 
Eric_c
Member
Username: Eric_c
Post Number: 736
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 3:25 pm: |    |
Does anyone know where the streetcar barn will be located? Or has it not yet been determined?
Also, what entity will supply power to the line? PLD? (Heh.) DTE? A newly built independent source? Or has that not yet been determined, either? |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 718
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 3:39 pm: | |
The existing roadbed would not carry the load.
The street is cut out in the track section and rails are laid on the dirt underneath, then paving is reinstalled around the rails. In the case of the Portland streetcar, the track bed is only one foot thick:
http://www.portlandstreetcar.o rg/history.php
They basically cut a strip of road out, set in segments of two rails tied with a few cross ties, and filled the whole thing in. I've seen pictures in the past, and there were narrow ties about every 2 feet. These might help (the Toronto pictures don't even have cross ties):
http://www.railwaypreservation .com/vintagetrolley/Portland_S treetcar_extension_9_sm.JPG
http://www.railwaypreservation .com/vintagetrolley/Portland_S treetcar_extension_20_sm.JPG
http://railativity.com/Photos. html
http://i84.photobucket.com/alb ums/k28/segaert/oddstuff/stree tcar1.jpg
http://i84.photobucket.com/alb ums/k28/segaert/oddstuff/stree tcar2.jpg
http://www.columbusunderground .com/forums/topic/tucson-stree tcar-news
LRT track beds are basically built to railroad specifications, though not heavy load or low curvature specifications. The either build a thick slab to distribute the load, or they put in some pretty deep ballast and frequent ties. This might help:
Pics of LRT construction:
http://www.freefoto.com/previe w/2033-10-2?ffid=2033-10-2
http://www.soundtransit.org/x7 8.xml?curID=x8065
http://www.flickr.com/photos/p hlewght/1317749724/in/set-7215 7600008579189/
Comparisons:
http://www.cabq.gov/transit/ab out-us/projects-and-planning/m odern-streetcar-project
http://www.lightrailnow.org/fe atures/f_lrt_2007-02a.htm
The issue isn't weight, it is pressure. And a steel wheel concentrates the force in a much smaller area. The track system has to spread that out over a larger area. And the vehicles aren't light. The Portland LRT cars are about 100,000 pounds (two coupled together is 100 tons), and the streetcar is a bit over 60,000 pounds. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4522
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 3:48 pm: | |
quote:The existing roadbed would not carry the load.
So, you can have a 120,000 lb truck on the roadway, but not a 50,000 lb LRT vehicle?
It's been some time since I've read through the AREMA Code, but I'm pretty certain railways aren't designed for "pressure", but rather the loads are considered a series of moving concentrated loads.
Let's put this in perspective. The only "foundation" that trackage for freight trains utilizes is a series of wood or concrete ties, founded on stone ballast.
(Message edited by DaninDC on March 10, 2009) |
Bshea
Member
Username: Bshea
Post Number: 49
Registered: 01-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 3:54 pm: | |
Does anyone know where the streetcar barn will be located? Or has it not yet been determined?
When I did the initial reporting on this a year ago, the plan was to have the barn and other buildings at the New Center end of the loop. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1891
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 3:56 pm: | |
A loaded LRT vehicle weighs a lot more than 50,000 lb. The Siemens cars that Portland Tri-Met uses weigh 109,000 empty and nearly 150,000 fully loaded. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4523
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 3:59 pm: | |
^^^Is that for a single vehicle, or for a married pair??? |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 719
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:08 pm: | |
If, there are 12 wheels on a LRT vehicle, that is wheel over 9,000 pounds riding on a contact patch that is probably less than a square inch. That would fatigue and destroy road pavement. A rubber tire spreads out the force over a much larger area.
It amounts to having the tracks function as a stiff beam in order to spread the weight of the vehicle out. If it were transmitted directly to the soil underneath, the soil will fail.
The freight rail track uses these ties the stiffness of the rail and the ballast to spread the weight out evenly. If you don't use a crushed stone ballast, you have to set the ties on a firm slab (usually concrete).
You can't run very heavy trains on track set directly into the soil for long (or very fast) before the whole package begins to deform. That is basically what streetcar construction is, ties set right on the ground. This design can manage a 60,000 pound streetcar going ~30 mph, but not a 110,000 pound train going 40+. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1892
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:10 pm: | |
One vehicle. That's a Siemens SD600A low-floor vehicle, built in the late 1990s, 89 feet long. Like a lot of long cars it's double articulated (i.e. has two accordion-type flex-points mid-vehicle).
