The inevitable clash of car manufacturing and comprehensive mass transit in Detroit.

**brizee** · July-03-13, 10:49 AM

He presents one side of the story.

I see this as more of a reason to diversify our business and a damnation of our past "leaders" that gave us our current predicament.

I've got engingeering degrees from two local schools [[one completely unrelated to manufacturing). I have many friends, associates and classmates involved in some facet of automobile or other heavy industrial manufacturing and suppliers.

That said, the health and profits of the car companies should have less than zero influence when it comes to the design and implementation of public mass transit. They already helped put us in this mess, keep you fingers out of the pie while we try to correct 100 years of dumbfuck decisions.

http://detroit.jalopnik.com/the-mill...o-in-652147319

DarkestbeforedawnDetroit · July-03-13, 11:06 AM

I understand your frustration with the catalyst for Detroit's triumph and current demise, but, I think they're smarter than that. Auto giants know this and I think they will diversify they're operations and manufactured goods. Into what I don't know, what ever's in demand I guess. The 90's were a lapse in intelligence for American cars, who could disagree. Hopefully they wont be as fucking greedy and power hungry as they were that created this mess.

**Detroitnerd** · July-03-13, 11:22 AM

If you had a town whose largest industry was margarine, would the city leaders demand that everything be slathered in margarine? That everybody must eat margarine every day? That we'll design special cars that run on margarine? I think it's possible to manufacture cars and other vehicles and still not have a whole region demand that they be used for everything.

**professorscott** · July-03-13, 11:34 AM

I have a very non-cynical view of this. I don't think there was some kind of dark conspiracy on the part of GM etc. to destroy public transit and force everyone into cars. I think it was out in the open, a bold and innovative experiment to see whether it was possible to design a modern urban area entirely around the automobile. Public transit had its major detractors in the early days of the automotive industry, and the car makers were seen as freeing people from the onerous burden of having to ride streetcars.

Where we failed was, when it became apparent to urban planners everywhere that the experiment was a failure - that it is not possible to have an urban area where everybody has to drive; the mathematics of land use don't work - Detroit on its own did not change. Beginning in the late 1970s city after city gave up on this grand concept and started beefing up public transit; only in Detroit did we stick to our guns.

**Hermod** · July-03-13, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by professorscott

I have a very non-cynical view of this. I don't think there was some kind of dark conspiracy on the part of GM etc. to destroy public transit and force everyone into cars. I think it was out in the open, a bold and innovative experiment to see whether it was possible to design a modern urban area entirely around the automobile. Public transit had its major detractors in the early days of the automotive industry, and the car makers were seen as freeing people from the onerous burden of having to ride streetcars.

Where we failed was, when it became apparent to urban planners everywhere that the experiment was a failure - that it is not possible to have an urban area where everybody has to drive; the mathematics of land use don't work - Detroit on its own did not change. Beginning in the late 1970s city after city gave up on this grand concept and started beefing up public transit; only in Detroit did we stick to our guns.

Two things:

1. At the time of the streetcar abandonment in Detroit, buses were seen as more economical and more flexible than the streetcars. Remember, the Detroit politicians and the Detroit news media vilified the horse car and electric streetcar companies from the day they began operation and did everything they could to drive them out of business.

2. Detroit commuting origins and destinations were much more diverse than those of other regions with Detroit having much less of a center city hub and commuting spokes.

**afoley** · July-03-13, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by brizee

http://detroit.jalopnik.com/the-mill...o-in-652147319

That said, the health and profits of the car companies should have less than zero influence when it comes to the design and implementation of public mass transit. They already helped put us in this mess, keep you fingers out of the pie while we try to correct 100 years of dumbfuck decisions.

Really, this was more of a question for those who say things like "hey, that Imported from Detroit commercial is just SO great!" and at the same time wonder why the city doesn't have more bike lanes. But if you want to make it a discussion about the health of the auto biz, then who will replace all those workers if the biz suddenly went belly-up [[again)? Watch makers?

**Sandhouse** · July-03-13, 12:26 PM

I'll go farther than Professor Scott, and say that not only was there no conspiracy by the automakers to thwart public transit in Detroit, there wasn't any organized effort to build an entirely automotive city, either.

