Feds, Snyder kill Woodward Light Rail Line

[runnerXT]

The foreigners overseas who purchase american automobiles would look at the Big 3 as hypocrites if many people in the so-called Motor City are riding light rails and rapid busses instead of relying on cars. I had alway wondered why the people mover didn't go as far as the New Center area. A light rail could had went to 8 mile and businesses could had been developed within the downtown to 8 mile area of Woodward. Many people are worry about the suburbs not tagging along with the light rail project. Why can't we start it off by building it within the city limits first. The gas stations, car comapnies, and insurance companies in Michigan will lose a lot if high speed and light rail start to run in the city and state

Hyundia is the fourth largest auto company in the world and is headquarterd in Seoul South Korea.

Here is a map of Seoul's sunway system. This map is only the subway and does not include commuter trains and other trains.

[stasu1213]

Hyundia is the fourth largest auto company in the world and is headquarterd in Seoul South Korea.

Here is a map of Seoul's sunway system. This map is only the subway and does not include commuter trains and other trains.

I think that Seoul had the trains, subways and sunway system before they started getting into the car manufacturing business. China, Japan, and Korea have a different mindset than Detroit. They didn't sabatoge their mass transporation system to force their citizens to rely on the automobile.

[ghettopalmetto]

I think that Seoul had the trains, subways and sunway system before they started getting into the car manufacturing business. China, Japan, and Korea have a different mindset than Detroit. They didn't sabatoge their mass transporation system to force their citizens to rely on the automobile.

And what's your excuse for Munich and Stuttgart [[because I'm certain you have one)?

Face it. Detroit is NOT a world city. It can't even compete with smaller cities in its own country. An enormous part of that is the Third World transportation system. No amount of excuses is going to change that.

You're damn right Detroit has a different mindset than China, Japan, and Korea, and believe me--it shows.

[stasu1213]

And what's your excuse for Munich and Stuttgart [[because I'm certain you have one)?

Face it. Detroit is NOT a world city. It can't even compete with smaller cities in its own country. An enormous part of that is the Third World transportation system. No amount of excuses is going to change that.

You're damn right Detroit has a different mindset than China, Japan, and Korea, and believe me--it shows.

I know that Detroit is not a world class city. Never was. I don't know enough about Munich or Stuttgart. Munich has the U-Bahn. I don't know about Stuttgart. Germany has a subway or light rail as well as the AutoBahn. Germany didn't change from their mass transporation systems to busses after World War 2. They had rebuild or remodeled their U-Bahn and other trains and light rail that they have. It is the United States who had constructed Defense Highways during and after WWII. Detroit had dismantle it's street car systems in the 40's and 50's.. Wrong move for Detroit. Los Angeles, which has more cars on it's expressways still has a transit system. Detroit had always used the excuse of "suburbs not getting into the game" as an excuse for not having it's own light rail. I know that this city is strapped for cash today. What was the city's excuse for not having the People Mover run to New Center area or have a rail to go up Woodward to 8mile back in the 70's and 80s. Elected officials and planners probably had known for a couple of years that this city was millions probably billions of dollars in the whole. They had allowed hope of commuters and the business community to go high thinking that a light rail system going up Woodward was a done deal.I have a car for Ithe bus system in Detroit is lousy and had been for years.

[Scottathew]

I know that Detroit is not a world class city. Never was.

I disagree!

Detroit was world class back in the day. We had tons of rail cars. The city was bustling with people, jobs, and new skyscrapers.

[bartock]

I know this is a week old, and there are probably some strong opinions here about the author, but I thought this article put some things in nice perspective:

http://metrotimes.com/columns/don-t-...uses-1.1247709

[ghettopalmetto]

I know that Detroit is not a world class city. Never was.

You might want to check that information, lest you be accused of using it as an excuse for apathy. Ever hear of "Paris of the West"?

I don't know enough about Munich or Stuttgart. Munich has the U-Bahn. I don't know about Stuttgart. Germany has a subway or light rail as well as the AutoBahn. Germany didn't change from their mass transporation systems to busses after World War 2. They had rebuild or remodeled their U-Bahn and other trains and light rail that they have.

