  Planner_727 Member Username: Planner_727 Post Number: 1 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 69.87.150.106 |
Although I have been an observer for a long while, this is my first post. I read in the last day or two some discussion of the People Mover and it's functionality as a separate transit entity (as opposed to part of a more comprehensive system). More than once, it was mentioned that Mayor Young's plan for the system was one that went up Woodward to connect to the northern suburbs, but the little loop was all that got State/Federal funding. Anyone have any information on the history here? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1640 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
In 1966, Congress created the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) and gave it responsibility for the development of new types of transit systems. UMTA funded a variety of research and development projects during its first few years and then in late 1970 let a contract to West Virginia University for construction of the first automated people mover in the U.S. In 1971, UMTA funded four companies at $1.5 million each to set up a demonstration of their automated guideway transit (AGT) development results at a transportation exposition, called TRANSPO '72. It was held at the Dulles International Airport near Washington, D.C. One of the objectives of TRANSPO '72 was to try to stimulate cities around the nation to get interested in ordering one of these four systems which had been developed with federal funds.. While a few systems were ordered for airports and zoos, as of 18 months later, no urban area had ordered an AGT system. This was quite disappointing to UMTA and Congress. A little later, the Downtown People Mover (DPM) program was initiated by a recommendation from the Office of Technology Assessment, an agency of the U.S. Congress. On September 10, 1974, the Transportation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations requested an assessment of Personal Rapid Transit and other new systems. Mr. Clark Henderson (of the Stanford Research Institute) chaired the OTA Panel on Current Developments in the United States. This panel reported: "With $200 million invested in Automated Guideway Transit installations, it is unfortunate that there is no such installation in a city to ascertain feasibility. There should be a concerted effort by the Federal government, municipalities, and the transportation industry to initiate a first urban application promptly." A key finding in the OTA report to Congress stated: An urban demonstration project for Shuttle Loop Transit (SLT) appears justified." In addition, Congressional pressure was increased on UMTA to show some positive results from their research and development expenditures. So, in 1975 UMTA announced its Downtown People Mover Program and sponsored a nationwide competition among the cities, offering them the federal funds needed to design and build such a system. Since UMTA was prepared to pay most of the costs of planning and building these systems as part of its demonstration program, the response from the cities was almost overwhelming. In 1976, after receiving and reviewing 68 letters of interest and 35 full proposals and making on-site inspections of the top 15 cities, UMTA selected proposals from Los Angeles, St. Paul, Minnesota, Cleveland and Houston. It also concluded that Miami, Detroit and Baltimore would be permitted to develop DPMs if they could do so with existing grant committments. In 1997, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate Appropriations Conference Committee told UMTA to include Baltimore, Indianapolis, Jacksonville and St. Louis as part of the program. UMTA also added Norfolk, Virginia to the program. Cleveland and Houston were the first to withdraw from the program. Later, St. Paul also withdrew after its voters did not approve their project. In August of 1980, the General Accounting Office issued a report entitled Better Justification Needed for Automated People Mover Demonstration Projects. Projects currently planned at that time were estimated to cost the federal government about $675 million. The GAO report stated that UMTA had not shown why each of the planning projects was needed to meet program objectives. They noted that UMTA officials believed that multiple projects were necessary to (a) assure that at least one project would be implemented, (b) test different technologies (even though only technologies successfully operating elsewhere were to be used), (c) minimize the risk of failure to meet project expectations (the people mover concept for downtown use could be discredited), and (d) reflect local differences such as climate and economic conditions that might affect project results. GAO recommended that the U.S. Secretary of Transportation direct UMTA to identify the need for each of the planned projects and seek further guidance from the Congress. The DOT responded that the four projects that were added by Congress were not needed to meet program objectives but that four of the five projects not added by Congress were necessary to meet program objectives and that each would make a unique contribution toward meeting the program's objectives. All four of the projects initially selected by UMTA later withdrew from the DPM program but Miami and Detroit stayed the course and eventually built DPMs. Both have had a stormy history but both are still in operation in 1999. The Miami system has been extended but the Detroit system has not. However, current developments in downtown Detroit may have some positive effects on the utility of the Detroit Mover. Additional information on both the Miami and Detroit systems is available on-line. Later, Jacksonville built a downtown people mover system and has recently upgraded and extended it. To assist the cities in