  Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 2770 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.17.38.195 |
I believe Detroit should use Washington DC as a model for clean, efficient mass transit. Fun facts: Washington DC Metro Rail system is the second busiest rail transit system in the United States. Metrorail and Metrobus serve a populationof 3.5 million within a 1,500 square-mile area.The transit zone consists of the District ofColumbia, the suburban Maryland counties ofMontgomery and Prince George’s and the Northern Virginia counties ofArlington, Fairfax and Loudoun and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax and FallsChurch. Overall, 42 percent of those working in the center core—Washingtonand parts of Arlington County—use mass transit. Fiscal Year 2006 Ridership Rail 206 million Bus 131 million Combined 337 million Thirty-five Metrorail stations serve federal facilities and 47percent of Metro’s peak period commmuers are federal employees. Train Maximum speed 59 MPH Average Speed B/T Stops 33 MPH http://www.wmata.com/about/met rofacts.pdf I'm not saying that Detroit should built subway systems across the entire region. Most of us realize that the city has infrastructure that dates beyond what urban planners and architects want to deal with (including the salt mines underground). But it will serve suburban communities who can commute by train to their jobs. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 168 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
Oh sure, the Washington Metro is a shining example of what every city with "mass transit envy" wishes they had. The reality is that the Metro is a system that is creaking and groaning under its ridership load and which lacks the necessary financial base to fund even regular maintenance. Here is the rest of the story (details at the WaPo): This year both the Virginia and Maryland legislatures declined to provide Metro a dedicated local funding source. Without a broad base of dedicated funding, the Washington Metro has had to raise fares repeatedly and to beg for cash annually. However, that situation might be about to change. The US House has just passed and sent to the Senate a bill that will provide $1.5 billion of Federal taxpayer money in the form of matching grants over 10 years. The intent of Congress is to entice the VA and MD legislatures to impose a local tax that would generate steady funding for the Metro, which would then be matched by the Federal govt. Apparently, the local governments and taxpayers are not all that enamored about providing financial support for the Metro. Thanks to the Federal govt., it looks like taxpayers in MI and 47 other states will end up subsidizing the mass transit tax burden for VA and MD property owners in suburban Washington, DC. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 224 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 207.61.38.86 |
There is one problem though. WAMATA works because Washington has a huge amount of downtown workers. Public transit really only gets high ridership were you have many people going downtown for work. Take that off, and ridership will no be there. What Detroit needs now is just a good basic bus system to get people where they need to go. Rail should come after you have a quality bus system in place. WMATA is good, but go out to the suburbs and the bus service still sucks. The rail is good, but everything else could use work. So in Detroit fix the buses first. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 160 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
Since 1969, the federal government has spent 9 Billions dollars to build this system. Try and convince our state leaders in Lansing to come up with matching state grants to get this kind of money and you will all learn the TRUth that moving forward is not easy and will take lots of money. I really want our area to have the best mass transit system in the world and my website and actions to fill up all the buses proves that I can save SMART and help our area get the mass transit leadership we deserve. If you want to visit it, just ask. | ||
Antonyj11 Member Username: Antonyj11 Post Number: 63 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.108.207.224 |
"Most of us realize that the city has infrastructure that dates beyond what urban planners and architects want to deal with (including the salt mines underground)." Not that I think subways are the best, most cost-effective means of developing a new mass-transit in Detroit but what exactly does this mean? Is it physically impossible to build a subway system in Detroit as opposed to other cities due to the city planning or geographical constraints? Just curious... | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 172 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
^^ Who knows what that means. The Detroit salt mines are located 1,100 feet below ground and would would pose no problem for any kind of tunneling. The DWSD has been tunneling sewerage interceptors underneath the city of Detroit and its suburbs for years. I think I am pretty safe in predicting that human waste will continue to be the only thing that will ever run in tunnels under Detroit. | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 836 Registered: 05-2004 Posted From: 68.40.119.216 |
Who's going to pay for this? The people driving cars won't support this and the folks who would use mass transit don't have the political clout. As it is, the roads are in crummy shape, school systems are crying for more money and the city's infrastucture needs a transfusion of dough. | ||
Damon Member Username: Damon Post Number: 675 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 172.147.46.187 |
Detroit should, but cant and wont. | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 1054 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 64.142.86.133 |
