 
Christos
Member
Username: Christos
Post Number: 105
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 11:16 am: |    |
BRT is different from traditional busses though. They design the routes so they look more like subway stations, with people paying in the station rather than holding up the bus, and the doors are more like a subway car. Also, they have control over the traffic signals and never get caught on a light. Finally, they make some that are electric, so some systems look like electric streetcars. |
Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13
Post Number: 1915
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 11:24 am: | |
Focusonthed, I believe that Chicago's Orange Line runs at grade for awhile between the 35th/Archer stop and the 49th/Kedzie stop. It uses old freight right-of-ways in that area, which formerly housed part of the Stockyards. |
Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 894
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 11:29 am: | |
Ottawa is North America's BRT champion. The city is planning to convert its BRT service to light rail. Draw your conclusions.
Vancouver's skytrain is very well used, is rapid, and the city is building a new line to the city's airport (due to the distance, service to DTW from downtown should be commuter rail, see Philly, NJ transit, Paris, etc. rather than peoplemover). |
Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 895
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 11:35 am: | |
More on Vancouver's plans (using technology similar to the peoplemover):
http://forum.skyscraperpage.co m/showthread.php?t=129009 |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 538
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 11:40 am: | |
If you build a bus transit system to operate like light rail, then it costs as much as light rail, and emits point source pollution. If you build a bus transit system to be inexpensive compared to light rail, then it isn't rapid at all.
In cities with both types of service (such as Boston and Los Angeles), light rail attracts vastly more riders in similar corridors with similar service than does bus rapid transit.
Elevated rail is much more expensive than either of the above. Nice, but very expensive. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1154
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 1:11 pm: | |
Fury13, I don't believe it's actually at grade, but on embankment. But you're right, I missed that one. |
Tkelly1986
Member
Username: Tkelly1986
Post Number: 362
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 1:17 pm: | |
To avoid traffic getting in the way of the light rail say on Woodward, you would just build it a Blvd. or median type surrounding like it is in Budapest and some parts of Boston. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2866
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 1:30 pm: | |
quote:BRT is different from traditional busses though. They design the routes so they look more like subway stations, with people paying in the station rather than holding up the bus, and the doors are more like a subway car. Also, they have control over the traffic signals and never get caught on a light. Finally, they make some that are electric, so some systems look like electric streetcars.
Well, tell the folks in Los Angeles they're just stupid, then. Rail ridership there has been far outpacing ridership on the "Metro Rapid" bus routes. I've even heard complaints that because the stops are further apart, travel times on the Metro Rapid are no faster than the regular bus, since there's more walking involved.
Professorscott speaks the truth. You get what you pay for.
quote:Lots of other cities make the people move like trains work, like the Skytrain.
This system of train is neither outdated or obsolete. If some money was put into this they could run it elevated, ground level, whatever they wanted all over the city. I think people in the suburbs and city would love to see this train become very usefull, and they'd be willing to pay the price.
"Lots of other cities", as in three: Vancouver, Miami, and Detroit. There is, in fact, a logical reason why more cities didn't jump on the bandwagon of Jerry Ford's pet transit project--the technology's cost-effectiveness stinks compared to traditional rail. Two hundred million bucks in 1986 dollars for a 3 mile loop. You could build 3 miles of light rail for half that cost in 2007 dollars.
Skytrain, like the DPM, is a short-route "tourist" type line. It's not even close to being a regional transit system. And the technology IS outdated. Replacement parts are *expensive*, if not nonexistent. |
Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 896
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 1:35 pm: | |
With the peoplemover being automated, it will not be able to run in mixed traffic. Its ROW will need to be protected from other vehicles.
It would be wonderful to see a line radiating from the DPM loop up Woodward (or even snaking up Woodward) and another line from the DPM loop up Michigan Ave. The Woodward line would service a potential Pontiac-Detroit commuter rail line and the Michigan line would service the AA-DTW-Detroit commuter rail line (allowing the AA rail line to terminate at the Central Depot)....
Other feeder routes could be bus rapid transit (assuming it is done well). |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2867
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 1:38 pm: | |
quote:It would be wonderful to see a line radiating from the DPM loop up Woodward (or even snaking up Woodward) and another line from the DPM loop up Michigan Ave. The Woodward line would service a potential Pontiac-Detroit commuter rail line and the Michigan line would service the AA-DTW-Detroit commuter rail line (allowing the AA rail line to terminate at the Central Depot)....
