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

[noise]

Jobs first, transit later!

As I said, transit CREATES jobs.

[iheartthed]

I am sure that the Big 3 and the auto insurance companies are in glee over the mothballing of any regional transit plans. That means more cars stay on the roads with continuing insurance coverage.

The Big 3 would actually benefit from Detroit appearing to be just a little bit progressive.

[Danny]

As I said, transit CREATES jobs.

Jobs, build infrastructure, this would lure transit. just like it did in the pioneer days in the midwest to the west. In the 1800s take fur trapping. After the furs being collected by mountian men or plains men, they take it to the nearby town ot trading post. They ship across rivers to another city where the furs are being processed and fashioned to wear. The furs will be distributed to local mon and pop chothiers all over the world. If this plan works than comes the railroad.

Then as other minerals like gold, iron, silver boomed, the infrastructure builds and transit comes. We need jobs first then public transit.

[1953]

Epic......

I mean, we're basically in free-fall.

I second this sentiment. What the hell kind of backwards region do we live in?

[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.

[Islandman]

Wow, you have really outdone yourself this time. I read your posts now for Pure Entertainment Value. It has been proven time and again that adding more lanes to a freeway TEMPORARILY relieves congestion, then it become worse than it was before.

[Cinderpath]

Of course they voted this down, is anybody surprised by this? Troy has been backwards for years, and will continue to become more soulless and boring than it already is. A "transit center" way to radical, and urban for the "City of Tomorrow" with transportation options of the 1920's, and pothole laced roads that rival Romania. [[Actually the roads in Romania are better).

[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.

[Bham1982]

Wow, you have really outdone yourself this time. I read your posts now for Pure Entertainment Value. It has been proven time and again that adding more lanes to a freeway TEMPORARILY relieves congestion, then it become worse than it was before.

No, this hasn't been proven. It's completely nonsensical, and no transit planner would make such a claim.

Please show a link where adding transit capacity actually decreased overall mobility. If this were the case, then all the cities in the world would shut down their subway systems and tear up their roadways. Don't want to induce more traffic demand, do we?

[ghettopalmetto]

No, this hasn't been proven. It's completely nonsensical, and no transit planner would make such a claim.

Please show a link where adding transit capacity actually decreased overall mobility. If this were the case, then all the cities in the world would shut down their subway systems and tear up their roadways. Don't want to induce more traffic demand, do we?

Now you're just building another straw man argument. If you have ever sat parked in 12 lanes of gridlock on I-285 in Atlanta, then you would intuitively know how an increase in capacity can lead to decreased mobility. Mobility is a bullshit term, anyway, because it's used by the highway lobby to mean "drive everywhere I want whenever I want at 1000 miles per hour without you in my way".

Why don't you take a deep breath, look at some FACTS and empirical data, and then report what you have learned.

[[FWIW: Traffic engineers who conduct actual research into this matter have concluded that induced demand is very much real. But I suppose your off-the-cuff layman's opinion should be given equal consideration to the teams of PhDs and their years of study.)

[Bham1982]

To wit--there was never a congestion problem on I-696 before it was built. .

Of course there wasn't. It hadn't been built yet. That's like saying there's no congestion problem on a Detroit subway.

We want folks to have mobility, don't we? The fact that a freeway or subway is heavily used is a sign of success, not failure. The issue is whether or not that relative success interferes with easy mobility and relative speed.

Actually, the young generation of transportation engineers [[30-somethings and younger) understands this principle, because it's starting to be taught in universities.

No, it isn't. There is no transportation planner on earth who would claim that we increase overall mobility by reducing overall capacity.

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).

What's your point? That politicans make stupid claims? That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the Intercounty Connector increases overall mobility.

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

No. You're wildly misinterpreting the concept of induced demand. Induced demand is true for all forms of mobility, not only cars.

[ghettopalmetto]

Of course there wasn't. It hadn't been built yet. That's like saying there's no congestion problem on a Detroit subway.

