  Ljbad89 Member Username: Ljbad89 Post Number: 15 Registered: 10-2007 |
Recently I emailed Carmine Palombo and asked if there were any updates on the project's status, as well as some questions from the previous topic two weeks back. I got the following response: "We have another meeting with NS set up in mid-June to review their results (rail capacity) and with AMTRAK at about the same time (fare and ridership) - so things are progressing. I will have another public update in the next week or so. It is coming together slowly, too slowly, but we really have no leverage here, other than the potential for additional investment in the corridor. As far as your questions are concerned, let me try to respond in the same order as you have asked them." 1. Other than the proposed connection at West Detroit, will any other new rail be laid to help ease congestion along the AA-Detroit corridor? CP: No additional new rail is being planned for at this time, there may have to be some sidings built, but we will need to wait for the analysis by NS to fully identify additional track needs. 2. Which of the cities mentioned will be the most likely to get the stop to service the airport? CP: Even if I knew, I wouldn't disclose - this issue may be ultimately resolved through the political process. 3. The Amtrak station in AA will be the stop for the commuter rail, that the station for the airport is being decided on, and we know the locations of the proposed intermodal stations in Detroit and Dearborn, but we never hear anything about Ypsilanti. For those of us that live in or would take the train to Ypsi, where would the station go? The old MCRR depot is still up, but it isn't in the best condition. If it could be purchased from the AA tycoon that owns it, would it be renovated? Torn down and a new station built? Another option? CP: We have been in conversation with Ypsi officials and we would like to use the site, the parking lot that is there, but the building is in bad shape. In the short run, probably erect a large bus shelter, long term hopefully construct something more permanent, either the City or the private sector. 4. From what we hear, the new Detroit intermodal station will be located on the opposite side of the tracks from the current Amtrak station. To avoid the massive S-curve, we assume that the proposed West Detroit Junction connection track would be laid right next to the current single track there on the left/west. Then the track would meet up with the double track between 24th and 25th Streets. That would be fine if the trains stop at the current Detroit station, but not the proposed intermodal station. How exactly would the connection work? CP: Final plans are still being worked up, but the concept would include the construction of a tunnel connecting both sides. 5. When the trains actually start running, will all stations be open at the start or just Detroit, AA and Dearborn and Ypsi and Wayne/Westland/Inskter's open soon after? CP: Hopefully, all stations would be open when service starts - that is the goal. 6. We understand that you have met with representatives of Norfolk Southern and Canadian National to discuss using their tracks. We were wondering if the junction in Wayne between the Norfolk Southern and CSX tracks would be a problem. CP: We are waiting for NS analysis of the diamond and its impact on the proposed service - it is one of the things they are analyzing. 7. With 8 trains a day, we assume that the likely setup would be 3 in the morning, 3 in the afternoon, 1 midday and 1 in the evening. Would that be the likely setup? CP: We would like to run 8 trains a day - not sure the freight guys will allow us to run that many. The analysis will indicate the number we can safely run. 8. Would fares be collected on the train or at the stations? CP: We are planning on the potential for both as well as selling them at machines, stations and on the internet. 9. When will this service start? CP: The governor wants this project to be her legacy, so the new timeline is late 2010 This is the best I can do for now. We are all excited and working hard, but it takes time. Thanks for being patient. | ||
French777 Member Username: French777 Post Number: 442 Registered: 10-2006 |
Great News! I love hearing about progress in Detroit Grandholms Legacy... | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 515 Registered: 03-2008 |
Thanks! | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4823 Registered: 02-2005 |
THANK you for sharing. I once did some of my own reporting on this for a story and found that many parties are quite willing to talk. The political and budgetary aspects of this, and the fact that the public is not clamoring for this yet, make the process so slow, and it kind of makes me discouraged that these great plans that are so easy for the people making them to talk about are taking so long to put into motion. | ||
Cooper Member Username: Cooper Post Number: 17 Registered: 02-2008 |
Thank you for posting that. It's good to know the plans are still progressing, however slowly. I just wish SEMCOG had more leverage to get this done quicker, but it doesn't own the rail lines and -- despite the hard work of Transportation Riders United -- overall public pressure has been weak. Maybe Granholm's desire for a "legacy" (which sounds, to me, like a joke -- what has Granholm done to expand mass transit in Michigan?) will motivate Palombo to finally get this project finished. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1645 Registered: 04-2006 |
