  Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3658 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Now we're getting somewhere. It's not that you're against the system, you're just against putting it in Detroit because you don't think Detroit is attractive. (Message edited by iheartthed on January 06, 2009) | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 891 Registered: 12-2006 |
Retroit, It would all depend on WHERE the light rail line went to. What did it connect, what is the density of the building around it. Much of Oakland and Macomb County are not setup for a light rail line to be very effective on (office parks don't work well with rail). Rail has to connect destinations. The problem with suburbs is that there are no destinations. As Gloria Steinem put it, "there's no there there". | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4138 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Click on the damn link and read. It ain't quite as easy as shooting from the hip, but it ain't difficult, either. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 9099 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Unless it connects downtown Ferndale, Royal Oak, Berkley.. In another direction, downtown Plymouth, Northville... These are all places one could get off a train and be in a pedestrian friendly environment. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 892 Registered: 12-2006 |
Quote: "Unless it connects downtown Ferndale, Royal Oak, Berkley.. In another direction, downtown Plymouth, Northville... These are all places one could get off a train and be in a pedestrian friendly environment." That is true, the question is what are you connecting them to? A light rail line that only runs between plymouth and northville doesn't make sense unless it is connected to something else. The same thing is true with the Ferndale, Royal Oak, Berkley route. They aren't enough. That is why Detroit is the key. Detroit has to be the hub of a comprehensive mass transit system incorporating both light rail and commuter rail. Detroit is the only logical point to connect transit routes branching out into all parts of the metropolitan area. Without a centralized hub, the transit system fails. Detroit HAS to be that hub. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1026 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Detroit is the only logical point to connect transit routes branching out into all parts of the metropolitan area. " I don't necessarily agree with this. Metro Airport could be a hub. Or Royal Oak could be a hub with links going out to various areas (like SMART does in OC). There's a lot of reasons why Detroit should be the hub but I think it's a mistake to assume that the Detroit hub and spoke model is the only option just because that's the way it's always been done. (Message edited by Novine on January 06, 2009) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4140 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You're allowed to have more than one "hub" for a light rail system. In fact, it's probably preferable. Commuter rail is a different story entirely, but then again, commuter rail isn't designed for commuting from Utica to Auburn Hills. In the suburbs, though, you're more likely to see bus transit, since the densities are lower. This means, you'll likely have a variety of bus routes that originate and terminate at a particular rail station. For example, to use the DC analogy again, Royal Oak would be comparable to Ballston or Pentagon City. Rail routes have to go into Detroit, simply because Detroit has the bulk of densely populated corridors, and thus the greater likelihood of impact, and redevelopment. | ||
Masterblaster Member Username: Masterblaster Post Number: 232 Registered: 03-2005 |
Retroit, you really need to divide that 10.5 billion not only by the number of transit users, but you need to divide it by the amount of years that the 10.5 billion will be spent. So $58,000 per rider, divided by 20 years, equals $2,900 per rider per year. Now compare that to the costs of gas, insurance, maintenance for a car in a year. Also, if you pay a fare of $1.50 to and from work a day, 5 days a week 52 weeks a year, that comes to $780 per year. Thus the government(s) would only pay $2,100 per rider per year. And it would also make sense that the # of riders would increase, lowering the per rider cost. Retroit, I do not understand why you can't seem to wrap your brain around the concept that rapid transit encourages great economic development. Now other things like improved PUBLIC SAFETY and LOWERING PROPERTY taxes are needed as well, BUT THEY ALL WORK IN TANDEM - safer streets, lowering property tax and car insurance, improving schools, and parks, and transit - they work hand in hand. We need all of them. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4141 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: No no no. None of that matters. If it doesn't turn a profit = BAD. | ||
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7 Post Number: 220 Registered: 11-2003 |
