Light Rail in Detroit

[_ttam_]

Originally Posted by Lmichigan

ttam,

Please show me a successful metro-wide BRT system in North America.

I don't think there are any metro-wide systems that use exclusively BRT. So?

That's what it ultimately boils down to. You're arguing cost, which is a very important factor, but far from the only factor.

I'm also arguing flexibility, scalability, convenience, and near-equivalence to light rail.

You need to ask yourself what's the ultimate cost to the metro in building something only those that will have to ride it will ride?

That's a fine point, Lmich. It really is. My only retort is that spending a billion extra tax dollars on something that people want to ride merely for FUN--simply because they like trains--isn't a good decision. If people want <B>high speed transit</B> to ease their commute, I'm saying they SHOULD think about BRT because it is nearly equivalent to light rail. You're giving up on those people, I'm saying we should educate them about the merits of BRT. If they don't really care about rapid transit and only want to ride a train, I can't see justifying subsidizing their stubborness.

It doesn't make sense, at all, to ask the metro to build an automatically handicapped system. We'd be better off not spending the money at all if it's to be use for BRT and simply reinvest it into a combined DDOT/SMART.

Hey, you've nearly talked me into it, Lmich. As much as I'd like to see rapid transit from my city to downtown, I can't see spending the rediculous sums of money on a train when an equal system can be built with BRT for far less cost...so maybe we should forget about it and continue subsidizing the bus system.

[Avian001]

Two things that should be mentioned. An articulated bus can carry approximately 100 passengers depending on its configuration. One car of an LRT can carry about 175. String two to four cars together and suddenly you can carry upwards of 600 people on one ride. You'd have to have six articulated buses, plus their associated drivers, mechanics, dispatchers, and diesel fuel to match the quieter electric train.

In Minneapolis the LRT runs about every 7 minutes at peak times. You'd have to have a near-continuous string of articulated buses to match that.

Another consequence is development. I'm not sure how many TOD's have been built around a BRT system. Maybe there have been some. But it's more common for developments to cluster around a subway, train or LRT. Mostly because the developers know it's a permanent, long-term system. The very flexibility of a BRT also makes it temporary. It is not a "city-building" system.

[MABCLE]

Cleveland's light rail comes every 5 minutes at peak times and the new BRT line is planned to match that frequency.

[NovaWolverine]

Not more light rail, you mean some light rail at all. I agree, Detroit needs light rail, and I think with the era in which it grew the fastest allows for an effective light rail system b/c of the street and neighborhood configuration. I think linking Detroit to Ann Arbor would be great, esp. for Ann Arbor, and also w/ the airport traffic and all of that.

Personally, I think the most effective and efficient mass transit is in light rail with BRT/streetcars which will allow for expandablility, comprehensiveness and adjustability. That's a great foundation right there.

[_ttam_]

Originally Posted by Avian001

Two things that should be mentioned. An articulated bus can carry approximately 100 passengers depending on its configuration. One car of an LRT can carry about 175. String two to four cars together and suddenly you can carry upwards of 600 people on one ride. You'd have to have six articulated buses, plus their associated drivers, mechanics, dispatchers, and diesel fuel to match the quieter electric train.
In Minneapolis the LRT runs about every 7 minutes at peak times. You'd have to have a near-continuous string of articulated buses to match that.

You've brought up some great points. However, is this excess capacity justified given the actual ridership these light rail systems post? The statistics are available from the National Transit Database. This is the central clearinghouse for transit statistics in the U.S. The large capacity of a rail system isn't justified in all but the largest of cities. The statistics are clear--ridership is low across the nation. In all but the biggest cities, even 10% year-over-year increases leaves a tiny percentage of the area population riding the rails...

Isn't a low need for capacity a reason for a low capacity system like BRT? Even anticipating growth far into the future.

Another consequence is development. I'm not sure how many TOD's have been built around a BRT system. Maybe there have been some. But it's more common for developments to cluster around a subway, train or LRT. Mostly because the developers know it's a permanent, long-term system. The very flexibility of a BRT also makes it temporary. It is not a "city-building" system.

This is a strong argument. It's probably the strongest I've heard for spending the extra billion for a new light rail system. But as an evil developer, as much as I love the thought of all the prime real estate that will be created out of thin air, I'm not sure if the cost is justified. Building upscale condominiums (which is what they will inevitably be) for a few thousand people who will ride the train (only because they're sick of driving their Ford Excursions to work) isn't the best way to spend tax dollars.

For example, when a city like St. Louis (metro population 2 Million) brings in $11M in fares for it's light rail and spends $42M a year for it--all to subsidize the ridership of probably around 30-40,000 people--is the expense really justified?

Okay. I want to see rapid transit. In the past I've even wanted to see light rail in Detroit. Then I started looking into the numbers to prove it was justifiable. Yes, I've been to Chicago and I've been to New York...I understand how great Light Rail, Metro rail, Subways, and good bus systems can be. In those cities it's necessary to have them--and I agree it's nice to have, on occasion, in the smaller cities. And, yes, I agree that it will lead to a major real estate boom near the transit stations. But when when you add up the numbers and take a close look at the statistics is it really justified simply because we have an affinity for trains? Tranist is the goal--not trains. BRT is the way Detroit should go. Not light rail.

