Feds, Snyder kill Woodward Light Rail Line

[Bham1982]

If you basically tell potential residents of metro Detroit that you MUST have a car and have NO OTHER CHOICE but to own a car and drive every day, a significant and growing percentage of people will say "no way..."

I agree, but, again, this wouldn't change with the light rail.

Almost everyone with the means to own a car would still own a car. Those living on Woodward wouldn't have more frequent or extensive transit service than before.

[ghettopalmetto]

Light rail is obviously low capacity when compared to heavy rail.

Buses are also low capacity, and can move comparable numbers of riders as light rail. That's why the debate is light rail/bus, not light rail/subway, or bus/subway.

The bus lines with the highest ridership are comparable to the light rail lines with the highest ridership, both in the U.S., and abroad.

So, for example, the busiest bus lines in the U.S. carry something like 17 million passengers annually, which is in the ballpark for the busiest light rail lines.

And, looking abroad, you have bus lines that carry over 10,000 riders per hour. Look at Metrobus in Mexico City, for example.

You want to compare light rail to bus? You need 300 buses to carry the same amount of passengers as can be transported by a two-track light rail line. You have yet to contest this point.

Twelve thousand passengers per hour. That's 30 two-car trains at 200 passengers per car. That's trains arriving every 2 minutes in each direction. That's thirty operators. To put this kind of capacity onto buses, you'd need 300 vehicles @ 40 ppv, 300 operators [[10 times as much money in salaries/benefits/pensions) and a bus showing up every 24 seconds. You tell me--which of these scenarios sounds less realistic than the other?

The question you asked before was the question of "capacity". When I provided actual, numerical capacities, you're suddenly talking "ridership". And not only that, but you're comparing apples-to-oranges on top of it.

When you can't answer a question, obfuscate obfuscate obfuscate.

[ghettopalmetto]

I agree, but, again, this wouldn't change with the light rail.

Almost everyone with the means to own a car would still own a car. Those living on Woodward wouldn't have more frequent or extensive transit service than before.

Why don't you give people a CHOICE and find out for certain, rather than guessing???

[Bham1982]

The question you asked before was the question of "capacity". When I provided actual, numerical capacities, you're suddenly talking "ridership". And not only that, but you're comparing apples-to-oranges on top of it.

Yes, I provided ridership, which is an obvious proxy for capacity.

Obviously if buses and light rail have similar ridership, they have similar capacity.

If you're arguing that they don't, then please show us where this allegedly higher light rail capacity results in higher ridership. Capacity is irrelevent if it can't be utilized in real world situations.

[ghettopalmetto]

Yes, I provided ridership, which is an obvious proxy for capacity.

Obviously if buses and light rail have similar ridership, they have similar capacity.

If you're arguing that they don't, then please show us where this allegedly higher light rail capacity results in higher ridership. Capacity is irrelevent if it can't be utilized in real world situations.

Way to redefine your argument on the fly. To me, ridership and capacity are two different things. But I'm just a silly engineer who has a penchant for precision in my language, so that's just me. It might explain, however, why there are two different words to describe these concepts. If they were the same thing, there would be no such concepts as "over-capacity" or "under-utilized". Now, which is it you REALLY want to discuss? Capacity? Or ridership?

Let's put it this way: You used the example of the Green Line "T" in Boston. The Green Line admittedly has four branches--which ALL converge onto the same pair of tracks downtown. It does, as you say, have a ridership somewhere north of 200,000 on a weekday. To put all of those people on buses, you would need FIVE THOUSAND buses. Just for that one rail line. Every day of the week. That would require more than all of the buses owned by DDOT, just to service that one corridor.

Kinda makes you wonder why cities all over the U.S. are wasting millions of dollars building rail. Don't they know they can just run some ratty-ass buses down the road, and it's the same thing? Detroit will show them all how it's done, and be vindicated in the end!

[iheartthed]

But, back to the argument. You assume that because "crime has fallen" and the rate of exodus has increased in percentage, that there is no relation between crime and folks leaving, or that crime is Detroit's biggest issue. I think that's obtuse, since if I'm living in Detroit and the murder rate has dropped I'm still opting to move my family to Warren because it is going to cost a fraction of what it would have 10 years ago and I'd rather be in a city of 120,000 that sees a couple of murders a year as opposed to a city of 700,000 that sees 300+.

Show me where I ever said that some people didn't decide to leave Detroit because of crime?

