  Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 2125 Registered: 11-2003 |
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a rticle/20080817/EMAIL/35993242 1/1069 quote: | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 547 Registered: 07-2005 |
You've gotta be kidding me. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4726 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Horseshit. Good rail transit sparks development within a radius of 1/4 to 1/2 mile from the station, which is considerably more than FIFTY FREAKING FEET. It's almost as if they're trying to reinvent the wheel! Go figure. God forbid anyone dare to look at what other cities have done. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 665 Registered: 07-2007 |
"The layout also isn't as conducive to economic development along the route as lines that offer curbside service, some transit insiders say." I would like to see any data that backs up this claim. No wonder no one will go on record backing these statements. | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2765 Registered: 07-2004 |
The boarding of passengers in the center of Woodward at the intersection of Woodward and Grand Boulevard, under the DDOT Light-rail Transit plan or LRT, would involve eliminating the curbside parking for the retail establishments that are presently there. This layout, in my opinion, would probably hurt those retail establishments financially if they didn't have curbside parking. The same such center boarding layout at Woodward and Mack would also negatively affect the retail shops there, but less so than at Woodward and Gr. Blvd. I think this is what the critics of the DDOT LRT are worried about when they say the "layout isn't conducive to economic development. Even when Detroit had its streetcars along Woodward, curbside parking was the norm. I believe cars could even park on Woodward south of Grand Circus Park. From what I have seen of DDOT's LRT layout, it eliminates too many parking lanes. This is especially a problem when the LRT travels north of Grand Boulevard, through Highland Park and up to McNichols, where there are only 7 lanes along Woodward than the nine lanes found south of Gr. Blvd. Now, I have seen videos of streetcars along streets in Toronto. On some of those streets the tracks of the streetcars are in the second lane from the curb. Curbside parking is allowed. I think this layout would be best for an LRT along Woodward. Put curb bump-outs at the corners of the major intersections and have the passengers board there. | ||
Ljbad89 Member Username: Ljbad89 Post Number: 40 Registered: 10-2007 |
Speaking of light rail, is anyone else going to the meeting about this project on Tuesday? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6213 Registered: 10-2003 |
I think some earlier on in this thread kind of missed the actual criticism which deals with median or curbside pick-up. I don't think it's even worth much debating which would be better, though either would be preferable over no transit, at all. | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 1517 Registered: 03-2008 |
Royce has an excellent point about the consideration of parking. However, the area mentioned between the Boulevard and McNichols, could easily have the road widened in mini sections to include parking spaces (similar to the way parking was added on Woodward inside the CBD). | ||
Detroitduo Member Username: Detroitduo Post Number: 943 Registered: 06-2005 |
Good Lord. Look at how San Francisco, Boston and Zürich have done trams. ALL of these Cities still have curbside parking and tram stations in the middle of the street. Honestly, there is no way to implement any system "safely", because drivers will simply have to change their driving habits! It's the same with Bikes on the street! The drivers will simply have to PAY ATTENTION... of course that's too much to ask. | ||
Rid0617 Member Username: Rid0617 Post Number: 263 Registered: 03-2008 |
I wonder how long till someone running late to catch the train will run in front of a car if it boards in the middle of Woodward? | ||
Detroitduo Member Username: Detroitduo Post Number: 944 Registered: 06-2005 |
If the system is designed properly, then the cars driving by the station will be already be stopped due to train loading and unloading. Yes, there will be safety issues, but come on... People must be responsible for their own safety at some point. If the cross walk is red, don't step into traffic! It's THAT easy! Americans just need to use their brains for a change. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 666 Registered: 07-2007 |
"This is especially a problem when the LRT travels north of Grand Boulevard, through Highland Park and up to McNichols, where there are only 7 lanes along Woodward than the nine lanes found south of Gr. Blvd." Isn't this part of the problem? I can't recall any major city that has good transit where the main thoroughfares through the downtown were 7 - 9 lanes wide. I believe Novi Road through the I-96 interchange is 7 lanes wide and handles about 100,000 car trips a day. Is that really necessary for any point along Woodward? | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3406 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Yeah, that. Also, regarding the curb side parking... Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling that businesses might be willing to forgo the 10 or so curb side parking spots if it were replaced by hundreds of people who would pass by on foot to board each train. | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 3040 Registered: 08-2004 |
They need to built elevated light rail with parking lot garages every other 4 destinations. You wouldn't have to worry about curbside parking or financial consequences for retail businesses. It would also encourage the proliferation of luxury-stye apartment living along these sections. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 12042 Registered: 10-2003 |
People missed a very important quote quote: SEMCOG has their own agenda and I suspect while they play lip service to the idea of mass transit they will do everything in their power to fight it. SEMCOG has an agenda and using mass transit is not one of the items on the agenda. When push comes to shove I am willing to bet that SEMCOG will be a much greater impediment than help. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 667 Registered: 07-2007 |
"They need to built elevated light rail with parking lot garages every other 4 destinations. You wouldn't have to worry about curbside parking or financial consequences for retail businesses. It would also encourage the proliferation of luxury-stye apartment living along these sections." Right, we've seen how well that's worked for the People Mover. I know, it's comparing apples to oranges. But show me one example where an elevated system has provided a superior return over an on-the-ground system. I don't know why some people get the idea that running the trains in the sky is somehow better than the alternatives. | ||
