Printable View
A certain poster, Claude, found this link. Fascinating stuff. Anybody qualified to comment on various subway systems proposed for Detroit over the years?
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yj4pAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=Detroi t's+underground+subway+passages&source=bl&ots=zTk-ylVFSP&sig=QXzNwmoHodmSTZILEIXYAIAH7X8&hl=en&ei=z1 PGTJLgNMiKnQfDuvWGAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result &resnum=7&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
What might have been...
That was some great subway plan and great source. Too bad that the autombile companies like General Motors, Ford, Chrysler lobby City of Detroit to put a stop on the subway. The Auto industries want ever last people on Metro-Detroit area to drive their cars and they did contributing to air polution and traffic congestions.
WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET
Did you know that in 1950s General Motors brought what's left of the old Los Angeles Subway System. What they did with it, THEY SHUT IT DOWN and help assisting of building mega freeways and highways that they still there today. the result, more cars, more traffic jams and congestions, more heavy smog quality and smog checks in every collision shop. I have been to L.A. and I can't see the HOLLYWOOD SIGN from my cousin's house from L.A.'s South Central Area.
To think in 1910 we were prepared to build an entire subway system. Today, we can't so much as build a 3 mile above-ground track for light rail.
Jury's still out on that one. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BrushStart
This case of General Motors buying up streetcar companies and converting them to bus-only systems often brought up, and often shot down, because GM, Firestone and Standard were never found guilty of conspiracy in federal court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
Basically, in that court case, GM said, "We didn't do it. And we won't do it again."
wow that is cool...I might actually read that whole thing, and that is saying something
They were found guilty. And then given ... to call it slaps on the wrist suggests something far too violent ... a lick on the wrist? A light breath on the wrist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_A...eetcar_scandal
$5k fine for the companies and $1 fine for each exec.
Its too bad Google did not unfold some of the larger maps in the back when they digitized it. For example,
Residential Location of 45,611 Detroit Factory Workers from 11 Groups of Factories
on pdf page 315 might be interesting.
Maybe it is there but I just haven't found it yet.
What I learned from this book is that Detroit was a boomtown that grew to size in just a few decades. It must have been interesting during the boom years.
I'm really glad that we didn't end up with something like Cincinnati... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Subway
Miles of abandoned tunnels and stations - how much urban exploration can one person do?
Rochester, NY had one too from 1927-1956 but the car killed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_Subway
And here's what happened to this plan. It was overtaken by Mayor James Couzens' focus on ending the monopoly of the old DUR and having the city take over the transit system.
From the Detroit Transit History website:
[[http://www.detroittransithistory.inf...yTakeover.html)
"...in December of 1917, ...prior to Couzens' election as mayor, the second of two Detroit Rapid Transit engineering studies had been completed. This second report, prepared by a consulting firm hired by the D.S.R. Commission, had recommended that a total of 65 miles of combined underground downtown subways with surface or elevated rail lines further out in the city, should be built to relieve downtown traffic congestion.
The consultants recommended that the city should finance and build the system, and regulate the fares, while the privately-owned DUR Company would operate it. The money generated by the system would be equally divided between the city and the DUR, with the city's share being used to pay off the debt. Eventually, the city could use its share to later acquire the DUR. The study concluded that any outright purchase of the DUR at that time would make it impossible for the city to also be able to finance the building of a rapid transit system.
The plan met the approval of the DSR Commission, and in October 1919 was finally submitted to the Detroit Common Council. Although the Council was divided on the issue, they decided to pass a resolution to begin negotiations with the DUR to put this city-company arrangement plan into operation. Of course, Mayor Couzens, who had campaigned on a platform calling for the elimination of the DUR, vetoed it. The Council attempted to override the Mayor's veto, but failed by one vote. That single vote may have prevented Detroit from having a subway built as early as the 1920's."
Mayor James Couzens might have the automobile companies are on his side to have the subway proposal DEAD! So he veto the subway transit system. Some automobile companies even made threats to any Detroit city councilmen from their political careers to the moving their companies some place esle if the subway vote approves. Out of fear, one Detroit city councilman change his vote and the subway proposal is officially DEAD. The result automobile companies run Detroit and its developing suburban roads, highways and later freeways like the iron fist.
WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET
I'm going to take the bus for Neda's sake.
Let's say Detroit had built a subway and elevated rail system in 1917. How would that have changed history? Workers would have been able to take mass transit to get to factories, but would the existence of a subway have prevented the closings, say, of Packard, Hudson and all the other auto plants that no longer exist? A subway system probably would have affected the mass migration to the suburbs, but where would the jobs be?
I'd like to see that too. You can find those sorts of map breakdowns of where people live vs. where they work in the 1945 Detroit Master Plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by skyl4rk
I love looking at pictures of Detroit in the 1940s. What a city!
First of all, workers were always able to take mass transit to get to factories. Examination of a streetcar and motor coach map for 1941 would show that almost all factories were near transit, and Ford's Rouge Complex even had its own streetcar stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey
Subway systems have very interesting effects on development. You're talking about heavy rail on a dedicated right of way out of the elements. It can move 50 miles per hour through snow, sleet, rain, traffic, and disgorge 1,200 people per train, and move 36,000 people per hour. Bear in mind that, during rush hour, some 40,000 motorists per hour use I-75, the Lodge, John R, Brush, Second, Cass and Woodward to go north and south, and you get an idea of just how many people a subway can move -- often as many as a dozen or more lanes of freeway can carry in individual cars.
And, when you have that hole in the ground, developers love to build tall buildings where they know hundreds or thousands of people per hour will get on and off the subway. In this way, it has a tremendous effect on development.
Instead, though, we got an aging streetcar system [[1920s), which we eventually abandoned for freeways [[1950s). Freeways did just the opposite, funneling job and population growth outside the city, forcing city planners to knock down thousands of homes and apartment buildings and businesses, cutting neighborhoods off from each other, and introducing an unceasing source of noise and pollution to residential neighborhoods. Sigh ...
Did you notice that the to-be-President of the board in 1915 was John Dodge? Conflict of interest much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
Funny, Couzens was the commissioner and then president of the street railways commissioner. 1914-15. I wonder if somebody within the burgeoning auto companies had evidence of him killing a hooker after a party at the Manogian mansion-setting off a century long conspiracy of automotive dominance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey
The subway proposal was basically an attempt to relieve surface traffic congestion in the lower downtown area which was being made worse by the growning popularity of personal automobiles. With all of the various streetcar and Interurban lines converging on the lower downtown area, congestion was already a problem long before the explosion of private vehicle use. The limiting factor on private vehicle use in the downtown area at the time of this proposal was the amount of streetcar congestion and the limited amount of parking spaces [read pg. 125 of that linked book for a description of the on-street parking situation].
I would venture a guess that if the subway proposal had been built, the only immediate change would have been an increased amount of private vehicle traffic in the lower downtown area during the 1920s, probably resulting in the demolition of even more old buildings to create off-street parking lots than was actually done prior to the onset of the Great Depression. Later on, it's likely that the existence of the proposed subway would have delayed the loss of retail commercial uses along lower Woodward for perhaps another decade and allowed the buildings to be successfully converted to other uses.
It's unfortunate that Mayor Couzen's animus towards the private ownership of transit systems was the reason for this plan not going forward. Little did he realize in Oct. 1919 that there was a post-war "bubble" underway and that Detroit would have only a short, ten-year period to re-make its downtown and supporting infrastructure. By taking all of the transit "public" first, he lost a window of opportunity for a Detroit subway system that never re-opened.
If the Detroit subuway system works. It would start on the popular main roads with lots of buildings and predesterian life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey
Imangine me riding the subway:
1. I would take the Woodward Ave subway to Woodward and Warren Ave. get off there and walk down to shop and eat at midtown and head on to Wayne State University.
2. I would take the Grand River subway to the far Northwest Side at 7 Mile Rd and Grand River Ave. to visit my friends
3. The next day I would take the Gratiot Ave. subway from E. 8 Mile Rd to Downtown Detroit to take care of my business and head down to Fort St subway Outer Drive to head to church for meetings. That would be great time to ride the subway. However this is real world and Detroit will not have a subway proposal, not in 200 years.
