Region’s oldest homes primarily concentrated in Detroit

September 1, 2015 by drawingdadmin | Leave a comment

Vacancy data shows that the region’s oldest homes face higher rates of abandonment. And Detroit has the biggest challenge in this regard. However, data in this post shows that many suburban and rural communities also have an aging housing infrastructure. These homes will require increasing amounts of investment to remain safe and habitable. The maps below show that a number of communities had an average housing stock of greater than 50 years old. For instance, the city of Detroit’s average year that a house was built was 1939. In the maps below we see that majority of the region’s housing stock was built between 1972 and 1991, but that Wayne County and the Woodward Corridor has older housing on average than other areas.

Throughout the seven-county region, with the exception of the city of Detroit, we see that the median age of the housing stock is between 24 and 43 years (meaning they were built between 1972 and 1991). This fact corresponds with the beginning of population loss in Detroit (1960s), when residents began to move in large numbers to the suburbs. Other regional communities, such as Royal Oak, Pontiac and Livonia, neared their population peaks in the 1970s (view our previous post on the growth and decline of the region’s population here).

In addition, the maps shows us that Detroit’s median housing age is between 64 and 76 (meaning they were built between 1939 and 1951). It was during 1950 when Detroit’s population peaked at 1.8 million, so it is logical to think that a large portion of its housing stock was built leading up to that population peak.

Other areas where the median age of housing ranges between 64 and 76 years of age include Port Huron, Pontiac, Hamtramck and Highland Park. Hamtramck and Highland Park experienced population growth through the 1930s, largely as a result of the Dodge Main Plant and Highland Park Plant automotive facilities being built in those respective cities. Pontiac was also home to an automotive plant and experienced population growth during the same time as Detroit. Pontiac is also the county seat for Oakland County.

(For more information regarding the population growth of the municipalities mentioned above and the reasoning behind such growth click here).

The city of Detroit had the largest total number of of homes built before 1939, with nearly 120,000 still standing, representing 32.8 percent of the city’s housing current housing stock. However, the majority of the region had 30 percent or less of its housing stock built prior to 1939 at the city level. Older communities such as Hamtramck, Highland Park, Romeo, Ferndale, Pontiac and Plymouth had significant older housing stocks when compared to other suburbs.

Another area where more than 50 percent of the housing stock was built prior to 1939 was Mount Clemens, one of the region’s oldest cities (it was established in 1818 and became a city in 1879). Mount Clemens is the county seat for Macomb County and was popular vacation spot for many throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s because of its mineral baths.

Throughout the seven-county region, we see only a small percentage Census tracts with more than 10% of homes built after 2000. The Canton area in western Wayne County had the highest percentage of newer homes as of 2013, with more than 70 percent of the area having housing stock built after 2000. In Detroit, there are census tracts near Belle Isle, Corktown and on the West Side that are more than 20 percent homes built after 2000.

Other areas in the region where more than 50 percent of the housing stock was built after 2000 are Macomb Township (which has been named one of Macomb County’s fastest growing community), Shelby Township, Holly, Howell, Monroe and communities surrounding Ann Arbor.

Overall, while there are some newly developed areas in the region, the majority of Southeastern Michigan’s housing stock was standing long before 2000. In addition, the newly developed areas tend to be outside suburbs.

General Law Townships predominant government structure in Southeastern Michigan

August 10, 2015 by drawingdadmin | Leave a comment

In this post we examine the types of government structures that exist in Southeastern Michigan. Throughout Michigan there are five types of municipalities including: Mayor-Council and Manager-Council (both of which are for cities), Charter Township and General Law Township, and villages. In addition to showing what type of government structures exist in Southeastern Michigan in a map below, we also detail how those different structures work and offer some reasons a community chooses one structure rather than another.

Wayne County has the largest number of municipalities with a Mayor-Council form of government, while the more rural communities on the outskirts of the region are predominantly General Law Townships. In total, there are 22 municipalities with a Mayor-Council form of government, in this form the mayor serves as the chief administrator for the city), 10 of which are located in Wayne County. It is General Law Townships though that are the most common form of government in the region, with 72 communities being organized as one of Michigan’s earliest form of governments.

Charter Townships make up 19 percent (41) of government structures in Southeastern Michigan while Council-Manager forms of government makeup 29 percent (65) of the types of government structure that exists in the region. There are 20 villages in the region.

While Wayne County has more communities that operate with a Council-Manager form of government, and the largest number of cities, General Law Townships predominate along the outer edges of the region.

The Differences

As noted, General Law Townships are the most common form of government structure in Southeastern Michigan; all townships are General Law Townships unless incorporated in a Charter Township. General Law Townships were given the option to receive a Charter Township status beginning in 1947 when the State Legislature approved the Charter Township Act. This classification, according to the Michigan Township Association, allows for a more streamlined administration.

According to the Michigan Township Association, townships (both general law and charter) can only exercise powers given to them by state law. All townships are required to collect taxes, administer their local elections and perform property assessments. They also have the option to enact and enforce ordinances, offer local fire and police protection services, and operate parks and recreation programs, among other things, according to the Michigan Township Association. Additionally, all townships are governed by a Supervisor, Clerk, Treasurer and two or four trustees.

