 
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4300
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:07 pm: |    |
quote:...about 57,00 per day... Typo, perhaps? |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1798
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:08 pm: | |
P.S.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L YNX_Rapid_Transit_Services |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3469
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:10 pm: | |
^^^Actually, a 75-foot subway car costs about $2 million. This is what WMATA paid for the new 6000-series cars that are going on-line. Capacity (comfortable) is generally accepted at 120 people per car. An 8-car train would thus cost $16 million, and carry about 1000 people.
Twenty-five diesel buses would cost $7.5 million.
HOWEVER--the typical bus lasts 12 years. A rail car can last 50 (or more), with a mid-life overhaul. Until a couple years ago, New York was running Redbirds from the 1940s on the 4-5-6.
Also, electricity to power a rail car is cheaper than diesel for a bus. And with less moving parts, there is far less maintenance required. |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1799
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:12 pm: | |
"Well, let's start some calculations!"
Don't get into this! It only serves to argue that mass transit does not pay for itself by those that use it. Try doing this with highways. Prove that those that use highways pay enough in gas taxes to cover the cost of their highway driving!
On the other hand, let's not forget about all of the good business that comes from light rail. The spin off development alone can make light rail worthwhile by spurring new mixed use transit oriented development. |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1926
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:12 pm: | |
Interesting back of the envelope stuff...
I'm not sure your subway car costs are right, but remember that nobody is promoting heavy rail rapid transit in Detroit. All discussions are about commuter rail and light rail.
The cost of rail capital over a longer life and higher capacity is definitely a plus, but the real benefit (IMHO) is operating cost. Drivers are the most expensive thing in transit, and one driver of a LRT vehicle is moving a lot more people than one bus driver. Over the years, keeping an electric powered train running is a lot cheaper than keeping a diesel bus running, and if diesel gets more expensive, that is a consideration too. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1856
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:14 pm: | |
I pulled my numbers for the subway from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R 32_(New_York_City_Subway_car)
(Message edited by iheartthed on October 11, 2007) |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4301
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:15 pm: | |
Unless one lives near convenient walking distance to the train, buses will also be required. It's not going to be trains replacing buses much, if at all. All what is gained is a ride a few minutes shorter, then probably a fairly stiff waiting time for the buses to complete the ride. So what's saved anyways?
We know that the vast majority of riders will not live directly along the rail line and that buses will be most definitely needed. Quit playing games! |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3695
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:17 pm: | |
Iheartthed - you were quoting 1964 prices! My inflation calculator puts the current cost at over $700,000.
(Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 11, 2007) |
Kslice
Member
Username: Kslice
Post Number: 176
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:18 pm: | |
I still think the DPM should become our "downtown loop", going to New Center, Amtrak, ext. Then you could have a transfer point where there would be more light rail going to places farther away.
Rail is a critical part to the area. Look at any other big city. We need to step up and get it going, only then will business prosper. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1366
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:22 pm: | |
quote:We know that the vast majority of riders will not live directly along the rail line and that buses will be most definitely needed.
LY, really?
Please see pages 15 and 16.
http://www.transitchicago.com/ news/motion/board/3trkbrd20070 214.pdf |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3696
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:26 pm: | |
quote:Rail is a critical part to the area. Look at any other big city. We need to step up and get it going, only then will business prosper.
Yep. forget the crime, the crummy infrastructure, the substandard city services, the dozens of abandoned buildings, the financial woes of our primary industry, the looming fiscal crisis in state and local government, the non-competitive labor environment, excess regulation and litigation hostile to business and excess taxes.
All we need is a Woodward rail line and the area will be transformed. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:27 pm: | |
LOL, sorry, I'm at work so I was skimming. I'll recalculate, but even now you can still see the costs aren't equivalent. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3472
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:28 pm: | |
^Actually, the $2 million figure is directly what WMATA told me ($378 million contract for 184 rail cars). Light rail cars are about the same price. Boston MBTA ordered 100 light rail vehicles at $2.15 million a pop.
quote:On the other hand, let's not forget about all of the good business that comes from light rail. The spin off development alone can make light rail worthwhile by spurring new mixed use transit oriented development.
