Editorial: Bus service essential to all transit improvements

[ghettopalmetto]

People have no idea how it all works. That said, if government would let its monopoly go on bus service, for example, I think we'd be surprised how it is totally possible to make money privately. Don't necessarily think bus. It might be more jitneys, or smaller busses. A private company [[with no requirements at all) might run the operation very differently.

There isn't a damned thing stopping anyone from starting their own bus system in Detroit, or anywhere else. If there's money to be made, why isn't anyone making it?

I mean, how hard can it be?

Step 1: Run buses up-and-down the street

Step 2: ?????

Step 3: Profit

[Hypestyles]

The Presidenta and/or the governor should issue an executive order that forces the tri-county area to come up with a formal regional partnership on transit.

[Wesley Mouch]

There isn't a damned thing stopping anyone from starting their own bus system in Detroit, or anywhere else. If there's money to be made, why isn't anyone making it?

I mean, how hard can it be?

Step 1: Run buses up-and-down the street

Step 2: ?????

Step 3: Profit

Can't do it. The city forbids it. A few years ago some operators tried. Papers reported their demise. Can't compete w/ city hall!

[ghettopalmetto]

Can't do it. The city forbids it. A few years ago some operators tried. Papers reported their demise. Can't compete w/ city hall!

The City forbids it where? In legal statute? Come on. If cabs aren't prevented from "competing" with DDOT, then there's certainly a legal loophole somewhere. If someone were serious enough about the money to be made on public transit, and the anti-competitive nature of said statutes, we would have seen a court case by now, yes?

[professorscott]

The City forced the private transit operators [[who were at the time making a profit) out of business in the 1920s. Ken Schramm has written extensively about this. After that time, the massive amount of money poured into the infrastructure necessary for absolutely everyone to be able to drive a private car absolutely everywhere doomed transit from ever being able to break even again, much less make a profit.

It is not possible in the United States for mass transit to break even or make a profit. People are not willing to pay what it actually costs to transport them. This has been studied to death, but needlessly: the actual evidence is unarguable. Every single public transit operation in North America requires heavy government subsidies - but then so do roads, airports and every other way to move people around.

[stasu1213]

The City forbids it where? In legal statute? Come on. If cabs aren't prevented from "competing" with DDOT, then there's certainly a legal loophole somewhere. If someone were serious enough about the money to be made on public transit, and the anti-competitive nature of said statutes, we would have seen a court case by now, yes?

Not if some entity had lobbied against private mass transportation or bought off some political leaders with in the main office or on the charter commision board. The object is for everyone to own their personal transportation. That is what President Roosevelt had promised in the 1930; a chicken in every pot and a CAR in every garage. The American Dream. Get away from the rat infested cluttered urban areas and escape to the suburbs. A land flowing with milk and honey. That is what the automobile industry had pushed. You may say "Why not use cabs as a form of transportation?" Everyone can't afford to start there own cab business for it cost a forturne to get that little plate that goes on the back of the cab. The goal for the big three at the time is EVERYONE owns a car. Money for them is not being made if a private owned or better operated public owned transportation system is made easily accesable.

[coracle]

Bus routes are more flexible than Rail. Buses can easily be re-routed to cover for the future changes in demographics and routes can be closed as the population diminishes in some areas or increased as the demand dictates.

[stasu1213]

Bus routes are more flexible than Rail. Buses can easily be re-routed to cover for the future changes in demographics and routes can be closed as the population diminishes in some areas or increased as the demand dictates.

I agree that bus routes are more flexible than rail however rail systems rarely causes the train to show up late such as the busses often had done. I know that busses are more economically better for the city of Detroit if a monkey wrench wasn't thrown into the smooth operation of the system. The big three had done that years ago. There are probably other entities who had been responsible for the monkey wrench last 20 years There was a link on this site months ago showing the problems DDOT was having in 1977 and 1979. The riders were complaining about how slow and inefficient the services were at that time. Detroit wasn't in the financial bind that it find itself in this day. New busses were running in 1979 but still slow services. Don't blame the economy.

