Glowblue Member Username: Glowblue
Post Number: 120 Registered: 09-2008
| Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 10:59 pm: | |
quote:We have not had a deflationary spiral such as the current crisis in 70 years. I agree that no one has any idea what to do to ameliorate what is happening to our economy. Nonsense. Ever heard of John Maynard Keynes? He knew exactly what to do in situations such as these (deficit spending, basically). When the US operated on Keynesian principles, it avoided major economic downturns and financial crises. The only clueless people are free-market fundamentalists who've seen their half-baked economic theories get blown to smithereens by reality.
quote:In the thirties (the last great defation) we didn't have the same infrastructure rebuild mechanics we do now. Then, thousands were 'shovel-ready'. Now, a few machines do the work of thousands. Huge conundrum. Someone still needs to design, build and operate those machines, not to mention the people who will design the new infrastructure, the people who will provide the immense amount of materials needed for a major infrastructure project, etc etc etc. Moody's has determined that infrastructure investment has a fiscal multiplier of 1.59, meaning that for every dollar the government spends on infrastructure, real GDP increases by $1.59. That is better than any tax-cutting scheme.
quote:GM and Chrysler (Cerebrus) burn rate is accelerating and they won't make it to the deadline date set by the 535 no-nothings. Then we haven't any time to lose!
quote:The sky is falling and to stick to the thread, there won't be any mass transit for trainman or anyone else. In this country, rail is for freight. Every transit system in the country is projecting massive shortfalls and even the DC Metro is looking at service decreases (as is Chicago, NYC, Atlanta, SF, etc.) Perhaps they need more government funding, hmm? |
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 1135 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 11:03 pm: | |
quote:In this country, rail is for freight. Because that is how previous generations decided to set things up here. I think it's about time to rethink that, given the less-than-desirable results produced by that way of doing things. |
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl
Post Number: 884 Registered: 04-2005
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 12:26 am: | |
quote:Nonsense. Ever heard of John Maynard Keynes? He knew exactly what to do in situations such as these (deficit spending, basically). When the US operated on Keynesian principles, it avoided major economic downturns and financial crises. The only clueless people are free-market fundamentalists who've seen their half-baked economic theories get blown to smithereens by reality. quick! phone washington! deficit spending is the cure for our economic malaise! why didn't they think of that!?!? seriously, though, glowblue - hasn't the treasury been running its presses - printing stimulus checks and dollars - long enough? and hasn't the fed issued enough bonds to economically subjugate the united states to the rest of the world? but that's just monetary policy. our market still is not able to determine valuations of securities. free market fundamentals need to be re-established before anything gels. i say we're headed for a depression. i say we won't find our way back until people can agree on the price of an apple, and build from there. this economic sinkhole is worldwide, and long-lasting. |
Glowblue Member Username: Glowblue
Post Number: 121 Registered: 09-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 3:02 am: | |
quote:quick! phone washington! deficit spending is the cure for our economic malaise! why didn't they think of that!?!? They have. The question facing the new administration is how much deficit spending, and of what nature. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3668 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 8:26 am: | |
quote:They have. The question facing the new administration is how much deficit spending, and of what nature. Who is going to finance it? Our biggest financier has indicated that they aren't interested in buying much more of our debt. But I agree with you, we are probably at a point now where it doesn't make much sense to worry about running up debts. If we don't run it up now to save the economy, then we won't have an economy in the future to pay it back. We should have been worrying about debts six years ago when Bush was pushing those tax cuts. Also, all this talk about Detroit not being a mass transit city is nonsense. Detroit was a mass transit city long before it was a car city. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3669 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 8:42 am: | |
