Speechless

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 1:04 p.m.

Some responses to DonBee: "We (the car owners of the country) subsidize trains, buses and subways." We need to do more for mass transit, much more. And again, car owners benefit from massive tax subsidies paid for by just about everyone. The auto manufacturers have long been the beneficiaries of straightforward socialism, feeding at the public trough. Can Chrysler, Ford, and Nissan afford to build the interstate system themselves and fix every pothole coast-to-coast? If the costs of personal automobile travel were to be completely privatized and not very heavily socialized as they are now then almost none of us could afford to drive. Autos would be a pastime for the well-off, as they were during the 1890s. The very expensive price of a new car represents just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. For example, what if you and your neighbors were forced to directly pay out-of-pocket for the cost of repaving your street and nearby feeding arteries similar to sidewalk repair? One result might well be foreclosures and personal bankruptcy up and down your block. As far as subsidies go, mass transit have thus far been a much lower priority. "I would be happy if mass transit broke even." Mass transit is a national social necessity, not a luxury. The expansion of auto travel after World War II and the simultaneous de-emphasis for other options created a fantasy of auto-based independence in the U.S. Mass transit falls into the same social category as education, defense, social security, and so on. We don't require public schools or the military to "break even" on their operations. Our kids attend local public schools for free. As for the military, we are told by the federal gov. to think that spending a trillion or so on military adventures in Asia represents a worthwhile expense not to be questioned. "What we need as a country is a comprehensive transportation policy." "...we need a national network of high speed... trains.... Talk about a real stimulus and infrastructure project, this would be it!" Agreed. "No one in government is going to undertake that level of radical change." True, the U.S. is very poor at national planning, unlike some places in western Europe for the Far East. In our country, Often, it's only after a new social priority or trend spreads through communities and states around our country that the feds will finally take notice. Ann Arbor and other localities have to become the tail that wags the dog. As for one very recent example of how this works (for better and worse), the new federal health care reform borrowed much from the existing Massachusetts state plan. Of course, it's still entirely fair to question or criticize the specifics of a particular project. Transit ideas are not all equal.

DonBee

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 10:48 a.m.

@Speechless - According to any source that I can find - Road Taxes (gas, diesel, license plates, drivers licenses, etc) more than pay for the roads that cars drive on. In fact about 20% of the road taxes are diverted to mass transit and other non-road spending. I don't know how this ends up being the most subsidized, I would say it is the funding source for many of the types of transportation you advocate. According to various web sites between 20 and 33 percent of gas taxes go to non-highway purposes. Some to deficit reduction, some to cleaning up abandoned gas stations, some to mass transit, and some to the general fund of the US government. In many states gas taxes go directly into the general fund, not to the road funds as originally promised. We (the car owners of the country) subsidize trains, buses and subways. I would be happy if mass transit broke even. I doubt the scheme presented by the local governments will, it does not go enough places, we already subsidize a pretty good bus system and the bus system keeps trying to branch out only to pull back for reduction in subsidy or lack of riders. What we need as a country is a comprehensive transportation policy, and a massive shift in spending and taxing priority. If we are serious about carbon and carbon taxes, gas and diesel prices need to rise to European rates (e.g. 6 plus dollars a gallon) and of that 2 dollars should be carbon tax that can be funneled into better transportation, not given back as subsidies to low income drivers. If we are serious about rail, we need a national network of high speed (300MPH or better) trains. In fact we need a whole new kind of train that changes from the cart wheel width tracks of the 19th century to a new standard that allows more efficient trains. Talk about a real stimulus and infrastructure project, this would be it! No one in government is going to undertake that level of radical change. Anything less is a waste of tax payer funds.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 4:28 p.m.

Dogs barking for short periods of time during the day is a reasonable noise. Dogs bark. Kids playing is a noise of life. Kids make noise. Lawn mowing is also a noise of life (although one greatly reduced with an electric lawn mower). So are the noises made by snowmobiles in places where such things are permitted. As far as I am concerned, there is a difference between complaining about normal amounts of noise and complaining about excessive noise. It sounds like in this case, there are six dogs who are left outside alone all night long on a regular basis. That would be something akin to someone mowing their lawn at 3am or allowing their kids to run around screaming all night long or driving down a residential street in their snowmobiles just because the road hasnt been plowed yet. I only brought up the lawn mower thing because sometimes people expect absolute silence from their neighbors but dont see that their own noises of life might be just as bothersome to someone else.

