Bing to cut bus services

[jt1]

Unfortunately for the City of Detroit, there is nothing but more doom and gloom for it's future.

Replace Detroit with SE Michigan. It will be hard for many people to mock Detroit as SE Michigan is on it's way to following in the city's footsteps.

[davewindsor]

Here's an alternative: raise the fares enough so that they can pay for the cost of providing bus service.

Or, reduce the number of runs in a day and make those runs longer and have a small fare increase.. If bus service to a particular stop is every 15 mins, raise it to every 30 mins. If every half an hour, raise it to an hour. Then you can take a bunch of buses out of service and hand out layoff slips. Service is not cancelled, but it just doesn't come as often.

[Detroit_ExPat]

Heh, get a load of this guy. "Don't discuss macroeconomics! Don't you know we're in a macroeconomic crisis?"

Detroit is in a situation where simply using tax dollars to prime the pump for economic activity will not work. It may work at the national or international levels, but the economy here is dead. Detroit is a terrible loser in the new global economy. There will be no economic turnaround in Detroit anytime soon.

Unless you understand that, you have no basis upon which to move forward.

Detroit has to contract. It will be very painful to those still here. If planned and managed, it can be done in the least harmful way possible. Moving people from mostly abandoned neighborhoods to those which are more stable, and "walling off" that infrastructure to contain cost; consolidation/closure of schools, hospitals, public safety, etc. On the other hand, if the need to shrink is not addressed or denied, it will be much worse when it happens.

Bus service, along with every other service, is going to be reduced or eliminated. The only question is, who will do it? The city's elected leaders? An Emergency Financial Manager appointed by the Governor? Or a Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court?

[Glowblue]

Detroit is in a situation where simply using tax dollars to prime the pump for economic activity will not work. It may work at the national or international levels, but the economy here is dead. Detroit is a terrible loser in the new global economy. There will be no economic turnaround in Detroit anytime soon.

Unless you understand that, you have no basis upon which to move forward.

Detroit has to contract. It will be very painful to those still here. If planned and managed, it can be done in the least harmful way possible. Moving people from mostly abandoned neighborhoods to those which are more stable, and "walling off" that infrastructure to contain cost; consolidation/closure of schools, hospitals, public safety, etc. On the other hand, if the need to shrink is not addressed or denied, it will be much worse when it happens.

Bus service, along with every other service, is going to be reduced or eliminated. The only question is, who will do it? The city's elected leaders? An Emergency Financial Manager appointed by the Governor? Or a Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court?

Of course, nobody wants to live in a city with no services, so anybody with the means will move out. So, the only people who will be hurt by that are the poor. Basically, you want to screw the poor of Detroit for the sake of wealthy people elsewhere in the state.

[Stosh]

Of course, nobody wants to live in a city with no services, so anybody with the means will move out. So, the only people who will be hurt by that are the poor. Basically, you want to screw the poor of Detroit for the sake of wealthy people elsewhere in the state.

I think the situation, while dire, will somehow work itself out. Lansing and Detroit need to address the situation at hand. Granholm is placing her head in the sand, as usual, hoping this goes away on it's own. One way or the other, the situation will be resolved. Probably within a year.

[DetroitDad]

Well, I hate to steal a theme from another thread, but Detroit [[and the region) has a sustainability problem. Seems as if there's going to be a showdown on the labor costs one way or the other.

With all the cuts in the auto industry, the idea that public employees would remain unscathed is amazing. Bing is doing what any CEO would do. Cut costs. Either cooperatively or not. It was within the power of the union to cooperate. They chose not to, now they complain?

These guys need to wake up to the new reality. The 350 million deficit isn't going to just disappear by wishing it away. Granted, cuts need to be made across the board. But dismissing efforts at a cooperative solution that retains jobs and helps the bottom line is not helpful.

The unions need to survive to fight another day. They won't if the city declares bankruptcy.

You can steal it, you are 100% right. Being a Monday morning quarterback here, I will say Bing is a fool if he cuts transit across the board. I know Stosh is not replying to my posts after we got in an argument in the Suburbs are Unsustainable thread, but I would love to know what others think about this move. Much like the village idea, transit should maybe be cut off in certain areas and strengthened in others, with incentives for people in more depopulated or less centralized areas of the city to move to centers with real strengthened transit.

The only way I see Detroit improving is through selective cutting of services in certain areas, or through total collapse. By total collapse I mean state takeovers, relocalization of services [[to something similar to how new townships start out), cutting taxes and eliminating services, or changing to a more country type model in heavily depopulated areas [[you pay for or perform your own services, but pay less in taxes). Home prices already are cheap enough to attract home owners to replace renters and care about the area again, it seems like it is the combination poor city services and high taxes that are really driving people away.

