Downtown Retail

[dover627]

For whatever reason, I got to thinking about the old downtown Hudson's today, and started thinking about the utter lack of retail in the CDB. Aside from the obvious, why isn't there more talk about trying to attract a major anchor retailer to re-establish some sort of retail district downtown. It seems that if you add easy parking, it could become a destination spot...I mean, people drive from Clinton Township to shop at Somerset, so who's to say they wouldnt drive downtown?

Food for thought...

[ghettopalmetto]

Originally Posted by dover627

For whatever reason, I got to thinking about the old downtown Hudson's today, and started thinking about the utter lack of retail in the CDB. Aside from the obvious, why isn't there more talk about trying to attract a major anchor retailer to re-establish some sort of retail district downtown. It seems that if you add easy parking, it could become a destination spot...I mean, people drive from Clinton Township to shop at Somerset, so who's to say they wouldnt drive downtown?

Food for thought...

There's nothing to think about. There isn't sufficient income density in the CBD to make a major anchor retailer profitable.

[dover627]

Agree 100%. The question is, can you convince a retailer to analyze demographics on a regional basis to capture the "destination shopper" buying power. Recognizing that the big boys have pretty stringent requirements for income, population, etc., is there a way to get around that?

[esp1986]

Originally Posted by dover627

Agree 100%. The question is, can you convince a retailer to analyze demographics on a regional basis to capture the "destination shopper" buying power. Recognizing that the big boys have pretty stringent requirements for income, population, etc., is there a way to get around that?

Hudson's was proof, a major retailer downtown can make it a destination... even before it closed, there were at least people on merchant's row on a daily basis. The problem with Hudson's was that their sales had dropped significantly and they still had the high overhead associated with that massive building, and the dropping sales just didn't support it anymore.

Now to expect a ton of people to come from the north is not realistic, at first anyway, but if they could attract people from the south and west of town, it could be feasible... with a little bit of time and advertising, other stores will follow, say a Macy's, I really believe, from an economic standpoint, it could work solely from the point that a retailer like that would make it a destination. These are the types of retailers that make malls survive, so using that logic they could make it work... they would have to advertise it though.

[dover627]

Groups like DEGC, et. al spend a lot of time and resources trying to attract businesses and corporations downtown (and rightly so). I wonder if some type of well strategized retail attraction effort would be impactful.

[ndavies]

Originally Posted by esp1986

Hudson's was proof, a major retailer downtown can make it a destination... even before it closed, there were at least people on merchant's row on a daily basis. The problem with Hudson's was that their sales had dropped significantly and they still had the high overhead associated with that massive building, and the dropping sales just didn't support it anymore.

Now to expect a ton of people to come from the north is not realistic, at first anyway, but if they could attract people from the south and west of town, it could be feasible... with a little bit of time and advertising, other stores will follow, say a Macy's, I really believe, from an economic standpoint, it could work solely from the point that a retailer like that would make it a destination. These are the types of retailers that make malls survive, so using that logic they could make it work... they would have to advertise it though.

Why would they come from the south or the west? They would have to drive right by Fairlane in Dearborn or Southland mall in Taylor. Both are less than 15 miles from downtown and contain most of the stores people would drive to including Macy.

[Detroitnerd]

Downtown will not be a major shopping destination ... unless there were a streetcar system.

[dover627]

How would a streetcar system help? Unless it went from downtown to...Canton...

[ghettopalmetto]

Originally Posted by ndavies

Why would they come from the south or the west? They would have to drive right by Fairlane in Dearborn or Southland mall in Taylor. Both are less than 15 miles from downtown and contain most of the stores people would drive to including Macy.

(This is the part where someone says, "Yes, but if the store is *special* and *unique* and *doesn't exist anywhere else in the Detroit area*, it'll attract people.)

"Special", "unique", and "doesn't exist anywhere else in the Detroit area" being code words for high-end designer stores that, again, couldn't survive in downtown Detroit due to the lack of income density.

[dover627]

Why do people come downtown to go out to eat or to go see a play? You can do that in the suburbs too, but coming downtown makes it a "special", "unique" event.

[ScienceFair]

Hudson's downtown was still profitable when it closed. The company made a decision to close the store as to not pull away business from its suburban counterparts.

[esp1986]

Originally Posted by ndavies

Why would they come from the south or the west? They would have to drive right by Fairlane in Dearborn or Southland mall in Taylor. Both are less than 15 miles from downtown and contain most of the stores people would drive to including Macy.