It's cheaper to build light rail at-grade. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 1:42 pm: | |
"To avoid traffic getting in the way of the light rail say on Woodward, you would just build it a Blvd. or median type surrounding like it is in Budapest and some parts of Boston."
What about intersecting traffic? |
Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 897
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 1:59 pm: | |
Of course it would be cheaper to build at grade (and I certainly am not dismissing an at grade solution), however linking such lines to the DPM has the advantage of maximizing the use of the DPM right of way, maximizes the use of the DPM, and has the advantage of not having to tunnel the lines downtown (in order to ensure the line is "rapid"). |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2868
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 2:02 pm: | |
^So you'd rather waste millions of dollars in order to justify a bad investment that was made over 20 years ago?
I'd have to question the utility of what you propose. The DPM only has one track. It's capacity is limited, and the technology is all-but-obsolete. Using the DPM as the hub of a regional transit system will quickly overwhelm it. |
Tkelly1986
Member
Username: Tkelly1986
Post Number: 364
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 2:07 pm: | |
"What about intersecting traffic?"
Well, that is still a problem, but my point is that you avoid the majority of the gridlock with dedicated lanes. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2869
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 2:11 pm: | |
quote:"What about intersecting traffic?"
Well, that is still a problem, but my point is that you avoid the majority of the gridlock with dedicated lanes.
And Boston figured out how to solve it over 100 years ago. Why are you all so intent on reinventing the wheel? |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 541
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 2:12 pm: | |
I agree with most of what you've said, Dan, but it would be difficult to overwhelm the DPM. It was expected to have 15 million riders a year when proposed, and was built for that capacity, and has never hit 20% of it.
By the way you handle intersecting traffic one of three ways: railroad crossing signals, or what is called "signal preemption" (the traffic light changes green for the train as it approaches), or you just let the train cross intersections as though it were another car, stopping at lights and so on. All three are used and some systems use more than one. The third option, of course, makes it more of a streetcar and not at all "rapid". |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 2:19 pm: | |
"And Boston figured out how to solve it over 100 years ago. Why are you all so intent on reinventing the wheel?"
So how did Boston solve it? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2870
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 2:21 pm: | |
quote:I agree with most of what you've said, Dan, but it would be difficult to overwhelm the DPM. It was expected to have 15 million riders a year when proposed, and was built for that capacity, and has never hit 20% of it.
Was the 15 million estimate for the 3-mile loop, or the proposed regional system? Was it for a two-track design, or the stillborn single track currently in place?
The 15 million riders/year figure translates roughly to 55,000 passengers per day. With a regional transit system, most of those would be during rush hours. Does anyone know what the hourly capacity of the single-track 3-mile loop is? |
Izzadore
Member
Username: Izzadore
Post Number: 48
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 2:22 pm: | |
Question Dan
Might it be less costly to extend light rail below grade i.e.: An uncovered trench down the middle of Woodward or Gratiot instead of keeping it 'high' above the ground?
Is digging always more expensive than building up? |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2871
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 2:26 pm: | |
quote:Is digging always more expensive than building up?
It depends how much digging you plan to do. Anytime you move earth, it's expensive. Granted, elevated structure requires foundations, but shoring, bracing, and disposal of materials isn't cheap. Never mind relocating utility lines that run under the roadway. |
Masterblaster
Member
Username: Masterblaster
Post Number: 63
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 3:07 pm: | |
Light rail along Woodward might not work, if you want to make it a "rapid" transit line. This is because from Grand Boulevard to McNichols, a good 3-4 miles, Woodward is only 7 lanes wide. If you put the rail line in the median, then it would take up 3 lanes: a southbound lane, northbound lane, and a lane for boarding passengers.
That would only leave 4 lanes (2 southbound/2 northbound) open for car traffic. Either you would have to eliminate on-street parking between Grand Boulevard and McNichols, or you have a situation where 1 southbound lane would be for driving, and the other for parking.
If you wanted to make it more of a slower streetcar, where the rail vehicles share a lane with car traffic, then it could be done, but it would be slow. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 542
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 3:21 pm: | |
Only in Detroit does someone say a road is "only" seven lanes wide. Sheesh.
Digging in an urban area is uniformly more expensive than going up. Both are very expensive.
