  Hans57 Member Username: Hans57 Post Number: 152 Registered: 05-2006 |
If other cities of less density are doing it, then Detroit can too. http://metromodemedia.com/feat ures/Transitdensity0020.aspx | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 562 Registered: 05-2005 |
The CarHeads wil stonewall it/stop it. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 1219 Registered: 11-2004 |
I don't know about that. This is one of my favorite quotes from the story: quote: | ||
Nyct Member Username: Nyct Post Number: 56 Registered: 01-2007 |
i also like the quote about not trying to take people away from their cars ... only trying to give them options. i don't know why that's that so hard to understand? in NYC, many people who take the train everyday still own cars and use them often on weekends etc. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 139 Registered: 02-2007 |
When I live in new york, I finally gave up having a car because i was paying way too much in insurance just so i could drive it to the other side ofthe road for alternate day parking | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 571 Registered: 07-2004 |
The density in Metro Detroit is fine for mass transit. Many older suburbs of Detroit have very dense housing for suburbs. Also of note is that Downtown Detroit has over double the amount of jobs that downtown Phoenix has. You guys have the density. Just build the transit  Whenever people bring up the low density thing, I point to many Toronto suburbs that have buses operating like every 15min down roads that feature nothing but single family housing. It can be done. But you have to want to do it. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 436 Registered: 12-2006 |
Mike's exactly right: our priorities are wrong, and since we don't want to change how we think, we try to justify our old-fashioned mindset by coming up with reasons why we can't do what we ought. As the saying goes, if you set out to hit a dog, it is very easy to find a stick. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2954 Registered: 02-2005 |
We're not dense by east coast standards, but we have enough density to make so rapid transit make sense. SMART ridership is up, but still, so few people use it. I just wonder how many additional people would be willing to use transit if it was in the form of a streetcar or train. We at least can count on these people using transit: young, open-minded people; old people who have had their cars taken away (we really should take more licenses out of the hands of old people because so many are dangerous); poor people or car-less young people; a few thrifty commuters (the same people who use SMART these days). The question is: will this amount to enough users? Are too many young, open minded people going to other cities? Will the transit have enough stops i.e. at grocery stores/practical destinations to get regular use? Will there be more downtown jobs to entice more commuters to use it? Like Mtoronto say, we just need to do it. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 437 Registered: 12-2006 |
The experience of other regions suggests that many people who will not ride a bus are open to riding a train if the schedule is convenient and if it brings them to where they want to go. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 967 Registered: 04-2006 |
After living in a city with a serious mass transit system, Detroit putting it's own system into place is one of my requirements for seriously considering a move back there any time soon. I believe the city and region will only continue to die without it. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 572 Registered: 07-2004 |
[quote] SMART ridership is up, but still, so few people use it. I just wonder how many additional people would be willing to use transit if it was in the form of a streetcar or train. [/quote] Is it any wonder why so few people use SMART buses? Its not because they won't use the bus. It is because the bus hardly runs. Take a look at the SMART route map and take off all but four routes. Why do I say that? Because only four SMART routes operate seven days a week from morning till night. The rest only operate during certain periods or only have two or three trips a day. How are people suppose to use it. Also the east coast is not that dense. Once you get out of the core city, the suburbs of the east coast are some of the most sprawled ever. (Message edited by miketoronto on June 14, 2007) | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 929 Registered: 12-2005 |
A groundswell of popular and political support is necessary to "just build it". In my opinion, the lack of a critical mass of support for more mass transit in this region has nothing to do with having too many "car-heads" or not enough of those "young, open-minded people" or a sufficient population density. It has everything to do with the poor reputation of the current bus systems and the way they operate. Who is going to go to bat for more mass transit in this region when they can plainly see the lack of competence and coordination inherent in the existing bus systems and that no one entity seems to be able to do anything to change it? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2652 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^You can't run a bus system with routes as long as SMART and expect it to be "efficient". Metropolitan Detroit asks its two bus systems to function way beyond the capabilities of a bus system--capabilities adeptly handled by rail in other regions. It's no wonder they don't function well. | ||
Hans57 Member Username: Hans57 Post Number: 153 Registered: 05-2006 |