If it is done properly, the store would be done to be one of the nicer ones in the area... most of the people in the northern suburbs are in their own little world and think that Sommerset is the best place on earth, in my experiences anyway. If they build a nice store, to rival that of Macy's in Sommerset, people from the south and west will come, the same people that don't want to drive the 45 mins+ up to Sommerset.

[ndavies]

Originally Posted by dover627

Why do people come downtown to go out to eat or to go see a play? You can do that in the suburbs too, but coming downtown makes it a "special", "unique" event.

And that's why Downtown looks like a ghost town when there aren't any events going on. All the "unique retail experiences" are already in the suburbs or can be built there with far less risk than would be encountered in the city.

[Detroitnerd]

Originally Posted by dover627

How would a streetcar system help? Unless it went from downtown to...Canton...

The way downtown is set up -- small streets, paid parking, etc. -- makes it difficult to set up real "destination shopping" there. Imagine the sort of traffic that goes through IKEA in Canton: At peak times, you'll wait for three lights just for traffic to inch ahead enough to slip in and park. And that's in a place that's right off the expressway and set up purposely to accommodate all those cars. And it still doesn't do the job very well.

The only efficient way to move large amounts of people in and out of downtown is a streetcar. Buses don't live long, are slow and don't carry enough people. (And many people could not be induced to ride a bus anyway.) Streetcars are durable, quick and carry lots of people.

That's how Hudson's grew to the size it was. You'd hop on a streetcar and go where all the streetcars converged.

As for Canton, well, I feel sorry for anybody who bought a $250,000 house there in the last 10 years, hoping it would be a smart investment.

[j to the jeremy]

People always claim that there aren't enought people living downtown, as if the other 800,000 odd people in the city don't know how to get there . Factor in the midtown population and a potential rail line on Woodward, and it seems like the downtown area isn't as crappy a location for a Target/whatever as people make it out to be.

[ghettopalmetto]

Originally Posted by j to the jeremy

People always claim that there aren't enought people living downtown, as if the other 800,000 odd people in the city don't know how to get there . Factor in the midtown population and a potential rail line on Woodward, and it seems like the downtown area isn't as crappy a location for a Target/whatever as people make it out to be.

I agree that when it comes to stores selling necessities--drug stores, hardware stores, grocery stores--Detroit is severely under-retailed. Many stores, though, including department stores, require a certain amount of income within a certain radius of the store. These requirements vary depending on the target demographic of the store. Until this paradigm changes, Detroit's income is just spread too thin over too wide an area to justify a whole lot beyond basic necessities.

[mikeg19]

Originally Posted by dover627

Why do people come downtown to go out to eat or to go see a play? You can do that in the suburbs too, but coming downtown makes it a "special", "unique" event.

Agreed 100%. It seems that Detroit and the DEGC can get companies to move downtown, but no major retail what so ever. They need a big retailer downtown to get some sort of draw. Is it possible to give a retailer tax credits toward relocating downtown such as they do with large business corporations???

[DetroitPlanner]

Originally Posted by j to the jeremy

People always claim that there aren't enought people living downtown, as if the other 800,000 odd people in the city don't know how to get there . Factor in the midtown population and a potential rail line on Woodward, and it seems like the downtown area isn't as crappy a location for a Target/whatever as people make it out to be.

Many of those 800k live closer to Fairlane, Northland, Eastland, Southland, or Farmington Hills than to Downtown. If there was a downtown Target, I'd buy smaller things there on my lunch hour, but there is no way I'd be lugging something like a table home on the bus or back to my office then haul it to my car!

Retailing needs to be close to the consumer in order for it to work. Yes there are more people living downtown, but its obviously not enough yet or the stores would be there right now.

[ghettopalmetto]

Originally Posted by mikeg19

Agreed 100%. It seems that Detroit and the DEGC can get companies to move downtown, but no major retail what so ever. They need a big retailer downtown to get some sort of draw. Is it possible to give a retailer tax credits toward relocating downtown such as they do with large business corporations???

What's the draw for the retailer? Why would a high-end retailer, or even a department store, want to locate amongst a worker population of only 50,000? Why would they locate in a place where unemployment tops 15%, and those who are employed collectively rank as one of the poorest, least educated cities in the United States? On top of that, you have one-third of the households in the City who don't have access to a car, and the transit system is "iffy" at best. It's not a demographic that screams "money".

If a business succeeds based strictly on massive subsidies, how does that draw other businesses to locate in the same area? Sure, let's just put a giant Crate and Barrel in downtown Detroit and *hope* that they draw other businesses, which most Detroiters still can't afford to patronize. That'll work.

