  Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1409 Registered: 11-2003 |
SEMCOG has released the detailed screening results of the alternatives for the Ann Arbor-Detroit transit corridor. (I'm not sure if this presentation represents the final alternatives analysis document.) http://www.annarbordetroitrapidtransitstudy.com/pdfs/whats_new/SteeringCommitteePresentation110806.pdf http://www.annarbordetroitrapidtransitstudy.com Some highlights from the document:
 | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1899 Registered: 10-2003 |
Something seems seriously amiss. I find it extremely difficult to believe that BRT service would draw almost triple the amount of passengers as commuter rail. The rail ridership numbers seem incredibly low. I'll have to scrutinize the report in-depth to find the flawed methodology (which I'm sure exists somewhere). I just don't believe that Detroit could obtain study results that are wildly inconsistent with what other cities are finding. I can't believe SEMCOG paid P-B for an extra four months of work to achieve a conclusion that basically amounts to, "We're not really sure." What the hell do other states do--roll over and die? Of course not. I want to get my hands on the full report. (Message edited by DaninDC on November 08, 2006) | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 258 Registered: 03-2006 |
this sounds disappointing | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1686 Registered: 10-2004 |
Let's just become sane for a few moments and consider the LRT option: Minimum operating cost: $54 million/year Daily trips: 3,400 (Are these round trips, single rides, and how many days per week or year?) And another small point: Just who ponies up the $2,641 to $2,870 million? Even with the local governments paying the minimum of 40% of the capital costs, that's a capital expenditure of only some $1,056 to $1,148 million. Just how dumb do the proponents of light rail think we are? The city already has a lousy bond rating and owes over $2,000 million as it is. The operating costs alone without debt service push an average LRT trip to some $46 per passenger: [$56.5 million (avg. per year)/(365 days* 3,400 trips)]. In addition, those ridership numbers probably do not include seven days/week but are probably for only five days/week. If so, that would push the cost per trip much higher... (Message edited by LivernoisYard on November 09, 2006) | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 731 Registered: 07-2004 |
I would argue that the fact that BRT is even considered shows something seriously amiss. What is this insistence on considering a system like that? Where are these BRT systems? Who uses them? I think somebody once posted on this board that BRT proposals are really divide-and-conquer proposals designed to alienate both those opposed to transit and those who favor light or commuter rail. Does that, in fact, happen with BRT proposals? | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1219 Registered: 11-2003 |
We're back to square one, no transit and we continue to look like a backwards region that is losing business and reputation because we do not have what other regions can put together. But the message is we need to prove the statistics wrong and use the transit we have. If they see that there are riders, they will be forced to do something. Just look at what the SMART millage passed by. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1410 Registered: 11-2003 |
LYard, that's true, but that's not exactly new news. Even LRT (Light Rail) proponents realize that LRT doesn't make much sense along the Ann Arbor to Detroit corridor, it's simply too long and it would be too expensive to support. LRT makes more sense on other shorter & more dense corridors such as Woodward. | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 862 Registered: 01-2004 |
LRT just wouldn't be economically feasible for the distance between the city, and Ann Arbor. I think the CRT option would be the best choice for that distance. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1689 Registered: 10-2004 |
"LRT makes more sense on other shorter & more dense corridors such as Woodward." There's plenty of buses already moving up/down the Woodward corridor. Detroit should be satisfied with cheap alternatives instead of "Cadillacs." DDOT and SMART are big money-losers, at present. Let them ride buses. Besides, those short trips don't take much time. (Message edited by LivernoisYard on November 08, 2006) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1900 Registered: 10-2003 |
I don't think there were too many people who thought LRT was a good idea between Detroit and Ann Arbor. I personally don't know of any 45-mile long LRT routes. Even the longest line on the NYC subway is shorter than that by about 20 miles. Buses, on the other hand, though, are even worse performers over long distances than LRT. Considering that, *at best*, BRT can approximate LRT service, I find it hard to believe it would have a higher ridership. Now, commuter buses are another matter altogether.... But since when is "no direct connection to the airport" a downfall for commuter rail? BWI has had a commuter rail connection for 23 years that uses shuttle bus service between the station and terminal. I'm convinced this was a very ham-handed study. I'm going to get my paws on a copy and publicly dissect it on this thread. | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1099 Registered: 12-2004 |
Someone tell me what BRT and LRT stand for! | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1901 Registered: 10-2003 |
Bus Rapid Transit (an oxymoron, if you ask me) and Light Rail Transit | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 614 Registered: 09-2005 |
Bus Rapid Transit Light Rail Transit | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 615 Registered: 09-2005 |
