  Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2981 Registered: 07-2004 |
Sick of hearing about elevateds. Sick of it. 1) More expensive. 2) Less accessible. 3) Aesthetics (less light at street level) 4) Can be noisy, with structure even magnifying noise level and putting noise at second and third floor level, right where you hope to attract multistory development. 5) Major benefit seems to be that it keeps the road open to cars, which its construction is supposed to alleviate demand for anyway. Remember, lots of els came into existence when streets were filled with horses, carts and other slow dray traffic. Let me ask this: Most airports, multilevel buildings and other structures have elevators, escalators or stairs, sure. Would you change your driving habits if you had to walk up a flight of stairs into a parking structure to get your car? To me it just seems the elevated rail thing (monorail or true elevated) is just a relic of the car-entitlement mind-set: Anything to put up another small barrier to people choosing to use transit. Sheesh. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 669 Registered: 07-2007 |
You're missing the point. Since when were streets only for cars? This isn't a freeway, it's a surface street in an urban area. The street should be able to accomodate pedestrians, light rail and cars. Putting the light rail above the streets doesn't make it any more effective. I would argue that it detracts more than it adds when it's built that way. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3412 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: I dunno. I would prefer a subway in order to allow the trains to run more efficiently. I think building at grade is risky for a train line of that length. If we can't have a subway, then my second choice would be an elevated train. From the photos I've seen of the newer elevated systems in Europe and Asia, I think it could be done in an aesthetically pleasing way for Detroit. I'm just (Message edited by iheartthed on August 18, 2008) (Message edited by iheartthed on August 18, 2008) | ||
Izzyindetroit Member Username: Izzyindetroit Post Number: 45 Registered: 07-2008 |
Don't forget cyclist too! Quit arguing over the type of rail that goes in. Whatever it ends up being people are going to end up riding it. The people mover goes in a friggin one way loop and they still get 3000-5000 rides a day. For everyone who seems to think that Woodward would be too much of a problem to run rail up and down what are your opinions on the possibility of having it run up Cass and then come back down John R? The two streets would be within walking distance and you would create a greater value for the land between them along Woodward. Lets hear some critism about that. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2984 Registered: 07-2004 |
Well, Izzy, the problem is that unless you demand excellence, you're gonna get the same ol' "Let's build sumptin'; at least it's better than nuthin" approach. And I'm totally sick of people proposing systems that are expensive (monorails), inaccessible (elevateds), unfeasible (subways), unworkable (PRT), unsuitable (maglev) and "flexible" (BRT), when the biggest proven driver of urban development RIGHT NOW, RIGHT HERE, IN THIS COUNTRY is light rail. Hands down. No contest. Dozens of cities building it. We had it for 100 years. No competent urban planner in the United States will argue with light rail. But here, we're still in the "hang a strap on it and call it transit" daydreaming. Sigh. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3414 Registered: 04-2006 |
Don't click the second link that Ltorivia485 posted. It has a virus attached to it. | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 629 Registered: 10-2005 |
I propose we have 20 more years of studies and symposiums on regional mass transit. I mean if 2 decades isn't enough for our region to come up with a workable solution...2 more should get us there. I also propose that at least annually there be a breathless press release about the need for mass transit options, that light/heavy/EL/subway will break ground with in 3 years (they can just rotate through the options each year), that everyone under 30 and who went to college will leave Michigan if it isn't built, and Detroit used to have streetcars so we can just use the old routes and all will be fine. Another couple of decades of studies and debates will really flesh out the merits of a subways vs. street rail vs. El-trains vs. hover-buses than run on dreams and rainbows. I love this place. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1987 Registered: 02-2006 |
Today's elevated rail is really not all that loud. Witness Chicago's Orange Line, Minneapolis's Hiawatha (bridge portions), DC Metro (bridge portions), Atlanta's MARTA. Plus, the scenes from Blues Brothers were exaggerated. Inside buildings, the Chicago L is not that loud. Even outside, you get used to it. Would I love to live next to it? Hell no. But someone would. In the Jane Jacobs ideal, similar to the price difference between second and third story apartments on commercial streets vs. side streets, these less-attractive apartments are priced very low, allowing rich people access to the elevated, while poorer people can live right on top of it, and still enjoy what the neighborhood has to offer. Ever seen a listing for an apartment that touches the L tracks (not new construction)? It's probably 20% under the neighborhood market value. Whether or not that's worth the price is up to you...but obviously it's worth it to some people. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2985 Registered: 07-2004 |