We've seen this time and time again in Detroit. Development Through Inspiration DOES NOT WORK.

[Detroitnerd]

It kind of floors me that, in a city where it can be hard to find a place to buy a pair of UNDERWEAR we're supposed to proceed directly to Crate & Barrel.

[DetroitPlanner]

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

It kind of floors me that, in a city where it can be hard to find a place to buy a pair of UNDERWEAR we're supposed to proceed directly to Crate & Barrel.

Its kind of funny, that is one of the things I look for when looking at the health of a City's downtown. Just this weekend I took a drive out US-12 toward's Coldwater and ran into several small towns that could not pass this test and was thinking that maybe I should start a website where folks could post if they can find underwear downtown.

[Detroitnerd]

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Its kind of funny, that is one of the things I look for when looking at the health of a City's downtown. Just this weekend I took a drive out US-12 toward's Coldwater and ran into several small towns that could not pass this test and was thinking that maybe I should start a website where folks could post if they can find underwear downtown.

I only recently found that I could buy some boxers at CVS in Hamtramck. So, counting CVS, Detroit passes the test, I suppose. Sure took me a while to find 'em though!

[davewindsor]

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

What's the draw for the retailer? Why would a high-end retailer, or even a department store, want to locate amongst a worker population of only 50,000? Why would they locate in a place where unemployment tops 15%, and those who are employed collectively rank as one of the poorest, least educated cities in the United States? On top of that, you have one-third of the households in the City who don't have access to a car, and the transit system is "iffy" at best. It's not a demographic that screams "money".

If a business succeeds based strictly on massive subsidies, how does that draw other businesses to locate in the same area? Sure, let's just put a giant Crate and Barrel in downtown Detroit and *hope* that they draw other businesses, which most Detroiters still can't afford to patronize. That'll work.

We've seen this time and time again in Detroit. Development Through Inspiration DOES NOT WORK.

Nonsense. What's the draw for a retailer? I think all the above is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a third of residents don't have a car, there's only 50,000 workers in downtown or unemployment is at 15%. I think you could even get a Macy's to work in downtown.

I don't understand why the outrageous prices of shops in Somerset mall works in Troy, but it does. I don't understand how downtown casinos get so much traffic, but they do. Yes, I agree there's a lot of areas that would suck in downtown for large scale retail like a Macy's.like the former Hudson's site because Woodward doesn't have the kind of foot traffic or nearby downtown workers it once had or workers even wanting to walk there, but you don't need to market to them. Attaching a Macy's and/or a shopping centre next to a casino like the 160 shop Forum Shopping centre attached to Caesar's Palace in Vegas might work. Vegas in the middle of a freakin' desert. If it works in Vegas, why can't it work here?

Have a look at some of these gaming tables at Greektown casino and watch how much money people are blowing at these tables. Where's the money coming from? Probably not from the residents of downtown. Yet, Greektown casino was packed last time I went and I had to park on the seventh floor of their new garage and there was a lineup getting in. It would just be a matter of making it convenient to walk from the casino to Macy's like a pedestrian bridge. I think both anchors would increase each other's foot traffic and it would be a win-win for both. After winning or blowing $1,000, the might want to buy something at Macy's for their loved ones.

I think the idea of retail next to a casino is poorly marketed by the landlords and that's why very little has happened. I don't know why they didn't incorporate a shopping centre with large anchors like Macy's into their new hotel addition. The problem with downtown is people normally remain inside certain pockets in downtown and won't venture outside to explore the rest of downtown. So, I think large scale retail could work in downtown if it was attached to a casino.

[exmotowner]

Just in my opinion, I dont think the retailers are comming into the city because of crime and shoplifting. Its hard to operate a viable profitable business when every other person (and yes I'm probably exaggerating) is walking out with merchandise? There is no way in hell I would have a store there and besides, where would they put the bullet proof glass?

[mikeg19]

I guess I'm kind of thinking of this in a way a bad sports team tries to draw a reputable player. Think Detroit Tigers when they lured Pudge Rodriguez here with the huge contract. Did he really think they were going to win a World Series with what they had? No. Do he think there was potential down the line to field a respectable team? Possibly. Did he see the check they were offering him and think "how can I pass up this much money?". Hell yes he did. If there was some sort of incentive for a major retailer to come here, why wouldn't they? Like I said before, and I'm not sure if this is a possibility or not, can the city offer tax credits or incentives for say a Macy's to open up shop in a building downtown?