Commuter Rail is the only thing that makes sense for AA to Detroit. Who wants to ride a city bus from AA to Detroit? Greyhound could provide better service. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1691 Registered: 10-2004 |
OK, we'll consider the likely CRT option: Minimum operating cost: $93 million/year Daily trips: 2,100 (Are these round trips, single rides, and how many days per week or year?) The capital costs range from $618 to $1,474 million? Even with the local governments paying the minimum of 40% of the capital costs, that's a capital expenditure of only some $247 to $590 million. Just how dumb do the proponents of commuter rail think we are? [Couldn't resist...] The operating costs alone without debt service push an average CRT trip to some $133 per passenger trip! [$102 million (avg. per year)/(365 days* 2,100 trips)]. In addition, those ridership numbers probably do not include seven days/week but are probably for only five days/week. If so, that would push the cost per trip much higher... (Message edited by LivernoisYard on November 09, 2006) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1902 Registered: 10-2003 |
Those costs are WAY out of line for commuter rail. I smell a rigged conclusion.... Time to write SEMCOG for a copy of the report. | ||
Cabasse Member Username: Cabasse Post Number: 22 Registered: 01-2006 |
this is bullshit. (i can hear the snickering) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 626 Registered: 02-2006 |
For reference, Chicago's Metra system has a 2007 projected Operating Expense of $553m, for 1,200 miles of track. This system would have Operating Expenses of $102m on 45 miles of track. That's 18.4% of the cost on 3.75% of the track miles. Or: Metra - $460,833 per track mile DTW - $2,266,666 per track mile Obviously there are other factors than miles of track (and economies of scale to consider), but I think one could argue commuter train costs are scalable by the size of the system (rolling stock, fuel costs, etc). | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 270 Registered: 07-2005 |
This makes me sad.  | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1695 Registered: 10-2004 |
Anybody who had anything to do with that report could crunch the numbers himself or have a seeing-eye dog do it for him. There's only one real alternative, and that's the one with little to no capital costs because Detroit is already too far in debt. And even that one option costs money that the city doesn't really have w/o cutting elsewhere. | ||
Cabasse Member Username: Cabasse Post Number: 23 Registered: 01-2006 |
there is absolutely no way these costs would be 6+ times higher here than in chicago. these findings and semcog disgust me. wouldn't the funding for operating costs come from more than just the city of detroit itself? (metro and/or state?) | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1697 Registered: 10-2004 |
"wouldn't the funding for operating costs come from more than just the city of detroit itself? (metro and/or state?)" Yeah! Why not charge the riders of the damned boondongle to foot a hefty share of the costs? | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 2067 Registered: 10-2003 |
I was at the meeting today. To boil down a complicated matter, the bottom line is that the Federal Transportation Administration requires any application to compare different transit options equally. The problem with this is that you can't compare the three different options equally. The study used busses, trains, etc. coming every 20 minutes all day long. 20 min. is fine for LRT or BRT during rush hour, but CRT typically runs on 45-60 min. intervals during rush hour only. So part of the flaw is in the application requirements itself. The other issue is that Detroit does not have mass transit service between AA and Det currently. While everyone in the room felt that this corridor needs rapid transit of some sort, SEMCOG and P-B couldn't come up with defensible numbers to support LRT or high-end CRT. I don't think anyone was happy with the results of the study so far, but they are what they are. We've got to make the best of the current situation in Detroit which is way below most other metropolitan areas. Most cities that are submitting successful mass-transit applications have existing BRT service or low-end CRT service and can demonstrate that adding LRT would boost ridership even farther along these routes. Detroit has nothing to lean on in this area and is one of the biggest reasons a competitive application can't be developed with these current 5 options. The next step in the project is that SEMCOG and P-B will do a study of CRT option 1 and BRT option 5. This time around they will look at doing a low cost version of each, likely designed so that both options could run in a live test period for 6 mos. to a year. This test run will then give SEMCOG some data that they can use in an application to the FTA. Neither options have direct access to Metro Airport, however a light rail or shuttle bus service is being considered by Metro to link to a BRT or CRT service if it were to happen. While this is not ideal, from a cost standpoint it is the best option right now. At the same time SEMCOG will be looking at ways to implement CRT or BRT service in ways outside of the FTA application process. Maybe getting a limited service up, say a 10 trip a day CRT service via Norfolk Southern between AA and Det. Or maybe a miracle would happen and AATA, SMART and DDOT would stop fighting and select an operator to do BRT along the corridor. This too would provide data and get us up to the level of many of the other communities applying for the same pot of federal funds we are. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 336 Registered: 04-2006 |
