Sprawl: Cutting off the working poor in Detroit

[Irvine Laird]

The Brookings Institution released a report this morning that reveals that almost eight in ten jobs in metro Detroit are more than ten miles from the city's urban core.

Read the report for yourself here: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/200..._kneebone.aspx

We clearly need a regional economic and land use master plan alongside an effective and widespread network of public transportation. Otherwise, we will propagate our old habit of cutting off our working poor from the opportunities they need to build better lives. Our historic rut of disintegration / segregation will continue, resulting in further erosion of our economic strength.

[iheartthed]

Job sprawl is not just cutting off the working poor, as the article said, it's creating inefficient and unsustainable development patterns.

[417deer]

The Regional Transportation Authority of Southeast Michigan - RTA has been created since this thread was last posted on.

So, how should we increase ridership to justify increased public and industry investments and operating subsidies? It is well known using multiple revenue sources will be needed, if our transit systems are to work to benefit those who use or pay for them due to the necessary costs.

Should the RTA look at the impact of freeway expansions? There are certainly other and better solutions then the widening alone method. This is because of the need to maintain a safe neighborhood environment for everyone. How can we get the RTA to look into this to make the freeway users and their tax supporters pay the real costs first, or accept safety improvements and repairs instead if funding is still too insufficient.

Should the RTA go after the road expansion lobbyists and make sure they pay the real cost for what they want or should have? The costs are much more then just the multi-billion dollar projects alone, when the impact of our environment, quality of life and safety are all included.

The RTA should and needs to look at our transportation system as a whole because our region must now compete in the World marketplace. So, please let them know your thoughts ---- http://www.rtamichigan.org/

Please comment and share your on thoughts about this?

[Hypestyles]

don't look for regionalism to happen any time soon. Too many voters love sprawl on principle. The public officials they elect reinforce this.

[Scottathew]

I wonder what percentage of houses are more than 10 mile from the urban core?

Folks are putting less importance on where they live, opting to choose the best community and then commute to their job.

With my wife and I, we both work, and in difference places, and we don't anticipate holding the same job for a super-long period of time. So picking a house near where we work might be a temporary good thing, but then as conditions change, a bad thing.

I'd like to see the 4th lane added to I-75 from M-59 to M-102, but after that, I would want to see no more freeway expansion in Oakland County. Instead we need to focus on getting a non-grade light rail system on Woodard [[elevated or subway).

Imagine if a subway system were put in connecting the Detroit River to Pontiac. It would cause land values along Woodward to go up quite a bit for folks that want to hold a job along Woodward and quickly commute home.

I now it's a pie-in-the-sky dream, because a subway system is so expensive, but if we could just focus on the most obvious placement for one, Woodward, accepted that it's expensive, and started making plans, it could be done. It would take decades, but it is possible.

[Bham1982]

I now it's a pie-in-the-sky dream, because a subway system is so expensive, but if we could just focus on the most obvious placement for one, Woodward, accepted that it's expensive, and started making plans, it could be done. It would take decades, but it is possible.

Not possible unless you somehow got rid of Bloomfield Hills. They don't even allow bus service, don't allow sidewalks, and stopped all the mile roads from being expanded through their jurisdiction. And their residents are a who's who of most influential Metro Detroiters. Every other famous Detroiter lives there.

You will never, ever get rail transit through Bloomfield, and there isn't much point, as there aren't congestion issues north of Bloomfield on Woodward nor is Pontiac a major employment center.

[casscorridor]

Not possible unless you somehow got rid of Bloomfield Hills. They don't even allow bus service, don't allow sidewalks, and stopped all the mile roads from being expanded through their jurisdiction. And their residents are a who's who of most influential Metro Detroiters. Every other famous Detroiter lives there.

You will never, ever get rail transit through Bloomfield, and there isn't much point, as there aren't congestion issues north of Bloomfield on Woodward nor is Pontiac a major employment center.

Commuter rail to Pontiac would run through Bloomfield Hills but it doesn't need to stop there.

[DeLemur]

M-1 rail doesn't help this problem?

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I am all for investing in local transit. But I think "master plans" can be WAY overdone. We have local governments for a reason. Voters in a community decide on what kind of community they want to live in, what services should be offered, what kind of developments to allow/not allow. It's crazy to me to think that we should try to impose our local policy preferences on people in other communities. I love sidewalks and appreciate their value. I wouldn't want to live in a community without them. That's why I don't! If you don't like sidewalks, you should be free to live in a community that doesn't have them. And I have news for all the central planning types: people and jobs will locate where they want, and for their own reasons. You can erect obstacles to locating a home or job in a community [[be it zoning, taxes, fostering crime, etc), but you can't actually make people do it. And the kind of people that have the "you'll be made to comply, comrade" attitude are in and of themselves a real disincentive to live or work somewhere. Urban centers can improve themselves into being desirable locations.