In terms of levying millages, General Law Townships are allocated at least 1 mill from the 15/18 mills that counties, townships, public schools and intermediate school districts receive, according to the Macomb Township website. Charter Townships though do not receive this same millage allocation. Rather, if they were chartered by a referendum, they can levy up to 5 mills. But if a township was chartered by a board resolution after 1978, then the voters must vote on whether or not a proposed 5 mills can be levied. Under either circumstance, townships can also levy up to 10 mills, but this must be approved by the voters, according to the Macomb Township website.

Townships are part of Michigan’s early history and began to be created in 1790 throughout the Midwest region as a way to help govern land throughout what is now the Midwest region, according to the National Township Association. In the Midwest, according to the National Township Association, townships are typically more rural, as we saw with majority of the General Law Townships being located on the outskirts of the seven-county. Also, according to the Michigan Township Association, a Charter Township status can help prevent a township from being annexed by a neighboring city. Several weeks ago we took a look at how the city of Detroit became the size it is today through annexation. When looking at the map in this post we see that the only township touching the Detroit border is Redford Township and that is a Charter Township. Additionally, we see that throughout Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties, where the majority of the region’s cities are located, the majority of the cities border Charter Townships, as opposed to General Law Townships.

Cities

Unlike townships, cities must not only perform the same state mandated functions as townships, but they must also provide their own services, such as snow plowing, police and fire services (these services can be contracted out or shared between municipalities). According to the Michigan Municipal League, cities are given a greater amount of independence in how they regulate, in large part because of the Home Rule City Act; this allows cities to enact a charter which provides the framework for how that particular city functions.

The City of Detroit is the most recognizable example of the Strong Mayor type of city government in the region. A Strong Mayor type of government is one in which the mayor acts as the city’s top administrator, serves on a full-time basis, and has the authority to appoint and remove top officials. He or she also typically has some sort of veto power, but the council is the acting legislative body, according to the Michigan Municipal League.

In the Council-Manager form of government the council appoints a chief administrative officer, often known as the City Manager. This person is professionally trained on the day-to-day operations of a city and is often looked to for recommendations by the council regarding policy making.

Villages

In addition to townships and cities, there are also villages in the state of Michigan. Villages, which are the least common structure of government in Southeastern Michigan, also come in two forms: General Law and Home Rule. General Law villages, which are the most common, have a village president, which is an elected position, but it is the department heads who typically oversee the day-to-day administrative functions of the municipality. With a Home Rule Village, the president does not need to be elected by the citizens but can be appointed by the council; this person is often referred to as the village manager, according to the Michigan Municipal League.

Ann Arbor’s renter occupancy rate is highest in the region

June 15, 2015 by drawingdadmin | Leave a comment

Renter-occupancy in the Southeast Michigan makes up only about a quarter of the region’s housing tenure rates, according to the 2013 American Survey. The majority of municipalities in the region had fewer than 20 percent of residents residing in a rental property. However, there were several cities near Detroit with renter occupancy rates above 35 percent. Washtenaw County had the highest overall renter occupancy rate at 39.2 percent probably because of the number of students attending universities there; Wayne County came in second to that at 35.2 percent.

As defined by the American Community Survey, residency is defined as where an individual was staying at the time of the survey, so long as they were, or intended to be there, for two months or longer.

According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS) renting has been an increasing nationally. For example, in 2013 about 43 million households (or more than 35 percent of the all U.S. households) rented rather than owned a home. JCHS attributed the changing homeownership rates largely to the Great Recession. JCHS suggested that following 2008, homeownership was perceived as more risky as people witnessed the large wave of foreclosures that occurred, the drop in home values, and the costs of relocating in order to find better and more stable employment. The freedom renting provides, particularly for millennials, was noted as another reason why the rental market is growing. For these reasons, as well as the expected increase of immigrants coming to the U.S., over the next 10 years, JCHS predicted that the number of renter households will increase by up to 4.7 million by 2023.

Although renting is growing nationally, the JCHS states that rates are higher in central cities where land prices are high and r pool is made up of those whose incomes are below $30,000. In terms of age, the JCHS said low income housing is centralized. The Joint Center said more millennials tend to rent compared to older generations, such as the baby boomers.

In the seven counties of Southeastern Michigan, 26.6 percent of households were renter occupied in 2013. Among municipalities, Detroit was a hub for rental occupancy in the region: 48.1% of households being renter occupied. There were also pockets of high rental residency outside the city. Many of those locations border the city of Detroit. For example, Ferndale had a renter occupancy rate of 37.9 percent, Hazel Park’s rate was 40.9 percent, and the city of River Rouge’s was 43.5 percent.

Pontiac, the county seat of Oakland County, had a renter occupancy rate of 51.0 percent, a rate higher than Detroit’s. As noted earlier, millennials and those with incomes below $30,000 a year are more likely to rent. The median age in Pontiac in 2013 was 33.5 years and the median household income was $27,528.

