  Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1243 Registered: 07-2007 |
Looks like Bill Shea and some Lansing lawmakers got suckered by this goofy proposal which has been thoroughly debunked on DY: http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a rticle/20090313/FREE/903139969 | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 9623 Registered: 10-2003 |
These guys again? Where's the River Gondola people? | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 2497 Registered: 08-2007 |
I'm strapping on my Jet-Pak and heading to Lansing for this meeting. Wanna go? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4553 Registered: 10-2003 |
Why use an idea that works when you can waste time and money on something untested and completely incompatible? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3659 Registered: 07-2004 |
I think road-and-car legislators love these nuts, because then they get to cast transit-boosters as completely unrealistic, transit plans as prohibitively expensive, and rail transit about as useful as the Matterhorn ride. Can all our PRT and maglev enthusiasts please wait until we have smooth, reliable rail transit before we begin thinking about this stuff? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1908 Registered: 12-2006 |
This is our local version of the infamous "$25 for sending a copy of this e-mail to ten of your friends" e-mail hoax. One one level it's kind of funny and probably harmless; on another level it's completely absurd and wastes people's time when they ought to be doing something else; and it just keeps popping up, over and over, when it should be completely buried once and for all. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3661 Registered: 07-2004 |
Also, building maglev ALONG HIGHWAYS? So, we're going to, like, have one mode that creates and serves sprawling, low-density development, next to a mode that would help form tight nodes of dense development? And we're going to have a high-speed train going hundreds of miles an hour along right of way designed for maneuverable vehicles traveling at 55 MPH? These maglev engineers must be incredible to be able to run trains at super-high speed around curves designed by the American Highway Engineers. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1245 Registered: 07-2007 |
That's why I gave Bill Shea a bit of a knock on this one. After he vigorously defends his reporting on Matty "The Troll" Moroun, he drops this clunker into print. Come on Bill, a little bit of critical reporting is in order on this. If you don't want to be accused of being a hack who regurgitates press releases, you need to do a better job of reviewing what comes across your desk. If you can't smell the skunk on this pipe dream, I've got some real estate deals in Romulus I want to tell you about. | ||
Glowblue Member Username: Glowblue Post Number: 187 Registered: 09-2008 |
140 mph? Lame. The Shanghai maglev can break 270. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3472 Registered: 02-2007 |
Exactly, "untested" caught my attention, they have been doing this for years overseas. That was invented here, go figure. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3665 Registered: 07-2004 |
Yeah, except the only use they've seen for it here is as a way to launch fighters off aircraft carriers. The typical bias of American technocracy. Use it to move people? Oh, that's WAY too expensive. Use it to launch $300 million fighter jets to bomb people? Solid! Let's do it! :P | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3475 Registered: 02-2007 |
D'Nerd, Disney customers enjoy the principle as well  Actually linear motors are in use in many applications now. Not aware of any actual Mag"lev" applications. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 859 Registered: 03-2008 |
Actually Nerd, I don't see any problem at all from a roadway point of view..in my experiences the local expressways are MORE than capable of handling a motorcycle at far greater speeds than the measly 140 mph these folks are talking about..and the bikes aren't on rails. Following existing e-way routes makes quite a lot of sense from an engineering standpoint. Beyond that, I think the whole idea is silly..a giant People Mover in real train clothing.. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 3477 Registered: 02-2007 |
Maglev trains don't ride on rails and comparing one to the people mover, there is no comparison. They look sorta similar and that's where it ends. This whole notion that we "need" something like a Maglev system is what is so ridiculous. We have an airline industry that is dying on the vine as it is. Short commutes, Chicago etc, the airlines would not be able to compete. (Message edited by Sstashmoo on March 16, 2009) | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3666 Registered: 07-2004 |
Yeah, but a motorcycle tilting into a turn is a lot different from a car that weighs tons floating on a resistance current turning at twice the speed. The very idea that they'd propose somehow fitting a 22nd century train onto a 20th century roadway shows how seriously we should take them. ;) | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 860 Registered: 03-2008 |
