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.
Since Detroiters are discussing public transit and its failures and, yet, its possibilities, I thought this would be a great time to post this link which popped up fairly recently, and has generated conversation across the net. I was going to post it in the transit thread, but figured it merited its own, so here:
... just wonder what you guy's thoughts are on this. What would Detroit be like if this plan had been executed (65 miles), or even half of it ... by at least World War II?
Can something like this be revived on some level? And where could it take Detroit?
NOTE: I had no idea Detroit was this close to having a subway. This plan materialized a decade before the short Davidson Expressway stub, Detroit's (and perhaps America's) first urban limited access roadway (aka: freeway). At the very least, per the history, the comments to this link and the hyperlink to a late 1960s/early 70s Ford Motor Company rapid transit plan, in my mind the longtime silly argument by some Detroiters that the Big 3 perpetually stood in the way of rapid transit development for Motown can be put to bed... forever.
I don’t think it would have made much impact and would probably have been closed by now. People would have moved to the suburbs and a subway system would not have enough riders to sustain itself.
Thanks to the prosperity brought about by the automotive industry, Detroiter were able to move out to the suburbs and were not confined to the inner city like their counterparts in other major cities.
Thanks to the prosperity brought about by the automotive industry, Detroiter were able to move out to the suburbs and were not confined to the inner city like their counterparts in other major cities.
No.
People in Detroit moved to suburbs just like in every other city. Nothing is unique about Detroit except the extent of the riots. GI loans meant returning boys could buy houses and everyone in the country wanted a white picket fence in the suburbs, then you add in white flight, you've got the suburb boom of the last half of the 20th century. It happened everywhere.
Boston has a population of 650k from a high of 800k in 1950. 7.35 million people live in the CSA but not in Boston. Still has one of the best systems in the US.
NYC has a population of 8m. 15m people live in the CSA but not in NYC, best system in the US. The city population has slowly grown since 1950, but the CSA has doubled.
Philadelphia has 1.6m people from a high of 2m in 1950. 5.6m people live in the CSA but not Philadelphia. Still a pretty good system.
Chicago has 2.7m people from a high of 3.6m in 1950. 7.2m live in the CSA but not Chicago. 2nd best system in the US
Since Detroiters are discussing public transit and its failures and, yet, its possibilities, I thought this would be a great time to post this link which popped up fairly recently, and has generated conversation across the net. I was going to post it in the transit thread, but figured it merited its own, so here:
... just wonder what you guy's thoughts are on this. What would Detroit be like if this plan had been executed (65 miles), or even half of it ... by at least World War II?
Can something like this be revived on some level? And where could it take Detroit?
NOTE: I had no idea Detroit was this close to having a subway. This plan materialized a decade before the short Davidson Expressway stub, Detroit's (and perhaps America's) first urban limited access roadway (aka: freeway). At the very least, per the history, the comments to this link and the hyperlink to a late 1960s/early 70s Ford Motor Company rapid transit plan, in my mind the longtime silly argument by some Detroiters that the Big 3 perpetually stood in the way of rapid transit development for Motown can be put to bed... forever.
GREAT THOUGHTS, Scorpio!
Prof, like your city (Cleveland) and every other older city, we would have still had massive white flight and disinvestment, but I think the renaissance of downtown would have happened sooner (like Cleveland did).
Detroit would have remained a "neighborhood" city that would have retained/resurrected its major neighborhood commercial districts that were along those proposed rapid transit lines like Greenfield/Grand River (had 4 department stores!!) and 7 Mile/Gratiot (now completely demolished for strip malls). Detroit does not have any destination neighborhoods like a Wicker Park, Chicago. or Ohio City, Cleveland.
Also, much of that system was oriented toward getting people to the large industrial facilities in Highland Park, Hamtramck, and downriver/Dearborn. It would be interesting to see if Highland Park and lowly regarded downriver suburbs like Lincoln Park, River Rouge, and Ecorse would be more revitalized if they had rapid transit lines in/near them.
