Troy debates sending back $8.5 million in U.S. aid for transit center

[Dexlin]

Just another day in the metro:

Troy debate sending back $8.5 million in U.S. aid for transit center

By Bill Laitner | Detroit Free Press

November 29, 2011

Mass transit proposals are gaining speed in metro Detroit, but Troy's new mayor said she wants to stop a decade-long effort to build a transit center at the Troy-Birmingham border.

Mayor Janice Daniels, an activist in Michigan's Tea Party, campaigned against spending $8.5 million in federal funds for the rail-passenger project.

At Monday's Troy City Council meeting, several speakers echoed Daniels' wish to let the federal funds expire. Others voiced support for approval by the
Dec. 19 funding deadline.

Council members are expected to vote on the project at the Dec. 19 meeting.

Dysfunction is like a religion in these parts, regardless of the location. Does this new mayor have a majority on council, now?

[corktownyuppie]

Just another day in the metro:



Dysfunction is like a religion in these parts, regardless of the location. Does this new mayor have a majority on council, now?

These guys are being ridiculous. It's like their strategy is, "The answer to crazy fringe lunatics is to bring on even more crazy, even more fringe lunatics." There is a big accounting difference between entitlement spending vs. capital spending. Transit is an INVESTMENT, not some "government program" that takes money from one person and gives it to another.

[Novine]

You have to love the Tea Party Mayor. She says:


"How do you justify taking $8.5 million from a government that is trillions of dollars in debt?"


Based on her statement, she should also be voting against federal funding for all local road projects that comes from the feds through the state. Or does her opposition for spending federal dollars only apply to transit projects?

[R8RBOB]

You have to love the Tea Party Mayor. She says:


"How do you justify taking $8.5 million from a government that is trillions of dollars in debt?"


Based on her statement, she should also be voting against federal funding for all local road projects that comes from the feds through the state. Or does her opposition for spending federal dollars only apply to transit projects?

Like the Tea Party, she is over the top but she is in the Tea Party and when you are in the Tea Party then you must give a Tea Party answer.

She didn't need to use the government is in debt excuse because if a giant sinkhole was to swallow up Troy, the first phone call she is makes is to Obama.

[Hermod]

These guys are being ridiculous. It's like their strategy is, "The answer to crazy fringe lunatics is to bring on even more crazy, even more fringe lunatics." There is a big accounting difference between entitlement spending vs. capital spending. Transit is an INVESTMENT, not some "government program" that takes money from one person and gives it to another.

The problem is that too many federal politicians consider any spending to be "a wise investment in the future" even if it is pounding dollars down a rat hole.

The people are beginning to catch on.

[Dexlin]

This is the wealthy city that nearly lost its library, a few months back. I honestly don't get what's going on in Troy. If this is their reaction to the economic downturn, it's a strange one to say the least.

Yuppie, you hit the nail on the head. This should be looked upon as investment. Their reaction to this shows just how incredibly narrow their ideology has become.

[Bham1982]

Can't stand the Tea Party, but I have no problem with this.

There's no sound economic, transit, or planning rationale to the proposed intermodal center. From Day 1, the project was basically an allocation looking for a purpose.

An intermodal center in an city with no intermodal demand, no walkability, and no traffic problem, and all shoehorned behind a strip mall.

Obviously I would prefer the money stay in the region for a more worthwhile project. I'd love to see it used for D-DOT service improvements, or much-needed expansion of I-75 or I-94. If that isn't possible, might as well do some good somewhere else.

[ghettopalmetto]

There's no sound economic, transit, or planning rationale to the proposed intermodal center. From Day 1, the project was basically an allocation looking for a purpose.

An intermodal center in an city with no intermodal demand, no walkability, and no traffic problem, and all shoehorned behind a strip mall.

You can't have intermodal demand when you only have one mode.

And you can't have walkability if you only build your transportation network for cars.

Some other city not-in-Michigan will be more than happy to invest this money in their infrastructure so they can grow their economy.

[Novine]

"It may be a fact that those were local projects funded with ARRA money, but where are your facts to support how much of a stimulus they provided to the local economy? How many jobs did they create? How long did those jobs last? By how much did they reduce the unemployment rate? Or were those the kind of jobs that fall instead under the "saved" talking point, er.... category?"