Metra has 1,200 miles of track?? According to the RTA (the agency that oversees metra), it is only 545 route miles. http://www.rtachicago.com/CMS4 00Min/uploadedFiles/5-Metra.pd f METRA is no role model. According to that PDF for 2006 they are generating $279 million, but have operating expenses of $535 million. That means they are going into debt fast!! Just think of what would have happened if a rosy picture was painted, this would become another people-mover. The plan has not been dropped, if you read the link it says that they might go with buses or with adding more Amtrak Trains. By adding more trains it makes it easier to run trains up and down the woodward corridor as well. Higher order transit needs to be ramped up carefully around here. Rome was not built in a day. The area only has $100 million in federal aid for capital and no mechanism for operating funds. | ||
Cabasse Member Username: Cabasse Post Number: 24 Registered: 01-2006 |
thank you, bvos and detroitplanner for your well written responses. (and thank you bvos for attending yesterday's meeting) i agree and see the point that it needs to be "ramped up carefully." it is somewhat of a relief to hear that crt1 is still being considered, as this includes crt1a. (my personal choice) two points: 1) because we're still a car-dependant nation, leaving out a couple of key cities, most transit doesn't make a profit. it relies on taxes and other forms of funding... (it is a suprise to see that metra isn't turning one though) has dallas, houston, salt lake, minneapolis or any other city new to light rail seen any kind of a profit yet? 2) considering the people mover is only 3 miles long, it does show quite a decent amount of ridership. what is it at now, 6-7,000 a day? i would think such that it's enough to cover operating expenses when you add in things like advertising, but i don't know. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 627 Registered: 02-2006 |
Detroitplanner, I dunno, just quoting from Metra's 2007 budget, the figure in question available on Page 8. http://metrarail.com/Budget/20 07BudgetBook.pdf Could be one figure reflects all trackage, and one reflects revenue track only. Dunno. Although your document refers to "route miles" so I'd guess that's actually the number we're looking for. In which case, revise my number for Metra to be: $1,014,679 per route mile. The budget document is actually a pretty good read for anyone interested in this topic. As far as revenue, a 50-60% farebox recovery ratio is quite good. Show me a transit system that makes money. The financial situation for RTA is pretty grim currently, but only because the State of Illinois as a whole isn't in much better shape than Michigan, and subsidies aren't as forthcoming these days. (Message edited by focusonthed on November 09, 2006) (Message edited by focusonthed on November 09, 2006) | ||
Psip Member Username: Psip Post Number: 1288 Registered: 04-2005 |
Is this the study that Senators Debbie and Carl got funding for? This study is bogus. | ||
Psip Member Username: Psip Post Number: 1289 Registered: 04-2005 |
https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/76017/74803.html Our last discussion on this topic | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1699 Registered: 10-2004 |
"As far as revenue, a 50-60% farebox recovery ratio is quite good." Beaming back to planet Earth: Whose public transist system's cashbox revenues anywhere return 50% to 60% of its actual operating costs and debt service? Twenty-five years ago, a 30% to 35% recovery was laudable; today, it's probably closer to 10% or even less--especially when elderly discounts and other fare reductions are included. (Message edited by LivernoisYard on November 09, 2006) | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 26 Registered: 10-2006 |
Many forms of transportation don't pay for themselves. Look at roads and highways for example. It isn't unusual to fund a portion of any major transportation project with money outside of those that actually use it, be it a highway or a rail system or whatever. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 616 Registered: 09-2005 |
Do Metro Detroit's toll highways recover 10% of its costs? Oh, that's right, that question doesn't even make sense.... | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 2072 Registered: 10-2003 |
Exactly Charlotte Paul! No mass transit system pays for itself through the fare box. Like the roads in Michigan and most of America don't pay for themselves either. We subsidize roads as much or more than mass transit. I don't see any toll roads in Michigan. So the road system here is entirely "subsidized" by tax payers. At least with mass transit in Michigan the users are paying something towards their use. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1702 Registered: 10-2004 |
The state government funds costly road projects on a piece-meal basis. It's not in the cards for the state, at present, to fund rapid transit boondoggles for Detroit, especially when the two major bus systems are largely underutilized and bleeding cash. Detroit's population no longer is a prime mover in state politics with its 8% to 9% of the state's population, especially when their incomes (and taxes) are factored into the equations. | ||
Gotdetroit Member Username: Gotdetroit Post Number: 33 Registered: 12-2005 |
How about just something out to the airport for starters? From Detroit. Go from there. I'm not sure I see the need to take a train out to Michigan Stadium to catch a football game. Now the airport on the other hand.... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1903 Registered: 10-2003 |
Livernoisyard, we know how you feel. You would rather Detroit be a third world backwater than dare to join the ranks of cities that are economically competitive. If you don't want to have a thoughtful discussion on this matter, please spare us the slogans. You have provided no evidence to support your position. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1904 Registered: 10-2003 |
