A judge is set to decide whether low-level radioactive material left over from the creation of the first atomic bomb can find its forever home in a metro Detroit landfill.

The state of New York wants to send about 6,000 cubic yards of tainted soil and 4,000 gallons of contaminated groundwater to a waste disposal site near Belleville, Michigan.

It’s one of a handful in the country licensed to dispose of such waste.

Communities near the site, including Canton Township, filed a lawsuit to stop shipments of the toxic material from New York.

Canton Township Supervisor Anne Marie Graham-Hudak says the suit kept those remnants of the Manhattan Project out of Michigan so far. But not other contaminated material.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Anne Marie Graham-Hudak: At this time, we still have this kind of waste coming into Michigan, whether it be into the injection well in Romulus or into the Wayne disposal site. But we’re hoping this lawsuit helps us launch some precedents to stop that.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: But the specific one from New York has not come yet?

AMH: No. And it was supposed to start coming basically in January. So we’re glad that we were able to stop it. We met with the judge, the hearing was in May and the judge is scheduled to make a ruling on July 2. We hope that happens. We’ve been working also with Michigan state Sen. Darrin Camilleri (D-Trenton) and state Rep. Reggie Miller (D-Van Buren Twp). They have two bills that are going to increase tipping fees, amongst many other things.

“The EPA were saying that this was safe. Our question was, ‘If this is so safe, why is it being moved? Why don’t you just mitigate it in place?’ And that’s still what we’re questioning.”

– Anne Marie Graham-Hudak, Canton Township supervisor

Our tipping fees are one of the lowest in the nation. We’re at roughly 36 cents a ton, so we’re basically inviting people to come dump into Michigan. In other states you’re looking at $13 a ton — that just exacerbates what we already have. And at some point our landfills will be full and we will be looking for other places. The Canton landfill maybe has five years left. The EPA were saying that this was safe. Our question was, “If this is so safe, why is it being moved? Why don’t you just mitigate it in place?” And that’s still what we’re questioning. Radioactive waste in the body is absorbed and it’s additive, so if you live near where they’re dumping it, that’s a problem.

Also, Michigan has 21% of the world’s fresh water, and we’re putting this in a dense area. They’ve got schools nearby. The groundwater takes it out to the Rouge River, which takes it to the Detroit River, which takes it out to the Great Lakes. So why are we even thinking of putting it there? Also, they’re going to store the waste in what they call “burritos.” They wrap the waste in these plastic burritos and then come here and bury it and put a cap on it. But they could not even guarantee that the plastic they’re going to wrap it in will match the half-life of some of this radioactive dirt. I’m a retired engineer. One of the things that I worked on before I left Ford Motor Company was electromagnetic radiation — that was actually one of my favorite classes in college. And they can’t guarantee how this waste will stay encompassed in this plastic. There’s no test on this plastic that had been done to see that. I think their guidelines are way too narrow. But they’re going to keep dumping it, which makes it additive, and it doesn’t go away. It’s a constant radiation.

QK: So you don’t trust what the agencies or the company are saying about this?

AMH: Correct. I do not trust it. I think some of the guidelines that have been made in Michigan, especially, are leaning more towards favoring companies. We’re an automotive area and we know that we’ve got PFAS. We know that, in the early days, automotive companies would dump (material.) There’s brownfields here for a reason, because companies dumped. And I really believe that some of our land is contaminated. I think our guidelines in Michigan are way too low. They protect companies more than they do our residents. This is a public health issue, it really is.

QK: So what remedy would you seek at this point?

AMH: That we stop this. State Sen. Darrin Camilleri’s bill actually states that we just stop everything from coming in. We do more studies and more testing. We do not allow any more radioactive waste to come into Michigan. We do not allow any more new sites to be established. I know a lot of the businesses are concerned about this, but if you look at it, even hospitals generate radioactive waste. They do X-rays, MRI’s, things like that. So how do we mitigate in place what we have instead of transporting it? I don’t think we should be transporting it. Quit thinking about kicking things down the road and saying, “Oh, hey, we’re just gonna keep doing this. We’re gonna keep making nuclear reactors and we’ll just keep burying it, not really thinking about what’s going to happen in the future.” I think that we’ve done that for too long and too haphazardly. Our limits need to be looked at. I think that they’re more pro-business than they are pro-public health. That is my biggest concern.

