Metro Detroit now smaller than Phoenix?

**iheartthed** · March-18-13, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

...all things being equal. By that I mean, you need a job to pay the rent no matter what it buys you. That doesn't seem to be the choice here. Detroit can be the most vibrant, walkable, place on the planet. However, if all the anchor businesses are 50 minutes from downtown, it's not really going to work.

Vibrancy and walkability is an economic function, not an aesthetic quality. Detroit is missing a significant amount of local economic function solely because it has destroyed that walkable part of its fabric. In that respect, part of fixing the jobs issue is fixing the fundamental flaws of Detroit's design.

**Bham1982** · March-18-13, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I [[Why would anyone pay $2,000/month for a studio apartment in Brooklyn if they could live a similar car free lifestyle in Detroit for a tenth of the cost?)

But that's a fantasy scenario. If one could live the same life in Detroit as in Brooklyn, it wouldn't be $200 a month. And transit is like 5% of the equation. It's because of NYC's offerings as a whole, including transit, rather than just that singular aspect.

**canuck** · March-18-13, 08:51 PM

Vibrancy is a positive attribute of cities no matter how you look at it. I think Detroit experienced a decline that killed a lot of the interactive complexities that sets cities apart from small towns. Just take a look at old pix of what Campus Martius was like 100 years ago when transit was blossoming and the automotive spirit was in full gear. The balance was OK, if even a tad demonic in its hecticness.

Detroit needs polyindustrial development, commercial offer, and residential density, but it can only achieve this with the determined help of its suburban corollary. A united metro will have the resources to restructure this very wealthy region.

And you can bet that transit will be a big part of an effective turnaround. In fact, there wont be a hint of a turnaround without it. Because effective transit methods are vital to big cities, and that the healthy friction they offer are prime movers in what we recognize as "vibrancy".

**old guy** · March-18-13, 10:20 PM

[QUOTE=canuck;373312 And you can bet that transit will be a big part of an effective turnaround. In fact, there wont be a hint of a turnaround without it. Because effective transit methods are vital to big cities, and that the healthy friction they offer are prime movers in what we recognize as "vibrancy".[/QUOTE]

Agree 100%.

**nain rouge** · March-18-13, 10:41 PM

Explain to me exactly how transit will be a panacea for Detroit? Why isn't Cleveland booming thanks to its existing heavy and light rail? OK, so it may appeal to young people, but at best that's just going to encourage moves like Campbell Ewald - cannibalizing the suburbs for the resurgence of downtown Detroit.

Commuter rail isn't a serious economic engine of growth. In many of the regions we've seen commuter rail built in the last few decades, it was a byproduct of a surging regional economy, not the other way around. Washington DC grew because of the government spending boom, not because of a new stop in Perryville. The newcomers demanded such transportation options after the fact.

It's not that light rail in Metro Detroit is a bad idea, but maybe we should focus on improving the economy and getting the buses running on time first. Then it'll be time for light rail.

Just look at Phoenix. It's pure suburban hell, and yet it's kicking our butts. And how?

**old guy** · March-18-13, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

It's not that light rail in Metro Detroit is a bad idea, but maybe we should focus on improving the economy and getting the buses running on time first. Then it'll be time for light rail.

Just look at Phoenix. It's pure suburban hell, and yet it's kicking our butts. And how?

True, Phoenix, Mesa, etc. does have an excellent bus service in place that's cheap to ride and I'm sure it does help people that need to travel long distances around the city to access jobs. Nothing wrong with a good bus system, you just need some working transportation system in place to have a working city.

**iheartthed** · March-19-13, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

But that's a fantasy scenario. If one could live the same life in Detroit as in Brooklyn, it wouldn't be $200 a month. And transit is like 5% of the equation. It's because of NYC's offerings as a whole, including transit, rather than just that singular aspect.

Transit is the bedrock of NYC's economy.

**iheartthed** · March-19-13, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

Explain to me exactly how transit will be a panacea for Detroit? Why isn't Cleveland booming thanks to its existing heavy and light rail? OK, so it may appeal to young people, but at best that's just going to encourage moves like Campbell Ewald - cannibalizing the suburbs for the resurgence of downtown Detroit.

Not a panacea. A necessary condition to survive.

If I haven't gotten the point across by now then maybe I'm not the best person to explain this to you. But trust me, Detroit's lack of mass transit is its most glaring deficiency as a city.

**nain rouge** · March-19-13, 11:03 AM

Sorry, but you're clueless. Ever been to booming Midwestern cities like Indianapolis or Columbus? Where's the rail there? It's just a glaring deficiency in your jaded, I want to live in NYC but could never hack it there minds. Detroit's most glaring transit issues is in fact that the buses don't come on time.

