 
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2995
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2008 - 6:04 pm: |    |
Haha. Whatever you say, "expert." Light rail, on the ground, was how this city grew for 100 years. It was dismantled just as the city started falling apart. Oh, but I'll just scrap the lessons of history, the facts on the ground in dozens of U.S. cities, because you've ridden el-subways and commuter rail. Sounds to me as though you've NEVER been on a light-rail vehicle in your life. Oh, sure. I'll just take your word for it. Pfffft. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 670
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2008 - 6:20 pm: | |
Have you ever ridden the Metro in DC? The vast majority of it in the city is underground. The segments outside the city are either at grade or elevated for short segments like at Reagan and along the Orange line where it runs along the freeway ROW. Most of the remainder of the lines are along railroad ROW. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1989
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2008 - 8:39 pm: | |
You're right that it never stops, but I'd be very surprised if the Purple Line in Chicago topped 40mph for more than a few stretches. The tracks that it runs on in the far North Side are very dilapidated, and then it makes all local stops on the near North Side.
The NW corner of the Blue Line now tops out at 55mph between stations, however. |
Izzyindetroit
Member
Username: Izzyindetroit
Post Number: 47
Registered: 07-2008
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2008 - 8:54 pm: | |
Detroitnerd - If you want to demand excellence how about you demand that out of the bus system that we already have as mass transit. For the same amount of money or less there is no reason why our bus system couldn't be more effective.
"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."
A competent urban planner would argue that trends aren't a reason to plan for future development. Instead they would have you look at what the future could be in your city/region and pick the best development route.
Take these cities for a ride:
Curitiba Brazil - Buses
Venice Italy - Boats
New York - Subway
Chicago - Elevated
Amsterdam The Netherlands - Bikes
Detroit - Autos
San Francisco - Trolley
Mackinaw Island - Horses
Everyone in Detroit agrees that there needs to be a change in our transportation habits. I just want you to get off your light rail high pedestal and realize that there are other options out there. Whatever mode that is decided to be built should reflect our culture, needs, and geography. That will be the greatest economic factor for Detroit. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2998
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2008 - 9:06 pm: | |
Oh, sure. There are lots of systems out there, Izzy. I'm just saying that, for every dollar invested, light rail produces more investment. It has the multiplier effect.
If you want to have a system that moves poor people from one place to another but doesn't promote any new development, you can't beat buses. If we had a truly excellent bus system, we'd have minimal new investment along transit corridors and poor people moved very well.
If you want to raise real estate values and spur investment, you have to use a mode of choice. And, as modes of choice go, the one mode we've had that's tried and true here in Detroit is, um, the streetcar. And that just happens to be the mode that is spurring investment in cities. So there ya go.
I'm not on any high horse. I've just spent the better part of the day arguing with somebody who frequently gets onto these threads and roots for more monorails (what the fuck, dude?) and now for "elevateds" (double-take). I'm saying let's take a look at what is working to spur investment in cities. It's not rocket science. It's not some magic formula. You put rails in the street and a vehicle uses the rails. The rails represent a commitment to transit of choice. Developers feel safe investing in fixed-route systems. Buildings are erected. People are employed. Real estate values rise. Systems are extended. You can see over and over again that this has been done. That's why I keep bringing it up. |
Warrenite84
Member
Username: Warrenite84
Post Number: 352
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2008 - 9:34 pm: | |
I would sure like to see both the billionaire investors and DDOT plans compromise so that both are satisfied. Well thought out plans executed with a sense of urgency. Safe, accommodating to all interested parties as much as possible, and high quality.
I haven't really thought out wether I would prefer a curbside station or a middle of the road type. WHEN this LRT system gets added to, do we want a system that has stations up Woodward in Oakland County on the medians or curbside? I do not see any sense in changing from a median based system to a curbside system at 8 Mile. So whatever we decide, it needs to apply to the ENTIRE LRT System. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3416
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2008 - 9:44 pm: | |
quote:A competent urban planner would argue that trends aren't a reason to plan for future development. Instead they would have you look at what the future could be in your city/region and pick the best development route.
