Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning January 2007 » Possible Commuter Routes » Possible Commuter Routes - 1 « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 116
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 5:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Besides the Ann Arbor-Detroit route, which routes do you think have potential? Which cities would have stations built at them? What do you think?
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2113
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 5:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Boston to Washington, DC.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 119
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 5:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

lol. Well thats already there with the NEC. It's just that Amtrak sucks at managing it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjw
Member
Username: Jjw

Post Number: 220
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 5:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think the area has to get its shit together with the buses first, and have one system for the entire area. If that is accomplished, anything is possible. And... I also think the whole commuting by mass transit idea in the Detroit area is a difficult reality to conceive.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2114
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 5:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Metro Detroit's population decline probably won't bounce back until 2020. So, why commit a fragile population/taxpayer base with something of little practical use and with something that will become obsolete before that time? Furthermore, the land acquisition will be much easier when the ghost town of Detroit ever rebuilds.
Top of pageBottom of page

Milwaukee
Member
Username: Milwaukee

Post Number: 605
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 5:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

High speed rail from Detroit to Chicago. Stops in Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo. Chicago, Ann Arbor, and Kalamazoo are all thriving tech cities today, Detroit should get on in the action. Make Detroit accessable to business travelers from the midwest. And get rid of the crime downtown to get people interested in Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2115
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 5:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bravo, Milwaukee! With just your last two posts you single-handedly solved both the rapid transit and DPS's problems. When will you be bringing in the billions of dollars that you probably have lying around in the cracks of your sofa?

(Message edited by LivernoisYard on January 06, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Milwaukee
Member
Username: Milwaukee

Post Number: 608
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 5:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

By ending the black hole of a war in Iraq. Thus freeing billions of dollars for improvements in our own country. 300 Billion spent in Michigan rather than in Iraq.
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 193
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 5:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah. It seems as though the region is getting further from regional transit cooperation with Livonia dropping out of SMART even to have its own 'bus' system. But I suppose We should give our two cents on your question regardless. I would always be willing to suggest a route up woodward. Seems to be the next logical stop after the Detroit/AA line. I probably wouldn't put too many stops on it, but try to make it more of an express commuter line. Downtown/Midtown/New Center/Highland Park/Ferndale/Royal Oak (just a slight bend off Woodward for this stop)/Birmingham/Pontiac. If these were the only stops, you would still need Woodward to be a bus route as you couldn't walk this far between each stop. You might need to take the bus a mile or two up or down woodward to your nearest stop.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2116
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 6:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Keep them coming, M'waukee. With a third post in rapid succession on your part, now even Iraq is solved, and everybody is happy again.

Oh, the humanity is a big winner today.
Top of pageBottom of page

Milwaukee
Member
Username: Milwaukee

Post Number: 609
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 6:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I like the idea of a light rail or commuter train up into Oakland County rather than to Ann Arbor. Oakland County has a huge supply of office workers and offices that could move their business back downtown if a good transport system was set up.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5008
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 6:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Are you guys serious? These are the exact same arguments you guys have regurgitated month in an month out.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 120
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 6:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Agreed Milwaukee. That probably would work out better. Maybe one to Troy would be good. For anyone who is wondering why I put this up, I wanted to see what hypothetical routes would come up. I don't expect to see this happening for a while.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjw
Member
Username: Jjw

Post Number: 221
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 6:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"By ending the black hole of a war in Iraq. Thus freeing billions of dollars for improvements in our own country. 300 Billion spent in Michigan rather than in Iraq."
----hehehe. All of a sudden, billions of dollars will be freed up??? And when do we start paying on the debt? The money that we owe for the war on Iraq will be a debt for our lifetimes and probably for the lifetime of the next generation.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 121
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 6:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

True, but not true. Since the debt just keeps skyrocketing, it won't matter how long it takes to pay it off, because we will still be paying debts. What a lovely sight.
Top of pageBottom of page

Milwaukee
Member
Username: Milwaukee

Post Number: 612
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 6:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A commuter route won't actually cost 300 billion and it won't be built tomorrow. Cut the spending in the war take the money we were going to spend in Iraq and put it to repaying the debt. In a few years (how many I don't know) making a better America will be possible. Don't blame me for the fiscal irresponsibility blame the moron in charge.
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 198
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 6:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Woodward would work out better for commuters sake, but every metro area needs transit between the airport and downtown. Back in 1998 I was at a summer convention in Atlanta and we took the crossing subway lines everywhere (no vehicles or charter busses). In Detroit if there were at least a line between DTW and downtown, that would go a long way towards the hopes of attracting more conventions. So it def. just depends on if you think it should be for commuters more or to help get out-of-towners around more easily.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 122
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 6:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's why everyone is arguing over the people mover expansion. If they can at least get the dumb thing up to the station, it would be a lot easier to see these routes come to life. See the people mover thread for more info.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2117
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 6:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Where's the "rapid" in "rapid transit" when the ADA mandates that those in wheelchairs will have to be properly accommodated? This could tie up a bus for five minutes for each handicapped passenger. I suppose that the trains would be similarly detained.

If wheel chairs are to be admitted at various points along the route, just where does the rapidity ever enter in?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 436
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 9:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Instead of "blue-skying" possible transit routes, it might put things into a better perspective if you understood how many possible "daily customers" there might be for these routes. In 2000, there were 1.98 million workers who lived in Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and Washtenaw counties. However, less than 380,000 of them actually cross the Wayne County Line on their way to and from work. If you poured massive amounts of money into upgrading and building new mass transit routes connecting those three counties with Wayne County and then forced everyone who crosses the Wayne County line on their way to/from work to use mass transit, you could at most eliminate only 19% of the total daily worker commutes. Or in other words, 81% of daily commutes are made within the county where the worker lives.

numbers
percent
[source]
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 124
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 9:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you have ever ridden a superliner, you would know that the platforms that they have in Detroit know would accommodate a wheelchair. Metra has these kinds of cars, just with more seats on the bottom. If built correctly, it wouldn't be a problem. Now if they rent from Amtrak and use the Horizon or Amfleet cars, there could be a problem. Otherwise, that could be resolved easily.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1295
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 9:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There was talk with the demonstration line run by Amtrak to test the AA to Detroit route, they would also run it up to Royal Oak, Birmingham, and Pontiac. But they are still in discussions with Amtrak, the owners of the rail tracks, and other powers that be.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 127
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 9:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Theres only one owner, NS. And they only run 6 trains a day on it. So its not like there would be a problem with that part of it. NS actually offered the line to Amtrak back in 2002, but Amtrak refused due to lack of money.

Amtrak did something similar during the Baseball season with the Tigers to get people from Pontiac to Detroit. In my opinion, if they could pull it off, extend that route up to Port Huron and go from there. But I doubt that that would work.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2122
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 10:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Theres only one owner, NS. And they only run 6 trains a day on it. So its not like there would be a problem with that part of it. NS actually offered the line to Amtrak back in 2002, but Amtrak refused due to lack of money.

Amtrak did something similar during the Baseball season with the Tigers to get people from Pontiac to Detroit. In my opinion, if they could pull it off, extend that route up to Port Huron and go from there.






The tracks that Amtrak uses from Milwaukee Junction to Pontiac (the GTW Holly Subdivision) are not owned by the Norfolk Southern but belong instead to the Canadian National, the owner of the GTW.

(Message edited by LivernoisYard on January 06, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 130
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 10:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Crap. I forgot that that part was CN and not NS. Thanks LY. That would be harder to pull off, since CN was the one who didn't want all of Amtrak's new Illinois service on their lines.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 693
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 10:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Other routes?

