Toni Griffin says the Detroit area needs to rethink transportation

[iheartthed]

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.

No offense, but I don't think you fully conceptualize the function of a subway and/or train system. All points about establishing density in Detroit again are moot without a solid transit system. Or else you'll quickly run into the same problems that caused the house of cards to fall in the first place when they shut down the street car system.

[stasu1213]

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.

There had been money for mass transit for years The puppet politicians are not going to allow ground breaking for the light rail for they are being told by corporations not to. Coleman Young was a puppet to. He and other official didn't allow the People Mover to stretch to the New Center area when funding was there for it

[lilpup]

No offense, but I don't think you fully conceptualize the function of a subway and/or train system. All points about establishing density in Detroit again are moot without a solid transit system. Or else you'll quickly run into the same problems that caused the house of cards to fall in the first place when they shut down the street car system.

I think your view is too narrow and will fall victim to unintended consequences. I also disagree with your implied premise that the end of streetcars/rail was the cause of Detroit's depopulation.

[ghettopalmetto]

I think your view is too narrow and will fall victim to unintended consequences. I also disagree with your implied premise that the end of streetcars/rail was the cause of Detroit's depopulation.

I don't think anyone is saying that demise of the streetcars *caused* Detroit's population. Nor is anyone saying that rail transit is the sole determining factor in making a city "successful" or not.

Look at downtown Detroit, though. It doesn't matter how many stadiums or casinos or Big Tourist Attractions of Compuwares you put downtown. Development downtown will ALWAYS be limited to the amount of cheap parking that can be provided. The necessity for so much parking separates and segregates one area from another. For example, walking from say, Greektown over to the Joe is a daunting task, in no small part because of the psychological effect of parking lots on the psyche of the pedestrian. Until something changes, this is ALWAYS going to be the case--and downtown Detroit will remain a drive-in, drive-out single-purpose destination. That is, unless you implement transit.

This is not a trivial matter. Look at how many projects can't get financing simply because the owner isn't able to provide sufficient parking. It's not cheap either, what with garages costing $20,000 a space to build, and the daily fees barely covering maintenance of the structure.

The point that folks are trying to convey to you, lilpup, is that the walkable neighborhoods you describe as being desirable are simply IMPOSSIBLE when you force everyone to drive a car for every purpose. Hence, the reason why "Detroit is not Chicago, et. al." Detroit USED to be like Chicago, until some very smart people decided that they needed to gut the inner-city neighborhoods for freeways and parking.

[Novine]

"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."

You can't name one? The Prof gave you a lot of room to run. To quote that question again:

"name one successful big-city region anywhere on Earth without a functioning rapid transit system"

You define successful, you define big and you define city-region. Then plug in the name or names that you can make fit your definition. Should be easy for you, shouldn't it?

[lilpup]

Detroit USED to be like Chicago, until some very smart people decided that they needed to gut the inner-city neighborhoods for freeways and parking.

That's bad planning, not the fault of the existence of cars.

To quote that question again:

"name one successful big-city region anywhere on Earth without a functioning rapid transit system"

You define successful, you define big and you define city-region. Then plug in the name or names that you can make fit your definition. Should be easy for you, shouldn't it?

It's a biased question on its face. YOU answer my question - Are Rio, Mexico City, Cairo big "successful" cities with the conditions they have? Because they all have rail...

[ghettopalmetto]

That's bad planning, not the fault of the existence of cars.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. So why the fierce opposition to good planning, in an attempt to [[somewhat) reverse the mistakes of the past?

[lilpup]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. So why the fierce opposition to good planning, in an attempt to [[somewhat) reverse the mistakes of the past?

I don't see any evidence of good planning yet. The mere proposal of light rail is not in and of itself good planning any more than is a proposal for another freeway, freeway widening, haphazard shopping center, or other such project that claims great benefit to the city or region. Although I'm sure land speculators in Detroit would love to see this pushed through quickly so they can offload their holdings.

[dtowncitylover]

It's a biased question on its face. YOU answer my question - Are Rio, Mexico City, Cairo big "successful" cities with the conditions they have? Because they all have rail...

I would consider them a whole lot more successful than Detroit. Mexico City has hosted an Olympics, Rio will host the Olympics, and Cairo is a major city in the Middle East. All two of three of these are tourist destinations save Mexico City, most go to Cancun. All of these cities are ranked higher than Detroit in the world city list. Sure these cities have their slums, but Detroit, arguably, is one giant slum.

[lilpup]

Olympics, huh? That's all it takes? Well, then, I'm sure there are successful cities without light rail...

[dtowncitylover]

Olympics, huh? That's all it takes?

No but when you win something of the caliber of the Olympics, I'm pretty sure the world pays attention.

