  Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4492 Registered: 03-2006 |
Danindc - Nobody in Detroit is "subsidizing" infrastructure for the suburbs. The people that are using infrastructure outside of the city are paying for it. Enough of the nonsense. The data is there and I have shown that. We do not live in a collectivist society as much as you would wish that to be so. They don't work. Umcs - I know there is plenty of traffic on 23 at rush hour, but tons of yuppies living in Howell are going to A2 every day? We'll see. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 29, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3600 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Makes you wonder why the State isn't turning a profit hand-over-fist, then. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4494 Registered: 03-2006 |
Well Dan, you have not provided one shred of evidence for your claims, and I have refuted every one of yours with hard numbers. The local communities are not broke, the state is being mis-managed by libs, that is the issue. The expenditures there go far beyond infrastructure. Gotta go, it has been a slice. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1552 Registered: 07-2004 |
Ummm, since when did politically powerless people ever NOT subsidize politically powerful people. Just because your bread is buttered doesn't mean you did the churning. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3601 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You have? PG, I previously posted this link on another thread: http://www.mlui.org/growthmana gement/fullarticle.asp?fileid= 16802 It is perhaps the most comprehensive study of how Michigan subsidizes sprawling development, while depriving existing cities of limited resources. Of course, you simply wrote that off, because you didn't agree with it. I challenge you to actually read the entire piece. Someone so fiscally conservative as yourself should be aware of such waste in government, so he can vote properly. $10.1 billion a year is a lot of money--especially when you have a budget deficit of $1.7 billion. Think of how much taxes could actually be CUT if Michigan didn't waste money subsidizing new, unneeded development. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 209 Registered: 07-2007 |
"The feds get a $1.91 net PROFIT per thousand passenger miles from highway commuters." I would guess that in the realm of transportation, airports are the most heavily subsidized, followed by trucks, probably transit then cars and commercial rail would be at the bottom. Big deal if the feds get a profit on highway transpo. As I said before, just in Novi alone, the city spends millions of dollars a year on road-related upkeep and expansion and that doesn't even meet the current demand or the long-term costs for those roads. That's a serious subsidy and it only happens in Novi because most people are willing and able to pay the cost. In other communities, that subsidy doesn't exist which is why the roads have gone to pot. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4496 Registered: 03-2006 |
Danindc - I have read some of this before, I will read it more completely. The bias is built in from the get go however. The point being that it is automatically assumed that existing cities should get most of the development and public dollars regardless of the where the revenue is coming from. If the point is that lower income areas are not getting as much in public money for infrastructure improvements I guess that may be true and the reasons for this would be obvious, there is less tax dollars per resident coming in. Novine - If you are trying to say that wealthier communities have more resources to do improvements than I would concede that rather obvious point. Novi spends millions on roads and gets millions in tax dollars to pay for it. I guess I don't see the problem, good roads makes Novi more competitive so people move there. They expect good roads and services and they are willing to pay for it. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1413 Registered: 02-2006 |
PG, that would be a perfectly okay statement if only Novi residents' tax dollars went into those projects. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4500 Registered: 03-2006 |
The point is we don't really know how much of the money spent on roads in Novi comes from the residents or from elsewhere. As I-96 goes right through there, I would imagine some of the money for the interchanges was from outside of the community, and I don't think that is unusual. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3602 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You so much as implied that Novi residents cover all the costs themselves. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4502 Registered: 03-2006 |
In terms of the surface roads, I would expect that is the case. Novine has spoken in the past on this issue and I seem to remember the interchange was mentioned, that is a question mark in terms of funding. Yet this would be the case in any interchange off of an interstate. | ||
Number1 Member Username: Number1 Post Number: 24 Registered: 07-2007 |
I've been reading this thread for a while so I decided to write a response. I don't personally see how mass transit can help the state's economy. A huge majority of people do not even use the transit that we already have which likely means that they are getting from point A to point B without it. The problem of getting poorer people to jobs could be solved in a more cost effective manner than building a light rail line. I believe spending more on roads than transit is justified since more people actually use the roads, including people in the inner city. I believe that what attracts young professionals to cities like New York and Chicago isn't the mass transit but the career opportunities and to a smaller extent, the social scene. The social scene is created from having a large number of 20 something professionals concentrated in the same area. What attracts these professionals to those areas is the career opportunities. I put myself into the shoes of a young college graduate and asked myself what would persuade me to stay in the state of Michigan. Is it a urban city with mass transit or a $80000 job with a start up company? I would think that the job is more important. Obviously I would not be able to enjoy the city life very much if I didn't have a decent job. Spending a huge amount of money to pay for a transit system that a majority of people don't need, in a State thats losing jobs doesn't make sense to me. Shouldn't we address improving the business climate so people can actually have a job to travel to? If more of our college grads could obtain jobs in Michigan perhaps more trendy restaurants, stores, and other businesses would open up due to the new demand. Our metropolitan area would become a more "hip" and urban place naturally. | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 616 Registered: 04-2006 |
