Detroit Public Transportation: 2014 and beyond.

[casscorridor]

A less rosy look at public transit, its costs, and its future:

https://www.cato.org/publications/po...sit-apocalypse

Mehhhh. In a way, there is no denying that in the low-density sprawl that characterizes most American cities, driverless vehicles could fill in as public transit. However, this completely ignores the ecology of sprawl- it's use of land, impacts on surrounding environment, etc. Not to mention the psychological impact of sprawl [[alienation, isolation, etc) and quality of life factors such as having vibrant, walkable neighborhoods.

The problem with these libertarian think tanks is that they have a religious adherence to the market which leads them to think the future they predict is inevitable. Where in reality, it's a choice. What sort of cities do we want to build and live in?

[Wesley Mouch]

Mehhhh. In a way, there is no denying that in the low-density sprawl that characterizes most American cities, driverless vehicles could fill in as public transit. However, this completely ignores the ecology of sprawl- it's use of land, impacts on surrounding environment, etc. Not to mention the psychological impact of sprawl [[alienation, isolation, etc) and quality of life factors such as having vibrant, walkable neighborhoods.

The problem with these libertarian think tanks is that they have a religious adherence to the market which leads them to think the future they predict is inevitable. Where in reality, it's a choice. What sort of cities do we want to build and live in?

[[Libertarian speaking...) It is indeed a choice. But whose choice? It the choice to be made by a Think Tank? The bureaucracy? MDOT? Voters? Or just maybe might it be made by individuals choosing ride-hailing?

You say Libertarians have a "religious adherence" to the market. I say that you seem to have an irrational adherence to central planning. [[A little tit for tat feels good in the morning, but gets us nothing.)

I only read CATO's summary, but they are 'thinking' something important. The 'end of cars' is being predicted by Bob Lutz. Could the end of traditional busses and streetcars also be coming? Probably not for high density routes, but a lot of people live more than a few blocks from a D-DOT route. And that route might not take them where they want to go without transfer. Or... might 4 people who live close together hail a ride-sharing cab and get much better service? Its worth a thought before we spend a lot of 50+-year infrastructure.

So let me briefly defend 'the market'. It gets beaten up a lot by the left. Why is it unloved? Because the market doesn't protect incumbents -- be they government or business. Government hates it when you take a ride-share instead of D-DOT. Business hates it when you take a ride-share instead of a limited-medallion cab. But the winner can be the individual. Yes, you -- individual -- you are the market. When someone says 'the market decides', it means that you, me, and xim, and xer decide. It is individual liberty, not centrally planned monopolies. Vote with your wallet. Down with those who plan [[too much). Let your voice be heard. Let's silence those heretics who don't want you to know that 'the market' is YOU.

[professorscott]

So let me briefly defend 'the market'. It gets beaten up a lot by the left. Why is it unloved? Because the market doesn't protect incumbents -- be they government or business. Government hates it when you take a ride-share instead of D-DOT. Business hates it when you take a ride-share instead of a limited-medallion cab. But the winner can be the individual. Yes, you -- individual -- you are the market. When someone says 'the market decides', it means that you, me, and xim, and xer decide. It is individual liberty, not centrally planned monopolies. Vote with your wallet. Down with those who plan [[too much). Let your voice be heard. Let's silence those heretics who don't want you to know that 'the market' is YOU.

I have a Libertarian streak, too, but let's be clear that when we're talking about transportation of any kind, here and everywhere, the market has been so skewed by government intervention over the last 150+ years that it's really hard to tell what an unconstrained market would actually prefer.

The "market" strongly preferred streetcars and interurban trains over the other free-market ways of getting around, like riding your horse or a bicycle, for several decades, until the government began to subsidize automobile drivers by building roads for cars. The "market" was fine walking around cities but became less fine when the government, with the strong $upport of the auto industry, invented "jaywalking" and began to constrain, with government force, where we could walk.

The government subsidies of transportation and water and sewer infrastructure are the only reason suburbanization on such a large scale exists. In the 1960s, government subsidization of suburban retail development was such that it was pretty damned near impossible to lose money on a suburban shopping mall surrounded by acres of surface parking. Explicit government intervention in the housing market, such as the practice of withholding Federal mortgage guarantees for homes in "red-lined" neighborhoods, increased the disinvestment in urban areas and helped to speed sprawl and suburbanization. Municipal zoning laws ensure that, if you live in a modern neighborhood, there's not a damned thing you can walk to.

So, sure, Wesley, I'm all in favor of letting the market do its work, but in transportation the market hasn't functioned for many generations without the thumb of various levels of government pushing all over the scales. It is absolutely impossible to tell what people would do for transportation in a pure, free market environment, because there isn't one anywhere and hasn't been in the lifetime of anyone living today. In the meantime, there are so many other benefits to society of robust transit - less need for parking, fewer cars blocking the path of those who do choose to ride, encouraging in-fill development to be "transit oriented" and therefore walkable - that I'm willing to doff my Libertarian hat for the cause, and get on the bus.

