  Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 597 Registered: 07-2007 |
Last time I checked, rail service doesn't spring instantly from thin air. It takes time to study the routes, review alternatives, etc. None of that work was done 3 years ago. Since then, funding has been secured for the studies, the studies have been completed and now work is being done of the next step of the process. As the article noted, additional funding has been secured for more work by the individual communities. Sounds like things are moving along. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 598 Registered: 07-2007 |
For detail, funding for the study for the Ann Arbor-Detroit route was secured in Nov. 2005. Less than 3 years to go from a concept to a completed study and discussions with the railroad owners about routes, stations, etc. is about as fast as these kind of proposals move. http://www.metromodemedia.com/ devnews/detroitannarborcommute rrail0073.aspx | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7671 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: Last time I checked, 2 years is next to nothing in government time. For the rail to be actually up and running by the fall of 2010 they would need to well past the "study" stage by now. The fact there is no long term funding in place at all seems to be a pretty big issue. Novine - The link below is an audio interview from the same guy quoted in the article you referenced where he says the line should be running with Amtrak equipment by the end of 2007. I guess he was being overly optimistic then too. Of course what else would a bureaucrat like this say? He will always paint a rosy picture of success when asked, he is not likely to admit that they have fumbled the ball. Where is the independent analysis? Why doesn't the press do their job and ask him the tough questions? Because they are cheerleaders for these government boondoggles like most of the people on DY? http://jackshow.blogs.com/jack /2007/01/interview_carmi.html | ||
Giver108 Member Username: Giver108 Post Number: 5 Registered: 06-2008 |
Where does it state that funding has been secured by the individual communities? All it stated was that Dearborn got a million dollars for a feasibility study. The article clearly states that there is no source of long term funding. "But Palombo said that although the project is progressing nicely, there is still no long-term source of funding for the railway. He said the idea is to have a three- to five-year look at ridership before determining the long-term future of the railway. "We have some leads on long-term funding," Palombo said. "We have some federal money set aside, but we may have to talk to each community that's involved, each county and (the Michigan Department of Transportation. "Even though everything is going well right now, there are still some things we need to look at."" | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1938 Registered: 02-2006 |
quote: No they aren't. Learn a little more about the situation before you claim to know it. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7673 Registered: 03-2006 |
Gov: Chicago May Get Troopers, National Guard Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday raised the possibility of bringing in state troopers or even the Illinois National Guard to help Chicago combat a recent increase in violent crime -- an offer that Mayor Richard Daley didn't know was coming. http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/s tory?id=5392684&page=1 So the governor is offering it, if Daley accepts the offer is yet to be seen. Suffice to say that the issue is getting alot of serious attention and action is being taken. When is the last time Granholm offered anything in regard to the crime problem in Detroit? Shit, when is the last time anyone in DETROIT acknowledged the magnitude of the problem and came up with a serious proposal to address it? (Message edited by perfectgentleman on July 18, 2008) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1939 Registered: 02-2006 |
Like I said, learn about the situation. It is NOT about police or crime. It's about the governor embarrassing Daley publicly, politically motivated. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7675 Registered: 03-2006 |
No, it is about the city and state recognizing the gravity of a big problem and having competing strategies on how to address it. The key issue is that it is at least on the front burner and WILL be addressed. We could use some of that attitude here. I would love to see an honest debate between city and state government in Michigan on how to address the crime problem, it is better than ignoring it and talking about their fantasies of light rail. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 11900 Registered: 10-2003 |
Funny that you are supporting this in Illinois but the second Granholm offered state resources to help the city, you and people like you would begin with the "I don't want my tax dollars going to Detroit" rants. If Granholm offered state resources to the city like this you know that you would be up in arms about wasting tax dollars. Can't have it both ways. I agree an honest discussion about help the city needs would be beneficial but we know the result given the attitude of most in this state. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1940 Registered: 02-2006 |
