Printable View
Three years ago today, the Q line began operating. It would be interesting to see a month by month tabulation of passenger counts for the last three years.
Since the Q line was announced in about 2014, there have been several billion dollars of investments in properties within walking distance of the Q line. The Q line may have played some role in those investment decisions.
Duggan was recently on the record stating if things go right, light rail on Michigan and Jefferson would be possibilities. If this comes to fruition, some of the issues and mistakes with the QLine could be worked out on the new lines and we could actually have some semblance of a light rail system.
They better make it center running with dedicated lanes and signal priority or it will be just as useless as the QLine.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonWylie
Unfortunately, they do not permit us to have that information.Quote:
Originally Posted by renf
They are a private entity, and as such, they do not feel the need to report to us.
The one piece of data the city managed to negotiate into the agreement is that they must provide a total ridership number once a year.
I believe the numbers come out the first week of May. [[last week).
When it opened, officials expected ridership to be 8,000 per day
Riders per day for all of 2017 was 2,700
Riders per day for all of 2018 was 3,280
Riders per day in early 2019 was 2,490, but the years figures haven't been released yet.
Because of Covid,.. the numbers that come out any time now for '19 will be the last relevant ones [[for spotting a trend) for another 2 years,..as Covid will make the 2020 numbers artificially low.
I would rather see center-run BRT with dedicated bus lanes, elevated platforms, pay-at-the-platform.
I don't see what the advantages are to rail as opposed to bus.
Oh Christ, this will be the start to a 4 page argument if Brt it Lrt is the way to go...Quote:
Originally Posted by 48307
Again
You're welcome! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seven&wyo
I should have included a snippet from JohnWylie, I was responding to his statements about possible expansion of street cars to other places in Detroit.
At-grade rail has only disadvantages.
By “recently” did you mean before or after the shit hit the fan with the Coronavirus thing hit the fan?Quote:
Originally Posted by JonWylie
After. He mentioned it after announcing a new Director [[CEO?) to DDOT I think a few days agoQuote:
Originally Posted by softailrider
No, recent as in the last couple of days in this article. And a short blurb here.Quote:
Originally Posted by softailrider
"I also think it's within the realm of possibility, depending what happens in the national elections, there could be a national infrastructure bill that could have the potential for light rail," Duggan said, and wants Detroit to be "ready if the opportunity presents itself, whether it's on Jefferson [[Avenue), whether it's on Michigan [[Avenue), we're looking at a lot of different choices."
It seems pretty clear he's referring to Biden getting elected. Duggan and Biden are pretty buddy buddy and Biden has already mentioned more national infrastructure including trains. Maybe if they get a solid plan down and advertise it to the state and Detroit, it will drive turn out.
I would support the addition of a line on East Jefferson. The stretch between downtown and St Jean is probably the most fully developed and commercially diverse artery not named Woodward. Adding transportation infrastructure would probably improve development going down towards the river as well. Tourists prefer trains to buses. I would bet a train line would see the addition of hotels along that stretch.
Biden has an infrastructure proposal, but like many "shovel ready projects" I'm not going to get too excited even if he gets elected.
If you scroll through some bullet points about highway and car infrastructure programs, you get to this: "As president, Biden will aim to provide all Americans in municipalities of more than 100,000 people with quality public transportation by 2030. To that end, he’ll increase flexible federal investments, helping cities and towns to install light rail networks and to improve existing transit and bus lines."
I guess that could mean a light rail expansion? The whole thing is a generic collection of buzzwords and phrases that you tend to see during elections. I'd imagine Duggan has had some more specific conversations.
I think Duggan's "relationship" with Biden and Duggan's words are more what indicates this might be more than just a vague proposalQuote:
Originally Posted by EGrant
Yeah, here’s hoping there’s some federal / private money available for that rail expansion. That cash cow spigot, that was the casino tax money sure has disappeared, for now anyway. Also, not sure how popular mass transit is going to be in a Coronavirus world, if you have other alternatives available.
