Should there be any doubt that LA belongs among the big 6 urban US cities?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Do you think it would've been fundamentally different enough to replace "Los Angeles" with "Detroit" in the title of this thread?

Or would it have come too late and merely lessened the decline, per crawford's opinion?

It depends on how much rail they ultimately built. Detroit in 1970 still had a population density of almost 11k ppsm, which was just a little behind D.C.'s density at the time (12.4k ppsm). If building the transit system did manage to stabilize the population earlier, the city would easily still be in the top tier of dense cities today. But due to Detroit's large footprint, the rail system probably needed be bigger than what DC and SF built to have a similar stabilizing impact.

By the 1970s there was widespread awareness that Detroit was headed towards catastrophe after the riots and disastrous urban renewal projects of the 1960s. There was also awareness that what was happening in Detroit was more pronounced than what was happening in the other 4 of the top 5 cities at the time. I found a NY Times article that covers the grant and talks about the major concerns the federal government had about the trajectory of the city:

Federal transportation officials, in what one of them termed “a major new departure” in policy, have committed $600 million for a rapid transit system in southeastern’ Michigan to be used as a rallying point for urban revitalization.

Robert E. Patricelli, administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, said in an interview that the commitment reflected a shift to a broader view of Federal transportation objectives.

Rather than approving grant applications simply on the basis of projections of ridership and costs, Mr. Patricelli said, the transportation agency is increasingly concerned with the overall implications of a transit system.

He cited Detroit's crime problems and the city's deteriorating tax base as crucial factors in the decision to make the commitment.

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/11/01/archi...pid-transit-but-600-million-federal.html

One caveat of the funding that the Times mentions is the requirement that the private sector match the federal commitment by investing in development around the transit line. I'm not sure if that requirement was ever changed before Reagan came in and reformed the program, but it also might have been a factor in why they failed.

[Crawford]

In the "bad old days", American rapid transit systems weren't enough to stave off epic decline. The South Bronx has really great heavy rail coverage, almost unmatched in the U.S. outside of Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn, yet it had almost unbelievable 1970's-era decline. The neighborhood didn't start rising again until immigrants began flowing in, during the 1980's.

You see this in other cities too. To this day, there are somewhat bombed-out neighborhoods on Chicago's West and South Sides, right next to rapid transit. Kensington, Philly, while not quite as bombed out, is a massive drug/junkie epicenter right along rapid transit. It's an East Coast version of SF's Tenderloin.

If Detroit got rapid transit, it would definitely be a good thing, but I don't think it would have radically transformed Detroit's trajectory. Rapid transit, by itself, wouldn't be enough.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by FromSD

I've always wondered whether the federal government foot the bill for a larger portion of the DC Metro than it has for other post war rail systems. Most cities have to fund transit expansion with locally levied taxes, even if the feds sometimes kick in for particularly worthy projects. Were the feds more generous in DC because the DC Metro served federal office workers in the region? That would help to explain how DC got such an extensive metro system in its core area within a fairly short span of time.

Another key to the relative success of the DC Metro was that the District never got an extensive freeway system. The proposed routing of I-95 through DC was cancelled, and that left the Anacostia Freeway and a couple spur routes as the only limited access roads in the city. That made a rail transit system all that much more crucial, and that system was particularly compatible with the concentration of white collar jobs in central DC.

I don't know if the feds directly gave the metro more money than other metros directly. However, it has indirectly subsidized the metro system by employing a large downtown office workforce. As others have pointed out it was primarily conceived as a commuter rail line to get downtown workers to their homes in the suburbs. The urban rail component was largely a secondary focus. As a result is misses many key urban neighborhoods: Georgetown, Adams Morgan, Logan Circle, H Street. It also provides transit benefits to fed workers that effectively subsidize transit usage. Obviously, they do that in most MSAs, but it obviously disproportionally benefits DC.

[Crawford]

Yeah, a lot of federal policy indirectly subsidizes DC Metro usage, so it isn't a great comparison to other U.S. metros.