**iheartthed** · March-19-13, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

Sorry, but you're clueless. Ever been to booming Midwestern cities like Indianapolis or Columbus? Where's the rail there? It's just a glaring deficiency in your jaded, I want to live in NYC but could never hack it there minds. Detroit's most glaring transit issues is in fact that the buses don't come on time.

Well, actually, I do live in NYC. I don't live in Detroit, in large part, because I don't want to be tethered to a car.

**nain rouge** · March-19-13, 01:16 PM

Fair enough. Detroit will never be NYC, and this is coming from someone that loves NYC. Transit won't change that.

**TexasT** · March-19-13, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Not a panacea. A necessary condition to survive.

If I haven't gotten the point across by now then maybe I'm not the best person to explain this to you. But trust me, Detroit's lack of mass transit is its most glaring deficiency as a city.

I'd agree. Following the story of the RTA and M-1 rail, and their imminent approval, was pretty key in up and moving here from Chicago, personally. No, it'll never been a NYC or Chicago but as a relatively dense city [[at least compared to other cities I've lived in), Detroit has some innate advantages in implementing a decent public transit model that could really help the city out.

**iheartthed** · March-19-13, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

Fair enough. Detroit will never be NYC, and this is coming from someone that loves NYC. Transit won't change that.

Who ever said it needed to be NYC? Detroit once had a very comprehensive transit system and it was still Detroit. Detroit can have a very comprehensive transit system again and still be Detroit.

**bailey** · March-19-13, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by TexasT

I'd agree. Following the story of the RTA and M-1 rail, and their imminent approval, was pretty key in up and moving here from Chicago, personally.

So was I when I decided to move back here in '02/'03 .... get comfy.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Who ever said it needed to be NYC? Detroit once had a very comprehensive transit system and it was still Detroit. Detroit can have a very comprehensive transit system again and still be Detroit.

It's too bad that M-1 isn't going to get us any closer to that goal. Its a bus on metal wheels that serves a tiny portion of one throughfare. Unless you live and do everything you need to do along it.... you will not be served in any way by it. Nain has a valid point. Fix the bus system and maybe we can talk about transit. We have all the tools here to have a first rate consolidated bus system... but we're going to piss it away on a shiny parking shuttle.

**iheartthed** · March-19-13, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Unless you live and do everything you need to do along it.... you will not be served in any way by it.

But that's how transit works. The existence of a transit line encourages housing, employment centers and retail to be built near it.

**TexasT** · March-19-13, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

So was I when I decided to move back here in '02/'03 .... get comfy.

The RTA passed. My husband was an exec in Chicago's RTA before we moved out here - he's not working for the RTA here because he already has a great job he loves but he's definitely helping behind the scenes. I'm pretty confident with where it's going. We'd followed Detroit for a few years but didn't make the big move until it looked like a comprehensive RTA bill was likely to pass and the M-1 was gaining good traction. Those are both a go.

Originally Posted by bailey

It's too bad that M-1 isn't going to get us any closer to that goal. Its a bus on metal wheels that serves a tiny portion of one throughfare. Unless you live and do everything you need to do along it.... you will not be served in any way by it. Nain has a valid point. Fix the bus system and maybe we can talk about transit. We have all the tools here to have a first rate consolidated bus system... but we're going to piss it away on a shiny parking shuttle.

Point is made above - transit-oriented development + faith in mass transit. Same thing we saw in Houston, my hometown, when we put in the short train line [[very similar to M1) that everyone bitched about initially, but eventually was successful enough to lead to the five additional train lines they are putting in now.

And you are acting like RTA and M1 are mutually exclusive. I think we'll get a better bus system and the M1 rail.

**bailey** · March-19-13, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But that's how transit works. The existence of a transit line encourages housing, employment centers and retail to be built near it.

There is already transit on that route. IIRC it's the most heavily used route in the system.

**bailey** · March-19-13, 01:47 PM

The RTA passed. My husband was an exec in Chicago's RTA before we moved out here - he's not working for the RTA here because he already has a great job he loves but he's definitely helping behind the scenes. I'm pretty confident with where it's going. We'd followed Detroit for a few years but didn't make the big move until it looked like a comprehensive RTA bill was likely to pass and the M-1 was gaining good traction. Those are both a go.

We'll see... I don't share your confidence.

Point is made above - transit-oriented development + faith in mass transit. Same thing we saw in Houston, my hometown, when we put in the short train line [[very similar to M1) that everyone bitched about initially, but eventually was successful enough to lead to the five additional train lines they are putting in now.

If M-1 even remotely looked like Houston's ... I'd be right there with you. Houston's is what? 10 miles? and has 16 stops? M-1 is going to be about a third the length with 11 stops and no realistic plan for expansion past New Center. Further, it's going to run at the curb and in traffic. It's a bus line. And since it will be stuck in traffic, it'll be as reliable as one.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they scrap the 5 additional lines? I thought they only had the $$ for one line and some expansion on the original line?

