PBS: "Beyond the Motor City" - Future of rail in Detroit

[mogo]

Long time/first time.

PBS is debuting this documentary on Feb. 8 at 10 p.m. If the complete film is anything like the preview, it looks like it shows Detroit as the city that will again lead the country in transportation; but, this time it will be in high-speed rail.

The abandoned buildings are unavoidable, but, in this film, they almost seem to represent opportunity. Much like Chicago after the fire, our city is a clean slate that we can build up for the future.

According to Mlive, the following points are made in the film:

• Detroit is the traditional epicenter of transportation. Cars are the obvious example, but before that, Detroit had the country's most extensive streetcar system. Few think about it this way, but without such a good streetcar system, Detroit would not have had the infrastructure to build and cart workers to those big auto factories in the first place. Also, freeways and stoplights were both born in Detroit.
• Detroit is in prime position for a complete makeover. Lots of space, empty buildings, open streets. We all know what Detroit looks like today. But according to experts, all this open land looks like a blank canvas for urban planners and transportation specialists looking to try out new things.
• Detroit lacks a major public transportation system. See reasoning above. With little more than a slimmed-down bus system to offer, Detroit is primed and ready for something better.

I can't wait to see it.

[Hermod]

Detroit was a transportation "destination" with lots of traffic in and out [[both rail and truck).

It was not a "transportation center" in the sense of Chicago, St Louis, or Cincinnati.

You didn't "route" traffic through Detroit

Detroit was a "sidetrack" off of the main east-west trunk lines.

Detroit was an important major metro area because of the industry it contained, not because it was any kind of a "hub".

[mogo]

Detroit was a transportation "destination" with lots of traffic in and out [[both rail and truck).

It was not a "transportation center" in the sense of Chicago, St Louis, or Cincinnati.

You didn't "route" traffic through Detroit

Detroit was a "sidetrack" off of the main east-west trunk lines.

Detroit was an important major metro area because of the industry it contained, not because it was any kind of a "hub".

I'm not sure I understand what this means. Are you saying it won't work because of the state of the auto industry? Where did you get this information? I'd like to read more about it.

[mikeg19]

Looks interesting. I'll certainly have to give it a watch.

[Hermod]

I'm not sure I understand what this means. Are you saying it won't work because of the state of the auto industry? Where did you get this information? I'd like to read more about it.

From a look at the rail map of the US and from "Official Guides" of the railroads from the thirties, forties, and fifties.

Even in the days of the car ferries, it was only traffic originating or terminating in Detroit that went into Detroit. Traffic to or from the east-west trunk lines in Ohio [[Erie, Nickel Plate, NYC, B&O, PRR) would move north o the C&O )Pere Marquette) or Ann Arbor and run through Plymouth or Ann Arbor.

In theory, traffic could move across Canada on the C&O or NYC and pass through Detroit on the way to Chicago, but traffic not bound for Detroit usually went from Buffalo to Chicago via the east-west lines in Ohio.

Detroit was a destination and not a hub.

Detroit [[and the whole state of Michigan) is off "the beaten path). So long as Detroit has viable industries that traffic in goods to be transported, it will be a significant "point of origin" and a destination. Geography says it will not be a hub except for intra-state Michigan traffic.

Think of the state of Michigan as a suburban subdivision cul-de-sac. Not Michigan's fault, but simple geography.

[Todd_Scott]

You didn't "route" traffic through Detroit

So how do you explain us having the busiest international border crossing in North America which accounts for more than 25 percent of all merchandise trade between the US and Canada?

Detroit is certainly not a "cul-de-sac."

[Hermod]

So how do you explain us having the busiest international border crossing in North America which accounts for more than 25 percent of all merchandise trade between the US and Canada?

Detroit is certainly not a "cul-de-sac."

Because it is going to or from the Detroit area.

Toronto traffic bound for the US will go through. New York and new England traffic goers through Toledo.

[mogo]

From a look at the rail map of the US and from "Official Guides" of the railroads from the thirties, forties, and fifties.

Even in the days of the car ferries, it was only traffic originating or terminating in Detroit that went into Detroit. Traffic to or from the east-west trunk lines in Ohio [[Erie, Nickel Plate, NYC, B&O, PRR) would move north o the C&O )Pere Marquette) or Ann Arbor and run through Plymouth or Ann Arbor.

In theory, traffic could move across Canada on the C&O or NYC and pass through Detroit on the way to Chicago, but traffic not bound for Detroit usually went from Buffalo to Chicago via the east-west lines in Ohio.

Detroit was a destination and not a hub.

Detroit [[and the whole state of Michigan) is off "the beaten path). So long as Detroit has viable industries that traffic in goods to be transported, it will be a significant "point of origin" and a destination. Geography says it will not be a hub except for intra-state Michigan

traffic.

