Toni Griffin says the Detroit area needs to rethink transportation

[ghettopalmetto]

Yes we would because the then obsolete and landlocked factories would have still left for less expensive and more open land where they could have larger footprints cost-effectively.

You mean like Ford Rouge? Or Arcelor Mittal's steel mill in Cleveland?

It blows my mind that you can look at Detroit--and it's never-ending suburbs--and think that everything is just fine the way it is.

[lilpup]

Los Angeles: TOD = Transient Oriented Development

[lilpup]

You mean like Ford Rouge? Or Arcelor Mittal's steel mill in Cleveland?

It blows my mind that you can look at Detroit--and it's never-ending suburbs--and think that everything is just fine the way it is.

I don't think that but answers don't come with trend-of-the-year development schemes.

I've said before and restate again: Sprawl needs to be controlled, development needs to be done wisely, and merely changing types of mass transit isn't going to be the answer. I have often railed against the crap setback stores with parking in front, shitty strip malls, and fast food drive-thru-caused discontinuities. All you have to do it look at Nine Mile in Ferndale with it's backside parking to see the difference a little thoughtful planning makes.

[canuck]

Yes buses became the norm for a number of reasons including total mobility, more reliable technology in that type of vehicle in the late thirties, and relative cost of operation. But the reason for a renewed interest in streetrail has to do with better technologies and added cost advantages in the long term, more comfortable environments with climate controls and better ingress/egress.

They are expensive to adopt, but as a lot of people mention, where does the profit motive stop?
I remember the olympics as a high time for Montreal in 1976, but the most valuable durable heritage Montreal got at the time was the metro extensions on several lines. The sports stadiums were way more expensive and underused than the transit equipment. The metro has contributed to development and wherever there are stations the values go up without fail. Thirty years ago, buskers lobbied to have dedicated spaces in stations across the system. Musicians pay a special tax and get to play a number of hours according to schedules drawn up by the players. There is live music all the time; jazz, rap, classical, mariachi, you name it.

[Bearinabox]

I don't think that but answers don't come with trend-of-the-year development schemes.

I've said before and restate again: Sprawl needs to be controlled, development needs to be done wisely, and merely changing types of mass transit isn't going to be the answer.

Who said anything about "merely?" Gannon hasn't even posted in this thread. But just because something isn't the entire solution all by itself doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

[dtowncitylover]

It blows my mind that you can look at Detroit--and it's never-ending suburbs--and think that everything is just fine the way it is.

One can bash mass transit and public transportation, but these nay-sayers cannot deny the fact that if Detroit wants to stay afloat and become a viable city there needs to be more than buses.

But usually these nay-sayers are anti-Detroit anyways, so why the hell do I care about their opinion...

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't think that but answers don't come with trend-of-the-year development schemes.

I've said before and restate again: Sprawl needs to be controlled, development needs to be done wisely, and merely changing types of mass transit isn't going to be the answer. I have often railed against the crap setback stores with parking in front, shitty strip malls, and fast food drive-thru-caused discontinuities. All you have to do it look at Nine Mile in Ferndale with it's backside parking to see the difference a little thoughtful planning makes.

How about "trend-of-the-past-thirty-years" development schemes? Are those robust enough for you?

No one is saying that poor design shouldn't be addressed. But by relying strictly on cars, you still have to provide acres and acres of cheap parking, which prevents you from producing a pedestrian-friendly environment for more than a few token blocks. Downtown Detroit is Exhibit A of this phenomenon. Parking is land-intensive and limits how much you're able to develop the land, and thus lower tax revenues per acre must cover fixed infrastructure costs. At the same time, no one is proposing to bring Mumbai or Calcutta to Southeastern Michigan. But there is certainly a lot of land and money being wasted by focusing on an automobile-only transportation system.

[lilpup]

The problem in Detroit is that there haven't been any schemes except line-my-pocket and light rail right now falls into that same category.

And btw NYC, Chicago, and so many of the other examples you've cited aren't devoid of cars or parking lots. Also, maybe you weren't around for the attempts at pedestrian malls that have already been tried downtown.

