"Golden Triangle" a golden joke?

casscorridor · #1 February 8th, 2010, 07:13 PM

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...02079976/1069#

About the "golden triangle" proposal
• Total cost: $927 million ($52 million planning, $875 million capital)

• Funding source: 80 percent federal, 20 percent state/local for capital costs; some type of local/regional tax and state appropriation for operating costs

• Timeline: 69-72 months

• Length: 67.3 miles in three segments:

Woodward Avenue corridor — Grand Boulevard to M-59 (19.5 miles, $15 million in planning costs and $253.5 million in capital costs)

Gratiot Avenue corridor — Woodward to M-59 (23.5 miles, $18 million, $305.5 million)

M-59 corridor — Gratiot to Woodward (24.3 miles, $19 million, $315.9 million)

• A segment of Woodward from Gratiot to Grand Boulevard would be served by a separate light line service.

• Corridors would use reserved traffic lanes with signal priority.

• There would be passenger stations with tickets and route info. If the routes use dedicated lanes in the median, there would be 60 stations. Curbside lanes would need 120 stations.

• Backers said the corridors would create 20,000 new jobs with $900 million in payroll, 7,000 new housing units and $1.3 billion in new development value.

• Supporters also predict $160 million in new annual retail sales because of the lines and $60 million in new state and local tax revenue.

Source: Macomb County

PLEASE TELL ME WHY THERE IS SO MUCH EMPHASIS ON M-59?

What I keep thinking is that yet again, we have a few rich ass powerful elites that have no idea what they are doing. It's like they picked M-59 out of a hat or something. There are corridors that need to come first, most importantly light-rail on Jefferson Ave. Michigan Ave and Grand River Ave would also come first. And Fort Street.

The problem with M-59 is that it is completely suburban for the entire route, and currently some parts don't have buses at all, and the parts that do are extremely infrequent. 99.9 percent of trips are done in car. Contrast this with Jefferson Ave, where there is high-density housing, a 24 hour route that runs ever 20 minutes, that crosses many other routes, runs parallel to other routes, and also is served by SMART routes.

I am not against bus service improving for the far flung suburbs, but why does such a route as M-59 get so much priority when there are other corridors which already have way more daily riders, and would have a much greater impact. Service can still be improved on M-59, but is bus rapid transit necessary?

How many people are going to be willing to walk a miles from their McMansion and their subdivision to get to this transit route? I doubt many. I think a much better alternative is focusing money on inner-city rail for Detroit and some inner suburbs, and commuter/regional rail for the suburbs and exurbs and close by cities.

Why not run a commuter rail up to M-59 and have a station there, with regular 'ol local buses serving as feeders? Why do we need this "BRT" thing that no one is going to use??

I think a route that needs BRT wayyyyy more is Grand River Ave, which has a bus running every 10 minutes, sometimes 5 minutes during rush hour. A dedicated lane and traffic signal priority would help this route that THOUSANDS of people ride every day.... how many people ride from the M-59 area? A dozen total?

Hermod · #2 February 8th, 2010, 07:35 PM

Normally when you look at REGIONAL rapid transit, you look at origins and destinations of traffic. You then try to provide rapid transit for the most traveled routes. If these routes happen to run along I-696 and M-59, so be it. Possibly a very much needed route runs from downriver up Telegraph to the northwestern suburbs.

ghettopalmetto · #3 February 8th, 2010, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermod

Normally when you look at REGIONAL rapid transit, you look at origins and destinations of traffic. You then try to provide rapid transit for the most traveled routes. If these routes happen to run along I-696 and M-59, so be it. Possibly a very much needed route runs from downriver up Telegraph to the northwestern suburbs.

Okay. Get off a bus on I-696 and tell us what happens.

Fury13 · #4 February 8th, 2010, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Okay. Get off a bus on I-696 and tell us what happens.

Obviously, a bus route along 696 would let people off on the service drives, which for much of 696 is either 10 Mile or 11 Mile.

Fury13 · #5 February 8th, 2010, 07:58 PM

When it's all said and done, though, I don't think most of the middle-class public will want to use BRT. They'll get on a train, but not on a bus. Sorry, the stigma persists and it probably always will.

dtowncitylover · #6 February 8th, 2010, 07:58 PM

First, I say build, build, build! One great investment is what we need.