The real issue is with the companies that own the railroad tracks. SEMCOG has supported this plan for quite some time and has obtained AMTRAK to provide the service. It can be next to impossible to get things done through the railroads as there is heavy competition between the companies and they never show their cards. I can't really blame them on that, but it would be nice if they were really concerned about the Region more than thier profit margin. | ||
Evelyn Member Username: Evelyn Post Number: 261 Registered: 02-2005 |
Thanks a lot for the update. Maybe the rising gas prices will increase public demand. | ||
Evelyn Member Username: Evelyn Post Number: 262 Registered: 02-2005 |
Thanks a lot for the update. Maybe the rising gas prices will increase public demand for this type of service. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1315 Registered: 12-2006 |
It would be interesting to know how it is that several other cities have been able to successfully implement commuter rail on multiple lines, with great frequency (look at Boston's commuter rail schedule), yet we struggle mightily for years to put a few trains a day on a single line. Maybe we just don't know what we're doing. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 156 Registered: 04-2008 |
"CP: We would like to run 8 trains a day - not sure the freight guys will allow us to run that many." As long as passenger trains are subordinate to freight trains (in terms of trackage/running rights), I think they will continue to have a "slow go". The law should be changed to give passengers the right-of-way over freight. Weren't most (all?) railways built on land granted to them by the government? "The land, the earth God gave man for his home, sustenance, and support, should never be the possession of any man, corporation, society, or unfriendly government, any more than the air or water..." -Abraham Lincoln, US President during the largest of the railroad land grants | ||
Evelyn Member Username: Evelyn Post Number: 264 Registered: 02-2005 |
I think it’s just the nature of large project that require several governments, communities or other groups of people. Planning this project in a very car-focused area doesn't help. On the other side of the country, the rail project to connect Albuquerque and Santa Fe in New Mexico has been delayed several times- most recently, by prairie dogs, of all things. http://santafe.com/Pages/1051 | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1648 Registered: 04-2006 |
PS, Boston does not have the freight that somewhere like the Detroit area does. Remember while manufacturing is down considerably here it still remains a huge part of our greater region's economy. It would be an interesting study to look at how many of the METRA lines are on shared tracks (I would suspect it to be few). | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4397 Registered: 10-2003 |
Interesting point, Professorscott. I think there are several things going on here. One, is that the study essentially had to go back to the drawing board because there was no existing transit service along the corridor. How was this reconciled in places like Nashville, Albuquerque, and Salt Lake, all of which have started commuter rail lines in the past year? Did they hit the same speed bump? If not, what did SEMCOG do incorrectly? If there were similar problems in these other areas, why did SEMCOG not learn from it? Second, it appears that SEMCOG is completely inexperienced and incompetent in all matters transit-related. This would leave them vulnerable to the whims of the freight railroads, who are looking out solely for their bottom lines. Third, in other states, the state government often provides funds for track upgrades. For example, Virginia built a new switch near Alexandria to speed VRE movements through the area. Virginia is also paying CSX to build a third track between Washington and Richmond to increase capacity for commuter and intercity trains. It seems we haven't seen any sort of commitment from the State of Michigan yet. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4826 Registered: 02-2005 |
No, I don't think we have seen commitment from the state because CP only mentioned the upgrade at West Detroit Junction and a couple sidings. I agree that it quite weird that Granholm wants this as her legacy, but I really don't hear her talking about it, and I would definitely expect some large chunks of state funding to build/upgrade tracks. Does she expect this success to just occur and then be attributed to her government? Let's not pretend the money can't be freed up from other places-- I almost threw up a couple times last weekend when I went up north and saw all the road-widening and re-building projects (and that was just along I-75). The portion of I-75 that's shared with US23 will soon average 8 lanes (10 in some places). It's absurd. And I saw the lovely new bridge being built over I-75 just before the Palace (don't know what road it's for). Personally, I think our roads should be getting narrower. We probably already have the most average lanes per capita (if that's even a stat), and we're making roads bigger while our budget is tight, our population is stagnant, and transit is needed in a most dire way. Yeah, great legacy, Jenn. | ||
Spiritofdetroit Member Username: Spiritofdetroit Post Number: 967 Registered: 11-2006 |
Just because this character stated that it is the Governor's legacy does not make it true. It is true, however, that the governor supports this plan and other transit options, which are currently under development - not only for the detroit area but also for Lansing. | ||
Evelyn Member Username: Evelyn Post Number: 265 Registered: 02-2005 |
