Mass Transit in the next 15-20 years

[ambassador]

Mass transit would be great, but only if properly planned, managed, and maintained. It'll be interesting to see if self driving vehicles advance enough in twenty years to have some impact.

[313WX]

At this rate, Metro Detroit will be out of the top 20 by 2040.

A 2016 analysis by the US Conference of Mayors still has Detroit as the 16th largest metro by then, even if it loses another 100,000 people. Even by their projection, it wouldn't fall out of the top 20 until 2050 at the earliest.

2040 and especially 2050 is a long ways out. Anything can happen between now and then. No one thought Atlanta, Dallas or Houston would be exploding like they are now 30 years ago.

[iheartthed]

A 2016 analysis by the US Conference of Mayors still has Detroit as the 16th largest metro by then, even if it loses another 100,000 people. Even by their projection, it wouldn't fall out of the top 20 until 2050 at the earliest.

2040 and especially 2050 is a long ways out. Anything can happen between now and then. No one thought Atlanta, Dallas or Houston would be exploding like they are now 30 years ago.

Those regions have actually had pretty consistent growth rate for the past 70 years. Metro Detroit would need to actually grow in population to stay in the top 20 by 2040, but it hasn't really grown since the 1960s. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe in the Sun Belt, if Metro Detroit does not start growing it has a very good chance of dropping out by then. It will certainly happen by 2050 at this rate.

[313WX]

Those regions have actually had pretty consistent growth rate for the past 70 years. Metro Detroit would need to actually grow in population to stay in the top 20 by 2040, but it hasn't really grown since the 1960s. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe in the Sun Belt, if Metro Detroit does not start growing it has a very good chance of dropping out by then. It will certainly happen by 2050 at this rate.

True, they were growing before then, but they didn't begin seeing the exponential growth they're witnessing now [[as in growing at a rate that allowed them to surpass the legacy major metros) until the 90s.

And it's not just them. Also see Seattle. Prior to Amazon and Microsoft, it also had relatively slow/flat growth and were virtually irrelevant.

So you never know what the future could bring for Detroit between now and 2040/2050.

[iheartthed]

And it's not just them. Also see Seattle. Prior to Amazon and Microsoft, it also had relatively slow/flat growth and were virtually irrelevant.

So you never know what the future could bring for Detroit between now and 2040/2050.

Yes, both Seattle and SF had flat growth until recently. My point is that Detroit will need to grow in order maintain position.

[313WX]

Yes, both Seattle and SF had flat growth until recently. My point is that Detroit will need to grow in order maintain position.

Absolutely. And there could be any number of circumstances/scenarios to allow for that to happen over the next 20-30 years.

[douglasm]

But when I lived in Seattle 35 years ago [[!) King County had a highly coordinated bus based transit system that would allow you to go anywhere in the county by bus. I was a floating manager for a retail chain and I could get from Ballard to any store in the county by bus.

It's only been within the past 20 years tat Pierce [[County) Transit, King County Metro and Community Transit [[Snohomish County) began working together, and maybe 10 years that Sound Transit and Link Light Rail have made a true Metro system between the counties work.

In the "old" days, people who worked in King County tended to live there, and the same for Pierce and Snohomish Counties. The same can't be said for the Detroit Metro area, but it seems like the local governments in the area, both city and county, just can't get their minds around the fact that it is a metropolitan area and their world does not revolve completely around their own little fifedum.

[masterblaster]

Metro Detroit is currently the 14th largest metro in the US, and while that's a significant relative decline from its top 5 position a few decades ago, I wouldn't describe it as "barely hanging on in the top 20." Only Seattle and Minneapolis are likely to surpass it by 2030, and even then, it will still be the 16th largest metro area.

Minneapolis is like 700,000 behind Detroit as of the 2010 census. Although the Twin Cities have experienced impressive growth for the midwest, I don't see them surpassing Detroit area in the next 20 years, that's if the area gets its head out of its azz and starts to experience moderate growth like a St. Louis or Philadelphia has been experiencing.

Seattle is a different story, it is a juggernaut right now that will likely be within 100,000 of Metro Detroit by 2020. I don't see Seattle slowing down due to its tech economy and the fascination with "Hiking, Outdoor activities, and beautiful scenery", but the limited land caused by the mountains and Puget Sound may slow its growth in the near future.

