Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986
Post Number: 160 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 2:18 pm: | |
Surfing around Google Earth, I was following a few rail lines that already go from downtown to the airport…..you wave to wind a bit, but it’s a pretty straight shot down river through the Melvindale, Allen Park, Dearborn area. That got me thinking about the serious possibility of light rail connecting downtown; then a pipe dream emerged. Could the people mover meet up with existing rail bed and go all the way to the airport at ground level; wouldn’t this be cheaper than the concrete above ground pylons that seem to be the big expense with an expansion? Obviously it would not use the current rails, but the right away and ground would be in place for the technology to be placed over it; essentially the only cost would be the new rails, no real buildup…….my envisioned idea is a two way spur off at Cobo, follow the river down Jefferson curving around at Rosa Parks for a quick moment then descending down into the rail yard at MCS. From here on you could have a two track ground level people mover right away all the way to the airport; and then on in to the McNamara Terminal………now, I know this will not happen; but is it feasible? How much more would this cost then to simply upgrade the tracks for light rail? Just curios…..but I am assuming what is more feasible is using this type of rout and then tying into Michigan Ave somewhere to go downtown; similar to the Minneapolis system. |
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter
Post Number: 447 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 2:25 pm: | |
First, you have to get the railroad to agree to such a project, and they won't. Those are privately owned tracks and are used for commercial purposes. Unless there is very small amounts of traffic on the line (and there isn't, that's a pretty busy line), the rail road won't tear up the tracks to build a connector for the people mover. At best you could get them to let you lay a parallel line for the People Mover, which would require expanding the right of way. That equals buying more land. The best move would be expanding the People Mover to a platform near MCS and then running a commuter train from MCS to the airport. |
Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986
Post Number: 162 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 2:48 pm: | |
I understand the ownership situation, but would it not still be cheaper to by land to put a parallel track along existing tracks than cutting a new path. |
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter
Post Number: 452 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 2:51 pm: | |
Yeah, but you still have to expand the right-of-way to do that, which still means buying more land. I think running a commuter train (like a typical Amtrak train, but only for local service) from Metro to a platform at MCS (hell, even the station near the Fisher Building) and then expanding the people mover to that point is the best bet. |
Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986
Post Number: 163 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 3:14 pm: | |
Yes, I agree that this would probably be the best option and most feasible, but I would like to think that technology could fuse transit better (ala, other cities)………one question would be how wide are the people mover rails? Are they standard size, what conventional rail would run on and if so, could there be built a hybrid track with people mover technology that would allow freight access, such as the South Shore commuter line coming out of Chicago? (Message edited by tkelly1986 on October 27, 2006) |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1872 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 3:19 pm: | |
For one, the People Mover technology is too expensive to expand the "system" at all. Conventional rail systems perform much more reliably, and at higher capacities, at a fraction of the cost. Let's drop the idea of DPM expansion once and for all. The Federal Railroad Administration does not allow concurrent operation of light rail systems on the same trackage as freight trains. While the DPM is technically not light rail, it would not be allowed on standard gauge tracks unless freight hours of operation were restricted to non-operating hours of the light rail--not gonna happen. |
Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986
Post Number: 164 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 3:22 pm: | |
Ok, then to turn the question; what if you scrapped the People Mover and used it current infrastructure to retrofit a standard light rail system; leave the pylons and concrete in the air, but just redo the tracks. |
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter
Post Number: 456 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 3:26 pm: | |
Detroit needs to bring back surface level street cars, like the ones they have in San Fran right now. Dan, if such street cars were standard gauge, would they be allowed to operate on the line out to Metro? All you would have to do is electrify the line. |
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 2274 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 3:27 pm: | |
Why would you want to spend the money to do that? Just leave the people mover alone and build a new system out to the airport. Just include a transfer station. Most mass transit systems have transfer stations to transfer you from one line to another. |
Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986
Post Number: 165 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 3:32 pm: | |
You could leave the people mover un-expanded, and build a new system, such as street surface cars, but possibly make them able to rise up to the people mover platform with some ramp, thus connecting the two; this is only hypothetical though. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1873 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 3:35 pm: | |
The only vehicles allowed to operate concurrent on freight tracks are those that are FRA rated. Examples, in addition to freight cars, would include Amtrak and commuter rail trains. Standard urban transit vehicles, like streetcars, LRVs, and heavy rail trains, are not approved. It's not an issue of gauge; it's an issue of safety. To use the railroad right of way for a light rail (or similar) system, one would need to build a separate parallel track in the right-of-way. I believe FRA requires a minimum 20-foot spacing from the center line of a freight railway to the center lien of a transit vehicle railway. |
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 2275 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 3:42 pm: | |
Tkelly, What's wrong with hallways, escalators and elevators like most other transit transfer stations use. It's easier to get the people to navigate the level differences than making the trains do it. |
Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986
Post Number: 166 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 4:08 pm: | |
Yea, transit centers would be fine, but I am just thinking out loud here. |
Jjw Member Username: Jjw
Post Number: 188 Registered: 10-2005
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 4:16 pm: | |
i hate to forecast rain on this parade but..... ---I think the goal for the metro area is to somehow get one transit system running for the entire area. If that can't be accomplished, I don't see how any funding will be provided by the state or federal government for rail lines. The priority right now should be one system of efficient bus routes. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1874 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 4:19 pm: | |
quote:The priority right now should be one system of efficient bus routes.
