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.
You're right on, MS313. This guy has no clue about how a trunk-line, feeder-bus system works. Chicago and even New York have great rail systems, but many of their residents and close-in suburbanites reach rail heads by bus (or in limited circumstances, drive). It's ridiculous to think rapid transit must be within walking distance of every resident in order for it to be successful.
This is probably why I kept saying all that time that it's pointless to implement a few rail stops in an area 6 times the size of London Metro with about a third of it's population and no reliable bus system to take the people to and from the rail stations.
Or do you only read the posts of the people you agree with ?
Folks we are not going to convince this fine gentleman (Umma); he doesn't want to pay the extra $200 a year in taxes to establish a functional, big-city transit system that should have been built decades ago. He is content with the Detroit Metropolitan area having the worst public transit of ALL top 20 metro areas.
He also doesn't seem to comprehend that paying for a road repair plan and paying for better rapid transit are not mutually exclusive.
WE SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO PAY EXTRA TAXES FOR ROAD REPAIRS ANYWAY! Shouldn't funding for roads come from the same tax sources that have been funding roads for 120 years?
But he does highlight something troubling - the decentralized nature of this region. We have a weak core - not enough people work downtown. Massive office and employment districts exist in the suburbs of Southfield, Auburn Hills, Dearborn, and Troy. This area is not unique in that - Miami, Dallas-Fort Worth and Los Angeles are decentralized as well, yet they have much better transit and rapid rail lines.
This stagnation is predominantly due to our dependency on 1 industry, but it is also the result of having the least economically viable central city in the country . The 3 Bus Rapid Transit lines will make coming downtown for work and play easier/more convenient and will make it more attractive for companies to move downtown from the suburbs, from other states, from other countries.
A decentralized, suburb-centric metro area is one that will continue to stagnate.
Last edited by usroute10; 08-31-2016 at 05:01 PM..
"TheProf" "Geo-Aggie" Thank you for bringing up the SLC argument. Case closed right there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma
Very different crime levels and socio-demographic makeup, for starters.
Now it's a crime and demographics issue? lol. I'll take this one. The crime rates and demographics have absolutely nothing to do with why Detroit has the worst mass transit system of most major cities. Especially since people from all neighborhoods and demographic backgrounds use it in other cities.
Detroit has too much crime:
Exhibit A: St. Louis, New Orleans, Philly, Baltimore-DC, Cleveland, Oakland, Chicago, LA, Miami, even Memphis has streetcars.
Detroit doesn't have enough traffic:
Exhibit B: St. Louis, New Orleans, Cleveland, Salt Lake City, Memphis, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Buffalo, even Albuquerque has BRT lol.
Detroit is not "there yet" (whatever that means):
Exhibit C: Buffalo, STL, Memphis, Cleveland, Baltimore, are not what I would call booming. And they are still a hell of alot smaller than Metro Detroit.
Detroit is too spread out:
Exhibit D: Los Angeles, Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Dallas.
Most people in Metro Detroit work in the suburbs:
Exhibit E: Refer to exhibit D. But I got news for you... there isn't one major metro area in the entire country where over 50% of the metro area works in the city. Not NYC, not DC, not SF (in fact, their commuting patterns are similar percentage to Detroit). But take a look at Detroit's commuting patterns, it's a fact that there more people commuting into Detroit than Troy or Southfield or Warren or anywhere else (like any other city). Which is the obvious reason why the heavier traffic is going into Detroit in the morning and out of Detroit in the evening.
If Detroit had rail, it wouldn't reach most people's houses. It doesn't in any other city either, even NYC doesn't have door to door transit. They have to go to the rail line to use it. Much like people in Detroit have to go to a freeway to use it. I mean come on, you know better than that. You lived in Atlanta who's suburbs are much more spread out. Most Chicago burbs are very similar to most Detroit burbs with few exceptions.
Any other myths we need to debunk?
Quote:
This is probably why I kept saying all that time that it's pointless to implement a few rail stops in an area 6 times the size of London Metro with about a third of it's population and no reliable bus system to take the people to and from the rail stations.
Or do you only read the posts of the people you agree with ?
Do you honestly think the bus routes would stay the same if there were rail lines going through the region? Making changes to bus schedules isn't that hard, in fact they do it all the time. If rail lines needed feeder buses, they would just change the routes to make the buses go to the rail stations. That is literally the easiest, quickest, and cheapest thing to change to transit.
Quote:
Folks we are not going to convince this fine gentleman (Umma); he doesn't want to pay the extra $200 a year in taxes to establish a functional, big-city transit system that should have been built decades ago. He is content with the Detroit Metropolitan area having the worst public transit of ALL top 20 metro areas.
Pretty much, it was a nice debate though I'll give him that. At least he raised concerns and defended his position, I can respect that even if we disagree.
