Editorial: Bus service essential to all transit improvements

Detroit's elected leaders have focused a lot of attention on the Woodward Light Rail Project. Still, no rail system in Detroit will work without reliable and adequate bus service to feed it. More than 25% of Detroiters don't own vehicles. It would be a big mistake for the city to neglect bus service while developing light rail.

In fact, the Federal Transit Administration, which would pay for a large share of the Detroit rail project, won't allow it. Nevertheless, the city has so far failed to develop a plan to adequately pay for operating both systems.

Detroit's bus service historically has cost the city's general fund about $60 million a year -- $53 million in the current year. Facing an estimated $155-million deficit, the city is looking to the Department of Transportation to reduce costs. Correcting inefficiencies will, of course, help, but large cuts will inevitably mean reductions in already inadequate service. This month, the city proposed another heavy round of bus service cuts that would eliminate three routes, end 24-hour service and reduce weekend trips throughout the city.

What's more, the city has approved a bond issue for the Woodward rail project to be repaid largely though federal transit grants that would otherwise go toward bus service.

Long-term, the city may be counting on a regional transportation system to relieve it of its general fund subsidy to city transit service. That's a good idea: Transportation should be planned, run and funded regionally. But Detroit hurt itself by opposing legislation last year to create a Regional Transit Authority for southeast Michigan. Nor has Detroit seriously talked with suburban leaders recently about merging the city and suburban transit systems.

Detroit leaders cannot -- at least not now -- assume a regional solution to transit costs. To make that happen, Detroit must start negotiating with its suburban partners to come up with a regional plan that doesn't push bus riders to the back.


http://www.freep.com/article/2011051...5/1068/opinion

And that plan, of course, is BRT, which everybody seems determined to try to force down our collective fucking throat. While you're at it, why not propose a fucking PRT system as well. Idiocy...

I still say that the bus system should pay for itself. Money made through ridership should go not into the General Fund but back into the transportation system itself whether local or regional. The only time that the bus system loses money will be due to low ridership. The taxes from it could go to the city. The water company pay for itself by it's customers. DDOT could improve greatly using this idea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

And that plan, of course, is BRT, which everybody seems determined to try to force down our collective fucking throat. While you're at it, why not propose a fucking PRT system as well. Idiocy...

---

There's a difference between BRT and a bus system that simply works efficiently and cost-effectively.

Quality bus service is 100 times more important than Woodward light rail.

They should fix the bus service first. Ensure more reliable funding sources and better service along primary corridors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasu1213

I still say that the bus system should pay for itself. Money made through ridership should go not into the General Fund but back into the transportation system itself whether local or regional. The only time that the bus system loses money will be due to low ridership. The taxes from it could go to the city. The water company pay for itself by it's customers. DDOT could improve greatly using this idea

---

On what premise do you base this? No form of transportation in the world pays for itself. Let that sink in for a moment. None. Anywhere. On earth.

If transportation systems were capable of self-sufficiency, there would be no need for any sort of government intervention. No MDOT. No Wayne County Airports Authority. No Wayne County Road Commission. No Federal Aviation Administration. No Amtrak, SNCF, or Deutsche Bahn. But government gets into this business because transportation in and of itself is inherently unprofitable. By assuming this burden, government frees consumers to use the infrastructure to achieve their own profitability.

Why should buses in Detroit be the sole exception to this rule?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

On what premise do you base this? No form of transportation in the world pays for itself. Let that sink in for a moment. None. Anywhere. On earth.

If transportation systems were capable of self-sufficiency, there would be no need for any sort of government intervention. No MDOT. No Wayne County Airports Authority. No Wayne County Road Commission. No Federal Aviation Administration. No Amtrak, SNCF, or Deutsche Bahn. But government gets into this business because transportation in and of itself is inherently unprofitable. By assuming this burden, government frees consumers to use the infrastructure to achieve their own profitability.

Why should buses in Detroit be the sole exception to this rule?