[professorscott]

Bus routes are more flexible than Rail. Buses can easily be re-routed to cover for the future changes in demographics and routes can be closed as the population diminishes in some areas or increased as the demand dictates.

This is true in theory but not in practice. Look at a map of the Detroit bus/streetcar system in 1945 and today; the routes are nearly exactly the same except there are far fewer of them.

Bus routes are more efficient for transporting small to moderate numbers of passengers. There is no reason why, say, the DDOT Clairmount bus line or the SMART 12 Mile Road bus line should ever be anything other than a bus line. Light rail is more efficient for transporting large numbers of passengers because you can get many more passengers per driver [[since the cars can be linked together) and an electric motor is much cheaper to maintain, and lasts much longer, than a diesel engine. And this is without even getting into the argument about the vast number of people who will ride a train but would never consider getting on a bus.

Every successful city in North America has both buses and various sorts of trains. Only Detroit is still trying to operate an all-bus system.

[Bham1982]

Every successful city in North America has both buses and various sorts of trains. Only Detroit is still trying to operate an all-bus system.

I support light rail, but this statement isn't true.

There doesn't appear to be any sort of correlation between rail mileage and regional economic prosperity. And there are plenty of big cities with limited or no rail, just like Detroit. Some of these cities are successful, and others not so much.

For example, Houston is one of the most prosperous and fastest growing U.S. metros, yet remains just as auto-oriented as Detroit. Its one tiny, recently built light rail line is roughly the size of the People Mover.

Seattle is a tech boomtowm and very prosperous, but barely has any rail. Outside of a tiny monorail, they just added very limited light rail very recently.

Orlando is one of the fastest growing U.S. cities, and has no rail whatsoever. Overall, transit is far worse than in Metro Detroit.

San Antonio is very fast growing, and lacks any rail. Same goes with Indy, Columbus, Kansas City, Ottawa, etc.

Vegas is [[or, perhaps, was) an incredible boomtown, but has no rail outside of some privatized Strip-area monorails.

Phoenix had no rail whatsoever until a very limited line opened late last year. Nonetheless, it was [[until recently) among the fastest growing cities.

Denver, another boomtown, added limited rail very recently.

Now let's look at cities with longstanding rail systems. Cleveland has had extensive rail for a half-century, yet the metro is poorer and has greater population loss than Detroit. Same with Pittsburgh.

Philadelphia, Buffalo and Baltmore, three cities with pretty decent rail and bus systems and high transit patronage, may be doing better than Metro Detroit, but still have a long litany of economic ills and long-term urban challenges.

[Hermod]

an electric motor is much cheaper to maintain, and lasts much longer, than a diesel engine.

This is very true, an electric motor driven vehicles is much easier to maintain than a gas or diesel driven vehicle. Overhead trolley lines, on the other hand, are very expensive to build and maintain. The get out of alignment quite easily and a "dewirement" at speed can tear down fifty feet or more of the line. Third rail is far more durable and maintenance free, but requires a dedicated right-of-way to keep the Darwin Award types from frying themselves.

[Redleg81]

............... but requires a dedicated right-of-way to keep the Darwin Award types from frying themselves.

Ha! Love it.

[professorscott]

Denver, another boomtown, added limited rail very recently.

Not to bother with everything you said, let me start with a correction: I should have said every successful large urban region. Smaller cities don't have the scale of population to support rail transit.

Now, to the quote: Denver has five light rail lines which include 30+ stations on, I believe, a little less than 40 miles of total line. The first of these lines began operation in 1994, some 17 years ago. So I question your use of the terms "limited" and "very recently". Detroit, on the other hand, is planning only one light rail line, less than 10 miles long, and in the future, to begin operations at some date which still can't be pinned down.

If we look at the largest urban areas in North America - let's say the top 25, based on population - I believe 24 of these have at least one light rail, commuter rail or subway or elevated rail line which operates between at least two communities. I could be wrong; maybe it's only 23 out of 25. Detroit - here I mean the metro area, the tri-county - is by far economically the worst of the 25 by nearly any metric you would care to use. And it is the one, or one of the two, which has continued to forswear rail transit.

