  Nyct Member Username: Nyct Post Number: 105 Registered: 01-2007 |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 81117/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_b aghdad_subway LOL! Unbelievable. | ||
Searay215 Member Username: Searay215 Post Number: 33 Registered: 04-2007 |
If they are building a subway for $3 billion then why in Gods name are we sending $10 billion a month over there for reconstruction? And the reason they have one before us is they don't have the Big 3 to squash any attempt to build one. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 5247 Registered: 10-2003 |
Investing in infrastructure. What a novel idea. | ||
Daddeeo Member Username: Daddeeo Post Number: 301 Registered: 09-2008 |
Maybe it's safer. The troops got to eat. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 2801 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: Yes what a novel idea. Funny how they country that perceives itself as #1 is always behind the times. | ||
Doctors Member Username: Doctors Post Number: 770 Registered: 10-2003 |
Has anyone done the math on how much it would cost to build a four track rapid transit subway on Fort St, Michigan Ave, Grand River Ave, Woodward Ave, Van Dyke Ave and Gratiot Ave? More importantly has anyone done the math on how much it has cost this region over the past one-hundred years of not building a real grade separated rapid transit system? Before anyone says so, a bus on steel wheels planned for Woodward Avenue does not count as "rapid transit". | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 2125 Registered: 08-2007 |
I heard they were getting a Jimmy John's too. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3619 Registered: 04-2006 |
You win for post of the day. quote: | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3620 Registered: 04-2006 |
So now comparing Detroit to Baghdad will be an insult to Baghdad, lol. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 5248 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: From what I've seen, most two-track subway tunnels are coming in at $100-$120 million/mile. For a four-track system, you're probably looking at a ballpark figure of $200 million/mile. There are a lot of variables, though, once you start moving earth. A lot also depends on the quality and discipline of the project management team. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 9160 Registered: 10-2003 |
I think major infrastructure investments are in our country's near future, much to the chagrin of some of our conservative friends. It creates jobs and invests in our future. Expect to hear news about major public works projects, especially in the area of the nation's power grid. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 5249 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Not only do infrastructure upgrades create jobs, they "pave the way" for our economy to grow, once it recovers. In addition to power infrastructure, I'd be surprised if we didn't see some major upgrades to our rail networks as well. I doubt we'll see much in the way of freeways, aside from repairs. | ||
Cman710 Member Username: Cman710 Post Number: 535 Registered: 07-2006 |
I am all for infrastructure improvements domestically, and I think Detroit desperately needs better public transportation. As far as subways go, however, I would note that Baghdad has about 7 million people, while Detroit has less than a seventh of that population. Baghdad has a greater need for a subway than Detroit right now. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3623 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: What does that have to do with Detroit not getting a subway? D.C. has roughly 2/3's the population of Detroit and it has one. Boston as well... | ||
Bigb23 Member Username: Bigb23 Post Number: 2866 Registered: 11-2007 |
I bet Saddam Hussein would've been proud of the new subway he's responsible for. Maybe we can throw in a Disney World with the package, hell it's only printed money. | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 429 Registered: 10-2006 |
Detroit has over 5 million, so the difference with Bagdad is not that big. To be fair, the primary reasoning for heavy rail is congestion, and metro Detroit doesn't have heavy congestion anywhere. I would imagine Bagdad has crap roads and fairly bad congestion along key corridors. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3624 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: If Detroit ever plans to use its downtown again the roads will get very congested. (Message edited by iheartthed on November 18, 2008) | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 1630 Registered: 12-2007 |
Can't imagine why they would have crap roads... | ||
Cman710 Member Username: Cman710 Post Number: 536 Registered: 07-2006 |
Boston and D.C. have fewer people than Detroit, but both subway systems go beyond city limits into neighboring towns and cities (and in DC's case, states). Also, the Greater Boston area is the 10th largest Metropolitan Statistic Area, according to the U.S. Census. DC is the 8th largest. Detroit is in fact the 11th largest (with 4.4 million people in the area, which includes Flint), but the concentration of people in the center of the region is less than in any of the population centers I mentioned. As far as cities go, Detroit is also much less dense and more spread out. I am not trying to argue that Detroit could not use a subway, or that it wouldn't be great. Of course, it would be a great improvement. What I did say is that the Baghdad area has a greater need for a subway system. Baghdad's metro area population is estimated to be about 9 million, double Detroit's. Moreover, people have much less access to cars than in the U.S. That being so, it seems like a subway system is more needed there than in Detroit. I am not sure how one could argue that they do not need a subway system very badly. | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 51 Registered: 10-2007 |
Washington DCs subway system got built specifically because it's DC. You'll note that it's the only large scale, multi-line, rapid transit system built in the US in recent times. It was built at enormous cost, and almost entirely with federal govt. money. It received much more federal funds than any other system in the country. In the meantime, NYC has had to raise fares and cut service, while the most overcrowded subway line in the country is still waiting for relief from a line that has been promised since WWII, and Detroit remains the country's largest city without rapid transit. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3625 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: But if Baghdad can afford to build a subway system then why the hell can't Detroit? Considering that we're sending them billions of our dollars per month? Is it really our priority to build subways in Baghdad over Detroit just because they have 7 million people? Whether Baghdad needs one more is beyond the point. Detroit has really needed one for decades now. If Baghdad were in America then I'd care a little more about the priority. | ||