The city of Ann Arbor’s renter occupancy rate was 54.3 percent, also above Detroit’s rate. While Ann Arbor’s median income in 2013 was $55,003, it is home to the University of Michigan, which has a student population of about 43,000. A median age of 27.5 and the large student population better explains the high rental occupancy rate there.

Other pockets of high rental occupancy rates were along the I-275 corridor, near Port Huron in St. Clair County and along Lake Erie and the western border of Monroe County.

The city of Detroit had one of the highest rates of renter occupied households in the seven county region at 48.1 percent. There were only eight census tracts in the city where 20 percent or fewer of the homes were not renter occupied. The areas in the city with the highest renter occupied rate were the downtown area, Midtown (where Wayne State University is located), and the Jefferson East area. Additionally, the median income in Detroit was $26,325 in 2013 and the median age was 34.9.

As one of the many efforts to revitalize Detroit, companies and organizations such as Wayne State University, the Detroit Medical Center, Henry Ford Health Systems and Quicken Loans have offered employees monetary incentives to live in the city of Detroit. These incentives are offered through the Live Midtown and the Detroit Live Downtown programs and could also be seen as a reason why the rental rate is what it is in Detroit. In addition to city’s median income and age showing a link to the JCHS’ explanation for high rental rates, we also know that certain areas in Detroit (such as Midtown and Downtown) are becoming more attractive to people because of the night life, creative outlets, parks and proximity to sporting and entertainment events.

Detroit Annexation 1806-1926

June 1, 2015July 30, 2015 by drawingdadmin | Leave a comment

Beyond the city proper, most early land annexations involved taking control of land that was undeveloped or farmed. At that time most of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties were covered in swampy areas and drainage of these swamps allowed settlement into the new areas of Southeast Michigan.

Villages vs. City – Cities incorporate in order to have more power than a village designation. Villages are not autonomous to the townships they reside in and is vulnerable to annexation by neighboring cities that are looking to increase their tax base. Villages benefit from joining larger cities because they can take advantage of their infrastructure and city services. Throughout the development of the City of Detroit and Metro area, many smaller villages were formed. The ability to stand up to annexation came down to a village’s resources and the residents voting to join or form a larger city.

After 1909 – annexations were made much harder. Home Rules for cities and villages made it easier for the surrounding communities to both incorporate and avoid joining the City of Detroit. These home rules have set up something of a “turf war” with residents/politicians creating a dysfunctional system where they compete over resources, rather than working together as a regional unit.

This post examines how Detroit grew in size from 1806 to 1926. However, there are still questions as to what caused the city to stop annexing. In future posts we will further delve into what caused the city to stop annexing additional lands and what consequences the city of Detroit has experienced because of this.

For a close up of the images in the slideshow please scroll to the bottom of this post.

Slide27

1806

Detroit was incorporated as a City of Michigan territory in 1806. Before the government started to operate a fire engulfed the city, almost completely destroying the it – out of 300 buildings, only one remained. Detroit was officially incorporated on September 13, 1806 (however they soon lost this designation until 1815).

1815

Detroit is reincorporated as a city, by annexing a small portion of Hamtramck Township (which took up most of the land north of the city, to 8 mile and east to the river).3 A surveyor is sent out to what is now Oakland County. He reported that most of the area was swamp and therefore not useful for settlement.

1827

Wayne County was reorganized into 9 townships (Brownstown, Bucklin, Detroit, Ecorse, Hamtramck, Huron, Monguagon, Plymouth, and Springwells). See the map 1825 map below this slideshow showing how the townships and villages broke down across Wayne County and Southeast Michigan.1 Detroit adopts its seal and motto: “We hope for Better days; it shall rise from the ashes.”

1836

Slide07

The United States built Fort Wayne following Fort Wayne following the War of 1812, during a period of increased tensions between the US and Britain, 1842-1851. Before the fort was used for battle, a treaty was signed that ended tensions between the two countries. In fact, it has never been used for combat but housed troops for training and POWs from WWII. Starting in 1948 the city of Detroit started to take ownership of the fort and it is currently being restored as a historical site.

1849

The city annexed several farms, fixing the western boundary at Woodbridge Farms.

1857

1875

Land was taken from Greenfield, Hamtramck, and Springwells townships. Look below to see a map of Wayne County Township divisions from 1873.

1879

Belle Isle was purchased by the city of Detroit for 0,000. It was, at first, only accessible by ferry boat. The first bridge was built out of wood in 1889, until a concrete bridge was finally erected in 1923. In 1879, Detroit also became the first city to assign phone numbers.

1885

Detroit expanded itself into the Delray neighborhood, changing the boundary south west to Livernois (previously called Artillery Street). U.S. Senator Thomas Palmer made the initial donation of the first 140 acres of Palmer Park. Today, that area of the city now totals almost 300 acres.

1891

The city of Detroit expanded into the North End area (originally part of Hamtramck Township).

1906

Detroit’s continued expansion allowed for the annexation of the rest of the Delray village and Woodmere village, extending Detroit to the Village of River Rouge. Woodmere remained a bedroom community for the nearby Ford Rouge Plant.

