  Detroitman Member Username: Detroitman Post Number: 1018 Registered: 06-2004 |
Rapid transit may pull into Detroit Grant will help city plan for new system, which could include bus service, street cars or a rail line. Andy Henion / The Detroit News http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/M ETRO/611030350 | ||
Nellonfury Member Username: Nellonfury Post Number: 195 Registered: 03-2005 |
OUTSTANDING NEWS!!!!!! Make it happen Detroit!!!!!!! | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1666 Registered: 10-2004 |
"Congress has allocated $100 million for the SEMCOG study, contingent on a $20 million local match. The actual costs of establishing a rapid bus system could reach $2 billion, while a light-rail system could cost as much as $8 billion." There's no way that the Feds will cough up 60% of $2 to $8 billion for Detroit. And there's no way for the local governments to put up the rest when they too are beginning to go south themselves. | ||
Mayor_sekou Member Username: Mayor_sekou Post Number: 230 Registered: 09-2006 |
Well its just another study but it still sounds exciting especially the streetcar idea more power to them. | ||
Bob_cosgrove Member Username: Bob_cosgrove Post Number: 400 Registered: 03-2005 |
Anything SEMCOG is involved in has got to be suspect. They've horsed up Mass Transit long enough. | ||
Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986 Post Number: 168 Registered: 01-2004 |
600 Million for the people mover is what is amazing: what could that have bought in 1976? I am sure a heck of a lot more than 3 miles | ||
Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986 Post Number: 169 Registered: 01-2004 |
600 Million for the people mover is what is amazing: what could that have bought in 1976? I am sure a heck of a lot more than 3 miles | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 194 Registered: 07-2004 |
the PM "only" ended up costing $200 million or so. it was supposed to be done for around $70M. we never got the rest of the funding because it took over 10 years to get the people mover done. once ford wasn't reelected, the following administrations didn't feel compelled to uphold his campaign promise to detroiters. | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 849 Registered: 01-2004 |
I don't understand what goes into these studies, or why they take so long. However, if the region takes advantage of all this we can set ourselves up real nicely for the future. | ||
Treelock Member Username: Treelock Post Number: 171 Registered: 03-2005 |
The $600 million promised by Ford was supposed to have been for a transit system for the entire region. But dysfunctional regional politics predictably got in the way. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 8 Registered: 10-2006 |
If you got the feds to put up $100 million just for a study, then you can prob. expect a lot more for actual implementation. | ||
Frenchman_in_the_d Member Username: Frenchman_in_the_d Post Number: 93 Registered: 08-2006 |
I don't want to piss off anybody here. This is great news, but here is my question: Is a mass transit project necessary for Detroit SO soon? Unfortunately, a lot of people in the suburbs don't work downtown (correct me if I'm wrong). The study is necessary, but is there an immediate urge for rapid mass transit at this point. I would think that a residential boom downtown and a surge in office space should be then accompanied by mass transit. This same boom will also prompt the feds and state reps to realize the urgency of it. I really don't see anything happening unless a real metamorphosis takes place. I see a mass-transit birht taking place as part of a larger change in the whole region, once, I think, we are over the declining economic cycle. Once again, this study is great news, and hoping for a mass transit soon! Comments are more than welcome. | ||
Spiritofdetroit Member Username: Spiritofdetroit Post Number: 18 Registered: 11-2006 |
According to 2004 records for research I did in 2005, there were 112,000 reported suburban workers working inside the city of Detroit, or 1/3 of the 300,000 jobs in the city as a whole. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 604 Registered: 09-2005 |
Michigan taxpayers have been paying for transit improvements in other states for years and getting nothing back in return. When federal dollars are allocated to transit in other states and Michigan gets nothing, Michigan taxpayers are paying to support transit in other states. Michigan needs to come up with a transit plan for the Detroit area that can be sold to the Feds. If not, the one state recession will continue and Michigan taxpayers will make sure small communities that no one has ever heard of in West Virginia continue to bring in more federal transit dollars than Southeast Michigan. Getting $100 million for $20 million is an amazing deal. Take back your tax dollars, Michigan, and start building better transit! -end of preaching. (Message edited by upinottawa on November 03, 2006) | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 325 Registered: 04-2006 |
