  Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 62 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.136.27.229 |
Looks like we may get a chance to vote on this http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a pps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2006 0501/SUB/60428042/-1/toc | ||
Detroitduo Member Username: Detroitduo Post Number: 614 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 84.156.52.158 |
If this were to pass and we could pass the funding and they finally build this line between Detroit and AA? I would do ALL of my shopping I couldn't do in Detroit... in AA. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2154 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
Oh swell, yet another political hairbrained scheme to pick my pocket! Hello! Michigan's in an economic slump here! You're hurting the very people that you're purportedly trying to help. Or do your mass transit blinders shield you from reality? | ||
Toledolaw05 Member Username: Toledolaw05 Post Number: 6 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 72.240.58.198 |
I would vote for it - we need light rail | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 946 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
Take that L. Brooks. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1439 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
MCP, most likely, operations would be funded by a sales tax. If you can't afford the extra penny, you probably shouldn't be spending the dollar in the first place. How's $3 gas treating you? | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 590 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.42.176.123 |
Can't wait for June. Here's to hoping TRU's plan comes out on top. | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 21 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.144.194.110 |
This sounds awesome. I plan to move back to Detroit for grad school and this could really expand my options. Mcp, Light rail could save you some serious cash. $3 a gallon gas is only the start of the raping that oil companies are going to pull. A $3-5 fare to Ann Arbor would be a godsend | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 1453 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 69.221.66.56 |
Agreed. Even the $10 fare for the three times a day service between Detroit and Ann Arbor is starting to beat what you would pay in gas to drive those 40 miles for some cars. Obviously an efficient rail system with economies of scale, frequent trips, and something like a $5 fare would be enough to get many commuters to give up the car. The cooperation the article described was great, but it seems like we are still in an early, early stage of this process. I'm afraid that any vote which incorporates the north of 8 mile population in this decision will fail. I wonder if Wayne and Washtenaw alone could provide the funding for this. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2158 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
Your generousity with other people's money is outstanding. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 383 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 65.42.23.2 |
"The federal government awarded the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments a $100 million grant to study and enact mass-transit alternatives." I am in the wrong business.... That's a lot bread to "study" something. Can someone break down what 100 million dollars of studying includes? | ||
Jimelnino Member Username: Jimelnino Post Number: 418 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 68.250.43.213 |
Yeah dude, I want to study the effects of sleeping till noon and eating Froot Loops for breakfast every day, where can I find someone to bankroll that study? Seriously though, its nice to hear that something is actually being done after allllll of the discussion on it. I still think its a longshot though. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 485 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.54.70 |
"Take that L. Brooks." ______________________________ ___________________ er Bob, L. Brooks is a proponent of mass-transit | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4065 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.228 |
I believe it when I see it. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 45 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
Brooks supports mass transit. His business roundtable have made funding transportation a major issue for him. He just does not support heavy rail or light rail alternatives. Brooks, along with many of you, are fans of Bus Rapid Transit. After the super bowl I saw him quoted as saying Mass Transit is our number one priority, we saw we can get it to work, now we need it to work both ways. Brooks certainly isn't the devil. He is just a moderate republican that crafts his agenda based upon what is best for his consistituency. In this way he is more like an old timer like Gov Milliken was. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1440 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
MCP, you make it sound like you're the only person who would be affected by a tax. Cry to someone who cares. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1673 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
Yes and No... The key is:
The study was mostly (maybe all) paid for previously. Most of the $100 Million is for things like engineering, ROW costs, even costruction and rolling costs. Depending on what a chosen alternative is, it will cost more than that to build a system, but the $100 million is a big part of it. Of course, if a long-term operating plan and budget cannot be put together, than the money will disappear. MCP is just pissed that in American Democracy, the majority of citizen's decide what to do with our money, and in this case, it seems that the vast majority want better transit. There is an event tonight! (I couldn't find a link, so here is the text from TRU's website.) (http://www.detroittransit.org)
I would HIGHLY encourage going, especially if you live in Rep. Donigan's or one of transit's opponent's districts. (Message edited by jsmyers on May 01, 2006) | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 390 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 65.42.23.2 |
I missed that second part "study and enact" That makes more sense to me, sorta... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1441 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Actually, if a commuter rail option is chosen, the $100 million would cover the study, engineering, and most of the costs for construction and acquisition of rolling stock. Typical cost for a commuter rail startup on existing track is $2 million per mile--far cheaper than any highway project. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1106 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 136.2.1.103 |
That's the million dollar question for me, Danindc... do we have estimates for how much each of the 5 options between Ann Arbor & Detroit will cost? I suppose that will be part of the study outcome. It sounds like TRU's preferred choice (existing commuter rail plus a bus line from that down to the airport) gives us the most bang for the buck. Will the total cost end up being $200 million, $500 million, ...? By your numbers, given that the rail distance is a bit less than 50 miles, that part would be 50 x $2M = $100M. Maybe figure another $50-100M for the bus line, plus the cost for the study, and we're around $200M, which is not bad at all, given that the Feds would pay for half of that... | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 393 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 65.42.23.2 |
$200M doesn't sounds bad at all for a system from here to AA. Question.. is this a direct link, or are there going to be stops along the way such as DTW? | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 327 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 198.103.184.76 |
Correct me if I am wrong, but the TRU option calls for commuter rail from AA to Detroit (Amtrak station) and light rail from Dearborn to McNichols running down Michigan Avenue and Woodward. The commuter rail line would have a stop at Merriman (spelling?) Road where a shuttle bus would move people from the airport to the station (Via Rail does this at Montreal's Trudeau-Dorval airport). I prefer TRU's option rather than limiting the project to an AA to Detroit commuter line. | ||
Mountainman Member Username: Mountainman Post Number: 22 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.144.194.110 |
Interesting. A bus mass transit may work. Look at Ottawa, they have a solid bus only system. Problem is, with gas the price it is now, light rail is much more affordable. I'll try and find I study I looked at in college about the efficiency of light rail over buses. Light Rail is leagues better at moving people for the money. Plus you can run it on electricity, and not have to pay for the rubber tires. Rail maintenance costs are considerably lower than roads. And then we're talking about transit times, with Buses competing with already existant car traffic. MCP, on the bright side you can always move away to save your money from being spent. Toledo might have a couple of lovilees for you purchase. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 595 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.42.176.123 |
Here is the link to the TRU plan: www.detroittransit.org/Ann%20A rbor%20Detroit.pdf I believe the cost for the whole TRU plan was estimated at well under $100 million. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1442 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Ottawa is actually considering converting some of its BRT lines to light rail. Even assuming that the commuter rail line itself would eat up the entire $100 million, the bus service from the Detroit train station to the CBD wouldn't cost too much more. Think about it. All you do is tie in with the existing Woodward Avenue bus service. Personally, I'd rather have light rail down Woodward, but at minimum, the buses are necessary to improve the viability of the commuter rail line. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 328 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 198.103.184.76 |
