Detroit Public Transportation: 2014 and beyond.

[Bham1982]

El Jimbo, one quibble and one corroboration:

Your math is off on the households without cars. If the national average is 9.2%, that includes high-percentage areas like Detroit, and low-percentage areas elsewhere. Applying the Detroit percentage gives you the correct number for Detroit, but employing the national average for the rest overstates the issue.

That being said, I think you have the strongest argument for some sort of transit--I will call it the "economic justice" argument. If you assume that it would be a good thing economically in the region to provide some level of transportation [[there are arguments for and against, but it's the best argument), what form would that take?

I'm too lazy to look it up, but Census does have "% households with vehicles" by MSA and CSA. Detroit is definitely above 90% on both counts. So I think it's reasonable to say that, under the current metro-area mobility framework, road investments benefit the vast majority of households.

And I'm not opposed to transit investments, esp. for the poor. I support increases in D-DOT funding and especially bus improvements along major corridors. But I would argue that current metro-area transit planning largely ignores the needs of the poor and transit-deprived, in favor of using transit for "economic development" and city-building.

Woodward is already the best corridor in the state for someone without a car, and, if anything, revitalization along Woodward will put the transit-dependent farther from transit corridors [[gentrification forces transit-dependent households to move to areas with worse service). It's designing transit for Tigers fans from Shelby rather than poor bus-dependent households in Detroit.

[EL Jimbo]

I'm too lazy to look it up, but Census does have "% households with vehicles" by MSA and CSA. Detroit is definitely above 90% on both counts. So I think it's reasonable to say that, under the current metro-area mobility framework, road investments benefit the vast majority of households.

And I'm not opposed to transit investments, esp. for the poor. I support increases in D-DOT funding and especially bus improvements along major corridors. But I would argue that current metro-area transit planning largely ignores the needs of the poor and transit-deprived, in favor of using transit for "economic development" and city-building.

Woodward is already the best corridor in the state for someone without a car, and, if anything, revitalization along Woodward will put the transit-dependent farther from transit corridors [[gentrification forces transit-dependent households to move to areas with worse service). It's designing transit for Tigers fans from Shelby rather than poor bus-dependent households in Detroit.

I don't believe the census has that information. I was all over their American Factfinder area searching for it. The best I could do was data on the commuting habits of workers. 96.8% of the 1.6 million workers in the Detroit Urban Area have access to 1 or more vehicles. Of those 1.6 million workers, 98.2% commute to work use a car either by themselves or in a carpool.

Of course, these numbers are just for workers, not all people. Given the pathetic state of public transportation in Metro Detroit and how challenging it is to navigate through the region via transit! the se numbers are not shocking. It is very difficult to find reliable transit route to commute from home to work. This is reflected in the fact that average commute times for workers using transit is 52 minutes compared to 25 minutes via car. In fact, 42% of employees who commute via transit travel over an hour each way.

This disparity in transportation availability poses a big problem given that 42% of workers who use transit seem to do so out of necessity because they don't have access to a car. And, this also doesn't include those that don't have a job and may not have one because they don't own a car and can't use transit to reliably get to employment.

furthermore, even along Woodward, transit is not great. 27 miles is WAY to long to travel on a traditional bus. It is too slow because of too many stops. Light rail or BRT would speed up transit immensely, making it more reliable and useful. For example, I went to the SMART website and did a trip planner between Pontiac and Detroit. Their suggested itinerary used 3 different buses and took 1 hour and 39 minutes. If this is " the best corridor in the state for someone without a car" then we are failing those people. Needing almost 2 hours to go 27 miles is pathetic.

[Bobl]

http://www.detroittransithistory.inf...tos1940sD.html

[casscorridor]

If this is " the best corridor in the state for someone without a car" then we are failing those people. Needing almost 2 hours to go 27 miles is pathetic.

While I generally agree with you, it's actually not that unheard of for a trip across a metropolitan area to take more than an hour. The problem with Detroit is that places aren't concentrated enough so there is a frequent need to travel long distances, and no commuter routes that offer express services.