How can you have efficient bus routes when the average SMART bus trip is something like 10 miles? Rail makes buses more efficient, because the buses don't have to operate the money-losing long trips that are better suited for faster (rail) modes. You can't apply a piecemeal approach to what is a systems problem. |
Jjw Member Username: Jjw
Post Number: 190 Registered: 10-2005
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 4:23 pm: | |
The rail lines are not practical for the Detroit area at this time. The bus system feeds into it, and if people are not using the buses for whatever reason, the rail lines will be a waste of money. Any good system has a combination of bus with rail, and I may be wrong here, but the bus system in the metro area seems totally inadequate at this time: especially in terms of applying for federal dollars to help construct it. Just my opinion though--- |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 3 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 5:41 pm: | |
Back about 6 months ago the Federal Government gave a grant to I think SEMCOG for $100 million to do a study for a new passenger rail line from Ann Arbor to Metro Airport to Dearborn to downtown Detroit. With that much money they should be able to figure something out. Anyone heard any updates on their plans recently?? |
Jams Member Username: Jams
Post Number: 4025 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 6:41 pm: | |
This thread epitomizes why some question the reading compehension of some on this site. Some are so caught up in their fantasies and desires they totally ignore the true facts. The rail lines discussed on this thread are being used at almost full capacity for freight currently, according to a representative of CSX that I recently had a conversation with regarding this subject. They have no interest in adding passenger traffic as that will add even more limitations of track usage. There is a 30 minute window both prior and after of no freight traffic for any passenger train. That is more than a full hour the railroad loses to make money for each passenger train that barely pays its own way. Freight is how a railroad makes its money to operate. Adding property to the right of way to add a rail line alongside current rail would be astronomical, just computing the cost of the railway crossings at each road it crosses staggers me, let alone the cost of acquiring that 10 - 20 feet of land along those miles required. Let's allow the study to continue to completion and direct our concerns to the relevant agencies before we we waste bandwidth talking to ourselves. |
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 707 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 7:25 pm: | |
Charlottepaul-- I'd guess that the $100 million SEMCOG study is doing what I months ago predicted it would: sitting on a shelf gathering dust. But the consultants, like lawyers, always make money no matter what ultimately happens. The Washington, D.C. Metro subway line does a few miles of at-grade running parallel to the CSX/Amtrak/MARC line in Maryland. So there's kind of a precedent. The Metro line actually runs in between the "heavy" rail tracks, with fences on both sides. But from Detroit to the airport, it would be a real headache to get light rail through all the intersecting freight railroad lines. You'd basically have to build grade separations for everything, and the price of that alone would be astronomical. |
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 708 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 7:43 pm: | |
There might technically be enough room along most non-yard parts of freight RRs to put in a fenced-off light rail track or two with the required offset. A double-track freight railroad with no other tracks in the R/W typically has roughly 40 feet of land on either side of the tracks. But as I mentioned, the costs of grade separations makes it a moot point. I suppose the freight tracks could be relocated to one side of the R/W, but that would add millions more to the cost-- and the freight RRs certainly wouldn't pay for it (nor should they). |
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 1647 Registered: 10-2004
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 8:28 pm: | |
Providing passenger service was a money-losing propostion for the railroads for several decades. Except, perhaps, for a couple/three years during WWII when workers took the trains to work when gas was rationed in order to cut down rubber tire use. (There never was a shortage of gas--just Asian rubber.) The interurbans had already gone bust during the 1920s and 1930s. When an Amtrak is due to enter the Conrail SAA westward from Milwaukee Junction, most downstream freight activity grinds to a halt on any tracks near ROW track #1 on the Michigan Line. The railroads don't make money (or lose more) when their consists are literally parked. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 296 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 8:45 pm: | |
