Could MCS be used again for light rail depot?

[rsa.313]

i added more stations to my earlier post.

so what exactly are you trying to argue? first it was architecturally based. then it was population based. now it has to be the time that it was built too? if you're trying to say that the three larger cities than detroit at the time MCS was built did not tear down, or replaced their stations with equal or larger stations, then you are correct.

census data for 1920 [[closest to when MCS was built):

1 New York city, NY *...... 5,620,048 299.0 18,796
2 Chicago city, IL......... 2,701,705 192.8 14,013
3 Philadelphia city, PA.... 1,823,779 128.0 14,248
4 Detroit city, MI......... 993,078 77.9 12,748
5 Cleveland city, OH....... 796,841 56.4 14,128
6 St. Louis city, MO....... 772,897 61.0 12,670
7 Boston city, MA.......... 748,060 43.5 17,197
8 Baltimore city, MD....... 733,826 79.0 9,289
9 Pittsburgh city, PA...... 588,343 39.9 14,745
10 Los Angeles city, CA..... 576,673 365.7 1,577

11 Buffalo city, NY......... 506,775 38.9 13,028
12 San Francisco city, CA... 506,676 42.0 12,064
13 Milwaukee city, WI....... 457,147 25.3 18,069
14 Washington city, DC...... 437,571 60.0 7,293
15 Newark city, NJ.......... 414,524 23.3 17,791
16 Cincinnati city, OH...... 401,247 71.1 5,643
17 New Orleans city, LA..... 387,219 178.0 2,175
18 Minneapolis city, MN..... 380,582 49.7 7,658
19 Kansas City city, MO..... 324,410 58.4 5,555
20 Seattle city, WA......... 315,312 58.6 5,381

#4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, 19 have been replaced by "amshacks." #9 has been greatly reduced in capacity and has been mostly converted into condos. #18 was closed and not replaced.

[ghettopalmetto]

It just boggles the mind. The United States has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of its economy. The second-largest economy on earth--Japan--is only one-third the size of ours.

So why is *our* country the one that looks like shit?
Why does *our* country insist we can't afford to build anything but expensive, time-wasting roads, and can't afford to do anything about buildings like Michigan Central Station?

Where the hell does the money from our economy go???

Oh, that's right. We have to cut taxes for Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and other "hard workers".

[Detroitnerd]

so what exactly are you trying to argue? first it was architecturally based. then it was population based. now it has to be the time that it was built too?

No, rsa.313. It is all of those things. Let's recap, shall we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I think Detroit is the only U.S. city of its size that has moved train operations from away from their "large, imposing, and architecturally significant stations".

So the original point was that he believed Detroit is the only U.S. city of its size [[population) that has moved train operations [[that means "moved" as in across town) away from their "large, imposing and architecturally significant stations [[architecture)."

Your response was a simple, declarative one: "Couldn't be further from the truth."

Now I love a great declarative statement. They're so easy to make, but, when you get right down to it, they are very difficult to prove. Luckily, however, you furnished a link that looked chock-full of examples to support your thesis.

The only thing is, the examples you gave didn't back up your statement. You gave examples of cities that were not the size of Detroit. You gave examples where the train station wasn't moved at all, or moved less than a block. You gave examples where the original station either wasn't large or imposing or perhaps wasn't that architecturally significant.

I'm just like you. I'm trying to get to the truth. Is iheartthed right? I'm sure there must be an example of another American city that was at least as populous as Detroit that moved its train operations from a large, imposing and architecturally significant building into an Amshack. Ideally, the "Detroit-sized" aspect would have some relation to Detroit's historical population, but that's a fine point. All I'm saying is that, so far, you and I don't seem to have found a good example that parallels Detroit yet.

[ghettopalmetto]

Is iheartthed right? I'm sure there must be an example of another American city that was at least as populous as Detroit that moved its train operations from a large, imposing and architecturally significant building into an Amshack. Ideally, the "Detroit-sized" aspect would have some relation to Detroit's historical population, but that's a fine point. All I'm saying is that, so far, you and I don't seem to have found a good example that parallels Detroit yet.