Munich is home to a company known as BMW. Stuttgart hosts a little outfit named Daimler-Benz. Yet each city has a transit system leagues beyond the inexcusable mess that Detroit offers. After World War II, it was the AMERICANS who helped rebuild German cities--including their transit systems--via the Marshall Plan, while we systematically dismantled our own cities in favor of cheap plastic construction in the cornfields.

What was the city's excuse for not having the People Mover run to New Center area or have a rail to go up Woodward to 8mile back in the 70's and 80s.

The DPM is an expensive, outdated, piece-of-shit technology, which is why only two cities accepted 100% federal funding to build them [[The other being Miami).

[ghettopalmetto]

I know this is a week old, and there are probably some strong opinions here about the author, but I thought this article put some things in nice perspective:

http://metrotimes.com/columns/don-t-...uses-1.1247709

I generally like Jack Lessenberry's writing, but in this piece, he comes off as a Kool-Aid guzzling buffoon. Less PR slant, more facts, please.

"Futuristic-looking buses that resemble train engines on wheels." [[OOOOH, Neato!)

Bus "Rapid" Transit is Detroit's version of the monorail from "The Simpsons". The last time Detroit blindly bought into something innovative like this, they got a stillborn single-track loop around the center of downtown, and now you can't even buy parts for the damned thing.

[Bham1982]

It's probably true that Detroit isn't a world-class city by most measures, but I think transit plays very little, if any role in this categorization.

Transportation is about mobility. Metro Detroit doesn't appear to be tougher to navigate than comparably sized cities. Now obviously the public transit is pathetic, but that's because the regional transportation centers around the overwhelming car ownership.

LA is undoubtedly a world class city but has pretty bad transit. Miami, Houston and Dallas are arguably world class cities, but have similar coverage as Detroit.

Pretty much every city in Western Europe has excellent transit, but only a few cities are truly world class. No one would call Essen or Toulose world-class, but the public transit is great.

[bartock]

I generally like Jack Lessenberry's writing, but in this piece, he comes off as a Kool-Aid guzzling buffoon. Less PR slant, more facts, please.

"Futuristic-looking buses that resemble train engines on wheels." [[OOOOH, Neato!)

Bus "Rapid" Transit is Detroit's version of the monorail from "The Simpsons". The last time Detroit blindly bought into something innovative like this, they got a stillborn single-track loop around the center of downtown, and now you can't even buy parts for the damned thing.

I thought it was a pretty well-reasoned article, though the futuristic-looking statement was a bit odd. The part I found most interesting is how far off even the bus thing is...as described, finding funding for its operations sounds like another political, city v. suburb shitstorm in the making.

"Did you say monorail?"

[ghettopalmetto]

Transportation is about mobility. Metro Detroit doesn't appear to be tougher to navigate than comparably sized cities.

Yeah, you tell that to a Detroiter without a car. See what happens.

LA is undoubtedly a world class city but has pretty bad transit. Miami, Houston and Dallas are arguably world class cities, but have similar coverage as Detroit.

All of those cities have far better transit than Detroit. And they all have rail systems to boot, I might add. Of those four above, Los Angeles and Dallas are investing billions in expansion of their rail transit systems.

While you make excuses, the rest of the world is moving forward.

[Bham1982]

Yeah, you tell that to a Detroiter without a car. See what happens.

This is true, but the fact is that almost all Metro Detroit households have cars. That's why I think the region doesn't really have worse mobility than other regions. It has excellent mobility for the 95% of folks with cars, and terrible mobility for the other 5%.

All of those cities have far better transit than Detroit.

I would definitely disagree. Certainly Miami, Dallas, and Houston don't have "far better" transit than Detroit. I don't see how someone could make such a claim. They don't have significantly better coverage or ridership.

And LA is a metro area of 17-18 million. Considering its size, I would say it has pretty awful transit. LA is so big you can only compare it to NYC, Tokyo, London, Paris, Moscow, and Mexico City.

LA has one subway line. It has very limited commuter rail service, which is pretty much only for weekday rush hours.