[esp1986]

Originally Posted by mikeg19

I guess I'm kind of thinking of this in a way a bad sports team tries to draw a reputable player. Think Detroit Tigers when they lured Pudge Rodriguez here with the huge contract. Did he really think they were going to win a World Series with what they had? No. Do he think there was potential down the line to field a respectable team? Possibly. Did he see the check they were offering him and think "how can I pass up this much money?". Hell yes he did. If there was some sort of incentive for a major retailer to come here, why wouldn't they? Like I said before, and I'm not sure if this is a possibility or not, can the city offer tax credits or incentives for say a Macy's to open up shop in a building downtown?

The bottom line here is that a big name department store will be a draw, much like Hudson's was up to the time it closed... Someone said it was still profitable up until it closed, which means it was still drawing people. If there was a store like this downtown, it would be a destination for people to come. Granted, it would certainly take some time before it was doing really well, but it would happen, and the same with other stores popping up downtown. A store with the name like Macy's would have other stores following right behind it. Where ever they may come from, people would come to a store of this magnitude and when other stores are following behind, it just continues to grow.

There are so many people that make a long trip to go to Sommerset. People come from Canada and Ohio to go to that Macy's store, and with one downtown, it would get business from both the Toledo area and Canada. If there was just an anchor store on Woodward, so many other stores would pop up, because it is the anchor store that draws them in. Just because there aren't many more than 50,000 people in the CBD on a daily basis, doesn't mean people won't come from the suburbs if a decent store is built there.

Unfortunately, the city has no money to pay for tax credits, merely tax abatements. But if the city officials really wanted to do something, they could find a way to make it work.

[Hermod]

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Many of those 800k live closer to Fairlane, Northland, Eastland, Southland, or Farmington Hills than to Downtown. If there was a downtown Target, I'd buy smaller things there on my lunch hour, but there is no way I'd be lugging something like a table home on the bus or back to my office then haul it to my car!

Retailing needs to be close to the consumer in order for it to work. Yes there are more people living downtown, but its obviously not enough yet or the stores would be there right now.

Precisely.

When I was a kid, my mother used to take me downtown to Hudson's (walk to Whittier, 6-mile bus to Gratiot, Gratiot streetcar downtown). Hudson's was my mother's "second home". We would shop all day and come home with maybe one small bag. Every time we bought something, the sales clerk would ask, "would you like this sent?" Tuesday afternoon the JL Hudson truck would show up at our front door and disgorge all of my mother's purchases.

Now, you take the station wagon/minivan/SUV to the mall and fill up the back with all of your purchases. It is hard to ride mass transit with your arms full of bags.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Hermod

It is hard to ride mass transit with your arms full of bags.

Not really. I do it all the time.

[Det_ard]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Not really. I do it all the time.

Conspicuous consumption is sooooo 90's.

[stasu1213]

I think a Macy's clearance store would work downtown for the moment. The store could be two levels. Basement for Jewelry and domestics. Top floors for mens/women's apparrels. I dont think a regular Macy's would work downtown as of yet. Too many homeless, drug addicts, and schizophrenic people are hanging out downtown with no police walking or riding the beat up and down Woodward and surrounding areas.

[Mackinaw]

I'll mildly refute Detroitnerd's first response suggesting there would be a traffic and parking nightmare.

Honestly the traffic could be handled much better than suburban collector roads, where there's pretty much one way to get to the mall and one way to leave. In a downtown setting, especially Detroit's, there are so many other angles from which you can get to your destination. The traffic would therefore be more diffuse. Likewise with the parking situation...there are tons of options, and certainly no shortage what with all of our structures and underground garages.

But the best option, of course, is transit-oriented, as you point out. And any successful transit system would further mitigate traffic. Properly designed cities handle exponentially more moving people at any given time than a suburban mall, but nonetheless move them exponentially quicker.

Unfortunately, people are not entirely rational. While they'll drive 30 minutes to go to some generic attraction like Lakeside, they wouldn't drive half as far to shop at the same retailers in downtown Detroit, and they sure as hell would not take a bus or streetcar which is even cheaper. The constantly echoing shouts for CHANGE since the 2008 campaign creep into almost every debate...except those pertaining to everyone's treasured, non-sensical, suburban, car-based lifestyle. (And any small CHANGE in these habits would really solve a lot of our problems as to energy, urban revitalization, and housing. Food for thought)

[DetroitTitan]

