Given what they apparently want to accomplish, I don't see how that much of the current loop will be usable in the expanded system. Wait until the politicians figure that out.
What companies beside Bombardier(sp.?) have experience in providing a people mover/ALRT vehicle?
STOP!! That PeopleMover expansion money can be better spent!
Not on roads or freeways, but on a legit transit project. Here's my proposal:
After hours of figuring, I found that for about $36 Million (compared to the $90 Mil they want for the PeopleMover) the city of Detroit in cooperation with Woodward suburbs can construct a Woodward bus lane. This lane would work very simply and require very little new construction. The left lane of Woodward from Jefferson to Lincoln Drive in Birmingham will be reserved for buses. At each "turnaround" (you know what I mean, Michiganders) we will construct a cement island for boarding the buses in the left lane. These islands will be accessed by crosswalks from either side of Woodward.
Included in my $36 Million cost is electrifying the line, thus enabling the operating authority to use trolleybuses. It's been proven that lines with trolleybuses attract riders better than motor bus lines.
This would cost a fraction of the PeopleMover plan, and be twenty times more effective. This would also spur new legitimate development (things that ARE NOT casinos and stadia) along the entire Woodward corridor.
The trolleybuses (or at least some of them) will be dual-mode so they can continue after Lincoln to service branches off the Woodward line, like to Somerset and to Maple & Telegraph.
>After hours of figuring, I found that for about $36 Million (compared >to the $90 Mil they want for the PeopleMover) the city of Detroit in >cooperation with Woodward suburbs can construct a Woodward bus lane. >This lane would work very simply and require very little new >construction. The left lane of Woodward from Jefferson to Lincoln >Drive in Birmingham will be reserved for buses. At each "turnaround" >(you know what I mean, Michiganders) we will construct a cement island >for boarding the buses in the left lane. These islands will be >accessed by crosswalks from either side of Woodward.
For the out-of towners, Woodward(state highway M-1) is an 8(narrow lane) divided highway through the suburbs and a couple of miles into Detroit. It has what are known as Michigan U-turn lanes. Only the more important roads proceed straight across with turning traffic having to use the U-turn lanes. There was an interurban line that ran from downtown Detroit to Pontiac up Woodward Ave. with a detour through downtown Royal Oak.
As for the argument at hand. I think that history has recorded that one of the major problems for streetcar and some interurban lines was that they ran up the middle of the roads forcing people to cross in traffic to board them. It's a safety issue. Unless you plan on building some accessible pedestrian overpasses to each bus stop.
You would do better to reserve the outer lane for buses. However it would make little difference because most drivers would tend to ignore such restrictions. You know it's that constitutional right to drive thing.
> STOP!! That PeopleMover expansion money can be better spent!
Given (a) Detroit's historic and current hostility toward transit, and (b) the delusion of the city's leaders that the center city should be left to rot and everyone moved to Bloomfield Hills, Dearborn and Flint,
just who is proposing an expansion of the downtown people-mover?
Albert Martin, director of the Detroit Department of Transportation, said this week that the city has come up with a plan because it needs an extended elevated rail system and better bus service to feed the downtown People Mover -- as was originally planned. The 2.9-mile system has a history of low ridership and wasted opportunities for growth.
So, in other words, the city transit agency is backing this plan. Does anybody else care?
>As for the argument at hand. I think that history has recorded that >one of the major problems for streetcar and some interurban lines was >that they ran up the middle of the roads forcing people to cross in >traffic to board them. It's a safety issue. Unless you plan on >building some accessible pedestrian overpasses to each bus stop.
No, you simply require traffic behind a tram to wait until the tram departs and the road is cleared of passengers. -- Charles Norrie
>>As for the argument at hand. I think that history has recorded that >>one of the major problems for streetcar and some interurban lines was >>that they ran up the middle of the roads forcing people to cross in >>traffic to board them. It's a safety issue. Unless you plan on >>building some accessible pedestrian overpasses to each bus stop.
>No, you simply require traffic behind a tram to wait until the tram >departs and the road is cleared of passengers. >-- >Charles Norrie
The specific street (Woodward Ave.) in question is an 8 lane divided major state highway. It is not within the realm of reality to have conventional (in this case bus) stops in the median.
And so a question. Are there any transit systems out there that require passengers to cross more than 2 lanes of traffic to reach the stop in the median/middle of the street? I know there are some where you have to cross 2 lanes, Toronto for instance.
> And so a question. Are there any transit systems out there that > require passengers to cross more than 2 lanes of traffic to reach the > stop in the median/middle of the street? I know there are some where > you have to cross 2 lanes, Toronto for instance.
