  Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 40 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 69.219.20.60 |
Not letting L. Brooks Patterson tell us how to think. If you had a vote would you vote YES or NO? | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 709 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.76.202.10 |
Yes, assuming it were a practical and complete plan. | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 2571 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 199.74.87.98 |
We do not need light rail. Those train cars run on DIESEL fuel. Maybe you haven't figured out that gas prices are through the roof right now. The fares here in Chicago are always increasing annually because the money goes toward paying for fuel. Vote for MONORAIL! | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1744 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.233 |
How can you answer that without any definition on the words Mass Transit and how we would pay for it. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 637 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.60.177.56 |
yes | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 710 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.21.62.206 |
Ltorivia485 - "Light rail" is not exclusively powered by diesel. In fact, even "monorails" are a form of light rail. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 579 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.42.176.123 |
yes | ||
Spacemonkey Member Username: Spacemonkey Post Number: 15 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 63.102.87.27 |
yes | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 442 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
All rail today uses electric traction; steam went out about fifty years ago. Diesel fuel is but one source of the electricity. Henry Ford electrified parts of his DT&I railroad. You can still see the supports for the electrical wiring while Downriver. | ||
Detroit48213 Member Username: Detroit48213 Post Number: 32 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 199.179.239.77 |
YES | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 53 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 67.63.232.195 |
The Detroit Metro Area, in the absence of any rail system for decades, has now evolved into a place where personal transportation is required. The commuting patterns and overall layout of the area does not lend itself to a rail system. Most light rail projects that have been completed recently throughout the country cost far more than projected while ridership is usually lower. The last proposal I heard required $100 million just to STUDY a potential system between Ann Arbor, Metro Airport and Detroit. To build it would be north of $700 million. Where would that money come from? I don't know too many people that are commuting back and forth from Detroit and Ann Arbor. If a system cannot support itself financially, it should not be built. | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 2645 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.202.227.12 |
No Question yes...... | ||
Dialh4hipster Member Username: Dialh4hipster Post Number: 1572 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.250.205.35 |
I am so anxious to see what the results of this DetroitYes forum vote will be! I bet it will be close! | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 41 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 199.179.239.77 |
plain and simple. Yes or No please. | ||
Jjw Member Username: Jjw Post Number: 76 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.33.56.156 |
If a system cannot support itself financially, it should not be built. Tbis argument about mass transit shows ignorance. What form of transit supports itself financially??? Do the nation's highways support themselves or do taxpayers pay for their upkeep? How about the airlines? I am so tired of this ignorant refrain when mass transit is suggested? It is selfish and not forward-thinking. I pay in my taxes out the ass for the highways which I don't use but yet for some reason, trains, subways, metros, and light rail is out of the question. Ignorance. Oh. By the way, Light rail works as long as it runs alongside a road and not on the road. If traffic lights are to be followed, it won't work. Just ask the bus! | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 48 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 66.174.79.229 |
Yep, especially with gas at ~ $3/gallon. | ||
Rocket_city Member Username: Rocket_city Post Number: 4 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 141.217.214.203 |
^ Well, if you run transit along road right-of-ways, you can impliment technology that allows for the efficiency of speed by ensuring traffic lights are green for approaching trains. But I agree, the highest percentage of a rail route (whether light or heavy rail) should have its own right of way. Also, addressing costs: It is obviously much more expensive to build a rail transit system than it is to build and expand roadways. But the system pays for itself WAY faster than roadway infrastructure. With rail, all you need is standard maintenance, where highways need to be completely demolished and rebuilt after certain periods of time (ex: M-14 & the Lodge). I believe both methods are a necessity and should be addressed under the umbrella of "smart growth" as opposed to carelessly throwing our scarce resource (money) around and then complaining we're not seeing any results. We don't have much of a regional plan here in SE MI and I think it's about time we make one. I don't understand why it is acceptable to be content with the status quo. People aren't "suppose" to leave Metro Detroit and Michigan. It's not ok to accept this, and you can call me crazy, but I believe the mobility of our citizens is objective #1 when it comes to economic stimulation, sustainability, and unwarrented growth control. There is much more to the tip of this iceberg, but that's for later discussion. Join TRU, discover mission statements from transit groups around the country and become proactive in knowing what (working) public transportation does for a metropolitan system. | ||
Rocket_city Member Username: Rocket_city Post Number: 5 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 141.217.214.203 |
Also, I don't believe L. Brooks Patterson is against mass transit. I think he's just stubbornly conservative when it comes to working with people outside his comfort zone, i.e. Oakland County. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 3994 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.235 |
What's White Detroit without a light rail trolley? It's his way to lure diverse folks to his city and tell them that Detroit is no place whites and ethnic folks. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 42 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 69.246.2.240 |
Once again a simple Yea or No! | ||
Rocket_city Member Username: Rocket_city Post Number: 9 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 141.217.214.203 |
Yes. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 23 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 141.213.67.45 |
But hasn't this question already been asked to death around here? | ||
Naturalsister Member Username: Naturalsister Post Number: 598 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.255.236.166 |
