Millionaires fund Detroit light rail project

[ghettopalmetto]

I guess I missed the day that Northwest paid for Metro Airport. I know it's not apples to apples, but c'mon, public money get's funneled to private companies directly or indirectly every day. Should Delta make a profit, does it need to lower fares because every single airport it flys into was built with taxpayer money?

Delta Airlines doesn't operate DTW--the Wayne County Airport Authority does.

[ghettopalmetto]

How about simply trying something new? is a public/private partnership really THAT radical of an idea?

You mean "new" in the sense like the federal government overpaid a private corporation [[Halliburton) for services that our government *used* to provide in a more cost-effective manner? That kinda of public-private partnership--where corporations profit by raping the taxpayers?

Sure, let's do that. Detroit can afford it, right?

[bailey]

Delta Airlines doesn't operate DTW--the Wayne County Airport Authority does.

The wayne county airport authority doesn't operate Delta though right? as i said... it's not directly apples to apples, but if the public $$ are buying the stations and track, but the line is run by a private for profit entity, isnt that pretty similar to a private, for profit airline running out of publicly funded airports and publicly owned transit routes?

You mean "new" in the sense like the federal government overpaid a private corporation [[Halliburton) for services that our government *used* to provide in a more cost-effective manner? That kinda of public-private partnership--where corporations profit by raping the taxpayers?

Sure, let's do that. Detroit can afford it, right?

Does that have more to do with a rampantly corrupt Cheney administration or a public private partnerships?

Speaking of raping taxpayers, I'd take a Cheney run Haliburton over a felon like Charlie Beckham running the trains at a DDOT like entity...oh wait.....

[Russix]

^The public designed and picked where to put the airport.

[casscorridor]

1. Parking: Downtown, Midtown and New Center all have many parking garages. Because of the length of the rail [[only extending a few miles), I highly doubt it will serve much commuter purpose beyond people who live along near tracks [[still almost 50 thousand people), so I would imagine someone could drive to a parking garage, park, and then take light-rail to various destinations along the route.
2. Curb Side vs. Center of Street. I think that if the Portland Streetcar is a model for the M1 rail, we might as well call transit in Detroit a complete failure, yet again. Do these business people understand that there is also a Portland Light-rail? The streetcar only runs in the high density downtown area. Light-rail [[with its own ROW and/or traffic signal priority) is far superior to streetcars that run with traffic.
3. People Mover: I know many people on this forum hate the people mover, and hate any plan to expand it. But wouldn't a people mover expansion be better than a streetcar? I'm not saying it has to be exactly like the people mover, but rather more like Vancouver's SkyTrain. There could be a second line along East Jefferson that goes under Cobo Center and eventually to Vernor through southwest Detroit. The technology is super efficient, and almost never breaks down [[the only delays are due to passengers blocking the doors) and has never had an accident. Streetcar or even light rail, on the other hand, will likely breakdown, get in accidents with cars, get stuck places, etc. Bombardier's Advanced Rapid Transit I would argue is the most advanced rapid transit system in the world. Isn't that what we should have in Detroit?
