Light Rail in Detroit

[hudkina]

According to SEMCOG all of the mass transit systems in Metro Detroit have a combined average weekday ridership of more than 200,000, which would put it right behind Minneapolis. (including DDOT, SMART, and the bus systems in Flint, Ann Arbor, and Monroe)

It seems that 5,100 number for Detroit is that of the People Mover and not the bus system.

[lil_pc]

Thanks for that clarification hudkina.

That still is remarkably low given the amount of people in metro Detroit. That still leaves me in doubt that a lrt or commuter rail could be sustainable.

[AtlantaGA]

Originally Posted by hudkina

According to SEMCOG all of the mass transit systems in Metro Detroit have a combined average weekday ridership of more than 200,000, which would put it right behind Minneapolis. (including DDOT, SMART, and the bus systems in Flint, Ann Arbor, and Monroe)

It seems that 5,100 number for Detroit is that of the People Mover and not the bus system.

Hudkina, thanks for the clarification. Now that you say that, I went back to the source, where Detroit was listed and now see that DPM stands for Detroit People Mover. My bad. Again, I will go back and update the list.

Even with these updates, Detroits numbers are low for a city its size. Detroiters need better options to draw them to transit.

[Lmichigan]

Originally Posted by 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.

Oh, I fully realize the difference between a fixed and flexible transit investment, what I was asking is that you seem to implicitly leave the option open that BRT could be just as successful in Detroit as LTR. Do you believe that an all-BRT development could be just as successful as a full-LTR system or a mixed system?

BTW, BRT is used in quite a few American cities...but usually as part of a mixed system.

Some cities BRT is used in:

LA
Los Vegas
Miami
Phoenix
Boston
Denver
etc...

It's not untested, but rarely is it the ONLY rapid transit option in a major metropolitan area.

[Lmichigan]

Originally Posted by lil_pc

Thanks for that clarification hudkina.

That still is remarkably low given the amount of people in metro Detroit. That still leaves me in doubt that a lrt or commuter rail could be sustainable.

Again, a mixed system would work, here, and like anywhere else it depends on the route were talking about. Some lines LTR would be a viable option, while others, it's quite clear, might work best with BRT or a simple bus line. How are you going to say/imply that Detroit couldn't support any light rail lines without even knowing the commutting pattern, and the nodes that will need connecting? Have you also taken into account that a rapid transit system would boost ridership? In fact, I think you can chalk up the currently anemic mass transit ridership numbers to the sole fact that all the metro has is two seperate and dysfunctional bus systems. That's more than enough to suppress use.

[lil_pc]

Originally Posted by Lmichigan

Again, a mixed system would work, here, and like anywhere else it depends on the route were talking about. Some lines LTR would be a viable option, while others, it's quite clear, might work best with BRT or a simple bus line. How are you going to say/imply that Detroit couldn't support any light rail lines without even knowing the commutting pattern, and the nodes that will need connecting? Have you also taken into account that a rapid transit system would boost ridership? In fact, I think you can chalk up the currently anemic mass transit ridership numbers to the sole fact that all the metro has is two seperate and dysfunctional bus systems. That's more than enough to suppress use.

Didn't mean to imply Detroit couldn't sustain any rail. Just given the spread out nature, and the enormous cost of a comprehensive rail system, is the potential ridership justifiable? I realize I don't know about commuting patterns around Detroit but given the size it seems commuter rail connecting major employment centers would make more financial sense. Since operational funding would most likely have to come from additional taxes. I agree consolidation of the systems could only help.

[_ttam_]

Originally Posted by JivecitySTL

I think you need to get your facts straight.

First of all I started out by pleading for anyone with facts to post them. I crave--I CRAVE--the truth here. I got my statistics directly from the National Transit Database for 2005. DIRECTLY from there.

First of all, St. Louis has a metro population of 2.8 million, not 2 million.

Anyone, EVERYONE, on this board should know that Metro population statistics vary according to who records the statistic and why. Metro areas have no obvious boundaries. You are referring to the MSA, I'm referring to the UZA (the part of the population served by the mass transit systems we're talking about.)

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.

Sorry friend, but you need figures and sources. I got mine from the National Transit Database for 2005. In any case, spikes are understandable and I would hope the ridership would go up as the system is expanded--if it doesn't, you've got big problems.