Jjw, Thank you for saying that. I totally agree. People who go around continuing these patterns of inefficient brain function should not be allowed to live. (just kidding) I haven't had a car for 5 years and my same takes fund the upkeep of those services that you talked about. It's amazing how so many jump on the band-wagon in the type of way they have when LBP talks like this. He in the position that he is in because he supposed to be a smart guy, right? Yet, your analogy brings me to this: That, either he isn't very bright - or has to have a reason for continously spewing rhetoric like "How are we going to pay for it?" [regional transit] Like you said, the same way we pay for the fucked up MI roads, year after year after year!!! We see more orange barrels around here and the roads never seem to have an overall improved condition. His views obviously come from somewhere, I'm just not sure where. It seems he has built a career on two segments of society's fear and phobia. Detroit and our region + Us vs. Them. It's redundant, but it seems to be the root of many of our regional issues. And as a leader, it's a shame the LBP fosters these sentiments so openly. I know he isn't the only one and hasn't been the only one and won't be the only one - but surrounding this issue, he name just rings a bell with me. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 258 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 69.220.142.7 |
maybe.  | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 2575 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 129.105.104.173 |
I will support a mass transit system that does not involve hanging wires in the air. | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 148 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 148.61.248.170 |
I agree with what Jjw said. But I don't know if light rail is the right system for it. Busses are cheaper and the routes can be more dynamic. So I'd need to be shown plans for things and all that kind of stuff before I'd be able to decide. But in general, I'd like for there to be light rail. | ||
Illmatic774 Member Username: Illmatic774 Post Number: 4 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 70.189.142.74 |
Yes | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 443 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
A number of other threads on mass transit mention the density problem that Metro Detroit has to somehow explain away to justify any commuter or light-rail transit systems. However, I don't recall any that went into that in a more quantitative manner. So, I will resort to Wiki in order to explain this aspect: (sub)urban density. This subject is rather simple to grasp and probably could be included in a basic middle-school civics or geography curriculum. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1634 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
Ltorivia485:
Wrong! You've made this false statement before. Why repeat something you've been told is wrong? The vast, vast majority of LRT systems run on electricity. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1635 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
Almost forgot: Yes! (Not that it is a simple yes/no question, but that is what is asked.) | ||
Brandonz Member Username: Brandonz Post Number: 20 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 68.40.195.29 |
Yes. Especially as I am now car-less. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 580 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.42.176.123 |
Mass transit helps keep drunken and suspended drivers off the road. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1636 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
Perfectgentleman:
There is high employment and housing density along several major corridors. Development that would be encouraged by fixed route transit would increase that over time. Ridership is not usually lower. I can find a number of cases where it was higher. Find a few where it was lower: http://www.trimet.org/news/rel eases/2005/sept9westside.htm http://www.metrocouncil.org/di rections/transit/transit2006/r idership2005.htm http://www.soundtransit.org/ne wsroom/rider/ridership/ridersh ip_2ndqtr.asp | ||
Rfban Member Username: Rfban Post Number: 7 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 69.136.141.133 |
Yes | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1637 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
Jasoncw:
That is part of the problem. If a bus route can move at a moment's whim, why would you want to make an investment near one? A fixed route transit station isn't going anywhere, so a company or residential developer have a reason to put down roots. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1638 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
Livernoisyard
It has been explained, you just haven't been paying attention: etc. -Rocket_city, Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 1:29 pm (https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/5/70905.html?1145566461) I'll add, that Minneapolis has a very successful LRT line and density similar to Detroit. I'll also reiterate that one of the primary purposes of fixed-route transit investments is to encourage extensive investment near the service. The ridership then grows over time. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1639 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
Sorry to deviate from the yes/no format, but I can't let lies and misconceptions go unchallenged. | ||
Thnk2mch Member Username: Thnk2mch Post Number: 132 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 71.65.11.152 |
Yes | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 304 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 198.103.184.76 |
Yes. Build it. Think of the short term jobs that would be created and how LRT down/near Woodward would spark investment and fill in many of those unsightly gaps. | ||
Spaceboykelly Member Username: Spaceboykelly Post Number: 140 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.246.30.248 |
Yes. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 50 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
Yes but I can support it only after DDOT and SMART are combined/replaced and there is convincing evidence that: a) the new bus system can be operated effectively and in the best interests of their ridership, not their managers and employees b) it is ready and able to take on the operation of a new light rail system that will have to work in conjunction with the regional bus system. The last thing we need is a another mass transit system operator in the Detroit Metro area - two is one too many as it is. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 50 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 66.174.92.165 |
RE: Population density, or lack thereof, along proposed routes. I spent time in DC, and any time that a new Metro station opened, property values skyrocketed in the area of the new station. BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3571 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
The density excuse should just be thrown out the window, right now, when you consider some of the most sprawled of the sprawled in this country either have recent rail transit line(s), or are planning them. As depopulated as Detroit has become, it's still denser than so most of the sunbelt sprawlers, who, again, have or are developing rail transit lines. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 45 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 69.219.20.60 |
Lmichigan - Yes or No? 1 | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 20 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.40.195.233 |
YES however, I don't believe that a poll of rabid (and liberal) people of an unquestioned detroitcentric nature would be super conclusive... although, I wish it was, as we need LRT like i need a beer right now... | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 46 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 69.219.20.60 |
Andylinn - All I want is Yes Or No PLEASE!!! Leave politics at the door! | ||
Super_d Member Username: Super_d Post Number: 838 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