4. It really bugs me that Megan Ownes and the Transit Riders United has advocated for 10 years for basically the same thing, never getting bolder in their demands. They should be calling on MASS transit on multiple routes--- a REAL SYSTEM. They are really only concerned with what is "politically possible" and not much is possible in the world in which they engage. Our leaders propose a useless curbside streetcar and TRU applauds them. Our leaders propose a preposterous system called the "golden triangle" and TRU says nothing critical. Why can they not be critical?
5. Which brings me to the next point-- The Golden Triangle is an EXTREME WASTE of time and resources on middle-class people who have cars and who will rarely use transit. It is yet again focusing resources in suburbia where it will be thrown down the toilet. While other cities invest in their truely urban areas. Yes, I understand the need to connect suburbs with the city, to allow people from the suburbs to come into the city easier. But why can't we do that with park and ride stops at the end of the lines? Why can't we do that with commuter rail into the suburbs? The golden triangle really isn't a well thought out plan. We could have a 10.5 mile long ART or LRT line on East Jefferson Ave extending through Downtown to West Vernor Ave as the second line instead. This would serve hundreds of thousands of people, thousands of whom already use transit every day, while along M-59 there are probably only a handful who use transit regularly. Not to mention it would also serve many many more destinations, and really be a shining light when visitors come to the city... they see that they can easily get to Mexicantown or Belle isle on real mass transit like they expect in other cities.
6. All this attention toward transit and the need to connect the airport, yet we build the airport commuter rail station 3+ miles north of the airport when there is tracks just a half mile north that would allow for real express access to Downtown. No one ever mentions this. Part of the reasons we have so few conventions and corporate headquarters is because there is no transit link to the airport. Sure the new commuter rail will help, but you still have to take a 15-20 minute bus ride to the commuter rail station, then transfer and ride another 30 minutes to get Downtown. This really isn't THAT a big of an improvement from what currently exists-- a lone bus line that take over an hour.
7. SHRINK THE SUBURBS. I am so sick and tired of hearing all these very very educated people taking about the need to "shrink" the city. To dismantle entire neighborhoods of their infrastructure, buildings and people and place them in more populated areas. Sure this sounds okay, because our city is so large and way too spread out--- I agree with this! We are too spread out. I'd much rather have a dense vibrant and compact city. But when these highly educated people talk about this, they absolutely never mention the suburbs in their prescription. They never say, "we need to shrink the suburbs" because that is unspeakable. There would be absolute outrage and backlash if any "shrinking" plan was implemented in the burbs. And everyone on this forum KNOWS I am right, even if you don't want to accept the truth. They talk about how Detroit lost half of its population, but they don't make it clear enough that almost every person who moved out now lives in the suburbs. They thing bulldozing Detroit neighborhoods is alright, but bulldozing suburban subdivisions is unheard of. Even though thats really what we need to be doing if we are serious about "shrinking" the city. These highly educated people talk about the need for regional cooperation and that the city is larger than the city proper and is really the whole metro region, but when it comes time to put neighborhoods on the chopping block, then all of sudden the city is again just the city of Detroit. But the only way we will really have a sustainable and vibrant city, and mass transit for everyone, is if we shrink the entire metro city, not just the city of Detroit. The suburbs HAVE to be part of this prescription. But local municipalities will resist with everything they have, be sure of this.