Streetcars are much shorter, 65' or so, smaller in stature, and therefore don't weigh nearly as much. Downside, though, less capacity per vehicle. |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 720
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:10 pm: | |
Single vehicle. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4525
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:20 pm: | |
quote:If, there are 12 wheels on a LRT vehicle, that is wheel over 9,000 pounds riding on a contact patch that is probably less than a square inch. That would fatigue and destroy road pavement. A rubber tire spreads out the force over a much larger area.
One would have to consult the AASHTO and AREMA design codes in order to differentiate.
quote:If it were transmitted directly to the soil underneath, the soil will fail.
How do you know this without testing the soil?
I think the LRV specs I was looking at previously specified the weight for a single, unarticulated vehicle.
Again, I'm not a roadway or railway engineer, but I'm trying to figure out where these "technical requirements" are coming from. |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 721
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:23 pm: | |
I'm not that sort of engineer either, but I understand the sort of construction (and costs) I've seen elsewhere.
The main things is that streetcars and light rail transit are different things. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4526
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:28 pm: | |
I suppose that, without looking at the codes, I'm confused how a LRV vehicle the same weight as a permissible truck, but twice the length, imposes a greater load on a roadway. |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 722
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:32 pm: | |
Because a truck has huge, soft, rubber tires, and a train rides on narrow, hard, steel rims.
Imagine what a loaded gravel truck would do to the road if all its tires where taken off the rims.
Even the high-pressure tires used in jet aircraft cut right through asphalt when parked.
(Message edited by jsmyers on March 10, 2009) |
Eric_c
Member
Username: Eric_c
Post Number: 737
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:50 pm: | |
Thanks for the answer, Bshea. Having the service facilities in the vicinity of New Center is what I had envisioned; seems to be the most logical.
Any idea where, specifically? Seems like the old Lelli's location could work, no? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4528
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:52 pm: | |
quote:Because a truck has huge, soft, rubber tires, and a train rides on narrow, hard, steel rims.
In the world of engineering, it doesn't matter how cushiony-soft the object is--a load is a load is a load. What does matter is load intensity, and whether the load is static, a moving static load, or dynamic.
Roadways are designed for surface loads, produced by particular loading scenarios (typically the heaviest truck allowed on the roadway). Punching shear only governs when determining the required thickness of the supporting structure. And because rails distribute point loads along a linear path, punching shear is eliminated altogether, in favor of the one-way shear at the base of the rail.
It doesn't take slabs of massive thicknesses to resist shears on the order of what we're considering. Now, if the slab is expected to bridge a utility trench, or dampen vibrations to a certain acceleration, then we enter completely different realms of design criteria. |
Dtowncitylover
Member
Username: Dtowncitylover
Post Number: 507
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 4:58 pm: | |
Jsmeyers, looking at your map, I just had a thought...the city should buy the land, if the "Shoppes at Gateway whatever" doesn't happen and it probably won't, next to the State Fairground (Winchester St., Colton St. and Alameda St.) to build a transit center there where buses and the light rail or streetcar can have a stop if/when it extends into the suburbs. It can be a useful thing especially getting to/fro from the State Fair and other events there, just figuring out all the engineering is the tricky part.
I must say also, this is one of the most technical threads about the new transit system ever on this forum...usually it's only been about when, where, and how much, and whether we need this or a subway/elevated. |
Mdoyle
Member
Username: Mdoyle
Post Number: 526
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 5:26 pm: | |
Im personally looking forward to a StreetCar / Tram system running throughout the city. It will be more affordable and more feasible than Light Rail. I'm not sure that there is enough density in any one area where Light Rail would make enough sense. Additionally in the downtown areas Street Cars can make tighter corners and be shoe horned into smaller areas.