Detroit metro is currently ranked 14th. However, the government includes the Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario area is its own metropolitan area that is more populous than Metro Detroit. IMHO, the Inland Empire is just Los Angeles sprawl

[masterblaster]

Later this week, I am going to trek up to TRU's offices [[the metro's no.1 transit advocacy organization) in TechTown and ask them their view on a regional sales tax for improving public transportation.

[iheartthed]

Minneapolis is like 700,000 behind Detroit as of the 2010 census. Although the Twin Cities have experienced impressive growth for the midwest, I don't see them surpassing Detroit area in the next 20 years, that's if the area gets its head out of its azz and starts to experience moderate growth like a St. Louis or Philadelphia has been experiencing.

Seattle is a different story, it is a juggernaut right now that will likely be within 100,000 of Metro Detroit by 2020. I don't see Seattle slowing down due to its tech economy and the fascination with "Hiking, Outdoor activities, and beautiful scenery", but the limited land caused by the mountains and Puget Sound may slow its growth in the near future.

Detroit metro is currently ranked 14th. However, the government includes the Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario area is its own metropolitan area that is more populous than Metro Detroit. IMHO, the Inland Empire is just Los Angeles sprawl

Minneapolis will almost definitely overtake Detroit not long after 2020. It is growing at quite a clip, even though Seattle is growing faster. Minneapolis has added 252,000 people between 2010 and 2017, Seattle has added 427,000 in that time, and Detroit has added about 17,000.

At this rate, in 5 - 10 years Detroit will booted from its spot as the second largest metro in the Midwest for about the first time since the 19th century.

[oladub]

Within fifteen years, self driving vehicles might radically transform transportation. Uber has already transformed the taxi industry. Imagine Uber when a self driving vehicle shows up in your driveway. It could take passengers to destinations or to light rail, airports and other means of transformation. On demand self driving vehicles could displace both private car ownership and some local bus services. That attached garage could be turned into an extra room.

[Worldsgreatest]

Minneapolis will almost definitely overtake Detroit not long after 2020. It is growing at quite a clip, even though Seattle is growing faster. Minneapolis has added 252,000 people between 2010 and 2017, Seattle has added 427,000 in that time, and Detroit has added about 17,000.

At this rate, in 5 - 10 years Detroit will booted from its spot as the second largest metro in the Midwest for about the first time since the 19th century.

Highly doubt this, Detriot area is at around 5 million people. The most generous estimate for Minneapolis metro population is around 3.6 million, with birthrates declining and US growth slowing this isn't going to happen.

[iheartthed]

Highly doubt this, Detriot area is at around 5 million people. The most generous estimate for Minneapolis metro population is around 3.6 million, with birthrates declining and US growth slowing this isn't going to happen.

By measure of MSA, which is the most cited metric.

[dtowncitylover]

I'm sick of discussing this, so I've decided to limit my posts to actual developments of transit matters in SE Michigan.

HOWEVER, the Minneapolis discussion [[which I do believe they will surpass us probably by 2030 unless we change) goes to show you that weather means little in terms of economic development and it has everything to do with immigration, education, and normal city/metro functionality.

[313WX]

I'm sick of discussing this, so I've decided to limit my posts to actual developments of transit matters in SE Michigan.

HOWEVER, the Minneapolis discussion [[which I do believe they will surpass us probably by 2030 unless we change) goes to show you that weather means little in terms of economic development and it has everything to do with immigration, education, and normal city/metro functionality.

Yep. All of that and also plentiful high-paying jobs [[Minneapolis in a way is like a mini-Atlanta or Dallas, in terms of its diverse economy and wide assortment of big companies).

[masterblaster]

I'm sick of discussing this, so I've decided to limit my posts to actual developments of transit matters in SE Michigan.

HOWEVER, the Minneapolis discussion [[which I do believe they will surpass us probably by 2030 unless we change) goes to show you that weather means little in terms of economic development and it has everything to do with immigration, education, and normal city/metro functionality.

You do have a point there. I read somewhere that 40% of Twin City city residents have a college degree! A very well-educated metro area and has been growing despite the frigid weather.

[dtowncitylover]

You do have a point there. I read somewhere that 40% of Twin City city residents have a college degree! A very well-educated metro area and has been growing despite the frigid weather.

And when you invest in mass transit, the need for a car 100% of the time decreases thus making living in the frozen north more bearable.

[ABetterDetroit]

I'm sick of discussing this, so I've decided to limit my posts to actual developments of transit matters in SE Michigan.

HOWEVER, the Minneapolis discussion [[which I do believe they will surpass us probably by 2030 unless we change) goes to show you that weather means little in terms of economic development and it has everything to do with immigration, education, and normal city/metro functionality.

