L. Brooks: "I Don't Want to End Sprawl. I Love it."

[BrushStart]

But I'm not the one arguing that relative density plays a role in prosperity, I think it's plays little to no role [[one way or the other) in most cases. The burden is on you to prove this correlation, when there are countless examples to the contrary.

You are the one arguing that sprawl = economic growth, are you not? You are the one who constantly argues that suburbs = affluence, correct? Has that not been your position on this board for many years?

I don't have a study on hand that evidences my premise, but I do have basic facts. Go to Realtor.com and compare real estate values in walkable cores vs. average suburbs. Again, the Hamptoms are not representative of average American suburbs. They are vacation homes for wealthy city people. It's a poor comparison.

Allen Park is walkable and relatively urban in the Metro Detroit context. Has the same density as Birmingham.

It, and nearby Melvindale, Lincoln Park, Ecorse, River Rouge, etc. should all be outperforming less dense places like Northville and Rochester, to say nothing of the real sprawlers out in Livingston. But they're doing far worse.

Allen park is not urban and it definitely is not walkable. Have you ever been there? It is post-war suburban. While homes may be on smaller lots and thus density may be somewhat higher than modern sprawldivisions, density is not the deciding factor of whether a location is desirable. Allen Park, like many of its contemporaries, has no sense of place. There's nowhere for people to go without their cars. It has no center or obvious core. There is no gathering point where people mingle. It has no town square consisting shops, parks, municipal buildings and housing. It lacks all of the physical attributes a growing majority of the populous care about in an area.

Now, I do not want to disparage Allen Park. I think AP has some good characteristics for some people. It has inexpensive housing, access to freeways, and some cute little homes that are good for raising a family. But, the reality is that a lot of people would like more out of a community than cheap housing with freeway access. This is why areas like AP will be less and less desirable as time goes on in comparison to walkable urban areas.

[Detroitnerd]

Some people are determined to never let reality intrude on their pristine visions of how the world works. Whether they be real facts and figures about how most cities work [[apples and oranges! Detroit is different!) or the eavesdropped ramblings of the Rizzos of the world [[that was a long time ago!), at least we get the opportunity to hash it out here. That's better to me than the bad old days where people were never confronted with other points of view...

[Bham1982]

You are the one arguing that sprawl = economic growth, are you not? You are the one who constantly argues that suburbs = affluence, correct? Has that not been your position on this board for many years?

No. You're not reading my posts. I Never argued that sprawl is good, nor have I argued that density is bad.

My point is that there is no clear causal relationship between relative density and relative prosperity. In other words, other factors drive regional prosperity. So, in our case, GM is important, and light rail isn't. That doesn't mean light rail is bad, it just means it isn't a savior.

Allen park is not urban and it definitely is not walkable. Have you ever been there? It is post-war suburban.

Then Birmingham, Royal Oak and Ferndale sure as heck aren't urban or walkable, because they have the same density. And Rochester/Northville are a ton less dense.

So if Allen Park is an example of sprawl, then so are Birmingham and Royal Oak. Same built environment built during roughly the same era, and at the same densities.

[Detroitnerd]

Then Birmingham, Royal Oak and Ferndale sure as heck aren't urban or walkable, because they have the same density. And Rochester/Northville are a ton less dense.

So if Allen Park is an example of sprawl, then so are Birmingham and Royal Oak. Same built environment built during roughly the same era, and at the same densities.

Nonsense. Maybe if you cherry-pick some statistics you can make an argument, but Birmingham and Royal Oak are originally streetcar suburbs, formed around light rail, which meant the zoning of the time allowed for a strip of stores and homes set back on not-terribly-huge lots a good walking distance away. You'll find a premium on homes on the west side of Woodward, as people are willing to pay to be within walking distance of a strip of shops and a movie theater.

Allen Park was mow-and-grow subdivisions of workers' homes. Absolutely nothing like the density, commercial amenities, mixed use and rail-based design of the other two communities you speak of.

[jon]

If you're wondering what people think, here's a nice survey.

"Americans see improving existing communities [[57%) and building new developments
within existing communities [[32%) as much higher priorities than building new
developments in the countryside [[7%)"

"Privacy from neighbors is the top consideration tested for Americans in deciding where
to live [[45%, very important; 42%, somewhat). Other top priorities include, high quality
public schools [[44%; 31%), commute time [[36%; 42%), and sidewalks and places to walk
[[31%; 46%)"


Bottom line, a lot of people like sprawl or at least some of the sprawl characteristics. A lot of people also like cities or at least some of the city characteristics. It would be wise regional policy to have a bunch of best of both options.