Folks we are not going to convince this fine gentleman (Umma); he doesn't want to pay the extra $200 a year in taxes to establish a functional, big-city transit system that should have been built decades ago. He is content with the Detroit Metropolitan area having the worst public transit of ALL top 20 metro areas.
Not a single person was able to explain to me how you're going to make this "functional, big city transit system" work with just a few rail stations in the very large area and no functional, big city bus system to take the people to and from them. Also how you make it work when we indeed have a very decentralized, extremely spread out employment and residential network and most of what's supposed to be our central city is a post-apocalyptic war zone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10
He also doesn't seem to comprehend that paying for a road repair plan and paying for better rapid transit are not mutually exclusive.
No, but how many $200 per year tax increases do you propose to pay for both ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10
WE SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO PAY EXTRA TAXES FOR ROAD REPAIRS ANYWAY! Shouldn't funding for roads come from the same tax sources that have been funding roads for 120 years?
Ever heard of prioritizing ? When you have limited funds, you spend them where they make most impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10
But he does highlight something troubling - the decentralized nature of this region. We have a weak core - not enough people work downtown. Massive office and employment districts exist in the suburbs of Southfield, Auburn Hills, Dearborn, and Troy. This area is not unique in that - Miami, Dallas-Fort Worth and Los Angeles are decentralized as well, yet they have much better transit and rapid rail lines.
Because they were far more functional to begin with - or rather, never deteriorated to the point where 80% of their downtown was an area in which most working, tax paying people wouldn't ever set their foot.
Yes, just like the rapid transit system helped to transform South Chicago. Oh, nevermind...
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10
This metro area has had the same population for almost 50 years - it has hovered between 4.2 and 4.6 million since 1970, while the metros of non-sunbelt cities like Minneapolis, Seattle, and even Chicago have been growing decade after decade.
None of these cities ever deteriorated to the same point as Detroit. Seattle was in a very bad shape back in the early 80s but then Microsoft happened. Our single industry was in decline for the past 40 years, theirs experienced it's big boom in the last 20.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10
This stagnation is predominantly due to our dependency on 1 industry, but it is also the result of having the least economically viable central city in the country . The 3 Bus Rapid Transit lines will make coming downtown for work and play easier/more convenient and will make it more attractive for companies to move downtown from the suburbs, from other states, from other countries.
It's not particularly inconvenient to drive downtown already, the traffic is not what stops people from going to 6 mile and Outer drive at 8 pm. What stops it from becoming the new Seattle is all those thugs with guns, abandoned and burned down homes, drug pushers and drug users, prostitutes and carjackers that encircle the livable part of downtown. How are you going to get rid of them ? By running them over with a railway car ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10
A decentralized, suburb-centric metro area is one that will continue to stagnate.
Yes, just like Phoenix, AZ. Or Sarasota.
Detroit's problem preventing suburbanites from flocking to downtown is not the lack of mass transit or heavy traffic. It's the crime and decay.
Last edited by Ummagumma; 08-31-2016 at 06:34 PM..
This is probably why I kept saying all that time that it's pointless to implement a few rail stops in an area 6 times the size of London Metro with about a third of it's population and no reliable bus system to take the people to and from the rail stations.
Or do you only read the posts of the people you agree with ?
Six times? M-25, the Suburban Belt-Route for London is anywhere from about 30-35 miles across, as the crow flies (or in this case as the measure distance ruler works in Google Maps). People live farther out than that, but I feel it's a good indication of the typical suburban sprawl of London. Do you know what else is about 30-35 miles using the measure distance ruler?
Wixom to St. Clair Shores.
Rochester to Grosse Ile
Canton to Clinton
Downtown Detroit to Clarkston
Granted transit is more central to the city center of London, but it exists in the suburbs and exurbs to a point and I don't think anyone is expecting a stop at every corner in Macomb Township. Drive to a Park N Ride or walk to the station on a mile street - people do this in metros all across the nation and globe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10
But he does highlight something troubling - the decentralized nature of this region. We have a weak core - not enough people work downtown. Massive office and employment districts exist in the suburbs of Southfield, Auburn Hills, Dearborn, and Troy. This area is not unique in that - Miami, Dallas-Fort Worth and Los Angeles are decentralized as well, yet they have much better transit and rapid rail lines.
I think you'll find this in many cities that aren't geographically limited in the way NYC, Boston or Seattle are. Los Angeles Metro has so many "central business districts" that it's kind of amusing, same with Phoenix and Salt Lake is well on its way to getting there with its shift from Downtown being central to suburban office complexes in West Valley, Draper, and Lehi
Six times? M-25, the Suburban Belt-Route for London is anywhere from about 30-35 miles across, as the crow flies (or in this case as the measure distance ruler works in Google Maps). People live farther out than that, but I feel it's a good indication of the typical suburban sprawl of London. Do you know what else is about 30-35 miles using the measure distance ruler?