quote:Every transit system in the country is projecting massive shortfalls and even the DC Metro is looking at service decreases (as is Chicago, NYC, Atlanta, SF, etc.) And this is because mass transit doesn't work? Or is it because we're going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? Because I can name dozens of state governments and even more corporations (::cough:: Chrysler, GM ::cough:: ) that are also projecting massive budget shortfalls. |
River_rat Member Username: River_rat
Post Number: 348 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 8:50 am: | |
Mass transit works. Just not in Detroit. See my oft-repeated post. |
Retroit Member Username: Retroit
Post Number: 767 Registered: 04-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 9:14 am: | |
Let's say that a massive mass transit system is put in place in the whole Metropolitan Detroit area. Would it not exacerbate the continued flight of residents and businesses from Detroit in the same way that the expressways have done? For example, if a Detroit City resident wanted to go shopping and they have the option of their local store or the "more glamorous" suburban one which is now much more easily accessable with mass transit, which would they choose? And if someone lives in Detroit City to be close to their job downtown, but can now live out in the suburbs because mass transit makes it "easier" for them to get to work, would they still choose to live in the City? |
Living_in_the_d Member Username: Living_in_the_d
Post Number: 323 Registered: 01-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 9:24 am: | |
Yeah, Not to be condesending or abrupt, But give us (DDOT) the money to buy another 300 buses, And mass transit will work just fine in Detroit, No more people doing the bus stop lean,(Wondering where Your bus is and when it's going to get there. No more waiting in the blistering cold or intense heat. Let the other group get into this glorified people mover extension, And let Us do what We know how to do, And thats run a Bus Company. (Message edited by living in the d on January 12, 2009) |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3670 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 9:57 am: | |
>Mass transit works. Just not in Detroit. See my oft-repeated post. You have no evidence to back up a claim that mass transit will not work in Detroit. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4162 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 10:44 am: | |
quote:Mass transit works. Just not in Detroit. See my oft-repeated post. Whenever I see a post like this, I think of the movie "My Cousin Vinny": "Are we to believe that boiling water soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than anywhere else on the face of the earth? Well, I guess the laws of physics cease to exist on top of your stove." |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1058 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 11:29 am: | |
"Let's say that a massive mass transit system is put in place in the whole Metropolitan Detroit area. Would it not exacerbate the continued flight of residents and businesses from Detroit in the same way that the expressways have done?" No. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4163 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 11:38 am: | |
How would transit cause sprawl? What happens is that development clusters around stations--not crop up beyond the reaches of the system. The major difference between transit and highways, as far as enabling sprawl, is that transit is never rammed through cornfields. The sprawl has already happened--Detroit needs a mechanism for refocusing growth to achieve sufficient density for economic sustainability. |
Retroit Member Username: Retroit
Post Number: 771 Registered: 04-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 1:29 pm: | |
Danindc, aren't you assuming that all areas of the Metropolitan Detroit are uniform in terms of demographics, desirability to live & do business, wealth, safety, etc. The city of Detroit does have "cornfields" in the form of abandoned lots overgrowing with weeds 4 feet high. The sprawl has created a vacuum in the City as it pushes the "Centers of Population" ever outward. In order for it to be focused back inward toward Downtown, you need to recreate desirability within the City. I'd be willing to bet that even most residents of Detroit would prefer to live and shop in the suburbs, mass transit or no mass transit. |
W_chicago Member Username: W_chicago
Post Number: 81 Registered: 01-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 1:37 pm: | |
