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

[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.