  Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5340 Registered: 10-2004 |
quote:Every new or used camel dealer would say the same thing... All these vague promises about how rich Detroit would become if only they built something that it really doesn't need, want, and wouldn't sufficiently use if it indeed existed. And, BTW, the typical outlay would be 60/40, or 150%, not 200% to 400%. Overruns are par for the (mass/rapid transit) course, and usually not cheap or pretty. Overruns would have to be paid at the local level (no fed help there, sorry), effectively bringing down those fab ratios tremendously, after all the capital costs are finally in. Detroit's too terminal--job wise--anyway. It'll eventually be in receivership--transit notwithstanding. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2721 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Right. And how busy are the freeways, except during rush hour? In spite of that, no one seems to have much of a problem spending billions and billions of tax dollars on new on-ramps and off-ramps, adding new lanes and so on. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5342 Registered: 10-2004 |
OK, now Frank believes that it's OK to "invest" unwisely in Detroit if large sums of tax proceeds are also wasted elsewhere or on other projects. Let's cut to the chase. That's how you intend to justify your pet projects--not on their merits or solid, realistic plans. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2722 Registered: 12-2004 |
LY - I see your reading comprehension skills haven't failed anymore than they normally. I'm the proposing less government spending. You can't attack that on its merits so you once again reach deep into your ass and pull something out. Nice going. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5348 Registered: 10-2004 |
Frank's rationalization of getting taxpayers to fund his pet projects is analogous to some kid justifying his errant behavior to his parents because some kid down the street is supposedly also misbehaving. A sane approach (for most things in life) is to come with some realistic and definitive reasons why those expenditures might be justified. And comparing Detroit's rationalizations with those of a viable region may not apply. It would appear that something (or several things?) is fundamentally awry in Detroit after nothing seems to have worked in restoring Detroit back to viability for the past few decades. Duh! But of course, Frank knows that everything will turn out alright once he gets his parents to buy him a toy train set. And he'll stop pouting until the thrill of it wanes, and then it'll be on to something else... But it has to be an expensive train set. Face it, Frank. There isn't a critical mass of local support for rapid transit, and getting it will be a very tough sell if its funding is ever put to a local vote. (Message edited by Livernoisyard on February 24, 2008) | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2343 Registered: 10-2006 |
"There isn't a critical mass of local support for rapid transit, and getting it will be a very tough sell if its funding is ever put to a local vote." This is really THE issue here. If someone can solve this, then it is definitely doable. | ||
Parkguy Member Username: Parkguy Post Number: 229 Registered: 04-2007 |
The last survey I saw said that about 70% of the population of the metro area is in favor of rapid transit. Now, whether they'll vote is another question. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5349 Registered: 10-2004 |
Who put out the survey, what was asked, what wasn't asked, who was expected to pay for it, etc.? Just small things like that... Seriously, I'd like to see any realistic surveys or studies, as long as their random samples are characteristic of the taxpaying public. BTW, I'm in favor of getting a newer car--if I don't have to pay (much) for it. Otherwise, I'll probably pass (or punt). | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2724 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: And your "rationalization" is that you can't respond to my actual argument so you invent an argument that I didn't actually make and ridicule that one. All I have ever said is that we've tried things one way for more than a decade and it's been a colossal failure. Let's try something else that will - even as a worst case scenario - will cost the taxpayers of this state a lot less. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2351 Registered: 10-2006 |
How about this Livernoisyard: “China spends 9 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on infrastructure and India budgets 3.5 percent … while aiming to increase its allocation to 8 percent. By comparison, the United States budgets $112.9 billion or just 0.93 percent of its GDP, and sidesteps the reality of a ballooning $1.6 trillion deficit for necessary upgrades over the next five years.” —Infrastructure 2007: A Global Perspective http://www.architectmagazine.c om/content.asp?articleID=65249 4§ionID=1006 If foreign countries can spend so much on infrastructure, isn't it fair to say that the U.S. should at least invest a little bit in rapid mass transit? How about just $100 billion a year? | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5371 Registered: 10-2004 |
Somehow, I get the impression that Frank is still pouting that his wealthy cousin--Charlotte--down in North Carolina somewhere, is getting her LRT trainset. However, Frank's Detroit's parents don't have the cash, but some Good Samaritans are thinking about donating some of their money so that Frank can at least get something--his very own streetcar line, but, alas, no speedier LRT. Ding, ding! | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2725 Registered: 12-2004 |