For example, when DC-area jurisdictions were recently competing for the new FBI HQ, one of the site requirements was that it be adjacent to a Metro station. It's hard to imagine any major federal investment in DC and surroundings that didn't involve Metro proximity and subsidized ridership for federal employees.

These types of megabillion federal initiatives really gives Metro a ridership advantage. And it filters down to the lawyers, lobbyists, contractors, etc. serving federal agencies.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In the "bad old days", American rapid transit systems weren't enough to stave off epic decline. The South Bronx has really great heavy rail coverage, almost unmatched in the U.S. outside of Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn, yet it had almost unbelievable 1970's-era decline. The neighborhood didn't start rising again until immigrants began flowing in, during the 1980's.

You see this in other cities too. To this day, there are somewhat bombed-out neighborhoods on Chicago's West and South Sides, right next to rapid transit. Kensington, Philly, while not quite as bombed out, is a massive drug/junkie epicenter right along rapid transit. It's an East Coast version of SF's Tenderloin.

If Detroit got rapid transit, it would definitely be a good thing, but I don't think it would have radically transformed Detroit's trajectory. Rapid transit, by itself, wouldn't be enough.

Rapid transit certainly wasn't a silver bullet that prevented urban decline in every single neighborhood where it existed during "the urban dark ages", but surely you'd agree that the rapid transit systems (as a whole) in NYC, Chicago, and Philly played a part in the calculus of why those cities weathered the storm much better than Detroit.

If Detroit had built a DC-sized rapid transit system back in the 70s, was there a decent chance that the city could have experienced a more normal level of legacy city decline, like Chicago or Philly, instead of going completely off the cliff?

Or were the forces driving the city of detroit's epic decline simply too large and powerful to be meaningfully impacted by a new-build rapid transit system?

[eschaton]

This might be a dumb question, as an outsider to the region, but did Detroit ever have large numbers of white-collar workers in Downtown/Midtown? I was under the presumption that most of the job anchors were associated with the major auto plants, which were much more polycentric in orientation, making them ill-suited to transit (plus, for obvious reasons, the Big 3 had a robust car culture).

Overall, it strikes me that rapid transit might make downtown somewhat more robust. I do not think it would change the dynamics of white flight considerably. I suppose it's possible that it would result in higher demand within the apartment corridors within Detroit along the transit lines, resulting in less abandonment, and thus a less sprawly white flight overall, but it would seem marginal.

For the suburbs, I'd expect little change, given during this era we'd be talking about park and rides, at best.

[Crawford]

I believe core Detroit had a smaller share of regional employment even in the boomtown days. Detroit was a bigger city and urban area than say, SF, Boston or DC, yet the downtown was smaller. Regional employment was more blue-collar oriented and the job sprawl happened pretty early. None of the big three were downtown in the peak years, and two of the three weren't even in Detroit.

I do believe rapid transit would have aided downtown in the worst years, and might have also preserved some multifamily. But the apartment corridors were in deep trouble by the 1970's. By that period they were all declining lower income black areas, or one remaining gayborhood.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

sit system back in the 70s, was there a decent chance that the city could have experienced a more normal level of legacy city decline, like Chicago or Philly, instead of going completely off the cliff?

I don't think a DC-sized system was ever realistic. The 1970's plan under Ford/Carter was for a starter line along Woodward, and even that came with preconditions.

But yeah, if there was an elaborate regional system like DC, that might have been a game-changer. The 1970's plan would have been about as impactful as rapid transit in Cleveland. A good thing, but not a regional difference-maker.

[38 Geary]

Cleveland's ridership is pretty low, only at 9,700 avg weekday ridership for heavy rail and 1,300 for light rail.

For some reason, the QLine in Detroit isn't listed on APTA's ridership report, but Wiki has it at 2,460.

So yeah, I think it's safe to say even if Detroit had a 1970s built rapid transit system today, it would probably have low ridership.

