Streetcars in Detroit?

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

Doctor Feelgood — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:23:37 GMT

We need streetcars in Detroit like farmers need directional signals on a plow!

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

crazycajun — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:05:33 GMT

even better... please explain how a bus or train to nowhere is going to make michigan suddenly financially stable?

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

jmangan — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:29:41 GMT

IF unemployment rates had anything to do with public transportation, at least we should use the correct numbers.

Chicago is 7.5%

Detroit is 20.5%

New Orleans is 6.5%

Look it up, Cajun.

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

crazycajun — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:08:27 GMT

you invite us to come to chicago to see a REAL city, and what a REAL public transportation system can do...

chicago's unemployment rate is 7.5%.

detroit's unemployment rate is 9.5%

new orlean's unemployment rate is 4.9% AFTER A MAJOR HURRICANE.

so, please tell us again what a transportation system will do for detroit?

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

crazycajun — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:55:04 GMT

trueblue, or TRUE/FALSE as he has become known, is a driven man.

driven mad by his impulse to move left when his brain keeps telling him to move right.

he lost all credibility with me when he admitted to a PROTEST VOTE for the republican candidate, even though he is a COMMITTED SOCIALIST.

there is nothing in detroit other than a few ballgames and a hockey fight or two that anyone wants to go to anyway. so why build a train to get you where you can get already?

there is no good reason to build a streetcar system in detroit.

there is no good reason to build ANYTHING in detroit.

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

Johnnie — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:38:10 GMT

Methinks TrueBlue is a very religious person whose god is the idol of mass transit. He offers no evidence to support his assertions beyond statements analogous to, "There is a universe ergo there must be a God." The least application of logic demolishes his assertions (one can't really call them "arguments"). Yet he nevertheless is a passionate defender of his bizarre faith in the efficacy of this corrupt institution, which even were it not corrupt is based on on obsolete industrial era model of workers around the periphery commuting daily into a central city. In reality, in Oakland County 70 percent of commutes are from one suburb to another.

TB, is your real desire to get those po' folk in the city who can't afford cars or their insurance (because of obscene theft and vandalism rates there) out to where the jobs are every day? I can sympathize, but let me suggest a better way: Give them all a transportation voucher and remove the regulatory barriers to things like commercial van pools, jitneys, etc. Believe me, you'll accomplish loads more than if you just p*** away hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into this silly streetcar boondoggle.

Oh but I forgot - this is a matter of religion, not public policy. Never mind.

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

BeautifulDayforFootball — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:11:57 GMT

"Public transportation+Chicago = Real "viable" City."

Your math implies that NYC and Chicago became viable BECAUSE of building mass transit rail lines.

That's backwards: They have mass transit rail because they became financial boomtowns in the first place, causing an economic and demographic buildup that demanded additional means of moving the vast crowds and commerce around every day. Most of the modern building of light rail lines in most places (such as the DC Metro, for example) was a result of the same thing.

To put it laughably mild, nothing of this sort is presently an issue with the City of Detroit.

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

BeautifulDayforFootball — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:57:09 GMT

Please explain why building very expensive rail lines into what you admit is a "dead" area that nobody is even willing to drive into -- even though it is very easy to do -- is going to transform it into a "live" city.

Again, the People Mover is jusifiably lambasted for being built along a route that nobody was in need of using, and in the face of clear evidence that this was the case. Repeating that mistake on a far grander scale appears to be exactly what you are consciously advocating.

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

TrueBlue — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:02:40 GMT

I dont know what you think you "got" but its not comon sense.

This is very simple let me try AGAIN to explain it to you in REAL simple terms you might understand.

Public transportation+Chicago = Real "viable" City.

Public transportation+New York = Real "viable" City

Oakland county = Suburb

Detroit+NO Public transportation = Dead city

((And if few ever ride it because you've deliberately put the whole mess in a "dead city" (to use your description), or you've just put one station in a dying neighborhood... well.... too bad, because we've already paid for it.))----

Wouldnt be dead if it had public trans.

The only thing going in circles is your non-existent logic.

Glad to help. ;-)

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

BeautifulDayforFootball — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 04:30:07 GMT

"The demand for routes will NEVER grow because ineffiecient busses or EVEN EFFECIENT busses that no one uses will not bring people or business to the citiy. There must be a REAL infrastructure of transportation in order for people to feel secure in the fact that the "bus" route they rely on will be there after the next fiscal cycle because of some "cuts". Its very easy to eliminate a bus route, but NOT a rail station stop."

See, "cuts" doesn't need to be in scare quotes. If nobody is riding the bus because businesses and people are moving elsewhere, then you just re-route the bus or sell it. At worst, the economic rape of the taxpayers is minimized. At best, you just change plans and move the people cheaply and efficiently in a different way, to different places. Places that they, you know, might actually want to go.

