Detroit & Turin

I often wonder if the continuous comparisons of Detroit to the Italian City of Turin are apt or even fair. Sure both were the respective auto industry leaders but Turin has a much richer history and deeper roots than Detroit ever had before the car. Turin was the home to Savoy kings and a key point of contention during the period before the 20th century for its rich agricultural lands. It also has an urban core with palaces, ornate churches and still standing roman gates. While Fiat and Ford might have a lot in common, I imagine it was much easier to set Turin back on the right path than it will be for Detroit. I just wonder if its fair to compare the two.

After visiting Turin, it's quite astonishing to think that it once had so many issues. Everywhere my parents and I went was fairly exciting from the large public market to the Egyptian Museum second only to Egypt itself. From a superficial perspective it didn't seem any different from Milan which is the largest economic generator in Italy, ahead of Rome. But it seemed as if there was more for the Piedmont region to work with. It wasn't far from the alps for skiing and wasn't far from wine country either. With this in mind I feel as if Detroit has a lot more work to do than Turin might have had. And while some of the lessons such as using the skills you have to reinvent yourself are part of the toolbox, I feel there are a lot more tools that need to be built from scratch.

This post is also another opportunity to share pictures...

One of the original malls



Turin from the needle



The largest outdoor market i've ever seen



The Superga



IGuido car sharing



Buses and Arches




South of Turin is Wine and Food Country



This is the town of Barolo for you wine lovers

Detroit's Federal Dilemma

Detroit is stuck in federal funding hell. They want to spend public and private funds to build a new light rail line down Woodward. Now this would be no big deal usually but since they want to get federal funding as a match later, they are being asked to go through the environmental process that requires all new starts projects to follow NEPA requirements.

Now this is a demonstration of what is wrong with the federal process. It discourages transit agencies from seeking alternative sources of funding for a first line and ensures that lines will take a really really long time to build as the city waits for federal approval. An example I always give is the fact that the Seattle Streetcar (local funding) and Charlotte light rail line (federal funding) opened at approximately the same time in 2008. Yet Seattle began as an idea in 2005 and Charlotte before 1998.

Second is that a huge environmental document must be completed to build a streetcar for a street that once had a streetcar on it before it was ripped out. This seems arbitrary and un-necessary to me. If there is an environmentally sensitive area along the line then please do a study to make sure the impacts aren't great, but if we're talking about going down the center of a street, let's stop pretending like an environmental assessment is anything more than consultant money.

Alternative Funding in Detroit

An interesting movement in the Woodward light rail line in Detroit. They have collected what I believe is the first ever foundation money to build a transit line in the United States. The locally based Kresge Foundation has put in $35 million and the total already raised locally is $44 million. I believe there are still dueling plans for Woodward but it would be interesting to see how this all bears out.

A Shrinking Market Not Suitable for Rail Investment?

A lot of discussion about the auto bailout is out there by people much smarter than me so I'll leave that to them. But in a discussion about Detroit and its possible shrinking city status because of a drawn down auto industry, the Urbanophile states that transit expansion or initial construction of light rail doesn't really make sense in a low or no growth market. In the case of Detroit, he believes that a shrinkage strategy should be employed and money should not be wasted on movement and economic strategies such as light rail.

Detroit wants to build a big rail transit system. This is a variation on "silver bullet" thinking where Detroit will build light rail on Woodward and suddely life will be pumped into the city. It's possible I guess. But while that strategy might be appropriate for higher growth locations like Columbus, I don't think it is where declining cities like Detroit need to be spending their money. Detroit has much higher priority needs than this.

Perhaps this was made for greater discussion today by an article about Buffalo's light rail line, which is one of the new light rail lines that was built after the 1981 light rail return spark in San Diego. Buffalo was one of the cities that was low growth building new transit versus many of the high growth regions. Expansion also was stalled by politics and a lack of priority. Extensions have been on the books for a while and as of now, they total over $1 billion.

After San Diego, the class of the late 80's light rail included Portland, Sacramento, San Jose, and Buffalo. All of these lines have been successes in some ways and failures in others. San Jose for instance runs straight up the corridor it should, but the land use decisions along the line and its slow speed perception have doomed it so far too low ridership compared to peer lines. But we've learned a lot since then about focusing development, ridership induction, and urban design.

