The Macomb County Question

Just finished this piece from the Free Press about Macomb County.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...-zoo/93922816/

Macomb County, the home of the Frank Rizzos, Reagan Democrats, and endless miles of bland suburban sprawl and Catholic churches. I really don't have a good opinion on Macomb County and even before it failed the region by voting against the RTA, I hated going east of Dequindre for anything. I get my snobby Oakland County/pro-Detroit attitude doesn't help, but frankly I don't care. Wouldn't even care if the RTA left them out of the transit master plan. The rest of SE Michigan will make progress without them [[I really don't mean that)...

I feel like the residents of Macomb County were those former east side Detroit residents [[and their descendants who were taught to hate Detroit) who felt "pushed out" by the influx of African Americans and therefore have this aversion to do anything with Detroit. [[As opposed those who moved to Oakland County because they were wealthy and wanted lakefront property and rolling hills).

If anyone is one Facebook and follows the Humans of New York page, the photographer and creator of the page is in Macomb County telling their stories. Most are non-political but the ones that are are pretty telling [[and disgusting) of who makes up Macomb County.

Oh Macomb County...

It's not just racist attitude that folks in Macomb County voted against the Regional Transit Authority. It's the areas in Macomb County cities [[ex-urbs) loaded with suburban sprawl far as 26 Mile Rd. that don't want to pay $100.00 dollars a year on their property their taxes from their $200K homes.

There are no SMART buses that goes further into Macomb TWP, Washigton TWP, Romeo, Armada and areas up to 36 Mile Rd. That would question lost of Macomb County residents, "Why do I have to pay $100.00 year where there is no public transit buses going in my area."

The RTA folks really screwed up the tax levies. Folks in most areas are not going to hand out tons of tax monies just to get a few buses into their town. Just lower the tax levy to $25.00 a year to an home. The RTA would have to ask Donald Trump for more federal dollars to new buses and to expand bus services. So back to drawing board with the RTA and back to same old reduced bus routes.

As for racial overtones coming from Macomb County folks. Yes black folks are moving to your area thanks to jobs better housing and School of choices. City of Warren, Eastpointe, St. Clair Shores have a heavy influx of black residents since the early 2000s. Is this why most Macomb County resident voted no the RTA? There's got be another reason rather than looking at black folks coming from Detroit or just being too greedy for your own good.

Yes, many residents or their relatives left as people who did not look like them moved in and out of fear of crime. As it turned out, crime did increase, which led to a tidal wave of those who could hastily retreating. At first, most who left could find or keep jobs that kept them in the middle class, with little education. The erosion of these jobs and middle class opportunities created fear and resentment. The paranoia is palpable in Macomb County more than many other areas. Many here are unsophisticated, have no passports, and have not seen how the world is changing. Right now, they just wish to keep their heads above water, pay the mortgage, and keep the lights on. The goal is to keep what they have while abandoning others. "I got mine [[barely) screw everyone else". I knew and predicted here that RTA would go down in flames. Instead of voting for regional progress they voted for Trump. It won't be long before these folks discover that their hero is laughing at them while removing any safety net and diminishing their Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobl

Yes, many residents or their relatives left as people who did not look like them moved in and out of fear of crime. As it turned out, crime did increase, which led to a tidal wave of those who could hastily retreating. At first, most who left could find or keep jobs that kept them in the middle class, with little education. The erosion of these jobs and middle class opportunities created fear and resentment. The paranoia is palpable in Macomb County more than many other areas. Many here are unsophisticated, have no passports, and have not seen how the world is changing. Right now, they just wish to keep their heads above water, pay the mortgage, and keep the lights on. The goal is to keep what they have while abandoning others. "I got mine [[barely) screw everyone else". I knew and predicted here that RTA would go down in flames. Instead of voting for regional progress they voted for Trump. It won't be long before these folks discover that their hero is laughing at them while removing any safety net and diminishing their Medicare and Social Security benefits.

---

Spot on.

The Free Press article was hard to digest with all of the near sighted provincialism being expressed by the Macomb County residents. Yes, the RTA was responsible for the grossly incompetent advocacy campaign for the millage that failed to adequately inform those folks about the benefits of transit even for those who wouldn't use it. Nonetheless, the article exposed the astoundingly selfish hypocrisy of people who claim to support regionalism because they voted for the zoo or the DIA because they use those amenities [[what about taxpayers who don't patronize those institutions?) but a no vote for the RTA is really ok or prudent because they "won't get anything out of it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swingline

Nonetheless, the article exposed the astoundingly selfish hypocrisy of people who claim to support regionalism because they voted for the zoo or the DIA because they use those amenities [[what about taxpayers who don't patronize those institutions?) but a no vote for the RTA is really ok or prudent because they "won't get anything out of it."

---

Which is hilarious because transit benefits the local economy hundreds of times better than a zoo or art museum.

Maybe if the RTA offered to put some sort of transit from Lakeside Mall or Parkridge Creek to Romeo or Armada it would of passed, many people up here donot have cars and need to get around. the SMART 510 only goes to Lakeside or 23 mile same as 560, offer us more for the money. I voted yes for it, but that was a losing cause,

I don't feel optimistic for Detroit. Economics, culture and climate aren't on its side. Yeah, there are some things going for it. But I doubt the Detroit 20 years from now will be that much different from today.

I always felt the tri-county area to be Wayne, Oakland, and Essex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casscorridor

I don't feel optimistic for Detroit. Economics, culture and climate aren't on its side. Yeah, there are some things going for it. But I doubt the Detroit 20 years from now will be that much different from today.

---

I agree.

At this point, all it will take is another auto industry downturn to kill the little progress that has been made.

More incentive for me to leave the region as soon as I am able.

Still no buses on Hall Road.. Oh well....

With all the sentiments expressed about Macomb County here, maybe we can get D.T. to negotiate a trade, Macomb County for Windsor. :D

I grew up in Macomb County and recently moved back [[for logistical purposes). This article from the Freep captures the local mood most excellently.

One area of discussion that I think it misses, though, is the land use perspective. Macomb County is a county of cul-de-sac subdivisions. Its hard to make the case that transit will serve just about anybody north of ten or twelve mile, which makes this an awful hard sell in a county that goes up to 38 mile road.

I voted for the millage, but talking to my neighbors, I heard lots of concern about the cost of the system and the fact that it is all about buses, which many doubt will solve the region's transit woes. Had this been a proposal with more train transit, I think they might have felt different about it. Growing up in Macomb County, the only people who walk anywhere or take buses are people who's car broke down and people perceived as poor black folks from Detroit [[and Mt. Clemens).

1953

This thread attempts to make Macomb County sound like it belong in Kentucky or Tennessee.

If you google Michigan counties by per capita income - you would see Macomb County has a median household income of $54,000. The United States has a median household income of $52,000. Thus - it approximates what is the true middle class for all Americans.

It has rich areas [[e.g. Washington Twp), poor areas [[New Haven), and everything in between from country living [[Armada) to lakeshore living [[Harrison Township) to inner suburbs [[Fraser) to suburban life [[Macomb/Lakeside/Sterling Heights).

So therefore the issues it votes on/decides/values tend to be in line with what most "middle class" Americans share and that's why it's so fascinating at a national level - you have all of America represented in one county.

Macomb County.

Macomb County isn't even regional/civic minded when it comes to its own county. How many people do you think are close to or below the threshold of transit dependence in Macomb County vs Oakland or Washtenaw?

They're not "fiscally conservative". A fiscal conservative would know that the additional transit service would generate more money in the economy then it would spend through taxes, and would be in favor for it.

And if they were fiscally conservative they would realize that the longterm value of their homes depends on the region stabilizing and people currently in poverty escaping it. Right now, the moment a neighborhood is built in Macomb County, it is at it's highest peak, and from then on it's downhill.

You could say that they're ignorant rather than anti-regional, but they have just as much access to information as anywhere else. The ignorance is willful and cultural.


And I do agree that they did a bad job of campaigning for it. I didn't see very much but what I did see was just pushing the social justice angle. Yeah, people might like that granny can take the bus to church but I think people would react more strongly to slashing unemployment, boosting GDP, improving efficiency/value of the existing systems, and protecting property values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

This thread attempts to make Macomb County sound like it belong in Kentucky or Tennessee.

If you google Michigan counties by per capita income - you would see Macomb County has a median household income of $54,000. The United States has a median household income of $52,000. Thus - it approximates what is the true middle class for all Americans.

It has rich areas [[e.g. Washington Twp), poor areas [[New Haven), and everything in between from country living [[Armada) to lakeshore living [[Harrison Township) to inner suburbs [[Fraser) to suburban life [[Macomb/Lakeside/Sterling Heights).

