 
Young_detroiter
Member
Username: Young_detroiter
Post Number: 74
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 4:20 am: |    |
Studies have begun and hearings will be held to access the feasibility of state-of-the-art mass transit linking Detroit to Lansing and Ann Arbor, according to Free Press article "High-speed Detroit-Lansing rail line envisioned."
http://www.freep.com/article/2 0090317/NEWS06/903170390/High- speed+Detroit-Lansing+rail+lin e+envisioned
Though such a project would be very costly, it would help lead this nation in the direction of more "green" and energy-efficient projects.
Meanwhile, it is necessary to offer more transportation options between Michigan's population center, Metro Detroit, and the state capital. Politically, this would make sense.
Furthermore, linking Detroit to Lansing and Ann Arbor would prove vital to the economy and rebirth of Detroit with rapid transportation for college students visiting family or touring the city as a weekend destination.
This state needs to begin building with the future in mind.
Could this also be a turning point for the Big Three were this to catch on? |
Gene
Member
Username: Gene
Post Number: 218
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 4:41 am: | |
Quote"
"Furthermore, linking Detroit to Lansing and Ann Arbor would prove vital to the economy and rebirth of Detroit with rapid transportation for college students visiting family or touring the city as a weekend destination."
You have got to be kidding. The only reason college students pass thru Detroit on the weekend is it's the fastest route to Windsor. |
Charcoalgreysoul
Member
Username: Charcoalgreysoul
Post Number: 10
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 4:49 am: | |
I would love to see that. I go to Ann Arbor quite a bit and would love to not have to drive there. Also, I know a decent amount of UofM students who consistently visit various events in Detroit...so I feel that traffic would definitely be more than one way. |
Gsgeorge
Member
Username: Gsgeorge
Post Number: 762
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 5:44 am: | |
Gene, you're way out of touch. I went to U of M and I didn't know a single peer who cared about going to Windsor or ever went. In fact, many of us spent our weekends in the CoD, at a show, a friend's house, a cool bar or restaurant, exploring the city, or at the museums. And to top it off, many of us took the train ($11 each way) as an alternative to driving if we didn't have a car or wanted to get home without having to worry about endangering others. A high-speed rail, or a more regular rail service, would provide a huge boost to U of M students interested in visiting Detroit & spending time there. Imagine getting from Ann Arbor to Detroit in 15-20 minutes, as opposed to the 35-45 it takes now! |
Gsgeorge
Member
Username: Gsgeorge
Post Number: 763
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 5:49 am: | |
Also Gene, let's say for a second that you're right, that the only reason U of M students pass through Detroit is to get to Windsor. Well what's to say they wouldn't take the hi-speed rail if it were available? I know I would rather leave the car behind if I'm going to get drunk in Windsor. Take the hi-speed to the city, and then the shuttle across the river. Good to go. Get there faster and without all the hassle of waiting at the border, getting searched like you're a terrorist, etc. |
Gnome
Member
Username: Gnome
Post Number: 2506
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 5:52 am: | |
quote:a huge boost to U of M students interested in visiting Detroit
Just what Detroit needs: more folks without money.
Even better, spend close to a trillion dollars, just to shave 15 minutes off their weekly visits. |
Gsgeorge
Member
Username: Gsgeorge
Post Number: 764
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 6:00 am: | |
Gnome, I agree that a hi-speed to Ann Arbor only is pretty overkill. The rail would need to go all the way to Chicago to be justified.
And if your logic about students were true, then tell me why retail in Ann Arbor does so well and why that city is bustling like it is? Is that city even nearly as obnoxiously deserted as Detroit? No, because there is an economy there, supported by students, who spend their parents money like drunken sailors. |
Gene
Member
Username: Gene
Post Number: 219
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 6:04 am: | |
Gsgeorge, don't know what year(s) you attended U of M, or when was the last time you tried to go into Windsor on a Friday or Saturday night,but anyway.
How many riders, and at what cost to go to Detroit?
Once GM goes under what will be left?
Pipe dream waste of money.
Fix the social problems first. The rest will take care of itself. |
Gsgeorge
Member
Username: Gsgeorge
Post Number: 765
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 6:30 am: | |
quote:Fix the social problems first. The rest will take care of itself.