But what do I know? I’m just a suburbanite who likes to drive his car, alone.
The QLine isn't conducive to expanding to light rail. You could add a mile or something to keep it as a trolley that goes more places [[maybe an expansion to Henry Ford Hospital on one end and Eastern Market on the other), but to make it into a light rail system you'd have to rebuild a lot of it.
- The the problems the QLine experiences from being mixed in traffic will only be magnified by an expansion.
- The QLine doesn't have real stations. They're basically just bus stops with a raised curb. They're not physically large enough to hold a large number of people waiting for a train. The platforms aren't long enough for longer light rail trains. Proper stations would need to be built.
- Right now the vehicles are partially run on batteries, and idk how that affects expanding the system.
- The current operations and maintenance facility isn't big enough to store more vehicles. You'd have to build another one.
- There's still the problem of spending extra money to duplicate existing service, but with lower service quality. It's slower and less reliable and goes less far than existing buses.
I've looked into a People Mover expansion along Jefferson to Van Dyke with some amount of detail.
A PM expansion over that route would be faster than driving during rush hour and competitive with driving during other times of the day. It would take 7 minutes to travel, including station dwell time. In my math I use a frequency of every 5 minutes, which is frequent enough for people to painlessly transfer from buses. In other words, it could replace existing bus routes, and even with the added transfer time, would still be faster.
The operating costs of a transit line can be estimated by using the vehicle revenue hours, from schedules, and multiplying that by the operating cost per vehicle revenue hour info from the FTA.
The buses along the route which would be replaced currently cost $18,000 per day to operate.
The PM expansion would cost between $21,000 and $33,000 per year [[2013 and 2018 costs, it changes year to year).
But that's not the whole story. The People Mover provides transit police services to DDOT and the QLine, which increases the operating costs on paper, despite being reimbursed by those agencies. In 2017 that was $2.7 million, 15% of their total $18.2 operating expenses that year. I can't find how much the QLine pays.
Taking that into account, the "true" cost of operating the expansion would be $17,900-28,000 per day.
On top of that, many of the PM's current operating expenses are fixed costs, or at least scale efficiently. Doubling the amount of service doesn't double the amount of costs. You don't need double the people to watch the security cameras, you don't need double the administrators, etc. So that range should be on the conservative side, it could very well cost less.
Tilting things even more in the PM's favor would be the few thousand dollars of fare money from new riders who would otherwise not have ridden the bus.
All in all, in terms of operating costs, a People Mover expansion would cost about the same to operate as the current buses.
In terms of capital costs, it would probably cost between $350-500 million to build. In order to figure out if the expansion would pay for itself, you would need to figure out how it would affect property values, and how any growth would affect income taxes. You also have to do math involving interest rates from bonds, inflation, the amount of growth that's expected anyway, and other things, which I don't know how to do.
I do know, though, that LCA raised $250 million from bonds backed by a TIF, in an area with less total taxable value [[I don't have the numbers on hand) than Jefferson. Jefferson already has a lot of valuable properties which would become even more valuable, but it also has a lot of great riverfront land that imo would be very attractive if it was so conveniently connected to downtown. For income taxes, if the expansion caused 2,000 more people to live along the route than otherwise, and they made $50,000 each and paid the 2.5% city resident income tax, that would raise $75 million over 30 years. The money made from a TIF and income taxes already goes into the ballpark of the capital costs. I imagine the more the impacts were studied, the more capital costs would be covered.
Great stuff, Jason. I hadn't thought about the PM in those terms, as it's mostly dismissed as a carnival ride in its current state. Vancouver has turned their version of the People Mover into a very efficient system, so it's definitely possible.
Imagine getting on a bus with wide individual cushioned seats that recline with leg rests, wifi, and perfect 70 degree climate control winter or summer. In the back, behind an anteroom hand wash sinks and mirrors, is a separate men and women's restroom. The bus pulls away silently and with its super-suspension no bumps are felt. Since it is not on rails it weaves effortlessly through traffic, it sensors coordinating with traffic lights to minimize delays.