So therefore the issues it votes on/decides/values tend to be in line with what most "middle class" Americans share and that's why it's so fascinating at a national level - you have all of America represented in one county.

Macomb County.

---

No, not really. Most counties have various levels of income. Macomb has zero urban/city life and the majority of the population is concentrated in either older subs or McMansion subs. There is no way you can argue that Macomb County represents all of America with a straight face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobl

Yes, many residents or their relatives left as people who did not look like them moved in and out of fear of crime. As it turned out, crime did increase, which led to a tidal wave of those who could hastily retreating. At first, most who left could find or keep jobs that kept them in the middle class, with little education. The erosion of these jobs and middle class opportunities created fear and resentment. The paranoia is palpable in Macomb County more than many other areas. Many here are unsophisticated, have no passports, and have not seen how the world is changing. Right now, they just wish to keep their heads above water, pay the mortgage, and keep the lights on. The goal is to keep what they have while abandoning others. "I got mine [[barely) screw everyone else". I knew and predicted here that RTA would go down in flames. Instead of voting for regional progress they voted for Trump. It won't be long before these folks discover that their hero is laughing at them while removing any safety net and diminishing their Medicare and Social Security benefits.

---

Beautifully said. I moved from Warren to Harrison Twp. and figured I might have left some of this attitude behind. I was greeted by neighbors that told me to be prepared, because the blacks were planning on attacking us by canoe from Mt. Clemens via the Clinton River. I'm not joking ! They voted for 'change' because they honestly think a politician is going to make their lives better, instead of formulating any plan to grab the reins themselves. Just came back from an extended trip thru Oregon and Washington. I have plans.

The pro-transit people need to realize that the RTA millage provided no direct transportation benefit to the majority of Macomb County residents. The vast majority live in their subdivisions, and are happy to live the subdivision lifestyle where they drive everywhere. That is their life as they see it, and they were being asked to pay a tax for a BRT line that most county residents would rarely if ever use.

You have to realize most people aren't transit economic development scholars, and they don't understand the indirect economic benefits that transit provides to the region as a whole. In fact, I would wager that many to most of the people in Macomb who did vote in favor, did so because they "feel bad for the poor people who have to take transit", and not because they understand the economic benefits transit creates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atticus

The pro-transit people need to realize that the RTA millage provided no direct transportation benefit to the majority of Macomb County residents. The vast majority live in their subdivisions, and are happy to live the subdivision lifestyle where they drive everywhere. That is their life as they see it, and they were being asked to pay a tax for a BRT line that most county residents would rarely if ever use.

You have to realize most people aren't transit economic development scholars, and they don't understand the indirect economic benefits that transit provides to the region as a whole. In fact, I would wager that many to most of the people in Macomb who did vote in favor, did so because they "feel bad for the poor people who have to take transit", and not because they understand the economic benefits transit creates.

---

The tangibles if not seen or felt will not sway the people to contribute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atticus

The pro-transit people need to realize that the RTA millage provided no direct transportation benefit to the majority of Macomb County residents. The vast majority live in their subdivisions, and are happy to live the subdivision lifestyle where they drive everywhere. That is their life as they see it, and they were being asked to pay a tax for a BRT line that most county residents would rarely if ever use.

You have to realize most people aren't transit economic development scholars, and they don't understand the indirect economic benefits that transit provides to the region as a whole. In fact, I would wager that many to most of the people in Macomb who did vote in favor, did so because they "feel bad for the poor people who have to take transit", and not because they understand the economic benefits transit creates.

---

Then I would guess most Macomb County people either can't read a map or didn't know about it and automatically assumed it wasn't for them. I'm not sure what "direct benefit" is? There were improved lines, Van Dyke, 15 Mile, 12 Mile, and the Dequindre bus route going into Rochester, and new lines on Canal, Hall Rd, and the Macomb Airport Line, as well as the Gratiot BRT line which would have had park and ride features at some stops. All this on top of existing SMART service. Unless these people wanted bus lines through their subdivisions, I'm not sure how more direct you can get.

And Gman, tangibles would have been nice if funding was secured. Now that Macomb failed us, the only tangible is RefleX which is only a 3 year pilot program. You can't build a world class transit system and then ask for money. SMART and DDOT are still competitors which means little federal dollars, had RTA passed they would've been under one umbrella.

"And Gman, tangibles would have been nice if funding was secured. Now that Macomb >failed us, the only tangible is RefleX which is only a 3 year pilot program. You can't >build a world class transit system and then ask for money. SMART and DDOT are still>competitors which means little federal dollars, had RTA passed they would've been under one umbrella."


If you build it they will come. That is a tangible? I've got some magic beans to sell if your interested. Point being, if your asking someone to kick in their dollars, you better show them a product. As for Smart and DDOT, they can be merged on paper and operating budgets combined with overlap eliminated. Problem is, who gets to be the boss and control the dollars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMan

"And Gman, tangibles would have been nice if funding was secured. Now that Macomb >failed us, the only tangible is RefleX which is only a 3 year pilot program. You can't >build a world class transit system and then ask for money. SMART and DDOT are still>competitors which means little federal dollars, had RTA passed they would've been under one umbrella."


If you build it they will come. That is a tangible? I've got some magic beans to sell if your interested. Point being, if your asking someone to kick in their dollars, you better show them a product. As for Smart and DDOT, they can be merged on paper and operating budgets combined with overlap eliminated. Problem is, who gets to be the boss and control the dollars?

---

Uh yes, transit personifies, so to speak, the phrase "if you build it they will come". That's literally how it works. The product was the master plan, better transit and more connectivity. I'm not sure how SMART and DDOT are supposed to improve themselves now, though DDOT is getting better, when nothing has changed really. The "merger" of SMART and DDOT was going to be the RTA.

And if people in Washington Township or Leonard didn't want the RTA, what makes you think they want to support DDOT? At least with the RTA, 85% of their money would stay in county.

dtowncitylover;517260]Uh yes, transit personifies, so to speak, the phrase "if you build it they will come". That's literally how it works. The product was the master plan, better transit and more connectivity. I'm not sure how SMART and DDOT are supposed to improve themselves now, though DDOT is getting better, when nothing has changed really. The "merger" of SMART and DDOT was going to be the RTA.

But where they would build it wont be where the money is being asked to come from.
It was pointed out that the home sprawl in that area wasn't conducive to mass transit, but hey we will take your money.

And if people in Washington Township or Leonard didn't want the RTA, what makes you think they want to support DDOT? At least with the RTA, 85% of their money would stay in county. Are the people in Washington or Leonard Twp. supporting smart now? I understand that some communities provide dial a ride to seniors or other people with mobility needs. Mass transit and a giant plan isn't a solution for that. I think most people are just sick of giant bureaucracies that eat up funding when a simple local solution does the trick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMan

dtowncitylover;517260]Uh yes, transit personifies, so to speak, the phrase "if you build it they will come". That's literally how it works. The product was the master plan, better transit and more connectivity. I'm not sure how SMART and DDOT are supposed to improve themselves now, though DDOT is getting better, when nothing has changed really. The "merger" of SMART and DDOT was going to be the RTA.

But where they would build it wont be where the money is being asked to come from.
It was pointed out that the home sprawl in that area wasn't conducive to mass transit, but hey we will take your money.

And if people in Washington Township or Leonard didn't want the RTA, what makes you think they want to support DDOT? At least with the RTA, 85% of their money would stay in county. Are the people in Washington or Leonard Twp. supporting smart now? I understand that some communities provide dial a ride to seniors or other people with mobility needs. Mass transit and a giant plan isn't a solution for that. I think most people are just sick of giant bureaucracies that eat up funding when a simple local solution does the trick.

---

Because transit benefits the WHOLE region. Which is what the Yes campaign failed to articulate. Washington does because Macomb in a full opt in county, Leonard does not because it's opt out. This mentality is the reason why Metro Detroit is not growing as a region. Your taxes aren't going to help poor black people get to work, our taxes are [[rather, were) going to help build a transit system to grow the local economy and become more attractive to visitors, [[potential) residents, and businesses. That's what the Yes campaign failed to say.

Dial a ride is nice for the disabled and seniors, but it doesn't help grow the economy more than those individual needs. We need a large ambitious plan if we want to join 21st century metropolises.

And as I said before, sprawl isn't conducive for transit but sorry SEMCOG, MDOT, and our local leaders brainwashed us into thinking this was the future and that's sustainable. It's not. You can't live in the exurbs and demand city amenities ASAP. But yes, if you want this region to be successful we all have to pay for it.