Transit is the single most important aspect in revitalizing Detroit in the short term. End of story. To cynics on this forum (there are lots of them): There is no reason to argue against Transit, even if you think it isn't the most important thing, because what are you doing is just helping the opposition, helping in making Detroit a worst place to go... even if thats not what is intended. And you do this, (many of you at least) when you are really have no stake in it at all. It doesn't affect you. If you actually live in the City of Detroit, maybe you'd think differently. |
W_chicago Member Username: W_chicago
Post Number: 82 Registered: 01-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 1:41 pm: | |
And specificaly to "Retroit," you are wrong about people who live in Detroit not wanting to live there, and wanting to shop in the suburbs. This is not true. I live here, and I love this city with all my heart and soul. The reason people leave is not because they don't love it, its because they are forced to on economic reasons. And the reason people don't shop here is because there is NO FUCKING STORES TO SHOP AT. It is the classic chicken or the egg story as billions of dollars in retail revenue continue to be sent away to far flung suburbs, when many City residents would proudly shop within the city if they had the opportunity. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4164 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 1:53 pm: | |
quote:I'd be willing to bet that even most residents of Detroit would prefer to live and shop in the suburbs, mass transit or no mass transit. Why don't you go talk to some of those folks, and let us know what you find out. Shop at a store in your own neigborhood, or ride a bus an hour and a half each way for the same result? Which would YOU choose? |
Retroit Member Username: Retroit
Post Number: 774 Registered: 04-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 1:53 pm: | |
People aren't "forced" to leave the city for economic reasons. They choose to leave once they can afford to. You need to talk with some of the ex-Detroiters that I know that have left the city in recent years. I've never heard one of them say they left because of lack of transit. As for there being no Fucking stores: The reason for that is because many Detroiters prefer to shop in the suburbs instead of in the city. Now, if the problem was lack of transit, then how do they get out there? |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4165 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 1:55 pm: | |
quote:The reason for that is because many Detroiters prefer to shop in the suburbs instead of in the city. Just like they prefer to drive instead of taking the train to work. |
Retroit Member Username: Retroit
Post Number: 775 Registered: 04-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 1:58 pm: | |
Dnindc, if you provide people, who live in an area with few stores, a means for getting to an area where there are stores (i.e. suburbs), then what incentive would people have to shop "locally". |
Retroit Member Username: Retroit
Post Number: 776 Registered: 04-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 2:00 pm: | |
If it is easier for a person to take the train to work than to drive, won't that give them an even greater incentive to live further from the city? |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3671 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 2:01 pm: | |
quote:People aren't "forced" to leave the city for economic reasons. They choose to leave once they can afford to. You need to talk with some of the ex-Detroiters that I know that have left the city in recent years. I've never heard one of them say they left because of lack of transit. Actually, I think many people leave Detroit because it is cheaper to live in the suburbs. If you do a lifestyle to lifestyle comparison, living in the suburbs is cheaper for the middle class. |
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover
Post Number: 451 Registered: 02-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 2:01 pm: | |
I would rather shop in downtown Detroit than in suburban shopping malls. One of my many proposals is for Macy's to close their location at Summit Place Mall (dead mall) and open in downtown Detroit. I know many of people who would rather shop down there because they know what an experience it would be. Many people come down to Eastern Market rather than let's say Farmers Market in Royal Oak. And if there was a light rail between Detroit and the suburbs you betch your ass people would flock to downtown to shop, dine, Riverfront, etc. I don't think Detroiters (exluding suburbanites, of course), prefer to shop in the suburbs its because they HAVE to, they have no choice. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4166 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 2:07 pm: | |
quote:Dnindc, if you provide people, who live in an area with few stores, a means for getting to an area where there are stores (i.e. suburbs), then what incentive would people have to shop "locally".