I sure wish there was a competent urban planner around before Detroit ripped up its street car network. Then we wouldn't even be having this discussion!
(Message edited by iheartthed on August 18, 2008) |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2999
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2008 - 9:50 pm: | |
Center loading seemed to work OK back in the day. It gives sidewalks room to grow, bike lanes room to proceed smoothly. What are the downsides of center loading, anyway? People have to walk across traffic to the median to load? If that's dangerous, why do we allow people to cross the street at all? |
Masterblaster
Member
Username: Masterblaster
Post Number: 203
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 1:39 am: | |
Detroitnerd, prior to 1956, Detroit definitely had a streetcar system, but this streetcar may not have been a RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM, because they shared traffic lanes with cars and thus were at the mercy of car traffic and traffic lights.
I prefer an elevated system, because
1. safety - rail cars and automobiles are completely separated from each other. Have you ever heard of the People Mover colliding with an automobile? With light rail, the possibility is there for accidents and subsequent shutdowns of the rail system
2. SPEED - with the train being completely separated from automobile traffic, then it can move at higher speeds, thus making it more attractive than light rail.
A lot of the light rail successes are when light rail is installed in former rail road right of ways that were completely separated from auto traffic to begin with (such as Saint Louis's).
However, I'll take light rail over nothing, by far. |
Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 1533
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 1:56 am: | |
You know, I wonder if drivers would avoid Woodward, or a trip downtown. Is this just another reason suburbanites, and out-of-towners can give for avoiding Detroit? Campus Matius and the idea of spokes just really seem to boggle many peoples minds...
I know, it sounds stupid, doesn't it? It might be, I really don't know about this stuff I guess. I do know that some people do strange things around here. How often I have found stop and go traffic on Woodward in the CBD, while every other street is completely empty (that might actually be a good topic for another time).
How would left turns in front of the trains work? Will we have to have a fence (visual obstruction) between the track and the auto lane?
PS Edit: I added to that first paragraph, a little.
(Message edited by Sean_of_Detroit on August 19, 2008) |
Ljbad89
Member
Username: Ljbad89
Post Number: 44
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 2:20 am: | |
I think that's a good question, Sean. Turns at intersections shouldn't be a big problem since the lights will most likely be timed. Thus, a red light in the left turn lane when a train is approaching. Otherwise I'm not sure. One could always *gasp* look and listen for oncoming trains. Your question is a good one and it will probably be brought up at the light rail project meeting later tonight. |
Detroitduo
Member
Username: Detroitduo
Post Number: 946
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 3:50 am: | |
I just do not understand how you people can say that an elevated rail on Woodward would be OK. Sorry, NO! I live on Woodward and I do NOT want to look out my window onto a train track and hear trains going by every 5 or 10 minutes. The buses are bad enough!
What I absolutely do not understand is why a street level train with it's own restricted lane is such a problem? Why do so many of you say this is not possible or unsafe when so many cities around the world have EXACTLY that system?
Zürich, Switzerland has only trams that run on the streets. They load/unload from the center lane. The trams themselves control intersection lights. Zürich has a TON of car traffic and traffic jams are horrendous, but the trams still seem to make it from point A to point B without a problem. Munich, Germany has Surface Street Trams as well as a Subway. Munich is the home of BMW and is absolutely a CAR City... but yet a road surface Tram works!? How is that possible? You people say it doesn't work and is dangerous.
San Francisco has Trolleys and trams and a subway. guess what? *gasp* the system works! San Diego also has surface street trams. *gasp* same thing! it works! (BTW, don't ever mention the Las Vegas Monorail as a viable mode of Mass Transit. It is a bigger joke than the Detroit people mover!)
Complain all you want. Debate all you can that Elevated vs. surface street is better. But do NOT tell me surface trams don't work or are inconvenient! Time and time and city over city again have proven that these systems are workable and those Cities that implement them THRIVE! THRIVE, people. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 671
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 8:19 am: | |
Elevated rail does have the benefit of being able to run faster because it doesn't have to deal with street level traffic. The question is whether this one benefit offset the multitude of negatives (cost, visual impact, lack of integration with the steet, etc.) I say that's a big no.