Dalouie

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 3:27 p.m.

One of the truths of rail transit is that if there is none, no one will ride it. Until the rail is in place people can't use it. Once it is in place people will move so they can walk, ride a bike or a bus to a station that connects them to their destination. The Fuller Station is vital because it allows the rail to deliver people where they and 2.5 million others want to go along with 18,000 employees. As for the high speed. The planes from Detroit to Chicago are often full. High speed rail would actually be quicker without the airport hassles.

JSA

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 9:39 a.m.

The only reason the train freaks keep pushing for these white elephants is that their patrons see a chance to make money on another tax payer funded boondoggle. The population does not justify it and the ridership just is not there. Sorry to disappoint the choo choo folks but desire is not the same as practicality.

Speechless

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 4:20 p.m.

Automobile travel is an extremely subsidized form of transportation. Next to the military, it's arguably our country's biggest example of socialism. Without gargantuan financial investment by various government entities on carrying out endless road work from residential streets to interstate highways and mountain switchbacks the auto industry as we know it would simply collapse due to overwhelming infrastructure costs. Personal driving would largely shrink back to the Sunday hobby that it once was just over a century ago. What's happening now is an effort to shift some portion of this incredibly massive subsidy away from road work and back in the direction of mass transit. A popular, effective rail system just like personal auto travel requires from us a significant, up-front social investment, and some benefits will be more long term than immediate. However, should we continue to invest so much of our "socialist" transportation funding on roads, such policies will ultimately lead us to a gridlocked, polluted, dead-end street.

Ronald Ahrens

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 3:02 p.m.

Given the thoughtful comments posted by readers, it seemed useful to make a transcript of Friday's interviews with Mayor Hieftje, Congressman Dingell, and Deputy Secretary Porcari. I've uploaded the transcript to my own blog for anyone to read: http://baggyparagraphs.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/hieftje-dingell-and-porcari-discuss-commuter-high-speed-rail/

a2grateful

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 12:30 p.m.

Keep dreaming of those federal funds, as MI loses it population, tax base, and political clout... There's way bigger issues to solve than increasingly rural Detroit and SE MI... A

Dalouie

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 9:27 a.m.

Michigan needs the federal investment. Michigan needs jobs. Michigan needs to do something different. Michigan needs rail!

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 5:08 a.m.

"Another Amtrak for certain." One could only hope, for if the rest of Amtrak received the kind of support that it receives in the Northeast Corridor, our nation would have a wonderfully functioning passenger rail system. Good Night and Good Luck

stunhsif

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 10:32 p.m.

This ain't worth the powder to blow it to " you know where"!!! Another Amtrak for certain. Good Good and Night Luck!!!

logo

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 9:57 p.m.

Ypsi Woman knows what she is talking about. People follow the train, they move near the stations. A train station at the UM medical complex would make downtown Ypsilanti a boom town. People would move there so they could walk to the station and arrive at work 10 minutes later. Or if they worked on North or Central Campus they would just catch a waiting shuttle and be there a few minutes later. Go rail!

AndyYpsilanti

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 9:43 p.m.

You know, I've been told that, in the eyes rest of the country, Michigan ranks right up there with California as having a useless, wallowing government and a population that is totaly out of it and just doesn't get it. I wonder why? "Mass transit is bad for the economy. What a waste of money" Oh wait, maybe I'm starting to understand what the rest of the country is talking about.

Ryan McGee

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 7:15 p.m.

Let's build a train! Then let's build some trams connecting the railway station to downtown. Then trams through town, out Miller, around Maple, back to town on Liberty. That would be perfect. I would ride the train to and from work. Ride the tram to and from town. This would be utopia for me.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 6:42 p.m.

Mass Transit encourages population density. Over time, people tend to make long term decisions such as where to live based on the availability or lack of availability of mass transit options. One of the reasons so many cities in Michigan have financial troubles is that they are too spread out. Infrastructure costs for everything from roads to police and fire services go down on a per capita basis in places with higher population density. The main problem with people here who argue that the demand has to come first ignore that mass transit options create demand over the long term. People also forget to consider how a mass transit system can shape communities in ways which reduce costs in other areas.