Greenfield/Grand River in the 1970's
courtesy of city-data forum
I do think there is something that was unique about Detroit and SE Michigan once upon a time.
That was good paying blue collar jobs the auto industry provided. Those jobs were pretty unique in America once upon a time
If you've ever been to a High School graduation party in Michigan they stem from a time when after high school you could go to work in the plant and make a good living. Those high school parties, while not unique to Michigan, I am told are not overly common elsewhere.
In 1972 at the age of 20 I worked in a Ford plant for the summer at $5.10 an hour. That is worth $30.92 as of February.
That is about $64,000 a year without OT in today's dollars per the BLS. A 20 year old without a college degree making $64,000 a year (today's dollars)
No.
People in Detroit moved to suburbs just like in every other city. Nothing is unique about Detroit except the extent of the riots. GI loans meant returning boys could buy houses and everyone in the country wanted a white picket fence in the suburbs, then you add in white flight, you've got the suburb boom of the last half of the 20th century. It happened everywhere.
Boston has a population of 650k from a high of 800k in 1950. 7.35 million people live in the CSA but not in Boston. Still has one of the best systems in the US.
NYC has a population of 8m. 15m people live in the CSA but not in NYC, best system in the US. The city population has slowly grown since 1950, but the CSA has doubled.
Philadelphia has 1.6m people from a high of 2m in 1950. 5.6m people live in the CSA but not Philadelphia. Still a pretty good system.
Chicago has 2.7m people from a high of 3.6m in 1950. 7.2m live in the CSA but not Chicago. 2nd best system in the US
No. Those cities retained their inner city populations. Detroit did not.
Prof, like your city (Cleveland) and every other older city, we would have still had massive white flight and disinvestment, but I think the renaissance of downtown would have happened sooner (like Cleveland did).
Detroit would have remained a "neighborhood" city that would have retained/resurrected its major neighborhood commercial districts that were along those proposed rapid transit lines like Greenfield/Grand River (had 4 department stores!!) and 7 Mile/Gratiot (now completely demolished for strip malls). Detroit does not have any destination neighborhoods like a Wicker Park, Chicago. or Ohio City, Cleveland.
Also, much of that system was oriented toward getting people to the large industrial facilities in Highland Park, Hamtramck, and downriver/Dearborn. It would be interesting to see if Highland Park and lowly regarded downriver suburbs like Lincoln Park, River Rouge, and Ecorse would be more revitalized if they had rapid transit lines in/near them.
Greenfield/Grand River in the 1970's
courtesy of city-data forum
Cleveland can be a poster-child for Detroiters, and others, who say transit would make no difference. But that would be simplistic. Obviously Cleveland lost massive population (2nd most, per capita, to Detroit), suffered a huge loss in jobs with growing neighborhood blight; yes, all older big American cities suffered a lot of this, in one way or another...
... but look closer... For one thing, Cleveland did in fact have a major head start with transit over so-called Rust Belt cities by building rapid transit but, unfortunately, the actions of one really backwards and nasty city official, County Engineer Albert S. Porter, in the 1950s really blunted transit growth (he killed a downtown subway that would have kept rail growing robustly), vigorously advocated freeways, suburban shopping (and its attendant sprawl) and abandoning downtown and close-in neighborhoods. Porter, alone given his power, really spearheaded a ton of Cleveland's decay... He wasn't the only one, but Porter led the negative charge downward and it led to a domino effect, esp in the loss of corporations, jobs and people.
However Cleveland did not hit rock bottom as hard as Detroit and has experienced a stronger comeback... Some of this is because of quality transit -- the Rapid system isn't what it could have been, but its still a lot better than most. It focused downtown at Terminal Tower, then Tower City building on the huge Union Terminal interconnected, mixed use transit project of the 1920s... this, in turn, sparked the Gateway sports complex, esp the enclosed underground walkway connection to the Cavs area and Indians stadium, which led to housing, restaurant and residential growth that's still happening...