[Detroitnerd]

1. Parking: Downtown, Midtown and New Center all have many parking garages. Because of the length of the rail [[only extending a few miles), I highly doubt it will serve much commuter purpose beyond people who live along near tracks [[still almost 50 thousand people), so I would imagine someone could drive to a parking garage, park, and then take light-rail to various destinations along the route.
2. Curb Side vs. Center of Street. I think that if the Portland Streetcar is a model for the M1 rail, we might as well call transit in Detroit a complete failure, yet again. Do these business people understand that there is also a Portland Light-rail? The streetcar only runs in the high density downtown area. Light-rail [[with its own ROW and/or traffic signal priority) is far superior to streetcars that run with traffic.
3. People Mover: I know many people on this forum hate the people mover, and hate any plan to expand it. But wouldn't a people mover expansion be better than a streetcar? I'm not saying it has to be exactly like the people mover, but rather more like Vancouver's SkyTrain. There could be a second line along East Jefferson that goes under Cobo Center and eventually to Vernor through southwest Detroit. The technology is super efficient, and almost never breaks down [[the only delays are due to passengers blocking the doors) and has never had an accident. Streetcar or even light rail, on the other hand, will likely breakdown, get in accidents with cars, get stuck places, etc. Bombardier's Advanced Rapid Transit I would argue is the most advanced rapid transit system in the world. Isn't that what we should have in Detroit?
4. It really bugs me that Megan Ownes and the Transit Riders United has advocated for 10 years for basically the same thing, never getting bolder in their demands. They should be calling on MASS transit on multiple routes--- a REAL SYSTEM. They are really only concerned with what is "politically possible" and not much is possible in the world in which they engage. Our leaders propose a useless curbside streetcar and TRU applauds them. Our leaders propose a preposterous system called the "golden triangle" and TRU says nothing critical. Why can they not be critical?
5. Which brings me to the next point-- The Golden Triangle is an EXTREME WASTE of time and resources on middle-class people who have cars and who will rarely use transit. It is yet again focusing resources in suburbia where it will be thrown down the toilet. While other cities invest in their truely urban areas. Yes, I understand the need to connect suburbs with the city, to allow people from the suburbs to come into the city easier. But why can't we do that with park and ride stops at the end of the lines? Why can't we do that with commuter rail into the suburbs? The golden triangle really isn't a well thought out plan. We could have a 10.5 mile long ART or LRT line on East Jefferson Ave extending through Downtown to West Vernor Ave as the second line instead. This would serve hundreds of thousands of people, thousands of whom already use transit every day, while along M-59 there are probably only a handful who use transit regularly. Not to mention it would also serve many many more destinations, and really be a shining light when visitors come to the city... they see that they can easily get to Mexicantown or Belle isle on real mass transit like they expect in other cities.
6. All this attention toward transit and the need to connect the airport, yet we build the airport commuter rail station 3+ miles north of the airport when there is tracks just a half mile north that would allow for real express access to Downtown. No one ever mentions this. Part of the reasons we have so few conventions and corporate headquarters is because there is no transit link to the airport. Sure the new commuter rail will help, but you still have to take a 15-20 minute bus ride to the commuter rail station, then transfer and ride another 30 minutes to get Downtown. This really isn't THAT a big of an improvement from what currently exists-- a lone bus line that take over an hour.
7. SHRINK THE SUBURBS. I am so sick and tired of hearing all these very very educated people taking about the need to "shrink" the city. To dismantle entire neighborhoods of their infrastructure, buildings and people and place them in more populated areas. Sure this sounds okay, because our city is so large and way too spread out--- I agree with this! We are too spread out. I'd much rather have a dense vibrant and compact city. But when these highly educated people talk about this, they absolutely never mention the suburbs in their prescription. They never say, "we need to shrink the suburbs" because that is unspeakable. There would be absolute outrage and backlash if any "shrinking" plan was implemented in the burbs. And everyone on this forum KNOWS I am right, even if you don't want to accept the truth. They talk about how Detroit lost half of its population, but they don't make it clear enough that almost every person who moved out now lives in the suburbs. They thing bulldozing Detroit neighborhoods is alright, but bulldozing suburban subdivisions is unheard of. Even though thats really what we need to be doing if we are serious about "shrinking" the city. These highly educated people talk about the need for regional cooperation and that the city is larger than the city proper and is really the whole metro region, but when it comes time to put neighborhoods on the chopping block, then all of sudden the city is again just the city of Detroit. But the only way we will really have a sustainable and vibrant city, and mass transit for everyone, is if we shrink the entire metro city, not just the city of Detroit. The suburbs HAVE to be part of this prescription. But local municipalities will resist with everything they have, be sure of this.

I may not agree with you on everything [[esp. the idea of extending the PM), but you mostly seem on the right track. We just need 50,000 more people like you.

[Russix]

^awesome post
I also like how the contract between the airport, the rental agencies and taxis prohibits SMART from even putting a map or sign in the airport to provide information for visitors on how to use any public transit out of the airport.

[Detroitnerd]

I also like how the contract between the airport, the rental agencies and taxis prohibits SMART from even putting a map or sign in the airport to provide information for visitors on how to use any public transit out of the airport.

Wow. You can't make this stuff up.

[professorscott]

If it weren't for one tiny practical problem, I would also be in favor of a very significant separated-grade transit system, either subway or lots of miles of people-mover-like systems, because it certainly would be fast and efficient and connect with buses and taxis and parking.

However, the political reality around here, which is escaping some of us here in the unbounded world of the Internet, is that it will be a massive pulling of teeth to even find the money to build and operate a single, at-grade street railway line. We can't even properly fund and operate a bus system, for the simple reason that we are not willing to pay what public transportation costs.

