Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3022 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 2:46 pm: | |
GM's involvement with National City Lines is debated too much, that I grant you. But the corporation developed an arm to encourage streetcar companies to switch to buses in the 1920s, and it was always a clear sales goal of the corporation. Of course, in Detroit, that's moot: Ours was the largest municipally owned (and therefore not for sale) system in the country. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 676 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 4:04 pm: | |
Don't forget that the loss of streetcar lines was just one of the keys to Detroit's decline. How about the freeways? How about extending Detroit water lines without requiring annexation into the city? There's a lot of blame to go around and some of the blame can go to places like the federal government and the racist practices of the real estate industry. But a lot of Detroit's wounds were self-inflicted too. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1829 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 2:03 pm: | |
Interesting article on people's perceptions of buses. http://www.startribune.com/loc al/south/27071819.html?elr=KAr ks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiD3aPc:_Y yc:aUU "Buses can be as successful as -- in fact more successful than -- trains. But only if planners understand why they tend to be seen as the poor relation to rail, and take a series of steps to make sure they do for people what rail does." "It may not be politically correct to say so out loud, said Alan Hoffman, a San Diego-based consultant, "but it's what I call the 'AYF Factor.' Attractive young females are the canary in the coal mine of public transit. They're sensitive to safety, and they want to be in a nice spot. If you draw them in, you are reaching a broad market. A whole lot of transit systems, when you look around, you notice certain populations are missing." |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1573 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 2:30 pm: | |
Thanks, 'planner, that was a fascinating article. |
Youngprofessionaldetroiter Member Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter
Post Number: 191 Registered: 07-2008
| Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 2:41 pm: | |
That is a great article. Most of my AYF friends at Michigan would love to frequent downtown Detroit as a hot nightlife scene. For most of them, the biggest objection is having to drive there (and risk getting lost or having their car broken down) in a not-so-pleasant area. It's hard to put my finger on it, but there is a very subjective feeling of "safety" that I associate with riding a train. Mostly because it's fast moving, doesn't stop, can't be carjacked at a redlight, no automobile accidents...very insulated. Can you replicate that experience with a bus? Maybe. I have a friend out in LA, and there are hot girls on his buses all the time. I mean, it's ridiculous. We could just ride the buses all day and pick up women. In Ann Arbor, it's the same. There's just something about the DDOT and SMART systems that just doesn't cut it for some reason. YPD |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3028 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 2:48 pm: | |
DetroitBusPlanner: That was one of the silliest articles I've ever seen about transit. |
Sg9018 Member Username: Sg9018
Post Number: 230 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 3:25 pm: | |
Here a other article on retire negative image of buses. Transit agencies across the nation try to retire the image of. In today's Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/ business/sns-ap-reinventing-th e-bus,0,5781338.story |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3029 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 3:32 pm: | |
"Buses may lack the hipness of subways or light rail, but they are the best hope for accommodating large numbers of new riders quickly and affordably." Amusing. They're dodging the real issue: There is no pent-up demand for buses. There IS pent-up demand for other modes, but not buses. But, can't blame them for keeping on trying. When you can't improve the product, it's only natural to try to improve the image. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4731 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 4:40 pm: | |
It has absolutely nothing to do with buses not being "hip"--it's completely performance-based (and permanence-based). People intuitively know this, although most do not realize it. Show me a single bus system that outperforms a rail system. |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 3064 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 5:28 pm: | |
Danindc, well-said. A rail system AND bus system can work together to get people around to their destinations. This is obvious in Chicago and Washington, DC. It's foolish to think a single bus system can outperform a rail system. |
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 344 Registered: 11-2007
| Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 7:08 pm: | |
"Show me a single bus system that outperforms a rail system." You would have to define "outperform" and "system" (does the system include the rail and other options in an area, or the combination, for instance?), and then tell me if we trying to find one bus system that outperforms one rail system (shouldn't be too hard, depending on our performance metric), or do we need to find a bus system that outperforms the best existing mixed transit system? (I don't think that is possible.) I can probably find a bus system that outperforms the People Mover on some metric. The DDOT, for example. Does that count? This bashing of different transit modes is pointless. Any system has cost/benefit tradeoffs, and hopefully you pick the best one for your situation that you can pay for. That isn't always going to be the same technology, and that's why multiple technologies exist. The big picture is that we (Detroit and the US) are overdependent on oil-powered auto transit, and need to look at what we can add to the mix to change that. There are many transit options that would be an improvement. (Message edited by mwilbert on August 21, 2008) |
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1996 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 8:29 pm: | |
Mwilbert, that is true, and you're picking on details a bit, but the fact remains (and this is what I assume Dan is saying) that in a metro area the size of Detroit, bus-only transit cannot possibly outperform mixed-mode transit. In every other major transit system in the world (well, aside from maybe that place in Brazil), buses exist to feed rail networks, for the most part. This is a bit less in New York, as the subway is so prevalent that bus transit is a mode of it's own, except in the outer boroughs and Jersey, where it can feed rail. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3424 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 8:31 am: | |