Left turns: Detroitdue noted that in some systems the lights are controlled by the trains and that limits left-turns in front of the trains. In other systems, I believe that the trains follow the regular traffic light patterns. Obviously, some modifications to the lights would need to be made to address the question of left turns. It's not that big a deal.
In an ideal world, a system on Woodward would run in a dedicated ROW with some kind of separation from the adjacent traffic lanes and configured in a way to only allow cross-traffic at major intersections. Not having seen all of the various alternatives, I'm not sure if that's the current plan. But in the real world, any system is better than no system and even if the rail traffic has to share lanes with the street traffic, as noted before, it's done all over the world and somehow those systems manage to function just fine. |
Ltorivia485
Member
Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 3054
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 9:02 am: | |
There are officially 376,815 people (according to the number due to Dec. 31st 2007) living in Switzerland's largest city.
Munich also has a subway system. Metro Detroit is very spread out, Novine. How will a street-car system accommodate folks here when the majority of the population lives out in the suburbs? Masterblaster said it best: people are looking for SPEED and safety. I'm not riding a system if it is not on par with cars. Trains that are elevated, underground OR even on separate tracks can travel at faster speeds and reach their destinations more quickly than a system traveling on a street shared with cars. If I was a passenger on a street-sharing train, my questions would be: does this mass transit reach my destination at a similar time or better than if I were to drive myself? How fast does this mass transit travel?
We are not a very dense region. The economic center of the population is in southern Oakland/northern Wayne counties. That is the reality. That is where most people work. A mass transit system with high speeds is the first thing Metro Detroit needs. People want to get to work and leave work as quickly as possible. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3417
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 10:16 am: | |
You are never going to build any type of mass transit system that will conveniently serve the sprawlopolis of Oakland County, outside of places like Ferndale and Royal Oak. That will not happen.
That said, who cares if it's the "economic center" of Metro Detroit? If it were an effective economic center then we all wouldn't be sitting here trying to figure out how to keep people from leaving the Detroit area. |
Detroitduo
Member
Username: Detroitduo
Post Number: 952
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 10:45 am: | |
I laugh at the thought of Ltorivia485 trying to convince the people of Troy or Rochester/Rochester Hills to allow an Elevated train be built in their backyards.
We have simply been talking about the Woodward Line. Not a further expanded system. Woodward is the beginning and I have NEVER argued that the system should be slow or drive in the same lanes as cars. In fact I specifically wrote "restricted lanes" where only the tram can drive. But I truly believe only a ground level system will be acceptable for Woodward in Detroit. Woodward is absolutely wide enough the WHOLE way that it can accomodate such a system and afford to lose 2 lanes. I believe north of 8 mile Rd. the line would have to go elevated for some spots, due to big intersections or lack of space, but in the Detroit city limits, ground level!
p.s. I don't care that Zürich only has less then 400k people. it is MAD dense and the streets are VERY narrow. The point is that simply TRAMS WORK, even on street level. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3001
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 10:59 am: | |
I just want to point out that, though light-rail vehicles CAN be strung together into a train, lots of these vehicles are not much longer than an extended flexi-bus at most. I see posters worried about "waiting for the train" or "looking for the train." Even as a mini "train," these are nowhere near as long as even Amtrak's short passenger trains. |
Izzyindetroit
Member
Username: Izzyindetroit
Post Number: 48
Registered: 07-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 1:40 pm: | |
I want to see an elevated inverted electro-magnetic rail down woodward. Everyone would want to ride it and it would look cool. Just think Cedar Point's Wicked Twister, Gondola lift and mass transit combined.