And 48307, there will NEVER be non-grade rail service on Woodward. A subway would be so expensive to build as to be impossible. And I do not see any chance that any of the suburbs would go for an elevated rail system down their main drag. Woodward's only real options are improved bus service [[including BRT) and continuing M-1 rail [[which I support doing, all the way to Pontiac).

I think the RTA should concentrate on a few priorities:
1) Merge city and suburban bus operations.
2) Launch BRT routes on the highly trafficked lines suggested in the tri-county area.
3) Launch AA-Detroit rail service *if it can be connected efficiently to a Metro Airport stop*.
4) Investigate possible Flint-Detroit rail service.
5) If M1 rail has significant ridership, consider expanding out into Oakland County, and launching other lines on Gratiot, Grand River, Michigan Ave & Jefferson from downtown to points to be determined.
6) Coordinate stops & service between different systems, including a universal farecard that can be used on rail, bus, People Mover, etc, making it easy for a person to use multiple systems efficiently.

[Junjie]

I am all for investing in local transit. But I think "master plans" can be WAY overdone. We have local governments for a reason. Voters in a community decide on what kind of community they want to live in, what services should be offered, what kind of developments to allow/not allow. It's crazy to me to think that we should try to impose our local policy preferences on people in other communities. I love sidewalks and appreciate their value. I wouldn't want to live in a community without them. That's why I don't! If you don't like sidewalks, you should be free to live in a community that doesn't have them. And I have news for all the central planning types: people and jobs will locate where they want, and for their own reasons. You can erect obstacles to locating a home or job in a community [[be it zoning, taxes, fostering crime, etc), but you can't actually make people do it. And the kind of people that have the "you'll be made to comply, comrade" attitude are in and of themselves a real disincentive to live or work somewhere. Urban centers can improve themselves into being desirable locations.

And 48307, there will NEVER be non-grade rail service on Woodward. A subway would be so expensive to build as to be impossible. And I do not see any chance that any of the suburbs would go for an elevated rail system down their main drag. Woodward's only real options are improved bus service [[including BRT) and continuing M-1 rail [[which I support doing, all the way to Pontiac).

I think the RTA should concentrate on a few priorities:
1) Merge city and suburban bus operations.
2) Launch BRT routes on the highly trafficked lines suggested in the tri-county area.
3) Launch AA-Detroit rail service *if it can be connected efficiently to a Metro Airport stop*.
4) Investigate possible Flint-Detroit rail service.
5) If M1 rail has significant ridership, consider expanding out into Oakland County, and launching other lines on Gratiot, Grand River, Michigan Ave & Jefferson from downtown to points to be determined.
6) Coordinate stops & service between different systems, including a universal farecard that can be used on rail, bus, People Mover, etc, making it easy for a person to use multiple systems efficiently.

Would we allow counties or towns to simply tear up the interstate where it runs through their territory because they're sick of the traffic? If not, why is it wrong to mandate that communities have bus lines or sidewalks? These are networks. They only work because of their connections. The fact that we allow some po-dunk little municipality to interrupt cross-county or cross-region services is insane.

The larger point is that you're advocating the strategy that's been tried for the last 70 years, to the effects which we can all observe. Why do you consider that preferable to the numerous metro areas that have regional plans that guide development and transportation? They've basically all been more successful than Detroit. I don't think many people move to SE Michigan to enjoy the high levels of local government autonomy.

Separate issue - if you want M-1 to go to Pontiac, it will need to be grade separated. No one is going to ride a 2 hour mixed-traffic streetcar for that kind of distance. [[Unless you mean at-grade but with dedicated lanes and presumably signal priority - ok.)

Agreed on all your points for RTA current priorities.

[Wesley Mouch]

Sprawl is the individual choice by citizens. We may choose to impose a social cost on sprawl, as we should. But to call if 'cutting off working poor' is choose to politicize the issue. Doing so will only show that you really don't care about sprawl, or the poor, but are using both to and ends -> improving transportation. Noble goal. Misguided means.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Junjie I want to respond to your points, but I am running out right now. I'll respond at length sometime around midnight. I'm about to go use sidewalks and an interstate...