Okay for these big box type stores is they rely not on the immediate area. i.e. the CBD's population is not the main issue, how many people live along Wacker in Chicago? Or any other center of any American cities. The few people that live in the downtowns are well too few.
For downtown retail, the neighborhoods HAVE TO BE STABILIZED. Detroiters will be the more likely to shop in the downtown than suburbanites are (who have their own local malls). The only suburbanites that would support downtown retail would be those that worked downtown. People shop after work (commuting back), or during lunch breaks.
Furthermore Detroit's city proper would need some sort of reliable mass transit for the large number of Detroiters without cars. We don't need trains, streetcars, or light-rail. We don't need it because we can't feasibly support these systems. A merger of DDOT, and SMART is KEY! With a combined suburban-urban system it should be mandated to have bus services county wide in the three counties. Fully invested in buses, designated lanes should be enacted on major commuter thoroughfares (Telegraph, Woodward, Gratiot, Big Beaver, I-75, I-96, I-94). Such a system would also allow Detroiters access downtown to newly established retail (I'm thinking Target would work, a decent grocery store, and maybe some department store outfit). Furthermore with the Metro-Wide Detroit Bus System (or the MW), suburbanites will see the benefit of taking the R.O.W. buses to work (avoid morning traffic along commuter roads/highways and eventually it will be an accepted method of transit for everyone.

[DetroitTitan]

sorry about the rant. pick it apart.

[wolverine]

Originally Posted by DetroitTitan

Okay for these big box type stores is they rely not on the immediate area. i.e. the CBD's population is not the main issue, how many people live along Wacker in Chicago? Or any other center of any American cities. The few people that live in the downtowns are well too few.
For downtown retail, the neighborhoods HAVE TO BE STABILIZED. Detroiters will be the more likely to shop in the downtown than suburbanites are (who have their own local malls). The only suburbanites that would support downtown retail would be those that worked downtown. People shop after work (commuting back), or during lunch breaks.
Furthermore Detroit's city proper would need some sort of reliable mass transit for the large number of Detroiters without cars. We don't need trains, streetcars, or light-rail. We don't need it because we can't feasibly support these systems. A merger of DDOT, and SMART is KEY! With a combined suburban-urban system it should be mandated to have bus services county wide in the three counties. Fully invested in buses, designated lanes should be enacted on major commuter thoroughfares (Telegraph, Woodward, Gratiot, Big Beaver, I-75, I-96, I-94). Such a system would also allow Detroiters access downtown to newly established retail (I'm thinking Target would work, a decent grocery store, and maybe some department store outfit). Furthermore with the Metro-Wide Detroit Bus System (or the MW), suburbanites will see the benefit of taking the R.O.W. buses to work (avoid morning traffic along commuter roads/highways and eventually it will be an accepted method of transit for everyone.

I could see a Target working, but don't expect any major department stores. Honestly, I'm thrilled I live on Michigan Ave and have Macy's, Nordstrom, Bloomingdales, Best Buy, and hundreds of other stores just outside my door, but I rarely shop at them, and I know many other downtown residents aren't always shopping in these places (part of it being 11% sales tax) and the rest because they just aren't basic needs. A target would definitely work in Detroit for the locals who live nearby, but the rest is for visitors and tourists and you'd have to impress them bigtime to get them downtown.

I don't know, I guess from my own experience of living in the midwest's largest shopping district, I can't imagine a similar model being applied anywhere else and actually working.

[Bearinabox]

Originally Posted by DetroitTitan

Furthermore Detroit's city proper would need some sort of reliable mass transit for the large number of Detroiters without cars. We don't need trains, streetcars, or light-rail.

These two statements contradict each other. Urban bus systems on the scale of Detroit's are almost by definition unreliable. It's kind of funny how every few weeks someone comes on here with a "better" solution than rail transit that they made up themselves, evidence from every other large city on the face of the planet notwithstanding. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

[sumas]

I remember when I ran a Hallmark in the the Village in Grosse Pointe. When Jacobsons (a major anchor) closed, the association could not attract another department store. All cited demographics. In stead of a complete circle, the village provided a half circle because of the river.

Downtown is a bit different since many Windsorites work in Detroit and would shop there. I was a buyer for Hudsons in the seventies and still lament its loss to downtown retail. Hudson's left and then so did all the others. Strangely, I patronized other retailers on the Woodward strip because nothing is wierder than attending a divisional meeting and seeing your outfit on three other people.

As a child, we would take the bus downtown, back to school clothes, Easter clothes and of course Christmas. Eastland was already open but you couldn't beat Downtown for destination shopping.

I doubt very much that we will see a re emerge of a retail downtown. Things change and we with time. If people like to shop and waste money they head to Somerset Mall. Me, being sick of retail, I do my shopping resale!

