  Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 672 Registered: 04-2008 |
The question isn't "should we choose between building roads/sidewalks or light rail?"; it's "does Detroit have a great need for MORE transportation infrastructure?" I would be just as opposed to the construction of another highway. To spend $10.5 BILLION (Gasp!) on this project when the population is declining is misguided. Putting two rails down a street is not going make houses magically sprout up throughout this vast city. We have more pressing needs than transportation. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 889 Registered: 12-2006 |
on the contrary, Retroit, NOT having that infrastructure puts us at a competitive disadvantage to other regions that do. So while that house might not "magically" appear because of the rail line, a new business might. That new business needs employees and then those employees build that house (or buy an old one and fix it up). | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 1507 Registered: 11-2004 |
Detroiters need more transportation options. Although a majority of Metro Detroiters get around with cars, a significant portion of the population relies on things like bus service, bicycling or even (gasp!) walking. Metro Detroit has invested plenty in its road system while letting its mass transit and alternative transit (bike lanes, trails, sidewalks) systems to wither for decades. There is plenty of demand for mass and alternative means of transportation here. SMART, DDOT, AATA and Amtrak ridership numbers have been on the upswing for years. We should be investing in meeting this demand. Also, its been proven again and again that mass transit systems, especially rail-based ones, have spurred massive amounts of economic growth, development and dramatically increased property values. So no "Putting two rails down a street is not going make houses magically sprout up" but the permanence of those rails entices more developers to build denser housing around the stations. It happens everywhere else in the world and it will happen here. Investing in improving mass transit is one of our most pressing needs right now, especially in the city. Plus that $10.5 billion is investment planned for the next 20 years, not in 2009 alone. Although I am sure everybody would cheer having most of that money spent now in this economy. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3656 Registered: 04-2006 |
>We have more pressing needs than transportation. You don't. No transportation = no city | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 673 Registered: 04-2008 |
Let's take a look where most new homes and businesses are being built. Hmmm...no light rail, no buses, no bike lanes, even the sidewalks are vanishing! Let's take a look at cities that have mass transit: Yes, they do seem to have a lot of businesses along the routes. However, they have a lot of businesses everywhere else. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against sidewalks, bike lanes, and buses. And I'm not against mass transit when there is a need for it. But $10.5 billion is a lot of money. Even $525 million over 20 years is a lot of money. Divide $10.5 billion by the number of people who will use this system. Even if every resident of Detroit (850,000) rode the system, it would equal $12,352.94! Gasp! | ||
Sg9018 Member Username: Sg9018 Post Number: 251 Registered: 10-2006 |
DETROIT NEWS EDITORIAL Here is an article form the Detroit News in which they asked, Essay: Is mass transit in Metro Detroit for real this time? http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20090105/O PINION01/901050407/1008 I thought the article was excellent overview on Mass transit in Detroit. The article comes with a video interview with John Hertel the "transit czar" of Metro Detroit. With James David Dickson (the writer of the article)as the narrator. http://info.detnews.com/video/ index.cfm?id=2989 | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4128 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Consider that DDOT carries 140,000 people every weekday on its limited existing service on unreliable buses, and another 40,000 ride the extremely limited SMART buses, and your numbers become patently absurd. | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1322 Registered: 11-2003 |
I'm just glad there's a chance we're going to join the rest of the civilized world. | ||
Andyguard73 Member Username: Andyguard73 Post Number: 290 Registered: 03-2006 |
Sg. thanks for the links. | ||
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313 Post Number: 773 Registered: 02-2006 |
I beg to differ: The Woodward line could be an instant success, if the city and smart bus limit the amount of bus service along Woodward. I thinkthat would jumpstart the light rail. <313> | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 179 Registered: 03-2007 |
I think our region does need more transit options including mass transit but I find it ironic that many of the arguments used about how this rail line will spur growth/homes/businesses etc. all around it are many of the same arguments used decades ago for another mass transit system............the people mover. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 1117 Registered: 04-2006 |
Transit systems have to go somewhere or they don't spur shit. That's the People Mover's problem. When you look at real transit systems in cities that have them, they produce corridors of concentrated growth along the lines. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1730 Registered: 12-2006 |
Bear's point is exactly correct. The People Mover is a carnival ride. It was supposed to connect other things that were never built, and the People Mover management chooses not to be a part of the overall transit system (such as not accepting transfers). | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 649 Registered: 08-2007 |
Retroit, don't worry about it. It's not likely to happen here anyhow. Even if it did, it won't be in our lifetime . . . | ||
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7 Post Number: 217 Registered: 11-2003 |
"I've taken mass transit planning courses at college (civil engineer) and every class ended the same way. The professors told us their is not a single mass transit system in the united states that makes money or even comes close to breaking even. NY city comes the closest to breaking even because it runs at 100% capacity most of the time. I've taken 3 classes at two different colleges and the same comment is made every time, so this looks like another hole the state of michigan is digging for itself." I don't know if that applies to every city. I live in the San Francisco/Berkeley Bay area; the transit here is doing very well. As a matter of fact they're talking about expanding it down to San Jose, Ca. That's a little over an hour from me. Detroit isn't the heart of southeastern Michigan anymore, although it is the most populated city in Michigan. There aren't jobs to keep people riding in and out of the city to keep it going and pay to keep it running. I haven't been around Detroit in 5 years, so I don't know what the politics are like in both Detroit and Lansing, but last that I checked back during 2003, politics was the stumbling block that kept the transit from becoming a reality. Sad. (Message edited by dove-7 on January 06, 2009) | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1731 Registered: 12-2006 |
