Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BTW, I wish I could take a photo of the large SMART bus that was in the line right next to me on Orchard Lake rd on the way from work, with exactly one passenger. And that's in the rush hour traffic, when supposedly the public transportation should be in high demand. Yes, we need more of them on a public dime.
Don't you think that a better transportation system, with commuter rail, light rail, express buses, etc would equate to HIGHER RIDERSHIP. The reason why ridership is low is because the public transportation system sucks BECAUSE the metro area has not invested in it.
Also, a lot of SMART buses that are filled pretty well. Woodward, Michigan, John R, Park-n-ride busses are standing room only sometimes.
Don't you think that a better transportation system, with commuter rail, light rail, express buses, etc would equate to HIGHER RIDERSHIP. The reason why ridership is low is because the public transportation system sucks BECAUSE the metro area has not invested in it.
Also, a lot of SMART buses that are filled pretty well. Woodward, Michigan, John R, Park-n-ride busses are standing room only sometimes.
No it won't. Once you get off the bus, you still must get to where you're going. And in Metro Detroit, this means you still need a car. Unless you quite literally put a bus stop every 3 blocks across the entire, huge Metro area - not going to happen and most certainly wouldn't be anywhere near $4.6 bln.
These buses that you see filled are going to or from the city. The routes going through the suburbs are near empty and honestly, a waste of public funds. I am not calling for stopping them, but recognize them for what they are - a form of public welfare, where taxpayers that are not using them are subsidizing the buses for the relatively few low income people who ride them.
The thing is, the transportation system only makes sense in the high population density urban areas. Where you can transport a whole lot of people and they all live compactly and don't have to walk for two miles after getting off that bus. And the problem with applying this to the Metro area is, the vast majority of taxpayers don't live in the city and won't use the system because it's going to be hugely inconvenient for them, and the people most likely to use RTA don't pay much taxes. This is what kills RTA, not some evil masterminds who don't want to see Detroit succeed.
In Boston, Chicago, NYC and especially in Europe, the people who subsidize the transportation network are also the people using it. In the Metro area, this is simply not going to be the case. And the taxpayers will not take kindly to yet another expansion of services that they will have to support financially without directly benefitting from them. This is why I keep telling you and others that the city must turn into a desirable middle class community before funding RTA becomes an acceptable proposition.
To give you a perspective: the Metro Detroit has 4.3 million people living on 3,900 sq miles.
London megapolis has 9.8 million people living on 671 sq miles. More than double the population on about 1/6th of area. And London is considered huge by European standards.
You can't take the transportation system that London enjoys and make it work for Detroit without incurring absolutely horrendous costs, or making it incredibly inconvenient - or both.
Last edited by Ummagumma; 08-26-2016 at 12:01 PM..
Don't you think that a better transportation system, with commuter rail, light rail, express buses, etc would equate to HIGHER RIDERSHIP. The reason why ridership is low is because the public transportation system sucks BECAUSE the metro area has not invested in it.
Also, a lot of SMART buses that are filled pretty well. Woodward, Michigan, John R, Park-n-ride busses are standing room only sometimes.
Great point... Probably the best service on Detroit buses I've had has been in the Woodward Corridor from downtown to Midtown and New Center, which is where the M-1 light rail will serve. The buses were frequent and full which indicates to me that, as bad as the system is now, people still use it; and if it were bigger and better, ie with a serious, fast and efficient rail component, people would use it.
Anti-transit folks love to paint the worst case scenario as to why people supposedly won't transit... They tried that stuff in Los Angeles in the late 1970s, early-80s... Now look it LA. It has one of the largest and fastest growing rail networks in the nation; and riders are hungry for more rail. Concomitant with this growth is the fact that LA's infatuation with freeway exit, strip/sprawl development has been replaced with serious growth of high-density, TOD development both downtown and along rail routes. Now Union station, a hub for Metro Link commuter rail, LRT and HRT buzzes with activity, especially at rush hour, like its Eastern counterparts: Grand Central, 30th Street and Washington's Union Station, to name a few...
Great point... Probably the best service on Detroit buses I've had has been in the Woodward Corridor from downtown to Midtown and New Center, which is where the M-1 light rail will serve. The buses were frequent and full which indicates to me that, as bad as the system is now, people still use it; and if it were bigger and better, ie with a serious, fast and efficient rail component, people would use it.