For Ottawa's experience with BRT see the following article: http://www.lightrailnow.org/my ths/m_brt003.htm I prefer light rail and Ottawa is starting building a substantial light rail line and will start another line in a couple years. However, BRT is better than what Detroit currently has. I think the Metro Detroit solution is to have a TRU style main Michigan Ave./Woodward light rail line with several major connecting BRT lines (running in a manner similar to the Speedlink proposal). | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1674 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
On correctly understanding what rapid bus is: From the LRT propaganda page: http://www.lightrailnow.org/ "Bus Rapid Transit" or "Quality Bus"? Reality Check Repeat: Propaganda, but it has some good points. When LBP or somebody else talks about BRT, are they really talking about BRT? | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 329 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 198.103.184.76 |
Danindc, Ottawa is not coverting its BRT lines, rather Ottawa is expanding its network by offering a North-South light rail line and is planning a major East-West light rail line that will run South of the present Transitway. Check out the following link: http://www.ottawa.ca/residents /lrt/index_en.shtml Many argue that BRT is cheaper and will be converted to LRT when numbers warrant, however Ottawa's experience disproves that argument. Replacing BRT with LRT on the transitway would have significantly interupted citywide transit service. Consequently, cities who aspire to have LRT should build LRT in the first place. That being said, Ottawa is a model for BRT. | ||
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway Post Number: 596 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.42.176.123 |
LBP is a mass transit advocate, but has always been against light rail. I think a streetcar conductor spit on him when he was a child. However, I can see him abandoning that position if TRU's plan for the Detroit-Ann Arbor line went forward and gas prices stayed high. LBP does have a pragmatic side. He might be willing to swallow his ego and lobby for the extension of that feeder line to at least Royal Oak, if not Pontiac. Excuse the pun, but LBP never wants to be left at the station. Look for him to jump on the lightrail bandwagon. If LBP doesn't his successor, which isn't that far off, probably will make that leap. It appears that a lot of pieces of the puzzle are falling into place for this project. If it wasn't mass transit in Detroit I would be quite optimistic. | ||
Rrl Member Username: Rrl Post Number: 469 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 71.213.228.212 |
If this idea actually comes to a vote in SE Michigan, there needs to be a solid, persuasive, educational, marketing effort to have it succeed. Too many folks in the area will vote NO; take Livonia opting out of SMART for example. | ||
Rugbyman Member Username: Rugbyman Post Number: 41 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 24.210.104.116 |
This is a huge resource I used to read up on the proposal as it stands: http://www.annarbordetroitrapi dtransitstudy.com/ As it stands, there are 5 recommended alternatives, the pluses and minuses of which can be read here: http://www.annarbordetroitrapi dtransitstudy.com/news/pdfs/In itial_Alternatives_Report_1123 05.pdf The last link in particular was the most comprehensive IMO. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1039 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.222.11.226 |
Face it: middle-class folks in this region will NOT ride the bus, no matter if it's all dolled up as "BRT." Sorry to say it, but most folks with cars consider "the bus" to be "poor people's transportation." This is not a rational issue with many folks; it hits them emotionally. You want ridership? You want people to ditch their "personal transportation" in favor of mass transit? Go with rail. (Message edited by Fury13 on May 01, 2006) | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 63 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.136.27.229 |
Fury13 - That is absolutely correct. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1107 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 136.2.1.103 |
That seems a bit on the optimistic side... the whole TRU plan as stated in that link includes Light Rail on Woodward from the CBD to Palmer Park, and along Michigan from the CBD to Dearborn, along with the Commuter Rail. It's a great plan IMO, but I'd think it'd be more around $200-300 million? It's essentially a variation on "CRT 1", option #3 of the 5 recommended alternatives in the official study (see link from Rugbyman). I suppose a bare-bones version of CRT 1, with simple feeder buses in place of the light rail, could get down closer to $100 mil. Although personally I'd rather pay the extra up-front costs of LRT for the long-term benefits. Either way, I hope CRT 1 is the chosen alternative... it seems like the best all-around plan. (Message edited by Dougw on May 01, 2006) | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1108 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 136.2.1.103 |
Actually, according to the article, the agreement allows funding from property taxes, not a sales tax. Which I think may be a good thing in terms of getting people to vote in favor of it.
I'm afraid you're right... someone in Macomb or Livingston county (all part of SEMCOG) would understandably have little reason to vote in favor of a tax for a system which doesn't even enter their counties. I would be willing to eat the higher millage for a Wayne/Washtenaw-only tax, considering it would actually have a good chance of passing. A tax levied on the entire SEMCOG region for this system wouldn't have a chance in hell of passing. Long-term, if this transit line proves to be successful, I'd think Oakland County and other areas would be much more inclined to join in. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 64 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.136.27.229 |
I disagree. If there was a proposed line out gratiot to M59. Up M59 to pontiac. Pontiac via woodward downtown. I believe macomb & oakland county voters would vote yes. And it would not be as close as some of you have been programmed to think it would be. The power's that be dont want you to be able to vote on this! | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1110 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.220.224.184 |
Well, I was saying I didn't think a tax levy for this particular Ann Arbor to Detroit proposal would be approved (if voted by the entire SEMCOG region). Maybe an expanded proposal would have a better chance, but then you run the risk of not getting anything done if you make this first project too big. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 50 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Theres the rub SEMCOG has no taxing powers. It is not a government, but rather it is a regional coordinating agency. It don't own buses, it don't own tracks, it don't own roads. Only counties and cities can levy taxes. Don't be too sure that it would have the support of the whole membership. What would Port Huron and the N Suburbs of Toledo have to gain from a BRT or Light Rail Line on M-59 or Woodward? | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3619 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
If I understand right, it's not about SEMCOG; it's about DARTA. This legislation will pave the way to give DARTA the teeth to levy taxes, right? | ||
Kilgore_south Member Username: Kilgore_south Post Number: 40 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 24.176.20.117 |
Fury13, totally agree. The only city I have ever lived in where middle-class people ride the bus is NYC. But that's because not everybody owns a car, the extreme population density and the generally awful gridlock. Around here a bus-only system, no matter how clean and sparkly, will inevitably become another welfare program and be funded accordingly. Commuter/light rail is the only way! If it can be a huge success in Salt Lake City, it can certainly work in the D. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 53 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Darta only covers the SMART counties. There will need to be an operating agreement with AATA for the Ann Arbor link, BWATC for the Port Huron Link and one with LETC (a separate but functionally operating part of SMART) and TARTA for the Monroe/Toledo links. The nice thing about starting with the Downtown Detroit to Ann Arbor line is that there is a mixture of riders, some will take it to the airport or from the airport into town for weekend or business trips. Others can take it to Greenfield Village. Still those who live in Detroit can take it to Ann Arbor or Eastern for college, or Ann Arborites can take it into Detroit to take classes at WSU, go to a show, a museum. For Business only trips, the next two lines that make sense to study and implement would be Woodward and Big Beaver. That is where there are high density in both housing and jobs. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 65 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.136.27.229 |
I am ready to vote as soon as possible. | ||
Rbdetsport Member Username: Rbdetsport Post Number: 86 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 68.61.11.146 |
I think that if they are going to levy the taxes, they need to come up with a more widespread plan. Add in the Detroit-Ann Arbor Line, Woodward Line, Michigan Line, Fort Line, Gratiot Line, and M-59 Line. Then after 10 years propose an expansion for a line going down 8 Mile and 16 Mile. Dearborn can come up with a plan to expand out from there. Pontiac, Dearborn, Detroit, and Mt.Clemens should be main hubs with different lines coming out of the city. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1444 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Yeah, I think a more comprehensive plan would be key to winning widespread approval. I think the current study is just trying to get a foothold, given the hostile treatment transit receives in Oakland and Macomb counties. How have people determined that putting transit lines along M-59 and 16 Mile are good ideas? You'd get killed trying to cross the street. | ||
