Third Anniversary of the Q Line

[Atticus]

Whether someone is rich or poor does affect the finances from the city's point of view, but the city still gets money from upgrading transit for poor people.

If someone is unemployed and doesn't have a car, the city makes $0 in income taxes, but if better transit gets them a job and they make $25,000, the city gets $625 a year, plus at least $900 a year in fares. If this happens with 2,500 people, over the course of 30 years the city would get over $100 million dollars that it wasn't getting before, plus a bunch of spinoff benefits [[less crime/police costs, less blight/demolition costs, etc). When it's all said and done, DDOT is probably a profitable investment for the city.

Completely agree. Having transit is very important. The question is what is the best way to provide that transit? Buses are far more economical than rail in almost all situations. The argument I am making is not whether transit is important or not, but whether it makes sense to have “nicer” transit [[aka rail). And my argument is it generally doesn’t make economic sense in low income areas, unless you are expecting gentrification to occur.

[Atticus]

From an economic pov, it makes waaaay more sense to spend on rail than just about anything else. Investing in rail is a pretty safe bet for expanding Detroit's tax base. Putting money into social programs is commendable, but the money will eventually run out if the city doesn't grow.

It only makes sense if you actually expect gentrification to occur as a result [[or partial result) of rail transit. Otherwise you are wasting tax money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Pre-COVID, if a business was trying to impress a client, they’d fly them first class. If that same business was sending a low level employee on a work trip, they flew them in coach. No different for bus vs. rail. There is an economic benefit and moral obligation to providing transit [[busses). There is not a need to provide premium expensive-to-build rail transit unless you are trying to impress, and obtain new neighborhood investment.

Finally, let’s be clear. There are certain parts of Detroit where gentrification is possible, and parts where it’s not. 7 Mile is not going to gentrify even if you built the best light rail system in the world on that corridor. Too many cheaply built houses that no one actually wants. East Jefferson on the other hand could gentrify, as there is a lot of cool architectural gems in need of repair, and the proximity to the river helps immensely. If you are going to build rail somewhere to attract investors, that is the place to do it.

[Richard]

With everything going on with climate change and driverless vehicles,all it takes is a dedicated administration at the top to alter the world.

The attitudes towards public transportation will change when the options become limited,no matter what ones paygrade is.

So looking at the future and as a city,is it better to be ahead of the curve or stay behind it while playing catch-up.

I see FTA funds being allotted for public transit every month,but never see Detroit on that list,without a solid plan and organization,it becomes irrelevant whether it is rail or wheels.

I think it would be really tough to put heaters in rickshaws.

Instead of putting the cart in front of the horse,it needs to be 100% concentration on the plan,lots of other cities have systems in place that have no issues of offering guidance as to how to move forward,just gotta ask.

The cities that you see now with established systems,did not wake up one day and just decided to throw rails or wheels down,it took grassroot volunteers to form an organization in order to put the pieces in place before it could even get established.

They kinda took the initiative and got the organizers,organized.

Its never that easy.

[iheartthed]

It only makes sense if you actually expect gentrification to occur as a result [[or partial result) of rail transit. Otherwise you are wasting tax money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Pre-COVID, if a business was trying to impress a client, they’d fly them first class. If that same business was sending a low level employee on a work trip, they flew them in coach. No different for bus vs. rail. There is an economic benefit and moral obligation to providing transit [[busses). There is not a need to provide premium expensive-to-build rail transit unless you are trying to impress, and obtain new neighborhood investment.

Finally, let’s be clear. There are certain parts of Detroit where gentrification is possible, and parts where it’s not. 7 Mile is not going to gentrify even if you built the best light rail system in the world on that corridor. Too many cheaply built houses that no one actually wants. East Jefferson on the other hand could gentrify, as there is a lot of cool architectural gems in need of repair, and the proximity to the river helps immensely. If you are going to build rail somewhere to attract investors, that is the place to do it.

Long story but it's not really about gentrification [[also architecture really isn't a gentrification driver). One of the most fascinating things about Detroit is that there is so much land in the center of the city that basically has zero value. That is why so many people find Detroit fascinating, especially people from places where cities organized around rail transit is the norm. A rail based transit system in Detroit would go a long way towards reorienting the city's real estate to give intrinsic value to broader parts of the city.

[Richard]

^ That right there.

To me anyways to deliver the highest impact with the highest ridership would be the spoke routes.

IE Downtown Detroit to downtown Highland Park,downtown Detroit to Downtown Hamtramck etc.

The Qline is really just a taste.

A lot of funding depends of FTA grants and they look at aggressive highest impact routes.

They do not really look at feeder routes until the basic main lines are established.

Key word is “connecting”

[Atticus]

Long story but it's not really about gentrification [[also architecture really isn't a gentrification driver). One of the most fascinating things about Detroit is that there is so much land in the center of the city that basically has zero value. That is why so many people find Detroit fascinating, especially people from places where cities organized around rail transit is the norm. A rail based transit system in Detroit would go a long way towards reorienting the city's real estate to give intrinsic value to broader parts of the city.

I agree many people find Detroit fascinating, but disagree with the economic value proposition of rail. Using the airplane example, sure it would be great if everyone could fly first class... but the coach seat gets you there just as fast at a quarter the cost. If money were no object, I’d agree and say build rail everywhere over busses. But building rail for low income folks so they have a better experience than taking the bus... just seems wasteful. Maybe that’s a socialist vs capitalist argument... but the reality is the majority of folks in this state and country are on the capitalist side.