planning DPM systems, UMTA developed a manual called Planning for Downtown People Movers to assist the the cities that wished to undertake a DPM planning effort. A draft of the manual was published in April of 1979 as part of the Transportation Systems Center's Urban and Regional Research Series under report number DOT-TSC-UM-917-PP-79-8. It was well-done and would be useful today as a guide for DPM planning studies. Today, there are few who regard UMTA's DPM program as having been a "success". However, it should be noted that there were a great many cities that showed interest in the program, most probably motivated by the prospect of "free" federal money but also by the hope that they might be able to actually do something positive about the congestion and parking problems in their often ailing downtowns. SOURCE: http://faculty.washington.edu/ ~jbs/itrans/dpmhist.htm | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 722 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 24.223.133.177 |
I'd be interested in a map that showed the entry/exit stations, too. Livedog2 | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4611 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 198.111.166.19 |
Obiously The People Mover is called to the Train to Nowhere! | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1676 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
I have a copy of the 1980 environmental impact report for the DPM. It contains the current loop and 8 alternate routes, all of which are very similar to the eventual route chosen. I have not read the 100+ page report cover to cover, but I did not notice any mention of possible expansion. Little bit of irony found in the survey: It was believed that no damage to the JL Hudson building would occur as a result of the construction of the DPM. I don't think they thought about the converse of that for when the Hudson building was demolished. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 151 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
Lurker, does that 1980 study contain any DPM ridership projections? This article claims that the original DPM cost/benefit analysis was based on an estimate of 67,700 daily riders. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1677 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
Yes, it does. I don't have it with me right now, but I can take a look at it tonight. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 594 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 65.42.23.2 |
67k riders is a helluva number | ||
Sumotect Member Username: Sumotect Post Number: 216 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 64.243.32.9 |
I was one of the many Architects who worked on the Woodward Corridor Light Rail Transit System, about 22 years ago. The company I worked for also designed the stations for the DPM and although my involvement with that project was minor and my memory has not been that good lately, I do have some memories of those times, and think it may be time to put some of them down. The DPM was part of a somewhat comprehensive overall transit master plan that included a light rail with seventeen stops that went from Lafayette Park to the Ren Cen, then up Woodward all the way to the Silverdome. Feeding off of the light rail stations, many of which were intermodal, were to be bus loops to facilitate the east west ridership. People in the know at that time understood that the majority of the commuter traffic in the Detroit area is in an East West direction and not in the North/South direction as indicated with a Woodward Corridor scheme. The DPM was the third and final part of this plan. The question becomes why was the final part of the plan the first element to be built? And why didn’t the rest of the system happen. This was the President Ford era in Washington. Max Fisher, a major contributor to republican causes, was developing his Riverfront towers. At the time many people thought Mr. Fisher was throwing away his money. It is my understanding (but I can not back this up) that Mr. Fisher wished to have infrastructure improvements in place to bolster the feasibility of his riverfront development. Once the money was in place the decisions for the actual selection of the station stop locations were made in the Mayor’s office in Detroit. Unfortunately there is no stop at the Riverfront Towers. Unfortunately the mass of COBO hall was a pretty big and expensive obstacle to get around. The decision as to where the stations would go always appeared to be somewhat arbitrary, however there were two main determiners as to where the stations would go; one was grounded in good planning and the other politics. The planning principal involved here is to connect strong activity centers with area that activity is desired. From the development standpoint the freestanding stations were thought of as “bait” to attract developers. So the people generated at the Renn Cen and COBO would influence developers to construct major buildings in say the financial district or over where the new YMCA is now. It always gets irked when I hear the “train to nowhere” remark. If one considers Cobo Hall, Joe Louis, Renn Cenn, Millender, Greek town nowhere, then maybe it is a “train to nowhere”. I did hear that the projected ridership of the DPM was enough to tip the scales in favor of the Millender Center and Trappers Alley developments, which might not have happened without the DPM. Unfortunately the ridership never reached the projections. One of the major reasons was the Light Rail not happening. The other reason for where the stations were located is in who owned the property and what their relationship to CAY was. Most, if not all, of the sites were controlled by “friends” of the mayor. As an aside, most of cost overruns on this project were due to property acquisition costs. I am sure most astute observers of the The ridership projections for the light rail were around 100,000 riders a day, coming in and out of the downtown area. With 15,000 a day projected to be riding the DPM. The connection between the two systems was to be at the subterranean Grand Circus Park station, and the hot dog looking DPM station at the David Whitney building. One can only imagine what things would be like if the entire plan was implemented. Instead the federal government chooses to flush money down the toilet in Iraq and elsewhere. I believe Coleman Young said something like “without a transportation system you can kiss Detroit goodbye”. I think all the ones in line to pucker up ought to bend over and start with there own asses. | ||