PS there's a shitload of unoccupied land in Detroit, in case you haven't noticed - the parking lots sure as hell aren't competing with proposed developments.

[ghettopalmetto]

The problem in Detroit is that there haven't been any schemes except line-my-pocket and light rail right now falls into that same category.

But it's okay if MDOT routinely proposes $1 billion+ freeway-widening schemes that, as shown in studies conducted by their own consulting traffic engineers, will result in no long-term savings in travel time?

I'm trying to determine what it is that you're advocating. Are you in favor of the status quo? Or do you have some other plausible alternative where a metropolis of 4.5 million people can function in an economically efficient manner with only one feasible mode of transportation?

Do you have the same gripes with sidewalks that you do with light rail?

[lilpup]

But it's okay if MDOT routinely proposes $1 billion+ freeway-widening schemes that, as shown in studies conducted by their own consulting traffic engineers, will result in no long-term savings in travel time?

No, it's not.

I'm trying to determine what it is that you're advocating. Are you in favor of the status quo? Or do you have some other plausible alternative where a metropolis of 4.5 million people can function in an economically efficient manner with only one feasible mode of transportation?

INTELLIGENT infrastructure planning, instead of plopping claimed silver bullet solutions wherever on a whim.

Do you have the same gripes with sidewalks that you do with light rail?

Nope and I'm all for bike lanes, too.

See, that's the problem with people who argue and propose solutions like you do - it's always all or nothing.

[ghettopalmetto]

Then what do you consider to be "intelligent" transportation planning?

No one is "plopping" any kind of "silver bullet solution" anywhere on a "whim". Light rail on Woodward is a project that has been studied for years, benefit/cost analyses conducted, the proposed corridor specifically selected, the financial metrics studied, and strict federal funding criteria met. The intent is to carry passengers at a higher speed, at a lower cost, and provide the permanence of transit infrastructure that will be attractive to property owners. By implementing a high-capacity transit mode along Woodward, it will be possible to create a pedestrian-friendly environment without requiring acres and acres of parking lots that isolate blocks of development from each other. It is precisely these types of environments that people find attractive [[When was the last time you went on vacation to Houston???), to which they relocate their persons, their jobs, and their disposable income.

Aside from light rail, there is only one mode of infrastructure that can move as many people, as fast, in the same amount of space, but Detroit isn't getting a subway anytime soon, if ever.

[professorscott]

I should think "intelligent transportation planning" would be devoted to the idea of moving people and goods efficiently and cost-effectively.

Now, one can also delve into other areas, such as using the transportation network to encourage infill redevelopment, since one of our biggest challenges financially as a region is that since 1970 we are using, what, four times as much developed land with the exact same number of people to pay for all the extra urbanized infrastructure, but let's keep it simple for now.

In Detroit, the entire metro region, we have taken the notion of the high-capacity roadway and developed it as many different ways as you could imagine, from very early experiments such as the Davison to later concepts like the I-96 "express lane" system in west Detroit. By so doing, we are able to move people around very efficiently from a time perspective; Detroit has no true "rush hour" in the sense that people experience it in Chicago or Washington, DC.

However, it is a disaster from a cost perspective. Almost anything you can create as transportation infrastructure costs less per person-mile traveled than an expressway.

Since our big regional problem right now seems to be that we don't have any money - while we seem to have plenty of time [[I, for instance, am doing this right now) - it is reasonable to say that we ought to look for more economically sustainable transportation infrastructure for our future, than what we built in the past and are living with now. This indicates more of what modern societies are now building and less of what we did to ourselves from the 1940s to the 1980s.

Once again, I end with a question, which nobody has ever answered here: name one successful big-city region anywhere on Earth without a functioning rapid transit system.

[canuck]

Yes we would because the then obsolete and landlocked factories would have still left for less expensive and more open land where they could have larger footprints cost-effectively.