[Detroitnerd]

http://www.ziprealty.com/blog/enter-...-the-industry/

Less is More
... Millennials are part of a generation more aware of the environment, of their “carbon footprint” upon that environment, than ever before. This generation is unlikely to buy a larger house than needed as a status symbol. To the eco-conscience Millennial, more square footage than needed is a waste, and possibly an unethical one. After all, the energy and materials needed to create and maintain that space can’t be justified if there’s no one using them.
Eco-conscience logically aligns with economy-conscious. Again, those extra square feet the Millennial must pay to heat, clean, and care for don’t make much sense when money is very much one of those precious resources the entire generation seeks to conserve.

“Easy Access” has a Whole New Meaning
This generation, much like the Baby Boomer one we focused on last week, has an evolving definition of “simple lifestyle.” Before, the suburbs might have attracted young families for the large homes, easy parking, and short-drive-away access to huge shopping areas. Now though, more Millennial look for walkable neighborhoods: retail, food, culture and community all within a few blocks. For work, this generation often opts for public transportation. For education, Millennial parents want to put down roots near other parents to form the kind of close knit, true community we might think of more as “small town” or even “village.” The sprawl, consumption, and anonymity of suburban life have largely fallen out of favor.

Bolded and italicized for emphasis...

Shhhhhhh! Don't tell L. Brooks!

[Detroitnerd]

A radical re-alignment
Posted by Robert Steuteville on 08 Sep 2010


Source:
The New York Times


Full Story:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/07/redefining-home-in-a-depressed-m...


The New York Times has an excellent package of commentary pieces on the future of the suburbs. The article by Laurie Volk and Todd Zimmerman, called A Radical Re-alignment [[link above), is incisive.

"The millennials will likely confound apologists for the status quo ante who suggest that the relentless dispersion to the exurbs remains America’s manifest destiny," Volk and Zimmerman say. "Millennials are the first generation largely raised in the “perfect world” of the auto-dependent suburbs. Many resent having been held hostage to someone with a driver’s license and vow to bring up their children [[when they finally get around to having them) in more walkable neighborhoods."

[Detroitnerd]

From http://www.mysanantonio.com/business...ll-3312807.php

Segal said cities should invest in their downtowns because of a number of trends, from the local food movement to millennials, those born between 1977 and 2003, not having the same love affair with cars as previous generations did.

“It's a different mindset,” he said. “It's going to change the shape of our cities.”

If neighborhoods near downtown can be connected to each other, say by a streetcar system, Segal said, that can open up a “reservoir” of housing that would be affordable and attractive to recent college graduates, along with boomers, generation X-ers and women, who tend to socialize and purchase more than men do. “The neighborhoods around downtown start to be downtown,” he said.

VIA Metropolitan Transit, Bexar County and the city of San Antonio agreed last fall to build a $190 million downtown streetcar system. But the idea has been controversial, and Segal alluded to that in his talk.

“I'm to remind you that the streetcar is not part of the bond issue coming up,” he said, referring to the city's $596 million bond election in May.

Segal said few cities have been able to press forward with bond initiatives but that now is the time to invest in infrastructure. Both state and federal resources likely will dwindle, leaving cities on their own to chart their future, he said. “Cities need to invest in themselves,” Segal said.

He estimated that just 10 to 15 U.S. cities will emerge as “globally relevant.” And most of those will be on the East or West Coasts, leaving cities in the middle of the country, from Denver to San Antonio or Oklahoma City, to compete to see who can attract younger workers.

And for those who don't succeed in attracting those workers? “The prospect is really pretty bleak, to be honest,” Segal said.

And by "bleak future" that means the metropolitan region, including YOU Oakland County. I don't mean to sounds like a hostage-taker, but, seriously, if you don't invest in your downtown, add public transportation and create a vibrant urban environment, you will never, ever see your grandkids again. Sorry.

[Bham1982]

Nonsense. Maybe if you cherry-pick some statistics you can make an argumentbut Birmingham and Royal Oak are originally streetcar suburbs, formed around light rail, which meant the zoning of the time allowed for a strip of stores and homes set back on not-terribly-huge lots a good walking distance away. You'll find a premium on homes on the west side of Woodward, as people are willing to pay to be within walking distance of a strip of shops and a movie theater.