Think of the state of Michigan as a suburban subdivision cul-de-sac. Not Michigan's fault, but simple geography.

It won't be a hub like Chicago, but I'm not so sure that the historic maps are a good indicator of who the riders would be today. Per the Toronto website, their population has grown by almost 2.5 times since the 50's:

In 1901, the City of Toronto's population was 208,040. The geographic area that is now [[2006) occupied by the City of Toronto was 238,080.

In 1951, the City of Toronto's population was 675,754. The geographic area that is now [[2006) occupied by the City of Toronto was 1,117,470.The suburban boom had started, increasing the population outside the city.

In 2001, the population of the amalgamated City of Toronto was 2,841,500.

I think the question will be, will those people take the train to Chicago, or fly?

[Hermod]

I think the question will be, will those people take the train to Chicago, or fly?[/SIZE][/FONT]

The current train from Toronto to Chicago does not go through Detroit, it goes through Port Huron and Durand.

[mogo]

The current train from Toronto to Chicago does not go through Detroit, it goes through Port Huron and Durand.

Perhaps things have changed, but, three years ago, my wife and I were told that the train stopped going through Port Huron after 9/11.

[dtowncitylover]

The current train from Toronto to Chicago does not go through Detroit, it goes through Port Huron and Durand.

Yeah, that train has been discontinued.

[terryh]

Could one of you be so kind as to Email me a reminder Terry783@hotmail.com about the PBS special? I know there is already a protracted thread about light rail in the metropolitan Detroit region which I will get around to reading at some point -to read the pros and cons and possibly understand some of the complexities of the issue......

My immediate perception-bias is that an extensive-straight up the main thouroghfares and mile roads light rail would benefit many working poor-lower middle class residents of the Detroit metro area, allowing many to save enough money to pay off or purchase a car, and would have a positive impact on the environment. .......

[ghettopalmetto]

It sounds like the argument the film is making is that Detroit is the transportation hub of Southeast Michigan, not necessarily on a national level.

[Hermod]

It sounds like the argument the film is making is that Detroit is the transportation hub of Southeast Michigan, not necessarily on a national level.

True in the sense that if it is going to northern Michigan or into Canada, it "may" be handled in a Detroit switching yard.

CSX trains not having a destination in the city of course go north over the old Pere Marquette tracks through Plymouth.

The trains coming up from Toledo, not going though Plymouth, may be switched in Detroit as might the trains coming east from Chicago. These trains would then go through the tunnel to Windsor or up the Grand Truck to Port Huron and Sarnia.

[Russix]

…
My immediate perception-bias is that an extensive-straight up the main thouroghfares and mile roads light rail would benefit many working poor-lower middle class residents of the Detroit metro area, allowing many to save enough money to pay off or purchase a car, and would have a positive impact on the environment. .......

This is really the fundamental problem with our region. I’m not trying to confront your point of view personally, I’m just realizing that this as an insight to a widely held public point of view.

“working poor-lower middle class”

“save enough to buy a car”

This is not how to look at rapid transit for Metro Detroit. The attitude for success is to view this as an investment in our region to improve a badly needed public asset for everyone to use. Things like:

“I could leave my car at home and commute to work.”

“I could go out with my friends for the evening and not worry about driving.”

“I could go to a sporting event downtown and not have to worry about parking or traffic.”

“I could ride my bike to the light rail station and take it with me anywhere I wanted to.”

“If I needed to save money I could sell my car.”

“I could open a business near a light rail stop that has a large pedestrian traffic volume.”

“Visitors to Detroit could get around without renting a car or taxi”

“I wouldn’t have to drive other friends/family members around anymore because they don’t have their own car”

“We would no longer be the only large city in the US without rail transit”

“People from other areas who like transit or urban living might start taking advantage of our low property values and move here if we build better mass transit”

“Cities with good transit are more desirable.”

These are the conversation we should be having with our friends and neighbors. The old attitude is changing slowly. I’ve heard the Regional Transit Authority is coming up for a vote in Lansing, more conversations like this and more calls to Lansing are needed.

[ASR89]

Well said, Russix.

[Hermod]

“1. I could leave my car at home and commute to work.”

“2. I could go out with my friends for the evening and not worry about driving.”

“3. I could go to a sporting event downtown and not have to worry about parking or traffic.”

“4. I could ride my bike to the light rail station and take it with me anywhere I wanted to.”

“5. If I needed to save money I could sell my car.”

“6. I could open a business near a light rail stop that has a large pedestrian traffic volume.”

“7. Visitors to Detroit could get around without renting a car or taxi”

“8. I wouldn’t have to drive other friends/family members around anymore because they don’t have their own car”

“9. We would no longer be the only large city in the US without rail transit”

“10. People from other areas who like transit or urban living might start taking advantage of our low property values and move here if we build better mass transit”

“11. Cities with good transit are more desirable.”

