Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2007 » Pontiac-Detroit commuter rail « Previous Next »
Archive through November 14, 2007Gsgeorge30 11-14-07  7:26 pm
Archive through November 18, 2007River_rat30 11-18-07  6:27 pm
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus

Post Number: 2773
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 6:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Fact: Fewer than 2% of workers (2004 data) in the tri-county Detroit region of over 4 1/2 million use any form of public transportation to get to/from work."

Yeah, but a lot of that is because a decent transit system has never been available...

I have never once in my life used public transit to get to get anywhere in SE MI...what can I say...I just don't like buses...but I would certainly use a train if we had one, and if the system was viable I'd even give up my car
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 262
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 6:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yawn. Last time I checked, people ride a public transit system in Detroit every day. Is it the system that transit advocates envision for Detroit? No. But in all of its dysfunctional badness, it still gets people around Detroit and SMART gets people around those areas outside Detroit. Nor does your argument about politicians or law enforcement hold up over time or explain transit fundings in cities other than the ones you noted. I'm sure it sounded good in your head. Too bad it doesn't hold up in the light of day.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 263
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 6:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Response to River_rat's comments.
Top of pageBottom of page

River_rat
Member
Username: River_rat

Post Number: 309
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 6:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Novine, then why is Detroit the only city without rail transit among the fifteen largest cities in the country? Now Albuquerque, Salt Lake, Portland, San Jose, etc. all have them. If it isn't what I posited, what is it?
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1602
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 6:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And for all it's criticism, SMART continues to have ridership increases, and adjusts service to meet where the demand is.
Top of pageBottom of page

River_rat
Member
Username: River_rat

Post Number: 310
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 7:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

River rat here - a little more support for my reasons why Detroit will not have rail transit.

http://www6.comcast.net/news/a rticles/national/2007/11/18/Da ngerous.Cities/?cvqh=itn_detro it

I took this from another current thread on the forum. My first reason being our inept politicos needs no outside documentation.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gsgeorge
Member
Username: Gsgeorge

Post Number: 347
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 8:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

oh please, river rat. What do these rankings mean exactly? How do you compare a huge city like Detroit to something relatively smaller like Portland or Flint for that matter?

Let me tell you-- LA may not be ranked on that list because the rich and safe areas balance out the overwhelmingly unsafe and poor ares, but the city's transit system passes through more "dangerous" areas than the worst parts of Detroit, and it's heavily used every day. LA is freaking scary, not to mention its reliance on the automobile like Detroit. But I rode the transit there, and so did everyone else who lived near it, without any major problems besides the usual grime.

GET REAL. If a rail transit system is implemented in the city Detroit, it would be heavily used in favor of cars, especially with traffic and gas the way it is.
Top of pageBottom of page

Thejesus
Member
Username: Thejesus

Post Number: 2777
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 8:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, I hope we get some kind of train system in this region sometime this century, but I not going to hold out too much hope...

Right now, everyone wants transit because the economy is in the shitter, but we can't afford one because, well, the economy is in the shitter

But once things rebound and we DO have the money, you have to wonder how many people will jump off the wagon and say the rebound is evidence that we don't need transit
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 4644
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 9:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Right now, everyone wants transit because the economy is in the shitter, but we can't afford one because, well, the economy is in the shitter


Does anyone know how come everybody's so quiet on this nonissue? Even this forum usually has the same views presented by the same few people time and time again--as now.

Besides, no expensive rapid transit options will come this way until if and when the bus systems become much more utilized. Just having occasional bus routes utilized at rush hour/school closings won't cut it. At times as that, another bus or three could be added, etc.

Most of the times I transfer to SMART downtown to go to southern Macomb County, only a very few get on going north. Often, I'm the only one getting on downtown. At other times, a few at the jail on work release get on downtown. But that's usually the entirety of downtown riders.

Usually, the Van Dyke buses don't get many passengers until getting to Seven Mile. If bus crowding ever became an issue, more buses would/could/should (pick the modal you like...) be added.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1457
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 9:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Yeah, but a lot of that is because a decent transit system has never been available..."

Not true, growing up in the late 60's/early 70's the busses would always run. Buses count as a transit system. Over the last 30 years there has been a slow erosion of the system so that is services only the captive riders. Most choice riders won't wait an hour for a bus. Heck many captive riders can't wait an hour for a bus either, but they can't afford a car so they are forced to.
Top of pageBottom of page

Amiller
Member
Username: Amiller

Post Number: 9
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 9:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

River rat, you are right, Detroit will NEVER have rail transit if everyone is as cynical as you. You're attitude is dangerous to progress.

