I had notice that 8 mile road had been completely repaved west of Woodward but far east of Woodward starting at Gratiot east to I94 service drive only patchwork is being done to 8 mile road. Is this the Governor's way of "fixing the Damn Road?
Printable View
I had notice that 8 mile road had been completely repaved west of Woodward but far east of Woodward starting at Gratiot east to I94 service drive only patchwork is being done to 8 mile road. Is this the Governor's way of "fixing the Damn Road?
Isn't 8 mile a county road?
State highway M-102Quote:
Originally Posted by ASilvaman
Why do I feel the OP should be on the literacy thread?
I'm sure that MDOT knows what they are doing. That far east side stretch doesn't get as much traffic as the central portion of 8 Mile. If just a simple patch, such as where the lane markings are [[like they are doing to just patch I-94), then they are stretching the limited number of road dollars that are in short supply for the vast number of road improvements that was a legacy left to Governor Whitmer by our do-nothing Michigan House and Senate, who never appropriated sufficient funds.Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
After all SHE doesn't decide which patch of roadway is in need, but her experts at MDOT do....
Good points. The only addition I would make is that not only does MDOT decide which roadways are in need, but they are also left with the tough choice of picking which ones to fix, and which to ignore because of lack of funding. Just like if you walk into Little Caesar’s needing two pizzas, if you only have $7, you don’t come away with what is needed. MDOT is no different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Did the Governor rejected money coming from the Federal government or somewhere for road repairs or repaving statin ch that it wasn't enough money? Didn't former Governor Snyder raised the gas tax for a few years back for the repaving of the roads if so what happened to that money?
The state had been falling behind on road repairs for around 20 years. Every year the percentage of 'good' roads fell and the percentage of 'bad' roads increased. The changes put forth by the Snyder administration was just a drop in the bucket as to what was needed. It basically made it so those numbers would stabilize. But it wasn't enough to actually reverse the numbers. To actually improve our road conditions, more was needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
Fed dollars are still maximized. And yes Snyder raised the gas tax a few years back. But to reuse the Little Caesar’s example:Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
MDOT was going to Little Caesar’s needing 2 pizzas but only had $7 in their wallet. Uncle Snyder was told the situation, and to help out, he gave them another $1. MDOT could still go to Little Caesar’s slightly better off now with $8, but they aren’t getting both pizzas they need.
So yes, Snyder and crew raised the gas tax. But not to the level that was needed. In fairness, most of the blame goes on the GOP legislature where the thought of any tax increase, no matter how justified, akin to blasphemy.
Before we get the idea of elevating Snyder to being some type of deity because he eventualy did *something* [[not much) about the roads, let's remember the roads are only in the condition they are today because he deferred doing anything about them for 7 of the 8 years he was in office, and also eliminated Michigan's Business Tax that was used to fund road repairs.
You can pretty much blame the state legislature going all the way back to 1980. If in 1980 the State of Michigan passed a law that said the gas tax would increase every year, but only at the rate of inflation, our roads would be great. The failure of the state government to maintain the gas tax at the 1980 level [[adjusted for inflation) is what got us into this mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Snyder wanted to get the roads fixed. He didn't ignore the road funding issue. He wanted a full, long-lasting solution but he spent way too much time trying to work with the legislature on an agreeable way to solve the issue. Once he finally realized that wasn't going to happen, he went to the voters with Proposal 1. That would have solved the funding problem by dedicating ALL taxes collected at the pump to road funding, which is in line with how most states do it. Unfortunately, it also required increasing both the gas and sales tax so that school funding wouldn't be impacted. The voters turned that down. So the band aid solution that he ended up putting in place was the best he could do since the legislature and the voters both said no to proposals that would have actually fixed the problem.
Very true. Looking back, it was a good solution. Arguably it still is probably the best solution. But it is too complicated for the voters to understand, and any sales tax increase requires a vote of the people. So it is basically a no-go.Quote:
Originally Posted by sirrealone
Honestly, at least for expressways, tolls are probably the best long term solution at this point. It is the “fairest” tax in that effectively only those who choose to use the roads are taxed. If someone doesn’t want to pay the toll, they don’t drive the highway. Problem solved. The problem is the Feds have made it very difficult for states to charge tolls on currently “free” freeways.