What I challenged was your assertion that crime was Detroit's fatal flaw. Crime is a flaw of Detroit, I have never denied that, but it is not Detroit's fatal flaw. If crime were Detroit's fatal flaw, or even the top reason that the city is now in a death spiral, then it follows that Detroit would have been bleeding more before than it is now. But during the least crime plagued decade that Detroit has seen since I've been alive the city bled the most population [[%age) ever! Detroit's exodus has picked up as the crime rate has dropped. Something else is afoul.

[bailey]

First of all, this is a shameless twisting of the facts, contorting them into the least attractive potential option, which didn't even win out. Your intellectual dishonesty is really staggering here, bailey. Do you ever grow ashamed of yourself?

How does one live in Detroit without owning a car?

I lived in New York for 11 years without owning a car. When I wanted to drive someplace outside the city, I rented one. That was less than once a year.

If you basically tell potential residents of metro Detroit that you MUST have a car and have NO OTHER CHOICE but to own a car and drive every day, a significant and growing percentage of people will say "no way..."

you, of all people, charging others with willful distortion of facts is fucking laughable.

Tell me where I was misrepresenting anything. the Gilbertonians are demanding that it run at the curb, so it was going to run at the curb and in traffic for phase I. IIRC, Phase II was never a guarantee. And anything past 8 mile wasn't on the plan until the 2020s at the best.

I am MOST DEFINITELY NOT telling residents of metro detroit they must have a car. I'm saying this joke of a system was not going to get any signficant amount OUT of them.

Jesus fucking christ, stop pretending this was an actual transit option when it wasnt.

But again, apparently it was enough to stop every single person from ever considering a move to a real city...right GP?

[Detroitnerd]

I agree, but, again, this wouldn't change with the light rail.

Almost everyone with the means to own a car would still own a car. Those living on Woodward wouldn't have more frequent or extensive transit service than before.

Yes it would change. I note a little sleight of hand here in your counterargument. My argument was the status quo demands you have a car and no other choice. Light rail is a choice, jack. And it also helps create the sort of environment that is denser, and walkable and bikable. It creates environments where not only do you not need to drive everywhere, you can walk lots of places too. And walking means not being tied to a hunk of metal.

Of course, it doesn't happen overnight. An area around an initial line shows development, so more people and businesses locate there. And the more people and businesses move there, the more restaurants, shops, and workplaces will locate there. Which would draw more people, among which, fewer people would need cars. And the end result is quite walkable, thank you.

Repeat along Gratiot, Michigan, Fort, Jefferson and Grand River. Eventually, you have a city with real transportation choices.

Without real transportation choices, you are saying you must drive, you must live in spread-out environments where you must drive 15 minutes to get a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread or a six-pack of beer. And, as we are all pointing out, a significant and growing percentage of Americans don't want this.

[Detroitnerd]

you, of all people, charging others with willful distortion of facts is fucking laughable.

Have you no shame, bailey? Even just a little?

Tell me where I was misrepresenting anything. the Gilbertonians are demanding that it run at the curb, so it was going to run at the curb and in traffic for phase I. IIRC, Phase II was never a guarantee. And anything past 8 mile wasn't on the plan until the 2020s at the best.

They wanted it to run at the curb, but then the study overruled them. They were prickly about that, but according to insiders like Bill Shea, they were willing to work through the process. And the plan was to take it to Eight Mile Road. You are selectively interpreting internal debates and public processes to arrive at a preselected shitty configuration for the purposes of your own argument. If that isn't intellectual dishonesty, you will never know what it is.

I am MOST DEFINITELY NOT telling residents of metro detroit they must have a car. I'm saying this joke of a system was not going to get any signficant amount OUT of them.

If it were curb-running, and if it were very short, and if it were a parking trolley and not light rail, then that would be true. What we are talking about here, or at least what I thought we were talking about, is why light rail would add things to the mix that attract the people the region is bleeding. What does that mode do that other modes can't, and what sort of message does it send to Detroiters who might consider returning.

But if you just want to use this opportunity to denigrate us all and have a big, public conniption, go ahead. I know you will. It's that whole lack-of-shame thing again...

[bartock]

Show me where I ever said that some people didn't decide to leave Detroit because of crime?

What I challenged was your assertion that crime was Detroit's fatal flaw. Crime is a flaw of Detroit, I have never denied that, but it is not Detroit's fatal flaw. If crime were Detroit's fatal flaw, or even the top reason that the city is now in a death spiral, then it follows that Detroit would have been bleeding more before than it is now. But during the least crime plagued decade that Detroit has seen since I've been alive the city bled the most population [[%age) ever! Detroit's exodus has picked up as the crime rate has dropped. Something else is afoul.