[bust]

While I generally agree with you, it's actually not that unheard of for a trip across a metropolitan area to take more than an hour. The problem with Detroit is that places aren't concentrated enough so there is a frequent need to travel long distances, and no commuter routes that offer express services.

I agree it's not unusual. And I realize where I live is unusually transit-oriented. Convenient public transit is one of the main reasons I am where I am. Maybe it offers a good comparison. I'm a 5 minute walk to the Barclays Center / Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn, where we have all these transit options and more:

In one hour travel is possible as far as the following:

1) Subway: all the way to the system's end in every direction [[Brooklyn, Manhattan, Bronx, Queens). Some lines need a few extra minutes, many much less.
2) Subway to Metro North regional rail [[transfer at Grand Central): Tarrytown, NY in Westchester County.
3) Subway to New Jersey Transit regional rail [[transfer at Penn Station): Maplewood, NJ.
4) Subway to a Port Authority [[PATH) train [[transfer at Fulton): its terminus in Newark, NJ [[with time to spare).
5) Long Island Railroad [[LIRR): Wantaugh, Long Island.

Two hours:

1) Subway: the furthest end of the system and back [[nearly every line).
2) Subway to Metro North: Bridgeport, CT, or Beacon, NY.
3) Subway to New Jersey Transit: Trenton, NJ.
4) LIRR: a few minutes shy of the Hamptons.
5) Subway to Amtrak: Poughkeepsie, NY or Philadelphia, PA, or Wilmington, DE on the Acela.

There are buses throughout the city and much of the suburbs to connect to the train stops besides. In the 5 boroughs a bus is never more than a few blocks away.

Metro North even has a station stop at the Appalachian Trail. For a steeper hike Breakneck Ridge is about an hour and a half north of Penn Station on Amtrak. New Yorkers enjoy mountains, beaches, and forests a short train ride away.

This is what's possible when for the last century a region cooperates on a vision that includes an emphasis on public transit. The Detroit area obviously has not. And these choices have played a major role shaping the current state of the two cities. Detroit's lack of good public transit and emphasis on cars is largely what has led to its sprawl.

And where I live has tradeoffs, like a high cost of living and crowds [[due to the employment opportunities and all the people who want to live here). It's not for everyone. Many people prefer a home on a cul-de-sac. [[They're available in the NY area too, but they sure are expensive!)

I thought professorscott said it well, as we consider Detroit's future:

First of all, almost all transportation in the United States is subsidized. The main exception is toll roads mostly pay their own way, but other than that, the gubamint pays for everything, more or less.

Public transportation improvements, like road improvements, are based on likely demand more than anything else. It's hard around here, where there hasn't been really effective public transportation for going on half a century. The decision to improve or not to improve public transportation comes down to an analysis of alternatives. Detroit, in my opinion, has been conducting a grand experiment for about 75 years to see if it is possible to build a thriving and functional region entirely based on people driving cars. The result of this experiment, again IMVHO, is "not really".

Improving public transportation so that it is only, let us say, 60% or 70% less effective than in the cities with which Detroit competes for jobs and talent might or might not make the region "better", however you measure that, than the current situation in which the region's transit is 85% or 90% less effective. I think it is worth a try, since what we've been doing isn't working all that well, but apparently many in local political leadership disagree.

New York would not be what it is today without its history of regional cooperation and investment in public transportation. I'm not suggesting Detroit should try to emulate New York. They will and should always be different. But I encourage Detroit to invest in greater regional cooperation and public transit, for a change. Smart investments in public transit bring great long term rewards, far beyond the very limited measure of what percentage is recouped in passenger fares.

[EL Jimbo]

While I generally agree with you, it's actually not that unheard of for a trip across a metropolitan area to take more than an hour. The problem with Detroit is that places aren't concentrated enough so there is a frequent need to travel long distances, and no commuter routes that offer express services.