As long as Detroit residents won't have to foot the bill to build it....and we get reduced fares... I say build it! Yes! super d(motordetroit) | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1640 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 70.236.175.171 |
What?!?!?! | ||
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl Post Number: 713 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.14.30.175 |
have you stopped beating your wife yet? | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 2576 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 199.74.87.98 |
I am all for mass transit. I am against light rail. I am for monorail, elevated rail, and commuter rail. No electric wires hanging in the air, nor any electric-powered train cars on the roads with cars. We need to build a system that tells folks that they can get to their destinations just as fast OR faster than by car. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 3 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
It is not $100 million to study, the study is already underway. The $100 million is the federal grant to the project. It will be spent for implementation, if we can ever get a consensus on governance and funding for transit. They are also looking at all modes from Bus rapid transit to heavy rail. Notice in the link below that the study started long before the $100 million was awarded to southeast michigan. http://www.annarbordetroitrapi dtransitstudy.com/ Check out the second paragraph: http://www.mlui.org/growthmana gement/fullarticle.asp?fileid= 17015 http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20060224/O PINION01/602240311/1008 Everyone ripping this study should really get their facts straight. A bus rapid transit system can get built for $100 million. This is a good start towards getting the critical mass using transit needed to justify the trains everyone wants. Other hurdles include how to come up with the money to match it. For petes sakes please be cognizant that the poor are primary bus riders. Any cutting of the SMART millage may save you $30 or so in your property taxes, but it will leave someone who needs a job and does not have a car, without a job. It will also make it harder for employers that have jobs to recruit workers to fill time. This could lead to increased consumer prices at retail centers or restruants. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1641 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 70.236.175.171 |
Thank you Detroitplanner, when I went through the thread trying to clear up the errors, I missed that one. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 452 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
"It will also make it harder for employers that have jobs to recruit workers to fill time." You're kidding, right? Duh! With unemployment around 300,000 or perhaps even higher, just how much "recruiting" do employers need to do? Are our unskilled or uneducated that unemployable? | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 6 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Livernois, with all due respect to my S of John Kronk brother, but the next sentance following your quote of me provides the information that you need. The bus dependant typically get crap jobs. I hate to say it so blatently, but you forced me to in order for me to explain what I meant. I would also like to know where you got a number of 300,000 unemployed. Is that statewide? Regional? Does that region reflect the combined SMART/DDOT service area? The City's unempoyment rate is high at 12 percent, but that does not calculate to anywhere near 300k. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 3 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 69.209.152.73 |
Yes, absolutely. Relying solely on private cars and an unreliable bus system is short-sighted, horribly inefficient, and has no conceivable benefits for anyone (except maybe road-construction contractors and Saudi Arabia). | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 2336 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.47.100.44 |
Wholehearted YES. We need to be a much more forward thinking region. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 453 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Calculating unemployment can be especially difficult when a "recession" has been ongoing for several years, as in Metro Detroit. The BLS figure is probably about 175K, to which one of the local papers added around 100K for an estimate for "discouraged" workers who long stopped looking for jobs. Some married couples now have only one jobholder due to job losses, whereas the other (out of work) is considered to be a homemaker and not counted. And of course, others have little choice but to leave, temporarily or permanently, in order to find work elsewhere. Some even go to school until their prospects of working improve. The "official" unemployment rate is usually considered to be a floor--a minimum value--subject to increase for a litany of reasons. I came across a figure of about 270K a year or two ago in some breakdown from the Department of Labor. Since that time, some job prospects improved, but for professional employment it is getting worse. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1032 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.14.122.204 |
YES. It's time that Detroit joined the 19th and 20th centuries, not to mention the 21st. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 7 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
Professionals don't ride the bus, when I'm on DDOT its usually kids, old folks, young workers. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 54 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 67.63.232.195 |
JSMyers: Quote from the article: "The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments will complete a feasibility study by June and Congress has designated $100 million to design, engineer, and perhaps start construction on the commuter route." Operative phrase "perhaps start construction." Why would you believe that a project being managed by the government will meet either the expected delivery date or the budget? What shining examples can you point to? The People Mover? The "Big Dig" in Boston? You are all very naive and overly trusting of politicians and bureaucrats. The reason a system has to be financially viable is that we cannot afford to subsidize it! | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 2341 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.47.100.44 |
Didn't Detroit have at least some form of mass transit in the early 20th century at one point and then scrapped it? Granted the city wasn't as spread out as it is now but that just makes it more the reason to have the system now. So I'd vote YES again. | ||
Boss_hogg Member Username: Boss_hogg Post Number: 25 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 66.178.225.98 |
Yes. Coincidentally - we were just discussing our frustration over past efforts and the lack of political leadership. Fyi - we've found the biggest roadblock is the bus employee union. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 458 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
And then once the self-proclaimed experts (self-serving university profs, included) start spending and when the funds from the initial "low ball" estimate are long gone and little (if anything) is accomplished, "they" say that further "progress" must continue otherwise all the prior expense came to nothing. This bull shit type of "urban planning" often occurs where taxpayers' money is concerned. (Message edited by LivernoisYard on April 21, 2006) | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1642 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
