  Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1756 Registered: 04-2006 |
1. Hey Dan, you run the gravity model and find out.  2. The gridlock would most likely not happen, trips will disburse on several routes instead of one. People who live in the area will find transit to be a more attractive alternative, therefore you can move the same number of folks, but with less congestion. There would definitely be negative impacts to local businesses (in terms of importing or exporting goods), but there will also be positive impacts for these businesses (more folks on the street) that will negate them. The plug and chug was replaced a while ago by a multi-modal model that looks at the impact of transit and pedestrian modes. Detroit's problem? We don't have enough folks using those modes, partially due to the spread-out multi-nuclii job centers and partially due to a lack of investment in transit. Incidently I love studying case examples where this has happened as well. Here is another interesting project in Milwaukee as well: http://www.wisconsinhighways.o rg/milwaukee/park.html My plans? Just bury all the freeways and connect them to the tunnel to Canada. After all it was successful in Boston, so cheap! (Message edited by Detroitplanner on July 24, 2008) | ||
Youngprofessionaldetroiter Member Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter Post Number: 80 Registered: 07-2008 |
Detroit Mass Transit makes national news on NPR. It's coming: http://www.npr.org/templates/s tory/story.php?storyId=9273973 2&ft=1&f=1006 btw...I can't believe SE Michigan turned down a 600 million dollar grant from the Feds for mass transit in Michigan. Why? City leadership and suburban leadership were still re-playing old dynamics from the riots and before. I think it's about time we learn everything we can learn from our past...and then PUT IT BEHIND US. YPD | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 630 Registered: 07-2007 |
YPD, people blew up buses to stop school integration. http://www.time.com/time/magaz ine/article/0,9171,909971,00.h tml Throwing away federal funds is just one more example of how we've managed to shoot ourselves in the foot over and over again. | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 3466 Registered: 01-2005 |
I think we need to start a thread about heavy rail. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1766 Registered: 04-2006 |
Why bother starting one about heavy rail? Most posters here don't know the definition of light rail! | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 7900 Registered: 10-2003 |
How about dark rail? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1493 Registered: 12-2006 |
OK, 'planner, how 'bout this from the Transportation Research Board: "Light rail transit is a metropolitan electric railway system characterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains along exclusive rights of way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways or, occasionally, in streets, and to board and discharge passengers at track or car-floor level." | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1771 Registered: 04-2006 |
PS, you're not the one I'm worried about. It seems that a huge amount of this discussion is centered along the Detroit to Ann Arbor rail line. That will not be light rail. We should wax poetically about our only light rail, the DPM Here is something interesting. As an alternative to expanding light rail Chicago is going after BRT. http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/nationworld/chi-0519ledel ettermay19,0,5888247.story | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4677 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^Actually, Chicago doesn't have any light rail, so they can't very well "expand" it. The "BRT" they are proposing is actually a system of express buses that stop every 1/2 to 1 mile along existing bus corridors. WMATA is doing something similar in DC (we already have one route like this in service). There's nothing "rapid" about "BRT", though--it still performs like a bus on a city street, as Cleveland will find out later this year, regardless of what their press releases say. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1495 Registered: 12-2006 |
There is such a thing as BRT, if it's done correctly, but it usually isn't. True BRT has the same characteristics as light rail except for the steel wheels and tracks: dedicated right of way, infrequent stops, fare paid before boarding, and so on. Typically communities make incremental enhancements to a bus corridor, decide to call it "BRT", and wonder why it's not greeted enthusiastically. You put out cheap, you get credit for cheap. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4678 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: And by that point, you might as well implement light rail, since the operating costs are lower and the performance is superior--which is why you will *never* see true "BRT" in the U.S. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1496 Registered: 12-2006 |
My thoughts exactly, Dan. BRT proponents typically sell it on how inexpensive it is - but it's only inexpensive if you do it half-assed, as I've described. Does any place in North America have a true BRT line up and running? Curious. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4680 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Cleveland's new line will probably come the closest to "rapid" transit. They spent $250 million to construct island platforms, dedicated lanes (including road resurfacing), streetscaping, and articulated buses with transponders to prolong green lights. There will be a proof of payment system. I'm curious to see how much an improvement, if any, it will be over the existing Euclid Avenue service. Of course, I'm completely skeptical, considering most of the "transit" money seemed to go toward streetscaping and roadbed reconstruction. Frankly, I don't see how this service will perform much better. The acceleration / deceleration characteristics will certainly be worse (the current line doesn't use any articulated buses). Any time savings will likely come with the transponders, which could easily be fitted onto an existing bus. Proof of payment will speed boarding some, but it won't be much faster than in cities that use smartcards for payment. I think the proof in the pudding will be to see how much private investment occurs along the corridor due to transit, i.e. excluding already-planned projects by Cleveland State University and the Cleveland Clinic. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 1123 Registered: 09-2005 |