Cleveland is the closest example, although its former train station is still occupied [[and the old station on the lakefront has long been demolished, with the Amshack standing at its former location).

[DetroitPlanner]

The title of the post is:
"Could MCS be used again for light rail depot?"

What exactly does Amtrak or TGV have to do with this? Nothing!

My answer to the question is you can figure out a way to turn the area into an activity center, then it would make a great one, providing you can adapt the building cost effectively. Definite linkages could be made between Michigan and Vernor transit lines.

GP makes a good point with Cleveland. Terminal Tower is a destination, it also ties into the rest of downtown, two passenger rail lines, one light rail line, the main bus staging area, and several sports and entertainment venues. Its also used for local trains, not Amtraks, TGVs !

[PQZ]

It just boggles the mind. The United States has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of its economy. The second-largest economy on earth--Japan--is only one-third the size of ours.

So why is *our* country the one that looks like shit?
Why does *our* country insist we can't afford to build anything but expensive, time-wasting roads, and can't afford to do anything about buildings like Michigan Central Station?

Where the hell does the money from our economy go???

Oh, that's right. We have to cut taxes for Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and other "hard workers".

In to thoughtful well-planned mass transit systems designed to relieve freeway congestion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuLIgDUk6FQ&feature=fvw

[ghettopalmetto]

The title of the post is:
"Could MCS be used again for light rail depot?"

What exactly does Amtrak or TGV have to do with this? Nothing!

My answer to the question is you can figure out a way to turn the area into an activity center, then it would make a great one, providing you can adapt the building cost effectively. Definite linkages could be made between Michigan and Vernor transit lines.

You answered your own question.

[rsa.313]

No, rsa.313. It is all of those things. Let's recap, shall we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I think Detroit is the only U.S. city of its size that has moved train operations from away from their "large, imposing, and architecturally significant stations".

So the original point was that he believed Detroit is the only U.S. city of its size [[population) that has moved train operations [[that means "moved" as in across town) away from their "large, imposing and architecturally significant stations [[architecture)."

Your response was a simple, declarative one: "Couldn't be further from the truth."

Now I love a great declarative statement. They're so easy to make, but, when you get right down to it, they are very difficult to prove. Luckily, however, you furnished a link that looked chock-full of examples to support your thesis.

The only thing is, the examples you gave didn't back up your statement. You gave examples of cities that were not the size of Detroit. You gave examples where the train station wasn't moved at all, or moved less than a block. You gave examples where the original station either wasn't large or imposing or perhaps wasn't that architecturally significant.

I'm just like you. I'm trying to get to the truth. Is iheartthed right? I'm sure there must be an example of another American city that was at least as populous as Detroit that moved its train operations from a large, imposing and architecturally significant building into an Amshack. Ideally, the "Detroit-sized" aspect would have some relation to Detroit's historical population, but that's a fine point. All I'm saying is that, so far, you and I don't seem to have found a good example that parallels Detroit yet.

the problem that we're getting into here is that you're reading a lot into iheart's rather ambiguous statement. you assume "moved" must dicatate a certain distance. i read it to be not in the same building [[eg. from a historical station into an "amshack").

you also assume a point in time and a certain number for detroit's population that another city must match. i am still not sure what these criteria are from your standpoint.

you also have your own opinions on what "large, imposing, and architecturally significant" are. i do not know what those criteria are. i think that columbus, st. louis, cleveland, milwaukee, and buffalo are all good examples to refute the statement. all were large, imposing, and architecturally significant. all of these cities also have had, or are around detroit's current population.

now, if you were to make the statement "i think detroit is the only city of it's size at peak population to have ever moved it's railroad facilities from a building of similar size and design [[romanesque revival) of MCS to a much smaller non descript building in another neighborhood" then i would have trouble refuting it. that is a definitive declaritive sentence that provides little room for ambiguity.

[Detroitnerd]

COLUMBUS [[750,000 people) UNION STATION: torn down in 1979. service moved to a smaller adjacent facility.