Yes, there must be a fusion of rail and bus for mass transit to work in a region as sprawled as ours. It will work though. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1035 Registered: 07-2004 |
I Heart: Don't you understand why you left? You didn't leave because of a lack of transit choices. It was because of the high taxes and the lousy economy that high taxes created. At least that's what I've been hearing from every in-state yahoo who is speaking for you and those like you. You left because of the high taxes, and you won't come back until taxes are low enough. And we can't afford mass transit because we don't have enough money in our public coffers. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1030 Registered: 02-2006 |
What was interesting to me when I visited is that Toronto as a whole, not just suburbs, is almost spot-on the same density as Detroit, except the areas right around a few subway stations where public housing, office towers, and condos have sprung up in the last 40 years. The rest of the city looks strikingly like Detroit. And yet, they have a subway. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2965 Registered: 02-2005 |
I disagree, Miketoronto, I think alot of the routes are pretty well served. Some don't go all day, but they have a good frequency for the morning and evening rush hour, serving the purpose for commuters. As for characterizing the east coast, I also disagree. New Jersey is mostly suburban, yet it is the most densely populated state in the country. The burbs of central Jersey are as dense or denser than Detroit's densest suburbs like Ferndale and the southern GPs. Metro NY and most of Jersey is so well-served by rails. Basically what you have are series of small, dense cities built around the rails. Sure near the fringes that were once woods/farms you have exurban development which is typical of anywhere in the US, but this is not where most people live. Massachussettes, too, has seen a drastic shift towards smart growth, and like Jersey, most people who don't live in the city live in established commuter cities with solid density. So, they have some active sprawl on the east cost, but we cannot deny that their landscapes are way denser than Detroit's. Anyway, this is a side-discussion. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 573 Registered: 07-2004 |
Many of the older psot war suburbs in Toronto are similar to Detroit's postwar burbs in terms of the single family housing. However suburban Toronto is covered in high-rise condos and apartments. Those high-rises add a lot of density. Ontop of that, the inner city area is pretty dense with almost one million people living in approx 60 sq miles. Those are the only two differences. But anyway if you want to provide the service, you can. Its not that hard in a large metro like Detroit to have more frequent bus service and have riders to use it. Lets take a look at a bus route in Kingston, Ontario, a city with a metro pop of just over 100,000. The route below serves a suburban community on the edge of the city. The service is by no means the best. However as you can see the service is better then larger suburbs in Metro Detroit recieve. The whole thing is if you want to provide the service or not. Remember when looking at this timetable, that this is a small city, and this route serves a fully suburban area on the ourskirts. Kinda sad that most Metro Detroit routes have worse service then the route below. KINGSTON TRANSIT ROUTE 12 Depart Downtown for Highway 15 Mon-Sat 6:30AM, 7:00AM, then every 30MIN till 6:00PM, 6:30PM, 7:30PM, 8:30PM, 9:30PM, 10:30PM Sun 9:00AM then EVERY HOUR till 8:00PM (Message edited by miketoronto on June 14, 2007) | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 930 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: Don't go putting words in my mouth, mister "know-it-all in DC". I never mentioned SMART or efficiency in my post. People's minimum expectations are clean buses, courteous and safe drivers and buses that arrive close to their scheduled time (as infrequently as that may be). If they are lucky, the most riders get around here is a courteous driver. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 439 Registered: 12-2006 |
The thing that puts the buses behind schedule is the length of the runs. That, again, is necessary because of the lack of a rapid transit system. You try driving from downtown Detroit to New Baltimore along Gratiot and 23 Mile Road, as some of the trips on the SMART 560 do, and keep that to a predictable schedule. We all have to understand that there is no city or region anywhere that has excellent transit available to everyone. Just like not everyone lives near a freeway, not everyone lives near a major transit corridor. If you live along Gratiot or Woodward or Michigan Avenue, and your trips are along those corridors, the transit system (city or suburban) works pretty well. If you live at 17 Mile and Garfield, you have only the "reservation" transit available. If you live in Rochester, you have no transit whatsoever. A rapid transit system along some of the major corridors, with shorter connecting bus routes taking people from that system's stations to their destinations, would give people along those corridors as good of a transit system as anyone has. The problem has always been money and priorities. We were able to come up with hundreds of millions, or billions perhaps, to make M-59 into a gargantuan monstrosity in Macomb County, and to extend the M-53 freeway further into the middle of nowhere. But nobody seems willing to spend money to improve transit. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 931 Registered: 12-2005 |