take the case of portland. in the 80s they made some amazing urban planning choices. built light rail, designated a greenbelt, planned for walkability/bikeability... look where they are now. one of the hottest towns around. and, as a 20 something (24) i don't care where the jobs are. If I wanted to move (I don't, i'm staying here) i would go to the place i deemed most interesting. That would end up being New York, Chicago, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Toronto, or Paris. Some of those places have jobs, but not all... | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2029 Registered: 04-2006 |
A huge majority of people do not even use the transit that we already have which likely means that they are getting from point A to point B without it. People don't use it because it's inefficient. If it were efficient, people would use it. I don't know about Chicago, but I do know that the transit system is the backbone of NYC's economy. The city would not be what it is without it. I think that's pretty clear to anyone who has ever lived here... ETA: Whenever I tell someone that Detroit doesn't have a train system I always get a response along the lines of "But I thought Detroit was a major city?" (Message edited by iheartthed on October 30, 2007) | ||
The_ed Member Username: The_ed Post Number: 431 Registered: 10-2007 |
Train-shmain! "We don't need no stinkin' trains." I have been dependent on public transportation most of my life. I utilize the bus system and get to where I have to get to. If the trains were used as public transportation I would only use them for going to, like Ann Arbor or neighboring cities....Ypsi.......... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3603 Registered: 10-2003 |
One thing that hasn't been mentioned on this thread is Detroit's obsessive need for parking. It's been stated that lenders will not finance a project that does not have dedicated parking. For garages, this is a cost of $20,000 per space that the owner has to finance, reducing the viability of the project. If Detroit had an actual transit system, it reasons that this arcane requirement would be eased, making redevelopment more feasible, given Detroit's relatively low rents. By clustering development around transit stops--instead of building more strip malls and 10-story parking garages--you begin to create the density and vibrancy that makes a city so attractive to young professionals and their employers. Just something to think about for those in Leave-it-to-Beaver land. | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 1072 Registered: 11-2003 |
I believe that practical, efficient mass transit throughout Metro-Detroit would enhance the current state of the region, PROVIDED the system's right-of-ways are conceived from the onset as development engines for new urban commuter corridors. A Detroit-area rapid transit system, with few exceptions, would not necessarily do well to try to mimic current auto routes. Instead, residents and community leaders would be wise to view the development of such a system as a way to promote brand-new economic development in under-utilized areas throughout the region. Public investment in a properly planned and executed network of transit AND appropriate zoning could credibly enhance Southeastern Michigan's economy by creating opportunities for private investment in areas where there are currently, seemingly few. I see the return of streetcars to Woodward Avenue as the initial step toward the realization of a true regional transit system and the development of urban commuter corridors. Woodward stands out as the most logical place to institute such a line as it lends itself almost immediately to transits' highest and best use. At once, the urban density of the corridor combined with the current level of disinvestment indicates that a strategy of public commitment to attract private capital to the area would yield the greatest potential return. In the form of a dedicated streetcar line, even if initially limited to between Campus Martius and the Boulevard, this public commitment would increase the value of property throughout the corridor. A transit line would promote in-fill and spin-off developments, increase the desirability of the route as a place to live and conduct business, as well as provide a practical means of commuting (even if only initially) between Downtown, Midtown and New Center. It is my contention that traditional streetcars are the mode of transportation best suited to Woodward Avenue and the other radials, particularly in the CBD. Streetcars would be ideal along these routes because the overall scale of the street allows for their efficient function. I wouldn't advocate "station stops" or fifty-mile-per-hour vehicles - especially between Downtown and New Center. By the same token, I wouldn't consider old-fashioned streetcars on Big Beaver or Wayne Roads, either! Streetcars offer affordable, comfortable, quiet transportation along a permanent route. Stops do not need to be elaborate structures, and wheelchair access is not a problem on modern vehicles. The metro area will have some type of improved transit sooner or later, but I also believe that the area has sprawled out too far from the core to make any ONE model practical on a regional level. Regardless, we would be best served by building a permanent system that keeps as it's purpose the stabilization of existing areas and the sensible pioneering of new growth in previously-undeveloped or less-desireable sections of the metro. A Woodward streetcar line, as an example, would do both. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 210 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Novine - If you are trying to say that wealthier communities have more resources to do improvements than I would concede that rather obvious point. Novi spends millions on roads and gets millions in tax dollars to pay for it." Then you missed my point. What I was trying to highlight is that even in communities like Novi, transportation is subsidized to the tune of millions of dollars beyond what is paid in user fees (aka gas taxes). The city get something like $3 million in gas taxes but spends $11 million on roads. That's a subsidy for everyone who uses the roads (and its not buses and mass transit in Novi). But even with that subsidy, the city still isn't meeting all of the needs of the road system. I don't recall the total amount of capital expenditures that the city projects are needed for the roads long-term but I believe it's north of $100 million dollars. My other point, which you seemed to have missed, is that if a "wealthy" community like Novi can't keep up with this level of subsidy, what happens in communities where they can't afford such a level of subsidy? The roads fall apart due to lack of maintenance and upkeep. It's all a house of cards and it's collapsing all over the state. You talk about subsidies for transit while ignoring the massive subsidies for those of us who drive cars. As I said before, if we had to pay the true cost of the infrastructure, how many of us could afford it? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4508 Registered: 03-2006 |