[Hermod]

Professor: The point of the Cato article was not to do away with public transit in the form of buses and mini-buses, but to avoid expensive rail infrastructure projects which become massive money pits.

[Junjie]

Professor: The point of the Cato article was not to do away with public transit in the form of buses and mini-buses, but to avoid expensive rail infrastructure projects which become massive money pits.

Ha. As though highways aren't massive money pits too. $70 million just to repair the tiny stub highway of 375.

Why should we arbitrarily choose rail projects as projects to be avoided? Only rail has enough capacity to serve a highly dense urban center. If you want to build a large, successful, tall, dense downtown, your only choice is to do it with rail. Yes, it will cost money on an ongoing basis. So will having a failure for a downtown. So will roads. So will the pollution from forcing everyone to drive. Etc. etc.

Places like Cato are a joke because, for all their "libertarian" rhetoric, they just push the same tired solutions year after year that force people to live the way Cato wants them to live. Detroit has done what Cato recommends. It's succeeded in destroying virtually all transit oriented development in the region. It pays nothing into rail-based transit "money pits" and pays less for public transit than any other region. It's built massive highways everywhere so that people are "free" to go wherever they want, whenever they want [[as long as they don't mind being forced to do so in a car). And yet it's the most deeply failed city in American history. Huh.

[stasu1213]

I think that having more rapid busses and park and ride spot set up in each suburban areas outside of Detroit would be a great idea for the reason. I am a proponent of light rail but seeing the trouble in laying down just three miles of track up and down Woodward I am beginning to believe that installing a rapid bus system on the three main arteries, Michigan, Grand River, and Gratiot would be more practical and cost efficient. Park-and-Ride parking areas could also be designated in the inner and outer suburban rings in Southeastern Michigan. I use the Woodward Reflex bus when traveling downtown to see a Pistons and Red Wing game. I dont want to pay high cost for parking and also I save on gas including wear and tear on my vehicle. It would be easier to install bus lanes or even possible designated streets for busses including bus stops in the downtown area. Griswold or Larned are not good streets for bus pick up due to the bottlenecking of DDOT and SMART busses while picking up passengers

[Tig3rzhark]

I think that having more rapid busses and park and ride spot set up in each suburban areas outside of Detroit would be a great idea for the reason. I am a proponent of light rail but seeing the trouble in laying down just three miles of track up and down Woodward I am beginning to believe that installing a rapid bus system on the three main arteries, Michigan, Grand River, and Gratiot would be more practical and cost efficient. Park-and-Ride parking areas could also be designated in the inner and outer suburban rings in Southeastern Michigan. I use the Woodward Reflex bus when traveling downtown to see a Pistons and Red Wing game. I dont want to pay high cost for parking and also I save on gas including wear and tear on my vehicle. It would be easier to install bus lanes or even possible designated streets for busses including bus stops in the downtown area. Griswold or Larned are not good streets for bus pick up due to the bottlenecking of DDOT and SMART busses while picking up passengers

I would find it interesting if a limited route be created for Grand River. Considering that Livonia doesn't want transit in its community at all, maybe they would change their mind when buses pass by their community.

Have the Grand River buses go to Novi mall or that Suburban Collection shopping mall. I'm sure that it will be a full bus in either direction.

Grand River is the only one left in the spokes that haven't been given a express bus route.

At least in Jan 2018, we have something to look forward too.

[stasu1213]

The problem that Detroit and it's surrounding suburbs has is no transit corporation to lobby or put their candidate in office to vote for funding to expand transit including roads for busses and rails. One thing that I give Mayor Duggan is his willingness to improve the bus system in Detroit first by removing Gary Brown. He also added new lines but unfortunately some lines rurez were cut short where riders are force to get off one bus in a dangerous area j7st to buy a transfer to get on another route for the remainder of the route e.i Gratiot Eastland reduced to Gratiot 8 mile. A very dangerous crime ridden corner to be let off on

[mtburb]

Grand River is the only one left in the spokes that haven't been given a express bus route.

Actually, there is mostly no express bus route along Fort Street either, although the 830 Park and Ride [[if you count that as an express route) does use it for two miles in Riverview.

[dtowncitylover]

http://www.bridgemi.com/detroit-jour...heast-michigan

Something is coming through the pipeline and even LBP isn't negative about it...

Perhaps one of my 2018 predictions is wrong. [[It's one I would like to be wrong about!)

