Could MCS be used again for light rail depot?

**Hypestyles** · April-13-10, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

The depot is located in a place where all the lines come together, including the one that goes under the Detroit River into Canada. Having the station anywhere else wouldn't work if there is going to be any connection to Canada, unless it was even further west! The distance from Downtown is not that far, and a inner-city rail connection or even buses could quickly transport people into Downtown and other neighborhoods.

The very point of renovating the depot is to signal a radical change in transportation. We need more people riding rail. There is an effort to build a new bridge to increase trucking, an an effort to build an entire city around the airport, as well as an plan to expand I-94 and I-75, and even there is even a plan to expand the rail tunnel under the river for freight. But almost no attention is given to public transportation. Billions are handed out to super-projects that drain public dollars and lead to little benefit for ordinary people.

What we need is a choice to take public transit, to take a train to instead of driving. To take a high-speed rail instead of flying. We don't really have that choice now. Isn't that what America was suppose to be about? Choices? Then why are there so few choices for transportation? It can't be because no one wants to take it, because studies have shown that people want public transit. The problem is that the transit, at least in metro Detroit is so awful that if you can afford to have a car and drive you probably do, it isn't really a choice for most people who take the bus regularly. We need transit that is so good that people who can afford a car choose the transit over the car. Transit that benifits everyone, instead of being exclusive to those who can afford it, considering cars can cost around eight thousand dollars a years, and the average Detroit income is less than twenty. We do not live in an equitable society, and our transportation system reflects this fact.

the anti-tax absolutists don't want to see improved transit, bus or rail..

**rsa.313** · April-13-10, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think Detroit is the only U.S. city of its size that has moved train operations from away from their "large, imposing, and architecturally significant stations".

couldn't be further from the truth.

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009...wrecking-ball/

doesn't mention other vacant stations [[like buffalo's) or converted stations [[like st. louis').

**ghettopalmetto** · April-13-10, 12:20 PM

Where were the Tea Partiers when this happened???

House Approves $8-Billion Highway Trust Fund 'Fix' 7/23/2008
http://enr.construction.com/news/tra...es/080723g.asp

Mind you, this amount of money--to cover the DEFICIT of the Highway Trust Fund in FY08--is equivalent to the TOTAL amount of High Speed Rail funding committed so far. Two additional multi-billion dollar appropriations from the general fund have since been added to the Highway Trust Fund with nary a peep from so-called "fiscal conservatives".

**iheartthed** · April-13-10, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by rsa.313

couldn't be further from the truth.

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009...wrecking-ball/

doesn't mention other vacant stations [[like buffalo's) or converted stations [[like st. louis').

Okay, I'll amend it. Detroit was the only city of it's size to move operations away from its primary station. I don't consider Memphis, Atlanta, Rochester NY, etc., to be of Detroit's size... none of those cities are even close to the size of Detroit today, let alone Detroit 50 years ago.

**rsa.313** · April-13-10, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Okay, I'll amend it. Detroit was the only city of it's size to move operations away from its primary station. I don't consider Memphis, Atlanta, Rochester NY, etc., to be of Detroit's size... none of those cities are even close to the size of Detroit today, let alone Detroit 50 years ago.

50 years ago detroit still utilized it's primary station.

**Detroitnerd** · April-13-10, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think Detroit is the only U.S. city of its size that has moved train operations from away from their "large, imposing, and architecturally significant stations".

Originally Posted by rsa.313

couldn't be further from the truth.

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009...wrecking-ball/

doesn't mention other vacant stations [[like buffalo's) or converted stations [[like st. louis').

I must say, I don't think this article disproves the original statement. I'm no expert on old train stations, but a quick look online shows that these aren't great examples to disprove iheartthed's thesis.

1. Pennsylvania Station was not moved. And it's a terrible example, as it kick-started the preservation movement. Nobody would use the argument that, since Penn Station was demoed, it's OK.

2. MEMPHIS - Union Station Memphis was never Detroit-sized. And it wasn't as if Memphis demoed all old train stations and moved all operations into an Amshack. What about Memphis Central Station, the station Amtrak uses today? Yes, not as grand as Union Station, but built during the grand period of the 1910s.

