The Macomb County Question

[Junjie]

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Bham, I think your impressions of those systems may be somewhat outdated.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

[Bham1982]

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?

[Junjie]

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.

[masterblaster]

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?

[Bham1982]

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.

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.

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"...

[dtowncitylover]

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.

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.

[Bham1982]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[masterblaster]

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.

[dtowncitylover]

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.

[Bham1982]

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?

[eastland]

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.

[TTime]

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!

[dtowncitylover]

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.