Michigan cuts 243 road projects.

[kraig]

January 28, 2010http://detnews.com/article/20100128/METRO05/1280459Michigan cuts 243 road projects

KAREN BOUFFARD
Detroit News Lansing Bureau Lansing -- Michigan drivers will have to navigate bumpier roads in the next five years after the Michigan State Transportation Commission this morning slashed 243 road and bridge projects from the Michigan Department of Transportation's 2010-14 road program.
The commission was forced to cut the projects due to continued declines in state gas tax revenues and the state's inability to match federal dollars beginning in 2011.
The cuts were based on a one-year forecast that predicts road revenues of $1.16 billion in 2011, if the federal money is secured, down from $1.8 billion this year. Road revenue could be less than $639 million if Michigan can't come up with the match for available federal transportation dollars, according to MDOT spokesman Bill Shreck.
"Right now, without new revenue, it will be the smaller program," Shreck said.
The Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association immediately called for more investment in roads, which have suffered as gas taxes, which replenish the state Transportation Fund, have plummeted during the poor economy.
"The forecasts that have been laid out in the approved MDOT five-year program is the tragedy we've been talking about here in Michigan that should force elected officials to wake up to the needs of our transportation infrastructure," said Mike Nystrom, the group's vice president of government and public relations.
Construction projects on Interstates 96, 94, 75 and other Metro Detroit commuter routes are among hundreds to be cut or delayed by the state.
The 243 canceled projects include work on 128 bridges and 105 roads, and scuttling plans for eight new roads and two expansion projects.
Rep. Pam Byrnes, D-Chelsea, chair of the House Transportation Committee, and Rep. Richard Ball, R-Laingsburg, this week introduced a bipartisan package of bills that would restructure Michigan's motor fuel taxes to increase revenue.
The plan would increase the user fees on gas from 19 cents to 23 cents, and on diesel from 15 cents to 21 cents immediately. Taxes would be increased by an equal amount in 2013, taking both fuels to 27 cents per gallon. When fully implemented, the increases would raise as much as $480 million annually for roads, allowing Michigan to get its maximum amount of federal dollars.
Metro Detroit projects placed on hold include reconstruction of I-96 from Middle Belt to Telegraph and Newburgh to Middle Belt; reconstruction of Fort from Sibley to Goddard; widening of Telegraph from Vreeland to West Road; and resurfacing of major portions of I-94 in Macomb County. It would also mean not replacing 27 bridges.
kbouffard@detnews.com">kbouffard@detnews.com [[517) 371-3660
© Copyright 2010 The Detroit News. All rights reserved.

[Detroitnerd]

You see? Roads pay for themselves! That's why we don't need any money-sucking projects like heavy rail, light rail or anything else like that! Everything's fine! The roads are taking care of themselves! It is, essentially, 1963 forever!

[[THE ABOVE MAY HAVE BEEN AS MUCH AS 90 PERCENT SATIRE)

[DetroitPlanner]

You see? Roads pay for themselves! That's why we don't need any money-sucking projects like heavy rail, light rail or anything else like that! Everything's fine! The roads are taking care of themselves! It is, essentially, 1963 forever!

[[THE ABOVE MAY HAVE BEEN AS MUCH AS 90 PERCENT SATIRE)

Just remember, that most of the funding for transit and non-motorized is going to be impacted to the same degree that funding for roads is being impacted. The overwhemling majority of funding for all of this are the Highway Trust Funds. This is a canary in the coal mine.

[Detroitnerd]

Just remember, that most of the funding for transit and non-motorized is going to be impacted to the same degree that funding for roads is being impacted. The overwhemling majority of funding for all of this are the Highway Trust Funds. This is a canary in the coal mine.

So, you're saying that if I want mass transit, I should be unhappy that the myth of "roads paying for themselves" is just that? Ppffftt.

Now, if it means we don't get saddled with BRT, so much the better...

[DetroitPlanner]

So, you're saying that if I want mass transit, I should be unhappy that the myth of "roads paying for themselves" is just that? Ppffftt.

Now, if it means we don't get saddled with BRT, so much the better...

No I am saying that the cuts that are associated with road projects are also associated with the dollars available of alternative modes.

[Detroitnerd]

No I am saying that the cuts that are associated with road projects are also associated with the dollars available of alternative modes.

Until we can change the state constitution, anyway ...

[Hermod]

You see? Roads pay for themselves! That's why we don't need any money-sucking projects like heavy rail, light rail or anything else like that! Everything's fine! The roads are taking care of themselves! It is, essentially, 1963 forever!