That's what I want.
Fantasy? No. I rode on just that for the 150 mile from San Miguel de Allende to Mexico City--seven years ago.
I will argue that for less than the cost of the Qline, and any additions, and operational costs that option could be offered instead.
And did I mention that it would not have to stop at the Boulevard? Or Royal Oak? Or Pontiac?
Unfortunately, in order for a bus system to have wide-spread appeal and ridership, the "bus" has to overcome a decades-long negative perception within the general population--a perception that does not seem to hinder rail systems, particularly in cities with subways. They're certainly are cost and efficiency arguments in favor of a flexible bus system, and perhaps future generations will not be hampered by these negative perceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
That's an understatement.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongGone06
Light rail is not only less flexible, slower, and able to be completely incapacitated by one poorly parked car or one breakdown, but it also costs roughly TEN TIMES as much per passenger mile.
So even if the super-luxo buses Lowell speaks of cost twice as much as regular buses,.. we're still talking about something 5x as effective as light rail. And that's just in terms of cost,.. add in the extra flexibility and speed,.. and you're talking 6-7x the value.
Light rail [[esp grade level in traffic lanes) is the single worst and most expensive system you can get. And for a poor area like Detroit,.. that makes it a disaster.
It feels like it's been around longer than that.
Overall, despite the shit it gets from internet edglords the Q-line is great. Every time I've used it the cars come mostly on time and the ride was very pleasant. If I lived downtown I would use it regularly.
Here's hoping for dedicated lane additions on Michigan and Jefferson and up Woodward.
The benefits of light rail cannot be overstated, permanent fixed routes, higher rider capacity, doesn't break down the roads with excess weight and runs on electricity.
We have been doing that for the last 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
https://www.redcoachusa.com/schedule/
Even if Biden does get elected, the GOP is likely to retain control of the Senate. As such, there will be no/minimal infrastructure spending. Such a bill would be very popular, and the GOP will make sure Biden doesn’t get that recognition.Quote:
Originally Posted by EGrant
It would basically be the result of “Whitmer’s fix the d—- Roads” on a national level. Just like the GOP won’t allow any realistic highway plan to happen in the state legislature for a democratic governor, a GOP senate would find a way to block it for a Democrat President.
Bus vs. Rail comes down to what political goal are you trying to achieve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
If you are attempting to provide the best bang-for-the-buck transit option so lower income folks can get around and provide the jobs critical to the economy, than busses/BRT is the way to go.
On the other hand if you are trying to attract higher income urbanists and the higher income jobs that come with it to your city, rail is necessary. I will be the first to admit that surface rail transit over busses is pure aesthetics, and that busses can operate just as well [[if not better). But fair or not, the perception is that busses = low income. If you want to attract higher income folks to ride, it needs to be rail.
It really comes down to what goal is trying to be achieved.
What gives you that impression? The republicans have 23 seats up for re-election, the democrats only 12. The odds are that the democrats may win a few extra ones. 2 Democratic governors are vying for republican seats, among the 23. And a few other republicans [[Susan Collins of Maine for example) are in races that are a toss up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus
I would say that it's at least a 50-50 chance the Democrats may take over the Senate [[they only need to win 3 more).
While I agree it is possible, I still think it is unlikely that the Dems will be able to flip enough senate seats to get to 50 [[and win the tiebreaker should Biden also win).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Jones’ Alabama seat will go back to the GOP. That means the Dems would need to flip 4 other seats to get to 50. The GOP seats in Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Arizona are probably the most vulnerable, but all involve races against a moderate Republican incumbent. The Dems would need to win all 4, or win somewhere else that leans heavily republican. And in doing so, the Dems couldn’t afford to lose any other of their own existing seats sans Doug Jones. Other than Jones, the Dems should be able to keep what they have. Arguably Michigan’s Gary Peters is probably the most vulnerable Democrat after Jones in this senate election.
It is possible, but I still think unlikely. The senate map does look more favorable for the Dems in 2022 however.
