Detroit's Decline and The Folly of Light Rail

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...253373312.html

Who cares what Edward Glaeser thinks about Detroit? Five years ago, he said of Detroit and New Orleans, "Places decline and places grow. There's no reason not to let decline go forward. We shouldn't stand in the way of that."

Here's a guy who reportedly lives on a six-and-a-half-acre estate in rural Massachusetts, and likes wearing tailored suits, a pocket watch on a gold chain and large silver cuff links, and doesn't give a shit if Detroit were to completely disappear. Oh, I definitely don't care what he thinks about light rail.

On the other hand, more than a century ago, there was a man who, through the decades, has become known as one of the greatest mayors of Detroit -- or of any American city. That man was Hazen Pingree. Glaeser would have hated him for demanding public institutions that stand up to private transportation monopolies. In fact, 112 years ago this month, as governor, Pingree signed the legislation allowing Detroit to create its own publicly owned and operated streetcar system. My how times change.

Pingree believed in that little town by the straits. Tamed its business leaders and found ways to help those suffering through the recessions of the 1890s. What howls of protest Glaeser and his ilk [[Chicago School of Economics) would erupt in upon hearing his opinions.

I know whom History will judge the greater man.

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.

Yeah well that is what happens when everything is instrumentalised in favor of business interests.
Cities are only as good as their intended industrial/commercial use running course. Beyond the economic interest seen from an office window, [[preferably in another city) a given city fallen on hard times belongs to the dustbin of history. Enter Glenn Beck, Limbaugh or the more intellectual types of the Glaeser type. But fear not, the Glaesers are not the inventors and visionaries you can count on to improve a city or country. They are if I may use the Glaeser formula, expendable...

You did good to point out the difference between Pingree and Glaeser.

I support light rail and am looking forward to its implementation. It will definitely improve the Woodward corridor.

That said, he has a point. Folks don't flock to NYC because it has good rail transportation. They're there because it's NYC, and because of the human capital.

And, one must admit, there is a possibility the light rail has underwhelming results. If it never goes beyond the State Fairgrounds, I could see it being considered People Mover-like.

I don't think suburban folks will drive into that tough area, and then park their car to go downtown. One can go from Troy to downtown in less than 30 minutes by I-75. Why deal with all the hassle of transferring to rail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I support light rail and am looking forward to its implementation. It will definitely improve the Woodward corridor.

That said, he has a point. Folks don't flock to NYC because it has good rail transportation. They're there because it's NYC, and because of the human capital.

---

The human capital is attracted by excellent infrastructure, infrastructure you can't find anywhere else. The fastest, finest subway system in the world; regional commuter trains; density. You can't get density without investing in transportation. The only reason Rockefeller Center exists is because there's a hole in the ground that can accept or release 100,000 people an hour. Without infrastructure, you don't get the other stuff. And that's just one reason why New Yorkers are willing to pay some of the highest taxes in the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

And, one must admit, there is a possibility the light rail has underwhelming results. If it never goes beyond the State Fairgrounds, I could see it being considered People Mover-like.

---

As pointed out, the People Mover goes in a circle. It does not connect a residential neighborhood with a commercial center. It was intended to be the hub of a system of actual light rail lines radiating out from downtown, and then the rail lines were never built. If we built a freeway that went in a circle, you'd see similarly light traffic, wouldn't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I don't think suburban folks will drive into that tough area, and then park their car to go downtown. One can go from Troy to downtown in less than 30 minutes by I-75. Why deal with all the hassle of transferring to rail?

---

Ideally, it would extend into the suburbs. I believe that, once people see the development it spurs, they'll want to extend it and improve it. In every instance in the United States, when light rail has been built it has spurred development along a corridor, fostered density and increased business activity. Sure, you can drive downtown in 30 minutes, but you must understand, this is only partly a transportation plan. It's a development plan. It's an infrastructure plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I don't think suburban folks will drive into that tough area, and then park their car to go downtown. One can go from Troy to downtown in less than 30 minutes by I-75. Why deal with all the hassle of transferring to rail?