Still working through these posts and document - at first glance pp. 81-110 has how the existing city lines would be re-routed... each map in this section also has ridership information.
Astronomical figures if you compare to today's ridership... Woodward Lines carried 45,000,000 passengers in 1914 [[pg. 82), Michigan Lines 46,000,000 [[pg. 87).
Compare that to SMART touting record ridership on it's website:Quote:
SMART is posting record ridership with more than 12 million passengers using the service annually [[serving 75 communities).
Yeah Mikeg, I agree. But unfortunately, for political reasons it kinda looks like Mayor Couzens really had no choice but to veto the proposal, whether the auto companies played a major role in influencing the outcome or not, as was suggested by another poster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg
For Couzens to have approved the proposal would have been political suicide that early in his political career, seeing he had just campaigned so vehemently that he'd run the DUR company out of town. That's when he countered by proposing the city build a competing street railway operation of its own, which the citizens eventually approved. Consequently, that subway proposal bit the dust. In less than three years, both the small city operation and the DUR would be taken over by the newly formed DSR, and the rest is history.
Even more ironic is the fact that the city's own transit agency, the DSR, would be instrumental in thwarting future subway plans after WWII.
I would discount the ability of the auto companies to influence Mayor Couzen's decision. At that time, the growing post-war personal automobile market was barely tapped and demand appeared insatiable. The limits on demand were seen to be personal income growth and good roads, not urban mass transportation. There were many auto companies and their focus was not only on their customers, but also on their banking connections and their business competitors. Growth required access to capital and new plant sites and it could be compounded through the acquisition of key talent from competitors and/or business consolidation/integration. The real power back then was still in the hands of bankers and real estate investors.Quote:
Originally Posted by bc_n_dtown
Well, in fairness, eliminating the streetcar entirely as a competitor was part of GM's business plan as early as the 1920s. Sloan created a business unit charged with that task as early as 1922.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg
What exactly does your "in fairness" comment have to do with Mayor Couzen's decision to veto the Detroit subway proposal? At that time, General Motors was still headquartered in Flint and Alfred Sloan was a GM Vice President who had been with the company for all of one year. The following year, GM nearly collapsed and needed an infusion of $80 million to just to survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Only in the fevered minds of the believers in the "great streetcar conspiracy" does it seem to make sense for any of the fledgling auto companies to attempt to defeat the 1919 proposal. It would have re-routed, buried and elevated certain portions of Detroit's streetcar tracks and thus opened more of the few good roads in existence at the time to accept even more automobile traffic and thus generate even more automobile sales.
Couzens' rejection of the subway plan wasn't due to some secret connection he had to the auto companies. It was based on his loathing from his time as Commissioner of Street Railways of what he felt was the corrupt, monopolistic, fare-gouging DUR. He was elected to the mayoralty in large measure based on his promise to break the DUR's monopoly and work towards a publicly-owned public transportation system.
From what I understand of the politics of that time, the subway plan was seen by Couzens' people as a sort of political stalking horse for the DUR, pushed by politicians and elements in the city government beholden to them. A plan that would tie the city to the DUR for several years in a major construction project, have the city pay for a large part of the infrastructural cost of modernizing their system, and in so doing allow the DUR to remain the dominant force in public transit. As Mikeg indicates, and as is made rather clear by the documents liked at the beginning of this thread, one of the points used to push the proposed subway and streetcar tunnel system was, in fact, the alleviation of traffic congestion to allow for the freer flow of automobile traffic and easier parking.
Look at some pictures of downtown Detroit around 1914. You will see several streetcars lined up bumper to bumper on the same line.Quote:
Originally Posted by cramerro
I went to the Red Wings game last night, I parked my car at the Compuware building and took the People Mover to Joe Louis Arena.
Besides the fact that the people mover SUCKS, its not a bad concept considering I can park my car anywhere along the people mover stations downtown and get to the game with minimal walking.
If Detroit had an extensive subway network in place, it would have covered alot more area besides where the people mover goes today and would have been way more efficient.
