Feds, Snyder kill Woodward Light Rail Line

**Novine** · December-13-11, 08:53 PM

"The ambitious plan for a light rail line on Woodward Avenue between downtown Detroit and 8 Mile road has been scrapped in favor of a system of high-speed city and suburban buses, several officials briefed on the decision told the Free Press today."

Link to full Article

**rondinjp** · December-13-11, 08:56 PM

I give up. This city just plain sucks.

**Signman** · December-14-11, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by rondinjp

I give up. This city just plain sucks.

That was your final straw?

**dtowncitylover** · December-13-11, 09:03 PM

It's disgusting and shameful.

**Bham1982** · December-13-11, 09:04 PM

I think, in the long run, this will be very good news. In terms of mobility, light rail offers no advantages over buses.

Light rail's relative advantages have nothing to do with mobility, which is why it was primarily conceived as another urban renewal project, rather than a transportation project.

**ProudMidwesterner** · December-13-11, 09:14 PM

This hurts, but honestly, I thought the EFM takeover jeopardized the light rail line. Still, I'm much more of a light rail fan than more rapid bus lines.

Is the SEMCOG line from Ann Arbor still set to go?

**j to the jeremy** · December-13-11, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by ProudMidwesterner

This hurts, but honestly, I thought the EFM takeover jeopardized the light rail line. Still, I'm much more of a light rail fan than more rapid bus lines.

Is the SEMCOG line from Ann Arbor still set to go?

The SEMCOG line...that's a funny joke.......

fuck snyder. fuck bing. neither deserve capital letters.

**Richard** · December-13-11, 09:18 PM

Part of urban renewal is progressive transportation .

**Bham1982** · December-13-11, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by Richard

Part of urban renewal is progressive transportation .

I disagree.

What is the "problem" that is solved by such a transportation investment?

Is it revitalizing Woodward for yuppies and hipsters? If so, light rail is a no-brainer.

Or is it mobility for Detroiters? If so, then buses are a no-brainer.

Most Detroiters work in the suburbs, and so buses provide the superior flexibility for regional jobs access. Light rail can't compete, especially in such a dispersed region. You would need 20 rail lines to provide halfway decent access to job centers.

**j to the jeremy** · December-13-11, 09:28 PM

Sounds to me like LaHood couldn't convince Snyder to force L. Brooks Patterson to sign onto an RTA. So there would have been no way to operate the rail. Now we get a system of Snyder buses which will either require an RTA, or be worse than what we have now. Any regional transit whatsoever will never be useful to working people without a regional tax. If you don't believe me, ask every major metropolitan area in the USA. SMART is dying because of the Opt-out policy, and DDOT is dying because the city's tax base has completely eroded.

**ProudMidwesterner** · December-13-11, 09:28 PM

But what light rail can do is provide rapid transit in its own right of way on a major axis, thus providing an efficient backbone for a network of buses. Look at the Hiawatha line in Minneapolis.

As for the SEMCOG line, pardon me as a non-Detroiter, but has that fallen by the wayside as well?

**j to the jeremy** · December-13-11, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by ProudMidwesterner

But what light rail can do is provide rapid transit in its own right of way on a major axis, thus providing an efficient backbone for a network of buses. Look at the Hiawatha line in Minneapolis.

As for the SEMCOG line, pardon me as a non-Detroiter, but has that fallen by the wayside as well?

Right you are sir. The Woodward line would have greatly benefited the bus system as a whole.

The SEMCOG line to A2 has been off the table, informally, for a while now.

**Bham1982** · December-13-11, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by ProudMidwesterner

But what light rail can do is provide rapid transit in its own right of way on a major axis, thus providing an efficient backbone for a network of buses.

This is true, except BRT can do the exact same thing, except much cheaper, and doesn't require transfers as with light rail.

With BRT, you could board downtown, and go to Somerset, Twelve Oaks, or Hall Road job centers without transfers. This would be impossible with light rail. So Sally Smith who lives in Detroit works at WalMart in Troy will benefit from a faster, more direct commute than with light rail.

If, however, the primary intent is to build up downtown [[rather than provide regional mobility), then I totally agree that light rail is a vastly superior choice. Fixed rail will assist spatial concentration.

**Novine** · December-13-11, 09:30 PM

Not highlighted in the article is who's going to pay for the magical, mystery bus system that Snyder wants to impose on the region? It alludes to the various players in the county getting behind the system and legislation coming down the road. Where's the money that's going to fund the operation of this system and who's going to run the system?

**iheartthed** · December-13-11, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I disagree.

What is the "problem" that is solved by such a transportation investment?

Is it revitalizing Woodward for yuppies and hipsters? If so, light rail is a no-brainer.

Or is it mobility for Detroiters? If so, then buses are a no-brainer.

Most Detroiters work in the suburbs, and so buses provide the superior flexibility for regional jobs access. Light rail can't compete, especially in such a dispersed region. You would need 20 rail lines to provide halfway decent access to job centers.

Whatever man. Last week I met the president of the company that is developing the Hudson Yards project in Manhattan [[I'm sure you know a little about this...). He said that project was a non-starter without NYC committing to extending the 7 line to the west side. To paraphrase his words "it won't work without making sure you have the transit in place. London learned this the hard way with Canary Wharf." Buses already run to the far west side of Manhattan, and have done so for many decades. It's about the transit.

**R8RBOB** · December-13-11, 09:59 PM

While reading this story I saw this

Bing’s office wouldn’t release details of the discussions, but said the mayor and LaHood agreed that the city, where more than 60% of residents with jobs work in the suburbs, would be better served by high-speed buses instead of rail, said Bing spokesman Dan Lijana.