How's this for Return on Investment? I'd like to see a freeway or bus system match this!
quote:Between 1994 and 2010 in Virginia alone, Metrorail will generate an estimated $2.1 billion in tax revenues and 91,000 permanent jobs and provide a 19 percent annual return on investment. Region-wide, Metro has already generated more than $15 billion in increased value at station sites, and the Urban Land Institute estimates the Metrorail system will have contributed $25 billion of commercial, office and retail growth by 2010.
http://www.narpac.org/METROLRP .HTM
(Note original capital costs of $9 billion.) |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1927
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:30 pm: | |
The current ridership of the woodward busses is enough to make LRT operationally more efficient than busses. Those people are already walking or transfering to a woodward bus, so what changes if you switch out the buses for LRT?
Considering the people that would ride a train that aren't riding buses, it is a no brainer.
LY, you don't know anything about where the riders live, you don't really know anything about cities. You only know railroad history and right-wing talking points.
For the benefit of those who also don't know (but aren't ignorant and arrogant to claim they do):
- the thousands of people that currently ride the bus will continue to ride light rail (except now their trip will cost less to provide and it will be more comfortable and quicker) Some of them walk, some ride bikes, and many others transfer from other bus routes, that won't change.
- people who for whatever reasons won't get on a bus, will try the train and then switch some of their travel to the mode. All over the country, it has been repeatedly shown that LRT attracts more people than the bus systems they replace.
- housing and commerce will grow along the route as long as the city doesn't zone it out, increasing over time the number of people that will be able to use it to get where they want to go (and over time, making the transit even more efficient to provide).
(Message edited by jsmyers on October 11, 2007) |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4302
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:33 pm: | |
Sheesh! BTW, the last time I checked my local atlas, it said Detroit not Chicago.
Consider where the ultimate three or four rail lines would be situated and then assess the percentage of potential riders who couldn't be served without buses. That's a big downer for the Detroit/AA route, among others.
Remember, the rail proponents have to justify and come up with the expenses--not the other way around. BTW, the lack of funding cannot be overcome, but keep trying as if you're playing SimCity. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3473
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:36 pm: | |
quote:BTW, the lack of funding cannot be overcome, but keep trying as if you're playing SimCity.
Glad to see you're such an optimist! |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1928
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:39 pm: | |
quote:Remember, the rail proponents have to justify and come up with the expenses--not the other way around. BTW, the lack of funding cannot be overcome, but keep trying as if you're playing SimCity.
Really? Why don't the highway proponents have to justify building more highways in Michigan when it is not growing? Maybe if we didn't keep doing that, this "lack of funding" would disappear.
Michigan wastes enough money every year on unneeded highway expansion to more than pay for a very modest transit system like the DTOGS is looking at.
If you are going to be against public infrastructure, at least be fair and be against spending money on any of it, maybe then I could disagree with you but still respect you. As it is, your posts make you look very foolish and irrationally angry. |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1800
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 4:46 pm: | |
"Unless one lives near convenient walking distance to the train, buses will also be required. It's not going to be trains replacing buses much, if at all. All what is gained is a ride a few minutes shorter, then probably a fairly stiff waiting time for the buses to complete the ride. So what's saved anyways?"
Believe it or not, most mass transit riders don't use it for the convenience. I use Charlotte's here because it is simply cheaper than paying for monthly parking uptown. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4306
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:07 pm: | |
Like I said: Put it to a vote and see how it sinks or swims. You might then see how greedy and selfish the majority is on this issue. Or, would you rather secretly slip it by them? |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1929
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:20 pm: | |
I don't disagree with the idea of putting it to a vote, though I'm pretty certain you're wrong about the outcome. Votes across the nation have consistently went in transit's favor in recent years, and polls around here show that people know we need it. But we can agree to disagree on that, since it is just a hunch.
But I'd like to point out that when your faulty logic, bias, and ignorance are pointed out, the only response you have is to change the subject.