In the New Orleans CBD, one must cross 4 lanes to reach the stops in the neutral ground (median) of Canal Street.
>Albert Martin, director of the Detroit Department of >Transportation, said this week that the city has come up with >a plan because it needs an extended elevated rail system and >better bus service to feed the downtown People Mover -- as >was originally planned. The 2.9-mile system has a history of >low ridership and wasted opportunities for growth.
>So, in other words, the city transit agency is backing this >plan. Does anybody else care?
> Silas Warner
You know I just reread the article. There is 1 major error and 1 major omission. The error is that the People Mover was built to circulate riders arriving downtown on a subway/light rail system. Of course there wasn't enough funding to build the rail system so SEMTA decided to build the People Mover anyway. It turns out they didn't have enough money to build the People Mover and the US Govt. had to pay up. The penalty imposed by the Feds was that there was no funding provided for the purchase of new busses for years. And the bus fleet showed it.
The omission was that there are going to be 3 casinos built downtown. Also GM is moving it's' HQ from the New Center area to the Renaissance Center. Toss in the new stadiums(s) and there actually may be justification for a people mover.
The problem is that connecting these new areas together with a 2 way system basically means junking a good portion of the current system. To that you can add the W. Jefferson/Washington Blvd. tourist trolley that has been abandoned due to low ridership and no funds to maintain it. Given the above, I think the State and Federal Governments will care a lot about this proposal. The general public will care too because they won't be interested in backing another money pit.
On a related note, the millage renewal to fund the SMART bus system won a solid majority of the votes.
In article <6qfn24$e4...@usenet42.supernews.com>, "D says...
>The specific street (Woodward Ave.) in question is an 8 lane divided >major state highway. It is not within the realm of reality to have >conventional (in this case bus) stops in the median.
If the buses have left-side doors, I don't see any problem with median stops.
>And so a question. Are there any transit systems out there that >require passengers to cross more than 2 lanes of traffic to reach the >stop in the median/middle of the street?
Yes -- Beacon Street in Brookline, Massachusetts (MBTA Green Line "C" branch), and probably also parts of Commonwealth Avenue (MBTA Green Line "B" branch).
> And so a question. Are there any transit systems out there that > require passengers to cross more than 2 lanes of traffic to reach the > stop in the median/middle of the street? I know there are some where > you have to cross 2 lanes, Toronto for instance.
San Jose's light rail runs in the middle of First Street, which is mostly a four-lane street. However at the Brokaw Road station (which is the one nearest the airport) the road broadens to four lanes in each direction. Since the airport shuttle bus stop is on the cross street, airport passengers have to cross four lanes of traffic carrying luggage.
Several other stops along First Street are similar. Although First Street is only four lanes wide, most of the buildings along it were built well before light rail and are set back from the street with parking lots and berms between them and the street. An arriving light rail passenger has to cross two lanes of traffic, climb a soundwall berm and cross a parking lot before reaching any inhabited structure.
>>And so a question. Are there any transit systems out there that >require passengers to cross more than 2 lanes of traffic to reach the >stop in the median/middle of the street? I know there are some where you
have to cross 2 lanes, Toronto for instance.
>Dave
SNIPPED
Boston's Green line runs down the center of serveral busy street's.
Fred Wellman “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished” Oscar Wilde
D Outen wrote in message <6qfn24$e4...@usenet42.supernews.com>...
>Charles Norrie wrote in message ...
>And so a question. Are there any transit systems out there that >require passengers to cross more than 2 lanes of traffic to reach the >stop in the median/middle of the street? I know there are some where >you have to cross 2 lanes, Toronto for instance.
Keep in mind that to get to a curbside bus stop on the other side of such a street, you would have to cross at least 4 lanes of traffic moving in 2 different directions!
In article <6qfn24$e4...@usenet42.supernews.com>, D Outen <Zdout...@supernews.com> writes
>>No, you simply require traffic behind a tram to wait until the tram >>departs and the road is cleared of passengers. >>-- >>Charles Norrie
>The specific street (Woodward Ave.) in question is an 8 lane divided >major state highway. It is not within the realm of reality to have >conventional (in this case bus) stops in the median.
>> And so a question. Are there any transit systems out there that >> require passengers to cross more than 2 lanes of traffic to reach the >> stop in the median/middle of the street? I know there are some where >> you have to cross 2 lanes, Toronto for instance.
>In the New Orleans CBD, one must cross 4 lanes to reach the >stops in the neutral ground (median) of Canal Street.