Just curious if you guys think voting will be a logistical nightmare. It appears Republicans will keep mail-in ballots are off the table. Could they not spread voting over several days?
Without trying to derail this thread too much, I think there's a good chance Democrats pick up a seat in Arizona and Colorado, while losing one in Alabama. That essentially leaves Maine and NC as the big toss ups, but I also think Montana could be in the picture with Bullock running. Michigan probably stays Peters but the make-up of the Senate could hinge on just a few percentage points.
Back to the light rail and bus debate, a large thing that often makes rail worth the investment is the sense of permanency of the rail compared to a bus. People buy homes, rent apartments, put businesses, and build new buildings close to light rail/subway lines because they know the stream of commerce will be there for the long term, its something you don't see as often with traditional buses. Bus rapid transit may be a good compromise but have to make it gold standard bus rapid transit with 100% dedicated lanes, even boarding, and long buses.
If you want tourist or tech savvy young employees to appreciate buses you have to update the bus, the stops and the reliability of the system. All far more affordable then laying tracks. Hopefully Ford is thinking along these lines with their ‘mobility company’ philosophy.
https://www.daimler.com/innovation/a...uture-bus.html
I found an article that has ridership numbers for EARLY 2019 [[still cold out?), and it was 2,490 per day.
All of 2018 was 3,200 a day,.. so it seems to be continuing to fall.
Numbers should have come out last week for 2019. But I think they're closed down. Supposedly they have 2 cars running occasionally,. but no ne answers the phone.
I found an article that has ridership numbers for EARLY 2019 [[still cold out?), at 2,490 per day.
All of 2018 was 3,280 a day,.. so it seems to be continuing to fall. [[For reference, when it opened, officials said they were expecting 8,000 a day). So another wisdom nugget,... don't believe models and projections.
The numbers should have come out last week for 2019. But I think QLine is closed down. Supposedly they have 2 cars running occasionally,. but I'm guessing no one is coming into the office. At least no one is answering the phone.
**Deleted.
Detroit is not a mass transit city anymore, I guess it used to be but that ended 60 years ago. Now it seems like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Cities will always need and benefit from mass transit no matter what city it is. So it's really the opposite. Detroit needs to expand and build public transit infrastructure and there is no reason it can't. The writing is on the wall but boomer types are kicking and screaming the entire way desperately smashing the private car peg.Quote:
Originally Posted by softailrider
They want their extremely inefficient highways and pedestrian murdering wide roads, sorry but people have other needs and people want to go forward with better alternatives.
I presume that's BEFORE you consider the cost,.. and the myriad of other things that don't happen because the money was spent on light rail?Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro25
Because when you're strapped for cash, spending billions on something that's the least efficient and least flexible of it's type is usually considered a boondoggle, and not a benefit.
The region needs mass transit, not just the cityQuote:
Originally Posted by softailrider
Amen, people need to realize that the whole region needs mass transit, it's not a city of Detroit thing. We are missing out on billions of dollars in economic activity and prosperity without mass transit. Not to mention a lot of federal government money.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonWylie
Things are changing though, lots of leadership in the region is different and lots of political changes at the state level will come as a result of the anti-gerrymandering bill that passed.
I don't think you're going to get anyone here that's going to argue that we should spend money on things we don't need. Better bus transit should 100% be a goal for the region. However, there are areas that could be served by rail that could be very effective, maybe even more so than bus transit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
Ya that’s what we need, a vehicle we can pack a mass of people in to spread virus faster! Good luck with that.
Just curious why the same folks who pump rail constantly on this forum for years sometimes under different screen names never suggest running that Billion Dollar Elevated train down 7 mile, arguably the densest part of Detroit instead of the constant running downtown to airport or A2 and Royal Oak up the flagpole?
The average Detroiter is really not looking to spend a month in Thailand or desperate to go get hammered in RO or A2 on $7 craft beers without getting in a car.
Why exactly are the neighborhoods of Detroit somehow always left out of the equation of ‘the rail Detroit has to have?’