"Half the population of Michigan--a large state--lives in Southeast Michigan. If that's not the heart, I don't know what is." Dude, where in my post did I state that it isn't? I stated that Detroit isn't the heart of southeastern Michigan. This isn't the 1950's and back when Detroit was the nucleus of business etc. Most of the businesses are in the suburbs. I just don't see the economic benefits of riding to the city without some type of multiple thriving business that will keep transit if be train or light rail up and running. Surburbs? Maybe. I know someone that use to catch the train to work from burbs to city during the early 80's. But it stopped when most of the businesses left Detroit. That's what keeps transit running. Example here. Oakland, Ca. business is flat, similar to Detroit, but it's the small ports and San Francisco that keeps the transit in Oakland alive. San Francisco is the heart of the East bay area. If it weren't for San Francisco, Oakland would be a ghost town. Oakland sits in the middle between suburb and San Francisco. | ||
Townonenorth Member Username: Townonenorth Post Number: 652 Registered: 10-2007 |
Trainman, I've attempted to read your site. Just state your case. Either you support the 2010 or you don't. Where do you stand? What tax proposal do YOU support? I don't even see the tax you mention. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4144 Registered: 10-2003 |
Dove7, what you actually wrote earlier is, "Detroit was once the heart of Michigan." There are still thousands of jobs in the CBD and the New Center area. For some reason, the City finds it necessary to keep demolishing buildings to create more parking. That alone is an indication that good transit has a role to play. On top of that, think of the logistics for something as relatively simple and common as a Wings game--let alone Super Bowl XL. Just because 100% of the population won't ride transit downtown to work doesn't mean it's a terrible idea. Yes, the economy stinks now, but Detroit needs to prepare for when things turn around, otherwise, any new investment will have no other place to go but the outer fringes of the suburbs, further thinning the resources of the region and state, and exacerbating the status quo. On the other hand, you have hundreds of thousands of Detroiters who don't have access to a car. Riding a bus 2-3 hours each way to the suburbs for a low-paying job just isn't feasible for creating an efficient local economy. These people also need a means of transportation so they can find the employment where it does exist. In general, the idea is to use transit as a backbone for making Southeast Michigan a more cohesive region, as opposed to the existing amoeba of isolated buildings set amongst seas of parking lots. | ||
River_rat Member Username: River_rat Post Number: 343 Registered: 02-2006 |
For all of you who continually raise this subject on the forum, I have put the following on my word processor so I don't have to write it each time another harebrained and unworkable idea is hatched. I respect Danindc and his extensive knowledge of transit systems and their value. This area will NOT have rapid transit for two overpowering reasons. 1. Federal funds are a must for any rail system and the Feds will not appropriate any money to the political clowns of Michigan (Granholm, Stabinow, etc. in the state, and the City of Detroit politicos doesn't even warrant names to chuckle over their incompetence). Senator Carl Levin is the exception to this as he is widely respected by both parties. No fed money = no mass rail transit of any sort. 2. No one will ride in a public transit system in Detroit because of CRIME. Everyone wants to get where they are going safely. The lenient judges and juries of Detroit preclude this. Rail transit coming to this area is as likely as steam locomotives running down the center of Woodward. End of story. First written 6-2005 | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 7489 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Odd, those buses I ride Saturday and Sunday are usually standing room only. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4146 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: People actually said the same thing in DC in the 1960s. The reason Detroit never received federal money for transit in the past (other than the DPM) is that it has never, until now, had a cohesive Locally Preferred Alternative. The FTA doesn't just hand out money and say "build something"--you have to have a proposal before you can actually request funds. A healthy dose of skepticism is fine, but let's have the government actually shoot it down before we start maligning Detroit's chances. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1732 Registered: 12-2006 |
The Fed doles out transit money based on a formula, and I haven't seen it but I know a bit about it, and I don't recall that "local political leaders must not wear big shoes, fake noses and cake-white face makeup" was on the list. I like River_rat's idea of putting repeating hosts somewhere I can easily access them without retyping. I have three in mind. Trainman could do the same thing. There are a few others I can think of. This could be a great labor-saving move for many DYers! | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1028 Registered: 07-2007 |
Not aerials but some examples from the past 20 years of how DC's Metro has helped shape and encourage development in the DC suburbs. History of How Metro Shapes Ballston http://www.metrodcliving.com/u rbantrekker/2007/01/how_metro_ shape.html Map of 40 years of development in Ballston. The Metro stop is the big M adjacent to Fairfax Drive. http://www.arlingtonva.us/depa rtments/CPHD/planning/data_map s/metro/ballston/pdf/bal_proje ct_map.pdf?CFID=2594866&CFTOKE N=40303663 Article from 1986 about development along the "new" Orange Metro line: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f ullpage.html?res=9A0DE1D91431F 930A25754C0A960948260&sec=&spo n=&pagewanted=1 | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 685 Registered: 04-2008 |