The argument that metro Detroit lacks density or concentration to support comprehensive regional transit is simply nonsense to me. Even after 60 years of population decline, Metro Detroit has population density numbers that are close to or much greater than other urban areas that have invested or are investing in transit. Sure, there are few that simply have extreme amounts of density like New York or LA, there are a host of urbanized areas that have densities in the 3,100 to 3,700 person per sq mile area such as [[Chicago, Denver, Houston, Portland, and Seattle).

Detroit isn't far behind that group at 2,800 people per square mile. However, Metro Detroit is more dense than Boston [[2,300 per sq. mile) and Atlanta [[1,800 per square mile). If these regions have and continue to invest in transit with their lack of comparative density, then the argument that Detroit isn't dense enough for transit simply doesn't work.

[Bham1982]

The argument that metro Detroit lacks density or concentration to support comprehensive regional transit is simply nonsense to me. Even after 60 years of population decline, Metro Detroit has population density numbers that are close to or much greater than other urban areas that have invested or are investing in transit. Sure, there are few that simply have extreme amounts of density like New York or LA, there are a host of urbanized areas that have densities in the 3,100 to 3,700 person per sq mile area such as [[Chicago, Denver, Houston, Portland, and Seattle).

Detroit isn't far behind that group at 2,800 people per square mile. However, Metro Detroit is more dense than Boston [[2,300 per sq. mile) and Atlanta [[1,800 per square mile). If these regions have and continue to invest in transit with their lack of comparative density, then the argument that Detroit isn't dense enough for transit simply doesn't work.

Detroit isn't dense enough for transit. You're misusing density numbers to try and make a point.

Weighted density is what's important. Boston has high weighted density compared to Detroit. What matters is where/how people live and work.

Overall density is largely irrelevant to whether or not transit works. Somewhere like LA [[technically the densest U.S. metro) has very poor conditions for transit [[hence very low transit ridership despite megabillions in new rail). Paris has comparable metropolitan density as LA yet Paris has fantastic transit ridership numbers.

[dtowncitylover]

Detroit isn't dense enough for transit. You're misusing density numbers to try and make a point.

Weighted density is what's important. Boston has high weighted density compared to Detroit. What matters is where/how people live and work.

Overall density is largely irrelevant to whether or not transit works. Somewhere like LA [[technically the densest U.S. metro) has very poor conditions for transit [[hence very low transit ridership despite megabillions in new rail). Paris has comparable metropolitan density as LA yet Paris has fantastic transit ridership numbers.

Structurally speaking, Detroit and the inner suburbs are ripe for transit development. Historically, this was the case. And if we want a denser metro area, you don't do that by widening I-75 and I-94.

I think it's completely disingenuous to assume that Detroit no longer needs and/or no longer can support transit. That flies in the face of any reinventing or potential growth of the metro area. If we want to grow and be taken seriously, we need quit thinking what we've been doing is the best, when it obviously is not.

And I really don't like the comparison with anything LA. I get we are both car-dependent metro areas, but LA is at least investing in transit and has a more diverse economy that allowed them to get away without having much transit for a couple decades.

[Bham1982]

I think it's completely disingenuous to assume that Detroit no longer needs and/or no longer can support transit.

Of course the region needs transit, but there is no need for high capacity transit along major corridors [[aka subways or heavy suburban rail). The region's core population has been shrinking for 70 years [[and continues to shrink) and employment centers are scattered throughout an enormous geography.

Outside of NYC, there are very few corridors in the U.S. ripe for heavy rail.
Excepting a half-dozen U.S. cities [[NYC, Bos, DC, Phil, Chi, SF) buses can handle almost all needs, really.

[EL Jimbo]

Of course the region needs transit, but there is no need for high capacity transit along major corridors [[aka subways or heavy suburban rail). The region's core population has been shrinking for 70 years [[and continues to shrink) and employment centers are scattered throughout an enormous geography.

Outside of NYC, there are very few corridors in the U.S. ripe for heavy rail.
Excepting a half-dozen U.S. cities [[NYC, Bos, DC, Phil, Chi, SF) buses can handle almost all needs, really.

heavy rail isn't part of the transit plan other than an Ann Arbor to Detroit line along existing rail infrastructure. Heck, other the Q-line, nobody is even suggesting light rail as an option.