[417deer]

Would we allow counties or towns to simply tear up the interstate where it runs through their territory because they're sick of the traffic? If not, why is it wrong to mandate that communities have bus lines or sidewalks? These are networks. They only work because of their connections. The fact that we allow some po-dunk little municipality to interrupt cross-county or cross-region services is insane.

The larger point is that you're advocating the strategy that's been tried for the last 70 years, to the effects which we can all observe. Why do you consider that preferable to the numerous metro areas that have regional plans that guide development and transportation? They've basically all been more successful than Detroit. I don't think many people move to SE Michigan to enjoy the high levels of local government autonomy.

Separate issue - if you want M-1 to go to Pontiac, it will need to be grade separated. No one is going to ride a 2 hour mixed-traffic streetcar for that kind of distance. [[Unless you mean at-grade but with dedicated lanes and presumably signal priority - ok.)

Agreed on all your points for RTA current priorities.

Please make the link below go extremely Viral long before November 2016, if you want the new Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan - RTA to improve existing public transit.

https://www.change.org/p/regional-tr...and-ddot-buses?

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Junjie, even where we disagree I like your informed and productive comments. Here are my responses to your points:

Would we allow counties or towns to simply tear up the interstate where it runs through their territory because they're sick of the traffic? If not, why is it wrong to mandate that communities have bus lines or sidewalks? These are networks. They only work because of their connections. The fact that we allow some po-dunk little municipality to interrupt cross-county or cross-region services is insane.

Sidewalks and interstates and bus lines are 3 different things. Sidewalks, along with issues like local zoning, neighborhood parks, and whether to meter parking spaces are truly local issues. Residents in the immediate community should have full control over such things. Interstates are both a federal and state issue, and their placement, construction, and operation are the subject of federal and state initiative. Local input is usually sought about expansions or changes to them, but they are not local issues, and local government is legally [[and properly) pretty powerless over them. Bus lines are not a federal issue at all, but have some state input [[if the state is funding them at all, and if the state coordinates in any way the structure of regional bus systems), and much local control, through city, county or RTA like system. Cities, including Bloomfield Hills, can't prevent buses from running in their borders, but they can effectively block stops from being in their community. Not what I'd vote for, but that's why I don't live there. Besides, BH does not have many residents in a "likely to ride a bus" demographic, nor is it much of a center for jobs. It's a rich bedroom community full of people who drive nice cars. But that doesn't prevent there from being a good, thorough network of buses in Oakland County, serving places where people would ride a bus.

The larger point is that you're advocating the strategy that's been tried for the last 70 years, to the effects which we can all observe. Why do you consider that preferable to the numerous metro areas that have regional plans that guide development and transportation? They've basically all been more successful than Detroit. I don't think many people move to SE Michigan to enjoy the high levels of local government autonomy.

Junjie, I think you, like many other well intended people, completely misunderstand why Detroit fell on hard times, and what it is that is bringing it back. Detroit did not fall apart do to lack of a master plan, or lack of regional coordination. For that matter, I wouldn't even argue that the larger [[Metro) Detroit area even was or is in very bad shape. Lots of very nice communities in SE Michigan. The building of the expressways made leaving the city literally easier, but are not what gave people the incentive. Slowly after WW2, and rapidly after 1960, Detroit became a place of high taxes, crime, and poor schools. The race riots made people feel unsafe, but not as much as the years and years of exploding crime. Add to that diminished basic city services, plummeting property values and a sense that the city wasn't governable, and people of all colors decided the more stable place to locate your family was anywhere but Detroit.

Detroit's comeback is being fueled by the private sector. Dan Gilbert's downtown bonanza is a series of initiatives designed, one by one, to be successful businesses. He is not following the government's lead. He is not trying to do a gigantic act of charity. He is trying to make money, and in the process is improving downtown. The best ways the city can help are improving services, limiting tax liabilities, and making people feel safe. To a greater extent than anytime in the past several decades, the city is doing that. When and if the city can fix [[or eliminate**) DPS, the city will grow further, including in some now-struggling neighborhoods. Detroit failed when it succeeded in making everything everywhere else seem better by comparison. Besides, does anyone think in the political climate of the 1960's to the 1990's Detroit voters would have accepted granting of some powers over Detroit money and assets to regional [[whiter and more Republican) officials? It was hard enough to do that on a very small scale in a bankruptcy crisis! The places in Metro Detroit that have had the most success in attracting both businesses and residents are places where the businesses and residents had the most autonomy from the local government [[low taxes, less rules to follow).
**Discussion topic for a different thread.