Two words: government funding and support. New Mexico’s Rail Runner started running in 2006, but planning started in 2003, I think. I don’t know much about the project’s early years, or what MRCOG or NMDOT did differently than SEMCOG. The train runs through three counties and seven Native American Pueblos, and I’m thinking it took quite a bit of work to make all those governments agree. I do know that the project has had quite a bit of support from the governor. Granholm’s intentions aside, I don’t know what she has actually done for public transit in Michigan. I do know that the money for the train could have been spent widening I-25, a highway that runs north/south in NM. But several Native American tribes along the highway’s corridor refused to allow extra lanes to be added, as it would cut into their land. The Rail Runner was part of a transportation bill passed by New Mexico’s senate. It’s been pitched for both commuters and tourists, which probably helped as well. Almost half of the state’s region live along the I-25 corridor. I don’t know for certain if there was a passenger train route connecting Albuquerque and Santa Fe, but I highly doubt it. A certain amount of determination also helps. If environmentalists in Santa Fe start hollering about hurting prairie dogs, hire someone to capture and relocate every single one of the furry little critters. If anyone else from New Mexico wants to chime in, please do! http://www.nmrailrunner.com/ab out.asp (Message edited by Evelyn on May 28, 2008) | ||
Clark1mt Member Username: Clark1mt Post Number: 144 Registered: 06-2005 |
"And I saw the lovely new bridge being built over I-75 just before the Palace (don't know what road it's for)." That's Walton Blvd., as part of a project to widen the road from two to five lanes. The bridge part of the project is federally funded, I believe. The whole widening there is to match the five lanes in Pontiac and four-lane divided road in Rochester Hills. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1813 Registered: 11-2003 |
I believe the state helped fund the conversion of the Amtrak line down in southwest MI to an upgraded signal system so it can go to speeds in excess of Amtrak's standard 79MPH. The state also helps fund the Amtrak Pere Marquette, and Blue Water lines. Grand Rapids seems to have more on the ball in terms of getting ready and having a plan for transit. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4827 Registered: 02-2005 |
I believe that the Marquette and Blue Water lines would have likely folded altogether without state subsidies. Clark1mt, thanks for the clarification. I guess it shows that the prioritization of highway over transit goes to the highest levels of government. The governor's mere support of transit in metro Detroit seems to not be enough, SoD. I understand that the political process is a factor that slows everything down, but it needs to be counteracted with actual action. There are a handful of things traditionally implemented by more liberal state governments that I was hoping a democrat governor might fight for; I was never looking forward to Granholm in office, and I dislike her for many stances, but I was at least hoping to see big money reallocated to transit, the revival of weigh stations, car inspections [emissions and general inspections], HOV/carpool lanes, and a moratorium on road-building. Alas, this is Michigan. I saw a billboard which beckoned drivers to call their congressman and ask for increased road funding. I'm sure it is well-receieved. Roads are a bottomless pit for cash. Expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and they crumble before long regardless. Transit is an actual investment, and while there are costs, the benefits derived per expenditure seem to be much greater. | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 241 Registered: 11-2007 |
The MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority) owns most of the tracks around Boston, which I believe they bought from the Boston and Maine RR when they were going bankrupt. The worst line in the MBTA Commuter Rail system is the Worcester line which is the one that they don't own--at least partly because of scheduling problems with the freight trains. | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 1403 Registered: 11-2003 |
Retroit wrote, "The law should be changed to give passengers the right-of-way...Weren't most (all?) railways built on land granted to them by the government?" I think the freight railroads' position is more understandable when you realize several things. They pay taxes on all those rights-of-way, and the taxes go up when more tracks are built. They maintain their infrastructure, dispatch & run the trains out of their own pockets with no public subsidies in the vast majority of cases. Land grants were given to some, but definitely not all, railroads. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 160 Registered: 04-2008 |
Thanks, Burnsie. Didn't realize they paid (property?) taxes on their lines. Just seems more reasonable that people would be given some preference over bulk freight. How about eminent domain? Do the passenger trains in Europe have separate lines from the freight trains? | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1650 Registered: 04-2006 |