I really think that last part has to do with the affordability/availabity of housing in the inner burbs as people continued to sprawl out and property values began to drop. Harper Woods is a terrific example, as property values dropped by two-thirds west of I-94 [["only" half east of it), rentals, and people moved out, replaced by many people moving in from Detroit.

...and you can Google this or whatever, but crime in the United States as a whole fell dramatically in the 1990s and 2000s. I think 2009 crime rates were comparable to those in the early 1960s. So again, I think, in relative terms, crime may have fallen, but not any faster or further than crime anywhere else.

So the economy obviously plays a role, but once those inner-burb areas became affordable, Detroiters moved out in droves, which suggests to me that some would have done so sooner [[i.e., during times of more crime) had they been able.

[corktownyuppie]

Yes it would change. I note a little sleight of hand here in your counterargument. My argument was the status quo demands you have a car and no other choice. Light rail is a choice, jack. And it also helps create the sort of environment that is denser, and walkable and bikable. It creates environments where not only do you not need to drive everywhere, you can walk lots of places too. And walking means not being tied to a hunk of metal.

Of course, it doesn't happen overnight. An area around an initial line shows development, so more people and businesses locate there. And the more people and businesses move there, the more restaurants, shops, and workplaces will locate there. Which would draw more people, among which, fewer people would need cars. And the end result is quite walkable, thank you.

Repeat along Gratiot, Michigan, Fort, Jefferson and Grand River. Eventually, you have a city with real transportation choices.

Without real transportation choices, you are saying you must drive, you must live in spread-out environments where you must drive 15 minutes to get a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread or a six-pack of beer. And, as we are all pointing out, a significant and growing percentage of Americans don't want this.

I think at the heart of all the disagreement is a fundamental difference in competing visions. On one hand, you have the side who "likes things just the way they are". They are open to the idea of transit, but only if it is cost-neutral to their pocketbooks. They would rather err on the side of caution, preferring to spend no money than to risk even a small amount for something they don't understand and aren't convince they will ever use.

On the other hand, you have the side who sees the current environment as a way to transform the way the Metro Detroit region views transportation. This side accepts that cars will certainly be a part of the transportation equation, and probably even the most dominant mode of transportation here. But they also realize that transit does not have to be "cost-neutral" and that it is an investment to spur economic development, retain and attract a young demographic that is generally averse to living in sprawling suburbia. These people feel that a new transit system should be useful but need not be perfect. Getting over the first hurdle of establishing a system of governance, demonstrating the usefulness concretely, starting small, and building outward as more and more are sold on its value.

Then you have others who feel that the transportation system in Metro Detroit is a disaster and needs to be totally re-designed. They see this as an opportunity to start over and "get it right" this time. Lots of advocacy for the low-income -- for whom the expense of a car is prohibitive -- exists here, and is less concerned about the short-term political and economic consequences because the current status quo is so absurdly wrong that cost is barely part of the question.

===================

The political reality right now is that the people with the money to provide funding are generally people who live in category 1. They are not politically all that motivated to "do anything" and are already seeing some economic stress from the downturn.

I think the people in category 2 is still a force to be reckoned with, as it represents many of our future leaders, the educated, and even some of our big business owners. It's a rag-tag political alliance combining different -- but overlapping -- positions of self-interest combined with a grander vision of a future metropolitan area.

Changing belief systems and social norms is one of the most difficult and frustrating endeavors to take on. Detroit or no Detroit. Changing people's beliefs while they are under economic stress? Very, very difficult. And the reality is that until the people in category #1 perceive pain from the lack of transit, we are crying on deaf ears.

I think that the fatal flaw of the reasonable people in category #2 [[and certainly category #3) is that they fail to effectively sell the vision to the people in category #1. What's in it for them? Truthfully, the benefits of re-designing our transit system will have very little concrete benefit for these people. No matter what system exists or is proposed, the motivation for them to use it will be mostly out of novelty, not out of convenience. And although they're economically sensitive, it's not as if the introduction of transit will push them to sell their cars and cancel their auto insurance.

The vision needs to be sold to this demographic as an investment to ensure the long-term security of the aging generation. An area that gets older without replacing with young blood will inevitably suffer as the quality of local leadership diminishes, as legacy costs from their commitments have fewer and fewer people to bear the costs, and as the costs for services skyrockets as an imbalance between the older/wealthy & the younger/able becomes tilted further and further in the wrong direction.