Which goes to show how important it is to plan and regulate city development thusly;

1. Slowly, assiduously, and continually.

2. To the minimum detriment of all citizens and visitors.

3. With a view to the long term.

4. With respect to the built and the natural environments.

5. With a sense of continuity, historical and cultural.

Schools which were once the pride of Detroit are now a residue of what they were as well as public libraries and other civic enablers. Apart from the racial divide that helped this happen and the abandonment of the city for its suburbs; there is a sense that the ideal of a city that strives to be better by communion was lost somewhere along the way. The auto-motive, or the self motive if you will took over the role of transit as the bloodline of the metropolis to a great extent. Deep down, detroiters need the same sense of communion and it seems to me that there is a lack of equipment to serve that purpose. So much development happened haphazardly, dismissive of pedestrian activity, that the city imploded; eroded to a fearsome degree.

But it is not impossible to recover and rebuild a new metropolis when you look at Japan and Germany's rise to success. There are worse places than Detroit, and the know-how if not the will to do it are there. SEM needs a spark that will ignite the region, not an invitation to riot this time but a concensus that things have to happen. My arrogant frogcanucky opinion.

[canuck]

I should think "intelligent transportation planning" would be devoted to the idea of moving people and goods efficiently and cost-effectively.

Now, one can also delve into other areas, such as using the transportation network to encourage infill redevelopment, since one of our biggest challenges financially as a region is that since 1970 we are using, what, four times as much developed land with the exact same number of people to pay for all the extra urbanized infrastructure, but let's keep it simple for now.

In Detroit, the entire metro region, we have taken the notion of the high-capacity roadway and developed it as many different ways as you could imagine, from very early experiments such as the Davison to later concepts like the I-96 "express lane" system in west Detroit. By so doing, we are able to move people around very efficiently from a time perspective; Detroit has no true "rush hour" in the sense that people experience it in Chicago or Washington, DC.

However, it is a disaster from a cost perspective. Almost anything you can create as transportation infrastructure costs less per person-mile traveled than an expressway.

Since our big regional problem right now seems to be that we don't have any money - while we seem to have plenty of time [[I, for instance, am doing this right now) - it is reasonable to say that we ought to look for more economically sustainable transportation infrastructure for our future, than what we built in the past and are living with now. This indicates more of what modern societies are now building and less of what we did to ourselves from the 1940s to the 1980s.

Once again, I end with a question, which nobody has ever answered here: name one successful big-city region anywhere on Earth without a functioning rapid transit system.

That is another sweet one that comes up all the time; we dont have any money for that now.
They find the money for more roads in a hurry though. The GDP for Metro Detroit ranked it the 22nd wealthiest city on earth in 2005. It aint that poor.

[Magnatomicflux]

There's absolutely no reason to believe businesses would develop in areas they already left just because of improved transit. It works for areas of new development, but not infill.

Just some reading for people. I'm not sure if I included it, but why light rail? From what I understand, actual Streetcar lines are cheaper to build than light rail and are good for stations close together in an urban setting. Light rail is better suited for longer distance stops.

And what ghettopalmetto said here is completely true. "......... provide the permanence of transit infrastructure that will be attractive to property owners"

Bus routes can change in a day. A permanent set of rails with a hundred eyeballs rolling past your storefront every ten minutes, without question for years to come would be very alluring to prospective buisness owners..



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ars30_ST_N.htm

http://www.lastreetcar.org/l-a-stree...-other-cities/

http://www.stlbeacon.org/index.php?I...tent&task=view

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...ey-system.html

http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article...nities/1557608



Looks like the rest of the country is getting on board, at least 40 other US cities are exploring this option. Even if you don't have the people to support it right now [[ 900,000 can't support this system?), from what I gather, it's cheaper to do it now while constuction costs are relativly low and the money is there from the Gov'. Detroit will be kicking itself in the face in 10 years when the rest of the country is moving their people on rails, and all you'll be able to say is "why didn't we do this when we had the chance?"

Don't fall behind Detroit. You have always been the leaders in transportation, you need to take the lead here as well in a new century. With sooooooo many skilled workers just itching to get to work, and the stratigic location of Detroit with access to water and rail and industrial might, you could be the manufacturing monster you were with the car. Build them here, run them here, and show the country what you can do again.

