Detroit biggest holdup on regional transportation Crains

[crawford]

Isn't that about 5% of Metro Detroit? 200k out of 4 million--give or take?bus/mass transit around here is not about loving or not loving cars it's simply the choice of last resort.

This is correct. Detroit is the poorest major city in the country.

Those 200,000 DDot + SMART riders are overwhelmingly poor folks who want a car but can't afford one.

And the billion-dollar light rail nonsense wouldn't do a thing to help them. Woodward already has, by far, the best transit in the region.

[crawford]

Let's start with some facts, which I claim are unarguable:
1. All successful urban areas, everywhere in the world, have effective mass transit.

LA? Houston? Dallas? Phoenix? Miami? Tampa? Charlotte?

I don't think so.

2. Metro Detroit is not successful, by any metric you care to apply. If you want to argue this with me, you must meet me at the Detroit Buddy's, and you must buy the drinks.

3. Metro Detroit does not have effective mass transit. [[If you want to argue this with me, you are dropping acid, which is very retro but still illegal and probably harmful.)

Agreed 100% with #2 and #3 but I do not see any causation.

Effective mass transit does not appear to be correlated with successful cities worldwide.
There are successful cities with terrible transit, and failed cities with excellent transit.

[professorscott]

Crawford asked about "LA? Houston? Dallas? Phoenix? Miami? Tampa? Charlotte?"

Let's examine.

Los Angeles has light rail, subway and commuter rail, in addition to its bus service.

Houston has MetroRail which runs every 6 minutes from early morning to mid-evening on weekdays, in addition to its bus service. In metro Detroit we no longer even have any bus routes which run as frequently as once every 6 minutes.

Dallas has almost 50 miles of light rail and is the seventh most-ridden light rail system in the United States. Dallas is undergoing a rapid expansion of its light rail system.

The Phoenix light rail service runs every 10 minutes all day on weekdays.

Miami has a 22 mile elevated light rail system.

Even Tampa, which is one of the more anti-transit regions in the United States, has the TECO line streetcar system.

So to sum up, Crawford, every city you chose to name has some type of regional rail transit, which metro Detroit does not. So what was your point?

[ghettopalmetto]

Houston and Charlotte also have plans for massive expansions of their rail systems. I'm not sure about Charlotte, but I think Houston realized that a THIRD beltway was not going to be affordable, nor "solve" its notorious traffic congestion.

[Melocoton]

. If, on the other hand, you would like to bolster the argument that we don't need light rail, I would invite you to find any region the size of ours - 4 to 5 million people - anywhere in the developed world that is successful and does not have any rail based transit.

It's also worth pointing out that a ton of cities in the so-called "underdeveloped" world are miles ahead of us on this front. Quito, Ecuador, Bogota, Colombia, Mexico City, and Caracas and Maracaibo, Venezuela, just to name a few, have modern and effective subway, BRT, or bus transit systems. Detroit's the only place on earth I've ever been where you can't take a bus to the airport.

[Novine]

Charlotte's made a huge investment in light rail and it's regularly touted by the city. On their web site, under "Charlotte's Future", you are led here:

http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/...ystem+Plan.htm

I don't usually agree with Crawford's comments but they usually have some basis in fact. That one? Way off track.

[bailey]

It's also worth pointing out that a ton of cities in the so-called "underdeveloped" world are miles ahead of us on this front. Quito, Ecuador, Bogota, Colombia, Mexico City, and Caracas and Maracaibo, Venezuela, just to name a few, have modern and effective subway, BRT, or bus transit systems. Detroit's the only place on earth I've ever been where you can't take a bus to the airport.

But all those areas, for the most part, follow the European style of city growth and lay out... meaning the wealth , the business center and middle classes are in the central city and the poors are at the outer rings and suburbs. Also, by and large, they have a tradition of mass transit or close quarters. Detroit has been a sprawl city and region for 60 years. We're 2 generations removed from mass transit being part of the fabric around here.