There's stats on the Feds web site. They don't break down the employment effect by project but I know that those dollars went to actual work that employed actual people and had a stimulative effect on the economy. Talk to people in the construction industry and find out how much private sector construction projects have been undertaken over the past several years. Without government spending on infrastructure projects, there's a lot of people in the construction industry and related industries that would have been unemployed during the past couple of years.

[Bigmonkey]

Can't stand the Tea Party, but I have no problem with this.

There's no sound economic, transit, or planning rationale to the proposed intermodal center. From Day 1, the project was basically an allocation looking for a purpose.

An intermodal center in an city with no intermodal demand, no walkability, and no traffic problem, and all shoehorned behind a strip mall.

Obviously I would prefer the money stay in the region for a more worthwhile project. I'd love to see it used for D-DOT service improvements, or much-needed expansion of I-75 or I-94. If that isn't possible, might as well do some good somewhere else.

Building more roads does not help a regional trainsit system that works is needed

[j to the jeremy]

we should just allocate all transit and road money for a few years into shoring up DDOT, SMART, creating an RTA, and ensuring the light rail is built.

[wolverine]

Can't stand the Tea Party, but I have no problem with this.

There's no sound economic, transit, or planning rationale to the proposed intermodal center. From Day 1, the project was basically an allocation looking for a purpose.

An intermodal center in an city with no intermodal demand, no walkability, and no traffic problem, and all shoehorned behind a strip mall.

Obviously I would prefer the money stay in the region for a more worthwhile project. I'd love to see it used for D-DOT service improvements, or much-needed expansion of I-75 or I-94. If that isn't possible, might as well do some good somewhere else.

Why would you want to expand the freeways? That doesn't relieve congestion, it just changes driver behavior and adds more cars to the roads. At its worse, it effects metro growth spatially by pushing existing and new residents to the fringe furthering strain on municipal resources and services across the region. If you were to allocate it toward roads at least repair the broken ones you already have.

Anyway the money other states have turned away have gone to states with existing rail. It will be well used. Thanks Troy, you had your chance.

[detroitbob]

Snyder is playing good cop bad cop on all of these issues and this is a foretaste of what is to come on a national level if this crowd gets; control of Washington. The right wingers have had their way... the tea party doesn't exist. It is simply a rebranding of the far Republican right. You best believe his sources knew this wasn't going to pass hence the endorsement. Same technique for the EFM and Detroit...feigning cooperation on Flashpoint this past Sunday while fully knowing he is going to release the EFM...same on the bridge...wait and see if the bus deal ever happens.

[Bham1982]

Why would you want to expand the freeways? That doesn't relieve congestion, it just changes driver behavior and adds more cars to the roads.

Of course expanding freeways relieves congestion. Prior to the freeways, the arterials out from Detroit were rush hour parking lots. The added capacity decreased commuting times and faciliated the move to suburbia and exurbia.

Yes, there is induced demand, where a new roadway will draw traffic from existing, slower roadways, or other modes of transit, but no transit engineer or transit planner would claim that new capacity doesn't relieve congestion.

Obviously if I take I-75, let's say, and expand it from 6 to 10 lanes, traffic will move faster. To claim otherwise isn't really logical, IMO.

[ghettopalmetto]

Of course expanding freeways relieves congestion. Prior to the freeways, the arterials out from Detroit were rush hour parking lots. The added capacity decreased commuting times and faciliated the move to suburbia and exurbia.

Hogwash. Expanding freeways only relieves congestion in the short term. Empirical data has shown that in the long-term, you only end up with more congested lane-miles. To wit--there was never a congestion problem on I-696 before it was built.

Yes, there is induced demand, where a new roadway will draw traffic from existing, slower roadways, or other modes of transit, but no transit engineer or transit planner would claim that new capacity doesn't relieve congestion.

Actually, the young generation of transportation engineers [[30-somethings and younger) understands this principle, because it's starting to be taught in universities. Unfortunately, state DOTs across the country are still headed by middle-aged bureaucrats who still subscribe to the outdated 1950s panacea. Even worse--most "roadway engineering" is still very much based on plug-and-chug formulas. Never mind the context, the reality of a situation, or induced demand--by golly, if you're at LoS "F", then you have to add a lane at all costs!

If I recall correctly, at one point--in the 1950s--it was claimed that construction of the Chrysler Freeway would PERMANENTLY solve Detroit's traffic problems. How'd that pan out?