Anti-transit folks love to paint the worst case scenario as to why people supposedly won't transit... They tried that stuff in Los Angeles in the late 1970s, early-80s... Now look it LA. It has one of the largest and fastest growing rail networks in the nation; and riders are hungry for more rail. Concomitant with this growth is the fact that LA's infatuation with freeway exit, strip/sprawl development has been replaced with serious growth of high-density, TOD development both downtown and along rail routes. Now Union station, a hub for Metro Link commuter rail, LRT and HRT buzzes with activity, especially at rush hour, like its Eastern counterparts: Grand Central, 30th Street and Washington's Union Station, to name a few...
Don't believe it can't happen in Detroit, too...
Read my reply above. In LA, NYC, Boston, Chicago, etc. the group of population that paid taxes to support mass transit was also largely the same group using it. Not every person of course, but as the group the taxpayers directly and immediately benefitted from supporting mass transit.
In Metro, this is simply not the case. You can't create a mass transit system to cover most of the 3,900 square miles so that people could get off the bus and walk a reasonable distance to get where they have to go. So the RTA would mainly benefit city dwellers and there's just not enough of them paying taxes. The system will succeed when it benefits the majority of people who have to support it financially. And that means building up the middle class in Detroit first. Being a Professor as your user name implies, I am surprised you can't grasp that simple concept.
Read my reply above. In LA, NYC, Boston, Chicago, etc. the group of population that paid taxes to support mass transit was also largely the same group using it. Not every person of course, but as the group the taxpayers directly and immediately benefitted from supporting mass transit.
In Metro, this is simply not the case. You can't create a mass transit system to cover most of the 3,900 square miles so that people could get off the bus and walk a reasonable distance to get where they have to go. So the RTA would mainly benefit city dwellers and there's just not enough of them paying taxes. The system will succeed when it benefits the majority of people who have to support it financially. And that means building up the middle class in Detroit first. Being a Professor as your user name implies, I am surprised you can't grasp that simple concept.
It's hard to grasp a concept that makes no sense. Obviously you have a pro-roads, anti-transit agenda which is sadly too typical in Detroit and other Midwestern cities. But your "logic" flies in the face of facts. Detroit needs a real solution and not the failed, dogmatic policies of ideologues.
To follow your thinking, places like Dallas, Denver or SLC should never have started rapid transit projects because all were light-to-moderate density cities. And yet each of these cities -- and others like them -- have built extensive rail systems that are drawing lots of passengers and influencing smart growth: high-density residential and/or mixed-use TOD growth at or near transit stations. People like you will continue to spout the continuous 'now is not the time' drivel ad infinitum not recognizing that without adequate mass transit Detroit will continue to hemorrhage people as density will grow less and the population/density threshold you set to justify rapid transit, whatever it is, will never come.
Fact is, downtown Detroit's growth alone, as well as shoulder growth in areas like Midtown and the Jefferson/east river area more than make the case for rapid transit right now. Downtown is becoming a desirable area for people to work and play once again, and residents from Oakland, Macomb, Detroit's outer, livable areas and elsewhere coming back down, especially for big events; but the current concrete ribbon is inadequate to service that need. If you knew anything about the history of rapid transit, you'd know that some of the most successful systems in this country extended rapid transit -- elevated trains in the case of Manhattan and Chicago -- into barren farm lands in an effort to direct smart growth out from their crowded downtown and close in areas. I would say, in both cases, planners got it right in spades.
Detroit has a golden opportunity to repopulate and grow its burned/run down areas of the city with growth stemming from quality rail rapid transit. It's not like this is without precedent... But voices like yours will continue the tired and sad policies that perpetuate the doughnut -- prosperous suburbs surrounding the rotten core -- setup metro Detroit is fighting to escape from.
...Detroit has a golden opportunity to repopulate and grow its burned/run down areas of the city with growth stemming from quality rail rapid transit. It's not like this is without precedent... But voices like yours will continue the tired and sad policies that perpetuate the doughnut -- prosperous suburbs surrounding the rotten core -- setup metro Detroit is fighting to escape from.
This is what I've seen so much of in Detroit. An attitude of "This city is failed, but we should keep doing the same stuff."