I think Ottawa's system is the closest we get to true BRT in North America. However, the entire system is not grade separated and non-pass holders must board at the front of the bus to pay their fares. Unfortunately, the CBD portion of the system runs on city streets (special bus lanes) and must stop at traffic lights, etc. This really slows things down downtown. Operating costs are quite high for this system (primarily operators wages) and the buses are diesel (loud with poor acceleration). Ottawa's city council has approved a $4 billion transit plan to replace the BRT system with electric light rail in the central parts of the city. | ||
Aarne_frobom Member Username: Aarne_frobom Post Number: 72 Registered: 10-2005 |
Operating costs of BRT will always be lower than for the equivalent rail system, probably much lower. Let's ask why: How many miles of overhead wire does a bus system need? How many catenary supports? How many transformers and substations, and power distribution boards? Mow many miles of rail to be inspected, ground, surfaced, repaired and replaced? How many ties to replace at intervals? How many switch machines, points and frogs? How many signals and dispatcher's boards? How many drop tables does it take to fix the running gear on a bus? How many wheel lathes? How many track inspectors and maintenance-of-way crews does a bus system need? How many signal maintainers? How many overhead-wire crews and hydraulic-lift platforms? The answers to all these questions is "none." Which pretty much explains why most cities worldwide abandoned their trolley systems in the 1940's. Of course, buses need maintenance, too, but the physical plant needed for a Diesel bus garage is almost trivial compared with a rail-vehicle shop. And it can be located anywhere, on- or off-line, inviting competition among suppliers for maintenance services. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2793 Registered: 07-2004 |
"Which pretty much explains why most cities worldwide abandoned their trolley systems in the 1940's." Um, ... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4682 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Do you have data on this? Every number I've ever seen in the National Transit Database shows *significantly* higher operating costs for buses versus rail. Buses also have far lower farebox recovery ratios, because people inherently "know" higher quality transit when they ride it. And yes, those operating numbers include ALL of the work you've stated above, including station staffing and maintenance. If you want it in simple terms, a diesel bus lasts about 12 years. A single rail car can carry triple the number of passengers, and last for well over 40 years. Hell--San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Toronto are still running PCC cars from the 1930s. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 1124 Registered: 09-2005 |
Below is a link to Ottawa's proposed new system, with red lines being LRT and bus lines being BRT. You will need to jump to page 34 of this document. Currently, all lines are BRT with one short diesel LRT section (that runs from nowhere to nowhere via a university). http://www.ottawa.ca/residents /public_consult/beyond_2020/tm p/transit_options/phase2/recom mended_vision_en.pdf Here is a link to Ottawa's current "Transitway" system: http://www.octranspo.com/mapsc heds/Transitway/tway_map_menuE .htm Note: the O-Train is the short diesel LRT line. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1773 Registered: 04-2006 |
Dan, According to the definition given by PS (via TRB) Chicago does have light rail. There are some really cool technologies that can be utilized if BRT is put in successfully. This could improve the quality of life in many areas. For example, signal progression could be improved so that the oncoming bus automatically gets the green light. This sort of technology, once in place, could be used by first responders to get to where they need to go. BRT is not the solution to all transportation problems, but I would never exclude it from being a potential mode when trying to determine what would be best for a corridor. It sure beats the SOV (Single Occupancy Vehicle). I would have to side with Dan that the most attractive thing about BRT are the capital costs. I can't see how the operating costs for BRT could be any less than a regular bus. You may be able to move a few more passengers with BRT, but not many more. On a per person basis, rail can be very attractive, but you need to have the demand to justify it. I can't see there being demand for heavy rail in the immediate future. (Message edited by Detroitplanner on July 30, 2008) | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2795 Registered: 07-2004 |
Thanks, Detroitplanner. I'll remember that. In fact, it gives me a great slogan for that mode. "BRT: Better than people driving alone in their cars." | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4685 Registered: 10-2003 |
^Actually the L in Chicago is heavy rail by definition, based on its platform boarding, complete grade-separation, motive power, train length, and capacity. "BRT" definitely isn't the solution, but much like they did with highways since the 1950s, the federal government is pushing BRT as the end-all-be-all solution for every paradigm. There is definitely a need for expanded and improved bus services, but to sell it all as "BRT" is just putting lipstick on a pig. Of course, to achieve better bus service, there needs to be sufficient population density to support it, which just isn't possible in the far-flung suburbs that have been built in the past 20 years. Adding to that, there is absolutely no evidence that bus service leads to increased investment and densification, so it's a doomed proposition from the get-go. (Message edited by DaninDC on July 30, 2008) | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1774 Registered: 04-2006 |
Anytime nerd. If you look at modes, it is the SOV that causes the most congestion (well in certain cases it is pedestrians, but thats special event/location issue). I would rather have it in the mode choice analysis. It is sure better than the 'do nothing scenario', which is essentially the SOV. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2796 Registered: 07-2004 |
It's just too bad that BRT doesn't draw single-occupancy drivers onto it. Like Dan keeps saying, only quality mass transit attracts riders of choice. But that's OK. I'm sure you won't be deterred from your enthusiasm for BRT and all the "really cool technologies that can be utilized" with it. Sigh ... | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 1125 Registered: 09-2005 |