[Russix]

Just some reading for people. I'm not sure if I included it, but why light rail? From what I understand, actual Streetcar lines are cheaper to build than light rail and are good for stations close together in an urban setting. Light rail is better suited for longer distance stops.
...

I think you just answered your own question. The entire length of Woodward between Detroit and Pontiac has local bus service[[minus 2 miles). The pressing need for the region is to move people across it, not around a small part of it, so hence the choice for light rail.

[Magnatomicflux]

Ah..........indeed I did lol

Thanks Russix

[lilpup]

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publicatio...ticles/?id=385

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...ansit-tax.html

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_...y-lessons.html - interesting note from this one: In NYC "the subway is smaller, in terms of total track miles and stations in operation, than it was in the 1940s"

I'm sure all those store owners will be thrilled to death watching all those riders just roll on by...roll...on...by...no more impulse stops, no more little side trips off the main route home, no more stopping in for gas and picking up a snack, paper, lottery ticket while there - get on at work, get off at home, ignore everything in between - the user's equivalent of a freeway bypass around a city

[ghettopalmetto]

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publicatio...ticles/?id=385

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...ansit-tax.html

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_...y-lessons.html - interesting note from this one: In NYC "the subway is smaller, in terms of total track miles and stations in operation, than it was in the 1940s"

I'm sure all those store owners will be thrilled to death watching all those riders just roll on by...roll...on...by...no more impulse stops, no more little side trips off the main route home, no more stopping in for gas and picking up a snack, paper, lottery ticket while there - get on at work, get off at home, ignore everything in between - the user's equivalent of a freeway bypass around a city

Would you say it's easier to make an impulse stop in a car, in the middle of rush hour traffic, or on foot, walking down the street right past the front doors of these establishments?

You've never gone anywhere without the prosthesis of a car attached to your body, have you? It's just one tired excuse after another, without any factual data to support any of your claims. Sure, just let Detroit keep on being Detroit, and see if they can regress ANOTHER century behind the rest of the world. Look away, nothing to see here....

[iheartthed]

I'm sure all those store owners will be thrilled to death watching all those riders just roll on by...roll...on...by...no more impulse stops, no more little side trips off the main route home, no more stopping in for gas and picking up a snack, paper, lottery ticket while there - get on at work, get off at home, ignore everything in between - the user's equivalent of a freeway bypass around a city

Have you ever lived in a city with a subway?

[Detroitnerd]

Have you ever lived in a city with a subway?

Dude has no idea what he's talking about. It's OK, though. It's sort of fun watching somebody with ignorant opinions blab on and on and make a fookin' fool of themself.

[Novine]

"Once again, I end with a question, which nobody has ever answered here: name one successful big-city region anywhere on Earth without a functioning rapid transit system."

This one is for you "lilpup". It can't be that hard, can it?

[dtowncitylover]

I don't think lilpup is against mass transit, I think s/he's is against Detroit becoming great again which would require us to invest alot into transportation and other infrastructure projects that are desperately needed for the city. Widening 94 thru the city isn't going to bring businesses back or create new ones, building a reliable regional mass transit system will.

[lilpup]

Yes, I have stayed in a city with a subway. As a matter of fact I have family in Manhattan, but Detroit isn't Manhattan, especially in geography. I have used non-bus mass transit in various other cities, too, including DC [[drive to the parking lot at the station, hop on, going in and do your business for the day, hop on again and ride back to the parking lot @ Silver Spring).

The reason I don't list a "big, successful city" without a line? Because your definitions will then morph to suit you. None of you have even defined what constitutes a successful city, more or less I suspect, have even contemplated if size has to be a part of that definition.

Do you consider Rio with its slums successful? How about Mexico City or Cairo with their poverty?

As I've said before, if you really want Detroit to be successful, the outward sprawl has to be curtailed and your beloved transit lines aren't going to do that.

[Zacha341]

Hah. I need to rethink getting a newer car, my old beater used one is getting really old. Need another used one without a car note -- so as to stay off all forms of public transportation........