And LA didn't even have rail until maybe 20 years ago. It had already become a vast city, second only to NYC in the U.S., despite a lack of any rail service.

[ghettopalmetto]

This is true, but the fact is that almost all Metro Detroit households have cars. That's why I think the region doesn't really have worse mobility than other regions. It has excellent mobility for the 95% of folks with cars, and terrible mobility for the other 5%.

Where do you get these numbers? One-third of Detroit residents don't have access to an automobile. And when you have a "donut" region where the vast majority of jobs are in the suburbs, how do you propose these carless folks get to the jobs [[let alone in a reliable, timely fashion)?

Never mind the people who don't even bother considering employment in SE Michigan because they simply don't feel like being forced to drive everywhere [[see: Chicago).

I would definitely disagree. Certainly Miami, Dallas, and Houston don't have "far better" transit than Detroit. I don't see how someone could make such a claim. They don't have significantly better coverage or ridership.

DDOT averages 121,000 trips per weekday. SMART averages another 41,000, for a grand total of 162,000 unlinked transit trips per weekday in the region. For perspective, Cleveland's RTA [[which serves a single county, population 1.3 million) carries over 200,000 passengers per weekday. http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/5119.pdf
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/5031.pdf


Weekday transit ridership figures for the cities you have cited:

Miami: 317,000 [[does not include Tri-Rail commuter rail)http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/4034.pdf

Dallas: 205,000 [[does not include commuter rail)
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/6056.pdf

Houston: 278,000
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/6008.pdf

Los Angeles: 1.454 million [[does not include MetroLink commuter rail)
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/9154.pdf


The difference is, these cities are trying to increase transit ridership through construction of rail lines, and increasing development within walking distance of rail stations. Pick any large American city, and you'll find that they offer better transit service than Detroit.

LA has one subway line. It has very limited commuter rail service, which is pretty much only for weekday rush hours.

Los Angeles has two heavy-rail subway lines [[Red and Purple) and three light rail lines [[Blue, Green, and Gold). Currently under construction are:

1. the 8.5 mile Exposition Corridor light rail extension http://www.metro.net/projects/exposition/

2. the 11 mile Gold Line Foothill light rail extension http://www.metro.net/projects/foothill-extension/

In the planning stages is a 12-mile second phase of the Gold Line extension. The entirety of Detroit's transit plans consists of "futuristic-looking" buses, which is not even in the planning stages. It really speaks to the [[lack of) ambition and motivation of the entire region when it's not willing to invest in itself.

[BrushStart]

I know this is a week old, and there are probably some strong opinions here about the author, but I thought this article put some things in nice perspective:

http://metrotimes.com/columns/don-t-...uses-1.1247709

That was, by far, one of the stupidest assessments of the LRT/BRT debate I have read to date.

First, the discussion is as much about driving development and reining in sprawl as it is about mobility. BRT =/= LRT in terms of development.

Secondly, the notion that BRT and LRT must exist exclusively is moronic. It's not about having one or the other. If the State wants BRT for the metro area, it should be created in addition to LRT. Neither system is comprehensive by itself. That said, we already have buses. We have no rail.

Third, Woodward LRT would not be another "People Move up Woodward." It would be much longer, connect more destinations, and be useful to far more people. On top of that, the only reason the line terminated at 8 Mile Road is because our county leaders cannot cooperate. A full Woodward LRT line would be as useful and successful as any of the best LRT lines in the country, if not more so.

Fourth, there is absolutely no indication that BRT will happen. The federal money is based on the occurrence of unlikely preconditions that have never been overcome in this state before. My guess is that scrapping Woodward LRT effectively destroyed all transit plans for Metro Detroit for at least 30 years, if not longer.

[BrushStart]

It's probably true that Detroit isn't a world-class city by most measures, but I think transit plays very little, if any role in this categorization.

Transportation is about mobility. Metro Detroit doesn't appear to be tougher to navigate than comparably sized cities. Now obviously the public transit is pathetic, but that's because the regional transportation centers around the overwhelming car ownership.

LA is undoubtedly a world class city but has pretty bad transit. Miami, Houston and Dallas are arguably world class cities, but have similar coverage as Detroit.