Stash, I was comparing the proposed Maglev to the Mugger Mover only in terms of the lack of need/use beyond a novelty. As to the "rails," I'm fairly hip to the theory behind mag-lev..there's no comparison between it and a roadway, while there are many similarities between it and conventional rails. All I'm trying to say is that the broad sweepers (that's "big long curves" for you non-racing types) typical of 70 mph American expressways are more than adequate for a 140 mph vehicle riding a track, be it on wheels or a magnetic field. But yeah, the whole idea is plain silly when there are so many real issues that could use some cash thrown at them in this region. | ||
Russix Member Username: Russix Post Number: 213 Registered: 11-2006 |
Vactrain! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V actrain 5000 MPH! | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6228 Registered: 08-2004 |
Whenever I hear someone call it the "mugger mover", it reminds me of those suburbanites who boast that they haven't been downtown in 30 years... | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3867 Registered: 04-2006 |
Maglev system proposed for Paris: NYT: New Paris - As Dreamed by Planners (Message edited by iheartthed on March 17, 2009) | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 3994 Registered: 01-2005 |
Let's shoot for 186,000 MPS. Besides, time would just about stop. | ||
Hybridy Member Username: Hybridy Post Number: 273 Registered: 08-2006 |
wasn't there a whack job theory for a hoovercraft service from st clair shores to downtown-whatever happened to that one??? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1915 Registered: 12-2006 |
I love your idea, Ray! Not only could we get to Lansing essentially instantly, but when we got there we'd be very slightly younger relative to everybody else! "Why, Professor Scott, you're looking great!" "Well, thanks, Dave, but it's really quite simple: relative to you, I aged one ten-billionth of a second less on the trip from Detroit. Hence, that much less gray hair." | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 57 Registered: 01-2009 |
After he vigorously defends his reporting on Matty "The Troll" Moroun, he drops this clunker into print. The press release came from the lawmakers, not the train people. And it was a quickie Web story on what the lawmakers were doing, not a disseratation on the viability and history of the idea. It's news when lawmakers do something like this. Should Amy and I not have written that lawmakers are going to hold hearings on the viability of the idea? Sounds as if some of you would have plenty to say at those hearings, no? I imagine many people would appreciate knowing Lansing is getting into this stuff, for better or worse. If there's some long history about this stuff, I was unaware of it. A quick glance through our archives didn't bring anything up on it, and this wasn't a lengthy story for the print edition. This was a get-the-news-out Web story. If someone can point me to reputable news stories that raise questions about these guys and their ideas, by all means let me know and we'll be sure to include that if appropriate in any future stories. And FYI, I don't consider DY a reputable source to quote dismissing a proposal that is generating hearings in Lansing. Nor do I vet stories through a DY filter. "Some unnamed people on an Internet forum in Detroit say it's a bogus idea, and cite some unattributed facts. They also say Matty Moroun is a slumlord." LOL ... (Now that I think about it, was this in print or online? I'm on vacation this week, so I haven't seen the print edition. I actually only contributed a few lines in that story on Friday, and thought it was a quick-hit online story. That's how it was billed to me by the boss, LOL, but now I can't say for certain where it appeared first. That's a pitfall of the Internet age in journalism! Embarrassing, LOL). | ||
Shadesofbleu Member Username: Shadesofbleu Post Number: 13 Registered: 03-2009 |
Fact or Crap? FACT! It was reported on February 13th in several publications that this is being built in Michigan. Our government wants to explore new high speed alternatives, and Maglev is willing to foot the bill for the first test mile. http://www.gadgetreview.com/20 08/02/the-hydrogen-solar-magle v-train-coming-to-a-city-near- you.html | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1254 Registered: 07-2007 |
Thanks for letting us know Bill that the only thing needed to get a bogus idea into circulation in a major media outlet is to get a couple of lawmakers behind it. Today's "journalists" will uncritically report anything associated with it without checking to see if there's anything behind that idea. I hear that the perpetual motion machine is next on their agenda. But don't feel too bad, the boys over at the Freep spilled some ink on this idiotic idea too. "And FYI, I don't consider DY a reputable source to quote dismissing a proposal that is generating hearings in Lansing." I know, nothing said here, except when you're the one saying it, is worth the electrons used to generate it. The rest of us here are just a bunch of rubes and cranks who don't know anything about anything. I wasn't suggesting trolling DY for quotes. But if you had done a search of DY, you would have known that this bogus idea has been floated and debunked here before. Instead, you uncritically reported this proposal, leaving your readers with the impression that this is something that has any basis in reality when it's about as real as someone proposing to build a spaceport in Detroit for weekend flights to the moon. Good work Bill! | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1255 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Fact or Crap? FACT!" No, it's CRAP! Thanks for link that included the article that's been updated to show that it's crap. "Update: According Megan Owens, the Exectuive Director, Transportation Riders United of Detroit this story is incorrect. “Your story about a maglev train being built in Ann Arbor is wrong. The idea is neat, but Ann Arbor officials confirm that there is no truth to this rumor.”" | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1922 Registered: 12-2006 |
