U-D Mercy Prof Calls Detroit Transit "3rd World"

[Zaiko]

The Engineering dean was one of many who spoke at a hearing took yesterday at SEMCOG in the Buhl Building.

Pro Detroit organizer woman asked the republican led Senate transportation committee why they didn't publicize the event on the sides of buses.

She's on the 3rd audio clip at this link.

http://www.michigannow.org/2012/02/2...pling-detroit/

[Detroit Stylin]

I agree with her whole heartedly...

[rjlj]

I would say worse than 3rd world. I have been to poorer countries where you can still get around very cheaply and with little hassle comprared to the Detroit and Detroit metro area.

The Engineering dean was one of many who spoke at a hearing took yesterday at SEMCOG in the Buhl Building.Pro Detroit organizer woman asked the republican led Senate transportation committee why they didn't publicize the event on the sides of buses. She's on the 3rd audio clip at this link. http://www.michigannow.org/2012/02/2...pling-detroit/

[Bham1982]

It's kind of a silly comment, because developing world cities obviously have good transit, by necessity.

Even in Sub-Saharan Africa, or wherever, there's frequent and comprehensive transit of some sort, though it may be dirty, rudimentary, etc. If 90% of the households don't own cars, there will be transit, even if we're talking hard core poverty. Usually privatized, though.

[poobert]

It's kind of a silly comment, because developing world cities obviously have good transit, by necessity.

Even in Sub-Saharan Africa, or wherever, there's frequent and comprehensive transit of some sort, though it may be dirty, rudimentary, etc. If 90% of the households don't own cars, there will be transit, even if we're talking hard core poverty. Usually privatized, though.

True, and by that logic Detroit should have frequent and comprehensive transit. Some 30% of Detroit households don't have a car, and I imagine over half the population drives dangerous, unreliable shitboxes they have to share with their whole families..

You might add that the second world and first world also have better transit. We're really one of the only places in the world who don't see transit as a priority. One of the many reasons company don't want to invest here and people don't want to live here.

[Danny]

That U-D professor social know-it-all calls Detroit public transit system a "3rd world". That's were are creating and whine to leaders about it. At least D-DOT got some new 1st classes buss than SMART.

[iheartthed]

Sounds about right.

[iheartthed]

It's kind of a silly comment, because developing world cities obviously have good transit, by necessity.

Even in Sub-Saharan Africa, or wherever, there's frequent and comprehensive transit of some sort, though it may be dirty, rudimentary, etc. If 90% of the households don't own cars, there will be transit, even if we're talking hard core poverty. Usually privatized, though.

So Detroit's transit is worse than third world then?

[corktownyuppie]

At the heart of this is the problem inherent when you have two classes at opposite ends of the polar opposite scale living with each other.

If this was a true 3rd world country, Bham1982 is right. We would have private operators driving man- or horse-drawn carriages. And it would be fine.

The problem is when 3rd world people are living in a 1st world country, requiring them to meet 1st world expectations, which they can't, and preventing them from 3rd world strategies to survive.

Did I just call some people in Detroit "3rd world people"? Yes. I'm referring to the severely impoverished. That group which boasts 10% literacy at an 9th-12th grade level. That group that has household income under $25,000 with 3 children and a single mom.

What is the solution for this? I have no idea. But even the least intelligent can do manual labor, can farm, can hunt. The problem is that in an industrialized world, those roles simply no longer exist and these people have been left behind. Who is to blame is irrelevant. We are all paying the price for having very poor, very uneducated try to live in a highly industrialized, highly educated world.

This is not me advocating for socialism.

Whether or not you think public transit in Detroit is 3rd world is irrelevant. The overarching problem is what do you do with large numbers of the very poor and very uneducated trying to survive in a world that left them behind 50 years ago?

If you think that the greater good is served by giving those people opportunities to advance, then public services will have to be a part of the conversation. And if we fail to do it, I would argue that those trucks slamming into gas stations to steal ATMs won't stop at 8 mile.