Suburb to suburb commutes would need to be addressed as part of an overall regional transit plan. http://www.semcog.org/Products /pdfs/transitplan10-01.pdf the link above is the basis for the individual corridor studies being done, AA-Detroit and the DDOT studies. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1887 Registered: 10-2003 |
Trying to serve suburb-to-suburb commuters is absurd. Transit systems will go broke trying to provide service along automobile-oriented corridors with low population densities. | ||
Frenchman_in_the_d Member Username: Frenchman_in_the_d Post Number: 96 Registered: 08-2006 |
I totally agree with Danindc. Mass transit is almost exclusively based on a 'star-like' scheme: rail lines radiating out of the center and passes through VERY dense corridors (A reason why I think Detroit won't see anything anytime soon) Mass transit for suburb to suburb commute is simply not viable. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4093 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Trying to serve suburb-to-suburb commuters is absurd." Please explain why most of the populace of the region could not be served. Not trying to be a smart-ass, just trying to understand why desired service seems to be based on old realities, not the current population requirements. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1888 Registered: 10-2003 |
Let's just put it this way: if it's an environment that's not pleasant, or even outright hostile, for pedestrians, no one in their right mind is going to take transit. Would you walk along Big Beaver Road to catch a bus? | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2291 Registered: 10-2003 |
In the Detroit region, suburb to suburb commuting has to be included. 80% of the regions population lives outside of Detroit. Most of the jobs have moved to the suburbs with them. A majority of them never travel to Detroit. No need to, neither their job nor home are there. Without suburb to suburb transit lines the system would be virtually unused. Very few people travel suburb to city in the Detroit region. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1889 Registered: 10-2003 |
But you have to base it on a system of nodes. You can't just go willy-nilly and put a rapid transit stop outside everyone's front door. Let's keep in mind that suburbanites CHOOSE to live in their sprawling, traffic-choked hell. | ||
Quickdrawmcgraw Member Username: Quickdrawmcgraw Post Number: 80 Registered: 10-2005 |
You know what, if Cleveland can have a transit system from the suburbs to their downtown, then Detroit should have one as well. Our initial rail should be from Oakland County (via Woodward) to Downtown and from Downtown to Ann Arbor with a link to Metro Airport. If it is fast and efficient, people will use it. If there are park & ride stops along the way, people will use them. If there are feeder buses to those stations, people will use them. I like others do get tired of being in the car all the time. I would like to see this happen in my lifetime. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4095 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Let's keep in mind that suburbanites CHOOSE to live in their sprawling, traffic-choked hell." ...and that is their choice and the choice of businesses (read employers)to locate there. The point is the suburbs can not be taken out of the equation in this region. And yes, I have walked along Big Beaver dragging two cases of equipment to get to my assignment. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2292 Registered: 10-2003 |
Dan did you read semcogs plan? It includes node to node commuting. Most of the nodes are not in the city. The plan is well thought out to address all of your issues and includes a lot of suburb to suburb commute paths. We're trying to solve a regional issue. Yes 75% of our population has chosen to live in the suburbs. That is the reality the people in the Detroit Metro region live with. So we need to provide transit solutions to the entire region not just the 25% who have been economically unable to move to the suburbs from the city. The city doesn't have the ability to raise the funds needed to run the transit system it has. It needs the money from the suburbs. The suburbs aren't going to cough up money unless they see a direct benefit to them. No suburb to suburb commute = no money for the system. It is the reality of the Detroit metro region. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1890 Registered: 10-2003 |
Anyone on this thread have any experience travelling suburb-to-suburb on transit? I'd like to know your thoughts. If you haven't--why not? | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4096 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yes, I have, currently it is difficult and time consuming. Mile road lines run about one an hour. Transfer points such as Oakland Mall, Universal Mall and the Royal Oak Transit Center do help bring several lines together. A small irrelevant point, as this question is, while on those lines I pass many, many business districts and heavily populated neighborhoods and apartment buildings, something that is not as prevalent on my experiences on the Ddot lines. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 722 Registered: 07-2004 |
There is such a thing as "induced demand." That means that when you build transportation infrastructure, people see opportunities and take them, opening businesses, buying homes, starting restaurants, etc. That is what has happened for more than 50 years with automobiles in Detroit. Who would have moved out to 32 Mile Road unless there were freeways there to induce the demand for that land? Similarly, groups studying mass transit have concluded that light rail systems (or streetcars) are the single greatest driver of investment in America's inner cities. That's "induced demand" at work too. It means that light rail is capable of driving development and inducing demand with a system that can fill in city centers with jobs, businesses, people, owners and renters, etc. Develop the system further and it becomes possible for people to give up their cars and live a denser lifestyle. That feeds back into demand for mass transit because streetcars are quite good at carrying many people (more than buses) safely and smoothly over medium-length distances in high density areas. Because they're bigger and stabler, they can accomodate increased flow more fluidly than car-centered freeways, which must be expanded at enormous cost. Ultimately, high density living consumes less power, uses less sewerage, increases diversity, promotes health through walkability, and increases the value of depressed real estate. I think that helps explain why urban advocates, light-rail boosters and environmentalists are so enthusiastic about these systems being built in cities, not as ways to extend or mitigate expensive, environmentally degrading freeway-suburb grids. And that may be why people who've seen what light rail can do in decaying cities are puzzled by the emphasis on suburb-to-suburb proposals. | ||
River_rat Member Username: River_rat Post Number: 244 Registered: 02-2006 |
This is another joke. Three million will keep ten political cronies on the payroll at $75,000 to 100,000 a year for 2-3 years and they will conclude that there is need for further study. Somebody was smokin' somethin' to get this story into print. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4097 Registered: 10-2003 |
Simple lay-persons counterpoint; Almost all of the major transit routes currently originate (end) in the CBD and always have, yet the CBD offers a very small percentage of the jobs in the region and very limited retail is available. Based on your contention the reverse should be true. The reality is people, shopping and jobs are in the suburbs and light rail on Woodward or CBD to Ann Arbor only benefits a limited few in the region. I'm a huge fan of transit for the region, but based on the realities of where people live and work now, not what might be. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 723 Registered: 07-2004 |
Jams, That's induced demand at work. You must look at the subsidies for roads and freeways (massive and ever-expanding) vs. transit (no streetcars for 50 years, a bus system with chronic lateness and a motely mix of vehicles, competing with cars for right of way, etc.) If we started to see funding for something like light rail, odds are we could see induced demand flowing back from the exurbs into our central cities. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1402 Registered: 11-2003 |
I love this quote.  | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4098 Registered: 10-2003 |
So explain to me how a light rail system along Woodward or Michigan Aves. benefits the guy who works in Novi, Mt. Clemens or even Troy. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2296 Registered: 10-2003 |
Detroitnerd, Yes induced demand does and will work with upgraded transit. Unfortunately you need to build the system to address today's needs and today's funding sources first. Detroit's current funding sources are separated from Detroit's needs. The funding sources are not in the city, they are in the suburbs and don't travel to the city very often. Those funding sources are not going to pony up for a system that only runs city to suburb. They will demand their needs be met by the system. That means suburb to suburb commutes. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1891 Registered: 10-2003 |
It doesn't. Does that preclude the need for a transit system, though? You don't think metropolitan areas with transit systems don't have suburban job hubs?
I'm kinda curious if this is necessarily true. SMART seems to keep getting its millages renewed, but only about 1-2% of the suburban population rides. I'm willing to bet that suburbanites would pay for a system that makes it easier for them to get into Detroit. To wit, the Tiger Train this fall. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2297 Registered: 10-2003 |
SMART's millage is tiny. People are willing to pay that tiny amount to help out the poor. They do see SMART busses in their neighborhoods. I don't think they will pony up for a real mass transit system if they don't think it will be built near them. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4099 Registered: 10-2003 |
As a person without a personal vehicle for over 4 1/2 years now, I've a vested interest in an efficient transit system. I live close to the CBD. This is where the reality hits. The jobs are in the suburbs and are spread over a wide area. Limited lines are fine, but where are the support lines in your offered light rail systems. What good does a light rail line do for someone that works 5 miles from Woodward on Big Beaver? The over-all regional needs should be studied before limited lines are proposed otherwise they are doomed to the same failure as the building of the People Mover without the feeder lines that were proposed. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 724 Registered: 07-2004 |
Yes, Ndavies, but I would point out that it *does* benefit suburbanites to have a light-rail system in Detroit. The ensuing development attracts investment, creates jobs, stanches the brain drain, provides young people who are fleeing the region with high-density choices instate, reduces e-way congestion, and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. It's just tough work to make people see these gains properly. Besides, once it's up and they ditch their car at a park-and-ride to go see a game, they'll get a sense of the value and feel some sort of ownership. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 725 Registered: 07-2004 |
Jams, I'm not talking about a system that will get you out to Big Beaver. I'm talking about a system that will bring your job down into Detroit. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4100 Registered: 10-2003 |
OK, in the meantime shall I send you my address where you'll send my support checks or should I just pick them up from you. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1892 Registered: 10-2003 |
Did we abolish buses somewhere in this thread? Because in cities with rail transit, buses are used to feed the rail stations. Jams's buddy who works 5 miles off Woodward on Big Beaver could ride a bus from a rail station to his final destination. Does it seems cumbersome? Yes, but transferring from a train to a bus is certainly preferable to riding three buses for 2 hours each way. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4101 Registered: 10-2003 |
So how will these bus routes be determined without a complete plan to integrate them into a regional system? Just trying to inject some reality into the discussion. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 726 Registered: 07-2004 |
Funny, Jams. No, it won't happen overnight, but the point is still valid. Light rail is a useful tool for driving development in unexpected places, creating opportunities centrally where they were far-flung before. In the meanwhile, though, I'd buy you a drink and share a bag of chips with you. Dan's point is a good one too. Feeder systems could help us capitalize on light rail, and help adjoining lower-density areas share in the prosperity. | ||
Jfried Member Username: Jfried Post Number: 916 Registered: 11-2003 |
detroitnerd - your 'induced demand' theory has been proved in the past, but to receive any funding there must be proof of immediate demand for ridership. the feds are not going to fund a project that will take 10-15 years to hit projected ridership numbers. the other big thing to remember is that any proposal out of metro detroit is competing with 10-15 proposals from other metros that CAN show immediate demand/ridership. Dan - take the time to read the SEMCOG link Jams provided above. we're not talking east/west suburb to suburb lines along every mile road - the are a few east/west links that would be no closer that 4/5 miles apart, which would then be serviced by the feeder buses you mention in you last post. and your comment that no one would use a line along big beaver because it is not "currently" pedestrian friendly is ridiculous. if a line was built along this type of corridor don't you think changes would be made to accomadate those pedestrians? should we leave every major auto corridor as it is just because it's already too far gone? these types of places are the ones that need transportation options the most... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1893 Registered: 10-2003 |
Are you going to move all the buildings up to the sidewalk and put the parking lots in the back? | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4102 Registered: 10-2003 |
You must understand, this is not just an intellectual exercise or flights of fancy for me. It is my reality as well as thousands of others. I honestly don't give a damn if suburbanites give up their cars for a night or two a year for the thrill of a train ride to a ball game. I do care about an efficient transit system that allows people to get to jobs and back in a reasonable amount of time to any area of the region on a daily basis. There are the needs required TODAY for many, but at the same time FUTURE desires or requirements can also be addressed. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4103 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Are you going to move all the buildings up to the sidewalk and put the parking lots in the back?" Currently, I just walk through the parking lot to whichever building I'm going. Once I get to where the cars are parked, nobody realizes I haven't parked a car. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 606 Registered: 02-2006 |
I fully support transit and the (hopefully) resulting shift of employment back to downtown. But it begs the question...if in, say 25 years, a significant number of businesses relocate downtown and the promised revitalization really happens. Then we become Paris...a bustling inner city surrounded by decaying suburban blight. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 727 Registered: 07-2004 |
Jfried, I'm confused. On the one hand, you seem to think that only places with high density that can demonstrate immediate high usage are going to get the funding. On the other hand, you say that low-density mile roads will have to be modified so that people will use any transit systems that ply them. If high usage is what you're looking for, you couldn't really do better than the older thoroughfares. I believe past studies have suggested that the thoroughfares with high density that would show immediately high ridership were Woodward and Michigan avenues. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 609 Registered: 09-2005 |
Focus: given the choice between a Detroit model and a Paris model, Paris has to be the better choice (obviously, it would be better if Paris was surrounded by Detroit's suburbs, but...). Paris draws the tourism dollars, is a beautiful city, and has a great international reputation. Detroit has none of these things. However, as downtown/midtown roar back to life, people and their travel agents will start to notice. Also, I realize tourism is not everything, but tourism does bring jobs whereas a lack of tourism certainly doesn't create jobs. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 609 Registered: 02-2006 |
I'm not saying status quo is preferable, it'd just be interesting to see what happens to the suburbs if there's a wholesale move back to the city. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1894 Registered: 10-2003 |
If forced to make a choice, I'd rather see vinyl-sided suburban houses decay than the beautiful old buildings downtown! | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 610 Registered: 09-2005 |
Focus: I didn't mean to imply that you prefered either option. From what I understand, many inner-ring Detroit suburbs have been experiencing decay for several years now. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 728 Registered: 07-2004 |
There was a pretty good book about converting suburbs to more sustainable uses called Superbia! a few years back. I didn't like it that much, but it's interesting to consider what opportunities might thrive if Detroit were to ever drain the suburbs. Experiments like reclamation and repurposing have been almost exclusively urban phenomena for so long, we might not at first think they could be tried successfully in the suburbs. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 611 Registered: 02-2006 |
I suppose it would be easier to convert tract housing back to parks/fields than brownfield projects in the city. But anyway, I'm getting off topic. | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2442 Registered: 10-2003 |
Detroitnerd did a very good job of explaining how transit supports a denser, more urban style of living and why transit advocates aren't focusing on suburb-to-suburb transit. On the other hand, many SE MI residents view transit simply as a way to get around within the current layout. Transit advocates don't seem to see the disconnect between what they desire (transit as a means of social reengineering toward a more urban society) and what most SE MI residents desire. I don't think the financial support exists in SE MI for the urbanist vision, but I think there's a level of support for a comprehensive transit system that serves both suburbanites and Detroiters. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 729 Registered: 07-2004 |
Good points, Track. I think it's possible, in the long run, to come up with a system that does well by Detroit, both the city and the region. Ultimately, it's imperative to do so. When the bills come due for all the sewer replacements and road expansions and repaving, it isn't going to be pretty. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1895 Registered: 10-2003 |
Track, I appreciate what you're trying to say, but I don't think that's true. To be fair, the "urban option", as I'll call it, isn't realistically available in the Detroit area. It's like selling only cheese pizza, and then saying that nobody wants pepperoni. How do you know unless you start selling pepperoni as well? I do seem to recall that Cherry Hill Village sold very well--in Canton of all places. "Urban" doesn't have to mean Manhattanesque high-rises everywhere, either, which is what I sense a lot of Detroiters think of when they hear that word. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1896 Registered: 10-2003 |
Adding to what I posted just above, Arlington, Virginia has clustered all of its new development around its 11 subway stations. Currently, 90% of the development in the county is on 10% of the land. What has happened as a result is the corridors with subway service have grown into urban neighborhoods--pedestrian-frie ndly, mixed-use, and densely populated. Since the new growth has been concentrated in a small area, it removes development pressures from the more suburban parts of the county, preserving that lifestyle for those who desire it. | ||
Jfried Member Username: Jfried Post Number: 917 Registered: 11-2003 |
dan - buildings built to the street, and parking lots to the rear is a better model, but not having this will not keep people from riding transit. Have you been on big beaver recently? I already see more pedestrians jogging and walking near somerset/birmingham than I do in my mixed-use, high density, build to the lot line neighborhood in the city of detroit. the success of the system depend more on the system itself. people most heavily used smart route is the gratiot line in macomb county and the majority of that corridor is suburban stye set back development. if the system becomes successful, then we may see more demand for higher density along the line like detroit nerd describes. detroitnerd - I agree that gratiot, grand river and those lines are already heavily used and that demand is there. but there is just as much potential along the east west corridors such as 15, or 12 mile road. the majority of the metro area commutes east/west and to exclude them is political suicide. | ||
Cabasse Member Username: Cabasse Post Number: 21 Registered: 01-2006 |
the continued growth in redevelopment of midtown and the rest of downtown will serve as its own economic growth engine, as we're seeing already. (currently on a smaller scale, only) if transit is working in a metro like atlanta, THE MOST DECENTRALIZED METRO IN THE FUCKING COUNTRY, (yes, bring the soap now) where MARTA JUST POSTED A PROFIT (and its first since just after the olympics) and also where the core city has about half the population in an identical area of land as detroit, it can and will work here. i just pray the leadership here have the foresight to think beyond what the naysayers (e.g. livernoisyard) are feeding them and do the right thing. | ||
Bjl7997 Member Username: Bjl7997 Post Number: 108 Registered: 03-2005 |
"1919-1920 : Mayor James Couzens vetoes a bond issue to create a subway." That was what threw this city off track in the first place of not having a rapid transit. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 241 Registered: 04-2006 |
MARTA posting a profit??? There is no transit system in the U.S.A. that posts a profit but some of the better ones do get most of their money from the users. SMART and DDOT get about 12% from passengers and are no longer funded by the state fuel tax for operating costs according to the Federal Transit Database. Where do you get your statistics? | ||
Mama_jackson Member Username: Mama_jackson Post Number: 128 Registered: 06-2006 |
8 billion to install rapid train? Heck, dig those old trolley cars out of storage, paint 'em up and slap down some track. Good to go! Seriously, if there was rapid transit from Flint to Detroit, I would be working downtown without a doubt! You guys have all the jobs. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 249 Registered: 04-2006 |
Quote Trying to serve suburb-to-suburb commuters is absurd. Transit systems will go broke trying to provide service along automobile-oriented corridors with low population densities. End of Quote SMART has already gone broke doing this which is why the Michigan Department of Transportation will no longer provide any operating subsidies for them without local tax increases. I work for a company that supports mass transit by providing decent benefits to all it's workers. The passage of the 2006 tax was a large tax increase (over 2 Million per year for suburban taxpayers) due to the Livonia Opt Out because we now pay much more money for less service. The money that used to pay for my bus service will now be used to expand the I-75 and I-94 freeway systems for over one billion dollars. This would build a very decent mass transit system should the voters decide to vote NO next August 2010 to demand that our state stop cutting off mass transit funds to build more roads. The choice in 2010 is yours. NO for state funded public bus service YES for large freeways. This is America, so cast your vote and be glad you live in the USA. I wanted to keep my bus service because it's there if I need it and for those who rely on it and I like the bike racks but the state I live in will not protect existing bus service with the state tax on fuel. This is exactly why DARTA was illegal and why SMART officials lost the Livonia contract. Instead of trying to milk the taxpayers for more money we should instead try and get more bus riders for SMART and DDOT. Then maybe we can bring SMART back to Livonia? | ||
Jeduncan Member Username: Jeduncan Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2006 |
There's just a few problems with light rail... first of all, there was already a preliminary result from the study, it basically shows that rail isn't a realistic solution, bus routes (improved ones) are the only viable plan (FOR NOW). The thing that a lot of other cities with successful light rail have an upper hand on is the fact that they implemented it years ago... chicago, cleveland, they both had it years ago, and just made improvements. There's not enough of a core for light rail, as much as I hate to say it, there isn't. I'm a huge advocate for rail, but the novelty of it isn't enough to make it worth the money spent. By the way, the people mover is not what costed the initial 600 million. The funds were originally given to Detroit to plan a viable regional transit link from the city to other suburbs. The problem was that the planning was subpar, and the remaining money after failed planning was used for the people mover. Don't quote me on this, quote my Wayne State Urban Planning professor, Jeff Horner on that one. Detroit was supposed to have light rail put in at the same time as the interstate systems were built. Originally, there were supposed to be medians on the Lodge and the Ford Freeways with main artery lines of high speed light rail running along them. GOOD IDEA! Why weren't they built then? Simple answer, and no, it isn't ONLY the Big 3 that didn't like the idea. The interstate projects were funded 50% by the federal government, 25% by tax dollars, and the remaining was paid by Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties. Why wouldn't the government pay for rail? Because the 50% funding we recieved from the feds was via federal gasoline tax. Light rail funded by gasoline tax doesn't make smart business sense. Certainly the face of Southeaster Michigan would be vastly different if light rail had been implemented, but at that time detroit had already lost most of its livelihood (Detroit proper, that is) and the city would have had to cough up 100% of the costs (or find some very rich sponsors). Chicago had the money to do it, Detroit didn't. Anyways, light rail in detroit would be awesome, but I think it'll be years if we ever DO see it, if it even happens. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5208 Registered: 02-2004 |
Trainman, The next SMART bus millage proposal that people would vote YES in order to buses running in their community and a decrease of property tax dollars. An NO vote means NO MORE SMART BUSES in your town. That means folks who are living in those areas have to find a another way for transportation and they don't have to pay any property transit taxes. Voting YES on the proposal WOULD NOT expand the freeways. And voting NO WOULD NOT keep the state from funding the SMART Bus Millage. You can go right ahead and fight you silly transit war for this is a battle that you can't win. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5209 Registered: 02-2004 |
Bjl7997, Mayor James Couzens is one of proud supporters to The Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Studebaker, Cadillac, Chrysler, and Packard ect... He vetoed the subway proposal because of them. If he didn't, Then Detroit would have a subway system that could wipe out the car manufacturing industry in Detroit for good by the 1940s. | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1129 Registered: 12-2004 |
Danny, Thanks, as always, for your indisputable and dead on commentary. 1953 | ||
Cabasse Member Username: Cabasse Post Number: 26 Registered: 01-2006 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M ARTA - search the word "profit", as the link to the ajc article i originally read it from is now gone. or if you're wary of wikipedia's reliability, do a google search for the terms marta operating profit. no, they didn't make a profit on [fare] revenue alone, but neither do roads. that's not the point - once you factor in funding (which, btw, marta is the largest and only heavy rail system NOT funded by the state it's in) they did bank on some extra cash, which they'll saving for the next rainy day. or decade. (Message edited by cabasse on November 17, 2006) | ||
Imperfectly Member Username: Imperfectly Post Number: 151 Registered: 06-2004 |
Just got back from my first trip to NYC, now more than ever do I dream of the day I can get rid of my car. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 627 Registered: 09-2005 |
Imperfectly, if you liked NYC you would love Paris -- the Metro coverage is outstanding. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 651 Registered: 02-2006 |
I find NYC's subway easier to navigate than the systems of Europe...maybe that's simply due to how the stations are named (which is also simply due to the grid system in Manhattan). But as chaotic as it is, I feel like I can look at the map and get a better idea of how I need to get where I'm going than when I look at a map of the Tube, or Paris' Metro. My parents love to tell the story of me at 13 (from out of town) explaining to a local how to get on an express train from a local station. | ||
Sc00by9999 Member Username: Sc00by9999 Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2006 |
here is what it would look like...  | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 629 Registered: 09-2005 |
Nice! | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 250 Registered: 04-2006 |
Danny, I have NO problem with paying a property tax for SMART and in fact would support a larger one, if we had competent transit professionals and government leaders. Unfortunately, both SEMCOG and MDOT will no longer pay any portion of the SMART budget with the tax on fuel and have rejected the idea of multiple tax mechanisms as illogical and useless as of this posting. Hopefully, SMART will improve and get more riders and lower costs but this is not likely at this time. Mass transit will only work if it is supported by business of which I show with facts, but you still refuse to debate me on television. Danny, I want to debate you on the six o'clock news on Channel 2, 4, 7, 9, 50 and 56 and cable TV In addition to the front pages of both the news and free press and in Time. Also, in the National Enquirer | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1427 Registered: 11-2003 |
Why not the New York Times? Don't sell yourself short. It would rival the Lincoln-Douglas debates. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4714 Registered: 10-2003 |
I would PAY to see Danny and Trainman debate. I'm not even kidding. It would be the worst, guilty-pleasure reality show in the country. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1758 Registered: 10-2004 |
Maybe, a Mad TV skit. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 256 Registered: 04-2006 |
Imagine on the news, that SMART officials actually agree to post bus schedules on Michigan Ave by cooperating with DDOT to save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Imagine me standing in front of the Ford World Headquarters near my job with both SMART and DDOT, Kwame Kilpatrick and corporate executives all agreeing to help fill up the buses. Yes, this can and will happen if y'all support me. Maybe then, Danny will show up and take me seriously? http://www.savethefueltax.org |