ERIC MEYERS

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 6:26 p.m.

Hey Tim check your facts the city is a few million in debt and yes i do know this tobe true.

Tim Darton

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 5:42 p.m.

Actually Eric the city is not running a deficit, they always have a balanced budget. You should check your facts, Ann Arbor has the lowest unemployment in the state and the UM is adding 500 total jobs per year. Most are at the hospital. And Cynic: If they can deliver the big bucks here for rail you don't want it?

ERIC MEYERS

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 5:32 p.m.

Hey Tim Darton what Jobs.Not in Ann Arbor or Michigan Tim have you looked around Lately.If not maybe you should that is look around.

ERIC MEYERS

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 5:27 p.m.

Maybe the Mayor should pay for it. The City and the state are in debt.I sure would like to know where the City keeps getting all this money. Being unemployeed for two years I sure would like some of it.

CynicA2

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 5:21 p.m.

"Some states will love this money and all the jobs that come with it."... and some states will get this money and some won't! Michigan seems like it has come up a little short so far. Could that possibly be because we don't have the necessary population density to justify the high costs of the project?... Not to mention our declining political clout as the population wanes. As for the $10 billion - I would be willing to bet that the policy wonks handing-out this largesse, will pass it out where they figure it will give the most potential bang for the buck, which would be the fast-growing states, not those hemorrhaging people left and right. Even Dingle seems to have trouble delivering for this state anymore.

Tim Darton

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 5:20 p.m.

By the way. The city doesn't have $10 million to put into it. They can't take it from the general fund. They are trying to get it from the feds. If the feds want to spend money here and create jobs, let them!

Tim Darton

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 5:17 p.m.

Rita: It looks like a paved parking lot. It feels like a paved parking lot. It has been that way for decades. I have never seen anyone play soccer or ultimate there. Its a parking lot. They need more parking for the new hospital. Please let people have jobs and go to the hospital.

Rita Mitchell

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 3:42 p.m.

Fuller Park includes property on both sides of Fuller Road. How much city property should we essentially give away? Current surface parking lots can be returned to park land for soccer or other recreation. A parking structure is not similarly reversible. The University has much land in the city that could be used for parking, including the old Phizer site. I question the U's sustainability efforts, given this project. As for the citizens of Ann Arbor, the project proposed would result in our giving land to the UM for a parking structure, and paying $10 million for the University's parking needs. We already have budget problems related to ongoing expensive construction. I'm pretty certain that a parking structure would be built. I'm not so certain about the part about the train. Once we start giving away our public land, what is the end point?

logo

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 3:27 p.m.

Cynic: I can accept that you think Michigan should just keep on doing transportation the way we've been doing it, I don't think its smart but OK if that's what you want. Another way to think about this is to understand that the Federal Gov. has set aside over $10 billion in just the first round of new rail funding. This is specifically rail money. Can't be used on roads. Some states will love this money and all the jobs that come with it.

CynicA2

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 3:02 p.m.

"In this state what money there is goes to the roads. Did you ever think maybe millions of people are tired of subsidizing your highways and roads?" Unbelievable! Last I knew tens of millions of people each year use our highways and roads - more than will ever go near the proposed rail lines. This project will benefit the few at the expense of the many. If UM is so hot for a commuter train, let them pay for it themselves! Michigan is in the economic hole it's in not because it lacks expensive folly trolleys and trains to nowhere, but rather because it has lost MILLIONS of automotive related jobs over the past 30 years. These jobs were not lost because we didn't have mass transit, just as millions of jobs will not be created, simply because we build a big train set connecting one depopulating Michigan town to the others. BTW, the last I read, the UM was merely offering to subsidize employee rail passes, not pay for them 100%.

Tim Darton

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 2:53 p.m.

Rita: I don't think anyone is buying the idea that this is a park. Its been a parking lot for 20 years. It is also right at the place of greatest employment in the county and maybe the state. Good jobs and more jobs is what Michigan needs. Add in excellent medical care and you have what this huge hospital complex provides. They are just finishing a new Womens and Childrens Hospital, then need more parking. A parking structure and multi-transit center for buses and bikes with or without trains is the best use of this land. If the railroad comes along it will be a bonus. The city is not spending much in the way of local tax dollars on this, they would use federal dollars. The UM is using health system dollars. Complain to them.

