  Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2513 Registered: 07-2004 |
"The federal highway fund has been running a surplus for years although for the first time it is projected to see a shortfall because the fund has been raided for other projects including mass transit." PG: I can't find any reference to these other projects that have drained the fund. Can you please cite an objective source for this? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7065 Registered: 03-2006 |
The amount of gasoline taxes that go towards mass transit is 2.86 cents per gallon. As motorists are buying upwards of 138 billion gallons of fuel every year, that starts to add up. This mass transit account was created in 1982. The fund is funded exclusively by motorists and truck taxes. In other words, mass transit riders do not pay in unless they happen to own cars. http://www.nemw.org/HWtrustfun d.htm In addition: "Nine years after the 1982 transportation bill, Congress passed the $151 billion Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act of 1991 (ISTEA), which extended the 14 cents-per-gallon gas tax and all federal spending for transportation projects, including grants to states for their projects. ISTEA further separated the gas tax from its original purpose, because it allowed gas tax revenue to be used for non-highway projects that have little impact on drivers. It lifted restrictions on the designation of federal grants to states for highways or transit systems. States were given greater flexibility in choosing the types of projects for which it could use this money. Gas tax revenue could be used for almost any kind of “transportation” project, including bikeways and scenic landscape designs." "The most significant change in the nature of the Highway Trust Fund came with the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act. This act increased the gas tax from four to nine cents per gallon. Out of this five-cent increase, one cent was deposited in a new account within the trust fund that was dedicated to mass transit systems. For the first time since the creation of the Highway Trust Fund, the gas tax was no longer functioning merely as a user fee. Drivers, especially those in rural areas, would now have to pay at the pump for transportation systems that they would likely never use." [snip] Indeed, mass transit only serves dense urban areas, and an especially large percentage of mass transit resources are consumed by the New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Miami metropolitan areas. These five areas make up 16 percent of the U.S. population, but consume 49 percent of the total operating expenses of the nation’s mass transit systems, and 57 percent of the total passenger miles.[1] Therefore, all federal aid to mass transit disproportionately favors a relatively small group of people, but all taxpayers foot the bill. http://www.cagw.org/site/PageS erver?pagename=reports_highway bill Do you have a source that indicates the average income in Detroit is going up? (Message edited by perfectgentleman on June 17, 2008) | ||
Parkguy Member Username: Parkguy Post Number: 282 Registered: 04-2007 |
Before this thread falls into total chaos... here's the deal about "sustainable." The idea is that society, or a business, or an industry, is founded and operated on a set of beliefs and understandings, which are translated into rules, regulations, or policies. As long as the rules are working and successful, there is growth and more success. At some point, sometimes, the environment changes and the rules don't fit the reality so well. Operating with the old set of rules doesn't work so successfully any more. If we're lucky, the only result is less success, but the system still operates. Sometimes, though, as time goes on, the gap between the environment and the rules widens, and there can develop a strong downside to operating under the old rules-- so much so that the society or industry causes so much damage that the whole thing implodes or falls apart. The system can't sustain itself anymore, because the old rules don't work any more. Let's take gasoline prices and the effect that will have on our society (even beyond Detroit). Take a look at this chart: http://inflationdata.com/Infla tion/images/charts/Oil/Gasolin e_inflation_chart.htm I know, it's only one chart, but I've seen others that say basically the same thing. Google around and look at some others. The charts say that gas is expensive in adjusted dollars, but no more than was the case at the beginning of the auto boom years, the years when Detroit boomed, too. And during the auto industry's second boom, in the 1950's, gasoline was significantly more expensive than during the 1990's. In fact, we nostalgically see the 1920's and the 1950's a golden years of the automobile. There were two really unusual periods on that chart-- 1980-82, and the '90's. We survived the high prices of 1980, but the '90's cheap prices caused what I think is the biggest difference between now and the '50's. The spike in the 1980's caused people to buy smaller, more efficient cars, the drop in the '90's allowed people to buy bigger less efficient cars, but also to move farther away from any destination and drive many more miles each week. Up until this past year, gasoline had risen to roughly the price it was post-WWII, and people didn't give up their gas-guzzlers back then. The big difference? They didn't drive as many miles. Farmers, yes. Urbanites and suburbanites? Much less. So how do the "rules" work here? The federal government and the state have plenty of laws and regulations that actively support sprawl, from how mortgage money is used to where roads are built