Sorry PG, I forgot that you know what you're talking about. Forgive this Chicagoan for trying to teach you current events about my city. You know best. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 599 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Where does it state that funding has been secured by the individual communities?" Where did I say that? I was referring to the Dearborn funding. More work needs to be done on that front but Dearborn wouldn't be getting funding if there weren't signs of progress. As for bringing in the National Guard, what training do Guard troops outside of military police units have in policing duties? Why would you bring in troops with little or no training in that area for that kind of service? Stupid. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1456 Registered: 12-2006 |
Ah, yes, bringing in the National Guard for police duty. I believe Neil Young wrote a song once about what a tremendous idea that's turned out to be. To me the fact that Mr. Palombo gave an interview means that he thinks things are progressing. While I was a little frustrated with what looked like a roadblock NS was throwing at us, thinking more deeply I realize their concern may prevent us from doing something half-assed. So it will take more time, but be a better service. Incidentally, if Michigan suddenly decided it wanted to fund more trains per day in the entire Chicago to Detroit corridor, and had the money, it would take almost no time to get that started. The required upgrades are the only thing that will take time, and finishing the negotiations with the freight railroads as to what kind of passenger schedule we can put on the shared tracks. I'm looking forward to this, and I think it's very real, and coming soon. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5134 Registered: 02-2005 |
Hmm yeah if you want to take us back to 1968 we can bring in the Nat Guard. That's insane. How out of touch are you? Have you been to Detroit lately and felt that you needed an army guarding you, because if you have you might want to consult a mental health expert. As for your question: "Do you really believe that there are enough people in this region that want that rail line bad enough who are willing to fund it?" The answer is a resounding yes, even here in SE Michigan. There is enough bellyaching going on when gas is $4 a gallon. Imagine 5, 6, or 7 dollars. It's the economy, stupid! I know a little bit about you from your past posts, and odds are we're voting for the same people this fall, but I could not resent your outlook and poor logic more. The government has subsidized driving for decades, to the tune of over 85% of transportation spending. Most of that goes to new road construction. You can reduce spending and subsidize a few transit programs here and there, so that Americans have options for getting around (a wise thing to do with the end of the oil era coming, no?), and by creating a fix-it-first program with a moratorium on new roads. The 2009 Transportation Bill might be key in funding these projects we've been talking about. http://t4america.org/ | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7676 Registered: 03-2006 |
The reason that so much funding goes to road construction is that 99% of commuters use roads. They also pay for that construction with their tax dollars. Old ground. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5136 Registered: 02-2005 |
99 percent is not correct, and certainly not even close to correct for America's metropolitan areas. And, again, what happens when these huge numbers of car commuters are faced with user costs (from oil) that make taking the roads unfeasible? Substitution effect, possibly: more bus and train demand and usage? Individuals can buy cars, but they can't use them unless there are roads and highways on which to take them somewhere. The government steps in an subsidizes that. Individuals can also buy bus and train passes to go places, but they can't use them unless the government builds tracks and supplies service. I'm sure you've heard of public goods and the free-rider problem. Individuals can't make their own electric train line to go to work and back, but a government, recognizing that thousands of people might want the same thing, and knowing that one or two of these people shouldn't have to pay to build a system for everyone to use (nor have an incentive to do that), can step in an build an infrastructure of high-tech rail. Just like they build infrastructure of roads, roads, and more roads. Except the former is cleaner, lasts longer, and is more efficient. If you say that the government ought not build transit systems, then surely they ought not build any roads. It's 2008. The oil is diminishing. Our living patterns can't be sustained. Even the Republican presidential candidate knows that. That old ground you speak of is obsolete. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7680 Registered: 03-2006 |
The government "subsidizes" building roads with money it takes from the very commuters that use them via gasoline and other taxes. Some of this money is also used to fund mass transit projects even though most motorists don't use mass transit. Our living patterns are what they are, and Southeastern Michigan is laid out with personal transportation in mind. People will adjust their habits and the price of oil will go down. More domestic supplies will be tapped. The market will adjust as it did in the 1970's. Light rail is not the solution to the energy problem. It is a very expensive way to transport a relatively few number of people. This area does not have the resources to build and maintain it and the ridership revenues will not support it. This becomes obvious when you look at the total lack of progress on these projects. Perhaps when you can point to one successful light rail system in Michigan that people actually need and use you would have more credibility. You proclaiming that "our living patterns cannot be sustained" means little. They will be sustained because they must be, we have nothing viable to replace them at the moment. People are not going to be flooding back into Detroit, they will just leave the state completely. It is already happening. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 749 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote:Maybe the part where you live. quote:That is exactly why I'd like to see this built. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1738 Registered: 04-2006 |