The "perhaps" means that the region might loose the money if we can't get our act together to build it. We'll spend part of the $100 to design something that may go nowhere because we'd rather let Minnesota or Colorado spend the money. In my experience and from what I've seen, the self-proclaimed experts are politicians who ignore what the real experts are telling them and push forward with an ill-advised alternative. Since the real experts serve at the discretion of the politicians, they do the best with what they've been handed. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 459 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
"We'll spend part of the $100 to design something that may go nowhere because we'd rather let Minnesota or Colorado spend the money. " Why not spend the entire $100? Then it'll be over in a few seconds and the tax payers get off cheaply. That sum was a real "low ball!" (Message edited by LivernoisYard on April 21, 2006) | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1643 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
I forgot "million." Oops. BTW - I don't think you have any idea how expensive stuff is. The new Beck Road Interchange with I-96 cost about $30 million, and that serves a lot less people and land than a transit system would. I don't see how you can aurgue that transit investments are a waste of money, compared to what is spent now. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 460 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Spendthrifts often forget about a few millions or billions when they become temporarily insane with their pet projects... So you probably disagree about the expected onslaught of additional business due to be stampeding into the area after the Beck Road "investment?" Gosh, isn't that somewhat close to Ford's Wixom plant that's slated to be shuttered soon? (Message edited by LivernoisYard on April 21, 2006) | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 482 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.220.35.4 |
YES. | ||
Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986 Post Number: 58 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 24.11.228.170 |
The EL in Chicago is electrified, have you noticed the "do not touch 3rd rail signs"?Now, how they make that electricity is debatable, I know you can say they burn fossil fuels, but regardless, they do not use diesel. They raise fees because of a bloated staff and lack of government funding, among others, but not diesel fuel. | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 52 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 66.174.93.98 |
Gas = $5/gallon in the near future (i.e. next four to five years)(a guess, don't jump on me for where I got that number from)(the guess is from experience: in 2004 gas hit $2/gallon, everone went crazy, now it's $3/gallon less than two years later). I also read, I believe in today's news, that the price is increasing due to speculators and heavy trading, not due to any disruption in supply or refining capacity. That let's you know how fragile our economy is when we are so heavily dependent on oil. More than students and older people will be taking mass transit then. Again, build it and they will come! | ||
Zulu_warrior Member Username: Zulu_warrior Post Number: 2752 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.27.41 |
NO- drive cars. This is Detroit, dammit! (lol) | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1644 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
That's exactly what I was thinking about Nancy Cassis and Craig DeRoche. Yeah, lets talk about the "additional business" to the area. The population of the region isn't growing. Young college graduates are leaving the state to go to other cities with transit. So we are building on what used to be orchard, fields, and forests, and abandoning existing investments. That doesn't seem very financially intelligent or conservative. There is a new hospital going in right there, excpet it is really just an existing hospital moving away from the population center. The Wixom plant is actually a mile to the NW, where today we learn there is going to be some kind of new interchange on Wixom Rd. (a rebuild is needed, but it was planned to be another $30 Million SPUI (expansion)). I wonder if Ford thought that it would be a good plant to close since the real estate is now quite valuable for housing or shopping "growth?" If the region was growing, those might be valuable investments. Since it is not, its wasting money to move the region (and in the process make it less efficient). | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 53 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 66.174.93.98 |
OK Zulu, I'm with you. In fact, in order to assist the ailing auto industry, let's mandate that all citizens are required to own two cars for every licensed driver in the household. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1645 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
The reason that speculation and trading is pushing the price up is that the supply is not increasing, but the demand is, everybody knows prices will go up, so they invest now if they can. In some ways, there is a disruption in supply: They aren't finding much more of it, and old sources are drying up one by one. It is a permanent disruption in supply. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 222 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.214.181.73 |
NO!!! | ||
Ron Member Username: Ron Post Number: 55 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 66.174.93.98 |
I'm no market wiz, but can't prices be artificially inflated by increased trading, whether there is "true" demand or not. Of course, this is going on the assumption that traders do trade with the expectation that the more people who buy, the higher price will go in the short term, in order to realize a large short term profit. What I mean is that, they buy at a low price, in order to drive up the price, to turn around and sell. I understand that market manipulation is illegal per the securities acts, but it is done, possibly without the requisite intent and conspiring going on. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 483 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.220.35.4 |
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/2 1/markets/oil.reut/ Don't be surprise of $4-$6 a gallon heading into hurricane season, along with continued political conflicts. Houston and Texas are rejoicing, Exxon and other gas companies are excited, my friends in that industry can't party fast enough in celebration. {sarcasm begins} Yeah, drive more and drive further, Detroit. No reason to use rapid transit - stay true to the Motor City, as a matter of fact ..... go out and get ourselves bigger SUVs and full-size trucks, folks. {sarcasm ends) | ||
Rjlj Member Username: Rjlj Post Number: 38 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 63.171.81.135 |
YES | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 433 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 35.11.210.161 |
No we can't afford to not subsidize transit. No transit system is self supporting, but cities recognize that it's worth the cost. It's not a coincidence that the most successful cities have some form of rail mass transit | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 223 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.214.181.73 |
Darwinism: I'm in the oil production business, and I'm not partying. The reason: While higher prices put a lot of money in our pockets in the short term, in the long term thoses prices hurt the economy, result in less driving and a downturn in industrial production, and God-forbid, possible excess profits taxes imposed by legislators who don't understand that such taxes will inevitably result in yet higher prices to the consumer. High gas prices, although market driven and not within the control of anyone but OPEC, are bad for everyone in the long run. All you ecology fans and ethanol promoters: Ethanol is one of the biggest scams ever; another Iowa farm subsidy. Ethanol costs much more to manufacture and transport than gasoline and the higher costs are subsidized by all taxpayers. So if you buy straight gasoline, not only are you paying a high market price for it, you're also paying some of the costs for folks who use gas w/ ethanol. Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland love you ethanol fans. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1646 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