That being said it would be absolutely necessary to have a rapid bus or commuter rail feeders out the the suburbs. Regional cooperation my be more likely with a system built in this fashion. |
Dcmorrison12
Member
Username: Dcmorrison12
Post Number: 83
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 5:29 pm: | |
Dtowncitylover - What you just brought up is going to happen, except it won't be on the grounds of the potential mall. They are planning to purchase part of the parking lot of the state fairgrounds, and use that as the park and ride/ transfer center. Right now there already is a bus station they, they would just add on it it, essentially. |
Dtowncitylover
Member
Username: Dtowncitylover
Post Number: 509
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 5:32 pm: | |
I know of the bus station, but thank you for that info. |
Dcmorrison12
Member
Username: Dcmorrison12
Post Number: 84
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 5:34 pm: | |
Mdoyle - DDOT has already done the studies, and not just to DDOT's standards - Their studies HAD to be done to the Federal Governments very strict guidelines, in order to be accepted into the New Starts program. DDOT proved that there is enough density and potential ridership to support Light Rail. The best part is, the New Starts program does not allow DDOT to consider riders taking the train for special events (concerts, any sports games, etc) as riders. DDOT was only allowed to consider commuters and residents using the line for daily activities as riders. This means that the number that DDOT derived as potential riders (which already proved was high/ dense enough to warrant building Light Rail) is much lower than what it will be. |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 5:50 pm: | |
quote:Alternatively, maybe it would make more sense to send LRT down Cass from Grand Blvd to Downtown. It is a bit tight (~80' ROW) compared to ~120' for Woodward or ~100' for Interstate Ave in Portland. Compared to the Portland example, there wouldn't be room for a bike lane on Cass, and there would only be room for parking on one side, instead of two.
Putting LRT on Cass would eliminate all of the difficulty of getting LRT through or around Grand Circus Park, Campus Martius, and the section of Woodward in between. It would also connect directly to the Rosa Parks Transit Center and the People Mover. I wonder if Second, Third, or some combination of the two might work better than Cass. No ROW-width problems there (especially in that ridiculous one-way-boulevard part of Second from 94 to the train tracks) and it's far enough from Woodward that it could be used by residents of that corridor to get to and from downtown instead of walking to the streetcar or taking the Hamilton bus. |
Transitrider
Member
Username: Transitrider
Post Number: 92
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 6:06 pm: | |
Hertel has said repeatedly that whatever is built for Phase I must be capable of going all the way to Royal Oak, both tracks and cars. (Although I personally love the idea of having both LRT-center and MSC-right!) The official regional plan, approved by the Big Four in December includes some form of LR all the way to Royal Oak minimum, probably Birmingham eventually. As the Prof has stated before, at that point using commuter rail to Pontiac might make more sense, but if the region wants it, in time we can do it.
The projects are indeed merging, but it's taking time. Think about it: we've got DDOT and all the city politics on one hand (DTOGS was supposed to be CCK and KK's legacy, but they were not good shepherds of it, and only publicized it when politically convenient), and on the other hand there is a once-in-a-lifetime offer by local business folks who want to jump start the process, cut the red tape and do something constructive. The business community is participating, and saying, "hey, we want the cars in the right lane, close to our storefronts." Then you have MDOT (rightly or wrongly) saying, "we're not so sure about center lanes anymore (even though it was fine back in the day), and since it's OUR road, we say right lane at least to Grand Blvd." (Again, rightly or wrongly--I'm no big fan of the State of Michigan Department of Roads.)
There is a spectrum of Light Rail technology with traditional streetcars on one end and full-on LRV operating its own ROW on the other. I think DTOGS was little too far on the LRV side considering that is the long run Woodward will once again be a dense, pedestrian-friendly node connecting multiple hubs. It's not a freeway despite how some people treat it now, but it's also not meant for long-distance car travel (that's what I-75 is for, like it or not.) I think the early reports of the M1-Rail were a little too far on the streetcar side, and that something akin to MUNI on the surface streets in San Francisco or or Trax in Salt Lake City is what we'll get, but it remains to be seen.
DTOGS was envisioned at a time when crossing 8 Mile Rd was a political non-starter (or at least 10 Mile, since Ferndale was supportive.) Now that LBP has endorsed and approved the RTCC Regional Transit Plan, that's no longer an issue. The other issue is there must be a transit authority to run it. If you're staying within city limits, DDOT or DTC or even SMART are the current transit authorities eligible. But now that Hertel and the RTCC are working on creating a regional transit authority, it makes more sense for the new line to be run by that authority since it will go to 11 Mile Rd in Phase II. The game has changed since DTOGS started, and by merging the projects we can make sure that neither effort is wasted.
