  Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4663 Registered: 02-2005 |
River_rat's first point might be true (but it won't be if a Democrat president arrives). His/her second point is utterly bogus. It touches on one strain of thinking that, yes, a decent amount of metro Detroiters are stupid enough to register with in their irrationality, but I think the ease of using a car in this area combined with the unreliability of current transit is what turns most people off. Yes some paranoid people think that only criminals ride the bus, but they might change their mind when gasoline goes up 100% from its current price and they are presented with a clean and reliable line such as the proposed one. People are just going to run out of excuses, and if they don't want to ride this new line because they fear the potential of a possible ex-felon riding next to them, then that is their loss. There will be enough willing people stepping up [and risking their necks, right?] to enjoy this system. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5943 Registered: 10-2003 |
LY, I'm not kissing anyone's ring. Ironically, you're the one who habitually suckles on the teat of the god of pessimism. That's your religion, and you're a true, mindless believer. | ||
Gotdetroit Member Username: Gotdetroit Post Number: 145 Registered: 12-2005 |
I for one, for the life of me, cannot figure out why people in this region are so resistant to the idea of light rail transit. And the price tag is not that terribly high. It’s an investment for the future. But I digress on that aspect. I had the pleasure of living in two cities with such systems - San Francisco and Chicago. Before living in San Francisco, I never once set foot on mass transit (grew up in Troy). I thought just as many nay-sayers here. But after only a couple of “let’s just try it” trips, my wife and I sold our car, bought monthly passes and never once looked back. No regrets. We actually enjoyed the extra $400 bucks per month in our pockets (that figure not including any car maintenance) We did buy a car after a few months of living in Chicago, but that was used primarily for recreation, or for my wife and I to drive back to Kalamazoo to visit family. Even then, we often took the train. No, we were not hippies. Now, with all that said. I am a Metro Detroit person, who would never-ever-never think of using mass transit. Until I actually tried it. So, and this might be a stretch, if I could change my opinion, I'm certain a few thousand other Metro Detroiters who once thought as I did, might have their minds changed to. Of course, that is all anecdotal. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5986 Registered: 10-2004 |
Observations about the Detroit 1926 transit study: (1) Detroit was projected to have three to five million residents within the city limits. The five-million point was to occur prior to 1996. (2) Detroit never annexed anything beyond 1927. (3) There was a national recession during 1927 and an earlier recession around 1925, or a bit earlier. A number of Detroit automakers did not survive the 1925 recession, such as the Rickenbacker on Cabot. (4) No "skyscrapers" were started after 1927. The Guardian was completed during 1929. It took 48 years after that for another to be finished--the RenCen. (5) The Detroit auto industry never recovered sufficiently after the 1927 recession before the big one--the Market Crash in October 1929. (6) Much of the subways that were planned in 1926 would have been useless today, especially those toward the East Side. It's doubtful that any migration out of Detroit would have been averted had a subway been in place then and now because transportation wasn't a problem while Detroit still had industry within its city limits. (Message edited by livernoisyard on April 23, 2008) | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 93 Registered: 03-2007 |
I really want this thing to happen but I don't want my to get my hopes up only to see this project go nowhere. Also, 3 years just to break ground and another 2-3 before it's completed is a really long time and I'll be in a much different place in my life (probably too old to get as much use out of something like this as I would now). Nevertheless, I'm glad that we're doing this for future generations. Sometimes I think it would be great to move out of Detroit to Chicago for the next 5-6 years... enjoy public transit and all the great urban living options and then move back to a thriving Detroit. edit: Although I realize that if I want this city to be better in 5-6 years it's important to be a part of the positive change... things don't just happen. (Message edited by sparty06 on April 23, 2008) | ||
Greatlakes Member Username: Greatlakes Post Number: 193 Registered: 07-2007 |
LY, your point 6 is debatable. While they could have become useless in today's Detroit, they could also have become an asset and lead to gentrification of areas as seen with Washington DC and its Metro. | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 76 Registered: 02-2008 |
River_rat, your pessimism astounds me (as with most of the anti-rapid transiters). Your point about crime is totally false, as crime happens on transit systems all over the world. Gypsy children are taught to pickpocket from travellers in Rome and Paris metros. I'm sure crime is reported on NYC subway and the Chicago El daily. I mean I think your saying that because Detroit, yes, is full of crime. I know, as a white suburbanite, would ride the rapid transit rail, and would tell people and educate people about it, assuming I will be here in 2011/13 which have high odds. Your first point is false. The governor and senators know how much we need this for the city and region. Detroit cannot afford anymore without rapid transit. We should all be in favor of this proposal, we should all educate people of this proposal, and when it comes to be we should all ride it. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5987 Registered: 10-2004 |