quote:If it is easier for a person to take the train to work than to drive, won't that give them an even greater incentive to live further from the city? Can I live in your world, where time is obviously not a consideration? |
Retroit Member Username: Retroit
Post Number: 777 Registered: 04-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 2:09 pm: | |
"One of my many proposals is for Macy's to close their location at Summit Place Mall (dead mall) and open in downtown Detroit." You really think someone would come all the way to Detroit from Pontiac to go shopping? I'm all for nostalgia, but us nostalgic-minded DetroitYESers a rare breed. We have to keep in mind the other 99.99% of the population. |
Retroit Member Username: Retroit
Post Number: 778 Registered: 04-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 2:14 pm: | |
Danindc, are you completely missing my point or am I doing a horrible job of explaining myself? By saving people commuting time by providing them with "quicker" transportation, are you not giving them greater options as far as where they can choose to live and shop? If yes, why then would people choose to live and shop in the city? I can assure you, the city is not any better than the suburbs. |
Crew Member Username: Crew
Post Number: 719 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 2:15 pm: | |
A downtown shopping district would need to have a draw - something unique not available in the suburbs. I don't think you'll get that with a generic Macy's. You may get that with a blend of smaller home grown-high quality retailers and some national chains. |
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover
Post Number: 452 Registered: 02-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 2:21 pm: | |
I'm not trying to be nostalgic. But we have to realize that if we ever want to be a viable city again we need that shopping in city center. If Macy's come (and when Detroit gets it right for businesses), other businesses will come and fill in Merchants Row and Washington Blvd. Hey perhaps I'm wrong, I don't know, don't care, but that's my belief. If you build it they will come. "You really think someone would come all the way to Detroit from Pontiac to go shopping?" They come all the way from Detroit to come here...it's not that much of an impossibility! |
Retroit Member Username: Retroit
Post Number: 781 Registered: 04-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 2:41 pm: | |
Dtowncitylover, I see your point with bringing more retail into the city and would agree that we need more. But I'm not sure that it will draw people from beyond the City of Detroit or the surrounding ring of suburbs. And I'm positive that few will come all the way from Pontiac, bypassing all the malls along the way. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4167 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 2:42 pm: | |
quote: If yes, why then would people choose to live and shop in the city? Um, because it's not made out of plastic with a Starbucks, gas station, McDonald's, and Walgreens at every intersection? Again, you're making arguments that have been made for decades in other cities. Get a helmet, and suck it up. It's time for Detroit to move forward. |
Retroit Member Username: Retroit
Post Number: 783 Registered: 04-2008
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 2:48 pm: | |
Danindc, the reason you are able to lament the dominance of major retailers and chain restaurants is because these companies make money. And the reason they make money is because people CHOOSE to shop there. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4168 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 2:55 pm: | |
quote:Danindc, the reason you are able to lament the dominance of major retailers and chain restaurants is because these companies make money. You don't read too many newspapers lately, do you? |
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 899 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 3:04 pm: | |
Crew, If you've ever been to the original Macy's on 34th street in Manhattan or the Macy's off La Salle (I think) in Chicago (used to be the original Marshall Fields) you will notice that the shopping experience is NOT the same as at your generic suburban shopping mall department store. I don't know what it is, but the service at those downtown locations was IMPECCABLE! I was in Manhattan for a wedding two summers ago and I burned my shirt with an iron 3 hours before the wedding. Fortunately, our hotel was about 3 blocks from Macy's. I went to the men's clothing department expecting the typical mall department store experience where I walked around, got what I need and left without really speaking to anybody. That was not what happened. First off, I got lost (it's a big damn store!) and I had 2 different associates guide me to the right department. Once I arrived there two more sales associates helped me not only find a new shirt, in the right size and a matching tie (the shirt I purchased was not the same color as the shirt I replaced). I was in, out, and on my way back to the hotel to finish getting ready in outstanding time. On top of all this I felt like I was pampered with the type of customer service I had never before experienced in any department store I'd ever been to. The point is that it seems like downtown department stores go out of there way to provide an "old-time" shopping experience that someone of my age group (27 years old) has never had the luxury of being treated to in his lifetime being raised in the wastelands of suburbia. |
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 900 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 3:11 pm: | |