Also, I don't agree with the property taxes, I would much prefer a sales tax. However local sales taxes aren't allowed in Michigan and to change it would be a miracle considering our GOP legislature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Because transit benefits the WHOLE region. Which is what the Yes campaign failed to articulate. Washington does because Macomb in a full opt in county, Leonard does not because it's opt out. This mentality is the reason why Metro Detroit is not growing as a region. Your taxes aren't going to help poor black people get to work, our taxes are [[rather, were) going to help build a transit system to grow the local economy and become more attractive to visitors, [[potential) residents, and businesses. That's what the Yes campaign failed to say.

Dial a ride is nice for the disabled and seniors, but it doesn't help grow the economy more than those individual needs. We need a large ambitious plan if we want to join 21st century metropolises.

And as I said before, sprawl isn't conducive for transit but sorry SEMCOG, MDOT, and our local leaders brainwashed us into thinking this was the future and that's sustainable. It's not. You can't live in the exurbs and demand city amenities ASAP. But yes, if you want this region to be successful we all have to pay for it.
D
Also, I don't agree with the property taxes, I would much prefer a sales tax. However local sales taxes aren't allowed in Michigan and to change it would be a miracle considering our GOP legislature.

---

Dtownlover I believe transit does benefit a region, but you have to want to be part of that region. Do people in Wash Twp. want to have RBT to Detroit? What percentage of people commute to downtown. I remember the initial ridership levels for the Ann Arbor N/S connector came in below desired levels. The call was "build it and they will come!" Funny thing is how the initial start up costs kept going up and up. Now the private company that wanted to start the service with limited capabilities got shoved aside for the bigger picture. "Federal Dollars!" But to get federal dollars you just need this, that and the next thing, all in place before startup. Guess what....ten years later, A.A. doesn't have a n/s connector train. Now US 23 is getting a flex lane. The planners should have let the private service attempt to test the business plan before the "tangibles" were sold to the communities and the Transit Authority penned and ready to collect taxes.
Start Small and build!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMan

Dtownlover I believe transit does benefit a region, but you have to want to be part of that region. Do people in Wash Twp. want to have RBT to Detroit? What percentage of people commute to downtown. I remember the initial ridership levels for the Ann Arbor N/S connector came in below desired levels. The call was "build it and they will come!" Funny thing is how the initial start up costs kept going up and up. Now the private company that wanted to start the service with limited capabilities got shoved aside for the bigger picture. "Federal Dollars!" But to get federal dollars you just need this, that and the next thing, all in place before startup. Guess what....ten years later, A.A. doesn't have a n/s connector train. Now US 23 is getting a flex lane. The planners should have let the private service attempt to test the business plan before the "tangibles" were sold to the communities and the Transit Authority penned and ready to collect taxes.
Start Small and build!

---

WALLY failed because it seemed like no one truly cared about the project. Yes there was some talk about it, a page on SEMCOG's website, but for the most part there was no traction probably because there was no true funding source. I've never heard of a private service being talked about in the WALLY plan. And if it's anything like pre-Amtrak trains, it's going to end up be public anyways.

The RTA is completely different because there was to be a funding source, there was a master plan, and the RTA itself was the authority, and all we had to was approve it. WALLY had no funding source, it hasn't been planned very well, and AATA wanted Livingston County to join in creating WALLY but they said no.

And you're right, you do want to be part of a region. So let the RTA scrap all Macomb County routes and move on without them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

WALLY failed because it seemed like no one truly cared about the project. Yes there was some talk about it, a page on SEMCOG's website, but for the most part there was no traction probably because there was no true funding source. I've never heard of a private service being talked about in the WALLY plan. And if it's anything like pre-Amtrak trains, it's going to end up be public anyways.

The RTA is completely different because there was to be a funding source, there was a master plan, and the RTA itself was the authority, and all we had to was approve it. WALLY had no funding source, it hasn't been planned very well, and AATA wanted Livingston County to join in creating WALLY but they said no.

And you're right, you do want to be part of a region. So let the RTA scrap all Macomb County routes and move on without them.

---

This is a rock solid plan, make a villain out of the regions that will not support the tax vehicle then go forward without them!

Lets call it "opt out". Clearly no other geographic locale will feel this way so let's do it all over with each community deciding if they want in.

Pay no mind that the decades long problem just skipped right back to where it's been firmly stuck long ago and then failed to solve the issue.

The most important part is to NEVER fight for a tax vehicle that could gain wider support and potentially raise even more of the needed funds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

This is a rock solid plan, make a villain out of the regions that will not support the tax vehicle then go forward without them!

Lets call it "opt out". Clearly no other geographic local will feel this way so let's do it all over with each community deciding if they want in.

Pay no mind that the decades long problem just skipped right back to where it's been firmly stuck long ago and then failed to solve the issue.

The most important part is to NEVER fight for a tax vehicle that could gain wider support that could potentially raise even more of the needed funds.

---

As I said in my OP, I am joking. I want Macomb County to be part of any RTA and the region but it's frustrating when they vote against their own self interests because they can't see the forest for the trees.

dtowncitylover;517266]WALLY failed because it seemed like no one truly cared about the project. Yes there was some talk about it, a page on SEMCOG's website, but for the most part there was no traction probably because there was no true funding source. I've never heard of a private service being talked about in the WALLY plan. And if it's anything like pre-Amtrak trains, it's going to end up be public anyways.
Great Lakes Central RR was the one who proposed starting a service over existing tracks in their operating R.O.W. Problem is to make it feasable tracks had to be upgraded to speed standards to allow for a reasonable route time. In comes state federal dollars. Next problem if speed is increased what about all the ungated grade crossings? Oh and federal dollars accepted mean you have to have to meet the A.D.A. standards from the start. Well now we need updated passenger cars. More state money. What about P.T.C. so system can operate with freight traffic? More federal dollars.... Now it's been 5 years we need to update the feasibility study....more money spent. Livingston county said no to local funding because their stats show a more easterly commute for the majority of their residents, not a southerly one... A.A. still wants it though so hey lets wrap it up in the E/W line......More studies needed. Hey how about a A.A. to Traverse City train...more studies. Oh yeah A.A. wants to update the Amtrak Station... More studies on best location and least enviromental impact...... and on and on and on...... Private consultants have made money over ten years and STILL NO SERVICE.....

The RTA is completely different because there was to be a funding source, there was a master plan, and the RTA itself was the authority, and all we had to was approve it. WALLY had no funding source, it hasn't been planned very well, and AATA wanted Livingston County to join in creating WALLY but they said no. See Above for this reason.
RTA should look at merging city / suburb lines and operate a few years with those budgets and savings before asking for a millage.

Ballot proposal could read.. "should the separate operated entities of DDOT and SMART be merged to take advantage of operating efficiencies gained through elimination of duplicate services competing for a limited ridership and to maximize the return on federal dollars with the savings going to expanding formerly under served routes throughout the combined region? YES/NO

​Hey it would have been a start.

And you're right, you do want to be part of a region. So let the RTA scrap all Macomb County routes and move on without them.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

As I said in my OP, I am joking. I want Macomb County to be part of any RTA and the region but it's frustrating when they vote against their own self interests because they can't see the forest for the trees.

---

I understand your frustration. I feel the same way. The villan is Lansing. It has been for a long time. They have effectively shut off the proven viable tax vehicles for any regional transit in the metro area. Look at where it passed last month for the proof. The only real exception is California, the difference between them and Michigan in real estate values and market stability is much more vast than the laughable low rates in CA.

The war should be with Lansing, not battling amongst ourselves. That has proven to be a exercise in futility.

http://t4america.org/maps-tools/stat...ng/2016-votes/

=ABetterDetroit;517275]I understand your frustration. I feel the same way. The villan is Lansing. It has been for a long time. They have effectively shut off the proven viable tax vehicles for any regional transit in the metro area. Look at where it passed last month for the proof.

What did Lansing do to prevent Macomb county residents from voting themselves a tax increase for transit if they wanted it??

The only real exception is California, the difference between them and Michigan in real estate values and market stability is much more vast than the laughable low rates in CA.

The war should be with Lansing, not battling amongst ourselves. That has proven to be a exercise in futility.

http://t4america.org/maps-tools/stat...ng/2016-votes/[/QUOTE

No problem is too big if we only spend MORE money!!!


Did the Qline start out going to Pontiac?

Did Detroit Build all the old interurbans that used to exist connecting these outlying communities to the city of Detroit.

I think you will find that problems are best solved in small segments and expanded or combined when logic dictates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMan

What did Lansing do to prevent Macomb county residents from voting themselves a tax increase for transit if they wanted it??

No problem is too big if we only spend MORE money!!!


Did the Qline start out going to Pontiac?

Did Detroit Build all the old interurbans that used to exist connecting these outlying communities to the city of Detroit.