QK: So that’s what you would hope to have happen. You’ve been dealing with this issue for a while now. What do you think is within the realms of reality?

AMH: I think if we want it to be more in the business of reality it can be. Look at the concerns raised by the agencies, the mayors and supervisors and the townspeople. That’s why we have this injunction, that’s why we’re trying to push this legislation through. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce needs to take a look at things a little bit more. Let’s just talk about changing tipping fees. They’re saying they don’t agree with that. But we’re just a dumping state based on 36 cents a ton.

QK: If the disposal company comes back and says, “We’re licensed to do this. As you say, hospitals and other places keep making this kind of material. This site is allowed to take it and we’ve got to put it somewhere. So why not here?” How would you answer them back?

AMH: My answer is that we need to study this even more. I can understand that we have to decide what to do with Michigan’s waste, where this is happening. But taking outside waste, it just gives us less space to figure out what to do with our own. And it also is in a densely populated area. There is an interstate commerce clause that does not allow us to stop. There would have to be a constitutional change on the federal level also, because this is considered trading commerce and money.

QK: Have you ever had much reaction back from the federal government on this entire topic, no matter which administration was running it at the time?

AMH: Not really. They keep pointing to the interstate commerce clause. People always say it’s hard to change a constitution and it will never happen. But the U.S. Supreme Court just changed some things that were in the Constitution for 50 years. So I think it’s a possibility. I think the need is there. The want has to make it happen.

The prosecutor who won convictions in the Oxford High School shooting trials wants to extend that work to all of Michigan. 

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald announced this week that she’s launching a bid to become Michigan’s next attorney general. Other candidates who have entered the race include Democrats Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit and former federal prosecutor Mark Totten, as well as Republican attorney Kevin Kijewski. 

It’s an open race for the seat, as the state government’s current top lawyer — Attorney General Dana Nessel — is term-limited. 

McDonald, a Democrat, told WDET the issues facing Michigan and the nation are drawing her to serve at the state level. 

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Karen McDonald, Oakland County prosecutor: I think the answer to that is the same answer I’d give when I started my first job as an adult — as a public school teacher — really wanting to be in a place where I had the most impact and the most opportunity to do good where it was needed most. I went on to law school, was a lawyer in private practice, became a judge in the family court and then ran for prosecutor in 2020. And I think right now, given the threats that we’re facing in the state, the attorney general is more important than ever. 

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: What kind of threats are there that you think you would have to face or take on if, in fact, you were elected attorney general? 

KM: We’re facing threats to our rule of law, to the general well-being and safety of the people in the state of Michigan. The U.S. Constitution and the rights that it gives us are being dismantled, and I think the attorney general is the one that stands up for the people of this state. I also think that the role of the attorney general as the “People’s Lawyer” is something that I’ve been doing for over a decade working to serve my community, my county. Oakland County is the second largest county in the state. And that’s what I get up every day and I do. 

QK: Obviously your prosecution of the Oxford High School shooter and securing the convictions of his parents on involuntary manslaughter charges put a spotlight on your work. Are there lessons that you see from those cases that would inform you if, in fact, you were elected attorney general? 

KM: My hope is that it put a spotlight on gun violence and how critical it is that we address it like a public health crisis. It’s the number one cause of death for children in this country. Prosecuting a few individuals, or anyone for that matter, is not going to fix that. We have to treat it like a public health crisis. 

QK: Staying with the Oxford shooting, the defense attorney for the shooter’s mother, Jennifer Crumbley, has brought up issues about a proffer agreement that was made with some of the Oxford employees to testify. The judge in the trial indicated that she had some concerns about the deal. Do you have any concerns that now your opponents in this attorney general race could somehow try to use that to tarnish your efforts in the Crumbley case?  

KM: It doesn’t surprise me. The lawyer you’re speaking of has been sanctioned and fined by that same judge. And the motion for a new trial was denied. I’m focused on the victims in that case and holding the people accountable that are responsible for those kids who were killed and injured on that day (in 2021) and the hundreds of others that were traumatized. I think the focus now has to be on the victims, the families and this community. That is why I’ve dedicated so much of my time as the prosecutor, and will continue that as the attorney general, to address gun violence. Not just from the moment somebody picks up a gun, but way up-stream — what we can and should be doing to educate the public about how we can prevent that from happening. 