DTOGS looked good and I liked a lot of things about it, but the federal New Starts process requires a local funding match to cover the other 40-50%. DTOGS had zero plan to come up with this money, none. I asked the planners and the consultants, all awesome people who were doing a great job with a politically-loaded project, and they admitted that was TBD. Unfortunately the state and region have not, until recently, allowed for the funding sources FTA requires. Grand Rapids was the impetus for getting the laws changed, and Detroit/Southeast Michigan was almost cut out of the legislation ("cities larger than 150,000 but less than 700,000, starting 'G' and ending with 'apids,' may levy... etc.")
We still as a region have to come up with a comprehensive funding plan, maybe a mix of property/millage (like SMART), state general funds (as approved by the state Legislature last year), and a local sales tax (like Denver, Dallas, etc.) So when these business people saw an opportunity for a public-private partnership that could skip the federal process _for the first phase_, they decided they could make the biggest difference by putting up $100 million cash. Now if the politicians can cooperate, they can define this $100 million as part of our local match and apply it toward the subsequent phases, but apparently that takes some finessing too, as this whole process does. (In my opinion, the federal so-called "New Starts" process is a misnomer: it favors established systems, many of whom raised money, built a first phase and got regional cooperation before they applied for additional funds. Detroit and Southeast Michigan are trying to make a New Start! Yet Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter rail.)
I'm optimistic that we'll get the best of both worlds and years from now this non-drama will be a minor hiccup.
Finally, to steal Gistok's post: "I think that all you well intentioned folks who want to start a letter writing campaign, should save your energy on a more worthwhile cause, such as" joining TRU. TRU has been watchdogging this whole process. I went to the project meeting on RTCC a few weeks ago, learned about this and more. Their news page has a list of every relevant article on the whole process, everything I've written here is public knowledge if you've been paying attention and asking questions. We're starting to turn the corner on transit, but we'll need vigilant citizens to keep an eye on it. Get involved:
http://www.detroittransit.org |
Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4258
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 11:04 pm: | |
Eric C,
There will be a intermodal facility built where the current Amtrak station is, now. It will handle Amtrak and commuter rail services, as well as a hub for the light rail and buses, I think. It's been planned for quite some time, but it can't get started until plans are finalized on the commuter and light rail. The facility will be Detroit's own new 'central station' or main hub from what I understand. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 11:10 pm: | |
Transitrider, thank you, that is an absolute capper of a post. I can't think of anything to add!
Prof. Scott |
Eric_c
Member
Username: Eric_c
Post Number: 739
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:41 am: | |
Lmich - thanks for the response, but my question specifically pertained to service facilities for the new equipment. Where will the car barn be located? |
Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 535
Registered: 09-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 1:07 pm: | |
If New Center had become the "new" downtown, as the Fisher Brothers has envisioned during the 1920s, then an Amtrak and commuter train station there would make sense. But that is not the case. Why does Detroit continue to kid itself into believing this is the best plan for transit? If a terminal was built in downtown, why should I consider taking a train to New Center and then a LRT or streetcar downtown? Rail right-of-ways still exist to the borders of downtown coming from both the east and west along the riverfront. These should be utilized NOW while there is still any hope for securing them... a new station downtown might be a huge benefit. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1894
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 1:10 pm: | |
Busterwmu,
I'm not aware of any existing rail right of way coming from the west. Do you know where the ROW is, or do you have any idea where I could find this kind of information?
The starter commuter line absolutely has to go to New Center, just because there's no money to build entirely new railroad tracks for any distance, though the project does include a very small amount of new track. But looking into the future, if ROW directly into downtown exists, I agree that is preferable. But I don't know of any. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4539
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 1:16 pm: | |
Well, the Dequindre Cut was the last best hope for commuter rail service into the CBD, but MDOT decided that wasn't important enough to preserve. |
Hunchentoot
Member
Username: Hunchentoot
Post Number: 127
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 1:20 pm: | |
Instead of stopping at New Center, the commuter line could go to Michigan Central instead and a streetcar can be put back on Michigan Avenue from Campus Martius to Roosevelt Park. Ho!
This is actually feasible, because Ann Arbor contains so many hipsters that it wouldn't diminish traffic if the station remains in its current state. They would step off the train, take their urbex Facebook photos, and head over to Slows.