I think you will find that problems are best solved in small segments and expanded or combined when logic dictates.

---

Well for one the prohibition on local sales taxes enshrined in the state constitution. And secondly, the fact that the RTA legislation was written by politicians and not transit experts. So they wrote in that BRT is the preferred mode of rapid transit to be used in our transit system. Instead of LRT, which would be more attractive. There is a real bus bias in metro Detroit because of the "empty bus" argument. And then let's not forget about Engler's vindictive veto against DART and Granholm's laziness not to do anything about it.

The original DDOT DTOGS plan was up to 8 Mile, but the corporate entities that are building it have only enough funds up to the Boulevard. It would be great to have it up to Royal Oak!

I don't believe for a second that small steps is what we need. We need a grand design, an ambitious plan for metro transit. We had it. We lost it. Now we live with the consequences because people don't understand how "normal" metro areas work and think places like Manhattan and Chicago are quirky but fun to visit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Well for one the prohibition on local sales taxes enshrined in the state constitution. And secondly, the fact that the RTA legislation was written by politicians and not transit experts. So they wrote in that BRT is the preferred mode of rapid transit to be used in our transit system. Instead of LRT, which would be more attractive. There is a real bus bias in metro Detroit because of the "empty bus" argument. And then let's not forget about Engler's vindictive veto against DART and Granholm's laziness not to do anything about it.

The original DDOT DTOGS plan was up to 8 Mile, but the corporate entities that are building it have only enough funds up to the Boulevard. It would be great to have it up to Royal Oak!

I don't believe for a second that small steps is what we need. We need a grand design, an ambitious plan for metro transit. We had it. We lost it. Now we live with the consequences because people don't understand how "normal" metro areas work and think places like Manhattan and Chicago are quirky but fun to visit.

---

Well this was nothing more than a BRT proposal anyway. It would have gobbled up the Q line and maybe expanded it which is still a possibility in the future if it proves successful.
Yes we did have it all, but not with this plan but going back to when the interurbans ran between regions with common commerce and jobs for people to go between. Problem was success and individual wealth did in the need for most of the system. Ah the automobile, friend and foe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

I don't believe for a second that small steps is what we need. We need a grand design, an ambitious plan for metro transit. We had it. We lost it. Now we live with the consequences because people don't understand how "normal" metro areas work and think places like Manhattan and Chicago are quirky but fun to visit.

---

More and more I think that the RTA's main failure [[and, again, noting that it only failed by 1% of the vote) was the lack of fundamental education on transit. And not just in terms of the economic development arguments, but in terms of how regional transit systems even operate. A couple examples:

- I had a friend who balked at the "large" amount of money being asked for, which was $4.7 billion over 20 years. He was surprised to learn that the annual budget for WMATA in DC is just shy of $3 billion.

- People complain a lot about "empty" buses. But of course empty buses are just part of operations. They might be driving away from the main flow at rush hour, or just starting or finishing a route, or simply existing in the middle of the day so that someone is free to take transit in the morning with the knowledge that they can go elsewhere at noon if needed. None of this stuff ever gets explained clearly.

- We are trapped in the traditional "lanes for cars versus lanes for buses" arguments. This needs to be reoriented around "moving the most people in the given road space." If buses are carrying e.g. 25% of the people, then they should get 25% of the road space etc.

- People have no idea how land use and transit service go together. Thus all the people in northern exurban Macomb and Oakland complaining about a lack of service to areas that are, almost by definition, impossible to serve efficiently with transit.

I don't know exactly what the solution is here. A series of talks? Good YouTube videos? Just better messaging during the campaign? But people's lack of experience/knowledge when it comes to transit in the region needs to somehow be addressed given the other arbitrary limitations we face [[no regional sales tax, no rail).

I love it when Dyes'ers bitch about Detroit being unfairly stereotyped and then they go out and completely stereotype and judge the people of the surrounding burbs. The funniest part is that they are too dumb or self absorbed to see the hypocrisy....restores my faith in humanity. What a region!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

I love it when Dyes'ers bitch about Detroit being unfairly stereotyped and then they go out and completely stereotype and judge the people of the surrounding burbs. The funniest part is that they are too dumb or self absorbed to see the hypocrisy....restores my faith in humanity. What a region!

---

I would actually say, on the whole, this region is pretty dumb.

I didn't say Macomb Countyiers are stupid, I'm just saying they're ignorant about what they just voted against and they used shallow reasons as excuses. It's really neat they voted for the DIA and Zoo, but those don't do what transit can actually do for an entire region's economy.

Stereotypes are rooted in truth [[whether we like to admit it or not), and for the most part Macomb County just proved it theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Well for one the prohibition on local sales taxes enshrined in the state constitution. And secondly, the fact that the RTA legislation was written by politicians and not transit experts. So they wrote in that BRT is the preferred mode of rapid transit to be used in our transit system. Instead of LRT, which would be more attractive. There is a real bus bias in metro Detroit because of the "empty bus" argument. And then let's not forget about Engler's vindictive veto against DART and Granholm's laziness not to do anything about it.

The original DDOT DTOGS plan was up to 8 Mile, but the corporate entities that are building it have only enough funds up to the Boulevard. It would be great to have it up to Royal Oak!

I don't believe for a second that small steps is what we need. We need a grand design, an ambitious plan for metro transit. We had it. We lost it. Now we live with the consequences because people don't understand how "normal" metro areas work and think places like Manhattan and Chicago are quirky but fun to visit.

---

^^^ This x 1000% ^^^
I remember Engler's lame duck DARTA veto very well as I wrote about it at the time. We might well be enjoying the benefits of rapid regional transit today were it not for this.

A friend and former transit executive expressed to me your view about the foolhardiness of the MI legislature playing transit engineer through the RTA enabling legislation. That work should have been left to the transportation planners at the RTA, informed by public comment.

One could argue that the best chance we had for truly regional transit was in the late 70s. SEMTA and DDOT had drafted an MOU to merge. The People Mover was funded, but not as the 2 mile loop we all know. It would have run up the arterials to the suburbs and provided something much more like the Chicago L. It all fell apart due to regional politics and our inability to create a regional transportation planning organization, as well as federal defunding of transit projects after Reagan took office. SEMTA forged ahead anyway and the downtown People Mover circulator is all that we're left with.

I feel that history has just repeated itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

This thread attempts to make Macomb County sound like it belong in Kentucky or Tennessee.

---

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...rm=warrentucky

http://www.apple.com/retail/partridgecreek/ This should chap some asses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

I would actually say, on the whole, this region is pretty dumb.

I didn't say Macomb Countyiers are stupid, I'm just saying they're ignorant about what they just voted against and they used shallow reasons as excuses. It's really neat they voted for the DIA and Zoo, but those don't do what transit can actually do for an entire region's economy.

Stereotypes are rooted in truth [[whether we like to admit it or not), and for the most part Macomb County just proved it theirs.

---

What about Detroiters that voted against it? Even [[some) D-DOT drivers were telling passengers to vote no over concerns about "regionalism", "loss of control", "loss of jobs". WDIV ran a story about it.

The RTA failed miserably in Wayne County, if you exclude Detroit. It got buried at all ends of Wayne County -- Grosse Pointe Woods, Brownstown Township, Livonia, Westland and many more. The only people the RTA organizers must have spoken to were pro-transit people that went to their town halls and forums. I just hope the RTA's ill-fated and ill-conceived effort doesn't sink the SMART renewal in 2 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Towne Cluber

What about Detroiters that voted against it?

---

Well, so much for that question, lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eastland

The RTA failed miserably in Wayne County, if you exclude Detroit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

Well, so much for that question, lol

---

Unfortunately, the lack of turnout and no votes means so much for that question indeed!

[QUOTE=dtowncitylover.........

I don't believe for a second that small steps is what we need. We need a grand design, an ambitious plan for metro transit. We had it. We lost it. Now we live with the consequences because people don't understand how "normal" metro areas work and think places like Manhattan and Chicago are quirky but fun to visit.[/QUOTE]

Well voters rejected this grand design. So what now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMan

Well voters rejected this grand design. So what now?

---

A better education campaign that's longer than a month, with quad-county wide town halls so everyone is involved. If the Yes campaign had started in May off the bat and held info meetings from New Haven to Manchester, Brownstown to Lake Orion, it would've passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

A better education campaign that's longer than a month, with quad-county wide town halls so everyone is involved. If the Yes campaign had started in May off the bat and held info meetings from New Haven to Manchester, Brownstown to Lake Orion, it would've passed.

---

Okay, besides starting the message earlier, what would you change:
Funding Mechanism?
Implementation timetable?
Mobility mechanism?