Could you imagine how people might not want to descend into a subway tube along Jean Street today? Do some dangerous NYC scenarios give you an idea? Just as not having a subway the past 80 years didn't lead to Detroit being what it is today, having one wouldn't have stopped any of Detroit out-migration either. That Jean Street tube would still be there, but few people would be there wanting to use it. Having one there wouldn't have made any difference when they decided to move out. Likewise, the subway tube/elevated south of Vernor to the Rouge plant would not have been very useful today because I routinely ride the 49 Vernor bus and they were never crowded and rarely more than 2/3 full whenever I ride. Ford is still there, BTW, but with a tiny fraction of the jobs it had some 70 years ago. In fact, the Rouge made farm tractors until 1927 and iron/steel for its HP plant. The Rouge Industries spin-off went bankrupt a few years ago, and was purchased in bankruptcy by the sole bidder (US Steel pulled its short-lived bid)--Severstal NA--a Russian company. As to gentrification, what makes you think that it's on the way? Some say that it's more likely 40 years from now than 10. Even the Midtown projects seem to lost steam even before the real-estate meltdown. The BC condos will probably be renegotiated if any price declines in excess of 5% have occurred in market value since they were "sold" because it would be less expensive to simply walk away and forfeit the deposits. As a real-estate broker during the 1970s and 1980s, I would be curious to know just what those in the BC would go for in today's marketplace and how much they might go for in 10 or 20 years. (Message edited by livernoisyard on April 23, 2008) | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 701 Registered: 12-2007 |
You never know LY...with transit in place...the sprawl might have been greatly curbed if there was readily available transportation... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4171 Registered: 10-2003 |
A bit dated, but I think it aptly shows that Livernoisyard is making shit up: http://www.gao.gov/archive/199 9/rc99240.pdf | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5990 Registered: 10-2004 |
I see that DDC has produced a GAO source and a bit dated. The dated part isn't a problem, but the GAO shouldn't be considered the Bible as to federal cost overruns. Being a fiscal conservative and sometimes libertarian (small 'l'), I tend to distrust government sources... Instead, I will produce another source in addition to the one cited earlier: [So, while there is evidence that the cost overruns may be lower since the early 1990s, there is insufficient data to prove that at the usual confidence levels. Still, the study suggests that the average cost overrun since 1994 is 30%, down from 50%--still somewhat high.] TRENDS IN U.S. RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT COST OVERRUN quote: | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4173 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^While you look at numbers alone, you're ignoring context completely. The source immediately above includes Automated Guideway Transit (expensive and unpredictable), and Heavy Rail (unpredictable when it comes to tunneling, as Los Angeles found out in a big way). You're mixing modes, pal. Why don't you include freeway projects in there too, just to confuse the numbers even more. Never mind relevance. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3036 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Okay, all major American cities went through significant decline in the 1950-1990 time frame. It's true that Detroit was not much worse off nor better than any other American city in the late 80s and early 90s. OTOH, name one city with an extensive transit system that is even close to being as depressed as Detroit is today. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5993 Registered: 10-2004 |
The primary point of the study was to indicate that indeed cost overruns do exist. Also, those overruns average 30% of projects from the past 14 years, down up earlier projects. One primary problem with such studies is the sampling error, due to only having a small sample size. Surely Dan, even you should know that there are only a relatively small number of LRT projects nationwide. The study used essentially what the earlier study used. It separated out the BRT projects in order to keep them rail-oriented. Sheesh. Even the GAO report would have a similar problem were it to concoct a cost overrun average, instead of merely listing the projects. Keep up the worming, Dan. You know that cost overruns on government projects are not as low as you imply. Only some 20% or less of LRT systems were built at or under budget. Check out the overruns of the projects in the other (Hawaiian) article I posted a few days ago. | ||
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua Post Number: 1554 Registered: 01-2004 |
quote: I guess it's not that extensive, but Buffalo has subway service. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4670 Registered: 02-2005 |