That's a pretty good example, although only now is Columbus approaching a "Detroit-sized" city. Certainly was never the fourth-most-populous city in the United States. Anyway, it sure was grand.

ST LOUIS had a population of 850,000 people in 1950.

Now St. Louis is a better example, because it was the fourth-largest city in the United States in 1910, sixth in 1920, passed by Detroit and Cleveland. And Union Station was grand. Of course, lots of trains still run in and out of there, as it's a busy stop on the city's light rail system. And the new intermodal facility is really just a stone's throw from the old railroad station, so I don't know how we're doing on the "moving" part of the statement.

MILWAUKEE [[population of 740,000 people in 1960) UNION STATION: torn down in 1965 and replaced with a smaller facility.

Milwaukee was never really a top-ten city, even if its population approached Detroit's. The location of the building they replaced it with seems to be about four blocks away. Not very far.

MINNEAPOLIS [[population of 550,000 in 1950) GREAT NORTHERN STATION: torn down in 1978 and not replaced.

Yes, it was torn down, but what about St. Paul Depot? It was the Twin Cities other station. Guess what? It's still there and scheduled for a renovation to accommodate high-speed rail. They're going to close their Amshack and move all operations into St. Paul Depot in 2012.

[Detroitnerd]

the problem that we're getting into here is that you're reading a lot into iheart's rather ambiguous statement. you assume "moved" must dicatate a certain distance. i read it to be not in the same building [[eg. from a historical station into an "amshack").

Some of the parts of that statement are equivocal, but I guess I'm just trying to get to the truth of the matter. I was surprised that it took so long to find evidence that iheartthed's statement, as you said, "couldn't be further from the truth." [[I figured we'd find a good example to support your statement right away, not in several hours and with lots of research; Cleveland, with some caveats, will do.) And the research I've done to look into it seems to suggest that "Detroit is the only U.S. city of its size to demolish all of its architecturally significant prewar train depots, allow its central station to rot, and to remove all railroad operations to a much smaller building several miles away." Actually, I'm surprised by that too.

And if the $80 million renovation of St. Paul Depot in the Twin Cities is the sort of thing we can expect in the 21st century, maybe MCS could be a train station again. Neat.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Dude... you are the voice of ignorance."

Ignorance is crying about something that is impractical, unwarranted and unwanted. I'll let you guys get back to your SIMS game.

[rsa.313]

Some of the parts of that statement are equivocal, but I guess I'm just trying to get to the truth of the matter. I was surprised that it took so long to find evidence that iheartthed's statement, as you said, "couldn't be further from the truth." [[I figured we'd find a good example to support your statement right away, not in several hours and with lots of research; Cleveland, with some caveats, will do.) And the research I've done to look into it seems to suggest that "Detroit is the only U.S. city of its size to demolish all of its architecturally significant prewar train depots, allow its central station to rot, and to remove all railroad operations to a much smaller building several miles away." Actually, I'm surprised by that too.

And if the $80 million renovation of St. Paul Depot in the Twin Cities is the sort of thing we can expect in the 21st century, maybe MCS could be a train station again. Neat.

that was my point [[about it being equivocal). but really, the definition of move is

1 a [[1) : to change the place or position of

from merriam webster. i was just taking it much more literally.

like i said, it took me a while to actually undertand what you were looking for exactly.

it is fairly amazing that we had three grand stations and all have been torn down or abandoned. but really, i'm amazed that detroit has a rail terminal at all given it's disdain for mass transit.

if memory serves, wasn't there a temporary structure as a station a stone's throw away from MCS? that the facility in new center was built in the mid 90's?

[Detroitnerd]

if memory serves, wasn't there a temporary structure as a station a stone's throw away from MCS? that the facility in new center was built in the mid 90's?

