The end of sprawl in Metro Detroit?

Well maybe not the end, but at least an admission that sprawl isn't the best thing for the region. I am referring to the RTA and the BRT and how this will connect communities and hopefully slow the spread [[i don't use the word growths here for a reason) of the region.


While i don't think the bus system will work to really spur investment along the routes like trains would, but I would think some TOD stuff might go up.

At the same time I hate to say it but i have the feeling our system will not get completed in the proper manner, because we don't like to invest in ourselves. The initial planning public meetings are happening, how much input will we get is still to be seen

If sprawl is ending, why are there thousands of [[expensive) homes under construction on the periphery, while, simulatenously, thousands of homes are being abandoned in the core?

I don't mean back before the economic collapse. I mean, right this minute. $400,000 homes being snapped up in Oakland Township, Lyon Township, and other fringe areas.

It may be that light rail/BRT will reverse or [[at a minimum) slow down this trend. We'll see. It would be a hell of a turnaround if it ever happened, and would be a national story with huge implications.

I really don't think the two are closely related. The people who want to live in exurbs aren't really the target audience for transit, or for transit-oriented development. In any case, until whatever may happen with transit in the Detroit area is a lot clearer, I can't see it affecting people's location decisions very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I really don't think the two are closely related. The people who want to live in exurbs aren't really the target audience for transit, or for transit-oriented development.

---

You'd think. Yet the governor thought it imperative to run his bus rapid transit line across Hall Rd [[not just to Hall Rd, but across​ it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You'd think. Yet the governor thought it imperative to run his bus rapid transit line across Hall Rd [[not just to Hall Rd, but across​ it).

---

Transit isn't solely for people who live somewhere, but people who want to get somewhere.

Also bear in mind that transit aids workers more than the gentry. Hall Road requires a lot of workers to keep the capitalist fires stoked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Transit isn't solely for people who live somewhere, but people who want to get somewhere.

Also bear in mind that transit aids workers more than the gentry. Hall Road requires a lot of workers to keep the capitalist fires stoked.

---

Hall Rd was built to be the most anti-pedestrian environment possible. The only thing it could legitimately serve as is a park and ride terminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaytheory

Well maybe not the end, but at least an admission that sprawl isn't the best thing for the region. I am referring to the RTA and the BRT and how this will connect communities and hopefully slow the spread [[i don't use the word growths here for a reason) of the region.


While i don't think the bus system will work to really spur investment along the routes like trains would, but I would think some TOD stuff might go up.

---

I don't think this is a likelihood. New buses--no matter what color you paint them, what you call them, or how "futuristic" they look--aren't going to be able to support the ridership that would reduce parking needs and cause developers to build at increased densities.

For example, a bus route alone could never support the Wilson Boulevard corridor in Arlington, Virginia:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Arlin...+Virginia&z=14

The development machine is cranking back up here in Novi. Same with Lyon Township to the west. If the economy continues to recover, I don't see that stopping until it chews up all of the remaining available land left for development out here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

The development machine is cranking back up here in Novi. Same with Lyon Township to the west. If the economy continues to recover, I don't see that stopping until it chews up all of the remaining available land left for development out here.

---

I was recently out with a family member who is looking for a home out your way. Anyone who doubts the reemergence of sprawl should check out 10 mile from Novi to South Lyon. There's an almost nonstop corridor of new sprawl [[most of it very big, expensive homes, even 500k+ on the Novi side) extending from Wixom Rd. out to Milford Rd. or so). The whole area is a construction zone.

And these aren't cheapo ticky-tack homes. There's fancy stuff going up. Definitely not my taste, and I would never move out there, but this is [[generally speaking) high-end real estate going up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

For example, a bus route alone could never support the Wilson Boulevard corridor in Arlington, Virginia:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Arlin...+Virginia&z=14

---

I'm not sure what you are basing this statement on. Orange line ridership in Arlington isn't so high it couldn't be handled by a bus line. If you are making a claim about rider preferences, that could be true but it would be hard to prove.

On the other hand, I would say that is a good place to have a rail line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I'm not sure what you are basing this statement on. Orange line ridership in Arlington isn't so high it couldn't be handled by a bus line. If you are making a claim about rider preferences, that could be true but it would be hard to prove.

On the other hand, I would say that is a good place to have a rail line.

---

Are you serious???