Professor, You and Dan seem to think that everyone else knows less than you do and you can go right on believing that if you wish. The rest of us understand and accept that with long routes like SMART's, heavy traffic will slow down the buses and they will fall off schedule. What riders will not tolerate are huge gaps between actual bus arrivals, suggestive of a missed run, which happens occasionally even during non-rush hours. Since you two seem to be so ready and able to excuse SMART's operational deficiencies, how about enlightening us on DDOT's excuses? My point is that it does not matter one iota to bus riders and commuters in Metro Detroit why their bus systems cannot be operated to meet their minimum expectations, they rightly feel that any additional spending on other publicly operated mass or transit system would be a diversion of resources that could be better put to use to make their existing systems meet their minimum standards. Your argument about the hundreds of millions spent on M-59 and M-53 misses a few points. It was local opposition that saved hundreds of millions more dollars being spent to make M-59 a freeway along its entire length as state planners originally wanted. Furthermore, the M-53 freeway serves the agricultural, manufacturing and resort areas north of M-59 and takes hundreds of thousands of cars and heavy trucks off Van Dyke through Romeo, Washington, Shelby and Utica. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 441 Registered: 12-2006 |
If an all-bus transit system is the right way to go, Mike, then why does no other big city region in North America do it that way? Are we the smart ones, relying on buses for the whole system, and every other region of over 2.5 million people (we are nearly double that) is so stupid they think they need rapid transit? Maybe that's why our economy is doing so well compared to the others? | ||
Mbr Member Username: Mbr Post Number: 200 Registered: 03-2005 |
I just posted this in non-detroit as well but it seems pretty appropriate here too. There hasn't been much national leadership on this issue and it is rarely mentioned on the campaign trail. Presidential Candidate Stumps For Light Rail http://www.planetizen.com/node /25031 | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 934 Registered: 12-2005 |
I'm not saying that an all-bus transit system is the right way to go. I'm saying that trying to get a groundswell of support for a new rapid transit system is difficult when the existing bus systems need so much improvement (and I don't buy the excuse that they cannot make any improvements because there is no existing rapid transit system). | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 577 Registered: 07-2004 |
Rapid transit will do NOTHING for Metro Detroit, untill the bus system is brought up to proper service standards. A rapid transit route down Woodward for example will do nothing for 95% of the riders who live outside that corridor don't have good bus service No other system really started rapid transit till the buses were providing good service. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2668 Registered: 10-2003 |
^But if your buses have to run routes that exceed 20 miles in length, how are you supposed to improve service? | ||
Transitrider Member Username: Transitrider Post Number: 10 Registered: 01-2007 |
Some good points all around. Bus service must be improved, that is correct, but as mentioned, rapid transit can better serve those longer corridors AND make the bus systems more useful by allowing them to act as feeder systems. It's not one or the other, it's both. Regarding improving existing bus service: SMART has new management, and it is unclear at this point where this will lead the agency. Lately they have been making big changes in their routes, and as shown by their Downriver studies, and seem eager to provide a more useful service to their service area. Likewise DDOT has been making some internal organizational changes and shows an improved attitude towards providing courteous, timely service. These changes take time, and the effects are not always immediately transparent. I've noticed increased timeliness on the routes I use especially in the past 6 months, and friendlier drivers. There is certainly more to be done. Signage and posted schedules are needed and DDOT is currently studying this with a consultant. They are much more receptive to feedback than before. The best way to influence these improvements is to get involved. Ride the bus. Take notice of what's working, what's not. Tell DDOT and SMART. Attend their monthly public meetings and tell them what they can improve upon. Also, join or donate to TRU, attend a meeting of their Rider's Voice group, which has been influential in getting some of these positive changes. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 44 Registered: 08-2006 |
Minneapolis has a very successful light rail system with two times as many riders as anticipated. Additional light rail trains had to be ordered after its inception. People who will not ride a bus are often eager to ride light rail. The Minneapolis light rail connects downtown with the over 45,000 student U of MN, the Mall of America, and the airport. It's next connection will be to downtown St. Paul. Important stops are as important to success as population density. On weekends, the trains are packed with sport fans and clubbers. After games, fans enjoy some nightlife downtown before heading home. Parking and drunk driving problems are reduced. The other success factor is that Minneapolis has a low crime rate and people aren't afraid to wait for and ride the light rail. http://www.metrotransit.org/ra il/ | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1485 Registered: 11-2003 |