The RTA's plan calls for a system predominantly built around BRT and traditional buses. What's so wrong with that?

[dtowncitylover]

Of course the region needs transit, but there is no need for high capacity transit along major corridors [[aka subways or heavy suburban rail). The region's core population has been shrinking for 70 years [[and continues to shrink) and employment centers are scattered throughout an enormous geography.

Outside of NYC, there are very few corridors in the U.S. ripe for heavy rail.
Excepting a half-dozen U.S. cities [[NYC, Bos, DC, Phil, Chi, SF) buses can handle almost all needs, really.

Yeah, no one has said heavy subway rail was wanted/needed. However, I disagree that future investment in suburban rail isn't needed. The decline of SEMTA's Pontiac-Detroit line coincided with the decline of downtown, the city, and Highland Park. Why would a Chrysler not want to take his own Chrysler to work? Now that downtown/midtown/and New Center are on the upswing [[and whether you believe that or not, it's true) now seems a logical time to invest in regional rail to continue that process of bringing people back into the city, whether to visit, work, or even live.

Right now, Detroit-Metro Airport-Ann Arbor is the logical first step. And perhaps by 2030, we can add north to Holly and northeast to Port Huron or south to Monroe.

Of course I don't understand any argument that would include density into regional rail as that's the purpose is to bring suburban, exurban, and even rural parts into the city and out again. Metra and GO Trains travel up to over an hour outside their respective cores.

[brizee]

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...nsit/91241236/
.
.
MIRS News/Target Insyght survey released today who would vote yes based on what they already knew about the proposal was 49.2%, but that number increased to 51.6% after the voters were given the actual ballot language. The number of those voting no also increases, from almost 33.6% to 35.9%. But the number of undecided voters drops from 17.2% to 12.5.

I haven't seen any advertisements from the RTA be it tv, radio, billboard or mailers.

I have seen those flex busses on the road, don't know if they're letting actions speak for them.

[dtowncitylover]

"Macomb County’s numbers saw a dramatic shift with the undecided vote dropping to 12% and the yes vote jumping from 44% to 56%."

Huge!

The no campaign is out there too and ready to give us all cars and Ubers! LOLOLOL

[EGrant]

They are advertising on social media, promoting articles supportive of the RTA's cause.

[dtowncitylover]

They are advertising on social media, promoting articles supportive of the RTA's cause.

Which is why the 18-34 demo is going to vote in favor, but even I as a millennial understand there is more than social media.

[brizee]

This state...

The Detroit News endorses Transit vote!

Only not really, and a columnist kneecaps it.


This Uber is the future of transit nonsense is just a distraction and I'll be glad when it dries up on the 9th.

Also seeing this around town.



Outside of news organizations and sites already boosters of transit NOTHING out in the wild from the RTA.

[casscorridor]

This state...

The Detroit News endorses Transit vote!

Only not really, and a columnist kneecaps it.


This Uber is the future of transit nonsense is just a distraction and I'll be glad when it dries up on the 9th.

Also seeing this around town.



Outside of news organizations and sites already boosters of transit NOTHING out in the wild from the RTA.

So dumb. Imagine telling a city like New York or London that Uber will solve all transport needs. Only in Detroit.

[mtburb]

Let's look at what I've faced this calendar month that's relateable: most recently got a robocall from an organization that supports the proposal, but also recently saw a TV ad from either this organization or another that says to vote yes on it and features a testimony from a transit rider...and yes, I noticed the RTA running ads inside both SMART and DDOT buses.

[brizee]

My job takes me all around the city.

Last week I actually found something IRL near City Airport!


Of course yesterday I also found this in Mexicantown/Springwells.



Anyway, day of reckoning is at hand.

It's a watered down, unambitious, capped at the knee proposal.

But it's the best the sorry powers that be could come up with the current political climate could come up with.

I did my part.

Detroit and it's suburbs are about to show exactly who they are in a few hours.