Well, Higgs, the vigorous debate isn't the problem. The obstacles are many, ranging from unfavorable rules for raising taxes for mass transit (embedded in the state constitution), a government that is unsympathetic to mass transit, our deep urban-suburban/black-white divides, the profusion of car culture, the low-density development, etc. A vigorous debate is helpful and necessary, not an obstacle. And as far as obstacles go, we have plenty top contend with. Just because we're having a lot of discussion isn't why things aren't being done. (Post hoc propter hoc?) | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 3046 Registered: 08-2004 |
Novine and Detroitnerd, we will always be a car-dominant culture. I don't want to sit in my car waiting for a train line to stop and cross the street on the same road as cars! (Heck, most people don't want to wait for a regular freight train to cross 8 Mile on the East side. You should see them trying to make U-turns.). People, these local trains won't run more than 40mph in-between stops. The one thing I like about underground or elevated systems is that they don't interfere with the streets and pedestrian crossings. Underground and elevated systems are actually more adaptable to construct because they don't have to follow the street patterns whereas ground level train construction is very limited if you're only using the existing roads. Washington and Chicago have high passenger usage on their rail systems because they don't block road traffic (imagine rush hour traffic with trains AND cars on the same level!). People of all incomes see these trains running more efficiently and faster to wherever they need to go. If people really wanted to ride trains on the same level as cars, they would be riding buses. Guess what? Bus ridership is not that popular here. Hmmm I wonder why. | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 3047 Registered: 08-2004 |
Novine and Detroitnerd, we will always be a car-dominant culture. I don't want to sit in my car waiting for a train line to stop and cross the street on the same road as cars! (Heck, most people don't want to wait for a regular freight train to cross 8 Mile on the East side. You should see them trying to make U-turns.). People, these local trains won't run more than 40mph in-between stops. The one thing I like about underground or elevated systems is that they don't interfere with the streets and pedestrian crossings. Underground and elevated systems are actually more adaptable to construct because they don't have to follow the street patterns whereas ground level train construction is very limited if you're only using the existing roads. Washington and Chicago have high passenger usage on their rail systems because they don't block road traffic (imagine rush hour traffic with trains AND cars on the same level!). People of all incomes see these trains running more efficiently and faster to wherever they need to go. They care about the bottom line period. If people really wanted to ride trains on the same level as cars, they would be riding buses. Guess what? Bus ridership is not that popular here. Hmmm I wonder why. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2986 Registered: 07-2004 |
Um, we'll ALWAYS be a car culture? What about when gas is $5 a gallon? $10 a gallon? $20 a gallon? You're living in a dream world. | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 279 Registered: 12-2004 |
Someone at another forum suggested before that Woodward should be reduced in size to two lanes in each direction. When Woodward was originally widened it was the primary way of getting into and out of Downtown Detroit from the north. Today you have both the Lodge and I-75 to carry the majority of that traffic, not to mention streets like John R and Brush that act as local thoroughfares. While Woodward still does get a decent amount of traffic, I would bet that adding the light rail, reducing the number of lanes, expanding the sidewalks and streetscapes, making room for bikes, and lowering the speed limit would create an environment more suitable for the urban experience that this project is hoping to spawn. It would also move more of the traffic that uses Woodward to the freeways. Look at Michigan Ave through West Dearborn as an example. On either side you have an 8 lane, median divided highway. Through West Dearborn it shrinks down to 2 lanes in either direction with a turning lane. While traffic does get backed up at times, it's not as big of a bottleneck as some might expect. Look at what that does to West Dearborn's urban experience. Especially compared to Wayne further out. Dearborn could have easily turned Garrison St into the westbound section of Michigan Ave and had the current Michigan Ave be the eastbound section. They could have had three lanes of traffic plus a parking lane and the speed limit could have been 35 MPH. But did Dearborn want to make that area a quick way for cars to get through or did they want to make it a more pedestrian-friendly urban environment? Obviously they made the right choice. And the same could be said for Woodward south of McNichols as well as Grand River, Gratiot, and Michigan. Those streets shouldn't be major highways, they should be local main streets. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 8273 Registered: 10-2003 |
This is a funny debate. It's like arguing whether Leprachauns actually have little black tophats. | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 630 Registered: 10-2005 |