3. ATLANTA - Terminal Station Atlanta is not Detroit-sized at all. Anyway, they want to build a high-speed rail network that has put them in the market for a suitably grand station. Too bad they ripped it down in 1970.

4. BIRMINGHAM, AL - Terminal Station This city was never as big as Detroit. And since they're designated as a high-speed rail stop, they'll have to build something new. Too bad for them.

5. CHICAGO: Grand Central Station Yes, Chicago was and is bigger than Detroit. But this wasn't their grandest railroad station. And notice that they did not move operations into a smaller station. They moved them into the other grand railroad station. Same goes for ...

6. CHICAGO: Central Station ... which wasn't the grandest, and wasn't moved to a tiny Amshack. Both are now vacant lots.

7. ROCHESTER: NY Central Railroad Station Rochester was never as big as Detroit. At least this example's operations [[finally!) were moved to an Amshack, which was the original point.

8. ATLANTA: Union Station Again, Atlanta was not and is not Detroit-sized, and Union Station was not the main grand station; now the city will have to shell out to build new. At least the former site is a centrally located vacant lot almost 40 years after the demo.

9. BOSTON - North Station This station wasn't moved to another, smaller station. It's still there, just underground. And that happened in the 1930s, not after the Golden Age of Railroading.

10. SAVANNAH: Union Station Savannah was Detroit-sized?

11. DETROIT - MICHIGAN CENTRAL STATION Yes, which brings us back to the point, still pretty well defended, that "Detroit is the only U.S. city of its size that has moved train operations from away from their 'large, imposing, and architecturally significant stations.'"

**Sstashmoo** · April-13-10, 01:21 PM

Quote: "France is poor? The United Kingdom is poor? Germany is poor? Japan is poor? Few people own cars in those nations because they aren't REQUIRED to do so in order to be a first-class citizen."

The other countries you mentioned are poor. Look, you folks have no idea what you're suggesting. Do you even have any idea the geographies you're comparing, the USA to the UK, Japan or France? The USA is still largely a frontier, with towns spread out in every direction, and rough terrain in between. Put a price tag on it, and you'll see right away, it will never happen. Coupled with the fact the majority of Americans wouldn't use it if it existed. We had half-assed passenger rail travel in this country at one time, with spurs running hither and dale, they all went under, phased out by other means of transportation. There were spurs where one train ran back and forth over a few miles all day long. Have any idea what that cost, even then? It's not practical here.

**ghettopalmetto** · April-13-10, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Look, you folks have no idea what you're suggesting. Do you even have any idea the geographies you're comparing, the USA to the UK, Japan or France? The USA is still largely a frontier, with towns spread out in every direction, and rough terrain in between.

We're not talking about building TGV with hourly service in the middle of North Dakota. We're talking about connecting cities that are within 350 miles of each other. Ohio has the same population density as France.

Yet, we can construct and maintain massive Interstate highways in the middle of nowhere, yes? Even if it means siphoning over $8 billion a year from the general fund?

Put a price tag on it, and you'll see right away, it will never happen. Coupled with the fact the majority of Americans wouldn't use it if it existed.

Again, if this line of thinking were employed in the 1920s and 1930s, we wouldn't have paved roads. Americans can't ride trains THAT DON'T FUCKING EXIST.

We had half-assed passenger rail travel in this country at one time, with spurs running hither and dale, they all went under, phased out by other means of transportation.

Correction: we had the WORLD'S FINEST passenger rail network at one time, until we decided that we were going to force everyone into cars and planes.

I'm just shocked that you're able to get an internet connection back there in the 18th century.

**Detroitnerd** · April-13-10, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "France is poor? The United Kingdom is poor? Germany is poor? Japan is poor? Few people own cars in those nations because they aren't REQUIRED to do so in order to be a first-class citizen."