to where water and sewer lines are built... right down to zoning ordinances that require quarter-acre lots or larger. (Remember the "super sewer" lawsuits in the '80's? There would be no development west of Novi Rd. if that case had been decided differently.) Even the media get into the act: I read somewhere that Better Homes & Gardens magazine began pushing suburban-style design in the early 1940's. What fuels this? Cheap gasoline and private cars. Are people going to give them up? No. I'm not, either. Can people continue to drive 50 miles each way to work? Depends. If this peak in gas prices is temporary, like 1980, then we'll get through it. Will prices drop to the super-low levels of the 1990's? Probably not. The chart says those were unusually low prices. If those low prices are what drove the sprawl out to the exurbs, then the exurbs are probably not sustainable. The rules of the 1990's fall apart. Books like "The End of Oil," whether you buy it or not, warn that at the very least, oil prices will be very volatile and spike wildly for the next two decades. At worst, they will spiral up and up with no end in sight. Look at this chart: http://www.randomuseless.info/ gasprice/gasprice.html For the last three years, the graph swings wildly up and down... big jumps with big drops. The cycles lasted about a year, but this last peak looks like a six-month cycle, with a super-high maximum. Will prices drop soon? Maybe, but in the long run, the trend is always up, at least since 1997. That's an 11-year trend. I think "up" is the trend from now on. A lot of factors have contributed to this. It is not the stupidity of the US auto industry. It is not the War in Iraq (1997 was four years before 9/11). It's not even George W. Bush. Nor was it Bill Clinton. He's been out of office a long time. It is our reliance on rules that are not sustainable. If we're smart, we'll change the policies that support those unworkable rules, and quit throwing our money away, money that supports big boxes and miles of infrastructure in places that will show zero growth very soon. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7066 Registered: 03-2006 |
Park, good post. The market will dictate as it always does. If the increase in gas price remains high, it will drive conservation efforts, sales of fuel efficient cars, and it may also affect urban and suburban development plans. The only thing that makes the infrastructure affordable is the people that are willing to pay for it in development costs and tax dollars. If it no longer makes sense to do that then it will subside due to market forces. There are alot of options out there besides thousands of people moving back to Detroit however, and they will all be tried. | ||
Sludgedaddy Member Username: Sludgedaddy Post Number: 58 Registered: 01-2008 |
I heard on the radio last night that Honda will be leasing a fleet of newly designed hydrogen vehicles in California. Observing the Honda Hindenburg will be more fun that watching a rear-ended Ford Pinto. Oh, the Humanity! | ||
Parkguy Member Username: Parkguy Post Number: 283 Registered: 04-2007 |
PG-- I agree about the options, but it is not just a matter of tax dollars, even though they figure into the equation. Some of the "rules" I talked about in my last post are based on the beliefs of individual people. Lots of people who post here BELIEVE that Detroit is a hellhole, that NO ONE will move there, etc. Their own beliefs are what they operate on, and as long as society's beliefs and rules allow their personal rules to work and to help them prosper, then they assume that their beliefs are universal. When there comes a breakdown in the sustainability of that relationship... well... Some people will move to Detroit, some may even move BACK to Detroit. Others won't. I'm afraid that those who abandon Michigan to go somewhere else may find that the old rules won't work in an ever-increasing list of places. Look at Las Vegas. That version of the promised land has faltered. Lots of people say that the cities on the upswing are full of "creative class" workers. That's probably true, but a better way to look at it is that the industries in those towns are flexible, use information to make decisions, and can move quickly. "Creatives" are simply the people with the background to let them operate this way, either working for large corporations that have integrated creativity and technology into the way they think and do business (not simply integrating it into their products), or as entrepreneurs. I agree with thinkers like Richard Florida who say that this kind of thinking and working happens best in dense settings where people can interact with each other, with creative thinkers from other fields, in stimulating settings. You can't interact with anyone if you are sealed in a car for two hours a day which delivers you to more isolation. The inner-ring suburbs and Detroit, along with the central "downtowns" of the old villages are set up fine for quality creative interaction. Strip malls and big boxes are not. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7073 Registered: 03-2006 |
I see what you are saying Park, but the simple fact remains that many people do not prefer urban living. I don't like strip malls and big box stores, I like SMALL downtown areas, like Milford for example. A little business district surrounded by residential, all within walking or biking distance. Large urban centers like Detroit are another thing entirely. Even if it was safer, had good mass transit and good schools it would not be appealing to me. Apparently there are lots of people like that. I "interact" with the people I need and want to. In the end, the entire notion of either/or is a false choice anyway. | ||