This describes maybe 10% of Birmingham and Royal Oak. 13&Crooks looks the exact same as Allen Park.

The vast bulk of both communities consists of post-WWII growth, same as Allen Park. They have the exact same density as Allen Park. I live five blocks from Woodward, and the oldest homes on my block are all postwar.

Really the only Birmingham neighborhood where you'll find more than a handful of pre WWII homes is Poppleton Park. And in RO, practically everything north of 12 Mile is postwar.

[Detroitnerd]

This describes maybe 10% of Birmingham and Royal Oak. 13&Crooks looks the exact same as Allen Park.

The vast bulk of both communities consists of post-WWII growth, same as Allen Park. They have the exact same density as Allen Park. I live five blocks from Woodward, and the oldest homes on my block are all postwar.

Perhaps you overlooked the part of my post that noted that homebuyers are willing to pay a premium to live on the west side of Woodward, to live within walking distance of amenities, to live among the small blocks formed in the 19th century and to have proximity to the development pattern formed by the streetcar.

The way you're suddenly talking about the age of the home is a distraction from the real issue: pent-up demand for walkable, bikable, livable places where you can walk to a vibrant main street. It doesn't mean people necessarily want older homes, but that they want a neighborhood with those "good bones" to it. Look at the price-per-square-foot of condos in downtown Birmingham vs. the price-per-square-foot of the small single-family homes within walking distance of downtown vs. the price-per-square-foot of the homes that aren’t walkable to downtown. You'll see people are willing to pay a premium to live where the action is.

And it's part of a national and growing trend. Roughly speaking, the price-per-square-foot of small single-family homes within walking distance of downtown can get a 40 percent price premium over suburban homes where you have to drive to get downtown. The price-per-square-foot of an actual downtown condo may be as high as 80 percent over the homes where you have to drive downtown. That’s pent-up market demand speaking. People are willing to pay more if they get access to walkable urban amenities. They’re willing to pay more than it costs to build those homes.

But, whatever, man. Go ahead and cherry pick stats until your glasses are tinted cherry.

[swingline]

And by "bleak future" that means the metropolitan region, including YOU Oakland County. I don't mean to sounds like a hostage-taker, but, seriously, if you don't invest in your downtown, add public transportation and create a vibrant urban environment, you will never, ever see your grandkids again. Sorry.

This is spot on.

But too many folks from the tea party and Medicare/Social Security recipient crowd and the Republican local leadership who pander to these reliable voters don't really care. "Invest" means higher taxes and that just doesn't resonate with a demographic that screamed bloody murder when told they should pay state income taxes like the rest of us, and who also consume tens of thousands of dollars per year per capita in federal entitlements that they delusionally believe that they "paid for". They've earned their entitlements, and they don't ride buses, use schools, need a job, or care all that much about cultural amenities. They certainly aren't going to pay for all that useless stuff.

[Hermod]

Nonsense. Maybe if you cherry-pick some statistics you can make an argument, but Birmingham and Royal Oak are originally streetcar suburbs, formed around light rail, which meant the zoning of the time allowed for a strip of stores and homes set back on not-terribly-huge lots a good walking distance away. You'll find a premium on homes on the west side of Woodward, as people are willing to pay to be within walking distance of a strip of shops and a movie theater.

Minor quibble there. Royal Oak and Birmingham were served by interurban rail which was quite a bit heavier than streetcar rail and the cars were much heavier and more substantial.

[Zaiko]

A study conducted by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies found that over the past 10 years the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost United States taxpayers a total $2.3 to 2.7 trillion, with a final tally being at least $3.7 trillion, an average of $12,000 per American citizen.

$1,000 a year per person for war to "keep us safe." What a bargain. $100 a year for mass transit. What a waste.

[BrushStart]

This is spot on.

But too many folks from the tea party and Medicare/Social Security recipient crowd and the Republican local leadership who pander to these reliable voters don't really care. "Invest" means higher taxes and that just doesn't resonate with a demographic that screamed bloody murder when told they should pay state income taxes like the rest of us, and who also consume tens of thousands of dollars per year per capita in federal entitlements that they delusionally believe that they "paid for". They've earned their entitlements, and they don't ride buses, use schools, need a job, or care all that much about cultural amenities. They certainly aren't going to pay for all that useless stuff.