Granted we have surface busses today, but the the issue is that they just move too slow through traffic and there is alot of wait time in between waiting on the corner for the bus to come
I could imagine it now, we would have had a line that started at the Ambassador Bridge that ran down Michigan Ave. to the old train station, stopped at Old Tiger Stadium, and then to the center of Downtown. We could have had feeder lines up major streets like GrandRiver, Gratiot, Woodward and Van Dyke that would provide fast reliable transportation to the entire city
Every Detroit politician from Hazen Pingree to James Couzens was against the street railways [[first horse cars then electric cars) running through Detroit. They were aided and abetted in this by the reporters and editors of the various Detroit Newspapers. Nothing the DUR did was right. Every service glitch was magnified into how eeeeeevullll the streetcar tycoons were and how they were gouging and cheating the citizens of Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by hamtown mike
Not the opening remark about Couzens, but about the growing post-war personal automobile market being barely tapped and the limits on demand being seen to be personal income growth and good roads, not urban mass transportation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg
See, since GM began looking into eliminating streetcars as early as 1922, you cannot categorically say that GM didn't see limits to demand in urban mass transportation. As for them almost going out of business, who cares, right? We're discussing intent, not ability here.
And as for that "great streetcar conspiracy" bit, there are always going to be certain people who believe that it's perfectly OK for Firestone, Standard and GM to buy streetcar systems through their subsidiary and then demand they use their products. Of course, when your products are motor coaches [[GM), tires [[Firestone) and oil and gas [[Standard), I'm not quite sure how you do this without forcing a streetcar system to convert to buses. Maybe, in an alternate dimension, this is possible, but I'm just not seeing it here on planet Earth. Yes, the feds didn't stick them with the conspiracy charge, and that has allowed a lot of folks to say they didn't do it.
I'll say it again, in accepting the judgment, GM said, "We didn't do it. And we won't do it again."
Although, the great streetcar conspiracy has nothing to do with the DSR. The DSR found out that the DUR wasn't exactly minting money on their streetcar system. At best, streetcars were a very low profit margin business and at worst, they were gigantic money sinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Yes, this controversey has nothing to do with the DSR, which, being a public department, could not be sold to National City Lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Hermod, stop talking about transportation as though it's something that's supposed to be inherently profitable. It isn't. We are paying for all the transportation costs whether we admit it or not. Either you pay it in the farebox, through taxes, or you pay the costs as externalities, or in the form of lost time, frustration, ugliness, pollution, poor health and boredom.
Rail freight pays for itself. Check out the stock reports on the various large railroads in the US and Canada. Barge freight and truck freight of course get subsidized right of way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Passenger rail quit paying for itself in the wage spike after WWI.
A good book for your perusal:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
http://www.amazon.com/Electric-Inter.../dp/0804740143
Yeah, except ... oops! ... it was the U.S. government granting vast acreages and right of way, as well as millions in subsidies, to build the whole system in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Did you read my earlier post on this in the "$150 million" thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
The government got tracks built where and when they wanted them built and the government profited by the increased value of the remaining government-owned land after the railroad was built. The railroad was rewarded with "alternate sections" which meant that the railroad was given one square mile [[640 "vast" acres) of empty land for each mile of track constructed. Note that this was true only for remote [[at the time) areas. In built up areas, the railroads had to purchase land for the track and were given no land grants by the government.Quote:
The reality was that, in the 19th century, the federal government was land rich and cash poor. In the populated parts of the country, railroads were built without federal government support and were quite prosperous. In the less populated parts of the country, it did not make economic sense to build a railroad as there were no customers and the government couldn't sell the land for farming because it was not economical to ship cash crops. As a result, the railroads were offered a subsidy in federal land as an inducement to build what would otherwise be an unprofitable line of track.
The federal government offered railroads "alternate sections" of government lands to build track through sparsely settled lands. In other words, for an east-west rail line, the railroad got one square mile north of the track for the first mile of track, one square mile south of the track for the next mile of track, and so on. The railroad could then sell these lands to settlers.
The government profited by the increase in value of the other government lands near the tracks which the government land offices could sell to settlers at a higher price. The government also profited by the growing rail network linking all parts of the country.