We want folks to have mobility, don't we? The fact that a freeway or subway is heavily used is a sign of success, not failure. The issue is whether or not that relative success interferes with easy mobility and relative speed.




No, it isn't. There is no transportation planner on earth who would claim that we increase overall mobility by reducing overall capacity.



What's your point? That politicans make stupid claims? That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the Intercounty Connector increases overall mobility.



No. You're wildly misinterpreting the concept of induced demand. Induced demand is true for all forms of mobility, not only cars.

You use the term "mobility" a lot for someone who isn't an engineer. How are you defining this term?

Because I can go to the East Coast or Europe or San Francisco and have far greater mobility--without a car and without 12-lane freeways--than I would anywhere in Southeastern Michigan. It's amazing how much "mobility" and "freedom" you have when you can get places on your own two feet.

[Bham1982]

[[FWIW: Traffic engineers who conduct actual research into this matter have concluded that induced demand is very much real. But I suppose your off-the-cuff layman's opinion should be given equal consideration to the teams of PhDs and their years of study.)

Of course induced demand is real! That's my point! That's why the interstates are so crowded.

You don't understand induced demand. It means that the introduction of faster and more convenient options will draw traffic from slower and less convenient options. That's why I-75 and the Lodge drew from Woodward and John R.

Induced demand does NOT mean that it never makes sense to add traffic lanes or transit lines, just because the area may one day be just as congested as before. If that were the case, then we would never have to add a lane of roadway anywhere on earth.

And that's why added lanes would draw more traffic to I-75, which is the whole point. There would be no point to the added lanes if they weren't going to be used.

[noise]

No, this hasn't been proven. It's completely nonsensical, and no transit planner would make such a claim.

Please show a link where adding transit capacity actually decreased overall mobility. If this were the case, then all the cities in the world would shut down their subway systems and tear up their roadways. Don't want to induce more traffic demand, do we?

There are actually a number of studies that resulted in increased congestion as a result of additional lanes [[I'll let you do the research), but the Federal Highway Administration discussed "induced travel" here:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/itfaq.htm

[ThisIsForTheHeart]

Jobs first, transit later!

The transit center would have created jobs to build it then can be used to lure companies to move jobs near by to it.

[casscorridor]

Of course induced demand is real! That's my point! That's why the interstates are so crowded.

You don't understand induced demand. It means that the introduction of faster and more convenient options will draw traffic from slower and less convenient options. That's why I-75 and the Lodge drew from Woodward and John R.

Induced demand does NOT mean that it never makes sense to add traffic lanes or transit lines, just because the area may one day be just as congested as before. If that were the case, then we would never have to add a lane of roadway anywhere on earth.

And that's why added lanes would draw more traffic to I-75, which is the whole point. There would be no point to the added lanes if they weren't going to be used.

I'm curious as to where you stand Bham, you seem to support freeways with the reverse logic of why you don't support light-rail. Won't rail create induced demand that will then eventually lead to a need for expansion? Or does that simply not apply because Detroit will never grow again, and Oakland County will never stop growing?

[ghettopalmetto]

You don't understand induced demand. It means that the introduction of faster and more convenient options will draw traffic from slower and less convenient options. That's why I-75 and the Lodge drew from Woodward and John R.

Induced demand does NOT mean that it never makes sense to add traffic lanes or transit lines, just because the area may one day be just as congested as before. If that were the case, then we would never have to add a lane of roadway anywhere on earth.

Well damn. Looks like I better go back to U of M and tell them their Civil Engineering degree is worthless. Bham1982 just taught me all I need to know.

[Novine]

"And that's why added lanes would draw more traffic to I-75, which is the whole point. There would be no point to the added lanes if they weren't going to be used."

A more sophisticated approach understands that by adding capacity to I-75, traffic will shift from other roads to I-75 until it becomes congested again [[ghettopalmetto's point). It also takes into account that the local roads that lose traffic to I-75 will become more attractive to those who may have limited their trips or used other forms of transportation and will go from being less congested to more congested. The net effect is no reduction in congestion, more car trips and more negative environmental impacts plus billions of dollars spent to "solve" a problem that ends up being as bad as the original problem.

