Will Detroit ever build a subway line? Just one? Like ever? (Ann Arbor: construction, school)

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by usroute10

Streetcars are not rapid transit, they are buses on rail. To compare streetcars to rapid transit

About buses, real rapid transit has significant advantages that can't be realized with just improving bus service:

-Buses are slow, really slow

-Buses stop every 2 blocks

-Buses stop at red lights

-Buses get stuck in traffic

-Have you ever had to board a bus when a lot of people are getting on at a stop? It can take 3, 4, 5 minutes sometimes for everybody to pay their fare before the bus can proceed, while rapid transit is prepayment, no waiting. You just get on and it goes.

-light rail has higher capacity, you can connect 4 or 5 or 6 train cars to each other. You can't connect buses

-Rapid transit brings about significant dense residential and commercial development at stations. I have seen this personally in Oakland-CA, Cleveland, Boston, Chicago, and Washington, DC.

The cost to develop a subway is astronomical these days. And heavy or light rail is not cheap either but at least if existing rail lines can be used, the cost to taxpayers will be minimized.

I've ridden both busses and rail and yes riding a bus can inconvenience you at times. But it is affordable for the working poor and working class and again, it can adapt more readily to changes in commuter habits of people than a fixed service.

Are you aware how often the Subway's and rail system in cities like NYC are disabled and stuck on the tracks due to breakdowns? Pretty often. In a situation like that you can't easily move people out of that train and into another while with a bus, you can bring in another bus and get people moving again.

Lastly, and again, the money issue. I love how proponents of rail conveniently ignore the costs associated with developing new rail lines and also maintaining the tracks and trains. The following study is just one example showing it is cheaper to run a bus system than a light rail line. And costs escalate for heavy rail systems.

https://www.liveabout.com/bus-and-li...-costs-2798852

[ram2]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

I've witnessed the result of the Choo Choo Trolley they built in Cincinnati and it has been a terrible abuse of taxpayer dollars. Nobody rides the thing. Rail, real rail such as heavy rail or light rail can work if you have the population density to support the use of it. But with Detroit still losing people it would be foolish to think a subway is a realistic mass transit option right now and it would cost the taxpayers billions.

Cincinnati also started started building a subway decades ago but abandoned the idea due to lack of funding. The subway tunnels still exist in Cincinnati.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by ram2

Cincinnati also started started building a subway decades ago but abandoned the idea due to lack of funding. The subway tunnels still exist in Cincinnati.

True. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Subway

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by UsAll

Even Detroit's nearby or near-enough regional neighbor Cleveland, Ohio (i.e, Cuyahoga County in general) started building their train system in the early 1900s and it is rather extensive now (both underground and aboveground heavy-rail trains + light rail + streetcars), along with their regular bus system and then their Bus Rapid Transit system to complement the train system. All covering a good portion of Cuyahoga County, Ohio at-large. And they were a heavily-industrial metro area/region like Detroit. So why didn't metro Detroit do the same? Without knowing the definitive answer myself, I can only take it on faith the assertion that the auto industry was behind the resistance to or outright sabotage of this direction for metro Detroit.

Detroit did have a street car and train system in the early 1900s (actually quite a bit earlier). GM Ford Firestone and others made certain it got abandoned. A lot of the rails are still there under the pavement, but that is more a liability to building rail systems than an asset.

Detroit was once considered the most beautiful and well planned cit in the country. (1930s). They called it the Paris of the West. Detroit had a lot of firsts. (First paved highway, first traffic light, I think the first ice cream truck. Some other firsts as well.). That is why it grew to nearly 2 million people.

[TheProf]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

The cost to develop a subway is astronomical these days. And heavy or light rail is not cheap either but at least if existing rail lines can be used, the cost to taxpayers will be minimized.

I've ridden both busses and rail and yes riding a bus can inconvenience you at times. But it is affordable for the working poor and working class and again, it can adapt more readily to changes in commuter habits of people than a fixed service.

Are you aware how often the Subway's and rail system in cities like NYC are disabled and stuck on the tracks due to breakdowns? Pretty often. In a situation like that you can't easily move people out of that train and into another while with a bus, you can bring in another bus and get people moving again.

Lastly, and again, the money issue. I love how proponents of rail conveniently ignore the costs associated with developing new rail lines and also maintaining the tracks and trains. The following study is just one example showing it is cheaper to run a bus system than a light rail line. And costs escalate for heavy rail systems.

https://www.liveabout.com/bus-and-li...-costs-2798852

I hope your kidding about the breakdowns. Wanna compare how often NYC has a breakdown on ANY of its subway lines compared to the number of debilitating traffic snarls are, daily, on the Lodge Freeway, alone, let along all the other Detroit freeways.

Anti-rail hitman love to discuss the capital costs of building rail, but never talk about the costs of NOT building rail (Exhibit A = modern day Detroit, even with its recent advances). They also never talk about the tremendous TAXPAYER costs of building a freeway; the tremendous costs of maintaining it; and the fact that, every 10-15 years, freeways must be substantial rebuilt, esp in an extreme hot/cold weather environment like Detroit. And we won't even get into the issue of how urban freeways gouge, separate and ultimately destroy so many neighborhoods that they travel through...

Not to mention the fact that subways create compact, walkable neighborhoods where cars aren't needed. Take a look at Boston. It built its first subway in 1897, 122 years ago, and downtown Boston is a compact, bustling, walkable area... and that subway is still running strong and has expanded to several other lines -- to the extent that, in the Park Street area of the original subway, there are hardly any city buses at all ... even during rush hour.

[WILWRadio]

https://www.nj.com/traffic/2016/11/f...akdown_th.html

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/new...gh-5470044.php

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...vening-commute

These articles are just the tip if the iceberg. I'm not anti rail and in fact I've ridden on Subways in NYC and Montreal. Have also used rail in Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen.

Far more people use cars and will continue to use cars than mass transit. Rail is an outdated form of travel that is extremely expensive to develop. Detroit taxpayers would be foolish to develop a subway system because of the cost involved. These days far more people as a percentage of the population drive cars than use mass transit including rail.

Where will that money come from? Not likely from the Feds.

[mt90945557]

Maybe once they get done painting bike lanes everywhere that nobody ever uses.

[usroute10]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Far more people use cars and will continue to use cars than mass transit. Rail is an outdated form of travel that is extremely expensive to develop. Detroit taxpayers would be foolish to develop a subway system because of the cost involved. These days far more people as a percentage of the population drive cars than use mass transit including rail.

Are buses outdated since far more people use cars than buses?

Are bicycles outdated since far more people use cars than bicycles?

Just because more people use cars doesn't mean building a rapid transit system wouldn't benefit the region and bring about the type of development you see around rapid transit stations in cities like Chicago and Atlanta.

[Coldjensens]

Los Angeles is a good example of a workable modern built system. Not all that long ago, they had nothing - just busses, now they have a well used and useful system.



There is no way to know what impact it had on the city because living in a city had a resurgence of its own during this time period, but Downtown LA has gone from a complete ghost town to a busy fun place to be. You cannot attribute that to the subway, but the result it that the subway is well used. Whether it was worth it or not - I am not sure anyone can say. It was astronomically expensive and the construction created all kinds of problems. When there were only one or two short lines, it served little purpose. How much benefit it creates today cannot be measured. Too many other factors contributed to the resurgence of downtown LA (including the building of LA live which is not even on the subway route).

[lynnc99]

Nope.

Need a ride? Get a car.

That's the deeply ingrained ethic of metro Detroit.

Shoot, we don't even have any kind of organized airport shuttle system.