Second, perhaps they chose M-59 is because the population is there. Yes it is suburban, but there is a stable population that isn't going away and frequents Detroit often (ie Casinos, sports games, etc) and could benefit from this. Yeah it sounds a little iffy, but it will benefit everyone.

Third, the article is for subscribers only, fyi and is it in this current issue?

dtowncitylover · #7 February 8th, 2010, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fury13

When it's all said and done, though, I don't think most of the middle-class public will want to use BRT. They'll get on a train, but not on a bus. Sorry, the stigma persists and it probably always will.

But there is a difference between a 15 years old SMART/DDOT bus and a slick-train type bus. Yeah there is a stigma, but the stations and the feel are entirely different. If we want to improve the bus system first, I think we need to improve the image of the bus, and BRT is the next generation.

leland_palmer · #8 February 8th, 2010, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Okay. Get off a bus on I-696 and tell us what happens.

There is a Greyhound station at 11 & Lahser & a ride and share lot right next to the 696 exit.

DLN · #9 February 8th, 2010, 08:14 PM

Yeah, as someone that travels M-59 to work everyday, I wouldn't use a bus, a train maybe....

ghettopalmetto · #10 February 8th, 2010, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

But there is a difference between a 15 years old SMART/DDOT bus and a slick-train type bus. Yeah there is a stigma, but the stations and the feel are entirely different. If we want to improve the bus system first, I think we need to improve the image of the bus, and BRT is the next generation.

A bus with a slick paint job isn't going to make anyone want to risk life-and-limb by slogging a mile from a bus stop on M-59 to the Walmart.

casscorridor · #11 February 8th, 2010, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermod

Normally when you look at REGIONAL rapid transit, you look at origins and destinations of traffic. You then try to provide rapid transit for the most traveled routes. If these routes happen to run along I-696 and M-59, so be it. Possibly a very much needed route runs from downriver up Telegraph to the northwestern suburbs.

I think planning this way is problematic.

One, people who ride transit are often going to and from very different destinations than people who only ride cars. Just because M-59 or Telegraph Rd carry very large amounts of auto traffic, do you think they have the capacity to carry transit? I doubt it, due simply to the surrounding urban form. Why ride take all these transit trips within burbs when it is easier to get around via car? And I doubt there are many without cars in northern Oakland and Macomb.

Two, transit creates new destinations as development concentrates around stations. I can see the value in connecting destinations such as suburban malls and office parks and such, because large amounts of people use them. But, eventually those stores and offices will gravitate toward urban areas as they become more popular. After all, it is the suburbs that were build to last not much more than a generation. Strategic planning would concentrate development in areas that have the urban "bones"... the inner city and inner-ring suburbs that are built along the grid and have much a more resilient and well built housing stock, not in far flung areas on the edge of the metro area.

Three, I don't think this is the way transit is planned anyway. I think it has to do with transit ridership, not auto traffic. There is a pretty large ridership on the suburban sections of both Woodward and Gratiot, as many office workers downtown take the bus, but this simply is not the case for M-59.

Four, when resources are tight, it just doesn't make sense taking a gamble on something like this, especial when there is very good alternatives. Consider that a Gratiot line a Woodward line extending in the the suburbs would cover suburban Oakland and Macomb counties, but not Wayne. Consider the length of routes:
M-59 from Gratiot to Woodward -- over 20 miles
Jefferson Ave from Alter to Downtown -- aprox. 6 miles
Michigan Ave from Downtown to West Dearborn -- aprox 10 miles

So for the length of M-59, we can have Michigan Ave AND Jefferson Ave. Wow, incredible. I don't think people realize how spread out the suburbs are compared to even a medium to low density city like Detroit.

rbdetsport · #12 February 8th, 2010, 08:46 PM

I think you guys are all missing the point. The point of an M-59 line would be to connect the Woodward and Gratiot Lines. There are many people along the M-59 corridor that either work along or near Woodward or along or near Gratiot and right to downtown. I will assume that most stations along M-59 will be park and rides for people choosing to travel downtown or anywhere along the Gratiot and Woodward corridors. Eventually there will be BRT along Metro Parkway/Big Beaver and 8 Mile serving as the same sort of things. Also, in our area, there is a large mass of people who travel East-West and vice versa. I think you all have it wrong when you say this is a major mistake.

ghettopalmetto · #13 February 8th, 2010, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbdetsport

I think you guys are all missing the point. The point of an M-59 line would be to connect the Woodward and Gratiot Lines. There are many people along the M-59 corridor that either work along or near Woodward or along or near Gratiot and right to downtown. I will assume that most stations along M-59 will be park and rides for people choosing to travel downtown or anywhere along the Gratiot and Woodward corridors. Eventually there will be BRT along Metro Parkway/Big Beaver and 8 Mile serving as the same sort of things. Also, in our area, there is a large mass of people who travel East-West and vice versa. I think you all have it wrong when you say this is a major mistake.