It might happen if/when fuel goes up to 5-6 bucks a gallon. I maintain that without govt boundaries, our best attempt at public transit and limited sprawl is high fuel prices. Of course that kills auto sales (bad for Detroit) and trucking (again, bad for Michigan). | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1668 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Some corrections to the above: 1. The salt mines are irrelevant. 2. District of Columbia already passed legislation for a dedicated funding source (part of the existing 5.75% sales tax would be earmarked), contingent on Virginia and Maryland passing similar legislation. Virginia and Maryland haven't passed such legislation due to opposition from short-sighted out-state legislators. 3. The federal government did not spend $9 billion to build Metro. Much of the capital funding was Interstate Highway funding that was diverted into building Metro. 4. The federal government has been asked to invest in Metro because their employees put the largest burden on the system (47% of rush-hour ridership, as noted above). The federal government, unlike other employers, doesn't pay taxes to otherwise fund the system. To boot, the federal government has no problem paying for roadwork in the region, so it only makes sense they invest in all forms of transportation infrastructure, lest their employees not be able to get to work. 5. Transit in far-flung suburban areas stinks pretty much anywhere. 6. Miketoronto, rail makes bus systems work better, by alleviating buses of the need to travel ridiculously long and inefficient routes at ridiculously low speeds. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 174 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
Danindc, you need to get outside the Beltway once in a while. Only in Washington (and some of our state capitals) is an expenditure considered an "investment". If the Federal government believes that giving $1.5 billion to the WMATA it is the right thing to do (since Federal employees make up such a high percentage of their ridership), why then is it being offered in the form of matching grants to VA and MD instead of just being given outright? To someone outside the Beltway, this looks like the Federal govt. is offering to carry a portion of the expected contribution from suburban VA and MD taxpayers towards the WMATA operating costs. Finally, since when is an employer financially responsible to make sure their employees can get to work? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1669 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Infrastructure spending is always an investment, since it produces a return. Capital spending on transit is no different than capital spending on roads, sewers, or other infrastructure. Perhaps Mikeg should leave Michigan once in a while, since it's one of the few places where transit is seen as a waste of money. I suppose, however, that SE Michigan could be the only place that is doing things correctly, and everywhere else is wrong. The $1.5 billion proposed from the federal government is not matching operating funds. The money would be used for capital expenditures. The money that DC, VA, and MD have been asked to come up with would be a dedicated source of operating revenue--no different than what any other transit system in the United States is required to have. There are a few other provisions as well, including the hiring of an Inspector General for WMATA to guard against waste, which is already in the process of happening. WMATA is in a unique role, because the large federal presence does put a burden on the system. When ridership increases due to say, increased federal hiring, Metro is forced to buy more rail cars (at $2 million a pop). Private sector businesses pay income taxes and rent, which goes toward property taxes. The taxes are in turn used to fund transit infrastructure. Since the federal government pays no property taxes, and 40% of the land in DC (as well as significant portions in Northern Virginia and Maryland) is nontaxable due to the federal presence, it certainly isn't asking much for the federal government to shoulder their portion of the burden. The money would not be given to Virginia, Maryland, or DC, but allocated directly to WMATA over ten years for capital expenditures (mostly repairs and new/rehabbed rail cars). And finally, if you drive to work and your employer provides free parking, your employer has subsidized your commute. It's not difficult to argue that it's in the employer's best interest to make sure their staff can get to work. | ||
Jjw Member Username: Jjw Post Number: 167 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.33.56.156 |
His commute is subsidized the minute he gets out of his driveway. | ||
Rocket_city Member Username: Rocket_city Post Number: 94 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 141.217.214.203 |
Quote: ----------- Detroit should, but cant and wont. ----------- Replace "Detroit" with "The suburbs". If you're talking Detroit, it would read, "Detroit is able, willing, but can't." I'm in favor of a complete overhaul of SMART...I mean DUMB and DDOT. Merge the two, build your no-brainer routes for rail and improve the entire bus system at the same time. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 175 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
From the WaPo editorial:
That doesn't sound like captial expenditures to me. Go ahead and use the government spending lobby's "investment" euphemism if you want, but it sounds like these funds will be used for normal maintenance and replacement, which usually comes out of operating budgets. Over the last twenty years, I've managed several multi-million dollar capital and expense projects in the private sector and have been a public advocate for three successful school bond proposals that totaled $260 million, so maybe I know a little bit about these kind of things. As far as leaving Michigan once in a while, I've conducted business in four different countries and traveled on three different continents. I've also ridden the Metrobus and Metrorail numerous times between the VA and MD suburbs and the Mall area. Despite the conventional wisdom, we are not all provincial hicks here in SE MI.