Innovator Member Username: Innovator Post Number: 3 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 67.101.252.54 |
Wow. That's an amazing history, Sumo. I was doing a report on Detroit mass transit history and I really would have loved to had that information. All I had was mountains of books about the early push in the 20th century for a subway/train system, which was similarly incredible to think of. | ||
Planner_727 Member Username: Planner_727 Post Number: 2 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 69.87.150.106 |
Sumo, great post. It's unfortunate that such a scheme was never implemented... now we are spending millions just to study a link from Detroit to Ann Arbor! | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 158 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 206.81.45.34 |
I just wrote a paper for a public policy course at UDM on the development of the people mover. Most of my information came from News and Free Press archives. If anyone cares to read it, please leave me an email address. | ||
Planner_727 Member Username: Planner_727 Post Number: 6 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 69.87.150.106 |
UDM - if you could send it to planningpenguin@yahoo.com, I'd be interested. Thanks. | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 151 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.141.144.2 |
udm - i'd like to read it as well: andylinn (at) gmail (dot) com thank you - andy | ||
Caseyc Member Username: Caseyc Post Number: 593 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 206.18.111.5 |
wait wait wait.....there is a story which has been oft-retold over time that the project was in fact funded for a considerable amount at the time ($225MM? 400?) which was later pulled by the Feds because of city-suburb internecine squabbling over where the stations and paths would be. Is that an urban myth? or a chapter missing from this history... | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 2472 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.90.112 |
Caseyc that would be the $600 million offered to SEMTA by the Ford administration, but later pulled because of city-suburb squabbling. And Sumotech, the Riverfront Towers do indirectly have a People Mover stop. There is a catwalk between Riverfront Towers connecting them directly to the Joe Louis Arena PM Station. | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 160 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 206.81.45.34 |
President Ford made a verbal commitment of nearly $700 million, while campaigning for reelection in Michigan. The Carter administration seemed to be willing to live up to that commitment, but city/suburb differences over the entire plan - especially how to fund the local portion - ended up taking too long, and by the time Reagan and the 80s came around, the feds were no longer throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into mass transit projects. Coleman Young and Max Fisher essentially brokered the deal to get the PM funded, but then it ran way over budget, putting the brakes on any future funding. andy & planner, i sent the paper to you guys. | ||
Sumotect Member Username: Sumotect Post Number: 218 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 64.243.32.9 |
You are right about the walkways to the riverfront development. They were done by another firm and came after the DPM. I had forgotten about them. The ultimate plan was for most all of the stations interface with an elevated walkway system similar to Minneapolis. So you could walk around downtown in shirtsleeves all year long. In regards to the 600- 700 million figure thrown around. That was federal kick in on the light rail. The People mover was originally estimated at 140 mill, but grew to around 240 million (I think). The demise of the light rail plan was always placed at the feet of City/Suburb squabbling. However it would be interesting to know what the Bechtel Groups involvement in the entire process was. Bechtel was one of the joint venture partners and as many people know they are a huge family owned global multinational with a shadowy reputation and very highly connected in Washington (George Schultz, and Casper Weinberger were both former presidents of Bechtel prior to becoming Secretary’s of State.) I understood that when it came time for all parties to sign the contracts (always a ticklish time on these big jobs) That the City refused to sign Bechtel’s contract. Bechtel’s contract was basically a license to pick your pocket and the city balked at it. Bechtel refused to sign the City’s contract. Then pulled out of the project. The project died shortly after. The one thing that Bechtel brought to the project was the muscle to move anything through Washington. Without them the project lost all momentum. | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 161 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 206.81.45.34 |
That would be very interesting to dig into...the People Mover was built by a Canadian firm, which had no previous experience in constructing a public works project of that magnitude. |