Also, what is your view of Car Share programs and driverless vehicles?
Do you think that they will change the need for an expansive mass transit network?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMan

Okay, besides starting the message earlier, what would you change:
Funding Mechanism?
Implementation timetable?
Mobility mechanism?

Also, what is your view of Car Share programs and driverless vehicles?
Do you think that they will change the need for an expansive mass transit network?

---

Car shares also recognize the need for mass transit. So any debate about Uber/Lyft is moot. Uber and Lyft aren't economic catalysts. So no I don't think it will change anything.

I would change nothing because nothing can be changed. Do you think Lansing would voted yes on local sales tax allowance? No. The implementation timetable was just fine, it probably needs to be updated because we are going to lose 2 or maybe 4 years but the time span is just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Car shares also recognize the need for mass transit. So any debate about Uber/Lyft is moot. Uber and Lyft aren't economic catalysts. So no I don't think it will change anything.

I would change nothing because nothing can be changed. Do you think Lansing would voted yes on local sales tax allowance? No. The implementation timetable was just fine, it probably needs to be updated because we are going to lose 2 or maybe 4 years but the time span is just fine.

---

So BRT is the mechanism then. How far does the economic catalyst zone extend from the fixed stops that are proposed? Too close and you lose the rapid part. Too far and you are picking the winner / losers.
I once took a local bus from a village near Cambridge Eng. to the city center. I was one of three riders on the bus. Granted it only ran twice in morning and twice in evening. Service has since stopped due to low demand vs. cost.
Village was not served by rail and nearest service was 7 miles away.
Population still grew despite lack of transportation options. The downside is that green areas were built on to accommodate additional shopping options. They didn't build it and they still came. Now granted it had a world recognized institution within 20 miles.
Detroit still needs that draw. It's happening finally, slowly but surely.
I bet we will see the E/W commuter between A.A. and Detroit before we get any BRT plan funded.

Here's the kicker, people from this region travel to other areas and rave at how great the mass transit is in X city and won't fund one in their own area ?
Efficient mass transit is not cheap and it's not going to get any cheaper the longer you wait.
If folks that travel and admires other cities and countries great mass transit , it didn't come cheap and we have to work together.
Remember that next time you travel to X location and admire how cool their mass transit is and wonder " why can't we have something cool like this in SE Michigan?"
Remember, "why should I vote for that how is that gonna help me" that is why .
Now you know why, remember that next time you go to vote for mass transit.
That's how they have such a cool mass transit and we don't

One difference is that those other cities don't have huge zones that have been depopulated and many of those cities don't have our sprawl either so their systems simply make more sense and are easier to implement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

One difference is that those other cities don't have huge zones that have been depopulated and many of those cities don't have our sprawl either so their systems simply make more sense and are easier to implement.

---

You're right that most cities don't have the depopulation we have, but most do in fact have sprawl worse than us. Chicago is a mega sprawl area and Metra is pretty good at commuter rail. Los Angeles was in our boat, but over the past 30 years they've done incredible work in investing in transit.

And if we want to repopulate our city, we need transit. People aren't going to live in a city without transit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

You're right that most cities don't have the depopulation we have, but most do in fact have sprawl worse than us. Chicago is a mega sprawl area and Metra is pretty good at commuter rail. Los Angeles was in our boat, but over the past 30 years they've done incredible work in investing in transit.

And if we want to repopulate our city, we need transit. People aren't going to live in a city without transit.

---

Ok fine but you can't justify the expense until the city is repopulated. The inbound, outbound and contained number of commuters in Chicago and LA are so much higher that there's no sense comparing them to Detroit. Please find me another example that would be more appropriate if you don't mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

Ok fine but you can't justify the expense until the city is repopulated. The inbound, outbound and contained number of commuters in Chicago and LA are so much higher that there's no sense comparing them to Detroit. Please find me another example that would be more appropriate if you don't mind.

---

Well for one, no one was saying we were going to build a Metra system. In fact, there was one regional rail line to start out with in the master plan between Ann Arbor and Detroit.

Transit and re-population is not chicken or the egg. They grow with each other. And the time table of implementing transit pieces was in place. We aren't going to repopulate the city if transit isn't also being built. We don't grow without it.

My guess is that there is no guarantee that the city grows with a new transit system but let me ask what are the most rapidly growing cities in the U.S. and what are their transit systems like? Are there any cities without mass transit that are growing quickly? I would also be interested to see which areas locally are growing the fastest and see what their transit options are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

My guess is that there is no guarantee that the city grows with a new transit system but let me ask what are the most rapidly growing cities in the U.S. and what are their transit systems like? Are there any cities without mass transit that are growing quickly? I would also be interested to see which areas locally are growing the fastest and see what their transit options are.

---

Lol is this serious? Seattle, Minneapolis, Washington, DC are all experiencing population increases and have all invested in transit. If we want to compete with them we need transit now not when we *might* get a population boom out of nowhere.

Most cities without mass transit that are growing are well below 500,000 people and therefore mass transit, beside buses, isn't as needed.

Areas that are "growing" locally here are not growing because business is booming, it's because people in Royal Oak or Warren or Westland are moving out to Shelby or Lake Orion, or Canton. That's not growth, that's transfer.

I am very serious. You mentioned that most cities without mass transit that are growing are under 500k residents so mass transit isn't needed. I guess you're not much for trends because the way Detroit's population has plummeted over the last 50 years that's the direction it's headed and in your words mass transit [[other than buses) for cities that small isn't needed. Newsflash ...Detroit is no longer a large city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

I am very serious. You mentioned that most cities without mass transit that are growing are under 500k residents so mass transit isn't needed. I guess you're not much for trends because the way Detroit's population has plummeted over the last 50 years that's the direction it's headed and in your words mass transit [[other than buses) for cities that small isn't needed. Newsflash ...Detroit is no longer a large city.

---

But our metropolitan area is still very wealthy and if we want to curb, stabilize, and grow the city we need transit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

But our metropolitan area is still very wealthy and if we want to curb, stabilize, and grow the city we need transit.

---

If only we lived in a city that was growing, instead of shrinking, we wouldn't have to participate in conversations like this we would simply have the problem of figuring out out how the hell to move all the damn people around not discussing whether or not building mass transit is warranted....and you said it wasn't a case of the chicken or the egg? Ha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

If only we lived in a city that was growing, instead of shrinking, we wouldn't have to participate in conversations like this we would simply have the problem of figuring out out how the hell to move all the damn people around not discussing whether or not building mass transit is warranted....and you said it wasn't a case of the chicken or the egg? Ha!

---

You're entire "argument" if there is one really, reeks of "just blow it up and start over". Such a simple mind you must have...

But in fact, we do have the foundations of a growing city. We just other factors, like transit, education, and public safety to align just right. If we want to stop from shrinking we have to real solutions and transit is a real solution. And it's not as if Detroit doesn't deserve a better bus and even streetcar system either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

If only we lived in a city that was growing, instead of shrinking, we wouldn't have to participate in conversations like this we would simply have the problem of figuring out out how the hell to move all the damn people around not discussing whether or not building mass transit is warranted....and you said it wasn't a case of the chicken or the egg? Ha!

---

Building good transit isn't about whether a city meets some arbitrary population threshold. It's just about whether or not you want to have good, frequent, reliable, transit that connects the places with high travel demand. Detroit, as a region, has 4.3 million people. Much smaller metro areas, such as Seattle [[3.7 million), Minneapolis [[3.5 million), Denver [[2.8 million), and Indianapolis [[1.7 million) are making substantial investments in regional transit because they want their cities to grow in the specific ways that transit encourages:

- Density around stations, giving people who want an urban lifestyle attractive places to live without moving to Chicago or NYC.
- Density around stations, siphoning off population that will tend to walk or use transit and thereby reducing auto use in the region. Arlington, VA has grown for the past 3 decades while reducing traffic because they clustered development around Metro stops. This also preserves single-family home neighborhoods and open space.
- Regions where those too poor to use a car still have the freedom to access opportunities across the region. This fights unemployment and boosts the economy.
- Ditto for those too young, too old, too disabled, or whatever.
- The network effect on real estate values that lifts property tax returns and thus generates funds for other priorities. Property is generally more valuable when it is well connected to other places that people want to go.

Deciding not to build regional transit is a conscious decision to give up all of these benefits. It's also effectively saying that you think the development strategy that the Detroit area has pursued since the 1950s has been a big success and shouldn't be changed.