I hardly think your comment can be equated with an employer who provides an on-site benefit like free parking. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1670 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Then don't act like it. Not impressed with your resume either, since you apparently don't know that plant and equipment procurement is definitely a capital expenditure. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with this, Mikeg. I also don't understand why you see "investment" as a euphemism--for what? Congress (one of the signatories of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact) has already passed the legislation, but the rednecks in Richmond and Annapolis will make sure the funds never get disbursed. What you're completely missing, Mikeg, is that the federal government depends on Metro. When Metro can't get trains and buses running, the government is forced to shut down. How effective is that? The $1.5 billion for WMATA is a drop in the bucket compared to the money that would need to be spent on roads, bridges, and parking if 350,000+ additional cars were put onto DC streets every day. Maybe you'd like to read the comments from Rep. Tom Davis's (R-VA) office: http://tomdavis.house.gov/cgi-data/news/files/254.shtml (Message edited by DaninDC on July 31, 2006) | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4693 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.229 |
First DARTA and the WMATA! What's next SMARTDODOTA!! | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 176 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244 |
Danindc, I didn't offer my resume to impress a Beltway know-it-all, it was offered for those who are reading this thread with an open mind and who might be willing to consider reasons as to why Detroiters should be wary of modelling the WMATA. I can think of a handful of other mass transit systems in North America that could serve as much better models. Most people associate the term "investment" with the acquisition of property that will provide a future financial return or benefit. Certainly expenditures on capital projects could be considered an investment, even if the return benefits accrue to the public at large. Mass transit capital expenditures would include things like right-of way acquisition, new stations and rolling stock that increases capacity. I object to the use of the "investment" term when it is mis-used to describe spending on operations, which includes people costs as well as "mostly repairs and new/rehabbed rail cars". What I also find disconcerting is that instead of a direct Federal grant, the funds are set up as a) an inducement to get the "rednecks in Richmond and Annapolis" to do the right thing b) "matching", which means to me that for every dollar raised locally, the Feds kick in an equal amount so that the local taxpayers need not pay their full share. As for your addendum, I don't think I am missing anything. I never disputed that the Federal government and its employees depend on Metro. What you are missing, or perhaps willing to overlook, is Metro's non-chalance towards their dependance on the Federal Govt. Regarding the need to get the Federal workforce to their offices during last June's weather-related service disruptions, a Metro spokeswoman stated, "Because nearly half of Metro’s daily commuters are Federal government employees... delays could be less severe if large numbers of them take advantage of the unscheduled leave option and stay home." In other words, Metro’s service can be improved if Federal workers don’t go to work. With a mind-set like that, it is no wonder that "the government is forced to shut down". Yet, there are Since you brought up Rep. Tom Davis's (R-VA), why don't you tell the rest of the story about how he got this $1.5 B earmark included as an amendment to the Deep Water Energy Resources Act? This has been called the "biggest pork barrel earmark in history". What does funding for the Washington Metro have to do with Deep Water Energy Resources? I suppose it is something only a "Beltway insider" like yourself could attempt to explain or justify. Care to try? It's been said that the legislative process is a lot like making sausage, if you could see how it is done, you would never partake. Well, here is a litte glimpse behind the curtain on how pork-barrel earmarks work. This $1.5 B bill was originally written to force a resolution of a dispute between Rep. Davis and Metro over its intentions to sell a parcel of land it owns beside a rail station to a developer who wanted to include the land in a large, mixed-use development - which "coincidently" happened to be very near Rep. Davis’s home. Metro has since sold the land, so the prohibition in the earmark against the sale is a moot point. However, what is not moot is the fact that this massive pork barrel earmark will cost every American five dollars – five dollars not to ride a bus in their own neighborhood so that an indifferent Washington Metro can have a stable source of funding that not even their own ridership cares enough to provide. | ||