I don't understand it. A city will work as well as the public services allow it to. This is why we have government. Dan Gilbert can't revive 140 square miles alone. If your city has no street lights and vacant structures, expect more crime. If your city has no high density areas, expect sprawl. If your city has no transit, expect bordering fiefdoms where low-income parts decline while high-income parts do well. Is that what we want? Do residents in Oakland and Macomb Counties have such a hatred of Detroit that they don't want to share anything with it outside of a geographic region? I hate to break it to you all, but the success of Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw and Western Wayne Counties depend on the success of Detroit.
It's hard to grasp a concept that makes no sense. Obviously you have a pro-roads, anti-transit agenda which is sadly too typical in Detroit and other Midwestern cities. But your "logic" flies in the face of facts. Detroit needs a real solution and not the failed, dogmatic policies of ideologues.
To follow your thinking, places like Dallas, Denver or SLC should never have started rapid transit projects because all were light-to-moderate density cities. And yet each of these cities -- and others like them -- have built extensive rail systems that are drawing lots of passengers and influencing smart growth: high-density residential and/or mixed-use TOD growth at or near transit stations. People like you will continue to spout the continuous 'now is not the time' drivel ad infinitum not recognizing that without adequate mass transit Detroit will continue to hemorrhage people as density will grow less and the population/density threshold you set to justify rapid transit, whatever it is, will never come.
Fact is, downtown Detroit's growth alone, as well as shoulder growth in areas like Midtown and the Jefferson/east river area more than make the case for rapid transit right now. Downtown is becoming a desirable area for people to work and play once again, and residents from Oakland, Macomb, Detroit's outer, livable areas and elsewhere coming back down, especially for big events; but the current concrete ribbon is inadequate to service that need. If you knew anything about the history of rapid transit, you'd know that some of the most successful systems in this country extended rapid transit -- elevated trains in the case of Manhattan and Chicago -- into barren farm lands in an effort to direct smart growth out from their crowded downtown and close in areas. I would say, in both cases, planners got it right in spades.
Detroit has a golden opportunity to repopulate and grow its burned/run down areas of the city with growth stemming from quality rail rapid transit. It's not like this is without precedent... But voices like yours will continue the tired and sad policies that perpetuate the doughnut -- prosperous suburbs surrounding the rotten core -- setup metro Detroit is fighting to escape from.
My logic is very simple.
If you want any taxpayer funded proposal to succeed, make it so that it benefits a large proportion of the people who will end up paying for it.
Does this really make no sense to you ?
People is the suburbs will not use mass transit in part because they prefer cars, and in part because the majority of them will have to walk long distances after getting off the bus.
Downtown Detroit growth alone will not pay for RTA. It could probably support downtown transit system with express service to Royal Oak and perhaps a few other neighborhoods. But not an expanded system.
Having a fast transit system will not make people move to drug infested, crime ridden areas. This is a pipe dream. You have to fix them first.
If you want any taxpayer funded proposal to succeed, make it so that it benefits a large proportion of the people who will end up paying for it.
Does this really make no sense to you ?
People is the suburbs will not use mass transit in part because they prefer cars, and in part because the majority of them will have to walk long distances after getting off the bus.
Downtown Detroit growth alone will not pay for RTA. It could probably support downtown transit system with express service to Royal Oak and perhaps a few other neighborhoods. But not an expanded system.
Having a fast transit system will not make people move to drug infested, crime ridden areas. This is a pipe dream. You have to fix them first.
I'm going to punt because we're talking past each other... I'll just say that the drug infested areas will cease to be that if you build quality mass transit. It won't happen overnight, but the pressure for high-quality, convenient urban living will drive the druggies outta there. Unfortunately oftentimes, the higher RE prices and rents drive out the hard working residents left behind. We've seen this in places like D.C.'s U Street neighborhood which was a riot/drug corridor from the 60s turned lily white yuppie/hipster just 2 decades after the Green Line Metro came to the neighborhood... There should be a balance with affordable housing units in these upgraded areas. Cleveland is doing this now as a hedge against total gentrification in Ohio City, Detroit Shoreway and Tremont, among others.
