Libertarians bash light rail

[DetroitPlanner]

So what have we learned here? Libratarians don't want the government to build and control large expensive systems. Wow what a shock. I don't think this thread has much of a point at all, other than blast those who think outside the mainstream.

[rb336]

So you're saying that I-75 did have an effect on the development of what is Troy as we know it? The suburbs as we know them? My point and our disagreement?

yuck! no more i-75s!

of course, the single most important thing about I-75 is that we have Exit 69...

[Bearinabox]

Dnerd, let me get this straight, you say that just like Grand Blvd, that if you build it they will come. You use the Pingree expansion as proof that Light Rail is good for the city; then in the next breath you point to other road expansion as being a negative.

So expansion is good if you say it is and bad if you say so too? Do I have that right?

Transportation infrastructure drives development, for better or for worse. We should invest in transportation infrastructure where we want development to occur. I approve of such investment in places where I think we need more development, and disapprove of it in places where I think there's enough development already. It seems pretty logical to me.

[jt1]

So what have we learned here? Libratarians don't want the government to build and control large expensive systems. Wow what a shock. I don't think this thread has much of a point at all, other than blast those who think outside the mainstream.

I made an important change:

So what have we learned here? Libratarians don't want the government to build and control large expensive systems, unless they use them. Wow what a shock. I don't think this thread has much of a point at all, other than blast those who think outside the mainstream.[/

[Detroitnerd]

Dnerd, let me get this straight, you say that just like Grand Blvd, that if you build it they will come. You use the Pingree expansion as proof that Light Rail is good for the city; then in the next breath you point to other road expansion as being a negative.

So expansion is good if you say it is and bad if you say so too? Do I have that right?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm trying to point out that these "roads to nowhere" or "trains to nowhere" are actually designed to spur development.

But it requires an ability to get past our personal transportation prejudices [[which is the "double-standard" I mentioned), and it boils down to a few important questions about development in particular.

What kind of development do we want?

What kind of transportation infrastructure is desirable going into a 21st century?

It will be a century of scarcer resources and higher fuel costs.

It is already a century in which young professionals are more drawn to urban environments.

It is already a century in which cities are driving economic development in metro regions, and where home values are falling in centerless sprawls.

So, which future do you want? One that is increasingly outdated, obsolete and unsustainable? Or one that has a proven track record of reinvigorating the city -- and in the end would likely help bring city and suburb together?

[casscorridor]

How many people in the suburbs do you think are going to drive to the fairgrounds when I-75 is less than a mile away? I certainly wouldn't. I would think for this line to have any chance at success at all it would have to go into the suburbs and specifically RO.

Hahah! That is a rediclious assertion!!! So you really think the line will be a failure if it doesn't go to Royal Oak?!?!? Come on, really think about what you are saying.

First of all, how many people currently take the SMART bus from Royal Oak? A few get on at the RO Transit Center but that is about it. Contrast that with the DDOT bus, which is CLOGGED with people, the bus practically making every single stop, with multiple people at each stop. By the time the bus gets to Midtown it is usually so crowded that you have to stand. It is also usually late because it makes so many stops.

Second, The light-rail will have a huge base of riders from the first day, and will take pressure off the 53 route. That IN ADDITION to an expected increase in choice riders... going from the burbs to Downtown, or between the cultural center and Downtown, there will be a lot of visitors/tourists and people who have cars that will ride this thing.

Third, if they are coming from the northern burbs why not get on 75? Well, because parking Downtown might be cheap but it isn't easy. And they might want to stop at multiple places along the line. They might want to save gas and avoid traffic. Or they might just enjoy the experience of a train. The reasons will all be different.

Finally, since when is Royal Oak so important? Sure, it is a shopping and nightlife destination, but besides that it's nothing. And even for a destination it is small... a few square blocks of cutesy boutiques and cafes, with limited potential for the sort of growth that New Center/Midtown/Downtown will experience. Within 5-10 years after this line opening, there will be so many small businesses open that no one will really have any need to go to Royal Oak or Ferndale when everything is right here in a three square mile area, all those trendy "urban" type places [[cafes, boutiques, etc) will once again be found in a REAL city, in addition to a massive increase in housing [[think Studio One time 10). Detroit will be the only place in Michigan for authentic urban living that expect to find in other major city, even if only in a few neighborhoods.