Woodward
Maple/Adams/Big Beaver
Greenfield from Jefferson to the woodward adams area.
Fort, Grand River, Gratiot, E Venor out to some logical connection to Gratiot in Macomb County.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 133
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 10:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

All good suggestions. The one problem is that most of those don't have track laid down by them so it would be kinda hard to do (Woodward and Gratiot being the exceptions). But otherwise very logical.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2123
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 10:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

CN is in business to make money.

Passenger service on CN trackage can wreak havoc with freight operations due to the excessive time separation required by federal regulations. I don't blame the CN at all. They can tolerate those six daily Amtrak runs but won't want the nuisance of regular passenger service interfering with their bread-and-butter.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 135
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 10:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's the same with UP. They were wreaking havoc on Amtrak out west during the summer. The government finally got on their case. The one godsend is that CSX is not on that route because you could kiss any idea of transit good-bye. Their track conditions are deplorable.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 698
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 11:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Not all transit routes need to be rail. Sometimes buses make the most attractive option.

Note that the Detroit to Ann Arbor route follows the Michigan corridor, but only a few of the alternatives actually use Michigan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 137
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 11:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

True. I was just expanding on rail options but you do bring up a good point. And god knows that we do need one combined bus service. (I hope)
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2124
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 11:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

AA-Detroit bus transit is really the only affordable option (if there can be a 1-choice "option") for now.

No political force is seriously pushing rail at present. The state cannot help with any funds because it will have to raise its tax rates just to come up with the $2+ billion it's short. The city of Detroit is only meeting its budgets by short-term borrowing (and that requires state approval due to Detroit's failure to timely report its financial information in the past to the state).

A simple bus approach appears to be the only alternative that requires virtually no appreciable capital costs. Perhaps, some employers could help with some contributions for their employees.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 128
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 2:10 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Poorly run railroads (and their apologists and toadies, who are there because they can't find jobs in other industries or better railroads) always use the copout "we're here to make money"

That's a bunch of crap. For one thing, when the government bailed them out by creating Amtrak (because they were whining about the cost of passenger service - railroads, and railroaders, love to whine) they agreed to give Amtrak priority. They wanted the welfare, but they didn't want to work for it.

Secondly, other railroads deal with it - and deal with it very effectively. BNSF does an excellent job in getting Amtrak trains over the road in a timely manner.

Unfortunately, it probably won't be until the current generation of railroaders die off or are forced out of their jobs that we will see intelligent consideration for passenger rail.

(Message edited by dalangdon on January 07, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2125
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 5:16 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Only some socialist idiot believes that frequent Amtrak or commuter rail could coexist on single-track ROWs with freight operations. The freight railroads are far more into the private sector than the federally and state bailed-out (i.e., taxpayer-supported) Amtrak system.

This is precisely the problem (one track) with both the AA and Pontiac ends of the AA-Pontiac commuter-rail line. However, frequent commuter rail is unlikely anyways due to zilch funding and political support, so CR's not my fight other than to bring up the "small," deal-killing details whenever they appear.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5014
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 2:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There we go again with the name calling. Socialist idiot. You want so badly to say commie-pinko. Everything is some left-wing conspiracy to you. It shows that fundie-conservatives are just as crazy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2131
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 3:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perhaps, I should have copy-and-pasted in my previous post the ad hominem remark directed my way before he edited it. But I didn't. Too bad. But again, who cares, really.

But the LMich who isn't adverse to go ad hom himself doesn't like that when others do, even in retaliation. Tough shit!
Top of pageBottom of page

Tomoh
Member
Username: Tomoh

Post Number: 278
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 3:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LY, Metro Detroit's population is not declining, has not been declining, nor is it projected by SEMCOG to be declining in the future.

The Woodward Corridor, as an example, already has high bus ridership, with decent frequency (in theory), lots of residents and lots of jobs. It's already costing a certain amount for the two transit agencies to run busses down Woodward and replacing some of the busses with a light rail would save taxpayers money because of lower operating costs with a higher initial cost.

Yes, investing in transit can save us money among other things.
Top of pageBottom of page

Buzzman0077
Member
Username: Buzzman0077

Post Number: 7
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 9:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My problem with any form of rapid bus line is that most of the setups still use the same roads as cars and therefore are subject to the same standstill traffic during rush-hour.

With light rail you could truly have a commuter service that was run quickly and efficiently between AA and the D, or along Woodward.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 152
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 9:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

They reduce cars, but still do get held up in traffic. Plus, think of game days in Ann Arbor. It would be a nightmare with buses and not trains.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2139
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 9:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A major problem with the AA-Detroit commuter rail outside of not easily meeting the required density and ridership goals is its being a 1-track ROW for most of the distance. Where there is a parallel track (the Michigan Line) or part of the Detroit Line leading to North Yard, the freight operations are using it.

There was a former time where the West Detroit interlocking at Junction Street was the busiest tower in all of Michigan.

Well, although it's nowhere as busy as it was, freight still is active there near Livernois Yard, and having passenger service would be problematic because most of the parallel multiple tracks have been pulled during the nation-wide railroad rationalization during the 1970s and 1980s.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 701
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 10:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Remember folks there are technologies out there that marry GPS with buses to time lights for transit. The biggest concerns would be intermitent non-re-occuring congestion when the bus is on the freeway. A lot of that however has been mitigated with the reconstruction of I-94 over the last five years.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 24
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 12:02 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually it speaks well of Detroit's industrial base that we are still using much of our freight railway system. That's not true everywhere.

Light rail is not the appropriate service for the kind of distance we need to cover to get from AA to D. Light rail would be an excellent choice for a Royal Oak to Detroit service, or Dearborn to Detroit. It simply isn't used for sixty-mile runs.

Commuter rail on single track is used in several places, and yes, even where it has to share the track with freight railways. You build sidings in strategic places and carefully craft the agreements, and it works out fine.

MikeG gave an interesting comment about how many people commute in the various corridors, but of course his result is nonsense. Mike: if what you say is true, what the hell are all those cars doing on I-94 and I-75? Of course the answer is that there are great numbers of commuters in the corridors, but they aren't all going the whole distance.

That's why medium-distance transit is useful; it can accommodate commuters traveling within their home county as well as those making multi-county trips.

The fact remains: of the big-city regions of North America, metro Detroit is the ONLY one without regional rapid transit. We are a laughing stock. Argue about the need for it all you want.

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 438
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 7:25 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Mike gave an interesting comment about how many people commute in the various corridors, but of course his result is nonsense...




I beg to differ with you but I seldom, if ever, spew nonsense - here or anywhere else, for that matter. At least I brought some facts to this discussion and you were the only one who chose not to ignore them.


quote:

... what the hell are all those cars doing on I-94 and I-75? Of course the answer is that there are great numbers of commuters in the corridors, but they aren't all going the whole distance.




Yes, that is part of the answer and you are unlikely to ever get them out of their automobile until you have clean, reliable bus or streetcar service.

The other answer is that many folks have to drive their own car as part of their job assignment, traveling to different suppliers during the work day, picking up and delivering things, etc.

My overall point is that it is hard to build the political and grass-root support needed for any kind of mass transit spending when the first step is a long-distance AA to Detroit showcase project that less than 20% of the population can envision themselves ever using if it were expanded to their commuting route.
Top of pageBottom of page

321brian
Member
Username: 321brian

Post Number: 242
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 8:55 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

None. People like to drive their own car and be in control.
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 679
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 9:34 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Brian, you care to make any other blanket generalizations?

I have one myself: People like to have choices.