In this we are in complete agreement.

People in Michigan love their F...ing excuses way to much.

Weather is just a weak excuse. Overcome it. They could a hundred years ago here.

[Atticus]

On the topic of transit, one of the significant issues that gets overlooked is our regional leaders [[of those who do back transit) have a history of backing poor transit design/projects.

There is always improvements that can be made to the bus system, which does go a long way to help the lower income folks. But bus system improvements rarely get mentioned because buses are not sexy.

Rail is sexy, but we keep backing rail projects that will never help the region reach its potential. And of course there are many on here and in planning circles who have never seen a transit proposal they didn’t like.. but it seems like the transit choices backed by regional leaders are more for show than to solve a real problem.

I was actually glad to see the commuter rail between AA and Detroit not get built, even though I love transit and what it can do. The problem is commuter rail between AA and Detroit is an awful place to start, and yes you have to start somewhere... but it has to be somewhere good. Else the criticism will prevent another transit project from getting built for a generation.

[masterblaster]

On the topic of transit, one of the significant issues that gets overlooked is our regional leaders [[of those who do back transit) have a history of backing poor transit design/projects.

There is always improvements that can be made to the bus system, which does go a long way to help the lower income folks. But bus system improvements rarely get mentioned because buses are not sexy.

Rail is sexy, but we keep backing rail projects that will never help the region reach its potential. And of course there are many on here and in planning circles who have never seen a transit proposal they didn’t like.. but it seems like the transit choices backed by regional leaders are more for show than to solve a real problem.

I was actually glad to see the commuter rail between AA and Detroit not get built, even though I love transit and what it can do. The problem is commuter rail between AA and Detroit is an awful place to start, and yes you have to start somewhere... but it has to be somewhere good. Else the criticism will prevent another transit project from getting built for a generation.

What is wrong with the commuter rail for Ann Arbor to Detroit. It will bring workers from Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti and Western Wayne County to downtown Detroit for work and workers from Detroit and Western Wayne County to Ann Arbor. It should also be extended to Metro Airport.

[iheartthed]

What is wrong with the commuter rail for Ann Arbor to Detroit. It will bring workers from Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti and Western Wayne County to downtown Detroit for work and workers from Detroit and Western Wayne County to Ann Arbor. It should also be extended to Metro Airport.

Agreed. Detroit to Ann Arbor makes a ton of sense for a commuter line, if for no other reason than it can connect both places directly to the airport. But connecting Ann Arbor to Detroit would be really good too.

[Atticus]

Agreed. Detroit to Ann Arbor makes a ton of sense for a commuter line, if for no other reason than it can connect both places directly to the airport. But connecting Ann Arbor to Detroit would be really good too.

1) The issue is the plan does not connect it to DTW, and logistically the track location makes a connection to DTW not possible. Thus it would either be a train from Detroit to Ann Arbor, or a train from Detroit to DTW, but not both. Yes it would be nice if it could be both, but short of eminent domain and hundreds of millions of dollars in a new track line, it is not possible to be both. So both ain’t happening.

2) The drop off point in Detroit is at New Center, which is too far from downtown for daily commuters. If the overall trip takes too long to get downtown, which the commuter rail proposal does because there is no downtown station, middle and high income folks won’t take it because they value their time too much. And then you get into the death spiral situation where only low income riders use it, and then others don’t even want to use it because only low income users ride it.

The New Center location works ok at best for Amtrak, but that is only because the vast majority of people using Amtrak aren’t riding Amtrak on a daily basis. If you are going from Westland to Detroit everyday, the user cost to make the trip in from New Center to downtown makes it not worth it. If you are coming in a few times a year on a multi hour Amtrak trip from Chicago, the user cost of making that New Center to Downtown trip is less because it is a one or two time event.

My overall point is, if you aren’t going to build it right, don’t build it at all. And this commuter rail proposal would be a poorly thought out plan that people wouldn’t use. I am not against commuter rail as a concept, but I am against the proposed Det-AA commuter rail as currently envisioned. If you are going to have commuter rail, you need a downtown station because that is where commuters go. And since a downtown station probably isn’t possible, than as a result, a viable commuter rail route probably isn’t possible either.

[iheartthed]

1) The issue is the plan does not connect it to DTW, and logistically the track location makes a connection to DTW not possible. Thus it would either be a train from Detroit to Ann Arbor, or a train from Detroit to DTW, but not both. Yes it would be nice if it could be both, but short of eminent domain and hundreds of millions of dollars in a new track line, it is not possible to be both. So both ain’t happening.