I too am always a bit surprised that there is not any metro link to the airport, but then where would a bus to or from the airport go? Express to Rosa Parks? or make multiple stops? If it's going to take 3 hours to get from Metro to the destination due the need for multiple stops....dearborn, detroit, RO, troy...whatever, and I still need to be picked up to get to my ultimate destination, it sort of defeats the purpose of taking it in the first place. . If I need to be driven 35 minutes from Troy, or B'ham to the bus stop for the airport shuttle, it's not any faster. It would make sense at Auto show time I guess when a majority of the press and visitors are going to try to stay downtown and be at Cobo... but for the other 50 weeks of the year? The population isn't going to support it, because we've sprawled too far and made mass transit an unworkable and irrelevant system, used only by those with no other choice.

[iheartthed]

But all those areas, for the most part, follow the European style of city growth and lay out... meaning the wealth , the business center and middle classes are in the central city and the poors are at the outer rings and suburbs. Also, by and large, they have a tradition of mass transit or close quarters. Detroit has been a sprawl city and region for 60 years. We're 2 generations removed from mass transit being part of the fabric around here.

I wouldn't call it a European style of growth since it is the way virtually every major population center in the world is laid out. And at one time this is how Detroit was structured... Back in Detroit's better days.

[digitalvision]

PS,

The 800 pound gorilla on transit and regionalism is race. That makes it a third rail here, preventing leadership or change. It's a subtext that can kill a career, and it's alive and well in this region on both sides of the divide. It's either felt, or used as a tool, or whatever - but we're the most segregated region in the country and if you look at the difference between us and other "revived" cities you'll see that's the striking one. They all had industries leave and shrink, gone through painful change, just like Detroit. We're not THAT special.

But few want to talk about it, they take it into vitriol and "if Detroit wasn't run by animals" and "if whitey didn't hate us." It's blown up in the face of folks in the past, and it makes them very shy to work past it. And sometimes, it's not THEIR constituencies that balk - it's who they're working with as partners [[again, on both sides).

There's two regions, functionally. I've been to social, business, all kinds of events and establishments - and I almost never see a truly mixed crowd on either side of the divide, and many times, will be the only white person at an event, or there will be one or two black people in a white event and both sides will say "how diverse it is."

Even things in Detroit are segregated for the most part, the bars, the locations, many of the causes. There are functionally two Detroit regions that have some geographic overlay, and until we face that fact and reconcile, real progress on this front is a pipe dream.

[bailey]

I wouldn't call it a European style of growth since it is the way virtually every major population center in the world is laid out. And at one time this is how Detroit was structured... Back in Detroit's better days.

well, i was really just sort of shorthand comparing the more American style urban growth of middle and upper class suburb/bedroom communities ringing the cites, where in Europe the concentration is in the central city and the suburbs tend to be less desirable.

The simple fact here is that if Detroit, tomorrow could magically have a world class transit system, nothing would change. Some of that is due to the race issue that DV notes, but more so it has to do with Detroit being a failed city and Michigan as a whole being viewed as an inhospitable business climate. While there are problems with race, no one is going to pack up their Washington township sprawl house and move to Palmer Park because there is a shiny new train. It's more about the perception that Detroit is third world city overrun run by crime, corruption, blight, entrenched and intransigent unions and staggering incompetence at all levels. Until that changes, a real mass transit system will never gain traction as it will simply be viewed [[by those asked to contribute tax dollars) as good money after bad.

[Bearinabox]

Detroit's the only place on earth I've ever been where you can't take a bus to the airport.

The SMART 125 connects downtown to the airport. It takes about an hour and twenty minutes. It's not a very good connection to the airport, but it's there.

[iheartthed]

The difference between cities like Houston, Dallas, LA, Tampa, Charlotte, etc., and cities like Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, New York, etc., are that the aforementioned cities have a LOT of space within their borders to "sprawl" and still support the central city operations through tax revenue. Houston, for instance has a population of 2.24 million people, making it the 4th largest municipality in the country, yet the population density of Houston today is significantly lower than that of Detroit today [[even after Detroit has lost nearly 1 million residents).

