Metro Detroit now smaller than Phoenix?

[iheartthed]

Cleveland has very good heavy rail and light rail serving its best neighborhoods, which are generally similar to [[or better than) Detroit Midtown/Downtown, yet they have even worse population loss. We're talking four lines, far more than Detroit could even dream of.

In contrast, Phoenix didn't even have any bus service on Sundays until very recently. Their bus network is generally awful, yet they're one of the fastest growing cities in the country.

Perhaps transit isn't really a key issue? I can't think of one city where transit turned things around economically.

Washington?

[TexasT]

Cleveland has very good heavy rail and light rail serving its best neighborhoods, which are generally similar to [[or better than) Detroit Midtown/Downtown, yet they have even worse population loss. We're talking four lines, far more than Detroit could even dream of.

In contrast, Phoenix didn't even have any bus service on Sundays until very recently. Their bus network is generally awful, yet they're one of the fastest growing cities in the country.

Perhaps transit isn't really a key issue? I can't think of one city where transit turned things around economically.

I don't think transit will turn Detroit around economically. I think it makes the greater downtown area a more attractive place to live, work, and play and given the minimal financial input the city needs to put into it, will only be a positive.

So I agree - transit alone, especially one rail line, will not make or break a city.

[Bham1982]

Riding the bus has a stigma that doesn't apply to riding the train. That was the case in Houston. That was the case in Chicago. So I counter that the M-1 line does bring new people onto the line.

I think this is the key driving force behind M-1 rail.

Business leaders and the like think that young white folks from Macomb Township will ride the train, but won't ride the bus. To them, bus service is for "those people" and its relative quality is irrevelent.

Better to have a toonerville trolley, becuase a bus isn't going to bring patrons to Comerica or Buffalo Wild Wings, regardless of service improvements [[or at least that's the mindset).

My experience with urban bus systems is that they are generally much less "problematic" than urban rail in terms of desirability for the suburban-types, because they have a bus driver there at all times, as opposed to the anything-goes feel in a train car, but that's just my impression.

[bailey]

Riding the bus has a stigma that doesn't apply to riding the train. That was the case in Houston. That was the case in Chicago. So I counter that the M-1 line does bring new people onto the line.

I counter that turning DDOT and SMART into well run, clean, modern, "green" bus system would eliminate the stigma.. and be a hellofalot cheaper to do.

If you're just taking the buses off the 3.4 miles of Woodward and replacing them with a tram... I understand you might get a marginal increase. But if you're removing the buses, what do you think all the dregs of society that are causing the "stigma" are going to ride? Or are we running buses right behind the M-1?

I'd be with you if this got to State Fair grounds...or Ferndale or RO. But it goes to New Center and no further. I'm with you if this line went anywhere but it doesn't.

[Parkguy]

"Now, it has fallen behind Indianapolis and Columbus."

True but keep in mind that Columbus is still growing into adjacent counties by annexing large parts of its suburban growth. Indianapolis is a consolidated city-county. Detroit has done neither.

Detroit CAN'T annex new areas the way other cities can-- it isn't allowed by the state constitution.

[TexasT]

I counter that turning DDOT and SMART into well run, clean, modern, "green" bus system would eliminate the stigma.. and be a hellofalot cheaper to do.

If you're just taking the buses off the 3.4 miles of Woodward and replacing them with a tram... I understand you might get a marginal increase. But if you're removing the buses, what do you think all the dregs of society that are causing the "stigma" are going to ride? Or are we running buses right behind the M-1?

I'd be with you if this got to State Fair grounds...or Ferndale or RO. But it goes to New Center and no further. I'm with you if this line went anywhere but it doesn't.

The line goes from Downtown, to Foxtown, to the soon-to-be-built Illitchville/Red Wings arena, to Midtown, to the medical center, to the museum district [[as I call it) to New Center and the gov't buildings, to the Amtrack station. Not sure how that goes nowhere... I work downtown and it'll be nice to take it up to some of the restaurants around the Fox that I like to frequent for lunch or up to the DMC for doctor's appointments, personally. And I'd care more about cheaper if the business community wasn't ponying up most of the cost; if they want to pay for it, sure, let's upgrade.

And the stigma has nothing to do with who rides it - you think poor people didn't ride the train line in Chicago? I mean, the South and West sides are pretty rough, but the trains still go there. It's completely irrational, but it's a prevalent mindset that the train is better than the bus. It just "seems" more advanced and progressive, like what the "real" cities have. I'm no sociologist and I haven't studied this issue so perhaps I'm way off base, but that's the feeling I've always gotten.