**TexasT** · March-19-13, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

We'll see... I don't share your confidence.

If M-1 even remotely looked like Houston's ... I'd be right there with you. Houston's is what? 10 miles? and has 16 stops? M-1 is going to be about a third the length with 11 stops and no realistic plan for expansion past New Center. Further, it's going to run at the curb and in traffic. It's a bus line.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they scrap the 5 additional lines? I thought they only had the $$ for one line?

Detroit is WAY more dense than Houston. Its shorter line probably reaches more businesses and people than Houston's, despite being half the distance [[I think Houston's is 7 miles to M-1's 3.4). Houston's runs in traffic as well; we had a lot of train-car accidents as a result the first few years of the rail line's existence.

No, they are currently building two new lines, extending the currently existing Red line, and there are two more planned lines, so five total.

**nain rouge** · March-19-13, 01:57 PM

Like I've said, light rail is nice, but Detroit has basic infrastructural and systemic failures that should probably be addressed first if we're trying to identify and fix the city's glaring weaknesses. Will rail improve police response times? EMS times? The schools? Light rail for Detroit is like your typical third world banana republic public project, but it seems we're getting more and more used to that sort of behavior.

**TexasT** · March-19-13, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

Like I've said, light rail is nice, but Detroit has basic infrastructural and systemic failures that should probably be addressed first if we're trying to identify and fix the city's glaring weaknesses. Will rail improve police response times? EMS times? The schools? Light rail for Detroit is like your typical third world banana republic public project, but it seems we're getting more and more used to that sort of behavior.

The area light rail will service is not nearly as affected by those problems. Downtown and Midtown have decent policing and responsive times. Safer schools are less of a problem for such transient neighborhoods like the high-rises, walkups, lofts and apartments within the M-1 region. Not fair, but that's how it currently is. That argument would make more sense if we were putting light rail down Grand River [[where I live). But the area that M-1 will service could benefit greatly from light rail.

Besides, just because M-1 doesn't fix those problems doesn't mean it shouldn't be supported, especially when most of the money is being fronted by the private sector.

**Bham1982** · March-19-13, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by TexasT

The area light rail will service is not nearly as affected by those problems. Downtown and Midtown have decent policing and responsive times. Safer schools are less of a problem for such transient neighborhoods like the high-rises, walkups, lofts and apartments within the M-1 region.

Cleveland has very good heavy rail and light rail serving its best neighborhoods, which are generally similar to [[or better than) Detroit Midtown/Downtown, yet they have even worse population loss. We're talking four lines, far more than Detroit could even dream of.

In contrast, Phoenix didn't even have any bus service on Sundays until very recently. Their bus network is generally awful, yet they're one of the fastest growing cities in the country.

Perhaps transit isn't really a key issue? I can't think of one city where transit turned things around economically.

**iheartthed** · March-19-13, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

Like I've said, light rail is nice, but Detroit has basic infrastructural and systemic failures that should probably be addressed first if we're trying to identify and fix the city's glaring weaknesses. Will rail improve police response times? EMS times? The schools? Light rail for Detroit is like your typical third world banana republic public project, but it seems we're getting more and more used to that sort of behavior.

Actually, big cities with no rail based transit infrastructure is more typical of third world cities.

**bailey** · March-19-13, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by TexasT

The area light rail will service is not nearly as affected by those problems. Downtown and Midtown have decent policing and responsive times. Safer schools are less of a problem for such transient neighborhoods like the high-rises, walkups, lofts and apartments within the M-1 region. Not fair, but that's how it currently is. That argument would make more sense if we were putting light rail down Grand River [[where I live). But the area that M-1 will service could benefit greatly from light rail.

Besides, just because M-1 doesn't fix those problems doesn't mean it shouldn't be supported, especially when most of the money is being fronted by the private sector.

Here's my issue... the M-1 "light rail" is being placed on a line already served by buses. It's just served badly by them. Why not just get the buses running better by forcing the merger of DDot and SMART and modernizing the rolling stock ? M-1 brings no new people onto the line because it's so short. Further there are no plans that have light rail running anywhere else. It will be a stand alone line for [[given the justation period to get us this point) 30 years.

**TexasT** · March-19-13, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Here's my issue... the M-1 "light rail" is being placed on a line already served by buses. It's just served badly by them. Why not just get the buses running better by forcing the merger of DDot and SMART and modernizing the rolling stock ? M-1 brings no new people onto the line because it's so short. Further there are no plans that have light rail running anywhere else. It will be a stand alone line for [[given the justation period to get us this point) 30 years.

Riding the bus has a stigma that doesn't apply to riding the train. That was the case in Houston. That was the case in Chicago. So I counter that the M-1 line does bring new people onto the line.