  Hans57 Member Username: Hans57 Post Number: 245 Registered: 05-2006 |
MDOT has unveiled their five year transportation plan for 2008-2012 (it's large, 125 pages). http://www.michigan.gov/docume nts/mdot/MDOT_5_Year_Program_2 16970_7.pdf When you're done with that, give 'em your opinion, you have until the 21st of Dec. https://www.commentmgr.com/PCS /PublicGUI/QuestionsCustom.asp x?Public_PID=603&Level=Project &LevelNumber=603 | ||
Gsgeorge Member Username: Gsgeorge Post Number: 445 Registered: 08-2006 |
not a word about inter-city rail service and hardly a few paragraphs about improvement of existing passenger rail services. When is MDOT going to smarten up and stop thinking FREEWAYS and start thinking about improving rail service on our peninsula? | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 703 Registered: 05-2005 |
They should title it: "The Michigan Department of Sprawl-Fueling, Quality-Of-Life-Killing, Car-Promoting, Same-Bullshit-As-Usual Plan" (Message edited by Futurecity on December 13, 2007) | ||
Sirrealone Member Username: Sirrealone Post Number: 57 Registered: 01-2007 |
The fact is, that the freeways are already there, and if you look, they can't even afford to maintain them. All the work done over the last 10-15 years to improve the condition of our roads is going to be undone. To me, they don't get to start talking about implementing the rail systems until they can consistently keep the CURRENT system at a good level. Otherwise, the alternative is to knowingly let the current system degenerate. I don't see that as a viable option, do you? | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 1037 Registered: 09-2005 |
The rails already exist...and trains are less expensive than expanding I-75. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 424 Registered: 12-2006 |
Gsgeorge, Look at page 130 of the document. There is an entire page dedicated to how they are expanding non-automobile related modes of transportation. Upinottawa, Where is MDOT planning to expand I-75? I don't see it anywhere. Besides, they don't have the budget to do it anyway. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 955 Registered: 12-2006 |
This is the usual disaster. They plan to spend $329 million on road capacity (widening roads and new roads), and they do not specify as much as one dollar to be spent improving transit. In fact they explicitly say that the bulk of the transit money will be just to preserve what exists today. So according to MDOT, our problem is we don't have enough roads, but we have sufficient transit. I ask you, what do we do about this? These people simply do not get it. In metro Charlotte, NC, their regional transportation plan calls for spending about 2/3 of the total capital money on transit improvements. Note that Charlotte, and NC in general, are doing quite well while Detroit and Michigan continue to sink. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 11011 Registered: 10-2003 |
Look no further than pages 146-150 to see how messed up of an organization MDOT still is. Expand, expand, expand. | ||
Sirrealone Member Username: Sirrealone Post Number: 59 Registered: 01-2007 |
We have to maintain what we have before we can build new. We've spent the last 10 years or so playing catch-up from 40 years of neglecting our roads. I know a lot of people will disagree but we've come a long way in getting them to decent shape. Remember any part of I-94 before? Remember the Davison? The Lodge? I-75 downriver? All nightmares that are now in pretty good shape. If we would develop a plan that would allow us to finish upgrading the rest and then level off, there would then be money opened up for transit, which would be awesome to see. But, it looks like, as of now, they're planning on things just slipping back, so we won't get there. That sucks. As much as I agree we need transit, we also need to focus on what we have and trying to keep that in good shape. I don't think it's fair to let the roads and freeways that we have now fall to pot for the sake of mass transit. Look at the charts. We've spent 10 years getting our 'good road' percentage up from the 70's to the 80's and 90's. As it stands it's already slated to go back down to the 70's within 5-7 years. Should we just say the heck with it and let it go down to the 60's instead, but build mass transit? Doesn't sound favorable to me. I am 100 percent in agreement with the need to develop mass transit. But looking at this report, I ask the people bashing it: How? | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 11012 Registered: 10-2003 |
I am curious with all of the planned expansions/widening projects in OC how much other areas of the state are subsidizing this? Seeing that people like Patterson whine that they get cheated by the State it appears they are getting a whole lot of the larger planned projects. Do people in OC that whine they are contributors to everyone else consider the massive amounts of $$s going to these projects? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 956 Registered: 12-2006 |
I'm not saying anything against maintenance. I'm objecting to $329 million to widen roads and build new roads, which is not maintenance and which is not necessary. We can't afford to maintain what we have; the last thing we need is more pavement. As to "how", I am sick to death of that question. Go to any other damned big city in the country and ask them how they did it. Apparently we are collectively too stupid to figure out how to pay for what everybody else in the world knows how to pay for. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2366 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: What sense does it make to sink all of your money into something with such a shitty turnover? | ||
Sirrealone Member Username: Sirrealone Post Number: 60 Registered: 01-2007 |
Not trying to be a smartas* here, because I honestly don't know, but how many other states that have pulled it off aren't 'contributing' states that see their gas tax money get shaved off to pay for other states road projects? I think it's a joke that Michigan is a contributing state. With the roads covering the massive land area we have, we're behind the eight ball right from the start. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 11013 Registered: 10-2003 |
I think that we can all agree that our State Reps in Lansing our an embarrasment that we are still a gas tax donor state given the condition of our roads and our economy. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3819 Registered: 10-2003 |
Other states get more transportation money returned because they obtain federal money for transit projects. Michigan apparently doesn't see the need for such ambitions. I'm going to hazard a guess that states like Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and California are at least as much "donor" states as Michigan. Of course, this needs to be verified, but as Professorscott asked, how are these states able to do what Michigan is not? | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 478 Registered: 10-2006 |