I agree with you on everything except the political characterization. As an avid supporter of Congressman Paul [[a libertarian of sorts), I believe that we would still have beautiful urban cities in the United States if the government never subsidized freeways and postwar mortgages in suburban sprawldivisions. Remember, the street cars were run by private operators, and it was the government along with automotive crony capitalism that put the street cars out of business. People had more appreciation for real estate and the use of space. Back then, more importance was given to public space and the beauty of our urban landscape.

I know that it is unlikely, but I actually believe that roads should be privatized, and those that cannot sustain themselves would be decommissioned. Under this equitable system, people would be forced to foot the true cost of their suburban lifestyles. Those who want to live at 27 Mile Road would have to carry the expense of that infrastructure, as they should. There would be massive resurgence of the urban cores as people re-find value in sharing costs and living within their means. New infrastructure would be better maintained and sensibly constructed, unlike the crumbling, dangerous pile of garbage we currently get.

So, as you can see, there is much common ground between we true conservatives and progressives. We have similar goals, only employ different methods to reach them. Brooks Patterson is not a true conservative. He is a hypocrite who pretends to be "Republican." For him, that means hooking up his crony developer buddies with free infrastructure on the back of the taxpayers, and fueling the sheeple public's appetite for racial tension and suburb versus city rivalry. He is a charlatan and the sooner he and his ilk are gone from their positions of power, the better off we all shall be.

[Novine]

" He is a hypocrite who pretends to be "Republican." "

He's a Republican. From my experience, most Oakland County and Lansing Republicans practice the same kind of crony capitalism that Patterson embraces. I've seen no evidence from either group that crony capitalism isn't part and parcel of the Republican theology.

[iheartthed]

I know that it is unlikely, but I actually believe that roads should be privatized, and those that cannot sustain themselves would be decommissioned. Under this equitable system, people would be forced to foot the true cost of their suburban lifestyles. Those who want to live at 27 Mile Road would have to carry the expense of that infrastructure, as they should. There would be massive resurgence of the urban cores as people re-find value in sharing costs and living within their means. New infrastructure would be better maintained and sensibly constructed, unlike the crumbling, dangerous pile of garbage we currently get.

I don't know if roads need to be privatized, but the cost of roads absolutely needs to be passed along to users in a more upfront way. Say whatever you want about public transportation not paying for itself but I know of no public transit system in the world that doesn't have a fare system. OTOH governments like the state of Michigan will build freeways and refuse to implement a toll system, largely for political reasons. The absence of a fare system will encourage gross overuse.

[Hermod]

I don't know if roads need to be privatized, but the cost of roads absolutely needs to be passed along to users in a more upfront way. Say whatever you want about public transportation not paying for itself but I know of no public transit system in the world that doesn't have a fare system. OTOH governments like the state of Michigan will build freeways and refuse to implement a toll system, largely for political reasons. The absence of a fare system will encourage gross overuse.

In theory, the gasoline tax, drivers license fees, and vehicle registration fees are supposed to cover the construction and maintenance of the road system. If these are not adequate, then those taxes and fees need to be increased. This is the "driver paying for the roads". Said driver is also paying for the roads on which the mass transit buses operate. The highway budget should be in a non-transferable "trust fund" at all levels so that these taxes [[really user fees) are spent only on the roads and highways.

Yes, the public transit systems, both bus and rail, do have a fare system, but there isn't a transit system in the US which pays for itself "out of the fare box". Here in Florida, we have a heavy rail system called Tri-Rail [[aka Trash Rail) on which for every dollar a rider puts into the fare box, the taxpayers pony up another four dollars [[and a lot of its costs are picked up by CSX and AMTRAK and don't appear on its budget line).

[Novine]

"Yes, the public transit systems, both bus and rail, do have a fare system, but there isn't a transit system in the US which pays for itself "out of the fare box"."

Nor do almost any road systems in the US. If they did, we wouldn't be driving pot-hole riddled roads everywhere we go in the state.

[iheartthed]

In theory, the gasoline tax, drivers license fees, and vehicle registration fees are supposed to cover the construction and maintenance of the road system. If these are not adequate, then those taxes and fees need to be increased. This is the "driver paying for the roads". Said driver is also paying for the roads on which the mass transit buses operate. The highway budget should be in a non-transferable "trust fund" at all levels so that these taxes [[really user fees) are spent only on the roads and highways.