1907

In 1907, the city of Detroit annexed of the village of Fairview (the large purple area on the east side). Grosse Pointe Township did not want the Fairview annexation to take place and fought to keep a 2 mile stretch, which then became Grosse Pointe Park. Residents of Fairview voted for the annexation in order to receive a necessary sewer system, which the city of Detroit could afford. Detroit absorbed area in order to help them better compete in the street car business. See below this slideshow for a map of the Detroit Metro area from 1909.

1912

Detroit expanded further into Greenfield Township.

1915

Detroit continued its expansion to gain room for residents and industrial areas and to pick up resources from the new areas. By this time there were approximately 43 auto companies manufacturing cars in Detroit.

1916

1917

1918

The village of Highland Park incorporated as a city to protect its tax base (especially tax revenue from the Highland Park Ford Plant) from Detroit’s expansion. The Yellow area was formally known as the village of St. Clair Heights.

1921

Detroit was ranked the 4th largest city in the US. A shortage of housing for men working during WWI fueled a housing boom, starting in the 1920s. At this time, approximately two-thirds of the city’s population was either foreign born or the children of immigrants. A significant amount of African American residents migrated from the south (87% of blacks were born outside Michigan at that time). The city was very crowded. In the denser parts of the city (especially the residential districts of the east side) there were between 200-300 people per acre.

1922

Population: 993,678 (1920) Area Annexed: 5.15 sq miles (est.) Total Area: 83.09 sq miles (est.) Detroit annexed the Oakwood Heights settlement (purple, in southwest Detroit), leaving behind the villages of Melvindale and River Rouge. River Rouge chose to become a city in 1922, with Melvindale later following suit in 1933. Hamtramck incorporated to avoid annexation (and loss of their tax base) to Detroit. Hamtramck was experiencing large success due to the Dodge Main Factory. In addition, according to urban legend, German officials tried to complete a back door deal with Detroit officials, giving Hamtramck to Detroit, but keeping it under local control. The Polish residents, upon hearing this, moved to incorporate Hamtramck as a city.

1923

1924

This area is part of what was formally Greenfield Township and Rosedale Park. Its annexation allowed Detroit to gain more area for factory employee housing. This area was serviced by a private bus that carried workers downtown. This area also included Rosedale Park, which had become its own community, known for its good schools. They sought annexation in order to receive “no cost fire protection.” Afterwards however, residents reported being disappointed in the higher city of Detroit taxes.

1925

The village of Warrendale and the remaining Greenfield Township was annexed by Detroit. Lincoln Park was incorporated into a city to escape being annexed by the city. The blue area near the border of Detroit/Oakland County, which had been previously settled by African American families, was annexed with plans for white housing in the area. A fence was built between the white and black areas.

1929

The city annexed the Brightmoor neighborhood. Redford was given charter township status to help them evade annexation. The year 1926 was Detroit’s last annexation because the State Legislature passed a law making it harder for cities to annex. This shut the city out of any further industrial/residential development. The Great Depression turned focus towards economic problems and industrial decline (1929-1939).

Slide27

Detroit Annexation Images

WORKS CITED

1.When Detroit Was Young by Clarence M. Burton

2.Weber, P (2013). The rise and fall of Detroit: A timeline. The Week. Retrieved from: http://theweek.com/articles/461968/rise-fall-detroit-timeline

3.The Detroit Historical Society. (2015). A Timeline of Detroit. Retrieved from: http://detroithistorical.org/learn/timeline-detroit/early-american-detroit-1787-182

4.Kowalski, G. (2002). Hamtramck: The Driven City. Arcadia Publishing. Chicago, IL.

5.Historic Fort Wayne Coalition. (2011). Historic Fort Wayne’s History. Retrieved from: http://www.historicfortwaynecoalition.com/fortabout.html

6. Burton, C., Stocking, W., Miller, G ((YYYY). The City of Detroit, Michigan, 1701-1922

7.Checklist of Printed Maps of the Middle West to 1900, 5-2112; Karpinski, 478; Phillips, 1960; Phillips Maps of America, p. 427; Miles, Michigan atlases and plat books, 2; LeGear, Atlases of the United States, L1754

8.The Detroit Historical Society. (2015). A Timeline of Detroit. Retrieved from: http://detroithistorical.org/learn/timeline-detroit/early-american-detroit-1787-1820

9.Belle Isle Conservancy. (2015). History of The Park. Retrieved from: http://belleisleconservancy.org/learn-more/history-of-the-park/

10.http://www.gphistorical.org/timeline.html

11.http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/fairview17008.aspx

12.Sauer, E.A., Perry, C.M. (1917). Perry’s Guide of Detroit and Suburbs: A Complete Reference to the Location of Streets, Steam, and Electric Car lines, Corner House Numbers, Etc. and the Latest Information about the City, It’s Manufactories, Churches, Schools, Parks and Public Buildings. Sauer and Perry: Unknown.