As far as New Center not being much of a downtown -- New Center has managed to demolish almost everything that isn't the Fisher Building itself, which means that it has the potential for walkable urban infill should demand ever materialize. And if it doesn't, at least White Castle is still there! Ho! |
Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 536
Registered: 09-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 1:27 pm: | |
The line coming in from the west could actually be coming from endpoints in two places - Ann Arbor via the Michigan Central, and downriver via the Union Belt.
Pull up google maps aerial images and find the Michigan Central station. Now, follow the line to the east (right). After the remaining tracks submerge into the Tunnel to Windsor (east of Bagley), the right-of-way continues sunken below street level, and now full of trees, under Rosa Parks and Fort, coming along the west side of the Salvation Army building. The grade that once went to the riverfront and the MC freighthouse has been plowed over by the widening of W. Jefferson here, but with the recent demolition of the Free Press printing center, there's lots of land for the right of way to continue toward downtown.
Things only begin to get sticky near Riverfront Towers, but this can be solved:
The Joe Louis garage will be demoed once Illitch has his new stadium built with our money in the barren sea of parking lots near the Fox. The train tracks can stay on the north side of W. Jefferson Following a more or less northeasterly alignment behind WCCC (and the old site of Fort Street Union Station), the tracks could cross over over the Lodge and come along the south side of Congress, terminating at a stub ended terminal at the corner of Congress and Washington Blvd, in the north corner of a newly renovated and expanded Cobo Hall. That would be located more downtown than either the old Fort Street Station, Brush Street Station of the MC Depot.
It looks like the amount of track to be laid would be roughly a mile and a quarter. Half of this distance is on old right-of-way OR land that is currently vacant (along Jefferson between Rosa Parks and Riverfront Towers). With the Joe Louis garage out of the way, that opens up a direct alignment to the north end of Cobo, where a stub-ended terminal would dump commuters just a block or two from many of Detroit's skyscrapers, Campus Martius, Hart Plaza, etc.
As for the line from downriver, trains could utilize any of the tracks criss crossing the downriver area leading to Delray Junction, then take the old Union Belt alignment parallel to Fort Street under the Ambassador Bridge to the Boat Yard, then it can merge with the alignment coming in from the MC station for the last portion of the run up to the downtown station.
 |
Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 537
Registered: 09-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 2:11 pm: | |
Just for fun, I detail more of my plan for how to get trains downtown in this thread I started last summer, "My plan for MCS," where I also talk about how to reinvigorate MCS as a transit hub in the process of expanding mass transit in the city AND building a downtown terminal. The link is here:
https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/148145/160984.html
I continue to stand behind this plan, with only a few small tweaks since this past summer. |
Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4266
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 10:23 pm: | |
It be far too much work, at the moment, and as your own post shows, to try and force a downtown line to work. The infrastructure, existing service and all, is already available at the New Center location. |
Bob
Member
Username: Bob
Post Number: 1313
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 12:10 pm: | |
The funny thing was when they built the Joe, they had rail in mind which is why it has the funny double decked bridges that approach the concourse level. They ended up using these to connect to the People Mover station. |
Bob
Member
Username: Bob
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 12:26 pm: | |
More good news in terms of financing for the project.
http://www.freep.com/article/2 0090312/BUSINESS06/90312038/Li ght-rail+system+gets+financial +boost |
Dcmorrison12
Member
Username: Dcmorrison12
Post Number: 93
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 4:57 pm: | |
Well, the thing is it's not good news, not necessarily. Mass transit is a MUST HAVE in Detroit, granted. But, people - who have been deprived of trains for over 50 years - are getting desperate. Desperate enough to jump on the bandwagon to get this project rolling. The thing is, the private plan has too many flaws. It's taken in next to zero public input, and DDOT's research concluded that Center of the road alignment is the optimal choice. Point being, if the private plan screws this up and doesn't work with the public plan, we're stick with People Mover two and we will all have to wait 50 more years for another plan.