(Message edited by upinottawa on January 08, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Christos
Member
Username: Christos

Post Number: 12
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 10:19 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

When GM moved a plant up to Lansing, there were plans to build a commuter line for workers to commute from Detroit to Lansing via Ann Arbor, and Howell. There were rumors of an airport stop as well.

Just add it to the list of Detroit project that did not come to fruition.

I just hope that they make the Rapid Link Woodward Line!
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 26
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 11:37 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MikeG,

I apologize for the way I put what I said. My point, lost in the flame, was that commuters heavily travel certain corridors though not over their entire lengths.

Your more recent point is exactly correct. Ann Arbor to Detroit is an intercity transportation project, not a commuter project. There are other, better corridors to try to build support for improvements. In fact, Christos, the current Ann Arbor to Detroit study is the remnant of the Lansing corridor study you mention.

IMHO what is needed is a regional vision, showing how improved transit fits into the rest of the region's transportation needs, and how it could be used by a variety of types of user, including those who need to make trips during the work day. Our endless focus, over the decades, on this or that corridor, or this or that mode choice, is fruitless.

Cheers,
Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 680
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 12:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Recently I had the pleasure of spending $60 US plus tip for the shuttle guy to park at Metro Airport's green lot for 6 days.

Had a Detroit to Metro Airport rail link been available I would have taken it in a second. The lack of quality transit to the airport is appalling (although ironically one can ride a Tram in the terminal). I can't wait to go back to Philadelphia in March and pay only $5.50 for a train ride from the airport to downtown.

That being said, light rail down Woodward would be my first choice for a new transit development even if it terminated at Royal Oak.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 158
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 4:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's why if the commuter route ever became available from Detroit to AA, there would be a stop in Romulus.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dodgemain
Member
Username: Dodgemain

Post Number: 132
Registered: 04-2005
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 4:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Where is Trainman?
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 162
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 4:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

NO! If he comes, he'll just complain at me about buses again! That's what happened the last time I wrote on one of these. I didn't start this thread to listen to him complain about handicapped bus service.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 705
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 5:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Christos, the Detroit to Ann Arbor route was based upon the Lansing to Detroit study. The preferred alternative was to run it through Ann Arbor, but the ridership numbers from the Lansing to Ann Arbor portion were expected to be low, and that the study should concentrate on a doable portion. That study was married to another that connected downtown to the airport because they overlapped.
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 681
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 5:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Scs100, thanks, but I am well aware of the study (I just wanted to point out that there would have been 2 people using the rail on Christmas Day on route to Fort Meyers -- if the service was available).
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 165
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 5:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No problem.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2015
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 6:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

(I just wanted to point out that there would have been 2 people using the rail on Christmas Day on route to Fort Meyers -- if the service was available).




How is that possible? Livernoisyard has already told us on multiple occasions that nobody in Detroit would ride a train! One of you is lying.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 166
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 8:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, LY seems to be confused, since I'd ride the dumb thing a lot if they'd get it running. So would my parents (old folk that they are :-))
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 824
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 9:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Christos, that route wasn't planned because GM built a plant up in Lansing. It was planned when Oldsmobile announced it was moving its division headquarters (white-collar staff) to the Ren Cen. Obviously that's all a moot point now, and it was a pretty shaky rationale for planning that route anyway.

Dalangdon wrote, "Poorly run railroads (and their apologists and toadies, who are there because they can't find jobs in other industries or better railroads)"

Huh? Canadian National had a 21.49% net profit margin in 2005. That is HUGE for railroads. Its net income was 1.258 billion Canadian in 2004, and 1.556 billion in 2005. Its third quarter 2006 net earnings were $497 million, up from $411 million a year earlier. CN has consistently set high, growing profits the past several years.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2150
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 9:29 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

LY, Metro Detroit's population is not declining, has not been declining, nor is it projected by SEMCOG to be declining in the future.





Some can still dream.

Tomoh, United Van Lines releases moving reports to the public which are far more timely than the Census reports. Today's release indicates that the population of the Northeast and the Midwest continues to move to the South and West, as they have for the past two decades. A big winner this time is North Carolina. The two states at the bottom that tied for worst (population leaving--fleeing?) were Michigan and North Dakota.

Another major indicator of (relative) drops in population is a state's number of Congressional districts. And the realignments within a state (even with the effects of gerrymandering) show how the population is further shifting locally. Michigan has lost Congressional districts as a result of the last two official US censuses.

And another consideration is having a home that cannot easily sell in a soft buyer's market, such as SE MI, where listed houses get scant attention and offers from prospective buyers--locking the sellers as prisoners in the area unless their homes take huge cuts in the selling prices.

(Message edited by LivernoisYard on January 09, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2016
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 9:58 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LYard:

1. Metropolitan Detroit is not quite half the population of the State of Michigan. Attributing statewide statistics to the Detroit area may or may not be correct. This is disingenuous and dishonest on your part.

2. A state (or metropolitan area) can grow in population despite losing Congressional districts. Ohio keeps growing in population, but has also lost Congressional districts. Again--dishonest.

3. There are many soft real estate markets in the nation. Northern Virginia's market has gone soft, and although growing population-wise, homes are taking longer to sell.

But then again, the rate of population growth doesn't really have much to do with the need to move people and goods, especially in a region of 4.5 million people where the only real transportation choice is a car.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 711
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 1:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan, not to be picky, but metro Detroit could be considered larger than 4.5 million people depending upon how you slice it. If you add in the Canadian Suburbs, or Ann Arbor, is quite a bit more.

I agree with your second comment.

Your third? Jury is still out, the region is hemmoraging jobs. This may or may not lead to population growth (or loss), I would not bet on either, At least VA still has a growing buracracy in DC to keep its employment numbers up, the Big 3 and Pfiezer are cutting workers in metro Detroit in huge numbers. No Google or Toyota facility will be able to take in all that we have lost.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 30
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 2:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The state is roughly flat in population, as is the metro area. We lose congressional seats as other states grow in population and we do not. You don't have to actually lose population to lose congressional seats.

The metro population is something between 4.5 million and 5.25 million depending on how you define "metro". The US Census has several different ways of categorizing it.

I would also point out there are many regions with populations much less than 4.5 million that have implemented regional rapid transit. It's the existence of core locations with dense population or dense employment (or shopping, etc.) that make for successful transit systems, and metro Detroit has many such places, even though many other places within the region are not transit-friendly.

One of the difficulties, in fact, with the Detroit to Ann Arbor corridor is the existence of a large rural area within the corridor.

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2152
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 2:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

2. A state (or metropolitan area) can grow in population despite losing Congressional districts. Ohio keeps growing in population, but has also lost Congressional districts. Again--dishonest.





The continual loss of population relative to the nation as a whole clearly indicates that Michigan's, especially Detroit's, boom days were over decades ago. That could be used as a barometer of Michigan's lack of adaptation to the national economy. Detroit's people (and their jobs and skill levels) have not kept up the rest of the country).

And yes, Detroit is steadily losing population, big time. That doesn't bode well for an expensive rapid transit hub--its steady decline of people (with jobs for the lucky ones) who have any places to go to.

If your simple mind considers this to be a dishonest portrayal of SE Michigan, tough. Detroit doesn't have the recession-proof industry of shuffling papers and electronic data as does DC. Detroit's boom days stopped with the Depression but was revived again during WWII. By 1947, companies such as Ford were again faced with what they were to do in order to stave off possible bankruptcy in a community saddled with much over-capacity.

Many of Detroit's auto-related (and military) firms disappeared during the 1950s, same as now, when the markets then again were insufficient to satisfy its manufacturing capacity.

Then, in the 1960s, the wartime-ravaged nations' industrial capacities came online, and the rest is history.