Right, the hi-speed rail ants will automatically start laying the first miles of track once our government "solves" crime and poverty. |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2273
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 7:47 am: | |
quote:then tell me why retail in Ann Arbor does so well and why that city is bustling like it is? It's.... because there is an economy there, supported by students, who spend their parents money like drunken sailors.
An even bigger reason are the two major state-supported universities and their employees, who spend UM & EMU's $400 million of state-appropriated funds like drunken sailors.
So if private investors are lining up to spend $15 million per mile ($540 million) to build a hi-speed train system between AA and Detroit, I say let 'em, especially since they are willing to share the bountiful profits 50-50 with the state and local communities through which the elevated track passes. Surely the other communities along the way will get some of that trickled-down state and parental money that will more easily leak out of AA and Ypsi with the riders of a high speed link like this. (sarcasm off)
Honestly, some of the posters on these kind of threads remind me of the Cargo Cultists of New Guinea. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 4411
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 11:53 am: | |
I agree with gsGeorge...Gene is off. I honestly knew only a handful of people who ever went to Windsor from UM when I was there. Especially when, for the frat types among us, clubs in Detroit, like [the now defunct?] Bleu would accept busloads of underage partyers.
On the A2 matter in general, I think that the student crowd is just one component in the success of such a line. As I've said repeatedly, a rail link from A2 to DTW would be very heavily used. And indeed, A2 to downtown Detroit is a popular route for people going to events in either city. And, believe it or not, many people live in/near Detroit and work or go to school in Ann Arbor. I wasn't the only student that would hop the chronically late Amtrak in A2 and alight in New Center or Oakland Cnty.
------
We've seen these sketches before. Obviously, it's impressive, but it's more than you need if what you want is fast and efficient inter-city transit. All you need is a fairly basic rolling stock on a standard railroad grade that is elevated in the sense of not having any at-grade crossings. If the format pictured is cheaper than using the existing D-A2 grade (and upgrading it so there are no at-grade crossings), then let's go for it, but if not, then let's just try to replicate the express services of NY-area commuter rail services.
---
Transit doesn't follow from a lack of social problems. It's probably the reverse.
I can't tell you how many distressed cities and towns are criss-crossed by high quality transit across the country, especially in the NE. The hub of the NJ Transit system is the second most stigmatized city in the country after Detroit. It's problems do not affect the efficacy of the transit system, but surely, that city would be even worse off without the presence of a transit network. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3865
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 12:18 pm: | |
quote:
An even bigger reason are the two major state-supported universities and their employees, who spend UM & EMU's $400 million of state-appropriated funds like drunken sailors.
Yet UM's budget is over $3bn. So if anything, UM brings a lot more to the state of Michigan in tax revenue through research and spin-off business, than it gets from state-appropriated funds. |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2274
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 12:45 pm: | |
quote:Yet UM's budget is over $3bn. So if anything, UM brings a lot more to the state of Michigan in tax revenue through research and spin-off business, than it gets from state-appropriated funds.
Yet Ms. Coleman publicly whines about the fact that the state of Michigan can only afford a 3% appropriation increase and then hikes student tuition by 5.6%. Public universities across the US will soon learn the hard way that they cannot just pass along their costs to the consumer and taxpayer and that they will have to become more efficient, just like everyone else. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 12:50 pm: | |
Its funny, I dunno if DaninDC can back me up on this again, but in the areas surrounding stations on the DC Metro, there is something like a 300% increase in economic growth |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3866
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 12:55 pm: | |
quote:Yet Ms. Coleman publicly whines about the fact that the state of Michigan can only afford a 3% appropriation increase and then hikes student tuition by 5.6%. Public universities across the US will soon learn the hard way that they cannot just pass along their costs to the consumer and taxpayer and that they will have to become more efficient, just like everyone else.
Well, if the state would fall back and stop trying to meddle in University operations then she wouldn't have ammunition to complain about state funding.
(An example would be that bill the legislature tried to pass to require public universities to have all construction projects approved at the state level, whether or not the project was state funded.) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4566
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 1:10 pm: | |
quote:I dunno if DaninDC can back me up on this again, but in the areas surrounding stations on the DC Metro, there is something like a 300% increase in economic growth
The precise numbers depend on the station location, configuration of the station access (pedestrian-only, or surrounded by park-and-ride lots), and the surrounding zoning, which depends on the jurisdiction in which the station is located. Of course, it isn't difficult to see the return on investment when one sees an auto repair shop turned into a 12-story apartment building simply because of the property location.