Just so you know, I relied on mass transit for 8 years in a big city and loved it but I am simply not convinced that this region needs it or knows how to pull it off. One thing I'm pretty certain of is that busses [[when done right) can be a damn good way to move people around and the really nice thing about buses is that you can change the routes as populations change and needs change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

Just so you know, I relied on mass transit for 8 years in a big city and loved it but I am simply not convinced that this region needs it or knows how to pull it off. One thing I'm pretty certain of is that busses [[when done right) can be a damn good way to move people around and the really nice thing about buses is that you can change the routes as populations change and needs change.

---

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on "needs." Sure, Detroit can choose not to build transit, but since everyone else is it will only be less and less competitive and continue to drive away people, businesses, and dollars that seek out transit-oriented urban areas. Not to mention the 30% of city residents with no cars whom we constantly hear should just "get a job" - significantly easier when one can travel to said job.

Buses can definitely be a great solution, and that's pretty much all the RTA proposal was with the exception of the rail line to Ann Arbor.

Macomb needs a new version of The Butterfly. It should be marketed to a multicultural audience, and accessible by bus.

Does anyone know the cost per passenger mile for the current system in Detroit and the area and how it compares to well run cities [[not Chicago)?

It was my understanding that it was WAY higher than it should be [[by perhaps 2x),.. and that there's a ton of waste, corruption and miss-management.

If that's true,... throwing even more money at it would only make things worse.

Perhaps fire everyone including the unions and start fresh? That would get the suburbs on board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdd

Does anyone know the cost per passenger mile for the current system in Detroit and the area and how it compares to well run cities [[not Chicago)?

It was my understanding that it was WAY higher than it should be [[by perhaps 2x),.. and that there's a ton of waste, corruption and miss-management.

If that's true,... throwing even more money at it would only make things worse.

Perhaps fire everyone including the unions and start fresh? That would get the suburbs on board.

---

I gathered some data from the Federal Transit Administration on expenses and compared it to passenger miles for the year 2013. I'm not an expert so if this is wrong please correct me, but as best as I can tell this is data only for buses operated by the respective agencies. I also tried to include a cross-section of cities and transit agencies. Here are the sources:

Ridership [[2015 APTA Public Transportation Fact Book PDF)

Expenses [[Federal Transit Administration NTD, "2013 Table 12: Transit Operating Expenses by Mode Type of Service and Function")

Here's the graph. The upshot is that it doesn't seem like Detroit [[either DDOT or SMART) is anywhere near the high end of costs/passenger-mile:

Attachment 32209

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

More incentive for me to leave the region as soon as I am able.

Still no buses on Hall Road.. Oh well....

---

I think Macomb County sucks and many residents are racist dummies and have no problem being labeled a "liberal elitist" or whatever, but Hall Road is so horribly designed that transit makes no sense under any circumstances. I don't think you could possibly design a less pedestrian/transit-oriented arterial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I think Macomb County sucks and many residents are racist dummies and have no problem being labeled a "liberal elitist" or whatever, but Hall Road is so horribly designed that transit makes no sense under any circumstances. I don't think you could possibly design a less pedestrian/transit-oriented arterial.

---

Sorry, But stereotyping an entire county as racist dummies is just as bad as the Racism you are railing against. Stereotyping an entire county as racist is racism at it's finest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

This thread attempts to make Macomb County sound like it belong in Kentucky or Tennessee.

If you google Michigan counties by per capita income - you would see Macomb County has a median household income of $54,000.

---

Because of the auto industry, which is spinning off a gusher of record profits, leading to huge, unprecedented bonuses.

And even though Obama saved the domestic auto industry [[with Republicans fighting him at every term), the dummies in Macomb voted for Trump, who has promised protectionist policies sure to decimate the auto industry. Macomb County is the most auto-oriented county in the entire U.S., BTW.

IMO this election, more than anything was about white nationalism. Even economic rationale and self interest was cast aside. You have guys with 10th grade level education making very good salaries doing very low-skill jobs who would rather stick it to "the blacks" than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

My guess is that there is no guarantee that the city grows with a new transit system but let me ask what are the most rapidly growing cities in the U.S. and what are their transit systems like? Are there any cities without mass transit that are growing quickly? I would also be interested to see which areas locally are growing the fastest and see what their transit options are.

---

Houston is the fastest growing major U.S. metro area in recent decades, and basically has the same crappy transit as Detroit. Phoenix and Dallas are also very fast growing, with very poor transit.

The cities with the best transit are generally slow-growing. Not arguing causation, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndavies

Sorry, But stereotyping an entire county as racist dummies is just as bad as the Racism you are railing against. Stereotyping an entire county as racist is racism at it's finest.

---

No, I never "stereotyped an entire county as racist dummies"; you made that up. Do you understand the meaning of the word "many"?

And, no, calling out racism isn't "racism at its finest". The "I know you are but what am I" defense is an exceedingly stupid one.

So you never typed this and I didn't copy it directly form your post?

"I think Macomb County sucks and many residents are racist"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndavies

So you never typed this and I didn't copy it directly form your post?

"I think Macomb County sucks and many residents are racist"

---

Yes, that was exactly my post.

You then claimed that I "stereotyped an entire county as racist dummies". I did no such thing. I never even claimed most Macomb residents are racist or stupid, to say nothing of all.

But I do think there are many, many bigoted and dumb voters in Macomb, given the propensity to vote for a white nationalist who have promised to harm the auto industry, which is the county's lifeblood. I can only assume many voters are either A. Stupid or B. Willing to put race above economics.

Your statement is Stereotyping. The vary basis of racisim.

Your statement is Stereotyping. The vary basis of racisim.

You haven't met these people, how do you know they are racist? Just because they are unwilling to pay for something they will never use, they are racist? And if you're trying to get them to change their views, calling them racist isn't going to help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndavies

Your statement is Stereotyping. The vary basis of racisim.

---

Um, no, data on county-based election patterns isn't "stereotyping". We know how Macomb votes, and why they vote the way they do.

Data isn't "racist". Facts aren't "biased". That's about the silliest thing I've heard on DYes lately. But voting for a white nationalist likely is motivated by racism, at least among many voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndavies

Your statement is Stereotyping. The vary basis of racisim.

You haven't met these people, how do you know they are racist?

---

What does this question mean? Do I have to meet every member of the KKK before making an assertion that they are likely guided by racism? Do we need to dig up Hitler before determining whether he had bias?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndavies

Just because they are unwilling to pay for something they will never use, they are racist?

---

What does this mean? Macomb residents who voted for Trump did so because "they are unwilling to pay for something they will never use"? Like a formal education, or library?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndavies

And if you're trying to get them to change their views, calling them racist isn't going to help.

---

What would help combating racism, in your view? Why should racists not be called out when they are threatening and attacking others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Houston is the fastest growing major U.S. metro area in recent decades, and basically has the same crappy transit as Detroit. Phoenix and Dallas are also very fast growing, with very poor transit.

The cities with the best transit are generally slow-growing. Not arguing causation, though.

---

Bham, I think your impressions of those systems may be somewhat outdated. DART [[Dallas) now has the longest light-rail network in the US, plus 121 fixed bus routes and a downtown streetcar. The first light rail segment opened in 1996 and the latest extension in 2014. By comparison I count 81 total bus routes between DDOT and SMART. And can you imagine 93 miles of light rail in SE Michigan? That's enough for routes from downtown to Pontiac, Mt. Clemens, DTW, and Novi, with a little left over for an extension from downtown to Belle Isle.

Houston just did a major redesign of their entire bus network with the goal of increasing frequency of service in huge areas of the city. Ridership is already up despite changes to huge numbers of existing routes. Here's a link: Houston transit, reimagined. Houston has also built three light rail lines since 2003 and has a BRT line under construction. Transit seems to be a much higher priority in Houston than it has been in Detroit.

Phoenix just approved a $32 billion transportation sales tax increase in 2015 [[recall that the RTA proposal was for $4.7 billion) and has numerous extensions to its own light rail line under construction or planning. Again, seems like a significant difference compared to SE Michigan.

I agree with you that causation in any direction is weak or tricky to establish at best. High-capacity transit like rail supports dense development, and this can mean it gets built after the fact because other modes are too crowded or that it gets built in anticipation of dense development. Bus service probably tends to reflect the priority that regional leadership puts on public transit more generally, since it performs a wide range of functions including serving both core transportation routes and lifeline service in farther-flung areas. But this all just goes to the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread. It's simply a political decision to make transit a higher priority, not something hard coded by population growth, population density, city history or anything else.

Edit: One other interesting fact I read a few months ago. The population of Houston as it existed in 1960 has actually decreased, and indeed the neighborhoods south of downtown Houston rival Detroit's east side for abandonment. All of the "growth" came from absorbing outlying suburbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

Bham, I think your impressions of those systems may be somewhat outdated.

---

Dallas, Houston and Phoenix all have extremely low transit share, as low as Metro Detroit, and among the lowest in the country.

