Should the Regional Transit Authority leave those behind that don't want transit?

**Tig3rzhark** · May-13-17, 04:03 PM

Column: What's next for regional transit

If certain counties in metro Detroit don't want transit, the rest of the region should move forward with out them, writes Megan Owens of Transportation Riders United.

Check out this story on Freep.com: http://on.freep.com/2qyfMbc

**brizee** · May-13-17, 11:03 PM

When the RTA legislation initially passed in the 11th hour, there was an amendment by an Ann Arbor state legislator for just such a possibility.

It would have allowed either county[[ies) specific taxes or allowed the portions of the plan to be implemented in the places that actually passed. I'm a little fuzzy on the exact wording.

The amendment obviously went nowhere and it's all or nothing.

Just another poison pill just like unanimous voting for rail projects.

**Atticus** · May-14-17, 07:26 AM

This can go both ways. Say transit gains a few percentage points in popularity over the next few years... and the RTA passes over the four counties.

Should that happen, you will see the Trump voters in Macomb county likely swap sides and jump on the bandwagon to be "left behind and left out" in order to pay less taxes. Sort of an opt out scenario... so be careful what you wish for.

**313WX** · May-14-17, 08:46 AM

Why is she being coy about it?

We all know "certain counties" is in reality "Macomb County."

I swear, Michigan would be 100 times better off without it.

**313WX** · May-14-17, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by Atticus

This can go both ways. Say transit gains a few percentage points in popularity over the next few years... and the RTA passes over the four counties.

Should that happen, you will see the Trump voters in Macomb county likely swap sides and jump on the bandwagon to be "left behind and left out" in order to pay less taxes. Sort of an opt out scenario... so be careful what you wish for.

The sad irony about it is I understand it was voters from Macomb County who were protesting the launch of the Q-Line.

They want mass transit for themselves, yet they don't want to pay for it. You can't make that shit up.

**Junjie** · May-14-17, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Atticus

This can go both ways. Say transit gains a few percentage points in popularity over the next few years... and the RTA passes over the four counties.

Should that happen, you will see the Trump voters in Macomb county likely swap sides and jump on the bandwagon to be "left behind and left out" in order to pay less taxes. Sort of an opt out scenario... so be careful what you wish for.

Agreed. I think people are feeling way too beaten down by all the failures over the years, or maybe just aren't too aware of public transit efforts in other cities, and are taking the RTA vote way too hard. Regroup, improve the plan/outreach, and this WILL pass in a future year.

1. The vote was razor-thin - literally 50.5% to 49.5%. Swing 0.6% and you win the vote.

2. 2016 was a bad year for Democrats in Michigan. If Bernie, Biden, or pretty much anyone else had been on the ticket, this would have passed.

3. In most other cities, it takes multiple efforts to get these kinds of initiatives off the ground. Seattle had a bunch of failed votes, until they didn't. It's a process of education and outreach. Failure on the first attempt doesn't mean the whole thing is doomed.

Don't be in such a rush to declare the whole thing a failure when rewriting to exclude Macomb would probably just mean abolishing the RTA and needing to write entirely new legislation, which was a heavy enough lift to begin with.

**Jason** · May-14-17, 04:34 PM

I think the problem with transit in general is that it's political and bureaucratic, and the more groups you involve and the more sources of money you try to get, the harder it becomes.

If Royal Oak, Ferndale, and Highland Park, who would distinctly benefit from extending the QLine, each ponied up about $50 million, and Detroit did about $100 million, you could extend it to Royal Oak without having to deal with counties or the state or the federal government or any of their expectations or hoop jumping. I don't know one way or the other about Highland Park but I think the people of Royal Oak and Ferndale would support that.

**professorscott** · May-14-17, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Jason

I think the problem with transit in general is that it's political and bureaucratic, and the more groups you involve and the more sources of money you try to get, the harder it becomes.

If Royal Oak, Ferndale, and Highland Park, who would distinctly benefit from extending the QLine, each ponied up about $50 million, and Detroit did about $100 million, you could extend it to Royal Oak without having to deal with counties or the state or the federal government or any of their expectations or hoop jumping. I don't know one way or the other about Highland Park but I think the people of Royal Oak and Ferndale would support that.