I did a study back in '05 or '06 and at that time, in metropolitan regions of the U.S. with between 3.5 million and 5.5 million people, the average per capita spending on transit per year was about $225. In metro Detroit at the time it was $75.

If we want to have decent transit, all we have to do is come up with a way to kick in another $150 per year per person for every person in this region. Then suddenly we are competitive for federal grants, and so on.

Until someone solves the money problem, we will never have anything beyond M1 Rail [[however it is eventually configured) and a passenger train to Ann Arbor that only runs a couple times a day. The problem is money and nothing but money.

[bailey]

SHRINK THE SUBURBS. I am so sick and tired of hearing all these very very educated people taking about the need to "shrink" the city. To dismantle entire neighborhoods of their infrastructure, buildings and people and place them in more populated areas. Sure this sounds okay, because our city is so large and way too spread out--- I agree with this! We are too spread out. I'd much rather have a dense vibrant and compact city. But when these highly educated people talk about this, they absolutely never mention the suburbs in their prescription. They never say, "we need to shrink the suburbs" because that is unspeakable. There would be absolute outrage and backlash if any "shrinking" plan was implemented in the burbs. And everyone on this forum KNOWS I am right, even if you don't want to accept the truth. They talk about how Detroit lost half of its population, but they don't make it clear enough that almost every person who moved out now lives in the suburbs. They thing bulldozing Detroit neighborhoods is alright, but bulldozing suburban subdivisions is unheard of. Even though thats really what we need to be doing if we are serious about "shrinking" the city. These highly educated people talk about the need for regional cooperation and that the city is larger than the city proper and is really the whole metro region, but when it comes time to put neighborhoods on the chopping block, then all of sudden the city is again just the city of Detroit. But the only way we will really have a sustainable and vibrant city, and mass transit for everyone, is if we shrink the entire metro city, not just the city of Detroit. The suburbs HAVE to be part of this prescription. But local municipalities will resist with everything they have, be sure of this.

You're talking about two different things here. The "shrink Detroit" discussion centers around buldozing and cutting off the EMPTY areas, the abandoned and decimated neighborhoods and industrial areas, in order to better allocate scarce resources. You're talking about buldozing populated areas where people live and apparently forcing them to relocate to Detroit. Bulldozing suburban neighborhoods is "unheard of" because people actually live there No matter how ineficient the suburban sprawl is, the level of abandonment is not even remotely close to that in Detroit proper.

[Russix]

^with the current way the suburbs are allowed to sprawl, don't be surprised if some of the older/inner suburbs start looking like Detroit in coming years.

[bartock]

^with the current way the suburbs are allowed to sprawl, don't be surprised if some of the older/inner suburbs start looking like Detroit in coming years.

That's already happening, at least where I live [[Harper Woods).

[Hermod]

What private firm is qualified to operate an urban transit system?

Tri Rail here in Florida was operated by Her~~~ under contract. When the her~~~ contract was expiring and put up for bid, an outfit called Veolia was the successful bidder. It still loses money hand over fist.

Edit: Why did it blank out a proper name?

I spell--Hotel-Echo-Romeo-Zulu-Oscar-Golf

[ghettopalmetto]

Tri Rail here in Florida was operated by Her~~~ under contract. When the her~~~ contract was expiring and put up for bid, an outfit called Veolia was the successful bidder. It still loses money hand over fist.

Edit: Why did it blank out a proper name?

I spell--Hotel-Echo-Romeo-Zulu-Oscar-Golf

You're also talking about a commuter rail system, which is more akin to a traditional railroad operation. FWIW, Amtrak operated several commuter rail systems in the Northeast. They still operate MARC, but VRE and MBTA now have different operators.

I don't know of any *urban* rail transit systems that have private operators.

[bailey]

^with the current way the suburbs are allowed to sprawl, don't be surprised if some of the older/inner suburbs start looking like Detroit in coming years.

Perhaps. But is a 2 mile train up and down Woodward going to change anything in Harper woods?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russix
^with the current way the suburbs are allowed to sprawl, don't be surprised if some of the older/inner suburbs start looking like Detroit in coming years.

