Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2006 Deal paves way for road and transit projects Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitman
Member
Username: Detroitman

Post Number: 961
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 216.78.32.55
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 8:21 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

While most of this article discusses the road projects that will be moving forward becuase of this deal, I think the most important aspect of this deal comes at the end of the Free Press article:
"Another element of the plan is a bill that would allow transportation authorities to levy taxes for up to 25 years for public transit services that include projects like light rail or bus rapid transit."
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=2006604210487
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 454
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:06 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Often, newspaper reporters [journalism majors are among the very lowest paid of all college graduates] confuse "bus mass transit" (ala the moribund DARTA) with bus rapid transit. Usually, bus mass transit is the actual case.

(Message edited by LivernoisYard on April 21, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 262
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 12.47.224.8
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 1:35 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm not too happy that Granholm is budging on her fix it first policy. But it seems she deemed it necessary to accomplish what's in the last paragraph. But, the truth is I don't think the state can afford to fund both a widening of I-75 and light rail/BRT. I have a sinking feeling that Granholm is caving on her road policy to create jobs for the ailing economy. What we need is construction workers building rapid transit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos

Post Number: 1411
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.238.170.39
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 2:00 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The last paragraph of the article being discussed does not answer the big question of whether this allowed the 25 year levy for all of Michigan, or just for Grand Rapids.

Any journalist worth two cents and who keeps up on current events (imagine that, a journalist aware of current events!) would know that this has been a very contentious issue and would have reported whether it was for GR or all of Michigan.

The key to the 25 year tax levy authority is that this allows Michigan to access federal funds to build light rail transit, rapid bus lines, etc. The 25 year tax levy is one of many conditions required to get these federal funds that pays for a huge hunk of the construction costs of light rail. Grand Rapids has been ready to go on a light rail proposal, but they couldn't do it because state law limited tax levies to 5 years (or some short figure like that).
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1647
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 2:03 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Right on Bvos,

I looked for more information on this other than the Free Press article to confirm the good news, but haven't seen anything.

Eastsidedog,

Though I agree with your sentiment, it sounds as if she comprimised in order to give SE Michigan equal footing to Kent County on transit. That is really a good thing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitman
Member
Username: Detroitman

Post Number: 962
Registered: 06-2004
Posted From: 216.78.40.67
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 2:11 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bvos, from the governor's press release yesterday on the deal, it will allow communities across the state to levy the new tax.
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151--141406--,00.html

(Message edited by DetroitMan on April 21, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos

Post Number: 1413
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.238.170.39
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 2:13 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Outstanding! This is a major milestone and roadblock overcome for real mass transit in Michigan. If it means some lame-o I-75 study for mass transit, then I guess that's an acceptable compromise.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 263
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 12.47.224.8
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 2:17 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Much agreed Bvos.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 923
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 152.163.100.8
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 2:19 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The clause in which the mass transit tax levy only ebing for Grand Rapids was vetoed by Granholm earlier this year. The only way the westside could get this passed was to include other areas of Michigan. The Westsiders and DeRoche (who is from Novi, which is not in SMART), said since we never can get our act together with mass transit and funding squabbles, we should not be included. Grand Rapids is a great community that would benefit from light rail, but Metro Detroit also really could benefit from it also.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1649
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 209.131.7.68
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 2:30 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Prediction about the I-75 study:

A few small expansions are needed to reduce bottlenecks, mostly around 696, but that the whole expansion will not be worth the extreme cost.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos

Post Number: 1414
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.238.170.39
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 2:30 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, that all depends on who does the study and what numbers they use...
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 266
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 12.47.224.8
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 2:43 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Widening I-75 will increase traffic congestion in the long run. Leave it as is. The bottlenecks will fix themselves when folks quit driving that stretch because it's too congested (folks will be forced to either move closer to work or sit in the traffic longer). I don't get it. I drive I-75 everyday in rush hour and the traffic isn't bad at all, compared to other major cities.

(Message edited by eastsidedog on April 21, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 2011
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 4.229.105.20
Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 4:31 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I spent a few days visiting friends near Standish MI, about 30 miles north of Bay City. I noticed that I-75 has 4 lanes for about 20 miles of freeway near Frankenmuth. What gives? Doesn't Oakland County have more clout than Frankenmuth?

I assume that that 20 mile stretch was way cheaper than Oakland County to widen (fewer overpasses, country versus suburban land costs), but it just seems odd.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.