[[THE ABOVE MAY HAVE BEEN AS MUCH AS 90 PERCENT SATIRE)

What part of "fuel taxes paid by drivers of cars and trucks pay for highways" is so difficult to comprehend?

Freight rail pays for itself [[where it doesn't, it gets abandoned).

Passenger rail is a sinkhole for money that only in rare instances will pay for itself "out of the fare box".

[Detroitnerd]

What part of "fuel taxes paid by drivers of cars and trucks pay for highways" is so difficult to comprehend?

Nothing! It's great! The system is working! Just look at the surpluses we're running!

[ghettopalmetto]

What part of "fuel taxes paid by drivers of cars and trucks pay for highways" is so difficult to comprehend?

I can't see your math.

[Detroitnerd]

Freight rail pays for itself [[where it doesn't, it gets abandoned).

Passenger rail is a sinkhole for money that only in rare instances will pay for itself "out of the fare box".

Perhaps this comment about passenger rail being unprofitable is supposed to end all further discussion of passenger rail. But it begs a much more important question: How did this happen?

For the answer to that question, we probably have to go back a century. In 1910, roads were actual "sinkholes" much of the year. To travel by road, even in an up-to-date motorcar, was a serious hardship in wet or snowy weather. People did not drive long distance, whether by car or horsepower.

Because there was no other alternative to railroads and streetcars, the public was concerned about the "traction trusts" and the "octopus" -- and these became some of the most heavily regulated industries in the country, suspect to many.

The biggest projects in the United States in the 1910s were road-building projects. Very similar in the 1920s. By the end of the 1920s, most of the roads in the United States were so improved that people could drive longer distances.

Because of these subsidies for road-building, the railroads and streetcars couldn't compete. By the 1920s, the Detroit United Railway, which boasted one of the largest electrified light rail networks in the country, sold its city operations to Detroit. [[It's a good thing, too, as city-owned streetcar lines couldn't be bought by National City Lines!)

After the advent of reliable passenger air travel, the federal government also started subsidizing air travel, further hurting rail transportation.

By the 1960s, the country's national passenger rail lines were totally unprofitable. Carefully regulated by federal government, hurt by the subsidies to other modes of travel, they were begging to be relieved of the responsibility of moving passengers, which had been so profitable before the subsidies started flowing to competing modes.

After 1970, when Amtrak took over those unprofitable responsibilities for the big railroads, subsidies for rail continued to fall. By 2000, government subsidies to rail had fallen by one-half, while they had risen 100 percent for roads, and 150 percent for air.

So now it's very easy and convenient to say that "passenger rail is a sinkhole for money," but it ignores that our government has carefully guaranteed that fact with subsidies for air and road, and by deliberately underfunding rail transportation so it cannot enjoy economies of scale.

But with volatile fuel prices, more people ARE riding rail than they were a few years ago. And, going into a century of uncertain energy supplies, we'd do well to consider the benefits of a mode that uses less real estate, and can move more people more economically.

[Hermod]

Nothing! It's great! The system is working! Just look at the surpluses we're running!

The fact that "need" and "wants" exceed resources is not a matter of the system not working. If we "need" more money for roads, highways, and bridges, raise the per gallon fuel tax on the drivers that use roads, highways, and bridges. The system is there, the overall users of the system pay the overall cost of the system. The more you use the roads, the more you pay in fuel taxes.

The highway system is one of the few gummint things paid for by what amounts to "user fees".

[Detroitnerd]

The fact that "need" and "wants" exceed resources is not a matter of the system not working. If we "need" more money for roads, highways, and bridges, raise the per gallon fuel tax on the drivers that use roads, highways, and bridges. The system is there, the overall users of the system pay the overall cost of the system. The more you use the roads, the more you pay in fuel taxes.

The highway system is one of the few gummint things paid for by what amounts to "user fees".

Or you can call them "taxes" -- which is what they are, right? And then you can "raise" the "taxes" to pay for the roads. The alternative is to let some roads become pockmarked and hard to drive, which, I suppose, doesn't mean the system doesn't work, it just produces roads of poor quality.

But, in fairness, there's another thing going on here as well. Not only is the tax not going up, but people are driving much less, and driving smaller cars, which means buying fewer gallons of gasoline. So it's sort of a double-whammy.

[Hermod]

Because there was no other alternative to railroads and streetcars, the public was concerned about the "traction trusts" and the "octopus" -- and these became some of the most heavily regulated industries in the country, suspect to many.

Beginning with the horse car lines and Mayor Hazen Pingree and continuing through the electric lines and Mayor James Couzens, the city government and newspapers did just about everything they could to destroy the companies running the city street car lines. Finally the city became so intransigent, DUR made a forced sale of the city lines to Detroit at a fraction of their real worth.