---

Then have a privitazed bus system and see the profits increase for the owners. Detroit had for years paid little attention to it's transportation system. You had said that goverment frees consumers to use the infrastructur to achieve their own PROFITABILITY.Is money being generated though DDOT? Leave DDOT and Smart operating the way they do and have a private bus company that is regional and see how much money that company makes without government intervention which had done little to improve DDOT for more than 40 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasu1213

Then have a privitazed bus system and see the profits increase for the owners. Detroit had for years paid little attention to it's transportation system. You had said that goverment frees consumers to use the infrastructur to achieve their own PROFITABILITY.Is money being generated though DDOT? Leave DDOT and Smart operating the way they do and have a private bus company that is regional and see how much money that company makes without government intervention which had done little to improve DDOT for more than 40 years

---

I don't think you understand a single damned thing I wrote, so let me rephrase it:

IT. IS. IMPOSSIBLE. FOR. A. PRIVATE. COMPANY. TO. OPERATE. ANY. SORT. OF. TRANSPORTATION. SYSTEM. WITHOUT. PUBLIC. SUBSIDY.

If there were money to be made, companies would be lining up to do so. But they are not. Alas, we have to have government build our roads and rails and airports and sidewalks and ports. Because there isn't a single damned dime to be made by anyone. That's not a Detroit phenomenon, that's economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I don't think you understand a single damned thing I wrote, so let me rephrase it:

IT. IS. IMPOSSIBLE. FOR. A. PRIVATE. COMPANY. TO. OPERATE. ANY. SORT. OF. TRANSPORTATION. SYSTEM. WITHOUT. PUBLIC. SUBSIDY.

If there were money to be made, companies would be lining up to do so. But they are not. Alas, we have to have government build our roads and rails and airports and sidewalks and ports. Because there isn't a single damned dime to be made by anyone. That's not a Detroit phenomenon, that's economics.

---

The light rail that Penske, Karmanos, and the rest were going to build up Woodward from Hart Plaza to New Center area would had been privately owned or government owned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasu1213

The light rail that Penske, Karmanos, and the rest were going to build up Woodward from Hart Plaza to New Center area would had been privately owned or government owned

---

Yeah? You sure about that? Were they going to pay for operating costs too? What are the projected profits? Why did they have to leverage federal money if the light rail line is going to be profitable on its own? Why does every article I read on that matter cite the need to identify a "permanent funding source"?

Hmmmm. Wonder why that could be.

News flash: EVERYTHING is "privately owned or government owned". You're being intentionally disingenuous in order to skirt an argument that you can't prove.

Throw the ideology in the garbage can and start thinking about things that can work in the real world.

I think Hong Kong's rail network is privatized and profitable, but even there, it doesn't come close to fare-based profitability; it's cash cow is the real estate it bought back when land around stations was comparatively cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasu1213

Then have a privitazed bus system and see the profits increase for the owners. Detroit had for years paid little attention to it's transportation system. You had said that goverment frees consumers to use the infrastructur to achieve their own PROFITABILITY.Is money being generated though DDOT? Leave DDOT and Smart operating the way they do and have a private bus company that is regional and see how much money that company makes without government intervention which had done little to improve DDOT for more than 40 years

---

You really think that it's possible to run a private mass transit system that makes a profit?

Okay - I could cite example after example, study after study to prove that you don't what you're talking about. However, let's make this interesting.

Go ahead and launch a private, for-profit mass transit system - in Detroit or anywhere else in the nation.

I'll match your profits tenfold. For every $1 you earn in profits, I'll give you another $10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Yeah? You sure about that? Were they going to pay for operating costs too? What are the projected profits? Why did they have to leverage federal money if the light rail line is going to be profitable on its own? Why does every article I read on that matter cite the need to identify a "permanent funding source"?

Hmmmm. Wonder why that could be.

News flash: EVERYTHING is "privately owned or government owned". You're being intentionally disingenuous in order to skirt an argument that you can't prove.