---

There are other people along Woodward besides suburbanites. The federal approval process for light rail involved meeting certain ridership criteria on the existing Woodward bus route, so even if it never attracts a single new rider, it will dramatically improve service along that corridor for people who already ride transit there. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see light rail attract suburbanites, spur new development along the corridor, and eventually be extended into Oakland County, but I think just having improved transit on Woodward south of 8 Mile is a worthy goal in itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

That said, he has a point. Folks don't flock to NYC because it has good rail transportation. They're there because it's NYC, and because of the human capital.

---

Actually, I do think people go to NYC because it has good rail transportation. I bet if you asked most NYC transplants why they chose NYC, public transit would consistently show up in their top 5 reasons.

BrushStart, I agree with you 100%. I live in NYC. Almost everyone I know cherishes the transit, or at least the transit options and not being a slave to your car. Nobody is claiming that the light rail will eliminate the need for cars, but it plays an extremely important role by providing options for people.

Public transit is the number one reason New York is able to revivify itself periodically. You can even ride the subway 24/7.
Tokyo and Paris and all major cities that have modern extensive transit modes cannot exist without them. Detroit has lost its breath in major part due to the absence of this lifeline. I cant believe I am still reading opinions relating commuter or passenger rail, or any form of modern transit to luxury. Come on!? Choo Choo train to nowhere indeed...

The light-rail isn't meant to serve suburban residents, it is meant to serve residents living in the Woodward corridor in the city of Detroit. There are more than enough bus riders on the 53 Woodward route to support the rail already. The buses are constantly overcrowded. This is about providing excellent transportation in a heavily traveled corridor. The federal gov doesn't give money for preeminent projects, ridership has to be established beforehand. It doesn't support projects that might generate a lot of ridership and boost development down the road. That is why the only corridor that qualifies in Michigan is Woodward Ave and without a change in federal transit policy or massive state [[of Mich) support, it will be the only light-rail built in a very long time.

Additionally there are multiple corridors within the city that have higher ridership than N. Woodward [[in oakland co) such as Dexter or Gratiot. Also, 1/3rds of residents along the Detroit Woodward corridor are without cars while only a tiny fraction are without them in Oakland. This doesn't mean the rail can't benifit residents in Oakland co or that it can't be expanded but saying it will fail without going north is simply false. The ridership will be established on day one!

On a side note; Ed Glaeser was a professor of mine in college and I can confirm he is a bizarre man. The tailored suites [[3 piece) and pocket watch are dead on. I will say, however, that he is a brilliant, but with that comes baggage; eccentricities. Our personal conversations always felt awkward.

I think it would be nice to see it extend as far as, say, Nine Mile Road. After that, though, you start to require fewer stops and higher speeds. Which is really more of a job for an express subway or commuter rail, right?

Very good points on the ridership already being there. I think sometimes people forget how many straphangers there already are on Woodward, what with all the density and feeder buses unloading.

Yeah Dnerd, I can only see there being three stops north of Fairgrounds station - Ferndale/9mile, Zoo/10 Mile, Royal Oak/11 Mile. I think it is important to expand to 11 mile, to allow traffic to/from the zoo and downtown/cultural center... good for tourism. And I also feel there will be a lot of "choice" riders in the Ferndale/Royal Oak area even though there are almost no dependant riders. .

I know the city planning chief for Birmingham, and she has told me that Birmingham govt. would be very receptive to light rail as far north as Birmingham.

I was a little surprised. As a resident of the area, I think there would be resistance, especially among older folks.

I can tell you that the movie theatres in downtown Birmingham draw a ton of complaints about the "wrong element" congregating during summer weekends. I can't imagine the reaction among these folks if there were a light rail speeding teenage folks from 7 Mile to these theatres.

One of the main reason I still live in S.F., even with the high cost of living and sometimes overly pretentious citizenry, is the quality of the mass transit system in and outside of the city. One can and many people do live quite comfortably without owing a personal vehicle. I can head north, south or east and easily get close to a hundred miles away by a combination of mass transit and bicycle.

That said we do have a ridiculously bloated city government with a budget of close to 5 BILLION that is always seeking more money for public funded boondoggles like the proposed Central Subway. In comparison Detroit's proposed light rail, with it's public-private funding seems like a sensible idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I know the city planning chief for Birmingham, and she has told me that Birmingham govt. would be very receptive to light rail as far north as Birmingham.