By the time Orange Line trains enter the Rosslyn Portal into DC during morning rush hour, they're packed to the gills. The Orange Line *alone* carries as many daily riders as the ENTIRE DDOT AND SMART systems COMBINED.

http://www.welovedc.com/2009/11/10/d...-most-crowded/

Figuring at least 120 people per car on an 8-car train... You would need 24 buses every 3-5 minutes [[or one bus every 7.5-12.5 seconds) to handle that kind of load. Good luck paying all those drivers and mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

It may be that light rail/BRT will reverse or [[at a minimum) slow down this trend.

---

I fail to understand how or why light rail is going to slow down a demand for people wanting homes in secluded areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

I fail to understand how or why light rail is going to slow down a demand for people wanting homes in secluded areas.

---

Yeah, Novi. Real secluded, huh? Just like being Up North!

Looks like it's the 1950s all over again in Michigan. Pretend wilderness crusaders roughing it in the land of beige strip malls, plastic housing, and acres of untamed asphalt. Should carry lots of appeal to the 20-and-30-somethings who aren't nostalgic for tract homes, endless commutes, duck-and-cover, and better living through chemistry.

So glad your local governments learned their lessons from this economic slump from which we're slowly emerging. Be prepared to ship more of your kids off to Chicago and the East Coast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

I fail to understand how or why light rail is going to slow down a demand for people wanting homes in secluded areas.

---

I agree with you. But I think that the theory behind light rail is that it will be an anchor and lynchpin for investments in the regional core, which may drive core growth, and which would eventually be competitive with sprawl.

Yes ,you would have to run a lot of buses. You wouldn't have to run that many though-- 200 passenger articulated buses exist, as you well know. At morning rush hour I think the Orange line runs about 3.5 minute headway, so you would need a bus every 45 seconds or so.

At those volumes, is it cheaper to run rail? Certainly cheaper operating costs. But is it infeasible to run buses? I don't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I agree with you. But I think that the theory behind light rail is that it will be an anchor and lynchpin for investments in the regional core, which may drive core growth, and which would eventually be competitive with sprawl.

---

I think this is correct, and I don't think that it's a coincidence we've seen a number of midrise announcements within a couple blocks of light rail stops recently.

I look forward to the day that we can [[1) continue to retain/attract the folks in Birmingham and the Bloomfields and so on and also [[2) retain/attract a significant portion of the folks that are leafing for Chicago, NY, Austin, wherever.

We've long taken care of #1, and we're increasingly taking care of #2, though a long way from taking care of it to the extent possible in a 2nd tier city, even if the momentum is overwhelmingly positive.

Healthy, sustainable regions have vibrant city centers, and gradually become less dense and more suburban until, around the periphery, you get to the outskirts where low density meets farm or recreational land. You get all modes working together, occupied and maintained. They all need funds to perform well.

In our region, our local leaders have decided, more or less, that they really don't need a vibrant urban center, thankyouverymuch. So when people from metro Detroit get out of college and want city life, they leave. Frankly, you'd have to be kind of delusional to think that a recent college graduate, saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in student debt, with monthly payments of about $400, is naturally going to buy a house, let alone a $400,000 house. No, they want a cheap studio apartment and, increasingly, mass transit to take them to work.

But, hey, keep betting on sprawl. L. Brooks Patterson says it's "growth," and that we need more and more of it. Let's see if it works out any differently for our region if we keep trying what we've done before...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Healthy, sustainable regions have vibrant city centers, and gradually become less dense and more suburban until, around the periphery, you get to the outskirts where low density meets farm or recreational land. You get all modes working together, occupied and maintained. They all need funds to perform well.

In our region, our local leaders have decided, more or less, that they really don't need a vibrant urban center, thankyouverymuch. So when people from metro Detroit get out of college and want city life, they leave. Frankly, you'd have to be kind of delusional to think that a recent college graduate, saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in student debt, with monthly payments of about $400, is naturally going to buy a house, let alone a $400,000 house. No, they want a cheap studio apartment and, increasingly, mass transit to take them to work.

But, hey, keep betting on sprawl. L. Brooks Patterson says it's "growth," and that we need more and more of it. Let's see if it works out any differently for our region if we keep trying what we've done before...

---

It also effectively means that no young person in these faux country manor villages can afford to live in the town in which he/she grew up. Good times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I agree with you. But I think that the theory behind light rail is that it will be an anchor and lynchpin for investments in the regional core, which may drive core growth, and which would eventually be competitive with sprawl.

---

And if pigs could grow wings, we wouldn't have to drive them to market.