If you do some research on the Intercounty Connector in Maryland--a $3 billion new freeway--the roadway engineers concluded that the ICC would not necessarily relieve congestion on the Capital Beltway or other arterial roadways [[as its proponents had claimed). It's also worth noting that the primary argument made for the ICC was "It's been on the planning maps since the 1950s!". Never mind that when Maryland widened I-270 from six lanes to twelve in the 1980s, the new development that followed quickly filled up the 100% addition of capacity. Now they have twelve lanes of clusterfuck instead of six. Congratulations.

Obviously if I take I-75, let's say, and expand it from 6 to 10 lanes, traffic will move faster. To claim otherwise isn't really logical, IMO.

Corradino Group [[a roadway engineering firm) concluded that widening I-75 by one lane in each direction through Oakland County would save each traveller a whopping MINUTE over the stretch. What a bargain for $1.2 billion. Do some research on Atlanta's infamous "Freeing the Freeways" program of the 1980s, and tell me if you still feel the same way.

The 1950s are over. You can choose to move forward or be left behind.

[rbdetsport]

Of course expanding freeways relieves congestion. Prior to the freeways, the arterials out from Detroit were rush hour parking lots. The added capacity decreased commuting times and faciliated the move to suburbia and exurbia.

Yes, there is induced demand, where a new roadway will draw traffic from existing, slower roadways, or other modes of transit, but no transit engineer or transit planner would claim that new capacity doesn't relieve congestion.

Obviously if I take I-75, let's say, and expand it from 6 to 10 lanes, traffic will move faster. To claim otherwise isn't really logical, IMO.

I am a transportation engineer and I WOULD claim this. It reduces congestion for a couple years at most. It is a temporary fix to add lanes. In the long run, the congestion will become even worse and the freeway will become unsustainable. Instead of adding additional lanes, a different transit alternative would be better.

[wolverine]

Of course expanding freeways relieves congestion. Prior to the freeways, the arterials out from Detroit were rush hour parking lots. The added capacity decreased commuting times and faciliated the move to suburbia and exurbia.

Yes, there is induced demand, where a new roadway will draw traffic from existing, slower roadways, or other modes of transit, but no transit engineer or transit planner would claim that new capacity doesn't relieve congestion.

Obviously if I take I-75, let's say, and expand it from 6 to 10 lanes, traffic will move faster. To claim otherwise isn't really logical, IMO.

It is illogical because no one plans on massive widening projects like that over a short period time. If you're lucky, you'll maybe get an additional lane each way over a period of 20 years, just to keep up with growth. Oh hell, what's the point, Detroit's MSA has lost population. You shouldn't even be planning new road improvements. Either maintaining or scaling back on what you have.

[cramerro]

Of course expanding freeways relieves congestion. Prior to the freeways, the arterials out from Detroit were rush hour parking lots. The added capacity decreased commuting times and faciliated the move to suburbia and exurbia.

Yes, there is induced demand, where a new roadway will draw traffic from existing, slower roadways, or other modes of transit, but no transit engineer or transit planner would claim that new capacity doesn't relieve congestion.

Obviously if I take I-75, let's say, and expand it from 6 to 10 lanes, traffic will move faster. To claim otherwise isn't really logical, IMO.

What information do you have that would support the claim that "arterials out from Detroit were rush hour parking lots." A 30-second review of the census population trends for the communities outside of the city limits would clearly show that population outside would make this claim impossible.

Your point that a freeway has more capacity than a surface street is understood. The problem is that traffic patterns, volumes, and flow are not in a vaccum where you have X cars and you just add a lane to give them more space. By expanding the freeway, you are facilitating a pattern of development, growth, and decline that inherently requires more vehicle miles traveled [[VMT), which in turn creates additional traffic volumes system-wide and eventually congestion on its own.

One of the most interesting sets of data I've come across in a college textbook was showing the average commuting time and distance by decade over the past 100 years [[I can find the source someday, it's not made up). Basically, the average commute time has been nearly steady - just the distance [[and the modes) have changed. We as a society have an apparent tolerance for commute time, and choose where [[or at least how far from work) we live based in great part on that variable.

With all of this in mind, as many a traffic engineer/planner will confirm, when you have the same number of people traveling in a transportation network [[SE Michigan), but those people are making longer trips [[and also more trips because they have to be single-purpose due to lack of mixed-use development), you will have more congested segments as a system whole.

Spend the money to expand, and then you will need to expand all the other roads farther out in the system to accomodate those who can now get 10% farther in the same time frame. Sure, I-75 will seem less congested [[for a time), but the impacts of congestion in the feeder system will be immediate.