You about as frequent and credible of poster on transit topics as Trainman, except that most of us can't figure what the hell he is writing about enough to enter into a discussion with him.
I just wish you would drop the BS and stick to posting about things you know something about. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1367
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:24 pm: | |
I would imagine if people in West Bloomfield were voting on the Woodward line, it would certainly fail, yes.
Those wishing to put it to a metro-wide popular vote know this, and hide behind this strategy. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4308
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:26 pm: | |
If you feel so strongly about it, put it up to a vote. Is that so hard? |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 871
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:29 pm: | |
I like the vote idea LY, but I don't like the specifics. I'll do it this way:
Over the next 20 years, we plan to spend (in the tri county region) $X billion on transportation altogether. We can spend it in four ways: to maintain existing roads, to increase road network capacity (usually by widening at this point), to maintain existing transit service, and to expand transit service (by improving bus service and/or adding some kind of rail something-or-another).
For every dollar in that bucket, how would you allocate the funds?
That's the question I'd ask, and I bet the answer you'd get would be a lot different than how the money actually gets divvied up today. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet. Anyhow, that would be a more fair referendum, because it's realistic: we have just so much money and no more; how shall we spend it?
By the way the "$X billion" is a published number, SEMCOG has it, I just don't have time right now to root around for it. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4310
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:35 pm: | |
If any dollar amount would be given, make it a realistic (not lowball) figure. A realistic figure alone might be very difficult to get on a referendum. Who judges? |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1930
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:37 pm: | |
quote:If you feel so strongly about it, put it up to a vote. Is that so hard?
Yes, because people in positions of power in our state who are afraid it might pass have prevented it. Many people have a vested interest in exurban development continuing regardless of its long-term impact of the state's economy.
I'd actually turn that around though, why should Michigan have a vote to do what pretty much every other non-rural state does as their status quo? Why shouldn't we have a vote on whether citizen's want to keep spending transportation money the way we have been? |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4311
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:41 pm: | |
Then do as the grass-roots anti-AA folks did and work at it instead of merely whining. |
Detroit_stylin
Member
Username: Detroit_stylin
Post Number: 5143
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:47 pm: | |
quote:I just wish you would drop the BS and stick to posting about things you know something about.
Which would be nothing.... |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1932
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:52 pm: | |
anti-AA folks?
Are those the old guys with 3 DUIs that still drive to and from the bar every night?
But seriously, who do you mean by the anit-AA folks?
You apparently think you know what I do (and have done) when not posting on DY. How foolish (once again). |
Rjk
Member
Username: Rjk
Post Number: 901
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:54 pm: | |
"housing and commerce will grow along the route..."
Where along a Woodward route would housing grow?
North of Woodward is already pretty packed and all the reasons that keep people from moving to Detroit presently will not be overcome simply by having light rail. It sounds nice to hope that a 50 year trend of people moving out of the city would be reversed, but I just don't see it happening.
(Message edited by rjk on October 11, 2007) |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4312
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 5:58 pm: | |
Duh! As in Prop 2? Go to work at the things you want. Get others to help. Is that too hard, also?
Or, is your memory always so conveniently short? I didn't realize that I had to carefully spell everything out in large caps. |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1933
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 6:07 pm: | |
Woodward is packed?
This is woodward in Detroit:
http://maps.live.com/default.a spx?v=2&cp=r1t8q6829wn8&style= o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-10 00&scene=5642948&encType=1
as is this:
http://maps.live.com/default.a spx?v=2&cp=r1vy8n829dy8&style= o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-10 00&scene=5639558&encType=1
I didn't say that transit would solve all of the cities problems, but it will help, and part of that will be that LRT is more efficient to operate than the busses we rely on now. In addition, Detroit has the only active housing market in the region because it is an urban environment, transit will only further that. |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1934
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 6:14 pm: | |
I saw AA and got hung up on those anti - Ann Arbor folks. I remember now.