Bigb23 Member Username: Bigb23 Post Number: 2872 Registered: 11-2007 |
They have the oil, we now have the big oil president. How much of this pie does now offshore Halliburton get ? | ||
Cman710 Member Username: Cman710 Post Number: 538 Registered: 07-2006 |
According to the article, Iraq is building the subway with their own money. They can afford to do so because they have a lot of oil wealth. If only we could strike oil in the D... That we are sending Iraq a lot of money is another matter that is a separate political discussion. It would be different if those billions would have gone to Detroit instead, but clearly Congress would not have allocated that money to build a subway system in Detroit. | ||
Cman710 Member Username: Cman710 Post Number: 539 Registered: 07-2006 |
Bigb23, please state any legitimate way that the President has favored the oil industry in ways that previous presidents haven't? Also, with oil prices going down a lot now, the oil companies will not make nearly as high profits. If there were such a conspiracy to help oil companies, wouldn't they be artificially propping the price up instead of letting it drop so much? | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3626 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: And this doesn't bother you at all? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 5251 Registered: 10-2003 |
For clarification: quote: Planning for the Washington Metro began in 1956, around the same time the Interstate Highway Act was passed. Leaders in the area foresaw massive population growth due to postwar expansion of the federal government. The Metro was conceived as a means to easily transport federal employees from their homes in the suburbs to jobs in the District. True, Metro construction received an enormous amount of federal money, as do all large road and transit projects. Instead of gutting the city to accommodate massive freeways, though, the District elected to use its designated Interstate Highway funds to construct the subway system. Maryland and Virginia also made significant contributions from state funds. The funding mechanisms were approved by voters through referendum. Atlanta and BART are two multi-line heavy rail systems that were planned and constructed during the same time period. Since the early 1980s, numerous cities have constructed successful light rail projects, with the most ambitious projects in the West, as in Salt Lake and Denver. Transit agencies all across the nation have had to raise fares and scale back service recently, including Metro. Much of this is due to the increase in the price of diesel. To imply that operating funds of other systems were raided to build Metro is patently false. The federal government does not appropriate money for transit operations. Detroit doesn't have rail transit because it never developed a cohesive plan to achieve eligibility for federal funding. For what it's worth, the Second Avenue Line, the 7 Extension, and LIRR East Side Access projects are all currently under construction in New York. | ||
Thames Member Username: Thames Post Number: 306 Registered: 02-2007 |
Daddeeo & Gnome, I was thinking the very same things.  | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 2126 Registered: 08-2007 |
Thanx Thames, thought we needed a little funny here, glad someone got the joke. On the serious side, despite being slightly irked, this news is actually very positive. It shows that that huge ashtray is getting back to their version of normal. That mean we can get out of there. Good news. Did anyone really want to leave Iraq completely f-ed up? A rotting pustule of a country is a petri dish for evil. Think Cambodia. Germany in the '20s. 1917 Russia. We need Baghdad to be strong and peaceful. We need all those unemployed and under-employed Iraqis working. We need them working so hard that at night they're so tired they're not dreaming up schemes to blow up their neighbors. It's natural to feel resentment, but when you think about it, this subway is a great idea. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 2089 Registered: 02-2006 |
The big difference between Detroit and DC is that the population of DC dramatically increases during business days/hours. The population of Detroit does not. This is why DC has such an extensive subway system to support such a small city population. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 5252 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: And vice-versa. (Message edited by DaninDC on November 18, 2008) | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 3932 Registered: 09-2007 |
Huh? Perhaps DC's population "dramatically increases" because they have one main center of commerce (which means everyone's going to & from the same place), and outside the city proper the road infrastructure is terrible. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3627 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Well, yeah... And at one time so did Detroit. Probably moreso than D.C. considering how much bigger Detroit was than D.C. And if Detroit is ever to be like that again, it will need a real transit system. | ||
Cman710 Member Username: Cman710 Post Number: 545 Registered: 07-2006 |
All Danindc means is that there are a lot of people outside of DC that work in DC and therefore commute to and from there every weekday. I would venture to guess that in some offices over half the workers commute from Maryland or Northern Virginia every day. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 2090 Registered: 02-2006 |
Yes, that's what we're saying. DC's Metro is far and above what a city of less than 600,000 residents "should require." However, it needs it because the population almost doubles during the workday. IIRC, Detroit proper has a net loss in daytime population. | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 319 Registered: 12-2004 |