Which begs the question--why not just save money by building park-and-ride lots at the terminal stations of the Woodward and Gratiot lines?

No one who lives near M-59 is going to walk to a bus stop on that automotive sewer.

rbdetsport · #14 February 8th, 2010, 08:54 PM

I live near M-59 and i will...

rbdetsport · #15 February 8th, 2010, 08:56 PM

Because its about the convenience. People already think it is going to be tough enough to get people to ride transit in our area. So it sadly needs to be as convenient as possible. Everyone wants a line in their backyard. And because of our shitty politicians, thats what people are going to get. I am not saying this is a magnificent idea. I am just saying that these are most likely the reasons. I am going to school for Civil Engineering with a focus in transportation so I have a little bit of background in some of the reasons.

bigtreble · #16 February 8th, 2010, 08:56 PM

Seems to be working for Colombia.

Youtube:
Making Things Happen with Bus Rapid Transit, Part I
Making Things Happen with Bus Rapid Transit, Part II

Bearinabox · #17 February 8th, 2010, 09:01 PM

I can't read the linked article. Does it explain how they plan to handle stops on the expressway section of M-59? It reminds me of that plan to run express buses along I-94 with the steps leading up to Woodward. I'd be interested to see what they're proposing.

ljbad89 · #18 February 8th, 2010, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casscorridor

PLEASE TELL ME WHY THERE IS SO MUCH EMPHASIS ON M-59?

It doesn't make much sense, does it? I imagine the reasoning is because it's pretty heavily travelled. According to the following MDOT map, sections of M-59 range from 60,000-70,000 people daily.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/detmetro_19640_7.pdf

I was following Hall Road / M-59 east from Gratiot for a while on Bing Map's aerial view. There's a lot of sprawl and I saw a lot of buildings with huge parking lots in front of them. I can't recall ever travelling along M-59, but the sight made me think of a recent trip in which I met some folks at place called Lucky Strike in Novi.

I'd never been out that way either except for a while back when a friend drove us to go to Twelve Oaks at night. There were a large number of stores in back of seas of parking lots. In trying to find the place, I had to go down many roads and side roads that branched off from one another.

I can't see some people getting off at a station and walking a long distance across a parking lot to go inside these big box stores. Unfortunately, I've seen it plenty of times: People driving around and around for 5 minutes to get a parking spot close to the door because they don't want to walk the extra 100 steps.

I think it would be useful (as someone stated) for people who get on in order to get to areas like downtown Detroit, Midtown, downtown Royal Oak & Ferndale, etc. Whatever gets built in the future should keep the mass transit lines in mind. Both mass transit and vehicular traffic can be accommodated. There isn't anything wrong with building close to the street with parking in back or on one side unless there are laws or ordinances in some cities.

Bearinabox · #19 February 8th, 2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigtreble

Seems to be working for Colombia.

Youtube:
Making Things Happen with Bus Rapid Transit, Part I
Making Things Happen with Bus Rapid Transit, Part II

I got about 50 seconds into that video, and then they said something like BRT "moves more passengers than a subway, and in a much more pleasant manner" and instantly lost all credibility. Steel wheels on rails always provide a pleasanter ride than rubber tires on asphalt, you can't hitch extra cars to the back of a bus, and grade separation is always more efficient.

Also, I'm not sure Colombia is exactly who we want to be emulating. How about Germany? France? Austria? Someplace that's not in the middle of a 50-year civil war fueled by drug cartels?

DetroitPlanner · #20 February 8th, 2010, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

Also, I'm not sure Colombia is exactly who we want to be emulating. How about Germany? France? Austria? Someplace that's not in the middle of a 50-year civil war fueled by drug cartels?

Some folks would consider Detroit a place that is very similar to the Columbia you describe. Metropolitan Detroit should not contain itself to being a euro-centric place. We can learn something from just about everyone.

Goose · #21 February 8th, 2010, 11:54 PM

detroit (and its surrounding suburbs) is and always will be a car town

so long as you can find a $500 hooptie and $2.50 cent gas you will never get people that can to ride a bus or a train in numbers needed to make it profitable....

sorry, thats reality.....