SMART does run well and for the most part on time. I have never had problems riding it. Busses were clean, drivers friendly, and I was picked up and dropped off on time. The problem is the frequency the various lines run make it take forever between transfers. The problem lies in that people do not want to spend this much time waiting for a transfer/bus. But for SMART to justify increased runs, they need more riders. The solution, people need to use what we have, and when the powers that be see that people are using it, they will be forced to increase service, and me more tempted to try to add other forms of transit. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 578 Registered: 07-2004 |
That is true. The poor service frequency is really what keeps people from riding. As for Minneapolis. Alot of US rail systems are starting out brand new, so I understand the ridership won't be there all at once. But LRT ridership in Minneapolis and other US LRT systems is pitfull. Minneapolis' entire LRT line carries something like 17,000 riders a day. Ottawa's South busway extension, which extended the busway only two stops, carries 10,000 riders a day just in the new section alone, let alone the entire busway which carries 200,000 people a day. Who says bus can't attract? Its all about the service levels and quality, fast service. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 442 Registered: 12-2006 |
Bob, as a region we decided to put all our transportation eggs into one basket: freeways. So we have miles and miles of freeways, and they go everywhere and are well-marked with signs and well indicated on maps, therefore people use them. Look now at our transit: From the 1930s to the 1950s we tore out the streetcars, which people liked but General Motors hated, and replaced them with buses, which people didn't like as much. Then we cut back service, time and time again, as we spent more money to build the expressways than we had ever spent on public transportation. We redid our zoning laws to require acres of free parking in all new commercial developments, making it easier and easier to drive anywhere, but harder to use transit (which involves walking). The bus stops don't have route information; nobody has any way of telling you how to get around on the two bus systems. Downtown, no signs anywhere tell you where to go to catch a bus to any particular place. Many SMART routes only run a few times a day; many DDOT routes run only once every 40 minutes or so. Given that mix of service quality, how would you get around? It is not practical to tell people to "use what we have", when what we have is garbage compared to what all other big-city regions have. Our political leaders need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. | ||
Jeduncan Member Username: Jeduncan Post Number: 105 Registered: 11-2006 |
Hans! Call me, I lost your number! if I don't talk to you before then, enjoy italy, you prick! | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 939 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: Everything I have read indicates that transit riders back then preferred buses over the streetcars because they were quieter, warmer in winter and especially because they provided curbside pick up and drop off. Other vehicle operators also preferred buses because rush hour traffic flow increased by up to a third with the streetcars gone from the middle of the road. I have yet to find contemporaneous accounts that mention any type of popular support for keeping streetcars over buses. Where did you find something on which to base your opinion? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 445 Registered: 12-2006 |
Sigh. OK, for starters, here is an article by Bradford Snell, a former US Senate Counsel. I can repeat this ad nauseam but let's not club a dead horse. "The electric streetcar, contrary to Van Wilkin's incredible naïve whitewash, did not die a natural death: General Motors killed it. GM killed it by employing a host of anti-competitive devices which, like National City Lines, debased rail transit and promoted auto sales. This is not about a 'plot' hatch by wild-eyed corporate rogues, but rather about a consummate business strategy crafted by Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., the MIT-trained genius behind General Motors, to expand auto sales and maximize profits by eliminating streetcars. In 1922, according to GM's own files, Sloan established a special unit within the corporation which was charged, among other things, with the task of replacing America's electric railways with cars, trucks and buses. A year earlier, in 1921, GM lost $65 million, leading Sloan to conclude that the auto market was saturated, that those who desired cars already owned them, and that the only way to increase GM's sales and restore its profitability was by eliminating its principal rival: electric railways. At the time, 90 percent of all trips were by rail, chiefly electric rail; only one in 10 Americans owned an automobile. There were 1,200 separate electric street and interurban railways, a thriving and profitable industry with 44,000 miles of track, 300,000 employees, 15 billion annual passengers, and $1 billion in income. Virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system. General Motors sought to reduce competition from electric railways through a variety of measures, including the use of freight leverage. GM, for decades, was the nation's largest shipper of freight over railroads, which controlled some of America's most extensive railways. By wielding freight traffic as a club, GM persuaded railroads to abandon their electric rail subsidiaries. With a pack of notorious