Mick52

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 2:13 p.m.

I do agree that ridership numbers are important. But I think one point has been left out of this discussion. Gas prices hit >$4/gall in 2008 and are increasing again. Ask yourself, if gas prices were say $6/gall would you consider mass transit? $7, $8, $10? I think a lot of people would. Or perhaps we will see a reversal of the urban flight of the 60s and 70s and see people moving closer to work. In planning, you typically look ten to twenty years ahead, not for the moment. Currently there is talk of a decrease but gas prices can rise drastically for many reasons we are all aware of. As a matter of fact Rep. Dingell himself called for a $.50 rise in gas taxes in Jan of '08, just 6 months before gas hit $4+/gal. Thankful no one listened to him. MI state reps are calling for a state gas tax increase too. Gas goes up for lots of reasons besides taxes, OPEC, explosive oil rigs, etc., and can do so very quickly. Since so many commuters live in the Metro area, it should be considered that many may turn to mass transit if fuel prices spike to unaffordable levels, like in Europe. Put that in your survey. Therefore, do we want to be in a position of foresight - start up a project, get it moving - or wait until its too late? I would hate to see in the near future people saying, "Golly, maybe that wasn't such a bad idea." I think its a good idea to think about where we would be if gas prices rose to the levels they see in Europe, about 2.3x what we pay. A UM staff member who travels to work in a method other than their car automatically saves up to the $611 parking permit price. I believe A2's parking permits cost even more. In a negative light, I am not sure this rail is sufficient. There is only one track. For this to be efficient - if ridership is there, it may require a second very expensive track. Still I think it better to do what everyone else is doing rather than keep doing what we have been doing which has gotten us to the bottom of the U.S. economically. Especially if there is stimulus money available for mass transit. I am surprised so many people are against this, I presume they are tied to the auto industry.

bunnyabbot

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 12:55 p.m.

The Detroit metro area is the largest in the country without a comprehensive and multi-faceted mass transit system. One of the major problems metro Detroit has in attracting businesses is the lack of such a system -ghost maybe it's because when companies come to check out detroit they see the condition of the majority of buildings downtown, it looks awful. Several of the buildings in the skyline are skeletons. Yes, the majority of pential employees would have to get to work, but the distance to those bedroom communities is too great, the taxes too high and once in town for work they would be surrounded by nastiness.

Dalouie

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 11:52 a.m.

Robert: You are so far off. Maybe you don't get out in this state very much. A2 is doing so much better than other cities in Michigan. Look at Grand Rapids they just passed a big tax increase but they are still millions away from a balanced budget. Look at Troy where their millage failed and they are going to close facilities and lay off police or Sterling Heights with a big tax increase coming on the summer ballot. Or almost any sizable city in the state. If you read the recent article there won't be any police laid off in A2 and crime is still going down. Maybe no layoffs at the fire department but even if there are the stations will stay open and the response times will stay the same. All good stuff that shows a well run city in terrible times in Michigan. There are bridge problems all over the state. It is remarkable that A2 will replace the bridges next year even if they don't get the federal money. No other city in Michigan could do that.

Rita Mitchell

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 11:45 a.m.

Additional information: The initial proposal (Phase 1) is for a 900 space parking structure, with potential to expand to 1,600 spaces. The City/UM are proposing to build the Fuller Road station on city park land. The city has committed to fund $10 million of the cost in addition to costs for environmental studies and infrastructure changes. The city will get 200 spaces of the total built, and around $20,000 per year in lease payments from the U. There are currently 200 spaces in the surface lot of what is city park land. The University will get a parking structure. That is the one most likely outcome of the proposal. Mass transit is a good idea. But it should be developed on a sound plan. SEMCOG recently delayed starting a study, at least partly because of concerns about adequate ridership. The test rides for UM games sound like fun, but are they the correct test for commuter service? Some more questions: Should the city be essentially giving away park land? (In 2008, over 40,000 people voted to require a referendum on sale of park land. The project gets around the voters' wishes by using a lease agreement) Do we need to spend over $10 million for parking in the Huron River Valley? Will the parking structure benefit the citizens of Ann Arbor? Are the tracks adequate for safe high speed rail? Why would the city of Ann Arbor build a rail station for Amtrak?

braggslaw

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 11:13 a.m.

