Feds, Snyder kill Woodward Light Rail Line

[illwill]

I posted something similar yesterday. Notice the Mayor, Governor and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood manage to get lots of dollars to flow into Chicago. Has anyone ever heard of Tiger Funding? Is this what the BRT falls under? The video says 40 states received grants, but did Detroit, MI?

Here is the video.

http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2011/...transportation

[ghettopalmetto]

I posted something similar yesterday. Notice the Mayor, Governor and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood manage to get lots of dollars to flow into Chicago. Has anyone ever heard of Tiger Funding? Is this what the BRT falls under? The video says 40 states received grants, but did Detroit, MI?

Here is the video.

http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2011/...transportation

Of course Chicago gets transit money. Northeastern Illinois has an established Regional Transit Authority that coordinates the three transit systems, and dedicated local taxes that fund transit. The Chicago RTA also has long-range plans that weren't drawn-up on the back of a napkin at the 11th hour, or stolen from a 15-year-old SEMCOG document. Detroit has none of these.

[corktownyuppie]

Let's make something really clear the "110 miles of BRT for 9 miles of LRT" is a bold-faced lie, and a number they pulled out of their asses to make it seem like we're winning, here. I can assure that if you can get 110 miles of BRT for 9 miles of LRT, it IS NOT BRT. Period. That's not even to mention for the millionth time that if the reason given for switching to BRT was operating costs, operating costs for BRT are more expensive, and it'd definitely be more expensive for a three line system than a one line LRT. I don't know how our leaders can get away with such lying. Actually, I do; it's because most of the public doesn't know sh%t about mass transit.

First, I'm one of the public that doesn't know sh%t about mass transit. Though unlike most of the public, the degree of my convictions is consistent with the level of my understanding.

Second, please correct me if I'm wrong; I don't believe that anyone is advocating that BRT is less expensive than light rail to operate. The difference is that with the Woodward LRT plan, those operating costs would be carried by the City of Detroit. Where as the BRT plan, though it may -- either [[1) cost more to operate because of its size, or [[2) cost more per sq. mile than LRT -- would be spread across three different entities...including the wealthiest county in the state.

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.

And I'm not even saying that cost should be the primary factor in the decision. But if we're going to argue about it, it would be helpful if we were all arguing about it the same way.

[BrushStart]

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.

[313WX]

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.

*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).

[Bham1982]

A Michigan undergrad with two grad degrees from Northwestern and a good job, with a wife with an undergrad science degree from Texas A&M and a grad degree from UVa who also has a good job, each of whom are just dying to one day move to Michigan [[home, for me, but proximity to family for both of us both for personal familiarity and for help in raising our kids) but are stuck with Chicago for the time being and at lunch today discussed the fact that we'll probably never be able to move back to Michigan because the City and its suburbs can't play nice like adults.

We are the brain drain, probably along with dozens or hundreds of other people that post or lurk here. Shame on everyone that played a negative role in this.

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.

[ghettopalmetto]

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.

And that's exactly the attitude and approach that keeps Southeastern Michigan mired where it is. You know one way of doing things--automobile-oriented suburbs--then feign shock and horror when someone dares to want something other than that.

It'd be like if I ran a restaurant and someone ordered steak. "Steak? What do you mean steak? Aren't hot dogs good enough for you? I don't understand!"

You can make excuses for the status quo. You can ignore that Detroit, as a region, has no desire to adapt to changing circumstances. You can choose to not understand the logic of Anonymous. But at least choose to understand why he packs up and leaves town.

It might be that family, friends, work, and leisure are equally important to Anonymous, and for that reason, has no desire to live in a place where something as simple as buying a gallon of milk requires a 15-minute commute by car.

[iheartthed]

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.

If transit is the obvious fatal flaw of the city then... Call me a visionary... But I think building a light rail line is a start to fixing it, no?

[bartock]

If transit is the obvious fatal flaw of the city then... Call me a visionary... But I think building a light rail line is a start to fixing it, no?

Transit isn't the obvious fatal flaw of the city. Crime is. If building a light rail line is somehow tangentally [[not even sure if that's a word, but sounds right), related to fixing crime, under the current circumstances of this place, it is pretty far down the list of priorities.

[iheartthed]

Transit isn't the obvious fatal flaw of the city. Crime is. If building a light rail line is somehow tangentally [[not even sure if that's a word, but sounds right), related to fixing crime, under the current circumstances of this place, it is pretty far down the list of priorities.

If crime were the fatal flaw of Detroit then it'd be reviving since crime has indeed fallen. But, in a curious case of fact, prevalence of crime has fallen right alongside the continued plummet of the population.

[ghettopalmetto]

Transit isn't the obvious fatal flaw of the city. Crime is. If building a light rail line is somehow tangentally [[not even sure if that's a word, but sounds right), related to fixing crime, under the current circumstances of this place, it is pretty far down the list of priorities.