We should be very careful of the details and ensure that we're not just supporting it because it's mass transit, we need the correct form of mass transit, the correct project! |
Nellonfury
Member
Username: Nellonfury
Post Number: 240
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 10:46 pm: | |
Dcmorrison12 does have a point there.I'm still excited about it but I hope they not gonna turn it into "The People Mover 2". Also Woodward has a lot of "not busy" intersections with traffic signals that needs to get rid of.Make it a blvd like Livernois Ave.,two lanes for both sides, and place the trains in the center. Instead of 13 stations,drop it down to at least 8 stations just for the start then go up to 13 and make them stations go out to 8 Mile or farther out to Royal Oak.Since we already seen an early video of it, are they show us the final conceptual drawings or a newer video if it soon before the construction begins? |
Shadesofbleu
Member
Username: Shadesofbleu
Post Number: 4
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 11:12 pm: | |
Baltimore riders ask themselves if mass transit was worth it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =CQWq5KoQc0U&feature=related |
Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4273
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 11:15 pm: | |
I too was disappointed by this most recent news. It's like M1-Rail is trying to force itself on the transit community as opposed to the DDOT proposal that going through due diligence and working to make the best possible system. I'm really starting to sour to the tactics and secrecy of M1-Rail, as it doesn't seem as if they have the city or region's best interests in mind. What we're looking to get is a glorified trolley that really doesn't connect much.
It is the DDOT proposal which should be the base from which the private enterprise should be building off of instead of the other way around like it seems to be going. |
Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 539
Registered: 09-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 11:25 pm: | |
Lmichigan, I agree 100% that the downtown station and alignment is too big of a task to pursue for now. BUT, I've heard that Detroit is aiming to put a prime rail transit terminal not too far from the current Detroit Amtrak station....which I do not believe is the right plan. The AA-Detroit commuter plan is a great start to New Center, but in the long range we really need to plan around a downtown oriented terminal of some sort. |
Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4275
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 11:32 pm: | |
Buster, just so you know, I'd already mentioned the New Center Intermodal Station up the page:
quote:There will be a intermodal facility built where the current Amtrak station is, now. It will handle Amtrak and commuter rail services, as well as a hub for the light rail and buses, I think. It's been planned for quite some time, but it can't get started until plans are finalized on the commuter and light rail.
It's not a rumor. It's one of the projects that's been waiting to get built, for years, and it's on the New Center Council's website. Centering the station downtown, again, would mean the there would have to be new, dedicated rail built. The current line that does come into downtown doesn't come from Ann Arbor, meaning dozens of new railroad miles would have to be built just for getting the line into Ann Arbor. I'm waiting for the day when we seperate passenger and freight traffic, myself, but I don't see that happening for decades.
(Message edited by lmichigan on March 12, 2009) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4552
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 1:52 am: | |
quote: I'm really starting to sour to the tactics and secrecy of M1-Rail, as it doesn't seem as if they have the city or region's best interests in mind. What we're looking to get is a glorified trolley that really doesn't connect much.
Where's CCBatson when you need him? It's the private sector at work! It's unpossible that this won't achieve the most ideal outcome for all parties. Ever. |
French777
Member
Username: French777
Post Number: 703
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 6:21 am: | |
Shouldn't We be happy with At leased something is coming!
My Plan: Trolley New Center _ Downtown Detroit. . . .LRT Trains from New Center to Birmingham. . . |
Dcmorrison12
Member
Username: Dcmorrison12
Post Number: 94
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 8:49 am: | |
The design of the line is all wrong. First off, LRT would be the best option for woodward due to it's lack of walkability/ density (most of it, and compared to cass or john r). Modern Street cars essentially compete with walking traffic, since they are so slow. The actuall purpose of a Modern Street car - as in if you were to research it and found a definition - is a Downtown Circulator. They are not meant for commuting, in fact you wouldn't be able to go past new center and have an effective rail system.
Also, the best layout would be Center of the road, even if it were to stay Modern Street Car.
One reason is because, if it's side of the road,this means the line will be one big circle and you would have to go south to go north - vice versa. Also, side of the road interferes more with bussing and parking PLUS it's much slower.\
Thirdly, center of the road is safer (I've heard this straight from the mouth of a Planner down at DDOT) because you spend LESS time crossing the street. It's simple logic really, if it's center of the road, then not at any time do you have to walk across the entire street to get to the station. You'd only have to walk halfway. With side of the road, you have literally a 50% better chance of being hit by a car since you'd have to walk across the entire street. |
Spitty
Member
Username: Spitty
Post Number: 295
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 9:03 am: | |
Really? 50% better? That simple logic is only true if you try to cross with your eyes closed. |
Dtowncitylover
Member
Username: Dtowncitylover
Post Number: 510
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 9:32 am: | |
If streetcars aren't for commuting, why does Melbourne still have the largest network of streetcars in the world? Do you think that no Melbourner commutes to work or school using the tram? |
Gotdetroit
Member
Username: Gotdetroit
Post Number: 206
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 10:15 am: | |
"Shouldn't We be happy with At leased something is coming!