The federal government uses user fees paid by gasoline buyers to subsidize transit users. The Highway Trust Fund has a take-down for transit. The system of funding roadway and transit improvements is not very good. There needs to be some changes in how transportation taxes are collected and distributed. Michigan is still a donor state, meaning we contribute far more in taxes than we get back through the highway trust fund for both roads and transit. This has to change. Michigan is no longer in a position of benevolence. A system needs to be set-up so that those that drive more pay more than those that don't. There should be a punititive feature so that if you drive a gas guzzler, you pay at a higher cost per mile than one who drives say a Focus or a Carolla. Transit riders have been getting by too cheaply as well. It cost more than a $1.50 to pay just the operating costs on getting someone from home to work, why is this fare so low? Does it make sense someone can jump on a bus in N Sterling Heights and take it all the way to downtown Detroit for $1.50? This contributes to sprawl as much as any other factor but it is ignored. If transportation was priced correctly we would use less of it, folks would be living a lot closer to where they work. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5137 Registered: 02-2005 |
Exactly, Bearinabox. The circular logic is dizzying. PG said that people will adjust their habits and prices will go down. Wouldn't adjusting behavior mean substituting car travel for transit travel, justifying the building of a high-quality rail line, for example? Furthermore, a few million Americans adjusting their behavior will not change the price of oil in a global market, so this is a moot point. China and India will drive demand up, and supply can only go down. Gas taxes partially go towards paying for roads, just as transit fares will directly go towards paying for part of a rail line. What did you say about our area being built for car transport? Grab some Detroit history books and read about Detroit Street Rail. I think you are just justifiably self-interested-- you know that bringing back similar rail systems will make those same old areas thrive again, and make the fringes obsolete. Perhaps you have real estate in an area where no rail will likely reach, and don't want to see it become a slum. And one final note on depreciation. Anyone can plainly see how often Michigan roads need constant work, and old roads (i.e. the ones in Detroit) are in terrible need of repair while new roads are constantly built. With rails, once their down, they're there for a good long while. Many of the old trolley rails still sit in our Detroit spoke streets. Those are good solid points, Dplanner. (Message edited by mackinaw on July 18, 2008) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1941 Registered: 02-2006 |
PS, the CTA in Chicago has seen a 7% increase in ridership, with zero expansion. But nah, let's just hold out and wait for gas prices to drop. (Message edited by focusonthed on July 18, 2008) | ||
Parkguy Member Username: Parkguy Post Number: 307 Registered: 04-2007 |
I paid $3.98 a gallon today. Crisis over. Forget the transit. Where's my Hummer? | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 600 Registered: 07-2007 |
'The government "subsidizes" building roads with money it takes from the very commuters that use them via gasoline and other taxes.' If it were true. We can't afford to maintain the road network we have and it's not because a tiny percentage of gas taxes is spun off for transit and other projects. Even if all of the gas taxes were spent on road maintenance and construction, we still wouldn't keep up with the need. We subsidize driving in a myriad of ways. Locally, we have road millages and road bonds that are paid by property owners, whether they drive or not. The cost of the equipment and staff to maintain the roads also comes from property taxes. The county road commissions are always woefully behind in keeping up because the money from gas taxes is never close to what is needed for maintenance. Michigan is a donor state federally but this just highlights that the funding mechanism doesn't generate enough money to go around. You want to criticize subsidies for transit? First admit to all of the subsidies we provide for those who drive the roads and that they don't pay their full share of the costs. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7685 Registered: 03-2006 |