12. These are the conversation we should be having with our friends and neighbors.

I took the liberty of adding numbers to your points.

1. Only if the light/heavy rail/expanded SMART bus system goes within a couple of blocks of my house and a couple of blocks of where I work and I can do it without a two hour journey of transfers. A radial system running from downtown Detroit doesn't do much for metro area workers.

2. As in 1. except now it has to go within a few blocks of Louie's Bar AND has to keep running after rush hour.

3. As in 2. Washington DC has a quite comprehensive metro subway/el system. You can't use it in the evening because the last trains run at midnight. You have to make sure that whatever you are doing gets you to the station by 11:30 or so. South Florida Tri-Rail runs its last trains at 10PM.

4. If only the mob of people standing in the aisle had room for my bike to squeeze in. Of course as a bike rider, I have a special entitlement, so I will just ram it through them.

5. If only I wasn't upside-down on the payments.

[Russix]

1. This is a pretty valid point: What is considered the useful proximity of a transit station? This really changes from person to person. Light rail stations are usually fed by other forms of transit or have some parking. If there is a will, there is a means. Any system will do a lot for metro area workers if it encourages job growth regardless if they personally use it or not.

2. Louie’s Bar would be smart to run a shuttle between the nearest light rail station if they were farther than a few blocks.

3. Detroit use to be a three-shift town. I know that’s waned quite a bit in recent years but downtown is the region’s entertainment destination which would be ridiculous to ignore the potential of providing evening and late-night weekend service. The second biggest surprise for the Phoenix light-rail line[[first being that it’s initial ridership was double than predicted) was more people used it to go out for the evening than did commuting to work.

4. Can you please provide specific examples of this? Mass transit systems usually require a bicyclist to cede their space to other passengers during high capacity by either moving to another car or getting off the train altogether.

5. Short sale the car while it still has some value, pay off the debt with the money you saved by riding transit and in the future try to stay within your means. I like my car too, but I also like my wallet.

[terryh]

This is really the fundamental problem with our region. I’m not trying to confront your point of view personally, I’m just realizing that this as an insight to a widely held public point of view.

“working poor-lower middle class�

“save enough to buy a car�

This is not how to look at rapid transit for Metro Detroit. The attitude for success is to view this as an investment in our region to improve a badly needed public asset for everyone to use. Things like:

“I could leave my car at home and commute to work.�

“I could go out with my friends for the evening and not worry about driving.�

“I could go to a sporting event downtown and not have to worry about parking or traffic.�

“I could ride my bike to the light rail station and take it with me anywhere I wanted to.�

“If I needed to save money I could sell my car.�

“I could open a business near a light rail stop that has a large pedestrian traffic volume.�

“Visitors to Detroit could get around without renting a car or taxi�

“I wouldn’t have to drive other friends/family members around anymore because they don’t have their own car�

“We would no longer be the only large city in the US without rail transit�

“People from other areas who like transit or urban living might start taking advantage of our low property values and move here if we build better mass transit�

“Cities with good transit are more desirable.�

These are the conversation we should be having with our friends and neighbors. The old attitude is changing slowly. I’ve heard the Regional Transit Authority is coming up for a vote in Lansing, more conversations like this and more calls to Lansing are needed.

great points Russix...a transit system would provide jobs true? Maintainance-cleaning...conductors etc..

[Detroitnerd]

great points Russix...a transit system would provide jobs true? Maintainance-cleaning...conductors etc..

Rail provides more jobs than roads. IIRC, it's a multiple.

[Russix]

This is tonight!

[kellyroad]

Ny time article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/ar...blueprint.html

PBS link:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/

Is anyone watching tonight?
Do you think this will be a rehash of what many of us already know?

[Detroitnerd]

Ny time article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/ar...blueprint.html

PBS link:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/

Is anyone watching tonight?
Do you think this will be a rehash of what many of us already know?

I was thinking that, for those of us who'd like to add light rail to Detroit's transit mix, it will be a no-brainer. [[And for those pleased with the status quo, and opportunity to jam their fingers in their ears and cry, "Lalalalalalalala!")

[Russix]

The NY Time article states that this is a 90-minute program, whereas TV guide list the runtime as 1 hour. Is this a typo or is there a longer "uncut" version?

[Mackinaw]

It may provide information that many people in this forum already know about, but I have a feeling it will be significant in drawing the spotlight back to Detroit, specifically with regards to transit. The need to change will be underscored. Hopefully it will cause us to take steps forward in each of the following ways: 1) regular people becoming more open minded regarding use of transit. 2) local leaders seizing the spotlight and increasing their motivation to get regional transit in place. 3) national leaders with the power of the purse recognizing how important Detroit is and how great its needs are in this department.