QK: Current Attorney General Dana Nessel has done some of that in certain aspects. But she’s also filed or joined many lawsuits that challenge the Trump administration, from threats to withholding federal funding for emergency services and limiting birthright citizenship to firing federal workers or adding restrictions on voting. Are there areas you see that as attorney general, you believe you should either continue or would institute challenges to the Trump administration? 

KM: I think that’s the responsibility and duty of the attorney general. The stakes could not be higher. We’re talking about a complete disregard for the rule of law. I’m a lawyer, I’m a former judge, I’m the prosecutor. The Constitution is our guide. Due process is afforded for all of us. We can’t just ignore that when we want to. With regard to funding, these are critical issues. The new bill that’s being proposed in Congress would make it that 700,000 people in Michigan lose access to Medicaid. We’ve had the administration take away funds for substance abuse and mental health issues at the precise time where our kids, in particular, needed it the most. This just doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t make us safer. And I think the attorney general’s job is to look out for the people of the state of Michigan. So when appropriate, absolutely those lawsuits should be vigorously litigated, because that is the attorney general’s job. But it’s also the attorney general’s job to make sure that we are focusing on things that have the most impact. I’ve always been dedicated to public service and where I could do the most good. And that is protecting the rule of all law, protecting public safety and advocating for vulnerable people. 

QK: It’s a little bit unfair at this point, because only a few candidates have declared their run for attorney general yet. But what would you tell a voter that you think sets you apart from the others that possibly could try to run for the office or that are now? 

KM: While I’ve spent most of my adult life in southeast Michigan and Oakland County, I grew up in the middle of the state in a really small town that was a farming community. My dad was a construction worker and neither of my parents went to college. They were able to work hard and provide a nice life for us, not a fancy one, but a good one. And I am only here because I had the advantage of student loans. Over half of the assistant prosecutors in my office rely on the loan repayment programs because they’ve dedicated a significant period of their life to public service. These aren’t things that should be taken away. These are things that we should be saying, “This works.” We need to fight to make sure that we don’t lose it.

I’m also a mom. And I, like all the other parents, want to make sure that my kids have a safe, thriving state to live in. Look, it’s 2025, we should not have parents worried that their kids might be the victims of gun violence when they drop them off at school. I am going to fight no matter where I am to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to eliminate and prevent gun violence.  

Metro Detroit’s efforts to create a rapid mass transit system on par with other major regions has often gone off the rails. 

WDET explores some of that history in the latest episode of CuriosiD.

But one small slice of the transit puzzle is in place — the QLINE streetcars running along Detroit’s Woodard Avenue.

Former Washington, D.C.-based attorney Jared Fleisher was there at the advent of the QLINE. He’s now the vice president of government affairs for Rock, billionaire Dan Gilbert’s family of companies. 

In the interview below, Fleisher told WDET the QLINE is a marker for what Detroit could do with transit and how the region could roll into the future. 

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Jared Fleisher: What we did with the QLINE had never been done before. Most major public infrastructure projects are led by public agencies like a transportation agency. Take yourself back to 2009, and in this case it was a ragtag nonprofit group saying, “Detroit is really struggling, economically and from a transit perspective. We want to do something to create a spark. And we, this ragtag nonprofit, wants to tear up Woodward Avenue and put in a streetcar — tear up the main avenue in a major American city.” As you can imagine, the U.S. Department of Transportation had never encountered this circumstance before. Washington had watched metro Detroit, going back to the Carter administration, never really be able to get its act together around transit. And therefore they did not take us very seriously or send money our way. They said, “You don’t even have a regional transit authority (RTA) in Metro Detroit. If you want us to approve the QLINE, which you’re saying is going to be the spark for a regional system, let’s actually create a RTA that could administer it.” 

So in 2012, before the QLINE broke ground, we worked together with the governor — and the Feds were big champions of this — to create the RTA. There were literally dozens and dozens of failed attempts over decades to create a regional authority, because of divisions between the different jurisdictions. Fast forward to 2016, and the backers of the QLINE led an effort, with community input, to develop a regional transit plan that would finally fund a regional system. It would have had rapid transit to Pontiac, rapid transit on Michigan Avenue out to Detroit Metro Airport. With support from the Kresge Foundation, Roger Penske, Dan Gilbert and others, it went on the ballot in 2016 and it lost by half-a-percent. And here we are, nine years later, and we still have not solved the issue of regional rapid transit. 