Novine - It is true. The millages and taxes you speak of are mostly paid by people who either are drivers themselves or whose goods are delivered via those roads. There is simply nobody alive that does not use our roads directly or indirectly, even mass transit users. The reverse is not true however. A light rail system would only benefit those using it for the most part but the cost would need to be shared by all. The percentage of people that don't drive in the suburbs is quite small as you know so your point on that is weak. There are also renters that do not pay property taxes (directly) that also have kids in the schools, such is life. The point is that the vast majority of people use roads daily to commute and their goods and services depend on them. To say that we should be dis-investing in our road system to fund a light rail project that maybe 1-2% of the area population will use is preposterous. As far as Michigan being a donor state federally, that is true. As the folks who hold the reigns of power in regard to that are all Democrats at the moment, you should direct your concerns at them. That would be a good question for Levin, Stabenow, Granholm, Conyers, Dingel et al. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 601 Registered: 07-2007 |
"There is simply nobody alive that does not use our roads directly or indirectly, even mass transit users." The same is true of the freight rail system in this country. There's no one alive who doesn't benefit from the goods delivered by rail. But the government doesn't subsidize that network of transportation. We get it. Your preferred mode of travel is by car and you want your money and ours to subsidize your use of your car. Some of just don't agree that our share of our tax dollars should be monopolized for your benefit. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7687 Registered: 03-2006 |
Of course comparing freight rail and light rail for passengers is apples and oranges. You are not subsidizing my use of a car, you are paying to maintain infrastructure that every person benefits from or uses. If light rail made sense and could be funded in a prudent manner, I wouldn't be opposed to it. I do think the benefits are being overstated. Supposedly the Ann Arbor to Detroit line would be using existing track so I don't know why they aren't testing the feasibility of it with Amtrack equipment now. That would be one way getting some idea as to what the potential ridership would be. Of course that is not happening. Why would we push ahead with a permanent system that will run into the 100's of millions of dollars without having that data? Personally I don't think current commuter patterns support an Ann Arbor to Detroit line but a trial would reveal that one way or another. | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2694 Registered: 07-2004 |
Not saying that I oppose LRT(see earlier posts), but one thing that concerns me is what roads will get the most use beyond Woodward Avenue. In the past people took the streetcars to get to downtown Detroit to shop. Workers took the streetcars to get to the factories. Ford's Model T plant in Highland Park brought in thousands of workers from all over the metro region. Currently, aren't more people driving to jobs outside of Detroit? Wouldn't an east-west LRT in Oakland and Macomb counties make sense in terms of getting the best bang for your buck? Wouldn't light-rail make sense along Telegraph Road? How about Big Beaver/Metro Parkway or M-59/Hall Road? Proponents of light-rail shouldn't believe that all rail has to lead to downtown Detroit. Just something else to think about. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7690 Registered: 03-2006 |
I have a simple solution and it is already working for me right now. We should be promoting working from home more and avoid the commute altogether on certain days. It would save fuel, cut down on congestion and would cause less wear and tear on the roads. Millions of people could do that and it would probably save public funds instead of costing more. | ||
Youngprofessionaldetroiter Member Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter Post Number: 9 Registered: 07-2008 |
"If light rail made sense and could be funded in a prudent manner, I wouldn't be opposed to it. I do think the benefits are being overstated. Supposedly the Ann Arbor to Detroit line would be using existing track so I don't know why they aren't testing the feasibility of it with Amtrack equipment now. That would be one way getting some idea as to what the potential ridership would be. Of course that is not happening." I hate to get too deep into policy debates, because they usually get too technical, and I don't want to pass on an uninformed/misinformed opinion. But there are a few broad positions I'm willing to take on your statement, PG. (1) Amtrak IS willing to supply the trains to "test the feasibility" of the rail system before we spend millions of dollars on it. SEMCOG is working on some issues with the capacity of the current rails, and coordinating the additional short-distance train movements along with already existing cargo schedules. To put it simply, it's not as easy as saying, "Here you go, Amtrak, let us know what happens." (2) Current commuter patterns do support some kind of Ann Arbor to Detroit transit. There is a broad 75-page study posted on comparing light commuter rail with several other options, including a high speed busline, including detailed studies of commuter patterns and comparative costs with other cities. http://www.semcog.org/WorkArea /linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id &ItemID=5495 Your statement presumes that someone is blindly just writing an 8-figure check and hoping it all works out. I am admittedly impatient with the process, but I know the slowdown demonstrates the deliberation with which all this is happening. (3)Anecdotally, it seems we are living in completely different worlds as to the convenience of this track. THOUSANDS of consultants fly into Detroit Metro every week with