As for gentrification, architecture does matter. There is a reason people are fascinated about moving into all of these rehabilitated beautiful buildings in the city. Architecture is not always a factor, but it definitely can be a significant part of the equation. When architecture is not a factor, the situation is more market driven with the housing supply and demand being out of whack. [[I.e. high income people settling for a crappy house in Seattle, San Francisco, etc. because the housing supply is so limited that prices for even crappy houses are astronomical). Detroit is never going to be in that market demand situation. The housing supply here is too plentiful.

[iheartthed]

I agree many people find Detroit fascinating, but disagree with the economic value proposition of rail. Using the airplane example, sure it would be great if everyone could fly first class... but the coach seat gets you there just as fast at a quarter the cost. If money were no object, I’d agree and say build rail everywhere over busses. But building rail for low income folks so they have a better experience than taking the bus... just seems wasteful. Maybe that’s a socialist vs capitalist argument... but the reality is the majority of folks in this state and country are on the capitalist side.

If you think Detroit is just a place to house poor people, then I guess I would agree. But I'm talking about the big picture, and this requires both vision and a sense of civic pride. If you put a shovel in the ground for a subway today, you're talking about something that won't even be used for nearly a decade. Investing in rail means thinking about what Detroit looks like in 2040. Can the city last another 20 years as just a big ghetto?

As for gentrification, architecture does matter. There is a reason people are fascinated about moving into all of these rehabilitated beautiful buildings in the city. Architecture is not always a factor, but it definitely can be a significant part of the equation. When architecture is not a factor, the situation is more market driven with the housing supply and demand being out of whack. [[I.e. high income people settling for a crappy house in Seattle, San Francisco, etc. because the housing supply is so limited that prices for even crappy houses are astronomical). Detroit is never going to be in that market demand situation. The housing supply here is too plentiful.

Gentrification is a market force. The only reason it correlates with architecture is because of this country's history of urban abandonment.

[Richard]

I agree many people find Detroit fascinating, but disagree with the economic value proposition of rail. Using the airplane example, sure it would be great if everyone could fly first class... but the coach seat gets you there just as fast at a quarter the cost. If money were no object, I’d agree and say build rail everywhere over busses. But building rail for low income folks so they have a better experience than taking the bus... just seems wasteful. Maybe that’s a socialist vs capitalist argument... but the reality is the majority of folks in this state and country are on the capitalist side.

As for gentrification, architecture does matter. There is a reason people are fascinated about moving into all of these rehabilitated beautiful buildings in the city. Architecture is not always a factor, but it definitely can be a significant part of the equation. When architecture is not a factor, the situation is more market driven with the housing supply and demand being out of whack. [[I.e. high income people settling for a crappy house in Seattle, San Francisco, etc. because the housing supply is so limited that prices for even crappy houses are astronomical). Detroit is never going to be in that market demand situation. The housing supply here is too plentiful.

I agree that architecture does matter as a spoke in the wheel of the bigger picture.It is a binding part of the cities history and should be preserved for future generations,is a part of the story.

I also remember 8 years ago when it was all about giving control of Belle Island to the state because the city was never coming back,and the wide scale demolition of buildings because Detroit was never coming back and it should be just bulldozed into the river.

And here you are today,you are there for the very reasons that Iheart points out.

Do not look at how something looks today and base decisions,look at what it could look like in the future.

[renf]

When Congress enacted and President Trump approved the CARES act, $24.9 billion became available to assist public transit agencies that lost revenue due to the pandemic. $13.4 billion of that was allocated to the 10 largest transit system, typically ones that operate extensive heavy rail systems. Does any one know how much funding, if any, was allocated by CARES to DOT, SMART and the Q-line?

Thank you.

[Richard]

140 million to the Detroit airport

Up to $64 million in separate CARES Act dollars go the Detroit Department of Transportation. Of that, $16 million will go toward reimbursing the bus system for what it's losing in fare revenue and some will go to bus system improvements. Since March 18, fares are free and the frequency of buses and number of routes has been reduced during the pandemic. The city also contributes $60 million from its general fund for DDOT, but this coming year it is using $20 million of that to make up for its own lost revenue, and using some of the CARES Act dollars to replace it, said Dave Massaron, the city's chief financial officer.

https://www.crainsdetroit.com/govern...s-due-covid-19

Not sure on the Q-line because it is private?

I am beginning to think Crains is one of the only sources left in the country that actually make it a point to be informative.

Kudos

This outlines what the funds can be used for

https://www.apta.com/advocacy-legisl...ublic-transit/

^ that link is also a useful tool for those more serious about pushing/implementing transit options.

[renf]

Thank you very much. Q-line does have an unusual status since it is
not fully a governmental enterprise. I think they may not have to
frequently report their patronage as most other public transit systems do.

[Metro25]

The city is obviously not just a "big ghetto place to house poor people". What is wrong with some of you.

[Metro25]

Long story but it's not really about gentrification [[also architecture really isn't a gentrification driver). One of the most fascinating things about Detroit is that there is so much land in the center of the city that basically has zero value. That is why so many people find Detroit fascinating, especially people from places where cities organized around rail transit is the norm. A rail based transit system in Detroit would go a long way towards reorienting the city's real estate to give intrinsic value to broader parts of the city.

What land in the center of the city has "zero value"?? You mean the million dollar homes selling in Brush Park? You probably couldn't afford most of what's available in the center today. Yeah zero value my ass.

The obsession with rail is also really dumb, most newer growing cities do a lot with buses. Rail in whatever form isn't some magical solution for inner cities you just have to look at Houston and Dallas to see that.