But that's a tough sell, and it's not one that is being effectively communicated.

I still think transit will be re-invented in Detroit, and with Detroit's decline and shrinking political power, there finally exists an opportunity for cooperation that didn't exist before. It likely means that whatever consensus they come to will likely be unacceptable for the hard-core transit advocates in category #3. But it will the beginnings of a region-wide relationship which will allow for the different ideologies to come closer together, rather than further apart.

As people become more invested in the system -- even if it's far from ideal -- you will motivate some of the category #1 people to become educated and less ignorant. The people in category #1 tend to be some pretty sharp-cookies that are generally in professions where intelligence is highly valued. Once you convince them to get emotionally invested, they will want the system to be a very good one. [[This process might take 5-10 years...but changing social norms isn't easy and takes time.) You will motivate some of the category #3 to become more acutely aware of the costs and the constituencies who will bear them. You will build trust that crosses the aisle, and it'll be infinitely easier to make progress.

As far as I'm concerned, getting an RTA out of this will be a huge win, even if the result is merely a rough draft of our transit system over the next 20-30 years. And I believe that Patterson -- if sold correctly -- will be on board, albeit reluctantly and with only shallow pocketbooks.

I am a Detroiter and one of the few who supports Snyder and Bing...despite my disagreement with their recent decisions. I will tell you, I think if Snyder, Bing, and Patterson sit in a room together, they will get something done.

Most people will be unhappy with the compromise. But we'll finally the beginnings of cooperation.

[Detroitnerd]

If you could build a light rail line on Woodward from downtown to Eight Mile, it still would benefit people all over. It would be good for the region. And it wouldn't take away anybody's god-given right to drive in a car anywhere they want to.

[corktownyuppie]

If you could build a light rail line on Woodward from downtown to Eight Mile, it still would benefit people all over. It would be good for the region. And it wouldn't take away anybody's god-given right to drive in a car anywhere they want to.

I know that. You know that. It's a lot harder to explain that to my parents at Hall Rd. and Hayes.

[Detroitnerd]

I know that. You know that. It's a lot harder to explain that to my parents at Hall Rd. and Hayes.

That education project is hard. Here's one of the things that complicates it [[though it may not speak to your parents; I do not know them):

It's not a matter of education on the basics of rail, development, shifting attitudes, youth trends, what's happening across the United States, etc.

A lot of it is underpinned by racial animosity. Most of it, I'd argue.

Why should we [[white suburban people) subsidize them [[inner-city blacks).

Which is why so many of us are so upset over these recent developments. If it can't work now, we're looking at a wait of perhaps 10-20 years for a whole generation to die off. I know that sounds awful, but, short of the appearance of a messiah, what else will change the ingrained attitudes that undergird this hostility toward urban environments and the people who populate them?

[brizee]

Light rail through the Woodward corridor was the one thing that would have made Meto Detroit an attractive place to live. Without it, were just the same transit dysfunctional, sprawl-burbia we've always been. Because of this, I have no reason to believe that we're even close to reversing the decline. The simple fact is, Metro Detroit is not an enjoyable place to live because our leadership keeps us beaten down and lightyears behind.

I want Snyder, Bing, LaHood, etc. to know that their decision to end light rail was THE impetus for me to leave Detroit and Michigan. I cannot see things improving without an investment in BASIC infrastructure. And, to Patterson, I have ZERO desire to reside in Oakland County, which will inevitably be cast aside as yet another disposable suburb.

Truly Yours,

The young & successful resident.

Cosign. Not too much more to be said.

The powers that be absolutely pissed in my face with this stunt.

[corktownyuppie]

Which is why so many of us are so upset over these recent developments. If it can't work now, we're looking at a wait of perhaps 10-20 years for a whole generation to die off. I know that sounds awful, but, short of the appearance of a messiah, what else will change the ingrained attitudes that undergird this hostility toward urban environments and the people who populate them?

I know you and I don't agree on a lot, but I admittedly have had the very same thought articulated above. It's sad to think that people will have to die before we can move forward, but that's a big reality. I wasn't here between 1955 and 1980. I just wasn't here. And from 1980-2011 I've seen race relations change drastically, even if they still have a long way to go.

And remember, the hostility toward urban environments is mirrored by inner city civic leaders who have no shortage of hostility toward affluent suburbanites. I mean, are we really worried about gentrification in a city which is arguably 70% blighted? We'd have to have a WHOLE LOT of gentrification before the city's poor huddled masses are left with nowhere to go.

