Feds, Snyder kill Woodward Light Rail Line

[bailey]

Why is this "more likely than not?" Lots of people live along Woodward in Detroit and Highland Park. There is also plenty of empty land along Woodward in Detroit and Highland Park for more housing units to be built should more people decide they want to live there. There's no reason why someone for whom living near Woodward in Detroit or Highland Park was a priority should have any trouble doing so.

to bhams point. It takes more than just a tram going part of the way up one street to get people to move to Detroit and Highland Park. half this board's bandwidth is dedicated to bitching about how much of a pain in the ass it is to live in Detroit, city of. None of those complaints go away with the creation of a parking shuttle serving the CBD.

[bartock]

Yup. That's why young Michiganders are moving to Chicago, by golly: no crime there!

I can't believe you are even trying to make this comparison. In terms of size, scale, prevelance, location and just about every other statistic, this is a horseshit analogy. You are comparing apples to boulders. I get your argument on this...build a rail line in the middle of a field and a metropolis will spring up. Anyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant pile of shit. Got it.

...and Iheart, Detroit's per capita homicide rate is going UP.

[antongast]

to bhams point. It takes more than just a tram going part of the way up one street to get people to move to Detroit and Highland Park. half this board's bandwidth is dedicated to bitching about how much of a pain in the ass it is to live in Detroit, city of. None of those complaints go away with the creation of a parking shuttle serving the CBD.

Apparently you and I are operating on different definitions of "people."

[ghettopalmetto]

This boggles my mind as well. It's amazing how low the expectations are around here that the failure of an absolute mockery of a LRT line is now going to lead to people leaving the area or not returning. Seriously, have any of you READ the plan? LRT was NEVER going to be ANYWHERE but Woodwrd. It wasn't going to make it to 11 Mile until 2025...maybe. I mean jesus folks, it's not like you'd be riding it anyway because it's more likely than not you'd live no where near it.

This wasn't a decision to kill LRT. This was a decision to kill an amusement park ride. The fact that the BEST PLAN AVAILABLE was an amusement park ride is what should have been giving you all pause and causing an evaluation on if metro detroit is the right place for you....not that it failed to materialize.

Well, you should know that the "amusement park ride" in Minneapolis--which is very comparable to what would have been built on Woodward--reached 2020 ridership projections a full 14 years ahead of schedule. Five years later, that "amusement park ride" carries an additional 20% beyond that number.

Big fucking joke, huh?

[ghettopalmetto]

I can't believe you are even trying to make this comparison. In terms of size, scale, prevelance, location and just about every other statistic, this is a horseshit analogy. You are comparing apples to boulders. I get your argument on this...build a rail line in the middle of a field and a metropolis will spring up. Anyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant pile of shit. Got it.

...and Iheart, Detroit's per capita homicide rate is going UP.

Like I've written, it's the ongoing culture of excuses. Detroit can sack up and face reality, or you can continue with blinders on. In any event, young, bright, hard-working people who Make Things Happen are turned off by a culture of excuses, and are going to find their pot of gold somewhere else.

[Bham1982]

Well, you should know that the "amusement park ride" in Minneapolis--which is very comparable to what would have been built on Woodward--reached 2020 ridership projections a full 14 years ahead of schedule. Five years later, that "amusement park ride" carries an additional 20% beyond that number.

Big fucking joke, huh?

Current bus ridership on Woodward already equals Minneapolis light rail ridership.

So if ridership is your holy grail, we've already got it in Detroit.

And our light rail wasn't going to connect to the airport, the fourth largest university in the country, and the top tourist attraction in the U.S., like in Minneapolis.

[iheartthed]

...and Iheart, Detroit's per capita homicide rate is going UP.

No.

In 1991, Detroit had 615 murders. The 1990 census counted Detroit's population at 1,027,974. Thus, Detroit's murder rate in 1991 was roughly 60 murders per every 100,000 residents.

In 2010, Detroit had 308 murders. The 2010 census counted Detroit's population at 713,777. Thus, Detroit's murder rate in 2010 was roughly 43 murders per every 100,000 residents.

Detroit's population declined by 31% between 1990 and 2010. Detroit's murder rate declined by 29% between 1990 and 2010. [[Don't confuse murder rate with murder count. The actual murder count dropped by over 50%.)

