  Detroitmaybe Member Username: Detroitmaybe Post Number: 195 Registered: 03-2008 |
DEARBORN -- An ambitious plan to develop a mass transit system for the nation's automotive capital -- featuring both light rail and a high-tech bus system -- was unveiled to the public Wednesday. Commissioned by Detroit and Oakland, Wayne and Macomb counties, Detroit Regional Mass Transit is proposing hundreds of miles of infrastructure, dedicating lanes to hybrid buses, light rail lines and commuter trains along Metro Detroit's major streets over the next few decades. The grand plan is yet to have a price tag. John Hertel, chief executive for the transit group, said the network would be built in phases, with changes based on the public's needs. -cont. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20080925/M ETRO/809250404 | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3326 Registered: 07-2004 |
Oh, man. They're just fucking determined to shove BRT down our throats. | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 313 Registered: 02-2008 |
Already a thread. What's wrong with BRT (bus rapid transit)? I think it can compliment LRT. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3328 Registered: 07-2004 |
It's all the expense of LRT without the capacity, permanence, speed, zero-exhaust and (as many believe) similar level of development/multiplier effect. Buses do have a place in a comprehensive transit plan. They are good vehicles for low-capacity feeder lines that run by day. Not as high-capacity mode of choice for major thoroughfares. | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 314 Registered: 02-2008 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =UZl1N6bTp_M http://www.youtube.com/watchv= 3LEtf32Bu3Y&feature=related These vids made me really believe in BRT and LRT. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3331 Registered: 07-2004 |
It's not a question of belief or salesmanship. Light rail does things BRT can't, and no amount of belief or salesmanship is going to change that. | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 315 Registered: 02-2008 |
Well I believe in both, I think both have good qualities. It would be cool for Detroit to be the first(?) city in the USA to implement such a system. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3333 Registered: 07-2004 |
Fuck that. Detroit has had ENOUGH boutique systems, people movers, etc. Why don't we ignore those boondoggles and go with the tried-and-true light rail systems that are sprouting up everywhere. That would not only be cool, but make sense. Pffft. Go ahead. Throw the money away on a "new" system that seems "cool" to you. Whatever. | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1322 Registered: 11-2003 |
Automotive companies make buses, too. That money will stay in the state for the most part, and recycle back as tax revenue and jobs. And this is why we will not see major light rail - that, and buses are cheaper to implement. NOT SAYING I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER, but it's the "reality" answer. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 1828 Registered: 11-2004 |
In disagree. I think the powers that be (in the Big 3 and otherwise locally) understand that light rail and commuter rail are needed in Metro Detroit, especially along Woodward. However, they will find a way to line their own pockets with this project. Watch for a lot of hybrid GM and ultra-light Fisher buses to be used in the BRT and ART lines they are talking about. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3334 Registered: 07-2004 |
Buses are cheaper to implement, and much more expensive to run, do not attract investment, pollute the air where they work, don't carry as many people, don't have the big multiplier effect, don't have the cachet of rail. But the multiplier effect is where you might look, DV. Just because we make buses doesn't mean the benefits will come back to us bigger and better. Maintaining rail, running rail, creates more jobs and those jobs keep money running back into the community. And they attract more investment than BRT, which means more doormen, custodians, restaurants, bars, etc. We've got to get beyond these myths that if we roll on tires the prosperity will automatically follow. | ||
Transitrider Member Username: Transitrider Post Number: 73 Registered: 01-2007 |
Dnerd, not to worry. Totally agree with this and past comments and concerns. The regional plan proposes making some BRT-like improvements immediately to provide more express bus options right now. But LRT is recommended for most of the obvious corridors, with BRT as a transitional phase for others. But my prediction is the success of LRT on the main corridors will accelerate the timeframes for others, and even eliminate BRT as a transitional step. Also, CRT is in there too. Unfortunately the feds still have BRT on their "must try" list, but perhaps with some better leadership and better transportation policy that can change... Still, I think it could be appropriate in some (secondary) corridors where the demand for LRT is not there yet. But don't take my word for it, come see the plan tonight in Ferndale or next week. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 880 Registered: 04-2006 |