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: What is the reason these ballot proposals failed? Why has there been opposition to it? 

JF: I’ll be very candid with you. One of the realities of our region is that it’s diverse. The closer you are to the urban core, the more supportive of transit you are. But as you get into more rural areas, north Oakland County, north Macomb County, northwest Wayne County, they’re less oriented to transit. When Donald Trump won the election in 2016, he won by turning out a lot of the voters in those communities. And on the Democratic side, Hillary underperformed in the more urbanized areas. So the God’s honest true story about what happened in 2016 is that it was less about transit specifically and more about how the top of the ticket influenced everything on the ballot, including the transit referendum. And when there were attempts to go through the legislature to get it on the ballot in a different form, a narrower, more Coalition of the Willing kind of thing, the legislative majority at that time didn’t want to stick their necks out.

QK: You mentioned the diversity of the region. I’ve heard people bring up racism as an issue in transit. Do you think racism plays any part in all of this?  

JF: I don’t think that is the fundamental issue. For example, all of Macomb County votes for SMART, the suburban bus system. And that runs lines in and out of Detroit through Macomb. One of the biggest recent wins for transit, in 2022, was when Oakland County got rid of this “Swiss cheese” thing they had forever, where some communities were part of SMART and others said no to transit. Oakland County voted overwhelmingly for the whole county to be part of SMART. So I don’t think, if you’re trying to look at it analytically, they would say, “We don’t want those people coming here,” as what’s going on. I think the issue with regional transit is whether certain rural voters feel it’s worth it. Do I support investing my tax dollars in this? By the way, for the record, a lot of specialized transit has been developed over the last eight years to meet the needs of rural communities in a more tailored way. 

QK: So here we are now, in 2025. What’s your view of where regional transit is in the metro Detroit area? And where do you see the likelihood of it going in the future? 

JF: Recently, Wayne County Executive Warren Evans said he was going to try to end the Swiss cheese there, where certain communities opted-out and busses aren’t allowed to travel. They don’t participate in funding the Wayne County part of the network. Warren Evans has said they’re going to go to the ballot, in hopes that Wayne County voters pass it just like Oakland County voters did. So that’s progress. But what it’s not is the kind of modern rapid transit you see in your dynamic cities, your big cities, your great cities.

So, what’s the next step? Should we work together to really focus on one major rapid transit investment? For example, doing rapid transit up Woodward all the way to Pontiac, where Oakland County is investing so much into a new county campus and there’s other investment happening. Should we do one thing that is really, really significant? That comes full circle, right back to the QLINE. It’s successful, exceeding expectations as it carries one million or more people a year. It did its part. And now the question is, if resources become available, do we try to do a newer version of this movie, where we make a significant regional investment with the strategy that we can then use that to try to catalyze something even broader. 

WDET’s CuriosiD series answers your questions about everything Detroit. Subscribe to CuriosiD on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

In this episode of CuriosiD, listener Jennifer Kulczycki of Sterling Heights asks... 

“I’ve heard for many years that metro Detroit doesn’t have a robust transit system because the Big Three undermined the streetcar and bus systems in order to sell more vehicles. I’ve always been curious about that, but I’ve never really been able to find any concrete evidence of it.”

The short answer

In 1949, General Motors and the Firestone Tire company, among others, were convicted of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and products to National City Lines, which had taken control of dozens of transit systems. But GM, Firestone and the others were acquitted of trying to, in effect, monopolize the transit industry. And experts say automakers could not run over Detroit’s streetcars, because the city itself owned the system.

Riding the rails all around the town

Imagine traveling back to Detroit in the 1920s and ’30s, when streetcar tracks split the middle of Woodward Avenue.

Riders who once strolled past horse-drawn carriages to get onboard the Department of Street Railways system, known as the DSR, now had to dodge vehicles going 30 miles an hour or more.

The DSR touted the system’s widespread use. It noted that at peak periods of the day as many as 1,000 streetcars crisscrossed the city, “carrying Detroit’s industrial army.”