Decent transit is a basic public service which the creative class, which we so constantly whine about trying to attract, expects in a large-scale urban environment. Two cars is a big expense for a young married couple with a pile of student-loan payments. Would you consider moving to a city with no police, or no parks? That's how the rest of the country thinks about our no-transit environment.

As with everything I post, this is of course all just IMVHO.

[iheartthed]

Bus routes are more flexible than Rail. Buses can easily be re-routed to cover for the future changes in demographics and routes can be closed as the population diminishes in some areas or increased as the demand dictates.

Why would you design a city with the expectation that the city would move?

[coracle]

Why would you design a city with the expectation that the city would move?

We're discussing a city which has already "moved" from 1.8M to 0.72M, and in the next ten years will be below 0.5M. It's a moving experience which obviously hasn't registered with you yet.

[Bham1982]

Not to bother with everything you said, let me start with a correction: I should have said every successful large urban region. Smaller cities don't have the scale of population to support rail transit.

Is LA a "successful large region"? Can't get much bigger or more successful than LA.

LA has 18 million people, one heavy rail line, and three light rail lines. Total rail ridership of a few hundred thousand on weekdays.

So it's overwhelmingly auto-oriented, but that doesn't seem to have constrained its growth.
And LA had no rail whatsoever until about 1990. Its greatest growth spurt followed WWII and preceded the reintroduction of rail.

I think it's fair to say that the relationship between economic health and transit mobility is at least somewhat murky.

Now, to the quote: Denver has five light rail lines which include 30+ stations on, I believe, a little less than 40 miles of total line. The first of these lines began operation in 1994, some 17 years ago. So I question your use of the terms "limited" and "very recently". Detroit, on the other hand, is planning only one light rail line, less than 10 miles long, and in the future, to begin operations at some date which still can't be pinned down.

I was wrong and thought Denver's system was smaller and of more recent vintage, but I still think Denver displays the murkiness of this alleged connection. Denver had no rail whatsoever prior to 1994, but certainly had very robust economic and population growth prior to the introduction of rail.

If we look at the largest urban areas in North America - let's say the top 25, based on population - I believe 24 of these have at least one light rail, commuter rail or subway or elevated rail line which operates between at least two communities. I could be wrong; maybe it's only 23 out of 25. Detroit - here I mean the metro area, the tri-county - is by far economically the worst of the 25 by nearly any metric you would care to use. And it is the one, or one of the two, which has continued to forswear rail transit.

Detroit has rail. We have the People Mover. We had trolleys running down Jefferson and Washington until a few years ago. Yes, these systems are/were pathetic, but we're "on the list."

Couldn't it be that the largest cities have rail because they're the largest cities? I'm not getting any obvious "build rail and grow population and prosperity" linkages.

Decent transit is a basic public service which the creative class, which we so constantly whine about trying to attract, expects in a large-scale urban environment.

Austin has the creative class despite terrible transit and no rail. Plenty of creatives in Seattle, which just introduced light rail. It likely helps, but doesn't seem to be necessary.

And should we be invest in transit to attract hipster slackers, or to improve mobility for the working poor? Seems like Woodward light rail adds little for the working poor. Are they getting more frequent service than the current bus schedule? Everyone seems to be chasing slackers, especially poorer cities in the Rust Belt.

I'm not against light rail, but I think these questions aren't really being considered. and some of the pro-rail arguments are only slightly less silly than the anti-rail talking points.

[iheartthed]

We're discussing a city which has already "moved" from 1.8M to 0.72M, and in the next ten years will be below 0.5M. It's a moving experience which obviously hasn't registered with you yet.

You did not answer my question. Why would you design a city that would move?

[iheartthed]

Is LA a "successful large region"? Can't get much bigger or more successful than LA.