The buses in DDOT's current fleet are sourced from Roswell, NM and Winnepeg, Manitoba. How exactly does the money DDOT spends on buses "stay in the state?" | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 1830 Registered: 11-2004 |
I completely agree Transitrider. I could see BRT being taken off of the must try list and much more money being invested into transit projects if Obama is elected. His election (along with Cockrell's re-election to mayor and Archer's election to governor in 2010) could be the best thing that could happen to Detroit from an urban investment standpoint. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3335 Registered: 07-2004 |
Encouraging outlook, TR. Yeah, I think once they implement light rail, they'll have to scrap any gussied-up-bus plans and admit (finally!) that light rail gets the goods we want. Can't come to Ferndale tonight, but I'll try to see the plan next week. Thanks for the input. | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1598 Registered: 12-2004 |
Buses suck. I will never ride a bus. I will ride a train. Build a stinking train already. | ||
Hunchentoot Member Username: Hunchentoot Post Number: 109 Registered: 03-2005 |
Implementation of light rail may be a high cost, but there's much less maintenance. BRT looks like a real turd. Hooray foe a plan, though! (Let's just not have 12 stops in 3.5 miles!) | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3500 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: LOL. Tell 'em why you mad, son! | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5396 Registered: 02-2005 |
Good, they drew up another plan. Now hold the local leaders hostage in the board room until they dedicate the funding: Let's do this. (Even the A2 commuter rail test-run has been held off another 2 years-- terrible) "Leaders say mass transit is critical to boosting the region -- especially Detroit, where an estimated one in three Detroiters is in poverty, according to Census Bureau figures released last month. Many residents can't afford cars and auto insurance, making it difficult to get to jobs outside the immediate area." That was a nice piece of synthesis by the Detroit News writer. While we want to get out of the rut we've been in for 50 years-- which relegates transit to use for poor people only-- it's important to consider the positive effects this could have for Detroiters who do reverse commutes. This plan also undercuts the argument that says that metro Detroit can't have successful transit because it's too spread out-- there's no single core and there are too many satellite employment centers. While we have too many satellite cities, you can still craft a system that offers virtually everyone that lives inside of a certain urbanized the area the ability to get to where they need to be via transit. Yes, some people will need to 2 or 3 transfers, but it can be done. http://www.septa.org/maps/clic k_map.html http://www.njtransit.com/rg/rg _servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=Sys temMapsTo http://www.mbta.com/schedules_ and_maps/rail/ (^maps of transit in three of the most dynamic areas of the country. Note that the rail systems all generally lead to one or two terminuses, but do a little research to see how they also have extensive bus systems and light rail that interconnect them, and allow people to traverse metro areas that, much like Detroit and anywhere else, have plenty of sprawl and disjunction.) The City of Detroit benefits by enabling its residents to get to job sites on the other side of the City, or in far-flung satellites, because it will open up employment opportunities for working class Detroiters without cars, and allow the middle class-- and everyone-- to save money by using transit. A comprehensive transit system is also creates jobs. Drivers and conductors, skilled maintenance people to work on the trains/buses and keep up the tracks, and station attendants, will all be needed. | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 316 Registered: 02-2008 |
BRT is not just another bus system. It has its own lane, it can carry the amount of people any LRT or heavy rail train can, and its stations are not just little bus stops, they look like station platforms! They want to implement BRT on those lesser roads, like Telegraph, Van Dyke, and Big Beaver/Metro Pkwy. While BRT might not attract AS MUCH development as light rail does, it does something regular bus systems do not do. | ||
Amgasper01 Member Username: Amgasper01 Post Number: 84 Registered: 02-2008 |
So why, by the year 2015, do we need BRT along Gratiot and a part of M-59 when, in 2011, an ART system is already supposed to be in place. Are these two systems going to overlap each other or will the BRT replace the ART? And why is only that portion of the new bus system being upgraded (if it even is an upgrade - I would have no idea) while the rest remains ART? It seems as though BRT was added to the project just to please the federal agency that would be overseeing the funding. Does anyone else get this impression? I will say that the map and overall system looks a lot less complicated if you just take out the BRT add on. If you can invision the ART lines becoming LRT lines in future years if the LRT is successful along Woodward, then it makes even more sense. But when I first looked at that graphic, my head exploded. | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 317 Registered: 02-2008 |