quote: Agreed. I also think that the state understands that tourism will soon be the biggest business in the state, and keeping the freeways and state roads in good shape will assure that Michigan will remain a tourist destination. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 957 Registered: 12-2006 |
Here's two cents from Andy Guy of the Michigan Land Use Institute (www.mlui.org) which I found on his blog, dated a couple weeks ago: "Not a single project aimed at expanding public transit or other alternatives to the automobile, and this at a time as gas shoots past $3 a gallon and prime time cities like Denver, Toronto, and Portland invest billions in new light rail trains and urban streetcar infrastructure to enhance quality of life, attract knowledge workers, and safeguard the environment. Ironically, a story on the preceding page of today's newspaper reveals the state's road budget faces $300 million in spending cuts in 2008. So, putting the pieces together, Detroit and the State of Michigan is [sic] spending tens of millions of dollars to expand a short-sighted transportation strategy that is increasingly unaffordable, out of touch with a strategic development strategy, and ultimately unsustainable." | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 425 Registered: 12-2006 |
much of that $329 million of road expansion were not MDOT decisions. Congress took a lot of the decision making out of MDOT's hands with the last federal appropriations bill. It was PACKED with earmarks for specific projects that MDOT and other state transportation departments had to do. Also, a very large chunk of the capacity improvement dollars are not going towards any new roads or new lanes. A lot of the money is going towards expanding the tollbooth/customs areas at the bluewater bridge as well as projects around the ambassador bridge. Both are for relieving the awful truck congestion at our border crossings. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 11015 Registered: 10-2003 |
El_jimbo, That may apply for the upcoming year but the forecast is calling for a lot of expansion in the Metro Detroit area: quote: | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3820 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Do you really think Congressmen are so acutely aware of minute details like which roads "need" widening? Earmarks and project funding don't find their way into bills unless the states or localities in question request and lobby for such funding. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 426 Registered: 12-2006 |
Darnindc, Not entirely true. MDOT had a "wish list" of expansion projects that they said that they would like to do in a perfect world where funding wasn't an issue. Legislatures mistook that for what MDOT really wanted to do with their funding dollars and earmarked many of those projects. MDOT's current policy is to follow a fix it first strategy for pavements. Meaning that 95% of funding goes towards fixing existing roads and only 5% of funding for road construction goes towards expansion. As far as other forms of transportation (multi-modal), MDOT's hands are somewhat tied because they don't own many of the right-of-ways or the infrastructure that the transit systems operate with. Because of this, MDOT provides an advisory and facilitating role for local transit agencies that helps them capture state and federal funding for their operations. For example, in recent years, MDOT has helped CATA and the Traverse City bus system purchase new hybrid buses to replaced aging vehicles in their fleet. In spite of the heavy roads orientation of the program, MDOT is spending almost a quarter of it's $8.5 Billion program on NON-road initiatives. The problem is that if local agencies don't approach MDOT with a proposal, MDOT really can't do anything in terms of transit. This means that until SEMCOG, SMART, and DDOT can all get on the same page, MDOT really can't do a lot financially towards implementing a new mass transit system in the Detroit metro area. I know that sucks because I want transit badly myself, but those are just the facts of life. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 427 Registered: 12-2006 |
professorscott, Good post. Some things I'd like to point out. 1. It has been quite some time since Michigan had a raise in its gas tax. Construction costs have risen sharply in that time (averaging nearly 4% a year) so while MDOT was getting the same amount of revenue, every year, that revenue could purchase less and less work. 2. In recent years, gas tax revenue has really taken a hit in Michigan. The combination of more fuel efficient cars on the roads and a 10% drop in vehicle miles traveled statewide between 2005 and 2006 (a trend which seems to be continuing in 2007) means that revenues are coming in less than expected. If you have been planning projects based on a certain budget and you don't generate the revenue to match that budget projection then you will have a deficit. Such is the case here. | ||
Dnvn522 Member Username: Dnvn522 Post Number: 301 Registered: 11-2004 |
Do people realize that in the larger scale, $329 million is a drop in the bucket for expansion projects. Just one large expansion project could eat that up in a heartbeat. Spread that money out over MANY expansion projects and you'll see that scope of those projects isn't that great. | ||
Dnvn522 Member Username: Dnvn522 Post Number: 302 Registered: 11-2004 |
Also...the whole point of this thread is that the public has a chance to voice their opinion. If you're not happy...TELL THEM! | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 11028 Registered: 10-2003 |
Drvn - the 329 addresses this year. How much is anticipated for the expansion projects listed above for the years 08-2012? It looks like the work for much of that is just ramping up. $329/year over the 5 years is $1.5 Billion and I suspect it is estimated to be higher over the 5 year span. | ||
Dnvn522 Member Username: Dnvn522 Post Number: 303 Registered: 11-2004 |
 Look again. That is for all 5 years. | ||
Dnvn522 Member Username: Dnvn522 Post Number: 304 Registered: 11-2004 |
And only $43 mill of that is for new roads. A majority ($223 mill) is for capacity improvements, which if you look at the footnote says: 2. A substantial portion of Capacity Improvement projects includes the preservation of the existing road. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3821 Registered: 10-2003 |
That's still $329 million worth of pavement that will need to be maintained ad infinitum. Now think of how much pavement goes unused or underused in the City of Detroit every day. | ||
Dnvn522 Member Username: Dnvn522 Post Number: 305 Registered: 11-2004 |
Switch 'em to gravel.  | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 428 Registered: 12-2006 |
DaninDC, The roads that MDOT maintains in Detroit get used. They own trunkline roads like the interstate, Michigan routes and US routes. Wayne County and the city of Detroit own other smaller streets and maintain those with their own budget. These numbers you see here do not reflect any money spent by county or municipal transit agencies. |