If we have a vision, and we work together to achieve that vision, anything is possible (including rail transit in Detroit)!
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 909
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 11:52 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitplanner,

I would argue that a "decent transit system" in an urbanized area as large as metro Detroit must include something more rapid than line-haul buses, which mostly average, what, 18 to 22 MPH for DDOT and 20 to 30 MPH for SMART?

This is one of the reasons every other big-city region in North America has implemented some kind of rapid or semirapid transit. We are all alone in our dependence on buses for the entire regional system.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 266
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 12:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Part of the problem is that we're trapped by our development patterns. Downtown probably provides enough of a destination but between downtown and the burbs is a lot of vacant or marginal neighborhoods that won't justify the investment. And once you get to the burbs, where do you go? If you looked at the area without looking at the borders, there might be a case to run something east-west across 8 Mile where you would intersect most of the largest communities population-wise (Detroit, Warren, Royal Oak, Redford, Southfield, Livonia, Farmington Hills, Novi) but very little of the development in those communities has focused on 8 Mile so you would need a wholesale shift to tie into such a system.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3737
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 1:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Part of the problem is that we're trapped by our development patterns. Downtown probably provides enough of a destination but between downtown and the burbs is a lot of vacant or marginal neighborhoods that won't justify the investment.



And the flip side of that problem is that development patterns are dictated by the available transportation infrastructure.

When the Washington Metro was being planned in the 1960s, the District government (rightly) assumed the subway would provide a vehicle for economic development. The system was planned to focus development in core neighborhoods. Arlington, VA followed the same strategy, and now an area that was mostly used-car lots and pawn shops houses the vast majority of the county's office space.

You have to decide to break the cycle somewhere.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 910
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 1:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well put, Dan, I couldn't have said it better.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjaba
Member
Username: Jjaba

Post Number: 5614
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 2:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Jesus makes a good point about rail transit vs. buses. That's why GM worked so hard to dismantle them in the 1920s.

People love to ride trains, streetcars, light rail, trams, and trolleys.

Some cities, again referencing San Jose, Salt Lake City, and Portland, the new streetcars have been used as tools in successful urban renewal and massive investment in central cities. In older systems like Philadelphia and Toronto, the streetcars anchor older neighborhoods, making them viable.

Detroit had a feeble attempt at a downtown streecar which, like People Mover, were trains to nowhere. In Portland, where streetcar services are almost all free, the people pack them out all day and night long. Sadly, the Portland line cars were built in Czech Republic since the USA doesn't make them.

jjaba, Westsider.
Top of pageBottom of page

River_rat
Member
Username: River_rat

Post Number: 311
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 6:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc omitted the fact that the inner urban areas served by the Washington Metrorail are also the fastest areas of very expensive housing growth.

River rat has been referred to as a cynic regarding rail rapid transit in Detroit. I
prefer to think of myself as a realist. But a critic without an alternative is of little value, so I will pose a solution.

What may be a viable alternative for Detroit mass transit that is much less expensive is express bus lanes on the extensive freeways of the area. Those of you who have been in LA may have noted the extensive network of this type. They do work.

Your opinion Danindc?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3739
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 1:40 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Danindc omitted the fact that the inner urban areas served by the Washington Metrorail are also the fastest areas of very expensive housing growth.



So I suppose it's more preferable to use the Detroit Method, and allow property values to remain stagnant forever?

You fail to appreciate that ALL housing in the DC area is expensive. Houses in the very worst neighborhoods start at $200,000. The difference here is, if you want to spend $500,000 on a home, you have the option of buying a McMansion in the far suburbs, or a place in a viable, walkable neighborhood in the city (but without shelling out thousands of dollars a year to maintain a fleet of vehicles).

Christ. I didn't realize investment in the urban core was such a "negative". Isn't that the entire point of these site?
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 269
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 8:22 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Danindc omitted the fact that the inner urban areas served by the Washington Metrorail are also the fastest areas of very expensive housing growth."

I would guess that you've never been to some of these areas in DC. My friends in DC made it very clear that they were certain stops on the Metro that you did not get off and go sight-seeing. I would love to see some numbers that back up that claim.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gsgeorge
Member
Username: Gsgeorge

Post Number: 350
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 10:13 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

What may be a viable alternative for Detroit mass transit that is much less expensive is express bus lanes on the extensive freeways of the area. Those of you who have been in LA may have noted the extensive network of this type. They do work.