^Actually, even in the outer boroughs in NYC, the bus routes feed into the subway lines. |
Genesyxx Member Username: Genesyxx
Post Number: 913 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 10:39 am: | |
I'm probably the only one against the Woodward light rail plan. It'd be too jumbling/congested, especially where Woodward goes to two lanes. I say build on the joint DDOT/SMART venture and put more effort on Detroit - Ann Arbor. |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 3067 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 10:43 am: | |
I am against the Woodward light rail plan too. The one thing I despise about Metro Detroit is that the stakeholders LACK creativity and design expertise. We're so used to operating in the old ways (hiring talentless cronies) when we need to expand and look toward the future. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4738 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 10:45 am: | |
quote:The one thing I despise about Metro Detroit is that the stakeholders LACK creativity and design expertise. We're so used to operating in the old ways (hiring talentless cronies) when we need to expand and look toward the future. Care to expound? |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 3068 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 10:51 am: | |
Danindc, I'm sure you already know Michigan is in dire need of expanding its economy from being predominately manufacturing-based (the jobs are going overseas to China or down south). I mean, look at who this state elects as its leaders over and over again. Nothing hardly ever gets done. That should answer your question. |
Funaho Member Username: Funaho
Post Number: 79 Registered: 11-2007
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 11:07 am: | |
And this is exactly why nothing ever gets done. It's always "my way or the highway" from everyone involved, and the project dies because nobody can agree on even the simplest things. There is not going to be an elevated train, or a monorail, or a subway. It's just too expensive to build any of those options, especially with the economy in a nosedive. Sheesh at this rate we might as well just put a big fence around the city and hang a "Sorry, we're closed" sign on it, because by the time anything happens there won't be anyone left anyway. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3030 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 11:39 am: | |
No, it's not my way or the highway. You look at what's working across the country. And, for the most part, the mode that is attracting riders of choice, spurring transit-oriented development, creating more lasting jobs while keeping operating costs relatively cheap is, coincidentally, the one we used to have here. But instead of looking at other systems being built and what's going on (we usually count on DaninDC to chime in with that), we have a number of people who want to keep putting the main burden of moving people on cars and gas-powered buses, or, weirder still, to introduce modes that are not showing great success as transit elsewhere (maglev, monorail, etc.) A successful mass transit system for Detroit would have many modes. They would perform distinct duties, and no mode would be expected to do everything. That's what we have expected of our car/bus/truck system -- to do it all. That won't work any more than any other single mode will. Commuter rail: Bring people into the city from outlying communities not well served by buses or streetcars into a central city (or several central city) stations; keeps needless, single-passenger commuter car traffic out of the center city. Light rail: Likely the primary mode on arterial streets, capable of carrying hundreds of commuters per hour along Woodward, Michigan, Gratiot, Fort, Jefferson, Grand Boulevard or Grand River; spurring investment and mixed-use development along these thoroughfares. Buses: Likely the feeder routes chugging through neighborhoods so people can connect with arterial streetcars. Bike lanes: For each bike lane that is well-used, that takes dozens of cars an hour off the road. Subways: I don't believe Detroit will have subways in the sense that New York has them, but it's possible that our rail networks would go underground at some point, leaving the street clear in only the densest areas. Cars and trucks: Though rising gasoline costs are likely to make individual car ownership more problematic and unworkable, if we stop placing the entire burden of moving everything around on them, we can expect to see cars and trucks that enjoy the flexibility they are praised for. We'll likely see less privately driven cars and more taxicabs, emergency vehicles and car services. As for trucks, expect them to get smaller, as regional distribution networks get leaner and meaner to use less fuel. Walking: Expect to see more walking as multi-use development follows light rail. Car culture produces stores that are far apart and specialized, requiring car trips. Different modes produce different environments, ones that are much more walkable, improving community, health and making a walk more pleasant too. And that's just the start of it! Just because I argue against els, monorails or other modes doesn't mean I don't have exciting hopes for a diversity of modes, all doing the thing they do best. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 692 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 12:18 pm: | |
Excellent summary DN! |
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1997 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 12:29 pm: | |
At no point is Woodward too narrow for light rail. If 4 lanes must be kept South of GCP, then there is plenty of sidewalk space that could be reduced. But that stretch of Woodward has traffic levels for a 2 or 3 lane road, not 4, 5, 6, etc. Detroiters think that all their roads need to be 45mph+ multiple lane highways. OR, instead of using Woodward South of GCP, use Washington. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3033 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 12:48 pm: | |
Focus: Actually, when you consider the carrying capacity of a streetcar, they're actually BEST suited for narrow roads that have plenty of traffic. For every LRV on the road, that's as many as 100 private vehicles NOT on the road. |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 3069 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 12:55 pm: | |
I do believe Detroit is capable of building subway lines (just dig deeper like Washington D.C.'s metro line is very deep into the ground) to transport people around the city. I do know there are salt mines underneath the earth around here. Will that cause any problems? |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3035 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 1:00 pm: | |