Some Metro areas do have semi-comprehensive master plans for shared services, transportation, etc. A few things should be taken into account, though: such master plans tend to be in very high-tax areas. Such master planning ultimately comes up with more and seemingly better ways to allocate money. I am curious- I honestly do not know the answer- if any highly regionalized areas can demonstrate big money savings in delivery of basic services. For example, did regionalized garbage collection anywhere make trash disposal much cheaper? I feel, generally, that privatization of services can save more money in the long run, and preserve local control vs largely unelected regional bureaucrats.

Separate issue - if you want M-1 to go to Pontiac, it will need to be grade separated. No one is going to ride a 2 hour mixed-traffic streetcar for that kind of distance. [[Unless you mean at-grade but with dedicated lanes and presumably signal priority - ok.)

I don't think of M1 Rail service, from Detroit to Pontiac, as a 30-mile downtown to downtown commuter rail service [[although that is literally what it would be). I think most people using it would be taking it for shorter trips between different points on the line. Midtowners using it to work downtown; Birminghamsters using it to get to the Zoo; Wayne State students going out for a bite in Ferndale; loft-living Pontiac yuppies going to work in Birmingham. People looking for express mass transit trips would be better served by long-distance, limited stop BRT. I do favor using computer-controlled, GPS enabled technology to speed along both BRT and light rail service.

[Hermod]

Cheapest was to provide downtown Detroit to downtown Pontiac rail [[with stops along the way):

Run the line up an alley or street parallel to Woodward to the city limits with the train being able to override traffic at intersections [[motorman controls traffic gates). Once in Oakland County, use the Woodward median [[which was designed for the interurban with the motorman having crossing control and signals preempt. You don't need a subway or an el.

[Bham1982]

Commuter rail to Pontiac would run through Bloomfield Hills but it doesn't need to stop there.

True, you could use the Grand Trunk line, of course. I thought people were talking about using Woodward, which would be out of the question politically.

But that line would have to be coordinated with heavy freight rail service and Amtrak service, and would obviously be commuter rail and not compatible with light rail along Woodward to the south.

And we had commuter rail along this line until the 1980's. It was cancelled for lack of demand, even though downtown had a larger employment base back then than now.

Is there really some huge need for North Woodward to have commuter rail? Downtown is a very easy drive for commuters. There's Woodward and two huge parallel freeways [[Lodge and I-75). All move pretty well at rush hour. If someone insists on public transit, the Woodward buses have the best frequencies in the region.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I don't consider Woodward-centered light rail and a suburbs-to-city commuter service [[bus or rail) to be the same thing at all. Light rail on Woodward would be for shorter trips along Woodward [[although of course some would take long trips on it), mirroring the service of a local bus, whereas a commuter service would be for longer trips, and would make far fewer stops, but be much faster.

As for whether there would be demand enough for a heavy gauge rail service from Pontiac to Detroit, I am not sure either way. A lot has changed since SEMTA's rail service ended in '83. First, jobs and attractions in Detroit are on a steady rise, rather than rapid decline. Plus, I think inner-ring suburbs are now populated by people who are more into "walkable" communities, and glad to sometimes skip the driving. On the other hand, there is no logical Detroit terminus for such a service. The Amtrak station in Detroit wouldn't be ideal; people working downtown or much of midtown would need to take a bus, cab, M1 Rail or a long walk. Using 2 or more modes of transit coming and going would make it less attractive to many. Our friend the Dequindre Cut eliminates running the train back to Atwater, where my Mom used to take it [[personal note: my Mom was on the very last train, which she used every day). While I wouldn't mind a feasibility study, I think a BRT system probably just makes much more sense for long-commute service in the area.

[casscorridor]

#1 priority for transit service should be connecting people to the places they need to go, and that means:

- service runs frequent enough and late enough to reduce the need to follow timetables [[runs every 15 minutes or less)

- service is within walking distance [[15 minutes) to most destinations

- reduced need to transfer or travel out of the way to transfer [[enough lines running to places people need to go)

- trips to most places can be achieved within 45 minutes [[within the core geographic area, in this case Detroit and inner suburbs)

This can be bus, streetcar, commuter rail, but probably combination of all modes. The particular mode should follow the need. But I have yet to see a single proposal that would achieve any of these goals.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Casscorridor I think you are making the simple and logical point that the more convenient mass transit is, the more people will use, which benefits both the riders and the system. I generally agree, but I think we also need to keep in mind money for both construction and operation is limited [[even if we spend a lot more money), so we need to determine what things benefit the most number of riders, what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what can be done in the short and long terms. All future projects and improvements should maintain as a high priority to integrate said project with other systems, and to make transferring an easy, convenient experience.