Meanwhile, LY is still pissed off that his efforts at spinning fiction aren't good enough to get him a book deal. As a result, he spends his days on-line, writing his failed attempts at fiction - praying that someone, somewhere will give him the time of day. Keep trying, LY. They saying that practice makes perfect. Maybe someday you'll get good enough to fiction that is at least somewhat believable. | ||
Jonnyfive Member Username: Jonnyfive Post Number: 111 Registered: 03-2007 |
"Another thing: The 4-mile stretch along Woodward has multiple bus routes running on it and has the shortest headways anywhere in Detroit. Spending a large sum to simply to shave a few minutes via LRT is folly. Much of the same could be achieved by running a dedicated bus route up and down Woodward that only makes express runs or one with very few stops along the way" The plan you're referring to is entitled "Woodward Transit Catalyst Project." You wrote that knowing full well nobody will be declaring transit in detroit a finished product. I assume you know the meaning of the word catalyst. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 65 Registered: 10-2006 |
I have decided to attend Congresswoman Kilpatricks Mass Transit Summit On March 2, 2008.(well actually it was decided for me) It should be an interesting event, can't wait for the rah-rahing, applause and encouragement from the pro mass transit zealots. I will try to keep an open mind. I am interested to see how Denver,Houston and Charlotte compare to Detroit other than they are cities in the United States. Having lived in,and still travel to Denver two or three times a year, and been a rider on Denver's light rail system the the differences are immeasurable. Denver is a clean city where the residents seem to have a sense of pride in themselves,the city and region. You don't see weeds 2 feet tall in city parks,along freeways and public and private open space, or cars held together with duct tape, or driving on spare tires. They have a vehicle inspection requirement where minimum safety requirements must be met before you can buy license plates. What happened to the Detroit that I knew where people would sweep-up broken glass in the street in front of their house ,even if they didn't break it? Or pick up a scrap of paper on Belle Isle and put it in one of the thousands of trash cans on the island? What happened to the pride? (Opening for you Bush haters). We don,t need mass transit now, we need a clean, crime free, educated community with at least a minimum of city services outside of the downtown area. Point is , make the city a desirable place to live, get an education,and work, you may then find yourself with a need for some form of mass transit, until then back to my question. "Mass transit to and from where?" What I have stated is not bashing but a reality. Yea I know, why don't I move back to Denver. (Message edited by gene on February 26, 2008) | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 98 Registered: 11-2007 |
Detroit has many problems, but I don't really see that as an argument against trying to make an improvement. However, there is no similarity between what you think Detroit needs and this project. People know how to build transit systems; you can estimate how much it will cost (and probably underestimate, but probably not by more than a factor of two.) Where do we go to buy a "clean, crime-free, educated community"? If you think that some of the money presently spent on transportation should be spent on something else, that is a perfectly reasonable position, but maybe you could specify what that is. Detroit and Michigan spend a lot of money on the schools, but somehow we aren't getting very good results. Detroit spends a lot (not enough, I'll admit) on policing, and doesn't get very good results. At least if we spend money on transit, we will probably get transit. Personally, I think the city should basically not spend any money on anything except policing until things like scrapping are under control. Detroit spends a lot of money on a fire department. What is doing more damage to the city--fires or scrappers? I know which one I think it is. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3920 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Maybe the difference is that people in Denver can actually get to JOBS. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 700 Registered: 06-2005 |
quote: Actually, we NEED all the above NOW ! With due respect, creating a strong economically-vibrant city is not like baking a cake. You don't wait for the first step to get done and then do the second step. All of those components mentioned MUST be executed simultaneously in order to get optimal results. If we wait for one thing to happen before thinking about the next step - guess what ..... we'll be waiting 'till eternity, and all things considered - many of us have been waiting for decades. Bear in mind that we had already screwed up mass rapid transit opportunities from the federal govt in the past. Let's not repeat the same stupid mistakes over and over again. | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 99 Registered: 11-2007 |
Maybe the difference is that in Denver there are jobs for people to go to. The idea that transit will make crime and weeds go away is just as unlikely as the idea that you shouldn't have transit because there are weeds and crime. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2726 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: What makes you think mass transit and a clean, crime free, educated community with decent city services are mutually exclusive? I've answered your question about mass transit from where to where. Please answer mine. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 66 Registered: 10-2006 |