[bailey]

The line goes from Downtown, to Foxtown, to the soon-to-be-built Illitchville/Red Wings arena, to Midtown, to the medical center, to the museum district [[as I call it) to New Center and the gov't buildings, to the Amtrack station. Not sure how that goes nowhere... I work downtown and it'll be nice to take it up to some of the restaurants around the Fox that I like to frequent for lunch or up to the DMC for doctor's appointments, personally. And I'd care more about cheaper if the business community wasn't ponying up most of the cost; if they want to pay for it, sure, let's upgrade.

By "nowhere" I mean nowhere a bus does not/could not already serve well. You could, today, right now, ride the bus to do all that. Why aren't you?

And the stigma has nothing to do with who rides it - you think poor people didn't ride the train line in Chicago? I mean, the South and West sides are pretty rough, but the trains still go there. It's completely irrational, but it's a prevalent mindset that the train is better than the bus. It just "seems" more advanced and progressive, like what the "real" cities have. I'm no sociologist and I haven't studied this issue so perhaps I'm way off base, but that's the feeling I've always gotten.

I agree it's totally irrational. does that mean we need to spend a quarter of a billions dollars to disabuse people of their irrational beliefs?

what if we spent that money on a system wide overhaul of the bus system? Make it the most technologically advanced [[wi fi enabled, gps tracked, smoothest riding), cleanest, safest, most efficient, greenest bus system in the country?

[iheartthed]

Riding the bus has a stigma that doesn't apply to riding the train. That was the case in Houston. That was the case in Chicago. So I counter that the M-1 line does bring new people onto the line.

In NYC the city bus system is much worse than the subway system. It's much less efficient to move large amounts of people, less comfortable to ride when it's full, and it's more prone to running behind schedule. The buses are mainly used by riders to fill in gaps where the subway doesn't provide easier access. [[ETA: And it's still a pretty good bus system!)

There are inherent barriers to getting bus lines to operate at the efficiency that rail based lines do, which I have seen a handful of times while living in NYC. The most recent example was when the subway system was out of service for a few days because of Hurricane Sandy. The bus system was unable to pick up the slack so most people had limited mobility around the city.

[TexasT]

By "nowhere" I mean no where a bus does not already serve well. You could, today, right now, ride the bus to do all that. Why aren't you?

I agree it's totally irrational. does that mean we need to spend a quarter of a billions dollars to disabuse people of their irrational beliefs?

I don't find the bus system to be reliable. Also, I don't like riding the bus.

The city is not spending a quarter billion dollars on this. If it were, I'd probably be more likely to agree that now is not the time to spend the city's money on light rail. Again, if the private industry thinks it is worth it to upgrade our most popular mass transit line and want to finance the majority of it, then I'm on board.

[TexasT]

In NYC the city bus system is much worse than the subway system. It's much less efficient to move large amounts, less comfortable to ride when it's full and it's more prone to running behind schedule. The buses are mainly used by riders to fill in gaps where the subway doesn't provide easier access.

There are inherent barriers to getting bus lines to operate at the efficiency that rail based lines, which I have seen a handful of times while living in NYC. The most recent example was when the subway system was out of service for a few days because of Hurricane Sandy. The bus system was unable to pick up the slack so most people had limited mobility around the city.

Same in Chicago. I lived off the Blue Line in Wicker Park and two times it broke down - they tried to use the bus system to alleviate it and it wasn't even close. But the express buses that ran from the North Side to downtown were pretty decent - still not as good as a train but pretty quick and reliable.

[Bham1982]

In NYC the city bus system is much worse than the subway system. It's much less efficient to move large amounts, less comfortable to ride when it's full and it's more prone to running behind schedule. The buses are mainly used by riders to fill in gaps where the subway doesn't provide easier access.

Depends what you mean by "worse", and what types of buses you're referring to. I think you're just referring to the regular local buses, and, if you're talking NYC, yeah, they're much slower and less efficient [[obviously) but usually nicer, IMO. It's generally a more pleasant ride, which is why you see all the NYC grannies and the like. They feel much more comfortable on the bus, which is easier to enter/exit and has the bus driver right there.

And express buses are usually faster than the subway, and even nicer than the local buses. You can go from Bay Ridge to Lower Manhattan by express bus faster than by subway, which is why it costs more [[and people gladly pay much more for the relative luxury).

