  Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4506 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Based on what? The costs for the proposed line are right in-line with comparable projects completed across the U.S. quote: Examples, please. The team behind this deal has retained consultants to put this plan into effect--that's where their cost estimates are obtained. Where are YOUR cost estimates coming from? | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 9572 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: OOH! OOH! Let me say, let me say! | ||
Dcmorrison12 Member Username: Dcmorrison12 Post Number: 61 Registered: 02-2009 |
Crawford, the other starter lines that you are thinking of were much longer than this one. Most likely those lines were about 20 miles, this one is about 3.5. DDOT's proposed plan is 8 miles and will be under 400 million. The funding will come from naming rights to the stations, plus the Michigan legislature passed a law stating that they could collect taxes that would go towards the line. In the end, this line will most likely be handed over to Detroit, it simply doesn't make sense for a private entity to run a transit system in the long run, historically they only lose money. | ||
Dcmorrison12 Member Username: Dcmorrison12 Post Number: 62 Registered: 02-2009 |
It's interesting because Michigan (and most of the constituents) have been behind roads - Highways and roads, because that's what "we want". But, it's more cost effective (and cheaper) to build mass transit - even light rail, plus they handle large numbers of people much better, faster and by using less energy. What hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that a highway of 3 miles would cost about 300 millions dollars (and I'm choosing the lower end of the spectrum, most likely it would be more). | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3611 Registered: 07-2004 |
"It simply doesn't make sense for a private entity to run a transit system in the long run, historically they only lose money." Perhaps the point I add here is too fine, but private traction companies were profitable when the government was not interested in paving roads. Until road-building initiatives in the 1910s helped literally pave the way for the auto, cars were ineffective and unreliable. If we ever get to the point where our governments cannot pay for roads, and we wind up with manure pits for roadbeds, private traction could be a going private concern again. (And, after driving around Redford the other week, some of our roads are in horrible condition already!) | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6199 Registered: 08-2004 |
Crawford... are you telling us that laying twin sets of 3 1/2 miles of streetcar tracks, stations that will likely look like bus shelters and some overhead electric cables (if that is indeed the source of power) should cost $280 million per mile?? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1884 Registered: 12-2006 |
Ahh, Dcm, you've hit on something though. In Michigan, we build highways all the time, so the idea of spending money on highways is just baked into the state budget, year after year after year. We don't ever argue about it, or in fact think about it very much, we just do it. It is fantastically expensive, and we have highways that we just don't need, but we keep building them because we are programmed, at the state level, to keep building them. Now on the other hand, we do not build transit lines, and we have no budget for it, so we act like it's a shocking new thing. "How on Earth will we pay for it?", everyone asks. But nobody asks, "how on Earth will we pay to widen I-75 or reconstruct I-94?" We just do it. So it comes down to the tradition of how we spend money in Michigan, brainlessly, year after year, without ever giving any thought as to whether what we're spending money on is necessary or efficient. Our leaders only look at details, never at the big picture. And changing how we transport people is a big-picture item. | ||
Dcmorrison12 Member Username: Dcmorrison12 Post Number: 63 Registered: 02-2009 |
It's a shame too that out of all the money that goes towards transit in Michigan, AT MOST 10% can go to mass transit, and we usually don't hit that % either. It's literally written in as a law, meaning that it's AGAINST the law in Michigan to spend more than 10%, or should I say enough to be viable) on mass transit. God.. I love Michigan sometimes huh? Home of the automobile.. so highways it is! | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 502 Registered: 10-2006 |