Third, NOT A SINGLE RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES PAYS FOR ITSELF. Notta one. That's why it's called PUBLIC TRANSIT.

Yeppers, and it's not just that they don't pay for themselves. It's that even the best systems (apart from areas like New York where there are no alternatives) carry only a miniscule part of the population. In other words, billions are spent on trains rather than busses so that a few thousand can fulfil their romantic desires for a train ride to work.

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.

I made it clear I would support subsidizing a new mass transit system in Detroit. I don't know how I could have been any clearer. The reason I posted examples of the massive amounts of money these trains cost taxpayers was to give an argument against rushing to light rail when an alternative rapid mass transit system is available.

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.

Oh, it's inevitable that it will happen. Any Detroiter can feel it in the zeitgeist. A billion dollars will be spent on it and it will serve maybe 50,000. And yes, a few developers who own land near the train stations will get rich. Yep....

[_ttam_]

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?

Because 100% of the people use the roads but, say, 5% use rapid transit--even in the cities with the most superb transit systems.

[_ttam_]

Originally Posted by Avian001

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.

Good points.

[_ttam_]

Originally Posted by 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).

Thanks for the source first of all. I didn't see that table when I looked on their website. Secondly, it confirms what I'm saying... You've posted the total ridership of all the buses, heavy rail, light rail, and subways combined. But take your example of Minneapolis--of those 250,000 people who take mass transit, only 34,000 use the city's light rail system (2006). Everybody else takes the bus.

I think we all need rapid mass transit alternatives--but I don't think we should rush to the more expensive light rail when so few people use them. Of course, if you believe that building more condominiums along the line is worth the added expense, then you'll disagree. That's fine. At this point I'm a devil's advocate. I want to see mass rapid transit in Detroit. I just understand that there is an important debate to be had here. Do we want to spend the extra money on an overkill system when BRT is ripe for Metro Detroit? Most of you do...




I

[JivecitySTL]

Originally Posted by _ttam_

But take your example of Minneapolis--of those 250,000 people who take mass transit, only 34,000 use the city's light rail system (2006). Everybody else takes the bus.

This point is kind of moot. The majority of transit riders take the bus because there are many, many more buses serving many, many more parts of the metropolitan area. If the LRT system was more extensive, then more people would ride the trains. And research has proven that trains are more likely to attract first-time public transit riders than buses. So if you think in terms of long-term environmental sustainability, it would be in everyone's best interest to invest in rail rather than buses, even if it does cost significantly more. Because people simply like trains better, and if that's what it takes to get more of them out of their cars, it's well worth it.

[_ttam_]

Originally Posted by JivecitySTL

This point is kind of moot. The majority of transit riders take the bus because there are many, many more buses serving many, many more parts of the metropolitan area. If the LRT system was more extensive, then more people would ride the trains. And research has proven that trains are more likely to attract first-time public transit riders than buses. So if you think in terms of long-term environmental sustainability, it would be in everyone's best interest to invest in rail rather than buses, even if it does cost significantly more. Because people simply like trains better, and if that's what it takes to get more of them out of their cars, it's well worth it.

I don't get your point. A LRT system can never be as "extensive" as a bus system. Just can't happen. As far as the evnironmental impact, I'll leave that contentious debate for another website, lol.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by _ttam_

Because 100% of the people use the roads but, say, 5% use rapid transit--even in the cities with the most superb transit systems.

5%? Really? Because last time I checked the most superb transit systems in the U.S. were in New York, Washington, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. And these are the percentages of people who travel to work that use public transportation:

1. New York - 54.4%
2. Washington - 34.4%
3. Boston - 33.1%
4. San Francisco - 32.6%
5. Chicago - 26.7%
6. Philadelphia - 25.9%

So half of all New York residents use public transportation, 1 in 3 Washington, Boston, and San Francisco residents use public transportation, and 1 in 4 Chicago and Philadelphia residents use public transportation. And that's only for commuting purposes. That doesn't include people who use it to travel to school, for entertainment, visiting friends, shopping, etc.

And even in Baltimore, Seattle, and Minneapolis where the commuter systems aren't as extensive the numbers are closer to 20% or 1 in 5.

