I agree with his general premise that cities are about the human capital. I agree with him that the city of Detroit was the incubator that created the auto industry [[and not the other way around as some people have mistakenly come to believe). But he's clearly showing his limited knowledge of Detroit by trying to compare the People Mover to the light rail project.

First of all, his argument against the light rail project is completely mooted because it isn't a public works project thought up by the federal government [[or the municipal government for that matter). This project was proposed by the business community along the Woodward corridor.

Second, the DPM is an empty train rolling over empty streets because it's a circle. It doesn't connect neighborhoods to a destination! It is the physical manifestation of an infinite loop. He should research the concept of a hub and then report back.

Third, how is Detroit supposed to attract human capital without investing in its services?

Fourth, and this is probably the most important point, he seems to think that we created rail transit networks the same way that we created urban freeways, which was to bulldoze through already existing neighborhoods to create links from the fringe to the center. I think it's very flawed thinking to believe that transit networks should follow population. This pretty much has no precedent in the nearly 200 years of urban commuter rail networks. Most networks were laid before the population spread, and it was the rail network that allowed the population to spread. Again, he should probably pay more respect to the concept of a hub.