Novine, be fair. The sentence "x number of legislators are holding hearings on idea y" is potentially newsworthy, regardless of whether "idea y" actually has any legs. The very essence of why we need print journalism at all, is to keep tabs on what our elected officials are up to. We on this or any other blog are entitled to our opinions, but since nobody knows whether we have any expertise, nobody is going to quote us (as bloggers) in a news story, I hope. If I, personally not a a blogger, can convince a reporter that I have expertise worth sharing on this or that topic, my take on a story might hit the papers. The legislators, however, are elected officials, and as such whatever they do deserves to be aired in public. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1258 Registered: 07-2007 |
"The legislators, however, are elected officials, and as such whatever they do deserves to be aired in public." I agree. My beef with the coverage of this hasn't been the fact that it's been reported. It's good to know who in Lansing is a sucker for stupid ideas. Nor did I expect Bill to quote anyone from DY. But if he had looked beyond the Crain's archives or made a phone call or two, he would have realized that this is nothing more than a pipe dream. In this case, he missed the real story, which is that some guy with a half-baked idea was able to get a group of state legislators to give it time and day when it really needs to be consigned to the same category as a the perpetual motion machine. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1924 Registered: 12-2006 |
Well, Bill, there's your next story | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 872 Registered: 03-2008 |
Gistock, "Mugger Mover" is a phrase I picked up while I was tending bar at the old Ramada (now the Leland House, again)..it's what most of the permanent residents called the DPM. I work & play downtown on a regular basis, though I live on the extreme west side of the city. In my experience, the only thing the DPM is any good for is losing Cobo & Joe Louis parking money thru cheap access to other lots.. Hot tip of the day: Park in front of the Leland House for free, walk to the Times Square station and go gamble/hockey/concert/car show your brains out for the price of a couple fifty cent tokens.. Aside from that, it serves about as much purpose as a toy train circling a Christmas tree. Show me a NEED for high speed rail between Detroit/AA/Lansing before they create another cute toy that mostly gathers dust & costs money.. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4578 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Well, for one, you can't really walk from Detroit to Ann Arbor or Lansing. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 873 Registered: 03-2008 |
Yeah, but there are already several SWELL highways that'll get you there just fine..show a reasonable proof that all the folks who are making use of that paid-for pavement will abandon it to ride the train, or it's just another under-used toy wasting our money. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4580 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Those SWELL highways don't get you anywhere until you pony up money for a car, insurance, and gas. Never mind the time wasted in traffic, which can be used productively on a train. Let's not even get into a discussion on efficiency of land use. Maybe you should tell the people in the Northeast that trains are under-used toys, and they'd be much better off sitting parked on I-95 or the NJ Turnpike. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3682 Registered: 07-2004 |
Seems to me most of the cars are underused. Every time I'm on I-94, I usually see three cars with one passenger only (expensive toy) compared to one car that's full (swell and efficient). ;) | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1925 Registered: 12-2006 |
I'm amazed that anybody argues that transit is unnecessary. It's that 1950s thinking that has made Michigan the great and thriving place it is today! I think the relevant argument in a thread of this sort is on the subject: what is a useful form of transit, who pays for it, and how? Incidentally, the currently-proposed Detroit to Ann Arbor commuter rail is an abbreviated form of an older proposal which went Detroit - Ann Arbor - Lansing, but pretty quickly the Lansing segment was dropped, on predictions of underuse. The part from the D to A-squared, we are still trying to get started, haltingly and with very little money. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 874 Registered: 03-2008 |
I'm not arguing that it's unneccesary..I happen to love trains. However, you guys are trying to prove there is a NEED for this, and I'm not seeing the proof. 1. Who is currently making this trip on a regular basis? 2. How are they currently doing so? 3. Why should they give up their current form of transport for the new train? 4. What is the cost difference between this current mode of transport and the proposed train, and how many years will it take for the presumed savings to pay off the cost of construction? I drive I-96 to Lansing quite frequently..it's not exactly what one would call a bustling corridor for the most part. Where are all these passengers going to come from? | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 1760 Registered: 05-2005 |