Rbdetsport Member Username: Rbdetsport Post Number: 87 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 68.61.11.146 |
Pedestrian Bridges ANYONE?!?!?! | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1445 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Of course. Put up a pedestrian bridge, and people all along the automotive sewer of M-59 will start taking the bus instead. What was I thinking? Low density corridors like M-59, and even Big Beaver in Troy, are simply not walkable. Once you get off the bus, it would be psychologically degrading to even attempt to walk. The density of origins and destinations simply isn't there to support effective transit service, and putting up bus stop and pedestrian bridges isn't going to change that. | ||
Rbdetsport Member Username: Rbdetsport Post Number: 90 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 68.61.11.146 |
There actually are many apartments between Romeo Plank and Utica. That is a highly used corridor for the Smart Bus Transit. Also there are many subdivisions around. If they were to put light rail stops along M-59, the platforms would be park & ride. Plus a lot of people walk around this area. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 10024 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 64.118.137.226 |
Ok, I've seen the light, I'm all for a light rail mass transit, but they wanna raise my property taxes to do so? Seriously, there are a good number either leaving Detroit or not moving here because of the property taxes, then to raise them further for 25 years? I wonder how much are we talking? Would it take effect AFTER the tax break for Detroiters has been put into effect? | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1776 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.233 |
Nothing pleases DaninDC. Once again he knows nothing of the region. If you don't put transit on M59, where would you put it? M59 may not be the most walkable street, but it connects most of the walkable neighborhoods in the middle of Macomb and Oakland county. Mt Clemens to the east, Rochester in the middle and Pontiac. There are virtually no walkable east west corridors in the middle of these two counties. All the walkable east west corridors are at least eight miles south, closer to the northern edge of Detroit. All of the Oakland and Macomb county cities run north south. This is due to being built on arterial roads leading into Detroit. The east west corridors weren't built until long after the car had taken over as the number one transit option in the area. | ||
Rbdetsport Member Username: Rbdetsport Post Number: 91 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 68.61.11.146 |
The raise in taxes would not be that much. There are 5,000,000 people in this area. If for 25 years, each person in the area paid 100 dollars more a year, the area would raise 12,500,000,000 dollars. That is a huge amount of cash. Paying 300 dollars more is 37,500,000,000. That is HUGE! I am sure people would be willing to pay that. That is not that much money to pay for a sufficient mass transit system. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1446 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Bullshit, Ndavies. I do know the area, which is why I know transit would never work well on M-59. You're talking about putting people on foot along highways. Sure--there are your Mt. Clemens, your Rochester, your Pontiac--and a whole many miles of nothing but highway sprawl in between. For a transit line to work effectively, be it bus or light rail, the entire corridor has to be relatively dense. There are just too many pockets of sprawled-out crap along the east-west corridors in Oakland and Macomb. If it ain't walkable, transit ain't gonna work there, no matter how much you want it to. Transit lines need to connect nodes of activity. If you try to cover every square inch of nothing with bus service, you'll lose your shirt in a heartbeat. Then the people funding the system, i.e. taxpayers, will only bitch and moan how they're getting ripped off. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1777 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.233 |
Pbdetsport, If only it were that easy. You forget that 30% of the population are children, and a sizable percent of the population lives under the poverty level. To get $100 a person out of a tax you would have to charge wage earners much more than that. For a family of 4 your little $100 a year per person becomes $400 a year for an average family. The $300 a person becomes $1200. to make up for the people in poverty you'll have to charge that family $600. Ask your dad if he would have been willing to pay an extra $400 a year in taxes to support mass transit while you were living at home. All of the people trying to raise taxes say "It's only an extra $100 a year". I have heard this from 4 or 5 groups in the last 5 years that have wanted cash for their pet projects. The zoo, the schools, the art tax, health care and regional mass transit. What all these people fail to realize is most tax payers already think they are paying way too much. So your added $100 is $100 more on an already way too big of a bill. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1447 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Continuing my post from above: All you really have to do is look at existing bus service to see if it's worth upgrading. The existing service on M-59 is SMART route 559. It has 2 buses (westbound only) in the morning, and 2 buses (eastbound only) in the afternoon. This route does not run on weekends. Does this seem like a candidate for frequent service, i.e. 5 minute headways? Even if these buses are packed, you're talking about a maximum of 160 one-way transit trips per day on this route. Frequent transit service along corridors like M-59 is simply a waste of money--money that would be better spent providing stronger service along corridors that could actually support it. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1778 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.233 |
OK, Dan once again where would you put the transit if you don't put it on M59. It is the densest corridor in the area. If you don't put it on M59 and you want it on a dense corridor there are no other solutions. Oakland and Macomb county were built without transit. All of the studies have said the east west mass transit corridors are M59 and 16 mile. Those are the streets that would get the highest usage because thats were all the shopping/employment opportunities are. All the "major nodes of activity" are along M59 and 16 mile. Danindc once again is bitching but not offering any viable alternatives. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1779 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.233 |
The traffic counts on M59 makes it a perfect candidate for a rapid transit solution. If that many cars travel that route, that many people need to travel that route. If a non bus solution was offered to the people taking that route, I'm sure many of them we want to ride it. They just approved a method to fund an M59 expansion. Wouldn't it be better to get a transit option on that route than just another freeway expansion. Also some commuter trains in chicago run down the middle of the freeway. A similar solution would be perfect down the middle of M59. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 10026 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 64.118.137.226 |
NDavies...DaninDC...get a room. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1448 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Ndavies, it doesn't quite work that way. Just putting a bus line down a corridor isn't going to get people on transit. If you have to cross an 8-lane highway, or walk a mile from a bus stop through a parking lagoon, you aren't going to take the bus. It really is that simple. Who's going to take transit in an area when so many accommodations have already been made for cars? It seems you're still thinking "car mentality", with traffic counts and automobile travel patterns determining where you think bus routes should go. The L lines (NOT commuter trains) that run down the medians of highways in Chicago have the least pedestrian friendly stations in the system. Their ridership is largely from the poor and transit-dependent--not choice riders like you would be trying to get along M-59 and 16 Mile. The long hike from those stations to the surrounding streets also helps explain why the only real development along the line is public housing. My solution? Put transit lines along the radial corridors emanating from downtown Detroit, and encourage dense development along those corridors. I'm not sure that you would be able to develop a reasonably successful crosstown route much north of 8 Mile. SMART's low ridership for the size of the geographic territory it covers is indicative of this. The viable alternative for M-59? Build smarter next time. Regardless of what the studies say, 16 Mile and M-59 are not dense--they merely have a lot of sprawling big-box shoppping. When you build for cars, you can't expect transit to work, can you? (Message edited by DaninDC on May 02, 2006) | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 1781 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.105 |