mobsters, GM helped purchase and scrap the street railways serving Minneapolis-St. Paul. Members of GM's special unit went to, among others, the Southern Pacific, owner of Los Angeles' Pacific Electric, the world's largest interurban, with 1,500 miles of track, reaching 75 miles from San Bernardino, north to San Fernando, and south to Santa Ana; the New York Central, owner of the New York State Railways, 600 miles of street railways and interurban lines in upstate New York; and the New Haven, owner of 1,500 miles of trolley lines in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. In each case, by threatening to divert lucrative automobile freight to rival carriers, they persuaded the railroad (according to GM's own files) to convert its electric street cars to motor buses -- slow, cramped, foul-smelling vehicles whose inferior performance invariable led riders to purchase automobiles. As the largest depositor in the nation's leading banks, GM also enjoyed financial leverage over the electric railways, which relied heavily on these banks to supply their capital needs. According to U.S. Department of Justice documents, officials of GM visited banks used by railways in Philadelphia, Dallas, Kansas City and other locations, and, by offering them millions in additional deposits, persuaded their rail clients to convert to motor vehicles. Where these measures were unavailing, GM formed holding companies to buy up and motorize the railways directly. Thus, it helped organize and finance United Cities Motor Transit as a wholly owned GM subsidiary, as well as Greyhound, Rex Finance, Omnibus Corporation, National City Lines, Pacific City Lines, American City Lines, City Coach Lines, Manning Transportation and numerous other concerns, which acquired rail systems across the country, including those in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, San Diego and Oakland. With officials of Greyhound and National City, it helped acquire and dismantle the $50 million North Shore Line, the fastest electric service in the world, providing Wisconsin's lakeshore cities and Chicago's northern suburbs high-speed access to the downtown loop. With a pack of notorious mobsters, it helped purchase and scrap the street railways serving Minneapolis-St. Paul. Where rail systems could not be bought, GM bought rail officials instead, giving Cadillacs to those who converted to buses. And where rail systems were publicly owned and could not be bought, like the municipal railway of St. Petersburg, Florida, GM bought their officials instead, according to FBI files, providing complimentary Cadillacs to those who converted to buses. GM admitted, in court documents, that by the mid-1950s, its agents had canvassed more than 1,000 electric railways and that, of these, they had motorized 90 percent, more than 900 systems." There's plenty more, but as I said, why bother? It is worth recalling that between 1940 and 1946 there were no marked improvements in the design of streetcars because of WWII, and most municipal streetcars after 1945 had been purchased in the 1920s and 1930s because they are durable vehicles and last quite a while, whereas most buses in the late 1940s and early 1950s were brand new because there simply hadn't been very many buses before WWII. So Mikeg is not entirely incorrect; new buses are nicer than 20 year old streetcars. Yet the public, by result, preferred the streetcars; 22% of all Detroiters rode public transit in the early 1950s vs. 9% by the mid 1980s. | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 574 Registered: 05-2005 |
"new buses are nicer than 20 year old streetcars" Couldn't be more wrong. That sounds like a statement from a CarHead or someone who never uses public transit. (Message edited by Futurecity on June 18, 2007) | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 448 Registered: 12-2006 |
No, future, you have to remember that the pre-WWII streetcars were a piece of work. A modern (post 1970) streetcar or light-rail vehicle is something else entirely. I have personally been on many versions of each. Now, my take is: a modern light rail vehicle (or streetcar, which is a subtype) is nicer than just about any other form of transportation. A modern bus, operating on a well-maintained road (not the kind we have in southeast Michigan) is not quite as good but still not bad. But if you were tooling around on transit systems in the 1950s, IMVHO, the quite-modern buses of that era were not as ghastly a ride as the antique streetcars. Now, I was a very young person back in those days so my memory may be somewhat skewed. Anyone a wee tad older have a better recollection? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 1241 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: The carheads are what sustains what is left of the states economy. You car haters seem to forget that this town and this state depends on the manufacture and sale of automobiles. If that doesn't happen, you won't need a transit system at all because there will be nobody left to ride it. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 450 Registered: 12-2006 |
Perfect, I'm not a car hater but automotive is not a sustainable economy. We have been losing automotive jobs for, what now, forty years? It will never provide for us in the future what it did in the past. Change or die. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 47 Registered: 08-2006 |
Miketoronto, How can you you say that LTR ridership in Minneapolis is "pitfull"? Over 19,600 passengers/day ride its 12 miles. Ottawa, population 1,000,000, has 200,000 daily bus riders as you noted. Minneapolis, population 370,000, has 240,000 weekday metro area bus riders. Detroit might do better seeing what works in Minneapolis. | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 575 Registered: 05-2005 |