quote: well, he is. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 875 Registered: 03-2008 |
"Seems to me most of the cars are underused. Every time I'm on I-94, I usually see three cars with one passenger only (expensive toy) compared to one car that's full (swell and efficient)." ;) Ahh, but what you DON'T see is the trunk full of tools, the rear seat full of parts, and the driver's head full of free will to arrive and depart on MY schedule. When I go to Lansing, I go there to work..the tools of my trade wouldn't make folks happy on a commuter train, and my next client would likely be rather upset if he had to wait for me to arrive on the railroad's schedule. You neglected to mention all the busses you see on that already-paid-for pavement, also.. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3685 Registered: 07-2004 |
1. How are we going to get affordable oil to keep gas at $1.90 a gallon for the rest of time? 2. As tastes change and more people prefer dense, walkable neighborhoods, how can we produce those environments when auto-only transportation produces low-density sprawl? 3. Though they are cheap to build at first, highways require more maintenance costs than rail. Where are we going to get money to pay to repave roads over and over? 4. If we're really serious about creating jobs, how can we justify spending our money on highways, which produce fewer jobs than rail? etc. etc. etc. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3686 Registered: 07-2004 |
Ahh, but what you DON'T see is the trunk full of tools, the rear seat full of parts, and the driver's head full of free will to arrive and depart on MY schedule. When I go to Lansing, I go there to work..the tools of my trade wouldn't make folks happy on a commuter train, and my next client would likely be rather upset if he had to wait for me to arrive on the railroad's schedule. ZRX, I do think you are reaching here. First we're talking about commuters. Then you want to change it to people who drive work vans and trucks. Make up your mind, OK? Anyway, nobody is going to stop you from driving your work van on the road. You say you like trains. Take a REAL train sometime, not these trains out here that run twice a day and sit on a siding while a coal train goes by. The Northeast's Big Four runs completely electrified from Boston to DC, with express, local and interagency services several times an hour at several different price points. And you can bring a toolbox if you really want. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 876 Registered: 03-2008 |
I drive a Toyota Corolla, only a damned fool would use a truck for my job when an economy car will carry a few hundred pounds of bulky tools just as easily..if the weather's decent and the job doesn't require a bunch of tools, I'll take my motorcycle..show me a train that approaches the level of cost efficiency of my Kaw and I'll eat the damned thing. But since we're on the subject, you are correct..a rather large percentage of the traffic you'll find on these roads IS work vehicle. All those vans & trucks serve a valid purpose, ya know? In order for them to get from point A to point B, the roads will need to be maintained, yes? So now we're right back to square one, where we have redundant means of travel. Regardless..YOU are skating past the point now. Building a rail system when there is no large rider base to use it isn't efficient at all, particularly when there are already alternatives in place and paid for. An off topic question, if you don't mind. Why exactly do you believe that the whole world is enamored with the idea of "population dense" living? Reality seems to point out that the first thing most folks do when they acquire the means is to light out for someplace with LESS population density. Y'all act like it's a crime to want to live somewhere where you can enjoy a little privacy. | ||
Cloud_wall Member Username: Cloud_wall Post Number: 41 Registered: 02-2009 |
I love that this space train runs to Lansing. Talk about a Bridge to Nowhere (but at least you're getting there fast) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Z2HihW_jdUQ I don't mean to totally slam Lansing, but if you're going to bring up a pie-in-the-sky plan like this, shouldn't you shoot for metro Chicago via I-196 or something? | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1260 Registered: 07-2007 |
"4. What is the cost difference between this current mode of transport and the proposed train, and how many years will it take for the presumed savings to pay off the cost of construction?" If we're going to have this debate, can it be about real proposals that have some basis in reality? Otherwise, I don't see why we can't talk about the Jetsons cars and teleporters. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1927 Registered: 12-2006 |
Agree, Novine. This has just about as much chance of coming to fruition as you or I have of getting elected President. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4583 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I think it's hysterical that 10 million people in Michigan = "no large rider base". | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 59 Registered: 01-2009 |