Without a successful crosstown route the system is dead. The majority of the money for the systems will come from Oakland and Macomb county. They won't use it to go to Detroit and come back just to get across the county. The commuting patterns in regoin are not predominately suburb to city. They are suburb to suburb across those east west routes. If you can't duplicate that east west service provided by M59 and 16 mile you might as well give up now. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1449 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I think transit service along 16 Mile and M-59 would be an absolute money pit. The only real viable transit corridors north of Detroit are Woodward and probably Gratiot. There is a lot of suburb-to-suburb commuting in the DC area too, especially in NoVa. The traffic is horrendous, but bus ridership in Fairfax County is ridiculously low due to the sprawling nature of the development. In the Detroit suburbs, the system is already dead, if it ever existed. There are two bus routes in my neighborhood that each get more ridership than the entire SMART "system". To me, it's quite obvious that a transit route supporting (at most) 160 people a day doesn't justify increased service. Something has to change other than "re-branding" and painting the bus. If you attempt to be able to serve every single person in the marketplace, you will lose your ass. That's a simple rule of business. People who live out in the sticks of M-59 knew what they were getting into when they moved out there. It's just not conducive to transit. Target the investments where they'll actually make a difference, lest people like Patterson have the opportunity to say, "I told you so." | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 951 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
The 510 VanDyke Bus that stops at Lakeside Mall and goes down part of M-59 has actually had lots of growth....with gas prices the way they are and no end in sight, mass transit is sounding like a better option for more people. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 66 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.136.27.229 |
Danindc - M59 would totally boom with a dependable light rail link from jefferson up river to pontiac. snobs won't ride buses but they will ride a reliable light rail system.Bus & light rail transportation in the publics perception are 2 different animals. To say that people wont ride a comprehensive light rail system in the metro is redicolous. I am glad that my vote neutralizes your's!!! | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 55 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
Detroit is now too decentralized for a hub and spoke only system. I agree crosstowns similar to the Warren Ave DDOT or the Telegraph SMART need to be added and included. There are just way too many offices, homes, and stores along Big Beave/Metro for it not to be considered. Think about it. You could take a BRT or Light Rail up Woodward to Birmingham, transfer to a system that would take you out to Metro Beach. It may not make sense for everyone, but for those without a car, or those living in Royal Joke, its a godsend. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1450 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Any of the long-time forumers will tell you how pro-transit I am. Hell, I don't even own a car anymore. Without appropriate land uses surrounding stops/stations, transit is DOA. Transit loses its effectiveness in a car-centric environment. Until that's addressed, almost any plan for transit in suburban areas is guaranteed to be a boondoggle. Here's an experiment you can try at home. Drive to a business or shopping area along Big Beaver or M-59. Park your car in the lot. Now, cross the street and walk to a destination (pick one, any one) 1/2 mile or so down the road. Based on that experience, it should be very clear whether or not transit would be successful along those corridors. BTW, if anyone does what I've suggested above, I'd like to hear how it goes. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 585 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Metro Detroit's fatsos (major leaguers by US standards) wouldn't and probably couldn't walk a 1/2 mile distance to work or shop. On that basis, any mass transit is doomed to utter, costly failure. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 337 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 198.103.184.76 |
This link was posted above, and the findings therein appear to be negative concerning the light rail option (see the concluding paragraph on page 21). I hope this is not indicative of where the project will eventually head. http://www.annarbordetroitrapi dtransitstudy.com/news/pdfs/In itial_Alternatives_Report_1123 05.pdf | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 67 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.136.27.229 |
Livernois yard - No offense but you must not get out of Michigan that often. The most standard of all ot the rapid transit systems have park & ride systems set up at stops outside of their main downtowns. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1111 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 136.1.1.33 |
I think the findings there makes some sense, Upinottawa. I'm a huge supporter of light rail along other routes (such as Woodward), but that Detroit-Ann Arbor corridor is simply too long for light rail, it doesn't have the same density as something like Woodward, and there's already the existing commuter rail line. Especially with the airport, faster transit times with fewer stops makes more sense in this case. I do hope they go with the Commuter Rail option and not BRT, though... ugh. (for the 3 reasons mentioned on this thread) (Message edited by Dougw on May 02, 2006) | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1675 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
SEMCOG seems to be very biased towards BRT in the LRT-BRT debate. In a meeting I was at last night, Carmine Palombo said that they estimated that LRT would cost 10x as much as BRT. This is very false, unless they aren't really building a true BRT system. (See above post with stuff from Light Rail Now.) It might be cheaper, but not that much cheaper. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 587 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
"The most standard of all ot the rapid transit systems have park & ride systems set up at stops outside of their main downtowns." Having a park-and-ride is dandy for one end. However, what about the common scenario when both stops are some 1/2 mile away and one doesn't have a car handy at each stop? An expensive cab for those lard-asses who refuse to walk? A few mean, nasty communities, especially Troy, provide convenient curb shuttle service during limited times, though--something that the rider-friendly city of Detroit doesn't and won't have. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1112 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 136.1.1.33 |
Good questions... Danindc (or anyone) -- For the most bare-bones Ann Arbor-Detroit option of Commuter Rail plus a bus feeder to the airport and another to the CBD, what are we looking at for year to year operational costs? | ||
Udmphikapbob Member Username: Udmphikapbob Post Number: 145 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 206.81.45.34 |
for those estimating costs under $300 million...back in the late 70s, SEMTA had a plan for increased bus service, Mt. Clemens-to-Pontiac commuter rail, light rail up Woodward to Royal Oak and along Gratiot to I forget where... yes, part of the Woodward line was to be underground out to McNichols, but the entire tab was estimated at $2.3 Billion - in say 1978! one of the main reasons transit didn't get built then was the overwhelming scope of the proposal. but if you scale back, then you don't get support from the communities not getting any improvements. so i think the answer is to start with the Detroit/AA line through the airport. let DARTA levy a Wayne/Washtenaw tax. then continue to lobby for federal funding to build light rail lines that feed into it, running north/south. if it starts to encourage development around it, then maybe propose a woodward line next, and get oakland county invloved. if that goes well, then a gratiot line. then you'll have all four major metro counties involved, and you can see about cross-town connections. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1451 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
BRT is not the panacea its supporters claim it to be. At least not when you're talking about providing service comparable to light rail, and even then, light rail will still have better acceleration and ride quality. To wit: The Euclid Corridor Improvement Project in Cleveland is 6.7 miles of new BRT, at a projected cost of $250 million = $37.3 million per mile. I seem to recall Cleveland RTA's Waterfront Line cost somewhere around $26 million per mile when it opened in 1996. A recently-approved streetcar line along a 4.7 mile segment of light rail along Columbia Pike in Arlington and Fairfax Counties (Virginia) is estimated at $120 million = $25.5 million per mile. This doesn't even include the higher maintenance costs that buses have, due to more moving parts, and shorter service lives. Be very skeptical of anyone who says that BRT is always cheaper than light rail. | ||
Gotdetroit Member Username: Gotdetroit Post Number: 11 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 66.208.225.165 |
My two cents: Detroit should simply worry about building it's own mass transit,light rail system within it's own borders (up woodward, gratiot, michigan, etc. out to the city limits with a line running Grand Boulevard for a link). If it proves popular, surrounding suburbs can link up to the system at a later date. The only exception I would add to this would be the line to AA and/or the Airport. I guess I should say, Wayne County should.... (Message edited by gotdetroit on May 02, 2006) | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1676 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