13.https://books.google.com/books?id=yTQdAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=village+of+st.+clair+heights+detroit+annexation+1918&source=bl&ots=I3LnEWPRbV&sig=srY9tNUN2HxI26GUXCoXo9zmv-M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7PFAVYzlDIixsAXyjIHgDw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=village%20of%20st.%20clair%20heights%20detroit%20annexation%201918&f=false

14.Farley, R., Sheldon, D., Holzer, H. (2000). Detroit Divided. Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY.

15.Kowalski, G. (2002). Hamtramck: The Driven City. Arcadia Publishing. Chicago, IL.

16.Oliver, Z, (1982). The Changing Face of Inequality: Urbanization, Industial Development and Immigrants in Detroit, 1880-1920. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL

17.http://www.detroittransithistory.info/Routes/Tireman-JoyHistory.html

18.Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States Paperback – April 16, 1987 by Kenneth T. Jackson; http://detroit1701.org/Carver%20Elementary%20School.html

19.Map of the surveyed part of the territory of Michigan.(1825). Made by Orange Risdon. Engraved in Albany, New York by Rawdon, Clark & Co, and published by Orange Risdon. Taken from https://www.lib.msu.edu/branches/map/michigan/#OtherLocalMaps

20.Checklist of Printed Maps of the Middle West to 1900, 5-2112; Karpinski, 478; Phillips, 1960; Phillips Maps of America, p. 427; Miles, Michigan atlases and plat books, 2; LeGear, Atlases of the United States, L1754

21.Bureau of the Census. (1910). Thirteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1910: Manufacturers, 1909, General Report.

22.Board of County Auditors, Detroit Michigan (1926). Manual: County of Wayne- Michigan: 1926. DetroitMichigan. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/manualcountyofwa00wayn on May 26, 2015.

Detroit receives about 49,000 more commuters than it loses

April 27, 2015 by drawingdadmin | Leave a comment

This post examines work-related, commuting patterns for Southeastern Michigan. In 2010, the majority of the commuting within the region was either to or from the city of Detroit or the area directly around it. Interestingly, 228,000 commuters left the city of Detroit each work day to work in another jurisdiction, but at the same time, 277,000 commuters from the suburbs also traveled to the city to work, according to data provided by the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments and the American Community Survey. A deeper dive into the data shows that the city of Southfield received the highest number of commuters (12,600) from Detroit, but it also sent the highest number of commuters to Detroit (8,800).

The above map shows the net commuting patterns for the region in 2010 and we see that the county seats in each county (Howell, Mount Clemens, Pontiac, Port Huron, Ann Arbor, Detroit and Monroe) all have net positive commuting patterns of more than 3,000. This means that more individuals are coming into that that city than leaving.

A few of the inner ring suburbs of Detroit, like Dearborn, Warren, and Southfield also have net positive commuting patterns of more than 3,000 commuters, along with other communities like Troy, Romulus (which is where the Detroit Metropolitan Airport is located), Livonia, and Novi.

On the other side of the spectrum, we see that there are about two dozen communities where 3,000 or more commuters leave their place of residence to commute elsewhere (a net negative). Particularly in Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties, we see that the communities with a higher loss of commuters surrounds the communities that receive upwards of 3,000 daily commuters.

In addition to the dark red signifying the loss of 3,000 or more commuters a day, the lighter red shows that the more rural outskirts of the region (which are also less populated) tend to lose between 500 and 3,000 commuters a day. This shows that, overall, a majority of the communities within the Southeast Michigan region are losing commuters, rather than gaining them.

As already noted, in 2010, a large number of motorists from the region commuted to Detroit each day for work. From the first map, we know that the city gained more commuters than it lost. The second map shows it received substantially more than 40,000 commuters each work day (277,145 total). Other Detroit suburbs that received 40,000 or more commuters are Southfield (82,643), Sterling Heights (55,097), Warren (82,442), Troy (87,193), Livonia (72,663), and Dearborn (83,005). But, as noted in the map below, Sterling Heights also loses more than 40,000 commuters (58,998), which is why their net commuting pattern shows a loss in the first map (net loss of about 4,000).

Additionally, in looking at all three of the above maps, we see that the communities that tend to gain and/or lose the most are located around the interstates. For example, in following I-96 out of Novi through Livingston County we see that communities like Genoa, Green Oak, and Lyon Township both gained and lost between 500 and 3,000 commuters.

The above map shows the top commuting destination for each community. For example, all of the Downriver area and most of the inner-ring suburbs have a majority of their residents commuting to Detroit for work. However, in Washtenaw County, a the majority of the residents commute to Ann Arbor, and in St. Clair County, most of the commuters who live within the county travel to Port Huron. These patterns again reflect that county seats tend to be a common destination for those commuting to work.

Washtenaw, St. Clair counties have highest percentage of roads in poor condition

April 20, 2015 by drawingdadmin | Leave a comment

On May 5, 2015, the citizens of Michigan are being asked to vote on Proposal 1, which is the State Legislature’s solution to finding more funding to improve Michigan’s roads. In a nutshell, the proposal is asking voters if they support amending the State Constitution to:

Eliminate the sales and use tax on gasoline
Increase the sales and use tax from 6 percent to 7 percent
Increase the portion of the use tax that goes to the School Aid Fund and extend those benefits to higher education and training centers
Increase the gas tax and vehicle registration fees
Increase the earned income tax credit

(For the exact ballot language please click here.)