Downtown is the region's single biggest employment center. And within Detroit, other than a handful of factories, it contains nearly all of Detroit's jobs. Downtown is the single biggest individual place that Detroiters are traveling to.
If you travel up Woodward [[DDOT's most used route) the closest logical point to end the route is Royal Oak, because it's a reasonably dense place and it's a major SMART bus hub, has an Amtrak station, and importantly SE Oakland County has a large number of downtown workers [[if you're looking at this as a neutral transit issue and not a political or social justice issue). tbh DDOT should just extend their own buses express to Royal Oak because it's such a better transfer point to suburban jobs than the State Fairgrounds.
For 7 Mile specifically, about twice as many people ride the buses on Woodward. 7 Mile doesn't have much employment [[except for St John at the very end), and I'm guessing most of the people riding that bus route are actually using it to transfer. Elevated rail on Woodward would be more useful to most people living along 7 Mile because it could mean that they could take a short bus ride to the metro station, and then get to their destination faster, without having to worry about transfer delays or reliability issues or waiting at a bus stop for forever.
You could look at other routes too though.
The problem with Gratiot is that its jobs are very dispersed and along a VERY long route. The route would really need to go all the way to Mt Clemens in order to cover all of the retail jobs that people are traveling to. Just by its nature, improved bus service makes more sense for Gratiot. That's not even thinking about the politics of building transit in Macomb County.
Grand River is similar, except that it has less employment.
Michigan Avenue in Detroit isn't that great as a route [[although I think the route could jog over to serve SW Detroit). But Dearborn is tied with Hamtramck for having the densest neighborhoods. But it also is a major employment center, and has colleges, major tourist attractions, an Amtrak station, and a lot of developable land. And then after that you have the I-94 and existing rail right of ways to make a quick jump to the airport.
Jefferson is a route that I think should be taken more seriously than it usually is. The area near downtown is dense, but also has a decent amount of employment and other destinations, and it has a strong commuting relationship to downtown. Grosse Pointe and Harper Woods also have a very strong commuting relationship to downtown. And physically it's the easiest and cheapest to build transit on. I think a route on Jefferson and then jogging and going to St John would be successful.
Then there are other routes to look at. Dexter is ridden a lot but Dexter is basically a branch of the Woodward bus route. It follows Woodward for a while and then it veers off to go into the denser residential areas instead of following Woodward, and it lets people make one seat rides. A lot of routes do this, they're east-west routes and the when they get close to Woodward they turn and go downtown. But with a really fast frequent backbone these funky routings wouldn't be needed, you'd just need good crosstown service perpendicular to the route and it becomes faster to transfer to the metro.
Our region has a reverse commute thing going on where many suburbanites commute downtown and many Detroits commute to the suburbs. The biggest bus stops are the transfer points between SMART and DDOT because those are the trips that actual people are making. The routes that objectively make the most sense are ones that connect downtown to the suburbs.
Jason,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. The Census Bureau annually publishes data about the population density of all the geographic areas you mention.
Not to mention that seven mile is probably the safest area of Detroit!Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
^^^Um, hah! I get the sarcasm there. No rail is going to be financed down Seven mile, within Detroit - east or west!
The politically incorrect [[but probably truthful) answer is that it doesn’t make sense to spend limited public dollars on rail, for a route that serves almost entirely low income neighborhoods.
Yes that statement sounds awful, and is not socially just at first. But the cost difference between bus and rail is huge. Obviously transit is necessary, and governments should create the best bus systems they can. But my point is basically this: You could spend X dollars on providing bus transit to low income folks, or you could spend X+Y dollars to provide that same transit via rail. But the real question is what is the best use of that Y dollars? I would argue there are many better things you could do with those Y dollars than basically pay to upgrade the bus to rail. Things like after school programs, job training, etc. is a far better economic use of those Y dollars for the low income neighborhoods.