Someone please show me ONE light rail line that was built in recent years for even three times this amount. Phoenix Light Rail cost 1.5 billion. For one line. Yes, it's many times longer, but not 15 times longer. Houston Light Rail, which is a few years old now, and which is basically the exact same bare-bones street-running design as this proposal (but twice the length) cost over $500 million. There's no way on earth you can build a 13-station light rail line for $100 million. I don't think you could do it for even $300 million. Heck, I have an aquaintence from grad school working on a one-station, one-mile extension of a light rail line in North Jersey. The cost: $250 million! And the rail line already exists; in great condition! You could run a train on it tomorrow. Even the station site is already owned by the state. Unless they are doing Washington Boulevard-style tourist "heritage" trolleys, there's no way this is possible (though I don't think even that would come close to a $100 million budget). I want to be clear that I do not oppose light rail on Woodward. I am a strong supporter, and think a regional tax and federal contribution are the way to go. I am just clueless as to these news articles. They are all Fantasyland, with light rail supposedly being built for $100 million. And what is with "paid for by naming rights"? No federal contributions? Why, exactly? Are they afraid of the ridership projections? The corporate naming rights market has collapsed, and it was never that deep to begin with. I would be pleasantly surprised if the NYC MTA, which has something like 12 million weekday trips, could generate $100 million in naming rights. Why would a system which will never have 1% the ridership have such demand for naming rights? Now if Karmanos and other Richie Rich types want to give $100 million for trolleys, great! I fully support that. I would still like to see where these numbers come from. | ||
Dcmorrison12 Member Username: Dcmorrison12 Post Number: 64 Registered: 02-2009 |
Well, you are making a fatal flaw. Crawford, you have your train modes confused. You are speaking on Light rail, which is not the same as a Modern Street car, such as that of the Private line. Light rail is bigger, heavier and faster than Modern Street cars, and therefore more costly. But, yes, you can build an 8 mile light rail line for under 400 million dollars. DDOT hired a very good consultant to help them out (the name is URS) and they have built these in the past. They know what they are doing, and the price is accurate (at least for the DDOT plan) | ||
Dcmorrison12 Member Username: Dcmorrison12 Post Number: 65 Registered: 02-2009 |
Crawford - I looked up the Phoenix line. It was 20.3 miles long, at a total cost of 1.3 billion dollars. DDOT's plan is 8 miles long, at a total cost of about 350 million. The Phoenix line is 2.5 times longer, which would (if using the dollar amount of the DDOT plan) bring the cost to 875 million dollars. (my math = 350 * 2.5) Now, the DDOT plan may be less costly for a few reasons 1. There is only one section of the line that has to go under a bridge (at new center) 2. There are only 2 bridges that the line would have to cross (meaning they would have to strengthen the bridge) 3. Woodward is a very wide road, and the Light rail is not invasive because of the width, so there is little money needed to make room. As for the Phoenix line, I found a few things that could explain partly as to why the price tag was higher. 1. They had 8 park and rides constructed (DDOT only is building one as of right now, and the parking lot already exists - State Fairgrounds) 2. Also, it mentioned 21 miles of new waterlines were constructed. I have not heard of DDOT doing this, which would add extra costs | ||
Dcmorrison12 Member Username: Dcmorrison12 Post Number: 66 Registered: 02-2009 |
Ok - one more thing You have the wrong information on the Houston line It was 7.5 miles (the starter line) at only 324 million dollars... Answer your questions? | ||
Detmsp Member Username: Detmsp Post Number: 80 Registered: 08-2008 |
2010? like next year? holy crap that seems fast. In Minneapolis it seems like it's taking them 6 months just to lay 2 or 3 more blocks of track to extend the LRT to the Twins new stadium. | ||
Dcmorrison12 Member Username: Dcmorrison12 Post Number: 67 Registered: 02-2009 |
Detmsp - Two things you need to take into account, and one of them I posted previously Minneapolis does not have modern street car, at least the line that you are speaking of is not a Modern Streetcar line. They have Light rail, which is more costly, but bigger and faster. Secondly, Minneapolis is doing it publicly, which can slow things down sometimes. They don't have the freedom like the Private plan does | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 711 Registered: 12-2003 |
While I like the fact that something is happening. I love that the business community is behind transit, But I don't like the direction they are taking this. This is not a "light rail transit" line. A LRT system has top speeds near 55 mph, and stops only closer that 1/3 of a mile or so in the very center of a downtown. The LRT system I'm familiar with is Portland's MAX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M AX_Light_Rail This is a modern streetcar system. The vehicles are limited by perhaps 30-35 mph. Stops are much closer together. The modern streetcar that I'm most familiar with is also in Portland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P ortland_Streetcar This streetcar system would not actually be any better than the one that was ended in 1956, a modern LRT system like Portland's MAX is much more useful and advanced. My objection is complicated: You can lay cheap streetcar tracks. But you can't run LRT vehicles on them. You can run streetcars on LRT tracks. An analogy would be that you can't run a 18 wheeler over a covered wood bridge