The point is that when the city had good schools,city services,crime under control,and an ethical Mayor and City Council you had a population that lived and worked in the city, creating a need for some form of transit. Much like Denver is today. Just getting back to basics. I do however have a great idea, lets put all the unemployed trades people to work building this mass transit system, kinda like a WPA or CCC project then we can put them to work to dismantle it for lack of ridership because of no jobs and a declining population. Its a chicken/egg thing, do we fix the main reasons that jobs and population are declining, or do we spend billions on a system and hope for the best? Or better yet how about a Cool City? (Message edited by gene on February 26, 2008) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3923 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You are aware, of course, that present-day Detroit has a much higher population than present-day Denver. Or Portland. Or Salt Lake, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Cleveland, Seattle--aw, hell--EVERY LARGE CITY in the U.S. has better transit than Detroit. | ||
Gene Member Username: Gene Post Number: 67 Registered: 10-2006 |
Danindc: This think this will explain my point that the population (educated) is increasing. Largely related to the quality of life that Denver and the area has to offer. While the population of Detroit has been decreasing due to the declining quality of life. Metro Denver has a population of 2.7 million people, with a growth rate that has consistently outpaced the national rate every decade since the 1930s. The region grew steadily during the past decade, averaging two percent population growth each year from 1997 to 2007. And by 2030, Metro Denver's population is anticipated to increase by nearly 50 percent to almost 3.9 million, with 800,000 new jobs being created. To proactively plan for the region's growth, the Denver Regional Council of Governments has created Metro Vision 2030, a long-range strategy that addresses land-use planning, development, and transportation while preserving Metro Denver's unparalleled quality of life. Metro Vision concentrates development in a defined 750-square-mile urban growth boundary and identifies guidelines for nearly 70 high-density, mixed-use developments in the region, many around transit centers. A large portion of Metro Denver's population growth is due to in-migration of highly educated workers from other states. The region's net migration averaged about 30,800 people each year during the 1990s. Metro Denver is estimated to have net-migration of 20,800 residents in 2007. The top five states for in-migration are California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, and Illinois. According to a 2007 report by the U.S. Census Bureau, Thornton is the 15th fastest growing city in the United States – growing by 32 percent since 2000 to 109,155 residents in 2007. Aurora added the most residents – 27,189 people since 2000, and has now passed the 300,000 population mark. Overall, Northern Colorado is the fastest growing corridor in Colorado – with seven of the state's fastest growing cities. (Message edited by gene on February 26, 2008) | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2727 Registered: 12-2004 |
To add to Danindc's comments, there is also the fact that, as I've pointed out umpteen times, building a first-class mass transit system would cost taxpayers less than we're currently spending on constantly expanding our freeways. We save a hundred million. With the money we save, we can either spend it improving all of the problems that Gene pointed out above or we can simply cut taxes. The argument that we can't afford a better mass transit system is the logical equivalent of saying, "I can't afford a Chevy therefore I'm going to go buy a half dozen Jags, a couple of Bentleys and maybe a Boeing 747." | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3924 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^And Gene, you'll note that Detroit's population LONG AGO surpassed where Denver won't be for another 20 years. What's the excuse? | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 451 Registered: 07-2007 |
For Gene and others who focus on the state of the city and the lack of jobs, you keep ignoring Danindc's point. The lack of a good regional mass transit system is the reason that so many people in Detroit don't have jobs or those who have jobs aren't improving their lives. When the employment and retail centers moved out to the suburbs, many of the jobs associated with them went out to the suburbs with them. Without a good regional mass transit, how are people who live in Detroit supposed to reach those jobs? If you are someone who's education and skills only qualify you for a minimum wage job or something equivalent to it, where do you go for work? If there's a job for you out in Novi, how do you reach it? There's no mass transit to take you out there. If you can find the money to get a car, think how much of your income is sucked away in gas, maintenance, insurance, etc. to drive every day from Detroit to Novi. How difficult is it to understand that people and communities can't succeed when you take away the jobs they need to support themselves and place barriers between them and the jobs that could help them help themselves and their community? As for Gene's knock on Cool Cities, I'm sure there are plenty of Michigan cities that would want to report the kind of success cool cities like Jackson can tout for the investment made by the state: http://blog.mlive.com/citpat/2 008/01/jackson_works_to_stay_c ool.html | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5391 Registered: 10-2004 |