My last comment about BRT in Ottawa: the system has been relatively successful and is now at capacity (at least downtown). The system has worked in making it faster for those from the suburbs to get to downtown jobs quickly and efficiently (especially when using the express bus service). However, the BRT system has not created any transit oriented development. The bus stations continue to be stand alone islands. In contrast, several private or private/public sector groups have already made proposals to develop land in and around proposed LRT stations. If Detroit wants to see investment in the Woodward corridor it should spend the money -- and reap the rewards -- of choosing LRT. Improved bus service may be sufficient in other corridors. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1775 Registered: 04-2006 |
Nerd, I think I am understanding a bit from your comments where everyone else is coming from on this. I don't have fundemental disagreements with what nearly everyone is saying on this thread, but I am most concerned about putting together a functioning system for those who have few transportation options. These are not the 'choice' riders. I also understand that investing in transportation is important for the economy. Not only for the users, but for the region that has effective transportation options. At a more micro level this would include the substantial investment along transit corridors. However, I do believe that government in general has a responsibility to design and maintain a transportation system that is accessible to all, and includes the needs of the poor, disabled, and seniors as its primary focus. In fact, federal legislation developed for transit supports this through environmental justice and americans with disabilities acts. Choice riders are great in my opinion, but I want to make sure grandma can make it to the Doctor's office, or my neighbor can use it as a way to provide for his family. This is why I would never eliminate mode options like BRT or buses as these do have the flexibility that the core riders need. | ||
Youngprofessionaldetroiter Member Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter Post Number: 87 Registered: 07-2008 |
Planner... I have a funny story for you. I went to one of the SEMCOG meetings on the regional transportational plan over the next 30 years. After the end of the program, there was an opportunity for people to make a public statement advocating what was important to them. For the first time, I got a chance to hear the disabled, the elderly, and the impoverished speak about how mass transit was critical to their survival. This was shortly after I spoke about how it was important to attract young people into the region and mass transit creates a vibrant culture. And it also facilitate transportation to the bar while preventing lots of DUIs -- this got a chuckle. Later that day, I called one of my friends and mentioned that for the first time in my experience, I had my pro-economic development, single/married/no kids demographic (your "choice" rdiers) in complete alignment with the "no choice" riders. We both laughed at how politics sometimes makes for strange bedfellows. I agree with your assessment. And if we can ever get our mass transit development to the point where we are arguing over "choice" vs. "no choice" ridership, I will be thrilled at the fact that mass transit has then become a foregone conclusion. I also believe that eventually, when the region experiences the benefits on the whole, we will be able to have both. In the meantime, I would suggest that we stay united in our vision of adding viable mass transit (light rail, heavy rail, BRT, anti-matter teleportation devices, whatever), and focus on advocating whatever plan is most likely to SELL to the region and gather regional co-operation. Given our absurd track record in the past of getting this off the ground, at this point, I'd settle for a B+ plan that will sell vs. the A++ plan that gets caught in the the mire of our collective craziness. Sell them what they want...then we'll sell them what they need. Trust me, one day I'll be in your grandma's shoes too. I don't want to have to be turning on to M-59 at 60 miles per hour to get to the doctor, either. YPD | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2797 Registered: 07-2004 |
Um, LRT is accessible, includes the needs of the poor, disabled and seniors. What does BRT do that LRT doesn't? As we've posted here before, "flexibility" in a transportation system won't attract investment. And it's disingenuous to say "core riders" need flexibility. Once riders of choice opt into the system, you're able to justify upgrading the feeder routes. I do believe your enthusiasm for BRT (an unpopular mode not embraced by the most forward-thinking cities, transit-wise) is causing you to put the cart before the horse in that respect. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4686 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I think the necessary concept is "redundancy", not "flexibility"! | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1776 Registered: 04-2006 |
Busses do have the flexibility to be deployed easily. If a route needs extra busses, thats a lot easier to do than adding train cars. A good transportation system will attract investment regardless of mode at the macro level. At the micro level, this is a different story. I am no more enthusiastic about BRT than I am over other modes. I know it has lots off issues, yet so does rail, the SOV, heck even bicycles and pedestrians have issues that need to be addressed. Those who simply say light rail attracts loads of investment I just have two words. People Mover. You need to think about the whole transportation system, not just the mode. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1499 Registered: 12-2006 |
'planner, you bring many intelligent thoughts to the table, but it is well known among transit researchers that light rail, properly planned and implemented, attracts much more investment than BRT. As far as which is "better" at moving people around, set your parameters and argue all day. The "flexibility" of which 'nerd speaks is route flexibility, wonderful for the transit planner but a development killer. The People Mover is an Automated Guideway Transit system, which, while it fits the technical definition of light rail, is a subtype which has been implemented so infrequently that there aren't enough data points to make a credible claim as to what it ought or ought not to do for a neighborhood. However, a downtown circulator in a one-way loop which doesn't allow for transfers to or from any other system is likely to fail anywhere, no matter what else it has going for it, and no matter the mode. |