One thing those lines did that we know better about today is that they were designed to bring people from the suburbs to the Center City acting as extended parking lot. The lines that have succeeded the best today are those which connect multiple places and destinations. An example of this is Denver which just opened its southeast corridor just a few years ago which connects the Tech Center, Multiple Universities and downtown Denver. It has similar ridership to the Houston light rail line which connects downtown with the biggest medical center complex in the world. They both attract similar ridership with similar counts of jobs even though the lines have different distances (numbers on this are forthcoming).

The lesson from this is that if Detroit or Buffalo as shrinking/low growth cities are looking to bring people from the suburbs to downtown and hope that the line works without combining every other planning and infrastructure tool, it will be doomed to fail. A key to making expanding transit work on major corridors is the connection of destinations as well as a focusing program on bolstering those destinations.

One of the major mistakes that Buffalo made in its planning and subsequent allocation of funding was that it didn't take the line out to the University which was just a few miles further away. Cleveland, which is a city that is in a similar situation as a low growth city has made the Euclid Corridor their priority and have recently redone the whole street with BRT. They have also invested heavily with new public infrastructure and civic buildings. Obviously you know where I stand on the technology but the investment infusion and focus is something Cleveland did right. This is in stark contrast to the waterfront line which they built and just waiting for things to happen. They did not. Another simple improvement Cleveland could also do is move the Shaker Heights line further out a mile or two into a major suburban job center connecting that center with downtown with rapid transit.

So if you are a place like Detroit, Buffalo, or Cleveland which have a negative or low growth outlook, if there is a high capacity corridor that is ripe for investment, just holding back on the transit is not going to solve anything. In fact, you're taking away an organizing tool from the toolchest and increasing your longer term city and transit operating costs which all too often in these cities means service cuts, especially with a high cost energy future.

Weak market cities need those destination connections and a reason to organize or else there is likely to be a vacuum and development will happen in the business as usual sprawl fashion instead of focusing it making things even worse. Just because a city is low or slow growth doesn't mean development doesn't happen. The important thing is to be more fiscally conservative in your investments that promote new development. The long term viability of the city depends on creating value and not spending money on frivolous infrastructure such as road or water extensions that will make life even worse further down the road.

Of course these need to be long term strategies instead of short term fixes. Just building a light rail line and stepping back only works in Sim City. But if we're serious about helping these cities out, giving them the investment tools and pushing them to make the right investment decisions will go a long way towards a better livable environment, reductions in energy consumption, and long term fiscal strength.

I Hate It When He Does This

I'm annoyed. When Obama talks about transportation he talks about cars and roads. There have been a few times like in Portland where he talked about bikes or in PA when he talked to the GE train makers. Those are site specific and everywhere else it's usually about cars. I don't want to hear about cars. And I certainly don't want us giving money to companies who can't seem to get it right in the first place.

"We'll create 5 million new, high-wage jobs by investing in the renewable sources of energy that will eliminate the oil we currently import from the Middle East in 10 years, and we'll create 2 million jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, schools, and bridges," he said.

He revisited the subject again later in the speech: "It is time to protect the jobs we have and to create the jobs of tomorrow by unlocking the drive, and ingenuity, and innovation of the American people. And we should fast-track the loan guarantees we passed for our auto industry and provide more as needed so that they can build the energy-efficient cars America needs to end our dependence on foreign oil."

Why is it that Toyota and Honda consistently get the market here in America right but Detroit can't seem to figure it out? Obama talks alot about changing the way things are done in Washington. I think he needs to go a step further and talk about changeing the way we do things in State DOTs, MPOs, and Detroit.

Street Railway Resurrection

Michigan lawmakers are looking at a bill that would allow street railway companies to form in the state and use recently passed tax increment financing laws and other mechanisms to fund new lines. I don't imagine the line is completely private, but its an interesting step away from the public transit agency model. It seems similar to Portland Streetcar Inc, but I haven't looked deep enough yet to see the similarities. There are some interesting provisions though:

As envisioned in one set of bill drafts, for which state Rep. Bert Johnson, D-Detroit, is the lead sponsor, the street railway company could build, own and operate the system. The company could acquire property, including through gift, purchase or condemnation, and could borrow money and issue bonds.

It's a fascinating idea and the point is to have it replicated all over the state, from Grand Rapids, to Ann Arbor, to Detroit.

Allen also said a goal is “to come up with a replicable plan, which means that we can work it in Detroit, or Grand Rapids. We’re open to input from anyone. If this tool can work in a variety of communities in the state, that is one of our objectives.”

Innovative Financing in Detroit

Detroit business leaders have raised 75% of the construction cost for a new light rail line on Woodward through private donors, advertising, and foundation support. Perhaps this is a model that could be followed in other cities looking to build new transit lines.