My Plan: Trolley New Center _ Downtown Detroit. . . .LRT Trains from New Center to Birmingham. . ." - French777
No. So, let me get this straight. You could take a train from Royal Oak on LRT. Get off to catch the Street car to Grand Circus. Hop on the People Mover to go to, say, Greektown.
Three different forms of transit. Heck, even if Grand Circus were your destination, you still have to take two different lines to achieve what could be done by one line.
I've said it before, the Private plan is a joke - unless, as stated before, it will be LRT, and can be expanded (without the need to transfer to another system) all the way out to 8 Mile.
If not, this is pissing away a golden opportunity, and simply undercuts (for the sake of being first) the years of study and patience by the folks working on the DDOT plan. |
Dtowncitylover
Member
Username: Dtowncitylover
Post Number: 511
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 10:24 am: | |
It's only a joke because you guys don't have any say in it. Personally, I'd rather want these guys to pay for it and have little of the funding come out of my pocket. There is not much of a difference between LRT and streetcar, either way it will boost transit. Having LRT or streetcar does not make a difference. Again, Melbourne is very successful with their large streetcar network, they don't have LRT. Though they do have a subway.
I think some of us here are being very ungrateful. |
Transitrider
Member
Username: Transitrider
Post Number: 93
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 10:26 am: | |
GD - read my post above. Royal Oak to Hart Plaza on one vehicle, built in 2 phases.
There is no "private" plan versus "DTOGS." 2 different studies, now merging.
Light rail on Woodward is being built by public-private partnership.
Once built, the nonprofit organization TRAIL/M1-Rail will hand the project over to the Regional Transit Authority.
If you really care, get involved. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 4407
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 10:32 am: | |
There's absolutely no reason why these plans shouldn't or couldn't be integrated...just as long as the city council doesn't get a say in this.
Even if there is a lack of integration, I would make the transfer as long as it's free and/or doesn't total more than $3 to make that 8-mile to downtown trip.
...and then I'd WALK to Greektown. Tear the DPM down and just start a special bus link from Greektown to the stadia/Cobo on game nights and convention days. ...okay, that's rash, but you get my point.
I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but has there been any talk about what the operating hours of this system would be?
When we do get to the point of having suburban-downtown transit links, I think it's rather important to have something that runs late into the night. Perhaps I've been too colored by my experiences in my new location, but I think the propensity for young suburbanites to rely on transit to get downtown for a night out is a strong one. The societal benefits of less drinking and driving (and less driving in general) are also important to consider. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1905
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 10:52 am: | |
"...has there been any talk about what the operating hours of this system would be?"
Where is Mr. Shea from Crain's? It seems that all the information that exists about this, he has. Do you have this datum, Bill? |
Dcmorrison12
Member
Username: Dcmorrison12
Post Number: 96
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 12:44 pm: | |
The operating hours of the DDOT plan would be a little shy of 24 hours. They were saying it will shut down around two and be back up again before the morning commuters start coming, about 6. The trains would come avery 7 to 15 minutes (depending on rush hour or not) and it would take a little less than 30 minutes to go downtown to 8 mile (even in heavy traffic - since it would be seperate from the cars and doesn't have to stop at lights). |
Dcmorrison12
Member
Username: Dcmorrison12
Post Number: 98
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 12:49 pm: | |
I'm not saying that Modern Street cars are a bad form of transit. What I'm saying is that it's not the option best suited for an 8+ mile route on Woodard avenue. Modern Street cars are NOT for commuting unlike what DtownCityLover says. Let me tell you this and then you can tell me how effective Modern Street cars would be for commuting. To go from the proposed 11 mile to Downtown all by Modern Street car - you're looking at 90 minutes. NOONE is going to jump and and say, hell yes I want to take 90 minutes to go 11 miles. LRT is the best option, and DDOT has taken in extensive amounts of Public input and has been VERY public about the entire operation. It's the best researched plan, with Professional Mass transit planners behind it (and not just business men who don't know how to plan a mass transit system)
Best case scenario - The two sides combine - but the private said agrees to LRT (or at least builds a deep enough foundation to accomodate LRT) and center of the road tracks. I'm not sure what the private side is putting into the Kool Aid, but they are selling this plan to people and it's not even well thought out. |
Glowblue
Member
Username: Glowblue
Post Number: 186
Registered: 09-2008
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 1:05 pm: | |
quote:If streetcars aren't for commuting, why does Melbourne still have the largest network of streetcars in the world? Do you think that no Melbourner commutes to work or school using the tram?