The question becomes how much of that $11 million is related to I-96? | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 212 Registered: 07-2007 |
"I believe that what attracts young professionals to cities like New York and Chicago isn't the mass transit but the career opportunities and to a smaller extent, the social scene." Do you understand that without mass transit, New York and other cities like San Fran. wouldn't exist as we know them? There's simply no way to get all of those people onto and off of Manhatten by car alone. Without transit, NYC would be a much smaller city with many fewer jobs and much less of a social scene. Transit also allows many New Yorkers to live without a car. I have friends who have lived in NYC (Queens) for 5 years and have never owned a car and rarely feel the need to own one. All that money we spend on cars, gas, insurance, etc. is money that they get to put into housing and lifestyle and savings. In Michigan, there are people living in Ann Arbor who rely on one or no car to get around because the city has enough alternative modes of transportation to get them around withone one. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 213 Registered: 07-2007 |
Very little of it. Most of it is spent on local roads. But to those who asked earlier about state spending on roads in Novi, I think over the past 12 years including M-5, the Beck Road interchange and some other projects, it's been over $100 million dollars. Compare that to other communities that don't have an interstate and they're not getting anywhere near those kinds of dollars. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 214 Registered: 07-2007 |
Maybe a math example would be better. Let's say that Novi needs to spend $15 million a year on roads for both upgrades and maintenance. This factors in the unmet needs that aren't currently covered by the city. Let's estimate that Novi residents own 30,000 cars (city population = 50,000+). Are you willing to pay $500 per year per car ito pay for your fair share of keeping up the roads? Or do you think those who don't own cars, business, etc. should be subsidizing your car usage through property taxes as currently happens in Novi? Now apply that to every community and every car owner in the state. Then you'll have an idea of how much car ownership is subsidized in this state. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4509 Registered: 03-2006 |
OK $100 million. M-5 is benefiting many more communities than Novi. When and if it is brought through to M-59 it will be an asset to all of Oakland county. Same with the Beck road interchange, Wixom and the entire lakes area benefits from that so it is a little disingenuous to say that $100 million has been spent on roads in Novi. Novi has also become a major retail hub for the northwest side of town, I have no doubts that money has been spent to foster that growth. I also have no doubt that new tax revenues have resulted from it. The bottom line is that the investments made in Novi have paid off, money is going to where the growth is. I suppose we could arbitrarily decide that we should put $10 million dollars into roads for Williamston to be fair but what would be the point? There is no growth there to warrant that at this time. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 30, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3606 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Let's see the balance sheet. Otherwise, you're just guessing. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4511 Registered: 03-2006 |
Well I would be happy to do that, but I need Novines numbers first. What I am not guessing about is that overall people who use automobiles more than pay for the infrastructure costs associated with that mode of transportation. Mass transit is the most subsidized form of transportation there is. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2033 Registered: 04-2006 |
What I am not guessing about is that overall people who use automobiles more than pay for the infrastructure costs associated with that mode of transportation. Actually, as was pointed out on another thread like less than 2 weeks ago of which you were an active participant, light rail systems tend to pay for themselves whereas buses don't (and roads sure as Hell don't). | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4514 Registered: 03-2006 |
Actually, I have posted ACTUAL numbers (not opinions) from the DOT on that, the government funding for roads has been on the surplus side. So much so that the fund has been raided constantly for other projects. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 30, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3607 Registered: 10-2003 |
Well, that's pretty interesting, PG. You posted a link to a report from a Cabinet agency in an administration that's known for playing fast and loose with numbers in order to promote an agenda. This report, by the way, is the ONLY source I've ever seen that claims the federal government profits off the gas tax. Then there is the rest of the world: USA Today quote: http://www.usatoday.com/news/n ation/2005-03-31-gas-taxes_x.h tm Brookings Institution quote: http://www.transalt.org/press/ magazine/032Spring/02provocate ur.html Associated Press quote: http://www.planetizen.com/node /24594 Stanley Hart and Alvin Spivak quote: http://www.assmotax.org/format _text.php?file_name=/assmotax/ Releases/AMCT%20release:%20The %20Automobile%20Subsidy.php Then there's the ever-lovable Wendell Cox: quote: http://dissentmagazine.org/art icle/?article=658 | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4515 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: That is nonsense, the report and the data go back many years. So you quote the liberal media and agenda driven organizations and claim they are the definitive source? quote: Even if this is true, the other half is paid for by other taxes. Taxes that people who use the roads are paying as well. I don't see a problem there either. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3608 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: That's called a subsidy, you idiot. Even taxes paid by my non-driving behind--just like you pay for transit. Find another source that claims the government profits off the gas tax. I dare you. |