Pretty much every city in Western Europe has excellent transit, but only a few cities are truly world class. No one would call Essen or Toulose world-class, but the public transit is great.

Another poster has already entirely dismantled your opinion on this topic, but I thought that I'd add that mass transportation infrastructure is a primary category in determining world cities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

[Novine]

"Pretty much every city in Western Europe has excellent transit, but only a few cities are truly world class. No one would call Essen or Toulose world-class, but the public transit is great."


Are we revisiting this again? Let's play the game called "name one world-class city without a working transit system". Anyone? Any city?

[stasu1213]

You might want to check that information, lest you be accused of using it as an excuse for apathy. Ever hear of "Paris of the West"?



Munich is home to a company known as BMW. Stuttgart hosts a little outfit named Daimler-Benz. Yet each city has a transit system leagues beyond the inexcusable mess that Detroit offers. After World War II, it was the AMERICANS who helped rebuild German cities--including their transit systems--via the Marshall Plan, while we systematically dismantled our own cities in favor of cheap plastic construction in the cornfields.



The DPM is an expensive, outdated, piece-of-shit technology, which is why only two cities accepted 100% federal funding to build them [[The other being Miami).

Germany had made sure that there transportation systems were rebuild. BMW, Volkswagon,and Damlier Benz are produced in Germany however, Germany is not a car dependent country unlike the U.S especially Michigan which is a car dependent state. We don't even have a light rail that would take you to the airport.

[ghettopalmetto]

"Pretty much every city in Western Europe has excellent transit, but only a few cities are truly world class. No one would call Essen or Toulose world-class, but the public transit is great."


Are we revisiting this again? Let's play the game called "name one world-class city without a working transit system". Anyone? Any city?

And that's the entire point. Even relative backwaters in Europe have far superior transportation networks than the majority of American cities--especially Detroit.

[stasu1213]

The Young administration and council of that time were very shortsighted by alowing the people mover to be constructed. The money could had been used to extend the rail for the trolley that was running that the time. The line could had been extended to the New Center Area with more cars placed on the line. The people mover was a waste of taxpayer's money.

[bartock]

That was, by far, one of the stupidest assessments of the LRT/BRT debate I have read to date.

First, the discussion is as much about driving development and reining in sprawl as it is about mobility. BRT =/= LRT in terms of development.

Secondly, the notion that BRT and LRT must exist exclusively is moronic. It's not about having one or the other. If the State wants BRT for the metro area, it should be created in addition to LRT. Neither system is comprehensive by itself. That said, we already have buses. We have no rail.

Third, Woodward LRT would not be another "People Move up Woodward." It would be much longer, connect more destinations, and be useful to far more people. On top of that, the only reason the line terminated at 8 Mile Road is because our county leaders cannot cooperate. A full Woodward LRT line would be as useful and successful as any of the best LRT lines in the country, if not more so.

Fourth, there is absolutely no indication that BRT will happen. The federal money is based on the occurrence of unlikely preconditions that have never been overcome in this state before. My guess is that scrapping Woodward LRT effectively destroyed all transit plans for Metro Detroit for at least 30 years, if not longer.

To your fourth comment, that is what I was getting at. There appear to be a significant number of political hurdles to overcome. But light rail would not have been any different, though, even if Snyder and Bing endorsed it.

I don't think that "the only reason" why light rail was going to be terminated at 8 mile is strictly due to county leaders. Even if the county leaders agreed on that at this point, "who's gonna pay" becomes the number one concern, and of course you'd have the same political/voter hurdles.

I agree with your second point, except your thing seems to be to build light rail first, and the rest around it, while Daddy USA seems to be saying if you want federal dollars, regionalize your transit and get BRT first. Now GhettoPalm and others - you included - probably have vastly superior knowledge than I do when it comes to mass transit, but it sure seems to me that this was more about the federal funds and where they wanted them to go than anything else. I think to say that metro Detroit "already has buses" is a bit disingenuous. From what I read here and elsewhere, it is a fractured, unmitigated failure of a system.