Interesting (even if a bit angry) debate between NDavies and Danindc. I'll weigh in a little bit. For the most part, they are both forgetting that the purpose of this type of transit is to change development patterns. It matters little how we move around now, it matters more how we will do it in 25 years, considering the investments we make today. If I remember right, fixed-route transit is planned for both M-59 and 16 mile. They are both one of the 12 corridors ID'd. But realize that they may very well have been ID'd for political reasons. While a good rapid transit system encourages growth within walking distance, a large amount of traffic will almost always come from feeder systems, such as buses or the DPM. In the case of either of these corridors, park and ride would be a huge feeder system. I tend to agree with Danindc when he says that transit on M-59 would be a huge waste of money. That is assuming of course that grade separated BRT or rail is what is being built. I tend to agree with Ndavies when he says that without a crosstown route, plans will fail. The most concentrated set of commuters go to central detroit, but there is a lot of other transit needs too. These corridors deserve extremely high quality bus service. It will serve many functions, including: Local trips for people living on the corridor More rapid way to get across town than existing bus service Feeder system to Woodward and similar lines. (Remember that between Mound and Van Dyke there is great potential for commuter rail.) I tend to agree that you need walkable land uses and design to make transit work, but you really only need them at the stops. In between, it doesn't really matter what there is. The distance makes it less efficient, but that is it. Lack of density tends to help lower construction costs. With that in mind, I think that 16/Metro/Big Beaver is much more transit supportive than M-59. There is a high density of virtually everything in Troy along Big Beaver. There are walkable cities just a jog off of either end (Birmingham and Mt. Clemens). Neighborhoods also tend to be more dense. Metro Beach is also at one end. It connects to 3 major rail corridors: Woodward/GTW, Van Dyke, & Gratiot. One thing that I hope NDavies and Danindc can agree on is that without transit in corridors like Woodward, a crosstown route is useless. | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1522 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.61.197.206 |
"Brooks supports mass transit. His business roundtable have made funding transportation a major issue for him. He just does not support heavy rail or light rail alternatives. Brooks, along with many of you, are fans of Bus Rapid Transit." <---For what it's worth, NOT a fan. Light rail is the best long term solution. Udmphikapbob (trying saying that three times really fast) - eloquently stated. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1677 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
$100 per capita is a lot of money, but we don't need $12.5 billion over the next 25 years, unless we want to try to build everything we could ever want, right now. Also realize that we already pay a lot of taxes that go to road construction, and we are still trying to widen roads every chance we get. Some of this should be shifted to transit IMHO. I don't necessarily want more taxes, but I definitely want to spend our taxes on something that helps the region. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1452 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I don't necessarily disagree with Ndavies. The land development patterns would absolutely need to change to become transit supportive. Buses do not prompt such changes, though, no matter how you paint them. The zoning along transit corridors would need to be changed at the time of implementation, if not sooner, to permit walkable development around station/stop nodes. To answer Dougw's question: I wanted to use Maryland's MARC train for comparison, but that system is three lines, which vary greatly in ridership and frequency. The reason was that the MARC Penn Line is about the same length between two cities, and has an airport stop in between--very similar to what we're discussing for Ann Arbor to Detroit. Really, the annual operating costs depend on how many trains you run, as well as the ridership. I looked at Virginia Railway Express, which carries about 10,000 people a day on two lines from Northern Virginia into DC and nearby suburbs. Their annual operating costs are $22 million for 1.7 million vehicle revenue miles ($12.94 per vehicle revenue mile). The cost efficiency of commuter rail is its real beauty, though--VRE costs about $0.29 per passenger mile. In VRE's budget, 42% is paid by passenger fares. Now, let's look at SMART, which has very lengthy average trips for a bus system (9 miles average trip length). Annual operating expenses are $68.4 million for 12.0 million annual vehicle revenue miles not including demand response ($5.72 per vehicle mile). The cost efficiency is $0.75 per passenger mile. SMART receives 14% of its budget from fares. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1113 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 136.1.1.33 |
Thanks Danindc. I'd guess operational costs for the Ann Arbor-Detroit line would be somewhat less than that, since there's only one line, and I'd guess it would carry fewer than 10,000 per day. On the other hand, there is the extra cost of the two feeders. So let's say the annual cost is in the same ballpark, around $20 million per year. And the startup cost is $200 million for the most basic CRT system with feeders. $100 million of that is paid for by the Feds, so you have $100 million left in startup costs. $100M / 25 years = $4M per year startup plus $20M per year ongoing, for a total of $24M per year costs. $24 million divided by 2.3 million people in Wayne and Washtenaw counties means a roughly $10 per capita yearly cost. Not sure how that translates into a property tax millage... would a 0.5 mill tax cover that? (Which would come out to a $25/year tax on a $100K house.) My figures are probably on the optimistic side, but if a property tax in the range of 1 mill or less for Wayne & Washtenaw counties were proposed for this system, I think it'd have an excellent chance of passing. Udmphikapbob makes a great point... keep this proposal small and let DARTA just levy a Wayne/Washtenaw tax. (I assume they can do that.) Don't let the scope of this first project grow too big, otherwise it will die like every other transit project in this region in the last 70 years. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 589 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Up to around 1980, a realistic fare-pricing goal was to set the fare so that the cash-box revenues would cover at least one-third of the system's operating costs, plus debt service. The rest would be subsidized. During the past two or three decades, the more spendthrift systems began various giveaway schemes in fare abatements, etc. The 14% plan, such as one example in this thread, is ridiculously low and not taxpayer-friendly. Maybe the pushers of public transportation should get rid of their entitlement mentalities and take reality into consideration and endure less temporary insanity while they're dreaming on. (Message edited by LivernoisYard on May 02, 2006) | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1678 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
From what I have seen, the larger and more heavily invested in a transit system is, the greater the fairbox recovery. One of SMART's greatest problems is that they aren't big enough or effective enough to attract a consistently high ridership. Another one of SMART's big problems is the amount of dead-heading the busses do. (No service runs to get to-from garage or route end.) Dougw, I'm not sure your numbers are on the optimistic side, but they are definately VERY rough. You realize that, but I'm not sure all readers will. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1115 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 136.1.1.33 |
Agreed... I put out those extremely rough numbers partly as a goad to get someone to correct them with something more accurate.  Of course, some numbers aren't really known to anyone at this point, such as the total cost, since the final configuration hasn't even been chosen yet. Still, I think even the extremely rough numbers are enough to show that we shouldn't need a massive 8 mill Wayne/Washtenaw property tax to fund this. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 68 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.136.27.229 |
At least the debate has begun. 2 years ago who would have thought that today we would be having such a spirited debate as we finally move closer to maybe being able to at least vote on accepting the first phase ( Ann arbor to metro airport to Dearborn to downtown ) of light rail mass transit. I want to hear the rational of the politicians who will sell out for a under the table buck to oppose it. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 338 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 70.28.0.197 |
Are we talking light rail from AA to Detroit or heavy rail (like Amtrak trains)? | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1116 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.220.224.184 |
Heavy rail. Heavy/Commuter rail is the option recommended by TRU from AA to Detroit, and seems much more likely than light rail. However, Bus Rapid Transit is the other leading alternative. (See the 5 alternatives in the study.) | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 70 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.136.27.229 |
TRU has not recommended anything yet. They are studying 5 mass transit options. Unless you know something the rest of us dont know??? PLEASE no ms-information!!! (Message edited by drdetroit on May 02, 2006) | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1117 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.220.224.184 |
You're thinking of SEMCOG... they're in charge of the decision on the 5 alternatives and they haven't recommended anything yet. TRU (Transportation Riders United) is a separate transit advocacy group which has voiced its support for one of the 5 options (heavy rail). | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 56 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
Building the system is only one part of the equation. Someone has to run it. Most likely this would be SMART, DDOT or DARTA (should DARTA ever get approved). Construction is only one cost. You have to look at operating costs. You have to look at costs of obtaining rights of way. The dismissal of any of the alternatives just based upon heresay instead of reviewing the analysis and providing public input is downright silly. Don't pick your horses yet. Wait till you see em on the track, and watch them kick up some dust. Then place your bets and be ready for a fun race. Hopefully we will get a better transit system as an end result. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 71 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.136.27.229 |