The BRT lanes are pretty fast too, IMO, though I'm not sure how they compare to the local subway routes. Obviously they're much slower than express trains, and probably a bit slower than local trains, but they're still pretty fast [[though I've only ridden the BRT lines in the Bronx and Manhattan).

[bailey]

Washington?

If what was on the table looked anything like the Metro I'd be right there with you.

[iheartthed]

Depends what you mean by "worse", and what types of buses you're referring to. I think you're just referring to the regular local buses, and, if you're talking NYC, yeah, they're much slower and less efficient [[obviously) but usually nicer, IMO. It's generally a more pleasant ride, which is why you see all the NYC grannies and the like. They feel much more comfortable on the bus, which is easier to enter/exit and has the bus driver right there.

And express buses are usually faster than the subway, and even nicer than the local buses. You can go from Bay Ridge to Lower Manhattan by express bus faster than by subway, which is why it costs more [[and people gladly pay much more for the relative luxury).

The BRT lanes are pretty fast too, IMO, though I'm not sure how they compare to the local subway routes. Obviously they're much slower than express trains, and probably a bit slower than local trains, but they're still pretty fast [[though I've only ridden the BRT lines in the Bronx and Manhattan).

Yes, I am talking about the local city buses since that's most synonymous to a subway line. The express buses all run from designated pick up locations on the outskirts of the city directly to the employment centers and don't stop inbetween. So it's not an option for 95% of city residents.

[nain rouge]

I was waiting for people to bring up that buses have a negative "stigma". It's the #1 most ridiculous argument I've heard in favor of rail, ever. "People are hopelessly prejudiced, so we must spend hundreds of millions on rail!" Please.

We need to make Detroit a functioning city again with a density of at least 7,000-8,000 people per square mile before we consider rail. Washington D.C., even at its lowest point, had a density of at least 9,000 people per square mile. Right now, you're basically talking about putting light rail in Roseville and Eastpointe if you're talking about Detroit.

How about this: get the buses working. Improve police response times. Turn the lights back on. I don't care if the city is only picking up a small portion of the initial bill for the light rail - the Feds paid for the People Mover, and we saw the end result of that. The lady that opened the Detroit Hostel in Corktown was recently mugged, and now she too is questioning the wisdom of planners. She wants to know where the lights and police are! Her confidence in Detroit is, she admits, shaken.

You've got to make that the basics first priority. Anything else is backwards thinking.

[nain rouge]

Look, it was terrible mistake not to build an effective transit system in the '50s and '60s, but you can't magically make up for that now. We can't be delusional about Detroit. A bus can service that little strip of Woodward just fine.

Right now, I'd just like to feel at ease at Cass & Clifford, instead of having to look over my shoulder and ignore shouts from people on the street.

[iheartthed]

You've got to make that the basics first priority. Anything else is backwards thinking.

We are talking about basics. Transit is the basics.

There will never be an absolute perfect time to do anything if you're looking for a reason not to do it.

[bailey]

We are talking about basics. Transit is the basics.

There will never be an absolute perfect time to do anything if you're looking for a reason not to do it.

Bus transit is basic. Functioning, reliable, regional bus transit is basic. Downtown circulators are luxuries.

[iheartthed]

Bus transit is basic. Functioning, reliable, regional bus transit is basic. Downtown circulators are luxuries.

Most transit systems developed a rail component before developing a bus component.

[Hermod]

Most transit systems developed a rail component before developing a bus component.

So did Detroit. The technology for horse cars and electric street cars emerged and became commercially viable prior to the internal combustion engine.

[TexasT]

I was waiting for people to bring up that buses have a negative "stigma". It's the #1 most ridiculous argument I've heard in favor of rail, ever. "People are hopelessly prejudiced, so we must spend hundreds of millions on rail!" Please.

Can someone explain where the city is spending hundreds of millions on the M1? You all keep saying that but everything I have ever read says most funding is private with some federal funds too. Where is the city spending hundreds of millions?

And I never said we should get rail because people do not like the bus - read my post again. I said ridership on the line is likely to increase as many people avoid the bus. Big difference.

How about this: get the buses working. Improve police response times. Turn the lights back on. I don't care if the city is only picking up a small portion of the initial bill for the light rail - the Feds paid for the People Mover, and we saw the end result of that. The lady that opened the Detroit Hostel in Corktown was recently mugged, and now she too is questioning the wisdom of planners. She wants to know where the lights and police are! Her confidence in Detroit is, she admits, shaken.