Dan, the two-car trains go by about every four minutes, and you can probably crush load (let's say) 80 people per car. I'd have to go downtown to check the cars, but that'll do for now. So you get 15 160-passenger trains an hour, but people don't ride it all the way around. You can board, therefore, something between 15 x 160 x 13 and 15 x 160 x 2 passengers per hour depending on average trip length. A reasonable estimate is 15 x 160 x 5 which is 12,000 per hour.
Now, when everyone is trying to go to the same place, you can't use that number. For instance, if my numbers are right, you can only pull 2,400 people per hour out of Cobo.
DPM is actually more of a "ride" for people than it is part of anyone's idea of a transit system, at least IMVHO. |
Deteamster
Member
Username: Deteamster
Post Number: 22
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 3:43 pm: | |
The People Mover is only useful if you know how to manipulate it to your advantage. ie, park at Greektown Casino and ride it anywhere! |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1156
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 4:34 pm: | |
I've never been to Boston, so I can't comment on that, but...
http://maps.google.com/maps?f= q&hl=en&geocode=&q=toronto,+on &ie=UTF8&ll=43.648944,-79.3962 68&spn=0.001654,0.003616&t=k&z =18&om=1
Intersection of two streetcar lines in Toronto, one on dedicated ROW, one in with traffic. You can see it doesn't really take up that much space. |
Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 899
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 5:13 pm: | |
I have been to Boston, but I don't get it.
The Spadina streetcar in Toronto has its own ROW for several blocks, but its ROW is bisected by other city streets and the streetcar has to stop at red lights. I would not classify that portion of the Spadina streetcar as rapid transit (there is a rapid portion of that line along Lakeshore Blvd to Union Station). |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1157
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 8:33 pm: | |
As I understand it, it would be rapid if the City of Toronto would agree to "turn on" transit signal preemption, which IIRC is already in place, but "off" because the City thinks it will worsen congestion. *slaps head* |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 543
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 12:36 am: | |
I believe Focus has hit that particular nail squarely on the head.
And Up is right: if your transit vehicle has to stop at red lights, it is not "rapid" by my definition.
(Curiously, the Federal Transit Administration, which posts on its web site a pretty good glossary of transit terminology, makes no attempt to define "rapid transit". So I came up with my own, available upon request.) |
Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13
Post Number: 1934
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 5:18 pm: | |
Why not make a Woodward light rail line an elevated? It wouldn't have to run right up Woodward; it could be situated anywhere from 1/2 block to 2 blocks west or east of Woodward as land availability allows. It could be built in old alleys or cut a swath through vacant land or areas with decaying structures (sure, you'd most likely have to sacrifice some viable buildings, too).
This is what Chicago has done: elevated trains run right behind buildings and the platforms are sometimes a block or two off the thoroughfare.
In other words, start the rail line at Grand Circus Park. Run it north on an elevated track above Witherell, across the Fisher Freeway and north through Brush Park -- maybe between John R and Woodward -- and then angle it northwest, crossing Woodward at Peterboro. Then run it along or near Park Ave., north, and then align it with Cass (run the track directly above the street a la Wabash in Chicago), then run the line through the Wayne State area, all the way up to New Center, through Highland Park, etc., etc., to 8 Mile. At some point, maybe in Highland Park, the line could angle over and follow John R and/or Woodward.
Stops would be: Fisher Freeway/Witherell, Peterboro/Woodward, Canfield/Cass, Ferry/Cass, Milwaukee/Cass, Arden Park/John R, Manchester/John R, McNichols/John R, 7 Mile/Woodward, and 8 Mile/Woodward.
Well, of course, this is all very pie-in-the-sky and has major logistical challenges, to say nothing of astronomical costs. I'm just making the point that the line can be elevated (even partially, through congested areas), with foundation pylons mounted off the street, thereby not taking up lane space on existing roads. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2873
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 5:27 pm: | |
See, this is what I don't get. Every transit-related idea in Detroit always comes back to roadway capacity, and roadway capacity only (if not the idea that transit is "too expensive"). In other words, the primary consideration is *still* how not to impede automobile traffic. Isn't this a self-defeating line of thinking?
There are a LOT of four lane main roads in other cities. If they get congested, so what? Wouldn't that induce more people to ride the transit system, so they wouldn't have to sit in traffic congestion?