I was a little surprised. As a resident of the area, I think there would be resistance, especially among older folks.

I can tell you that the movie theatres in downtown Birmingham draw a ton of complaints about the "wrong element" congregating during summer weekends. I can't imagine the reaction among these folks if there were a light rail speeding teenage folks from 7 Mile to these theatres.

---

The director of planning for Birmingham actually chairs a committee/task force for the Woodward Avenue Action Associations dedicated to Transit Oriented Development. The goal is to make Woodward "transit ready" with the idea of eventually extending the light rail up to Maple. Not only is she on the task force, but the mayor pro-tem of Birmingham is on it, elected officials of all but one of the community south of birmingham are on it [[including most mayors), the zoo has representation, as does MDOT. You can find out more information on the effort here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I know the city planning chief for Birmingham, and she has told me that Birmingham govt. would be very receptive to light rail as far north as Birmingham.

I was a little surprised. As a resident of the area, I think there would be resistance, especially among older folks.

I can tell you that the movie theatres in downtown Birmingham draw a ton of complaints about the "wrong element" congregating during summer weekends. I can't imagine the reaction among these folks if there were a light rail speeding teenage folks from 7 Mile to these theatres.

---

Those teenagers are going to get there one way or another. That's no reason to stop the train. Personally, I would like to see it go all the way to Pontiac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackie5275

Those teenagers are going to get there one way or another. That's no reason to stop the train. Personally, I would like to see it go all the way to Pontiac.

---

I don't think the light rail would ever go to Pontiac. Maple Road is the furthest north possibility.

The problem is Bloomfield Hills. The city refuses to fund SMART, and has never allowed any bus stops in its history. They even refuse to install sidewalks or bike paths anywhere [[Cranbrook built a few on their land).

If they don't allow buses to stop, there's no way they will ever allow a rail line to pass through, even if there were no Bloomfield stops.

They don't want outsiders passing through, and they don't want to pay for anything [[they don't even pay for library services). Beautiful homes and a fancy city [[richest city in the Midwest, I think), but no way will it ever be receptive to public transit.

"If they don't allow buses to stop, there's no way they will ever allow a rail line to pass through, even if there were no Bloomfield stops."

How does Bloomfield Hills have the ability to stop a commuter train from passing through the city? It's not like this is even a new idea. SEMTA used to run commuter trains from Pontiac to Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

"How does Bloomfield Hills have the ability to stop a commuter train from passing through the city? It's not like this is even a new idea. SEMTA used to run commuter trains from Pontiac to Detroit.

---

Commuter trains are totally different from light rail. Bloomfield Hills would have no jurisdiction over the national freight rail network, which is managed by the feds.

They would, however, obviously have a say in whether or not their main street were torn up for an urban rail line.

And, even if you could somehow get the thing built, what would be the point of such an investment if it were just passsing through? Hundreds of millions invested, and then 5-6 miles skipped through Bloomfield Township [[which would also raise hell) and Bloomfield Hills?

IMO, better to go where folks will be more receptive.

Transit needs relatively dense housing in the areas around stops. Once you get out to suburbia, you start to lose the urban density that makes transit work. People have to walk from the stop to their destination, which should not be too far away.

So historic neighborhoods are already designed for transit, suburban neighborhoods are designed wrong for transit.

bloomfield hills is not very receptive to light rail. however, a point of clarification; MDOT owns Woodward [[it's a state trunkline) and could hypothetically install light rail without their input. i imagine it would be in the form of simply passing through with no stops...

Bloomfield Hills is not set up to utilize mass transit. Even if you were to run it out there, it doesn't really have the density nor the framework to use the mode to its fullest. Installing light rail in the Bloomies is about as useful as putting an odometer on a wheelbarrow.

What does it cost to fund the People Mover each year? I lived in downtown Detroit for 12 years from the '80s to '01, in Corktown and Lafayette Park. I probably rode the People Mover a dozen times in those years. It should have been built on street level to add some utility and charm to downtown Detroit.
I lived in San Diego in recent years and in a neighborhood where the San Diego Trolley passed through downtown La Mesa. San Diego did it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Publican

What does it cost to fund the People Mover each year?

---

The annual operating budget is about $13 million, and about $6.2 million of that comes from the City general fund.