Although the proposal, if passed, would affect more than just road funding, much of the discussion revolving around it has been centered on the roads, as can be seen by information offered by the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments, the Citizens Research Council, state and local road departments and even school representatives.

For the purpose of this post, we show what percentage of pavement segments throughout the Southeastern Michigan region were deemed by the Michigan Department of Transportation to be in “good,” “fair,” and “poor” conditions in 2013. Additionally, we look at the condition of bridges in the region during 2014.

The Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) system was used to determine the conditions of the roads in 2013. According to this system, a road in “fair” condition needs preventative maintenance while a road in “poor” condition needs a structural fix.

Not one of the seven counties in the Southeastern Michigan region had above 25 percent of its pavement segments deemed to be in “good” condition in 2013 by the Michigan Department of Transportation. St. Clair County had the highest percentage of “good” pavement segments at 24.65 percent and Monroe County had the lowest at 14.08 percent. In comparison to the state average (19.09%), Washtenaw, Macomb and St. Clair counties were the only counties in the region with a higher percentage of pavement segments deemed to be in “good” condition.

When looking at the percentage of pavement segments deemed to be in “good” condition by city, we see that Brighton had 0 percent of its pavement classified with this distinction. Brighton is located in Livingston County and only 14.57 percent of the pavement segments in the county were in “good” condition in 2013. Although only 15.15 percent of Detroit’s road were deemed to be in “good” condition in 2013, there were other cities with a lower percentage of “good” pavements. These cities include: Warren, Grosse Point Park and Livonia.

The percentage of pavement segments in “fair” condition throughout the region is higher than those in “good” condition for all seven counties. Monroe County had the highest percentage of segments in “fair” condition at 58.1 percent, while St. Clair County had the lowest at 35.9 percent. Only St. Clair and Washtenaw counties had a lower percentage of “fair” pavement segments than the state average, which was 47.25 percent.

A look at the cities’ pavement conditions shows that Brighton had the highest percentage of “fair” roads at 73.29 percent. The city of Monroe has the lowest percentage at 17.47 percent; this was lower than the state average. Other cities with the percentage of “fair” pavement conditions below the state average were: Ann Arbor, Detroit, Mount Clemens and Port Huron.

About a third of the region’s pavement segments were deemed to be in “poor” condition (32.3% average for the region), a figure similar to the state average (33.65%). When looking at each individual county in the region, we see that only two-Washtenaw and St. Clair-had a higher percentage of “poor” pavement segments than the state average. St. Clair County had the highest percentage at 39.45 percent and Washtenaw County came in just below that at 38.3 percent.

Port Huron, located in St. Clair County, had the highest percentage of pavement deemed to be in “poor” condition at 57.21 percent. Lincoln Park had the lowest at 7.51 percent. Detroit came in at 32.46 percent.

Wayne County had the highest percentage of structurally deficient bridges in the region in 2014 (15.49 percent), according to the Michigan Department of Transportation. For the city of Detroit, 22.59 percent of its bridges were deemed structurally deficient at that time. In recent weeks, it has been reported by the Detroit News that the I-75 Rouge River Bridge in Detroit is so structurally deficient that holes can be seen through the pavement in some areas. The Fort Street and Jefferson Avenue bridges over the Rouge River in that area are also closed for construction. The West Jefferson Avenue bridge has been closed for repair since 2013 because a bridge operator closed it on a passing boat, according to the News Herald. In addition, the News Herald reports that the Fort Street bridge over the Rouge River has been closed since 2013 because of necessary maintenance projects.

Outside of Wayne County, Livingston and Monroe were the only other counties in the region with a higher percentage of structurally deficient bridges (14.24% and 10.45%, respectively) than the state average (8.82%).

Aside from Detroit, the city of Mount Clemens was the only community shown in this post that had more than 20 percent of its bridges deemed structurally deficient.

The information presented throughout this post highlights the conditions of Southeast Michigan’s roads and bridges. The May 5 ballot proposal, Proposal 15-1, is being presented by Governor Rick Snyder as the solution to ensuring Michigan’s roads receive additional funding so the number of roads in poor conditions doesn’t continue to increase. However, approval of this ballot proposal does mean tax increases. The proposed sales and use tax increase, from 6 to 7 percent, would be used to increase state revenue sharing to cities, townships, villages and counties; it would also increase monies going to the School Aid Fund. These monies would not be used on roads, according to the Citizen’s Research Council.

While gasoline and diesel fuel would be exempt from the sales and use taxes under this proposal, the overall gas taxes would increase to 14.9 percent of the price of each fuel; these initial tax rates would be 41.7 cents for each gallon of gas and a 46.4 cents for each gallon of diesel, according to the House Fiscal Agency. These monies, along with increased vehicle registration revenues, would be solely used for transportation and road funding, according to the Citizens Research Council. However, as reported in the Detroit Free Press and other news outlets, if Proposal 15-1 passes about $13.5 million dollars of the new road money would be spent on Michigan Department of Transportation debt in the fist two years.