I get tired of people attributing Detroit's relative lack of transit to the auto companies. People who know nothing of the city and its history frequently make statements like, "Detroit, being the home of the auto industry, has the worst public transit anywhere."

I have never seen evidence that the automakers exerted any influence over transit policies of the City. Trolley service lasted as long in Detroit as it did in most other large cities. [[And that includes the National City Lines case. The DSR was publicly owned, and anyway trolleys vanished no faster in National City Lines cities than elsewhere.)

Throughout the middle of the twentieth century, the auto industry in Detroit was utterly dependent on transit. Dodge Main, Highland Park, the Rouge, and a dozen other big auto plants couldn't have opened without transit service to deliver their workers.

By the time those plants were obsoleted, the auto companies were long past caring what happened to Detroit and its transit system. I don't believe anyone can show any evidence that the automakers ever gave a rip about transit in Detroit, one way or the other.

**Detroitnerd** · July-03-13, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sandhouse

I'll go farther than Professor Scott, and say that not only was there no conspiracy by the automakers to thwart public transit in Detroit, there wasn't any organized effort to build an entirely automotive city, either.

Categorical statements like this are silly. Of course there were efforts by car companies to skew policy in their favor. There usually are. And in a business where the rewards and risks are sky-high, you can be sure one hand, business, is washing the other, politics.

**marshamusic** · July-03-13, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Sandhouse

I'll go farther than Professor Scott, and say that not only was there no conspiracy by the automakers to thwart public transit in Detroit, there wasn't any organized effort to build an entirely automotive city, either.

I get tired of people attributing Detroit's relative lack of transit to the auto companies. People who know nothing of the city and its history frequently make statements like, "Detroit, being the home of the auto industry, has the worst public transit anywhere."

I have never seen evidence that the automakers exerted any influence over transit policies of the City. Trolley service lasted as long in Detroit as it did in most other large cities. [[And that includes the National City Lines case. The DSR was publicly owned, and anyway trolleys vanished no faster in National City Lines cities than elsewhere.)

Throughout the middle of the twentieth century, the auto industry in Detroit was utterly dependent on transit. Dodge Main, Highland Park, the Rouge, and a dozen other big auto plants couldn't have opened without transit service to deliver their workers.

By the time those plants were obsoleted, the auto companies were long past caring what happened to Detroit and its transit system. I don't believe anyone can show any evidence that the automakers ever gave a rip about transit in Detroit, one way or the other.

So if the dearth of public transit was not [[conspiratorily) imposed from the auto companies from above, is the reason for it from below - A lack of demand during the post-midcentury, due to the predominance of auto ownership?

I'm just wondering, why [[maybe there was a myriad of reasons, as with most social phenomena)?

**Wesley Mouch** · July-03-13, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by professorscott

I have a very non-cynical view of this. I don't think there was some kind of dark conspiracy on the part of GM etc. to destroy public transit and force everyone into cars. I think it was out in the open, a bold and innovative experiment to see whether it was possible to design a modern urban area entirely around the automobile. Public transit had its major detractors in the early days of the automotive industry, and the car makers were seen as freeing people from the onerous burden of having to ride streetcars.

Where we failed was, when it became apparent to urban planners everywhere that the experiment was a failure - that it is not possible to have an urban area where everybody has to drive; the mathematics of land use don't work - Detroit on its own did not change. Beginning in the late 1970s city after city gave up on this grand concept and started beefing up public transit; only in Detroit did we stick to our guns.

Prof...

Mathematics of land use -- I think the jury hasn't even started to deliberate on this. What we are clearly seeing is that mass transit is a great contributor to urban vitality and density. I don't see a shift away from detached homes on land. Only a rebalancing. Urban dense living appeals to far more people than it did.

Only in Detroit -- Detroit has always had interest in mass transit. Just didn't have the cash. Coleman wanted mass transit. He just couldn't get it funded. He got the People Remover funded -- as part of a larger plan. [[Look at JLA garage -- the intended rail connection to the PM. Just never got any more money.

Its a mistake to think this is an 'either-or' discussion. The urban core of Detroit will do well and continue to shape itself to dense urban living. And the suburbs will do well, for those who like that lifestyle and are willing to carry those costs.