For a regional rail system, as proposed above, a more appropriate comparison would be one of the New York area commuter railroads, Metra, or SEPTA Regional Rail. The return on investment, of course, would depend on the surrounding zoning and frequency of transit service. I would expect, however, that the hub (or terminal station) would realize very intense development, with smaller, "town" development at outlying suburban stations. |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 2:44 pm: | |
Young_detroiter wrote, "Could this also be a turning point for the Big Three were this to catch on?"
Why would high-speed rail make people buy cars? Or did you mean that the Big 3 would be in even deeper trouble if the system was built? I don't think it would make a difference, either way. |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2275
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 2:49 pm: | |
I think he wrote that because the article mentions that the Big Three could manufacture the rail cars.
However, the Big Three are in the business of mass-manufacturing and the small number of rail cars involved would do nothing to solve their current problems, even if this pipe dream were to become a reality. |
Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath
Post Number: 958
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 4:09 pm: | |
-Just listen to the conservatives here: do absolutely nothing regarding mass transit, wait for gas to hit $4.50 again, and just wait for the economic growth....
Oh wait, that has been the plan of conservatives, and what we have done all along, where is the economic growth?
A continuous high-speed rail link from Toronto to Chicago would turn this region into a growth corridor.
For God sakes, even conservative Utah now has light and heavy rail, and development along those corridors is indeed happening, and they see the benefits, in a place with a lot less population density. I swear the naysayers here have their heads stuck in 1972 here and it is no mystery why our economy is in reverse......Keep talking and poo-pooing every new idea, your contribution is great- to other competing metro areas, that are leaving us in the dust technologically, culturally, educationally, and quality of life. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1916
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 4:21 pm: | |
Cinderpath, I am as much in favor of rapid transit as anybody you are ever likely to meet. This project, however, is a fantasy. I would be absolutely amazed if something like this can be built for five times Mr. Sutton's projections.
His revenue-stream assumptions are also unrealistic. For instance, he expects to gain revenue from leasing conduit space. Which utilities will lease this space? He specifies, for instance, water. Really? Water, in an above-ground conduit, in Michigan?
Then: the stations will be at expressway interchanges. Really? So I'm going to step off of this vehicle, and now I'm on foot, without a car, at an expressway interchange. Is this a convenient place for the station to be? No, but along a freeway it's the only place you've got.
I like new ideas but they have to be thought through. Mr. Sutton has been trying to sell this concept all over the world for several years. Nobody has ever successfully implemented any kind of small-vehicle mass transit system anywhere in the world, because such systems do not work in practice. If he can get the money and build it, and it really works and people use it, I'll be happy for him. But we would be better off concentrating on technologies that actually move people around, all over this planet, and are known to work, and have known costs and risks: light rail, commuter rail, subways, buses, streetcars. |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1199
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 5:01 pm: | |
We heard from this guy a few years back. Why can't we fix the basics first? For instance, building a new Amtrak station in East Lansing to replace the current dump (a former lumberyard office/showroom). |
Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath
Post Number: 959
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 5:13 pm: | |
I agree with you Professorscott- I think traditional HSR, like the ICE in Germany or TGV in France is a proven, reliable technology as opposed to what was presented. I just get tired of people who every time the subject gets brought up, shoot it down (the same people who forget this is the same country who put a man on the moon) and never offer any solutions, only criticism, and meanwhile we are getting eclipsed. And they they wonder what is wrong with our region/state/etc. When it comes to this, our state is way behind the curve, and internationally speaking, not really on the curve. |
Young_detroiter
Member
Username: Young_detroiter
Post Number: 75
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 5:21 pm: | |
Detroit (meaning Detroiters and Metro Detroiters, alike) has always stepped up to the plate when America needed her most. The car manufacturers shifted their focus away from producing cars when we became the Arsenal of Democracy.
Why is it not possible for the car manufactures to diversify their focus to include monorail cars for endeavors throughout North America?