The other countries you mentioned are poor. Look, you folks have no idea what you're suggesting. Do you even have any idea the geographies you're comparing, the USA to the UK, Japan or France? The USA is still largely a frontier, with towns spread out in every direction, and rough terrain in between. Put a price tag on it, and you'll see right away, it will never happen. Coupled with the fact the majority of Americans wouldn't use it if it existed. We had half-assed passenger rail travel in this country at one time, with spurs running hither and dale, they all went under, phased out by other means of transportation. There were spurs where one train ran back and forth over a few miles all day long. Have any idea what that cost, even then? It's not practical here.

Wow. Just ... wow.

**dtowncitylover** · April-13-10, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "France is poor? The United Kingdom is poor? Germany is poor? Japan is poor? Few people own cars in those nations because they aren't REQUIRED to do so in order to be a first-class citizen."

The other countries you mentioned are poor. Look, you folks have no idea what you're suggesting. Do you even have any idea the geographies you're comparing, the USA to the UK, Japan or France? The USA is still largely a frontier, with towns spread out in every direction, and rough terrain in between. Put a price tag on it, and you'll see right away, it will never happen. Coupled with the fact the majority of Americans wouldn't use it if it existed. We had half-assed passenger rail travel in this country at one time, with spurs running hither and dale, they all went under, phased out by other means of transportation. There were spurs where one train ran back and forth over a few miles all day long. Have any idea what that cost, even then? It's not practical here.

Then why don't we upgrade the track and trains that serve Amtrak to European and Japanese style efficiency and style? All we need is 150 million people to use it every year. In 2008 it was only 29 million. We don't have to build going everywhere, like Wyoming and South Dakota where Amtrak doesn't serve. But let's start with something we got.

**rsa.313** · April-13-10, 01:47 PM

HOUSTON [[2.2 million people) UNION STATION: incorporated into minutemaid park.

PHEONIX [[1.5 million people) UNION STATION: has not had regular passenger service since 1996.

PHILADELPHIA [[1.5 million people) BROAD STREET STATION: demolished 1953. replaced by two stations.

SAN ANTONIO [[1.3 million people) SUNSET STATION: closed in 1998 and renovated into an entertainment complex. rail service moved to smaller station next door.

COLUMBUS [[750,000 people) UNION STATION: torn down in 1979. service moved to a smaller adjacent facility.

ST LOUIS had a population of 850,000 people in 1950.

MILWAUKEE [[population of 740,000 people in 1960) UNION STATION: torn down in 1965 and replaced with a smaller facility.

MINNEAPOLIS [[population of 550,000 in 1950) GREAT NORTHERN STATION: torn down in 1978 and not replaced.

[edit to add stations.]

**Sstashmoo** · April-13-10, 02:05 PM

Quote: "Correction: we had the WORLD'S FINEST passenger rail network at one time, until we decided that we were going to force everyone into cars and planes."

Yes, at gun point. They were marched off the trains in to the nearest car dealership and forced to sign. I really get a kick out of these people that claim people were "forced" to buy something. Like "forcing people to buy SUV's". Can you please show me any of this legislation that "forced" people to buy a car? People did what they wanted to. They didn't want to ride trains because it's inconvenient and limits one's freedom, to go where they want when they want and how they want. It's what people want. Now if you want to "force" people to ride trains, good luck.

Not everyone considers living in an apartment and only commuting between there and a cubicle in some cold office building a satisfactory existence. And neither did folks in the early 20th century. Might explain your caustic attitude as well.

**ghettopalmetto** · April-13-10, 02:08 PM

Just look at all this FREEDOM!!!

http://www.houstonfreeways.com/image...c_jam_rita.jpg

**ghettopalmetto** · April-13-10, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

People did what they wanted to. They didn't want to ride trains because it's inconvenient and limits one's freedom, to go where they want when they want and how they want. It's what people want.

That's hilarious. Because you know what? I'm going to Poland next week--a nation that has less than half the per-capita GDP we do. And I'm going to go clear across the country, where I want, when I want, and how I want. And none of it involves renting or parking a car or sitting in traffic. While I'm travelling, I'll be able to view the countryside, brush up on my Polish, read, sleep, or have a beer.

That, my man, is FREEDOM.

