Question: Should The People Mover Come Down?

[professorscott]

The other line would run on Jefferson from around the Chrysler Jefferson North plant downtown, then north on Washington, then West on Michigan to a terminus adjacent to Wyoming.

That's an interesting one, and as I've sat down over the years with various professional people discussing improved transit, this is an idea that's come up. So I think we'll see some kind of improved transit on an east-west City corridor in the not too distant future.

[Jason]

imo the people mover technology is great and we should be expanding it rather than replacing it with light rail. Vancouver's system offers the highest quality service. Trains come every few minutes nearly 24/7, and they travel quickly. And despite the quality of the service operating costs are actually lower than the ad revenue and the only government money it needs is capital for new lines. The only problem with it is that it's much more expensive to build and in a city where scrounging money together for fancy buses is a major accomplishment it's just not going to happen here.

This falls into the same discussion arena as 'Should we eliminate freeways like I-375 and turn them into surface streets or greenways?' in that there is less than a one in a billion chance of it happening, literally. It may be interesting from an urban planning standpoint for a college thesis but unfortunately in an area so dysfunctional that it took private planning and private money and so much political capital to theoretically build the M-1 streetcar [[I think it will happen but around here I always say I'll believe it when I see it) that we should be happy that it's even there.

Except that MDOT will be deciding whether or not to remove or repair [[rebuild) 375 and based on how expensive freeways are and how little traffic it gets they might find it worth their while to remove it.

And with the city being bankrupt it would be very easy for someone to point out how expensive the people mover is [[iirc it cost a few million a year) and how M1 may replace some of its functionality and decide to just turn it off and board up the stations.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I think a line running over Michigan would lead to infill and gentrification all the way out to Dearborn, and improve access to jobs for the residents out that way.

[wolverine]

imo the people mover technology is great and we should be expanding it rather than replacing it with light rail. Vancouver's system offers the highest quality service. Trains come every few minutes nearly 24/7, and they travel quickly. And despite the quality of the service operating costs are actually lower than the ad revenue and the only government money it needs is capital for new lines. The only problem with it is that it's much more expensive to build and in a city where scrounging money together for fancy buses is a major accomplishment it's just not going to happen here.

I agree with you, and I wish expanding the people mover into a functional system was pursued. As you point out, it would be expensive. However I think the cost would be worth it since the Woodward line is the backbone for a larger system. The cost is justified and it's actually rapid transit. The nice thing about the people mover trackage is it's cheap to build. The concrete precast aerial structures are pretty common nowadays and the rolling stock isn't large and complicated. Stations may be pricey. at $30 million a piece for a similar design today, they might want to cut some of those out.

I think it would show a serious commitment to improving transit along Woodward, provide reliable round the clock service and shape future development in those areas.


Just a few points. In the United States, advertising revenue isn't a whole lot except on maybe small systems. Generally advertising covers only between 3%-15% of operating revenue. LRT systems tend to get better results, heavy rail next to nothing. Capitol costs aren't anything for municipalities or transit agencies to worry about. It comes from federal and state taxpayers.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Capitol costs aren't anything for municipalities or transit agencies to worry about. It comes from federal and state taxpayers.

Well, not exactly. Federal transit funds are finite; far more systems want some than there are funds available. And some funds come with local contribution requirements. And the feds will not cover cost overruns [[note: all transit projects have cost overruns). Not with transit money, anyway. Sometimes a powerful member of Congress can get an earmark for a pet project. There is at least some burden for local taxpayers. Plus, of course, every responsible project [[and I would not accuse most projects of being responsible!) needs to identify the amount and source of the required subsidies, once operational. Obviously, ads or station naming rights are preferable, but are unlikely to cover more than a small part of the costs, as you cite.

[Packman41]

...<snip>...
I do think that at some point in the future we need to evaluate the cost of running it vs. the benefit.

Ok, so let’s see the math. The latest is from June 30, 2010 – see page 10
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/tr...0_342148_7.pdf

Operating Revenue
	Sudsidy from CofD	6,229,975
	Subsidy from State of MI	3,632,330
	Ticket Sales	900,881
		10,763,186
Total Operating Expenses		20,468,986
Operating [[Loss)		[[9,705,800)
Plus: Non Operating Revenues		4,296,464
	Change in Net Assets	[[5,409,336)

So now we know the State of Michigan and the City of Detroit subsidizes operations by about $10 million per year. The question is: with the City of Detroit in dire financial straits should this $6.2 million subsidy continue to go to the DPM ? Or say to, Belle Isle or to pension plans or what?

Remember, we cannot continue with business as usual. So pick the most effective use.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Packman, I think the subsidy from Detroit should continue for several reasons. First, there would be close down and ongoing maintenance costs for the PM; the city would not save the full amount of money. Second, the State will be taking over operation of Belle Isle, negating the need for the city to chip that money in. If the money were given out as pensions, it would only be about $364 per person; roughly a dollar a day. Also, cutting the PM and leaving it standing would be an ugly albatross around the neck of downtown. Abandoning the system just as there is a rebound underway would hamper further momentum, and ultimately cost the city money. One of the larger issues in Detroit's budgetary woes is the lack of long-term planning. Closing the PM would be a costly move, even if it saved a small amount of money in the short run.