I'm well aware that these places have built light rail, along with Detroit, but it hasn't done a thing for ridership. Dallas could build a million miles of light rail; what does it matter if transit ridership is lower now than 20 years ago, when there were only buses?

We care about ridership, right? Why does anything else matter in terms of building transit orientation? If Detroit built 100 miles of light rail and lower ridership than the buses of today, would that be a success?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Dallas, Houston and Phoenix all have extremely low transit share, as low as Metro Detroit, and among the lowest in the country.

I'm well aware that these places have built light rail, along with Detroit, but it hasn't done a thing for ridership. Dallas could build a million miles of light rail; what does it matter if transit ridership is lower now than 20 years ago, when there were only buses?

We care about ridership, right? Why does anything else matter in terms of building transit orientation? If Detroit built 100 miles of light rail and lower ridership than the buses of today, would that be a success?

---

Sure, it's fair to look at ridership but you're moving the goalposts. You said those cities had "the same crappy transit as Detroit." All I said was that all three of those cities have recently invested in significantly better transit than Detroit. Detroit wishes it had any of those cities' transit systems.

I also seriously doubt your numbers. A quick look at Dallas, for example, shows that in the first quarter of 1998 DART had 2,568,000 passenger trips on light rail. In the first quarter of 2016 they had 7,141,000 light rail trips. That's an increase of 280%, or about 4.57 million trips. Meanwhile bus ridership declined by 2.55 million trips per quarter, but obviously rail is intended to replace already heavily-traveled bus routes and a mode shift is expected. In any case it nets out to about 22,000 additional trips per day - less than one would hope, for sure, but not exactly "lower ridership than 20 years ago."

Last, I'd argue that ridership is not the only thing we care about. If the people using the systems in Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix are now able to get to more places more easily, then their lives have all been tangibly improved, even if it's only the same number of people using the service. And as you surely know it takes time and intentional effort - over years and often decades - for urban form to orient itself around new transit lines. My understanding is that Dallas has done a pretty poor job of this, a la Prince George's County with the DC Metro in comparison to a success like Arlington VA.

If ridership were the only goal, cancel every bus route in Detroit except Woodward, Gratiot, Grand River and 8 Mile so you can take some of the other buses and give those four routes round-the-clock, every 5 minute service. You'll get great ridership and can save all the money being spent on the other routes' drivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Houston is the fastest growing major U.S. metro area in recent decades, and basically has the same crappy transit as Detroit. Phoenix and Dallas are also very fast growing, with very poor transit.

The cities with the best transit are generally slow-growing. Not arguing causation, though.

---

All three of those cities have rapid transit. Phoenix has 1 light rail line and a vanpool service, Houston has 3 rail lines and 1 rapid bus line, and Dallas has 4 light rail lines and 2 commuter lines

An interesting quote from Houston's METRO Wikipedia page:
"Three of the five lines were previously going to be bus-rapid transit, but due to high ridership possibilities, the decision was made to make them all light rail."

Houston has 26 park and ride routes, SMART has 3

Houston has express bus and HOV lanes for the express buses; we have zero HOV lanes for express buses

Other fast growing cities that have rapid transit include Minneapolis, Denver, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Austin, Bay Area. Raleigh and Indianapolis just approved new taxes for new rapid bus lines.

The only fast growing big city metros that haven't really invested in transit are Nashville and Columbus- but even Nashville has a commuter rail line.

So...can you actually admit that you are wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masterblaster

All three of those cities have rapid transit. Phoenix has 1 light rail line and a vanpool service, Houston has 3 rail lines and 1 rapid bus line, and Dallas has 4 light rail lines and 2 commuter lines

---

What's your point? Detroit had rail long before any of these cities. The People Mover has operated since 1986 or something, and the trolleys started running in the late 70's. Detroit had commuter rail through the 80's. Most of these cities didn't get rail until the 2000's.

I don't care if a city has 1 million transit lines. What matters is transit usage. All these cities have horrible transit usage, analogous to Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masterblaster

Other fast growing cities that have rapid transit include Minneapolis, Denver, Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Austin, Bay Area. Raleigh and Indianapolis just approved new taxes for new rapid bus lines.

---

None of these cities, excepting Bay Area, have high transit share, and Bay Area isn't particularly fast growing. Some of these cities, like Indianapolis, actually have much worse transit share than even Detroit, which is really saying something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masterblaster

The only fast growing big city metros that haven't really invested in transit are Nashville and Columbus- but even Nashville has a commuter rail line.

---

You aren't talking about "transit". You have a fetish for trolley lines, or maybe rail in general, and don't care about anything else. You certainly don't care about ridership or whether transit systems are receiving investments, as long as trolley lines are being built.

First, unless your city is NYC or DC, "transit" generally means buses. Buses dominate every other metro in the U.S. So when judging "transit investments" you better be talking buses first/foremost, or you have an agenda unrelated to transit in general.

Second, there is absolutely no distinction between Detroit and these other cities. All have trolley lines. All have crap ridership. I have no idea why you think a trolley in Phoenix is somehow inherently better than a trolley in Detroit, or why you think Phoenix is fast-growing because of the trolley [[even though the trolley was just built, 50 years after Phoenix started booming).

Someplace like Nashville has a massively subsidized commuter rail with maybe 1,000 daily passengers. You really think that makes a tangible difference in metropolitan growth patterns? To put in context, D-DOT carries around 30,000 daily riders on the Woodward routes alone, at far less per-passenger cost. There are maybe five metros in the U.S. that really need commuter rail.

I swear, the trolley fetish on D-Yes might be worse than the stadium fetish. I think many posters would be totally cool if D-DOT and SMART shut down, as long as they get a trolley line out to 8 Mile or whatever. Then we would be a "real city"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

What's your point? Detroit had rail long before any of these cities. The People Mover has operated since 1986 or something, and the trolleys started running in the late 70's. Detroit had commuter rail through the 80's. Most of these cities didn't get rail until the 2000's.

I don't care if a city has 1 million transit lines. What matters is transit usage. All these cities have horrible transit usage, analogous to Detroit.

---

And as I've tried to beat into you before but you seem to ignore, none of things actually achieved their intended purpose. The People Mover system was never built. The "trolleys", rather one trolley, was meant purely for touristic and novelty display down Washington Blvd/Jefferson and the Pontiac and Jackson commuter rail ended in 1983 and 1984, respectively, hardly "through the 80s" and it declined because downtown emptied out. And MDOT didn't want to pay the massive subsidies for it anymore because the ridership was declining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

None of these cities, excepting Bay Area, have high transit share, and Bay Area isn't particularly fast growing. Some of these cities, like Indianapolis, actually have much worse transit share than even Detroit, which is really saying something.


You aren't talking about "transit". You have a fetish for trolley lines, or maybe rail in general, and don't care about anything else. You certainly don't care about ridership or whether transit systems are receiving investments, as long as trolley lines are being built.

First, unless your city is NYC or DC, "transit" generally means buses. Buses dominate every other metro in the U.S. So when judging "transit investments" you better be talking buses first/foremost, or you have an agenda unrelated to transit in general.

Second, there is absolutely no distinction between Detroit and these other cities. All have trolley lines. All have crap ridership. I have no idea why you think a trolley in Phoenix is somehow inherently better than a trolley in Detroit, or why you think Phoenix is fast-growing because of the trolley [[even though the trolley was just built, 50 years after Phoenix started booming).

Someplace like Nashville has a massively subsidized commuter rail with maybe 1,000 daily passengers. You really think that makes a tangible difference in metropolitan growth patterns? To put in context, D-DOT carries around 30,000 daily riders on the Woodward routes alone, at far less per-passenger cost. There are maybe five metros in the U.S. that really need commuter rail.

I swear, the trolley fetish on D-Yes might be worse than the stadium fetish. I think many posters would be totally cool if D-DOT and SMART shut down, as long as they get a trolley line out to 8 Mile or whatever. Then we would be a "real city"...

---

And you're right that ridership and usage do matter but how can they be measured and grown if they don't exist in the first place? The fact of the matter is cities are continually investing in light rail and streetcars for a reason, because fixed route rail service provides a higher amount of economic investment return than BRT or regular bus route. Phoenix is in the process of expanding their light rail network. This isn't a fucking contest between bus ridership vs. rail ridership either. Both can provide great service and are complimentary to each other and both are used in different ways.

The fact is real cities are dependent on a plethora of transportation options: cars, buses, bikes, walking, Ubers, light rail, commuter rail, etc. Unlike the stadium fetish, "trolley fetish" [[what you mean to say is "good transit fetish") can actually help revitalize downtown AND the neighborhoods.