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

[illwill]

313wx,

I think it's this generation. And It really bothers me that they have such hope, determination and that they've made HUGE strides in an attempt to make Detroit a livable city. However, like you and MANY others, I've studied this region for about 20 years and I too know that nothing will change...including mass transit in the city of Detroit. I've tried to do my part like SO MANY OTHERS have, only to see NOTHING change in terms of governmental progress. When a smart man like Dennis Archer threw in the towel, I knew the city was it trouble.

My advice to the people who want to be in Detroit...accept it for what it is. Detroit is an awesome city and a World Class City like no other in my eyes. But you have to love it for what it is...the way it is and the way it'll probably always remain.

[casscorridor]

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.

While you may be right that most people choose to stay somewhere based on family, friends, work, etc. there are also huge amounts of people [[mostly young people ages 18-35) who are choosing their home based on much different reasons-- transit, vibrant neighborhoods, amenities within those neighborhoods, and the general vibe/culture of the city. In Detroit, we are looked at as having no transit, broken down neighborhoods with few amenities, typical suburbs, and a vibe/culture that is stuck in the 1950s.

And yes, people are going to stay/move based on the decision about light-rail for Woodward. That is because it is a huge signal as to the direction Detroit is moving in-- is the city moving toward something more resembling other major American cities, or is it moving toward more of the same? I think canceling light-rail signals more of the same. Regardless of how effective 'BRT' may or may not be, this is seen by many people [[not just in Detroit, but looking in) as a signal that metro Detroit is at a turning point, in a very negative sense.

Remember, restarting the federal process means 6+ [[probably more like 10 until anything is actually operating). When you are young, you don't want to wait around for something like this, when other cities already have transit systems and are expanding them, and while youth slips away. I would have waited two or three years for the light-rail to be constructed, but I'm young still and with this news I know I don't want to spend any more of my youth in Detroit... i really think it is impairing my psyche.

Just face it, young people want RAILS, businesses want RAILS, transit advocates want RAILS. It seems the only people that don't are Bing, Snyder and few grumpy people in the suburbs.

[Bham1982]

And that's exactly the attitude and approach that keeps It might be that family, friends, work, and leisure are equally important to Anonymous, and for that reason, has no desire to live in a place where something as simple as buying a gallon of milk requires a 15-minute commute by car.

You're not getting what I'm writing.

I said NOTHING about public transit quality, or car vs. transit.

I asked why someone would make a huge change in their lives strictly based on the type of transit available to them. In other words, I'm moving to San Diego for their trolley, but changed my mind and moved to Baltimore because they have a subway.

That, to me, sounds crazy. The availability of a type of transit may play a role in my decision, but the sole factor in my decision? No way. I need a job, a place to live, friends, leisure time, etc. My life isn't radically altered if I'm taking a bus or a light rail.

[Novine]

"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? "

Sounds more like "the straw that broke the camel's back" kind of response. If you see a place where the leaders can't get things like transit right, it's a real downer on seeing them do anything else right. Life's short. No one wants to wait around waiting for the Bings and the Snyders to get a clue or for the Pattersons to retire to the pasture.

[ghettopalmetto]

You're not getting what I'm writing.

I said NOTHING about public transit quality, or car vs. transit.

I asked why someone would make a huge change in their lives strictly based on the type of transit available to them. In other words, I'm moving to San Diego for their trolley, but changed my mind and moved to Baltimore because they have a subway.

That, to me, sounds crazy. The availability of a type of transit may play a role in my decision, but the sole factor in my decision? No way. I need a job, a place to live, friends, leisure time, etc. My life isn't radically altered if I'm taking a bus or a light rail.

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.

[iheartthed]

313wx,

I think it's this generation. And It really bothers me that they have such hope, determination and that they've made HUGE strides in an attempt to make Detroit a livable city. However, like you and MANY others, I've studied this region for about 20 years and I too know that nothing will change...including mass transit in the city of Detroit. I've tried to do my part like SO MANY OTHERS have, only to see NOTHING change in terms of governmental progress. When a smart man like Dennis Archer threw in the towel, I knew the city was it trouble.

My advice to the people who want to be in Detroit...accept it for what it is. Detroit is an awesome city and a World Class City like no other in my eyes. But you have to love it for what it is...the way it is and the way it'll probably always remain.

This is the other fatal flaw of Detroit: nothing ever gets done. Twenty years ago places like Harlem and Chicago's South Loop wouldn't have looked out of place in Detroit. Today they are light years beyond anything you would see in Detroit.

[casscorridor]

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 only have interest in propagating a 1950s ethos. That's just not good enough for some people.

thank you!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bham1982]

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.

I think this is an excellent quote, and I agree 100%.

That said, light rail, and transit in general, is only one piece of the overall puzzle that is reimagining an urban center. The investment in, say, light rail, doesn't necessary lead to revitalization, and it isn't clear that another modal choice would result in better or worse outcomes.