[Crawford]

Yeah, I think Cleveland likely hints at the scenario. Cleveland and Detroit are similarish cities with roughly comparable decline, and Cleveland built a heavy rail line in the 1960's, and it doesn't appear to have been a game-changer.

Detroit is a bigger, more important city, and the starter line would have likely been underground, so a bit more elaborate than Cleveland's Red Line, but still likely not transformative. Cleveland is somewhat more centralized than Detroit, with a higher share of core white collar employment but I believe that's a legacy difference, and not due to rapid transit. Cleveland is HQ for some major national law firms like Jones, Day.

[hipster duck]

If I was to rank the success of the new build, postwar (1955 - 1985) heavy rail metro systems in terms of how much of an impact they made in transportation, planning, etc., I'd go:

DC
BART
--
MARTA
--
Baltimore
Cleveland Red Line
Miami

Not to trigger Miamians, but I put Miami below Cleveland and Baltimore, since unlike those two, Miami was not a deindustrializing city with huge population loss, and planners could have used it to shape at least some growth. It should at least belong in the MARTA league for a new build metro system in a sunbelt city with most of its growth ahead of it.

[iheartthed]

There's a fairly strong relationship between the ratio of rail miles to a city's area and the population growth performance. In 1950 there were 11 major cities with a population density greater than 10k ppsm using today's definition. Those cities are:

• New York
• Chicago
• Detroit
• Philadelphia
• Baltimore
• Cleveland
• St. Louis
• Washington
• Pittsburgh
• Boston
• San Francisco

Between 1950 and 1970 the relationship was less pronounced, but some cities had not yet built their rapid-transit systems. Others had also just ended service of their streetcar systems that served as the backbone of their public transit systems and traded that for bus only systems.

City (rail/area ratio), % population change (1950 - 1970)

1. San Francisco (2.54) , -7.7%
2. Washington (2.11) , -5.7%
3. New York (0.83) , 0.0%
4. Boston (0.79) , -20.0%
5. Chicago (0.45) , -7.0%
6. Philadelphia (0.28) , -5.9%
7. Cleveland (0.24) , -17.9%
8. Baltimore (0.20) , -4.6%
9. Pittsburgh (0.00) , -23.2%
10. St. Louis (0.00) , -27.4%
11. Detroit (0.00) , -18.3%

Between 1970 and 2020, the pattern is much more pronounced. Population performance for this group is roughly parallel to the ratio of rail to land area. The notable exception is Washington:

City (rail/area ratio), % population change (1970 - 2020)

1. San Francisco (2.54) , 22.1%
2. Washington (2.11) , -8.9%
3. New York (0.83) , 11.5%
4. Boston (0.79) , 5.4%
5. Chicago (0.45) , -18.4%
6. Philadelphia (0.28) , -17.7%
7. Cleveland (0.24) , -50.4%
8. Baltimore (0.20) , -35.3%
9. Pittsburgh (0.00) , -41.7%
10. St. Louis (0.00) , -51.5%
11. Detroit (0.00) , -57.7%

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, I think Cleveland likely hints at the scenario. Cleveland and Detroit are similarish cities with roughly comparable decline, and Cleveland built a heavy rail line in the 1960's, and it doesn't appear to have been a game-changer.

I'm not sure how analogous Cleveland's red line would've been to a hypothetical Woodward subway in Detroit.

Cleveland's red line was mostly cobbled together from freight ROW's that are not well-integrated into their neighborhoods for the most part, with most of the 18 stations being of the dreaded park n' ride style and/or located in de-industrialized dead zones.

[streetscaper]

Just wanted to drop in, drive-by style, and say I'm loving this thread. very good points raised by everyone. I'm learning a lot!