Here we go again. Dedicated bus lanes in LA not only don't work, but they're a miserable excuse at "mass transit". People "cheat" all the time, dodging into the bus lanes so the busses are moving along with everyone else, and the busses go slower than normal traffic since they're periodically stopping. The only thing that "works" is the Harbor Fwy transitway, which is a (read: EXPENSIVE) double-decker freeway with bus lanes and HOV lanes on top and normal lanes below. You think Detroit has the money to double-decker all their freeways when they could build trolley/light rail rail at relatively the same cost, maybe even less?
Top of pageBottom of page

Russix
Member
Username: Russix

Post Number: 54
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 3:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

495, 450, 460, 445, 475, 465, 415, 420, and 53 all run on Woodward. Some of the mentioned routes only run on part of woodward or with limited stops. The DDOT 53 runs every 8 minutes. 30,000 people ride buses on woodward everyday, thats more than half the country's light rail systems. Imagine how many people would ride if it wasn't just a system with only the people who 'had' to ride on it, but a viable alternative for car commuters.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 911
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 3:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jjaba,

You are correct but there is hope. Check out http://www.unitedstreetcar.com / for info.

Prof. Scott
Top of pageBottom of page

Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine

Post Number: 1876
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 3:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

i've riden that streetcar, as well as portland's light rail several times, its a great setup all the way around. from my father's house we drive 6-7 miles to the transit center, park in the structure and take the MAX into downtown.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjaba
Member
Username: Jjaba

Post Number: 5618
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 3:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Profesor Scott, thanks for the news about Oregon Iron Works. They received a $1 million grant from UMTA and Sen. Ron Wyden to build a prototype as the first streetcar factory.

The SKODA cars in Portland are dandies. The Czech employees have been to Portland many times to make sure it works well. The original line keeps growing longer and the results have been huge investments in adjacent property and full cars. Fareless operations sure do the job. Free rides pay for themselves in customers, renters, condo owners, tourists and urban renewal.

With the money being pissed away in Iraq, cities like Detroit could rebuild a streetcar infrastructure quickly.

Portland is planning another line on the Eastside which would cross the Willamette River on its own new bridge. It will be financed by a Halo approach, from the property owners on the street it runs on and adjacent streets back at a lowered rate. Detroit could do the same thing.

Anybody who quotes LA as a model of mass transit hasn't been out much, although they are trying with new subways and interurbans. LA is still a huge freeway town and everybody drives a car for everything. Isn't walking outlawed out there?
Referencing San Francisco would be a better model.

jjaba.
Top of pageBottom of page

Parkguy
Member
Username: Parkguy

Post Number: 151
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 6:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The URS study will come up with something, even if it only serves Detroit, Dearborn, Hamtramck, and Highland Park. We have to start somewhere. A system that reaches Eight Mile and Woodward, and out to West Dearborn, will get things moving in the most dense part of the metro area. People will use it, and based on the experience of EVERY other city, development will follow the infrastructure. Build a park and ride structure at Woodward and Eight and at Southfield and Michigan, and suburbanites will use it, too... even if only for ball games or for the relative handful of folks who still work downtown. If it grows outward, then fine. If not, the increased density will make it sustainable. Just give it the same level of subsidy given to suburban development and it will do fine.

Jjaba has a couple of good points. LA is trying to get transit going. What did it take there? The Northridge earthquake, flattening highway bridges to the valley. Suddenly people were screaming about why there weren't enough trains to handle their personal needs. So, transit got teeth. What will it take here? Sustained $3.50 per gallon gas that makes it impossible to commute from Howell to Warren or Dearborn every day? Oil that peaks at a hundred bucks a barrel and never drops back to a price even near seventy bucks?

(Message edited by parkguy on November 20, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 4654
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 7:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If trains are so rewarding to those who live near the ROWs, how come the older southern Michigan cities along US 12 with its railroad access aren't exactly booming either due to Amtrak hauling a small amount of passengers along that ROW? The railroad freight business there isn't jumping either. Why is Norfolk Southern trying to sell off the Detroit-Chicago ROW if the freight biz is so profitable?

What's still along that route? A mill for prepackaged bakery products--Chelsea's JiffyMix? What else? Nearby I-94 siphoned off almost all of that ROW's freight via trucks and its residents chose not to be potential passengers and instead drive themselves w/o bitching along the I-system. Who even leaves the driving to them--Greyhound--anymore either?