There's no argument among professionals about this, it's just a simple fact: transit systems cost money. There is no transit system anywhere in the Americas that recovers the entire cost of its operation through the farebox. Transit is a government-subsidized service. So are the public library, public schools, the fire department, the parks, and on and on. The question isn't "do we want the government to subsidize transit". It already does; DDOT is supported by City taxpayers and SMART is supported by a regional millage, and both systems get some state and federal funding. The question is, do we want to continue to have the worst public transportation of any major urban area on the North American continent, or do we want something better? If we want something better, of course it will cost us all more than what we have and pay for now. Better things usually cost more than things which aren't as good. | ||
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7 Post Number: 218 Registered: 11-2003 |
DaninDc: "If you provide good transit service to a corridor, it suddenly becomes a much more attractive place to live and do business. I would expect, as numerous other cities have, to see investment cropping up within a 10-minute walk radius of light rail stations--PROVIDED that zoning allows for it!" That's easier said than done. Remember, Detroit was once the heart of Michigan, so it was much easier to do back then what many Detroit residents want today. The later is difficult to do because there isn't an economy or enough business to make this happen. Doing something like this and Detroit suddenly thriving along with the transit is like me playing the lottery and holding my breath waiting for that 5 plus million dollar ticket to turn into cash. It can happen, but the odds are very slim. Detroit needs find a way to become a 21st century city where business will beg to move in. It's your politics and the auto. industry that has things messed up back there. No one, including suburbs vs city wants to come together and work on a must have if they want to see both Detroit and the rest of South eastern Michigan survive. | ||
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7 Post Number: 219 Registered: 11-2003 |
"The question isn't "do we want the government to subsidize transit". It already does; DDOT is supported by City taxpayers and SMART is supported by a regional millage, and both systems get some state and federal funding. The question is, do we want to continue to have the worst public transportation of any major urban area on the North American continent, or do we want something better? If we want something better, of course it will cost us all more than what we have and pay for now. Better things usually cost more than things which aren't as good." And the most important question, "Is the government and the suburbs are willing to work together?" Now that the Big 3 is up shit creek, it's going to make it harder for them to keep this from happening like in the past. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4131 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Half the population of Michigan--a large state--lives in Southeast Michigan. If that's not the heart, I don't know what is. quote: Even if unemployment in Southeast Michigan were as high as 10%, that means 90% of workers in a region of 4.5 million still need to get to work. If Michigan wants to grow, it simply can't afford to keep subsidizing sprawling development. It will be necessary to refocus development into existing, underutilized developed areas where infrastructure already exists. Transit is an effective means of allowing denser development and moving large numbers of people in such areas. quote: When did you take your poll? The current $10.5 billion plan has a lot of public support. If L. Brooks Patterson, a pro-sprawl anti-transit zealot if there ever were one, votes toward a transit plan, one would think there is some substance behind the plan. quote: No one ever proposed anything amounting to "build transit and wait". It will take a concerted effort to rezone land uses and target development toward transit stations. Neither of those is physically possible without rail transit, though. quote: Exactly. Which is why Detroit needs to start moving away from Le Corbusier's failed and obsolete 1930's vision. quote: Funny enough, the Mayor of Detroit AND the three suburban county executives support the proposed transit plan, as does the Michigan Legislature. Ironically, most of these same arguments were made in the Washington, DC area in the 1960s. Their Metro system is now the second-busiest rail system in the nation, carrying 750,000 people on an average weekday. The bus system carries roughly triple what Detroit's two bus systems carry combined. Land values and development in the urban core (i.e. return on investment) have gone through the roof. None of it happened by accident! | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 9098 Registered: 10-2003 |
Dan, do you still have those aerials showing how development grew along the DC Metro rail? I swear that was the strongest piece of evidence I've seen for why this works. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4133 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^I'll have to dig for those images. I wish I had some ground-level images for comparison, too. Photo 1: Pawn Shop and Empty Lot. Photo 2: Yuppie Condos and Restaurants. Anyone who has ever flown into National Airport can certainly tell where the subway lines are located, though! | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4134 Registered: 10-2003 |
Granted, a light rail line isn't going to carry the sheer number of people that DC's Orange Line does, but here's the gist, as pertains to a once-declining, inner-ring suburb: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/bl ogs/kbenfield/transitoriented_ development_in.html And here's the part that should make ANYONE giddy: quote: (Message edited by DaninDC on January 06, 2009) | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 677 Registered: 04-2008 |
Thank you, Danindc, for those numbers. I revise my remarks: $10.5 Billion divided by 180,000 riders equals = $58,333 (Gasp!) Now, if I were to ask typical bus users whether they would rather continue to ride on mass transit or have a free new car with insurance coverage and free gas and parking for several years, which do you suppose they would choose? (Absurdity Patent Pending) | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3657 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: How long will that car last? How long will the rail line last? | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 679 Registered: 04-2008 |
^ Until the taxpayers have to cough up another $10.5 Billion. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4135 Registered: 10-2003 |
According to Retroit, the light rail line will only last one day. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 890 Registered: 12-2006 |
Retroit, You are completely missing the point. Some studies have shown that the economic multiplier for mass transit investment is almost 10 to 1. That means that a $10.5 Billion public investment in mass transit could spur up to $105 Billion in additional private investment and economic growth. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4136 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I don't think he read the link I posted, where Arlington, VA realized 17 million square feet of new office space and 24,000 new residential units in a 2-mile corridor since 1980. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 681 Registered: 04-2008 |
^ Could they have accomplished it without the rail line? I think that if a light rail line were built in Oakland or Macomb County, it would be more likely to bring in business than one in the City of Detroit, simply because these areas are ALREADY attractive. | ||
Russix Member Username: Russix Post Number: 170 Registered: 11-2006 |
(10.5 Billion X $-8)/180,000 = $-444,444.44 + 53,333 = -$386,111. Your still profiting $386,111 on the adjacent ROI. It would be terrible to do something that makes sense(or cents, literally). |