The question: "Could this be a turning point for the Big Three [if this] were...to catch on?" was in reference to the small possibility of not only this vision being realized but the development of similar light rail projects throughout the nation. Is it possible that the Big Three could simply begin producing light rail cars along with the "mass" production of their specialty, vehicles?
As far as such a line being erected from Detroit to Chicago - It is ambitious, but would likely not be developed due to the need of cooperation of thousands of private landowners, the governments of three states, and people willing to foot bill (be it private or public money). |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 2276
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 5:31 pm: | |
quote:Is it possible that the Big Three could simply begin producing light rail cars along with the "mass" production of their specialty, vehicles?
As a long-time stockholder of GM , I would argue that the answer to that has already been proven to be "no".
GM in particular and Ford to a lesser extent took their "eye off the ball" in the 1980's when they undertook a diversification and expanded their number and types of business ventures, all of which they have since exited. The need to stick to cars and light truck production if they want to survive! |
Markm
Member
Username: Markm
Post Number: 3
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 8:24 pm: | |
This is the biggest pipe dream I've ever seen. Of all the high speed rail networks I've seen proposed, this is the most likely because of this sentence:
"The elevated rail line would use cars -- built by Detroit Three automakers."
In true Detroit fashion this plan is full of corruption. The big three don't make trains, never have made trains, and have never done and R&D for trains. Instead of purchasing from an existing train manufacturer or using some existing high speed technology from Japan or Europe, we'd give billions of dollars to companies known for inefficiency so they can maintain a stranglehold on transportation in this country.
http://www.interstatetraveler. us/ Check out "Worldwide Hydrogen Super Highways" website, very professional looking. It sure looks like done lots of real world testing on this. |
Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman
Post Number: 782
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 9:04 pm: | |
The NEW big three are
SMART, DDOT and Hertel
All we need now is a county sales tax to pay Mr. Hertel for his nice mass transit plan that hopefully will work.
If I get support on DETROIT LINKS under Trainman's save the.. then I'll get him to go on television and publicly challenge him.
You can pay for my mass transit plan. or Mr. Hertel's. My plan is better then Mr. Hertel, so I want the taxpayers to pay me.
Since I filled the buses up in Livonia, I'm sure I can fill all the buses and trains up all over southeast Michigan much better then Mr. Hertel.
But, I need your support DYer's |
Glowblue
Member
Username: Glowblue
Post Number: 188
Registered: 09-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 1:18 am: | |
quote:The big three don't make trains, never have made trains, and have never done and R&D for trains.
Is this a joke? Have you never heard of EMD? Do you realize that General Motors almost singlehandedly spurred the dieselization of American railroads, and at one point controlled 80% of the global locomotive market? |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1921
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 1:31 am: | |
It might help to point out that what Mr. Sutton is proposing is not "trains". A train consists of multiple linked vehicles, usually traveling on some kind of track.
Mr. Sutton is proposing something nobody has ever seen, which is why folks are having trouble envisioning it correctly. The system would consist of very small vehicles, the size of compact cars or perhaps even smaller, traveling on an elevated structure of some kind.
General Motors has never made anything of this kind, and neither has anyone else, anywhere in the world.
I agree with Markm's decidedly sarcastic view of the Interstate Traveler website. It has a very mid-90s feel to it, possibly because that site is in fact quite old.
The concept has been around, in some form or another, for perhaps 30 years or even more, yet no system has ever been built of that kind. Why is that? Occam's Razor suggests if nobody has built a certain thing, that is probably because the thing is not practical. |
Shadesofbleu
Member
Username: Shadesofbleu
Post Number: 14
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 4:15 am: | |
Photos of proposed system; http://www.gadgetreview.com/20 08/02/the-hydrogen-solar-magle v-train-coming-to-a-city-near- you.html |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4574
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 9:06 am: | |
I'm still trying to figure out how the Interstate Traveler system operates different from cars on roads. |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1200
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 9:24 am: | |
Thanks, Glowblue, for pointing that out about Electro-Motive! GM owned EMD until it sold it, effective April 4, 2005. GM was the single most important company worldwide in converting railroads from steam to diesel.