With that said, I still wholeheartedly support an extension to Royal Oak, but not at the expense of a second line [[such as Michigan Ave to Dearborn). I think the suburbs should share the benefit of transit, and eventually eliminate the very distinction between city and suburb.

[Russix]

How many people in the suburbs do you think are going to drive to the fairgrounds when I-75 is less than a mile away? I certainly wouldn't. I would think for this line to have any chance at success at all it would have to go into the suburbs and specifically RO.

Take bus to fairgrounds, transfer to light rail, while riding compose angry letter to LBP. The suburbs and their potential for transit ridership are totally irrelevant for the need to construct light rail on Woodward to 8 mile. To be fair, Ferndale did ask why a station to atleast 9 mile was not on the drawing board and was told it was too cost prohibitive to add them for the startup project. So there's hope!

[oladub]

So what have we learned here? Libratarians don't want the government to build and control large expensive systems. Wow what a shock. I don't think this thread has much of a point at all, other than blast those who think outside the mainstream.

Cite one city in which libertarians object to city owned streets. Light rail is just an alternative to traffic. A different question being batted around on this thread is if spending $500M building a light rail on Woodward is the best use of $500M.

[Russix]

...
A different question being batted around on this thread is if spending $500M building a light rail on Woodward is the best use of $500M.

To correctly rephrase this question: Do we want to use the $500M to build light right for ourselves, or should some other city/state get $500M marked for us because we don't like money anymore. Alternative use ideas have no value in this discussion and represent severe misinformation on this subject.

[canuck]

Lferg
I just can't help but worry that many future generations will be paying for this pet project and believe the federal tax dollars would be much better spent elsewhere.

Pet project belittles this pretty vital link in a city that is in dire need of it. 9.3 miles is a lot of bang for 500 million bucks. I would question whether 500 million spent on another stadium or Casino could generate the kind of enthusiasm from people who need to commute and arrive on time. I can imagine how the folks who live close to the proposed line feel about the solidity of their neighborhoods now that they can expect the service that exists in other cities and is long overdue. As soon as they begin construction, property by the area affected will accrue in value. That is no small thing in these times. The value of building links in commuter infrastructure is community building, it attracts residents and business interests.

Small businesses along Woodward will transform the area into a more intense and vibrant section of the city. Kids will come from the suburbs and gravitate to WSU campus and Midtown and its great density, beautiful public and residential buildings. There will be a stronger pedestrian presence.

I am sure this will foster other lines in the city. I cant imagine this project not going through. If it does, I can imagine neighborhoods like Mexicantown with a good reputation for commercial revitalization demanding action and so on and so forth. The key word is DEMAND.

The suburban mindset will either salivate or foam at the mouth, I would rather they get in on it and put some of the high GDP of Metro Detroit to good use. Suburban trains would be the only sensible thing for the cities around Detroit. But heck, I can think of nothing more valid than lightrail along the wide avenues of Detroit long ago purposely built for tramways and cars.

[professorscott]

I'm not even going to try to join the discussion on transit here, because I've done that in enough of these threads, but the title of this thread is hilarious:

Libertarians bash light rail

That's a piece of news! That's like having a thread titled, "rain comes from clouds", or maybe "inside of oven found to be hot when turned on".

[professorscott]

The one question I have always had for the anti light rail DYers, and nobody has ever tried to answer it, is this:

Name one successful big-city region anywhere on Earth that doesn't have a functioning regional rapid transit system. Just one! Anywhere in the whole world!

Nobody seems to be able to tackle this one, though, for some reason. Hmm.

[BShea]

As someone who has covered this for awhile now, and as someone who lives downtown, I am exposed to the arguments for/against. All sides have merit.

Detroit is a unique case. It's structural problems and other issues are especially unique. Cities such as Portland, Dallas, Denver, St. Louis, etc., that have added light rail lines in recent decades had not reached the economic and other turmoil that Detroit is at [[and has been for some time). So it's hard to make comparisons because our situation is not analogous to the cities most often used as examples.