Yes, the public transit systems, both bus and rail, do have a fare system, but there isn't a transit system in the US which pays for itself "out of the fare box". Here in Florida, we have a heavy rail system called Tri-Rail [[aka Trash Rail) on which for every dollar a rider puts into the fare box, the taxpayers pony up another four dollars [[and a lot of its costs are picked up by CSX and AMTRAK and don't appear on its budget line).

Never said there was a transit system that pays for itself out of the fare box. What transit systems do have, that most roads do not, are direct usage fees. People will rarely use a transit service to travel a distance that is easily traveled by foot. The same cannot really be said about cars. So pass along a user's fee and you will discourage unnecessary use which costs money.

[Hermod]

Never said there was a transit system that pays for itself out of the fare box. What transit systems do have, that most roads do not, are direct usage fees. People will rarely use a transit service to travel a distance that is easily traveled by foot. The same cannot really be said about cars. So pass along a user's fee and you will discourage unnecessary use which costs money.

The gas tax, drivers license fees, and motor vehicle tag fees are user fees.

[iheartthed]

The gas tax, drivers license fees, and motor vehicle
tag fees are user fees.

No, they are taxes. A usage fee is something that you pay each time you use a service. Road toll = user fee.

[Detroitnerd]

The gas tax, drivers license fees, and motor vehicle tag fees are user fees.

There's a difference between charging taxes and fees and claiming "it pays for itself" and direct usage fees in which you pay for how heavily you use a road. I'm no libermaterian, but it seems to me I'd rather pay for the modest road usage I rack up each day if it means not paying for some huge interchange that speeds up somebody's commute from Shelby to Independence. On the bright side, we'd finally get to see how that toll-road farebox would hold up.

♪ I ♪ don't ♩ think ♫ it ♪ wou-ould. ♬

[BrushStart]

In an ideal world, all infrastructure would pay for itself through usage fees that are narrowly tailored to an individual's actual usage. Taxes on gas and vehicle fees are too broad to be considered "usage fees" because they are not tied to the actual usage of any specific piece of infrastructure.

The problem we have now is that roads are heavily subsidized with other tax sources completely unrelated to gas purchases and vehicles. This has made other forms of transportation uncompetitive in the private market, which in turn requires the various types of mass transportation to be subsidized, i.e. trains and buses.

If it were left to the private market to build and maintain our roads, there would be far fewer roads in low density areas as roads are highly expensive to build and maintain. The cost to use such roads would be quite high and people would be less interested in living in sprawlburbia if they had to shoulder this cost themselves. The fact is, these people receive a subsidy to pay for uncompetitive, government-run infrastructure.

This should be bothersome to all of us who are transit advocates, as our opponents are hypocrites. They are against subsidies for transit, except when that transit serves them! The truth is, I believe most of us simply want mass transit regardless of whether it is operated by a private transit company or a municipal transit authority. But, we are hamstrung in our efforts because mass transit cannot be competitive when the government has severely intervened in the marketplace and has made roads the only option. At the same time, road users are intent on blocking any government money from being used to fund mass transit projects. They insist, without saying it, that all funding must go only to build and maintain roads.

The real solution to all of this is to point out our opponent's hypocrisy. Their continued support for road subsidies has lead to two significant problems: [[1) the roadways we do have are poorly maintained because there is no incentive for the government to keep them in good condition, and [[2) we are being forced to pay for and to use infrastructure that we do not want. By subsidizing roads to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year in Michigan alone, we get crappy service and a lack of options.

Transit advocates should also be aware of the fact that the United States subsidizes petroleum. We actually give money to our known enemies in the Middle East to keep the price of gas low. This is perhaps the most egregious subsidy to roads, as the true cost of the infrastructure is not being borne by its users and we are enriching our enemies to preserve and protect a failed system.

In the interim, I will continue to advocate for mass transit projects in general because I think they can greatly improve our quality of life. However, if we all support putting an end to road subsidies, private transit companies would ultimately develop a region filled with many forms of new and exciting transit options for us to use.