All my statistics come from http://www.ntdprogram.com/ntdprogram...ables05TOC.htm. I found it extremely helpful to download the entire 2005 Data Tables in Excel format and browse thru Excel.

[Lmichigan]

Championing BRT simply for the initial monetary costs is exactly why the region is where it is. While even lesser metropolitan areas (and ones even more decentralized) have taken the leap to light rail with much success, some are still seriously arguing for BRT. The only compromise I can see here is having a mixed system with some lines being BRT, some lines being light rail, and still other shorter connector lines being regular bus service. Not only do I think a BRT-only system is not sufficient enough for a metro of Detroit's size (yes, even with the rather odd commuting patterns along some commuter freeways/roads), but I believe, if built solely, it will handicap a rapid mass transit in Detroit for decades afterwords.

If rapid transit/full and rapid freedom of movement really is the goal, then the it is the job of transit planners to conceive the most effective system that serves the greatest ridership, and has the potential of attracting the most transit riders it can. Half-assing a transit system is not an option. BRT, alone, does not fill that whole concept. It's not comprehensive enough to fulfill the goal.

[the pope]

Originally Posted by MABCLE

Cleveland's light rail comes every 5 minutes at peak times and the new BRT line is planned to match that frequency.

No, not really. Each line runs every 15 minutes at peak. The two lines converge at Shaker Square (headed downtown) to create a net effect of trains every 7-8 minutes from Shaker Square towards downtown

[the pope]

furthermore, developers (and people subsequently) look for fixed transit investments. While experience with BRT is scarce in the US, its unknown if people will gravitate towards BRT much in the same way development gravitates toward LRT and HRT

[Lmichigan]

Pope, I'm confused at what you're trying to say. On one hand you're saying people look for fixed transit options, yet you then say that we don't know if people wouldn't look for BRT to the same degree. Are you not yet convinced that fixed rail transit would be better for most Metro Detroit rapid transit lines than BRT?

[JivecitySTL]

Originally Posted by _ttam_

For example, when a city like St. Louis (metro population 2 Million) brings in $11M in fares for it's light rail and spends $42M a year for it--all to subsidize the ridership of probably around 30-40,000 people--is the expense really justified?

I think you need to get your facts straight. First of all, St. Louis has a metro population of 2.8 million, not 2 million. Secondly, STL's MetroLink system is one of the most successful of its kind in the United States. A new line opened in August '06 and now the entire system-- buses and trains-- have seen a significant spike in ridership. I don't have figures, but I know for a FACT that the trains carry a lot more than 30,000-40,000 people a day. The old line alone carries almost 45,000 a day.

Third, NOT A SINGLE RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES PAYS FOR ITSELF. Notta one. That's why it's called PUBLIC TRANSIT. The public pays for a public service. Fares are designed to only soften the burden, not to eliminate it. If the public wants a good system, they pay for it. In my opinion, the extra cost to build rail is well worth it.

Detroit should expand its People Mover and add a regional rail system to its transit system if it wants to compete with its peer regions. Until then, it will never realize its true urban potential.

[hudkina]

I love how people complain that public transportation doesn't pay for itself, but then say nothing about how we spend billions every year maintaining a money-losing interstate and highway system. Heck even roads and local highways cost hundreds of millions every year. Why should we have to pay for those?

[Avian001]

Originally Posted by _ttam_

...But as an evil developer, as much as I love the thought of all the prime real estate that will be created out of thin air, I'm not sure if the cost is justified. Building upscale condominiums (which is what they will inevitably be) for a few thousand people who will ride the train (only because they're sick of driving their Ford Excursions to work) isn't the best way to spend tax dollars.

You might be creating a straw man here. I can't speak for Detroit - I haven't worked there in years - but I do know in Minneapolis that the new condominium projects springing up along the LRT route are definitely not upscale. They are nice, affordable buildings. And the reason they are affordable is because they are not paying downtown land prices, yet the residents can easily get to downtown, the Mall of America or the Airport. These projects are the very definition of TOD's and they would not have been created had the LRT line not been built.

I agree about the benefits of BRT. But it's not a total solution. Just like freeways are not a total solution. All viable systems have a place and it's in the interest of any city to create an integrated, dependable system of public transit. You can have LRT when it's the best solution for a particular case. In other cases a BRT might be better, or a subway, or a streetcar line, or a heavy rail commuter line.

Yes, you may be quite right about the romance of a train. However, in cold hard non-romantic terms, I do find it much more peaceful than being on a bus and it has a smoother ride. I feel a bit more secure and I can trust the schedule. It's easier to get on and off (especially for those with disabilities) and I like the preferential right-of-way.