Ever been to East St. Louis? Much worse than Detroit, and they have added new light rail lines. Hasn't done a thing. Gary, IN is much worse than Detroit, and they've had interurban rail [[basically a cross between trolley and commuter rail) for probably more than a century. Camden, NJ has both light rail and heavy rail, and is probably as bad as Detroit.

And how about buses? Seattle only had buses until about five years ago. They were doing quite well urbanistically and economically before they added rail. Even now, they have very limited rail, with just a few miles in operation. I don't think anyone could realistically claim that Seattle is urban or successful because of the recently constructed rail.

So why was Seattle attractive to young, urban-minded folks before the introduction of rail, and why are East St. Louis and Gary repellent to almost everyone despite the rail infrastructure? Obviously there are many factors to consider, many of which have nothing to do with transit or mobility.

[Islandman]

GP,

There are many posters on here that will never understand the quality of life perspective; something that the creation of a LRT line would have illustrated was important to the leaders in our local and state government.

I, for one, am not making any permanent plans of staying in this area. Fed up.

[illwill]

While you may be right that most people choose to stay somewhere based on family, friends, work, etc. there are also huge amounts of people [[mostly young people ages 18-35) who are choosing their home based on much different reasons-- transit, vibrant neighborhoods, amenities within those neighborhoods, and the general vibe/culture of the city. In Detroit, we are looked at as having no transit, broken down neighborhoods with few amenities, typical suburbs, and a vibe/culture that is stuck in the 1950s.

And yes, people are going to stay/move based on the decision about light-rail for Woodward. That is because it is a huge signal as to the direction Detroit is moving in-- is the city moving toward something more resembling other major American cities, or is it moving toward more of the same? I think canceling light-rail signals more of the same. Regardless of how effective 'BRT' may or may not be, this is seen by many people [[not just in Detroit, but looking in) as a signal that metro Detroit is at a turning point, in a very negative sense.

Remember, restarting the federal process means 6+ [[probably more like 10 until anything is actually operating). When you are young, you don't want to wait around for something like this, when other cities already have transit systems and are expanding them, and while youth slips away. I would have waited two or three years for the light-rail to be constructed, but I'm young still and with this news I know I don't want to spend any more of my youth in Detroit... i really think it is impairing my psyche.

Just face it, young people want RAILS, businesses want RAILS, transit advocates want RAILS. It seems the only people that don't are Bing, Snyder and few grumpy people in the suburbs.

I agree with you,

And if you're like myself and others who have spent a majority of our young adult lives living in huge livable cities, and are ready to be back home in Michigan after years of being away, I want NO PART OF THE CITY LIFE any longer. Those that do want to raise families in the city have already passed over Detroit the first time and now upon returning, Detroit is still not an option for most because it's still not livable and it'd be an even harder life than any other big city that we've already lived in.

I guess LRT is at least an option for those who want it.

[iheartthed]

I think this is an excellent quote, and I agree 100%.

That said, light rail, and transit in general, is only one piece of the overall puzzle that is reimagining an urban center. The investment in, say, light rail, doesn't necessary lead to revitalization, and it isn't clear that another modal choice would result in better or worse outcomes.

Ever been to East St. Louis? Much worse than Detroit, and they have added new light rail lines. Hasn't done a thing. Gary, IN is much worse than Detroit, and they've had interurban rail [[basically a cross between trolley and commuter rail) for probably more than a century. Camden, NJ has both light rail and heavy rail, and is probably as bad as Detroit.

E. STL, Gary and Camden aren't the major population centers in their respective regions.

And how about buses? Seattle only had buses until about five years ago. They were doing quite well urbanistically and economically before they added rail. Even now, they have very limited rail, with just a few miles in operation. I don't think anyone could realistically claim that Seattle is urban or successful because of the recently constructed rail.

So why was Seattle attractive to young, urban-minded folks before the introduction of rail, and why are East St. Louis and Gary repellent to almost everyone despite the rail infrastructure? Obviously there are many factors to consider, many of which have nothing to do with transit or mobility.

That's actually a good point. I've never been to Seattle, but according to wikipedia it's not that dense. It's probably never been as dense as Detroit once was, and also probably didn't grow around a rail based transit system like Detroit did.

[ghettopalmetto]

That's actually a good point. I've never been to Seattle, but according to wikipedia it's not that dense. It's probably never been as dense as Detroit once was, and also probably didn't grow around a rail based transit system like Detroit did.

The population density of Seattle [[city proper) is about 7300/sq mi. That puts it somewhere between Minneapolis and Arlington, Virginia. Compare that to 5100/sq mi in Detroit proper.

An old roommate of mine used to live in Seattle, and he always told me how walkable it was, and how rarely he drove. Granted, part of that is due to geographical constraints [[water and mountains), but it should not be used as an excuse.

[bailey]

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?

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.

[antongast]

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.

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.