Throw the ideology in the garbage can and start thinking about things that can work in the real world.

---

I would rather see the money DDOT recieves through ridership go back into the bus system itself that it all. Not into the general fund but into the system to help pay for repairs, upkeep of or new busses, and the reopening of closed routes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasu1213

I would rather see the money DDOT recieves through ridership go back into the bus system itself that it all. Not into the general fund but into the system to help pay for repairs, upkeep of or new busses, and the reopening of closed routes.

---

What makes you think that fare revenue *doesn't* go into operating expenses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

On what premise do you base this? No form of transportation in the world pays for itself. Let that sink in for a moment. None. Anywhere. On earth.
**************
But government gets into this business because transportation in and of itself is inherently unprofitable.

---

PASSENGER transport doesn't pay for itself.

Freight transport can be and is quite profitable.

Landing fees from air freight subsidize a lot of passengers costs at airports.

FEDEX and UPS are both profitable companies.

Railroads have survived without subsidies since the 19th century despite gummint parasitism.

Yes, waterway way transport benefits from gummint dredging of waterways [[which the ACOE has been doing for most of our nation's history.

Passenger transport used to be profitable [[barely so) until about 1920.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

PASSENGER transport doesn't pay for itself.

Freight transport can be and is quite profitable.

Landing fees from air freight subsidize a lot of passengers costs at airports.

FEDEX and UPS are both profitable companies.

Railroads have survived without subsidies since the 19th century despite gummint parasitism.

Yes, waterway way transport benefits from gummint dredging of waterways [[which the ACOE has been doing for most of our nation's history.

Passenger transport used to be profitable [[barely so) until about 1920.

---

Nah. There are or have been plenty of subsidies for those carriers [[railroads are still some of the largest landholders, thanks to the generous 19th century U.S. government) and many of their costs are externalized and passed on to the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

On what premise do you base this? No form of transportation in the world pays for itself. Let that sink in for a moment. None. Anywhere. On earth.

If transportation systems were capable of self-sufficiency, there would be no need for any sort of government intervention. No MDOT. No Wayne County Airports Authority. No Wayne County Road Commission. No Federal Aviation Administration. No Amtrak, SNCF, or Deutsche Bahn. But government gets into this business because transportation in and of itself is inherently unprofitable. By assuming this burden, government frees consumers to use the infrastructure to achieve their own profitability.

Why should buses in Detroit be the sole exception to this rule?

---

Do you really think that the consumer would lose out if the bus system was privatized?

So did anyone attend any of these public comment meetings about the DDOT changes? I was hoping to attend one but didn't make it; still I hope the letter I wrote did some good. Hopefully the magnitude of service changes come June 25 won't be anything near as severe as what DDOT originally laid out. Guess we'll have to said and see....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasu1213

Do you really think that the consumer would lose out if the bus system was privatized?

---

Yes, I do think consumers would lose out in a privatized transit system, for the simple reason that the motive changes from "moving people" to "profit". What is most profitable for the transit operator isn't necessarily what is most profitable for the Greater Good.

And of course, in order to allow for any kind of profit on top of existing operating expenses, fares and government subsidies would necessarily have to go through the roof. Profit is nothing more than an additional, unnecessary expense when discussing public services. SMART and DDOT exist on a shoestring budget as it is--who covers this additional cost once profit is added to the metrics???

It is possible to privatize all or part of bus service but the resulting private company would have to be paid [[out of public funds) to operate the service. This is already being done, all over the place. Many school districts have contracted out school bus service to First Student or others. DDOT has contracted out its paratransit service to private operators for many years.

Generally the profit in a private contract transit arrangement comes from imposing operational efficiencies of various types: better purchasing arrangements with parts suppliers, changes in contracts with various classes of employees, etc. So it's not inconceivable. I don't see it happening any time soon though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

It is possible to privatize all or part of bus service but the resulting private company would have to be paid [[out of public funds) to operate the service. This is already being done, all over the place. Many school districts have contracted out school bus service to First Student or others. DDOT has contracted out its paratransit service to private operators for many years.