This is not even remotely possible, not even in a fantasy world. The largest of the three suburban communities, Royal Oak, only allocated $36 million and change to their entire general fund budget for 2016-17, and their entire budget - most of which is locked into specific types of expenditures and can't be diverted - is probably less than $75 million. Ferndale is much smaller so the numbers will be proportionately less. Highland Park could no more come up with fifty million dollars than I can flap my arms and fly.

This has not happened because it is not quick and easy, and there are no magic-pill solutions. The RTA has to go back to the voters, and not be idiotic enough to do so during a big general election.

**Bham1982** · May-14-17, 07:16 PM

Highland Park couldn't come up with $50, to say nothing of $50 million.

And you would need approval from Pleasant Ridge, Huntington Woods and Berkley, none of which are sure bets, as these communities are either entirely residential or their retail cores are well off Woodward.

**casscorridor** · May-16-17, 11:50 AM

What about land value tax [[as opposed to property tax) with the money funneled back into transport infrastructure? This would encourage higher densities and make transport more viable while also sustaining future investments.

**ndavies** · May-16-17, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

What about land value tax [[as opposed to property tax) with the money funneled back into transport infrastructure? This would encourage higher densities and make transport more viable while also sustaining future investments.

How would that work considering land without structures is the cheapest? Land on the outskirts of town also has way less value than an empty lot in the city. How does this differ from a property tax which is also based on the total value of the property?

**Tig3rzhark** · May-16-17, 05:24 PM

If anyone is thinking that regional transit isn't worth funding, people who do have those cars, will have plenty to think about behind the wheel as they spend the next 12 years finding a way past the I-75 construction, as well as thinking about the likehood of getting into a lot of accidents with people who can't even drive and are still behind the wheel because they have no choice but to be.

**dtowncitylover** · May-17-17, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

If anyone is thinking that regional transit isn't worth funding, people who do have those cars, will have plenty to think about behind the wheel as they spend the next 12 years finding a way past the I-75 construction, as well as thinking about the likehood of getting into a lot of accidents with people who can't even drive and are still behind the wheel because they have no choice but to be.

Which is why a 2018 vote would be nice because it's right in the thick of the construction schedule and while facts and figures should be used to woo voters, another tag line could be, "So how did you like sitting in traffic on I-75 all summer long?"

**swingline** · May-17-17, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Jason

I think the problem with transit in general is that it's political and bureaucratic, and the more groups you involve and the more sources of money you try to get, the harder it becomes.

If Royal Oak, Ferndale, and Highland Park, who would distinctly benefit from extending the QLine, each ponied up about $50 million, and Detroit did about $100 million, you could extend it to Royal Oak without having to deal with counties or the state or the federal government or any of their expectations or hoop jumping. I don't know one way or the other about Highland Park but I think the people of Royal Oak and Ferndale would support that.

The QLine is not going to be extended north on Woodward Ave. There is no debate about this question. The QLine is not mass transit. It is a streetcar. In any American city, a streetcar's low speed precludes any ability to efficiently move riders more than about 5 miles. The only way to gain an improved mass transit connection between Detroit and the South Woodward communities of Oakland County is via BRT or light rail. The federal government has advised that it will not fund the latter.

**dtowncitylover** · May-17-17, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by swingline

The QLine is not going to be extended north on Woodward Ave. There is no debate about this question. The QLine is not mass transit. It is a streetcar. In any American city, a streetcar's low speed precludes any ability to efficiently move riders more than about 5 miles. The only way to gain an improved mass transit connection between Detroit and the South Woodward communities of Oakland County is via BRT or light rail. The federal government has advised that it will not fund the latter.

LOL ok didn't realize you were the final authority. There is a debate about it considering it's being talked about even by the big wigs. You are confused the terms rapid transit and mass transit. Streetcars are a component of a mass transit system, streetcars are NOT rapid transit nor has anyone ever in the 10 years of M1 Rail claimed they were. Streetcars can provide a complimentary short-distance service to cars and buses.