What does the world pay attention for us? Cars, our murder rate, and our high school dropout rate. Yeah, we're real successful.

And even without the Olympics, they're still rated higher than us.

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't see any evidence of good planning yet. The mere proposal of light rail is not in and of itself good planning any more than is a proposal for another freeway, freeway widening, haphazard shopping center, or other such project that claims great benefit to the city or region. Although I'm sure land speculators in Detroit would love to see this pushed through quickly so they can offload their holdings.

It's not so much the light rail in itself, as much as it is what the light rail allows you to do in the way of development. By building light rail, you can reduce [[or eliminate) burdensome land-gobbling parking requirements and develop land at a higher density, resulting in the mixed-use walkable neighborhoods that people find desirable. In addition, it provides the opportunity for a better public realm--sidewalks, parks, and other civic infrastructure--that frankly, exists in very VERY few places in Southeastern Michigan. And yes, there will need to be a wholesale change in the local zoning ordinances in order to accommodate this, but that's the responsibility of the City of Detroit.

This isn't any different than what planners did in the 1950s with freeways, except the resulting development occurred on virgin land and was automobile-oriented. Private dollars flow to where public dollars build infrastructure.

If you want to put this in its simplest terms, the folks behind the Woodward Light Rail project are merely rebuilding the skeleton of Detroit that was demolished in the 1940s and 1950s.

[lilpup]

This isn't any different than what planners did in the 1950s with freeways

Exactly.

Private dollars flow to where public dollars build infrastructure.

No, not always. That's not a sure assumption at all. This assumption of success is my primary objection, especially since NO ONE wants to acknowledge that it has flat-out failed in some places [[But, hey, who cares? After all it's only taxpayer dollars that could have been used more wisely.)

[ghettopalmetto]

Exactly.

No, not always. That's not a sure assumption at all. This assumption of success is my primary objection, especially since NO ONE wants to acknowledge that it has flat-out failed in some places [[But, hey, who cares? After all it's only taxpayer dollars that could have been used more wisely.)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. This is a fundamental axiom of economics, that even Adam Smith acknowledged. Please cite examples to the contrary.

I suppose it depends how you define "failure". As of today, there are people in the City of Detroit who endure 2-hour bus rides each way to minimum-wage jobs in the suburbs. If that is the only thing that changes as the result of light rail, it will still be a success.

[lilpup]

Yes, let's spend millions so that a few thousand people can spend an hour less going to shitty jobs in the suburbs. I don't think so.

I gave links to failed situations, particularly the one in Baltimore, in a previous post.

[ghettopalmetto]

Baltimore's "system" was planned in an admittedly piss-poor manner. The light rail doesn't connect to the heavy rail subway. Neither one connected to Penn Station, until a light rail spur was added after-the-fact. They thought they could cheap out by running the light rail on single-track through downtown. Needless to say, it became a LOT more expensive to double-track the line after it had been running for a period of years. That city does have a comprehensive plan in the works, though, and to correlate every single business decision with the [[in)adequacy of the transit "system" there is plain reckless. IT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN how every other city on earth has seen increased development after constructing light rail lines. Thankfully, we've learned a lot in the past 30 years.

Let's put it this way: If I have a business of 100 employees, I have two options in Detroit. I can either find 100 parking spots within a short walk of my building, or I can locate elsewhere. For surface parking, 100 spots at 320 sf each = 32,000 sf or about 0.75 acres[[!), or I can construct a garage, where 100 spots @ $20,000 each = $2 million. Neither one is particular palatable, realistic, or affordable. Mind you, neither of these is revenue-generating, yet requires enormous capital outlays, not to mention the property taxes and maintenance.

Extrapolating, the 50,000 employees in the CBD of Detroit require 367 acres JUST FOR PARKING. That's 278 football fields JUST IN DOWNTOWN. That doesn't count parking spaces required to service residences, hotels, entertainment venues, and customer parking.

[lilpup]

Let's see - the city is 149 square miles @ 640 acres per square mile equals 95,360 acres in the city and parking for 50,000 [[vehicles NOT employees) requires less than 0.4% of that...and that's only if it's all surface parking [[c'mon even Chicago and NYC have parking garages, as well as no dearth of cars).

This guy a friend of yours?? http://www.freep.com/article/2010111...s-in-Roseville

Oh, btw, the McMansions in suburbia? Most of them are built on parcels at least 0.6 acres in size..

[BrushStart]

I don't see any evidence of good planning yet. The mere proposal of light rail is not in and of itself good planning any more than is a proposal for another freeway, freeway widening, haphazard shopping center, or other such project that claims great benefit to the city or region. Although I'm sure land speculators in Detroit would love to see this pushed through quickly so they can offload their holdings.

