If Dallas Can Do It, Why Can't Detroit?

[Hermod]

Keep in mind that Texas receives a sizable chunk of the nearly 700 billion dollar annual US defense budget. Don't forget to add to that the 500,000 retired service personnel who receive benefits at the behest of taxpayers, [[half of who live in SanAntonio, which is an interesting study in runaway urban sprawl). Add to that record oil company profits, and if the Dallas/Ft.Worth metroplex wants to experiment with mass transit, then more power to them.

Except that the bulk of that military spending does not go to Dallas-Fort Worth.

The primary military installations in Texas are in San Antonio, Waco-Killeen, and El Paso. Texas attracts military retirees for several reasons: proximity to military bases, relatively low cost of living, warm weather, and no state income taxes.

[cramerro]

I can only give you these links to Montreal's AMT and Toronto's GoTrain networks;
http://www.amt.qc.ca/en/train/deux-montagnes.aspx
http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/...es/sysmap.aspx

Vancouver also has a very vast transit network that includes commuter and elevated rail [[not light rail per se), only further expanded for the recent Olympics. The really funny part about this is one element of the system, Vancouver's SkyTrain [[at least the original 'Expo Line' 20 station track) is the same type of system that run's Detroit's People Mover. One key difference: has been expanded twice since opening in 1985 and now carries 380,000 riders a day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_SkyTrain

Vancouver is a really unique place... in the late 70's to 90's, the city council voted against building expressways [[they only have one). They had one of the largest streetcar systems in the world until dismanteled in 1958 [[sound familiar?) in favor of trackless trolley-buses [[uses overhead wires but no track in the ground). They also have two BRT routes.

[speaknow]

Several things are going to have to happen, and they may have already been mentioned, to make mass transit attractive in metro Detroit:

1. Dedciated funding base. This should come as no surprise. Unless there is a dedicated funding base, they mass transit, regardless of where it is, will not work. This is necessary for infrastructure improvements, salaries, etc.

2. Have incentives for using mass transit. Employers could receive tax breaks for subsidizing employee ridership on the mass transit system. This serves to increase ridership and creates a potential resident population along the routes where you have...[[pt. 3)

3. Transit oriented development. Encourage and support transit oriented design and infrastructure development. Successful economic development would create mass transit hubs surrounded by amenities such as housing, shopping, parks, bicycle/walking paths, etc., near transit stops.

4. Disincentives for single person vehicle use. Encourage the use of car pooling, such as designated car pooling lanes around downtown and metro areas. While I realize traffic enforcement would be needed to ensure that vehicles containing at least four passengers would only use these lanes, it would serve to minimize freeway traffic into congested downtowns.

5. Charge vehicle fees for downtown access during peak periods. If people want to come downtown and not use mass transit, then they would have to pay to do it. This is done in NYC and in London [[same guy who implemented this program in NYC went to London to start the same program a while back).

6. Merge DDOT and SMART. Even if "the grand plan" doesn't work, the "redundancy of the redundancy" in the current situation, i.e., two systems serving the same stretch of Woodward, Gratiot, Jefferson, etc., is just rediculous. However, I have often posed this question to SMART bus drivers as to whether both systems should merge. One said they would quit/retire immediately if that happened. Many believe they shouldn't service bus routes where DDOT is already present. I asked about DDOT bus drivers that switched jobs and worked for SMART, as to whether they could do the job. All the drivers said that the DDOT drivers they knew who came working for SMART didn't make it. SMART bus drivers state "there is a different attitude" within DDOT and those drivers couldn't adapt to SMART's policies and procedures.

So the solution is not easy. America is too attached to the single occupied motor vehicle phenomenon. For this to change, government at all levels will have to change citizen attitudes if mass transit is going to reach sustainable ridership levels.

[ghettopalmetto]

The Twin Cities are far more centralized than Metro Detroit. Downtown Minneapolis is a larger regional jobs hub. Downtown also has the University of Minnesota [[basically as big as Michigan State) and considerable retail activity.

And the light rail hits the Mall of America [[biggest tourist attraction in U.S.) and the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. So it packs a bunch of stuff along the corridor.

And, even so, ridership is below that of major bus line corridors throughout the U.S.

By natural extension of your logic, we should never build roads in rural areas, because they're not clogged with 10 lanes of traffic every day.

You have some incredibly um, "interesting" metrics, Bham.