[Hermod]

Originally Posted by davewindsor

I think the idea of retail next to a casino is poorly marketed by the landlords and that's why very little has happened. I don't know why they didn't incorporate a shopping centre with large anchors like Macy's into their new hotel addition. The problem with downtown is people normally remain inside certain pockets in downtown and won't venture outside to explore the rest of downtown. So, I think large scale retail could work in downtown if it was attached to a casino.

Atlantic City, NJ thought that gambling was the key to revitalization.

The casinos have been wildly successful in drawing people from all over the region. Outside of the casinos, not much has been happening.

[Hermod]

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

These two statements contradict each other. Urban bus systems on the scale of Detroit's are almost by definition unreliable. It's kind of funny how every few weeks someone comes on here with a "better" solution than rail transit that they made up themselves, evidence from every other large city on the face of the planet notwithstanding. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

Why is a bus system inherently unreliable? When a bus breaks down, other buses can continue to operate. When a train breaks down, it blocks the line until cleared.

[bartock]

Would a retail anchor or shopping be better off based in the WSU/DMC/MidTown area as opposed to the CBD?

[davewindsor]

Originally Posted by Hermod

Atlantic City, NJ thought that gambling was the key to revitalization.

The casinos have been wildly successful in drawing people from all over the region. Outside of the casinos, not much has been happening.

Hahaha, I can just imagine what downtown Detroit would have looked like without the casinos. A couple stadiums, more vacant buildings and a lot more parking lots.

[dtowncitylover]

Originally Posted by Hermod

Why is a bus system inherently unreliable? When a bus breaks down, other buses can continue to operate. When a train breaks down, it blocks the line until cleared.

Of course it Detroit's case, when one breaks down they either fix that one which takes hours or they send another bus...which takes hours.

Bus systems aren't unreliable, but they aren't what we need for growth. Macy's, Nordstrom, or even Target would not be willing if there was only a bus system, they want to see a reliable public transportation, which probably includes light rail or a metro. Buses aren't as fast as LR or a metro and don't move as many people.

[Bearinabox]

Originally Posted by Hermod

Why is a bus system inherently unreliable? When a bus breaks down, other buses can continue to operate. When a train breaks down, it blocks the line until cleared.

It's not that buses themselves are inherently unreliable, it's that they're only efficient in certain applications. In a city of 100,000 or so, you can probably get away with using buses for everything. In a Detroit-sized city, you really need some kind of high-speed, high-capacity mode to serve major routes, or the schedule will get horribly out of whack. You can see this on any major DDOT route at peak times; stand at a timepoint with a bus schedule for a few hours and keep track of how many buses come by and when. If it's a ten-minute line, you very often get three buses nose to tail every 25-35 minutes.

Trains are also cleaner, quieter, have vastly superior ride quality, and tend to last a lot longer.

[Hermod]

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

It's not that buses themselves are inherently unreliable, it's that they're only efficient in certain applications. In a city of 100,000 or so, you can probably get away with using buses for everything. In a Detroit-sized city, you really need some kind of high-speed, high-capacity mode to serve major routes, or the schedule will get horribly out of whack. You can see this on any major DDOT route at peak times; stand at a timepoint with a bus schedule for a few hours and keep track of how many buses come by and when. If it's a ten-minute line, you very often get three buses nose to tail every 25-35 minutes.

Trains are also cleaner, quieter, have vastly superior ride quality, and tend to last a lot longer.

Streetcars are the same as buses, they tend to come in threes. There is a operations research/systems analysis mathematical algorithm for computing this. Look at an old time picture of Detroit at the peak of electric transit and you will see streetcars and interurbans "bunching up".

Only light or heavy rail operating on its own right-of-way with grade separation or absolute priority at crossings avoids the "buses come in threes" phenomena.

[Detroitnerd]

Originally Posted by Hermod

Streetcars are the same as buses, they tend to come in threes. There is a operations research/systems analysis mathematical algorithm for computing this. Look at an old time picture of Detroit at the peak of electric transit and you will see streetcars and interurbans "bunching up".

Only light or heavy rail operating on its own right-of-way with grade separation or absolute priority at crossings avoids the "buses come in threes" phenomena.

Streetcars are not the same as buses. Other than that, you may have some points, but, seriously, man: Streetcars and buses are not the same mode at all.

[Hermod]

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Streetcars are not the same as buses. Other than that, you may have some points, but, seriously, man: Streetcars and buses are not the same mode at all.

Being old enough to remember the Detroit streetcars, I can't think of too many differences between them except that buses load at the curb and streetcars load at a safety island in the middle of the street. Both are subject to delays caused by the vagaries of traffic. Both have to stop for traffic lights.