Detroit as a region is a lot bigger and denser than many people give it credit for. There are 4 million people living within a 20 mile radius of Highland Park, which is higher than most cities in the U.S. within a similar area (including Boston and Washington). The biggest difference is that Boston and Washington are highly dense in the core and the density lessens very quickly as you leave the center. In Detroit's case the city is only moderately dense in the core and has a more gradual decline in density. Cities like Boston and Washington would look more like a steep mountain while Detroit would look more like a broad hill. Granted a city like Baghdad puts most American cities to shame as far as density is concerned. | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 320 Registered: 12-2004 |
BTW, Washington's "daytime" population in 2000 was 982,853. Detroit's "daytime" population in 2000 was 950,611. The difference isn't that extreme. Boston on the other hand only had a daytime population of 831,233, which is significantly less than Detroit. (Message edited by hudkina on November 18, 2008) | ||
Mortalman Member Username: Mortalman Post Number: 484 Registered: 03-2007 |
Tee hee! Ha ha! Hee hee! Isn't life wonderful with all its little twist, turns and surprises? They deserve a subway system because they aren't abandoning their city and striping it of all its precious metals. And, when scrappers go to work on one of their structures they just send the suicide bombers in. What can be better than a system that polices itself? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 5253 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: The major difference is that Iraqis have already decided to start investing money in their own economic well-being instead of handing out free-money checks to spend at Wal Mart. | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 321 Registered: 12-2004 |
I was talking about the difference between Washington and Detroit. I know that a subway would do a city like Baghdad a lot more good than it would a city like Detroit. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 2092 Registered: 02-2006 |
quote: Instead of looking at the raw numbers, look at the percent change. That's the point. People are commuting INTO DC, while they commute OUT OF Detroit (although the net outward flow is like 1% or less). Geez, the whole point I was trying to make was to explain why DC has a subway system deserving of a much larger city...and that is because 9-5 Monday through Friday, it IS a much larger city, and there is no possible way those extra 400k-500k commuters could drive in. And that is shown by the way the system is designed. It facilitates commuting, not inter-city transit. I'm sure Dan can corroborate how the Metro is awesome for tourists and commuting, but "you can't get there from here" is still fairly common. I think they're working on that though, adding some streetcars and stuff. Chicago is similar...the system is by and large designed to get people into and out of the loop. | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 322 Registered: 12-2004 |
While Detroit isn't as centralized as Washington, it still has a large employment base in the Greater Downtown area. Also, you have to consider that Washington is a much smaller city than Detroit geographically, so obviously a larger share of people are going to be commuting from outside the city limits. If Detroit's city boundaries were reduced to 50 sq. mi. I'm sure its "inflow" would jump from the 164,000 that come from the actual suburbs to well over 300,000 (adding people commuting from the suburban neighborhoods on the west side and far east side). Again, it's not vastly different from Washington. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 3937 Registered: 09-2007 |
Also, Metro Detroit is still bigger than D.C. when you factor in the SW Ontario & Toledo commuters (which is a grand total over 6 Million people). | ||
Bigb23 Member Username: Bigb23 Post Number: 2891 Registered: 11-2007 |
"Bagdad Gets a Subway Before Us " So let them have a sandwich shop, big deal. | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 433 Registered: 10-2006 |
Detroit is smaller than DC. You can't count a different country, or Toledo, and then ignore the fact that Baltimore is closer and more linked to DC than these two places. The top 10 largest metros: 1. NYC 2. LA 3. Chicago 4. DC-Baltimore 5. Bay Area 6. Boston-Providence 7. Philly* (will probably merge with NYC, putting Detroit back in top 10) 8. Dallas-Fort Worth 9. Houston 10.South Florida 11. Detroit | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 3940 Registered: 09-2007 |
^When the numbers are calculated, they don't include the people in SW Ontario (since it's another country). However, Detroit/Windsor are an international metropolis, so it would only be fair to factor them in (on a relaitve basis). Including them would bump our numbers to 6 million. Also, this would raise our media market into the top 5. Even without them, Detroit still has 5.4 million people while D.C. only has 5.3 million people. (Message edited by DetroitRise on November 19, 2008) | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 323 Registered: 12-2004 |
The Washington-Baltimore region has over 8 million, so as a region it is bigger. Even if you add Toledo, Lansing, Windsor, Sarnia, Jackson, Adrian, etc. into Metro Detroit you still don't get much more than 7.5 million people. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3630 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: But in saying all of this you still aren't acknowledging the reason why Detroit isn't the same way; it doesn't have a transit system. Also, percentages are dangerous if you don't use them correctly. According to this article Newark's increase in daytime population increases by 240%. This percentage increase would far exceed probably every major American city in the country, including its famous neighbor NYC. Does that make the case for the government to build an extensive subway system? And since Detroit's daytime population increase is nowhere near 270%, does it mean Detroit doesn't deserve an extensive subway system? | ||
Russix Member Username: Russix Post Number: 156 Registered: 11-2006 |
Saddam built a good portion of a "subway system" in the 1980s. I'm curious if this plan calls for utilizing this existing system or starting from nothing. | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 324 Registered: 12-2004 |
Auburn Hills and Romulus have the largest percentage increases in metro Detroit, but I certainly wouldn't expect to see light rail systems covering either city...;) Auburn Hills = 291% Romulus = 222% Compare that to the four main suburban office centers: Troy = 179% Southfield = 171% Dearborn = 151% Livonia = 134% Granted, I think the point is that if the Detroit region wants to have an effective transit system, it can't be a downtown-centric system. There needs to be hubs in each of these cities as well as downtown. |