But you don't have a point. You seem to be asking, "why doesn't jsmyers do something about it?" But you don't know me, you don't know what I've done in the past, and you don't know what I'm doing now.
Judge me on this forum by my logic and my facts that I post here, just as I judge you. I don't speculate about what you may or may not be doing in your spare time. (But considering that you have well over twice as many posts as me less time than I've been here, maybe I should speculate about that.) |
Rjk
Member
Username: Rjk
Post Number: 902
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 6:23 pm: | |
My bad, I meant to say north of 8 mile is packed.
Clearly Woodward south of 8 mile has a lot of open spaces.
If Detroit wants to attract people there are a lot of other things they need to address before they talk about light rail. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 872
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 6:35 pm: | |
The region needs to attract people, not just Detroit itself. We have way overbuilt our roads, water and sewer lines for the number of people we have, which is shrinking as a percent of the overall US population. This means our votes in Congress will diminish, and we will have fewer people to take care of more overbuilt infrastructure.
Whatever we can do that might improve the region so more people and businesses will want to come, we should consider. We can't possibly do all of the things we think of, but we need to make improvements.
A lot of people talk about crime on this board. First of all crime is not a big problem regionally, though it is a problem in parts of Detroit and parts of some of the suburbs. But that's not what I'd attack first. If I was king of the region (which nobody is), I'd go to urban areas that were thriving, and see what they have going on that we don't. I'd also market the things we have that are particularly good or unusual.
I would say, transit is one of those things we do singularly badly, and have to improve to be competitive. How to improve, how much and with what money, would be a great argument to have at a tavern. |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1935
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 6:37 pm: | |
North of 8 mile:
http://maps.live.com/default.a spx?v=2&cp=r27jgp825f5n&style= o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-10 00&scene=5622928&encType=1
and another:
http://maps.live.com/default.a spx?v=2&cp=r2bvs1824703&style= o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-10 00&scene=5617625&encType=1
and one more:
http://maps.live.com/default.a spx?v=2&cp=r2cnhf823z4w&style= o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-10 00&scene=5617629&encType=1
There may not be as much vacant land, but there is some, and all of those parking lots and one story buildings could easily grow into more.
quote:If Detroit wants to attract people there are a lot of other things they need to address before they talk about light rail.
Why? That is like saying we need to worry about thefts before we worry about running red lights. Red light running may not be as important, but we ignore it at our peril.
Different people have different priorities for what is important to them. I believe that over time, better, more efficient transit is going to help the city tackle other issues you might be concerned about. It is not going to solve them on its own, but it will help.
But attracting people to the city limits is not really the point. The point is the creation of vibrant and efficient places. It is also about changing the reality and perception of our region. We shouldn't be the capital of auto manufacturing only. We need to diversify our economy, and many of the college educated young people of Michigan are going to vibrant urban places like Chicago to fuel their economies. |
Masterblaster
Member
Username: Masterblaster
Post Number: 94
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 6:39 pm: | |
I went to a DTOGS/D-DOT meeting, and it was stated that a two-way light rail would cost $28 million/mile. I do not know if this figure includes the cost of the trains themselves. If it is about 16 miles from downtown Detroit to downtown Birmingham, then the total cost of construction would be around $450 million. The federal government New Starts program would pay for 50%, and the rest of the $225 million could be paid for though a public/private initiative involving Oakland and Wayne County and the businesses along or near Woodward that would benefit from such a route.
LIVERNOISYARD states:
"All what is gained is a ride a few minutes shorter, then probably a fairly stiff waiting time for the buses to complete the ride. So what's saved anyways?"
This is just hypothetical, but light rail might increase the demand for more frequent service along those bus routes that would feed directly into the light rail line, thus justifying more frequent service. In addition, some bus routes would be shortened, thus allowing for more frequent service along that shortened route.
For example, the Tireman Avenue bus (route #47) currently meets Woodward at Martin Luther King Drive and takes Woodward about 1.5 miles down to Capitol Park. If a fast light rail line were constructed then, the Tireman Avenue bus would end at Woodward/MLK drive, and those on the bus would transfer to the light rail line. This would decrease the operating costs per trip for the bus, and this money could be used to fund more frequent bus service along Tireman from every 40 minutes to every 1/2 hour.