This isn't rocket science, folks. Just do it. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 6:22 pm: | |
"This is what Chicago has done: elevated trains run right behind buildings and the platforms are sometimes a block or two off the thoroughfare."
LOL I'm suddenly reminded of a classic scene from "Blues Brothers"... |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1165
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 7:52 pm: | |
Anyone ever looked up the average daily traffic counts for Woodward, before spouting claims about needing to preserve capacity? You really should.
Midtown - 19,000/day, 9 lanes
New Center - 20,900/day, 7-9 lanes
S. of HP - 17,100/day, 7 lanes
Doesn't touch 20,000/day again until 8 Mile. Let's not even talk about GR and Gratiot, it's MUCH worse.
Those are similar traffic counts to lighter-traveled 2 lane roads in Chicago. Let's compromise on 4 lanes so traffic can move better, but geez, talk about wasted capacity. |
Parkguy
Member
Username: Parkguy
Post Number: 67
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 8:59 pm: | |
The people mover was always intended to be the downtown section of a region-wide light rail system that ran down the spoke highways. It was originally part of SEMTA, as I recall, but the money ran out(or something). SEMTA was going to abandon the half-built PM, but the city took it over, got some more federal money, and finished it. It was never intended to be a stand-alone loop. |
Tkelly1986
Member
Username: Tkelly1986
Post Number: 373
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 8:07 am: | |
Parkguy: was the light rail system you talk about supposed to be like the people mover and tie into the loop? Or separate systems, like ground rail at street level? |
Parkguy
Member
Username: Parkguy
Post Number: 68
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 4:54 pm: | |
Ground level. Now that I think about it, the system may have been set up as commuter rail rather than light rail. SEMTA ran heavy trains on the current route of the AMTRAK line from Birmingham... maybe from Pontiac. I think those trains stopped about '76 or so... The details are fuzzy! But the ideas was that you'd take rail to downtown, then transfer to the People Mover to circulate around the downtown area. When you look at the PM in that light, it actually makes sense. But, I remember riding the system when it was new and hearing lots of people on the cars saying things like, "Why didn't they extend it to ______________ (fill in the blank)?" It ONLY makes sense as part of a larger system. Maybe it will serve that purpose someday after all. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 549
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2007 - 11:29 pm: | |
Park,
The SEMTA trains ran from Pontiac to roughly behind the Ren Cen until 1983.
The People Mover's original concept did not include the Commuter Rail, which was dying out as the discussions were taking place. But your essential point is correct; there was to be some type of rail line in the Woodward corridor connecting to the People Mover.
Mayor Young and the Oakland County Executive (then and now, the Honorable L. Brooks Patterson) couldn't agree on one detail. Mayor Young wanted a subway from downtown out as far as possible; County Executive Patterson wanted the line to go as far into Oakland County as possible for the available money, which meant little to none of it would be below grade.
Since they couldn't agree, that whole line was dropped, and the People Mover was the only part built. But as you remember, it was not meant to be a system unto itself, but part of a much larger thing. Perhaps someday that thing will come in some form, but back then, our "leadership" squabbled it to death, as they so often do. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4908
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2007 - 11:55 pm: | |
One thing that seems to get forgotten about the the $200 million People Mover price tag was the cost of obtaining land for at least 8 of the 13 stations (some were built inside buildings such as Millender, Cobo, David Whitney, Greektown and Times Square) and the actual cost of building the stations (with elevators and escalators in most of them).
And then there was the cost of the DPM Maintenance Facility, which takes up about 1 1/2 city blocks (spans over State Street). I remember getting an inside view of that facility when the DPM first opened. They told us that there was room for 100 DPM cars (future expansion) inside that enormous elevated facility.
So when calculating for 3 miles of elevated track... a significant amount of that $200 million went to the items just mentioned. |
Russix
Member
Username: Russix
Post Number: 14
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 1:28 am: | |
wouldn't it be neat if we could borrow this from MTA http://subwayblogger.com/2007/ 04/24/second-avenue-subway-tun nel-boring-machine-tbm/ the latest and greatest in subway tunneling. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2889
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 7:36 am: | |
^Point taken, Gistok, but those costs are included in the construction of other rail projects too. Light rail is still cheaper than the DPM technology. |
Civilprotectionunit4346
Member
Username: Civilprotectionunit4346
Post Number: 256
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 7:41 am: | |
The PeopleMover is the biggest waste of city funds ive ever seen. I walk rather then take the people mover. |
Downtown_remix
Member
Username: Downtown_remix
Post Number: 434
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 8:17 am: | |
the people mover would be perfect in every way if it opening day was pushed back to 2012. it would function simular to the chicago loop. So we are literally 5 years short of haviing a full functional downtown. |
Kslice
Member
Username: Kslice
Post Number: 111
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 9:47 am: | |
ah, but dont forget the money that has poured into the mover over the years. I doubt the city would just tear it down and replace it. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 4914
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 11:12 am: | |
They cannot tear the PM down without reimbursing the federal government. So there's no point there.