Why not locate all those new businesses and industries within the city of Detroit, where there already is in place ample of mass transit--and thousands of vacant real-estate and abandoned buildings??? Businesses won't come here for much the same reasons they won't locate anywhere in the worst of the Rust Belt. If Detroit's too shitty to relocate to, then much of the outlying areas are too. In short, little, if anything, will come here. Those businesses could have done so at any time during the past few decades. And those few that do come will be small operations with small, dedicated, specialized work forces that would not make even a dent in the nearly 1/3 million un(der)employed around here. Get serious with all those build-it-and-they-will-come mass/rapid transit pipe dreams. | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 102 Registered: 11-2007 |
The idea that a lack of transit is preventing a lot of people from commuting from Detroit to Novi seems far-fetched. There are minimum wage jobs a lot closer than Novi, that you can get to using the existing transit. Public transportation is a good thing, maybe even a vital thing, but it isn't some kind of mystical remedy. First, as LY says, there aren't enough jobs in the region to support the current population. Shuffling people around isn't going to alter that. Second, even in a poor economy, people willing to take minimum-wage jobs and not able to get them have some kind of issue that isn't going to be solved by transit. Good jobs are definitely hard to come by, but just the turnover in your average minimum-wage job means there are always some around--they aren't that scarce. Maybe there aren't any in a particular neighborhood, but unless you live in Novi, I bet there are some closer than Novi. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3925 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Because without rail transit, you'll NEVER have enough parking. Simple as that. | ||
Transitrider Member Username: Transitrider Post Number: 49 Registered: 01-2007 |
Well, build-it-and-they-will-come seems to have worked well for the exurbs. Extend the water, build the roads, and people will come. Even if supply exceeds demand. "Why not locate all those new businesses and industries within the city of Detroit, where there already is in place ample of mass transit--and thousands of vacant real-estate and abandoned buildings?" Sounds like a great idea. Let's stop subsidizing sprawl (why do we need new houses in the exurbs if the state's population is declining?) and invest in our current infrastructure. There's plenty of room within what we have already built for all types of neighborhoods, lot sizes and housing styles. Especially as the state is losing population. And yet why is Detroit unattractive to (some) businesses and residents? Because conscious decisions were made to disinvest in Detroit throughout the last century. Here's the effects of one of them: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20080226/NEW S06/802260380 The article shows the disparity between metro and upstate, but you could easily substitute metro for just Detroit and the UP for Livingston, Northern Oakland and Macomb. Now even the inner-ring suburbs are experiencing the effects of disinvestment. The "outlying areas" are no longer "good enough," so we "must" extend the infrastructure farther out. Investing in all types of transit, rapid and local, would be step in the right direction. Let's save those pie-in-the-sky dreams of futuristic expressways, widenings and other "bridges to nowhere" for more prosperous times, if population demands. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 452 Registered: 07-2007 |
"First, as LY says, there aren't enough jobs in the region to support the current population." How do we know that? How many economic opportunities are being lost in the Detroit area because we can't match the employees with the jobs or potential jobs? I can tell you this, the population of Novi is around 50,000 people. Of those of working age, many of them commute elsewhere to work. Of those that remain, they come no where close to filling the job demands of all of the retail and employment centers in Novi, especially for minimum wage or lower paying, lower skilled jobs. How many people who live in Detroit are qualified for those jobs but simply can't get to Novi because of the lack of mass transit? Because of housing costs in Novi, living here isn't an option and even if they did, there's no local transporation system to get them around if they don't have a car. How many local businesses have to pay a premium to get people to work in Novi because there isn't a workforce to fill those jobs? If they had better access to a larger workforce, how many companies might be growing instead of being stagnant or downsizing? I would bet its thousands of jobs and the demand is going to increase as places like Providence Hospital open. Not every person who works there is going to be a doctor or a nurse. They have maintenance and support staff who have to commute every day to Novi, burning income on all the costs associated with a car. That's money they're not saving or spending on more education or doing the things that can help them move up the economic ladder. |