I second Buffalo. It is a direct link directly downtown, though, and I don't consider that city more depressed than Detroit. Although the downtown is a 9-5 M-F sort of place. It's a pretty small city, really. Newark has a city subway/light rail, extensive buses, and two major train stations for commuter rail, including one mega-hub in Penn Station. While the latter two are NJ or Port Authority funded, the city subway and buses are supported by the city and region in tandem, if I remember correctly. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3038 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: It's also not what I would consider a major city. (Yeah, I realize that I didn't specifically say major city in my challenge, but it's implied from my sentence about the decline of major American cities) | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3039 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Newark is not located in a region with a faltering economy (it's also a satellite city - ala Ann Arbor, Pontiac - as opposed to a major city). The PATH train seems to be moreso planned for getting people to NYC than to Newark, IMO. (Message edited by iheartthed on April 24, 2008) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4175 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: There are at least 20 functioning light rail systems in the United States (with 3 more currently under construction). Most of these were built in phases, i.e. multiple projects per system. BECAUSE of this, building light rail has become fairly predictable, and planners are able to budget for costs that were once unforeseen. At what point are you going to stop intentionally disseminating disinformation? | ||
Rrl Member Username: Rrl Post Number: 953 Registered: 12-2003 |
WTF, the Feds are building a rail system in San Juan PR, only a US territory, not even w/in the friggin' country, and Detroit can't get federal funding?? What's next, trains in Guam? | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 5995 Registered: 10-2004 |
Dan lives in a fairy tale world where everything operates above board, where no lying and cheating and ripping off of the taxpayers ever occurs. Still, Dan, cost analyses of transit projects show that cost overruns occur, even after 1994. Fancy that! Considering the exposed and yet unexposed graft and corruption in Detroit, it would be curious to see what Detroit's overruns might be--without having to endure them, of course. | ||
Defendbrooklyn Member Username: Defendbrooklyn Post Number: 825 Registered: 11-2005 |
Slight change in thread momentum... If they created a Woodward line what would be next? Ideally: Woodward line: Heart Plaza to Birmingham Gratiot line: Ford Field area to Clinton Township Grand River line: ? to Farmington Hills, Michigan Ave line: Cobo(ish) to Dearborn Jefferson line: GP farms to Wyandott After these lines are built/established you can construct east/west stations at logical points within the system to form sort of a web...Or uses buses for east west transfers to each main line. Maybe cobo can be transformed into a train hub when the wings move… Overall good or bad? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2215 Registered: 07-2004 |
Interesting suggestion for a hub, DB. IIRC, Cobo is sited where the old MCRR Depot was. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5948 Registered: 10-2003 |
What would be the use, then, of the not-even-yet-completed Rose Parks Transit Center, then? Somehow, that has to be incorporated into anything Detroit hopes to do or risk it being a big waste. | ||
Greatlakes Member Username: Greatlakes Post Number: 194 Registered: 07-2007 |
But that's the beauty of these large public projects, especially when they don't talk to or even care that well about other projects that have been done or are in the works, eh? Seeing how much money and effort they can waste in new and different ways. I want to see LR/rail mass transit in Detroit just as anyone else here, but I do know the government will hardly be efficient or frugal with its budget. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5949 Registered: 10-2003 |
Do you mean that you think they'll be more inefficient than other public mass transit systems? | ||
Greatlakes Member Username: Greatlakes Post Number: 195 Registered: 07-2007 |
No, what I mean is that while we all want to see this happen, we shouldn't be surprised that it'll end up costing more than whatever figures are being put out now. What we can hope for of course is that the resulting economical impact will outweigh those costs. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5950 Registered: 10-2003 |
It will cost more than the estimate. I can't think of any transit system/line that didn't overrun costs upon its completion. The Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis, which this is patterned after, came in at $715 million, after originally having been budgeted for $400 million. To be fair, a small part of that was from inflation, but it still leaves hundreds-of-millions of dollars over budget even taking the inflation into account. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 6009 Registered: 10-2004 |
Cost overruns take inflation into account. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 2464 Registered: 10-2006 |
Nonetheless, cost overruns aren't unique to mass transit. Many large government projects have this problem, from Boston's Big Dig to the War in Iraq! It's just the way that it is. It the politics of mega-projects. Interesting read on the subject is "Mega-Projects--The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment" by Altshuler and Luberoff. |
