Printable View
Bust, I really like your post. Please pardon me for being some
sort of devil's advocate opposing your good sense.
You know I live in Detroit and, though I like to take the bus when
possible, call me a loser if you want to, I have experienced public bus
service right when private or charter schools let out. It would be
good if outlying suburban districts get their charter schools too so all
of us are on the same page. Additional bus service out there could only
help this goal.
Good article calling out Patterson's antiquated notions about this region.
http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/c...igan/87730868/
so what becomes of the RTA if and when the deadline passes?
Great article!Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
Really happy to see that in the Freep.
Dumpling, I apologize: My reading comprehension isn't 100%. It's rarely a skill and usually a weakness: I have trouble with words that can be variously interpreted. But let me assure you I'm a bus rider too. Even if among public transit options, they're usually my least favorite. In my current situation any form of public transit is better than dependency on a car.
It has been this way for me always, except those times I lived in metro Detroit. I travel almost exclusively on public transit, and my own two legs. When there's a need for another mode I hire one as a one-off. It will come as no surprise: convenient public transit and a walkable neighborhood [[they're closely related) are two of the primary amenities I look for when deciding where to live. And by no means am I alone.
I'm open to a change in lifestyle if other considerations outweighed those benefits. But car dependency is a very tough sell to my wife, who doesn't want to drive. The dreadful state of public transit and lack of walkable neighborhoods are two of the biggest reasons she resists the idea of moving to Detroit.
Driverless cars may one day provide a solution, depending on their affect on the urban fabric. I'm sure we'll still prefer a walkable neighborhood, but they'll at least make more attractive the possibility of places like Detroit. I regret by then it will almost certainly be too late.
Your elected officials may be willing to do without people like us for their higher priorities. But I feel sure we contribute positively to our community, even if I'm equally sure we could do much more. Meanwhile, I'll continue doing what little I can to contribute to my Detroit community from afar. Please pardon my sometimes unusual opinions.
In related L Brooks news, the 20 year plan to widen and modernize I-75 begins on the 15th. Can't wait...
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...week-of-aug-15
Too bad LBP and MDOT could never imagine putting a commuter rail line on those extra lanes I-75 is going to get. A commuter rail down the middle of I-75 from Oakland Mall to the GM Renaissance Center could alleviate a lot of the rush hour congestion that goes on during rush hour. It could be a game changer. It might actually be the thing that gets Metro Detroiters on rapid transit. Stranger things have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by EGrant
When the Grand Trunk commuter line ran, back in the 80's, it had a couple hundred daily passengers. And this was when there were a lot more people working in Detroit than today [[not to mention Chrysler HQ in HP).Quote:
Originally Posted by royce
A commuter rail line down I-75 would be a monumental waste of billions and basically do nothing for rush hour congestion, which is worst east-west, not north-south. It would also have to be entirely local/state funded, as wouldn't come remotely close to meeting federal ridership guidelines. And there are no train tracks near the Ren Cen anyways.
Says your own private transit and transportation study.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I'm not sure if one direction or another has worse traffic. 75 southbound in the morning and 75 northbound in the evening is just as bad as 96 into and out of 275/696.
I say regional rail to Brighton [[to AA and Detroit), Pontiac [[if not further north), Ann Arbor, and Port Huron.
Do you have ridership estimates? No? Ok, then, that's what I thought. [[Neither do I but I'm not the one knocking it down because of made up numbers, I'm trying make this region competitive by supporting regional mobility)
The federal government should rescind funding for the I-75 expansion until a vote is allowed on RTA funding.
Until that vote is allowed, all I-75 funding should be funneled to the RTA to begin the process of planning and building out its plan for enhanced regional mass transit.
If we end up having to wait another 2 years for a vote, then Patterson can wait another 2 years for his precious [[and wholly unneeded) I-75 expansion.
Or better yet, SE Oakland County should petition to secede from Oakland County and become its own county or join Wayne County.
It isn't "Patterson's expansion", it serves the public. Hundreds of thousands of people will directly benefit from an I-75 expansion. RTA is a colossal waste of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by middetres
And suburban Wayne County can secede from Wayne and join Oakland County? Works for me. Northville property values will jump overnight. Wayne can have Southfield, RO Township, Oak Park, Ferndale, Hazel Park and Madison Heights, all declining communities.Quote:
Originally Posted by middetres
How does having a regional transit system not serve and benefit millions of residents? When we all know it will and does to the dozens of other metro areas with real transit systems. How is increasing our money on transit in order to have a real functioning system a waste of money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Why does Detroit have to continue to be a car-centric society? Who made this a law?
Of course how does widening I-75 benefit me, a Royal Oak resident? By getting into Detroit 2 minutes quicker?
Curious: what financial benchmarks would [[among those already positively predisposed to public transportation) should that system meet before construction? Would it be limited to ridership, or would overall profitability/level of subsidy factor in? In your mind[[s), what is an acceptable level of subsidy?
In Chicago, where I used to live, they have ridership that is 1.6 million riders PER DAY, and they lose money hand over fist. Fare charges only amount to 47% of their revenue--the remaining 53% is state and local subsidies. The amount of subsidies there has increased radically since 2012. It was bad, now awful, and getting worse.
What level of support would people here support? Is that level of support justified? The subsidy in Chicago works out to $225 per year for every man, woman and child in the ridership area [[not just city limits). If economies of scale exist [[and they do), I would imagine the necessary subsidy might be an order of magnitude higher.
Just adding some facts to the conversation...