And General Motors *did* do R&D on trains and made at least two of them: the Train of Tomorrow in 1947, and the Aerotrain in 1956. The latter even had Harley Earl's plane insignia on the locomotive. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 1256
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 10:10 am: | |
"Shadesofbleu", I don't know who's pushing this scam but this is nothing but a pie-in-the-sky scheme of Mr. Sutton's. None of the claims in the article about government involvement or construction are true. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 1257
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 10:13 am: | |
The News article has a list of the names of the rubes in Lansing who are giving this plan a hearing. If you have your own nutty plan to promote, now you know who to contact.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20090317/P OLITICS/903170327/1022/POLITIC S |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1202
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 11:21 am: | |
I've sold maglevs to Brockway! Ogdenville! And North Haverbrook!
But seriously, people would give Sutton more credit if he would at least build a prototype vehicle.
(Message edited by Burnsie on March 18, 2009)
(Message edited by Burnsie on March 18, 2009) |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1923
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 11:54 am: | |
Shoot, Burnsie, you and I could do that in a weekend! Take one of those new VWs, slap a new undercarriage on it that looks "maglevish", and put a sticker on the gas cap that says "hydrogen only".
If Mr. Sutton can construct 1000 feet of this on a farm somewhere, and make it work, then two good things will happen: first, we skeptics will have much more comfort that this is a serious idea (whereas now we have great comfort that Mr. Sutton is good at selling fantasies to newbies); and second, Mr. Sutton will get a much better idea of what construction will actually cost.
Novine is absolutely correct: the only government involvement at this point is that legislators will hold hearings. |
Hunchentoot
Member
Username: Hunchentoot
Post Number: 136
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 12:06 pm: | |
This proposal needs to die. It's very similar to a plan I drew up when I was literally seven years old that I later realized was too complex to be workable.
Utilities in the rails? Aside from the terrorist threat this poses by potentially having all utilities cut off at one choke-point, what about the difficulty of connecting them to the existing
infrastructure?
A car ferry? The hell?
The renderings supporting this system get even more juvenile and fantastical when you look at the many more sketches on the website for this system. Plus, like M. C. Escher's infinite stairs, some of the drawings contain major problems in spacial reasoning.
I was very excited when I saw the headline and my stomach turned over when I saw the old, familiar renderings pictured. |
Ro_resident
Member
Username: Ro_resident
Post Number: 225
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 4:43 pm: | |
quote:I'm still trying to figure out how the Interstate Traveler system operates different from cars on roads.
Come on, are you blind, its traffic control is based on TCP/IP. http://www.interstatetraveler. us/tcp_ospf.htm
Which is roughly equivalent to saying the system goes to eleven. </sarcasm> |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3689
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 1:37 pm: | |
>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?  |
Zrx_doug
Member
Username: Zrx_doug
Post Number: 880
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 1:58 pm: | |
Nerd, you're still failing to answer any of the questions I put to you..and the friggin' things seem to have dissapeared now.
Interesting.
I don't have any problem realizing what your point is, I just don't think it's rooted in reality. |
Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 555
Registered: 09-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 2:07 pm: | |
Attention Fort Street Union Depot passengers! Now departing on track 4, Chesapeake and Ohio westbound train number 19, The night express. Making stops at Lansing and Grand Rapids. All Aboard! |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3691
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 2:10 pm: | |
Your old questions are in the top thread. I figured it would be best to address your most recent questions, which I have.
Of course, those questions weren't addressed particularly to me. They were addressed to everybody. And if you were really interested in having those questions answered, you sure lost interest quickly, and so I've addressed the questions and comments you made most recently. (I also note that you say it's "interesting," as if it's some conspiracy against you or something.)
I've raised a number of points, examples, reasoning and evidence. Your response? Oh, I get your point, I just think it's not "rooted in reality."
Perhaps you mean "your reality," Doug. I address your most recent post, in great length, point by point, trying to make clear what we're talking about, how I'd respond to your questions, and you offer a 41-word lame reply behaving like I haven't answered your (forgotten) questions and carefully begging off the whole conversation.
I guess we know how much your opinions are worth when you dare not defend them.
As you were. |
Gsgeorge
Member
Username: Gsgeorge
Post Number: 768
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 3:44 pm: | |
Doug are you crazy? Detroitnerd just SCHOOLED you on the benefits of train travel by answering your questions one by one, and even threw you a bone by acknowledging that car travel is sometimes preferred. Wake up and smell the engine oil. |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.