Yes. Back in 1988, I took Amtrak from Detroit to Columbia, S.C. I was all excited to see the inside of Michigan Central Station, but when I got there, it was closed. Signs referred me to a small building, sort of like a double-wide trailer, with corrugated-looking steel on the outside. It was up on the embankment to the west of the station, on the other side of the viaduct. Instead of waiting for my train on a wooden bench in a grand station with chandeliers and imposing architecture, I waited in an orange plastic chair in that temporary trailer, contemplating the selection in the vending machine. What a letdown. ...

[dove-7]

Yes if Detroit had something there economically that would justify the station running light rail. No, due to what I just posted.

Living in the Cali. Bay area and have lived in other major cities [[including Detroit), business is primarily done in the city first and surrounding metro second. With the cities still the heart of business, the demand for light transit is justified because the traffic and business is there and they have a large population that reside in the cities vs. the small percentage that do work in the city from the metro and head back home.

Detroit lack those things that I described above, it's what Detroit use to be.

Too much politics and red tape in the city and metro to work. Slum lords allowed to keep shitty owned vacant buildings doesn't help Detroit either.

[dove-7]

Plenty of people still ride trains. Just because Detroit doesn't offer sufficient train service doesn't mean that everyone else does the same. People in Chicago ride trains. People in Toronto ride trains. If this high speed rail initiative gets going, guess what city passengers riding a high speed train from Chicago to Toronto would have to pass through?

Oh yeah, but you tore your train station down/made it into a police station/made it into a casino.

Yeah, but Chicago and Toronto are both active cities where the cities are the heart of everything and not the opposite in the Detroit. These two cities are 3 millions plus cities with business and trains that run both out of the State and separate ones that take workers back to the metro. The same is here in the Cali. Bay area.

[dove-7]

I find it pretty sad and disgusting that nations far poorer than the United States--like Poland and Venezuela, and well, pretty much every other civilized nation on earth--can invest in upgrading their rail systems while we treat it as some kind of luxury that we just can't afford.

MDOT spends more money each year cutting the grass in freeway medians than it does to provide its current Amtrak service.

The 1950s are over. Your way doesn't work. Moving on....

Keep in mind too, those poor areas have a different type of system/government where they make public transit priority numero uno. You try that here and people will be fucking yelling socialism. And with the Big three still in running the show, they're not going to make it easy to make this happen in Detroit. And before even that battle can happen, Detroit has to have what they lost, business and population.

Places that were once smaller that Detroit for several decades now are bigger and have a transit because business has flourished there. San Jose, Ca. San Diego, Phoenix etc.

[dove-7]

Okay, I'll amend it. Detroit was the only city of it's size to move operations away from its primary station. I don't consider Memphis, Atlanta, Rochester NY, etc., to be of Detroit's size... none of those cities are even close to the size of Detroit today, let alone Detroit 50 years ago.

But the key difference is, those smaller but growing cities are still the heart of everything that the metro do. San Francisco is smaller than Detroit, but it's dense like New York City. Business is in those cities, Detroit doesn't have that anymore. You have a few major business there, but the majority of business is done in the metro.

[Detroitnerd]

Dove, have you been downtown recently? I am at my desk in my downtown office. We have a daytime working population down here of about 100,000 people, many of them professionals. I would very much like to explain to them that the businesses they work for do not exist, and the economic activity they create every day is actually zero, and that the buildings they file into every day are vacant, but I think I will have a difficult time explaining that. Can you please help me understand how I can better explain this to them?

[dove-7]

It just boggles the mind. The United States has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of its economy. The second-largest economy on earth--Japan--is only one-third the size of ours.

So why is *our* country the one that looks like shit?
Why does *our* country insist we can't afford to build anything but expensive, time-wasting roads, and can't afford to do anything about buildings like Michigan Central Station?

Where the hell does the money from our economy go???

Oh, that's right. We have to cut taxes for Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and other "hard workers".

With the industrial era, plenty of jobs in the city and cars being cranked out by the 100's people had money, and cars were now affordable due to mass production making it faster to crank them out.

For some people, it's human nature to want to get away from living in the city; we're introduced to the suburbs during the 1940's shortly after the war added to this we have the baby boom going on with the combination of affordable cars, people are going to move out to stretch their arms and legs so to speak.