[antongast]

BrushStart, step out here into reality for a sec, wouldja? How do you expect privatized roads to work in real life? What if the street in front of my house is owned by Bill's Roads, Inc., and Bill owns a lot of Toyota stock so he decides I can't park my Oldsmobile on his street? And then I pay Bill a toll to get to the end of my block and turn onto the cross street, but oops, that's owned by George, and by God, George doesn't want me driving there at 8pm on a Wednesday, that's when he gets his beauty sleep. Plus I have to pay a new goddamn toll to a different company using a different tolling system every time the road I'm driving on switches ownership? And the infrastructure underneath, is that owned by private companies too? Are they the same companies? Do they have to pay each other to dig up parts of the roads to fix water mains and such? What if Bill and George start feuding, and make us choose whose roads we want to drive on? How is any regional planning possible if everything is owned by different companies? The situation you're advocating would be a total fucking mess, especially in urban areas with dense street grids.

Then think about privatized transit. You'd basically end up with a bunch of duplicated transit infrastructure on the Woodwards and Gratiots and Grand Rivers where all the profit is, and absolutely nothing on the Puritans and Conners and Clairmounts. The solution would be to regulate who can run where and what kinds of fares they can charge, and at that point there's really no reason to have private operators involved except to make a political point about how much you hate it when the government does stuff.

[BrushStart]

BrushStart, step out here into reality for a sec, wouldja? How do you expect privatized roads to work in real life? What if the street in front of my house is owned by Bill's Roads, Inc., and Bill owns a lot of Toyota stock so he decides I can't park my Oldsmobile on his street? And then I pay Bill a toll to get to the end of my block and turn onto the cross street, but oops, that's owned by George, and by God, George doesn't want me driving there at 8pm on a Wednesday, that's when he gets his beauty sleep. Plus I have to pay a new goddamn toll to a different company using a different tolling system every time the road I'm driving on switches ownership? And the infrastructure underneath, is that owned by private companies too? Are they the same companies? Do they have to pay each other to dig up parts of the roads to fix water mains and such? What if Bill and George start feuding, and make us choose whose roads we want to drive on? How is any regional planning possible if everything is owned by different companies? The situation you're advocating would be a total fucking mess, especially in urban areas with dense street grids.

Then think about privatized transit. You'd basically end up with a bunch of duplicated transit infrastructure on the Woodwards and Gratiots and Grand Rivers where all the profit is, and absolutely nothing on the Puritans and Conners and Clairmounts. The solution would be to regulate who can run where and what kinds of fares they can charge, and at that point there's really no reason to have private operators involved except to make a political point about how much you hate it when the government does stuff.

Well, the notion that the government should control all the roadways is nothing more than conventional wisdom gone wrong. In Europe and Asia, private roadways are extremely common. This is partially why so many European cities have more sensible [[and much more beautiful) urban areas.

If tomorrow, all public roads were sold off to private owners, the roads that were redundant and unjustified would be closed down unless there were people willing to pay for their true cost. To clarify, not all public roads represent wasteful infrastructure, but far too many do. Dismantling them would encourage new companies to embark upon the business of transporting people from A to B in a much more efficient and effective manner. Roads are ancient infrastructure, does anyone really believe that no better alternatives can be created? [[Rhetorical)

I think your fear about compatibility of private infrastructures is overestimated. Private owners would be best served if their infrastructure was seamless. George and Bill wouldn't be in business very long if people couldn't traverse both their roads seamlessly with ease. Also, I think your concern about duplication is far more likely under government run infrastructure. This is because under a privately owned system, there would be very little economic incentive to duplicate infrastructure unless there was adequate demand. The issue of who owns what underneath the roads is already an issue, but it is solved by the law of easements. No problem whatsoever.

Government subsidies that protect public roads are the enemy of mass transit in this nation. Our leaders do not have the political will to advocate government funding for transit projects, so they get cast aside as a waste of taxpayer dollars. This is the kind of argument that occurs when the government gets involved. We end up having to fight over which infrastructure is best and we all end up disappointed with the quality and the options. Under a private system, all types of infrastructure would exist as it would reflect what people demanded.

Oddly enough, I am not in favor of private infrastructure in the one place that it is most contested in the Detroit area: the Ambassador Bridge. I think that the Constitution allows the government to regulate commerce between nations, and I think a bridge that does just that should be left to the government. Otherwise, you get a Matty Maroun situation where a private owner can have monopoly control over international trade and can hold two nations hostage for his own economic benefit.

Other forms of private transit would far better serve the people than the system we have today, which is quite dysfunctional and archaic if you ask me.