Sorry Ghost, Don't agree, Congestion is a problem in LA. People are moving to LA resulting in congestion and a need for mass transit. Michigan does not have that problem. People are migrating out of Michigan. Mass transit will not lure them back. Companies who decide to locate in Michigan and provide jobs will lure people back. Los Angeles population will grow by 2.4 million by 2030, resulting in a total of 7 million cars on the roads each day. Already, congestion in Los Angeles is one of the worst in the nation, and the citys rapid transit surely does not have enough connections or lines to serve the entire city or region. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of commuters who use public transportation in Los Angeles County is 7% (10% within the borders of the city of Los Angeles), far lower than in other major American cities: 30% of San Franciscan workers use transit, 25% within Chicago, and 54% in New York City.

bunnyabbot

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 10:59 a.m.

mass transit does not mean fewer cars on the road. It doesn't mean less weight on trucks on the road. Roads need to be repaired. They could put lots of people to work now by funding road and bridge repair instead of a silly train. This area does not have the ridership.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 10:02 a.m.

braggslaw wrote: "Without population density and the associated difficulties with parking, congestion etc. people will not use mass transit. Mass Transit works in places like Toronto and New York because of population density." This is exactly what was said when LA began building its mass transit system. Turns out that these predictions were wildly wrong. Moreover, when gas hits $5 and $6 per gallon (and that day is coming), people will demand light rail and other mass transit solutions. Because of the lead time necessary to build the infrastructure, the time to do so is now, not when the price of gasoline has doubled. Good Night and Good Luck

braggslaw

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 9:39 a.m.

Without population density and the associated difficulties with parking, congestion etc. people will not use mass transit. Mass Transit works in places like Toronto and New York because of population density. It will not work in Michigan because people have chosen to fan out from the population centers. Running a 20 mile rail line to entice 300 people to commute is a waste of money. It is a complete waste of money in Michigan

logo

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:39 a.m.

It's amazing how conservative and backward looking so many posters on this forum are. Has anyone here ever traveled outside the US? Europe is constantly working to improve their already excellent rail system, China and India are rushing to expand theirs. But here many cannot imagine anything different, no change, keep it the same. One person, one car. No wonder the US is falling behind. In this state what money there is goes to the roads. Did you ever think maybe millions of people are tired of subsidizing your highways and roads? The high speed and commuter rail initiative will bring a long term economic boom in this state. Yes, jobs and more jobs will be triggered by greater mobility. BTW: Were supposed to accept data from the CATO Institute? They started with an opinion and then made up data to support it.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:25 a.m.

Braggslaw: I've lived and commuted in two cities with mass transit systems. Every day I commuted those systems were bulging between 7 and 10AM and 4 and 7PM. Everything I've read about other cities with MT systems suggests similar situations there. Yes, ridership as a % of commuters has not gone up because the systems' capacity has not increased commensurately over the last 30 years. How politicians and transit officials commute is a Red Herring and, as you offer no examples (though I'll grant you it likely that neither Michael Bloomberg nor Richard Daley use mass transit), I think we should assume it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Again, I challenge you to find me a single MT/Light Rail system built in the last 30 years whose use has not met or exceeded initial expectations. Yes, in some cases it took time for the ridership to develop--it did not happen overnight. And in many cities where such a system was guffawed at in conception(the best example was LA. Phoenix, as noted above, another) the systems proved immensely popular. LA's demand far exceeded its capacity, and the system has been under expansion ever since. So, yes, the % of commuters riding MT has been declining. It is a function of capacity. Build it and they will come. Or we can, both as a metropolitan area and as a state, continue our steady march back to the 19th Century. Good Night and Good Luck

braggslaw

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:17 a.m.