That mentality [[and maybe even the people who harbor it) will need to die for us to progress. I totally agree.

But we're at a weird junction point in our history when you think about it. Middle-class Blacks are moving into the suburbs. Affluent young people are re-taking an interest in the city. You have a whole generation of people coming of age that don't understand why you'd want to work in a factory when you can work on a computer. We're starting to shift our thinking that the lack of socioeconomic mobility is becoming less racially-based and more class-based....which will make it easier to deal with the problem directly, rather than fight ghosts that may not really exist the way they used to.

This isn't the high water mark for mass transit in Detroit, but an entire way of thinking on both sides of the divide need to change. It will happen, just not as fast as you and I wish it did.

[bugs1739]

http://www.detnews.com/article/20111...ed-bus-transit
I agree with Mayor Bing that just one light rail line going up Woodward from downtown to 8 Mile dosen't make Detroit have a world-class transportation system. I think that they should study some more corridors that could use light rail in the Detroit area, instead of using an all-bus system.

[swingline]

Corktownyuppie addressed one of the most difficult obstacles for the region when he discussed how transit supporters have been unsuccessful in selling the benefits of transit to non-users. It's a maddening issue largely because so much of transit opposition in this region comes from the "if I'm not going to use it, I'm not going to pay for it" crowd.

It's always important to listen to and accord minimum respect and courtesy to those with opposing viewpoints, but the "if I'm not going to use it, I'm not going to pay for it" argument is ignorant on so many levels that it is hard not to get disgusted. The worst of this group are those who will urge that transit should "pay for itself" through the farebox, like in other cities, despite the fact that no city in the world has a system that does so. Many in this crowd do not know this fact.

The costs and benefits of public transit present public policy issues that are not simple. Yet so many citizens bail out and take the simple "if I'm not going to use it, I'm not going to pay for it" position. It's an argument not worthy of respect. Taxpayers pay for countless public amenities that they likely never use, what reasonable explanation could there be for drawing the line at transit?

Transit supporters have to find a way to reach this crowd. Sadly though it includes plenty of elected officials and plenty of people who actually go to the polls and vote. But an effective way to inform has to be found. There must certainly be lessons to be learned from pro-transit groups in Houston, Salt Lake City, Denver and Charlotte, all cities that have recently expanded transit in their regions far beyond buses. Maybe the M1 businessmen and women should spend some of their pledged funds on a television campaign that urges the establishment of a regional authority and explains all the benefits of light rail. Take a page from Mr. Maroun and use television. Who knows, why not shoot for both BRT and light rail?

[mwilbert]

Despite the obvious skepticism, I can easily see people deciding not to move to or stay in Detroit as a result of this decision. Not necessarily because their mobility up and down Woodward is impaired, although presumably it will be somewhat, but because people's expectations, or at least hopes, have been disappointed.

It looked like something was going to happen reasonably soon. Now it doesn't. It looked like the city was going to be serious about development along Woodward. Now less so. People like the idea of being on the ground floor of something good, even if it means waiting a bit. But no one is interested in waiting indefinitely.

As you can see from some of the comments, the LRV project, independent of its merits, was being viewed as a test of whether Detroit had at some level become more functional, or at least more friendly to people looking for something more conventionally urban. Now that it has failed, it isn't surprising that people would be re-evaluating the situation.

[Detroitnerd]

Transit supporters have to find a way to reach this crowd. Sadly though it includes plenty of elected officials and plenty of people who actually go to the polls and vote. But an effective way to inform has to be found. There must certainly be lessons to be learned from pro-transit groups in Houston, Salt Lake City, Denver and Charlotte, all cities that have recently expanded transit in their regions far beyond buses. Maybe the M1 businessmen and women should spend some of their pledged funds on a television campaign that urges the establishment of a regional authority and explains all the benefits of light rail. Take a page from Mr. Maroun and use television. Who knows, why not shoot for both BRT and light rail?

Well, It's pretty clear that BRT is marketed, in this case and in most cases, as an adequate substitute for light rail. As such, it is one of many RTs whose actual job, as some surmise, may be to block the development of LRT. [[Consider BRT and PRT, for instance.)

Thanks for the post. I agree with much of what you say.

[corktownyuppie]

Transit supporters have to find a way to reach this crowd. Sadly though it includes plenty of elected officials and plenty of people who actually go to the polls and vote. But an effective way to inform has to be found. There must certainly be lessons to be learned from pro-transit groups in Houston, Salt Lake City, Denver and Charlotte, all cities that have recently expanded transit in their regions far beyond buses. Maybe the M1 businessmen and women should spend some of their pledged funds on a television campaign that urges the establishment of a regional authority and explains all the benefits of light rail. Take a page from Mr. Maroun and use television. Who knows, why not shoot for both BRT and light rail?