The jobs lost from the auto sector for the remainder of this decade will not be matched in any serious way with replacements. The overall job losses are already predicted to be severe; few expect this metric to be otherwise. Fewer jobs--fewer people with fewer reasons to live here.

The Detroit Census report for EOY 2005 was pegged at 836,000--a drop of about 115,000 since 2000. The drop experienced at DPS reflects this depopulating.

Yet, there are those rearranging "deck chairs" with expensive transit plans while Detroit is sinking.

Face it, only buses are affordable in Metro Detroit and maybe not that either. It's always about money--there just isn't going to be any for any grand boondoggles.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2019
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 2:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, LYard. Detroit thanks you for throwing your hands up in helplessness (and calling everyone else names) while the region dies. Good work!
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 168
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 2:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LY, do what I try and do (and never have time because it's always on a day where I have plans). Do either community service or participate in the motor city makeover. Instead of "throwing up your hands in helplessness", do something to make this area attractive to people.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 31
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 6:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LY,

You are correct in just about everything you say, but that isn't helpful. Other regions have turned themselves around; we must do the same. If we accept death and decay then it will certainly happen.

The legitimate argument is over how do we turn our region around. I think waiting for the automotive knights in shining armor to rescue us damsels from our distress is a fantasy; but then, what do we do instead? Is the answer tax cuts, as some have suggested, or improving education, or finding ways to bring in new industries, or improving basic infrastructure such as roads, sewer lines and transit?

Probably the answer is "all of that and more"; yet as you point out we are resource constrained, so we must prioritize and try to make do within out limits.

As a fellow professor of mine once wisely put it, "we don't have money, so we have to think."

Cheers,
Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 1316
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 6:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I like that!

quote:

we don't have money, so we have to think.


I.e., if we don't have to think, we have money. :-)

(Message edited by Jimaz on January 09, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 712
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 7:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm glad LY never lived in Pittsburgh, Chicago or DC. If he did he would have been against all of the things done to keep jobs and improve city life. I suppose Pitsburgh's Busway, Chicago's linking of Midway with Downtown via CTA, or the DC subway are all examples of Boondoggles as well.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 169
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 7:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Agreed. The DC subway goes in the middle of nowhere sometimes and that would be a good case for LY to argue against having one.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 868
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 12:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mikeg makes good points. My votes are for a commuter line between Downtown and Somerset Mall (down the middle of I-75 or maybe up Woodward Ave).


quote:

One of the difficulties, in fact, with the Detroit to Ann Arbor corridor is the existence of a large rural area within the corridor.




Very good point Professorscott. This is why I think it makes more sense to center a line on the most populated parts of the metro area. A line down the middle of 696 would make a lot of sense too.

I've always like the ideas of transit down the middle of freeways. Anyone else like this idea?
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 1:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eastsidedog,

Lines down the middle of freeways are practical if you design them in when you design the freeway. They are hard (meaning "expensive") to retrofit. When the I-94 expansion on the east side was first propose, one of the options was to leave space in the median for transit, but MDOT eliminated that as an option. I don't know why; ask MDOT.

Troy's Big Beaver corridor plan includes enhanced transit to a new rail transit station IF rail transit in the Woodward corridor is to be constructed.

I have always felt the Detroit - Royal Oak corridor and the Detroit - Roseville corridor were both better choices for initial lines than Detroit to Ann Arbor, personally.

In any case, the most cost-effective way to provide quality transit in a 10- to 20-mile corridor, if you want to make it something people will actually use, is surface light rail. If you design and build it correctly, it can give good speed characteristics.

Rapid Bus is interesting but in cities with both light rail and rapid bus, the light rail is much more popular (that is, more widely used). The problem with rapid bus is that designers tend to "cheap it up" too much IMHO.

Cheers,
Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2020
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 1:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Professor Scott, I disagree. I don't think a freeway median is *ever* practical for a transit line, simply due to the extreme lack of access for pedestrians. Much like your BRT example, this is the cheap way out for rail.

If you would like to see the difference, compare the Chicago Red Line between the North Side and South Side, or the DC Orange Line between Fairfax County and Arlington County. It's plain as day to see which is the better investment.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 869
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 1:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If a commuter line were to travel up and down Woodward there would definitely need to be a connector to the 16 Mile Rd. corridor in Troy. That area grew up around I-75 (rather that any surface street), which is why I thought it would make more sense to run the transit up 75 and avoid the need for a transfer.

On the other hand, the area of Woodward between Birmingham (15 mile) and Pontiac (20 mile) is mostly low density. It seems this area would see weak transit use.

I hate to say it but Patterson had a point when he said that I-75 is Oakland county's "main street."

It will definitely be a challenge to retrofit mass transit onto a metro area that has been totally auto-centric for the last 50 years. Most of the metro areas growth has been around freeway hubs (Royal Oak's resurgence after I-696 was built is a prime example).

I still think that a streetcar up the middle of Jefferson to the Gross Pointes would see lots of use. At least by me. :-) oh, and Jams too.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2158
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Speaking of Patterson:

Yesterday's installment of WJR's rapid transit series running the past couple weeks had a quote of his stating that SEMCOG's spending that $100 million on the Detroit-AA run was "borderline malfeasance."
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 178
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Eastsidedog, dont forget about me. I'd definitely use that if it came up.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2021
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Brooks only said that because the line isn't going through his utopian county. After all, how could the Feds possibly overlook the glory of Oakland County, the self-proclaimed "downtown" of Southeast Michigan???
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 179
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 2:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The ugliest downtown I've ever set eyes on. No old architecture to admire. Only new stuff.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 871
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 2:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Let me be the Devil's advocate here. It seems that this will mainly serve to connect downtown and A2 with Metro Airport. It's been noted above that large stretches of such a route would be through rural areas. Doesn't it make more sense to serve commuters along the I-75/I-696 axis?
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 872
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 2:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Scs100, downtown Pontiac has some rather nice old architecture. And Royal Oak has a few nice old gems too. But Troy is shit, I agree.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 180
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 2:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have never actually seen downtown Pontiac and I forgot about Royal Oak. Troy was what I was thinking of.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 873
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 3:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes. I think that people see more of Troy and think of it as the Oakland County's center (since it's along OC's "main street").

Just imagine, if all those suburban office buildings in Troy had been built in the real center of the county (Pontiac) in an urban style.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 181
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 3:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

*Barf* Sorry, I can't reply to that. It's making me sick.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 875
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 3:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Scs100, What's wrong with new urban skyscrapers?
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2159
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 4:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That "rural" area isn't that undeveloped any longer. Some of that land is near the old Willow Run Airport, and few people ever lived there because of that. However, there is some commerce and industry that feeds the airport--shipping, warehousing, lodging, etc.

Some workers there might use rail, if it's anywhere convenient. The SEMCOG people on WJR's rapid-transit series mentioned only some six to eight daily runs. I suppose that these would be at typical first shift times and not be much useful for anybody not working at those times.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 33
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 5:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LY,

You're right - since the current plan is to provide a starter service in order to develop some sense of what the ridership would be, there would be a limited number of trains. A typical fully developed commuter rail runs once per hour, perhaps sixteen to eighteen hours a day with limited night/weekend service.

The initial service would focus on daytime/evening runs, I believe, and would serve day-shift commuters, airport users and day trippers ("going to a ball game" types of people") but would not serve the needs of nighttime users very well if at all.

Of course, this isn't meant to be the permanent solution, just something to move the process forward.