Wixom to St. Clair Shores.
Rochester to Grosse Ile
Canton to Clinton
Downtown Detroit to Clarkston
Granted transit is more central to the city center of London, but it exists in the suburbs and exurbs to a point and I don't think anyone is expecting a stop at every corner in Macomb Township. Drive to a Park N Ride or walk to the station on a mile street - people do this in metros all across the nation and globe.
I think you'll find this in many cities that aren't geographically limited in the way NYC, Boston or Seattle are. Los Angeles Metro has so many "central business districts" that it's kind of amusing, same with Phoenix and Salt Lake is well on its way to getting there with its shift from Downtown being central to suburban office complexes in West Valley, Draper, and Lehi
First of all, I did make a mistake - the Metro London is only 20% less than Metro Detroit, with 3 times as much population.
The London Urban area is what I was thinking about - 671 sq miles and nearly 10 million people. Vs Metro Detroit's 3,900 sq miles and 4.3 million people.
However what is important here is population density. Even comparing the Metro areas, in London it's 5 times higher than in Metro Detroit. So to provide the same level of transportation service, you would have to install 1.2 x times more bus stops than in London, with only 0.2 the number of paying passengers. (Actually even less because most will still prefer to drive). In other words, you'd have to charge 6 times the price of ticket to get the same revenue - and in London, they still heavily subsidize their mass transportation, and the tickets aren't exactly cheap.
You're welcome to make the same comparison with LA.
This is why nobody is even talking about creating a comprehensive mass transit in Metro Detroit - we simply don't have the funds to subsidize it at the high enough levels to keep the ticket price within reason.
So all of your examples are moot. The proposal is not to create the "Wixom to St Claire and Canton to Clinton" transportation network. They want to have a few stops connecting a few suburban locations with downtown and airport, where it would still be up to you to drive to these few suburban locations from wherever you live, find parking, pay parking fee, pay for the ticket, wait for the train - which for the vast majority of Metro D residents would be simply too inconvenient given that they can get to downtown in about 45 minutes by car. And it would cost an average family $200 per year (according to TheProf, I believe) whether they use this fine system or not.
In my opinion, this is a typical example of a system designed to penalize many to benefit a few. It will not solve the City's crime, drugs and socio-demographic problems but it will greatly benefit people who invested in downtown development, as well as the relatively small percentage of metro population living within reasonable distance from these rail stations.
In other words, let's all pitch in to help Dan Gilbert make a nice return on his downtown investment.
As much as I respect Mr Gilbert, and I honestly do, I can find far better use for my money. Fixing the roads would be my first choice.
Last edited by Ummagumma; 09-01-2016 at 08:36 AM..
So all of your examples are moot. The proposal is not to create the "Wixom to St Claire and Canton to Clinton" transportation network. They want to have a few stops connecting a few suburban locations with downtown and airport, where it would still be up to you to drive to these few suburban locations from wherever you live, find parking, pay parking fee, pay for the ticket, wait for the train - which for the vast majority of Metro D residents would be simply too inconvenient given that they can get to downtown in about 45 minutes by car. And it would cost an average family $200 per year (according to TheProf, I believe) whether they use this fine system or not.
In my opinion, this is a typical example of a system designed to penalize many to benefit a few. It will not solve the City's crime, drugs and socio-demographic problems but it will greatly benefit people who invested in downtown development, as well as the relatively small percentage of metro population living within reasonable distance from these rail stations.
But suburbanites from Philadelphia to Cleveland to Miami to Baltimore to Houston to Atlanta to Portland to Oakland to Minneapolis to Denver to Charlotte to St. Louis to Washington DC have the same issue yet they built their systems. I am sure people can get to downtown Baltimore or downtown Portland or downtown Minneapolis in 45 minutes by car as well.
You are right, the crime is the BIGGEST obstacle holding the city back, but without improved transit and rapid transit, Detroit's comeback will be stifled to a degree no matter what.
But suburbanites from Philadelphia to Cleveland to Miami to Baltimore to Houston to Atlanta to Portland to Oakland to Minneapolis to Denver to Charlotte to St. Louis to Washington DC have the same issue yet they built their systems. I am sure people can get to downtown Baltimore or downtown Portland or downtown Minneapolis in 45 minutes by car as well.
You are right, the crime is the BIGGEST obstacle holding the city back, but without improved transit and rapid transit, Detroit's comeback will be stifled to a degree no matter what.
But this is my point all along. You learn to walk before you start to run. At some point in D's comeback the mass transit will become a necessity. It will happen when enough working and tax paying people either want to lve in the city, or work in the city, or entertain themselves in the city. But we are far, far from there yet. The majority of Metro area residents work, live and play outside of the city. Too much of the city is a crime infested jungle. Building the mass transit now will not change these two facts.