Even if shortening a route results in minimal cost savings, then more frequent service could still be warranted if the demand for more frequent service increases as a result of it feeding into a rail line. |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1936
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 6:49 pm: | |
quote:I went to a DTOGS/D-DOT meeting, and it was stated that a two-way light rail would cost $28 million/mile. I do not know if this figure includes the cost of the trains themselves.
It should.
Good explanation of one of the ways that LRT can make our existing bus system more efficient.
I'll through an additional thing on the pile:
- DEGC/DDA wouldn't have to spend so much money subsidizing parking if there was quality transit to attract development and jobs to downtown.
One of my big critiques of DEGC/DDA is that they haven't taken a leadership role in this issue. They have too much of a short term vision of what there role is and what is possible. Rail transit would make other aspects of their mission easier and possibly cheaper.
Lets hope that in the end, DEGC/DDA finds a way to chip in to help build the DTOGS LPA. (Too many acronyms.) |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1802
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 7:10 pm: | |
"Like I said: Put it to a vote and see how it sinks or swims. You might then see how greedy and selfish the majority is on this issue. Or, would you rather secretly slip it by them?"
Actually Livernois, on the November ballot here in Charlotte there is an effort to repeal the .5 cent sales tax (.5%) that goes toward mass transit. It will be interesting to see what happens... |
Birwood
Member
Username: Birwood
Post Number: 30
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 8:38 pm: | |
Hello folks, mind if I jump here.
My late father worked for the DSR, Detroit Streets & Railway, later D-Dot and in the early 1970s was assigned to represent the city as one of several members of the joint Study Group that did the original study on the combination Bus and Lightrail System for SE Michigan and the proposed Woodward Subway
At that time, SEMTA South East Michigan Transit Authority, now called SMART, had a lightrail line that ran from Pontiac to the New Center/Downtown areas and had hopes to expand the rail portion of its service area toward Monroe, Ann Arbor, Metro Airport, Brighton, Utica, and Port Huron utilizing exhisting railroad track and using the New Center area as the conecting loop, much like the loop in Chicago. The plan was also to use Buses as the cross connectors and feeders to the rail system. The plan had all the new and exhisting routes mapped out, transfer points, milage, travel times caluclated and estimated project costs but this would have required a merger between D-Dot and SEMTA.
Also at the time Mayor Young wanted his Woodward Subway, and had planned to get big federal bucks under the mass transit approprations but he wanted the subway to run only from downtown to 8 Mile Rd. and that cost was almost as much as the Rail/Bus plan. The politics of any merger between D-DOT and SEMTA scuttled both of these proposals and Detroit ended up with the People Mover instead
I'd like to know if any of the paper work from this study exhists today and could be applied to discussions discussions on mass transit being held today rather than someone trying to reinvent the wheel. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1858
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 8:41 pm: | |
If Woodward gets a subway line, all those surface lots will definitely disappear in 5 years. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4314
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 8:52 pm: | |
SEMTA in the 1970s and 80s was the leased commuter rail system that was scuttled around 1982/83, but was not light rail.
(Message edited by LivernoisYard on October 11, 2007) |
Kslice
Member
Username: Kslice
Post Number: 177
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 9:09 pm: | |
Perfectgentleman please.
The downtown areas and business districts are not where crime is a problem, the abandoned buildings are abandoned because the general business environment is bad (i.e. no mass transit). Most other companies don't give a damn about the auto industry. And I'm not saying mass transit is the one solution, but it is a key part of any city that want to be competitive.
Save taxes for another thread. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4316
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 10:23 pm: | |
quote:The downtown areas and business districts are not where crime is a problem, the abandoned buildings are abandoned because the general business environment is bad (i.e. no mass transit). Just where DO these crack pot ideas originate? It's like Mickey Mouse in Fastasia getting rid of the brooms and ever more pop up!