Dougw -As the kids say " My Bad " | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 72 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.136.27.229 |
Dougw - You stopped me from giving out ms-information. Thank you for timly response. I was half right. PEACE | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3624 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
DARTA is approved, isn't it? From what I understand, it just has no real power, and it's still being organised. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 60 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
No DARTA was dissolved by a technicality in court. Seems that there was some question on whether or not the Big 4 could legally put the authority together the way they did. The suit was filed by the transit unions. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3625 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
When did that happen? I knew someone challenged its existence, but I didn't know that they won against DARTA. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 61 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
(Message edited by Detroitplanner on May 03, 2006) | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 62 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
Detroit Regional Chamber Commitment to Regional Transit Undeterred by Appeals Court Decision Regarding DARTA Today, the Michigan Court of Appeals released a ruling regarding the legal structure of the Detroit Area Regional Transportation Authority. "It may take us many days to fully understand the action of the Court," said Richard Blouse, Jr. President and CEO of the Detroit Regional Chamber," but the spirit of our regional leaders and the business community and our commitment to establishing a workable regional transit system remains undeterred." "DARTA has established itself as a conduit for discussion and cooperation," said Blouse, "many preliminary decisions regarding coordination of processes should continue to move forward regardless of the Court's decision." "DARTA has survived a veto by then-Governor John Engler, opposition from legislators and labor organizations and a lower court decision," said Blouse, "DARTA will find a way to survive today's action." The Detroit Regional Chamber will continue to work with state and regional leaders to move forward in establishing an effective public transit system for southeast Michigan. http://www.darta.info/about.ht ml#commitment Brook's pushes for DARTA resolution http://www.theoaklandpress.com /stories/070705/loc_2005070700 2.shtml See he really is not the transit devil you say he is. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 73 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.136.27.229 |
Brooks Patterson only wants a rapid bus ( crap ) system. snobs and a lot of non-snobs will not ride a bus system not matter how you paint it. All I have to say is I want a chance to VOTE my opinion!!! | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 63 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
DrDetroit, please go to Curitiba, Brazil and tell them that their transit system is crap. BRT works if the conditions are right. Name calling and judgement calls are not whats needed. What is needed is improved transit. Whether that comes in form of a bus, a train or a helicopter; I could care less as long as it makes economic sense and gets people to jobs. Sometimes transits biggest advocates are what is standing in the way of improving the system. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1454 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
The conditions in Curitiba could never realistically be recreated in the U.S. Nor would Americans tolerate the extreme overcrowding that they experience down there. Well, that and Curitiba is a much poorer city, so it's not like everyone down there is giving up their Escalades and Explorersto get on the bus. Never mind that BRT would run slower than even light rail over a 40 mile route. This is precisely SMART's weakness, and why they only recover 14% of their costs from fares. Buses are terrible over long distances. The longest BRT line in Curitiba, even, is only about 6-7 miles. What has been proposed in the Speedlink plan (so named because its creators had to have been on speed) is a completely different animal, and isn't much improved from standard bus service. Commuter rail operating costs are typically around $0.28-$0.29 per passenger mile, from what I've seen. Farebox recovery tends to be much higher than buses too, since higher fares can be charged for the higher quality of service. The 1997 MDOT commuter rail study concluded that a 3-line, 100 mile system from downtown Detroit to Mt. Clemens, Pontiac, and Ann Arbor would costs about $130 million to start (capital costs). Based partly on this, I think the Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter rail line could be started for an amount within $100 million. This figure, of course, wouldn't include light-rail or bus service from the Detroit Amshack to downtown. I would assume that DTW Airport would operate the shuttle bus service, much as BWI Airport does to/from its train station. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 68 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
Dan, what a geek, pours over the Section Nine reports trying to get comparatives... Dan to DP: "Hey you know about the Section 9 too, don't give me no $h!t". Another project being planned are lights being timed to buses using GPS, the Woodward Corridor would be first, and this would compliment both the new center and the downtown alternatives. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 5 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Please sign the petition drive to make the DARTA agreement legal. The current agreement is discrimination against the low income and is in violation of the civil rights act of 1964. This agreement currently prohibits the use of state CTF funds to be used for mass transit. Should this pass by the voters (SMART Aug 2006 property tax is unfortunately a stepping stone in the wrong direction) all money paid to the state will be used to expand roads. I (Harold Leese) want to save SMART from being cut off from federal and state funds. Michigan is one of the last states to pay for public bus service but this will not last very long. Unless, I can get support to educate the public. My opponents refuse to debate me on television. I do not blame them because the DARTA agreement contains no provisions to protect state funds or make good use of existing tax dollars. I’m working hard to protect SMART and am fighting Lansing to get our leaders to understand that the good paying union jobs are history and are not coming back. Many in Michigan are losing their homes and have no or little medical insurance which makes paying more taxes on a house or to the city and county a sense-less act to pay for what the private sector can do better and cheaper. Please view my website in full and then ask yourself. Do I really want higher taxes in Michigan to pay for more six figure government jobs while many more will be without a home. What good is quick rail service in a state with few good paying jobs? Don’t bother writing to our leaders about this because when it comes to cost effective public transit---There are none. Please help me save SMART. See http://savethefueltax.org | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1120 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 136.2.1.153 |
Nice article about Rep. Marie Donigan and her work on making mass transit a significant part of the recently passed transportation bill: http://metrotimes.com/editoria l/story.asp?id=9172 | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 74 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 69.218.152.6 |
Dougw - Thanks for great link to new info. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 73 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
Harold, If you want to make DARTA legal, then why on your web-site does it say the following? "If you want -- The full amount of the money from the state gas tax ($90 Million/year and more in 2003 dollars) to be protected and increased, exclusively for Detroit’s city and suburban public bus systems (SMART and DDOT) and keep them permanently separated. --- In Writing. Then please support the petition drive and get "save the fuel tax dot org" well known before August 2006 to defeat or cap Proposal S. The dignity and respect of the transit supportive taxpayers are best protected first." "Without Contributions (checks, money orders, cash) --- The DARTA will prevail which presently denies mass transit as an essential state-wide need and rejects industry support as non-sense. Suburban county tax increases will likely replace state and federal money with little effort to improve service. The city of Livonia will not be alone in the loss of state bus money." Harold, would not DARTA be a step towards creating one system, not keeping the two separated? How can we grow our system without providing an adequete source of funding for it? You seem to be either anti-taxes for suburbanites, leaving the city to continue to bear the majority of the local transportation contributions. Both the roads and transit are underfunded in this State. I would be against a reduction of funding for both, but certainly think that we can always do a better job of prioritizing what we have. What good is a bus on Plymouth road if Plymouth Road is covered in potholes? I guess I am asking for clarification. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 6 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