[brizee]

http://www.bridgemi.com/detroit-jour...heast-michigan

Something is coming through the pipeline and even LBP isn't negative about it...

Perhaps one of my 2018 predictions is wrong. [[It's one I would like to be wrong about!)

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/gener...county-address

Well that's that.

[Jason]

Can't he just die already?

[dtowncitylover]

Can't he just die already?

A head on collision with a SMART or DDOT bus would be the greatest of ironies. I really don't want him dead, just gone and moved down to Florida so we can move on with our lives.

[maverick1]

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/gener...county-address

Well that's that.

I don't understand why we can't let those that want to opt out, opt out. Let's see which communities are willing to pay for it and go for there. I'm tired of this.

[Richard]

A head on collision with a SMART or DDOT bus would be the greatest of ironies. I really don't want him dead, just gone and moved down to Florida so we can move on with our lives.

Hey,do not be sending him down here,we have enough anti transit heathens down here as it is.

For what it is worth this transit system in Orlando had to deal with 8 different cities to get passed,it is a lot of work but it can be done,you just have to keep gaining support.

http://sunrail.com/map/#

[dtowncitylover]

Hey,do not be sending him down here,we have enough anti transit heathens down here as it is.

For what it is worth this transit system in Orlando had to deal with 8 different cities to get passed,it is a lot of work but it can be done,you just have to keep gaining support.

http://sunrail.com/map/#

Eek, but good to know there's precedent of sorts.

Ok, we'll send him to Elba then.

[Richard]

A lot of those gains happened when gas hit $4 per gallon,that is when people really start to rethink their transit options,and when mass transit shows it's highest ridership numbers.

When you look at the link I posted the Deland run goes through a good 15 miles of rural nothing,but stays busy,which kinda dispels the argument of the connection is to far.

[Jason]

I don't understand why we can't let those that want to opt out, opt out. Let's see which communities are willing to pay for it and go for there. I'm tired of this.

The problem with this approach is that regional transit has regional benefits. Even if an individual person doesn't ride transit or an individual suburb opts out of receiving service, there are still a lot of positive externalities. They still benefit from the improved economy, transportation cost efficiencies, improved land values, less congestion on the roads they personally drive on, and all the other benefits.

The second thing is that sensible and efficient transportation planning can't happen with a weird patchwork of served areas. The opt out stuff is a big mess, and our politicians need to man up and take responsibility and stand up for the right policy for a change. Most voters don't pay attention to political issues and just take their cues from the politicians they trust, so him speaking out against it changes attitudes independent of objective fact.


I wouldn't be against a specific transit project having a special TIF zone that corresponded with the service area of the new project. I don't know exactly how much money one could raise.

[Richard]

This is from 2009 so the first paragraph does not apply but the rest Kinda outlines funding options,Tif being one of them.

https://utcm.tamu.edu/tfo/transit/summary.stm

This is more of a read but much more detailed.

http://www.vtpi.org/tranfund.pdf

[Tig3rzhark]

Detroit, we have a problem.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...gan/402364002/

[dtowncitylover]

Here we are again...I really can't wait to debate the laurels and need for REGIONAL transit for 10000000000000000000000000000th time with you all again.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article..._medium=social

[Bham1982]

I love the "there's no subsidizing anybody" line in the Crains article, right after Evans explained how $5.4 billion in new property tax revenue was going to fund better SMART service. This, in a region where certain individual suburbs now actually have higher total assessed valuations than the entire City of Detroit.

Granted, there are decent arguments for and against, but clearly the people paying for this aren't gonna be using this.

[dtowncitylover]

I love the "there's no subsidizing anybody" line in the Crains article, right after Evans explained how $5.4 billion in new property tax revenue was going to fund better SMART service. This, in a region where certain individual suburbs now actually have higher total assessed valuations than the entire City of Detroit.

Granted, there are decent arguments for and against, but clearly the people paying for this aren't gonna be using this.

I think he meant the timeworn complaint that suburbanites are "subsidizing" poor Detroit when the law specifically states 85% of raised taxes must stay in the county.

Another timeworn complaint. "I won't use it." You, Frank Rizzo, won't use it, or you're refusing to use it because you don't understand how transit works and refuse to understand how it will positively affect your community and the metro region?

[Johnnny5]

At least the tossed bone for the exburbs is bigger, not just an afterthought and slightly less hypothetical

According to the newly proposed framework those of us that live and work in the "Hometown Services" region would be paying based on property values, but receive funding on a per capita basis. For that reason I'm still not sure I can support this proposal any more than the last one. Especially considering the vagueness of what "Hometown Services" would actually be. From the looks of it's just putting $100 in the mass transit pot, getting $25 back and somehow we're supposed to be happy with this arrangement.

[sirrealone]

"Fix the roads first" will be the first reaction from many voters.