D-nerd, debates over causation and correlation aside... what is going on now and will go on in perpetuity around here is not a vigorous debate, it is simply regional fiefdoms pissing on each other and ensuring all of each's problems can be blamed on outsiders or "those people". Decades of talk and hand wringing has yielded the people mover and sprawl and 8 lane artery roads full of big box stores and a mass exodus from Detroit. Decades more talk will yield more of the same because the same players are still in the game and they will be "until they choose to retire". | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 12060 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: No kidding. We all know that Leprachauns wear little tophats. I'd prefer to stick to our arguments about urban vs. suburban leprechauns. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2987 Registered: 07-2004 |
I think this is the reason why I shake my head when you start posting: "I don't want to sit in my car waiting for a train line to stop and cross the street on the same road as cars!" Um, light rail isn't a mile-long train. Disingenuous comparison. "Heck, most people don't want to wait for a regular freight train to cross 8 Mile on the East side." Because they're much longer, often slower, and confer no mass transit benefits upon the public. "People, these local trains won't run more than 40mph in-between stops." In other words, right about the posted speed limits along Woodward. Disingenuous. "The one thing I like about underground or elevated systems is that they don't interfere with the streets and pedestrian crossings." Kind of a clumsy way to avoid making your main point: They don't interfere with motorists. Nice tip of the hat to "streets" and pedestrians, though. Like you care ... "Underground and elevated systems are actually more adaptable to construct because they don't have to follow the street patterns whereas ground level train construction is very limited if you're only using the existing roads." Great, so you get to build mass transit that totally avoids the street grid? How? By tunneling under buildings' sub-basements and over the squat architecture of car-based development? No way. "imagine rush hour traffic with trains AND cars on the same level!" I'm imagining rush-hour traffic with trains on the same level. Just how Detroit was run about 1920-1956. Looks like husle and bustle in those pictures. Anyway, with rail options, people wouldn't drive as much. They'd use the streetcar. Your main proposition seems to be that "cars" are the only traffic. The streetcars would be traffic, each fully loaded car taking 100 cars off the road. Bicycle lanes would take other cars off the road. See? Imagine that! "If people really wanted to ride trains on the same level as cars, they would be riding buses." Haha. Rail transit attracts billions in development because it's a mode of choice. It's safe, smooth, efficient enough to where people ditch their cars and hop on for the trip. The most ridiculous thing is that you're planning for the future as if gas will stay at its current price. That's not only silly, it's downright dangerous. I guarantee you that you won't be "sitting in your car waiting" for trains in 50 years. If anything, you'll be waiting for the gas station to re-open. | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 3048 Registered: 08-2004 |
Detroitnerd, I don't know what planet you live on but folks will always have at least one car in their driveway. It will always be the individual or family's primary mode of transportation. Once you leave the region, you will need a car in the rural and country areas. The car isn't going anywhere even in this time of high gas prices. Build a system that people will perceive as safe, efficient, accommodating and accessible. Washington's Metrorail serves all four points well. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2988 Registered: 07-2004 |
Higgs: Right. We do have to overcome those divisions if we ever hope to have a strong region. But you can't work smart unless you hash stuff out on the operational level. Detroit has had so many shabby plans forced on it by people who weren't serious about transit, I believe it's worth it to get it right this time. Last thing I want to see is another "boutique" system that proves the naysayers right for another 20 years. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2989 Registered: 07-2004 |
I live on planet Earth. Planet Earth has less and less oil. As we run out of oil, it will be economically unfeasible for families to have cars. And the repercussions will be horrible for about 90 percent of the environment we've built in the last 50 years. And people will look back and shake their heads, thinking of the opportunities we wasted with our simplistic thinking and lack of leadership. | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 3049 Registered: 08-2004 |
Um, light rail isn't a mile-long train. Disingenuous comparison. I don't care if it's a 1/4-mile long, you still have to stop and wait for it to leave. "People, these local trains won't run more than 40mph in-between stops." In other words, right about the posted speed limits along Woodward. Disingenuous. I have been on mass transit trains that travel more than 40mph during rush hour traffic without frequent stops. It made deciding between using a car or riding the train much easier to decide. I'm imagining rush-hour traffic with trains on the same level. Just how Detroit was run about 1920-1956. Looks like husle and bustle in those pictures. Anyway, with rail options, people wouldn't drive as much. They'd use the streetcar. Your main proposition seems to be that "cars" are the only traffic. The streetcars would be traffic, each fully loaded car taking 100 cars off the road. Bicycle lanes would take other cars off the road. See? Imagine that! Yeah, and most people lived in the city of Detroit creating the high-density necessary for such a system to work. And cars were still a luxury back then. How are you going to encourage people to move back into the city of Detroit? Right now, you still haven't addressed the safety and accommodation factor yet. | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 631 Registered: 10-2005 |