Look at this way, even if Detroit fixed its public schools and had a crime rate equal to other big cities, it still wouldn't attract the level of development needed to reverse disinvestment and depopulation. Why? Because Detroit still wouldn't be a viable urban place. Think about it... What is the purpose of a city? What is the point of high density and skyscrapers? It certainly isn't because they are easier and cheaper to create than the alternative. However, we continue to build cities into the 21st century because there is an intrinsic value in designing for proximity.

There is no point to a "city" without effective mass transit. Without tranist, there is no reason to build density and high rises, no reason to concentrate institutions, and no reason for people to pay a preimum to live there. People do not live in cities because the crime rate is lower or because the schools are better; they live in cities because, among many other things, people want proximity- proximity to work, to cultural and sports attractions, to a variety of restaurants and nightlife, to activity, and to other people. If they have no mobility within the city, then the city has no value. If they have to drive to get to the city, then why have a traditional city at all? Sprawl is much easier.

Detroit's problem is that it can't attract anyone, residents or businesses until it puts amenities like transit in place. There just isn't a point for anyone to want to live there until people are connected to the rest of the city. We already have proximity because we once had mass transit, which caused numerous key institutions to be clustered close together. We already have the building stock needed to accommodate density, again, because we previously had mass transit. The only thing missing is transit. Schools and crime are icing on the cake. If you don't build transit, then you might as well topple Detroit because there is no point to it.

[ghettopalmetto]

Let's see - the city is 149 square miles @ 640 acres per square mile equals 95,360 acres in the city and parking for 50,000 [[vehicles NOT employees) requires less than 0.4% of that...and that's only if it's all surface parking [[c'mon even Chicago and NYC have parking garages, as well as no dearth of cars).

Now you're bullshitting, and you know it.

[iheartthed]

Let's see - the city is 149 square miles @ 640 acres per square mile equals 95,360 acres in the city and parking for 50,000 [[vehicles NOT employees) requires less than 0.4% of that...and that's only if it's all surface parking [[c'mon even Chicago and NYC have parking garages, as well as no dearth of cars).

This guy a friend of yours?? http://www.freep.com/article/2010111...s-in-Roseville

Oh, btw, the McMansions in suburbia? Most of them are built on parcels at least 0.6 acres in size..

Why do you keep trying to equate building a transit system with getting rid of everyones car?

[lilpup]

Why do you keep trying to equate building a transit system with getting rid of everyones car?

That's a question that needs to be addressed to ghettopalmetto.

[Detroitnerd]

That's a question that needs to be addressed to ghettopalmetto.

lilpup, I have no idea why you're on here, since you don't seem to know what you're talking about, have no desire to learn about what you're talking about, and are engaging in silly ploys that should have been left in the schoolyard. Seriously, what are you, like, 12 years old?

Grow a pair and discuss things seriously and you'll have a hard time finding better people to talk to than ghetto and the crew on here. Prolly learn quite a lot. Persist in your behavior and you're just butting your head against a wall; all you're gonna get is a headache, kid.

[lilpup]

Pay attention, Nerd. You might learn something, too [[like I'm far from being a newbie here).

[Detroitnerd]

Pay attention, Nerd. You might learn something, too [[like I'm far from being a newbie here).

Hahaha. Thanks for my morning LAUGH.

[canuck]

I would consider them a whole lot more successful than Detroit. Mexico City has hosted an Olympics, Rio will host the Olympics, and Cairo is a major city in the Middle East. All two of three of these are tourist destinations save Mexico City, most go to Cancun. All of these cities are ranked higher than Detroit in the world city list. Sure these cities have their slums, but Detroit, arguably, is one giant slum.

What bothers me above everything else is the total devastation and abandonment that results from a wasteful mentality. The conditions in cities like Cairo and Rio are appalling, people living on municipal dumps fighting for scraps of food and whatever else to live on. But the fact that we can let huge tracts of a once formidably wealthy environment like Detroit go to waste is beyond tragic, it is indecent in the extreme. But really there is a very real link between third world cities and what we see in Detroit; the divide between rich and poor is more graphic and the lack of enterprise to do away with poverty is similar. But you know Sao Paulo which is a nightmare on many levels does a lot better with mass transit than it would without. They are building a monorail now which will help parts of the city that need it. And remember Brazil has manage to hike its middle class 20% in the past coupla years under Lula. He, a socialist, has managed to do a lot better than Argentina, that sucked up all the nonsense the Chicago school brought to bear on it. With a proper mix of works for the people and for business interests, the mix can be bearable, but when the balance tips too much in favor of the big guys, then the cookie begins to crumble big time!