Up once a recent time during the middle to late 1990s, there were probably around 12,000 Tier companies, many of them in Michigan. Around 2003, there were probably around 8000 left with around 800 firms going broke or reorganizing annually. It's hard to know the exact number unless one is directly in the biz. You have to trust the security analysts in this regard. And many are so small and receive little to no press when they go out of business. By the end of this decade, security analysts had predicted that fewer than 4000 US Tier firms--not plants--will be left and probably selling mostly to Toyota and Honda, etc.
When they fold, their buildings are vacated and many have little other use and there's little value in their specialized machinery that much goes to metal salvage or to junk. Almost none of these buildings located in Metro Detroit have any commercial use, so they either sit and become vandalized or they get demoed. [Ask Signature Associates about their "value" because hundreds of their familiar yellow and black "For sale or rent" signs have been plastered over them for years...]
Now, please tell us just how these buildings will suddenly spring to life with mass transit helping. I'm sure that rapid transit was meant, but I'll let that one slide, this time. Many of these buildings already had mass transit before and after they were vacated, so how come they didn't reblossom in spite of that?
And this scenario will be repeated in the exburbs, as it is already underway. IOW, NO TRANSIT OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING CARS WILL EVER HELP! This region is approaching that of ghost counties--not towns--because their industries haven't adapted in time.
(Message edited by LivernoisYard on October 12, 2007) |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 314
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 10:52 pm: | |
mass transit, sure, let the users pay for it, if the banks finance it on that return then i am 100% for it. if not, then scrap the whole idea. |
Thecarl
Member
Username: Thecarl
Post Number: 1077
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 11:16 pm: | |
has anybody mentioned the last big detroit mass transportation initiative: the people mover? how many millions of dollars were involved, and how did the project fare as far as budget, timeline, scope, and reliability?
matty maroun is ready to build another bridge to canada, because he understands the value of a profitable transportation initiative. in comparison, no collective effort of public or private interests thus far has produced a consensus that detroit metro mass-transit is a return-on-investment endeavor.
the "upshot" of all the studies that have been done on such a system is that a lot of consultants have been paid a lot of money for a project that business-minded folks know won't happen. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3703
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 11:58 pm: | |
The DPM was way over budget, the timeline was blown, and the ridership is far below capacity. In short, the project was a total waste of time and money as executed. |
Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2
Post Number: 318
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 12:30 am: | |
yes but some people made a ton of cash over the people mover boondoggle, that counts for something doesn't it? |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4319
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 2:18 am: | |
The PM was built in order to spend the funds dedicated to transit because no other alternative could pass muster. IOW, a boondoggle--spend the money before that amount was also reduced further or altogether.
During the 1980s, public bus systems tried to adjust their rates so that about 35% of the operating costs were recovered by the cash box. Since then, spendthrift public bus systems might be closer to getting 10 to 15% through the cash box. The PM is no exception, although it supposedly is a more cost-effective means of transporting people. It receives slightly less than 10% of its revenue through the cash box, according to the data in the Wiki.
IOW, the PM is even a relative failure compared to buses on a cost basis and has proved several times over to be the boondoggle it definitely is.
(Message edited by LivernoisYard on October 12, 2007) |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1805
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 9:09 am: | |
"in comparison, no collective effort of public or private interests thus far has produced a consensus that detroit metro mass-transit is a return-on-investment endeavor."
There rarely is a consensus.
"During the 1980s, public bus systems tried to adjust their rates so that about 35% of the operating costs were recovered by the cash box. Since then, spendthrift public bus systems might be closer to getting 10 to 15% through the cash box."
The bus fares are still $1.50 in Detroit, are they not? That is still higher than Charlotte's at $1.30 (btw, the same as is going to be the cost of the new light rail). Charlotte's transit system is arguably better. The overall point of all of these transit threads is, if Detroit doesn't get its act together soon, it will be continuing to lose in yet another category: TRANSIT. |
Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers
Post Number: 1937
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 5:10 pm: | |
This thread has certainly taken a dive on facts since I went on with may live last evening. I've got a crap-ton of comments, facts, and logic to add.
quote:I'd like to know if any of the paper work from this study exhists today and could be applied to discussions discussions on mass transit being held today rather than someone trying to reinvent the wheel.