Generally the profit in a private contract transit arrangement comes from imposing operational efficiencies of various types: better purchasing arrangements with parts suppliers, changes in contracts with various classes of employees, etc. So it's not inconceivable. I don't see it happening any time soon though.

---

How many private companies are honestly qualified to transport 140,000 Detroiiters a day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

How many private companies are honestly qualified to transport 140,000 Detroiiters a day?

---

I am not sure of the exact numbers, but the Fairfax Connector bus service in Fairfax County, VA is contractor operated and seems to work well.

Google "Her..." and "Veolia" for large public transport system contract operators.


Edit: for some reason, it keeps editing out the last three letters of H-E-R-Z-O-G

Why not just have a transit agency adopt Veolia's business practices, cut out the profit, and save money for the taxpayer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Why not just have a transit agency adopt Veolia's business practices, cut out the profit, and save money for the taxpayer?

---

That would be like ... COMMUNISM.

Remember, anything where you COULD take a profit must be privatized so legal graft can take place.

Anything that's inherently unprofitable [[insuring nuclear reactors, etc.) must be SOCIALIZED to saddle the taxpayer with junk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Why not just have a transit agency adopt Veolia's business practices, cut out the profit, and save money for the taxpayer?

---

That's exactly the right recipe. But when we try and do that here, we get corruption, incompetence, bureaucracy, with a gigantic dash of spend now / pay later. That's the only reason to privatize.

The best system would be publicly owned and operated. But its pretty clear that its as likely here as flying unicorns.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

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

---

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

I mean, how hard can it be?

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

Step 2: ?????

Step 3: Profit

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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

I mean, how hard can it be?

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

Step 2: ?????

Step 3: Profit

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coracle

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coracle

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denver, another boomtown, added limited rail very recently.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

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

---

Ha! Love it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Denver, another boomtown, added limited rail very recently.

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coracle

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coracle

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

---

Two things:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Two things:

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Det_ard

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Det_ard

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Det_ard

Everyone else puts schools #2 after crime.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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

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

---

High levels of measured student achievement.

Low incidences of criminal activity on the school grounds.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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

---

If you didn't understand my answer find a doofus to explain it to you.

coracle: Do your parents know you're using the Internet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coracle

If you didn't understand my answer find a doofus to explain it to you.

---

You didn't answer the question. You just said something about population decline, which has nothing to do with the question that was asked. So, please explain why a city should base its transportation planning on the hypothetical that the city might one day move?

Back on track.....before the buses get off track beginning June 25:

DDOT holds public hearings on proposed transit cuts

Citizens voice concerns over route cuts, job losses, public safety


By KRYSTLE HUDSON | The South End
Updated: 05/14/11 4:54pm

Tools


http://thesouthend.wayne.edu/media/0...3506_ddotp.jpg
Tyler D. Griffis / South End

DDOT director Lovevett Williams said DDOT’s costs have increased 15 percent, forcing cuts to be made. The proposed changes will be implemented June 25 after all decisions regarding them have been reached.

More information


For more information about changes to a particular route visit www.Detroittransit.org or call 313-963-8872.



A public hearing held May 12 at the Roberto Clemente Recreation Center near Corktown allowed Detroit Department of Transportation users to sound off on proposed transportation cuts.

The meeting, which was attended by around 30 people, was one of seven held by DDOT this month to encourage Detroit residents to give their input and be aware of the proposed changes. Neither Mayor Bing nor city council members attended.

The proposed changes, which will be implemented June 25 after a final decision is reached, stem from both increases in fuel cost and several employee benefits and decreases in state gas tax revenue and Detroit’s general funds.

“These cuts came as a result as budget issues. Our health, our fixed costs have increased 15% from last year. So although the city is funding us at the same level, we have new expenses that we didn’t have before. So we have our same budget, but we have $10 million dollars to pay just to pitch in to counter cost. So we’re going to have to cut back in some areas,” said DDOT director Lovevett Williams.