Who knows, maybe the new route is so popular that you need to buy another bus. Having options is a GOOD thing. With an elaborate network of roads, buses are both a cheaper and more flexible investment.

But as you note, it's a much bigger deal to admit failure when you've sunk hundreds of millions or even billions into a rail system that cannot be moved and with stops that cannot be changed without massive allterations, new investment and lots of down time for the people that you are supposed to be moving around in a cheap and efficient manner.

And if few ever ride it because you've deliberately put the whole mess in a "dead city" (to use your description), or you've just put one station in a dying neighborhood... well.... too bad, because we've already paid for it.

So, I gather from this that the goal is to get the taxpayers to commit to something so inflexible and so expensive that there is literally no turning back. Public transit for the sake of public transit: Logic that runs in an almost a perfect, one-way circle.

Just like the People Mover.

I think I finally get it!

Thanks for helping. ;-)

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

TrueBlue — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:16:32 GMT

And I'm confused by what you mean by transit.

(Apparently)

You scoff at hundreds of millions of dollars in bus service to meet the existing needs of Detroit mass transit.

(A bus service no one uses because it it minimal, unreliable and infrequent) (Yes just like the people mover ---a joke)

Is this correct? A bus system is not "real" transit?

(Dont be coy or cute or naive, the "bus" system in Detroit isnt used and is as big a joke as the people mover because there is NO real public transport system)

And yet, I can name at least two very real cities that I've visited recently that have nothing of the sort: Austin and Las Vegas. Both, it should be noted, are two of the very fastest growing cities in the nation and each gradually and (at least compared to light rail) cost effectively expanded their bus service to match the growth.

(Like many "cities" of the west, where space is plenty, those cities grow and expand OUTWARD NOT UPWARD. They are geared toward cars and depend on cars not public transport.

If busses are all they need for their city, thats great. Detroit is NOT Austin and its certainly not Vegas. If we see $4-5 per gallon gas again, AND WE WILL, cities WITH public transit infrastructure in place will flourish , places like Austin and Phoenix will be dead in the water. Again, NO foresight.)

Indeed, both are now starting to build the much more expensive fixed guideway rails because of the crushing demand for service that has been caused by the growth. (The Vegas line, it should be noted, is PRIVATELY funded, and not technically "public" transit.)

(Vegas is probably the ONLY city you would find a non-public system of transport. Not possible in any other US city.

Public transportations' goal is to move its citizens around at low cost. PRIVATE transportation's goal would be to make a PROFIT. Only vegas could even afford something like that because its subsidized with gambling $$. Again, other US cities dont have that luxury.)

So, is your position that Detroit must build elaborate and extensive light rail (which is stratospherically expensive) and just hope and pray that somebody will ride it and place jobs along its route?

(Yes that is my position. You are wrong however on the cost. It would be an investment well spent and would transform Detroit into the city it has always aspired to be.

All the projects, the money, the rebuilding plans, NONE of that has worked because Detroit has NO REAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION system. Whatever the cost of it would be miniscule compared to the revenue it would create.)

Or maybe is it more reasonable to just add buses and routes as demand for the service grows for it and look into other ways that might more reliably produce jobs?

(The demand for routes will NEVER grow because ineffiecient busses or EVEN EFFECIENT busses that no one uses will not bring people or business to the citiy. There must be a REAL infrastructure of transportation in order for people to feel secure in the fact that the "bus" route they rely on will be there after the next fiscal cycle because of some "cuts". Its very easy to eliminate a bus route, but NOT a rail station stop.

I think one of these is "foresight" and "simple logical thinking," and the other is spending a ton of money without any evidence that there will ever be a return on the investment.

(Like all things "PUBLIC" there is NOT suppose to be any "return on investment" !!! The return on investment comes from use, and from making a city VIABLE.

For God sakes......Public librarys, Public schools, Fire Depts, the GOVERNMENT is NOT SUPPOSED to be a damn "For PROFIT organization"---- Do you NOT understand that ????!!!

Jeeezzz H. Crist !

After paying people their sallaries these things should be breaking even at best. NOT creating profit.

And if at all possible they shouldnt be incurring debt either.

WHY you ask??? Because the PEOPLE pay for it !!!

Its not suppose to make a profit OR inccur debt !!! Thats why its called "PUBLIC". Its what makes a society work together.

Remember ..."For the people by the people" ????

I think thats the WHOLE concept behind our country, not greed and certainly not profit.

Many times it amazes me to see how many people display such great "pride" in their country but TOTALLY dont want to contribute to the country the CLAIM to be so damn proud of.)

One of these ways of thinking is exactly what produced the People Mover in the first place.

(Dont you think you are making my point for me???

I dont use the people mover and you dont use the people mover.....why?? Cuz it doesnt go anywhere.)

(And finally, if you should want to discuss this EVEN further, the forum called http://speakingminds.net -- is where it is more comfortable to disscus ...politics and/or issues such as these. I blog there under TRUEBLUE also.