Rail isn't universally located everywhere throughout the country but might work in some areas. In actual fact, virtually all railroads have embraced (near) bankruptcies since the over-capacities of railroad companies and facilities since 1910 (the year of maximum trackage in the Mid West). After the railroads dumped their expensive, moribund passenger business to Amtrak in 1971, it spent over another decade rationalizing its excess freight business and closed down the vast majority of their freight yards throughout the country. Some of that is still ongoing today.

But what evidence that rail would even come close to the unproven wishful-thinking prospects of its proponents? I never saw anything other than nonsensical slogans like (spend $ billons) "build it and they will come" pufferies.

Just who will come, where will they come from, and how much business (a good estimate will do in the expected absence of facts and data) will follow, where will the development occur, how much will it cost (a non lowball figure),and why would it succeed? I never read about any of that--just plain and simple BS instead.

(Message edited by LivernoisYard on November 20, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 1492
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 9:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernoisyard, if we built interstates where the on-ramps only opened 3 times a day, there wouldn't be much development there either.

Also, Greyhound ridership is up "15 to 20%" since 2004. Try again.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 273
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 9:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If LY wants to play that game, let's ask the same question about I-94. What has it done for any of the Michigan cities along its route as it heads west out of Ann Arbor? Please share with us the names of the booming metropolises lining its exits. The lack of traffic along one redundant freight line in southern Michigan is hardly germane to the discussion of transit in SE Michigan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3741
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 11:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

But what evidence that rail would even come close to the unproven wishful-thinking prospects of its proponents? I never saw anything other than nonsensical slogans like (spend $ billons) "build it and they will come" pufferies.



You don't travel much outside of Michigan, do you? Again--Detroit is the only place that does things correctly. It's everywhere else that is foolish for investing in rail transportation.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 4657
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 11:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As the ridership for both rail or bus is low, any percentage increase/decrease still amounts to peanuts. The interurban buses haul virtually no passengers relative to cars and planes. Try again.

Planes fly more frequently and transport more passengers than buses per plane. And, we know that cars transport far more than buses or trains, both long or short haul. Woodward and Gratiot had eight lanes already during the 1920s--some two to five decades before the major freeways entered the scene.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3742
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 11:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Planes fly more frequently and transport more passengers than buses per plane.



This is the most ridiculous statement you have ever made on this topic. If you don't know why that is, then God help you.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 275
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 11:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Contra LY, another advantage of transit is it makes development sustainable. You can create massive amounts of development based on a car-oriented model but it's unsustainable. See Tysons Corner, VA as an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T ysons_Corner,_Virginia

The discussion of extending the Metro to Tysons is driven as much by the desire of developers to keep developing as it is by transit advocates to create more sustainable transportation models.

http://tysonscorner.wordpress. com/2007/07/19/metro-railtrans it-oriented-development/

In LY's car oriented world, you can keep adding lanes. But at some point, you max out the amount of car traffic you can jam through a roadway and no amount of paving, technology or wishful thinking can change that. At Tysons Corner, the road networks are maxed out and absent rail, the development becomes unsustainable:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01 /26/AR2007012601861.html
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3744
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 12:00 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernoisyard will also tell you that there's no money for rail. Never mind that adding equivalent roadway capacity is far more expensive than rail. A freeway lane can handle what--2400 cars per hour? Multiply that by about 1.05 for Detroit, and you're still well under 3000 persons per hour at *maximum* capacity within that right-of-way.

Using less real estate than a lane of highway, a commuter rail line could move somewhere around 9000 persons per hour at 60 mph with capacity to spare. But it's more important to talk about "percentages"--which are absolutely meaningless when the vast majority of the landscape you're describing has virtually no transit service whatsoever.

I love Tysons Corner--you have to get in the car and drive to go across the street.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 4659
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 2:29 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What nonsense comes from DDC... Who cares about how many passengers a rapid-transit system could haul--in Detroit? Why spend all that money to replace/duplicate bus service that isn't really utilized along that route as it is.

Take that 4-mile stretch from Capital Park and Grand Blvd. It takes 15 minutes, according to DDOT's timetables, which has stops every block or two. Why waste all that money for building a rapid transit route that will only shave off a few minutes from that. More DDC folly.