^^^ Do you have any numbers on the dollars per person spent on roads in the same Chicago ridership area? Any numbers on how much extra would be required if not for public transit? Construction, maintenance, cleaning, snow removal, traffic enforcement? Any numbers on the benefit to the economy reducing car congestion brings? The reduction of vehicular death and injury? The economic benefits of walkable neighborhoods? The businesses and city residents they attract? Any facts on the environmental impact of so many cars on the road, and so many extra miles traveled? Any dollar estimates on the damage the extra pollution causes to our health? The loss of property, architecture, and vitality to accommodate the wider roads and so many more parking spaces? The environmental and human costs related to the petroleum industry? Do you know how we should factor in the effect on our nation of being dependent on importing the extra oil from unreliable and sometimes adversarial trading partners? I don't either, but those facts are essential to the discussion and it would be unfair to limit the conversation to only that one facet of the transit subsidy. I'd be surprised if after we had a chance to see all the facts it weren't obvious $225 per person is an incredible bargain.
How easily you are baited and the amount of shit you are full of never ceases to amaze...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
The transportation funding increase that Snyder passed last year includes increases in fuel taxes, increases in registration fees, homestead property tax credits, and [[wait for it) pledges of funding from the state's general fund/general purpose budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy
The state will be subsidizing all forms of transportation to the tune of $150MM in FY2019 up to $600MM in FY2021.
Kind of sticks a fork in the argument that it is unfair that public transportation gets a subsidy while roads pay their own way.
Everyone is supposed to get a subsidy under the current state transportation funding proposal.
It is the same at the federal level. The Highway Trust Fund has been getting regular transfers from the general fund for a while now.
Hi BKGuy,Quote:
Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy
First of all, almost all transportation in the United States is subsidized. The main exception is toll roads mostly pay their own way, but other than that, the gubamint pays for everything, more or less.
Public transportation improvements, like road improvements, are based on likely demand more than anything else. It's hard around here, where there hasn't been really effective public transportation for going on half a century. The decision to improve or not to improve public transportation comes down to an analysis of alternatives. Detroit, in my opinion, has been conducting a grand experiment for about 75 years to see if it is possible to build a thriving and functional region entirely based on people driving cars. The result of this experiment, again IMVHO, is "not really".
Improving public transportation so that it is only, let us say, 60% or 70% less effective than in the cities with which Detroit competes for jobs and talent might or might not make the region "better", however you measure that, than the current situation in which the region's transit is 85% or 90% less effective. I think it is worth a try, since what we've been doing isn't working all that well, but apparently many in local political leadership disagree.
Well, they came to an agreement. The RTA millage is back on the ballot.
Here's the link: http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...deal/87968512/
Interested to see what the compromise actually was.
Good news. The area needs this. I just am concerned that this vote may go the way of the proposed statewide fuel tax a year ago.
Great point. There really is nothing to compare it to [[here, anyway). I would think that someone could break down the subsidy by rider-mile, and come up with an answer. Roads, even if the state is subsidizing them, are probably much cheaper on that basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
That being said, all of the factors that @bust brings to the conversation should be considered as well. What I can't stomach is where we just presume these things all weigh in favor of one idea or the other. As a former colleague of mine once said: "In God We Trust; all others, bring data."
People need to know how illogical you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Suburban Wayne County includes such venerable communities as Redford, Wayne, Garden City, Inkster, Taylor, Melvindale, River Rouge, Ecorse, Lincoln Park, and Romulus. Do you really think Oakland County would welcome those communities with open arms?
Why did you exclude Berkley, Pleasant Ridge, Huntington Woods, Beverly Hills, Franklin, Bingham Farms, Clawson, and Royal Oak from the list of cities that would join Wayne County?? Just weird.
Just so. A typical transit system brings in about 30% of its operating costs at the farebox - DDOT is much worse because of its policy on seniors and because how many of the fareboxes are out of service, to name a few things - but if we use that as kind of average, if you charge $2.00 for full fare like SMART does, and then with passes and student discounts and the like perhaps the actual average fare is closer to $1.70, then based on my 30% number the actual cost to transport the passenger is almost $5.70, so the subsidy per rider is $4.00. Then if you know the average trip length, which must be available somewhere, you can just divide to get the per-rider-mile number. Say 10 miles, on SMART that is probably in the right ZIP code, so $0.40 per rider-mile. Of course that's based on a bunch of assumptions and simplification, but it's something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy
The people who say it would be cheaper to provide taxi rides to everyone either haven't done this analysis or haven't been in a taxi in forty years.
You have good reasons for your concen. There will be a lot of Tea Party and Trump supporters voting in Macomb county, not likely to support a tax for transit. Most have no passports, many have not been to cities that have joined the 21st century. I will be interested in seeing how promotion of the RTA is handled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus
Also, the "they're trying to take over and steal our jewels" crowd. They're also without passports and many have not been to cities that have joined the 21st century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobl
On the flip side, a mile of new pavement costs about $1,000,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
If we're considering an expressway [[let's take I-75, because everyone is talking about that), that road gets 100,000 riders per day on average.
That's 730,000,000 rider-miles over the life of the project.
That's $0.0013 per rider mile.
Even if you factor in gas [[$0.10/mile), maintenance, etc., roads and cars are much cheaper, I'd think.
I've always said that public transport loses and loses badly on cost, compared to roads. The other arguments fare better, by default.
Query: in the advent of Uber and [[soon-to-be) self-driving cars, how does this comparison look?
But at least you're looking at real data.