Bvos Member Username: Bvos
Post Number: 1864 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 134.215.223.211
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 1:47 pm: | |
For all the mass transit, people will never ride it, nay-sayers out there, here's an article to put your whining to rest. It shows what many of us on this board and in the planning field have been saying for years: cars are subsidized as much or more than mass transit. http://www.dissentmagazine.org /article/?article=658 |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 253 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 1:53 pm: | |
Does the pro-bus crowd think that they will not have to pay for roads for their busses to drive on or something? I know the article mostly advocates rails, but most of the discussion around here has been about busses... Also, you're never going to have a rail system that reaches all the way to places like Milford and Brighton where all the new subdivisions are going up, so the cost of the roads that go out that way isn't likely to go away...this cost will be there IN ADDITION to whatever public transportation system metro Detroit has. (Message edited by thejesus on August 21, 2006) |
Bvos Member Username: Bvos
Post Number: 1865 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 134.215.223.211
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 1:58 pm: | |
No, but they know that their impact on the roads and the environment is far less than individual cars. |
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1
Post Number: 7763 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 2:06 pm: | |
quote:Also, you're never going to have a rail system that reaches all the way to places like Milford and Brighton where all the new subdivisions are going up, so the cost of the roads that go out that way isn't likely to go away
And we all have to pay for it because people chose (or more appropiately allowed) to live out there. If they want to move where ther are no raods force them to incur some type of penalty since they will be the primary users of a raod that everyone pays for. Extending infrastructure with no limits and forcing all to pay for it is one of the most irrational arguments that can be made. |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 255 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 2:18 pm: | |
Jt1: That's just not realistic. As long as those roads are open for anyone to drive on, it always going to be a shared cost. It just is. I'm not saying you have to like it, but highways like I-96 West of Detroit and and M-14 are never going to be paid for just by the people who 'live out there'. |
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway
Post Number: 896 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.242.215.8
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 2:21 pm: | |
Just because they are building houses in Livingston County, or were in the light of the recent nosedive in housing permits, doesn't mean all will be lost if a lightrail system isn't built out there. Livingston County roughly has the population of Warren and that population is pretty scattered. A vast majority of the people in Metro Detroit live in the tri-county area, which is plenty dense for lightrail. |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 257 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 2:35 pm: | |
E_hemingway: The argument the article is making is that a lightrail is cheaper than a highway system. The problem is, we in Detroit don't have the luxury of chosing one over the other. Right now, we're paying for a massive highway system. If we build a light rail system, then we will be paying for a highway system AND a light rail system. This is just a fact that results from how our region has evolved. Now I don't want to be misunderstood. I am intrigued by the idea of building a light rail system in metro Detroit and would very much like to see it happen. But the argument that it will save us all money is full of holes. It will cost a lot of money, but may well be worth it. |
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1
Post Number: 7765 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 2:44 pm: | |
thejesus - What is your take on building new roads or expanding other raods because people choose to move to an empty area. Is that a cost that we should all shoulder? It is a cost that is putting a bigger strain on a crumbling infrastructure and people's pocketbooks. Why should all people be forced to pay for their decision to move to areas with dirt roads when the roads need to be paved? I am not talking about existing freeways. I am talking about building new roads because of even more sprawl. Projects like widening 23 mile road should be partially taken on by the developers/owners that chose to move all the congestion there. If you disagree then I suggest that we build all new roads throughout the entire state so I have nice surface roads for wherever I may decide to live throughout my life. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4203 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 3:24 pm: | |
The Jesus, you act like Detroit would only be the city expanding freeways and adding light rail. Light rail has gone into FAR less dense and sprawling cities over the past 10 years or so. I don't see why anyone would have an attitude that Detroit is somehow different considering what even some of the most sprawled cities and metros in this country have been able to accomplish in rail transit. |
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall
Post Number: 10 Registered: 05-2004 Posted From: 68.40.119.216
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 3:39 pm: | |
Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle as far as urban sprawl is concerned. You have a majority of Michigan reps from out of the metro area that are Republican and they aren't likely to sponsor any rail projects anytime soon. It's a struggle to keep the bus systems up and running so what makes you think a rail system is in the cards? I'd love myself but I'm afraid the Detroit area is forever going to sink or swim with the automobile. Taxpayers just won't foot the bill. |
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1
Post Number: 7767 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 198.208.159.19
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 3:40 pm: | |
quote:I'd love myself but I'm afraid the Detroit area is forever going to sink or swim with the automobile.
Sink, it is. |
Innovator Member Username: Innovator
Post Number: 7 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 68.167.71.74
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 3:52 pm: | |
You can't say we don't have a choice about where to spend our money. "For the time being the number one highway priority that leaders of both parties are lining up to support in southeast Michigan is rebuilding and widening an 18-mile stretch of Interstate 75 from 8 Mile to M-59. That portion of the highway was built in the 1960s at a cost of about $1 million to $2 million a mile. Rebuilding I-75 and adding a fourth lane in both directions is currently projected to cost $30 million to $35 million a mile, or between $540 million and $630 million. The project’s environmental impact statement also describes the need to improve and expand 56 miles of county roads that feed I-75 at a cost estimated at $500 million more. The total project cost, then is over $1 billion for the moment. How close that price tag is to the actual cost in 2011, when the project is scheduled to get under way, is anybody’s guess. But it’s not at all certain when rebuilding that section of I-75 will occur. Because the federal government requires a 20 percent match, Michigan, which owns the road, would have to come up with at least $100 million in state funds and perhaps much more than that, a formidable sum in a state where road dollars are already scarce..." http://www.mlui.org/transporta tion/fullarticle.asp?fileid=16 961 We don't need to consider spending 100 million plus on upgrading I-75. More roads just lead to more traffic and I think the worst thing we could do now is send a message that we will enable people to live farther away and encourage more automobile use. |
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity
Post Number: 326 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 70.236.181.62
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 3:56 pm: | |
The concrete skulls of Michigan Car Heads are tough to get through. They would rather watch Michigan continue its rocket shot down the shitter than do anything other than the status quo. |
Dillpicklesoup Member Username: Dillpicklesoup
Post Number: 157 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 64.7.188.204
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 4:34 pm: | |
at 3 bucks plus a gallon- I bet you wish you had some decent mass transit now- fyi- those medians down the expressways are for future mass transit vehicles- but with a lot of decent jobs dissappearing in michigan- y worry- stay home - if you can still afford your home- |
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 126 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 6:23 pm: | |
Never worry when gas hits $5 a gallon there will be no need to widen any more roads. Who knows, maybe the bus system will be forced to work correctly simply due to demand managemement? |
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee
Post Number: 40 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 69.95.236.213
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 6:31 pm: | |
Mass transit is a great idea for detroit. Some kind of a commuter rail would work well. It could open up downtown Detroit to alot of new development. If you had lines going to Pontiac and Bloomfield Hills, one out towards Ann Arbor, and one across the river to Windsor. You would make it much easier to get into the city. It worked well in Chicago with Metra |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 2675 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 4.229.105.178
| Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 6:48 pm: | |
Dillpicklesoup I have to respectfully disagree with you about those medians on the Freeways. They are there to handle the traffic barriers, nothing more. If they were there for mass transit, then the state highway department wouldn't have rebuilt all those freeway bridges WITH central bridge supports in that median area. |