What we want in Detroit is everything to work -- not just our favorites.

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · July-03-13, 01:34 PM

It would be nice if one or more of the automakers became more of a transit company - making busses, light rail cars, etc.

**Detroitnerd** · July-03-13, 01:45 PM

That's what they're saying to themselves these days. "We're in the transportation business."

**casscorridor** · July-03-13, 01:56 PM

It was the city that ripped out the streetcars to make way for more automobile traffic, not GM. I think it was always the intention to build a *rapid* transit system [[subway/elevated) - something Detroit never had and may never will. Streetcars simply aren't enough to meet the needs of transportation and buses could replicate streetcar service pretty well.

**Detroitnerd** · July-03-13, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

Streetcars simply aren't enough to meet the needs of transportation and buses could replicate streetcar service pretty well.

Or so they thought at the time. Also, the head of the DSR, Fred Nolan, was determined to rid the city of streetcars entirely by 1953. A surge in streetcar ridership during World War II made it happen three years behind schedule. The DSR's final streetcar ran April 1956.

**rooms222** · July-03-13, 02:17 PM

I think a lot of what made Detroit what it is today is based upon the aspirations of those who came before us. They generally aspired to live in their own house and have their own car[[s). People generally moved here to achieve this dream for their families, not the dream of having a cool apartment in a cool city with no need for a car. Above average wages for jobs of all skill levels, that is the magnet that drew people to Detroit to try to achieve the traditional American dream.

What this means for today is open for debate, as the last thirty years or so, have take a toll on our metro area, and this concept.

**Hermod** · July-03-13, 03:05 PM

What percent of cars going south on I-75 at Square Lake Road during the morning rush go all of the way downtown? What percent go to destinations along I-75? What per cent turn on to I-696, 8-Mile, or I-94 and go to some other destination? Those are the kinds of analyses needed to determine where transit lines are needed. You have to do an origin/destination analysis and meet a high percentage of that flow or you won't get the people out of their cars. The SimCity/Build It and They Will Come ideas are just blowing smoke.

**DetroitPlanner** · July-03-13, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

It would be nice if one or more of the automakers became more of a transit company - making busses, light rail cars, etc.

GM made trains at one time. They make bus chassis. Ford vans are the heart of most small buses.

From today's Yahoo Finance. I don't see this clash going away any time soon.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-e...150316490.html

**Detroitnerd** · July-03-13, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

What percent of cars going south on I-75 at Square Lake Road during the morning rush go all of the way downtown? What percent go to destinations along I-75? What per cent turn on to I-696, 8-Mile, or I-94 and go to some other destination? Those are the kinds of analyses needed to determine where transit lines are needed. You have to do an origin/destination analysis and meet a high percentage of that flow or you won't get the people out of their cars. The SimCity/Build It and They Will Come ideas are just blowing smoke.

I believe all that work has been done. The Woodward corridors has the ridership to merit an upgrade to light rail. The transit should be placed where the density and ridership merit it, that is to say, where it traditionally was.

Just for a rough blueprint, how about these, from 1904 and 1913 respectively?

**Detroitnerd** · July-03-13, 03:32 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how we had a massive regional electric train system 100 years ago -- and can't get a few miles of light rail built today.

**Wesley Mouch** · July-03-13, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

It never ceases to amaze me how we had a massive regional electric train system 100 years ago -- and can't get a few miles of light rail built today.

We have chosen to require all manner of regulation today. When those lines were built, we had less concern for worker safety, worker rights, unionization, environmental, community input, noise regulations -- and after built, oversight of fares, affordability, control, minimum service requirements, etc.

We are certainly less nimble, quick, and efficient than we once were. We're also safer and more considerate of workers and the environment.

I think the pendulum has swung too far towards regulation -- but also recognize and enjoy many of the benefits.

**iheartthed** · July-03-13, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by professorscott

I have a very non-cynical view of this. I don't think there was some kind of dark conspiracy on the part of GM etc. to destroy public transit and force everyone into cars. I think it was out in the open, a bold and innovative experiment to see whether it was possible to design a modern urban area entirely around the automobile. Public transit had its major detractors in the early days of the automotive industry, and the car makers were seen as freeing people from the onerous burden of having to ride streetcars.