[Stosh]

You can steal it, you are 100% right. Being a Monday morning quarterback here, I will say Bing is a fool if he cuts transit across the board. I know Stosh is not replying to my posts after we got in an argument in the Suburbs are Unsustainable thread, but I would love to know what others think about this move. Much like the village idea, transit should maybe be cut off in certain areas and strengthened in others, with incentives for people in more depopulated or less centralized areas of the city to move to centers with real strengthened transit.

The only way I see Detroit improving is through selective cutting of services in certain areas, or through total collapse. By total collapse I mean state takeovers, relocalization of services [[to something similar to how new townships start out), cutting taxes and eliminating services, or changing to a more country type model in heavily depopulated areas [[you pay for or perform your own services, but pay less in taxes). Home prices already are cheap enough to attract home owners to replace renters and care about the area again, it seems like it is the combination poor city services and high taxes that are really driving people away.

I changed my mind.

Read my post above from 9:30 with the links. That should give you something to think about. The heavy lifting's been done, all that's needed was a vote.

[Detroit_ExPat]

Of course, nobody wants to live in a city with no services, so anybody with the means will move out. So, the only people who will be hurt by that are the poor. Basically, you want to screw the poor of Detroit for the sake of wealthy people elsewhere in the state.

Well, most people with the means have already moved out. No, I don't want to screw the poor of Detroit. If you haven't noticed, people aren't exactly sitting along Eight Mile lighting cigars with $100 bills saying, "''tis a pity about the poor in Detroit." You could tax the Illitches and Devoses at 100%, and that wouldn't change anything.

Detroit and the whole state are in the throes of a Depression. The state budget would be a lot worse off, if not for the requirement to balance each year. [[In fact, there has been a years-long state budget crisis in Michigan.)

The problems we have are structural. We are no longer the economic powerhouse we once were, and we won't be again anytime soon. Our state and municipalities need to rationalize accordingly. We can do it methodically or we can just hit the wall train-wreck style.

[DetroitDad]

I changed my mind.

Read my post above from 9:30 with the links. That should give you something to think about. The heavy lifting's been done, all that's needed was a vote.

Yes, I've been attending many of the transit meetings for awhile. A lot of people are still strongly against increasing transit funding in Michigan, apparently. The situation has gotten much better.

I do wonder what might happen if a large amount, lets say 15-30% of the [[former) middle class can't afford to drive anymore. Would there be more support for mass transit? What would happen to all the indifference to the insane amounts we spend on roads and freeways? If you couldn't or didn't use them, would you be okay subsidizing them?

[Stosh]

Yes, I've been attending many of the transit meetings for awhile. A lot of people are still strongly against increasing transit funding in Michigan, apparently. The situation has gotten much better.

I do wonder what might happen if a large amount, lets say 15-30% of the [[former) middle class can't afford to drive anymore. Would there be more support for mass transit? What would happen to all the indifference to the insane amounts we spend on roads and freeways? If you couldn't or didn't use them, would you be okay subsidizing them?

I think that there could potentially be huge change once their UA benefits run out. But ADC and welfare agencies give out vouchers for cars now, don't they? The roads and freeways will never go away completely. You'll see more ride sharing, more car pooling. Perhaps even cooperative car ownership. Who knows.

But the need for personal transportation predated the automobile, and will postdate it, in one form or another. Don't hold your breath waiting for the demise, won't happen in our lifetime.

[stasu1213]

Only in Detroit does private ownership of automobile predated and postdated transit for had been set up for that.

[Glowblue]

Well, most people with the means have already moved out. No, I don't want to screw the poor of Detroit. If you haven't noticed, people aren't exactly sitting along Eight Mile lighting cigars with $100 bills saying, "''tis a pity about the poor in Detroit." You could tax the Illitches and Devoses at 100%, and that wouldn't change anything.

Detroit and the whole state are in the throes of a Depression. The state budget would be a lot worse off, if not for the requirement to balance each year. [[In fact, there has been a years-long state budget crisis in Michigan.)

The problems we have are structural. We are no longer the economic powerhouse we once were, and we won't be again anytime soon. Our state and municipalities need to rationalize accordingly. We can do it methodically or we can just hit the wall train-wreck style.

If anything, Michigan's compromised economic situation calls for more government services [[and higher taxes to fund them) since more people depend on the government when times are tough. Government aid can soften the blow of a bad economy and lead to a more rapid recovery. Cutting government programs when people need them most, despite what the Gospel of Reagan preaches, only makes things worse.