I do agree that streetcars typically are between 5-10 miles in length. It could make it up to Royal Oak, but I just don't see it happening. Manchester Parkway or 8 Mile yes, but very unlikely any further.

**iheartthed** · May-17-17, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

LOL ok didn't realize you were the final authority. There is a debate about it considering it's being talked about even by the big wigs. You are confused the terms rapid transit and mass transit. Streetcars are a component of a mass transit system, streetcars are NOT rapid transit nor has anyone ever in the 10 years of M1 Rail claimed they were. Streetcars can provide a complimentary short-distance service to cars and buses.

I do agree that streetcars typically are between 5-10 miles in length. It could make it up to Royal Oak, but I just don't see it happening. Manchester Parkway or 8 Mile yes, but very unlikely any further.

If the line goes to Royal Oak then it would be one of the longest street car lines in the world. Downtown to Royal Oak would be about 14 miles. From what I'm able to see on Google, the longest street car line is just over 15 miles.

I think it would be quite ridiculous to prioritize extending the Q to RO, when there are much better and cheaper alternatives to connect RO to the city via mass transit. The priority for M1 system should be building out other lines within the Blvd loop. I don't really see a practical need for the Q to go beyond Highland Park in the foreseeable future.

**professorscott** · May-17-17, 11:45 AM

There are several pieces of information on this thread that could use clarification.

First, the Federal government has never said that it will not fund light rail in Detroit. The Federal Transit Administration does not forecast projects in the abstract. Once a region submits a proposal for funding, it is evaluated and compared to other projects based on well-known and published criteria.

Second, and they have said this repeatedly, M1 Rail is not going to build additional streetcar track anywhere. M1 Rail is entirely focused on operating the QLine, as it is now configured, until somebody else is in a position to absorb it. If anyone is going to extend the current streetcar line or build additional streetcar tracks, or light rail tracks or anything, that would be great, but it won't be M1 Rail.

Third, the difference between "light rail" and "streetcar" is almost entirely operational. The vehicles operating the QLine now can be used in either situation. What makes the streetcar a streetcar is, literally, that it is operating in the street among traffic. If you built the same exact system, but physically separated from the road and with railroad crossing signaling and controls at cross-streets, then it's light rail. [[Technically speaking a streetcar is a type of light rail, but most people don't see it that way, so I'll keep with the colloquial usage here.)

You could build a streetcar to go anywhere a bus goes; the question is why would you do that. Light rail, in the separated mode that most people think of, works better over distances just because it's faster. Whether you build a streetcar or light rail from downtown to Royal Oak mostly depends on where you can put tracks, which means it's probably either a streetcar or nothing at all. And a streetcar to Royal Oak? Why not? Give it its own lanes for as much of the distance as you can.

But since the RTA failed and nobody has any money to do anything but fantasize in blogs, this is just pie-in-the-sky anyway. What we have for the foreseeable future are two bus systems that don't work very well together, the PeopleMover which doesn't work very well with either of those, and a streetcar that doesn't work very well with any of the above. [[I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect it's "no": can you get a transfer from a bus to the streetcar or the reverse?)

For almost no money at all you could fix the poor cooperation, but nobody seems to be able to even do that. But, there's nothing wrong with fantasizing.

**iheartthed** · May-17-17, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by professorscott

You could build a streetcar to go anywhere a bus goes; the question is why would you do that. Light rail, in the separated mode that most people think of, works better over distances just because it's faster. Whether you build a streetcar or light rail from downtown to Royal Oak mostly depends on where you can put tracks, which means it's probably either a streetcar or nothing at all. And a streetcar to Royal Oak? Why not? Give it its own lanes for as much of the distance as you can.

Priorities would be a good reason not to. Detroit is still extremely limited in rail transit options and there is far more potential to putting that energy into expanding the rail system in other directions instead of north. It would be foolish to prioritize extending a single line to Royal Oak and not have plans for lines along Michigan Avenue or Jefferson.

If connecting Royal Oak to this system is a priority then doesn't it make more sense to implement some commuter rail system? Don't the heavy rail tracks already exist between Royal Oak and New Center?