It was also a different animal from some other municipalities, because in 1922 the city itself had bought out the streetcar system, ostensibly to operate it more efficiently.

“Every time a bus or a trolley car rolls down the street, there’s a stockholder’s meeting in motion,” the DSR proclaimed.

Iowa State University Professor Robert Pfaff did his dissertation at the University of Michigan on the history of Detroit’s streetcars. He says it was the largest publicly-owned transit system in the U.S. at the time.

And Pfaff contends Detroit’s burgeoning auto industry viewed rail cars as a necessity.

“They recognized that this was the way that most of their workers actually got to work,” he said.

The takeover of transit

Over those decades, a company called National City Lines (NCL) and its subsidiaries, backed by a consortium that included General Motors and Firestone, took control of dozens of transit systems.

The moves caught the interest of the U.S. Justice Department.

In 1949, GM, Firestone and others in the consortium were convicted of a conspiracy to monopolize the sale of buses, fuel and similar products to National City Lines. They were fined a token few thousand dollars each. But the companies were acquitted of trying to take over the systems owned by NCL in order to, in effect, form a transit monopoly.

Still, the idea of automakers sabotaging streetcars gained increasing traction in the public imagination, even serving as the plot for numerous books and movies.

For instance, the 1988 animated film “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” features the villainous Judge Doom buying up the Red Car rail line, preparing for a new freeway with “wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see.”

When a character tells him no one will use the freeway since they can take the streetcar for 5 cents, Doom replies, “Oh they’ll drive. They’ll have to. You see, I bought the Red Car so I could dismantle it!”

Buses take the lead

Pfaff hits the brakes on any takeover of streetcars in Detroit, however, since the city itself owned the system.

“That automatically prevented other private investors from trying to come in and disrupt that space. We are the ones to blame for dismantling that system. We don’t have some private company that swept in with some grand scheme, we have to look inwardly at ourselves,” Pfaff said.

In the mid-20th Century, the American Dream was paved with highways crossing the country. Pfaff says metro Detroit transit officials wanted to be on the cutting edge of it all.

“The super-modern thing were these nice, fast, rubber-tired diesel buses that operate on the streets. And they decided if they’re gonna serve the modern region with more suburban residential areas, they couldn’t do electrification and tracks. The easy way to do it was with buses.”

The transit system that is

About three-quarters of a century later, Metro Detroit’s transit system unfolds along streets like Gratiot Avenue.

Detroiter Charles Green stands at a bus stop on Gratiot near 12 mile in Macomb County. Green says he grew up riding buses with his father.

He calls newer routes, like the suburban SMART system’s Fast Gratiot line into the city, a definite upgrade. Mostly.

“I like the bus. It’s eco-friendly and convenient. But the frequency of the bus just ain’t right,” Green lamented. “I work at a bar and man, every bar over there is closing after midnight. So at that point I gotta pay $20 for an Uber just to get home.”

Detroit’s DDOT bus system wants to significantly increase its number of drivers and cut wait times for customers. But at a bus shelter further along Gratiot, Detroiter Shina Harps says she’s part of the roughly 25–33% of the city’s residents who don’t have their own vehicle.

In the car capitol of the world, Harps says that quickly becomes a badge of shame.

“I do get that a lot, ‘Oh you take the bus,’” Harps said in a disparaging tone. “That’s my life. I’m living in my truth.”

‘Does Detroit really want public transit?’

Detroit transit also carried a stigma among some in the federal government.

The Vice President of Rock, billionaire Dan Gilbert’s family of companies, is Jared Fleisher. He previously worked as a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who helped a Detroit nonprofit group develop what they hoped would be both a catalyst and a part of improved public transit in the region – the QLINE streetcar system.

“Going back to the Carter administration, Washington never saw metro Detroit really be able to get its act together around transit,” Fleisher said. “They did not take us very seriously or send money our way. (The QLINE) was meant to show Washington that we were serious, we were working together around transit in a different way.”

In 2012, before the QLINE even broke ground, officials formed an actual Regional Transit Authority for southeast Michigan, the same kind of transportation agency the federal government worked with in other municipalities.

But Fleisher says a four-county millage to fund inter-connected public transit in metro Detroit ran into a roadblock in 2016.

Rural voters came out in force to support then-GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. Fleisher believes it was an electorate that saw little value in paying extra taxes for a transit system they likely would hardly use.