Bob, The state improved the Amtrak line on the west side of the state that is used by Detroit trains. The Grand Rapids train only uses a small portion of that line. It made sense for them to improve it there first as it is very rural in character and is shared with the Blue Water line as well. Therefore, it gets its most bang for the buck. One of the things that has to be done to speed up the trains is to eliminate at grade crossings. The Detroit area has many of these. It is not prudent to shut down most of those crossings here as it will lead to further traffic congestion, and cause problems for emergency response vehicles. We will never see those speeds here unless there is some sort of grade separation program, and at $20 million a throw to start that ain't going to happen. You can buy a lot of transit for $20 million a throw and there is only a finite amount of transportation funding that is out there. (Message edited by Detroitplanner on May 29, 2008) | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 558 Registered: 03-2008 |
You guys are going to laugh at me, but.... the future is in people movers. They are expensive up front but cheap to maintain. People Mover's have come a long way since ours was built. People Mover 3000 Link: http://www.intamintransportati on.com/itl/index.php?option=co m_content&task=blogcategory&id =25&Itemid=43 We could even utilize and convert the current people mover. Maybe even update it. That would make it so much cheaper, and possibly even profitable. Seriously, look around that site. It's not 1986 anymore. Expensive to build, but cheap to maintain! | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4829 Registered: 02-2005 |
There's no reason to build elevated rail where you can easily put the same thing on the ground. Building elevated tracks like those for DPM is automatically more expensive. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1651 Registered: 04-2006 |
There are lots to like about people movers and monorails, however, they do clutter up the landscape something fierce. In addition they tend to push retail off of street level and Detroit needs as many pedestrians on its streets as it can get! Mackinaw conversely you ca also say that there is no reason then to build rail on the ground when BRT can do the same job. In order to have full independent movement of transit it needs to be at its own grade. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1324 Registered: 12-2006 |
There are lots of arguments for and against automated guideway transit, but the reality is we can't build it, for two simple reasons: (1) it's much more expensive than on-ground transit, and (2) the Federal government isn't funding any more such projects, not for a long time. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4399 Registered: 10-2003 |
How does a commuter rail thread always get sidetracked onto both intercity rail and local transit? | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1652 Registered: 04-2006 |
Because Detroit does not know the difference. We have very little besides buses around here. There is a lot of education that is needed about transit modes and costs associated with them. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1325 Registered: 12-2006 |
Shoot, Dan, since we're basically fantasizing here, what difference does it make what we fantasize about? The basic facts are that no transit system anywhere recovers its costs, so you need to decide to tax yourself in order to have one. Then: Detroiters pay, per capita, about a third what modern cities pay for transit. That's why we have what we have, and why we are where we are. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1815 Registered: 11-2003 |
Even Chicago is having trouble and arguments about how to pay for the CTA, and that is considered a great system. They are running a huge deficit, and there are major upgrades needs on tracks. They are either talking about more money from the state, fair hikes, or cutting service. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4831 Registered: 02-2005 |
Dplanner-- except it costs more to dig the holes. One thing I noticed on that link about people movers is that they are much more compact these days. The tracks and their footings aren't as wide and consequently take up less space. I'm sure they go a lot faster than DPM-- which could use an upgrade. The problem with people movers that are built in loops like ours is that you can't have 90 degree angles in the track, so they are always skipping over corners...our tracks romp all over our streetscape and cut off several lots and street frontages (i.e. the Statler Site). Anyway, we're talking about A2-Detroit. That would be more of a straight line. If an elevated people mover like the ones in those cool pictures would be sufficiently cheaper and more efficient over the long haul than traditional rail (I'm assuming the upfront costs are, clearly, hundreds of times greater), and could enable many more trips per day since they are fully independant, and if we could have a good place to build track (could it parallel Michigan Ave?), then perhaps it could work. I'm sure it's not what the people trying to make any and all commuter rail happen ASAP are thinking about, though. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2522 Registered: 10-2006 |
Some updates on Charlotte's system to compare: "Last fall, light rail was synonymous with delays and cost overrruns." "When Lynx first opened, there were roughly 500 cars in park-and-ride lots, which have 3,200 spaces, according to CATS officials. By early May, there were 1,830 cars parked in the seven park-and-ride lots, according to an Observer weekday count. The parking deck at the I-485/South Boulevard lot now consistently fills up by the end of rush hour." "The average Lynx trip costs $2.70 in operating dollars, but that doesn't include the cost of building the line. Three-quarters of the train's $462.7 million cost came from federal and state grants. When CATS' portion of the train's capital cost is included, the per-passenger cost jumps to about $4.50. The average bus trip is about $4.30, which doesn't include the cost of buying the bus. The cost is rising quickly due to fuel prices." http://www.charlotte.com/112/s tory/644352.html | ||