[_ttam_]

Originally Posted by hudkina

5%? Really? Because last time I checked the most superb transit systems in the U.S. were in New York, Washington, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.

lol! Ok, obviously these cities are not in the league I'm referring to. I made that clear in a large number of my posts (maybe you didn't read the entire thread?). But thank you. But shouldn't this be obvious? Detroit isn't going to have the same transist network as New York, Chicago, etc--and this is simply because Detroit doesn't need a system like that. It's not a knock on Detroit, it's just a different type of city than Chicago or New York or Phily or Boston. Detroit's future transit network should be compared to cities like Cleveland, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Atlanta, etc...

And these are the percentages of people who travel to work that use public transportation...

Again, again I say to you that this is a post about light rail in Detroit versus Bus Rapid Transit. Light rail makes up for a tiny part of the public transportation users that you're quoting. Hudkina, you'll never find a bigger supporter of mass transit than me! I would never, never in a lifetime, dream that we should cut funding or fail to augment additional funding for effective mass transit. Buses and rapid transit are both critical as a public welfare service to those who ride them out of need or choice--and to all of us, who don't ride them, but want a more energy efficient environment. That goes without saying, but it doesn't change the fact that, of the people who ride public transit, most ride the bus--and THAT'S NOT A KNOCK ON LIGHT RAIL hudkina. Buses are simply more flexible and can go more places. I can't see justifying the wicked expense for a light rail system when such tiny percentages actually ride these systems because of a romantic notion of the train wisping them into work--especially when there are realpriorities to accomplish. Priorities like getting lower income people to new jobs (who have no alternatives to begin with) and making a cleaner environment for everyone. Finally, let me just remind you that "you don't have to take my word for it." I'm not here to mislead you. If I gave a few ballpark guesses that were off, so be it. I'm wrong. I made it clear they were guesses and I pleaded for correct information. I dervied all my information from the National Transit Database and the American Public Transportation Association. They both have websites which post Excel or Pdf tables that you can download for free that give you statistics on passenger miles, passenger trips, fare revenues, and operating expenses. Please refer to these tables. Please, we should all review original sources. The APTA even has a weekly unique passenger ridership on one of their tables. Kudos to them because that statistic is rarely posted and is hard to find.

[MABCLE]

Originally Posted by _ttam_

lol! Ok, obviously these cities are not in the league I'm referring to. I made that clear in a large number of my posts (maybe you didn't read the entire thread?). But thank you. But shouldn't this be obvious? Detroit isn't going to have the same transist network as New York, Chicago, etc--and this is simply because Detroit doesn't need a system like that. It's not a knock on Detroit, it's just a different type of city than Chicago or New York or Phily or Boston. Detroit's future transit network should be compared to cities like Cleveland, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Atlanta, etc...

Why should it just be compared to other Midwestern systems or cities with less extensive rail networks. Detroit a metro about the size of Philadelphia should have a transit system rivaling... Philadelphia. Some of those other systems are looking to expand their systems to make public transportation an even more viable option for commuters, they aren't settling with what they've got and Detroit should not set the bar based on those cities either.

[JivecitySTL]

^If Detroit (and other cities too) had proactively invested in an extensive rapid transit system vis-a-vis Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, etc, I doubt it would have experienced decline nearly to the extent that it has over the past 50 years. Why? Because rapid transit connects neighborhoods, determines development patterns and is an essential component of the urban fabric of a city. Without it, or with buses alone, the city remains disjointed and incohesive. You look at any great city in the United States and see for yourself. Buses do not incite large-scale development. Buses do not appeal to the masses who might otherwise drive to their destinations. Rail does. It's not too late for Detroit to get with the program. Shit, even small cities have opened their eyes to the benefits of rail. You can talk all you want about cost, cost, cost, blah blah blah. In the end, the cities that get it done are better for it, and those that don't are left even further behind.

[EtherealMist]

Have any of you heard about Curitiba, Brazil? They have a very advanced BRT system including stretch expresses buses that can hold 270 passengers. (basically trains)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba

[the pope]

Originally Posted by EtherealMist

Have any of you heard about Curitiba, Brazil? They have a very advanced BRT system including stretch expresses buses that can hold 270 passengers. (basically trains)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba

and some city in japan has a BRT system built like HRT with dedicated infrastructure (as opposed to just a "special lane")

[Lmichigan]

On a slightly unrelated note concerning commuter rail...this could be the start of something great:

Commuter rail plan to Detroit gets a push

Amtrak from Ann Arbor

January 22, 2007

BY KATHLEEN GRAY
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Megan Owens' twice-monthly drives to Ann Arbor are a frustrating exercise in stop-and-go traffic and construction dodgeball.