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Between 1970 and 2020, the pattern is much more pronounced. Population performance for this group is roughly parallel to the ratio of rail to land area. The notable exception is Washington:

City (rail/area ratio), % population change (1970 - 2020)

1. San Francisco (2.54) , 22.1%
2. Washington (2.11) , -8.9%
3. New York (0.83) , 11.5%
4. Boston (0.79) , 5.4%
5. Chicago (0.45) , -18.4%
6. Philadelphia (0.28) , -17.7%
7. Cleveland (0.24) , -50.4%
8. Baltimore (0.20) , -35.3%
9. Pittsburgh (0.00) , -41.7%
10. St. Louis (0.00) , -51.5%
11. Detroit (0.00) , -57.7%

How can St. Louis and Pittsburgh have a rail to land area of 0 when both cities have light rail systems? Is this only looking at heavy rail?

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I'm not sure how analogous Cleveland's red line would've been to a hypothetical Woodward subway in Detroit.

Cleveland's red line was mostly cobbled together from freight ROW's that are not well-integrated into their neighborhoods for the most part, with most of the 18 stations being of the dreaded park n' ride style and/or located in de-industrialized dead zones.

Right, Cleveland's Red Line used existing ROW, and as a result, the stations are mostly in horrible locations. I can think of maybe 3 stations on the entire line that are actually walkable to where people live and neighborhood business districts- Little Italy, Tower City (only downtown stop), and Ohio City stations.

If Cleveland built a subway down Euclid Ave connecting Downtown to University Circle, that would be analogous to what was proposed on Woodward in Detroit. Such a plan actually existed for Cleveland, but unfortunately it never came to fruition. I think Cleveland would've been much better off had it been. The no mans land of 'Midtown' Cleveland between DT and UC would certainly have been much better developed/less destroyed. Like Detroit, it probably wouldn't have prevented systemic decline in Cleveland as a whole, but it would have strengthened the central spine between the two biggest nodes of employment and activity.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I'm not sure how analogous Cleveland's red line would've been to a hypothetical Woodward subway in Detroit.

Cleveland's red line was mostly cobbled together from freight ROW's that are not well-integrated into their neighborhoods for the most part, with most of the 18 stations being of the dreaded park n' ride style and/or located in de-industrialized dead zones.

It's all about how, exactly a system would have been laid out.

50 miles of heavy rail subway in Detroit divided between five avenues (so roughly 10 miles per avenue) all converging beneath Campus Martius would have been transformative. 50 miles of heavy rail, with maybe 5 miles of tunnel, then the rest in freeway medians and running alongside freight rail tracks, would have been mediocre-at-best (aka MARTA).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

How can St. Louis and Pittsburgh have a rail to land area of 0 when both cities have light rail systems? Is this only looking at heavy rail?

I used this list of US rapid transit systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It's all about how, exactly a system would have been laid out.

50 miles of heavy rail subway in Detroit divided between five avenues (so roughly 10 miles per avenue) all converging beneath Campus Martius would have been transformative. 50 miles of heavy rail, with maybe 5 miles of tunnel, then the rest in freeway medians and running alongside freight rail tracks, would have been mediocre-at-best (aka MARTA).

Agreed. All of the plans for a Detroit system that I've seen were planned along the radial avenues, so if any were ever built it would have likely been a game changer.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I used this list of US rapid transit systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems.

Yeah, Pittsburgh's system is light rail. They basically converted the last streetcar systems (to the South Hills) into LRT, then attached them to a new downtown subway. It's a remarkably useless system, unless you happen to live in the few neighborhoods that have it, or want to hop on for a few stops downtown.

That said, Pittsburgh does have a much more robustly used BRT system (particularly the eastern lines). They basically have everything except for pre-paid boarding.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I used this list of US rapid transit systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems

Got it. Heavy rail only. Makes sense to keep it consistent.

According to this list of light rail systems in the US, St. Louis has *46 miles of track with 37 stations in their light rail system (MetroLink). Pittsburgh has *26.2 track miles, with 53 stations on their system (The T). Not sure how much of either of those are in the core city, though.

* thank you, Steely, for catching the errors!