I would also like to address Retroit's assumption that Mass Transit would speed up flight from Detroit to the suburbs. My guess is that if people are waiting for the train to come so they can get out of the city, they probably can't afford to live in the suburbs. Even if transit comes to metro Detroit, the suburbs will still be a mostly autocentric area where you cannot survive without a car. Because of this, adding rail transit won't change flight. The people that were going to leave the city for the suburbs would be doing it regardless of rail or not. |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1739 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 3:18 pm: | |
The central fact about good transit is that it allows for a set of lifestyle choices that simply do not exist in the Detroit area. Certainly if a sixty year old man lives in Sterling Heights and does all his shopping locally and loves to drive his car and live in his 2,000 square foot house with his two-car garage on his quarter-acre lot in his 300-home subdivision, transit is not going to change his life one iota. He doesn't need it or want it. But his twenty-six year old son, who is starting his career and is full of energy and would prefer not to have to drive everywhere, moved to Boston or Minneapolis or Toronto, and will never live in metro Detroit again. One of the central facts of our region, known to the planning community, is that the 18-to-34 age demographic does not exist in normal quantities in this region. Perhaps one reason is that we don't give young adults the choices they want. |
Crew Member Username: Crew
Post Number: 720 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 3:20 pm: | |
El-jimbo, Agreed. If you could have seen the downtown Hudson's it would have blown you away. That being said, we are not going to be able to duplicate that experieince here anytime soon. That's why I suggested a mix of local high end retailers along with some national chains would be something which could be reasonably marketed in downtown Detroit. My response to Dtowncitylover was that just opening a Macy's in downtown Detroit isn't going to do it without a good mix of other retailers. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4169 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 3:22 pm: | |
quote:One of the central facts of our region, known to the planning community, is that the 18-to-34 age demographic does not exist in normal quantities in this region. Perhaps one reason is that we don't give young adults the choices they want. Not to mention that companies looking for talented young people locate themselves in proximity to their potential workforce, and not vice-versa. So-called "creative" companies are looking for bright, young talent. Bright, young talent is looking for an urban experience. An urban experience includes high-density walkable neighborhoods with reliable public transportation. But if you think SE Michigan is doing just fine with 1940s planning techniques, have at it. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3672 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 3:27 pm: | |
quote:A downtown shopping district would need to have a draw - something unique not available in the suburbs. I don't think you'll get that with a generic Macy's. Well... We're talking about Michigan here... A downtown shopping district is something unique. |
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 901 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 3:31 pm: | |
Crew, Ok, I understand what you were getting at. Let me piggyback on your idea. What if there was a Macy's as the "anchor" store for a downtown shopping district (similar to what Hudson's used to do?). |
Crew Member Username: Crew
Post Number: 721 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 4:03 pm: | |
El-jimbo, Sure Great idea. ...or what about something different like Nordstrom's or Dillard's as an anchor? Something not offered in (most)suburban malls. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4170 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 4:19 pm: | |
RE: the department store idea: I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourselves. The population and income densities required to support a business such as a department store downtown do not exist. The goal of any transit system implemented in Detroit should be to increase these population and income densities first, enabling businesses to follow thereafter. The downtown-as-theme-park attraction simply doesn't work. Detroit should know--it's been trying to force that model to work for the better part of the past 15 years. Macy's in Manhattan remains because the island is inhabited by 1.5 million people, and sees a couple million more workers every weekday. It doesn't exist solely off the dollars of tourists and people who decide to venture into the city on a Saturday afternoon. (Message edited by DaninDC on January 12, 2009) |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 2233 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 5:31 pm: | |
I'd agree with Dan in DC. We need to start off with a different level now. I personally would be thrilled with a Family Dollar or Dollar General downtown. A store of that size, if successful, would be noticed by other retailers. Please note that these are not Dollar Stores (despite the names), but serve a niche that was created when drug stores became huge and dime stores faded into the past. Most items in the store cost more than a dollar and are set up as a run in get what you need, run out sort of place. Casinos, themed resturants, and ice skating may be fun for the region, but they are not serving the local population that may need to run to the suburbs every time they need clean undershirts or laundry soap. Oh go transit, be it trains, light rail or BRT. Just pick the one that makes the most sense economically. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3673 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 5:31 pm: | |