The airport rapid transit has always helped corporate and convention activity, even when it seemed weak in the 70s and 80s. Rapid transit has also helped a number of in-city neighborhoods grow as walkable, mixed use areas, like Shaker Square, Ohio City and now Little Italy/University Circle and lower Detroit-Shoreway... nearby West Boulevard-Cudell and Edgewater (considerably stronger than Cudell) are also growing in this way...
While its encouraging seeing downtown Detroit and Midtown emerging as walkable neighborhoods, they are practically alone. Detroiters and thumb their noses at Cleveland and its transit as justifying their no-transit growth stance... but this is shortsighted and foolish. Neighbor Cleveland, and other cities embracing quality transit, are moving on.
I don’t think it would have made much impact and would probably have been closed by now.
I seriously doubt it. Rapid transit is such a huge investment that few American Cities have actually thrown it away... In fact, the ONLY American city to abandon and completed rapid transit system -- fast, grade separated transit through the neighborhoods with a downtown subway -- is little Rochester, NY, by far the smallest American city to ever developed a fully developed system.
Of course everybody knows Cincinnati never finished its subway system, with its completed tunnels. But as bad as this was, the system was just than ... never finished, a half-mile subway extension taking ROW and tracks to the heart of downtown: Fountain Square, so Cincy never had the fully realized system Rochester had.
Milwaukee and Los Angeles had large interurban systems with lots of grade separated tracks toward their downtowns... but, again, neither of these finished the job with downtown subway, of-street terminals... Cleveland and Newark did, and their rapid transit systems not only survived, but have grown substantially.
Are you saying people in other cities were poor, and only Detroit residents made enough money to buy houses?
Rapid Transit systems don't prevent people from moving to the suburbs. People moved to the suburbs in every city.
Can you name any rapid transit system in the U.S. that was abandoned?
Yes, I am saying that Detroiters were able to move out of the inner city in greater proportion to other cities due to their relatively higher income. This made home ownership more affordable. Metro Detroit has the highest percentage of single family ownership. Also car ownership was highest due to affordability and the fact that so many residents worked in the auto industry. This made the dependence on and appeal of rapid transit much less.
As far as rapid transit systems that were ababndoned, I don’t know. But many mass transit (streetcar) systems were abandoned. And no rapid transit systems were as well developed in the suburbs as they were in the inner cities. In other words, suburbia lends itself better to automotive transportation than rapid transit for the simple reason that the more spread out people are, the more complex their driving patterns, which requires too many line transfers.
Yes, I am saying that Detroiters were able to move out of the inner city in greater proportion to other cities due to their relatively higher income. This made home ownership more affordable. Metro Detroit has the highest percentage of single family ownership. Also car ownership was highest due to affordability and the fact that so many residents worked in the auto industry. This made the dependence on and appeal of rapid transit much less.
As far as rapid transit systems that were abandoned, I don’t know. But many mass transit (streetcar) systems were abandoned. And no rapid transit systems were as well developed in the suburbs as they were in the inner cities. In other words, suburbia lends itself better to automotive transportation than rapid transit for the simple reason that the more spread out people are, the more complex their driving patterns, which requires too many line transfers.
As I said above, Rochester, NY is the only American city that completely abandoned a fully-developed rapid transit system (including high-speed access to downtown and grade-separated/off-street downtown stations/terminals). Rochester is also, by far, the smallest metropolitan area that developed rapid transit; and some in the community would like to revive and expand it -- seems only a remote possibility, however-- such is the price in America for being too progressive and ahead of your time.
Milwaukee, LA and SF (the Key System) scrapped nearly developed rapid transit systems. By my criteria above, San Francisco's Key System interurban to the East Bay would qualify as fully developed, I suppose. Happily both LA and SF saw the error of their ways and developed thriving new systems that are expanding and heavily patronized.
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.