On the flipside, I still say that the people who have the money should get to control how it's spent. They just need to be educated -- and educate their electorate -- that this isn't "charity" spending. Funding these services for the poor is in the interest of the rich, IMHO. The poor might not be your problem right now, but when they're eventually living on the streets in your neighborhood it will be.

[Bham1982]

So Detroit's transit is worse than third world then?

Definitely, though emphasis on the word transit.

Detroit's mobility is comparatively excellent, though transit is horrible.

[DinNC]

I don't live in Metro Detroit anymore, but I would love to move back one day. This is a very importnant issue for Detroit, Suburbs, and Michigan. I hope the citizens really back this up. I'm glad to see Synder is pushing for this. I remember reading somewhere Patterson not wanting to play the "build it and they'll come" game with Transit. Does he not realize how many people left because it was never built. Maybe If they build it they'll stay or come back. I hope Mass Transit can succeed!

[j to the jeremy]

The two biggest problems in Detroit are Transit and Education. The lack of safety and the lack of job opportunities are directly tied to both of these issues. In a city with crushing poverty, why are people FORCED to purchase automobiles to get to work? [[and then pay redlined insurance premiums?) In a city with massive spatial segregation, why do our transit policies INCREASE the level of segregation, even when it means sacrificing our entire region's economic health?

I think that the excuse of "car culture" to cover up massive institutional racism and class-ism has run its course. No one ever said that having effective mass transit would destroy our identity as a car-oriented metropolis. We have something worse than third-world transit. We have one of the richest metropolitan areas in the USA and the manpower to fix our systems, but wealthy people in the region repeatedly oppose efforts to regionalize and tax for a system. We have segregation just as bad as most third-world cities. The slums are just in the interior of our city.

Hell, even Baghdad has a metro.

[drjeff]

At the heart of this is the problem inherent when you have two classes at opposite ends of the polar opposite scale living with each other.

If this was a true 3rd world country, Bham1982 is right. We would have private operators driving man- or horse-drawn carriages. And it would be fine.

The problem is when 3rd world people are living in a 1st world country, requiring them to meet 1st world expectations, which they can't, and preventing them from 3rd world strategies to survive.

Did I just call some people in Detroit "3rd world people"? Yes. I'm referring to the severely impoverished. That group which boasts 10% literacy at an 9th-12th grade level. That group that has household income under $25,000 with 3 children and a single mom.

What is the solution for this? I have no idea. But even the least intelligent can do manual labor, can farm, can hunt. The problem is that in an industrialized world, those roles simply no longer exist and these people have been left behind. Who is to blame is irrelevant. We are all paying the price for having very poor, very uneducated try to live in a highly industrialized, highly educated world.

This is not me advocating for socialism.

Whether or not you think public transit in Detroit is 3rd world is irrelevant. The overarching problem is what do you do with large numbers of the very poor and very uneducated trying to survive in a world that left them behind 50 years ago?

If you think that the greater good is served by giving those people opportunities to advance, then public services will have to be a part of the conversation. And if we fail to do it, I would argue that those trucks slamming into gas stations to steal ATMs won't stop at 8 mile.

On the flipside, I still say that the people who have the money should get to control how it's spent. They just need to be educated -- and educate their electorate -- that this isn't "charity" spending. Funding these services for the poor is in the interest of the rich, IMHO. The poor might not be your problem right now, but when they're eventually living on the streets in your neighborhood it will be.

I've been to Kolkata [[Calcutta) India twice and that is one of the poorest cities in the world. Much of the populace is illiterate.

India has a very service-driven economy. There are millions of people who find something to sell somewhere or some task to perform to get the money they need to support a family. Everything in India is made by hand because people need something to do. It's a nation of entrepreneurs, even if these people have absolutely no education.