Ltorivia: Some subways are "dug" using the cut-and-cover method. You dig a trench in the street and then fill it over with supported ground. Other subways are "tunneled," using heavy boring machines, usually more than 100 feet below ground. The thing with tunneling is that you're so far below ground the expenses are enormous. Stations need escalators, elevators, and usually the only reason its done is because you're getting ready to go under a river. That's why most American subways are cut-and-cover. The salt mines are more than 1,000 feet below ground, and not right below downtown. They are, for all practical purposes, not a problem. |
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover
Post Number: 271 Registered: 02-2008
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 1:30 pm: | |
Ltorivia485, the salt mines won't be a problem because we are never going to have a subway system!! You need to get realistic, Michigan and Detroit do not have the funds to build any sort of subway lines! Unless you can fork up 5 billion for such a project, stop thinking its the best way. |
Funaho Member Username: Funaho
Post Number: 80 Registered: 11-2007
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 3:18 pm: | |
Another problem with subways is that I bet you'll have serious problems convincing people to go into an underground station right now considering our reputation for crime. It doesn't matter if the stations are adequately patrolled (which they probably wouldn't be) or not because people are going to ASSUME they're dangerous until they prove themselves otherwise. |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 3070 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 4:38 pm: | |
Funaho, Washington DC used to have the high crime reputation too. Guess what? People (employees and tourists) ride the Metrorail all the time now. There are security guards, Metro employees and cameras down there. You have to pay and swap/insert a card (where security is present) before you can even get near the platform. I never felt unsafe riding the Metro subway. The "it's too unsafe to ride the subway" argument carries no weight at all. |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1834 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 4:47 pm: | |
"The "it's too unsafe to ride the subway" argument carries no weight at all." In New York City in 1990 there was no way I was going to ride the subway because every station had a bunch of hoodlums hanging out in front of it. I was terrifed that they were going to follow me down there. Now I grew up (and still live) in the Herman Gardens area, been on transit in some unsavory places including Newark, DC, Dublin, Chicago, and here, but I was not going on the subway there. It really crimped what I was going to do that day. Perception is a tough nut to crack. |
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1998 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 7:15 pm: | |
quote:^Actually, even in the outer boroughs in NYC, the bus routes feed into the subway lines. That's what I meant to say. In Manhattan and Inner Brooklyn/Queens (I'm not too familiar with Bx), they are sort of a mode of their own, and don't so much feed into the subways, because they don't need to...with the notable exception of crosstown routes, I suppose. (Message edited by focusonthed on August 22, 2008) |
Royce Member Username: Royce
Post Number: 2775 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 2:34 am: | |
The federal government spends roughly $10 billion a month on the war in Iraq. When the war is over, we couldn't politely ask for $5 billion to build a subway system here in Detroit. Never hurts to ask. |
Russix Member Username: Russix
Post Number: 115 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 5:20 am: | |
Um the Government is borrowing 50% of the money from China and Japan to spend in Iraq. Maybe we should just ask them instead (skip the middle man Uncle Sam). Besides when the "war" is "over" we will have tallied up massive amounts of interest debt that we also be paying for. Im sure the Government would be happy to carpet bomb us out of existence with some of their new toys built from defense buddy handouts as I think we withdraw more in federal aid then we pay back in taxes. Its also sad to note that as the current administration is pushing the national dept towards the 10 Trillion mark the former administration was paying it off and making plans to eliminate this debt entirely by 2012(we were at 5 Trillion in 2000). I think if history were different, with a paid off dept the dollar would still be very strong and gas still very cheap. And no one would be talking anything about a subway, light rail or maglev system in Detroit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U nited_States_public_debt http://www.brillig.com/debt_cl ock/ (Message edited by russix on August 23, 2008) |
Russix Member Username: Russix
Post Number: 116 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 5:28 am: | |
Its too bad that Mr. Kilpatrick's buddies aren't in the tunnel boring business. An entire subway network might have already been built in secret! |
Russix Member Username: Russix
Post Number: 117 Registered: 11-2006
| Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 5:36 am: | |
The State government was completely inept in allowing Livonia to drop out of SMART and dismantling the west side of Metro Detroit's transit system. There I've written my rage against three branches of government and now I will wait outside for the Homeland Security choppers to come arrest me. Sry to thread jack. |
Dougw Member Username: Dougw
Post Number: 2134 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 11:34 pm: | |
To get back to the original topic of this thread, I basically agree that the curbside versus center-lane light rail issue is overblown, too. Either one would be fine. And either would be in the right price/benefit range, as opposed to overkill solutions such as subway/monorail, or underkill non-solutions such as buses. Actually I would be mildly interested in Danindc's take on whether center-lane or curbside light rail would make more sense for a Woodward transit line, though. Is it a toss-up? |
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 346 Registered: 11-2007
| Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2008 - 10:10 am: | |
Curbside doesn't make sense to me unless you massively curtail on-street parking. Otherwise people are going to want to walk or drive across the tracks at random spots. Also, cars coming off side streets would have to cross the tracks. You could close those off, but I think you would have a lot of resistance. |
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485
Post Number: 3071 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2008 - 10:57 pm: | |
Detroitplanner, crime was at an all-time high in 1990 (including the 1970s and 1980s). NYC is a different place now with the streets much safer and more secure. I'm sure you already know that. Again, the "subway is dangerous" argument is repetitive and outdated now. |