Conversely, if you are trying to attract out-of-town investment, new urbanists and job creators, and the higher income earners who will contribute more to your local tax base, than maybe the economics of rail may make sense. Sounds harsh, but that is what will get the best return for your tax investment.
Maybe on the west side near Palmer Woods... but not on the east side. 48205 is one of the 3 roughest zip codes in Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheels
Whether someone is rich or poor does affect the finances from the city's point of view, but the city still gets money from upgrading transit for poor people.
If someone is unemployed and doesn't have a car, the city makes $0 in income taxes, but if better transit gets them a job and they make $25,000, the city gets $625 a year, plus at least $900 a year in fares. If this happens with 2,500 people, over the course of 30 years the city would get over $100 million dollars that it wasn't getting before, plus a bunch of spinoff benefits [[less crime/police costs, less blight/demolition costs, etc). When it's all said and done, DDOT is probably a profitable investment for the city.
From an economic pov, it makes waaaay more sense to spend on rail than just about anything else. Investing in rail is a pretty safe bet for expanding Detroit's tax base. Putting money into social programs is commendable, but the money will eventually run out if the city doesn't grow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus
I think that Biden will make sure Detroit will get its mass transit together as he had done a few years ago when the Reflex busses had started in Detroit
I don't think Biden gives a shit about Detroit and I don't see him winning.
Biden doesn't have a magic wand to make mass transit work in Detroit. Detroit doesn't have good mass transit because of politics in the Detroit area. No other reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
Completely agree. Having transit is very important. The question is what is the best way to provide that transit? Buses are far more economical than rail in almost all situations. The argument I am making is not whether transit is important or not, but whether it makes sense to have “nicer” transit [[aka rail). And my argument is it generally doesn’t make economic sense in low income areas, unless you are expecting gentrification to occur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
It only makes sense if you actually expect gentrification to occur as a result [[or partial result) of rail transit. Otherwise you are wasting tax money that could be better spent elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Pre-COVID, if a business was trying to impress a client, they’d fly them first class. If that same business was sending a low level employee on a work trip, they flew them in coach. No different for bus vs. rail. There is an economic benefit and moral obligation to providing transit [[busses). There is not a need to provide premium expensive-to-build rail transit unless you are trying to impress, and obtain new neighborhood investment.
Finally, let’s be clear. There are certain parts of Detroit where gentrification is possible, and parts where it’s not. 7 Mile is not going to gentrify even if you built the best light rail system in the world on that corridor. Too many cheaply built houses that no one actually wants. East Jefferson on the other hand could gentrify, as there is a lot of cool architectural gems in need of repair, and the proximity to the river helps immensely. If you are going to build rail somewhere to attract investors, that is the place to do it.
With everything going on with climate change and driverless vehicles,all it takes is a dedicated administration at the top to alter the world.
The attitudes towards public transportation will change when the options become limited,no matter what ones paygrade is.
So looking at the future and as a city,is it better to be ahead of the curve or stay behind it while playing catch-up.
I see FTA funds being allotted for public transit every month,but never see Detroit on that list,without a solid plan and organization,it becomes irrelevant whether it is rail or wheels.
I think it would be really tough to put heaters in rickshaws.
Instead of putting the cart in front of the horse,it needs to be 100% concentration on the plan,lots of other cities have systems in place that have no issues of offering guidance as to how to move forward,just gotta ask.
The cities that you see now with established systems,did not wake up one day and just decided to throw rails or wheels down,it took grassroot volunteers to form an organization in order to put the pieces in place before it could even get established.
They kinda took the initiative and got the organizers,organized.
Its never that easy.
Long story but it's not really about gentrification [[also architecture really isn't a gentrification driver). One of the most fascinating things about Detroit is that there is so much land in the center of the city that basically has zero value. That is why so many people find Detroit fascinating, especially people from places where cities organized around rail transit is the norm. A rail based transit system in Detroit would go a long way towards reorienting the city's real estate to give intrinsic value to broader parts of the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus
^ That right there.
To me anyways to deliver the highest impact with the highest ridership would be the spoke routes.