[canuck]

Packman, I think the subsidy from Detroit should continue for several reasons. First, there would be close down and ongoing maintenance costs for the PM; the city would not save the full amount of money. Second, the State will be taking over operation of Belle Isle, negating the need for the city to chip that money in. If the money were given out as pensions, it would only be about $364 per person; roughly a dollar a day. Also, cutting the PM and leaving it standing would be an ugly albatross around the neck of downtown. Abandoning the system just as there is a rebound underway would hamper further momentum, and ultimately cost the city money. One of the larger issues in Detroit's budgetary woes is the lack of long-term planning. Closing the PM would be a costly move, even if it saved a small amount of money in the short run.

Yes, all that.

Abandonment if the system is dismally inefficient and useless is one thing, but if you consider the costs of structures devoted to car-centric usage, is 10 million a lot in the long run? I am frankly surprised everytime I read about a project in Detroit involving an additional parking structure.

We really need to take a look at what the future can hold for downtown, and how we want transit to radiate outward.

How many wealthy people in cities worldwide use transit because they get a kick out of it?

Detroit's cultural transformation must include transit and the kind of healthy friction that it incurs, the kind that builds community. I long for the day a municipal administration rules out new parking lots and forces surface lots to develop into buildings. Is that science-fiction? Is that possible?

[Newdetroit]

Keep it! It will be very useful. To begin, we want to limit the amount of parking lots downtown. The people mover could be used to move people from downtown to parking lots. Also it could also be expanded. It might be nice if it went up and down the riverfront with stops in future highrises built along the river.

[kathy2trips]

The elevated rails are ugly; they block views of some beautiful architecture. They're like big concrete scars. There's one street in particular where it's particularly offensive, but the location escapes me now.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

The elevated rails are ugly; they block views of some beautiful architecture. They're like big concrete scars. There's one street in particular where it's particularly offensive, but the location escapes me now.

Well, Kathy, I have 2 responses for you. Even if the city decided to stop funding it, we don't have the money to tear it down, so ugly it will remain. Second, while it is not a pretty system by most measures, riding it gives you some wonderful and beautiful views of downtown you would not otherwise get. We shouldn't start our urban planning based on what we wish we already had; we start with what we do have.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I long for the day a municipal administration rules out new parking lots and forces surface lots to develop into buildings. Is that science-fiction? Is that possible?

Command economies don't tend to work out as planned for anyone. I'll settle for a very nice yet practical mass transit system. And the parking lots? In a good economy, a building makes infinitely more money. Surface lot disappearance will be the last sign of downtown's rebound [[and/or the apocalypse).

[kathy2trips]

Obviously, the city has no money. Gee, why the hell is that? The city made Detroit a miserable place to do business; whether on purpose or as an unintended consequence. Look at all the companies that started in Detroit, esp. non-auto industry endeavors: Avis, La Choy, Comerica...the old city directories are chock full of all kinds of tax-paying companies. What percent of them are still here? 0.1%. Detroit got his riches through them, not government. Detroit was an easy, simple and hassle-free place to strike our on your own. Entrepreneur Nirvana.

So what's the view from a building window that has to look out on a brutalistic concrete freeway overpass just feet away that never goes away? Would you put your company there? Would you live in a loft with that view? Your view is a few minutes; theirs is an eternity.

I'd much rather have light ground-hugging rail lines, which are much more cost effective. If scenery is your thing, I'd opt to hop on a trolley for the shorter distances, thank you.

But my main point, which you did not deny, is that they are ugly to the point of being offensive. Hey, if they can blow up Hudson's, they can blow up anything. Remember the hard time they had knocking own Uniroyal? Those concrete shoots should be easy by comparison.

[Jason]

A people mover could come up to every 90 seconds all day without a significant impact on operating expenses. Current people mover frequency would happen across all stations in the entire system.

Light rail systems come more or less with the same frequency as buses because each train needs to have a driver and they cost a lot of money.

With people movers, schedules are made obsolete because you can go to a station at any time of the day, 24/7, and a train will arrive in a few moments.


Light rail systems go at various speeds, but people movers are always faster because they're completely grade separated, and because the computer controlled driving is optimized.


Light rail is only more "cost effective" depending on how you define it. It offers a cheaper, lower quality service. People movers are more expensive but they also provide the ultimate transportation service, and to me they provide a better value.



People don't locate or live in downtowns to be in ye olde picturesque places. They live there for the practical benefits, and for lifestyle, and high quality transit is what supports that. The L in Chicago is much uglier, noisier, and more obtrusive but people still clamor to be near it, and it's a world-known landmark. Vancouver has a very extensive [[43 miles) people mover system and it works wonderfully for them.


imo the only place in Detroit where the people mover is noticeably unsightly is at grand circus park. If the people mover were to be extended onto woodward i imagine it would also be unsightly infront of the dia and library and I would support a short detour to cass or john r. Honestly everywhere else I forget it's even there.