Bvos, I'm curious. How is it possible to evaluate each mode equally, when they are inherently not equivalent modes of service? I'm not questioning what you're saying, but if that's what the legislation says, then it's rigged to come out in favor of BRT every time. As far as the "no current transit service" excuse is concerned--and yes, it's an excuse--what did Nashville and Albuquerque do? Neither of those cities had ANY rail service either, let alone over the corridors in question, yet managed to develop an analysis that gained federal funding. Why is Detroit incapable of doing this? What is PB getting paid to do? If you ask me, either SEMCOG is getting ripped off, or they instructed PB to come up with BRT as the "solution". Considering how much they were promoting that ridiculous Speedlink plan a few years ago, I wouldn't be surprised. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1704 Registered: 10-2004 |
So, Dan, now there's got to be another tin-hat conspiracy afoot when any of your pet projects doesn't pan out. Well, at least you're going to battle that nasty SEMCOG windmill for us. But don't do it during a thunderstorm. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1907 Registered: 10-2003 |
If the results actually made sense, that would be one thing. The figures given, though, are completely out of whack. They just don't make sense. It has very little to do with my personal opinion. Then again, livernoisyard, I know you're not one to let facts get in the way of what you think. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1705 Registered: 10-2004 |
OK, Dan, do tell us. What should an average trip cost? For any or all of the options. YOU have all the answers, right? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1908 Registered: 10-2003 |
I haven't had time to debunk the presentation yet. I plan to do so over the weekend, using comparable analysis from other cities, since I can't seem to find a copy of the written report. I tried e-mailing SEMCOG, as well as PB, to see if I could get a copy of the report. Both e-mail addresses were bunk. Anyone know where I can get a copy? | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1706 Registered: 10-2004 |
Come on. Quit ducking the issue. In order to be affordable, the cost per passenger has to fall within a reasonable range. If you cannot address this very basic point (or fail to a priori because you suspect that it won't fly), you have no logical basis for making any judgments. And a quantitative answer is easier to justify than simply saying that such or such is better. This issue really comes down to money or lack of it. Try buying or selling anything if and when you have no idea of what it costs or its merits. Just saying it doesn't feel right might be an apt starting point, but by itself it's just woman's intuition--a shaky arguing point, at best. (Message edited by LivernoisYard on November 09, 2006) | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4460 Registered: 11-2003 |
jjaba report: ANN ARBOR IS NOT A SUBURB. jjaba, Westsider. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 732 Registered: 07-2004 |
Yeah, Dan. Who needs time to read the actual study, look at the methodology and determine whether the assertions are sensible? Anything that can't be argued without looking over the facts isn't worth arguing about. | ||
Ro_resident Member Username: Ro_resident Post Number: 178 Registered: 11-2003 |
From the SEMCOG web site: If you wish to obtain a hard copy of any of these publications, please contact Information Services at 313-961-4266 or infoservices[at]semcog.org with the title of the publication. Sounds like a good place to start. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 618 Registered: 09-2005 |
Some interesting pictures of St. Louis' light rail system can be found on this thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.co m/showthread.php?t=119461 According to Wikipedia, St. Louis has a metro population of 2,786,728, a city population of 352,572 and a city density of 5,695.8/mi². According to the same source, Detroit has a metro population of 4,488,335 (plus Windsor-Essex), a city population of 886,675 and a city density of 6,856/sq mi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S t._Louis,_Missouri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D etroit | ||
Baltgar Member Username: Baltgar Post Number: 38 Registered: 06-2006 |
Why didn't SEMCOG have the contractor look at maglev technology? such as: http://www.bwmaglev.com/ We need something like this from DTW to the new Rosa Parks transit center downtown. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 619 Registered: 09-2005 |
For all the naysayers, if St. Louis can build and operate a state of the art light rail system, the Detroit area should be able to support a commuter rail line to America's 11th largest airport. In the interim: -Kick some money over to Amtrak and have them run a few extra trains each day. -Run a SMART bus express service between Detroit and the airport to gauge interest. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 338 Registered: 04-2006 |
Meglev is obscenely expensive to build and operate. If you think these costs are high.... | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 245 Registered: 04-2006 |