What has been touched upon in this post is just scratching the surface on the intricacies of this proposal and the background on Michigan’s road conditions, to learn more about this proposal visit the following sites:

http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa/PDF/Transportation/Legislative_Analysis_Transportation_Funding_Package.pdf

http://www.crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2010s/2015/transportation_funding_proposal.html

Opting-Out limits manufacturing employment opportunities for the transit dependent

February 9, 2015February 24, 2015 by drawingdadmin | Leave a comment

James Robertson, has been coined Detroit’s “walking man” because of his tenacity in earning a perfect attendance mark at his suburban factory job all while walking nearly 21 miles round trip from Detroit to Rochester Hills. Without a car, Robertson must hobble together a defunct set of bus routes, leaving him no choice but to walk most of the distance into the Detroit suburbs. This story is surely one of many in the Metro-Detroit are, begging the question: Why is the public transit system in the Detroit area far less than mediocre?

Drawing Detroit sets out to illustrate the issue and to discuss how allowing communities to opt out of transit service can limit employment opportunities and create a situation of economic injustice.

Below is a map showing the number of manufacturing employees reported to the 2012 Economic Census of the U.S. Census Bureau in 2012 along with the transit status of communities in Wayne and Oakland counties. Aside from the Detroit Department of Transportation, the only existing transit system that is close being considered somewhat regional is Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transit (SMART). SMART has bus lines that run throughout Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. In Wayne and Oakland counties municipalities have the option to either opt-in or opt-out supporting SMART, and therefor having it run through their community. In Oakland, the majority of communities-55 percent of 33 of 60- have opted out. In Macomb County, all municipalities support SMART; they do not have the option to opt-out. Because of this, they are irrelevant to the discussion.

Some critics of the Free-Press article on Robertson indicated that there has been little need for low-skill workers in Detroit and other poorer communities to travel into these opt-out communities for employment or otherwise, characterizing these suburbs as bedroom communities with limited job prospects for transit-dependent workers. A quick examination of the map below indicates this is a fallacy. Many manufacturing jobs have moved to the suburbs, following its workforce and also seeking out new facilities and campuses in unsettled areas. Opt-out communities including Oxford Township, Novi and Canton have in excess of 2,000 manufacturing jobs located in their boundaries; Livonia had 9,447 manufacturing jobs in 2012.

In total, 38,461 manufacturing jobs were located in opt-out communities in these two counties, representing 34.1 percent of all manufacturing jobs in the two-county area. Broken down by county, it is 29.6 percent (19,484 manufacturing jobs) of Wayne County’s manufacturing employment and 40.6 percent (18,977 manufacturing jobs) of Oakland’s manufacturing employment.

Rural counties in Southeastern Michigan have higher access to vehicles

October 27, 2014February 24, 2015 by drawingdadmin | Leave a comment

With a weak public transportation system in Southeastern Michigan, access to a vehicle is critical for the commuting to and from work, school and other necessary places. In this post we examine the average number of vehicles residents in Southeastern Michigan residents have access to. The maps will show that at the county level the more rural counties have workers with more access to a vehicle, but at the census tract level it is the wealthier areas with a higher access number.

Data for this post was received from the 2012 American Community Survey. All workers age 16 and above in a household were considered when determining the average number of vehicles a worker has access to.

In 2012, in every county in the region, there was, on average, at least one vehicle or more per worker. When examined at the municipal level, even Detroit, where there was less than one car per worker in many census tracts, the average number of vehicles per worker was 1.54.

Livingston and Monroe counties, which are both rural, averaged access to the highest number of vehicles per worker in the region. Livingston County averaged access to 2.28 vehicles per worker in 2012 and Monroe County averaged access to slightly less, with 2.20. Wayne County had the lowest average access to vehicles per worker in the region. The average in 2012 was 1.89.

A closer look at the municipalities in the region shows that Highland Park had the lowest access average to the number of vehicles per worker in the region. This access number was 1.34 vehicles per worker. York Township in Washtenaw County averaged access to 2.62 vehicles per worker, making it the municipality with the highest average in the region.

When examining this data at the census level, there are clear differences between the counties in the tri-county area in terms of access to vehicles per worker. Overall, a majority of the census tracts in Oakland County, particularly those in the northern, western and eastern sides of the county, averaged access to more than 2.5 vehicles per worker. While the majority of census tracts in Macomb County had workers with access to over 2 vehicles per worker, only one, located in Shelby Township, had workers with access to 2.5 vehicles or more per worker. In Wayne County, there were no census tracts where workers had to access to, on average, more than 2.5 vehicles. However, one tract in Detroit had an average of 0.33 vehicles per worker. Viewing cars as a critical asset and a de facto necessity for getting work in a region where jobs are sprawled throughout the metropolitan area, these data clearly represent another dimension of the mal-distribution of resources across these seven counties.