**Bham1982** · May-17-17, 01:35 PM

Why would Royal Oak be such a huge priority anyways? Royal Oak's core isn't on Woodward anyways, and, if anything, it sort of competes with the stuff on Woodward in Detroit.

Don't see why it would be some overriding regional transit priority.

**313WX** · May-17-17, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by professorscott

First, the Federal government has never said that it will not fund light rail in Detroit. The Federal Transit Administration does not forecast projects in the abstract. Once a region submits a proposal for funding, it is evaluated and compared to other projects based on well-known and published criteria.

To add to your statement, what the Federal Government said specifically is that they wouldn't fund the construction of a light rail project in Detroit without the city & region having a dedicated revenue source to support its operation [[I.E. a millage).

They told us the exact same thing when we were fighting over the same crap back in the 70s / 80s and ended up with the People Mover.

That was the whole purpose of establishing the RTA and putting this initiative on the ballot in the last election.

**ABetterDetroit** · May-17-17, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

To add to your statement, what the Federal Government said specifically is that they wouldn't fund the construction of a light rail project in Detroit without the city & region having a dedicated revenue source to support its operation [[I.E. a millage).

They told us the exact same thing when we were fighting over the same crap back in the 70s / 80s and ended up with the People Mover.

That was the whole purpose of establishing the RTA and putting this initiative on the ballot in the last election.

"[[I.E. a millage)" huh what? Nowhere anywhere do the Feds require a millage to contribute towards a public transport system.

That is NOT how the large majority of public transportation systems in the United States of America are funded on the local level.

https://www.thoughtco.com/basics-of-...unding-2798674

**313WX** · May-18-17, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

"[[I.E. a millage)" huh what? Nowhere anywhere do the Feds require a millage to contribute towards a public transport system.

That is NOT how the large majority of public transportation systems in the United States of America are funded on the local level.

https://www.thoughtco.com/basics-of-...unding-2798674

It was simply an example of a dedicated revenue source. I don't care how transit is funded elsewhere, but merely how it would have been funded here. BTW, had the initiative in the last election passed, it would have generated around $3 billion over a 20-year period to only be used for transit.

The articles are below. And to remind you, the *ONLY* reason the Q-Line received federal funding is because Dan Gilbert / Roger Penske agreed to subsidize its operations with their own dollars.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...days-to-answer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1679823.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/...l_results.html

**ABetterDetroit** · May-18-17, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

It was simply an example of a dedicated revenue source. I don't care how transit is funded elsewhere, but merely how it would have been funded here. BTW, had the initiative in the last election passed, it would have generated around $3 billion over a 20-year period to only be used for transit.

The articles are below. And to remind you, the *ONLY* reason the Q-Line received federal funding is because Dan Gilbert / Roger Penske agreed to subsidize its operations with their own dollars.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...days-to-answer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1679823.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/...l_results.html

I know it's a Michigan thing.

Ignoring and not caring what is working good elsewhere then dream up some Fucked up way of doing something then when that fails do nothing.

**professorscott** · May-18-17, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If connecting Royal Oak to this system is a priority then doesn't it make more sense to implement some commuter rail system? Don't the heavy rail tracks already exist between Royal Oak and New Center?

The tracks exist but you can't use them without the owner's position. That has been holding up the Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter rail project for over a decade now, and I'm sure they'd run into the same problem trying to resurrect commuter rail between Pontiac and Detroit.

**Tig3rzhark** · May-18-17, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by professorscott

The tracks exist but you can't use them without the owner's position. That has been holding up the Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter rail project for over a decade now, and I'm sure they'd run into the same problem trying to resurrect commuter rail between Pontiac and Detroit.

It looks like there's going to be a war between Amtrak, and all of the freight train companies to get a commuter rail project started.

Considering the history of the metro Detroit's politics, I'm pretty realistic that it may take many years for such a project to happen.

Politics in Oakland and Macomb county would have to change for the better and the only chance we have for it to change to support the RTA, would be to play at the construction projects and the years of long traffic that are on the horizon. We could play at the reality that should the RTA's proposal fail a second time even with some modifications to satisfy these counties, that their future will be spent waiting in long traffic for the next 12 years.