As to the first point, I don't know. Lessenberry obviously disagrees with you, but he's a stupidhead, I guess.

[stasu1213]

The situation would had been different if most of the jobs were inside of the city limits as well as major retail and grocery stores. An inadequate bus system probably would had been more tolerable. Detroit has an inadequate bus system, hardly no appliable jobs inside the city limits, no decent retail[[clothing or goods), and only one or two decent grocery stores to shop at.

[BrushStart]

To your fourth comment, that is what I was getting at. There appear to be a significant number of political hurdles to overcome. But light rail would not have been any different, though, even if Snyder and Bing endorsed it.

I don't think that "the only reason" why light rail was going to be terminated at 8 mile is strictly due to county leaders. Even if the county leaders agreed on that at this point, "who's gonna pay" becomes the number one concern, and of course you'd have the same political/voter hurdles.

I agree with your second point, except your thing seems to be to build light rail first, and the rest around it, while Daddy USA seems to be saying if you want federal dollars, regionalize your transit and get BRT first. Now GhettoPalm and others - you included - probably have vastly superior knowledge than I do when it comes to mass transit, but it sure seems to me that this was more about the federal funds and where they wanted them to go than anything else. I think to say that metro Detroit "already has buses" is a bit disingenuous. From what I read here and elsewhere, it is a fractured, unmitigated failure of a system.

As to the first point, I don't know. Lessenberry obviously disagrees with you, but he's a stupidhead, I guess.

The regional political issues are what has always stalled the development of regional transit. It was true when Gerald Ford was president, it was true in 70s and 80s. It is true today.

Had Snyder and Bing endorsed Woodward LRT, it would have been built. Snyder especially could have made other regional leaders fall in line. All of the extensive planning had been completed and paid for. The had feds delivered on the funding. The M1 group was ready to put their money up as well. Even many OC constituents favored Woodward LRT based on the surveys I read.

This is an enormous setback for Metro Detroit. Woodward LRT was a regional issue with regional consequences. Despite Detroit's financial woes, Metro Detroit is more than capable of funding such infrastructure. There are plenty of residents in the city, such as myself, who would have supported the rail line financially.

Woodward LRT would have been the central spine of Metro Detroit's transit system. It would have connected major regional destination areas. LRT definitely needed to be built before supporting BRT service made sense. BRT could have been phased in over time as SMART and DDOT routes were being phased out. Now, what do we have? The same terrible BS we've always had, less our hope for new development in a stagnating region.

[stasu1213]

The regional political issues are what has always stalled the development of regional transit. It was true when Gerald Ford was president, it was true in 70s and 80s. It is true today.

Had Snyder and Bing endorsed Woodward LRT, it would have been built. Snyder especially could have made other regional leaders fall in line. All of the extensive planning had been completed and paid for. The had feds delivered on the funding. The M1 group was ready to put their money up as well. Even many OC constituents favored Woodward LRT based on the surveys I read.

This is an enormous setback for Metro Detroit. Woodward LRT was a regional issue with regional consequences. Despite Detroit's financial woes, Metro Detroit is more than capable of funding such infrastructure. There are plenty of residents in the city, such as myself, who would have supported the rail line financially.

Woodward LRT would have been the central spine of Metro Detroit's transit system. It would have connected major regional destination areas. LRT definitely needed to be built before supporting BRT service made sense. BRT could have been phased in over time as SMART and DDOT routes were being phased out. Now, what do we have? The same terrible BS we've always had, less our hope for new development in a stagnating region.

The question is why haven't Snyder and Bing endorse the LRT? You had said that Snyder had the power to get the rest of the region to fall in line. Why hadn't he used that power? Who had secretly lobbied to put a stop to the developement of both projects. I say both projects for I don't think that the high speed rail from Michigan to Chicago is going to take off.

[BrushStart]

The question is why haven't Snyder and Bing endorse the LRT? You had said that Snyder had the power to get the rest of the region to fall in line. Why hadn't he used that power? Who had secretly lobbied to put a stop to the developement of both projects. I say both projects for I don't think that the high speed rail from Michigan to Chicago is going to take off.