For those who believe Mass Transit is good for the environment: Last year, policy analyst Randal O'Toole ran the numbers for the CATO Institute, where he is a senior fellow, comparing mass transit vehicles to private vehicles, ranking each based on how much energy they consume and how much CO2 they emit. The average motorized city bus, he reports, burns 27% more energy per mile than a private car and emits 31% more pounds of CO2. The U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics confirms that the average city bus requires 20% more energy per passenger than the average car. "Unfortunately, right now the state of the art is that you're generally better off with private automobiles when you're talking about energy utilization. About the only way that transit can be competitive for energy or for environmental quality is if the transit lines gets an incredible amount of use, far higher than is now normally the case," says Tom Rubin, a transit policy consultant in California, and former chief financial officer of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. But crowded systems are a turn-off for riders, he says, so more passengers means even more buses and rail cars. "It's almost impossible to make transit more attractive without spending a huge amount of money."

braggslaw

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:09 a.m.

Ghost, Over the past quarter century, U.S. taxpayers have pumped more than $100 billion in subsidies into the nation's urban mass transit systems. That massive taxpayer investment has paid for urban public transportation systems that fewer and fewer Americans are using. Incredibly, mass transit ridership is lower today--not only as a percentage of commuter trips taken but also in absolute numbers of riders-- than it was in the early 1960s. Despite the low and declining use of bus and rail systems, federal grants for urban transit now appear to be as popular as ever: bills before both houses of Congress would provide increases of up to 20 percent in public aid for municipal bus and rail systems. The considerable support within Congress for expanded transit aid is not surprising. Since the federal government created the Urban Mass Transportation Administration during Lyndon Johnson's administration, public transit has been a fertile field of dreams and promises. Tax-supported transit lobbyists(1) supply Congress and state houses with visions of magic carpets that whisk commuters around gleaming cities. The alleged virtues of public transit are by now familiar. For weary motorists, public transit systems promise less automobile-generated traffic congestion; for environmentalists, less air pollution; for city planners, a first step toward urban revitalization; for the poor, inexpensive access to efficient transportation; for conservationists, less wasteful use of energy; and for the business community, a way to lure suburbanites back to central business districts. Regrettably, more than two decades of experience with publicly supported bus and rail systems have exposed each of those dreams as a costly illusion. Public transit systems have failed to deliver any of the promised benefits. * Transit subsidies are not increasing ridership. Transit ridership is lower today than it was 30 years ago--before the billion-dollar subsidies began. People, including transit executives(2) and elected officials, tend to ride public transit only when they have no other reasonable choice. * Transit subsidies have not reduced road congestion. The shiny new multi-billion-dollar rail systems have not diverted meaningful numbers of drivers from their cars; most new patronage has been of less expensive, more flexible bus lines and energy-efficient car and van pools.(3) * Transit subsidies do not reduce air pollution. Because public transit has not increased ridership, transit has had no discernible impact on air quality in cities. Mass transit patronage is so low that even doubling it would have a negligible effect on air quality. * Public transit is not energy efficient. The average public transit vehicle in the United States operates with more than 80 percent of its seats empty.(4) Because of the low average number of passengers per bus, energy consumption per passenger mile for public transit buses now is greater than that for private automobiles and far exceeds that for car and van pools.(5) * Transit subsidies have not helped revitalize cities. Cities, such as Buffalo, with new multi-billion-dollar rail systems have not reduced flight from their central business districts. Even with ever-greater subsidies for public transit, the exodus of businesses and residents from downtown areas is accelerating.(6) * Urban transit does not benefit the poor. Ridership studies show that the poor are not heavy users of federally subsidized transit systems. Transit provided only 7 percent of trips made by low-income people.(7) The cold, hard lesson of the last 25 years is that instead of promoting increased efficiency in bus and rail service, higher taxpayer subsidies have paid higher-than-inflationary transit costs. Subsidies have financed exces-sive compensation for transit employees, declines in transit productivity, and swollen bureaucracies--not increased sevices. If public transit costs had risen only at the same rate as private bus industry costs, service levels now could be more than double the 1989 level.(8) Worst of all, taxpayer subsidies, particularly federal grants, have actually impeded the development of efficient and cost-effective urban transit programs in U.S. cities. The experience of other industrialized nations and some selected systems in the United States demonstrates that by tearing down the significant regulatory barriers, which prevent private, unsubsidized transit systems from developing, and by encouraging competitive contracting by private providers for subsidized systems, the mobility needs of urban residents can be met at lower cost and greater convenience to customers. Conversely, if Congress approves further large increases in transit subsidies, they will fuel further increases in transit costs. Those funding increases will ill-serve the interests of urban commuters, and they will certainly ill-serve the interests of American taxpayers.

