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.
Rail transit wouldn't be a singular saving grace for Detroit, but it would have been much easier to redevelop Detroit had it have it like it was planned. I doubt Detroit would have been any worse than it is today if it had rail transportation.
Cleveland the city is in better shape than Detroit .
So is Columbus. Columbus is also in better shape than Cleveland. Does that mean that rail has hurt Cleveland and it would look like Columbus if it hadn't built it? Probably not. Perhaps it's that Cleveland doesn't have "adequate" transit. But then he's already said that Manhattan also has inadequate transit. Any way you slice it, having trains is no silver bullet and not having trains is clearly no barrier. Light rail certainly has not been the build it and they will come wet dream that was envisioned in Sacramento. Not to say it's not useful, just that it really hasn't lead to that much development. Of course, Sacramento is also much better off than Detroit for a whole lot of reasons besides just having light rail.
Cleveland is doing better than Detroit for a rust belt city. I never said rail was a singular factor that decides if a city is going to prosper or not, you just made that assumption.
Having rail, Cleveland is in a better position than Detroit to rehab itself.
Having rail, Cleveland is in a better position than Detroit to rehab itself.
But why? Cleveland's rail ridership is low — about 10 million annually. San Diego and Portland with light rail systems maybe 20% longer manage to 34 to 38 million riders annually. It doesn't make sense how a rail system that gets little use has much effect on growth patterns, if few use it, it's not going to matter much in people's choice.
One of the bigger advantages of rail over bus is faster speeds for a similar amount of stops. As has been shown, Detroit's streets are wide with high average speed, the advantage of rail is smaller.
Any way you slice it, having trains is no silver bullet and not having trains is clearly no barrier. Light rail certainly has not been the build it and they will come wet dream that was envisioned in Sacramento. Not to say it's not useful, just that it really hasn't lead to that much development.
What are the areas by the stations zoned for? If zoning doesn't allow for much redevelopment, it's not really the light rail system's fault.
But why? Cleveland's rail ridership is low — about 10 million annually. San Diego and Portland with light rail systems maybe 20% longer manage to 34 to 38 million riders annually. It doesn't make sense how a rail system that gets little use has much effect on growth patterns, if few use it, it's not going to matter much in people's choice.
One of the bigger advantages of rail over bus is faster speeds for a similar amount of stops. As has been shown, Detroit's streets are wide with high average speed, the advantage of rail is smaller.
I don't think I could answer that question for you, maybe too few jobs are in downtown Cleveland and most sit where rail doesn't go. I have by really studied Cleveland's transportation that extensively.
But why? Cleveland's rail ridership is low — about 10 million annually. San Diego and Portland with light rail systems maybe 20% longer manage to 34 to 38 million riders annually. It doesn't make sense how a rail system that gets little use has much effect on growth patterns, if few use it, it's not going to matter much in people's choice.
One of the bigger advantages of rail over bus is faster speeds for a similar amount of stops. As has been shown, Detroit's streets are wide with high average speed, the advantage of rail is smaller.
I'm not an expert on Cleveland development, but FWIW, the neighborhoods that: remained stable, have revitalized/gentrified, or are revitalizing/gentrifying, are generally those served by rail. Shaker Square, University Circle, Ohio City, Detroit Shoreway, etc. The only exception I can think of is Tremont.
I don't think I could answer that question for you, maybe too few jobs are in downtown Cleveland and most sit where rail doesn't go. I have by really studied Cleveland's transportation that extensively.
In other words, maybe rail wouldn't have helped Detroit either as it's clearly not as simple as build it and they will come. Cleveland's rapid transit has about half the ridership of light rail that's generally regarded to be a joke like VTA (Santa Clara/San Jose). Sometimes you just end up with build it and no one will use it.
In other words, maybe rail wouldn't have helped Detroit either as it's clearly not as simple as build it and they will come.
Rail wouldn't have hurt Detroit had they built it, and it would have been along rail lines that we saw redevelopment if any were to happen there. So in that sense, rail would have helped Detroit.
But unfortunately they do not have rail, so what they are presently dealing with will have to be done without rail unless the city and state wishes to build a rail system in their largest city in the state.
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.