PG - When it comes to transit vs cars, the CarHeads have always thought it was (and still is) an "All or Nothing Game", which is extremely misguided to the point of ruin. And one huge reason we are in the predicament that we are now in. Other regions/cities with a huge automotive presence can still have enough common sense to invest in transit. But not metro Detroit. Not Michigan. The CarHeads here have successfully killed and continue to kill any and all forms of non-third-world transit options. Read: a broken-down, disfunctional bus system or nothing at all. When I travel to Germany's automotive headquarters (Munich), I ride a beautiful public transit system. When I travel to Japan's automotive headquarter cities, again beautiful transit options. And the same goes for Italy, France, South Korea and on and on. But not here. CarHeads have forced upon us a losing formula. Cars only. No other reasonable choice. And we continue to suffer for it. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 940 Registered: 12-2005 |
Yes, it always helps to foster change by finding a conspiracy and someone else to blame other than ourselves, be it General Motors or "car heads" or whatever. I have to laugh at the way Professorscott responds to my point about transit riders preferences by changing the subject to GM and then 850 cut and paste words later he writes, "So Mikeg is not entirely incorrect" without ever addressing my point. I never said that they preferred buses over streetcars because they were newer, I gave specific reasons why buses were seen to offer greater conveniences over streetcars. A non-revisionist account of what really happened would admit that GM had the right idea but the mistake that the DSR (and other systems) made was to totally convert their street railway system over to buses - they should have left the streetcars running on the major radial arterials. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 583 Registered: 07-2004 |
Oladub Those stats are wrong. And in terms of ridership, Minneapolis why better then most US cities, still has pretty sad ridership. Minneapolis' METRO TRANSIT serves the entire Metro area of Minneapolis. That is over 2 million people. On an average weekday they carry about 250,000 riders. Ottawa's Transit system OC TRANSPO, serves an area of about 800,000 people and has a weekday ridership of over 350,000. The 200,000 is for the busway, which would be like LRT in another city. Ottawa also includes Hull across the river, which has their own transit system. Add in Hull, and there are over 400,000 transit trips a day, in an area of just over a million people. My point was that service quality is sometimes more important then mode. Minneapolis has a 20 mile or so LRT line, and it is attracting 19,000 people a day. Ottawa opens a two station extension to their busway, which is a lot less then 19 miles, and that extension alone is carrying 10,000 extra riders. So a bus can attract people. That was my point. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 48 Registered: 08-2006 |
Miketoronto, You are indeed correct about Metro serving not only Minneapolis but also St. Paul. I read a little about Ottawa's bus system. It seems Ottawa has a policy of reducing downtown parking opportunities and providing dedicated bus lanes to encourage bus use. Bus use can be very attractive if made free. Hasselt, Belgium has had free bus services since July 1, 1997 which made expensive investments in streets and parking facilities unnecessary. Also, real estate values went up along the free bus line. Increased assessments completely offset the foregone fares. Warren or Woodward would be my candidates for a free bus line in Detroit. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 585 Registered: 07-2004 |
Here is a map of the Ottawa Transitway(busway). The red line is rail. But other then that, the rest are busways. This is just the rapid transit busway routes. There are local bus routes that touch all areas of the metro region including rural areas, that connect with the busway. But buses can work Click below to see map http://www.octranspo.com/mapsc heds/Transitway/tway_map_menuE .htm The busway may be the best idea for Detroit right now, allowing for flexable rapid transit. Also about Minneapolis. METRO serves more then just Minneapolis and St Paul central cities. METRO serves almost the entire metro area, including most suburbs of both cities. It is a metropolitan ride bus service. (Message edited by miketoronto on June 19, 2007) | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 457 Registered: 12-2006 |
In cities that have both rapid busways and light rail, the light rail is much more popular. That's not to disparage a rapid busway, but in order to be "rapid" it has to have its own running way, which costs about as much to construct as a light rail line. An enhanced-toward-rapid busway is a decent choice for a second tier of transit service. If you are just buying fancier buses and operating them in street traffic, you don't have rapid transit at all. This is why no major North American urban area relies exclusively on buses for transit, except us. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1796 Registered: 10-2003 |