And running trains frequently will mean that they won't have many passengers per train. Maybe Danny Boy has some information about pent-up ridership that nobody else on the planet has. Detroit is really dead, especially during those times between the two rush "hours" and afterwards, during the evening and night.

Why waste money when there are other more serious concerns than building a system when only a few will ride? Crazy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Malcovemagnesia
Member
Username: Malcovemagnesia

Post Number: 56
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 3:58 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I sat in stop & go traffic on I-94 & I-75 for at least two hours this evening (which on a good day would normally be around 30-40 minutes) while driving from Detroit Airport to Sterling Heights. While sitting in the jam, I couldn't help but think of how nice it would be to jump on a train from Detroit airport, change trains at some "hub" or station in Detroit, and ride another train out to a Sterling Heights/Utica station.

Commuter rail out in the San Francisco Bay Area is booming nowadays, especially with high gas prices and congested freeways. A commuter rail system into San Jose (you know, that little city that recently passed Detroit as the "10th biggest city in the U.S.") started up in 1998 with just two train sets and two round trips and now they've expanded to four round trips and either 3 - 4 train sets (with more on the way). The automobile commute into Silicon Valley has always been famously bad, so people seem very enthusiastic for the ACE train as an option. Apparently it's standing room only in some of the train cars.

If there were political will, the Detroit metro region could do the exact same thing. And it wouldn't need to cost all that much in the big budget picture. Some of the "stations" are little more than concrete pads with bus shelters, while the engines and passenger cars are all currently in production around North America.

p.s. People ought to give up on trying to convince LY. He's either grossly inept or ill informed in his bias, or perhaps he's intimately involved in the freeway construction & maintenance business in some way. The folks who really need to be convinced are the on-the-fence commuters who don't know how good things could be and the bureaucrats in government who aren't necessarily thinking long term.



(Message edited by MalcoveMagnesia on November 21, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 4660
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 8:36 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Huh? Let's see if I caught this noise correctly...

So, somebody from the zero-percent public-transit ridership of Macomb County is bitching about being stuck in freeway traffic when the big dummy could have taken instead the SMART bus from the airport and then transferred onto the SMART 495/494!
Instead, he complains that a train [that won't go near where he wants to go if installed] doesn't take him to Sterling Heights???
Top of pageBottom of page

Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine

Post Number: 1877
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 9:06 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

commuter rail to the airport would also relieve the almost comical fact that all parking lots at our airport are at/near capacity as of this morning with the holiday travel rush.

one of the greatest things about the portland, OR system is grabbing your bag of the carosel at the airport, walking 50 ft out the door, and boarding the train for downtown.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine

Post Number: 1878
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 9:09 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

[quote]Instead, he complains that a train [that won't go near where he wants to go if installed] doesn't take him to Sterling Heights???[/quote]

it could however take him to a park and ride transit center like the one they are building on the troy birmingham border, leaving him with just a quick car ride down big beaver towards home.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 4662
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 9:13 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Still, why bitch about something about something that won't be around for quite a while?

Yet, this same fellow won't take the SMART bus system now going near his destination/home, probably because he's too elitist to have to share buses with poor, underprivileged Americans of all types.
Top of pageBottom of page

Clark1mt
Member
Username: Clark1mt

Post Number: 104
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 9:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There is a stigma, I believe, attached to buses in this country. People are very reluctant to ride buses if they don't really have to. This stigma is not present for trains, for what ever reason (probably a matter of perceived safety and the permanence of location). So, people who would never take the bus still are willing to take a train along a similar route.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine

Post Number: 1880
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 9:26 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

why do you ever bitch about anything? i tend to bitch about stuff in hopes that someone who might do something about it, will.

probably moreso because it would be a 2+hour bus ride!, a train without a transfer downtown and with only stops in dearborn, detroit, royal oak, before reaching birmingham would presumably be around half that.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 4663
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 10:01 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Another thing...

There are often easy solutions to many so-called insurmountable problems. Somebody driving the distance from DTW to Sterling Hts could easily have taken the time to monitor metro Detroit's freeway traffic every ten minutes on the 8s on WWJ and, at other times, via other radio stations. Why would/could anybody get stuck for, supposedly, two hours? The nearby surface roads bypassing around all the troublesome freeway snarls have only limited traffic--if any.

Why do lemmings continually drown themselves in Detroit?

(Message edited by LivernoisYard on November 21, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Philbert
Member
Username: Philbert

Post Number: 306
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 12:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^the Grim Reaper is having a field day, lol.



You people are feeding a troll month after month.

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