LA has 18 million people, one heavy rail line, and three light rail lines. Total rail ridership of a few hundred thousand on weekdays.

So it's overwhelmingly auto-oriented, but that doesn't seem to have constrained its growth.
And LA had no rail whatsoever until about 1990. Its greatest growth spurt followed WWII and preceded the reintroduction of rail.

I think it's fair to say that the relationship between economic health and transit mobility is at least somewhat murky.

I was wrong and thought Denver's system was smaller and of more recent vintage, but I still think Denver displays the murkiness of this alleged connection. Denver had no rail whatsoever prior to 1994, but certainly had very robust economic and population growth prior to the introduction of rail.


Detroit has rail. We have the People Mover. We had trolleys running down Jefferson and Washington until a few years ago. Yes, these systems are/were pathetic, but we're "on the list."

Couldn't it be that the largest cities have rail because they're the largest cities? I'm not getting any obvious "build rail and grow population and prosperity" linkages.


Austin has the creative class despite terrible transit and no rail. Plenty of creatives in Seattle, which just introduced light rail. It likely helps, but doesn't seem to be necessary.

And should we be invest in transit to attract hipster slackers, or to improve mobility for the working poor? Seems like Woodward light rail adds little for the working poor. Are they getting more frequent service than the current bus schedule? Everyone seems to be chasing slackers, especially poorer cities in the Rust Belt.

I'm not against light rail, but I think these questions aren't really being considered. and some of the pro-rail arguments are only slightly less silly than the anti-rail talking points.

Two things:

1 - LA did have a rail based transit system that fell to a similar fate as Detroit's.

2 - LA has never, in its entire existence, been anywhere close to as densely populated as Detroit was at its high watermark density.

But even LA, which developed in a far more decentralized pattern than Detroit, is investing heavily in rail based transit again for a reason.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that transit alone would save Detroit. But just because it isn't the single panacea for Detroit doesn't mean that it isn't necessary for the city's revival. Next to crime, transit is probably the single most cited flaw of the city [[okay maybe taxes then transit).

[Det_ard]

Two things:

1 - LA did have a rail based transit system that fell to a similar fate as Detroit's.

2 - LA has never, in its entire existence, been anywhere close to as densely populated as Detroit was at its high watermark density.

But even LA, which developed in a far more decentralized pattern than Detroit, is investing heavily in rail based transit again for a reason.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that transit alone would save Detroit. But just because it isn't the single panacea for Detroit doesn't mean that it isn't necessary for the city's revival. Next to crime, transit is probably the single most cited flaw of the city [[okay maybe taxes then transit).

Perhaps among the hipster doofus class. Everyone else puts schools #2 after crime.

[bartock]

Perhaps among the hipster doofus class. Everyone else puts schools #2 after crime.

then economic climate, then jobs, then city services, then...

[iheartthed]

Perhaps among the hipster doofus class. Everyone else puts schools #2 after crime.

Well maybe Detroit should concern itself with attracting the hipster doofus class rather than people who are already anchored to their houses with underwater mortgages.

[ghettopalmetto]

Everyone else puts schools #2 after crime.

"Everyone else" meaning the whopping 25% of households with school-age children.

[Hermod]

"Everyone else" meaning the whopping 25% of households with school-age children.

I haven't had "kids in school" since 1982 when my youngest graduated.

I have lived in a lot of places and have generally found that areas with good schools tend to have a better life style and better neighbors.

[ghettopalmetto]

I haven't had "kids in school" since 1982 when my youngest graduated.

I have lived in a lot of places and have generally found that areas with good schools tend to have a better life style and better neighbors.

Which one is "cause" and which one is "effect"?

And what, pray tell, do you mean by "better"?

[Hermod]

Which one is "cause" and which one is "effect"?

And what, pray tell, do you mean by "better"?

High levels of measured student achievement.

Low incidences of criminal activity on the school grounds.

Dedicated maintenance of school plant even where the plant has some age on it.

No looting of school funding for the benefit of school system employees [[and their families and friends).

A safe and well run school bus system [[where needed).