[detroitbob]

What the hell kind of backwards region do we live in?

Well, we are beginning to see. Doesn't look pretty.

[313hero]

I will NOT be doing business in Troy MI

[Russix]

Jobs, build infrastructure, this would lure transit. just like it did in the pioneer days in the midwest to the west. In the 1800s take fur trapping. After the furs being collected by mountian men or plains men, they take it to the nearby town ot trading post. They ship across rivers to another city where the furs are being processed and fashioned to wear. The furs will be distributed to local mon and pop chothiers all over the world. If this plan works than comes the railroad.

Then as other minerals like gold, iron, silver boomed, the infrastructure builds and transit comes. We need jobs first then public transit.

Skip a few hundred years into the present, where post-industrial American cities who invested heavily in their transit systems are beating us over the head. The jobs first, then transit argument only works when you have no competition and are essential pioneering into the wilderness. If we want to see an influx of new industries return to SE MI, we need to start trying to compete with other metros[[some of which are a hundred years ahead of us) or just give up and die quietly[[which we seem to be doing a great job of).

[ghettopalmetto]

"And that's why added lanes would draw more traffic to I-75, which is the whole point. There would be no point to the added lanes if they weren't going to be used."

A more sophisticated approach understands that by adding capacity to I-75, traffic will shift from other roads to I-75 until it becomes congested again [[ghettopalmetto's point). It also takes into account that the local roads that lose traffic to I-75 will become more attractive to those who may have limited their trips or used other forms of transportation and will go from being less congested to more congested. The net effect is no reduction in congestion, more car trips and more negative environmental impacts plus billions of dollars spent to "solve" a problem that ends up being as bad as the original problem.

It all comes down to the economics and elasticity of driving demand. As roads are a "free" good, an increase in supply makes it cheaper to drive [[due to assumed decreased travel time occurring with increased capacity). As such, consumers will find the increased capacity more attractive and engage in greater consumption of the good [[roads).

Richard Porter, professor emeritus of economics at U of M, has published on this subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Whee...4402178&sr=8-4

Economics at the Wheel: The Costs of Cars and Drivers

Book DescriptionISBN-10: 0125623607 | ISBN-13: 978-0125623605 | Publication Date: October 1, 1999 | Edition: 1

"Economics at the Wheel" is about cars and driving, and all the problems that cars and drivers create for America. It explains actual government policy intended to reduce the damage cars and drivers do to us, and it explains why these government policies are almost all failures because they attack the wrong problem or attack it in the wrong way. The reader will come away with a much fuller understanding of air pollution, global warming, highway safety, auto insurance, gasoline taxation, rush-hour congestion, leaking underground storage tanks, and many other auto-related issues. It looks at common actions and circumstances from an economics perspective. It is readable with accessible prose style and few footnotes. It includes questions to provoke student thinking and boxed sections of side materials to stimulate discussions.


From the Back Cover

Beyond issues of convenience, style, safety, innovation, and mobility, automobiles raise questions about the ways that markets work and do not work. Almost all of our automobile problems arise from the car's generation of external costs. These costs, when added to the private costs of driving, make driving a socially expensive habit. And by evaluating this habit from an economic perspective, we can develop cost-effective policies to save lives, use less gasoline, and decrease pollution. In his examination of automobiles, driving habits, and government policies, Richard Porter presents an analysis and critique of cars and the ways they are regulated. His conclusions are both surprising and compelling.

[ghettopalmetto]

More on the phenomonen of induced demand, from Duany et. al.

Why building new roads doesn't ease congestion

[Detroitnerd]

It must be nice to never have to read or study anything and to simply say, "That's all false. This is what's true."

[Islandman]

I just love someone who continues to bray misinformation as fact. It's why the internet is so awesome.