SEMCOG studies show that SMART and DDOT will need to expand for this project to work and this can be shown in statistics from other cities such as Chicago as many bus riders transfer to trains. This is also true in every city that has rail. I think SEMCOG should do more to encourage bus rider ship to get more funding from user fees in conjunction with this project. We need to connect all the different modes of travel together to lower the per passenger costs as I'm sure SEMCOG knows. This is why I want to see industries support bus service more by working with transit officials. I think rail service between Detroit the airport and AA would be real nice but I also want Michigan's economy to improve also. So, we need more user fees for public transit and not just local tax dollars in my opinion. | ||
Baltgar Member Username: Baltgar Post Number: 39 Registered: 06-2006 |
Are the costs really that expensive for Maglev? In this article the Shanghai airport maglev rail (ironically, the same distance from DTW to downtown - 20 miles) cost 1.2 billion, with annual maintenance costs of north of $60M. This is compared to the the 1.4B for the high end of commuter rail, with maintenance costs of roughly $100M. The beauty of maglev is there is minimal costs for upkeep, since you don't have rails or wheels. You also don't need as much ROW since they can stack on top of each other. This is less invasive to local neighbors. A cab ride from DTW to downtown is $45. DTW got a little over 36M passengers last year. Say you get 1/5 of these passengers to use this service. Then you charge $10 a person so they can get to downtown in 7 minutes. This would collect $72M for annual costs. http://www.slate.com/id/211511 4/ http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/ A0004547.html I see the point of starting small. Though, most of that can and should be done through bus coalitions. Which we need some strong leaders to start pushing. But for the future of our region why should we use old technology? Let's be the innovators of the country again. (Message edited by baltgar on November 09, 2006) (Message edited by baltgar on November 09, 2006) | ||
Illwill Member Username: Illwill Post Number: 82 Registered: 11-2003 |
I think Detroit is a day late and a dollar short. Light rail should have been put in place dozens of years ago before businesses relocated to the burbs. Unfortunately do to urban sprawl and many people not wanting to be associated with Detroit, it makes for a nearly impossible task to accomplish. I'd say scrap the whole idea except and put the money into making the roads better. However with gas prices sky rocketing, bad weather, terrible road conditions and pollution I guess it may be better late than never. I like those pics of STL...it looks like a very vibrant and bustling town. | ||
Dtwphoenix Member Username: Dtwphoenix Post Number: 53 Registered: 12-2004 |
detroit needs to start somewhere like: - express bus(aata) from ann arbor/ypsi to the airport. - express bus(smart) from downtown detroit to the airport. (maybe pontiac to airport as well) - park and ride express busses into ann arbor and detroit at rush hour(the feasibility of these may be hampered by lack of hov lanes). - have greater frequency amtrak service between pontiac and ann arbor. If these small additions integrated together along with integrating well with local bus service, we'd actually get an idea of ridership. One thing that people need to remember about BRT: if it's not rapid, it's just the bus. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 341 Registered: 04-2006 |
Illwill, Detroit is not the only place where business has moved to the suburbs. I'm willing to bet there are more jobs in suburban Chicago than downtown Chicago, yet it still has rail to and from downtown. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1912 Registered: 10-2003 |
AATA *tried* to implement express bus service to DTW, but the crooks at the airport tried to charge the agency an access fee--something no other airport does. So, thanks to small-mindedness-as-usual, the service was never started. (Message edited by DaninDC on November 10, 2006) | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1710 Registered: 10-2004 |
"AATA *tried* to implement express bus service to DTW, but the crooks at the airport tried to charge the agency an access fee--something no other airport does." The airport's legal work under McNamara was personally headed by both Granholm and Duggan. So, those two would quite naturally have been the two biggest crooks at the airport after McNamara was accounted for. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1913 Registered: 10-2003 |
How in the hell do you figure that County legal staff is responsible for airport operation policy? | ||
Frenchman_in_the_d Member Username: Frenchman_in_the_d Post Number: 106 Registered: 08-2006 |
Maglev, as said, is obscenely expensive and usually for 'long' distances. In Europe, for instance, the Maglev in Germany is used as an intercity alternative, rivalling with air transport. Maglev speeds reach almost 400km/h. Maglev is definitely not adapted to the mass transit transportation in our area. And of course, mainly, obscenely expensive. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 1863 Registered: 07-2004 |
http://www.mlive.com/news/aane ws/index.ssf?/base/news-20/116 317324550480.xml&coll=2 | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 866 Registered: 01-2004 |
Can't wait to see what they find | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 276 Registered: 03-2006 |
page 22 of the results indicate that funding potential may increase depending on congressional support. Do you think that a new democratic congress may be more inclining to support sustainable development and put things like transit as a domestic priority, or at least something they're willing to support? One of the ranking democratic senators is from michigan just food for thought, maybe congressional support could make more expansive CRT service viable | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1923 Registered: 10-2003 |