Wow, where to start?: Danindc: Can you really compare Arlington, VA to the City of Detroit? I stay in Crystal City when I'm in town, which I believe is comparable to Ballston, which was featured in the article. I see no comparison with Detroit. (Although on a side note, I think Washington/Arlington is a good lesson for Detroit to show that a dense, central business district is not a prerequisite for a city, as that area is very spread out. But the differences are so vast, namely an increasing, bureaucracy based "economy" versus a declining, manufacturing based economy.) Dove7 raises an excellent point when he points out how the City of Detroit is no longer the nucleus, and that most businesses are in the suburbs. I think those who feel that we need to build a downtown filled with skyscrapers should consider other options. I don't think of the Detroit as the "heart". I think the whole area is the heart. Detroit is just another suburb, so to speak. I would rather have a Detroit that is a nice residential "suburb", than an anachronistic "downtown". Is there even a need for downtowns anymore? With FedEx, e-mail, teleconferencing, etc., how necessary is it to be in close physical proximity to your clients, partners, etc.? As far as mass transit being a stimulant of growth, I look at it like a Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Mass Transit would be somewhere near the peak. Yes, it would help, but there are so many more vital needs that have to be met. $10.5 Billion could go a lot further if it were put towards these needs. Thus, the reason for my first post. No city can survive, light rail or not, if it doesn't have a dependable means of housing people. Why am I the only one that thinks we have to convert the empty lots and burnt out homes of this city into livable neighborhoods? | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1029 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Why am I the only one that thinks we have to convert the empty lots and burnt out homes of this city into livable neighborhoods?" Sounds great! Let's get building! Ok, now who's going to move into those homes? Where are they going to work? Oh wait, we haven't given people any reason to move into those houses and there's no jobs nearby for them to work in so what was the point? The Urbanophile had a great post about these opposite viewpoints and so I'll quote his take on it: "There's a huge intellectual battle out there because what I will call the "Joel Kotkin School" and the "Richard Florida School". Kotkin basically argues that economic growth is powered by traditional but unsexy items like low taxes, good government, and quality schools. Richard Florida, exponent of the Creative Class theory, says that it is more about high quality amenities and service levels needed to attract the new economy labor force. But the Kotkin-Florida split is a false dichotomy. The fact is, they are both right. Kotkin is right that you really do need a "safe, liveable city", with good schools, efficient and lean government, low taxes relative to the service levels purchased, and a pro-business regulatory environment. But this is just the ante. All you get for this is a seat at the table. It's a necessary but not sufficient condition. If it were, many Midwestern cities, which offer a reasonable version of this already, would be up there with the southern and southwestern boomtowns. But they aren't. The problem is that these items are like the "food and shelter" levels on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If you don't have them you're screwed. If you do have them though, that doesn't mean everything's wonderful. Man does not live by bread alone." http://theurbanophile.blogspot .com/2009/01/our-product-is-be tter-than-our-brand.html I should add that The Urbanophile is not a big advocate for rail transit but I think his point applies that focusing on just the basics isn't going to move you forward. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4147 Registered: 10-2003 |
Retroit, the growth along Metro lines in DC is not a recent phenomenon--it started in the Carter administration, and has continued since. In the 1970s, the corridor between Rosslyn and Ballston was nothing but pawn shops and shady used car dealerships, a few of which still remain. Compare this one, 2-mile corridor vis-a-vis Southeast Michigan, where the addition of 17 million square feet of office space and 24,000 residences would nearly consume an entire 6-mile x 6-mile township. quote: You can't convert empty lots into neighborhoods if you have to build 4 parking spots (on average) for every adult in the metropolis. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 893 Registered: 12-2006 |
Trainman, what are you talking about with a SMART property tax to replace the state and federal gas tax? I work in transportation and I've heard of no such thing. | ||
Townonenorth Member Username: Townonenorth Post Number: 655 Registered: 10-2007 |
That's the point I was trying to make earlier. There IS no such thing. It's all conjecture. The SMART millage will support SMART, and the fuel tax will still support roads. Trainman wants something else, I suppose. So, I'd think that it's all up to the legislature to change the law on the use of the fuel taxes. | ||
Masterblaster Member Username: Masterblaster Post Number: 233 Registered: 03-2005 |
