Editorial: Bus service essential to all transit improvements

[begingri]

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

[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...

[Fnemecek]

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.

[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

[ghettopalmetto]

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?

[stasu1213]

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

[ghettopalmetto]

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.

[stasu1213]

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

[Fnemecek]

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.

[Hermod]

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.

[Detroitnerd]

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.

[stasu1213]

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?

[ghettopalmetto]

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???

[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.

[Bham1982]

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.

[Bham1982]

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.

[Rocko]

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....

[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.

[stasu1213]

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.

[professorscott]

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.

[Bham1982]

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.

[professorscott]

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.

[Bham1982]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Hermod]

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.

[Redleg81]

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

Ha! Love it.