“It went to the ballot and lost by half a percent. And nine years later, we still have not solved the issue of regional rapid transit.”

A magnet for young talent

What exists alongside bus service, along with Detroit’s elevated People Mover system, is a 3.3 mile stretch of railway on Woodward Avenue punctuated by the clanging bell of the QLINE streetcar.

It’s a reminder of what could be in Detroit, especially for younger travelers.

Onboard the QLINE, Wayne State student Sara Jaloul notes she has her own car. But she says using the streetcar for even a few miles helps her save both gas money and the environment.

“I think the less cars we have on the street is probably a lot less pollution, so that’s really important to me. As much public transportation as possible should be best,” Jaloul said.

Catering to that smog-free desire is a key selling point for many younger workers, says the head of the metro area’s Regional Transit Authority, Ben Stupka. And he says no one wants to grow the transit system more now than Detroit’s automakers.

“The Big Three and those that support them in that ecosystem have a laser-focused understanding that transit is part of the brew, if you will, that keeps and attracts talent to this region,” Stupka said. “And that is what they need to survive and thrive.”

Whether that eventually leads to metro Detroit public transportation that legitimately competes with other regions across the country though, remains a question for down the road.

Meet the listener

Jennifer Kulczycki is the Director of External Affairs and Communications at The Kresge Foundation. She lives in Sterling Heights. She came to metro Detroit from western New York state fresh out of college to work in the automotive industry.

We want to hear from you! 

Have a question about Detroit or southeast Michigan?
Send it our way at wdet.org/curiosid, or fill out the form below. You ask, we answer.

More from CuriosiD:

• What happens to old fire trucks in Detroit?
• What’s the story behind metro Detroit’s mile roads?
• What is on Boblo Island today? And what happened to the Boblo boats?

Want more stories like this? Sign up for WDET’s free weekly newsletter and never miss a curiosity uncovered.

The checkered flag has flown over this year’s Detroit Grand Prix.

IndyCar driver Kyle Kirkwood took the win in the final race of the weekend on the downtown street track, and hometown Team Penske is moving forward, away from controversy that erupted the weekend before at the Indianapolis 500.

Roger Penske owns both the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and the IndyCar series itself, so his team faced extra criticism when two Penske cars were penalized at Indy for using an illegal part.

But Penske says there are many positives he’s taking away from the famed 500.

The following interviews have been edited for clarity and length.

Roger Penske: We had a great race at Indy, first class winner (driver Alex Palou), great team. We personally were disappointed, as (Penske driver) Josef Newgarden was right where he wanted to be and we had a fuel pump situation. But putting all that aside, I think the most important thing is the fans that we had. We had at least 30,000 more people in ’25 than we did in ’24. I would say the number of real people on the ground was 330,000-plus. And just to see the excitement and the momentum and the kids and the demographics, they just can’t beat it. I think we set a record with over 7 million watching the race, up to almost 8.5 or 9 million at the peak. So I would say we get a 10-plus there.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: Obviously there was the controversy over the penalties that happened from the tech inspections at Indy. You’ve had so much respect at the speedway and now you were getting criticized. Looking back at it, what’s your view everything that happened?

RP: Well, I’m not hiding. We had an incident there which, quite honestly, I felt was unfortunate. We had run the same parts and the same pieces for a year and a half. So to me, to have it thrown out on qualification day was disappointing, because it’s a tight game here in terms of the competition. But look, I’ve got to respect the officials and they’re holding other people to the same level. And we moved on.

QK: There were some critics saying, “It’s different because it’s Penske’s cars and he owns the series, he owns the track.” What’s your response to those kind of comments?

RP: Well look, everybody has their own opinion. We’ve been racing for five decades and people know who we are. This isn’t the first time a car didn’t pass inspection. But we’re not denying anything. We moved on. And whatever people want to say about me or about our team, it’s unfortunate, but we’re going to continue on the way we are.

QK: Are you thinking about bringing in some outside officials for tech inspection and Race Control, that kind of thing?

RP: I’m not ready to announce anything. That’s going to be up to (IndyCar President) Doug Boles from the standpoint of exactly what we do. I think each year we get better. This is a time for us to reassess all aspects of the sport, the competition, the tracks, specifications, all of it. It’s not just the officials separately. I think there’s a lot we can do to make it better, and that’s our focus.