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 34
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 5:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I forgot - also, of course, there would need to be parking at some stations, and bus routes serving to and from, else the usefulness is almost nonexistent. Hopefully the SEMCOG folks won't lose sight of such important details. Few people walk to/from commuter rail stations anywhere except downtowns.
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 685
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 5:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Toronto's GO Transit system could serve as a good model for a Detroit commuter rail start up project. It should be noted that during non-peak times, some GO transit train routes are replaced by bus routes serving the same stations.

If the Detroit system runs four to six trains (each direction) in the morning and then runs four to six trains in the afternoon and then fills in the gaps with buses that stop only at the train stations, I think this could work for a start up system.

Really, the trains could be used for peak times (and when traffic is backed up on the expressways), and buses when the roads are not busy.

Note: this is a suggestion for commuter rail (i.e. Amtrak type rail service) -- I am still in favour of a Woodword light rail line as priority number one.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 183
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 6:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

East, I misinterpreted your post. Nothing wrong with new stuff.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 35
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 10:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Upinottawa,

GO Transit in metro Toronto is one of the systems I've studied (and ridden). Your suggestion is marvelous and I hope you will communicate it to SEMCOG. If you don't have any contacts there, let me know and I will share your idea.

I think in a region such as ours, you need a combination of travel modes, all interacting: commuter rail to serve distance runs (like Ann Arbor to Detroit, or Pontiac to Detroit, or Mt. Clemens or Port Huron to Detroit), light rail to serve shorter-distance high-density corridors (Royal Oak to Detroit or Royal Oak to Farmington), buses to provide feeder service to the rail services, and parking lots and taxi stands to connect everyone and give access. What they call "Bus Rapid Transit" works well on secondary (slightly lower density) corridors such as Van Dyke or the Dearborn-to-Southfield corridor.

That is how most modern big-city services work when there isn't sufficient money to go very high end such as subways; and not all subways are a good idea (look at Buffalo, NY).

Cheers,
Professor Scott

PS - Toronto is also a great example of why it doesn't matter whether you have one provider or several. If anyone is unfamiliar with the situation there, ask here and I'll post a little bit of detail.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2022
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 10:56 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Toronto is also a great example of why it doesn't matter whether you have one provider or several. If anyone is unfamiliar with the situation there, ask here and I'll post a little bit of detail.




Other cities:

New York has about a bazillion providers: NYC Transit (buses and subways), Metro North Railroad, Long Island Railroad, NJ Transit, PATH, and numerous private bus operators.

Chicago has three operators under the guise of its RTA: CTA, Pace, and Metra

DC has Metro, but there are at least 5 different suburban bus systems, 3 different commuter bus services, and two different commuter rail systems. There are a couple private bus providers as well, and the new DC streetcar (opening next year) has yet to choose an operator. None of these systems falls under the auspices of a regional oversight authority.

The "need" to merge DDOT and SMART is trumped-up. Coordination to ensure better system efficiency could be accomplished without necessarily merging the systems. I mention this, of course, to demonstrate that a new commuter rail (or light rail) service could easily be operated by someone other than DDOT or SMART, and still work within a regional system.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1840
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DaninDC and Scott,

While I don't disagree with what you've written, The principle problem with DDOT is that it doesn't extend beyond the city limits in very many places. This severely limits it usefulness for many potential riders who can't afford to maintain a car in order to get to a job outside of the city.

I believe this is one of the many problems contributing to Detroit's problem with poverty.

In addition, there are a large number of potential bus commuters to downtown from neighborhoods just outside of the city limits. DDOT doesn't serve them and SMART isn't very frequent.

Many people believe that having one agency operate the buses will solve these problems. That may not be the only way, but they need to be solved.
Top of pageBottom of page

Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100

Post Number: 188
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 2:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Agreed. SMART only runs its Grosse Pointe route downtown Monday - Saturday and I would love to take it to some Tiger's afternoon games, but it never runs. So I'm stuck driving.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 717
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 2:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Js, the problem is not so much DDOT as much as it is the division between SMART and DDOT. There are lots of SMART buses in the City that are there mainly to support suburban commuters. In many places SMART will not pick up Detroit riders, even if it is to link them into a transfer to another SMART line in the City.

The only way we can get through this is through a reasonable amount of parity between the two systems and an elimination of duplicative service (where the half-empty SMART bus follows the half empty DDOT bus down Michigan Ave to Fairlane).
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 38
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 6:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In regions where there is effective transit, the regional operator (such as the Metro Toronto Transit Authority, which operates GO Transit) runs trains which cover the distances, then each local transit operator mainly covers local routes within a city. In other words, in most regions, DDOT would exist but SMART would be several independent local operation rather than one big suburban system.

That's not to say a suburban system won't work, but the point is you have to have a higher-speed mode to cover the long trips. If you're only going 5 miles or less on buses, it doesn't matter so much that buses aren't fast. When you have to go 25 miles on a bus, it's a different story.

Great discussion going on!

Where DDOT and SMART will pick up and drop off is a negotiated thing between them, and it has changed from time to time. But SMART's raison d'etre is to provide trips that either start or end (or both) in a suburb, so intracity transit within Detroit is, and is meant to be, DDOT's baby. There is some inefficiency there but less now than even a couple years ago IMHO.

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 3549
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 10:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Great discussion all and a warm welcome to the forum to professorscott.

I don't think rail has much future due to lack of money & right of way issues not to mention the entrenchment of the auto interests. The AA-DTW-downtown might have a chance as it makes sense and could use existing infrastructure.

I believe embracing a serious united & comprehensive 24/7 bus system with clean and weather protected stops with posted and enforced arrival times is the only solution that fits the old saying, "Politics is the art of the possible."

Ridership needs to be developed before more comprehensive systems like rail can have a realistic chance. 'If we build it they will come' will not work.

Make the bus system the best in the world. It will help those who need it, encourage more to use it and be good for the bus manufacturers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 41
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 11:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lowell,

No big city in North America operates a bus-only transit system except us. We built it and GM told us to tear it down, so we did. Since then every other big city that had done the same (quite a few actually) has REbuilt except us.

Businesses looking for new locations are looking for many different things; but if we are to remain the only major urban area without a rapid transit system, that has to be putting off some potential employers. It is considered, world-wide, to be a basic big-city amenity, and we are absolutely alone in not providing it.

Buses on streets over great distances (such as we have in our grand sprawlopolis) are too slow to be popular. Buses in exclusive running-ways are as expensive to build as light rail transit (and, studies have shown, not as popular).

Also, there are several corridors that could use existing infrastructure for _commuter_ rail. Ann Arbor to Detroit is one; Detroit to Royal Oak, Pontiac and (possibly) Flint is another; Detroit to Mt. Clemens and (possibly) Port Huron is another; to downriver and Monroe is a fourth.

I'm leaving out suburb-to-suburb corridors because (at least in the north and northeast suburbs, with which I'm most familiar) there are no rail lines going in those directions.

Light rail would work almost anywhere: there are no right of way issues because it is built (usually) within the existing road right-of-way, and can be developed so as to avoid traffic tie ups and to preempt traffic signals.

By the way the entrenched auto interests are losing their clout around here, and not fast enough if you ask me.

Thanks for the welcome and I appreciate everyone's thoughts and suggestions!

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 723
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 11:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No other city needs to support bus transit like Detroit does. Look at all of the engines built at Detroit Diesel off of Outer Drive, Bus seats built off of Telegraph at Lear seating, or Bus platforms built off of Woodward in Pontiac.

For a professor you seem to be unaware of the technology that exists that prioritizes buses using GPS signals along thoughoughfares. These can be wonderful for both short trips, or crosstown commutes shaving several minutes off of the travel times.

Automobile companies are intwined with the sales of busses. If GM did buy up all of the streetcar lines (which is still a matter of pointless debate), it was only to replace them with buses so they could profit off of the buses. Stop looking at the past. I could not agree with Lowell more on his stance about the bus.