Well, seeing that there are a lot of people buying cars and moving further out, INCLUDING traveling, highways must now be added to the equation, thus killing the trains and in some areas hurting the local transit. Detroit fits this descriptions. The problem here is, the government in our country didn't make or force public transit to be the central focus in major cities and cross country travel. In Europe, while you do have the choice, pretty much all of their major cities cars drivers are charged if they want to drive in the cities, this reduced cars and forces people to jump on trains, buses etc if they want to visit the cities.

That's not going to happen in this country because people will start yelling socialism and shit. It can happen within each city but not the entire country. San Francisco has been talking about adopting that European concept, because traffic here is a nightmare. It's like a small New York here. I try avoid driving in the city unless I really have to. I take the subway 99.9 percent of the time. BUT, San Francisco as of right now is reducing their car traffic and turning many of those car congested areas into walking and park areas.

[Bearinabox]

For some people, it's human nature to want to get away from living in the city;

For some people, it's human nature? What does that even mean?

[dove-7]

Dove, have you been downtown recently? I am at my desk in my downtown office. We have a daytime working population down here of about 100,000 people, many of them professionals. I would very much like to explain to them that the businesses they work for do not exist, and the economic activity they create every day is actually zero, and that the buildings they file into every day are vacant, but I think I will have a difficult time explaining that. Can you please help me understand how I can better explain this to them?

Well if you read my post in it's entire, you'd also see that I addressed that you have several things going on, all don't reside in the city, most of major businesses are primarily done outside of Detroit in the metro areas, politics and red tape that prevent a true transit and business from flourishing in the city that makes a city thrive. Detroit is an isolated city, no where in my post did I state that there aren't professionals in Detroit. What I had stated is that the lack of business in the city isn't there like many think or would like to have in order for a MCS to be open.

I lived in the area most of my life and when I compare smaller major cities where most of the business is done in the city and it's the heart of everything, you'll see and know the difference. And there is a major difference. San Francisco has more than a 100,000 workers working in the city. They come from the city and outside. San Francisco is the heart of the Bay area northern Bay area, but we also have the southern bay Area San Jose, that's even bigger and bigger than Detroit. If Detroit had what it lost, before the 80's, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[LL Cool D]

Get real, people. I saw my kid sister off on one of the last trains to leave for NYC, and the place was a creepy mausoleum. Thought experiment: If MCS didn't exist, would you build it? Would anyone? No, it would be stupid. MCS is done, stick a fork in it.

[ghettopalmetto]

Get real, people. I saw my kid sister off on one of the last trains to leave for NYC, and the place was a creepy mausoleum. Thought experiment: If MCS didn't exist, would you build it? Would anyone? No, it would be stupid. MCS is done, stick a fork in it.

So we're back to the old paradigm that some ideas will work everywhere else on earth, just not Detroit?

Who needs to get real?

[DC48080]

Did anyone ever stop to consider that if there was a viable case to be made that train travel would be sufficient to justify a space the size of MCS that it would not have closed down back in 1988? Amtrack did not pull out of the station becuase they wanted to stick it to Detroit. They left because it was not viable anymore. Or to use a favorite buzzword of many on here, because it was not "sustainable". We are not New York, we are not San Francisco. We do not and probably will not in our lifetimes have the population density that those cities do.

This isn't a slam on Detroit, but if there was a need for mass train travel someone [[perhaps the U.S. Government, which owns Amtrak) would have invested the capital to make such a system a reality.

[ghettopalmetto]

This isn't a slam on Detroit, but if there was a need for mass train travel someone [[perhaps the U.S. Government, which owns Amtrak) would have invested the capital to make such a system a reality.

Maybe you missed this:

http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/01/pres...peed-rail.html


And a press release from Amtrak on the piecemeal, shittastic system we have now:

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobSe...rship_FY10.pdf

[[Ridership on the Wolverine Service for March 2010 was up 12.0% over March 2009.)