Bearinabox · #22 February 9th, 2010, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goose

...you will never get people that can to ride a bus or a train in numbers needed to make it profitable...

"Profitable" isn't really the goal here. The idea is to improve mobility in metro Detroit, not to make someone a bunch of money.

Gistok · #23 February 9th, 2010, 12:07 AM

For those who have never had the "pleasure" of driving along M-59 (especially the areas around the Partridge Creek and Lakeside Malls).... it's almost like driving downtown on Jefferson Ave. between where the Lodge and Chrysler Fwy's empty onto it... except it's much worse!!

ghettopalmetto · #24 February 9th, 2010, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goose

detroit (and its surrounding suburbs) is and always will be a car town

so long as you can find a $500 hooptie and $2.50 cent gas you will never get people that can to ride a bus or a train in numbers needed to make it profitable....

sorry, thats reality.....

The workers who took the streetcar to work at the Rouge Plant could have used your voice of reason.

Goose · #25 February 9th, 2010, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

"Profitable" isn't really the goal here. The idea is to improve mobility in metro Detroit, not to make someone a bunch of money.

lets just say "break even" then...... most people i would guess in the SE michigan region are probably unwilling to subject themselves to more government confiscation of their earnings to finance a losing mass transit proposition, because, as i said, the people with the money have cars, and they aren't going to be giving them up any time soon...

Goose · #26 February 9th, 2010, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

The workers who took the streetcar to work at the Rouge Plant could have used your voice of reason.

hi, its 2010.... these same people riding the rail weren't carrying technology in the form of a cell phone that is superior to anything seen at that time... people also rode horses and buggies to their jobs at one time, maybe this is an alternative transportation idea.....

ghettopalmetto · #27 February 9th, 2010, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goose

lets just say "break even" then...... most people i would guess in the SE michigan region are probably unwilling to subject themselves to more government confiscation of their earnings to finance a losing mass transit proposition, because, as i said, the people with the money have cars, and they aren't going to be giving them up any time soon...

Someone better tell those loser cities on the East Coast with all their jobs and convenience and high real estate values to get with the program.

ghettopalmetto · #28 February 9th, 2010, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goose

hi, its 2010.... these same people riding the rail weren't carrying technology in the form of a cell phone that is superior to anything seen at that time...

What kind of cell phone do you have that transports you to work? Shit, I need to get me one of those!

p1acebo · #29 February 9th, 2010, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gistok

For those who have never had the "pleasure" of driving along M-59 (especially the areas around the Partridge Creek and Lakeside Malls).... it's almost like driving downtown on Jefferson Ave. between where the Lodge and Chrysler Fwy's empty onto it... except it's much worse!!

I completely agree with this, it is stressful. I think people would give another form of transportation a chance, I know I would.

Goose · #30 February 9th, 2010, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Someone better tell those loser cities on the East Coast with all their jobs and convenience and high real estate values to get with the program.

cause other than the public transportation systems the areas are identical...... both in logistics and social ideolology.....

Goose · #31 February 9th, 2010, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

What kind of cell phone do you have that transports you to work? Shit, I need to get me one of those!

thats funny.....

what blacksmith do you use to shoe your horses???

EastsideAl · #32 February 9th, 2010, 01:03 AM

For the 200 zillionth time, mass transit systems are not profit making entities, and no one should expect them to be. Everywhere in the U.S., and indeed everywhere in the world, mass transit systems are subsidized as a public good. In the same way that, say, roads and bridges and freeways and pretty much the entire infrastructure that make an auto-centric way of life possible are. Except mass transit systems create a more tangible public good by moving large numbers of people efficiently using less energy than individual vehicles, and by raising people traffic, new construction, commercial rents, and property values along the corridors in which they've been built, without creating additional auto traffic.

I have no idea where this naive and odd idea you hear all the time around here that public transit must be profitable to be worth building came from. At the same time that pretty much all of the most prosperous cities in this country (which definitely doesn't include Detroit) have either had public transit systems that have aided their growth and prosperity, or are building them with an eye towards a more sustainably prosperous future. This is yet another area where we're desperately behind, and mired in thinking straight out of the 1950s.

Russix · #33 February 9th, 2010, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

"Profitable" isn't really the goal here. The idea is to improve mobility in metro Detroit, not to make someone a bunch of money.