(Econ experts are encouraged to add to my limited explaination.) Yes under two conditions: 1. In the very short term in the case of market manipulation. 2. In bubble situations, when either expected demand doesn't materialize, or when unexpected supply does materialize. I would say that it is not #1, since oil has been steadily going up for a long time. (On a day or week basis, it might be true though.) I would say that as far as most geological experts know, we are not going to bump into a bunch more unknown oil anytime soon. In fact, I've read more about stated reserve numbers being revised downward. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 55 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 67.63.232.195 |
From what I understand, the Beck Road project was done in part to accommodate Ford, in an effort to reduce the amount of traffic and congestion on Wixom Road. Now that Wixom Assembly is closing, the justification for that aspect of the project just evaporated. Ironically the new interchange at Beck opened just prior to FMC announcing the plant closure! This is what happens when incompetent bureaucracies work together, Ford and the local and state government. As for the cost, I find it strange that if one interchange costs $30 million we can build a mass transit system for $100 million. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 265 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 12.47.224.8 |
Personally, I like light rail a lot. But I'd rather have Bus Rapid Transit running throughout the city and inner suburbs over a light rail line just down Woodward or just to A2. The metro Detroit area could stretch the federal dollars over more area with a BRT system, and get a decent system up and runing in a shorter amount of time. I know BRT has drawbacks over light rail but still. BRT could be upgraded to light rail later. Oh, and commuter rail lines should be built down the middles of I-75 and I-696 (Chicago-style). | ||
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie Post Number: 198 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 69.208.117.53 |
I say yes as long as we can think of an alternative fuel to run them with the looming oil issue this country is facing. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1650 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
That might not really exist Funkycarrie, but it is a much more fuel efficient way to move people. | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 149 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 148.61.248.170 |
3rdworldcity, People like ethanol because oil will just plain run out, and because it's better for the environment. Of course, since you're in the oil production business, all you can think about it money. Ideally, something other than oil can be used, so that we'll have enough left to use it on things that we really need it for. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 8 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
SEMCOG hads already recieved funding for the study. This study started in 2004. Funding for the study came from other federal grants. Does it really sound realistic to you that a study would cost $100 million? Federal money must be matched, this bumps the project cost up to at least $125 million. This sounds a lot like implementation money than study money. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 925 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
I thought I read somewhere the $100 million also included some engineering....it is possible some of this is implementation money. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1651 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
3rdworldcity is saying that it usually takes more oil to make ethanol than it takes oil to make gasoline. Until our farming practices change, he is largely right. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 465 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Making naphtha from coal is cost effective when current fuel is priced at around $2.5/gallon, possibly less. I think there is at least one firm doing just that: Frequently asked questions about synthetic fuel Montana is actively pursuing development of coal-to-liquids technology as a means of converting our significant coal reserves into synthetic gasoline and other fuels. Synthetic versions of petroleum fuels have been made for almost a century, and this technology offers great promise for reducing American dependence on foreign oil. Here are answers to some basic questions about coal-to-liquids technology. What is synthetic fuel? Synthetic fuels, also known as synfuel or Fischer-Tropsch liquids, are fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, that are made synthetically-that is, from coal or natural gas instead of oil. These are clean-burning, high-performing fuels that require no engine modifications. Why Montana? At 120 billion tons, Montana's coal is, in liquid terms, one quarter the size of the entire Middle East oil reserve, enough fuel to power every American car for decades. If even a fraction of these reserves were responsibly developed and converted to fuel we could greatly reduce the oil we now import from foreign regimes and offer our military, the largest consumer of foreign oil, a domestic alternative. Where is synthetic fuel made today? South Africa is the leading producer, making about 200,000 barrels of gasoline and diesel a day from coal. A number of other countries, including Qatar, Malaysia and China, are investing in synfuel production in response to increased global demand for oil and other energy. Synfuels have been in use for many decades. Notoriously, in the 1940s Germany powered most of its war effort using coal-based diesel. How would the military benefit from synfuel? The Office of the Secretary of Defense recently issued a Clean Fuels Initiative, a proposal to run all battlefield machinery on a single synthetic fuel. This would enable the military to avoid buying oil from unstable regimes that are known sponsors of terror, and would reduce the military's supply chain vulnerabilities such as those now occurring in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. As well, being able to run battlefield equipment on a single fuel, rather than multiple fuels, would give the military a strong logistical edge. Why haven't synfuels been pursued in America before? They have. In fact, the U.S. government was seriously exploring synfuel as early as 1925. In the 1940s, a Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act passed by Congress even appropriated over $80 million for research and production. By the 1950s, America was producing thousands of gallons of synthetic gasoline a day at a test plant in Missouri. But the discovery of cheap oil, combined with a lobbying effort by the oil industry, caused the government to abandon its synfuel research. During the oil crisis in the late 1970s, the federal government briefly discussed synfuel production, but abandoned the idea when the price of oil receded. Why are synfuels cleaner than traditional fuels? Synthetic fuel technology works by heating coal into gas in a contained reaction requiring no external energy. This first step is known as coal gasification, and is used widely around the world to create other forms of energy and industrial products. The gas is then cleansed of sulfur, mercury, arsenic and other toxins, as