[stasu1213]

If the transportation system in Detroit was private owned it would be a million dollar maker

[rid0617]

The pay-per-ride within the NYC Metro subway and bus system is $2.25. When visiting NYC, the Unlimited Ride MetroCard is a great deal.

http://www.mta.info/mta/09/

I am quite satisfied with public transit in New York. However, NY has the population density and physical compactness that make it work.

$2.00 to ride Marta in Atlanta. Free transfers from the train to the buses

[Detroit_ExPat]

If anything, Michigan's compromised economic situation calls for more government services [[and higher taxes to fund them) since more people depend on the government when times are tough. Government aid can soften the blow of a bad economy and lead to a more rapid recovery. Cutting government programs when people need them most, despite what the Gospel of Reagan preaches, only makes things worse.

Believe me, I am no disciple of Reagan. If you asked me about my politics/ideology, I'd tell you that I'm a liberal FDR-Democrat.

I agree there are somethings that Michigan can do on the state level to help mitigate the economic crisis we are in, such as a graduated state income tax. But I also believe Detroit has passed the point where economic theory [[whether left or right) applies in the city. There is no real functioning economy in Detroit.

Its former tax base has largely disappeared. It is a city of roughly 750,000 with an infrastructure in place for 1.8 million. The remaining residents have already been taxed beyond reason [[Detroit's property tax rates are truly absurd). It has been extorted for years by corrupt and incompetent officials. The public services are laughable, until you remember real people are being hurt. It has infant mortality rates of a third world nation. Crime is out of control. The DPS is cruel joke being played on the children of Detroit.

These are not crises where adding a penny to sales tax and investing in repaving Woodward Avenue from Jefferson to Eight Mile would help.

The problems are structural and are at the breaking point. Flint and Youngstown, OH are attempting to address some of the same issues. Detroit must do the same, along with many other undertakings, if it wants to survive as a municipal entity.

[stasu1213]

Why don't Bing or Graholm use something of that stimulus money to improve the transit in southeast michigan or build some type of light rail. In the meantime some of that money could had been used in purchasing biofuel or electric busses that would had save money on fuel and wear and tear

[Retroit]

Several of you have made the point that bus service is essential because so many of the poor rely on it. I would agree that in a city where only a small proportion of the people are poor, the rest of the population that is not poor could be expected to "redistribute the wealth" and help fund a bus system. But when a very large proportion of the population is poor, is it reasonable to expect the rest of the population [[the small proportion of middle or upper classes) to bear such a burden? To take it to the extreme: if an entire population is poor, the entire cost has to be borne by the poor.

There seems to be a belief that money must be spent to help the poor, but if that money is simply being taken from the poor and spent on them, are they really being helped? Maybe if the property taxes in Detroit were not so high, people wouldn't be so poor and would be able to afford higher bus fares. Maybe if people were not kept in poverty, they wouldn't be so resentful of being resigned to take the bus, nor so eager to steal cars.

[stasu1213]

that is why is say that the monies from ridership should go back into the bus system. That way the rich's tax dollars doesn't have to pay for it

[Bearinabox]

Several of you have made the point that bus service is essential because so many of the poor rely on it. I would agree that in a city where only a small proportion of the people are poor, the rest of the population that is not poor could be expected to "redistribute the wealth" and help fund a bus system. But when a very large proportion of the population is poor, is it reasonable to expect the rest of the population [[the small proportion of middle or upper classes) to bear such a burden? To take it to the extreme: if an entire population is poor, the entire cost has to be borne by the poor.

Transit is a regional issue. You shouldn't be able to get out of paying for it by moving to a Livonia or a Lathrup Village. I don't know who decided that communities should be able to opt out of public transit, but it's time we stopped that.

Also, transit is not just for the poor. I'm not poor. I ride the bus because I don't like driving, or parking, or paying for parking, or paying for gas, or worrying about whether my car will still be where I left it when I come back. I like being able to get around without a car. Buying me a car wouldn't help me--I already have one, and I choose to use it as infrequently as possible.

Transit is a public service provided in urbanized areas. If you don't want to pay for it, move up north and buy yourself a pig farm. This "opt-out" horseshit is beyond ridiculous.