When light rail or heavy rail has a private right-of-way, they only have to stop at scheduled stops unless there is a problem on the line. Also with private right-of-way, you can use third rail which is a heck of a lot easier to maintain than overhead wire.

[Detroitnerd]

Originally Posted by Hermod

Being old enough to remember the Detroit streetcars, I can't think of too many differences between them except that buses load at the curb and streetcars load at a safety island in the middle of the street. Both are subject to delays caused by the vagaries of traffic. Both have to stop for traffic lights.

When light rail or heavy rail has a private right-of-way, they only have to stop at scheduled stops unless there is a problem on the line. Also with private right-of-way, you can use third rail which is a heck of a lot easier to maintain than overhead wire.

Ah, yes: Anything to keep that pesky mass transit off the beaten track and out of the way of those precious automobiles.

The plain fact is that streetcars move more people faster. Streetcars are also what's called a "mode of choice." They don't have the stigma the "loser cruiser" does.

Also, the rail in the ground is proof to developers that service will not be shunted away or discontinued, and that's why it draws more investment than an area served by buses.

Who cares if light rail requires more maintenance (i.e. jobs, yes?) than buses. It's worth it because they move more people faster, draw more investment and take more cars (ah, those precious cars) off the road.

[Hermod]

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Ah, yes: Anything to keep that pesky mass transit off the beaten track and out of the way of those precious automobiles.

Those electric railway systems which had private rights-of-way lasted many years longer than the ones with street running. Street running subjects the car schedules to the same traffic problems that the cars and buses encounter.

Maybe Detroit doesn't need as many streets and you could close off a network of streets from auto traffic to allow a clear run for the tracks. Possibly run the Woodward streetcar line up a closed-to-traffic Brush Street. Use Mack Ave for the Jefferson line.

Middle of the street running truly sucks from the rail operators point of view. The safety islands work reasonably well on crowded downtown streets and on lightly travelled streets. On multi-lane high speed streets like Woodward, Gratiot, and Grand River, they are not all that safe.

[Detroitnerd]

Originally Posted by Hermod

Those electric railway systems which had private rights-of-way lasted many years longer than the ones with street running.

That doesn't seem to be true in Detroit at all. The last five car lines were all on major thoroughfares running downtown.

Originally Posted by Hermod

Street running subjects the car schedules to the same traffic problems that the cars and buses encounter.

Dude, you are missing the point. A standard light rail vehicle can carry 250 people. And they can run as often as every 10 minute (or oftener). So let us assume (generously) that each car on the road carries 1.5 people. That would mean that 1,000 CARS LESS use the road in a single hour. In other words, it alleviates the traffic problems and ensures that traffic, including bicycles, streetcars and autos, keeps moving.

Originally Posted by Hermod

Maybe Detroit doesn't need as many streets and you could close off a network of streets from auto traffic to allow a clear run for the tracks. Possibly run the Woodward streetcar line up a closed-to-traffic Brush Street. Use Mack Ave for the Jefferson line.

That's ridiculous. The whole point of running light rail is that you run it down the street with the most businesses, the most residences, the most shops and the most employers. What you describe totally misses the point of what environments streetcars serve well. You want to set it somewhere OFF the main drag? Why? Just to ensure that people have to walk away from the MAIN STEM to get on the light rail?

Originally Posted by Hermod

Middle of the street running truly sucks from the rail operators point of view. The safety islands work reasonably well on crowded downtown streets and on lightly travelled streets. On multi-lane high speed streets like Woodward, Gratiot, and Grand River, they are not all that safe.

We're not talking about the configuration, but since you bring it up: Would the rail operator rather swerve to one side, compete with parking vehicles, then swing across a few lanes of traffic to get back to where you can go at a reasonable clip? Doesn't sound very appealing to me either.

If we want safe islands, we need law-abiding motorists. And less cars. And if those "multi-lane high-speed streets" were so dangerous for those poor passengers, then why were those routes the very last streetcar routes to be shut down?

Now, if you want right-of-way and speed, that's a job for heavy rail, not light rail. Heavy rail should have its own dedicated right of way and can pull thousands of passengers very quickly. But it doesn't do the job that light rail does very well, unless it's built like a subway.

[Hermod]

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

That doesn't seem to be true in Detroit at all. The last five car lines were all on major thoroughfares running downtown.

All Detroit lines were street running lines. The line that lasted the longest in Detroit were on the widest streets because they were the most travelled lines and they interfered least with traffic (even though they were the most unsafe for streetcar passengers embarking or debarking).