60% of residents work outside the city!!! It is not surprising why Detroit is always being pissed on. All the industries are outside the city and this led Bing and LaHood to decided that super-buses taking the poor citizens of Detroit to the suburbs would be the best course of action. Wait, the region has two piss-poor bus systems hanging on by a thread. Only in Detroit.

I will be dead before Detroit is a world-class city again. It will not happen in my lifetime. No way in hell.

**Bham1982** · December-13-11, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Whatever man. Last week I met the president of the company that is developing the Hudson Yards project in Manhattan [[I'm sure you know a little about this...). He said that project was a non-starter without NYC committing to extending the 7 line to the west side.

Hudson Yards, when fully completed, will possibly be the densest concentration of jobs on earth. It's basically the anti-Metro Detroit in terms of spatial jobs concentration.

If Detroit had a similar spatial jobs pattern, I would definitely support heavy rail. But we have a massively dispersed jobs market that is [[IMO) best suited for flexible mobility.

**Richard** · December-13-11, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I disagree.

What is the "problem" that is solved by such a transportation investment?

Is it revitalizing Woodward for yuppies and hipsters? If so, light rail is a no-brainer.

Or is it mobility for Detroiters? If so, then buses are a no-brainer.

Most Detroiters work in the suburbs, and so buses provide the superior flexibility for regional jobs access. Light rail can't compete, especially in such a dispersed region. You would need 20 rail lines to provide halfway decent access to job centers.

I respect your views but in some cases a rail project like that would serve every class including tourists that would also visit and spend dollars in the future Woodward shops. Private dollars were behind the push because implmenting the light rail even more so in Detroits case would send a strong message of moving forward . It is a bit more then a 10 million dollar a year facade. Or as simple as I did not get my bridge you do not get your rail. But anyways the whole bus thing was actually announced a couple of months back so no supprise even more so if they are provided by GM.

**wolverine** · December-13-11, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I disagree.

What is the "problem" that is solved by such a transportation investment?

Is it revitalizing Woodward for yuppies and hipsters? If so, light rail is a no-brainer.

Or is it mobility for Detroiters? If so, then buses are a no-brainer.

Most Detroiters work in the suburbs, and so buses provide the superior flexibility for regional jobs access. Light rail can't compete, especially in such a dispersed region. You would need 20 rail lines to provide halfway decent access to job centers.

Light rail can create demand out of useless land. You create accessibility to higher density nodes with rapid transit. You shouldn't argue that transit is only about mobility, otherwise you'd have a bus stop on every block.

Please clarify what you want. Access to jobs in suburbs only, or supplemental systems of light rail to create a larger job center of professionals downtown and along major corridors. You can have both you know...

I will say BRT can work, especially in cross-corridor type of connections, though I doubt it will be a catalyst for larger investment and growth along main corridors. You're right, it solves the mobility problem though, but you certainly don't get much in return.

**President Sekou** · December-13-11, 10:07 PM

Really infuriating considering the City Council refused to cut nearly $4 million of their own budget yearly, yet this project is ending because the city cant afford $10mil a year to maintain it. Bring on the Receiver please

**Jowlska** · December-13-11, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I think, in the long run, this will be very good news. In terms of mobility, light rail offers no advantages over buses.

Light rail's relative advantages have nothing to do with mobility, which is why it was primarily conceived as another urban renewal project, rather than a transportation project.

Totally agree... As a daily bus commuter, light rail wouldn't have helped the system one bit. We need a working bus system before another failed people mover... For now I think that getting a direct bus to the airport or other regional destinations is a much higher priority. I hope they get this "high speed" bus thing rolling fast and once some operating costs/regional funding are figured out a light rail system should be addressed.

**begingri** · December-13-11, 10:01 PM

I really had some hope. I thought we'd finally pushed through. We had the seed money from private investors and the match the federal government. We were well on our way toward getting light rail. Enough factors were coming together for a unique arrangement that would finally get us light rail.

And now this.

Are you freaking kidding me? I give up on this whole damn metropolitan area. I really had considered sticking around. I am going to graduate right around the time the light rail was slated to open. I was thinking of moving downtown and becoming part of the ever-growing area, complete with mass transit. I don't care how overrated some people think Chicago is, when I graduate from my Master's program, I am heading out of this state.

**iheartthed** · December-13-11, 10:05 PM

This sucks for all of those speculators buying up those abandoned buildings along the formerly proposed light rail line....

**HistoryNotHisStory** · December-14-11, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by bham1982

i think, in the long run, this will be very good news. In terms of mobility, light rail offers no advantages over buses.

Light rail's relative advantages have nothing to do with mobility, which is why it was primarily conceived as another urban renewal project, rather than a transportation project.

it takes energy to run buses.
It takes energy to run light rail.

However, a light rail system runs on electricity [[the grid).

The buses runs on petroleum based fuels. Which has been cited by the scientific community and by opec and by the international energy association that the supplies of oil is depleting. Which means higher prices.

If southeast michigan invests in buses, they will be converted to electric rails in ten years due to the high cost of fuel.

Our leaders have no foresight!

**corktownyuppie** · December-14-11, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by HistoryNotHisStory

If southeast michigan invests in buses, they will be converted to electric rails in ten years due to the high cost of fuel.

Our leaders have no foresight!

I don't have as strong views as you do about the fuels issue, so I don't want to debate that. You are right that our leaders have no foresight.

Sometimes you need to sell people what they WANT, before they trust you enough to sell them what they ACTUALLY NEED.

If you're right that 10 years from now, people in all the suburbs realize that they really DO love transit but that buses are no longer efficient, then that's till better off where we are now, where it's like pulling teeth to get anyone even talking about transit. Yes will that cost more in the long run? Sure. But remember, you don't ever get to the long run if you don't get through the short run.