The city was supposed to allow trackage rights for the DUR suburban lines to reach downtown, but the city began to charge outrageous fees for the trackage rights and did not schedule traffic around the DUR express requirements..

As noted in the Gary Terminal thread, DUR built transfer stations near the edge of the builtup area for passengers to transfer to DUR buses to ride downtown. This arrangement was very unpopular and quickly led to the total demise of the DUR interurban system.

Yes, the auto did play a major role in the decline of local and interurban passenger transit nationwide [[read George Hilton's "The Interurban Railway in America") .

Way out of print now, but CERA [[Central Electric Railfans Association) wrote a splendid softcover book on the Detroit city and suburban electric rail lines with track routes and diagrams, maps of car barns, descriptions of cars, and a narrative history.

If the DUR lines had been built on private right-of-way, they might have survived into the fifties, but they were built either in the center of the roadway or by the side. When the roadway was improved, the DUR often did not have the funds to relocate the track and had to abandon the line.

[Detroitnerd]

Beginning with the horse car lines and Mayor Hazen Pingree and continuing through the electric lines and Mayor James Couzens, the city government and newspapers did just about everything they could to destroy the companies running the city street car lines. Finally the city became so intransigent, DUR made a forced sale of the city lines to Detroit at a fraction of their real worth.

The city was supposed to allow trackage rights for the DUR suburban lines to reach downtown, but the city began to charge outrageous fees for the trackage rights and did not schedule traffic around the DUR express requirements..

As noted in the Gary Terminal thread, DUR built transfer stations near the edge of the builtup area for passengers to transfer to DUR buses to ride downtown. This arrangement was very unpopular and quickly led to the total demise of the DUR interurban system.

Yes, the auto did play a major role in the decline of local and interurban passenger transit nationwide [[read George Hilton's "The Interurban Railway in America") .

Way out of print now, but CERA [[Central Electric Railfans Association) wrote a splendid softcover book on the Detroit city and suburban electric rail lines with track routes and diagrams, maps of car barns, descriptions of cars, and a narrative history.

If the DUR lines had been built on private right-of-way, they might have survived into the fifties, but they were built either in the center of the roadway or by the side. When the roadway was improved, the DUR often did not have the funds to relocate the track and had to abandon the line.

Yes, the picture is more complicated than "ALL RAIL ALWAYS GOOD" in American history. [[Arguably, many of us on this board see the road-and-car lobbies as just as bad as their railroad antecedents.)

That said, to a growing number of people, rail, both light and heavy, is increasingly seen as "the right tool" for American cities and to connect them.

Another interesting point that's often overlooked: Some of the earliest champions of improved roads weren't the big bad car companies or early automobile enthusiasts; surprisingly, it was often cyclists!

[Hermod]

Yes, the picture is more complicated than "ALL RAIL ALWAYS GOOD" in American history. [[Arguably, many of us on this board see the road-and-car lobbies as just as bad as their railroad antecedents.)

That said, to a growing number of people, rail, both light and heavy, is increasingly seen as "the right tool" for American cities and to connect them.

Another interesting point that's often overlooked: Some of the earliest champions of improved roads weren't the big bad car companies or early automobile enthusiasts; surprisingly, it was often cyclists!

Every town along an interurban line looked at the interurban as a cash cow to be milked and not as a vital asset to the community.

A Lot of interurban lines gave up the ghost and got sold for scrap when their charter ran out in some town along the line and the town politicians wanted the moon to renew the charter.

Detroit mayors were always complaining about the "exorbitant fares" charged by the DUR. Within a year after they bought it [[cheap) the DSR raised the fares.

[Detroitnerd]

Every town along an interurban line looked at the interurban as a cash cow to be milked and not as a vital asset to the community.

A Lot of interurban lines gave up the ghost and got sold for scrap when their charter ran out in some town along the line and the town politicians wanted the moon to renew the charter.

Detroit mayors were always complaining about the "exorbitant fares" charged by the DUR. Within a year after they bought it [[cheap) the DSR raised the fares.

There was a fair amount of grandstanding on all sides, I'm sure. I'm glad teh city bought the streetcar system, but, all things considered, it might have been better that the city used its power to sell bonds and raise money to build the proposed subway than to buy the DUR's Detroit operations. They couldn't really do both.

[Quonset Hut]

No I am saying that the cuts that are associated with road projects are also associated with the dollars available of alternative modes.

If I read it right aren't these cuts because we don't have the dollars to match the Federal Highway Trust Funds available? So it would follow that Michigan doesn't have the funds to do the match for non-highway construction transportation projects either?