**Sstashmoo** · April-13-10, 02:12 PM

Quote: "We're not talking about building TGV with hourly service in the middle of North Dakota."

Then what about those folks in North Dakota? You know people live there, right? Fuck em'? And we ain't wasting tax money fixing their roads? They can all just move closer to a rail terminal? Seriously Ghetto, you are hilarious..

**Sstashmoo** · April-13-10, 02:18 PM

Quote: "I'm going to Poland next week--"

Taking the train? oops

**ghettopalmetto** · April-13-10, 02:28 PM

Here's more FREEDOM, this time in Atlanta. All the people in all the cars in the photo would comfortably fit on a single commuter train.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3192/...a484e893_o.jpg

**Detroitnerd** · April-13-10, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by rsa.313

HOUSTON [[2.2 million people) UNION STATION: incorporated into minutemaid park.

Yes, Houston's a big city. But a fine point worth recognizing, since we are talking about a trend that begins after the 1950s, is that Houston did not become a Detroit-sized city until the 1970s. Also, I'm not sure how architecturally significant Union Station was. An attractive building, for sure, but nothing as grand as others. Which, actually, makes sense when you consider that it was built to serve a city with a population of 78,000. But agreed that the new station is an Amshack.

Originally Posted by rsa.313

PHEONIX [[1.5 million people) UNION STATION: has not had regular passenger service since 1996.

Yes, that's correct. But, again, Phoenix's population when the station was built was 29,000, and didn't approach the size of Detroit until the 1980s. And though it doesn't have regular rail service, railfan trains still use the station occasionally. Again, the city did not remove operations to a smaller station in the city; there is no smaller station in Phoneix, as Amtrak's nearest station is about 30 miles away from Phoenix.

Originally Posted by rsa.313

PHILADELPHIA [[1.5 million people) BROAD STREET STATION: demolished 1953. replaced by two larger stations.

Again, this is not an example of a city destroying its train stations and moving its operations to an Amshack. The station across the Schuykill is amazing.

Originally Posted by rsa.313

SAN ANTONIO [[1.3 million people) SUNSET STATION: closed in 1998 and renovated into an entertainment complex. rail service moved to smaller station next door.

Again, you're talking about a city with a population of less than 60,000 when the station was built. And notice that they moved it right next door. Surely, when we talk about moving train operations from away from their "large, imposing, and architecturally significant stations," we didn't mean right next door?

**ghettopalmetto** · April-13-10, 02:33 PM

My God, look at all this FREEDOM on I-95 near Baltimore! People going where they want, when they want, and how they want!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3520/...9284132aba.jpg

**Sstashmoo** · April-13-10, 02:34 PM

Quote: "All the people in all the cars in the photo would comfortably fit on a single commuter train."

Might tick some of them off, considering they may want go elsewhere. Just a wild guess though. You're probably right, they're all heading to the same place.

**ghettopalmetto** · April-13-10, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "All the people in all the cars in the photo would comfortably fit on a single commuter train."

Might tick some of them off, considering they may want go elsewhere. Just a wild guess though. You're probably right, they're all heading to the same place.

Therefore, since 100% of the people are not going to the same, exact location [[What--were they all born without feet?) they must all suffer in perpetual gridlock, er, FREEDOM.

**Sstashmoo** · April-13-10, 02:40 PM

Looks like an excellent way to travel..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34501318@N06/3328809696

**ghettopalmetto** · April-13-10, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Looks like an excellent way to travel..

Damn skippy, it does!

http://media.photobucket.com/image/D...ICE-709819.jpg

http://www.neustart-ausstellung.de/u...E_popup_02.jpg

http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df11122007c.jpg

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d...1204491600.jpg

But that's just one "poor" nation [[who can obviously afford trains while we can't).

**SpartanTom** · April-13-10, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "We're not talking about building TGV with hourly service in the middle of North Dakota."

Then what about those folks in North Dakota? You know people live there, right? Fuck em'? And we ain't wasting tax money fixing their roads? They can all just move closer to a rail terminal? Seriously Ghetto, you are hilarious..

Dude... you are the voice of ignorance. Your stupidity is astounding, just stop man.