1. There is a reason why people mover were not built after Detroit, they are expensive and problematic. 2. You can run a train, heck you can even run bus service if you can gaurantee the frequency. The infrastructure is already there. Its better to start with something cheap and look to upgrade it later if it is widely accepted. In case you have not noticed, govt around here is broke. There are fights over garbage pick up and closing schools. Where is the money going to come from to build a people mover? Who will use it? Will you tie in logical spota along the way (Greenfield Village, Fairlane, maybe WSU or Eastern?) |
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 10 Registered: 12-2004
| Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 11:54 pm: | |
If Washington can build an extensive suburban rail system then Detroit can too. I think the first line should run adjacent to the tracks that parallel Michigan Ave. The right of way looks like it is large enough for another set of tracks and there are more "destinations" along that stretch of track. The only problem is getting to and from the airport. I would have BRT along Merriman Rd between the airport and the LRT. BTW,if I were designing the system these would be the stops I would pick: Eisenhower Parkway (Briarwood Mall) Hoover St (Michigan Stadium) West Huron St (Downtown Ann Arbor) Fuller St (University of Michigan) E Huron River Dr (St. Joseph Mercy/Washtenaw Community College) N Huron St (Eastern Michigan University) Michigan Ave (Ypsilanti) Ecorse Rd (Willow Run Airport) Wayne Rd (Downtown Wayne) Merriman Rd (Airport BRT Connector) Oakwood Blvd (Westborn) Southfield Fwy (Fairlane) Schaefer Rd (Eastborn) Livernois Ave (Southwest Detroit) Vernor Hwy (Michigan Central Station) Woodward Ave (Downtown Detroit) |
Apbest Member Username: Apbest
Post Number: 246 Registered: 03-2006
| Posted on Saturday, October 28, 2006 - 12:01 am: | |
how long of a BRT connector would be nessecary? it wouldnt really be BRT as much as a shuttle since it only goes there and back |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 297 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Saturday, October 28, 2006 - 12:46 am: | |
It could be set-up to pick up folks at van born, near hotels..... |
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 11 Registered: 12-2004
| Posted on Saturday, October 28, 2006 - 9:07 am: | |
I thought BRT meant that it had it's own right of way meaning the bus travels independent of the rest of the traffic on the road. |
Bob_cosgrove Member Username: Bob_cosgrove
Post Number: 395 Registered: 03-2005
| Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 3:39 am: | |
Giving $100 to that group of incompetents at SEMCOG is like throwing money down the drain. They along with the Chamber of Commerce and the Citizens Research Council were the ones to promote the "Speed Link" system of bus trains about four years, which mis-directed and delayed mass transit efforts. The Speed Line system is used in only one place in the world - Curitaba, Brazil. Like the People Mover system, which exits in only two other places, advocating unique mass transit solutions is a waste of time and money. Hopefully, John Hertel will become of the Robert Moses of Southeastern Michigan mass transit and come up with a workable system. If his success with the Michigan State Fair is any measure of his abilities, hopefully he will succeed in this daunting job too. Bob Cosgrove |
Motranzit Member Username: Motranzit
Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 7:32 am: | |
SEMCOG is scheduled to announce findings of its ridership and revenue modelling for the Ann Arbor-Detroit Rapid Transit Study at the November 8 steering committee meeting. I suspect advocacy groups like Transportation Riders United will be there and will pass along what they can at their website. Regarding running the people mover at ground level, the electrical current pick-ups for the motors are very high amperage and are exposed at track level. Because of the danger this poses to pedestrians, and the system's automated (no driver) operating design, street-level running is not an option. |
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit
Post Number: 783 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 7:53 am: | |
How about a transfer station at Joe Louis? It will obviously be scrapped as the home of the Wings and some of it will be used for Cobo extension, but there will probably be room to add a transfer station, and you have a PM station there already. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 303 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 10:19 am: | |
BRT is a flexible system which means it can share a road's right of way, or have its own dedicated ROW. |