There's been talk about rapid transit on Woodward for years. But what about Gratiot?

[Junjie]

We couldn't even get Woodward light rail to 8 mile, why the hell are we even talking about another line on another street? Let's try and get M1 running up to 8 Mile/Royal Oak and then consider expansion. Plus, as was mentioned in a previous post, Michigan Ave makes WAY more sense then going up Gratiot on the east side. You'd need bulletproof glass and armed guards on the train. The east side needs to stabilize before we go that route.

M1 and this aren't really related.

M1 is a mostly private effort [[with some government help) to build a streetcar to New Center. That's it.

This is a public effort under the regional Rapid Transit Authority to implement rapid transit on all three of Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward. A system, if you will. It will require asking voters for money in Fall 2016, and it's 100% guaranteed to be "rapid" buses, not rail, because the way the RTA was created by the Michigan legislature sets up special barriers to building rail at all.

[mikeg19]

M1 and this aren't really related.

M1 is a mostly private effort [[with some government help) to build a streetcar to New Center. That's it.

This is a public effort under the regional Rapid Transit Authority to implement rapid transit on all three of Gratiot, Michigan, and Woodward. A system, if you will. It will require asking voters for money in Fall 2016, and it's 100% guaranteed to be "rapid" buses, not rail, because the way the RTA was created by the Michigan legislature sets up special barriers to building rail at all.

I think some people in the post are referring strictly to rail and others to rapid transit. I was referring strictly to the rail topic. Sorry for any confusion.

[Junjie]

I think some people in the post are referring strictly to rail and others to rapid transit. I was referring strictly to the rail topic. Sorry for any confusion.

Gotcha, in that case agreed with your points.

[cramerro]

I think some people in the post are referring strictly to rail and others to rapid transit. I was referring strictly to the rail topic. Sorry for any confusion.

mikeg, the problem for me is that these are distinct matters that need to be distinguished. Yes, M1 Rail is a RAIL system... but it is not rapid. So why all the clamoring that we "need to run M1 up to Royal Oak before we add another corridor"... ? If M1 was extended, as designed, as a streetcar to Royal Oak it would probably take you about an hour to ride it there each way. Taking SMART or even DDOT would be faster and more effective.

These studies are looking at RAPID transit, rail or bus or subway for that matter, that changes the mobility picture along these corridors. With equal or better frequency and signficantly improved TRAVEL TIME, the RAPID part is the key word, not the 'rail'.

Also FWIW, Gratiot is the #2 highest ridership route in the region, and is SMART's #1 highest ridership route. While land use [[or lack thereof) may not be transit supportive for sections of Detroit, the corridor as a whole has an incredible amount of residential and commercial destinations AND it is a parallel/alternative corridor to the congested I-94.

[Junjie]

mikeg, the problem for me is that these are distinct matters that need to be distinguished. Yes, M1 Rail is a RAIL system... but it is not rapid. So why all the clamoring that we "need to run M1 up to Royal Oak before we add another corridor"... ? If M1 was extended, as designed, as a streetcar to Royal Oak it would probably take you about an hour to ride it there each way. Taking SMART or even DDOT would be faster and more effective.

These studies are looking at RAPID transit, rail or bus or subway for that matter, that changes the mobility picture along these corridors. With equal or better frequency and signficantly improved TRAVEL TIME, the RAPID part is the key word, not the 'rail'.

Also FWIW, Gratiot is the #2 highest ridership route in the region, and is SMART's #1 highest ridership route. While land use [[or lack thereof) may not be transit supportive for sections of Detroit, the corridor as a whole has an incredible amount of residential and commercial destinations AND it is a parallel/alternative corridor to the congested I-94.

Good point. Also to the land use thing, ideally rapid transit will also shift that over time. E.g. people and businesses will locate near transit once it is built [[over the long term), even if some areas are not intensely developed now. Transportation infrastructure is a form of planning.