Everything I have read indicates that transit riders back then preferred buses over the streetcars because they were quieter, warmer in winter and especially because they provided curbside pick up and drop off. Other vehicle operators also preferred buses because rush hour traffic flow increased by up to a third with the streetcars gone from the middle of the road. I have yet to find contemporaneous accounts that mention any type of popular support for keeping streetcars over buses. Where did you find something on which to base your opinion?" I've talked to many people who rode the old streetcars AND the old buses. All preferred the streetcars. The major reasons: the ride was smoother on the streetcar, there were fewer stops, and (this is the big one) the buses in those days STANK. They reeked of exhaust and emitted ungodly fumes which often made passengers sick. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2693 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Why is flexibility a positive aspect of transit? Most people like to know where the transit vehicle is going to go, where it stops, and when the next vehicle is going to arrive. Introducing flexibility into this equation screws all of that up. Never mind that "flexibility" is a euphemism for "lack of permanence"--something not especially attractive to developers. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 459 Registered: 12-2006 |
Right on, Dan. Developers like to build near where infrastructure has a sense of permanence. One of the people who worked to create the Portland Streetcar put it nicely in a newspaper article: "Developers don't write checks for buses". | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2694 Registered: 10-2003 |
^Exactly. Yet every person that pushes BRT (gag!) touts its flexibility as a supposed benefit. Would you drive if they closed a different series of roads every day? Redundancy, which is important in a transit system, allows for flexibility of trips. Flexibility of the system itself is bad. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1065 Registered: 07-2004 |
There was some sort of informal poll, maybe conducted by a newspaper, in the 1950s, asking straphangers whether they should get rid of the streetcars. I hear riders overwhelmingly said no. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 586 Registered: 07-2004 |
Flexabilty does not mean the BRT route changes. Ottawa's BRT route has stayed the same, because it is built in its own right of way, just like an LRT line. The flexabilty comes into the routes. There are three core routes that operate only on the busway stopping at all stations, etc. But there are also a ton of other routes that pic people up in their neighbourhood, operate on main roads, then enter the busway and continue on downtown or across town, etc. That kind of flexabilty is a big plus for adding service to new areas, or adding new routes that tailored to travel needs LRT is great. I am not against it. I just don't want people think it is the be all and end all for transit problems in Detroit. Because one route running down Woodward will do nothing. On a side note. Ottawa's bus only system achieves higher per capia ridership levels, then cities with extensive subway's and LRT networks, including Washington DC. So rail does not always mean more people will ride. That is all I am trying to get at. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2696 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You're not touting "flexibility". You're touting buses as a "one-size-fits-all" solution, which is ridiculous. What happens when you're in a major metropolis, and you need to move several hundred people at a time. I've been on subway trains here in DC that, if the same crowd were on buses, would have filled 18 buses. Try scheduling 18 buses to show up every 3 minutes (that's one bus every 10 seconds). Again--developers don't pay good money to be near bus stops. quote: I'd be curious to see these numbers. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 587 Registered: 07-2004 |
Here are the ridership levels. I only listed down to Chicago, and then put Detroit's stat in for you guys. My point of this is not to be against LRT. I think LRT is great. My point is that sometimes its the service that is provided that is more important then the mode. As you can see many bus only cities rate higher then rail cities. Maybe it has to do with the service levels? US AND CANADIAN PER CAPITA RIDERSHIP NUMBERS BY METROPOLITAN AREA *= Bus only transit system **=Ottawa has one small LRT route. However the LRT route only accounts for 6,000 riders a day of the over 400,000 riders, and these stats were from before the LRT opened in Ottawa's case. City--------------------PER CAPITA RIDERSHIP Montreal-------------------146 .9 Toronto--------------------132 .3 New York-------------------127.5 Ottawa---------------------103 .6** Vancouver------------------89. 0 Honolulu-------------------83. 2* Calgary--------------------81. 8 Winnipeg-------------------76. 4* Saskatoon------------------68. 5* Quebec City----------------68.0* San Francisco--------------67.5 Washington DC--------------66.7 Victoria-------------------63. 9* Chicago--------------------63. 6 Detroit--------------------14. 2* | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 588 Registered: 07-2004 |
Here are the ridership levels. I only listed down to Chicago, and then put Detroit's stat in for you guys. My point of this is not to be against LRT. I think LRT is great. My point is that sometimes its the service that is provided that is more important then the mode. As you can see many bus only cities rate higher then rail cities. Maybe it has to do with the service levels? US AND CANADIAN PER CAPITA RIDERSHIP NUMBERS BY METROPOLITAN AREA *= Bus only transit system **=Ottawa has one small LRT route. However the LRT route only accounts for 6,000 riders a day of the over 400,000 riders, and these stats were from before the LRT opened in Ottawa's case. City--------------------PER CAPITA RIDERSHIP Montreal-------------------146 .9 Toronto--------------------132 .3 New York-------------------127.5 Ottawa---------------------103 .6** Vancouver------------------89. 0 Honolulu-------------------83. 2* Calgary--------------------81. 8 Winnipeg-------------------76. 4* Saskatoon------------------68. 5* Quebec City----------------68.0* San Francisco--------------67.5 Washington DC--------------66.7 Victoria-------------------63. 9* Chicago--------------------63. 6 Detroit--------------------14. 2* | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2697 Registered: 10-2003 |