I'm going to punt because we're talking past each other... I'll just say that the drug infested areas will cease to be that if you build quality mass transit. It won't happen overnight, but the pressure for high-quality, convenient urban living will drive the druggies outta there. Unfortunately oftentimes, the higher RE prices and rents drive out the hard working residents left behind. We've seen this in places like D.C.'s U Street neighborhood which was a riot/drug corridor from the 60s turned lily white yuppie/hipster just 2 decades after the Green Line Metro came to the neighborhood... There should be a balance with affordable housing units in these upgraded areas. Cleveland is doing this now as a hedge against total gentrification in Ohio City, Detroit Shoreway and Tremont, among others.
No they won't. The majority of people could move to Detroit today without having any mass transit. I have plenty of friends working downtown and they have no problems commuting daily. Detroit is not LA or NYC, if was pretty much built with cars in mind from the 1920s. It's not like trying to leave Manhattan in a rush hour when you may as well just stay till the night. It's a very drivable car friendly city.
Just because you make it convenient to get there won't all of a sudden make it attractive. Before you create the economic pressure forcing the druggies to move out because the entire streets are being bought up and rebuilt, you need to reach a critical point where the people can feel safe sleeping at their homes at night. Providing a transit system will not do that. You said yourself that St Louis has a far better transit system, yet they have major problems with blight and crime.
I am not at all opposed to having a mass transit system, but it's not the key to making crime infested ghettos livable. It's time will come when the city is already on the way up, people are moving in, and the need for public transportation starts manifest itself to those actually capable of supporting it financially. Until then, it will always be seen as yet another white elephant project that does not address the immediate needs of the people whose taxes are paying the bill for it.
Here's a street view of a random part of the city. It didn't take me even 3 minutes to find this great property surrounded by similarly great properties. These two houses are across the road from each other. And the road is in a tip top shape with no traffic, so getting there shouldn't be a problem even now. How, pray tell, would adding a bus line to this neighborhood all of a sudden make it so desirable that middle class families would all of a sudden trip over each other to relocate here ?
There are situations where developing public transportation would push a declining neighborhood back to prosperity, but it's not the case here. You have a patient in coma and you're proposing buying him a nice elliptical so that he could lose extra weight.
Last edited by Ummagumma; 08-27-2016 at 01:37 PM..
No it won't. Once you get off the bus, you still must get to where you're going. And in Metro Detroit, this means you still need a car. Unless you quite literally put a bus stop every 3 blocks across the entire, huge Metro area - not going to happen and most certainly wouldn't be anywhere near $4.6 bln.
These buses that you see filled are going to or from the city. The routes going through the suburbs are near empty and honestly, a waste of public funds. I am not calling for stopping them, but recognize them for what they are - a form of public welfare, where taxpayers that are not using them are subsidizing the buses for the relatively few low income people who ride them.
The thing is, the transportation system only makes sense in the high population density urban areas. Where you can transport a whole lot of people and they all live compactly and don't have to walk for two miles after getting off that bus. And the problem with applying this to the Metro area is, the vast majority of taxpayers don't live in the city and won't use the system because it's going to be hugely inconvenient for them, and the people most likely to use RTA don't pay much taxes. This is what kills RTA, not some evil masterminds who don't want to see Detroit succeed.
The main features of the RTA's plan are:
1. Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter rail - this route's purpose is get people from the vicinities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Dearborn, and downtown Detroit to the airport in a fast manner using existing rail infrastructure
2. 3 Rapid Transit Bus Lines down Woodward, Michigan Avenue, and Gratiot; the purpose is to get Detroit residents out to the suburbs in a fast manner, and TO GET SUBURBAN PROFESSIONALS TO THEIR JOBS IN MIDTOWN AND DOWNTOWN DETROIT IN A FAST MANNER. Transit stops will be at every mile road, so just like with Park-n-Ride buses, suburbanites will park at a parking lot at the station (or be dropped off by their spouses), and take the rapid bus downtown.
3. Express buses from different suburban areas to the airport - the purpose is to get suburbanites from areas of Macomb and Oakland to the airport in a fast manner
THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE RTA IS NOT A HAVE A BUS ON EVERY SINGLE MILE ROAD STOPPING AT EVERY SINGLE SUBURBAN SUBDIVISION. IT IS TO GET PEOPLE TO/FROM DOWNTOWN AND TO/FROM THE AIRPORT, as well as to provide a reasonable amount of service to get to/from high-employment centers like Troy, and to initiate service on select commercial roads that should have service, like Ryan Road through Warren.
THE RTA IS GEARED TOWARD SUBURBANITES
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