ERIC MEYERS

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:06 a.m.

I have to wonder how the city is paying for the unneeded things the city is doing when the city is MILLIONS in debt.

a2grateful

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:06 a.m.

Amtrack

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:05 a.m.

@braggslaw: Any facts to support that opinion? Can you cite a single example where a mass transit system has been built in the last 30 years that has not met its ridership expectations? Didn't think so. Good Night and Good Luck

a2grateful

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:01 a.m.

OK. Let's look at some numbers: New York City: 8 mil people with growing population LA: 3.8 mil people with growing population Chicago: 2.8 mil people with growing population Houston: 2.2 mil people with growing population Philly: 1.4 mil people with declining population Phoenix: 1.5 mil people with growing population NY & Chicago have mass-transit infrastructure built-in for decades. LA has population and growth to justify new infrastructure. Other cities in east have long tradition of mass transit. Detroit:.9 mil people with declining population. Highest unemployment in nation. Verge of bankruptcy. Racial hatred and segregation destroyed the City. It continues to decline with no plan for turnaround, mirroring our state. The train issue is a pleasant distraction for many. It's just a bigger version of the folly fountain. Build a big train set for happiness and prosperity? It's the politicians dream. Jobs... jobs... jobs... education... education...education... Build on these attributes... then, maybe the trains will follow.

braggslaw

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 7:59 a.m.

Nobody will use it, it's not economically sustainable and the only people who will benefit are those pushing the idea so they can collect salaries.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 7:21 a.m.

The Detroit metro area is the largest in the country without a comprehensive and multi-faceted mass transit system. One of the major problems metro Detroit has in attracting businesses is the lack of such a system. Not only do New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago have one, but so does Seattle-Tacoma, Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston, and Los Angeles, among many others. The Phoenix system is a great example of a system that has exceeded expectations. The light rail system installed there was ridiculed in conception and during construction as only serving a small number of commuters M-F (which is all the proponents said it would do). Once constructed, daytime weekday use far exceeded expectations. But the real shock was the nighttime and weekend use--much higher than expected--the light rail system permitted and encouraged people in Phoenix and its suburbs to come downtown at night and to enjoy the restaurants and shopping there. It revived the city's core. And it should be worth noting that every American city that has invested in subways and/or light rail in the last 30 years has found them so popular that they have expanded the system. The sole exception to this is (not surprisingly) the poorly conceived and equally poorly designed Detroit People Mover. Its major problem? It's a closed loop incapable of being expanded--one already has to be in downtown Detroit in order to use it. That someone could actually ASK whether Chicago has a large enough ridership to justify mass transit shows an amazing amount of ignorance. Cars in NY? Yes, there are cars in NY. And if the bus system, the subway system, and the commuter RR system disappeared tomorrow, NYC would be in perpetual gridlock--hundreds of thousands of people use these every day. For those of you who complain about mass transit subsidies, let me introduce you to the state's highway system, subsidized by billions of taxpayer dollars every year. The question is not about today's ridership and economy. It is about tomorrow's. Do we double down on a dirty (witness the Gulf of Mexico and global warming) and energy inefficient form of transportation, or do we invest in a transportation system for the future, one that will create jobs in its construction, one that will bring jobs to the region once it is done, and one that is both more efficient and greener than the single-passenger "system" we have today? It's about investing in the future. Good Night and Good Luck

logo

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 7:12 a.m.

I think Dalouie is wrong about the number of trips to the medical complex by patients and visitors. It's more like 2.5 million than 3 million but there are close to 20,000 employees there plus 20,000 more on central campus. The UM is so excited about this they have offered to buy the ticket for any UM employee who will ride the train. So lets see, the worker gets a free pass to relax on the ride and no longer has to pay $800 per year so they can hunt for a parking space. Seems like a no brainer, I'm on the train. What does the UM get? They avoid the cost of building yet another and another parking structure. Let's hope this is the last one they will ever need. Then you have all the students going back and forth plus the rest who work in the city but not at the UM. 75,000 people come to work in Ann Arbor from outside the city every day. Then on top of the commuter there will be high speed, 120 MPH to Chicago and without the airport hassles. Fantastic!

a2grateful

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 6:57 a.m.