designed for horse and wagon traffic, but you can run a horse and buggy on a concrete highway bridge. This proposal is to build a covered wood bridge. If they build this as proposed, you can kiss LRT from downtown to Royal Oak on Woodward goodbye. About the best you'll get is a streetcar system that will average slower than our current buses (albeit much more comfortable), or an LRT system that runs to new center, requiring a transfer to this streetcar in order to continue downtown. A LRT system might be just as fast as a streetcar system up to McNichols (but stopping to frequently will make it slow), but past there, an LRT system could fly down the wide median at 45-55 mph. A streetcar is going to be stuck putting along the curb at 30 mph, while cars are speeding by at 50! In addition, having the tracks on either side of the street kills the operational flexibility. When a piece of track needs to be taken out of service, whether for an emergency, or for maintenance, the whole system is down. When the tracks are side-by side, trains might have to run a bit less frequently, and they might be a bit late for a while, but they can still run. I foresee one of two problematic outcomes in Detroit's future: 1. The line flops. It gets to be known as the tourist train, ala the people mover, because it it too slow and it is not expandable. Support for transit fades in metro Detroit. 2. It is successful at what it does (local circulation), then it becomes widely known that the only way to extend it it to tear up the street and rebuild it all over again. The people of metro Detroit revolt at the boondoggle and support for transit fades. Don't get me wrong, I think that New Center, Downtown, and the various neighborhoods of Midtown deserve a streetcar. But it shouldn't be billed as the start of a regional transit system. It would work better on Cass and/or John R. However, it would be possible to build both a streetcar, mixed with auto/bus traffic on the outside lanes and a LRT system in the middle of the street blocked off from all other traffic. Perhaps this alternative would be ideal. In some ways it would be like one of NYC's major 4-track elevated or subway lines. The outside tracks make all stops, and the inside tracks run express. Only in this case, the station is integrated in with the businesses on the street, and riders can window shop as they pass by. If the idea is to hopefully eventually build both, great! But I really doubt this is what is being planned out. | ||
Russix Member Username: Russix Post Number: 196 Registered: 11-2006 |
This isn't Light rail, this is White rail. | ||
Busterwmu Member Username: Busterwmu Post Number: 533 Registered: 09-2004 |
Here's an interesting article about the push from rail to rubber-tire transit on one of Detroit's main thoroughfares in the 1940s - Which DOES speak about the crowding of cars because a lane of traffic was taken up by the streetcars... although I was under the impression that cars could travel in the streetcar lane... at least that's what they do in Toronto on the TTC! http://www.detroittransithisto ry.info/AroundDetroit/GrandRiv erAvenue.html | ||
French777 Member Username: French777 Post Number: 702 Registered: 10-2006 |
Sometimes people on this Forum make me sick.. A lot of you talk about good change that is coming to the Region and the City. But some of you just talk NEGATIVELY about Everything. you have to complain about all good things that come to the city. From the Light Rail to Cobo to The proposed Cadillac Centre. Isn't this Forum called DETROITYES!! as in YES WE CAN!!.. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4398 Registered: 02-2005 |
Applause for French. I am encouraged by this latest news. Much-maligned Newark NJ has a gem of a street-rail (partially below ground thanks to a former infrastructure) system thanks to great support from the state/regional level. One line is through downtown, connecting two key rail hubs, and the other goes through downtown in another direction and then out into the first suburb. The former is mostly at street level (http://www.flickr.com/search/? q=newark%20light%20rail&w=6787 3381%40N00), and runs partially through that city's version of Woodward, in the far right lane. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/d mnyc/1347597375/) the latter is only at street level for a time, and is mostly below ground or in a shallow ditch that parallels the city's main park (http://www.flickr.com/photos/g lance_vibgyor/2071460251/sizes /o/), and I hope Detroit would look at doing something similar so that there's an express link from midtown to Eastern Market and the riverfront through the Dequindre Cut. I think the EM link is justified at the present moment. Going to the river, with a stop at LP, is not justified since there are so few residents there now, but I suppose it could be a spur to development. The problem is, the high-price point envisioned for riverfront developments suggests that we won't have commuters to Wayne State. Perhaps I'm wrong on that. Transit to the East Riverfront could help ensure that a diverse neighborhood grows there. | ||
Living_in_the_d Member Username: Living_in_the_d Post Number: 334 Registered: 01-2008 |