The proposed bus route eliminations include Route 76 — Hayes Limited and Route 78 — Imperial Limited. While Route 8 — Caniff may be linked with Route 38 — Plymouth, if changed as proposed, it will be renamed 38 Plymouth/Caniff. Several other initial bus wait times may increase from 40 to 60 minutes. Additionally, there would be a longer wait time between 9 p.m. and 2 a.m.

Williams said the proposed changes would eliminate 24-hour bus service. Once the changes are enacted, bus service will begin at 5 a.m. She also said the routes with the fewest passengers will be targeted to be cut.

“We’ll digest everything everyone tells us,” said Williams. “We’ll look at what we will adjust based on the feedback. On May 26 we’re going to come out and let everyone know what’s going to happen. The feedback does matter, but bottom line is we have to cut somewhere.”

Although bus fares will not increase, the price of monthly regional bus passes is set to increase from $49.50 to $69.50.

Several DDOT buses are posting flyers about the proposed bus cuts.

Those who attended the meeting were angry about the possibility of jobs being lost and concerned about safety and how their children will get to school. Riders whose only means of transportation is through bus services said the change could significantly affect their daily lives.

“It is dangerous at night. I have to walk to a new job that I just got because there is no bus there. There is a three-hour walk, and it is pitch-black dark. My life is on the line,” frequent bus rider Austin Simpson III said. “I borrowed $30 for cab fare that I don’t have. I cannot walk three hours in the dark where there [[are) drug addicts [[and) thieves and [[the possibility to) be robbed for the little bit of money I make.”

The follow-up meeting to present the proposed service changes will take place at 5:30 p.m. on May 26 at the Considine Little Rock Family Life Center, located at 8904 Woodward Ave. in Detroit.

“I thought the mayor and city council were supposed to be improving the city instead of tearing it down by closing our schools,” city worker Giselle Coleman said. “I ride the bus every day, and I talk to people, and this is how our citizens feel. They have lost trust and confidence in our elected officials because they are [[steadily) beating us up and tearing us down.”

http://thesouthend.wayne.edu/index.p...d_transit_cuts

Hmm. I thought City Council just voted down the increase in the regional fare.

The fuel cost increase, of course, nobody can do too much about, but the increases in health care costs could have been managed in contract negotiations. DDOT also pays too much for parts [[they have to pay a premium to get anything at all because they don't pay their bills in a timely fashion, or so I've heard) and has millions of dollars of farebox revenue mysteriously wandering off into the ether.

There were other options instead of just cutting service further - they might have had to cut, but not this much - but the other options required leadership.

I also thought an increase in the Regional Pass rate to $69.50 was off the table. Which is why I suggested increasing the Regional Pass rate $2.00 per year in increments until it reaches $59.50. This is on par with another [[what I consider to be a superior) transit system, the Boston MBTA, charges for their current unlimited ride pass for subway + bus + streetcar/light rail.

And I still have no idea why increasing the regular baseline 1-way fare to $2.00 [[with an incremental increase to $1.75) is not being considered either. Hopefully the full list of cuts DDOT proposed will not take place. We'll find out in just a couple days.

Leadership? There are too many letters I'm not familiar with in that word.

Not anything as bad as was proposed. Still, no improvements to service were made on any routes. Most changes seem to be lengthening of headway between trips after 10pm and in some cases all day on weekends. 24 hour service appears to still be in effect. Some routing changes are in effect. It looks like fares and pass prices have not changed [[I can't believe this). See the full list of changes here:

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/d..._June_2011.pdf

This is not nearly as drastic as what was first presented to the public, more of a bummer than a catastrophe. Rocko, DDOT can't raise fares without City Council approval. They sought approval last month to raise the price of the monthly regional pass and it was denied them. It would be more immediately helpful to them to stem the loss of farebox cash to theft. But they do need a fare increase.