[Avian001]

Originally Posted by hudkina

I love how people complain that public transportation doesn't pay for itself, but then say nothing about how we spend billions every year maintaining a money-losing interstate and highway system. Heck even roads and local highways cost hundreds of millions every year. Why should we have to pay for those?

I agree 100%.

[Avian001]

BTW, here's an interesting figure from the Twin Cities' Metro Transit:

The LRT system now carries, on its single 12-mile route, 11 per cent of all of Metro Transit's entire Twin Cities ridership, at a cost of 7.8 per cent of its operating expenses. 80 per cent of LRT riders own cars, one-third are high-income, and 57 per cent are daily commuters. In an April survey of west suburban voters, 86 per cent favoured expansion of the LRT service, and 70 per cent opposed toll lanes of I-494 and I-35W.

The current daily ridership exceeds the projected ridership of the year 2020. An article about the developments along the line is located here.

The second line, connecting the two downtowns is in the late stages of planning and has cleared Federal government standards.

If Detroit carefully plans the most cost-effective and useful routes, LRT can succeed easily. And Detroit can also take advantage of funding through the Feds as well. Yes, as JiveCity and Hudkina points out, it is a subsidized system. And so are roads.

[The anti-cheesehead]

Not only do highways not pay for themselves, rail transit saves repair and construction costs for roads and freeways because it takes cars and buses off the road.

The one rail line here in Minneapolis carried 7.9 million riders in 2005 according to Metro Transit. Metro Transit did a survey and three out of five train riders said they would've driven by themselves if it wasn't available. 3 out of 5 for 7.9 million riders would've driven their cars alone instead, that's 4.7 million drivers on the road instead of train riders.

[the pope]

lmich let me try

LRT HRT: are fixed investments, developers and people look to build/live around them. They have the power to change commuting patterns.

BRT: Since its largely untested in the US (go cleveland go), its unclear how developers and people will respond. Adding that in reality BRT isn't a true "fixed" investment.

[AtlantaGA]

From the American Public Transportation Association (APTA):
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/index.cfm
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/r...ts/06q3rep.pdf

Total Avererage Weekday Ridership (000's) for all modes of public transportation (bus, LRT, heavy rail, etc. combined):

Chicago: 1,598.1
Minneapolis: 269.8
Detroit: 200.0
Cleveland: 193.6
St. Louis: 174.1
Cincinnati: 76.5
Kansas City: 52.8

Where are the transit users in Detroit? Detroit needs alternatives, which includes LRT and BRT. The numbers make this clear (to me).

[AtlantaGA]

Originally Posted by Avian001

BTW, here's an interesting figure from the Twin Cities' Metro Transit:

The LRT system now carries, on its single 12-mile route, 11 per cent of all of Metro Transit's entire Twin Cities ridership, at a cost of 7.8 per cent of its operating expenses. 80 per cent of LRT riders own cars, one-third are high-income, and 57 per cent are daily commuters. In an April survey of west suburban voters, 86 per cent favoured expansion of the LRT service, and 70 per cent opposed toll lanes of I-494 and I-35W.

The current daily ridership exceeds the projected ridership of the year 2020. An article about the developments along the line is located here.

The second line, connecting the two downtowns is in the late stages of planning and has cleared Federal government standards.

If Detroit carefully plans the most cost-effective and useful routes, LRT can succeed easily. And Detroit can also take advantage of funding through the Feds as well. Yes, as JiveCity and Hudkina points out, it is a subsidized system. And so are roads.

Let us not forget that Minneapolis is getting a dedicated ROW BRT line down the middle of I35W from the southern suburbs to downtown Minneapolis. I believe that it will share the HOV lanes with the carpoolers, with overhead stations down the middle of the freeway. People always forget about this important project. Construction will start this spring on the stations and HOV lanes as part of the I35W/Crosstown Commons expansion project. Additionally, the Northstar commuter rail line from the far northwest suburbs to downtown Mpls has received its federal funding and state funding is almost complete. Minneapolis can look forward to a robust mix of transit alternatives in the coming years, even though a lot of work is still needed by the state legislature to provide more funding for future transporation needs in the metro area.

Back to Detroit. They need a metro wide governing body (with teeth), similar to the Twin Cities Metro Council, who will lead the planning of a robust mix of transit alternatives that serve Detroit's entire metro area.

[lil_pc]

The other Detroit-area transit system is SMART (www.smartbus.org) which serves the metro area outside the city - their website states they have 37,000 per day ridership. Even combining that with the 5,100 on the city system thats only 42,100 per day. To anyone in Detroit - does that seem right? That is remarkable if that is accurate. I compared that to Milwaukee's at 173,500 - 4 times the ridership with 1/3 of the metro pop.

I guess that just shows how extremely spread out the jobs and people of Detroit has become compared to other similar midwest cities. People obviously drive everywhere. So can a rail system, whatever type you propose, actually take people out of their cars, if everything is so spread out? Once you get off at a stop, if you're still a mile from your destination?

[AtlantaGA]

Thanks lil pc. I updated the data to include the SMART ridership figure.