Do other modes have their use? Absolutely, but we need to focus on getting something that works well in moving people around that will not cost a fortune, in case you have not noticed, the City, its residents, or its companies are not exactly flush with cash. We need low cost alternatives that support our local economy, and that work. We do not need to wait years to implement bus system improvements, all we need is some political will. Quite frankly those that fight buses are taking a more anti-transit stance than any suburban politico.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 42
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 12:54 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm not opposed to buses! I'm opposed to ONLY buses. If that was a transit system that worked well for large urban areas, then others would use it, and they do not.

A properly designed transit system must include buses and rapid transit. I'm familiar, Detroitplanner, with the concept of Bus Rapid Transit. My points are that it does not attract the riders that light rail does, and if properly implemented it is as expensive as light rail.

I am very familiar with signal prioritization technology. However, if there is any kind of traffic jam, buses are stuck in it along with cars. Also, GM's bus business hardly lives or dies on the Detroit area transit business. In fact, we do not have _enough_ buses, even if we were to implement a real rapid transit system.

Why should Detroit have to put up with _worse_ public transportation than every other big city on the continent? Why do we have to put up with low-cost, low-class systems? We have more lanes of freeway mile per capita than any city ON EARTH, and look how well that's worked out for us.

No bus system will ever be adequate for an urban area the size of the Detroit urban area, which is why big-city regions worldwide implement rail transit for long-distance corridors, and use bus transit to provide access to the longer distance service.

More buses, I say! More and more! But not _only_ buses. That doesn't work anywhere else, and I don't understand why people think it will work here. Try (for instance) taking buses from Royal Oak to the Airport, and then tell me how "shaving minutes" off that several-hour trip will make people more likely to travel that way.

Cheers,
Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 43
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 12:58 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just to emphasize the point, so it doesn't get lost in my wordiness: if an all-bus system makes for good big-city transit, why does NO OTHER BIG CITY REGION ON OUR CONTINENT settle for that? Why does EVERY OTHER BIG CITY REGION ON OUR CONTINENT include rail rapid transit as part of their transit systems?

Or are we just smarter than EVERYONE else, and if that is so, why are we the only city in the history of the world to go from 2+ million to under 1 million population?

Just wondering.
Top of pageBottom of page

Warrenite84
Member
Username: Warrenite84

Post Number: 2
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 3:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

For setting up a comprehensive light rail system, here is my suggestion in order of priority;
Woodward,(Grand Circus Park to the Pontiac loop),
8 Mile,(I-94 to I-275),
Michigan,(Rosa Parks Transit Center to I-275),
Gratiot,(People Mover station at Compuware to Mt Clemens loop),
Merriman Rd.,(8 mile to Metro Airport terminals),
M-59,(Pontiac loop to Mt Clemens loop),
Grand River,(Rosa Parks transit Center to Novi Expo Center),
Jefferson,(Ren Cen station to Alter Rd.),
Fort St.,(nearest People Mover stop to Eureka Ave. in Southgate).
Since the Federal Government will kick in a portion, it would be foolish to not take advantage of the the extra dough that wouldn't come here otherwise. If we can afford extra lanes on our highways, we can afford this. Not all at once, mind you, but in small bites. Woodward from downtown to New Center to Davison to 8 Mile. Once at 8 Mile, start on the 8 Mile Line East and West. If those cities in the planned routes want to expedite construction, they can toss in a little extra cash to make it happen. Let DDOT busses feed the lines in Detroit, and SEMTA busses feed the lines in the burbs and run secondary routes like Van Dyke. Both DDOT and SEMTA can share equal ownership in the light rail system or separate entity. A unified website for prepaid route passes, day passes, and commuter discounts, would spur greater use like the CTA system in Chicago.
I would also set up the lines for local and express trains, such as double tracks at the stations for passing.
The stops themselves should be reasonably spaced with parking and higher density housing and amenities nearby. Even if the stops are in abandoned neighborhoods. It would seed the area for development.
No opt outs allowed.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 725
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 8:52 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Warren when was the last time you rode the bus? SEMTA has not existed for 25 years! :-)

Professor, we do have rail as part of our transit system. We have the people-mover and three Amtrak trains a day timed to meet other trains in Chicago :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2028
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 11:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

No other city needs to support bus transit like Detroit does. Look at all of the engines built at Detroit Diesel off of Outer Drive, Bus seats built off of Telegraph at Lear seating, or Bus platforms built off of Woodward in Pontiac.




This is absolutely dumbfounding. If a bit of reduced business from DDOT and SMART (which honestly, is unfounded), kills these firms, then those companies had a lot more problems to begin with.

I didn't realize we were suddenly in an era where governments have an obligation to support particular businesses. As if DDOT and SMART are their only customers.... Ridiculous!
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 687
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 11:56 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

They actually manufacture buses in the Toronto area, but Toronto still has a commuter rail system, a subway system, a fairly extensive light rail system (streetcars) and its own "people mover" system. In York Region (Toronto's Oakland County) the even use special European buses for BRT service.

I guess Toronto should go back to buses....

BTW, Metro Detroit should have no mass transit because only people in Metro Detroit purchase cars (we can see how silly this whole argument is).
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 729
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 12:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan, this is just a simple reminder that we support our own economy through the purchase of busses and the development of bus technologies.

I was building upon Lowell's statement that we should build the best bus system in the world, we can be a great example of how to integrate technology (hybrid, EDS, CNG) into the system to really improve the transportation mode.

We do not have any connection to lets say those who build 'Jet Packs' or trains. I am expounding on Jane Jacob's export base theory.

We could improve buses for all consumers everywhere if we just demanded more from our local companies and transit agencies.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 446
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 12:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yep, the folks in Washington DC and Ottawa have all the answers! Plus they are capable of spotting a ridiculous or silly argument and jumping right in to let us know about it!

It must be really hard to simply write a response without looking down your noses and adding a "dig".
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2029
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 12:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, Mikeg, considering that Michiganders hop in the car to buy so much as a loaf of bread, and won't go anywhere unless there's a free parking spot right outside the door...

...I think people that actually ride transit might be more inclined to know this topic just a bit better.

From a regular bus AND subway rider.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 447
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 12:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc,

Your contemptuous generalizations of the people in Detroit and Michigan come through loud and clear.

Mikeg
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 688
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 12:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mike, not sure who is looking down at what.

Actually, this thread has deviated into a debate between pro-transit people on the merits of bus vs. rail which is what anti-transit advocates want.

Obviously, if the money is spent on some type of rail system, the transit system will still require a large number of feeder buses.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2030
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 1:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually, a lot of anti-transit advocates are happy to throw a crappy bus system at people and call it "transit". Hence, BRT.

Most of the "bus only" people are very much *against* transit, because they don't want their precious highway subsidy to get spent on rail.
Top of pageBottom of page

Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline

Post Number: 667
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 2:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree with the Professor and Danindc with regard to the need for a rail based component to improving mass transit in SE Michigan. But it's very difficult to prioritize between a commuter line and a light rail line. And there is no chance that both would ever be built at the same time. There absolutely should be some kind of rail transit to the airport, but, all things considered, I think that a Woodward light rail line has a better chance to demonstrate ridership success.

Also, a Woodward line should not be considered or planned in a transit-only vacuum. While there would certainly be some political and neighborhood battles, the communities along the Woodward route should engage in aggressive upzoning of the land adjacent to the line. Increased density along the route would promote ridership, but just as importantly it would provide a needed inward focus for development in the region. Promoting transit oriented development along the Woodward line would help brake the unsustainable explosion of greenfield development in a region that hasn't seen meaningful population increases in 40 years.