well as greenhouse gasses, and then distilled into a synthetic form of crude oil which can be refined on site to create any liquid fuel. The resulting fuels burn dramatically cleaner than petroleum-based fuels and can help America reduce emissions. Are there other applications of this technology? In addition to making liquid fuels, coal gasification can be used to generate electricity with virtually no emissions and, looking toward the future, can be used to produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells. Byproducts from the process include industrial materials such as naptha, waxes for cosmetics, fertilizer, and carbon dioxide for advanced oil recovery. Is synthetic fuel cost effective? Yes. The cost of making a barrel of synethic fuel is approximately $35 a barrel, including the sizeable infrastructure and labor force. However, important economic factors make production a cost effective enterprise, including the current price of oil and key economic incentives in the recently enacted federal Energy Bill, such as 80% loan guarantees for certain coal liquefaction projects. How long will it take for America to produce enough synfuel to make a difference? There are already a number of small plants being designed around America, but a large-scale national effort must involve the federal government and would take a number of years. Given South Africa's success in this field, we should assume that if the federal government became meaningfully invested in this concept, America could have a strong synfuel industry by the next decade. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1652 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
Bob, it is implementation money. The study was already funded. Now work is funded starting with preliminary engineering and extending depending on the regions ability to implement a proposal and the requirements of a specific proposal. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1653 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
Link Livernoisyard? Thanks for the info. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 56 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 67.63.232.195 |
Brazil has made ethanol and biodiesel an integral piece in their plan to become energy independent. They have recently announced they no longer need to buy any oil from OPEC and are now a net exporter of energy. They did subsidize it initially but that subsidy has ended. Ethanol there costs much less per barrel than oil at this point. If it were true that the quantity of fossil fuels needed to distill ethanol is greater than the amount of ethanol produced, it would be impossible for ethanol to sell for less per barrel than oil. Most of the people who advance the theory that producing ethanol is inefficient are advocates of the oil industry or certain environmentalists who object to excessive farming. As we are currently paying farmers in the US NOT to grow crops it would seem we should go for ethanol. There is also methanol, which could be made from coal, not as clean burning but we have enough coal in the US to serve our needs for 500 years. Biodiesel is a decent idea as well as you can derive that from soybeans. As many flex fuel cars are on the road already and other vehicles need a minor modification to run on E85, and the fact that the existing infrastructure of delivery and filling stations could be used, this is our best bet in the near term. Hydrogen will require solving major technical hurdles as well as an entirely new vehicle design and infrastructure. Electric cars for short commutes can work, although the electricity to power them is derived from fossil fuels to a large extent. Still more efficient use than gas though and the cost per killowat hour for electricity is cheaper. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on April 21, 2006) | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 466 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Link for what? If for a firm making naphtha from coal, write Montana's governor. He self promotes his state's pilot programs via the talk-show circuit. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 224 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 69.214.181.73 |
Livernoisyard and perfectgentleman: Interesting and accurate info on (some)synfuels. You've laid out the benefits and burdens of the process, to a certain extent. (During the last years of WW II, after we knocked out the Romainian oil production and refining capacity, Germany's war effort ran on synfuels, mostly coal based.) However, a better alternativce is oil produced from oil shale. In Colorado and a couple of other western states there is by conservative estimates at least 1 TRILLION barrels of oil, in the form of kerogen in oil shale. That's 4 times more than the estimates of Saudi's oil reserves. The last I read in the trade papers is that oil can be produced in large quantities at a cost of about $28.00 per bbl. The problem is that the shale must be strip mined (primarily, there are other methods), "cooked" and the resulting liquids processed. It would require massive infrastructure and environmental laws would have to be suspended or modified in some respects. There would be massive negative responses by the so-called environmentalists. Canada is the leader in this type of oil production, from oil sands, which have to be processed much as oil shale would be handled: U.S. and canadian companies have invested at least $10 billion and at least that much is yet to be spent. Canada is producing over 1 million barrels per day of oil from oil sands and is exporting all op it to the U.S. They're working on their second million bopd, most of which they say will be exportaed to Japan. I believe Canada is our biggest source of crude oil currently, leaping ahead of Mexico and Venezuela. Bush is right...we are a nation addicted to oil. However, he says the same thing every politician has said since Carter, "expend the use of alternatiove fuels (but not shale oil.) IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL. Oil from shale will be bad for me as a producer of conventional crude because it will make the nation self sufficient as far as oil goes and the price will drop dramatically. EVERYONE IN THE OIL BUSINESS KNOWS THIS. But, it would be very good for the country. The U.S. is a debtor nation now and our balance of payments deficit is growing every month, mostly because of the price of oil. We are truly on the way to becoming a second class country economically. And are our leaders and we the people smart enough, and gutsy enough to do anything about it? HELL NO. In the meantime, the rich get richer. Now, back on topic. There's a great article on the front page of the WSJ today entitled "Strangers on the train: highway work forces Chicagoans off the road." The Dan Ryan is closed for two years and trains and other mass transit otions (many in Chicago) are swamped. And, people moan the loss of their ability to drive. I don't know how to post a link, but if someone can, it is great reading, and right on this thread's topic. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 57 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 67.63.232.195 |
3rdworldcity - Lets go for shale oil too - I have read about this as well. We need to get the "can do" attitude back in this country! The bomb went from concept to reality in 4 years, 100'000's of people were mobilized and it got done. We need a "Manhattan Project" for alternative energy. As long as I am totally fantasizing, it should be located here in Michigan. I agree that our leadership on government and industry has been out to lunch on this like everything else. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1654 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