That's already happening, at least where I live [[Harper Woods).

[casscorridor]

You're talking about two different things here. The "shrink Detroit" discussion centers around buldozing and cutting off the EMPTY areas, the abandoned and decimated neighborhoods and industrial areas, in order to better allocate scarce resources. You're talking about buldozing populated areas where people live and apparently forcing them to relocate to Detroit. Bulldozing suburban neighborhoods is "unheard of" because people actually live there No matter how ineficient the suburban sprawl is, the level of abandonment is not even remotely close to that in Detroit proper.

Untrue!! Even the most unpopulated zip codes in Detroit are denser than the ones in say... Clinton Township [[the bastion of sprawl). The prairie like areas exist in a few places, but that is because city intentionally demolished it. Otherwise, it is usually just random blocks, or clusters of blocks. But not entire neighborhoods. And there is still housing scattered about and people living in these areas. I really don't think most people realize just how spread out things are in the burbs, especially the new burbs like Clinton. Intellectuals claim Detroit is overall a food desert. I won't argue with this. But do suburban residents really travel that much closer to get to a grocery store? I'd say the distance is comparable or even further [[depending on what places we are talking about). It seems like many of my suburb friends are always in their cars. And everything is so far. Grocery store two or three miles away. Mall five or six miles away. School ten miles away. Work twenty miles away. Things like this. This adds up. How much do I travel a day? I commute 1.5 miles to work Downtown, each way. I commute .5 miles to school, each way. And then probably another mile in there doing random stuff. I doubt I travel much more than five miles a day, that is, unless I go to the burbs. Then I might have traveled twenty, thirty plus miles. It simply isn't sustainable for everyone to keep living in this car dominated world. If everyone lived like the average American, we'd need five plus planets. So maybe one thing we can do is make our city denser and more compact, as in all of the metro region and make it so people don't have to travel much more than five or so miles in a day. I don't think this is conceivable in Clinton Township.

[casscorridor]

Perhaps. But is a 2 mile train up and down Woodward going to change anything in Harper woods?

no! but a train up Gratiot would!

[bailey]

no! but a train up Gratiot would!

uh, the only people proposing that [[a train up gratiot)are the Golden Triangle proponents and you just said that was a huge waste.

[tkelly1986]

So let me get this straight. You're advocating that public money be funneled to profit a private sector company? It begs the question, why not just cut out that profit, and reduce overall costs to taxpayers who have to fund the system?

Never mind that there isn't a single private sector company in the United States who can operate an urban rail transit system.

Welcome to Detroit: Where the Wheel is Reinvented on a Daily Basis.

The idea is to give the system more flexibility than a government owned and operated system would have. I assume you understand how difficult it is to fire someone [[in government) when demand for work changes? Washington is filled with idle workers that have nothing to do, but can not easily be let go [[see Chicago CTA as an example of where this creates problems).

Moreover, it will create managed competition to provide the services for cheaper than the government can; sure the wages will be lower, but it could create a self sustaining system [[a pipe dream in public systems) that is efficient and not always running a deficit. The private firm will have incentive to ensure this. In this case the consumer surplus will be far greater than if the system employes a few more people [[less tax expenditures on transit). Also, the idea of the government being a jobs provider as a way to help a community defines economic logic [[not that anyone is making that argument).

Developing a private/public partnership where transit is run by a private company and subsidized by the public to lower costs is not new. Intracity transit within the UK [[outside London) is fashioned in the model and as someone who has lived in the UK can tell you, it works pretty well.

The point is that managed competition could provide private options or force public employee unions to reduce costs to compete. And yes, there are plenty of examples where this happens.

As for private companies managing public transit; the German company Semans does in a few locals; why can't Detroit be one of them.

[ghettopalmetto]

The idea is to give the system more flexibility than a government owned and operated system would have. I assume you understand how difficult it is to fire someone [[in government) when demand for work changes? Washington is filled with idle workers that have nothing to do, but can not easily be let go [[see Chicago CTA as an example of where this creates problems).