quote:Macy's in Manhattan remains because the island is inhabited by 1.5 million people, and sees a couple million more workers every weekday. It doesn't exist solely off the dollars of tourists and people who decide to venture into the city on a Saturday afternoon. While I do agree with you, I would also like to point out several things about where Macy's is located. First, it is not located in an area of Manhattan that has many residents nearby. Most of the foot traffic in that area is due to people who are specifically looking to shop (or passing through to go somewhere else). Second, there also aren't very many office buildings in that part of Manhattan. Penn Plaza is the only office building that stands out in my mind, which isn't some type of government office. Third, Macy's Herald Square is located near a major transit hub for NYC commuters. Macy's Herald Square is located between two major subway stations, it is across the street from Penn Station, it is a block away from a third major subway hub, and it is across from the terminal of the PATH train. Macy's is successful at that location because so many people move through that area on a daily basis. This is the type of traffic that you can only achieve by having a healthy mass transportation network. There is no shopping experience in Detroit nor Michigan that can exist like that because there is no system in place to create that type of traffic. (Message edited by iheartthed on January 12, 2009) |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4171 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 7:00 pm: | |
quote:Macy's Herald Square is located between two major subway stations, it is across the street from Penn Station, it is a block away from a third major subway hub, and it is across from the terminal of the PATH train. Macy's is successful at that location because so many people move through that area on a daily basis. This is the type of traffic that you can only achieve by having a healthy mass transportation network. There is no shopping experience in Detroit nor Michigan that can exist like that because there is no system in place to create that type of traffic. Let's put it this way: to have the kind of foot traffic that passes Herald Square Macy's on a daily basis, without a viable transit system, you would need to pave over at least the entire CBD of Detroit for parking. |
French777 Member Username: French777
Post Number: 643 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 7:58 pm: | |
YOU WILL ALL SEE! I can't wait to hear what people are saying once the system is in place and Development Booms on Woodward!! |
Trainman Member Username: Trainman
Post Number: 706 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 8:02 pm: | |
Detroit light rail link may be only the beginning for mass transit AND could be the beginning of NEW County Sales Tax Increases at the fast food drive up window and other places to pay for the SMART, DDOT and transit workers, if many of our government leaders and special interest groups get their way. Next August 2010, we can defeat the large multi-billion dollar freeway expansions for downtown Detroit if we want. Do we really want to? Learn how in DETROIT LINKS in the Trainman save the... |
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 902 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 8:58 pm: | |
Trainman, How many times are you going to post the same stuff? Plus there IS NO plan for a multi-billion downtown freeway expansion. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4173 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 9:15 pm: | |
quote:Plus there IS NO plan for a multi-billion downtown freeway expansion. Not anymore, anyway. I think MDOT was forced to put their grand plans for the nation's finest 1950's transportation network back on the shelf for budget reasons. |
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 903 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 9:39 pm: | |
trust me, they never had a plan for a major expansion downtown. The two major metro detroit area projects that were "expansion" were an update to I-94 through the city of Detroit. It is NOT built up to fully modern standards and the entire corridor could use work...probably about $500M worth. The other would be adding a lane on I-75 from 696 to 59...also something around $500M I'd guess. Those are the ONLY expansion projects I have heard mentioned in recent years and neither of them were ever seriously on agenda to do. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1061 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 10:06 pm: | |
Try about a billion for each project. http://www.detnews.com/2005/sp ecialreport/0510/18/A01-351201 .htm |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4174 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 10:08 pm: | |
^^^The I-94 "update" would have been an expansion to 18 lanes, including service drives, at a cost of about $1.4 billion (in way-back-then dollars). The I-75 work--adding a lane in each direction, as you indicated--would have cost over $1.1 billion (again, in way-back-then dollars). This project would have saved the average driver a whopping one minute of time over the entire stretch of the project (once construction was completed, anyway). At the same time, MDOT was essentially telling the public that there was no money whatsoever for transit. |