From today's Metro Times: www.metrotimes.com Mass confusion by News Hits staff 11/15/2006 A lot of folks were left scratching their bewildered noggins last week when the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) delivered the long-awaited results of a study exploring mass transit options for the Detroit to Ann Arbor corridor. More than a year in the making, what was expected to be a comprehensive report ended up being reduced to a data-lite PowerPoint presentation. "It's hard to know exactly what's going on," says Megan Owens, executive director of the nonprofit group Transportation Riders United. "They didn't actually release a full report, so I'm pretty baffled as to where they came up with some of their numbers." Terry Blackmore, executive director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, reacted similarly. "I asked during the meeting, 'Where's the report that identifies these assumptions,' and the response was that there wasn't a report." This much is known: A light rail line connecting the D to AA with a stop at Metro Airport isn't going to happen. Too much moola and too few potential riders, says SEMCOG. There weren't, however, many tears shed among the experts we talked to regarding that decision. The more-than-40-mile trip between the two cities at each end of the line would take too long on light rail, we're told. So that leaves commuter trains running on existing rail tracks or some kind of express bus service linking Detroit with Ann Arbor and a limited number of points in between. (And our two cents worth regarding buses: They travel the same roads our cars sit idling on during rush hour!) But even within those options, significant questions remain. As it is now, the rail line being looked at would deposit riders in Detroit's New Center area. And how would they get to downtown from there? Transportation Riders United advocates light rail going down Woodward from that point. Is that part of the plan being considered? The people we've talked to don't yet know. And, according to Owens, some of the cost estimates appear to be wildly out of synch with those experienced in other areas. More underlying info is needed to make a solid evaluation of what SEMCOG is reporting, she and others say. "We're hoping to get from SEMCOG some of the working papers, because the angels are in the details," says Larry Simmons, director of strategic planning for Wayne County. Alex Bourgeau, coordinator of intermodal planning for SEMCOG, says a detailed analysis is expected to be ready by January. But there are other problems that need to be addressed as well. The feds have $100 million waiting for us to use if we can deliver a project that meets their criteria, and the region comes up with at least $20 million in matching funds. But one roadblock is that, unlike burgs like Chicago and NYC, we don't have any kind of rapid transit up and going, so its difficult to calculate realistic ridership numbers — one of the main points the feds are looking at. "They want us to prove our ridership assumptions, but to do that you have to have a system up and operating because of the heavy reliance on existing data," says Simmons. "It's a catch-22." One solution is to go to work on the feds in an attempt to get the rules changed so that they're fairer to this region, which is woefully behind other major metropolitan areas in this country when it comes to mass transit. Which is what makes this all so important, and the lack of info coming from SEMCOG so frustrating. Simmons' boss, Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano, is committed to seeing something other than buses running the route, says Simmons. "He believes mass transit is critical to the development of this region." Ficano's far from alone there. The good news here is that all concerned — including SEMCOG — consider mass transit along this corridor both vital and doable. So the big question now is, will SEMCOG get up to speed and get those who want to know all the information needed to make a solid evaluation of the options remaining? Public meetings regarding the Detroit-Ann Arbor corridor are planned for early December. Go to semcog.org for details. News Hits is edited by Curt Guyette. Contact him at 313-202-8004 or NewsHits@metrotimes.com. | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1715 Registered: 06-2004 |
...among other problems. Yes, someone else sees the light. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5194 Registered: 02-2004 |
Public mass transit is not a public problem but a bureaucratic problem. Public Mass Transit is NOT going to happen until out leader say so. That's how it works in America. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 252 Registered: 04-2006 |
Danny, Wrong again. Mass transit in metro Detroit costs too much which is why it does not work. I lowered the per passenger costs of SMART and support them but you Danny, box girl scouts when it comes to mass transit. I'm serious about debating you in public. Any time and any place as long as there are lots of people around and you promise to not hit me cause you might be bigger and stronger then me. But, I'm sure I know more about mass transit then you. | ||
Noggin Member Username: Noggin Post Number: 79 Registered: 09-2004 |