"Profitable" is a goal. A city/metro that provides an efficient and desirable transit system wins. Are we even playing in the same league anymore economically as other large metro areas that have invested in themselves? Do you think newspapers in Chicago print front page headlines every time a business relocates there and brings a couple hundred jobs? Our freeways and roads are important pillars of our economy, unfortunately we're missing the other half of the backbone to make a truly successful metro.

Hermod · #34 February 9th, 2010, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Which begs the question--why not just save money by building park-and-ride lots at the terminal stations of the Woodward and Gratiot lines?

No one who lives near M-59 is going to walk to a bus stop on that automotive sewer.

Because, unlike New York, everybody doesn't work downtown.

If your goal is to reduce congestion, you look to where the traffic is going.

Radial routes work fine when everyone is going downtown. How many office workers work downtown? How many office workers work in the Northland area?
Along Big Beaver? Near I-275 and I-96? Where are the factories that wemploy large numbers of people?.

Hermod · #35 February 9th, 2010, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

"Profitable" isn't really the goal here. The idea is to improve mobility in metro Detroit, not to make someone a bunch of money.

Profitable better not be the goal because you aren't going to make money on any passenger transit system. Commuter rail and bus operations do not pay for themselves out of the fare box.

Read Hilton and Due "The Electric Interurban Railroad in America" which has rather detailed analysis of the economics of rail passenger economics.

ghettopalmetto · #36 February 9th, 2010, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermod

Because, unlike New York, everybody doesn't work downtown.

If your goal is to reduce congestion, you look to where the traffic is going.

Radial routes work fine when everyone is going downtown. How many office workers work downtown? How many office workers work in the Northland area?
Along Big Beaver? Near I-275 and I-96? Where are the factories that wemploy large numbers of people?.

Reduction of traffic congestion is a red herring as pertains to transit. Driving is considered a "free" good, in that consumers don't pay the full cost of driving. Therefore, whenever there is roadway capacity, drivers will fill that roadway.

Look at I-270 in Maryland. You have the very well-patronized Red Line running roughly parallel to that roadway. But in the 1980s, the State of Maryland decided, in its infinite wisdom, that I-270 needed to be widened from six lanes to twelve to "accommodate growth". Well, the "growth" happened as a result of the freeway widening, and now they have twelve lanes of congestion every rush hour instead of six. The difference between there and Detroit, though, is that people have reliable transit options if they don't wish to sit in the parking lot.

It's time Detroit and Michigan start thinking about moving *people* vis-a-vis moving *cars*.

bailey · #37 February 9th, 2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Someone better tell those loser cities on the East Coast with all their jobs and convenience and high real estate values to get with the program.

Yeah, because the ONLY difference between Boston-Ny-DC region and Detroit metro is a lack of public transportation.

Hermod · #38 February 9th, 2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Reduction of traffic congestion is a red herring as pertains to transit. Driving is considered a "free" good, in that consumers don't pay the full cost of driving. Therefore, whenever there is roadway capacity, drivers will fill that roadway.

It's time Detroit and Michigan start thinking about moving *people* vis-a-vis moving *cars*.

*cars* move *people* and where cars are going is where people need/want to go. If you want people to give up using their cars, you need to have attractive and convenient public transit which makes the choice of forgoing the car trip a logical step. Most of the folks in the metro area do not need or want to go to the CBD. They most often need/want to go somewhere outside the city limits of Detroit.

DetroitPlanner · #39 February 9th, 2010, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Reduction of traffic congestion is a red herring as pertains to transit. Driving is considered a "free" good, in that consumers don't pay the full cost of driving. Therefore, whenever there is roadway capacity, drivers will fill that roadway.

Demand and capacity are not the same thing. All you need to see is how congested the roads are at 4 am or drive down 2nd Street between Cass Tech and WSU to know this.

ghettopalmetto · #40 February 9th, 2010, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Demand and capacity are not the same thing. All you need to see is how congested the roads are at 4 am or drive down 2nd Street between Cass Tech and WSU to know this.

That's a bit of a disingenuous example, wouldn't you say? That's like saying people don't like fast food, since nobody is at McDonald's at 4 AM.

I will agree with you, though--demand and capacity are NOT the same thing. As driving is a free good, demand is infinite. Therefore, wherever there is capacity, it will fill with vehicles. There is no place anywhere that addition of roadway capacity has ever eased demand for roadway space.