[Gistok]

Sprawl is the individual choice by citizens. We may choose to impose a social cost on sprawl, as we should. But to call if 'cutting off working poor' is choose to politicize the issue. Doing so will only show that you really don't care about sprawl, or the poor, but are using both to and ends -> improving transportation. Noble goal. Misguided means.

You do realize that the person who started this thread did so 7 years ago... and hasn't posted here in 5 years.... in essence you're talking to no one...

[Richard]

Not much has changed in 7 years on the surface anyways.The jobs were located to the burbs to follow the crowd maybe locating the jobs back into or creating more jobs in the core for a thought?

It still does not negate the need for public transit or more transportation options for the upwardly mobile generations of the future,makes it sound more PC correct.

[417deer]

don't look for regionalism to happen any time soon. Too many voters love sprawl on principle. The public officials they elect reinforce this.

I'm looking for this next November, when the majority of voters will most likely say YES to a 3 or 4 county property or vehicle license fee tax to help pay for the operations of the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan RTA

The Petition is to give to Michael Ford, Chief Executive Officer of the RTA to sign and use to implement a plan of removing cars from the I-75 and I-94 freeway expansions and bringing back jobs to the City of Detroit.

https://www.change.org/p/regional-tr...and-ddot-buses?

[417deer]

Not much has changed in 7 years on the surface anyways.The jobs were located to the burbs to follow the crowd maybe locating the jobs back into or creating more jobs in the core for a thought?

It still does not negate the need for public transit or more transportation options for the upwardly mobile generations of the future,makes it sound more PC correct.

I disagree that not much has changed in 7 years.

The creation of a Regional Transit Authority is proof, in my opinion. Next November, the majority of voters will most likely say YES to a 3 or 4 county property or vehicle license fee tax to help pay for operating costs.

The Petition is to give to Michael Ford, Chief Executive Officer of the RTA to sign and use to implement a plan of removing cars from the I-75 and I-94 freeway expansions and bringing back jobs to the City of Detroit.

https://www.change.org/p/regional-tr...and-ddot-buses?

[Bham1982]

I'm looking for this next November, when the majority of voters will most likely say YES to a 3 or 4 county property or vehicle license fee tax to help pay for the operations of the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan RTA

The Petition is to give to Michael Ford, Chief Executive Officer of the RTA to sign and use to implement a plan of removing cars from the I-75 and I-94 freeway expansions and bringing back jobs to the City of Detroit.

https://www.change.org/p/regional-tr...and-ddot-buses?

I think you're living in La-La land. People who choose to live in Metro Detroit aren't doing so for public transportation. It's like living in Barrow, Alaska and complaining about the winter weather.

Given that the number of choice PT riders in the region is approaching 0, I suspect there is little support for paying more in taxes and making every household poorer in exchange for more crappy, inefficient transit. Now I will see the empty buses that pass my neighborhood extend further out into the sprawl, hoping that people in Brighton and Clarkston will start taking the bus?

Every weekday, I'm seeing the buses crawl up Southfield Rd. and then over on 14 Mile, on their route from Northland to Somerset. Passes through some of the densest and most job-rich areas of Oakland County, yet usually there's one or two passengers on the bus.

[dtowncitylover]

I think you're living in La-La land. People who choose to live in Metro Detroit aren't doing so for public transportation. It's like living in Barrow, Alaska and complaining about the winter weather.

Given that the number of choice PT riders in the region is approaching 0, I suspect there is little support for paying more in taxes and making every household poorer in exchange for more crappy, inefficient transit. Now I will see the empty buses that pass my neighborhood extend further out into the sprawl, hoping that people in Brighton and Clarkston will start taking the bus?

Every weekday, I'm seeing the buses crawl up Southfield Rd. and then over on 14 Mile, on their route from Northland to Somerset. Passes through some of the densest and most job-rich areas of Oakland County, yet usually there's one or two passengers on the bus.

But people who choose to live in Metro Detroit don't choose to live here because they want to drive on 20 lane expressways, live near a depressed urban city, or because they "thrive" on backasswards anti-regionalism. They live here because they have a job. But wouldn't it be nice to live in a region like acts like a region? With decent transportation option, a thriving urban core, and cross-region collaboration? RTAs provide one the largest way in which regions can interact and work together.

I suspect there is actually great support for the RTA mileage because this is something that's not unprecedented. If people want to see a functional, cooperative regional authority they know they have to pay for it just like the people in major regions across North America.

I don't disagree with you about empty busses, but that's why we need the RTA and the mileage so they configure and modernize 1) the bus fleet and 2) the bus routes.