Qweek Member Username: Qweek Post Number: 5 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 4.229.153.54 |
The mass transit in San Jose California is fantastic, of course it is crowded as hell over there. BART is the main rapid transit for the bay area, but around San Jose in the south bay area people rely on the light rail and bus service. Its very efficient. http://www.vta.org/services/li ght_rail_services.html | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1671 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Metro provides numerous benefits to the National Capital region, among them being increased property values and ability to attract increased investment. Metro was always conceived as an economic development tool, and is cited as having spurred many billions of dollars of economic development beyond its costs. Somehow, Mikeg, you believe the $1.5 billion that the federal government is ponying up is for operating costs. This is completely untrue. The money would be for capital expenditures that are necessary to increase capacity of the system as the region grows. The $1.5 billion is a small percentage of the $24 billion it would cost to completely reconstruct the Metro system from scratch.
This "carrot" is not an inducement to "do the right thing", but an inducement to comply with existing FTA regulations, which stipulate that in order to receive federal funds, transit agencies must establish a dedicated source of revenue. WMATA has the second-highest farebox-recovery ratio after New York City Transit--over 70% of subway costs are covered by fares, and over 50% of combined bus/subway operating costs are covered by fares. The difference comes from advertising revenues, joint development projects, and payments from the general funds of Virginia, Maryland, and the District.
Weather-related incidents reduce capacity of the system. Trains cannot be run as frequently, so less passengers can be carried. Major delays were expected because 700,000 people would be attempting to board fewer trains, leading to extreme crowding of rail cars and stations. This isn't indifference--it's simple arithmetic. It would not be unlike a highway department shutting down all but one lane of a highway for repairs and warning drivers of major delays on that road.
The "pork barrel earmark" comment was made by a decidedly anti-transit, anti-government-spending, anti-tax think tank in Maryland. It's an ideological stance, and not terribly practical. The amendment was added to the Deep Water Energy Resources Bill, as further energy exploration in the Gulf of Mexico would be used to provide the $1.5 billion for WMATA. It only makes sense to have both the funding mechanism and the recipient in the same bill.
I don't understand what your point is here. The development at the Vienna Metro station has been approved by Fairfax County and WMATA, despite Davis's best intentions to interfere in a strictly local matter. WMATA has been lobbying the local Congressional delegations for some time to secure this funding.
Again, see my comments above. In addition to fares collected, the District of Columbia spends $342 per capita from its General Fund on public transportation. The residents of this region have been more than willing to financially support this system; even with fare hikes two years in a row (fares are as high as $3.90 each way, not including parking), ridership has skyrocketed to almost 750,000 passengers on weekdays. I see it like this: In this region, we are looking to spend $1.5 billion over ten years in order to move several hundred thousand more people a day through the region, boosting employment, investment, and property values. Michigan, on the other hand, is looking to take nearly the same amount of money simply to save the average commuter just under a minute of time on I-75 every day, at least for the short term. You tell me which is the more worthwhile investment. Your ideology is short-sighted and completely impractical. |