[detroitbob]

People who have never been on the DPM or don't frequent downtown are the most vocal about its lack of worth. I worked downtown for twenty plus years and found it to be convenient, safe, affordable and dependable. It does what it is supposed to do, move people around downtown and does it well...it is not mass transit, wasn't designed to be such. As previously mentioned, over 2 million riders per year will increase as the downtown work force increases and the number of events downtown increase and retail and food service expands to the north and west.

[Meddle]

While the Coleman Memorial TooneyVille Trolley is somewhat of an eyesore, it's certainly less ugly than the elevated tracks in Chicago.

Usage is another issue. When I worked near the Comerica building, we'd sometimes take it over to Greektown for lunch. But since there is no more Greektown ......

[Hermod]

While the Coleman Memorial TooneyVille Trolley is somewhat of an eyesore, it's certainly less ugly than the elevated tracks in Chicago.

Usage is another issue. When I worked near the Comerica building, we'd sometimes take it over to Greektown for lunch. But since there is no more Greektown ......

Yes and for every dollar you put into the farebox, the people mover chewed up $20.

[canuck]

Yes and for every dollar you put into the farebox, the people mover chewed up $20.

How many twenties are we ready to spend on a stupid parking spot is the other side of the coin. The many surface lots in anycity N.A. are more offensive than this choo-choo device.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Kathy, I think you are being intentionally overdramatic by saying the PM is ugly to the point of being offensive. I did acknowledge that it isn't pretty, but there realistically isn't much chance it's coming down. Therefore, you shall continue to be offended into the foreseeable future. And I'll continue to enjoy it.

[Hermod]

How many twenties are we ready to spend on a stupid parking spot is the other side of the coin. The many surface lots in anycity N.A. are more offensive than this choo-choo device.

As someone noted, the parking lots are only there until the land is valuable enough to put up a building. If the land was that valuable and parking that much in demand, there would be a twelve deck parking garage there.

The parking lots only exist because the land is essentially worthless for building. Detroit has acres and acres of building lots for houses which essentialy have "gone to seed". How many new homes are being built on these "choice" lots?

In addition, people make the concious choice to directly pay a twenty from their own pocket for parking. When someone pays a buck for the PM, other people not riding the PM are indirectly subsidizing that ticket with $19.

[Bham1982]

The L in Chicago is much uglier, noisier, and more obtrusive but people still clamor to be near it, and it's a world-known landmark.

Though you'll notice that in the Loop, the streets closest to the elevated L loop are the least desirable, with parking lots, few pedestrians and lots of low-end businesses [[bail bonds, fast food, and the like). The noise and blight from the L is quite obvious.

In short, it's good to be close to an L, but bad to be too close. Obviously this doesn't apply to the underground stretches.

[daveyarm]

Who exactly are these folks who keep saying the People Mover is never used? Check it out whenever there's a Red Wings, Tigers, or Lions game, and you'll find it absolutely jammed. Also, whenever the big conventions are in town, or the parades, festivals and mega running events. Add all of those up, and you have about 150 days a year when the People Mover is used heavily. True, that's less than half the time, but during those 150 days, it is a great asset to Downtown.

[coracle]

When it was a "want" [[like the Light Rail is now) it was predicated on 68,000 riders per day to get the money; and it only actually achieves 7,000. It would cost a lot of money to take it down but once it's down, according to #31, the City [[and State) would save $20 M a year [[subsidies and running losses), which could run DIA, Belle Isle and an other.
I like the look of the PM and enjoy riding it a couple times every winter, but let's face it, it's an expensive boondoggle. It's a very inefficient use of Public money.
Better still find a buyer and sell it off as an asset so retaining its usage.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Coracle you are forgetting that on game/convention/event days it is a great tool to help people get around downtown. Downtown becomes a less convenient, less-attractive place on those days without it. It is true that the PM is not part of many peoples daily commute, but it does get 2.7M riders a year. That's not nothing. And does anyone not think the ridership will be going up with downtown developments, Cobo reno, etc? And it and M1 rail will feed one another.

[Packman41]

My earlier post was an opened ended question [[I don’t have all the answers) and meant to show what it actually costs to run the DPM. I also wanted to elicit responses from the forum regarding the best use of the DPM subsidies in general and not just the few I mentioned.

Again, let’s take a look at the math:

Total Operating Expenses: $20,468,986
Less: Non-Operating Revenue: $ 4,296,464
Subtotal $16,172,522
Less: Ticket Sales @ 2010 levels $ 900,881
Net Loss [[$15,271,641)


Now, let’s make couple of BIG assumptions: [[1) The fares are doubled from 2010 levels to $1 per ride [[now 75 cents) and [[2) ridership doubles overnight from 2.2 million to 5 million.

Subtotal $16,172,522
Less: Ticket Sales @ 2010 levels $ 5,000,000
Net Loss [[$11,172,000)

So, is an $11 million net loss still acceptable to you?

Or is they anything else that might take priority in the needs/wants of the City of Detroit first/?

Just trying to determine the priorities as Detroit must make some hard decisions