The best source of funding for mass transit is not one single source but many. The same goes for the merger of DDOT and SMART. I propose in the petition that DARTA regulate city and suburban bus systems with dedicated funding sources for each function. This is all described in detail. My opponents do not support multiple tax mechanisms which greatly limits our options to coordinate the needs of all and to get federal transit grants. If you think that I'm anti-tax then consider the fact that I support SMART in my webpage with my property taxes more then anyone except that I do not want them raised unless I can fill up more buses by working with transit officials like I did in 2003. I worked hard to save SMART but you see I have money to help SMART and live and work on SMART bus lines. Detroitplanner please tell me. If I can't save SMART then who will??? I'm totally against any merger of SMART and DDOT unless our governments and industries agree to properly support it. | ||
Drdetroit Member Username: Drdetroit Post Number: 75 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 68.79.103.130 |
I will only suppport light rail. Anyhting else is a waste of time. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 82 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
If there is separate funding for DDOT and SMART, how are we not keeping two beauracracies instead of creating one system? Certainly you've heard 'united we stand, divided we fall'? How about all of the interconnectivity we would gain if we were able to get rid of both and replace them with one? I think thats where your problem lies, I think everyone wants to fix the system, but it seems the best fix is to merge the two into a seamless transportation provider. This is also what the politicos, business leaders, and I'd dare say most of the riders want. Most don't care who owns or operates the bus, as long as its on time, and gets them to where they need to be. You need to solve the governance problem before you tackle funding. You seem to want to tackle funding to solve the governance problem. That just makes the system more divided. Currently Detroit is subsidizing its transit by putting $100 million a year into DDOT from its general fund. This does not include funding from the state through CTF. How much was the Livonia millage? a few million? A few million for a city 1/9 th the size of Detroit, with much more resources per capita than Detroit has? Where is the equity there? Detroit is a much poorer city, but it contributes a lot more to operating transit per person than Livonia. Some of that is logical in that your average Detroiter is much poorer than your average Livonian. Yet Detroit continues to provide places like Livonia low-wage workers who access DDOT, then walk a few miles to get to jobs in Livonia. Therefore Livonia is benefiting from Detroit's tax money. What does Detroit get in return? Crappy service jobs that keeps its citizenry poor. (Message edited by Detroitplanner on May 07, 2006) | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 3252 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.79.114.44 |
If there is only light rail. How do you propose people access it without support transit such as buses? | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 2631 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 199.74.87.98 |
Detroitplanner, I still believe there should be two systems. SMART should only operate in the suburbs, particularly serving the outermost suburbs. DDOT should operate in the city and inner-ring suburbs (12 Mile and Under). | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 3253 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.79.114.44 |
Separate but Equal? That will help foster a regional transit system. | ||
Trufan Member Username: Trufan Post Number: 7 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 138.28.159.20 |
Here is my 2 cents. Commuter rail is best for long distances with few stations, like ann arbor-detroit, mt. clemens to pontiac, pointiac to detroit...etc. Light rail is the best system for trips less than 25 miles long on high use corridors, like woodward from detroit to Birmingham. BRT is a useful system on lower use corridors that can't be made into light rail. Limited stops and priority lighting will improve speeds for BRT systems. 16 mile would be a good BRT route, while BRT would not work as well as light rail on woodward. Now on to money. We don't need to pay the whole thing through taxes. In fact other cities only pay 20-40% of the total cost, while getting the rest matched through federal funding. This means that we need to raise much less money per year than you are all expecting. For the AA-Detroit line, best thing to do is TRU's suggestion. This would be a commuter rail line from New Center Amtrak station to Ann Arbor. The Merriman rd. Station would have timed transfer shuttle to airport. Light rail from the Dearborn Amtrak station down michigan to downtown and from downtown on woodward to 6 mile would offer good tranfers to Downtown detroit, and serve the greater need for improved transit in Detroit. TRU also has a regional plan, so check out their website, www.detroittransit.org or give them a call to look into what they are all about. Also, if your in favor of transit in detroit, definately join TRU, because they do a lot of work and need your support. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 84 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
Anyone who answers separate systems has never had to wait an hour to transfer from one bus system to the other. Jams is correct. I think all you want is light rail for the white and rich, while the poor and black are stuck using the buses. That does not sound like a very good system to me. "Give me your tired and your poor and I'll piss on them, thats what the statue of bigotry said" -Lou Reed. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 8 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
The TRU is dedicated to improving transit but the splitting apart of the SMART 285 Middlebelt bus line will lower the number of passengers on the proposed Detroit to Ann Arbor rail due to the Livonia Opt out in conjunction with state revenue cuts. This bus line has greatly improved and received much needed industry support because SMART officials came to Livonia and listened and run their buses on time. I think the TRU transit plan should include keeping this bus line intact by protesting the state revenue sharing cuts to SMART. These cuts are hurting those that the TRU says it wants to help, such as the transit dependant and the low income. I (Harold Leese) made a website to try and save this bus line when it was shut down in 1995. It is the responsibility of the Michigan Department of Transportation to pay for the operating costs of this bus line and not the local governments. The civil rights act of 1964 prohibits shifting transit funds in ways that adversely affects minority residents. The city council of Livonia knows this and has promised to meet the needs of all who will lose SMART. My webpage describes this in detail to deny federal funding for MDOT/SEMCOG freeway/rail expansion projects to put an end to the discrimination and regression which will likely occur in Livonia and unfortunately in other cities. Please sign the petition drive to restore state revenue to SMART and the 285 bus line, if you agree. See http://savethefueltax.org (Message edited by trainman on May 07, 2006) (Message edited by trainman on May 07, 2006) (Message edited by trainman on May 07, 2006) (Message edited by trainman on May 07, 2006) | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 86 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
Harold, MDOT does kick in a fair amount to fund transit thoughout the state. It is not like this in most other states, where the entire cost of providing operating and matching section 5307 and 5309 capital funds is bourne by the local governments working together through a cooperative authoirity (these authoirities exist only on property taxes). Maybe we should abolish every transit authority in the State and run transit through a central authority in Lansing? They do such a good job keeping the highways in Southeast Michigan nice and smooth, lets give them the buses as well! Sometimes transits biggest problems lie in the bickering of a splintered group of transit supporters, each with a different plan (that is more than often a self-serving plan). For example, I'd love to have 15 and 7.5 minute headways on Warren Avenue and Woodward. It would really get me to work downtown a lot faster. I bet I could sell that upgrades to these two cross-town routes are of absolute importance as they serve Students and elderly going to DMC. It is not the only two routes that need work, everything needs to be studied and we need to review all alternatives. We also need to work together to provide funding, not splinter it up in an us vs. them sort of transit system. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 10 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
Thanks for the info. I work for a railroad 24 hours a day and 7 days a week so I must rely on a car. The reason I use SMART is because I want the quality of life mass transit brings by not driving all the time and using the bike racks. But mostly I enjoy helping others and want to practice what I preach. It makes no sense to promote mass transit taxes to me unless we can all contribute to helping Detroit rebuild the downtown and to connect the airport and county seats together. This is why I developed my plan which I actually took off the shelf in a very primitive way. The plans in my website actually exist and follow some of the most highest ridership routes. I'm a member of the TRU and I want to help them out. Our transit authorities are quite well funded if cities such as Livonia just leave them alone and if SEMCOG agrees to leave the state funding alone also. I think we all need to work together more to improve what we have first before we raise taxes and/or support new transportation needs. Thanks for the info and please correct any mistakes in my websites as I want SEMCOG and MDOT to take me seriously to help the inner suburbs and the city of Detroit get more decent jobs. It's jobs that is the real answer to make transit work because without a job or a very large bank account there is really no way we can do anything to improve mass transit. | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1700 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