And frankly, stop using the word trolley as if it's a bad thing. Trolleys, trams, streetcars, light rail all pretty much mean the same thing so if you think you're being flip or funny or condescending you're really not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

Sure, it's fair to look at ridership but you're moving the goalposts.

---

I'm not "moving the goalposts"; there is no other major transit "goalpost" but ridership. All this talk is irrelevant if no one is riding your system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

You said those cities had "the same crappy transit as Detroit." All I said was that all three of those cities have recently invested in significantly better transit than Detroit. Detroit wishes it had any of those cities' transit systems.

---

Again, you aren't talking transit, you only care about trolleys. All these cities, Detroit included, are building/have built trolleys. Detroit has plenty of "transit" and in fact had rail long before these cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

I also seriously doubt your numbers.

---

APTA website has transit numbers by quarter going back 20 years. All these cities have horrible transit share, comparable to Detroit, and share has generally been stagnant or declining since [[re) introduction of trolleys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

Last, I'd argue that ridership is not the only thing we care about. If the people using the systems in Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix are now able to get to more places more easily, then their lives have all been tangibly improved, even if it's only the same number of people using the service.

---

You're talking about buses now, not rail. You don't build rail to the most godforsaken, lightly used corners of the metro. You build along major corridors. If your goal is blanketing a region with some transit, rather than investing more heavily in corridors, you would do the opposite of what these cities have done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junjie

If ridership were the only goal, cancel every bus route in Detroit except Woodward, Gratiot, Grand River and 8 Mile so you can take some of the other buses and give those four routes round-the-clock, every 5 minute service. You'll get great ridership and can save all the money being spent on the other routes' drivers.

---

I doubt this makes any sense. For one, the Dexter Route is #2 after Woodward. For another, all these corridors already have high ridership, low density, and fairly low wait times, and decreasing wait times further is highly unlikely to lead to some huge ridership boom, given that D-DOT riders are overwhelmingly non-choice riders.

It isn't like riders are keeping the Audi SUV in the garage because the buses run every 15 minutes instead of every 5 minutes. These are very poor riders, with no other options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

What's your point? Detroit had rail long before any of these cities. The People Mover has operated since 1986 or something, and the trolleys started running in the late 70's. Detroit had commuter rail through the 80's. Most of these cities didn't get rail until the 2000's.

I don't care if a city has 1 million transit lines. What matters is transit usage. All these cities have horrible transit usage, analogous to Detroit.



None of these cities, excepting Bay Area, have high transit share, and Bay Area isn't particularly fast growing. Some of these cities, like Indianapolis, actually have much worse transit share than even Detroit, which is really saying something.


You aren't talking about "transit". You have a fetish for trolley lines, or maybe rail in general, and don't care about anything else. You certainly don't care about ridership or whether transit systems are receiving investments, as long as trolley lines are being built.

First, unless your city is NYC or DC, "transit" generally means buses. Buses dominate every other metro in the U.S. So when judging "transit investments" you better be talking buses first/foremost, or you have an agenda unrelated to transit in general.

Second, there is absolutely no distinction between Detroit and these other cities. All have trolley lines. All have crap ridership. I have no idea why you think a trolley in Phoenix is somehow inherently better than a trolley in Detroit, or why you think Phoenix is fast-growing because of the trolley [[even though the trolley was just built, 50 years after Phoenix started booming).

Someplace like Nashville has a massively subsidized commuter rail with maybe 1,000 daily passengers. You really think that makes a tangible difference in metropolitan growth patterns? To put in context, D-DOT carries around 30,000 daily riders on the Woodward routes alone, at far less per-passenger cost. There are maybe five metros in the U.S. that really need commuter rail.

I swear, the trolley fetish on D-Yes might be worse than the stadium fetish. I think many posters would be totally cool if D-DOT and SMART shut down, as long as they get a trolley line out to 8 Mile or whatever. Then we would be a "real city"...

---

The PeopleMover and the trolley were not rapid transit; The trolley was a tourist attraction. You are being quite disingenuous. The commuter lines were discontinued
during the height of the abandonment of downtown - it's a different era now.


I was just responding to your statement that Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston have poor transit. You are the one who has now brought up "transit share" and "usage".


I showed that they have far more transit options than Detroit. Notice I also mentioned that the Phoenix Transit Authority has a vanpooling component, and that Houston has 26 Park'n'Ride BUS routes and express BUSES with HOV lanes, so it's not all about rail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Again, you aren't talking transit, you only care about trolleys. All these cities, Detroit included, are building/have built trolleys. Detroit has plenty of "transit" and in fact had rail long before these cities.

---

Huh? Detroit has plenty of "transit"? WTF are the quotes for? No, Detroit does not have plenty of "transit"? I mean you lost your credibility with me long ago, now I'm just pointing out how stupid you sound.

And then when we took out the rail, against the wishes of the population [[in fact the Metro Times has a great article out right now detailing this fact), our downtown declined, people rode buses for a minute before buying a second car, then moved to the suburbs, and emptied out the city. Not saying "de-railing" Detroit [[pun very much intended) is totally to blame for the flight out of Detroit, but it didn't help much either.

And that brings me back to my OP. Perhaps old timer Macomb Countiers fondly remember their streetcars but for them it hearkens back to "their" Detroit and hell if anyone is going to make Detroit good without them.

Here's a list of modal share for major cities around the world. You will see that places like Dallas and Phoenix have ridiculously tiny transit usage. In such cities transit is almost irrelevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share

We're talking 90% car modal share. That's absurd. Dallas could build 10,000 miles of rail, and it won't mean a thing unless people are actually riding the trains.

I have no idea if Detroit can gain higher ridership if it spent megabillions on rail. I suspect no, it's probably too late, as there are no high density corridors left. We could build subways to Livingston County and if the region is still 90%+ car-oriented like Phoenix and Dallas then you haven't done a thing in terms of changing how the region operates.

If you REALLY want to change regional mobility, you have to think more broadly than rail vs. bus and the like. You need to fundamentally reconsider how we live. I don't think Metro Detroiters are ready for that conversation.

In the NYC area, the only U.S. metro where transit is dominant over broad geographies, there are very location-specific reasons for the modal share. Parking is largely banned from Manhattan. Car mobility requires paying tolls, enduring congestion, and paying absurd parking rates. Density and employment hubs are oriented around transit.

The transit orientation filters down to little things, like one car garages are often standard in suburbia, instead of two or three like in Detroit, street widths are narrower, and transit stops are linked to development, instead of hidden from view. There's a transit tax, on all incomes, in a broad region. Even suburban shopping malls often have paid parking. You think Metro Detroiters will pay $10 to park at Twelve Oaks Mall?

My old boss was on the SEMTA board when they cut rail from downtown to Oakland County in the 1980s. They were subsidizing each rider something like $16 each way. And a lot of the riders were rich Birmingham lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

You're entire "argument" if there is one really, reeks of "just blow it up and start over". Such a simple mind you must have...

But in fact, we do have the foundations of a growing city. We just other factors, like transit, education, and public safety to align just right. If we want to stop from shrinking we have to real solutions and transit is a real solution. And it's not as if Detroit doesn't deserve a better bus and even streetcar system either.

---

I was on vacation and I don't look at Detroit sites while on vacation because that would ruin my mood. Also, I didn't say anything about blowing it up and starting over, those are your words and since we're hurling insults now you are a homer and a clown because you can't possibly explain how Detroit has the foundations of a growing city. If I have a simple mind then I'll take that over your vivid, child like imagination and your off base perception of reality. Feels good to be home!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTime

I was on vacation and I don't look at Detroit sites while on vacation because that would ruin my mood. Also, I didn't say anything about blowing it up and starting over, those are your words and since we're hurling insults now you are a homer and a clown because you can't possibly explain how Detroit has the foundations of a growing city. If I have a simple mind then I'll take that over your vivid, child like imagination and your off base perception of reality. Feels good to be home!

---

Lol Wait what vivid, child imagination? The fact that I believe mass transit is needed in metro Detroit. I'm not blind to the fact that swaths of the city are burned out and empty, and a huge number of residents are functionally illiterate. In fact, empty is a good foundation to starting anew. Knowing these truths is a good foundation in solving the problem. Ignoring them would be disastrous.

Yes those are my words as I was trying to decipher what you are talking about.

I really don't have time for people who think we should all just give up on Detroit, turn off the lights, and shut down. Cause, yeah that's really going to help.

No, some of us are here to think and discuss solutions and ideas to get this city and region moving again. This includes transit, affordable housing, public education, and safety.

Also, there's nothing wrong with having a vivid, child like imagination. So thanks for the compliment! Though debating transit needs and transportation and land use is a bit over any child's head.