I think shooting for both BRT and light rail is a very realistic possibility, though it might take some time. You are right that the "if I'm not going to use it, I'm not going to pay for it" is not an argument that is worthy of respect.

However, the people who ignorantly hold that argument are certainly worth of respect, and frankly, are the very people who need to be courted to gain the political and financial support to make the change.

This is why I'm hopeful in the future [[even though I'm impatient about the present). The demographic shifts are just too hard to ignore. The black middle class living in suburbia?!! Young affluent whites moving into Coleman Young's backyard??!!!

I'll tell you, one think Detroit has a real shortage of is SALESMANSHIP. The way they handled the communication of all of this was a total P.R. disaster. Just imagine if at the end of the announcement, they brought Brooks Patterson to the microphone and he stated his unequivocal support of the BRT plan and the prerequisite RTA that come along with it.

Sure, I'd still be pissed. Detroitnerd would definitely be pissed But the whole emotional reaction would've been totally different.

If we want to get anywhere, the "we're being oppressed by the man" crowd needs to quiet down a little, the "hey you at Van Dyke and 16 mile, this makes sense for YOU" crowd needs to get to work, and the M-1 crowd needs to support the PR with money and political clout.

I'm still optimistic -- impatient still -- but optimistic.

[Islandman]

Despite the obvious skepticism, I can easily see people deciding not to move to or stay in Detroit as a result of this decision. Not necessarily because their mobility up and down Woodward is impaired, although presumably it will be somewhat, but because people's expectations, or at least hopes, have been disappointed.

It looked like something was going to happen reasonably soon. Now it doesn't. It looked like the city was going to be serious about development along Woodward. Now less so. People like the idea of being on the ground floor of something good, even if it means waiting a bit. But no one is interested in waiting indefinitely.

As you can see from some of the comments, the LRV project, independent of its merits, was being viewed as a test of whether Detroit had at some level become more functional, or at least more friendly to people looking for something more conventionally urban. Now that it has failed, it isn't surprising that people would be re-evaluating the situation.

Thank you. This is exactly it in a nutshell.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

well, it's pretty clear that brt is marketed, in this case and in most cases, as an adequate substitute for light rail. As such, it is one of many rts whose actual job, as some surmise, may be to block the development of lrt. [[consider brt and prt, for instance.)

thanks for the post. I agree with much of what you say.

brt was not marketed it was ram-rodded down our thoughts by the govenor.

However, i am on the case.

As always: "follow the money trail!"

[Hermod]

Twelve thousand passengers per hour. That's 30 two-car trains at 200 passengers per car. That's trains arriving every 2 minutes in each direction. That's thirty operators. To put this kind of capacity onto buses, you'd need 300 vehicles @ 40 ppv, 300 operators [[10 times as much money in salaries/benefits/pensions) and a bus showing up every 24 seconds. You tell me--which of these scenarios sounds less realistic than the other?

Articulated buses operating in a dedicated lane can move 7,000 passengers per hour.

This is all academic, because there is no way in the near future that the Woodward Ave line will ever require 12,000 passengers per hour. That is more than 1/3 of the population of Detroit going down Woodward every day.

Even at its best, a train every twenty minutes is the best you can hope for.

[Detroitnerd]

Articulated buses operating in a dedicated lane can move 7,000 passengers per hour.

Under best circumstances, with no breakdowns, and dedicated lanes -- at a much higher cost. The same Detroit that can't afford to operate a light rail line is suddenly in the market for the 90 articulated buses it would take to move the people? This is utter nonsense. How is Detroit gonna make that back out of the farebox?

This is all academic, because there is no way in the near future that the Woodward Ave line will ever require 12,000 passengers per hour. That is more than 1/3 of the population of Detroit going down Woodward every day.

Moving 12,000 people an hour for 24 hours? Well, fella, your magic buses still aren't up to the task -- and neither is your math. The challenge is to get the 80,000 people who work daily downtown there in the course of the three opening hours of the day [[6 a.m.-9 a.m.), and get them home again. So, given a little flex time, one light rail line could do half the job.

Even at its best, a train every twenty minutes is the best you can hope for.

Hermod, given your previous posts, I'm just not ready to pin my best hopes on you, 'kay?