The Melbourne tram network is over 150 miles long. The Woodward streetcar proposal is not on that scale, to say the least, and will never be on that scale barring something dramatic. You can't compare the world's largest street rail network with what area leaders are proposing. May as well compare the People Mover to the London Underground while you're at it. |
Dtowncitylover
Member
Username: Dtowncitylover
Post Number: 512
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 2:20 pm: | |
I'm not trying to compare the two, but make sure people understand that streetcars and LRT do the exact same thing, commute people, it's just their weight that seperates them. While LRT may be the best option, and I do think that LRT, rather than streetcar is what is to be built, streetcars can do everything LRT does. The longest streetcar route in Melbourne has 143 stops! I hope that LRT is built, but a streetcar would suffice.
Perhaps the two can merge, but the LRT can go up to 11 Mile, while the streetcar can be placed on a different route. |
Russix
Member
Username: Russix
Post Number: 202
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 2:50 pm: | |
^"but make sure people understand that streetcars and LRT do the exact same thing, commute people"
Im sure you get alot more things confused too!
"but make sure people understand that airships and airplanes do the exact same thing, commute people".......LOL |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1906
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 3:34 pm: | |
Dcmorrison,
The existing SMART route 460 makes the trip from the Royal Oak Transit Center to Woodward and Jefferson in 42 minutes at a.m. rush hour, according to SMART's published schedule. Now, granted, each bus is not exactly on time. However:
1. The buses make all local stops inbound from Royal Oak to 8 Mile, and drop off at all stops all the way to the river. The rail, whether it is streetcar or the larger regional type of light rail, will only stop at stations.
2. When you board the bus, you pay as you board, which eats up time. For either rail system, I believe, you would pay at the station before boarding the train.
3. The buses have to sit in mixed traffic and wait at traffic lights. I don't think either plan includes trains sitting in mixed traffic, and I think they both include some way of getting around having to stop at lights.
So it is completely false to project a 90 minute running time for something which will be absolutely faster than the SMART bus: fewer stops, no paying on board, and traffic signal preemption. At worst, it will take a bit less than 42 minutes for a trip which, if you drive and then have to park, is typically 25 to 30 minutes.
The big difference between the two systems is maximum speed. The "modern streetcar" realistically tops out at 40 mph while a larger light rail vehicle might be able to do 55. However, you are running on the street, with cars driving across the tracks all over the place, so I doubt the trains will be able to go much faster - if any faster - than posted speed limits.
With regard to the center lane vs. side lane issue, I have been on both kinds of system, and it is simply false to say that either one doesn't work. I have an opinion as to which is better, but I don't need to pour more gasoline on that fire. It would also be useful to know what MDOT thinks of the issue: since they own the road, their opinion counts. |
Russix
Member
Username: Russix
Post Number: 204
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 5:37 pm: | |
In the race from 11 mile to the River.
An LRT line doing 55 mph would make it in 27 minutes. Calculating 2:00 minutes per mile with 30 seconds @ 55 mph and 1:30 @ 25 mph for accel/braking(figuring an average accel/braking of 3 mphps). Plus 30 seconds @ each of 10 stops(not counting start and finish).
A Car following posted speeds takes 35 minutes.
Smart 475 Limited takes 37 Minutes at 5PM.
An average cyclist would take 57 minutes.
DDOT 53 would theoritcally take 66 minutes as they post 45 minutes from State Fair.
The Portland Street Car averages 6.5 mph (http://portlandtransport.com/a rchives/2005/07/how_fast_is_th a.html)
This puts it @ 115 minutes.
The above link has lots of other points, including "It was designed to be a circulator in the city center, not a commuter service."
You could space out the streetcar stops, maybe add faster equipment, run it in a centered ROW, but then you couldn't call it a streetcar anymore. |
Dcmorrison12
Member
Username: Dcmorrison12
Post Number: 102
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 5:59 pm: | |
Thank you Russix
My point exactly, it's NOT a commuter mode and is much slower than LRT. 115 minutes is a good estimate of the time it would take to go 11 miles - it's not viable |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.