From all I've been told and read, such a system will spur development. How much, I don't know.

Until there is ... I won't even say a commitment, because that seems so far away right now ... but even a conversation about funding construction of the line deeper into the suburbs and elsewhere, I have concerns about the project. I understand the need to start somewhere, but I'd feel better as a taxpayer and resident if I knew there was at least a hazy notion of who might pay for the line past 8 Mile.

This cannot be a Detroit-only project. The ridership is not there, and the operational money doesn't exist. This is going to require a tax subsidy from residents of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties to make it work -- and that's once the construction costs are paid.

My fear is that a Detroit-only line will become stagnant and everyone will lose interest, dooming the project.

Also, there is a very legitimate concern that any development along the line will be stunted [[compared to what it could be) because the city is incapable of providing basic services. If you open a coffee shop to cater to morning commuters, and someone is shot inside your store ... and the police don't show up, and neither does an ambulance ... well, that's going to be a disaster, and that's a very real scenario.

As a downtown resident, I want rail. I also want realistic, effective city services -- police, fire, ambulance, trash, street lights, roads and schools. I can understand why people want to see the foundation stabilized before building mass transit.

The line has to bring people to jobs, not just ballgames and weekend drinking. It feels like chicken-or-the-egg: Which do you have to have first?

Sometimes this seems like this: If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs.

[Hermod]

Here in beautiful SE Florida, we have TriRail. It runs from Mangonia Park [[north of West Palm Beach) to a stop just south of Miami Airport. In addition to connecting three downtowns, it also services [[via unreliable shuttle buses) all three major airports. It takes a number of commuters off of I-95 at great expense [[has one of the worst income to outgo ratios of any major city system). What it has not done in the twenty plus years it has been operating is to spur any development around any of its stops. Lots of talk and concepts, but very little in the way of actual construction. In West palm Beach, it is within a short walk of the downtown, yet the area around the station is a desert.

[oladub]

Hermod, Interesting post because in Minneapolis, light rail is spurring the development of condos and coffee shops around the neighborhood light rail stops not to mentions getting workers and partiers downtown. the Mall of America, and other important stops. Could the difference have something to do with demographics such as age of local population or crime or maybe parking?

[Fnemecek]

Correction - no government run transportation system pays for itself. There are plenty of privately run bus systems, taxi cabs, ferries, airlines and toll roads that are self-sustaining.

The airlines don't fully pay for air traffic control or security at the airports. The only reason they even get close to covering the cost of the airports themselves is because they don't pay property taxes on all of that land.

The roads that private bus and taxi companies operate on require maintainance and repair work that goes well beyond what they pay in fuel taxes.

The waterways that ferries operate in require the U.S. Coast Guard to send an icebreaker through plus periodic drudging by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Then, of course, there are the accidents that require additional USGC response - all paid for by the American taxpayer.

But yeah, other than that they are "self-sustaining".

[canuck]

I think that the lack of modern commuter rail has contributed to Detroit's other structural failures. The size of the city and Metro area, the lack of what I would call healthy friction or interaction among various socio-economic and ethnic groups has isolated people into ghettos.

It is hard to believe a city the size and international scope of Detroit metro doing without suburban rail.

Ditto for Detroit proper to be doing without light rail or some form of rapid transit on its territory.

Lack of that kind of transit has had divisive,and erosive consequences. It is hard to argue this.

In spite of the argument that reliance on a mono-industry was a major contributor to the decline, if a modern series of links had existed, then the commercial and residential real estate would have had more resiliency. I think that reliance on private vehicles rather than promoting mass transit has done the greatest disservice to Detroiters. As for maintaining a system, well Highways, streets and the equipment that goes with them is way more expensive than transit operation on dedicated railways. Suburban sprawl has damaged the environment in two ways; by abandoning the inner city fabric, and encroaching on agricultural land. Detroit's metro region has very little choice but to bridle further sprawl, favor higher density development and focus on helping Detroit achieve its goals in inner city transit.