Kolkata also has an extensive bus system, tram system, and subway [[which they are still building onto) in addition to all the forms of private transport [[car, rickshaw, autorickshaw, taxi, etc.) So it is far better than Detroit for getting around.

On the flip side, there are also a lot of middle class and wealthy people in Kolkata and it has many of the amenities of any major western city.

[iheartthed]

Definitely, though emphasis on the word transit.

Detroit's mobility is comparatively excellent, though transit is horrible.

How can you have mobility without transit?

[ordinary]

I felt kind of hopeful after listening to the first two clips and then I listened to the third and thought to myself, "It's not going to ever become better." Her rant was disingenuous. People don't care who runs it, they just want it to work! And she could tell by looking at the crowd that nobody there was from Detroit!

[Hypestyles]

is SEMCOG still mainly pushing for road-improvement? when it comes to their voting members, how many votes are allotted per member community?

The two biggest problems in Detroit are Transit and Education. The lack of safety and the lack of job opportunities are directly tied to both of these issues. In a city with crushing poverty, why are people FORCED to purchase automobiles to get to work? [[and then pay redlined insurance premiums?) In a city with massive spatial segregation, why do our transit policies INCREASE the level of segregation, even when it means sacrificing our entire region's economic health?

I think that the excuse of "car culture" to cover up massive institutional racism and class-ism has run its course. No one ever said that having effective mass transit would destroy our identity as a car-oriented metropolis. We have something worse than third-world transit. We have one of the richest metropolitan areas in the USA and the manpower to fix our systems, but wealthy people in the region repeatedly oppose efforts to regionalize and tax for a system. We have segregation just as bad as most third-world cities. The slums are just in the interior of our city.

[Bham1982]

How can you have mobility without transit?

When 95% of households have private automobiles.

For 95% of the region, mobility is fantastic. There are probably few [[if any) metros of similar size with such easy mobility. Freeways are extremely numerous and generally uncongested.

Of course, it sucks for the carless 5%, and IMO there's a moral obligation to see that they have significantly improved options.

[ghettopalmetto]

When 95% of households have private automobiles.

For 95% of the region, mobility is fantastic. There are probably few [[if any) metros of similar size with such easy mobility. Freeways are extremely numerous and generally uncongested.

Of course, it sucks for the carless 5%, and IMO there's a moral obligation to see that they have significantly improved options.

Same shit, differerent thread. Move along, now. Nothing to see here. Detroit is perfect the way it is.

[Detroitnerd]

Same shit, differerent thread. Move along, now. Nothing to see here. Detroit is perfect the way it is.

MAN 1: When 95 percent of households have cars, you have 95 percent mobility and don’t need transit. After all, who can’t drive a car?

WOMAN 1: The elderly.

MAN 1: Oh, yeah, yeah the elderly can’t drive. Yeah. That’s true.

MAN 2: And the children!

MAN 1: Oh, yes … children can’t drive. All right, I’ll grant you that the elderly and children can’t drive. But other than that, who can’t drive a car?

WOMAN 2: The blind.

MAN 1: [sharply] Well, yes, obviously, the blind. The blind go without saying. But apart from the elderly, the children, the blind.

MAN 3: The poor.

MAN 1: [impatient] Naturally, poor people can’t afford to have a car, but, really, getting back to the point.

MAN 4: Certain kinds of handicapped people can’t drive.

WOMAN 3: And what if I don’t want to own a car?

WOMAN 4: And then there’s insurance, and gas and oil and the mechanic … it’s a lot of money I wish I could spend on something else.

MAN 1: Yes, all right … fair enough.

MAN 5: And if you’ve been to the bar for a few drinks!

WOMAN 4: Yes, then you can’t drive legally.

[more general murmurs of agreement]

MAN 1: [very angry] All right, but apart from the elderly, children, the blind, the poor, certain kinds of handicapped people, people who don’t like driving, and people who may be intoxicated, who won’t drive a car?

WOMAN 2: The Amish.