QK: Now you’re here, back home in Detroit, with the track downtown. What’s your view of how it’s been working here compared to Belle Isle?

RP: It’s been amazing down here. The fact that General Motors and the city of Detroit allow us to use their backyard for this race is amazing. And I think when you look at what’s been able to be done here, people that worked with us to help Detroit host the Super Bowl are the ones helping us here. So, I couldn’t be more thrilled. It’s terrific.

The excitement over the downtown scene in Detroit is shared by six-time IndyCar driving champion Scott Dixon. He won the Detroit race in 2024 and finished 11th this year.

But Dixon says he also shares the concerns over officiating revealed at the Indy 500.

Scott Dixon: It’s kind of a tough one. I think it’s great to see maybe a turning of the page for enforcement on a lot of stuff. I think it will set a precedent moving forward, which will maybe deter some situations. You never want to see it, for sure. You don’t want to see anybody have opportunities taken away from them from something that’s totally out of their control. For the drivers, we kind of just drive the cars. Some of the things on the car you don’t even know too much about. So, I think it’s good for the sport.

Quinn Klinefelter: They had problems in the tech inspections during qualifying and then penalized some cars after the race as well. There had been some concerns raised that IndyCar should perhaps bring in outside officials for at least Race Control and tech. Do you think that’s an idea that should be pursued?

SD: Yeah, I think for a series that’s so big, the technical department doesn’t have a whole lot of resources. Like a lot of sports, even in Formula One, it’s kind of self-controlled by other teams, what they see. And I think that’s what we’ve seen play out, I think that’s what’s really happened in the past. The difficult part for the series right now is that with Penske, they own the series, they run a three-car team and they’re also the engine supplier for one of the manufacturers. They own the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. You hope there’s not any conflicts, but at least that can be the perception of it. I think for them to try and distance as much as they can would be good, not just for themselves, but also for the sport.

QK: When Roger first bought the Speedway and the series, people said if there’s anyone that we can trust to do both, run a team and the series, it would be him. Is there some trust that’s been broken among other teams at this point?

SD: I don’t think so. I think Roger is a is an extremely stand-up person. Look at what he’s done in his whole career and what he’s done for our sport. I think Roger, as far as owning the Speedway and the series, came at a very fitting time. And they’re very good at what they’re doing. We’ve seen that with the deals that they’ve done, whether it’s with Fox to broadcast it or the rejuvenation of the Speedway, all of these things are extremely important for IndyCar racing as such. But there’s always going to be people that kind of nitpick and try to peel back the layers on things that maybe necessarily aren’t there. I think what they’ve done is huge.

QK: Now you’re here in Detroit. What’s your view of how it’s working here on the downtown streets compared to Belle Isle a few years past?

SD: It’s always a tough one here. I think the track layout, especially in practice, is quite tough to even get two or three consecutive laps at speed. It funnels a lot from turn four to turn five before everybody preps out of seven. There’s some very inviting moments on the course too, like the hairpin after a very long straight. It creates some chaos. And I don’t think that’s necessarily bad. It’s just a different place and a different style of racing. I think at the forefront, if you can stay out of trouble, you’re probably going to have a pretty good day here. And strategy-wise, it’s always interesting. The atmosphere downtown is very cool. It’s definitely very different from what we had at Belle Isle. As far as the circuit, Belle Isle was a lot of fun, just because it was quite technical, it had a good flow to it. It raced really well. But it’s a different mood and generation, I think, for a downtown street race and I think it’s cool. It’s going to build on it.

QK: Street tracks are often very narrow. Some people feared drivers might be really squished together at the downtown Detroit track, with very limited passing opportunities. Are you finding that, or were those concerns overblown?

SD: The racing situation the last couple of years has been pretty wild. And I think that’s good for the series. It’s not just your typical “follow the leader.” This year we’ve had three races in a row that went from green to checker with no cautions, which is kind of unheard of for our sport. So I think it’s always challenging but it’s the same for everybody. You got to make the most of the event. It’s in the early stages of it. Could there be some changes down the road, where they maybe extend the circuit a little bit or open up different kind of pathways and widen some of the parts of it? For sure. But that will be the evolution of the downtown Detroit street race.