Sorry, adult choo choo fans... trains are the future? Weren't they actually the past? How about this... we connect the "greenbelt" of a2... with the emerging "green core" of Detroit (40% vacant land and growing) with Amish-type buggies or even rickshaws? townie: "Demand first. Train second." Agree. Otherwise, it just wasteful folly... Hieftje trolly folly...

Bear

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 3:06 a.m.

I think a lot of you naysayers would've been singing the same tune about the automobile replacing the horse in the last century. "The roads aren't made for it" "it's not practical" "No one is going to buy or ride in one" I cannot believe the whiners I am hearing on here. Get real! One of the reasons Michigan is in the economic predicament it is in is this backwards way of thinking! If we had taken the initiative a few decades ago and developed interurban light commuter rail we wouldn't find ourselves left behind. It is imperative that we do this! I, personally would love to be able to commute to my work in the Metro Detroit Area by rail. It would be much more convenient and less expensive than my current options.

CynicA2

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 12:29 a.m.

I think Dalouie has been drinking the mayor's kool-aid. CA and IL have something that MI is rapidly losing - population density... something that is essential for commuter rail. If you think that everyone who goes to the medical center for work or treatment is going to ride a train, you are dreaming! Trips to the medical center are time consuming enough without having to spend additional hours waiting for/riding a means of transport you have NO control over, not to mention the difficulties and delays caused by having the aged and disabled trying to get on or off the damn thing. And then there's the additional delays caused by the extra traffic congestion at that intersection, which is already congested. If this boondoggle ever comes to fruition, which I doubt it will, I will avoid that area like the plague. As for all this supposed money, I have noticed that not much of it is coming our way. Could it be that someone in charge of the money sees what a kookie project it really is? Ann Arbor needs this like it needs a folly fountain in front of Hieftje Hall.

Whatever!

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 10:45 p.m.

This is a joke. Another government boondoggle wasting the money it collects from taxpayers...well the 49% who pay Federal income taxes. What will be left to connect to in detroit anyway? Detroit has gone from a vibrant 2 million plus population in 1968 to 900,000 today. (Source US Census). Of those at least 50% are undemployed (Source: Huffington post citing Detroit City officials). Myor Bing is triaging the city by razing entire neighborhoods to create green space that doesn't require city services. Yup- let's spend billions for a big PEOPLE MOVER fro mAnn Arbor to Detroit!

townie

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 10:39 p.m.

Why not ask UM to survey its employees, patients and visitors to the hospital complex and find out how many actually live within a couple of miles of the rail line between Ann Arbor and Detroit? Of those who do, how many would actually take the train? You can't assume that every single patient, visitor and employee is a potential rider on an E/W train. How many Ann Arbor residents work in Dearborn or Detroit and would also take the train? And there's only one track for this linear People Mover. Who gets priority at 7am? Detroit to AA or AA to Detroit? I don't want millions of tax dollars going to pay for a train used by a few hundred people. This is typical pork-barrel politics. Who cares if it's necessary, as long as the money is flowing in and photo-ops abound? Demand first. Train second.

Val Losse

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 10:14 p.m.

Show me a community of this size that has the ridership you guys are dreaming of and I will support the train. Where do you get 3 million ridership and where do you get the patients coming to the U? The patients come from all over the States and all over Michigan. Why would anybody abandon their means of transportation to ride on a train that may run on time and most likely will not? New York City is jammed with cars yet they have buses, the subway and taxis and there are 20 million people in the area. The trains and the subway are subsidized by millions of dollars. Wd don't have millions of dollars, nor does the State nor does the Federal government. Where will you get 15,000 riders per day? Does Chicago get that number per day? On their systems?

CynicA2

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 9:29 p.m.

I want some of whatever these folks are smoking... sweet dreams guys, 'cause you are a long ways from reality. Just fix the damn bridges and streets and fugheddaboud the folly trolley to nowhere. There's no money for it, in any case.

Dalouie

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 9:29 p.m.

A rail line delivering thousands of patients, visitors and workers to a station at the UM medical complex, (3 million trips per year from patients and visitors plus 20,000 employees) an easy walk away from the bio-sciences building and just a skip and a jump from Central Campus, downtown and N. Campus would be a dream come true. It is great to see that the dream is a alive and there is federal support. A train to the airport! High speed to Chicago!