As for anyone who decides to boycott the PM... that's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Those of us who do use it end up paying way less for sports or other entertainment venues, when it comes to parking costs, or just plain convenience (such as for the auto show).
If they widen either I-94 or I-75 (cost at about a billion each)... I suppose you will be boycotting those as well? |
Tkelly1986
Member
Username: Tkelly1986
Post Number: 381
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 11:32 am: | |
What about extending the People Mover all the way to the airport and have its main purpose just to be funnel people into downtown to conventions, hotels ect....Like a really long airport monorail. They could put the track down the center lane of I-94, like they do in Chicago. That would make the trip from the airport quicker and it could have stops on the way in like the Chicago EL does. Thus, people along that rout could use it to go to and from the airport, as well as downtown....oh, and it would have to be 2 tracked. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 550
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 11:35 am: | |
It isn't useless; it just isn't what it could have been.
In fact, for very little money, the folks who run it could make it more useful as part of the regional transit system. For instance, put information in the stations and trains as to where to make bus connections. They have put electronic signs up at the entrances of some stations giving DDOT arrival times, which is a good start, but you have to know where to make the connection (where the bus stop is) and it doesn't help if you're trying to get to a bus stop since you have to already be at the right station to see the signs.
But the DPM folks choose not to act as part of the regional system, which drives down ridership and keeps up the attitude that it's a toy and not worth very much. And that's the prevailing attitude, so far as I can tell.
I use it about six times a year, which makes me a pretty heavy user. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 551
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 11:37 am: | |
Tkelly, monorail systems these days are costing on the order of $150 million a mile to build. Google the distance from DTW to downtown and then do the math and see what you come up with.
We could implement commuter rail from Wayne to New Center, then let's say light rail to downtown from there and spur the commuter rail into the airport, all for a tiny fraction of the cost of a 20+ mile monorail IMVHO. |
Parkguy
Member
Username: Parkguy
Post Number: 72
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 11:57 am: | |
I agree with the Professor--- commuter rail to the airport (or to an airport connector-- I see that they are planning a PM type system from the terminals to off-site parking, anyway), and light rail on major corridors. I'd prefer a system with stations rather than a traditional streetcar that stops on demand. That would spur transit-oriented development. Of course, I'd like to see electric traction on busses and dump the diesels-- they stink and they're loud. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 552
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 12:19 pm: | |
Also, Park, one advantage of light rail over buses (in a region where the roads aren't well maintained) is that a rail ride will be smoother. The shock absorbers in a bus don't match the ones in your car, and you really feel the bad maintenance as you ride along.
The driver, who has to be on the bus all day, has a specially cushioned seat - but the passengers do not.
I agree with you about stations; the "dump you in the middle of the street" model is pretty outdated. You still see it in some places, with older systems. Modern systems usually have stations. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3344
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 10:03 am: | |
Many times on these threads, the anti-transit folks will berate any suggestion to plan for transit on the premise that "Michigan is broke. Detroit is broke." Apparently, that's not a good enough excuse for the State of Maryland, which is planning to triple its commuter rail service in the next 30 years:
quote:The plan calls for steadily increasing the number of riders from about 30,000 to 100,000 a day by 2035 to accommodate growth in the Baltimore-Washington corridor, part of which will be fueled by jobs coming with military base realignments. Improvements include building stations, increasing peak-time departures, expanding weekend service and providing connections to more Metro stations.
State officials have not put a price tag on the plan, which could cost several billion dollars. Maryland is facing a $1.7 billion budget shortfall, and Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari said the state has a $40 billion backlog in unfunded transportation projects.
Maryland Officials Plan to Expand MARC as Region Grows
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09 /24/AR2007092401655.html?hpid= topnews |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.