Actually, I think the misconception is that GM wanted to kill public transit. I don't think that's what they tried to do anymore. They wanted to kill streetcars to replace them with buses, which they were very successful at getting done pretty much everywhere they tried to do it. Cities like Detroit -- that didn't make significant investment into subway or elevated rail systems before American streetcars became extinct -- ended up with these inefficient all bus systems. Cities that already had subway/el components, like NYC and Chicago, just became more reliant on those other modes of rail after the streetcars went poof.

Originally Posted by professorscott

Where we failed was, when it became apparent to urban planners everywhere that the experiment was a failure - that it is not possible to have an urban area where everybody has to drive; the mathematics of land use don't work - Detroit on its own did not change. Beginning in the late 1970s city after city gave up on this grand concept and started beefing up public transit; only in Detroit did we stick to our guns.

This I will agree with. Detroit has doubled down on urban planning ideas that were long ago debunked.

**Detroitnerd** · July-03-13, 04:07 PM

Detroit: Where Proposition 602 Passed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlTM4INe-5A

**professorscott** · July-03-13, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Prof...

Mathematics of land use -- I think the jury hasn't even started to deliberate on this. What we are clearly seeing is that mass transit is a great contributor to urban vitality and density. I don't see a shift away from detached homes on land. Only a rebalancing. Urban dense living appeals to far more people than it did.

Only in Detroit -- Detroit has always had interest in mass transit. Just didn't have the cash. Coleman wanted mass transit. He just couldn't get it funded. He got the People Remover funded -- as part of a larger plan. [[Look at JLA garage -- the intended rail connection to the PM. Just never got any more money.

Its a mistake to think this is an 'either-or' discussion. The urban core of Detroit will do well and continue to shape itself to dense urban living. And the suburbs will do well, for those who like that lifestyle and are willing to carry those costs.

What we want in Detroit is everything to work -- not just our favorites.

I meant less than you think I meant

I don't mean to say that the idea of a bedroom suburb is unsustainable - just that an entire metropolitan area built to the density of bedroom suburbs is unsustainable, and that's what a car culture only kind of environment gets you.

Thumbnail calculation. Imagine two neighborhoods, each housing 56 families. One urban neighborhood with duplexes [[two-story, one family per story), 24 x 60 homes butted up right next to each other with a small yard and alley behind. Another, think Troy style, with single family homes on 80 x 160 foot lots, curved streets, no alleys.

In the first example each household has to support about 16' of electrical lines, and about 9 feet each of road, sidewalk, water, sewer and gas lines. In the second example, each household has to support about 88' of electrical lines and 52' of the other items.

Now if you have lots of people living in urban-style housing, and lots of other people living in the 'burbs, averages kick in and you can make the whole thing [[barely) work. But if almost everybody chooses to live out in suburban style homes, the overall cost of maintenance goes way over what anyone is willing to pay.

Look at what it's going to cost for storm water separation from sewer lines in the Oakland County suburbs, and the fact that each household needs to cough up about 5 times as much as if situated in an old-style urban setting starts to make a difference.

So healthy urban areas have a mix. You can have your Bloomfield Hills type estates but also your inner-city multiple-family units, and the whole thing works out OK. But you can't have an urban area with no urban to it; the costs are too high.

**Hermod** · July-03-13, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

It never ceases to amaze me how we had a massive regional electric train system 100 years ago -- and can't get a few miles of light rail built today.

Read Hilton and Due, "The Electric Interurban Railway in America".

It goes into the economics as to why the lines were built, which lines were mistakes, and the reasons for the abandonment not just in Detroit, but throughout the country.

The interurbans tried to skim the least profitable parts of the railroad business [[local passengers, package freight, less carload freight). The problem was that trucks, buses, and cars did those jobs better and could make a profit on it.

**canuck** · July-03-13, 09:25 PM

My son the transit geek, does volunteer work for the transit company's old bus collection which a couple of mechanics spend their fridays restoring. He tells me the mechanics loved the old GM Classic buses, they were very reliable in spite of the fact they had no gizmos to deal with handicapped people etc...

A lot of old Montreal Classics are in Havana and they havent even changed the livery.

The newer Nova buses are built outside Montreal and are a real pain in the ass. The mechanics hate them.