So, Detroit's drop in prevalence of murders has done nothing to stem the population loss. Thus, your attempt to tie the rate of murder with the population drop in the city has no basis in reality.

[detroitbob]

*WOW*

Who would have thought it would only be the fate of the light rail [[or mass transit in fact) that would bring down even the most optimistic amongst our posters.

BTW, you guys have always been putting too much faith in our leaders doing the right thing to improve the situation around here. I've reviewed the political and socio-economicdynamics of this region over the past 50 years, and none of this surprises me at all in fact [[same crap, different year and decade).

I feel exactly the same way...it has been the same crap for well over 50 years..and now, again, with reservations about the EFM, it is the only way I see to break the cycle.

[Russix]

Well, you should know that the "amusement park ride" in Minneapolis--which is very comparable to what would have been built on Woodward--reached 2020 ridership projections a full 14 years ahead of schedule. Five years later, that "amusement park ride" carries an additional 20% beyond that number.

Big fucking joke, huh?

They actually had to rebuild the stations last year to move from 2-car to 3-car trains.

[bailey]

Apparently you and I are operating on different definitions of "people."

I operating on the definition of "people" who are commenting that they are either; a) staying in chicago with their multiple degrees and DINK income, or b) moving to chicago or points elsewhere, with their multiple degrees because this lame excuse for transit failed to materialize.

I'm not in anyway mocking or deriding the decision, I agree with them. if my job didn't have me traveling quite often I'd be with them. I'm just questioning what they REALLY thought was going ACTUALLY materialize and I'm slightly confused why this failure is the proverbial straw for them when in all likelihood it would likely...probably... have had little to do with their lives if it had come to fruition.

Based on the simple understanding of the metro area, It is more likely than not if they have children, they will not live in Detroit. It is more likely than not , they will be working in Detroit's suburbs vs Detroit. It is more likely than not that they would need to have two cars as It is more likely than not that if married, they would work no where near each other.

[bailey]

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Well, you should know that the "amusement park ride" in Minneapolis--which is very comparable to what would have been built on Woodward--reached 2020 ridership projections a full 14 years ahead of schedule. Five years later, that "amusement park ride" carries an additional 20% beyond that number.


Big fucking joke, huh?

Current bus ridership on Woodward already equals Minneapolis light rail ridership.

So if ridership is your holy grail, we've already got it in Detroit.

And our light rail wasn't going to connect to the airport, the fourth largest university in the country, and the top tourist attraction in the U.S., like in Minneapolis.

bham beat me to it, but let's also discuss how M1 is going to run at the curb and in traffic to the list of what makes it a joke.

.

[antongast]

Current bus ridership on Woodward already equals Minneapolis light rail ridership.

So if ridership is your holy grail, we've already got it in Detroit.

Exactly. The ridership is there. We went through an extended process, including lots of public input and extensive on-the-ground research, to figure out how best to improve service to that ridership, and what came out of that process was light fucking rail on Woodward fucking Avenue from the fucking CBD to the State fucking Fairgrounds. Now Bing and Snyder and LaHood have apparently decided that they know better than both the professional transit consultants and the people who actually live here, and what we actually need is a warmed-over version of some nebulous, poorly-thought-out BRT plan that John Hertel whipped out of his ass three years ago. And they still don't have a plan to cover operating costs except to start the RTA talks again and hope Brooks finds Jesus.

[antongast]

Based on the simple understanding of the metro area, It is more likely than not if they have children, they will not live in Detroit. It is more likely than not , they will be working in Detroit's suburbs vs Detroit. It is more likely than not that they would need to have two cars as It is more likely than not that if married, they would work no where near each other.

The Woodward corridor south of 8 Mile isn't the Sahara Desert. It's a dense, urban corridor with high transit ridership and a number of significant employment centers. Obviously there are more people in the region who live and work away from the corridor than there are people who live and work near it, but it's perfectly possible for someone who prioritizes light-rail access to find housing and a job along the corridor. I live a few blocks off Woodward in Detroit, and my living expenses are completely affordable and my quality of life is perfectly fine. You might not want to live here, but transit doesn't need you in order to function.