That would surely be the solution. |
Ljbad89
Member
Username: Ljbad89
Post Number: 45
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 9:41 pm: | |
At the light rail meeting tonight, the project manager guy said that most likely, left turns would only be at major intersections like where lights are now. Say you want to turn left onto a side street like from Woodward to Palmer. You will have to take the next major intersection and do a turn around. |
Dtowncitylover
Member
Username: Dtowncitylover
Post Number: 269
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 9:51 pm: | |
Does anyone know where the storage yard be for the trains? I can't see this being a 24-hr service. Maybe from 5am-1am. |
Ltorivia485
Member
Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 3056
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 10:07 pm: | |
Good question, Dtown. I strongly believe an elevated, underground or separate tracks (not the street) is the best method for this region. No one has even discussed where the trains will be stored! |
Dtowncitylover
Member
Username: Dtowncitylover
Post Number: 270
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 10:35 pm: | |
Yes, I've noticed. But one thing Lt, will you be paying for the skyrocketing amounts of those systems? By far, light rail, on street system is the most cheap way to do. We had our chance with those system, we lost it...we pay the "consequences". |
Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 341
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 11:34 pm: | |
Could store trains by Fairgrounds. Or at 7 Mile when they give up on that church. |
Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 1541
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 12:21 am: | |
So... why should Detroit not build a maglev or LSM powered train again?
Or, is that included as possibility in the category of light rail, or sky rail? |
Bragaboutme
Member
Username: Bragaboutme
Post Number: 465
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 1:25 am: | |
How much would light rail ground level cost Vs. elevated. We didn't lose ground level G.M. bought it and shut it down, as I understood it. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1993
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 1:39 am: | |
Sean, cost. The funding for street-level light rail is specious at best, at the moment. And that is current, very available technology...people have been building it for 150 years. Where is the money going to come from for brand new, somewhat-unproven technology (People Mover, anyone?) if we can't build simple iron rails?
In fact, excepting any expansion of the Los Angeles Red/Purple Line (which needs to happen), MTA Second Avenue Subway, and maintenance/expansion of the DC Metro, I would bet we will not see any substantial construction of elevated/subway trains for quite some time, until a gasoline catastrophe comes about. Sad, but true. The money isn't there for those kinds of public works projects anymore.
Street-level, shared right-of-way, or BRT is all that is getting done these days.
(Message edited by focusonthed on August 20, 2008) |
Detroitduo
Member
Username: Detroitduo
Post Number: 955
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 5:15 am: | |
The Munich proposed MagLev from City-center to Airport is 40km (25 miles) long, will currently cost 1.85 BILLION EUROS ($2.72 BILLION). So, those 25 miles are roughly the whole length between Pontiac and Downtown Detroit.
I don't think anyone in this region or even the federal govt. is going to foot the bill for a roughly $3 Billion experiment. PLUS, that stretch would be a waste of the MagLev concept. MagLev is to cover large distances at high speeds (170kph). Having a stop every 3/4 - 1 mile defeats the purpose.
Now, MagLev from DTW to Downtown to Troy to Southfield and back to DTW? NOW you're talking! now that's pie in the sky!
(Message edited by detroitduo on August 20, 2008) |
Detmsp
Member
Username: Detmsp
Post Number: 9
Registered: 08-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 1:54 pm: | |
bragaboutme, you understood wrong. You better believe GM was telling cities that their busses were awesome and better than trains (and why the heck wouldn't they say that about their own products?), but they never bought the train system and they never played a role in shutting it down |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3019
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 2:00 pm: | |
No, GM only pleaded guilty to forcing their streetcar subsidiaries into buying Firestone tires, GM buses and Standard Oil. See, they didn't FORCE them to sell the streetcars, only to buy buses, oil and tires. Only thing is, you can't run a streetcar system on buses, oil and definitely not on tires.
Right, GM didn't buy up streetcar lines and switch them to buses. When sued over it, they said, essentially, "We didn't do it; and we won't do it again." |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1570
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 2:32 pm: | |
The argument is credibly made that, while GM was one of the principals of National City Lines which owned some streetcar systems, transit agencies and companies in other cities were switching to buses at the same time, which GM could have had no hand in (other than, as Detmsp mentions, promoting their own product).
There are a great many reasons why nearly every interurban and streetcar system in North America was shut down between 1920 and 1960, and to blame it on GM is too simplistic. They had perhaps a little hand in it, but not the hand. They are, of course, not attempting in any way to dissuade cities from improving transit service nowadays. |