I don't know who was secretly lobbying against it... I hope it wasn't Snyder and Bing. They're supposed to be transparent public servants elected by the people. Both made many statements showing their support for light rail. They even made appearances with Ray LaHood. I don't think it was the M1 consortium given their response to the government's decision.

Whatever happened in the days leading up to LRT being canceled is a complete mystery to everyone but a few people in the know. In any event, I think the people of Metro Detroit were [[a) deceived, and [[b) screwed over once again by the shortsighted powers that be.

[cramerro]

The regional political issues are what has always stalled the development of regional transit. It was true when Gerald Ford was president, it was true in 70s and 80s. It is true today.

Had Snyder and Bing endorsed Woodward LRT, it would have been built. Snyder especially could have made other regional leaders fall in line. All of the extensive planning had been completed and paid for. The had feds delivered on the funding. The M1 group was ready to put their money up as well. Even many OC constituents favored Woodward LRT based on the surveys I read.

This is an enormous setback for Metro Detroit. Woodward LRT was a regional issue with regional consequences. Despite Detroit's financial woes, Metro Detroit is more than capable of funding such infrastructure. There are plenty of residents in the city, such as myself, who would have supported the rail line financially.

Woodward LRT would have been the central spine of Metro Detroit's transit system. It would have connected major regional destination areas. LRT definitely needed to be built before supporting BRT service made sense. BRT could have been phased in over time as SMART and DDOT routes were being phased out. Now, what do we have? The same terrible BS we've always had, less our hope for new development in a stagnating region.

LRT is a different animal than BRT, and would obviously have a greater impact in development and revitlaization along its route. However, several of the posts here and the critics have some valid points that starting with BRT has its benefits - and you are supporting them in your post. I don't think anyone, except BHam, is saying that LRT should NOT happen and wouldn't be great.

1. The Woodward LRT would not have "connected major regional destination areas." Phase 1 is Downtown to New Center. Phase 2 extends to 8 Mile. At best, you could argue that Downtown, Midtown, and New Center are 'regional destination' areas, but they are only 4 miles apart, and would require all the people going to them to drive to Woodward to get on the LRT. The BRT system allows people along the network to actually be connected to the entire Woodward corridor, including the Zoo, Ferndale, RO, BHam, Pontiac, and the airport to boot, not to mention all the other employment and entertainment detsinations along the rest of the BRT network. We don't even have a state fair anymore, so you can't claim those 2 weeks as a regional destination at the 8 Mile end.

2. Do you understand how L Brooks Patterson works? I thought you did at first, but to say that Bing and Snyder could have simply made the rest of the region line up to pay for this thing totally contradicts your claim just one sentence earlier: "Regional political issues are... still true today." To build on point 1, the LRT was not regional, connected, or an equitable distribution of the costs or benefits of this huge investment for the region. To add that for a LONG time a City department was going to run it gives some creedence to hesitation that we can just add more track on the end to make it 'regional' [[read=connecting to Birmingham). Once the BRT is successful, LRT funding and support locally and from the Feds actually makes sense. Maybe we're lucky and the M1 group finds a way to build the 4 mile part in the mean time.

3. The economy for the whole region stinks. Detroit is the worst, but most communities are raising taxes and cutting staff just to try and maintain current levels of service. The region is capable of funding a regional system, whether is be with a tax, fees, or whatever. We can bring our per capita funding up into the lower-middle from the rock-bottom among major cities. But if all you have to show someone deciding to vote on this tax for the first 10 years of collections is a streetcar/LRT line from Downtown to the edge of the city, you're not going to get approval. For about 40 years now, more of the metro population has lived outside the city limits than inside - getting close to more of a 4:1 ratio these days. Even if all of the residents of the city 'supported the rail financially' as you have pledged, farebox never amounts to a significant portion of transit revenues. Detroit would have been paying off bonds for decades while the rest of the system literally broke down for lack of preventive maintenance funding.

Hopefully this BRT can get running sooner than later, and hopefully you're not implying that you won't use it out of spite for the delayed/failed LRT line. There is still a real chance that this step is just a realignment of priorities/phases toward regional transit and not the last nail in the coffin.