But if you had done a search of DY, you would have known that this bogus idea has been floated and debunked here before. LMFAO ... well, if it's been debunked by Novine and those madcap folks at DY, then it's gospel, eh? I'll add anonymous DY "experts" next to the Wikipedia on my list of reliable sources. </eyeroll> Again, and I'll say it this time with *feeling* so maybe it'll be understood: This wasn't an expose on the validity of the project. It was a short item on lawmakers holding hearings on something. If the lawmakers decide it's a bogus idea on par with the perpetual motion machine, or Internet forums as reliable sources, then we'll report that, too. ;) | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 1262 Registered: 07-2007 |
"I'll add anonymous DY "experts" next to the Wikipedia on my list of reliable sources." Har, har, har, oh what a sense of humor you have there Bill. I can't believe that you're down here wasting your time with a bunch of bums. Think what you want about the "experts" on DY that you make light of but I know I'll get a more complete assessment of what's going on in Detroit from posters on DY than I'll get in the pages of Crains. | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 519 Registered: 10-2006 |
"Those SWELL highways don't get you anywhere until you pony up money for a car, insurance, and gas." Non-sequitir. Michigan's household car ownership rate is already around 95%. "Never mind the time wasted in traffic, which can be used productively on a train." There's barely any traffic between Detroit and Lansing, and time used productively on a train pales in comparison to time saved by driving point-to-point to do whatever you want. "Let's not even get into a discussion on efficiency of land use." Let's, shall we? The freeway is already there, and is not heavily used. "Maybe you should tell the people in the Northeast that trains are under-used toys, and they'd be much better off sitting parked on I-95 or the NJ Turnpike." Irrelevent. The Northeast Corridor is completely different from Michigan. Wildly different density, vehichle ownership rates, congestion levels, highway toll structure, etc. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4584 Registered: 10-2003 |
So, Crawford, did all those conditions exist in Michigan before the Interstates were constructed, or did they develop since? If the former, how did people travel prior to 1956? | ||
Huggybear Member Username: Huggybear Post Number: 283 Registered: 08-2005 |
Anyone ever seen the Monorail episode of "The Simpsons?" | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3868 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Can I offer you salt and pepper? Neither you motorcycle nor your Toyota Corolla are anywhere near as efficient as a train. A regional train can carry upwards of one thousand people at any given time. A single train going from Detroit to Lansing would make say 10 stops. If at every stop a different set of people got on to fill the train to capacity then 10,000 people would have been moved in just one run. How much gas does it take to move 10,000 people using Toyota Corollas? I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head, but I do know that it takes more energy to do that than to move 10,000 people using a train. It would take even more energy to move 10,000 people using motorcycles. Then there is the issue of building roads to move 10,000 people. A road that moves 10,000 people takes up a lot more room than do train tracks. So a lot more land has to be cleared to move Toyota Corollas carrying 10,000 people in a time efficient manner than is needed to move 10,000 people on a train. THEN after all that we have to repave/reconstruct the damn roads every five years! Train tracks have to be maintained like once a century. | ||
Bshea Member Username: Bshea Post Number: 61 Registered: 01-2009 |
I can't believe that you're down here wasting your time with a bunch of bums. I'm a man of the people. I like to get down in the gutter and roll around. ;) Think what you want about the "experts" on DY that you make light of but I know I'll get a more complete assessment of what's going on in Detroit from posters on DY than I'll get in the pages of Crains. There are experts on here, no doubt. I've been e-mailed by a half-dozen folks offering to help and insight on stuff -- which was part of my reason for coming on here. I'm always looking for new experts. It's been a great help and I appreciate 'em. But they're helpful away from DY, not on here. I wonder if Albom vets his columns against the DY archive? And I would hope you'd get a more complete assessment of a city from something like this than from a B-to-B publication. Kinda common sense, no? But I'm just a hack reporter, so what would I know? Back to Grubb Street for me! | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1256 Registered: 10-2003 |
There is logic to the Detroit to Lansing run. Under the present administration, all our lives will be run by the government. Lansing will be an important driver of the highest employer in the city of Detroit: The Detroit Public School System. Not happy with your grades? Take the A train. | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 877 Registered: 03-2008 |