I'm sorry. You did include the link at the top of the post. I missed it and expected it at the bottom. My bad. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 47 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 69.219.20.60 |
Some of us are forgetting to say Yes or NO. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1087 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 136.2.1.153 |
Y-y-yno. Nyeos... Ynes. I'm trying. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 469 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Depleting the petroleum reserves of other countries, while more expensive now, is in our best national interest when our native energy resources still remain and the Arabs and Iranis are pounding sand. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 48 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.79.91.116 |
Livernois - did you vote yes or no yet? | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 472 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
No, I did not vote. I vote no. | ||
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie Post Number: 199 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.249.244.223 |
Livernois, the problem with coal is the conversion to oil is extremely dirty....pollution through the roof | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 474 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Germany didn't lose WWII on account of pollution... | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3575 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
Well, except that the entire worlds loses year by year because of the negative effects of pollution on our environment, but you'll never believe that until Antartica completely defrosts. lol Keep antagonizing the earth, she's already getting us back. Antiquated ideology has no place in a world that's been facing an environmental crisis for many years now. It only takes one more straw the break the camel's back. And this is from someone that is by no means an extremist tree-hugger. Oh, yeah, I vote unequivocally yes. | ||
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl Post Number: 722 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.14.30.175 |
"dr" detroit...i invite you to explain the rationale for your accusatory premise, quoted above, that somehow segues into your bid for a "straightforward" yes-or-no response regarding the need for light rail transportation. your petulant demands for simplicity stand in great constrast to your politically preambled interrogative. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3579 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
Yeah, it's most definitely an immature attempt at controlling and restricting other's opinions, while making his own supreme. The question is, indeed, a leading and weighted question. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 50 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.79.91.116 |
Lmichigan - I apologize you are correct it is a leading question. New question. Yes or No do you support Mass transit? | ||
Toledolaw05 Member Username: Toledolaw05 Post Number: 1 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 72.240.58.198 |
Have they ever though of expanding the people mover to Wayne State or the New Center Area? | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 51 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.79.91.116 |
I agree Detroit should at least expand light rail down woodward to new center with stops at medical center, wayne state and then new center. This would spur development in that corridor. The city would not have to wait for someone's else to give us permission. Ask the voters to approve a 2 cents sale tax in the city. | ||
Motorcitymayor2026 Member Username: Motorcitymayor2026 Post Number: 715 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.21.44.129 |
the People Mover loses way too much money as it is (even with increased ridership/advertisements this year) before going to midtown/new center...construction costs would be major for this project.... DPM is alright for hopping around downtown, but wouldnt be efficient on a longer track | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 489 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
A 33% increase in the sales tax would surely doom any project. Businesses near the city limits would also lose business big time. You socialcrats should rethink your "ideas." | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 52 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.79.91.116 |
mototcitymayor- No dis-respect but that is rediculous. If the city extended light rail down woodward to new center that would increse ridership due to new center, medical center and wayne state workers being able to board the trains and being downtown in minutes while not worrying about moving their cars to drive down and pay for parking. It would allow for quick lunch engagements both ways. If the voters approved a 2 cents sales tax in the city this would more then subsidize ridership along with the fare. We would also be able to expand down other corridors ( Jefferson to belle isle ) to spur development until southeast michigan voters came on board for expansion. (Message edited by drdetroit on April 22, 2006) | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 4 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 69.209.153.224 |
Motorcitymayor, two things: First off, mass transit, by its very nature, loses money. So do roads. So do most city services. Some things are publicly managed because they aren't financially viable without tax subsidies. That's why we have taxes. Second, I think the DPM's current loop is pretty nearly useless. One end is well within walking distance of the other, and I can't discern any purpose for it other than the view from the windows. As I recall, it was originally intended as a small part of a larger mass transit system that was never built. I don't know if expanding the DPM is the most efficient way to achieve a regional mass transit system, but I don't understand the argument that it should be left as it is. | ||
Motorcitymayor2026 Member Username: Motorcitymayor2026 Post Number: 721 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 24.231.189.137 |
I know that mass transit systems lose money, but it would cost hundreds of millions to extend the people mover, which moves slowly, has small trains, and would not be connected with a suburban system....While the DPM has the technology to go 56 mph, it would not ever get near that speed. Only a couple of other transit systems have ever been built using the same technology as the DPM... The People Mover can stay as it is, an amusement ride, while another system needs to be built that could connect Detroit to the suburbs. Officials with the Detroit Transportation Corporation, in charge of the People Mover has also stated that there are ZERO plans to extend the current track... | ||
Motorcitymayor2026 Member Username: Motorcitymayor2026 Post Number: 722 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 24.231.189.137 |
Also, an extra 2% sales tax would NEVER workout, unless it was statewide, and then it would hurt all of michigan.... The 2% tax on fast food chains was blasted away. Detroit businesses would fail with yet another tax burden if the 2% tax was only in effect in detroit. It is already hard enough to shop in Detroit, dont make it harder by raising taxes on what goods and services can be purchased here. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 5 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 69.209.153.224 |
Okay, thanks for clarifying MCM. Your post makes much more sense now. | ||
Motorcitymayor2026 Member Username: Motorcitymayor2026 Post Number: 723 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 24.231.189.137 |
Okay, i should have made that more clear the first time... | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 54 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.79.91.116 |