their eventual destinations being downtown Detroit or Ann Arbor. Thousands of students from the east or west coasts who gladly pay for a $5 cabride to go 1 mile on the other side of campus would gladly pay $7 to go into Detroit on the weekends if only it were that convenient. I could believe that the Detroit to Ann Arbor commute is probably a pretty small number of people. But the number of people from both cities who go to Metro Airport would be staggering. But you don't need to take my word for it. This thing isn't going to be built permanently until the trial run starts. But the trial run isn't gonna start until they're sure it's feasible and can fund it. Lastly, I think from a completely different perspective, you have a chicken-egg argument going on here. Why would any out-of-state developer want to invest in Downtown Detroit property! Who would want to live there! But who would want to live Downtown if no one invests in re-developing the properties? So in other words, I think to ask "is this commuter line a good investment" is a pretty elementary question. And I think it's one they're working on now. A better, more powerful question, is "What kind of people do we need to attract to make our city a great place?" "What kinds of things do we need to create to attract those kinds of people?" And "How do we make those creations feasible?" When you look at it from that perspective, you'll see that some kind of mass transit needs to BECOME feasible, even if it's not right now. At the risk of being youth-centric, but that's what the youth of this country has been demanding for years in their lifestyle. If we don't find a way to MAKE it feasible, then our young talent will simply move somewhere where they can. They already are. http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20080331/SUB/471357497/1056/-/-/mary-kramer-hear-what-young-people-say-about-region No offense to the car culture that has built Detroit for the last 100 years. I mean none. We wouldn't have accomplished so much without it. I just know that for Detroit to move forward, we need to let go of some our old ways of thinking behind. YPD (Message edited by youngprofessionaldetroiter on July 19, 2008) (Message edited by youngprofessionaldetroiter on July 19, 2008) | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 7692 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: That may be true, but the so-called "expert" at SEMCOG said that doing just that was going to happen by the end of 2007. This of course makes me question the credibility of his further claims that the line will be up and running by 2011. quote: Are you saying that state and federal governments don't do that sort of thing all the time? Our beloved governor has cooked up many schemes that have resulted in taxpayer dollars being wasted. Has the "Cool Cities" or MEDC paid dividends for the money that was spent? Not that I can see. Going back in time a bit, the DPM is a damn good example of just that. People criticized the Reagan administration for threatening to de-fund it during construction but as it turns out they would have been doing us a favor by stopping it. It has been a joke and a white elephant financially from day one. There are still many abandoned buildings along that route and the projected ridership has never come close to being fulfilled. Do you think the folks in Pontiac feel that the tax dollars that went toward building and maintaing the Silverdome was a good investment for them? Detroit needs to do a helluva lot more than build a light rail line to attract large scale private investment. They are not even close to doing the fundamentals right now. I hate to harp on the crime problem again, but if the rail line is built and stories start appearing in the media about people being robbed and assaulted while waiting for the train that will kill ridership dramatically right there. There is chicken or egg issue here. I would say cities that have a viable economic base usually have mass transit (not always), but it is not the presence of the mass transit alone that causes that to happen. There are a host of other issues that also need to be addressed, and frankly, I see no progress on the other more critical fronts. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on July 19, 2008) | ||
Youngprofessionaldetroiter Member Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter Post Number: 10 Registered: 07-2008 |
PG, I have a clarification question for you. When you are talking about "Detroit" are you talking about the actual City of Detroit? Or the Detroit Metropolitan Region? It didn't strike me until you brought up crime problems, the DPM, and large scale private investment that you were talking of the City. I may have been unclear, so allow me to state that when I'm talking about Detroit for the purposes of mass transit, I'm speaking of the entire metropolitan area. I also would like to re-iterate that we do share one common vision, and that is it the attraction of large scale private investment into the region. In fact, as you read my thoughts over time, you'll see that almost all my opinions revolve around the desire to attract economic development into the region. So yes, that means I'm for lowering the business tax rate and all those other traditionally conservative ideas. But it also means that for me, if we are going to spend public money, it is sometimes worth using that public money as a capital investment if it will make it more likely to attract growth from outside our fine state and region. Best, YPD (Message edited by youngprofessionaldetroiter on July 19, 2008) |