MAN 1: Oh, the Amish. Shut up!

[cramerro]

I felt kind of hopeful after listening to the first two clips and then I listened to the third and thought to myself, "It's not going to ever become better." Her rant was disingenuous. People don't care who runs it, they just want it to work! And she could tell by looking at the crowd that nobody there was from Detroit!

Her rant was pretty impressive in that it was well written and delivered very effectively, but her repeated reminders that she is the editor of Voice of Detroit, including once where she plugged her website by saying the web address, made me kick her down a few notches on the genuine meter.

Her overall message captures two major points that RTA critics repeat over and over that demonstrate to me that they are in the wrong state of mind for an open discussion about improving transit for Detroit residents.

First, the message of "this will make Detroit riders second-class transit users." To me this implies that the service, coverage, and quality of transit available to transport city residents will be downgraded. Clearly they either [[a) don't actually use the bus to know the total lack of reliability and service quality, and/or [[b) are just scared of the City not controlling everything. The mayor has been at the helm while the City's own funding has dropped from over $80 Million to what will soon be $40 Million, and has implied pretty clearly that ANY transit subsidy from the City's general fund is unsustainable. The City therefore has made transit riders second-class citizens by default, openly planning to eliminate the city's funding of it's transit system. So I would argue that this means that it CANNOT get any worse under a regional system. On top of that slam-dunk statement, the interests of the region are actually better aligned with a regional system than Detroit's interests separately. This is because suburban businesses need City residents to work for them and City businesses need [[at least a good number) of suburban residents to work for them. This means that the priorities of any regional body making decisions on transit service would inherently be better for everyone than a city system that just gets people around the city and to the borders and a suburban system that has to tell people that they aren't allowed to get on or off along city stretches because they would cannibalize ridership from DDOT. This is not a takeover - this is a resuce plan that is necessary to continue any level of transit service, including to the 120,000 Detroiters who ride DDOT daily.

Second, the complaining about DDOT and SMART not listening to people who come to the public hearings when they plead their life story that relies on service to be changed/cut. To blame the transit providers primarily for the impacts of these cuts is to blankly ignore the fact that these cuts are necessary [[resulting from funding cuts) to move ahead as a functioning entity due to funding reductions that are 100% out of their control. The City cuts $10M from DDOT, property millage revenue goes down 22% for SMART. At least for SMART, they are already running at top efficiecny, having gone through administrative staff reductions and cutbacks more than once prior to finally having to trim service due to the gaping hole in the funding stream. The RTA provides at least some possibility of a new funding stream to help fund transit in general, which is a huge improvement over the current slide downward.

[poobert]

MAN 1: When 95 percent of households have cars, you have 95 percent mobility and don’t need transit. After all, who can’t drive a car?

WOMAN 1: The elderly.

MAN 1: Oh, yeah, yeah the elderly can’t drive. Yeah. That’s true.

MAN 2: And the children!

MAN 1: Oh, yes … children can’t drive. All right, I’ll grant you that the elderly and children can’t drive. But other than that, who can’t drive a car?

WOMAN 2: The blind.

MAN 1: [sharply] Well, yes, obviously, the blind. The blind go without saying. But apart from the elderly, the children, the blind.

MAN 3: The poor.

MAN 1: [impatient] Naturally, poor people can’t afford to have a car, but, really, getting back to the point.

MAN 4: Certain kinds of handicapped people can’t drive.

WOMAN 3: And what if I don’t want to own a car?

WOMAN 4: And then there’s insurance, and gas and oil and the mechanic … it’s a lot of money I wish I could spend on something else.

MAN 1: Yes, all right … fair enough.

MAN 5: And if you’ve been to the bar for a few drinks!

WOMAN 4: Yes, then you can’t drive legally.

[more general murmurs of agreement]

MAN 1: [very angry] All right, but apart from the elderly, children, the blind, the poor, certain kinds of handicapped people, people who don’t like driving, and people who may be intoxicated, who won’t drive a car?