Moreover, it will create managed competition to provide the services for cheaper than the government can; sure the wages will be lower, but it could create a self sustaining system [[a pipe dream in public systems) that is efficient and not always running a deficit. The private firm will have incentive to ensure this. In this case the consumer surplus will be far greater than if the system employes a few more people [[less tax expenditures on transit). Also, the idea of the government being a jobs provider as a way to help a community defines economic logic [[not that anyone is making that argument).

Developing a private/public partnership where transit is run by a private company and subsidized by the public to lower costs is not new. Intracity transit within the UK [[outside London) is fashioned in the model and as someone who has lived in the UK can tell you, it works pretty well.

The point is that managed competition could provide private options or force public employee unions to reduce costs to compete. And yes, there are plenty of examples where this happens.

As for private companies managing public transit; the German company Semans does in a few locals; why can't Detroit be one of them.

Alright, then. Let's see some numbers, shall we? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions that deserve some documentation.

For what it's worth, DDOT is one of very few transit systems in the United States that is operated directly by a government body. The other one that comes to mind is San Francisco's Muni. The remainder of systems are operated by quasi-independent transit agencies.

[Detroitnerd]

WARNING: SATIRE FOLLOWS

Downsizing the city
Plan would wipe out areas "too expensive to serve"

Detroit -- Detroit Mayor Dave Bing has signed on with a dramatic plan to re-envision large sections of the city -- as an urban prairie.

In a news conference and street-ripping ceremony on Detroit's near east side, the mayor unveiled an image of an open field, with the slogan "The Detroit of the Future." The plan involves taking areas where few people live, giving them inducements to move, and then paying contractors to rip out streets, utility poles, sewer lines and debris, turning them into blank slates for potential development.

Though the areas slated to have their roads removed are designed to have higher density than many of the neighborhoods in Detroit's suburbs, which municipal governments are straining to serve in these hard times, Bing reassured those present at the small ceremony that this isn't about demolishing the city at the expense of the suburbs.

"We hope that, by getting rid of these cozy streets, small lots and moving the residents who live there, that this land will no longer be a drain on our city. In fact, it will be something we can be proud of, showing that we're ready for the developers to come in and build something ... anything!"

"As for those," the mayor continued, "who say that we are doing this just to keep knocking down the city and shrinking it, so that nothing will ever grow here again, we think that's just silly."

The mayor stayed on, talking to the mostly suburban contractors who, within hours, had ripped out almost a block of Detroit's Chene Street, where no buildings are left standing. After Bing dropped a ceremonial pinch of salt, crews began salting the earth on both sides of Chene. ...

END SATIRE

[Hermod]

For what it's worth, DDOT is one of very few transit systems in the United States that is operated directly by a government body. The other one that comes to mind is San Francisco's Muni. The remainder of systems are operated by quasi-independent transit agencies.

Here is their website for the train operating part of their business.

http://www.her~~~companies.com/transit_services.php

EDIT: For some reason Zulu-Oscar-Golf is not allowed on this site. You will have to type in the URL.

[Hermod]

OK, here is a site for Veolia. They do operate transit systems as a contractor.

http://www.veoliatransportation.com/index

[Detroitnerd]

Fuck you, low-expectation-having Dave Bing.

[[And I mean that in the nicest way possible.)

Oops, should have posted SATIRE warning. [[Although it's probably not that far from the truth...)

[Hermod]

So let me get this straight. You're advocating that public money be funneled to profit a private sector company? It begs the question, why not just cut out that profit, and reduce overall costs to taxpayers who have to fund the system?

GP: It is called GOCO [[government-owned, contractor-operated) and CAN be a successful mode of operation. The US Army Tank Plants [[Warren, MI and Lima, OH) were GOCO plants. The government owned the facility and machinery and the contractor [[Chrysler and later Gen Dynamics) operated the plants. The workers are on the contractor's payroll and not on the government payroll. Most of the ammunition plants in the US operated in this fashion.

Many bus systems and light rail systems in the US operate this way. The government invests in the infrastructure but doesn't have to add to its bureaucracy to run the system. If they want to delete routes, they aren't stuck with a massive labor and pension cost.