Well gee, it's okay for the Canadian to lambast Minnesota's Hiawatha Line for low ridership, but we conveniently neglect Ottawa's LRT line, which carries a third the number of people. I'm not sure what these numbers are trying to show. Some of these cities have incredibly sprawled suburbs (I don't consider Virginia or Maryland to be part of Washington, DC, thank you). Others have extensive commuter rail systems that bring suburban riders into the city. It's hard to interpret the numbers as anything meaningful, though. Either way, they don't say anything about the level of service provided. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 589 Registered: 07-2004 |
Ottawa's LRT is a very small line, that connects two busway routes. Different from Minneapolis. Sprawled suburbs or not, that is no excuse. We can not count transit ridership and leave out places, because they are not transit friendly. All the cities listed above have very sprawled burbs. Does not mean the burbs can be taken out of the stats. If you focused on just the core cities, then the stats would not be that different. You must have a properly working bus system, or any rail line you build will do nothing. Rail relies on buses to get people to the stations. (Message edited by miketoronto on June 19, 2007) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1058 Registered: 02-2006 |
Dan's point about capacity is a valid one. Each train car in Chicago holds over 100 people when standing (40-something seats). Each bus is similar. The difference is each TRAIN carries between 6 and 8 cars. And on almost every occasion, the trains run more frequently than the buses (mine runs every 4 minutes). Do the math. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 590 Registered: 07-2004 |
My point though was to highlight that LRT does not mean automatically that mass transit will work in a city, and that people will flock. As those ridership numbers show, many LRT and subway cities are below bus only cities. So I was just pointing that out. LRT is great. But the entire mass transit system must work well, or we can build all the LRT we want, but the ridership will still be low, if the whole system does not work well. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1060 Registered: 02-2006 |
I'm absolutely on board with that point. We'll never see it, but I'd love to see a stat of Chicago L riders who first transferred from a bus. It'd be interesting. Especially since vast portions of the city are not directly served by CTA rail. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 591 Registered: 07-2004 |
I do not have stats for that. I know in Toronto something like 70-75% of subway riders access the subway station by bus/streetcar. Chicago's L system for its size, is actually underused in many parts. The entire L system in Chicago while over 100KM long only carries about 500,000-600,000 a day. Compared to Montreal with about 70KM of subway, and about 700,000 daily riders. Or Toronto with about 70KM of subway also, and 860,000 riders. I think the reason for low L ridership might be that some of the lines go through depopulated areas. But in Chicago the buses play a much larger role for many residents. Check out this map of Calgary Transit. As you can see, almost all the buses act as feeders from the suburban neighbourhoods to the LRT stations. Many of those subdivisions are just as windy and low density as Metro Detroit. Also notice the red route. That is a simple BUS RAPID TRANSIT route. That route is in place till LRT is built. That is the kind of route Detroit needs RIGHT NOW on streets like Woodward, till LRT is put in. Click to see http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/engineering_services/emaps/transit_map.pdf (Message edited by miketoronto on June 19, 2007) (Message edited by miketoronto on June 19, 2007) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1061 Registered: 02-2006 |
This is true, the average weekday rail ridership currently hovers around 510,000 (compared to 855k for Toronto). Almost 357,000 of that is carried by the Red Line North of the Loop, the Blue Line North of the Loop, the Brown Line, the Purple Line, and the Loop itself, of which all are currently torn up by construction. All the most heavily populated neighborhoods. So, doing the math, over 70% of the ridership (which is down from last year, but up systemwide including buses) is coming from like 45% of the system. And anyone riding any of the aforementioned lines would laugh at you for saying "underutilized" because we're all nuts to butts on our commutes. The current construction is to increase capacity. This also doesn't take into account that there is no rail service near the lakeshore, which is served exclusively by express articulated bus. But I'm getting geeky now, and this is off topic. (Message edited by focusonthed on June 19, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2699 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Isn't the title of this thread "Density vs. Transit"? Frankly, Miketoronto, I don't know what you're trying to demonstrate. |