Another study to prove that they will do nothing---- Detroit Free Press, Saturday, 1/26/74 Another Landmark to Fall By Dennis Tereshinski Free Press Staff Writer When the wrecking ball descends Monday on the sandstone-and-red-brick building at Fort and Third, Detroit will lose another important link with its architectural past. The Union Depot, built in 1891-93, is scheduled for demolition because the owners, the Chesapeake & Ohio (C&O) Railway say it is more economical to tear it down than to make the necessary improvements to keep it standing. The station, vacant nearly three years, has become a haven for vagrants, and fire-setting vandals, making it a public hazard. City officials ordered the railroad to keep the vagrants out or face court action last fall. A C&O spokesman explained that the company had been unable to keep the vagrants out because as soon as the railroad boards up an entrance someone tears it down. “From an engineering standpoint, the longer the station stands the worse its condition will become,” the spokesman said. “It would cost more to renovate the building than to rebuild it.” The station, with its massive four-clock tower, once was the home of the famed Wabash Cannonball. It has been described by experts as monumental and gutsy in a solid aggressive style. “We’re losing a period in architecture in this city,” Suzanne Hillberry, a curator at the Detroit Institute of Arts, said Friday. “Ten years from now it will be very boring in Detroit if the only architecture we have is from the 1970s,” she complained. “I don’t want to stand in the way of progress but I think it’s a mistake if we don’t blend the old with the new.” The C&O said it regretted tearing down the building, but that no one had offered to purchase it. When it was the site of the proposed downtown sports stadium a few years ago some prospective buyers stepped forward. The Southeast Michigan Transit Authority has expressed an interest in the property for possible use as a station for commuters from Ann Arbor and Plymouth, but studies on the project would not be completed for another six months. A workman summed up the future for the depot best when he told a passerby: “You better take a good look at it, because come Monday the wrecking ball will be swinging.” | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1759 Registered: 10-2004 |
So, what's a better use for that location? A community college since 1979 or another abandoned, derelict structure like the MC depot? Maybe Detroit is simply as anti-intellectual as the studies show. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1429 Registered: 11-2003 |
Interesting article from 1974, but that says more about historic preservation in the city than it does about transit. | ||
Noggin Member Username: Noggin Post Number: 80 Registered: 09-2004 |
The point was they were supposed to do a transit study that obviously went on the shelf like the new one will. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 257 Registered: 04-2006 |
My plan came off the shelf the save SMART. But, the majority of voters decided that we no longer need any state money from the Michigan Department of Transportation MDOT to pay for any operating costs of SMART on November 8, 2006. We voted to end this funding mechanism in its entirety and replace this with property taxes. There is hope because someday our industries and Wal-Mart in southeast Michigan will generously pay out of the kindness of their big hearts. We will see this soon in Livonia. The newspapers will not print that the real reason the handicapped and poor are losing bus service. But, you can find out by knowing the facts which include the refusal of MDOT and SEMCOG to pay or find alternative funding and solutions for those displaced by the incompetence and inability to gain industry and commerce support and other causes. The public will be led to believe that the Livonia voters caused this but evidence from many sources proves otherwise. This is why the DARTA agreement was illegal and was rightfully abolished. Transit advocates want to replace state money with money from city hall. This is in violation of our civil rights and against ADA requirements to receive federal transit grants because alternatives for the handicapped were not provided in the case of Livonia. The Livonia opt out is proof that SEMCOG needs to end their studies for the AA to Detroit rail project and instead use the money for basic community transit. The actions to pay for rail and freeways by denying basic needs for the handicapped are immoral thus are being publicly challenged by me. We will continue to pay for many more useless SEMCOG studies that only waste millions of tax dollars while at the same time Livonia workers and residents are denied any chance to have public bus service until we take action and demand full accountability from our government leaders. Please support my cause to stop the abuse and neglect of the Livonia SMART buses shutting down. http://www.savethefueltax.org Next August 2010, we must all stand up and not just vote NO but vote HELL NO to stop further state funding cuts to SMART and for basic community transit. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1461 Registered: 11-2003 |
This is a reminder that the public comment meetings are being held today, tomorrow and Wednesday on the screening results for the Ann Arbor-Detroit transit corridor. Make your voice heard! http://www.annarbordetroitrapi dtransitstudy.com/
| ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1956 Registered: 10-2003 |
Results? Hah! I don't remember seeing any data or analysis--just a decision. You mean the "pre-ordained conclusions", right? | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2178 Registered: 12-2004 |
Did you actually read all of the study reports? Or at least skim through them before dismissing them? http://www.annarbordetroitrapi dtransitstudy.com/news/study_r eports.aspx If you did, please feel free to explain your position as why those several hundred pages of data aren't really anything other than a "pre-ordained conclusion". | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1977 Registered: 10-2003 |