[bailey]

The Woodward corridor south of 8 Mile isn't the Sahara Desert. It's a dense, urban corridor with high transit ridership and a number of significant employment centers. Obviously there are more people in the region who live and work away from the corridor than there are people who live and work near it, but it's perfectly possible for someone who prioritizes light-rail access to find housing and a job along the corridor. I live a few blocks off Woodward in Detroit, and my living expenses are completely affordable and my quality of life is perfectly fine. You might not want to live here, but transit doesn't need you in order to function.

I'm not arguing with you, to each their own. Just pointing out the majority of the regions population and capital investment has chosen differently.

[Detroitnerd]

Instead of describing either plan as costing more or costing less, we should focus on which plan is more feasible or less feasible when comparing costs.

Feasibility for what?

It's politically feasible to build this gussied-up bus system along Hall Road, for instance. That's because the constituency doesn't understand transit very well and imagines it'll be cheaper and mean less taxes.

A transit planner would say that putting a bus on Hall Road is silly. It will not feasibly persuade anybody to not use their cars and to use the bus instead. The neighborhood is not walkable. Using the bus on M-59 would require people to walk across barren parking lots -- freezing or baking -- and then lug their purchases back across to a bus, and probably across six or 12 more lanes of traffic. Pedestrians would have to walk miles, as well as crossing 12 lanes of traffic. There is no proven demand for bus service along this corridor. People will not walk through those neighborhoods of winding streets and cul-de-sacs to get to M-59 to board a bus.

In short, putting a bus on M-59 is like putting a picnic table in a highway median. Is it feasible? Sure it is, financially. Will anybody use it? On THAT level of feasibility, well, not so much.

And this is the plan we're scrapping proven light rail for? Oh, the humanity...

[antongast]

I'm not arguing with you, to each their own. Just pointing out the majority of the regions population and capital investment has chosen differently.

And I'm just pointing out that that fact says absolutely nothing about whether or not light rail on Woodward was a good idea.

[antongast]

A transit planner would say that putting a bus on Hall Road is silly.

This isn't hypothetical; that's what the transit planners actually did say. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have any say here.

[bartock]

No.

In 1991, Detroit had 615 murders. The 1990 census counted Detroit's population at 1,027,974. Thus, Detroit's murder rate in 1991 was roughly 60 murders per every 100,000 residents.

In 2010, Detroit had 308 murders. The 2010 census counted Detroit's population at 713,777. Thus, Detroit's murder rate in 2010 was roughly 43 murders per every 100,000 residents.

Detroit's population declined by 31% between 1990 and 2010. Detroit's murder rate declined by 29% between 1990 and 2010. [[Don't confuse murder rate with murder count. The actual murder count dropped by over 50%.)

So, Detroit's drop in prevalence of murders has done nothing to stem the population loss. Thus, your attempt to tie the rate of murder with the population drop in the city has no basis in reality.

What is it you like to say? Don't get so "butt hurt"? The murder rate IS going up.

This is 2011, not 2010 http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...-20110623-wpms

as for your historical references, the murder rate across a number of big cities dropped during that time period for any number of Freakonomics-type of reasons, so Detroit has always remained among the top murder rates in the nation, even as its rate has fallen.

[bailey]

And I'm just pointing out that that fact says absolutely nothing about whether or not light rail on Woodward was a good idea.

it does say something about the decision process some here are claiming to have engaged in...which was what i was discussing. a curb running, in traffic, 1.5 mile [[one way) tram on woodward with no plan for expansion beyond the city limits...if it even gets that far.... is not going to stop the "brain drain" nor will it reverse it as most people that view transit as important wouldn't find M1 to actually be transit. Again my confusion in the rather strident claims of never coming back or leaving and never looking back stems from the fact that the plan from inception was a fucking joke and if implemented would simply serve the same population being served now by buses.

[Anonymous]

While you have a right to your opinion, I have to admit that I don't understand your logic.

Why would anyone choose to not live in Metro Detroit because they want to build BRT instead of LRT on one street? I would love for you and other folks to live here, but why would your decision be strictly based on this factor?

I mean, daily mobility choices aren't really central to my existence. Things like family, friends, work, leisure, etc. are central to my existence.