Bike Accident Data Show Need for More Protection

June 2, 2014February 24, 2015 by drawingdadmin | Leave a comment

In 2013, there were 1,871 traffic accidents reported to the police that involved a bicycle in the seven counties that comprise Southeast Michigan. Here, the locations of these accidents are overlaid with previously displayed data about bicycle ridership rates for commuting that was reported to the Census Bureau. There is some overlap between high bicycle commuting and accidents, particularly in Royal Oak and Ann Arbor, but accidents are widely distributed across the populated areas of the metro area.

More accidents (40 percent) were in Wayne County than in the Southeast Michigan suburban counties. Wayne County and Detroit have a larger number of bicyclists on the road than many of the other locations in the region. Nearly a third (33.1 percent) of the Wayne County accidents took place in Detroit. Ann Arbor, in Washtenaw County, also has a large biking community. It was the site of two thirds of the accidents in the county; overall these accidents were 10 percent of the region’s total. Oakland and Macomb counties had the majority of their accidents in the areas of their counties that were closest to Detroit, while Monroe, Livingston and St. Clair counties experienced most of their bicycle accidents in their larger communities.

There was an increase in bicycle accidents when the weather was warmest. Just less than a third (31 percent) occurred in July and August combined. There was a decrease in accidents on weekends (average=211) vs. weekdays (average=290).

Our second map displays the same accident information, but does so by creating a “heat map” that displays the data by increasing the hue where there is a higher concentration of accidents. This map demonstrates that areas with a high number of cyclists, such as Ann Arbor and Midtown Detroit, have higher rates of accidents, which is shown in the yellow and red hues on the map. The map also highlights a second set of areas where there are a high number of accidents. It shows that some of the Suburban areas just outside Detroit are dangerous places for bikers to navigate safely – areas such as Ferndale and Eastpointe.

The third map shows Detroit and its immediate vicinity, allowing us to look more closely at the pattern of accidents. With the addition of information about state-regulated roads, we can see that major thoroughfares create safety hazards for cyclists, and these corridors are particularly problematic in the suburbs. The corridors of Woodward Avenue, Mound Road, Gratiot Avenue, Grand River Avenue, Telegraph Road, 8 Mile Road , Ford Road, Michigan Avenue and Fort Street each have accident clusters just beyond the Detroit city limits. The same pattern of accidents along thoroughfares is evident in Detroit proper. Again, we see that areas that connect two biking communities provide high hazards. Woodward and Grand Boulevard, which connect high-biking areas of Highland Park and Hamtramck to high-biking Midtown provides one example, but there are other areas throughout the city and its near suburbs that follow this pattern. These patterns indicate a need for cycling infrastructure that connect locations to improve safety and increase cycling.

Region lacking bike commuters

May 26, 2014February 24, 2015 by drawingdadmin | Leave a comment

In a previous post, we examined the rates of bike ridership in Detroit and in Michigan as compared to other Great Lakes states and cities. We found that bike commuting is growing in Michigan and Detroit at a fast rate, but that the rates land it somewhere near the middle of peers at this time. In this post we will explore the rates within the region and city to better understand the local numbers.

The state of Michigan’s average rate of bicycle commuting is 0.59%, but at the county level, most of the regions fall behind this average. It is only Washtenaw County, with two large universities, that has a higher rate of bike commuting. College towns like Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor often have such high rates of bike commuting because of the large student population. The Bicycle League of America recognized Ann Arbor, and its 4.9% rate of bike commuting, as third-highest in the Midwest for a city of its size, as shown on the table below. Ann Arbor ranked just behind Madison, Wisc. (6.2%, home of University of Wisconsin), and Evanston, Ill. (5.3%, home of Northwestern University), and just ahead of Minneapolis (4.5%, University of Minnesota, others), and Bloomington, Ind., (3.9%, home of Indiana University).

While the college towns stand out when looking at the township-and-city level, other areas show high rates of bike commuting, including Dundee and Monroe in Monroe County, City of Wayne and the Grosse Pointes areas in Wayne County, New Baltimore in Macomb County and Port Huron in St. Clair County.

Macomb and Oakland and Livingston counties, primarily suburban in nature, have low rates of bike commuting. Oakland has had a slight uptick in bike commuting along the Woodward Corridor. Just five communities in Oakland meet or exceed the state average, while 20 others have 0% of commuters using bikes. In Macomb, it was three communities that meet or exceed the state average, and 12 have no bike commuters.

A closer look at Wayne County at the Census tract level shows a varied juxtaposition of biking neighborhoods with non-biking neighborhoods. Much of the City of Detroit and the near Wayne County suburbs follow a pattern of concentrated bike commuting. For example, Highland Park, inset in Detroit, is comprised of six Census tracts. The two tracts east of Woodward average a 1.35% bike commuting rate, while those west of Woodward have no bike commuters in the data. Some areas along Jefferson Ave., near Downtown, in Midtown or in Southwest Detroit also show higher levels. Other communities that included some areas with high er commuting include Allen Park, Canton, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Grosse Ile, Hamtramck, Lincoln Park, Livonia, Southgate, Taylor, Wayne (city), and Wyandotte.

Drawing Detroit

Answering pertinent questions about Southeastern Michigan with statistics and maps

Category Archives: Infrastructure