I haven't read through the reports just yet. Based on the slideshow that was previously released, though, I find it ludicrous and highly implausible that: 1. All new trackage is required if commuter rail is implemented. 2. Bus "rapid" transit on existing roadways is even remotely competitive with rail on a dedicated right-of-way over a distance of 45 miles. On top of that, the baseline does not appear to be appropriate. "No build" should be the basis for comparison, not "demand management", which itself is a deviation from existing conditions. I'm sure I'll have more comments once I read through the detailed report. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2180 Registered: 12-2004 |
Whether or not all new trackage is required will, to a large degree, on whether or not the people who currently own it are willing to let a new commuter rail system operate on it. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1864 Registered: 10-2004 |
Oh yes! The Norfolk Southern (among others) would just love having their freight operations severely limited along the Michigan Line, even to the point where the CRT usage spills over onto Track #2. | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 2095 Registered: 10-2003 |
The detailed study of 5 options had the CRT building a "premium" service which included running an parallel rail line to the existing single track NFS line. Currently it's only a single track line and a second line would be needed to accomodate the 20-30 min. spacing of the premium CRT proposal. If a scaled down (ie. realistic) CRT route were to be created, there would be no need for a second set of tracks and the existing single track line would suffice. As far as the baseline, no build is not an option. Traffic demand forecasting show that this corridor will be at or over capacity within 10-30 years with the existing highway and road system. The correct baseline, as was done for the study, is "demand management" within the existing highway and road system (ie. traffic light timing, metering highway ramps, more frequent line haul bus service, etc.). | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1978 Registered: 10-2003 |
What's funny is that transportation is nearly always a self-fulfilling prophecy. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 500 Registered: 04-2006 |
What is all this talk of no no build analysis? how can you really quantify doing nothing but what is already being done? SEMCOG's scoping document requires the no build to be included in the final NEPA document. The process is not to that point as of yet. http://www.annarbordetroitrapi dtransitstudy.com/news/pdfs/Sc oping_Brochure.pdf | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2185 Registered: 12-2004 |
Happy 500th Post, Detroit Planner! | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 283 Registered: 04-2006 |
The no build option is the best one. Private free enterprise works the best. The failure of the SEMCOG BRT Transit Vision and the public meetings are solid evidence of this. It's best our regional leaders at SEMCOG get out transportation industry and let the real professionals do the job instead at this time. It's well known how to move cars off the roads and people like myself and many others are doing this already. Maybe if SEMCOG actually listens to people who can fill the trains with paying passengers that this project will work. We have wasted enough limited tax dollars on studies that are largely meaningless. The money spent on transit studies should be used for community transit needs such as Livonia Transit so they can buy wheel chair lifts and other similar items. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 534 Registered: 04-2006 |
Trainman, there are no private enterprise people running trains as transportation in the region. The only two are DTC and Amtrak and both suck at the govt tit for subsidies. I'd like to know which private enterprise will do this service for the management of congestion and for the improvement of transit options. You are quick to criticize, SEMCOG, SMART, DDOT, MDOT, and every other agency, yet your website is unclear of your motives, and you don't offer any solution other than a bashing of those who are at least trying something. Therefore I ask you which company will provide this service, and if it is so profitable, why has it not been provided by the private sector in the past? | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 288 Registered: 04-2006 |
The Norfolk Southern Railroad. This company does indeed move passengers and cars off the road. And, YES I do indeed back this up with facts in my WebSite. There are many companies throughout the U.S.A. that do a good job of moving passengers with no or little tax supports such as in New Jersey where a private company runs bus service on a fixed schedule into New York City and makes a profit. There are many facts that show that Michigan can do this also. This will create more jobs and bring our economy back. Until we say NO to more state transit funding cuts, we can expect even more cuts in public bus service and higher local and county taxes. (Message edited by Trainman on December 13, 2006) | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 539 Registered: 04-2006 |
have you suggested to SEMCOG that they may want to look at companies like NS to move passengers? have you given them examples of where they move people in other parts of the country? | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 289 Registered: 04-2006 |
Yes, I've physically proved to SEMCOG and MDOT in June 2003 with a demonstration showing them. This is well documented with costs and logistics in my WebSite and shows how public bus service can work to lower the per-passenger costs of commuter rail by the use of feeder lines. I was very successful at this and used this to try and keep SMART in Livonia. I published an article in the Livonia paper and brought strong industry support for both DDOT and SMART. But, my efforts alone like everyone else is not enough. I'm currently a professional at this kind of work as I coordinate and configure computers that move all types of both freight and passengers. |