Parkguy Member Username: Parkguy Post Number: 285 Registered: 04-2007 |
P-gent-- I saw or heard about some research that showed that the population is roughly divided into thirds: those who like a dense urban setting, those who like walkable suburban, small-town, or low-density urban settings, and those who prefer drivable suburban or exurban areas. There's room for everyone. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7074 Registered: 03-2006 |
I agree. | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 790 Registered: 03-2008 |
Park guy... I have really enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. I liked reading a few others posts in this one too. It was surprising, because they weren't always the ones who agreed with my point of view. When I moved downtown nearly a decade ago, everyone thought I was nuts. You wouldn't believe some of the comments I got (actually, most of you probably have gotten them too). I moved into a okay building in the CBD. Back then, all of downtown's streets were in worse conditions than a dirt road. There were massive pot holes in them. Steam poured out of every man hole cover and sewer. You were always worried about hitting someone or something, as you couldn't see pot holes and pedestrians. Pedestrians were few though. There was nowhere to walk to really. You had to pass in front of blocks upon blocks of abandonment and crime infested alleys. Just a few short years before, they had started raising several large blocks for the stadiums, remember when those whole areas looked like war zones with bulldozers sitting on top of them? I remember going to the Ren CEn all torn apart and under construction, there were no stores or movies theaters there, nothing. The Riverwalk was abandoned buildings and warehouse. There were even any criminals around, it was just empty except for a random cement silo operating poorly. Washington was a horrible crumbling parking lot. There were at least double the amount of abandoned skyscrapers downtown, and many more in Midtown, Lafayette Park, and Corktown as well. It seemed like Detroit was a sinking ship didn't it? But it wasn't. That was how Detroit looked when I moved here. I couldn't even pay most of my friends and family to even come visit me back then. But a few were a little adventurous and helped me move and such. My Dad and Grandpa helped me. I remember looking out my eleventh story window overlooking Grand Circus Park. Kales had just begun renovation and the building next to it was setting up scaffolding for facade improvements. MY apartment was run down, chipped paint on the walls, soot covered dirty windows (from the outside), and bleach stains on the carpet. But I remember that window. We looked through it, and I started telling them both stories. I told them how the Super Bowl and World Series was coming in a few short years. I told them that there was a plan for every single one of those abandoned buildings. And the ones that went, while we were going to figure out how to work our way up and help get something going with each and every one of them. I told them about how beautiful Campus Martius was going to be, and how the vacant Sibley's store would make a nice place for a new cafe or lounge (it eventually did). We talked about a ton of other things. We talked about GM moving to the Ren Cen, and the Riverwalk. We talked about the new Hard Rock Cafe, and the eventual opening of the new round-about style park, and how confusing it was going to be to give directions to navigate it. My grandpa just couldn't believe it all. He knew. I made him and my father see what I saw that day. They were, and still are skeptical. But they are both still here, and now they to are becoming involved in our city. I remember when every freeway was closed (just before the Super Bowl) and everyone had to drive along the spokes. It looked like a war zone to them. All the facades on Merchant's Row were torn off in big piles on the streets.... it was crazy. We've come so far. Detroit is now a place people are not only simply willing to maybe visit if it's free or cheap, but they actually want to visit now. And yes, many areas still appear neglected, but we just can't do it all at once. Maybe we'd have more done if some of you critics lent a hand instead of yelling from the wall? or maybe you already are... I honestly don't know. But why do you guys get so critical about us wanting to be proud of how far we've come? You don't have to keep pointing out those mountains in our distance, we all can see them. It's true, many Detroiters need to learn to stop blaming all their problems on the suburbs. We will get no where by pulling others down into the mud. But suburbanites also could benefit from realizing our point of view. Nothing good comes out about rubbing our problems in our face... We can see the obstacles guys, you can stop telling us they are coming now... we get it! And both sides really need to stop thinking that their own shite don't stink. The suburbs got just as much smelly manure as those in the city. We are all in this together.... The best outcome is always one in which everyone wins, whenever possible. You guys are marching towards the future while wishing for the past... I know the happy times don't last long enough, it stinks what happened in the past, but we got good things coming to us here in Metro Detroit. Many good people around here believed and believe it. Grrr... it's all so frustrating, some will never get it I guess... Some of you all need to go reflect in ItsJeff's bench for a little while. Just think about things. Think about what is actually going on and how are paths all