http://www.rff.org/rff/Documen ts/RFF-DP-06-21.pdf Haven't carefully read it, but this looks like a solid scholarly work helping to understand the impact of transit. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 98 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
train can you post some links to MDOT or SEMCOG info about this plan to screw with the transit tax? I don't get where you are coming from. As far as I know there are no plans to do away with this funding by either agency. SEMCOG does support the SMART millage, but that is not messing with funding, it adds to it by the choice of the voters. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 17 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
Detroitplanner, you will learn when Livonia loses its buses. SEMCOG does NOT support Proposal S. They say they do but the facts prove otherwise. Both MDOT and SEMCOG leaders have publicly stated many times that SMART and DDOT must stop relying on state funds for operating expenses. Many states have abolished state funding for transit and if we don't fight then Michigan will soon join these states. Do you know that the DARTA agreement prohibits our state from spending fuel tax money on transit operating subsidies? In my website are many links, check out the Citizens Research Council, The Federal Transit Administration Data Base and the Brookings Institute. There are many facts that show very specifically that mass transit is a failure in Detroit. This does not mean we should not all work together to make mass transit work and provide the quality of life and many other benefits mass transit can provide. I (Harold Leese) fought an extremely hard battle to save SMART from leaving Livonia and will likely lose. I’m hoping to bring SMART and mass transit back to Livonia but this will NEVER happen in any way that will benefit the public, unless we all work together to bring back the city of Detroit. The evidence clearly shows that raising county transit taxes will only make the problems worse at this time. If you disagree, then I publicly challenge you on television. Shred my website and prove that anything in it is false propaganda or a myth, if you can. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 103 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
What is proposal S? Your website indicates something about proposal S that is four years old (dates to a proposal from back then), but nothing about a current proposal S. Thats what I am asking!! can you provide a link to it so I can read about it? Act 51 (gas tax and registration fees) provides a fair amount of state funds for both roads and transit. They say the same things about roads too. This is because the needs are greater than the revenues. I've never said anything but ask for information. The point I'm trying to make is I don't know! Right now there is NO DARTA AGREEMENT. DARTA was challenged by the Bus Unions and the judges sided with the unions. Therefore there is no agreement for DARTA. I saw your link to DARTA, DARTA would deal with existing federal and state resources. It would not have the power to tax under that proposal. That seems to be what you want, right? I don't think we are far apart here trainman. I agree that we are both headed in the same direction, its just that I don't know about proposal S and some of your information seems a bit different than how I understand things to be. I know a fair bit about government finance, but nothing about Proposal S. (Message edited by Detroitplanner on May 15, 2006) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 164 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 24.192.25.47 |
Maybe that's because (even after reading that rant) no one really understands your point? Besides, you're not going to win many (smart) friends by suing for racial discrimination as a white man. And what does Livonia opting out of SMART have anything to do with state-wide taxes, and an I-375 expansion, and these other "multi-billion dollar new freeways" you throw out there. Maybe I'm the only one, but I have no idea what you're trying to prove. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 108 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
"In 2002, the state of Michigan was forced to restore funding due to a discrimination complaint I made because MDOT and SEMCOG's planned the downtown freeway I-375 expansion." This was when the governor began the Fix-it-First campaign to spend money om preserving roads before making modifications. I fail to understand what this has to do with a funding mechanism for transit that was already in place several year prior. For the record I-375 was not an expansion, it was a reworking of the ramps at the end of the freeways which would allow a straightening out of Jefferson Avenue, and an additional ramp into the River East area that is poised for development. This would have no negative impact on the current bus service. The railroad had abandoned the line to Ren Cen years before that, and that is now being developed for pedestrian link between the riverfront and eastern market, therefore there was no change to bring back rail service as the railroad gave up and ripped out the tracks! No more driving around in circles on Jefferson to acess this area. Can you provide evidence how you stopped this project through your lawsuit when it was stopped due to lack of funding? You have yet to provide and evidence of the link between Proposal S and a reduction in funding for transit. I see the millage as another source to help fund transit, not as a replacement. How does this proposal help transit? It seems to me you want to take away the millage and hold it hostage. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 19 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
The Citizens Research Council PDF and SMART in the newspapers make the facts clear. Call and ask and see when the buses leave Livonia. Check out the transit funding data bases which are public and you will all see that the days of federal and state transit funding are history. Also history is the good paying jobs in Michigan. The Transportation Riders United knows these facts very well and will not debate me. They are telling the public that changing the state constitution to allow transit sales taxes will bring in good paying jobs. They are wrong and they know it but they know that MDOT will provide no operating assistance period. Although I want SMART to succeed and do well, I’m not friends with them and they know about my campaign to defeat state transit cuts. It was incompetence largely by DARTA supporters, MDOT and SEMCOG public speakers that caused the Livonia opt out and discrimination. No one in their right mind would vote out bus service with no tax break unless they benefited themselves with a big government pay raise. It will be vast majority of workers in Michigan who will lose. Unless the voters support my cause and/or other successful efforts to fill up the buses and stop government waste. I have nothing to prove to anyone because my efforts are history. I proved to everyone that my plan works. The real answer to fix SMART is jobs and not more tax increases. http://savethefueltax.org | ||
Ray Member Username: Ray Post Number: 695 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.215.67.71 |
jmeyers, the article you posted is excellent. http://www.rff.org/rff/Documen ts/RFF-DP-06-21.pdf Gee whiz, I wonder if car advocates are factoring in as part of the cost of driving the destructoin of Western civilization through: (a) global warming; and/or (b) warfare over oil resources (reference Iraq). Pray for higher gas prices. At $7 per gallon we might finally get the trains. | ||
Detroitman Member Username: Detroitman Post Number: 980 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 216.78.32.160 |
Legislation would fund mass transit, roads Resolution asks voters to amend Constitution to allow state tax, gives them local levy option. Jennifer Chambers / The Detroit News http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20060518/P OLITICS/605180369/1016/METRO05 | ||
Jsmyers Member Username: Jsmyers Post Number: 1715 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.68 |
This state constitutional amendment allows regional areas (at least one county) to vote a local sales tax. This is an expansion of home rule powers that are currently outlawed by the state constitution. It is also a pretty narrowly worded expansion, hopefully taylored to build concensus around the idea. If this doesn't make it on the ballot by the end of the summer, the next chance is in 2 years. Please let your reps and senators know that you want it on the ballot. If it doesn't make it, Michigan is at greater risk of loosing the $100 Million for Ann Arbor to Detroit transit from the feds. We've lost federal money before, on basically technicalities. I hope we don't do it again. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 22 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
If this change occurs then Michigan will lose more jobs. Our current public transit providers are well funded with state and local funds. This funding replaces state funds. And, we will not get more federal funding. See the facts at http://savethefueltax.org | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3756 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 24.11.154.56 |
Is such advertising allowed on this forum? I'm honestly curious as it almost seems like shamless plugging, and I didn't think that was allowed. I think I've counted that link 4 times in just this one thread. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 177 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 24.192.25.47 |
Dude, what facts your site has are buried like 6-7 links deep. No one understands your cause. If you are really for expanded transit service in Detroit, you really should look into a spokesperson. I thought you were fishing for page hits, so I checked your website code, but its clean...so I have no idea what you're doing...fishing for email addresses through your petition? (Message edited by focusonthed on May 18, 2006) (Message edited by focusonthed on May 18, 2006) |