quote: Unless, of course, the Chevy Volt or other vehicles (Honda Clarity) that do not run primarily on gas are the "game changers" they claim to be and are adopted by the masses. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2991 Registered: 07-2004 |
Looking at the most recent research, I'm very gloomy about the long-term possibilities for these vehicles to allow the car-culture party to continue. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3415 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Where? I have never rode on an inner-city train that moved that fast. Maybe a regional commuter line goes faster than that, but not inner-city transit. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2992 Registered: 07-2004 |
"I don't care if it's a 1/4-mile long, you still have to stop and wait for it to leave." Haha. Light rail is not 1/4-mile long. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. "I have been on mass transit trains that travel more than 40mph during rush hour traffic without frequent stops. It made deciding between using a car or riding the train much easier to decide." You're talking about commuter rail. Further proof you have no idea what you're talking about. "Yeah, and most people lived in the city of Detroit creating the high-density necessary for such a system to work. And cars were still a luxury back then. How are you going to encourage people to move back into the city of Detroit? Right now, you still haven't addressed the safety and accommodation factor yet." You have it backwards, I'm afraid. We now understand that the system DRIVES the density. You put in a light rail line. Developers buy up the adjoining property. They knock down the low-density stuff, rehab the high density stuff, and invest billions of dollars. It creates jobs. People move in. The reason people left was because there was a conscious decision to subsidize freeways, cars and trucks, and to dismantle mass transit like light rail. Further proof that ... | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 3050 Registered: 08-2004 |
Heart, I lived in Chicago for four years. The L train has an option where you can ride the Purple Line Express that runs on the same track as the Red Line in the early morning (6am-10am) and afternoon (2pm-7pm). The top speed on the train might be closer to 30mph rather than 40mph (can't remember, but it was fast and loved riding it for major events) during the rush hour periods. The train bypassed through the majority of the stations to get to where you needed to go in the Loop. If Metro Detroit can create a system like that, I would ride it. Most people want to arrive to work and leave work ASAP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P urple_Line_(Chicago_Transit_Authority) | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 1523 Registered: 03-2008 |
Higgs1634... Hover Buses... why hasn't this been suggested before! GREAT IDEA! YOU GO GET THE TEE SQUARE, AND I'LL GET MY ETCH-A-SKETCH... pour me some more of that tea... I can't find the dreams and rainbows that our bus is going to ride on...  Hehe... On a semi serious note, yes, the new people movers are very quiet. Sleek steel supports replace the ugly concrete... rounded supports are filled with sand to eliminate noise. A gravel, rocks, or wood chip filled (rather than solid concrete, Ala Bagley Median) median also helps reduce and absorb sound waves. I also would think that buildings (in extremely dense areas) could be coated with a clear foam as well. So... you COULD sleep right on the track and never hear it coming. Link: http://www.intamintransportati on.com/itl/index.php?option=co m_content&task=blogcategory&id =25&Itemid=43 I am serious. However, it may not be the best option. Actually I would love to see the transit authorities, decision makers, and informed citizens simply talk to the companies that build this stuff. The technology is there for a hybrid mix... opportunity for innovation... Why can't People Mover technology be used at ground level again? I think someone spiked my tea... (I attempted some jokes in this one... they weren't that funny though... but I tried. Just trying' to make a couple Detroiters smile... I know, I won't be performing at the comedy clubs any time soon... don't worry!) PS: I forgot to say; that Cass and John R idea is interesting. But, would that make the stations to far apart? Park and ride wouldn't be valid... (Message edited by Sean_of_Detroit on August 18, 2008) | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 3051 Registered: 08-2004 |
Detroitnerd, I do know what I am talking about as I have lived near and depended on mass transit in Chicago and Washington DC. Why don't you read my previous post about the Purple Line Express in Chicago. Washington DC's Metrorail trains arrive every 5 minutes during rush hour. That's the kind of system people want. That is ACCOMMODATION. (Message edited by LTOrivia485 on August 18, 2008) | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2994 Registered: 07-2004 |
Haha. I've been talking about light rail for several hundred words and now you're only just beginning to understand what it is I'm talking about. Seems to me you thought "light rail" was a system of 1/4-mile-long trains running on dedicated right of way, somehow, right in the middle of Woodward Avenue. So, um, yeah, I'm finding it very hard to take you seriously. At all. | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 3052 Registered: 08-2004 |
Sorry Detroitnerd, I have much more experience with mass transit than you think since I have actually rode on one and know what works and what doesn't work. Light-rail on the ground-level on our current streets will not work for Metro Detroit. I cannot take you seriously either. (Message edited by LTOrivia485 on August 18, 2008) |