But some ART lines don't need to become LRT lines and would do just fine as BRT. I think people are underestimating BRT. ART uses the same buses, just improves regularity and bus stop service (as in informative maps and schedules) and some other things. | ||
Jack_myer Member Username: Jack_myer Post Number: 8 Registered: 09-2008 |
BRT lines are only a somewhat suitable substitute if they have their own PHYSICALLY SEPERATED lanes that NEVER have to be shared with general traffic and have signal priority so they never have to stop at red lights. Otherwise they are just buses like any other. | ||
Amgasper01 Member Username: Amgasper01 Post Number: 85 Registered: 02-2008 |
The Detroit News did a poor job with their map. Here is a link to a much more understandable version of the proposed time line. http://www.metromodemedia.com/ devnews/regionaltransitdetails 0086.aspx | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 318 Registered: 02-2008 |
Well whatever happens I hope they change the name of "SMART", one of the worst acronyms ever. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1637 Registered: 12-2006 |
I agree with your last post, Dtown; for a while when I was at U of D when they came up with that acronym we were referring to DDOT as the "Detroit Urban Mobility Board". I have a comment about the ART/BRT/LRT situation. Looking at the plan, it seems they are considering phased improvements, to wit: ART is the most "incremental" of the improvements, in terms of both cost and service; BRT is more of an improvement, and LRT even more. What is looks like is that they are considering starting some corridors with ART and then, based on demand, considering an upgrade to BRT further in the future, with LRT for the likely most heavily used lines. This is not unreasonable at all; I have seen instances, for example, where a city implemented BRT as a temporary upgrade on the way to LRT. As many posters have pointed out, BRT is not the same level of service as LRT; on the other hand, not every corridor has demand sufficient to warrant the investment in LRT. I would say, right now, Woodward for certain has enough demand for most of its length, and Gratiot certainly has sufficient demand between Mt. Clemens and Detroit. Other corridors, I'm not so sure. Also, in discussing whether the overall plan is "bus heavy", people seem to be ignoring the call for multiple commuter rail lines, from Detroit to Ann Arbor, Pontiac, Monroe and Port Huron. That would give us a very extensive heavy rail network, which of course would be extremely Detroit centric because that's where the tracks are. Overall I am very pleased with the plan. They have thought things through very carefully. Hopefully all four of Mr. Hertel's bosses will endorse it (else it's not a plan anymore), and then someone will figure out how to start implementing it! | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 320 Registered: 02-2008 |
Why not Lansing, Flint, and Toledo also to those commuter rail lines. I think that alot more people want to go to Lansing and Flint than Port Huron, not that PH can have its own rail line. And I'm sure many people would love to go down to Toledo, hell it can be cheaper if one is taking a train to NYC, no need to go to Chitown first. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4870 Registered: 10-2003 |
The $64,000 question here is "What exactly constitutes BRT?" Are we talking about new "European-styled" buses with slick paint jobs that skip many of the regular stops? Or are we talking about dedicated lanes, boarding platforms, pre-payment/ticketing systems, and signal prioritization? If it's the former, it would hardly be considered rapid transit. If the latter, LRT performs a heck of a lot better for the same level of capital investment. I think I've said this before, but Cleveland's new Euclid Corridor line (I think they're calling it the Health Line) will demonstrate exactly what one gets for their money with this "mode". I believe that project is costing north of $40 million/mile. | ||
Drankin21 Member Username: Drankin21 Post Number: 287 Registered: 12-2003 |
Until I see a shovel in the ground, I am done getting excited about another "plan" I will admit though, that after 8 years of transit grumbling, this effort seems to have the most backing. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 1138 Registered: 09-2005 |
Does someone want to draw up this proposed system using Google maps? I am surprised that there is no proposed downriver commuter rail. It would be interesting to see how Windsor will attempt to contect to a more comprehensive Detroit system (especially with there being a lot of Windsor-Essex resident working downtown and in Detroit's mid-town medical complexes). |