The Hazel Park resident can't wait for the day that she can visit her family in Ann Arbor by riding a train, as she reads a magazine or talks on her cell phone instead of staring at car bumpers for the hour-long commute.

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments is hoping to make that wish come true by the end of the year. The group, along with local officials in Wayne and Washtenaw counties, is working with Amtrak to set up a commuter rail line between Ann Arbor and the New Center area of Detroit with stops at Dearborn, Metro Airport and Ypsilanti.

The plan has many details to be worked out before it becomes a reality, like who will pay for the line, which could cost tens of millions of dollars a year to operate, and how often the service will run. Costs of the rides have tentatively been set at $1.50 from one stop to the next or $6 for the full ride between Ann Arbor and Detroit.

But local officials are more enthusiastic about this plan than they've been about any of the other myriad transit plans that have been floated in metro Detroit for decades.

"What we really have achieved along this corridor that we haven't had before is a unanimity of support," said Carmine Palombo, director of transportation programs for SEMCOG. "Everybody we've talked to wants a commuter train."

Cities are clamoring for stops in their communities and an extension of the line north to Royal Oak, Birmingham and Pontiac. The train would make a stop north of Metro Airport and then buses would shuttle travelers to the airport. The City of Wayne wants to be that stop.

"We think that Wayne has a lot to offer and if people have to stop in our downtown even if it is just to go to the airport, they'll see all that we've got," said Peter McInerney, community development director for the city.

Officials in Chelsea, about 15 miles west of Ann Arbor, are hoping that the line will be extended beyond Ann Arbor to their city.

"We have a lot of residents who work in Ann Arbor and the western suburbs of Detroit," said Mike Steklac, Chelsea's city manager. "And this would work well to serve them."

The governments council was hoping to use a $100-million federal grant to study and develop the rail line. But after conducting a $3-million study of five options for the route, the agency found that there weren't enough riders to support the line -- only between 600 and 6,000 passengers daily depending on the option. And it carried a price tag ranging from $600 million to $3 billion to construct and $25 million to $110 million a year to operate.

The disappointing results didn't meet the criteria set by the Federal Transit Administration to qualify for the $100 million. But that doesn't mean the money is lost forever, Palombo said. The plan with Amtrak would last three years and be used to show that there is enough interest in the commuter train for the area to qualify for the federal money.

Owens, who also serves as the director of the Detroit-based public transportation advocacy group Transportation Riders United, said the momentum is there. She pointed to the success of the shuttle buses for the winter festival in downtown Detroit leading up to last year's Super Bowl and the Tiger trains, which quickly sold out for baseball games last summer.

"If you give people a choice, they'll use it," she said.

But Matthew Schneider, who takes a shuttle from his Washtenaw County home to his job as an attorney in downtown Detroit, doesn't think he'd switch to the commuter line. One downfall, he said, is that the Detroit stop would be in the New Center area; he'd then have to shuttle into downtown.

"Right now I walk out of my office door and there's the shuttle," he said. "This sounds like a pain in the butt to me. I don't think I would use it."

The governments council and other local officials will meet with Amtrak on Jan. 30 to try to iron out some of the details of the rail line. Another public meeting will be held in February to announce details of the plan.

Contact KATHLEEN GRAY at 313-223-4407 or gray@freepress.com.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...001/BUSINESS05

[AtlantaGA]

Originally Posted by JivecitySTL

^If Detroit (and other cities too) had proactively invested in an extensive rapid transit system vis-a-vis Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, etc, I doubt it would have experienced decline nearly to the extent that it has over the past 50 years. Why? Because rapid transit connects neighborhoods, determines development patterns and is an essential component of the urban fabric of a city. Without it, or with buses alone, the city remains disjointed and incohesive. You look at any great city in the United States and see for yourself. Buses do not incite large-scale development. Buses do not appeal to the masses who might otherwise drive to their destinations. Rail does. It's not too late for Detroit to get with the program. Shit, even small cities have opened their eyes to the benefits of rail. You can talk all you want about cost, cost, cost, blah blah blah. In the end, the cities that get it done are better for it, and those that don't are left even further behind.

Very well said Jive.