[tangerine]

Here's a good reason for transit: driving sucks ass. I moved here from Chicago and SF and have learned to hate with a passion having to drive everywhere. I hate looking at my car. I hate sitting in my car. I hate buying gas and insurance for my car. I hate washing my car or taking my car to the dealer for repairs. I hate the fact that I can't go out on Saturday night and drink with my car. I hate other people's cars too, and really I hate other people themselves while they are driving their cars because they have no mannners. I hate our ugly mile roads, lined with miles of ticky tacky retail and dangling utlity lines. I hate parking my car. I hate getting tickets in the car.

When I hear the argument that transit is too expensive, I want to choke. The average fool in our country spends $7,500 per year to drive. Transit would be a tiny fraction of that.

Enemies of transit are people who like to drive, and concoct whatever argument they can to thwart any diversion of funds from their beloved roads. They cite statistics about transit economics based on crappy under-utilized systems. If we had good transit, we'd have big ridership, and the cost of transit per person would plummet.

Even though I'm an embittered old man, and probably crazy, I take great pleasure in knowing that transit will win because the cost of fuel will destroy the car-oriented suburban paradigm. So when gas its $12, and you hear a guy manically laughing, it will be me.

[tangerine]

Bham speaks with the voice of the people who have run our region for 50 years... run it into the ground. It's this anti-city, anti-transit mindset that seems to dominate the thinking around here.

What's really the best part about the inevitable collapse of driving is that Metro Detroit has doubled down on the car industry. It's both a major employer and our built environment is totally organized around the car. So when the end comes, as it will when energy prices make it cost prohibitive to drive 80 miles round trip to work, we will suffer economically from the loss of employment AND, as a special bonus for 60 years of crappy planning, our people will be stranded in sprawling towns, unable to afford to travel freely throughout the region.

[Bham1982]

By natural extension of your logic, we should never build roads in rural areas, because they're not clogged with 10 lanes of traffic every day.

One has nothing to do with the other. Rural roads are for mobility. Absent the roads, there is no mobility.

There is no indication that light rail increases mobility. Buses can handle the exact same passenger loads, and 95% of U.S. commutes are in private vehicles anyways.

But actually, I agree that we shouldn't be investing in rural roads. Many secondary rural roads should probably be returned to gravel roads, and the primary roads should only be maintained, not expanded.

[ghettopalmetto]

One has nothing to do with the other. Rural roads are for mobility. Absent the roads, there is no mobility.

Mobility? What the fuck does that mean? How much "mobility" do you need when there's nothing but farms as far as the eye can see?

There is no indication that light rail increases mobility. Buses can handle the exact same passenger loads, and 95% of U.S. commutes are in private vehicles anyways.

Tell that to the people who ride light rail in other cities, especially those who are able to avoid spending thousands of dollars a year on owning a car. How much "mobility" do you have when you sit parked on I-75? How much "mobility" do you have on a traffic-clogged eight-lane highway where it is dangerous to ride a bicycle, and destinations are spread too far apart for walking to be feasible?

Your myopic way has been tried and done in Michigan for 60 years, Bham. It doesn't work, and the evidence is all around you, staring you in the damned face. Michigan urbanized land at eight times the rate as it added population in the 1990s. I guess the state must be flush with cash, in order to sustain all those new roads, sewers, utilities, and schools.

Travel around. Get a passport. Live somewhere other than Oakland County. I don't think you have the slightest clue of how the civilized world functions.

[Bham1982]

.
Travel around. Get a passport. Live somewhere other than Oakland County. I don't think you have the slightest clue of how the civilized world functions.

LOL. I am foreign-born and travel far too much for my job, but yeah, I'll take your advice...

Honestly, I don't think you're reading a word I write. You're just responding with emotion.

I said that rural roads increase rural mobility, which sounds like a logical statement, but apparently you have a problem with it. Tell me why this is false, and maybe we can have a discussion.

I also said that buses can do much of what light rail does, which also sounds rational, but you have a problem with this statement. Please tell me what's wrong with my assertion.

[Bham1982]

Bham speaks with the voice of the people who have run our region for 50 years... run it into the ground. It's this anti-city, anti-transit mindset that seems to dominate the thinking around here.

When you say "around here", you mean "in the U.S., and in most of the developed world".

IMO, you are using your anecdoes to manufacture differences. If there were some "global collapse of suburbia and the automobile", then 98% of the U.S. would be screwed.

There are very, very few places where the automobile doesn't dominate. NYC is the only U.S. city where the majority of households don't own vehicles. Outside of NYC, pretty much every city would be screwed.

[ghettopalmetto]

I said that rural roads increase rural mobility, which sounds like a logical statement, but apparently you have a problem with it. Tell me why this is false, and maybe we can have a discussion.