intersect... then maybe come back and contribute... I know... I'm one of you guys... I grew up in the suburbs. I get why you guys love it out there and that is great what you guys got going. Now lets try to make the city shine just as well. All our paths around here are intersecting whether you like it or not. Why wish death on anyone? You should be helpful to others, and happy when they make it. The same should be done between Detroit and it's Suburbs. It shouldn't be true hatred. It should be more like sibling rivalry when it comes to fighting over attracting business or residents. But in the grand scheme of things, we have to remember that we are on the same team here. Come on.... Keep it together... PLEASE??? Our CBD is no longer a constant ghost town. I admit, it still has a ways to go, but it is happening. We have a long way to go, but let's keep walking. One foot in front of the other, one day at a time. We had to start somewhere. All the political problems, al the transit problems, all the neighborhood problems, all that stuff is coming. Please don't get mad at us for celebrating because we won a battle. WE all know we haven't won the war. But we need that little stuff to keep the morale up, know what I mean? Detroit was pretty bad. But what will work in Detroit maybe, just maybe can work in other areas of Michigan. Then maybe even beyond Michigan... | ||
Reddog289 Member Username: Reddog289 Post Number: 367 Registered: 08-2007 |
can,t comment without going on&on, but Detroit does look better downtown to me yet, the areas i spent the most time in the city have taken a dive, But living in the same area in the burbs for 30 plus years i,ve lived have most likely seen their better days for awhile. two are lucky they have ""downtowns" one has a big shopping area. EMPTY HOUSES benefit no one cept the scrappers, so thats that won,t write no more bout it. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 2451 Registered: 09-2007 |
Agreed Reddog289. 15 years ago, the neighborhoods were fair (especially the neighborhoods riding along Grosse Pointe, Telegraph and 8 Mile). There weren't as many vacant schools, lots, storefronts, and there were more people around. However, it seems like ever since we've started the improvements downtown the neighborhoods began to slide downhill even quicker. It's like we've neglected our neighborhoods and the people who already live here just to force investment in our CBD. I'm all for painting up downtown Detroit, but we can't ignore the neighborhoods and let them fall into disrepair either. If they continue down this path, they'll lose all the features that made them seem special | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 927 Registered: 08-2006 |
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/u p/player/popup/?cl=8374760 Rejoice suburb haters! Soon we will all live along transit lines and embrace density! I cant wait for the suburbs to suffer like Detroit! TAKE THAT! | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 2454 Registered: 09-2007 |
Yeah, Detroit's problem is 1:50 - 1:57. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 1423 Registered: 07-2007 |
Living in the City has its advantages with so much to do; but there is also something tranquil about not hearing ambulances, loud stereos, or other loud explosions when your at home. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4525 Registered: 10-2003 |
Well, PG, I do agree with your point about the market correcting itself. In Southeast Michigan, however, there really isn't much in the way of choice. You have...single family detached home or...single family detached home! Both of which require an automobile to do anything. Couple that with local politicos who have their heads so far up their asses, they can't see what the rest of the nation is doing, and it's a recipe for disaster. I don't think anyone is saying we should be actively trying to kill off the existing suburbs, and force everyone to move into the big bad scary city. I do think, however, it's in Michigan's best interest to "diversify its portfolio" a bit, and provide real options. Some will choose to remain in the suburban subdivisions and drive 30 miles to work, but unless more densely populated neighborhoods (of varying housing stock) and transportation options are provided, there is realistically only one lifestyle "choice" being provided. For those who don't want that choice, well, they'll continue to move to other parts of the country and take their money with them. In regions with real options, the market is already responding. Most large urban transit systems are experiencing booming ridership. Housing values in the far suburbs are plummeting, while prices in the inner cities remain stable, if not rising. It's difficult to allow for a market response, though, if the market only provides one product. | ||
Jjw Member Username: Jjw Post Number: 531 Registered: 10-2005 |
danindc: very good points. Unfortunately Detroit metro is not the only city facing this issue. Most cities are facing it because most do not provide adequate transit. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 2456 Registered: 09-2007 |
Jjw, no medium to large city in the USA has a transit system as bad as Detroit's. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4527 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: On the other hand, many regions far smaller than Detroit have already spent billions on transit to promote denser, walkable development. Even Houston is developing an extensive network of light-rail lines. Detroit (and Michigan), on the other hand, continues to pretend that nothing is wrong, and there's nothing they can do about it anyway. Realistically, though, should Detroit be content with saying, "Well, Jacksonville and Oklahoma City don't have transit either, so it's okay."? Detroit used to be a powerhouse on par with Chicago and New York. I don't understand this "settling" BS. | ||