[R8RBOB]

Transit center for what? Buses? They should send the money back because they have no need for a transit center. Now maybe one day in the future, if the M-1 rail grow and become a mass transit then perhaps a transit center may be needed but not today.

[coracle]

Stick a Transit Center where it's not needed then spend more money later to build something from somewhere that's also not needed and finally subsidize the hell out of it because nobody uses it. It's called Liberal planning for INVESTMENT.

[Lowell]

Yet another argument for a Regional Transit Authority. As long as each community walls off its own transit policy this chaos will continue and mass transit will fail. When that happens we only see the trees and never the forest.

It is completely arguable that the a transit center may not be needed in Troy, but there is little argument that transit centers [possibly including one in Troy] aren't needed as part of an effective overall solution.

The mayor may have an argument, but openly grandstanding on 'principle' rather than the reality of citing facts on how the project is a waste, if it is, is purely politics. The founding fathers that her Tea Party so worships also considered it good 'principle' that women shouldn't vote or hold office. Should she also leave office on principle?

[boneshaker]

The metro area desperately needs good reliable public transportation. However, if anyone needs a quick history lesson on mass transit in metro Detroit needs to look no further than Gratiot Ave [[east side) just north of French street and walk through the remains of the Gary Garage.

[j to the jeremy]

Its unfortunate because she's clearly not doing this based on a sound argument. It's one thing to reason out the location, services, etc. but it's another league when her only reason is "we don't want to steal from the gov't.". I know it's hard for a tea party person to take, but the government spends this kind of money ALL THE TIME. And guess what! Sending these funds away GUARANTEES THEY WILL BE SPENT quickly somewhere else. Once transit funding is allocated, it can't be undone. I always laugh when I see "The city of tomorrow" on Troy's welcome signs. A forward-thinking mayor would have used this potential project as leverage to create the RTA. Instead, some city in New York or Florida will probably be upgrading a system that we could only dream of, using money that Michigan needed.

Michigan is already one of the states that gets screwed over by gov't spending. We get back less than $1 for every tax dollar we spend. But I guess the Tea Party thinks it would be more fun to get even less back. After all, we can't afford 8 million dollars for a transit center in a major suburb, but ask that mayor what she thinks about Iran and I bet she'll say "BOMB at all cost!"

I really think that Troy is on a mission to aggressively segregate itself from any low income "undesirables". They pull you over for almost anything, they fight all transportation dollars unless they're for road widening, etc. I thank myself every day I don't live there.

[bailey]

Its unfortunate because she's clearly not doing this based on a sound argument. It's one thing to reason out the location, services, etc. but it's another league when her only reason is "we don't want to steal from the gov't.". I know it's hard for a tea party person to take, but the government spends this kind of money ALL THE TIME. And guess what! Sending these funds away GUARANTEES THEY WILL BE SPENT quickly somewhere else. Once transit funding is allocated, it can't be undone. I always laugh when I see "The city of tomorrow" on Troy's welcome signs. A forward-thinking mayor would have used this potential project as leverage to create the RTA. Instead, some city in New York or Florida will probably be upgrading a system that we could only dream of, using money that Michigan needed.

Michigan is already one of the states that gets screwed over by gov't spending. We get back less than $1 for every tax dollar we spend. But I guess the Tea Party thinks it would be more fun to get even less back. After all, we can't afford 8 billion dollars for a transit center in a major suburb, but ask that mayor what she thinks about Iran and I bet she'll say "BOMB at all cost!"

I really think that Troy is on a mission to aggressively segregate itself from any low income "undesirables". They pull you over for almost anything, they fight all transportation dollars unless they're for road widening, etc. I thank myself every day I don't live there.

I disagree, not with the overall assesment of teabagger ignorance, but with your last portion. Look as has been discussed above, this particular project makes no sense whatsover. This would be the suburban version of the People Mover.... it would be an "inter modal transit hub" that will neither be a "hub" nor be "inter-modal". Throw on top of it a location that is just ridiculous, and this is just a pile of stupid.

Call her a stopped clock getting it right twice a day... a blind squirrel finding a nut.... whatever, but this project should be canned - just not for the silly justification offered. .

[Jimaz]

...Michigan is already one of the states that gets screwed over by gov't spending. We get back less than $1 for every tax dollar we spend....

That situation recently reversed, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, the reason it reversed was because of the horrible Michigan economy.