Again--what the fuck does "rural mobility" mean, and why is it important???

I also said that buses can do much of what light rail does, which also sounds rational, but you have a problem with this statement. Please tell me what's wrong with my assertion.

Yeah? When was the last time a bus moved 15,000 people an hour in the same direction?

And when was the last time a developer constructed a new project due to a bus-stop signpost being planted in the ground?

[Bham1982]

Again--what the fuck does "rural mobility" mean, and why is it important??? ?

I never said it was important. Read my post. I want to return secondary roads to gravel, and stop primary road expansion.

And I don't understand your first question. Rural areas shouldn't have any means of mobility?

Yeah? When was the last time a bus moved 15,000 people an hour in the same direction?

Buses have the same capacity as light rail. Visit Latin America and their busways.

Hell, the busiest U.S. bus lines in NYC have heavier ridership than almost all light rail lines. There are bus lines with heavier ridership than subway lines.

[ghettopalmetto]

Buses have the same capacity as light rail. Visit Latin America and their busways.

Hell, the busiest U.S. bus lines in NYC have heavier ridership than almost all light rail lines. There are bus lines with heavier ridership than subway lines.

Numbers, please. Especially for your last preposterous claim.

The Latin American busways of which you speak [[those in Curitiba, Brazil) would cost just as much to construct as a light rail line. Never mind, however, that those Latin Americans endure crush loading that would never be tolerable in the United States.

So let's see some numbers supporting your assertion. Otherwise, I'll just assume you're blindly shooting from your hip yet again.

I think you should reconsider your handle. "Ostrich" seems more fitting. But who am I to suggest that facts are important? It's the RIGHTNESS of your OPINION that counts, correct?

[English]

Here's a good reason for transit: driving sucks ass. I moved here from Chicago and SF and have learned to hate with a passion having to drive everywhere. I hate looking at my car. I hate sitting in my car. I hate buying gas and insurance for my car. I hate washing my car or taking my car to the dealer for repairs. I hate the fact that I can't go out on Saturday night and drink with my car. I hate other people's cars too, and really I hate other people themselves while they are driving their cars because they have no mannners. I hate our ugly mile roads, lined with miles of ticky tacky retail and dangling utlity lines. I hate parking my car. I hate getting tickets in the car.

When I hear the argument that transit is too expensive, I want to choke. The average fool in our country spends $7,500 per year to drive. Transit would be a tiny fraction of that.

Enemies of transit are people who like to drive, and concoct whatever argument they can to thwart any diversion of funds from their beloved roads. They cite statistics about transit economics based on crappy under-utilized systems. If we had good transit, we'd have big ridership, and the cost of transit per person would plummet.

Even though I'm an embittered old man, and probably crazy, I take great pleasure in knowing that transit will win because the cost of fuel will destroy the car-oriented suburban paradigm. So when gas its $12, and you hear a guy manically laughing, it will be me.

I totally agree, and I haven't even been able to live in a place with great transit yet. A friend teased me yesterday because now I grumble whenever I have to leave the Grand Boulevard "loop" -- I need to go out to Novi this weekend for some things, and I've been putting off the trip.

This person pointed out to me that until a few months ago, I lived in Ann Arbor, crashed with relatives in Southfield, and worked in Detroit... and I drove that triangle for a year without complaint. My reply? "I'm spoiled and my quality of life is so much better now that I have those hours I spent in the car back."

[ghettopalmetto]

The Twin Cities are far more centralized than Metro Detroit. Downtown Minneapolis is a larger regional jobs hub. Downtown also has the University of Minnesota [[basically as big as Michigan State) and considerable retail activity.

And the light rail hits the Mall of America [[biggest tourist attraction in U.S.) and the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. So it packs a bunch of stuff along the corridor.

And, even so, ridership is below that of major bus line corridors throughout the U.S.

Which "major bus line corridors" have more than 33,000 riders per day? Name names, please, and provide some statistics. Here's a hint: National Transit Database.

For what it's worth--the "30s buses" in Washington DC--the 30,32,33,34,36 routes--have ridership somewhere in the neighborhood of the Hiawatha Line. Mind you, that's the single busiest bus route in one of the largest and busiest bus systems in the entire nation. But nobody would be so STUPID as to argue that the 30s buses function equally well as the Metrorail subway.

[bugs1739]

Maybe a mass transit line could be built from Detroit Metro Airport to downtown Detroit?

[stasu1213]

Dallas was never coined "The Motor City" and was willing to try something new. Detroit is still too carcentric from it's leaders, planners, down to the many of the residents