Warrenite84 Member Username: Warrenite84
Post Number: 474 Registered: 01-2007
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 11:01 pm: | |
Here's one of the great initial benefits of a well thought out transit system: Many people who live in Detroit have had to take several busses to get to a job in the burbs. (We presently have more people going to the burbs to work than come into town to work.) With consistant, regular transit service, outward bound workers could bring in better wages and spend on products and services near where they live. This raises business and employment in town. Fast food, restaurants, dry cleaning, banks, daycare, hardware, home maintainance stores, etc. When the feeder busses deposit riders at LRT & BRT stations, more businesses spring up to service the extra foot traffic. THIS is the tipping point we've been looking for to help reverse Detroit's fortunes. This is not an overnight pipe dream but a LONG TERM metered solution. Last semester, I had to do a speech on supporting Light Rail Transit in Detroit. I did a lot of digging and found a lot of websites that show in extreme detail, how much business has improved for other areas around the transit stops. Those areas had legions of naysayers too. When they saw the success of the first phases, they did a complete 180 and are now the strongest supporters. Here are some websites I found useful: www.detroittransit.org www.apta.com/research/info/onl ine/twenty_first_century.cfm www.lightrailnow.org www.WoodwardLightRail.com |
River_rat Member Username: River_rat
Post Number: 349 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 11:16 pm: | |
"Disinvestment in Detroit is the result of decades of corrupt and incompetent government, non-functional judicial system, inefficient and self-serving management and unions. Really now, let's all come to the rational understanding that, sad as it is, societies and regions come and go. My affection for Detroit will never cease, but the Detroit that was, will never be again." There is no possibility of electing a competent, clean government, no hope of a functional judicial system that protects it's citizenry, and the industrial base of auto manufacturing and associated industries is, in the words of another author, Gone With the Rust. Just as it took the South decades to rebound after the Civil War, Detroit will have the same fate as the result of the loss of the Industrial War. Is it hopeless? Not really, but the continual thought that industry will return with mega-jobs is a pipe dream and this area has no mechanism to convert to a mid-21st Century economy. Our public schools are incapable of providing a basic education to the children of the area and the we will not face the real problems of the inner city; it isn't lack of transit. It is what has been stated. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4176 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 11:52 pm: | |
quote:Our public schools are incapable of providing a basic education to the children of the area and the we will not face the real problems of the inner city; it isn't lack of transit. No, transit is not a magic bullet solution. But ask young college graduates what makes a particular city attractive to them, and public transportation is at the top of the list. Many of these people, ironically, were born and raised in Southeast Michigan, and graduated from one its fine universities. Now, they pay thousands of dollars in taxes annually to Illinois, New York, Virginia, Maryland, California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia. At the same time, these people demand very little in other public services, such as welfare and education. From a fiscal perspective, doesn't it make sense to at least *try* to retain some of these people, and perhaps attract a few others? |
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 1139 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 11:56 pm: | |
^I have this conversation with people my age all the time: "God, I wish I lived in a real city, like Boston or Toronto or New York or Chicago!" "Why do you say that? What makes those places real cities?" "Oh, you know, the subway..." |
Fishtoes2000 Member Username: Fishtoes2000
Post Number: 721 Registered: 06-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 12:52 am: | |
The I-94 expansion does have a Final Environmental Impact Statement. It is going through a design phase; or as MDOT was told in a public meeting, they're trying to put lipstick on the pig. I think certainly not a dead project. Some transit and non-motorized proponents are very concerned that this "pig" could sneak into the economic stimulus package along with that I-75 expansion porker. It's not likely given some comments made by Paul Tait of SEMCOG that expansion projects requiring land acquisition are probably not "shovel ready." Still, we have our ears to the ground in Lansing. |
Glowblue Member Username: Glowblue
Post Number: 122 Registered: 09-2008
| Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 1:00 am: | |
quote:Is it hopeless? Not really, but the continual thought that industry will return with mega-jobs is a pipe dream and this area has no mechanism to convert to a mid-21st Century economy. I've lived in Michigan my whole life, and I've never met a single person who actually believed that the factories will be coming back. Where does this smear come from, and why are you repeating it? |