LRT isn't a "magic bullet". There's no instance anywhere in the U.S. where light rail, by itself, "fixed" a neighborhood, and certainly not a city. If B-E makes a comeback, it won't be whether or not a trolley or bus is passing by.

Because there is *not a single desirable place to live in the Metro area* for people like us. None. See BrushStart's post a few before years.

While I've gone through grad school twice and bid my time in Chicago, lurking on this forum, talking to folks in real life, waiting and hoping that there will be a viable alternative for folks like my wife and me and, presumably, BrushStart, there won't be. Not while we try to have kids next year and not as those kids grow up.

That's sobering. I'd always planned on coming home and raising my kids as Michiganders, trolled my wife so hard that I think she's more bummed about this than I am, believe it or not -- but then again, she was as disgusted by Houston sprawlburbia as I am by Metro Detroit sprawlburbia.

And yes, there are *tons* of examples of rail encouraging growth. So much so that there's actually a name for it -- "Transit Oriented Development". Perhaps if you spend a little time on the website of the RTA here in Chicago, where I live now, you will see before and after photoes. Pretty cool stuff, would have been nice to have seen it happen first in Palmer Woods and Boston Edison, then spread and fill in the gaps. Next thing you know you have one strong corridor in the entire metro area.

But that's cool, friend. It's about different strokes for different folks. Problem is that the vast majority of young [[read: 40 or under) talent doesn't want to live in Oakland County, has negative interest in Canton or Novi or places like that, and was willing to put up with crime and having to pay for private schools in order to be home. While that sort of environment might be cool for you, it's not for the majority of us, and my beloved home can continue to rot away while people like you believe that if it's good enough for you and the people you're around it's good enough for everybody.

Home. That word means a lot. At least to me it does. It means my family and friends, her family, my university, my sports teams, my culture, real coney dogs and Detroit pizza and all of those things. It means teaching my child the positive aspects of a midwestern upbringing [[do what you want as long as you don't hurt others) while trying to steer them away from the negative aspects. And it means so much more that I could write a post tens of thousands of words long about it.

But naw. For now I'll hop out my house take the blue line 20 mins door to door to work, without the added stress of a driving commute I can catch up on the news on the way. And after work, let's say I have a few with friends [[like I will today), I don't have to watch myself or take time to sober up because I'll be a few blocks from a train [[not a bus. even here in Chicago, busses might run two in a row then 25 mins to the next one because there's no dedicated ROW and there's traffic).

And when "now' is over in a few years or a decade and I can't stomach contributing to Chicago's success, in part at the expense of Detroit's [[and the suburbs', it is, of course, regional competition, after all), I'll move to another region because I can't move home but I can't contribute, in good conscience, to my home's competition.

So I don't know whether I'm more pissed or sad. It's like watching a dear family member piss his life away. For the folks I meet everyday in this town who'd love to move home [[do you know how many native Michigander UM and MSU grads have settled in this region?!), it's always "I'd love to, but there's nothing there for me and I can drive or Amtrak it to visit family."

That, right there, is the big picture that everyone is missing. It's not about city vs. suburbs. It's about region vs. region. And while the mayor's office, the Wayne Co. Chief Executive, and the Oakland Co. Chief Executive slap fight while other regions are working together to make sure that suburban-minded people have a place as do city-minded folks.

EDited to add: Please don't take this necessarily as a rebuke of you, but rather a certain mindset that your one post that I replied to seemed to condone.

[Detroitnerd]

Another thing: There are people on this forum whose understanding of light rail, urban planning, dense development and walkable, bikable, livable cities is so dim that it simply must be on purpose. These people must be deliberately misunderstanding what is happening across the country, likely because they feel it is a threat to their way of life.

Guess what? Other cities offer CHOICES. They offer some vinyl-clad, air-conditioned mansions, they offer denser, prewar streetcar suburbs, they offer transit-rich, very dense urban environments with shops and restaurants and workplaces.

Our mix? Suburbs. Cars. The bigger, the better.