WOMAN 2: The Amish.

MAN 1: Oh, the Amish. Shut up!

Yeah, under perfect driving and weather conditions, with no road construction or accidents, and no car trouble, I can get from my house in Detroit to Waterford [[which is somehow still 'Detroit' to many people here) in only 1 hour! What a mobile region! How fortunate we are!

Business travelers and tourists must also be astounded by how mobile we are when they land at DTW and are completely stranded there and must rent a car to navigate our region.

Our answer to congestion? If you sprawl outward endlessly you'll cut down on congestion. Also it helps to not have transit and make your state less appealing to young people or those with college degrees. Less people and less jobs means less traffic and EVEN MORE MOBILITY, as we have seen over the last ten years.

The great news is that the people who are still living in this paradise often get to live extremely far from where they work [[after all, you're underwater for life with that McMansion! You're not going anywhere!) So they get to dedicate a great deal of their time being mobile. Yep, just you and the wide open road for hours every day. Time that you could be spent doing something else, say, with your family, you can spend in your car. Normally in a train or a bus you can do other things as well - say, read, or do work on your tech gizmo - but here you get to be totally dedicated to being mobile - and over a lifetime - probably months!

[antongast]

Second, the complaining about DDOT and SMART not listening to people who come to the public hearings when they plead their life story that relies on service to be changed/cut.

There is an established process for implementing service changes, which DDOT has always followed in the past, and it involves soliciting public comments and then modifying the proposed changes to take those comments into account. This time, DDOT started printing new schedules before the public hearings even took place, which made a mockery of the public involvement process and rightfully pissed a lot of people off.

[Bham1982]

MAN 1: When 95 percent of households have cars, you have 95 percent mobility and don’t need transit. After all, who can’t drive a car?

Argue with the Census if you don't like the facts. Obviously the elderly, blind, and others are included in decennial Census data.

And special needs populations probably have better transit in the U.S than almost anywhere else.

Dial-a-ride and other door-to-door services are pretty rare outside the U.S. State-sponsored home-to-school transit is similarly rare abroad. No school bus in France or wherever, and students hitch a ride with parents, walk/bike or take public transit.

[iheartthed]

When 95% of households have private automobiles.

For 95% of the region, mobility is fantastic. There are probably few [[if any) metros of similar size with such easy mobility. Freeways are extremely numerous and generally uncongested.

Of course, it sucks for the carless 5%, and IMO there's a moral obligation to see that they have significantly improved options.

Your definition of mobility means that you're mobile so long as you're of driving age, legally able to drive, affluent enough to own a motor vehicle, and do not have any health conditions that would preclude you from operating a motor vehicle. Then if you satisfy all of that you also must love to drive because you will be doing a lot of it to have any respectable quality of life!

Automobile ownership is not the same thing as mobility. Not sure why you're even trying to equate the two. Mobility means that a person of most any means can get around, period. No asterisk saying that she or he must own a car. A car might be part of the discussion but it cannot be the only mode available or you will always leave a huge segment of the population immobile.

So my question is what can a metropolis as big as Detroit offer that any dust bucket town in middle-of-nowhere America cannot? All middle-of-nowhere towns can offer you a road to traverse in your own private vehicle. So if not for the services of civilization, a major one being that you have mobility, why live in Detroit? Or invest there? Or start a business there?

[Bham1982]

Yeah, under perfect driving and weather conditions, with no road construction or accidents, and no car trouble, I can get from my house in Detroit to Waterford [[which is somehow still 'Detroit' to many people here) in only 1 hour! What a mobile region! How fortunate we are!

There is no form of fixed public transit in existence that would get you faster from downtown Detroit to a house in Waterford. You could build a vast high speed suburban rail network, and you would still probably have a longer commute time.

There are many advantages to public transit, but, in an relatively non-congested area, speed wouldn't be one of them.