Most likely the same somwhere in Moscow, but I know that on the highway leading to St. Petersburg there is an underpass.
: In article <6qfn24$e4...@usenet42.supernews.com>, "D says... : > : >The specific street (Woodward Ave.) in question is an 8 lane divided : >major state highway. It is not within the realm of reality to have : >conventional (in this case bus) stops in the median.
: If the buses have left-side doors, I don't see any problem with : median stops.
: >And so a question. Are there any transit systems out there that : >require passengers to cross more than 2 lanes of traffic to reach the : >stop in the median/middle of the street? Not exactly what you're asking for, but most one way arterials in Sacramento, CA have bus stops on the right, requiring riders to cross three lanes of trafic to get to the stops. I've never found this to be a problem.
D Outen wrote: > And so a question. Are there any transit systems out there that > require passengers to cross more than 2 lanes of traffic to reach the > stop in the median/middle of the street? I know there are some where > you have to cross 2 lanes, Toronto for instance.
In Queens in New York City the 7 train runs on an elevated viaduct in the median of Queens Boulevard. The stairways for the three stations on this section are located in the median and passengers have to cross four or five lanes to reach the station.
Also the 72nd Street subway station on the 123 and 9 trains has its only entrance in the center of Broadway. Passengers have to cross several lanes of traffic to get to the station.
Ron Newman (rnew...@thecia.net) wrote: > In article <6qfn24$e4...@usenet42.supernews.com>, "D says...
>>The specific street (Woodward Ave.) in question is an 8 lane divided >>major state highway. It is not within the realm of reality to have >>conventional (in this case bus) stops in the median.
> If the buses have left-side doors, I don't see any problem with > median stops.
Ah, you just reminded me of one! The Pie-IX Blvd. bus lane in Montreal runs contraflow, with "stations" in the median. I think the street is typically 3 lanes on either side of the median (may be more occasionally with turn lanes).
But it's not "conventional" bus stops, in the sense of some of the Toronto streetcars that have safety islands for passengers in the middle of the street. The buses run contra-flow (i.e. SB in the NB median lane in the AM, reversed in the PM), so the bus doors open into the median, where shelters have been constructed.
>>And so a question. Are there any transit systems out there that >>require passengers to cross more than 2 lanes of traffic to reach the >>stop in the median/middle of the street?
> Yes -- Beacon Street in Brookline, Massachusetts (MBTA Green Line "C" branch), > and probably also parts of Commonwealth Avenue (MBTA Green Line "B" branch).
-- #### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crle...@freenet.carleton.ca #### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice. #### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware. #### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
>>The specific street (Woodward Ave.) in question is an 8 lane divided >>major state highway. It is not within the realm of reality to have >>conventional (in this case bus) stops in the median.
>>And so a question. Are there any transit systems out there that >>require passengers to cross more than 2 lanes of traffic to reach the >>stop in the median/middle of the street?
Transit lines running in the middle of freeways don't count. :-) (You have to cross multiple lanes of traffic, but on a bridge, not dodging traffic. :-)
-- #### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crle...@freenet.carleton.ca #### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice. #### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware. #### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
> After hours of figuring, I found that for about $36 Million (compared > to the $90 Mil they want for the PeopleMover) the city of Detroit in > cooperation with Woodward suburbs can construct a Woodward bus lane.
$36M for a bus lane? Wow.
> Included in my $36 Million cost is electrifying the line,
Ah, that must be about $35M of the $36M then.
> thus enabling > the operating authority to use trolleybuses. It's been proven that > lines with trolleybuses attract riders better than motor bus lines.
I'd like to see the studies that showed this. I've never heard of any.
> This would cost a fraction of the PeopleMover plan, and be twenty times > more effective.
How so? A bus lane is less useful than a rail line, by definition, because the other traffic will impede the vehicles. The PeopleMover would (presumbaly) be grade separated, thus insulating it from traffic, and allowing faster and more reliable service.
OTOH, if multiple bus routes to multiple destinations use the bus lane, this would be more useful than forcing people to transfer to the PeopleMover for a (short?) trip.
> This would also spur new legitimate development > (things that ARE NOT casinos and stadia) along the entire Woodward > corridor.
I wouldn't get your hopes too high ...
> The trolleybuses (or at least some of them) will be dual-mode so they > can continue after Lincoln to service branches off the Woodward line, > like to Somerset and to Maple & Telegraph.
Realize that dual mode buses carry heavy penalties in terms of efficiency - literally - because they carry around two engines and transmissions. -- #### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crle...@freenet.carleton.ca #### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice. #### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware. #### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
|