And not only is there a shrinking demand for outsized cars and massive suburban homes, there is a growing oversupply of them. The city has to grow somewhere, and where it CAN grow in INWARD. But some people are determined [[why, I don't know: Fear? Loathing?) to ensure that the city will never grow. And we will never be able to provide those dense, thriving urban environments the CURRENT generation wants, to say nothing of the next.

Hope you don't mind getting postcards from your kids. They might come back for the holidays...

[iheartthed]

What is it you like to say? Don't get so "butt hurt"? The murder rate IS going up.

This is 2011, not 2010 http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...-20110623-wpms

A one year fluctuation is hardly enough to declare a trend. But it's pretty irrelevant to me disproving your point.

as for your historical references, the murder rate across a number of big cities dropped during that time period for any number of Freakonomics-type of reasons, so Detroit has always remained among the top murder rates in the nation, even as its rate has fallen.

What's that got to do with what we're talking about? You claimed that Detroit's population continues to plummet because of crime. I pointed out to you that your theory was incorrect based on your own premise. But I'll take it even further: Detroit's biggest percentage drop in population EVER [[the 2000s) occurred during it's least "dangerous" period in recent decades.

[Anonymous]

The availability of quality transit speaks to the type of neighborhoods that exist in a place, the scale of a community, the values that a community has, and the willingness to invest in itself. Detroit and Southeastern Michigan have clearly demonstrated that they only have interest in propagating a 1950s ethos. That's just not good enough for some people.

To people who have choices on where to live, Detroit seems to say: "You WILL buy a vinyl-clad house in a suburban subdivision and drive to the strip mall for everything." Well, if that's not what you want, then you have no choice but to leave.

The insistence on only offering one way of life also speaks to Detroit's openness, inclusiveness, and tolerance of others who may not share the same mindset. To be frank, it's not too positive of an image for people who aren't seeking Pleasantville.

Dead nuts.

[antongast]

it does say something about the decision process some here are claiming to have engaged in...which was what i was discussing. a curb running, in traffic, 1.5 mile [[one way) tram on woodward with no plan for expansion beyond the city limits...if it even gets that far.... is not going to stop the "brain drain" nor will it reverse it as most people that view transit as important wouldn't find M1 to actually be transit. Again my confusion in the rather strident claims of never coming back or leaving and never looking back stems from the fact that the plan from inception was a fucking joke and if implemented would simply serve the same population being served now by buses.

I'm talking about the merged DTOGS and M1 plan that ran down the center above GCP and ended at the State Fairgrounds, had a completed and approved environmental impact statement and capital funding commitments, and was the basis for a federal Alternatives Analysis grant obtained by the Woodward Avenue Action Association to study extending it from 8 to 15 Mile.

If you're talking about the original pre-merger M1 plan [[although even that one was a lot longer than 1.5 miles one-way, 1.5 miles up Woodward from the river puts you somewhere around the Bonstelle), yeah, that plan was kind of dumb in a lot of ways, but I don't think anyone else in this thread was talking about that. When the thread title says "Feds, Snyder kill Woodward Light Rail Line," that isn't the light rail line being referenced.

[Anonymous]

LOL, I'm so done with this thread and, other than the occasional lurking, this forum. For those that don't understand, I'll sum it up with an analogy:

A few weeks ago, when the Lions were getting beaten by the Bears, my dad sent me a three word text that summed up how a lot of people were probably feeling at that moment: "Same old Lions."

If you know that feeling, you know how us educated and successful expatriates feel: "Same old Metro Detroit." I'm only 30 years old, but I've seen the region look backwards enough times at this point in my life that it can't happen in time for me with, God-willing, a kid on the way in a year or two. I've gotta make big-boy decisions like where to lay down roots. If you've spent time in business, then you're likely familiar with the concept of a "best and final offer." While this LRT wasn't going to be that great in and of itself -- it would have been nice, though, and something nice enough to personally live near -- it represented a "best and final chance" for the region to get things moving in the right direction [[remember, it was to be just the first step in the right direction, part of a regional plan) in a time that worked for me. Well, it's not happening. Boodie hoo hoo and all that but I miss home and all that that means quite often and held on to a hope of moving back.

But in the end it can be summed up in four words: "Same old Metro Detroit."

Bummer. Real bummer. But I'm an optimist, so I hope to see you when I'm a snowbird in 30-40 years.