Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning July 2006 » For all you mass transit nay-sayers « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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)
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No, but they know that their impact on the roads and the environment is far less than individual cars.
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


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.
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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'.
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


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.
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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-
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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?
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Top of pageBottom of page

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:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.