Yeah, Maybe it's just Me, But for 1000000000 million dollars, We could get 200 state of the art Diesel Electric Transit HYBRID buses that would do more for the image and mobility and reliability of the city than anything else. Not to mention the reduced particulate emmisions, Fuel savings, and Green credits that would come along with it. | ||
D_parcells Member Username: D_parcells Post Number: 6 Registered: 04-2008 |
"Yeah, Maybe it's just Me, But for 1000000000 million dollars, We could get 200 state of the art Diesel Electric Transit HYBRID buses that would do more for the image and mobility and reliability of the city than anything else. Not to mention the reduced particulate emmisions, Fuel savings, and Green credits that would come along with it." but it is also the image factor of busses vs streetcars and trains. Busses have a negative connotation while streetcars and trains are viewed as safer, cleaner and more comfortable. We have a bus system that does work fairly well, but most people I know would never take the "bus", but they would willingly hop on a streetcar if available. Nobody ever got "streetcar'd" to the schools in the burbs. | ||
Drankin21 Member Username: Drankin21 Post Number: 301 Registered: 12-2003 |
"This isn't Light rail, this is White rail." Monica will probably shoot it down because the PRIVATE money didn't come from people that "look like her" | ||
Gotdetroit Member Username: Gotdetroit Post Number: 199 Registered: 12-2005 |
Private Line = People Mover 2. Absolute joke of a plan. Save the private plan for the Dequinder Cut. Metro Detroit/Detroit doesn't need another tourist line that does nothing to promote people coming to the City. But, if they squander this GOLDEN opportunity by NOT building a light rail line out to 8 Mile...I won't be surprised. | ||
Russix Member Username: Russix Post Number: 197 Registered: 11-2006 |
DETROIT YES WE KEEP SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT! This system was designed and plannned without any collection of public input, meaning they don't give a shit about what the public wants or whats best for the public. I absolutely refuse to see any public funding to be used to operate a system that could care less about real transit issues. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 503 Registered: 02-2008 |
GotDetroit, this is only Phase 1 of a regional mass transportation plan signed by the Big 4 Leaders which includes light rail and bus rapid transit. People, you need to do research before you this article. This isn't just a streetcar line, but the beginning of better modes of transit in this metro area. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1294 Registered: 11-2003 |
First, by the time this happens, Monica will either by charged with something, or in the clink. And two, since private money is currently paying for it, they don't have to share that much information. If they were say applying for a federal start up grant, then yes, there would be all kinds of public comment sessions and whatnot. Of course they would still needs the states ok since it is a state route. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 712 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hold it. Don't go off the deep end of negativity because of my post above (#711). I have reservations about a few things, but when this is built, it will be a huge asset to the city. quote: That is part of my problem, Dtowncitylover, if this is the first piece of a regional light rail system, there is likely a bait and switch going on. This is not light rail transit. Extending it past 6 mile is not going to be useful. Please take a look at the two wikipedia articles I linked above. Streetcars are great, but they are not light rail. The plan out for design bids is not the plan described here: http://www.woodwardlightrail.c om/ The DTOGS equipment won't even be able to run on these tracks. That said, a streetcar in the center of the city will do wonders to help the business, tourist, and residential community. The fact that SEMCOG is hard at work getting the commuter rail to Ann Arbor trial set up will mesh nicely with this project. They will make each other successful. | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 504 Registered: 02-2008 |
I know that light rail and streetcars are two different things, but both can have great effect, transit-oriented development anyone? Melbourne, Australia has the largest streetcar ("trams") system in the world, if it can work there it can here too. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 713 Registered: 12-2003 |
I agree, but if building this streetcar prevents us from getting a seamless LRT system, it is a problem. | ||
Melocoton Member Username: Melocoton Post Number: 72 Registered: 01-2008 |
Jsmyers raises a realproblem, and I don't think s/he's being negative. If this can't be combined with DTOGS' light rail plan, then how will it be usefully combined with the regional plan for transit? It does seem like the danger of a People Mover Part II is very great here. I've really tried to follow this issue, and I feel in the dark about the two plans and their relation to one another. The fact that there are two plans in the works, which according to DCmorrison may or may not even be combined, is a little worrisome. |