Cooper Member Username: Cooper Post Number: 18 Registered: 02-2008 |
quote: Carmine Palombo is the Transportation Director for SEMCOG. He's a pretty reliable source. I still don't think this will be Granholm's legacy -- that would have required visible involvement from the governor -- but I guess I'm willing to believe she'd like it to be. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1654 Registered: 04-2006 |
Mackinaw not all people movers are loops. Scarboughough has a system that is nearly identical to ours (Bombardier)but is linear. It links the TTC with a mall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S carborough_RT_(TTC) Anyway, you would not want a people mover to connect Detroit and Ann Arbor, so discussing this sort of stuff is irrelevant. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2367 Registered: 07-2004 |
So, uh, are we saying we should build an elevated guideway transportation system between Ann Arbor and Detroit? Oh, man. That sounds insanely expensive. Or has the thread been derailed again?  | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4400 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yes, the thread has been derailed again. Fancy that! quote: No worries. Everyone in the DC area seems to think that Metro is the one-size-fits-all solution. I've seen people beg for extensions to Fredericksburg, VA (50 miles away), BWI Airport (which already has commuter rail service, and Frederick, MD (45 miles away, also has commuter rail service). Hell, even the extension to Dulles Airport is insanely stupid due to the low population/employee densities adjacent to the proposed line. Detroit has the track mileage to build a solid regional rail network, and link the area with outstate cities (Lansing, Flint, Ann Arbor, Toledo). As gas prices continue to rise, I'm horribly optimistic on commuter rail's chances. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2369 Registered: 07-2004 |
Yes, Dan, but Detroiters love their cars, and since we make our living making cars, bla bla bla ... | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1328 Registered: 12-2006 |
Actually, Dan, the knotty problem here is that Detroit uses its tracks! Our freight rail network is extensively used, which is why the railways are not just giving us free access to put more passenger trains on their tracks. It seems to me - if anyone here knows Mr. Palombo, perhaps you can suggest it to him - that the carrot we have in negotiations with CN, CSX and NS, and which we don't appear to be using, is to use the government to help the railroads secure land for such things as rail yards, sidings and paralleling of track. In exchange, you know, for their allowing us to run commuter rail on the freight tracks. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4404 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^I don't see why not. That's the way things seem to operate in other states (and Virginia, for one, sees a buttload of rail freight). I wouldn't be too confident, though, that the good folks at MDOT even know what the word *rail* means. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1655 Registered: 04-2006 |
There are a lot less in the auto industry than there used to be. We need to look at all modes of transportation and decide on which are feasible given that we are now a poor City in a poor State. Feasible transit will move the most people, in a cost effective and timely manner. For long trips such as Detroit to Ann Arbor a train is very appropriate, but that might not be appropriate for an upgrade to the Warren Avenue Crosstown. We should not be looking at building a system that we cannot afford to run even if it is well used. An earlier thread discussed 3 communities killing each other to land a temporary transit station along the AA-Det line. Why? Because each community knows that development will come with that station and that will increase their bottom line. This is not to discount the economic benefits of having a good running bus service. One can argue that the economic benefits from an awsome bus route could far outweigh that of only 3 stops between Ann Arbor and Detroit. However, if the bus stopped every few blocks between Detroit and Ann Arbor no one would ride it, and it would take hours. The amount of money being made available for transportation through federal and state coffers is shrinking due to less folks buying gasoline (lower VMT and higher MPG means less money to fix roads and improve transit). Increasingly we will be asked to float millages to pay for these improvements. To see folks complain about a .1 mill for the Zoo, how do you think they will feel about one mill for transit or road resurfacing? If you want commuter trains, light rail, BRT, smoother roads you better be willing to open your pocket book. If you think about it the possibilities of physically tying together Wayne, Easter, and OU of M together with the Airport is amazing to what it will be able to do to draw and keep people in this area. We need to start somewhere, we should be supporting this not picking apart the idea like armchair quarterbacks. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4405 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Like the Michigan highway system? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2373 Registered: 07-2004 |