Retroit wrote: "Why am I the only one that thinks we have to convert the empty lots and burnt out homes of this city into livable neighborhoods?" Because the population has kept decreasing, there is an overabundance of housing - single-family and multi-family - in the city. Why would we need to build more? There are still plenty, plenty of non-marquee neighborhoods where 85%+ of the lots are filled with houses, two-family flats - yes, they are older and neglected, but much of these are well-built, with character and can be restored. Maybe you seem to think older housing is a turn-off, but there are plenty of older suburbs - Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Royal Oak - where older neighborhoods are thriving. Those (eastside) neighborhoods where vacant lots predominate, new housing can be built on them, but without lower property taxes, improved public safety, and IMPROVED TRANSIT (as in rapid), the attractiveness of new single-family housing in the city will be low, in my opinion. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3660 Registered: 04-2006 |
>First written 6-2005 You wrote that nearly 4 years ago and still haven't learned how to spell the name of the Junior Senator from your home state? No wonder Michigan is going down the crapper... | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1733 Registered: 12-2006 |
In order to have a decent transit system in the region, we will have to find a way to pay for the local share of the cost. This was stated, I'm pretty sure, in the regional transit plan which was approved by the "big four" last month. The specifics of how we will pay have not yet been decided, but I have to think it will require some sort of legislative change. In Denver, if I'm remembering correctly, there was a locally-initiated sales tax increment to pay for transit. There are lots of different ways to do this; study all the other top 25 big cities in the US and Canada, and pick one or two of the mechanisms they use. The SMART renewal, if we don't have something else on the table by then, is nothing but the SMART renewal, preserving the existing service in the communities which have not opted out. DDOT I am quite worried about. The City is flat fucking broke, and will have to make massive cuts all over its budget, and I can't see how DDOT escapes the ax. My guess would be, and it's just a guess, that we'll see the elimination of three to five bus routes, the end to overnight service, and service reductions on many routes. Now that little bit of dire prognostication is based on the status quo being preserved: that DDOT and SMART remain separate entities, there is no regionwide transit operator and no regionwide funding mechanism. If we change this, we can change the outcome. (Think of "A Christmas Carol" and the monologue Scrooge has with Christmas Future.) Tiny Tim might die, or might grow to live a long and healthy life. It's up to us. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 688 Registered: 04-2008 |
Maybe I have overstated my opinion. I don't believe that ALL Detroit needs is to build homes. I just think that $10.5 Billion could go a long way in other areas that are more desperately in need of funding. If a light rail line could be built for $50-75 Million in conjunction with a major repaving of Woodward, I wouldn't be as opposed to that. I would rather see the $10.5 Billion go toward improving what we already have instead of putting all our eggs in one basket (light rail) and hoping that it will work magic. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4149 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You'd get about 2 miles of light rail for that much money, which would be essentially useless because it wouldn't go anywhere. How does half-assing something help? See also: Downtown People Mover. quote: Does this transit plan NOT propose to improve upon the existing transit system? No one has proposed "putting all (Detroit's) eggs in one basket". The plan was debated over a long period of time, and seems very well thought-out. As I've stated above, you can't rely on "hope"--there must be a concerted effort to make the region more economically efficient. We've all seen the results when Detroit does *something*, and then *hopes* good things will happen (new stadiums, casinos, demolition of Hudson's, ad nauseum). Dollar for dollar, rail transit is one of the best investments the region can make. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1036 Registered: 07-2007 |
"I would rather see the $10.5 Billion go toward improving what we already have instead of putting all our eggs in one basket (light rail) and hoping that it will work magic." The way I look at it, Detroit's followed the same path for the past 50 years. Where has it gotten the city? Now Detroit is going to try an approach followed by many successful cities in the US. Will it translate in success in Detroit? Maybe, maybe not. But isn't it obvious that doing the same old, same old has been a complete failure? (Message edited by Novine on January 07, 2009) | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 694 Registered: 04-2008 |
So $10.5 Billion could build 280-420 miles of rail line? I would think that if a light rail line were built during a complete rebuild of a road, it would be cheaper than tearing up existing road and building from scratch. (Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to learn more.) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4150 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Based on what light rail has cost in other cities, yes. I estimate that amount of money (in 2009 dollars) would buy you 300 miles of two-track light rail or bus rapid transit, including stations, facilities, and vehicles. |