IE Downtown Detroit to downtown Highland Park,downtown Detroit to Downtown Hamtramck etc.
The Qline is really just a taste.
A lot of funding depends of FTA grants and they look at aggressive highest impact routes.
They do not really look at feeder routes until the basic main lines are established.
Key word is “connecting”
I agree many people find Detroit fascinating, but disagree with the economic value proposition of rail. Using the airplane example, sure it would be great if everyone could fly first class... but the coach seat gets you there just as fast at a quarter the cost. If money were no object, I’d agree and say build rail everywhere over busses. But building rail for low income folks so they have a better experience than taking the bus... just seems wasteful. Maybe that’s a socialist vs capitalist argument... but the reality is the majority of folks in this state and country are on the capitalist side.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
As for gentrification, architecture does matter. There is a reason people are fascinated about moving into all of these rehabilitated beautiful buildings in the city. Architecture is not always a factor, but it definitely can be a significant part of the equation. When architecture is not a factor, the situation is more market driven with the housing supply and demand being out of whack. [[I.e. high income people settling for a crappy house in Seattle, San Francisco, etc. because the housing supply is so limited that prices for even crappy houses are astronomical). Detroit is never going to be in that market demand situation. The housing supply here is too plentiful.
If you think Detroit is just a place to house poor people, then I guess I would agree. But I'm talking about the big picture, and this requires both vision and a sense of civic pride. If you put a shovel in the ground for a subway today, you're talking about something that won't even be used for nearly a decade. Investing in rail means thinking about what Detroit looks like in 2040. Can the city last another 20 years as just a big ghetto?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus
Gentrification is a market force. The only reason it correlates with architecture is because of this country's history of urban abandonment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus
I agree that architecture does matter as a spoke in the wheel of the bigger picture.It is a binding part of the cities history and should be preserved for future generations,is a part of the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus
I also remember 8 years ago when it was all about giving control of Belle Island to the state because the city was never coming back,and the wide scale demolition of buildings because Detroit was never coming back and it should be just bulldozed into the river.
And here you are today,you are there for the very reasons that Iheart points out.
Do not look at how something looks today and base decisions,look at what it could look like in the future.
When Congress enacted and President Trump approved the CARES act, $24.9 billion became available to assist public transit agencies that lost revenue due to the pandemic. $13.4 billion of that was allocated to the 10 largest transit system, typically ones that operate extensive heavy rail systems. Does any one know how much funding, if any, was allocated by CARES to DOT, SMART and the Q-line?
Thank you.
140 million to the Detroit airport
Up to $64 million in separate CARES Act dollars go the Detroit Department of Transportation. Of that, $16 million will go toward reimbursing the bus system for what it's losing in fare revenue and some will go to bus system improvements. Since March 18, fares are free and the frequency of buses and number of routes has been reduced during the pandemic. The city also contributes $60 million from its general fund for DDOT, but this coming year it is using $20 million of that to make up for its own lost revenue, and using some of the CARES Act dollars to replace it, said Dave Massaron, the city's chief financial officer.
https://www.crainsdetroit.com/govern...s-due-covid-19
Not sure on the Q-line because it is private?
I am beginning to think Crains is one of the only sources left in the country that actually make it a point to be informative.
Kudos
This outlines what the funds can be used for
https://www.apta.com/advocacy-legisl...ublic-transit/
^ that link is also a useful tool for those more serious about pushing/implementing transit options.
Thank you very much. Q-line does have an unusual status since it is
not fully a governmental enterprise. I think they may not have to
frequently report their patronage as most other public transit systems do.
The city is obviously not just a "big ghetto place to house poor people". What is wrong with some of you.
What land in the center of the city has "zero value"?? You mean the million dollar homes selling in Brush Park? You probably couldn't afford most of what's available in the center today. Yeah zero value my ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
The obsession with rail is also really dumb, most newer growing cities do a lot with buses. Rail in whatever form isn't some magical solution for inner cities you just have to look at Houston and Dallas to see that.