There are many different topic headings there should you wish to check it out. The topic "Public Transportation" could be posted in the government section or any number of other sections. However it is a national blog, not just Michigan.)

(I wish you a beautiful day, but go back to football, city planning is not exactly your cup of tea.)

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

BeautifulDayforFootball — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:58:46 GMT

"I am truly perplexed at your lack of foresight and simple logical thinking."

"You cant have a real "CITY" without REAL public transportation."

And I'm confused by what you mean by transit. You scoff at hundreds of millions of dollars in bus service to meet the existing needs of Detroit mass transit (which are laughably minimal, given the ease of parking and such), so I must assume that your definition of "real" transit and a "real" city is someplace that must have some form of elaborate fixed guideway transit service (you've mentioned two already: Chicago and NYC.)

Is this correct? A bus system is not "real" transit?

Or maybe is it more reasonable to just add buses and routes as demand for the service grows for it and look into other ways that might more reliably produce jobs?

I think one of these is "foresight" and "simple logical thinking," and the other is spending a ton of money without any evidence that there will ever be a return on the investment.

One of these ways of thinking is exactly what produced the People Mover in the first place.

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

TrueBlue — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:49:29 GMT

I am truly perplexed at your lack of foresight and simple logical thinking.

Oakland county and ALL suburbs are just THAT......SUBURBS !

You cant have a real "CITY" without REAL public transportation.

If you cant understand this than that is just ashame and I am not going to be able to explain it to you.

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

BeautifulDayforFootball — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:17:41 GMT

"Why are you WASTING your time pounding out worthless information on your keyboard??"

Just trying to stay competitive. It's tough work.

"Detroit is a DEAD city and will never be anything but a ghost town and a ghetto.

So, why is it that putting a wildly expensive choo choo train that nobody will ride through the "ghost town" and "ghetto" is going to make people start putting jobs and industry there again? As I said before, it's not like you can't drive there and find a place to park if your job is downtown. Oakland County exploded in growth with roads and no rail lines at all.

And, again, even leaving all that aside, $200 million is already being spent every year by DDOT without any of this magic happening.

There's actual ROADS going into the city that are underused right now. Why is building rail lines next to them going to make it better?

Maybe Detroit just might have more pressing problems.

Then, there's this...

"Because of Ford and GM (Big 3) they DIDNT want public transport in "their" city, they wanted everyone to have a car."

Ummm... No. Sorry... Take a look at this: www.cato.org/.../pa559.pdf

>>>"Some supporters of mass transit have perpetuated the story that General Motors conspired to destroy the nation’s transit systems by replacing “efficient” streetcars with “dirty” buses, but that is little more than an urban legend that has been debunked by numerous books and articles. General Motors did purchase an interest in various transit companies,

but its only goal was to sell its brand of buses to companies that were already converting from streetcars to buses."<<<

Also, try the supporting material...

>>>>"The conspiracy theory was first proposed by Bradford Snell, American Ground Transport (Washington: Government Printing Office,, 1974). It is refuted by, for example, Scott Bottles, Los Angeles and the Automobile: The Making of the Modern City (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), pp. 3–4; Martha J. Bianco, “Kennedy, 60 Minutes, and Roger

Rabbit: Understanding Conspiracy Theory Explanations of the Decline of Urban Mass Transit,” Portland State University Center for Urban Studies Discussion Paper 98-11, November, 1998, www.upa.pdx.edu/CUS/publications/docs/DP98-11.pdf; and Cliff Slater, “General Motors and the Demise of

Streetcars,” Transportation Quarterly 51, no. 3 (Summer 1997): 45–66, www.lava.net/cslater/TQ Origin.pdf."<<<

re: Streetcars in Detroit?

TrueBlue — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:57:58 GMT

WTF???

Why are you WASTING your time pounding out worthless information on your keyboard??

Everyone on the country knows there is NO viable public transportation in Michigan and CERTAINLY not in Detroit!

And that is why Detroit is a DEAD city and will never be anything but a ghost town and a ghetto.

Here's an Idea for you......Buy an Amtrak ticket and go to Chicago !! There you will see a REAL city, with a REAL public transportation system.

Oh and you will notice one other thing about Chicago once you get there.....there are PEOPLE that actually live and work in that city.

You obviously dont know the history of Detroit in comparrison to other US cities.

Because of Ford and GM (Big 3) they DIDNT want public transport in "their" city, they wanted everyone to have a car.

Detroit has paid the price for this shortsightedness.

To make a LONG story short....You CANT have a real city without a REAL public transport system.

In this time of economic crisis, there is nothing smarter than for Detroit to develop a REAL public transportation system.

It would create jobs (to build it) and would bring BACK jobs (and people) once its completed.

Right now during this economic crisis.....prices are down and people need jobs, labor would be no problem.

The only hope Detroit has to become a viable city is to start on a serious public transport system.

All of your irrelevant typing wont.