Nearly 40% of the Houston metropolitan area resides within the boundaries of Houston because its boundaries are so wide. A central city comprising that much of a metropolitan area is virtually unheard of in major cities of the northeast or upper Great Lakes [[NYC being the notable exception). In Chicago the urban percentage is 30%, in Philadelphia it is 25%, in Boston it is 13%, and in Detroit it is 21%.

All this is to say that comparing Detroit with a sprawled city like Houston, to make the point that a good transit network is unnecessary, is comparing apples to watermelons. Detroit's major problem is that it cannot effectively move a lot of people in a small space. Most other major cities of Detroit's size can do this very well. This is what mass transit systems do. Their purpose is not to just move poor people. Their purpose is to move a massive amount of people in an efficient manner. It is necessary for Detroit to develop a mass transit in order to survive as a major population center.

[bailey]

It is necessary for Detroit to develop a mass transit in order to survive as a major population center.

but doesn't that restart the debate over whether or not Detroit is the region's population center? the region is 4 million with only 900k living in Detroit. would a regional transit plan "fly" any better if the regional hub was in Royal Oak or Southfield or Birmingham? or wherever the geographic center of the population is?

how does a light [[or whatever) rail system up Woodward from new center to downtown do anything to increase use of mass transit or increase Detroit's population? That corridor is already heavily serviced and the only proposals on the table are simply [[and very expensively) turning that service from bus to rail.

[ghettopalmetto]

but doesn't that restart the debate over whether or not Detroit is the region's population center? the region is 4 million with only 900k living in Detroit. would a regional transit plan "fly" any better if the regional hub was in Royal Oak or Southfield or Birmingham? or wherever the geographic center of the population is?

how does a light [[or whatever) rail system up Woodward from new center to downtown do anything to increase use of mass transit or increase Detroit's population? That corridor is already heavily serviced and the only proposals on the table are simply [[and very expensively) turning that service from bus to rail.

Only 900k? As if Detroiters are the only people who would ride a good transit system?

What does the geographic center of the region have to do with anything? The geographic center of Chicagoland is well west of the Loop. Should they tear down the L and the commuter railroads?

Bus transit is far more expensive to operate than rail, and even more so in the long-term [[The National Transit Database of the FTA provides hard numbers for every system in the United States.). Detroit, because it relies strictly on buses for transit, thus has a very high transit operating cost per passenger mile when compared to its peers. In other words, you're throwing money away.

The idea is that a rail line will lower operating costs and increase property values. Increased property values make development projects financially viable [[How many times have we all bitched that a renovation isn't viable because the collected rents can't justify the required costs?). Woodward was selected because 1) it already has decent transit ridership and 2) Woodward is a prime corridor for redevelopment.

Add that rail has a much higher average operating speed than buses, which helps people get to work faster, and can also move larger numbers of people [[and thus, less parking required), you have a much more efficient system.

[Detroitnerd]

You don't understand, Ghetto. They're just pulling anything out they can think of to balk the idea. And my guess is that they don't travel enough, read enough or study the hard numbers [[other than their tax bills) and that's why they just keep stalling. It would be the threat of an alternative to BAU.

[Todd_Scott]

I came across this posting while looking for something else. According to lilpup we need to "increase ridership" before looking at more transit investments in Metro Detroit. Apparently being #5 isn't good enough:

Here are the most total rides per day [[for the first quarter of 2009), according to the American Public Transportation Association.

New York [[MTA/Long Island Railroad/Staten Island Railroad): 10,758,600
Chicago: 1,635,700
Los Angeles [[MTA/DOT/RRA): 1,608,300
Washington, DC: 1,421,200
Detroit [[including Flint): 1,322,100
Boston: 1,217,500
Philadelphia: 1,145,100
San Francisco: 1,060,900
Atlanta: 487,900
Seattle: 449,700
Baltimore: 408,900
Miami: 349,900
Portland: 323,000
Houston: 307,700
Denver: 292,100

[digitalvision]

Although, IHD, I agree with you it will raise property values, there needs to be education on the populous here who generally do not believe that. If I had a dollar for every time I heard people groan about how they don't want a bus or train in front of their business; it has history. After all, Mr. Vernor [[of Vernor's soda fame) famously killed a subway plan as a Detroit councilman because he believed that the station out front of his store would kill the parking and therefore his business - not realizing that the station would probably ADD tons of customers.

Of course, when the Grand Prix was downtown, we had the reverse reaction of the rest of the planet [[literally). For other city tracks, people build buildings and get high rates for apartments overlooking the track, making tons of money. Here, everyone bitched about how it was in the way.

[ghettopalmetto]

I came across this posting while looking for something else. According to lilpup we need to "increase ridership" before looking at more transit investments in Metro Detroit. Apparently being #5 isn't good enough:

Here are the most total rides per day [[for the first quarter of 2009), according to the American Public Transportation Association.

New York [[MTA/Long Island Railroad/Staten Island Railroad): 10,758,600
Chicago: 1,635,700
Los Angeles [[MTA/DOT/RRA): 1,608,300
Washington, DC: 1,421,200
Detroit [[including Flint): 1,322,100
Boston: 1,217,500
Philadelphia: 1,145,100
San Francisco: 1,060,900
Atlanta: 487,900
Seattle: 449,700
Baltimore: 408,900
Miami: 349,900
Portland: 323,000
Houston: 307,700
Denver: 292,100

I don't believe that number for Detroit for one second. Detroit doesn't provide a fraction of the service that San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, or even Atlanta do.

[iheartthed]

but doesn't that restart the debate over whether or not Detroit is the region's population center? the region is 4 million with only 900k living in Detroit. would a regional transit plan "fly" any better if the regional hub was in Royal Oak or Southfield or Birmingham? or wherever the geographic center of the population is?

how does a light [[or whatever) rail system up Woodward from new center to downtown do anything to increase use of mass transit or increase Detroit's population? That corridor is already heavily serviced and the only proposals on the table are simply [[and very expensively) turning that service from bus to rail.

When I say "major population center", it is not the same thing as "center of population". Detroit is by far the most major population center in Michigan, and it will be... forever. That will be true whether Detroit's population is 900K, 450K or 1.5M. However, Detroit probably has little chance of remaining a major population center in the U.S. without a mass transit network.

I also think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding among the majority of Metro Detroiters about how a mass transit system works. Bus only systems cannot move as many people as rail networks. For instance, a typical NYC subway train can carry about 2,000 people at capacity. A typical NYC bus can carry about 55 people at capacity. It would take 37 buses to carry 2,000 people. Think about how much time it takes for 37 buses to stop at a single bus stop, versus how much time it would take for a single subway train to stop at a single train stop. Hypothetically, let's say it takes a bus and a subway train exactly one minute to stop, load to capacity and move on. In the time it would take a bus system to move 2,000 riders [[37 minutes), a subway line could have moved 74,000 riders.

This is why it is much more feasible to have a high density of people live around a subway line than near a bus only route. But buses also do serve a purpose. They should work in complement with a rail network to feed riders into the rail network. In Detroit, the buses have no rail network to feed into, so they function as the entire network [[making for an extremely inefficient network, which is why only poor people ride it).

[DetroitPlanner]

I don't believe that number for Detroit for one second. Detroit doesn't provide a fraction of the service that San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, or even Atlanta do.

I would agree, assuming round trips and an area of six million, this would mean 11 percent of the population is on transit per day. I don't know what sort of impact transfers would have on these.

[Detroitnerd]

I would agree, assuming round trips and an area of six million, this would mean 11 percent of the population is on transit per day. I don't know what sort of impact transfers would have on these.

Well if it includes all mass transit [[all trips, including transfers within and between systems, for metro bus systems, regional Amtrak, school bus systems, etc.) in Wayne, Wash., Monroe, Oakland, Macomb and Genessee counties [[which the inclusion of Flint seems to imply), it may be possible. I'd like to see the breakdown, though.