I'm sure as a planner, you're well aware of Atlanta's "successful" Freeing the Freeways program.

As long as we continue building environments conducive only to travel by automobile, we will have congestion.

Fury13 · #41 February 9th, 2010, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermod

Most of the folks in the metro area do not need or want to go to the CBD. They most often need/want to go somewhere outside the city limits of Detroit.

Exactly right. But because many of the folks on this forum wish that downtown was the primary destination for people in transit, they choose to ignore this fact.

ghettopalmetto · #42 February 9th, 2010, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermod

*cars* move *people* and where cars are going is where people need/want to go. If you want people to give up using their cars, you need to have attractive and convenient public transit which makes the choice of forgoing the car trip a logical step. Most of the folks in the metro area do not need or want to go to the CBD. They most often need/want to go somewhere outside the city limits of Detroit.

That doesn't make it cost-effective to run a $300 million bus line along a major highway that isn't conducive to pedestrian traffic.

bailey · #43 February 9th, 2010, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

That doesn't make it cost-effective to run a $300 million bus line along a major highway that isn't conducive to pedestrian traffic.

By the same token it doesn't make sense to run a $300 million dollar bus line along a major radial road that doesn't serve the needs of commuters.

ghettopalmetto · #44 February 9th, 2010, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bailey

Yeah, because the ONLY difference between Boston-Ny-DC region and Detroit metro is a lack of public transportation.

Excellent point, bailey. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on those differences a bit further. Surely, you're not arguing that Detroit is succeeding wildly by embracing the status quo.

ghettopalmetto · #45 February 9th, 2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bailey

By the same token it doesn't make sense to run a $300 million dollar bus line along a major radial road that doesn't serve the needs of commuters.

So run the bus line along a major radial road that DOES serve the needs of commuters.

Detroitnerd · #46 February 9th, 2010, 10:23 AM

Sometimes I suspect they just want to saddle us with expensive boutique systems that won't work to help drive home the popular wisdom that transit won't work here. I swear, instead of trying something that obviously works -- light rail -- we have all these outdated, marginal or retro-futuristic schemes, such as Bus Rapid Transit, MagLev technology, monorails, elevated rail and the like.

From top to bottom, there is a lack of awareness about what these different modes do, or why they're desirable. Seriously, spending billions to build a bus system? Doesn't anybody understand mass transit? Or are they just in the pay of the road lobbies? Either way, if this Golden Triangle gets built, the benefits of it will rain down on the people paying for it. Call it a "golden shower," if you will.

iheartthed · #47 February 9th, 2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bailey

Yeah, because the ONLY difference between Boston-Ny-DC region and Detroit metro is a lack of public transportation.

It's a pretty fucking big difference.

bailey · #48 February 9th, 2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Excellent point, bailey. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on those differences a bit further. Surely, you're not arguing that Detroit is succeeding wildly by embracing the status quo.

No I am not advocating such. I am saying that slapping a transit system together based on the fallacy that everyone needs to get downtown on the old radial layout without taking into account that 50 years of sprawl and changing work patterns have pretty much permanently altered the travel patterns to a east west/avoidance of downtown entirely except for special occasions is pretty stupid.

bailey · #49 February 9th, 2010, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's a pretty fucking big difference.

If we implemented every wet dream that every transit activist has put forth in the last 10 years or so, Detroit would still have 30%+ unemployment and the state would still be looking at 15% overall. Why? because michigan and detroit are run by dullards who think that at some point the factories will start hiring again and everything will be alright so there is no need to change how Michigan does business. The state is wedded to one industry and to jobs that are NOT COMING BACK. The only 'new' industry we've managed to attract here only came with a 45% tax credit....and as soon as that is nixed, which is apparently going to be soon, we can all say goodbye to those snazzy new studios in Allen Park.

iheartthed · #50 February 9th, 2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bailey

If we implemented every wet dream that every transit activist has put forth in the last 10 years or so, Detroit would still have 30%+ unemployment and the state would still be looking at 15% overall. Why? because michigan and detroit are run by dullards who think that at some point the factories will start hiring again and everything will be alright so there is no need to change how Michigan does business. The state is wedded to one industry and to jobs that are NOT COMING BACK. The only 'new' industry we've managed to attract here only came with a 45% tax credit....and as soon as that is nixed, which is apparently going to be soon, we can all say goodbye to those snazzy new studios in Allen Park.

Okay. So how does this negate the position that Detroit needs a transit system to be competitive?