Another thing about competing cities is that all of them put forward the efficiency of their respective transit systems. All of them invest heavily in extending lines on a punctual basis. all of them gather strength form suburban contributions. All of them fight to get the most they can from state provincial or federal subsidies because they are competing for jobs and a better environment. All of them use the transit card to attract local or foreign investors. Urban planning and mass transit are not pet projects.

[R8RBOB]

I just want to say everyone who has posted has offered unique opinions on this subject. Most of us want to see Detroit and the region to enjoy better days but we must stop with the one dimensional thinking. Constructing a transit project of this magnitude requires a three-dimensional mindset. What I'm thinking, what the next guy is thinking and what his kid is going to think. Every decision made regarding Detroit and its suburbs have been one-dimensional and no one wonders why we are losing people and not gaining people.

For decades Metro Detroit has done things just one way. My way or the highway and in the world according to Garp...err Brooks, you love sprawl like him. Yes build and extend the highways through the suburbs. This is Michigan, we love cars why do we need "any stinkin' mass transit?" For years we shunned mass transit because we love our cars so much we just don't want to get out of them. Why spend millions to build train tracks...to Detroit? This was the attitude that everyone had so nothing happened. Meanwhile, in places like Minneapolis, in San Jose, in Atlanta they were improving their transportation system to attract new residents and new businesses. Back in Michigan, companies discovered that graduates were avoiding Michigan and in particular Detroit and its suburbs because a city like Atlanta was far more attractive to live and play. So what did the companies do? They moved!! They moved to those places where the people were going. What did some of the residents do whey they could no longer get those good jobs they went to school for years for? They moved too!! And there lies the problem. Metro Detroit is just not sexy enough to get people to move here or stay here.

We need mass transit to give the city and the suburbs a fighting chance. We need people to want to move here. We need our young people who are born here to want to stay here. Is it expensive? Hell yeah!! Is is risky? Fuck yeah!! Can we continue to keep things as they are? No fuckin' way. To end this; I hate to compare Detroit with Chicago because Chicago is an apple and Detroit is a orange but I have to this time. You what Chicagoland has that Metro Detroit doesn't? Accessibility. Both cities are in the Midwest. Both cities reside along a body of water. Both cities are cold as hell in the winter. Both cities are connected by Michigan Ave but Chicago has accessibility and Detroit doesn't and that where the comparison ends.

[Hermod]

Hermod, Interesting post because in Minneapolis, light rail is spurring the development of condos and coffee shops around the neighborhood light rail stops not to mentions getting workers and partiers downtown. the Mall of America, and other important stops. Could the difference have something to do with demographics such as age of local population or crime or maybe parking?

I am a volunteer at the Deerfield Beach Railroad Museum which shares the Deerfield Beach Seaboard Air Line Station with AMTRAK and Tri-Rail. We have some aging off-brand motels near the station. There was talk of office buildings and high rise condos, but nothing came of it. We have three "hot sheet" places within half a block easy walk from the station. The other side of the station s a satellite courthouse/government building and just past that is a very seedy strip shopping center with vacancies. Quite a safe area. Lots of parking at the station. Reasonable nuber of folks getting on and off the trains both TRIRAIL and AMTRAK.

http://www.sfrm.org/

[professorscott]

We have some aging off-brand motels near the station. There was talk of office buildings and high rise condos, but nothing came of it. We have three "hot sheet" places within half a block easy walk from the station. The other side of the station s a satellite courthouse/government building and just past that is a very seedy strip shopping center with vacancies.

A good point, Hermod. First of all, there is not much evidence that commuter rail is a big redevelopment catalyst, but light rail is. Having said that, light rail stations are a catalyst for redevelopment at some specific locations more than others.

Compare it to freeway interchanges. Near some freeway interchanges you have hotels, restaurants, lots of residential development, and where there was no such thing before the freeway was built. Near other freeway interchanges, not much of anything.

So if Woodward gets its light rail - and I, like many others, desperately want to see it protrude into the OC, but if Brooks doesn't want it, then oh well - we are likely to see a great deal of development near some stations, less or none near others. My guess would be, most of the initial redevelopment will be in the "M1 Rail" portion of the line, then later we may see some projects at some but probably not all of the more northern stations.