Dallas and Minneapolis are already seeing millions and millions of dollars of new development along their very new light rail lines. While it involved a heavy rail line that supports higher development levels than light rail, the Wilson Boulevard corridor in Arlington VA was transformed into an economic engine by the Orange Line and progressive planning. Detroit should aim high. A Woodward light rail line would provide benefits to poor folks and rich folks alike. We need to get behind this project.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 46
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 2:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitplanner,

I will concede the People Mover, it is rapid transit though not regional. What astonishes me about that system is how poorly integrated it is with the bus systems. If I want to take the People Mover to get to the SMART 560 bus to Mt. Clemens (for instance), what station do I exit DPM at and where is my bus stop?

That is something you could solve with a couple hundred dollars worth of signs and maps at the DPM stations, but nobody has done it.

Also, why do neither DDOT nor SMART have transfers onto/from DPM? I know it's only $0.50 but that means I have to make sure I have change on me.

With regard to Detroit to Chicago, sorry, that's not transit; that's intercity transportation. While you're at it we have air service to a bunch of cities worldwide. What we lack is a reasonable way for people to travel around this region without an auto.

Upinottawa's point is correct, and I'm not sure I agree with Danindc's latest point in his last post. There are quite a few pro-transit proponents of Bus Rapid Transit; that's a vigorous and interesting argument taking place all over the world at various levels.

I define "rapid transit" as follows: any vehicle unimpeded by automobile and truck traffic. So, again, yes the People Mover is rapid transit. Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail either is or is not rapid, depending on details of design and implementation.

If we had a world class BRT system here, that would be very nice, but what I have seen in practice is that regions implementing BRT "cheap it down" to where the buses are driving mixed with traffic over significant parts of the trip, which makes it not at all "rapid", it's just a nicer and more expensive bus.

Great discussion! Please keep ad hominem attacks to a dull roar; we don't know each other well enough to be tossing insults around IMHO.

Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 732
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 2:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Proff, I don't dispute what you say about the DPM at all, that has always puzzled me. They placed them (the stations) on the bus routes, but they seemed just ignore any integration.

Thats why I had those smiles, I know its lousy. On the plus side it should not stay that way for long. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 4547
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 2:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Peoplemover for the umpteenth time was designed as the terminus of a regional system that for a variety of reasons was never implemented. It was never really intended to integrate with the bus system.

If nothing else an efficient bus system will be light-years ahead of what we transit users here have to deal with now.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 48
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 2:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks Detroitplanner. You may know something I don't know.

Swingline, you are not necessarily correct that commuter rail and light rail won't be developed simultaneously. One of the preferred options for the Ann Arbor corridor, and the one that may yet get built if we can use a startup service to predict ridership, involved light rail from downtown Detroit to east Dearborn and/or light rail from downtown Detroit to the New Center area in addition to the commuter rail from New Center to the Airport and Ann Arbor.

With regard to upzoning, have you heard of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance? They are working on a project to come up with transit-supportive dense-zoning options for the cities along the various corridors where enhanced transit may someday exist. You are absolutely right, transit and land use issues are inextricably linked.

Cheers,
Professor Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2031
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 3:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

New Mexico faces Rail Runner shortfall

Julie Ann Grimm | The New Mexican
January 12, 2007

Completing both phases of the state commuter-train project will cost about $75 million more than what lawmakers have appropriated, a recent estimate shows.

While New Mexico officials hope a federal grant will make up the difference, they're keeping quiet about how they would make up the shortfall if the cash doesn't materialize.

Bonds pushed through the state Legislature two years ago by Gov. Bill Richardson gave the state Transportation Department $318 million to buy trains, tracks and stations for the state's Rail Runner Express.

Last year, Congress authorized up to an additional $75 million for the project. But the federal lawmakers have not yet attached any real money to the promise.

That leaves transportation planners -- who are on an ambitious schedule to get trains running from Belen, south of Albuquerque, to Santa Fe by 2008 -- looking for other funding solutions.

Development of the Rail Runner's first phase, which carries passengers in the Albuquerque area from Belen as far north as Bernalillo, so far has cost just about the $75 million budgeted.

The state spent another $50 million to buy existing tracks and right of way in the Albuquerque area from the BNSF railroad.

The second phase, extending train service to Santa Fe, involves buying more passenger cars and engines, building dozens of miles of track and several stations, and improvements at road intersections -- all at an estimated cost of $250 million.

Phase 2 also involves paying $25 million to complete purchase of existing track from Bernalillo to the Colorado state line, even though only part of that track will be used for the Rail Runner.

What's left of the available money won't cover the estimated $400 million cost of completing the total package, according to a December report from the Mid-Region Council of Governments, the agency contracted to develop the project for the state.

Project Manager Chris Blewett said it has been apparent for about a year that more funding is needed to wrap up the governor's vision for the train.

A budget presented last fall said the state needs to identify about $75 million from some source other than bond funds already earmarked for the train, Blewett said.

The state has since learned that promised federal grant money might not come or could come too late to meet the state's schedule.

Congress has authorized money through the Federal Transit Administration, but that agency won't decide until next month whether New Mexico will receive funding.

About a dozen projects nationwide have applied for a share of about $200 million expected to become available in late 2008, said a spokesman for the federal agency.

State Transportation Secretary Rhonda Faught has talked to the governor's office about the funding shortfall, said spokesman S.U. Mahesh.

Mahesh has declined to discuss whether the department's proposals will include more bonds, an allocation from the state's oil-and-gas-revenue surplus or other means. The governor will make the final decision, he said.

Jon Goldstein, a spokesman for the governor, said Richardson will release details of his proposed solution soon.

"It's unfortunate that the federal money has not been appropriated yet," Goldstein said Wednesday.

"The governor will continue to look at both state and federal sources to fill that gap, but he is committed to the Rail Runner being in Santa Fe by 2008," he said.

During a December meeting of the Interim Legislative Finance Committee, state lawmakers discussed imposing an additional gasoline tax to help pay for the train. That idea now appears to be off the table.

Goldstein said the governor isn't considering any changes to the gasoline tax.

Other questions also remain. Planners still need to come up with a long-term way to pay operating costs. A federal grant is footing the bill for the estimated $10 million annual operating costs for the next two and a half years. After that, however, the department will need to find another source in addition to revenues from fares and advertising, which are expected to generate about $2 million a year.

The Mid-Region Council of Governments notes that the nearly $400 million cost to implement the train project is on a par with the cost of other major transportation efforts and could yield significant benefits.

Officials estimated it would cost about $280 million to add a lane in each direction on Interstate 25 instead of starting the train, and such a project wouldn't improve travel time along the corridor. The cost of rebuilding the I-25 and I-40 interchange at Albuquerque was more than $300 million, according the Mid-Region report.

Engineering details for the train's approach to Santa Fe are still being worked out.

Two routes for new tracks are under consideration. One would send trains up the I-25 median and the other would traverse the area south of Santa Fe near Santa Fe Community College.

Planners are slated to make a presentation and get input from city and county officials at a Jan. 24 meeting of the Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Blewett said the state Transportation Department aims to make a decision about the route by the end of this month.