Detroitduo Member Username: Detroitduo Post Number: 945 Registered: 06-2005 |
Ltorivia485 is a long standing Monorail booster. I completely agree with you, Novine. Put the train on the ground where the people are more comfortable. JT1 also makes a valid statement. All of these Transit regulation groups in SE Michigan have their own agendas. SEMCOG killed the removal of the Woodward/8 mile bridge (along with MDOT), I would not second guess that any mass transit is NOT in SEMCOG's agenda... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4727 Registered: 10-2003 |
The linked article has so many factual errors, it's not even funny. Among them, the scare tactic of "Dallas" (in reality, it was Houston) and their problems with cars *running red lights and making illegal turns* and crashing into trains. Even still, sprawling Houston seems to have worked out the kinks, and is working on a massive expansion of their light rail system. I think they figured out that an expensive third beltway wasn't going to be sufficient to move people around the area. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 12046 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Don't forget SEMCOGs history of supportin expansion of roads and infrastructure. If there is competition with federal dollars to widen 75 mile road or implement mass transit in the city it is important to consider the history of SEMCOG. Their agenda has been very much pro-expansion of new communities. | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 3041 Registered: 08-2004 |
Novine and Detroitduo, I lived in Chicago for almost 4 years. I cannot possibly think how an on-the-ground system will work in that city. Elevated rail works for Chicago and could work for Detroit if it's built properly. I actually feel much safer in the sky than I do on the ground. Are you too lazy to walk up a few steps to a platform? An elevated (or underground) system does NOT disrupt on-the-ground traffic. It's more useful during rush hour times too. The People Mover would have been a huge success if it was expanded throughout the entire metropolitan area and not just circling some skyscrapers. IT GOES NO WHERE! An light-rail system along the curb will not work in Detroit. Show me pictures. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2972 Registered: 07-2004 |
"Monorail! ... Monorail! ... Monorail! ... Monorail!" | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 668 Registered: 07-2007 |
I've ridden the Metro, BART, the TTC, the T, the CTA (including the L portion downtown), the New York City subways, MTS (San Diego) and a number of other transit systems. While the El works in downtown Chicago, I have to say of all of the systems I've ridden, it was the least attractive and the most disruptive to the area that it served. Why we would want to duplicate that over the streets of Detroit is beyond me. How one thinks we could afford to do so over the streets of Detroit is beyond me. | ||
Youngprofessionaldetroiter Member Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter Post Number: 170 Registered: 07-2008 |
^^ "Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend? Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend." hahaha ------------------------- SEMCOG wants your input...if you want mass transit (or don't want mass transit), let them hear you. http://www.semcog.org/Survey.a spx I was at a SEMCOG transit presentation, and I spoke individually with some of the people talking about funding bridge repair, road infrastructure, and transit. They all agreed that this is the first time in 20+ years that the economic and political climate are supportive of better mass transit infrastructural investments. Keep letting them know what you want, because that will only reinforce the message. YPD | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2974 Registered: 07-2004 |
Yes, even New York tore down its els and put them underground. By the 1930s, els were seen as antiquated relics of the 19th century. Ever see the Blues Brothers? Living next to an el meant easy transportation, but trains shrieking by at night meant you had a great real estate market for the hard of hearing. Let's get back to what this is all about: Certain posters to this board would LOVE to see Detroit embrace mass transit as seriously as other cities. It's just that they're so certain they'll never use it that they don't want the transit to get in their way by cluttering the streets with, you know, 21st century light rail, full of people getting on and off and shopping and going out to eat and going to work. They'll be in the way. After all, motorists need that road space for their Escalades. I mean, how they gonna be able to drive fast through timed lights while talking on the phone with all those people and streetcars in their way? | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 3043 Registered: 08-2004 |
Novine, if I had my way honestly, I would have built an extensive subway-elevated-ground system similar to Washington's Metrorail (inner city areas would be subway or elevated while the outside suburban/regional fringes would be ground level) but we all know that is the most expensive option and not the most attractive for the financially-weak southeastern Michigan region. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3407 Registered: 04-2006 |
Is the system in Tokyo an elevated train? Anyone know? Btw, an elevated train is not the same as a monorail. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3408 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Detroit's not really that poor. | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 3044 Registered: 08-2004 |
Yes, heart, an elevated light-rail train and monorail are not the same. The folks here would want you to think they are. I used to be a strong proponent of monorail for Detroit, but I doubt it will receive much fanfare and support in the region. However, a multi-subway-elevated-ground level light-rail system would definitely work here through lots of planning and education to the community. This is a monorail line in Las Vegas: http://www.railway-technology. com/contractor_images/selectro n/VegasMonorail_BR_2.jpg This is an elevated light rail line in Taiwan: http://www.travel-images.com/t aiwan28.jpg | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2979 Registered: 07-2004 |
Yeah. Great. All you have to do in order to have streets free for cars is ask people to walk up a flight of stairs for their mass transit. Sigh.  | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 3045 Registered: 08-2004 |
Detroitnerd, are you too lazy to exercise? Most facilities will be handicapped-accessible (elevators) and/or provide escalators too. You do it at the airport or any other multi-level building. Why can't that be provided with a mass transit system? |