Jjw Member Username: Jjw Post Number: 533 Registered: 10-2005 |
Make that argument to transit enthusiasts in other cities and I believe you will have a serious discussion. Places like Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, upstate NY, Richmond, Tampa. I could go on. Yes, Detroit's system is bleak I give you that but it certainly isn't the only metro in need. Having said that, as cities continue to compete for federal funds for construction, those who are best prepared will win. And, many of the cites I mentioned have advocacy groups working about this very issue. | ||
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto Post Number: 5166 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Most large urban transit systems are experiencing booming ridership. Housing values in the far suburbs are plummeting, while prices in the inner cities remain stable, if not rising". This is exactly what seems to be happening in Los Angeles. I live near downtown, and while there's lots of news about a 27 percent decline in property values in SoCal, there are NO bargains around me, well, except maybe for this one: http://losangeles.craigslist.o rg/lac/rfs/720187037.html Ridership on some lines of the subway/light rail are up 20 percent, (How fortunate that this city plunged into improving its' traffic issues twenty years ago) housing density continues to be increased along mass transit lines, (there is a constant trend of tearing down small residential units to build high-rise apts) housing values in the distant suburbs have plunged and foreclosures have soared, bike ridership is increasing, and more people are buying those tiny cars (Smart Cars) that look like golf carts. We are living in "interesting" times. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4528 Registered: 10-2003 |
You are correct. Cincinnati is about to start building streetcars, and is seriously reconsidering light rail (which was defeated at the polls in 2001). Richmond has been working on plans to turn its historic Main Street Station into an intermodal hub, with increased Amtrak service, commuter rail connecting to DC, and a light rail or street car line, as well as intercity buses. Mind you, this is a city 20% the size of Detroit. | ||
Waymooreland Member Username: Waymooreland Post Number: 75 Registered: 11-2007 |
Here's what it boils down to, in my opinion: A) For people who already like urban living and have been considering moving into the city, higher gas prices and plans for more mass transit might encourage them to take the plunge. Hopefully, there are enough Generation XY-ers in this category to actually make a difference, like Detroitnerd described in his anecdotes about NYC. They pay taxes, vote, file complaints with the ombudsman, get involved with community groups, support/start up local businesses, etc. Enough people do this, and maybe there's a positive net effect of the entire city that attracts more residents and the cycle continues. B) People who just like suburban living/don't like urban living/like urban living but don't like Detroit aren't going to change their minds just because gas is expensive, period. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7108 Registered: 03-2006 |
So Dan, what is the holdup on building mass transit in Metro Detroit if it is such a good idea? Where is the A2 to Detroit line? | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2514 Registered: 07-2004 |
Haha: "Transportation (In) Equity Act: A Legacy for Losers (Taxpayers)" That's the OBJECTIVE SOURCE you cite? Oh, PG; you so silly! | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7109 Registered: 03-2006 |
Attacking the messenger? The facts are correct and both sources I quoted are non-partisan. As you have not proven otherwise I guess that it is settled. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2515 Registered: 07-2004 |
CAGW is non-partisan? That group is practically a Republican PR group, not an objective source, which is what I was asking for. I also notice that the article doesn't say how much money was use for purposes other than motorways. How much was it? Somehow, I find it difficult to believe that it is a significant contributor to the highway fund tanking as it is. Will you just admit that you fear and hate the idea of transit? It's a lot easier to admit your prejudices than cloak it in a mantle of economic sensibility. | ||
Spacemonkey Member Username: Spacemonkey Post Number: 680 Registered: 03-2006 |
Metro Detroit definitely needs a better public transit system, like a train / tram system. We need a tram that runs Woodward from 8 Mile to Long Lake and one that runs up and down Big Beaver. That's about all we need. Maybe one through Royal Oak too. | ||
Registeredguest Member Username: Registeredguest Post Number: 382 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Metro Detroit definitely needs a better public transit system, like a train / tram system. We need a tram that runs Woodward from 8 Mile to Long Lake and one that runs up and down Big Beaver. That's about all we need. Maybe one through Royal Oak too." I was thinking more like one from Waterford to Clarkston. That's where the growth is. Long Lake/Big Beaver - sooo yesterday, or per your words, so 1985... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4529 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: And now we see why Detroit has exactly jack shit in the way of transit. |