You've got to make that the basics first priority. Anything else is backwards thinking.

The rest of transportation is being addressed through the RTA. People act like we are getting light rail to the exclusion of shoring up DDOT. We are getting both. We are addressing the rest through the EFM, restructuring, and quite likely bankruptcy. Cities have to be able to address multiple things at once - Detroit is no different. Yes, if we were not fixing the other issues and plopping hundreds of millions on a rail system, I'd feel different, but neither of those problems actually exist.

[JDKeepsmiling]

People keep talking about the water shortages and how we have all this water but Phoenix has one of the cheapest water rates in the country and my water bill is threw the roof. I still can't figure that out... What good is all this water when I pay over $100 a month.

It is all about infrastructure. We are dealing with 100 year old pipes and pumps. They are dealing with things that were built in 1990 at the latest. In 80 years thiers will cost just as much or more due to transport costs.

This is the same reason taxes are cheaper on the urban fringe, everything is new and shiney. People don't realize that if we just reinvested that into exsisting infrastructure, we would get the same nbenifit, without having to fix more stuff later. I think maintience in perpituity should be figured into project costs to give a more realistic view of what is costs to develop a greenfield.

[chicagoforlife]

Cleveland has very good heavy rail and light rail serving its best neighborhoods, which are generally similar to [[or better than) Detroit Midtown/Downtown, yet they have even worse population loss. We're talking four lines, far more than Detroit could even dream of.

In contrast, Phoenix didn't even have any bus service on Sundays until very recently. Their bus network is generally awful, yet they're one of the fastest growing cities in the country.

Perhaps transit isn't really a key issue? I can't think of one city where transit turned things around economically.

In Detroit's case there is going to need to be more than just rail to get people to move back, city services need to improve as well like education, safety, turning the street lights on, improving city parks and so on.

I live in Chicago and live about a 15 minute walk from the nearest L station. Some of the L lines especially the green line go through some very bad parts of town and even though the L is there it still is bad. So my point is that Detroit needs to do more than just lay tracks down and open up a subway line or light rail line or whatever to attract people back to the city. One major thing Detroit needs is jobs, a city is nothing if there are no jobs.

[chicagoforlife]

Here in Chicago a lot of the CTA bus routes terminate at CTA L stations which helps a lot. There are CTA bus routes that have stops at CTA L stations as well that aren't terminals. Also like Detroit's SMART there is a suburban bus system called PACE which also has many bus routes terminate at many train stations.

[chicagoforlife]

I was waiting for people to bring up that buses have a negative "stigma". It's the #1 most ridiculous argument I've heard in favor of rail, ever. "People are hopelessly prejudiced, so we must spend hundreds of millions on rail!" Please.

We need to make Detroit a functioning city again with a density of at least 7,000-8,000 people per square mile before we consider rail. Washington D.C., even at its lowest point, had a density of at least 9,000 people per square mile. Right now, you're basically talking about putting light rail in Roseville and Eastpointe if you're talking about Detroit.

How about this: get the buses working. Improve police response times. Turn the lights back on. I don't care if the city is only picking up a small portion of the initial bill for the light rail - the Feds paid for the People Mover, and we saw the end result of that. The lady that opened the Detroit Hostel in Corktown was recently mugged, and now she too is questioning the wisdom of planners. She wants to know where the lights and police are! Her confidence in Detroit is, she admits, shaken.

You've got to make that the basics first priority. Anything else is backwards thinking.

And to get Detroit back to 7,000 to 8,000 people per square mile you will need to introduce rail before that happens because I don't see it happening without at least some form of rail. And I think Detroit could function as a city of about 1.4 or 1.5 million people just fine, they also need to restore city services before anyone will give Detroit a serious thought.

[TexasT]

And to get Detroit back to 7,000 to 8,000 people per square mile you will need to introduce rail before that happens because I don't see it happening without at least some form of rail. And I think Detroit could function as a city of about 1.4 or 1.5 million people just fine, they also need to restore city services before anyone will give Detroit a serious thought.

Detroit as a whole is around 5000 people per square mile. I'd imagine it's more dense than that in Midtown and Downtown where the line will be servicing, but I'd be really curious to see some numbers.

Wiki puts Midtown at 7000 people per square in 2010, but the population has increased since then.