[ASR89]

Bear, I agree with your last post completely. On the bright side, with Hertel's proposed regional plan, no city, village, township, etc will be able to opt out. Speaking of which, there hasn't been any news on that in a while. The last I read, Detroit was dragging its feet sending someone to collaborate with Hertel and the 3 county bigwigs. Hertel was hoping to get something together by June by the latest, but here it is August. *sigh*

[Retroit]

Bearinabox, wouldn't you agree that transit has been most successful in cities that have a wide diversity of incomes [[New York, Chicago, etc.), where services that are most beneficial to the poor are funded by a much larger non-poor proportion of the population. If New York or Chicago were as extensively poor as Detroit, would they have as successful transit systems?

Your choice to take the bus instead of driving is a perfect illustration of why bus fares should be raised. You have made a careful financial and convenience analysis and have decided that you prefer the bus service over the car. Shouldn't there be a premium [[i.e. increased fares) for this service? [[Also, by taking the bus, you are actually making the automobile more convenient for others. Thanks for the parking spot!)

[Bearinabox]

Bearinabox, wouldn't you agree that transit has been most successful in cities that have a wide diversity of incomes [[New York, Chicago, etc.), where services that are most beneficial to the poor are funded by a much larger non-poor proportion of the population. If New York or Chicago were as extensively poor as Detroit, would they have as successful transit systems?

I think the failure of our transit system has more to do with our misplaced priorities and fucked-up regional political climate than with our income distribution. There is plenty of money in metro Detroit, and as I said before, transit is a regional issue.

Your choice to take the bus instead of driving is a perfect illustration of why bus fares should be raised. You have made a careful financial and convenience analysis and have decided that you prefer the bus service over the car. Shouldn't there be a premium [[i.e. increased fares) for this service?

Personally, I'd prefer an increased fare [[within reason, given what other major metropolitan transit systems charge) over further service cuts. I'd be happy to pay more if service were improved [[made more frequent, more reliable, and more pleasant to use--IMO, the geographical coverage of the city is adequate, but would not be if it were cut any further). As I said, though, I'm not poor, and raising bus fare would not be politically popular among those who are.

[[Also, by taking the bus, you are actually making the automobile more convenient for others. Thanks for the parking spot!)

No, thank you for pointing this out. Too often, people who don't use transit think it is not in their interest to support it, and I have always argued that it is. It's stupid to cut transit service [[or raise the fare) to the point where you force people like me to drive, because it causes more traffic congestion, more parking shortages, more air pollution, and more demand for oil. It is in everyone's interest, including people who love to drive and would never take transit no matter what, to provide adequate transit service as an option to those who choose to use it, even if that means subsidies [[it does).

It's worth noting that every major metropolitan area in America except Detroit seems to have figured this out. Oddly enough, they're all doing much better than we are.

[Funaho]

Assuming it costs $2529 per year per bus system user [[my calculation, yet to be disproven), why would someone, like myself, who spends approximately $1200 per year on a car [[$600 for gas, $400 for insurance, $97 for registration, $103 miscellaneous) have to subsidize the person who spends over twice as much on transportation?

Out of curiosity, where do you live? $400 will cover only two *months* of my insurance in SW Detroit, on a relatively modest vehicle [[2004 Saturn VUE.) I can't remember EVER having insurance around here on any of my cars for less than $150/mo ever since I moved back here in 1990.

[firstandten]

Why don't Bing or Graholm use something of that stimulus money to improve the transit in southeast michigan or build some type of light rail. In the meantime some of that money could had been used in purchasing biofuel or electric busses that would had save money on fuel and wear and tear

While a good idea, I think these kind of projects have to be "shovel ready" to get stimulus money. Seeing how SE Michigan can't agree on anything involving transit, I bet any plans we may have is probably only in someones head.

[Retroit]

Out of curiosity, where do you live? $400 will cover only two *months* of my insurance in SW Detroit, on a relatively modest vehicle [[2004 Saturn VUE.) I can't remember EVER having insurance around here on any of my cars for less than $150/mo ever since I moved back here in 1990.

Eastpointe. $197.79 for 6 months for a '91 Grand Prix. Progressive Insurance. No collision coverage. Clean driving record. I drive 6000 miles/year.

If you are making monthly insurance payments, pay for 6 months. You will save a lot. Some companies will even allow you to pay for a year at a time.

Shop around for a lower policy; this can be done quite easily on the internet.

Drop all coverages you don't need. I only carry what is required by law. Take the highest deductible available. Put the money you save from lower premiums into your own emergency fund to cover any unforeseen expenses.

Only buy used cars. New cars depreciate rapidly in their first few years. Most people spend way too high a percentage of their income on their car. Buy instead of financing or leasing.

Paying $2400 a year for insurance is INSANE! I would move before I spent that much. I couldn't love living anyplace enough to waste that much of my hard earned income on transportation. Think about it: you spend enough in 10 years to buy a new car.