And the show stopper is that the proposal is asking every Metro resident to pay for this while only a fraction of them will see any benefits. And the biggest beneficiaries will be the investors and developers who put the money in rebuilding downtown. Call me selfish but I don't want to pay for appreciation of Gilbert's properties while my daily drive is on the roads that look like they belong somewhere in Craplakistan and the state is telling me I would have to live with it for the foreseeable future.
This proposal needs to find a different source of funding.
First of all, I did make a mistake - the Metro London is only 20% less than Metro Detroit, with 3 times as much population.
The London Urban area is what I was thinking about - 671 sq miles and nearly 10 million people. Vs Metro Detroit's 3,900 sq miles and 4.3 million people.
However what is important here is population density. Even comparing the Metro areas, in London it's 5 times higher than in Metro Detroit. So to provide the same level of transportation service, you would have to install 1.2 x times more bus stops than in London, with only 0.2 the number of paying passengers. (Actually even less because most will still prefer to drive). In other words, you'd have to charge 6 times the price of ticket to get the same revenue - and in London, they still heavily subsidize their mass transportation, and the tickets aren't exactly cheap.
You're welcome to make the same comparison with LA.
This is why nobody is even talking about creating a comprehensive mass transit in Metro Detroit - we simply don't have the funds to subsidize it at the high enough levels to keep the ticket price within reason.
So all of your examples are moot. The proposal is not to create the "Wixom to St Claire and Canton to Clinton" transportation network. They want to have a few stops connecting a few suburban locations with downtown and airport, where it would still be up to you to drive to these few suburban locations from wherever you live, find parking, pay parking fee, pay for the ticket, wait for the train - which for the vast majority of Metro D residents would be simply too inconvenient given that they can get to downtown in about 45 minutes by car. And it would cost an average family $200 per year (according to TheProf, I believe) whether they use this fine system or not.
In my opinion, this is a typical example of a system designed to penalize many to benefit a few. It will not solve the City's crime, drugs and socio-demographic problems but it will greatly benefit people who invested in downtown development, as well as the relatively small percentage of metro population living within reasonable distance from these rail stations.
In other words, let's all pitch in to help Dan Gilbert make a nice return on his downtown investment.
As much as I respect Mr Gilbert, and I honestly do, I can find far better use for my money. Fixing the roads would be my first choice.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up London. Most American cities shouldn't even be in the same discussion with overseas cities in terms of transit and population densities. Most overseas cities put America to shame in those categories. NYC is likely the only city that holds it's own against overseas cities in the "urban" category. So you argument for Detroit being too spread out and why it won't work if extremely flawed, in YOUR OWN WORDS population density is what's important here... well:
Urban areas population density per square mile:
Atlanta: 1,706.9
Philly: 2,746.4
Boston: 2,231.7
Detroit: 2,792.5
Again, in your own words "population density is what's important".
Quote:
But this is my point all along. You learn to walk before you start to run. At some point in D's comeback the mass transit will become a necessity. It will happen when enough working and tax paying people either want to lve in the city, or work in the city, or entertain themselves in the city. But we are far, far from there yet. The majority of Metro area residents work, live and play outside of the city. Too much of the city is a crime infested jungle. Building the mass transit now will not change these two facts.
Most Metro Detroit residents don't "play" in the city? then why are all of these festivals, events, concerts, sports teams, museums, restaurants, bars, clubs, casinos, ect in the city. When you go downtown, most of the people at most of the events, and establishments, and casinos, and nightlife, and whatever else are people who live in the suburbs. Even many of the strip clubs across the city get alot of customers from the suburbs. The downtown Detroit area is the hub of Metro Detroit's entertainment.
Quote:
Not a single person was able to explain to me how you're going to make this "functional, big city transit system" work with just a few rail stations in the very large area and no functional, big city bus system to take the people to and from them. Also how you make it work when we indeed have a very decentralized, extremely spread out employment and residential network and most of what's supposed to be our central city is a post-apocalyptic war zone.
I explained it to you. Time and time again. The central city btw is mostly occupied with a population density right in the middle of the pack of other US major cities.
So all of your examples are moot. The proposal is not to create the "Wixom to St Claire and Canton to Clinton" transportation network. They want to have a few stops connecting a few suburban locations with downtown and airport, where it would still be up to you to drive to these few suburban locations from wherever you live, find parking, pay parking fee, pay for the ticket, wait for the train - which for the vast majority of Metro D residents would be simply too inconvenient given that they can get to downtown in about 45 minutes by car. And it would cost an average family $200 per year (according to TheProf, I believe) whether they use this fine system or not.
Wow, strawman much? I'm well aware of what is initially proposed. I was citing far flung outer-ring exurban areas as examples of Detroit being about the same size as London.
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.