Motor - If it cost 100 million to extend the people mover to New Center with 2 stops (Medical center and wayne state ) I believe with a 2 cent tax increase in the city of Detroit like I stated earlier the spinoff would spectacular!!! I dee the glass as half. | ||
Motorcitymayor2026 Member Username: Motorcitymayor2026 Post Number: 725 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 24.231.189.137 |
Okay, but it would likely cost more than $100 million. (land would have to be cleared, buildings demoed, road closures during construction, more trains would need to be purchased, money spend on the track itself, plus the stations, added personel, etc.) The 2 cent tax increase for the city is ridiculous, not even fathomable. I see the glass as half full. A new transit system through Detroit, that could connect it too AA, OC, Metro Airport, etc.... The $100 million study/implementation of a line from Detroit to AA is a GREAT start for this region. Meanwhile, the DPM can continue to improve service and increase ridership | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 55 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.79.91.116 |
Motorcity - It would not take as much as you think. Light rail could run right down the center of woodward (not as much land would have to be cleared , not many buildings would have to be demoed as you put it) with turnarounds being the majority of new land acquisitions. The rail could be upper going north and lower returning downtown. All I am saying is this can be done if the mayor says let's do it. He claims to think out the box. This is easily doable inside the box!!!! | ||
Motorcitymayor2026 Member Username: Motorcitymayor2026 Post Number: 727 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 24.231.189.137 |
And where are you going to find hundreds of millions of dollars to build this when the street lights are off, the trash isnt picked up, detroit is millions in debt, etc, etc, etc. Something could be done (and should be done), but NOT as an extension to the DPM... | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 497 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
The city's broke. KK had to get the state's say-so on borrowing (what was it? $130 million?) a few days ago. And some know-it-alls are going to play choo-choo down Woodward and pulling down or blowing up buildings as they go! Hey! This isn't Sim City! | ||
Broken_main Member Username: Broken_main Post Number: 1072 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.222.11.226 |
YES | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 2596 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 199.74.87.98 |
MONORAIL! MONORAIL! | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 1 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
The Livonia SMART opt out will cut the 285 bus line off and Oakland county will have no bus service to the Ann Arbor to Detroit rail line. SEMCOG officials don't care; they just want to spend our tax dollars on useless studies instead of actually making mass transit work. It's a real loss to our region that we do not have any mass transit leadership. The Livonia opt out is proof and was caused by gross incompetence and stupidity. It’s unfortunate that groups like the Transportation Riders United and M.O.S.E.S will not stop this by voting NO next August for the renewal of the SMART property tax to send a clear message to our lame leaders in Lansing to get lost. Then, we can get real leaders who know how to get the job done by firing transit managers especially in the grossly incompetent DDOT and replacing them with competent ones. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3584 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
It is in the best interest of improved metro mass transit that BOTH DDOT and SMART are completely dissolved/dismantled, and that the region FINALLY start to construct DARTA, which currently is nothing more than a sham, as it has been given very little authority to do anything. DARTA is a joke in that leadership wants you to believe it has some teeth, but it can't do anything regionally without getting the approval of SMART and DDOT. The region needs to give DARTA its teeth. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 57 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.79.91.116 |
John (great hate state) Engler killed DARTA as his last act as governor. He say's he did it because Detroit could not get there schools together. What a joke!!!! (Message edited by drdetroit on April 23, 2006) | ||
Lawnmowerman Member Username: Lawnmowerman Post Number: 10 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 71.244.187.127 |
Yes...I would drive to A2 then ride the LRT into Detroit...weekly. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 934 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
Actually the reason why John Engler vetoed the DARTA legialation was not because of the public schools, but because of opposition and stalling of the plan to add lots more charter schools to Detroit. Basically it boiled down to, I don't get what I want, you don't get what you want. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 190 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 70.227.206.150 |
YES. Goodness yes. It's funny and sad, watching the news and realizing the disconnect with people in this region. There is the stop gap call out and online petition to President Bush to reduce gasoline prices - www.wxyz.com if you're interested - but what about real CHANGE?!?. People are pawning their gold and diamonds and are getting second and third jobs just to have enough money to pay to GET to work. There isn't enough hard analysis about how we're living or investigating alternatives to the way we currently get around. It's troubling that in this moment of growing crisis, there aren't editorial boards or news managers who are pushing for a deeper undersanding of the problems or potential solutions on a daily basis. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 10 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
DrDetroit, Detroit could not get THEIR (not there) schools together! Do not criticize the schools. BTW, it was not so much Detroit as it was a refusal to work with Thompson of Thompson-McCully to use his millions to build charters that would actually weaken the Detroit Public Shool system. BTW, DPS is not part of the City government. Believe me I was pissed beyond belief, I can't vote for any republicans knowing that they supported a bill that would kill transit, weaken public schools and line the pockets of charter school developers (using a kind man's wealth no less). | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 501 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Is the nonsensical "urban planning" pushed in this thread a result of the kind of indoctrination that our colleges are spewing? Petition President Bush to lower fuel prices? Maybe he should order President Hu of China to tell the Chinese not to buy any crude for China's industry and transportation. Sign that silly petition and others like it and see what will happen. I'll save you the time and effort: That nonsense only draws attention to one's ignorance and stupidity. (Message edited by LivernoisYard on April 23, 2006) | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1655 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
No. Me (along with most of my former classmates) think that this type of BS is as stupid as you do. I'd put my education up against whatever education you've recieved any day. The only indoctrination I received at college was a respect for rational, critical, and creative thought. I didn't take a course getting my masters that didn't critically look at complex issues from all sides. I wonder which one of us would be seen by an outside third party as being less indoctrinated?
I agree with that. |