Iheartthed, you need to brush up on your reading skills..I didn't claim that either my little car OR my streetbike are more fuel efficient..I claimed they are more financially efficient..meaning that it's cheaper for me to put ten bucks worth of gas in the car to get to & from Lansing (or a couple bucks worth in the bike) than it will ever be to buy train fare both ways, cab fare once I'm in Lansing, time wasted sitting on my ass waiting for trains & cabs, etc, etc, etc.. The reality of your train's effiency is that it is only true when it's pulling a lot of passenger cars and the passenger cars are full..it costs a shitload of money/fuel to move a few thousand tons of train from A to B, if the passengers ain't there, it STILL costs a shitload to run the near-empty rig at a loss. As Crawford's statistics so eloquently pointed out, "near-empty" would very likely be the normal condition of this train. PS. If you honestly think trackage needs to be maintained "like once a century," you REALLY don't know jack about rail. Crawford..THANK YOU. Your post #519 is a refreshing ray of sanity. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3869 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: You are not calculating what you spend in purchasing the bike, the cost of insuring the bike, the cost of maintaining the bike, the cost of constructing and maintaining the roads that you use, nor are you calculating the cost of storing the bike while you are in Lansing. quote: The trains will only be "near empty" so long as the government continues to subsidize vehicular transportation. But road commission budget across the nation are struggling, so we'll see how they address the situation in the near future... | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 3687 Registered: 07-2004 |
>I drive a Toyota Corolla, only a damned fool >would use a truck for my job when an economy car >will carry a few hundred pounds of bulky tools >just as easily.. I don't know what you do. When you give me the whole "tools I don't see" speech, I presume you do the kind of work I used to do: An electrician's helper building gas stations. We probably carried a ton of parts with us everywhere. But my original point holds true: Nobody will stop you from driving your car to bring hundreds of pounds of tools with you. And nobody says that train travel is perfect for everything. It's just perfect for people who want to go from one node to another, without the hassle of driving, paying attention to the road, traffic jams, driving around for parking, paying for parking, experiencing road rage, gas bills, insurance bills, environmental damage, runoff, oil changes, breakdowns, tows, distorted foreign policy, etc., etc., etc. You say you like trains and that's great, but I don't see any will on your part to acknowledge that, in many cases, trains are preferable. You seem to presume that you are the same as everybody, and everybody is the same as you. >if the weather's decent and the job doesn't >require a bunch of tools, I'll take my >motorcycle..show me a train that approaches the >level of cost efficiency of my Kaw and I'll eat >the damned thing. It's too bad that your fuel-efficient vehicle can't be used by the old, the infirm, the blind, minors, people without special licenses, people who can't pay for a motorcycle, etc., etc., etc. Do you see where this is going, Doug? The solution that works just fine for you doesn't work for everybody. >But since we're on the subject, you are >correct..a rather large percentage of the >traffic you'll find on these roads IS work >vehicle. All those vans & trucks serve a valid >purpose, ya know? In order for them to get from >point A to point B, the roads will need to be >maintained, yes? So now we're right back to >square one, where we have redundant means of >travel. I think you leap past points a bit. Where am I saying that there should be no roads between Ann Arbor and Detroit? That's funny. When we started talking about train travel, your questions were quite different. But, fine, I'll humor you and I will try to explain it to you. Please try your best to hear me out. Every mode of transportation has the best thing it's suited for. If you need a skilled surgeon to come from Los Angeles to New York for an vital operation, obviously, a jet plane is the best mode to use, right? If you live in Boston and you need to give a speech at a certain time in Midtown Manhattan, you won't want a delayed flight or a traffic jam: the train will be the most certain to get you there on time. If you have an hour, no luggage and want to travel two miles through an interesting neighborhood with great people watching and no parking, foot travel can't be beat. If you want to travel from Battery Park City in Manhattan to the Bronx and you only have an hour, the express subway will get you there in time. Every different mode of transportation has its advantage, suited to its purpose. So, when I hear you talk about "redundancy," I guess I have to point out this: Cars and trucks and buses can't do it all. In fact, when we ask our vehicles to do EVERYTHING, they fail at the very thing they're supposed to be good at! Look at Macomb County, for instance. The environment is so hostile to walking, and things are so far away, you can't really walk. The buses aren't bad for going to another part of the metroplex, but they're irregular and slow. Cabs are expensive. And there aren't any trains, streetcars or light rail vehicles. So, you drive. Just like EVERYBODY ELSE. And that means that the FREEDOM of the car is effectively killed at the very point most people want it: Rush hour. But what if we lived in denser cities where you could buy a pack of cigarettes or a newspaper without getting into your car? What if we had many choices about how to get somewhere, and could leave the car at