Thanks for clarification. As an inaugural line, I still don't think Ann Arbor to Detroit is a bad idea. They could use a shuttle from the airport to the planned stop in Wayne as a demonstration for demand for a line directly to the airport. I just looked at the map and see that there are tracks that do already go to the airport. I'm guessing this is the same line that Toledo is funding a study to implement a commuter line?

2) The drop off point in Detroit is at New Center, which is too far from downtown for daily commuters. If the overall trip takes too long to get downtown, which the commuter rail proposal does because there is no downtown station, middle and high income folks won’t take it because they value their time too much. And then you get into the death spiral situation where only low income riders use it, and then others don’t even want to use it because only low income users ride it.

The New Center location works ok at best for Amtrak, but that is only because the vast majority of people using Amtrak aren’t riding Amtrak on a daily basis. If you are going from Westland to Detroit everyday, the user cost to make the trip in from New Center to downtown makes it not worth it. If you are coming in a few times a year on a multi hour Amtrak trip from Chicago, the user cost of making that New Center to Downtown trip is less because it is a one or two time event.

My overall point is, if you aren’t going to build it right, don’t build it at all. And this commuter rail proposal would be a poorly thought out plan that people wouldn’t use. I am not against commuter rail as a concept, but I am against the proposed Det-AA commuter rail as currently envisioned. If you are going to have commuter rail, you need a downtown station because that is where commuters go. And since a downtown station probably isn’t possible, than as a result, a viable commuter rail route probably isn’t possible either.

I don't think these are issues. First, it's already very easy to get from New Center to downtown on public transit. I would much rather catch a commuter train from Ann Arbor to New Center, and then take the QLine downtown, than to drive that commute during rush hour. Second, New Center is actually a jobs center itself, even though it isn't the primary one.

[schulzte]

Within fifteen years, self driving vehicles might radically transform transportation. Uber has already transformed the taxi industry. Imagine Uber when a self driving vehicle shows up in your driveway. It could take passengers to destinations or to light rail, airports and other means of transformation. On demand self driving vehicles could displace both private car ownership and some local bus services. That attached garage could be turned into an extra room.

I don't think people get what Ford and GM are up to right now. It sounds nice to invest in a huge classic bus/rail public transit system and 10 years ago I would have totally agreed. But why invest that kind of public money when ride share technology is being developed, driverless is being developed, zero emissions vehicles are being developed, etc. The Detroit metro area may become the proving ground for a completely new system of urban transportation.

Think about it. Roads get clogged in all major cities, yet are they overcapacity? Yes and no. How many empty seats are being driven over our road infrastructure every day? There is tremendous capacity available if we can better utilize it.

By the year 2030, my hope is that GM and Ford will have deployed an integrated system of driverless ride-share zero-emission shuttles throughout the Metro area. There will be private run, for profit versions owned and operated by GM and Ford, as well as a publicly subsidized version to provide accessible transit services for all Southeast Michigan.

The "for profit" model will have two modes. One will be "on-call" which will be a per ride or monthly bill per mile. This will target what Uber has now. There will also be a subscription "work shuttle" mode where a regular daily "smart route" is built, 8-15 passengers transported from a localized neighborhood to their work locations.

There will also be neighborhood transportation hubs which will serve a couple of functions.

1) Serve as the hubs for the subsidized public transit model with low cost, frequent pre-determined shuttle routes, as well as slightly more expensive smart routes that are built as commuters submit their destinations into the integrated system. GM, Ford, and FCA will all be asked to participate.

2) Short-term and long term vehicle rental. People will still go on trips, or need to get building materials, appliances, big stuff. This is where you'll rent your F-150 or Chevy Traverse or whatever by the hour, day, week, whatever.

Unfortunately, Southeast Michigan is built and we can't start over, tear it down, redensify [[is that a word?), and build it around a mass transit system. There are only 6 American cities that are well serviced with rail transit: New York, Chicago, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. Far more cities are closer to Detroit than New York for public transit utilization. If the GM and Ford successfully develop and deploy these fully integrated transportation systems, they could work far better for far more people than all the trains and bus routes ever could, and not just in the United States.

[douglasm]

I have a dumb question here......

Has anyone actually drawn a map of where people work within the past 30 years or so?

I seen to get the impression that transit options discussed here concern downtown commuting. Where do people actually have to go, and should we change our mass transit assumptions accoringly?