^^ Bingo! :^D | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1656 Registered: 04-2006 |
The same goes for highways. Unfortunately, you can't close down roads as easily as you can reduce transit service. Limiting easements to land use will get the politicos in a ton of hot water. We need to diversify our options so we don't need to build more roads in the future, but we can't be spending money foolishly on transit projects either. Investments and returns are becoming the way of project selection as dollars become even more scarce then they were before. Next year, the Federal trust fund is going to be broke. Right now transit agencies and road agencies are scrambling to match what they can so that they can get what little federal-aid is available. It is like this all over. The Ann Arbor to Detroit line will be a godsend for those who cannot get to point a to point be to get employment. The amount of people who work in Downtown, Dearborn, Ann Arbor, and the Airport is staggering when you think about it as a combined network. Lets get behind this and then behind Woodward, then link Woodward to Big Beaver and Telegraph. Now we are getting somewhere. A network moving folks from home to work without tens of thousands of car engines putting miles more of VMT on the streets. Was it over when the germans bombed pearl harbor no! Lets get em! | ||
Kid_dynamite Member Username: Kid_dynamite Post Number: 549 Registered: 06-2007 |
What the hell happened to Livernois Yard's happy ass? I really want to know why he isn't here vomiting all over this. | ||
Busterwmu Member Username: Busterwmu Post Number: 486 Registered: 09-2004 |
Thanks for posting this, it's good news! Understandable that NS would not double track from CP-Mort (Greenfield Village) to Wayne, as it would be out of pocket and not a priority to them. With 8 trains a day, it could be done on a single track over that stretch. The connection at CP-West Detroit is the #1 priority, followed by a crossover addition in the Lonyo Ave area, I expect. | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 573 Registered: 03-2008 |
Regarding a People Mover; See if I have this right.... I might not. I think... Educated and extremely rough estimations.... I'm still very new to electrical too. This is based on my current knowledge of the price of steel, and the technology involved. It's also seems to be the going rate of systems like this. Am I right in assuming a people mover system would cost about $20 million a mile? Where are the public transit people on this site? I keep getting $20 million a mile and a $40 per run/mile/or station conclusion. Is that right? Help please? It would be less than 3.0 MVA required.... that sounds doable to me? If that's true, would that make sense? Maybe I need to stick with my areas of expertise? You also have security and maintenance costs. Where is LY and people who know about this stuff? Nevermind, I might just be looking stupid here. LOL! Does anyone even know what I'm talking about? EDITED... POORLY! (Message edited by Sean_of_Detroit on May 29, 2008) | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1329 Registered: 12-2006 |
Sean, on the ground light rail costs a good bit more than $20 million a mile, and it is always more expensive to build above ground than on the ground, and substantially so. Then too, there are several "stock" light rail vehicles available for sale at any given time; there is never any stock AGT vehicle and never has been, so you have to pay for development and engineering, and then since just about every AGT system is a one-off, there are never parts available. This is one of the reason the FTA discourages this to the point of no longer seriously considering funding for any AGT system in a great many years. Count the number of light rail systems built in North America since 1980, then count the number of AGT systems, and the discrepancy is for the above reasons. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4407 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: No, you are incorrect. For example, the DPM cost $67 million/mile--in *1986 dollars*. Modern light rail systems typically come in way under that amount (in current dollars). When you consider the reasons Professorscott gives above, it's a no-brainer. HOWEVER, this thread is supposed to be about COMMUTER RAIL, not local transit. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1331 Registered: 12-2006 |
Dan, You've been on this board how long, and you're surprised by a fairly mild threadjack? With regard to the specific commuter rail project actively being worked on in Detroit, it will be interesting to hear, hopefully in the next month or two, what the freight railroads want from us by way of upgrades and how much service they're willing to tolerate. If it's much less than the fairly slim eight round trips per day that SEMCOG is hoping for, I doubt it will be very successful since people will have to plan their whole day around it. Ten round trips, you're starting to come up with something useful. But we'll see. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2525 Registered: 10-2006 |
Light rail needs to come about every 15 mins. to be effective. If you call it "commuter rail," then you might be able to have a few rides in the morning and a few in the evening. The problem with that, is that it doesn't work out well for those going to the airport or coming in from out of town to the airport and wanting to get to downtown. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1333 Registered: 12-2006 |
...which is supposed to be one of the main points of the service. |