TRAIN COSTS

The capital budget for the Rail Runner Express, which is being developed in two phases:

Track acquisition, both phases: $75million
Phase 1, Belen to Bernalillo: $75million
Rolling Stock and spare parts: $35million
Stations/track and signal improvements: $35million
Maintenance facility: $5 million
Phase 2, Albuquerque to Santa Fe: $250 million
Rolling stock: $35million
New track construction: $145million
Station construction: $20 million
Upgrade to Santa Fe Southern tracks: $25million
Track improvements south of Waldo: $10 million
Contingency: $15million
Total: $400 million

Source: Mid-Region Council of Governments

http://www.freenewmexican.com/ news/55090.html#
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 734
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 3:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan, you're trying to make your point that buses are bad and rail is the way to go by putting up an article that shows a relatively simple rail project tanking?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2032
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 3:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

More on the tanking of the simple rail project mentioned above. Why don't they just build a world-class bus system? It would be so much cheaper.


Albuquerque Becomes America's Latest Rail Transit City, as Rail Runner Launches Service

Light Rail Now Project Team – July 2006

At 05:10 on the morning of Friday, 14 July 2006, Albuquerque became the latest American city to provide rail transit service, as the Rail Runner Express regional passenger rail (RPR, often called "commuter rail") launched its initial service, a 15-mile link from central Albuquerque to the exurban community of Bernalillo. According to a report on KRQE-TV News (14 July), some 850 passengers rode the Rail Runner on its first three roundtrips. "By noon," the station reported, "when the midday roundtrip to Bernalillo became standing-room-only, Rail Runner managers decided to add one or two more 140-seat coaches for the afternoon and evening trains."

"While there were open seats early in the morning," reported the Albuquerque Tribune (14 July), "both cars in the 11:30 a.m. train from Downtown to Bernalillo were packed to capacity. And when the train stopped at the Los Ranchos/Journal Center stop, 250 people were waiting to get on board."

Rail Runner Crowds besiege inaugural run of Rail Runner Express on opening day.
[Photo: Rail Runner]


For its first three months of operation, passengers can ride the Rail Runner at no charge . Beginning in October, however, a fare of $2 each way will be charged.

Passengers give "rave reviews"

In a TV report headlined "Rail Runner rolls to rave reviews", a number of morning rail commuters were interviewed by Albuquerque's KRQE News 13. They "seemed to really enjoy the experience", according to the station's report, "citing a break from record high gas prices and those pesky traffic jams."

They were surprised at how fast the commute was, taking about 22 minutes for the 15-mile trip from downtown and Bernalillo with an intermediate stop at El Pueblo/Journal Center in the North Valley. One conductor told a rider they were going 79 mph, the speed limit for much of the track

Passengers told the KRQE reporter they enjoyed the ride. “Try it!” exclaimed Rail Runner rider Joaquin Cornejo said. “It's not only saving gas. It's time and everything put together at once."

“Maybe a person doesn't like to drive" Cornejo added. "Get on the train and go”

Bargain-basement cost

With a metropolitan area population of less than 750,000, Albuquerque is also one of the smallest US cities to take the leap into rail. And there's much more rail to come. The complete Rail Runner project will eventually extend service to the exurb of Belen, the community of Lamy, and eventually all the way to Santa Fe. (See map below.)
[Map: MRCOG]

Rail


That's a total distance of about 117 miles. Reportedly, the total cost is projected at $393 million. At a unit cost of about $3.5 million a mile, that seems like a bargain-basement price for a rail transit system that can start to interconnect the region with a mobility alternative to the highway traffic meatgrinder.

And, as Light Rail Now has previously reported, Albuquerque is also planning for a light rail system (see Albuquerque: With regional rail startup imminent, light rail streetcar plan moves forward). As a starter project, a $120 million streetcar line is envisioned for a four-mile (6.4 km) downtown corridor. Albuquerque could become a new model for the kind of interconnectivity of public transport modes – "heavy" RPR, light rail, urban and suburban bus, Amtrak, motor coach – that can help bring about a broad change in mobility patterns for much of the regional population.

For the Rail Runner regional rail project, the full first phase will extend from Belen to downtown Bernalillo. According to the Mid-Region Council of Governments, which is spearheading the regional rail program, operating and maintenance costs for that service will run between $8 million to $12 million a year.

Rail Runner Rail Runner train at Lamy station, approximately a week before the launch of public service between Albuquerque and Bernalillo. Extension of the line to Belen, Lamy, and eventually Santa Fe is already under way.
[Photo: Marti Niman]


Transit-oriented development is booming

Even though only an initial 15-mile stretch of the Rail Runner system has been opened, transit-oriented development (TOD) – somewhat amazingly – is starting to spring up around stations. "When the Rail Runner hits Belen, the commuter train's southernmost stop," noted the Albuquerque Tribune of 10 July, "the passengers with money to spend will have options. Coffee. Magazines. Baked goods."

That's because Rail Runner's decisionmakers and planners are aggressively promoting TOD around virtually all the system's stations. According to the Tribune article, "government officials are grooming the land around those rail stops to appeal to developers ... who are eager to capitalize on the lucrative trend blessing rail projects nationwide." And what trend is that? "That would be the trend of massive economic growth."

The paper cites a report from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) which documents the substantial impact new rail transit starts are having in various cities across the country. For example,

...St. Louis saw around $1 billion in investment around its MetroLink light rail stations since opening in 1993; Portland, Ore., had more than $3 billion in development around its MAX light rail system since opening in the late 1970s; and commercial properties rose in value by more than 50 percent around Dallas light rail stations.

The paper quotes Rose Sheridan, APTA's vice president for communications and marketing, who emphasized that "As a developer I would want to know I have people that want to live there. We're certainly seeing a much greater sense of people that want to live in communities where they can work, shop and take advantage of local community activities without having to get in their car."

According to Lawrence Rael, executive director of the Mid-Region Council of Governments (described as "partnering with the state on the Rail Runner project"), because of their permanence, railroad tracks "provide developers with a sense of security."

"The investment by the government in infrastructure like a track, where it's not going to be moved on a whim, it shows developers you're going to put your money into a corridor that the government has identified as a major transporter of people" Rael explained to the Tribune. "It's a different dynamic than bus lines. Two years later, that bus route could move to a different street."

According to Rael, "Already economic growth is slowly emerging around Rail Runner stops", the Tribune reported. Rael pointed to three acres of donated land the state of New Mexico had received for the rail station planned at Second Street and Rio Bravo "in return for basic infrastructure needs on the landowner's property."

As related by the paper, "the landowner then intends to use the property for retail or other development to capitalize on Rail Runner activity – a move that would begin the revitalization of a largely dormant area ...." "There's a classic example of them donating some acreage of land because they realize that opportunities for future properties are enhanced with a rail station" Rael emphasized.

The article also highlights the example of developer Max Kiehne, who invested in land around the Belen Rail Runner station, "figuring it's bound to be prime real estate." As the Tribune reported, "Belen Mayor Ronnie Torres said his city's phone lines have been rattling with inquiries from developers like Kiehne since the rail stop was first announced."

Meanwhile, completion of the first leg of the system, from Belen to Bernalillo, is moving along, with service expected to begin early in 2007. Service to Santa Fe is expected to begin by late 2008.

And there may be even more to come. In the vision of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Rail Runner "will ease traffic congestion, attract businesses and revitalize rural businesses" according to a report in the Rocky Mountain News (7 December 2005). That article also reveals that the state had signed an agreement to purchase nearly 300 miles of railroad track extending all the way from Belen to Trinidad, Colorado.

All in all, New Mexico's current political leadership seems to have a firm and ambitious vision of where the state should be heading in rail transit development. Interviewed by KRQE News 13 (14 July), Lt. Gov. Diane Denish expressed optimism about the prospects of Rail Runner's success. "It's not the wave of the future, I think it is the future" Denish told the reporter. "We need to be part of it."

Light Rail Now! website
http://www.lightrailnow.org/ne ws/n_abq_2006-07a.htm
Updated 2006/07/31

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.