home? Wouldn't that free up the roadway for the VEHICLE THAT REALLY NEED A-to-B CAPABILITIES? Emergency vehicles, taxicabs, work vans, delivery trucks and postal vehicles are not going anywhere anytime soon. But to say that we ALL must use cars, trucks and buses and roadway only because any other form of transportation would be "redundant" is silly because it hobbles the very freedom we value. What people find when they build rail lines is that the stations are soon surrounded by "transit-oriented development." It means the people who invest the millions and billions of dollars in the built environment understand that the people who will likely want to live there want a certain density, lifestyle choices, walkability, urbanity and are likely to be more educated and prosperous than people who are satisfied with car-only development. And they likely live there because they commute to somewhere else near the rail line. Then more businesses locate along the rail line, to have access to that workforce. And, around those nodes, to have access to those workers, restaurants, nightclubs and bars open up to cater to the workers and bosses. So, over the course of five or ten years, rail lines are able to surpass ridership predictions, helping the environment, redeveloping low-density areas, spurring job growth and investment, and TAKING THOUSANDS OF CARS OFF THE ROAD. >Regardless..YOU are skating past the point now. >Building a rail system when there is no large >rider base to use it isn't efficient at all, >particularly when there are already alternatives >in place and paid for. But, Doug, the same could be said of the road-building spree of the 1910s. In 1900, if you wanted to drive your car from Detroit to Dearborn, you'd have to prevail upon locals, borrow their horse, and pull your car out of a manure-and-mud road over and over again if you wanted to make the trip. As a result, very few people did that. And, at the same time, the interurban was doing a booming business moving people from Detroit to Dearborn and beyond. So, since there was no large driver base to use an improved concrete road, by your reasoning, it wasn't efficient at all, particularly when there was an effective mode of transportation in place and paid for, right? But what happened was bicyclists, motorists and opponents of the traction monopoly wanted a CHOICE. And they got it. As a result, you can now drive your car from any point in Detroit to any point in Dearborn. And that's fine; nobody wants to take that away from you. All we want, we rail-boosters on DetroitYES!, is to have more choices. And given what happens when you offer choices, it's worth the cost. And it isn't redundant. >An off topic question, if you don't mind. >Why exactly do you believe that the whole world >is enamored with the idea of "population dense" >living? Reality seems to point out that the >first thing most folks do when they acquire the >means is to light out for someplace with LESS >population density. Y'all act like it's a crime >to want to live somewhere where you can enjoy a >little privacy. Well, Doug, it's a demonstrated FACT that, as opposed to 75 years ago, when the dream was to LEAVE the city, people younger than 40 have different attitudes about urban life. Not all of them, of course, but a significant percentage of them actually LIKE urban life. They don't want to have to get in a car to do everything. They don't want to have to drive home from the bar. They like having transportation choices. They like not investing so much of their income in cars, oil changes, insurance, parking, etc. They would rather have that income spent on other quality-of-life issues: A home closer to work, a home with entertainment choices, being able to shop at a neighborhood store for everyday things. But we don't give them any opportunity to have that here. So, when people younger than 40 want to live in a place like that, THEY are the ones who "light out" for other places that DO provide it. They go to San Francisco, New York, Chicago. They go to New Orleans, to Boston, to Philadelphia. And, often, what we're left with here are the people who aren't bothered much by huge parking lots, long drives, insurance bills and miles and miles of shimmering pavement. I DO think that it reinforces the attitude here, too. I can't blame a lot of people from metro Detroit for saying, "We need our cars. Without our cars we wouldn't be able to get around!" It's because people who think a bit more broadly about it as a "transportation" problem, they often just get up and go. Anyway, check out the premium sometime on a house in Birmingham over the same-sized house in Sterling Heights. The house in Sterling Heights would demand that you must drive everywhere for everything, and the house in Birmingham would be a few blocks off Old Woodward: Walkable, bikeable, with entertainment options in walking distance. You'll find that, yes, people are willing to pay more for that. And that's a fact of the market, not the rhetoric of a rail-booster. And, frankly, Doug, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, stop leaping to conclusions about what people want to STOP you from doing. Stop straw-manning. When people disagree with you, at least have the decorum and sense to understand what they're saying, and portray their arguments correctly. Or else it's just pointless yammering that doesn't do anything but waste bandwidth. Last time, we debated for about 10 posts back and forth before you realized what my point was. Let's not do that again, OK? |