I have yet to hear a politican speak about one of the biggest issues when it comes to road funding. Probably because it cost them votes. One of the biggest problems is the continued sprawl of the suburbs exapanding farther out, specifically in Oakland and Macomb county. We have developers who develop cheap homes on big lots in far off suburbs and promise the city an increase in tax revenue. The tax revenue comes, the city makes improvements, and then the developer goes out to a new suburb, poaches half the people from the first suburb with promises of cheaper land and bigger lots, and then the new suburb grows its tax base and begins to build bigger roads and more infrastructure. All while the city and the first suburb lose their tax base and revenue and can't keep up with their infrastructure anymore.
We're then left with cities with bad infrastructure, then counties, then eventually the whole state because the sprawl has spread to state highways and deteriorated them faster than ever before.
I'm not going to sit here and say people can't move wherever they want, but the developers who build these new sub-divisions and build up in rural areas shouldn't leave the city, county, and state on the hook after they sell all of their plots.
I'm not trying to hop up on my soap box and say everyone should live in big dense cities, but continuing to spread out and build more and more subdivisions, larger roads, and infrastructure will and has bleed us dry. You have people who live in cities that sacrifice not having a big house or yard but their money goes to city infrastructure, and then you have people who live in rural areas who get a big cheap house and plot but have to pay for services like propane, well digging, and accept they likely won't get things that are common in the city like sidewalks everywhere. And then you have these people who seem to continue to want both by moving to a big house in the suburbs, but then also want the accommodations of living in a city/urban area.
It just isn't sustainable.
Then scale back zoning requirements and allow developers to build high density housing wherever they want. This is playing out in California, where housing prices are skyrocketing, but various zoning restrictions are preventing developers from building apartment buildings in established communities.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonWylie
There's even a supporting "movement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YIMBY
It’s not so much about politics more so about driving the economy,cities are landlocked by their borders countries create revenue by issuing building permits.
I live in the insanity of sprawl but what they do is instead of raising taxes they charge impact fees on new construction,which is applied to infrastructure in the bigger picture.
The objective is to make sprawl pay for itself instead of having to create new taxes.
They also use it as a tool to regulate and direct sprawl,you cannot stop it but you can at least maintain a level of control and direct it to where you want to create density,simply by lowering or raising the impact fees according to where you want to direct new construction to.
Impact fees apply to raw land development,depending on the square foot of the house or project it can range from $3000 up to $50,000 for large strip malls etc.
Agree, I think the move away from use base to form base coding will help as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
Yea until you live in a neighborhood of SFR and your neighbor demolishes their house and puts up an apartment complex.
The problem there is you have long term established neighborhoods being destroyed for high density housing,which in turn forces more to leave the city and join the sprawl.
Wanna destroy a neighborhood real quick,throw up some duplexes that are operated by not so picky landlords.
There is a difference between smart growth and uncontrolled growth,sometimes seeing how many fleas you can cram into a box is not always the best answer to the overall health of a city in the bigger picture.
If the demand is there for an apartment building, the neighborhood is not going to see a net decrease in residents if a few home owners decide to leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Yes but you are in essence creating the very thing you oppose,sprawl,in the process.
While forcing long term residents to leave,its the market that determines the drive,when you get the demand for new multi family it’s because there are those willing to pay the high cost of construction in increased rents.
Which starts the cycle of driving out those who cannot afford them,that’s why you get California as an example.
Nothing to do with paying for roads but NYC is a case study,because of rent controls and expiration times,the private sector of multi family ownership is getting ready to implode.
But in the bigger picture cities always have to remain in flux in order to create revenue,otherwise they will just stall out.
If Detroit had not had their issues and had continued to go down the path of other cities,3/4 of the current population of today would have been priced out 20 years ago.
If they are not being priced out going forward,then something is wrong because as it stands the city cannot survive as is without growth.
The trick is how to pay for that growth without increasing the burden on the existing taxpayers.
It's not so much about controlling sprawl. If the population is there, let people move to where they want a live where they want. The issue is that we have a relatively stagnant populations relative to the amount of building and expanding we are doing. Expanding roads, building new subdivisions, and pushing farther out without the need. Cities like the short term increase in tax revenue, developers get rich, and better off people can move to an area with the promise of a quiet life and an acre plot. The only problem is, 15 years down the road, the area isn't quiet anymore and certain people want to move to a new area, where a new developer gets rich, and a new city gets a new tax base, and then the old city is left to deal with the burden of neighborhoods without people and no money to do anything about it. And the politicians are fine with this because people like watching new construction and they won't be around to deal with the consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard