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

[corktownyuppie]

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

I'm willing to listen to an opinion from anyone. But I'm more likely to learn from an opinion combined with evidence and explanation. Thanks, ghettopalmetto, for the interesting, persuasive, and thought-provoking links.

There really is a knowledge gap in between the people who were graduated from college in the last 10 years vs. 25 years ago. By the time I left Michigan, this "new science" of behavioral finance was starting to come of age. I recall even recently, relaying stuff that I learned 10 years ago to some of my 50-60 year old peers who looked at me, at first, like I was making things up.

[j to the jeremy]

Some people are in such denial about the stupidity which our regional leaders and planners exhibit, that they are willing to dismiss scholarly research about pressing regional topics.

I am happy that ghettopalmetto beat me to the punch on this one: however, I will say this.

Our region can not afford to live in the past any longer. We are the 4th most segregated metro in the country, we have the worst mass transit, and we have a lot of affluent white leaders and voters in the suburbs who are supporting de facto classist regional transit policy. [[This means opting out of SMART, voting against transit funding, and supporting outdated planning methods like road widening and new road building post-housing bubble.) In SE Michigan, due to our education and income inequality stratified by race, these affluent people are participating in a web of systematic racism that is going to be very ugly to unwind in the next 50 years.

I hear suburbanites ask me about how "crime will surely rise" in the suburbs if regional rail happens. Do these people realize that most Detroiters ALREADY work in the suburbs? Does condemning low income workers and other folks to shitty buses make them feel better about themselves? Or are they worried that the region as a whole may become more integrated....

The fact that the DDOT team working on the Woodward light rail also had to explain to MDOT what light rail was, should tell you something about the mentality towards "new" ideas in Lansing. This was in the 2000s, when many states already had regional authorities building rail. This was not a new idea. But to MDOT, anything that didn't involve wheels and asphalt was a "new idea"

In addition, the brain drain to Chicago and New York, LA and even Columbus , continues to take many of our brightest students, as they find themselves overwhelmed by the backwards attitudes of their parents' generation. I never thought I'd say it, but I've been really down on Michigan lately. I love the place but it seems to be 1 step forward, 3 steps backward lately...

The state gov't in Lansing can't help us with this problem. An EFM will probably make it worse. Most suburban leaders surely want to maintain the status quo. This is an issue that can only be solved by us, the people of Metro Detroit.

[corktownyuppie]

Wow, the hammer is coming down in Troy...

http://www.facebook.com/TRUSTroy/posts/293613720680187

...

After watching the disappointing behavior of City Council and being exposed to some of the individual actions such as those of the Mayor and Councilman Fleming this morning I am drafting a memo to all Magna group presidents and our Magna corporate executives strongly recommending that Magna International no longer consider the City of Troy for future site considerations, expansions or new job creation. I have also recommended that where ever and when ever possible we reduce our footprint and employment level in Troy in favor or communities who act in the best interest of both the residents and business and not simply use their public position to advance their own private agenda.

Michele, once again on behalf of Magna and the over 1000 employees we have based in Troy I would like to truly express my appreciation for all of your efforts, your professionalism and your commitment to the business community of the City of Troy. I hope that you and yours have a great Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Sincerely,
Frank W. Ervin III
Manager, Government Affairs
Magna International, Inc.
600 Wilshire Drive • Troy, MI 48084

[j to the jeremy]

Wow, the hammer is coming down in Troy...

http://www.facebook.com/TRUSTroy/posts/293613720680187
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Surprise! That's what you get for living in the past. I wonder if they'll eventually move to some city with a regional transit authority... Anyone think Bham will be back on this thread anytime soon?

Over/Under on number of posts defending Troy's decision because we shouldn't build any new transit infrastructure without a rail line [[but conversely, we can't build rail until there's more infrastructure?) I say 3.

[Detroitnerd]

Oakland County is still in a pretty strong position to do well over the next 50 years, but it has to understand that the game really has changed. You can't just lay the concrete down and expect the prosperity to follow. The "growth machine" as we knew it isn't going to be "switched on" again -- at least not in the sense we knew it for the last 60 years. The sooner various parts of the metro adapt, the easier it will be in the long run for all of us.

[bailey]

Originally Posted by corktownyuppieWow, the hammer is coming down in Troy...

http://www.facebook.com/TRUSTroy/posts/293613720680187

[/LEFT][/FONT][/COLOR]

Surprise! That's what you get for living in the past. I wonder if they'll eventually move to some city with a regional transit authority... Anyone think Bham will be back on this thread anytime soon?

Over/Under on number of posts defending Troy's decision because we shouldn't build any new transit infrastructure without a rail line [[but conversely, we can't build rail until there's more infrastructure?) I say 3.

I'm not defending the decision, although I'm still a little fuzzy on the benefits of a multi modal transit center plunked down behind a big box strip mall, in a region with only one functioning [[barely) "mode", and that will only serve as a bus turnaround..but hey, it was obama bucks, so whatever-- its just that, it seems all the hew and cry and threats of moving out of Troy should have been made in November when these teahadists [[specifically the Mayor) were running on the issue of killing this project [[among others).

Nothing like throwing your weight around when it doesn't matter anymore. I mean imagine the effect that letter could have had a week before the election.

[ghettopalmetto]

Surprise! That's what you get for living in the past. I wonder if they'll eventually move to some city with a regional transit authority... Anyone think Bham will be back on this thread anytime soon?

Over/Under on number of posts defending Troy's decision because we shouldn't build any new transit infrastructure without a rail line [[but conversely, we can't build rail until there's more infrastructure?) I say 3.

It seems to me that the letter was not necessarily in response to an anti-transit attitude, as it was a response to the stated politically-motivated Tea Party attitude toward investment in public infrastructure. The stated reasons for declining the money were a personal belief that federal money is bad, and that not spending it will somehow reduce the federal debt. No indication of the merits of the project--good or bad--were considered. That's just terrible local leadership, and would most certainly provoke a letter from me if I owned a business in Troy.

There are many topics which are political in nature, but investment in physical infrastructure should never be made one of them.

[j to the jeremy]

Oakland County is still in a pretty strong position to do well over the next 50 years, but it has to understand that the game really has changed. You can't just lay the concrete down and expect the prosperity to follow. The "growth machine" as we knew it isn't going to be "switched on" again -- at least not in the sense we knew it for the last 60 years. The sooner various parts of the metro adapt, the easier it will be in the long run for all of us.

This . But it's frustrating to watch the aggressive resistance to the truth from places like Troy, Rochester, etc. and even Detroit, in its own dysfunctional ways.

[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.

[ghettopalmetto]

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.

Rbdetsport, I'm interested in your professional opinion on a question I've had for a while.

To me, it seems in the past 20 years, roadway engineering has focused on a hierarchy of roads. That is, you have your freeways and multi-lane arterials, which can be highways for all intents and purposes. Then you have your secondary roads, which are 2-or-4 lane, followed by your residential 2-lane streets.

Where I'm going with this is, our transportation policies have seemed to focus on adding lanes to the freeways and arterials, as well as upgrading certain roads upward in the hierarchy based on desired capacity. This of course, has resulted in the induced demand phenomena that we witness.

Wouldn't it make a whole hell of a lot more sense if, instead of *focusing* traffic onto the freeways and arterials, that we *de-focused* traffic by building a more redundant network with more evenly-distributed capacity? And heck--because we wouldn't have so many 10-lane high-speed roads, this approach might even make our roads more conducive to pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

[Hermod]

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.

Well, I agree that adding lanes only gives temporary relief as people move from other routes to the less congested route. Since the metro area is not growing and outmigration has slowed, maybe we don't need those added routes.

Detroit doesn't really have congestion. They only think they do. Try driving the I-95 and I-495 mess in the DC area some morning or evening. That is congestion.

As a transportation engineer, have they ever done a really good origin-destination-time analysis of the entire metro area? That would tell you where the routes [[rail or bus) need to be to get folks out of their cars.

That raises the question, is transit needed to get people out of their cars or is transit [[rail or bus) a "loser cruiser" for those folks who cannot afford a car?

[rbdetsport]

Wouldn't it make a whole hell of a lot more sense if, instead of *focusing* traffic onto the freeways and arterials, that we *de-focused* traffic by building a more redundant network with more evenly-distributed capacity? And heck--because we wouldn't have so many 10-lane high-speed roads, this approach might even make our roads more conducive to pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

GP, you are dead on with your assumption. And I applaud your greater understanding of the hierarchy of roads. If you look at the way cities were originally designed, before the freeways, you can see exactly how your theory works. Obviously there was congestion at some points in the network at certain points during the day, but it was at a much lesser scale then we have created today. I tend to believe that people will eventually adjust when they start to see the breakdown in a roadway system, just like if there was no left turn at an intersection, they would find another way to maneuver it. If the government would just say no to continuous lane additions, the problem would fix itself with a little bit of help from other alternative routes or modes. But yes, you could look at it from many different spectrums. Either way, if there was a more redundant network, just like in older city street grids, the problem and need for a fix wouldn't be there.

If you have ever read about "complete streets", that is exactly what the focus is; to bring major multi-lane arterials back down to a more human scale. It takes pedestrian and bicycle traffic into account during highway design. The thought is that this will create other alternative transportation modes, it will force building designs to be more pedestrian friendly, and, like you mentioned, it will redistribute traffic onto other roads. The mindset of commuters who live in the suburbs is that the road with the most lanes will get you there fastest, but this is not always true. It is this mindset in the citizens that make politicians want more and more lanes.

It truly is sad to watch cities and states continue to waste money on highway expansion when there are much better alternatives. People need to understand this theory better.

Now, I am a very young transportation engineer, but in working and learning from older engineers, here is a little something that many of you may not know. Civil engineers know that they created problems for cities by creating the modern-day interstate system. They also know that the continuous expansion of roads is the wrong path. It is just politics that these engineers all got caught up in and now it is my generation of engineers that must fix all of the problems. I actually know a few of the original highway designers who worked on the original I-96, I-94, and I-75 interstates throughout Southeast Michigan. They have a very bittersweet feeling about what they created. They understand what these high-capactity roads have caused.

[ghettopalmetto]

Now, I am a very young transportation engineer, but in working and learning from older engineers, here is a little something that many of you may not know. Civil engineers know that they created problems for cities by creating the modern-day interstate system. They also know that the continuous expansion of roads is the wrong path. It is just politics that these engineers all got caught up in and now it is my generation of engineers that must fix all of the problems. I actually know a few of the original highway designers who worked on the original I-96, I-94, and I-75 interstates throughout Southeast Michigan. They have a very bittersweet feeling about what they created. They understand what these high-capactity roads have caused.

That's very interesting to know. Although, as an engineer myself, it saddens me that these professionals are letting their experience and judgment get overruled by politics. Don't they have a professional responsibility to speak up when poor engineering choices are made by the politicians? Think of the billions of dollars that could be saved every year.

[ct_alum]

The Mayor and her toady must have thought that "queers" might use it..............

[corktownyuppie]

That's very interesting to know. Although, as an engineer myself, it saddens me that these professionals are letting their experience and judgment get overruled by politics. Don't they have a professional responsibility to speak up when poor engineering choices are made by the politicians? Think of the billions of dollars that could be saved every year.

You know, this is an interesting point, though I'm hesitant to put all the blame on the engineers. I don't know a whole lot about transit, which is why I try to remain open-minded and keep my opinions to the narrow facets of a debate that I feel I have some knowledge about.

So, I would advocate that the Free Press [[shoutout to you, Mr. Henderson) or the Detroit News do a 3-day study on mass transit around the country. Interview experts. End this bullshit where people think that transit is supposed to be a profitable endeavor. Or challenge the idea that widening arteries and adding highway capacity reduces traffic congestion.

My sense is that there are a lot of people with a lot of opinion, very few of them being informed.

For example, whether or not BRT is a good or bad alternative to LRT...I'm quite confident that if you polled 20 Metro Detroiters to ask them to describe Bus Rapid Transit, they would tell you that it's essentially what we know as the DDOT and SMART systems.

Well shit. If they aren't even informed enough to accurately describe the most relevant word in the question, then how the hell can their opinion be of any value?!

We need to smarten up. I don't know all the answers or solutions. But I would LOVE to hear some real analysis from people who actually know what they're talking about...discussing an ideal system, its feasibility, its political obstacles, potential pitfalls and risks, etc. etc.

Right now all we have is a lot of yelling.

[urbanhat]

So, I would advocate that the Free Press [[shoutout to you, Mr. Henderson) or the Detroit News do a 3-day study on mass transit around the country. Interview experts. End this bullshit where people think that transit is supposed to be a profitable endeavor. Or challenge the idea that widening arteries and adding highway capacity reduces traffic congestion.

My sense is that there are a lot of people with a lot of opinion, very few of them being informed.
...
We need to smarten up. I don't know all the answers or solutions. But I would LOVE to hear some real analysis from people who actually know what they're talking about...discussing an ideal system, its feasibility, its political obstacles, potential pitfalls and risks, etc. etc.

Right now all we have is a lot of yelling.

Interesting. I am trained as a transportation engineer, and I have to admit my profession is guilty of poor communication with the public. We're used to trying to speak persuasively to decision-makers, politicians, etc., but we tend to forget that much of the public is completely uninformed.

It would be nice if the News or Free Press could do this.. just not sure they have that amount of journalistic attention anymore.

[corktownyuppie]

Thanks...I hope someone in power takes on this idea.

We're used to trying to speak persuasively to decision-makers, politicians, etc., but we tend to forget that much of the public is completely uninformed.

It's also worth noting that the level of conviction around here seems to be negatively correlated with their level of understanding. "The less I know, the louder I am!"

[Bham1982]

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?

No, I generally don't support freeway expansions, and I'm not necessarily opposed to light rail.

I just think that folks on this thread are misinterpreting the concept of induced demand, which is a process that isn't exclusive to roadways. Induced demand applies to any transit improvement where a faster, more convenient route draws traffic from other corridors [[along with generating trips that otherwise wouldn't be made).

So I agree that if we added light rail, and it were faster and more convenient than other options, then it would generate additional trips than the status quo. This would be a good thing, obviously. The question is whether you think that light rail, as proposed on Woodward, would be faster and more convenient for most folks than driving down the Lodge, or riding in a BRT lane.

[antongast]

The question is whether you think that light rail, as proposed on Woodward, would be faster and more convenient for most folks than driving down the Lodge.

That isn't necessarily the question. "Most folks" [[most of which folks? Most Detroiters? Most metro Detroiters? Most people who live within X feet of Woodward?) don't have to use the line for it to have beneficial effects. A minority of people in Detroit/in metro Detroit/along Woodward can still be a hell of a lot of people. And sometimes people choose transit modes for reasons other than speed and convenience.

[corktownyuppie]

No, I generally don't support freeway expansions, and I'm not necessarily opposed to light rail.

I just think that folks on this thread are misinterpreting the concept of induced demand, which is a process that isn't exclusive to roadways. Induced demand applies to any transit improvement where a faster, more convenient route draws traffic from other corridors [[along with generating trips that otherwise wouldn't be made).

So I agree that if we added light rail, and it were faster and more convenient than other options, then it would generate additional trips than the status quo. This would be a good thing. The question is whether you think that light rail, as proposed on Woodward, would be faster and more convenient for most folks than driving down the Lodge, or riding in a BRT lane.

This is my pragmatic side coming out...although I would more directly benefit from a Woodit'sward light rail, I would happily take BRT if it meant that we could get an actual RTA up and running.

But that aside, does your question, as posed, assume that light rail on Woodward is the end game? Because many people, myself included, see it as a stepping stone to a region-wide light rail system. But since there's no way to get everyone on board at once, Woodward light rail would be a "demo".

[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.

[ghettopalmetto]

Interesting. I am trained as a transportation engineer, and I have to admit my profession is guilty of poor communication with the public. We're used to trying to speak persuasively to decision-makers, politicians, etc., but we tend to forget that much of the public is completely uninformed.

It would be nice if the News or Free Press could do this.. just not sure they have that amount of journalistic attention anymore.

As an aside...