[brizee]

Macomb county well and truly fucked us over.

Guess it turns out running an invisible campaign isn't the best idea.

Also shout out to Mark Hackle not campaining or endorsing it.

You spinoff of the Church of Latter Day Saints child molester looking pile of shit.

[dtowncitylover]

Macomb county well and truly fucked us over.

Guess it turns out running an invisible campaign isn't the best idea.

Also shout out to Mark Hackle not campaining or endorsing it.

You spinoff of the Church of Latter Day Saints child molester looking pile of shit.

Hmmmmm, I'm not showing official results and it's in a dead heat. Someone else said in the other thread that not all of Washtenaw and Wayne are in and could sway...unless you are seeing someone else...?

And even though Hackel was "against" it, he did do a photo op on the RefleX bus on Gratiot, which shows alot more "support" than Patterson would ever do.

[brizee]

Hmmmmm, I'm not showing official results and it's in a dead heat. Someone else said in the other thread that not all of Washtenaw and Wayne are in and could sway...unless you are seeing someone else...?

And even though Hackel was "against" it, he did do a photo op on the RefleX bus on Gratiot, which shows alot more "support" than Patterson would ever do.

As of 8:38 on Detnews.

Two precincts between Washtenaw and Wayne and it's down 18000.

If I'm wrong on Hackel , my apologies.

Today has been crushing to put it lightly.

[dtowncitylover]

As of 8:38 on Detnews.

Two precincts between Washtenaw and Wayne and it's down 18000.

If I'm wrong on Hackel , my apologies.

Today has been crushing to put it lightly.

Oh definitely...Right after I posted I noticed TRU has written a gloomy post on their FB account, so it's probably not going to happen now.

I have a many critique's about the way the RTA and the org that organized the YES campaign...

[brizee]

Oh definitely...Right after I posted I noticed TRU has written a gloomy post on their FB account, so it's probably not going to happen now.

I have a many critique's about the way the RTA and the org that organized the YES campaign...

Not to beat a dead horse.

But how is it a hastily thrown together opposition campaign with two months and a tenth the budget was more visible than this campaign?

I am in no way a political or advertising novice let alone expert.

But why in the HELL did they start so late?!?!?

I understand the master plan wasn't approved until July, but some kind of embryonic advertisement campaign should have launched back in the beginning of spring, if not January, if not LAST FALL!

Not an all out blitz [[which IMO never cam anyway) but just constant reminders priming people, beating it into their over months for what's coming up.

Also every [[or every other) potential future BRT stop along Gratiot, Woodward, and Michigan should have had a billboard coming and going,gettting out the vote and letting people know specifically that area would be a potential station. Speaking of..

Clean up the goddamn website!

Why do I have to dig through multiple links and multiple hundred plus page technical documents just to find out where a potential stop would go on the route?

Even if it's tentative, each line should have

-where are the potential stations
-when I can realistically expect to ride it

Overall this campaign seemed like it was preaching to the audience. Everything was geared around people already open to and wanting a transit system.

Advertise on social media to young folks and people that have to seek you out.

Hold a town hall. Sure, but who REALLY goes to a transit townhall if you're hostile or have no interest in transit?

And the one TRU meeting I went to they were extremely...they didn't really let the audience ask real questions.

Second guessing people and kicking when they're down is boorish.

But GODDAMNIT this was winnable, even with Macomb showing themselves to be exactly who we thought they were.

This is why I wanted someone outside of Michigan, not used to the "ehh that's good enough" way things are done around here.

[brizee]

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...lure/93553464/

"Every step we took was driven by research. We didn’t shoot from the hip, and we didn’t shoot from the lip," said Kelly Rossman-McKinney, a spokeswoman for Citizens for Connecting our Communities, the advocacy group running the pro-millage campaign. "There's not a thing we would do differently."

"We knew it was going to be tight, but we very much believed it was going to be tight in a positive direction, so there really isn’t a plan B in place," Owens said, noting that because a SMART millage will be on the ballot in 2018, the next attempt at an RTA millage might not realistically take place until 2020.