[bailey]

Look, in the last 15 years, I've lived in multiple cities with extensive mass transit. Except for here I've never needed to own a car. All I am saying is that AS PROPOSED the 2-ish mile closed loop up and down woodward is as pointless as the people mover, will only be used by those who use the current system, and will never be supported regionally as it's impact regionally will be negligible at best. In addition to that, demanding or expecting regional dollars to support a proposed loop on woodward, that admittedly will only affect [[if it does anything) the immediate area, would be a damn hard sell in the best of times. We are looking at 10 years until things even approach 'normal' around here... and 'normal' here tends to be what most regions would see as 'pretty dismal'.

The idea is that a rail line will lower operating costs and increase property values. Increased property values make development projects financially viable... Woodward was selected because 1) it already has decent transit ridership and 2) Woodward is a prime corridor for redevelopment.

But again, you're assumption is that if rail happens on woodward, then the automatic result is an increase in population and property values there. I'm simply stating that there are other factors, far more pressing and far greater hindrances to revival, that keep people from wanting to live in Detroit in numbers that supports your conclusions. I'm saying the failed developments have less to do with lack of mass transit and more to do with the institutional failure of Detroit as a functioning city and Michigan as a whole being not much behind Detroit on the path to complete collapse. A shiny train going in a circle part of the way up woodward isn't going to correct either.

Add that rail has a much higher average operating speed than buses, which helps people get to work faster, and can also move larger numbers of people [[and thus, less parking required), you have a much more efficient system.

but the main function of mass transit is to move people from where they are to where they need to be and do it better or cheaper than by car. The numbers of people switching from car to using a train to affect parking downtown is not going to be realized. You are relying upon significant numbers of people changing their behaviors such that it makes their daily commute MORE complicated and longer. No significant number of people who drive in from elsewhere are going to drive halfway in from..say B'ham, to then take a train downtown on daily basis. No one is going to drive way out of their way [[or start using the bus to get to the train) from southfield, livonia, dearborn, novi...etc to do this either. without gas going to 10 bucks a gallon, there is no incentive to do so. Perhaps on a gameday they'll do it if parking is cheaper further up woodward, but then we're back to having a very large and expensive people mover/parking shuttle for suburbanites on game/festival/autoshow days.

If there was some proposal on the table to implement a tri-county, massive transport overhaul and the implementation of a cohesive mass transit system utilizing buses, trains, condemnation actions and imminent domain seizures to accomplish the task, and the whole thing run by a regional transit authority-- sign me up. But, as usual, the only proposal is a half assed-amusement park ride-barely better than what we have now- proposal destined to be a failure. Which, if it ever is built, it's only real function will be to be the more current example[[as opposed to the people mover) as to why Detroit doesn't have mass transit.. Namely because when it's tried it gets done on the cheap, the resultant turf war, union protectionism, and nimby-ism defeats any logical scheme to create rational, efficient mass transit and the only thing that gets built is so tragi-comically fucked up it's un-usable, exponentially more expensive to operate than any other system, and obsolete before the first rider gets on.

Call me a cynic, but when has this region not over promised and underperformed?

[Detroitnerd]

Call me a cynic, but when has this region ever exceeded low expectations?

You're a cynic.

Want me to call you a cab now?

[ghettopalmetto]

Bailey, I don't disagree with you. But you're considering only the "private" streetcar line proposed by Penske and company. There are other projects in the works, such as the DTOGS rail line that would extend all the way to the State Fairgrounds, as well as Ann Arbor - Detroit commuter rail. Are these projectrs the end-all be-all? Of course not. You have to start somewhere, though.

Change isn't going to happen overnight, but transit will help. Ask people-in-the-know [[like PQZ) what one of the major, overriding deal-breakers is to redevelopment happening in Detroit, and "parking" is always mentioned. If you don't have to finance and build as many $20,000 parking spots in order to redevelop a building, the prospects of that redevelopment increase dramatically.

[Todd_Scott]

This just in... Senator John McCain is trying to become the biggest holdup to transit. He's introduced a bill that would block funding of the Ann Arbor to Detroit rail line.
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/09/14...t-the-details/