I don't entirely blame the engineers for poor communication. You know as well as I do that any project receiving federal funding must hold public hearings. The problem I've noticed, however, is that a project--say, a freeway expansion--will already have been chosen as the "preferred" alternative, well into design, and damn near ready to bid before the public hearings are held. By that point, the DOT conveniently ignores the public comment, and proceeds as scheduled.

The "public comment" becomes not a session for exchange of ideas, but a top-down "This is what we're doing and you can go to hell" debriefing, with a little open-house for good PR. Where's the democracy in that? Maybe the farmers are tired of having to sell their land to McMansion builders. Maybe we're tired of funding endless freeways that generate ever-increasing amounts of traffic and sprawl? Not that technical decisions should be left to a democratic vote, but if they're going to spend our money, shouldn't the engineers need to explain and defend their methodology? As the Duany link points out--the traffic engineers who predict "future traffic" are always validated because of the principle of induced demand.

One of the ongoing battles in South Carolina is the proposed I-73 project, which is designed to traverse some very ecologically sensitive areas near the coast. The politicians argue that the new freeway is necessary because somehow [[We're supposed to believe), Northern tourists have a difficult time finding Myrtle Beach. The only reason it has stalled is due to a lack of funding. At no point has anyone asked the engineers what they think. [[SIDEBAR: The existing US 501 is typically pretty free-and-clear at 60+ mph).

I'm not trying to put you or your profession down, urbanhat. Quite the contrary. I think we engineers are a bit too humble and technocratic at times, and are too comfortable letting the lawyers and politicians do our speaking for us. I think that's half the reason I post on these threads.

[corktownyuppie]

As an aside...

I don't entirely blame the engineers for poor communication. You know as well as I do that any project receiving federal funding must hold public hearings. The problem I've noticed, however, is that a project--say, a freeway expansion--will already have been chosen as the "preferred" alternative, well into design, and damn near ready to bid before the public hearings are held. By that point, the DOT conveniently ignores the public comment, and proceeds as scheduled.

The "public comment" becomes not a session for exchange of ideas, but a top-down "This is what we're doing and you can go to hell" debriefing, with a little open-house for good PR. Where's the democracy in that? Maybe we're tired of funding endless freeways that generate ever-increasing amounts of traffic and sprawl? As the Duany link points out--the traffic engineers who predict "future traffic" are always validated because of the principle of induced demand.

One of the ongoing battles in South Carolina is the proposed I-73 project, which is designed to traverse some very ecologically sensitive areas. The politicians argue that the new freeway is necessary because somehow [[We're supposed to believe), Northern tourists have a difficult time finding Myrtle Beach. The only reason it has stalled is due to a lack of funding. At no point has anyone asked the engineers what they think.

I'm not trying to put you or your profession down, urbanhat. Quite the contrary. I think we engineers are a bit too humble and technocratic at times, and are too comfortable letting the lawyers and politicians do our speaking for us.

+1 and one step further. I think that many lawyers and politicians are too comfortable doing the speaking without having enough technical knowledge for their opinions to be fully informed.

http://troy.patch.com/articles/lette...s-a-boondoggle

From Troy Councilman Dale Murrish, in a letter written 10/20/2011 prior to his election...

I wonder how many council members have visited the existing train platform with shelter in Birmingham, less than a mile from the proposed one. I’m no mass transit expert, but I’m reasonably well traveled and I know a functional train platform when I see one.

Being "reasonably well traveled" and knowing "a functional train platform when I see one" is hardly the basis for anything more than one's subjective opinion.

[ghettopalmetto]

+1 and one step further. I think that many lawyers and politicians are too comfortable doing the speaking without having enough technical knowledge for their opinions to be fully informed.

http://troy.patch.com/articles/lette...s-a-boondoggle

From Troy Councilman Dale Murrish, in a letter written 10/20/2011 prior to his election...


Being "reasonably well traveled" and knowing "a functional train platform when I see one" is hardly the basis for anything more than one's subjective opinion.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

The key phrase that I read in that statement is "I'm no mass transit expert."

Any lawyer should know, those five words are enough to disqualify a witness in a deposition or trial. So why should they be considered sufficient basis of opinion when conducting public business?

[MSUguy]

Magna official urges halt to investments after Troy votes down transit center

http://www.detnews.com/article/20111...text|FRONTPAGE