Somehow this discussion got sidetracked to the highway, bad - train, good squabble. Plus a visit down heartbreak lane for those who yearn for the sound of ancient streetcars screeching around turns. So did I read the issue wrong, or is it those who got into the same old shite arguement where no one is listening anyway?

[DetroitPlanner]

If I read it right aren't these cuts because we don't have the dollars to match the Federal Highway Trust Funds available? So it would follow that Michigan doesn't have the funds to do the match for non-highway construction transportation projects either?

Somehow this discussion got sidetracked to the highway, bad - train, good squabble. Plus a visit down heartbreak lane for those who yearn for the sound of ancient streetcars screeching around turns. So did I read the issue wrong, or is it those who got into the same old shite arguement where no one is listening anyway?

You are correct. The State does not have the dollars to match federal funding. Act 51 is a state law that divides funding up between cities, counties, transit agencies, and MDOT. There are special set asides in the law to fund other programs, for example one percent of funding is requied to be spent in bicycles, ten percent of the first fifteen cents must be spent on transit, one cent of the four additional cents from the increase to 19 cents must be spent on local bridges.

Therefore, of the 19 cents per gallon paid into the State Highway Trust fund MDOT gets about 25 percent of it. Of that, much of it goes towards debt service for all the Build Michigan Programs started under Gov Engler and Jobs Today under Gov Granholm. These were seen as ways to do more with less dollars years ago, now that inflation has kicked in and the dollars have shrunk, the State will not even have enough funds to match federal dollars and still send people out to pick up roadkill and clear the roads of snow.

BTW, the only way the widening project of M-59 was allowed to progress at this time is that it is being funded 100 percent with federal stimulus funds, the EIS has recieved a Finding of No Significant Impact by the EPA, and the engineering was sitting on the shelf for years. This is the type of project that will create the kind of jobs that could be delivered in the very tight time frame that MDOT had to either use or lose the money. State law requires that 75 percent of federal highway funds be spent on state roadways. It is not likely that a state legislature that can't pass a budget could agree to flex this to the locals to be spent on other transportation needs when they are fighting to get control over every dollar that they can get. If the state had to come up with the match this project would be DOA.

[Detroitnerd]

BTW, the only way the widening project of M-59 was allowed to progress at this time is that it is being funded 100 percent with federal stimulus funds, the EIS has recieved a Finding of No Significant Impact by the EPA, and the engineering was sitting on the shelf for years. This is the type of project that will create the kind of jobs that could be delivered in the very tight time frame that MDOT had to either use or lose the money. State law requires that 75 percent of federal highway funds be spent on state roadways. It is not likely that a state legislature that can't pass a budget could agree to flex this to the locals to be spent on other transportation needs when they are fighting to get control over every dollar that they can get. If the state had to come up with the match this project would be DOA.

That project should be DOA. Meet you out in the exurban prairie in 30 years and you tell me why it was necessary ...

[DetroitPlanner]

That project should be DOA. Meet you out in the exurban prairie in 30 years and you tell me why it was necessary ...

Ask your legislators! I didn't make the rules. I am just explaining a possible reason why.

[mikeg19]

People probably won't like this suggestion, but what about toll roads in Michigan? I drove to Boston this past summer and about 80% of the drive was toll roads. And the roads were in incredible shape. Yes, it costs money to drive them. But Hell if I had to pay $4 to go downtown and not have my car swallowed by a pothole, I think I would consider it. Any thought?

[Detroitnerd]

People probably won't like this suggestion, but what about toll roads in Michigan? I drove to Boston this past summer and about 80% of the drive was toll roads. And the roads were in incredible shape. Yes, it costs money to drive them. But Hell if I had to pay $4 to go downtown and not have my car swallowed by a pothole, I think I would consider it. Any thought?

Toll roads are OK. But the privatizations schemes are usually giveaways to politically connected would-be trolls.

[Grundyke]

Long live the gyro-copter!

[Todd_Scott]

The system is there, the overall users of the system pay the overall cost of the system. The more you use the roads, the more you pay in fuel taxes.

The highway system is one of the few gummint things paid for by what amounts to "user fees".

Road users do not pay the overall cost of the system. According to one recent study, user fees [[primarily fuel taxes and licensing) paid just 51% of the cost of roads in 2007.
http://www.subsidyscope.com/transpor...hways/funding/

[Detroitnerd]

Road users do not pay the overall cost of the system. According to one recent study, user fees [[primarily fuel taxes and licensing) paid just 51% of the cost of roads in 2007.
http://www.subsidyscope.com/transpor...hways/funding/

Oh, man. Another perfectly good libertarian fantasy ruined by the facts.