Of course, the damn thing has to actually get built first... I could insulate my house with all the transit studies, white papers, plans and visions we've published in this area over the past ninety years.

[Hermod]

A good point, Hermod. First of all, there is not much evidence that commuter rail is a big redevelopment catalyst, but light rail is. Having said that, light rail stations are a catalyst for redevelopment at some specific locations more than others.

While Tri-Rail runs on heavy rail tracks and uses heavy rail technology, it is not the typical commuter rail you think of in NYC or Chicago.

It connects a large number of cities on a line paralleling I-95 on a jaunt of about 75 miles through a rather continuous built up area.

http://www.tri-rail.com/rider_info/system_map.htm

http://miami.about.com/b/2009/05/03/...ase-coming.htm

[canuck]

Montreal's AMT the suburban rail authority just started building another line. Le train de l'est which will serve the east end of the island and suburbs of the north east ring. The project should cost 435 million canadian [[almost par with US) with 10% contingency. The route is 32 miles long and will be modeled on Chicago's Red line on the Dan Ryan expressway. The train will run on a median section of a freeway for a long portion. The cars are double deckers and locomotives are diesel electric and will switch modes on sections that are electric powered or not.
Projects both approved and other study pending approval total 3 billion dollars for the next 3 years.

The mayor and his opponent [[an urban planner and mass transit fanatic) also wants to build a tramway along central corridors of the city.

There is talk of building a monorail from Central station downtown to Montreal Casino on Notre-Dame Island [[similar to Belle Isle) where the Canadian Grand Prix is held.

An airport rail link is in the works also.

[erikd]

I see that you avoiding answering all of my points.

You are also generous with other people's money! Even when it comes from the biggest Sugar Daddy of them all: Uncle Sam!

I, on the other hand, am not.

I've already pointed out that Detroit can use money in more important areas like Police, Fire and Ambulance Service.

I'll toss the same question to you, why do you feel that public safety is unimportant compared to thie train to nowhere?

MCP,

I agree with your theoretical concept, but your argument is irrelevant and moot in the context of this issue.

I also think that public safety is the most important issue facing Detroit right now, and we should make this the top priority, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

This is a simple choice: Do we want to accept federal funds earmarked for mass transit projects in metro Detroit, or do we want to refuse them so they can be spent on mass transit projects somewhere else?

It doesn't matter if we think that this money would be better spent on public safety or some other project. We can either take the federal funds for mass transit in Detroit or we can send the funds off to be used in some other city.

If you want to fight for the right to use federal mass transit funding for pubic safety projects, go for it. Hell, I might even throw my support behind you.

BUT... Until you find a find a way to divert federal mass transit funding into public safety projects, it is insane to just turn it down. If you want to to be a martyr for some political ideology, that is fine, but don't make the whole region suffer with you.

[Hermod]

Take bus to fairgrounds, transfer to light rail, while riding compose angry letter to LBP. The suburbs and their potential for transit ridership are totally irrelevant for the need to construct light rail on Woodward to 8 mile. To be fair, Ferndale did ask why a station to atleast 9 mile was not on the drawing board and was told it was too cost prohibitive to add them for the startup project. So there's hope!

Why would it be "cost prohibitive"?

The center boulevard of Woodward north of 8-mile was constructed specifically for the Detroit-Pontiac interurban line. When the state widened Woodward, they relocated the interurban line from the side of the road to the boulevard in the center [[at the sole expense of the interurban company). That was one of the reasons the interurban company was driven into bankruptcy and why Detroit metro lost passenger light rail.

If you had express trains which loaded from secure park and ride lots north of 8-mile that ran into Detroit with maximum places at which cars could pass with limited stops only to discharge passengers inbound and limited stops only to board passengers outbound, you might get suburban ridership.

[professorscott]

Why would it be "cost prohibitive"?

It wouldn't be; that argument has nothing to do with reality. Let me repeat what I've said before: the main reason the Detroit light rail line won't go north of the fairgrounds property any time in the near future is that Brooks doesn't want it to. Whether the City would want to run it into Oakland County is irrelevant; until the Oakland County government favors light rail in Oakland County, it won't happen.