other countries around the world, tend to have higher median incomes than drivers or other transit passengers. Throughout basically the entire planet (excepting the U.S.), suburbs = poor, but since it's reversed here, the commuter rail passengers tend to have high incomes. | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 232 Registered: 10-2006 |
I guarantee that Inkster claim is false. That would make Inkster the most transit-dependent city in the United States. | ||
Ljbad89 Member Username: Ljbad89 Post Number: 7 Registered: 10-2007 |
Dtowncitylover: They are supposed to be refurbished Amtrak style cars. I live in Wayne MI so I'm hoping that the airport station will be in Westland or Wayne. If it is put in Inkster, it wouldn't be that beneficial to me. Right now, it takes 30 minutes to get from my front door to the front door of the pharmacy school at WSU if I take Merriman to 94. If it takes me 5 minutes to get to the station, get on and get going, 9 minutes to Dearborn, 10 minutes to Detroit (that is a guess of how long it could take if they put in the connection in West Detroit) abd 5 minute shuttle ride or moped right to WSU's RX building, that is about the same time. I would much rather rest for 20 minutes and read, look out the window or do homework at the last minute ;) if it takes about the same time. None of the current or proposed stations are in any of the downtown areas of the the cities. Detroit's in a few miles north of downtown, Dearborn's is in the middle of nowhere, Ann Arbor's is a few miles from downtown and Ypsilanti's is a few blocks away. There is nothing around Merriman-Mich Ave except for a strip mall, a cemetary and the former Eloise hospital. At least with Wayne, it's in downtown. I imagine that when the trains arrive, there will be shuttles going to different parts of the cities and back during different times of the day. Unfortunately though, I've surveyed the proposed Wayne area behind Rite-Aid and it isn't large enough to support a station and parking. On the other side of Wayne Road is a huge park. That would be a better spot, but there are no straight shot streets to Wayne or Michigan Avenue. Lastly, I think 8 round-trip rounds are a good start. It will probably be like 3 rounds in the morning, 1 midday, 3 in the afternoon when people get off work and 1 in the evening. |