Good question. Is suspect that if you dig enough you might find it, but with modern computer technology and the changes in the region over the decades, I don't think it would save much work.
LY, thank you for clarifying that SEMTA ran commuter rail, not light rail. Too many people confuse the modes. Here are a couple of wikipedia articles to help illustrate the difference between the modes:
Commuter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M etra
LRT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M AX_Light_Rail
quote:if Woodward gets a subway line, all those surface lots will definitely disappear in 5 years.
Iheartthed,
While a subway (or any rail transit) will help a lot, it would be silly to expect that so much can change in 5 years. It generally takes at least 2 years to go from bare ground through planning and construction to have a building. City is too complex to make such a overly optimistic blanket statement. Think 30 years for that sort of change.
I make the assertion that transit is essential for growth, turnaround, and change. It is not the only thing that will be responsible for it. (Though I do think that many other important pieces of the puzzle are starting to line up.)
quote:This region is approaching that of ghost counties--not towns--because their industries haven't adapted in time.
When I take this sentence on its own, I agree with LY twice in one post. Thanks for the overview of the decline of SE Michigan industry. Our region hasn't adapted in time, and that is our problem.
What LY fails to understand and/or accept, is that "adapt" also means that we have to abandon our auto-centric suburban dream. We need to diversify our economy and grow new industries (not the plural). But if we don't have a livable and vibrant central city, how can we expect to attract talent? Ask most Michigan native college seniors where they want to go, and most of them will tell you that they want to move to a real city.
Chicago has adapted, Portland has adapted, New York has adapted, even Pittsburgh has even adapted somewhat. All of these places were industrial cities and are now major players in the national knowledge-based economy. They did so for a lot of reasons, not least of which is the fact that they grew in and up instead of out, and have used transit to do it.
quote:mass transit, sure, let the users pay for it, if the banks finance it on that return then i am 100% for it. if not, then scrap the whole idea.
Lefty2,
If you hold toads and highways to the same standard, then I will respectfully disagree with you. If you do not, then you are an idiot.
The roads users do not pay for the roads. See the linked peer-reviewed article.
http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/do wnload_pdf.php?id=1088%20
So it seems to me that Lefty2 has a few options:
- denounce the wasteful subsidizing of driving and be a true economic libertarian (which I disagree with but respect)
- Take back his statement and acknowledge that transit investments are a legitimate public action
- Or stick by the ignorant and harmful point of view expressed in the post
quote:Detroit ended up with the People Mover instead
The statement should be that Detroit only ended up with the People Mover. It was supposed to be a part of the system mentioned in the post. Of course it doesn't function as well as designed without the rest of the system.
Little more history about the DPM. It was the result of a federal experimental program. The experimental nature of it is IMO one of the reasons it was so badly executed.
quote:spendthrift public bus systems might be closer to getting 10 to 15% through the cash box. The PM is no exception, although it supposedly is a more cost-effective means of transporting people. It receives slightly less than 10% of its revenue through the cash box, according to the data in the Wiki.
(emphasis added)
Pretty good with your facts there huh? The version the the wikipedia article I'm looking at, stats nothing about the DPM farebox recovery, except mentioning a 1999-2000 Detroit News article that computed the farebox recover to be 14% (something I had to get a calculator for). This was the time period in which DPM hit a low, after being taken out by Hudsons etc.
The DPM is a failure on a cost basis because it operates well under capacity. If it had an effective feeder network, that would change.
DDOT has bad (we can guess) farebox recovery because the largest part of it (#53-Woodward) operates over effective capacity for a bus system. A LRT vehicle coming every 10 minutes is going to get more riders for less labor and energy input than what that bus route is working as now. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3749
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 5:50 pm: | |
quote:See the linked peer-reviewed article.