Dude, you are missing the point. A standard light rail vehicle can carry 250 people. And they can run as often as every 10 minute (or oftener). So let us assume (generously) that each car on the road carries 1.5 people. That would mean that 1,000 CARS LESS use the road in a single hour. In other words, it alleviates the traffic problems and ensures that traffic, including bicycles, streetcars and autos, keeps moving.

Light rail does not carry 250 passengers in local street running. You have to use single cars. You cannot board a multi-unit train on a safety island.

DUR cars inherited by DSR in their takeover carried 40-50 paassengers. DSR immediately purchased a fleet of 32 passenger Birney cars (which the public hated). During the 1921 to 1930 era, DSR purchased a large number of Peter Witt cars which carried 52 passengers. 1945-1949, the 50-54 passenger PCC cars were purchased.

The only multi-unit lashup that Detroit had was an experimental triple articulated car to service the Ford plant. Essentially, streetcars were electric buses that ran on rails.

Three and four unit light rail can carry 250 passengers, but then you need private right-of-way. Multi-unit trains also present ticketing problems. Single unit street cars do ticketing just like a bus. You can't do that with multiple entrances unless you have a station with gates at every stop (like Washington Metro). If you are going to have a stop every couple of blocks, you have to run single unit bus type operations.

That's ridiculous. The whole point of running light rail is that you run it down the street with the most businesses, the most residences, the most shops and the most employers. What you describe totally misses the point of what environments streetcars serve well. You want to set it somewhere OFF the main drag? Why? Just to ensure that people have to walk away from the MAIN STEM to get on the light rail?

Not ridiculous at all. Just trying to find a cheap way to get private right-of-way within a block or so of the main drag. Otherwise you need street running, a subway, an elevated, or expensive condemnation of property. .

We're not talking about the configuration, but since you bring it up: Would the rail operator rather swerve to one side, compete with parking vehicles, then swing across a few lanes of traffic to get back to where you can go at a reasonable clip? Doesn't sound very appealing to me either.

.

No, the safest way to do it is to run the tracks down the shoulder lane with a divider separating the traffic lanes and very restricted locations for cars to make turns that cross the tracks. Then you don't need to screw with safety islands and dangers to the riders getting to the curb after debarking.

If we want safe islands, we need law-abiding motorists. And less cars. And if those "multi-lane high-speed streets" were so dangerous for those poor passengers, then why were those routes the very last streetcar routes to be shut down?

All Detroit lines were street running lines. The line that lasted the longest in Detroit were on the widest streets because they were the most travelled lines and they interfered least with traffic (even though they were the most unsafe for streetcar passengers embarking or debarking).

Now, if you want right-of-way and speed, that's a job for heavy rail, not light rail. Heavy rail should have its own dedicated right of way and can pull thousands of passengers very quickly. But it doesn't do the job that light rail does very well, unless it's built like a subway.

Light rail can be just as fast as heavy rail.

[DetroitTitan]

Wow, I've never seen so many tangents. Okay, in my opinion Light Rail in Detroit and the Metro area would just not be feasible. There is no density! The best options, Woodward, are some of the Metro's most dense corridors. (doesn't the foot of Woodward in the CBD have the largest concentration of jobs in the Metro Area?). But still look at Royal Oak, it is centered off from Woodward (not by a large distance but the RO like the rest of the Metro is awash with a moat of single family homes), if Pontiac was still a large urban city it maybe more likely, but the downtown Pontiac is derelict, and the city is depleted. I like Pontiac, it's got some awesome architecture, and interesting spots (not to mention a large amount of "Detroit Style" opportunity), but still. Density growth around stations for a train would be possible down the road, but it is kinda which came first the chicken or the egg argument, like the rest of Detroit for that matter. You need density, the thought that people would drive to a station and park to get on a train is ridiciulous. Say I live out in Rochester or some North Oakland Metro community, why would I drive on I-75 or Rochester Road to get to station is stupid and annoying, why not just drive the rest of the way?? There was some stat that you you can get to Detroit from anywhere in the Metro for less than 45 minutes or something like that. Our Interstates, Freeways, and Expressways, are far to fast and convenient. Buses would be the only feasible option (and they would not be "reinventing the wheel," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impleme...#United_States) cities all over the world employ the cheaper alternative to trains. They could be green buses, they buses do not equate to pollution anymore with alternatives be implemented (propane, biofuels, ethanol, electric, hybrid). Plus we wouldn't need NEARLY the amount of capital for a light rail/ train system that we would need for a rapid bus system.