That study is interesting, but really, factoring the cost of prison and parole for crimes related to motor vehicles and the military costs of protecting the oil supply seems beyond the bounds a bit.
Clearly given those factors ANY form of transportation would not be supported by only those who use it including mass transit. In fact we already know mass transit does not meet this criteria so the point seems largely moot. |
Masterblaster
Member
Username: Masterblaster
Post Number: 95
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 5:52 pm: | |
PerfectGentleman and LivernoisYard
The DPM is not an effective form of mass transit AS A STAND ALONE entity.
It was supposed to have rail(commuter,heavy,light??) lines along the "spoke" roads (Grand River, Michigan, Woodward) feeding into it, THEREBY CONNECTING THE SUBURBS AND OUTER CITY NEIGHBORHOODS TO DOWNTOWN.
It doesn't work right now because it doesn't have rail lines feeding into it!••• It only connects certain downtown areas to other downtown areas. You cannot call it a failure until you've completed the whole transit plan, and evaluated the ridership.
Another reason why it has low revenue is because downtown Detroit, although improving, is still not populated enough with business, workers, and residents. If downtown Detroit had 50,000 or 100,000 more workers, and 20,000 more residents, then the People Mover would be used more.
NOW there are two design flaws with the DPM. It only goes one way, and because it is built as a winding, circular path, it cannot attain very high speeds, and thus it is slow.
If Coleman Young was smarter, the DPM would have been constructed along or following Woodward up to the New Center Area. A Two-way track would have been justified, and because the route would have been straight, it would have allowed the trains to move at faster speeds. In addition, it would have connected more neighborhoods (Downtown to Midtown to New Center) in a larger area than just the CBD. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 3751
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 5:56 pm: | |
quote:Another reason why it has low revenue is because downtown Detroit, although improving, is still not populated enough with business, workers, and residents.
Exactly. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4321
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 6:09 pm: | |
NYC and Chicago (both vibrant cities--very vibrant, compared with Detroit) didn't build their rapid and bus transit systems with pipe dreams of attracting newcomers from wherever, but instead they were built to service their residents. Detroit doesn't much have many residents to serve at present because the education and work skills of much of its residents are **not** the kinds that employers seek, and its population might even drop another 20% or 25%. Besides, jobs are drying up for skilled workers throughout tri-county Detroit.
Even illegals avoid Detroit, according to the 2005 interim Census Bureau report. It stated that Detroit should have otherwise attracted four times as many immigrants as it did. The obvious reason--illegals and other immigrants want work, not a place to live without job prospects, as in Detroit.
(Message edited by LivernoisYard on October 12, 2007) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3474
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 7:42 pm: | |
quote:NYC and Chicago (both vibrant cities--very vibrant, compared with Detroit) didn't build their rapid and bus transit systems with pipe dreams of attracting newcomers from wherever, but instead they were built to service their residents. Detroit doesn't much have many residents to serve at present because the education and work skills of much of its residents are **not** the kinds that employers seek, and its population might even drop another 20% or 25%.
There are well over 800,000 people in Detroit. They don't count? How can you honestly say that the fifth(?) largest metropolitan area in the nation doesn't need a public transportation system?
quote:But when you’re on your own time, you’re a little more flexible. So, ordinarily, I’d get groceries for dinner from big stores in either Royal Oak or Dearborn, each about a 20-minute drive. On the bus, the more direct (and therefore preferable) Dearborn round-trip is just under two hours.
http://www.metrotimes.com/edit orial/story.asp?id=321 |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1865
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 7:43 pm: | |
^Um, the subway system is what allowed the population of upper Manhattan and the Bronx to grow like it did... |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1369
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 8:54 pm: | |
Also, the El in Chicago was constructed out well beyond the current (at the time) population centers. As I recall, this is why parts of the Ravenswood and Douglas branches are still at ground level...at the time, no one owned the land and there were no roads out there, so they didn't bother elevating it. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 229
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 8:58 pm: | |
I always thought the loop only circulating around the neighborhoods in and around their CBD? I didn't know it went out further than that. |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.