Senate candidates Rebekah Warren and Pam Byrnes differ on plans to fund transportation
(This story has been updated with additional comments from both candidates.)
The Michigan Public Transit Association has come out in support of both Rebekah Warren and Pam Byrnes in the 18th District state Senate race.
Pam Byrnes
The announcement of the dual endorsement prompted both Democrats, who will face off in the Aug. 3 primary, to publicly state over the weekend that improved transportation will be a major factor in Michigan’s continued economic recovery.
But they have different plans for funding it.
As chairwoman of the state House Transportation Committee, Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, argued she has led the effort to maintain and improve the state’s road infrastructure. She is currently the sponsor of a bipartisan package of bills that would increase state funding for roads and public transit through a combination of increases to the gas tax and vehicle registration fees.
Her committee has held hearings across the state on the issue in recent months.
"The increased gas tax and registration fees are a solution to an immediate problem," Byrnes said, citing the replacement of the Stadium bridges in Ann Arbor as example of a project that could use the increased revenue.
But Warren went on the offensive over the weekend and argued that Byrnes' legislation has failed to gain traction in the Legislature, despite the fact that she chairs the House Transportation Committee and serves as speaker pro tempore.
“Clearly just raising the gas tax is the wrong reform,” said Warren, who currently represents Ann Arbor in the state House. “The people of Michigan deserve to have a better solution than just more of the same broken system.”
Rebekah Warren
Warren said the transportation funding formula itself needs to be changed to support projects like the Ann Arbor-to-Detroit commuter rail. She expressed concerns that a gas tax increase would be a temporary solution, especially in the face of increasing fuel efficiency in new vehicles and public demands to reduce reliance on foreign oil.
Warren said both statutory and Constitutional limitations on transit funding should be eliminated to allow transportation planners at the local and regional levels to design and fund systems that better meet their residents’ needs.
“Rural Michigan and urban Michigan rightfully have quite different approaches to transportation,” she said. “Putting more flexibility into the funding stream and integrating road, transit and land use planning can help us stretch our dollars further.”
The state’s transportation system, including mass transit, is funded through the constitutionally protected Michigan Transportation Fund, for which Byrnes notes the primary sources of funding are the gas tax and vehicle registration fees. Byrnes said while Warren suggests a need to revamp the funding structure, she offers no source of revenue.
Byrnes said those familiar with the legislation know there is a provision that calls for creation of the Fuel Tax Restructuring Commission. Recognizing the limitations of the fuel tax, she said, a long-term funding reform needs to be found. She said the commission will study changing technology and alternative fuels to determine and recommend a new tax structure.
"The state simply does not have enough money to adequately fund our transportation infrastructure," she said. "Without increased revenues, the state stands to lose $2 billion over the next four years in federal transportation funds because we cannot meet matching requirements. No amount of readjusting the current formula will produce new funds to leverage federal dollars. It simply shuffles a shrinking pot of money."
Byrnes, who served on the Washtenaw County Road Commission prior to being elected to the state House in 2004, also picked up endorsements this past week from the United Transportation Union and the County Road Association of Michigan.
"Our state needs leaders like Pam Byrnes who understand how vital the local road and bridge network is to Michigan’s economy and our quality of life," CRAM Director John Niemela said in a statement, calling transportation a crisis in Michigan.
Jerry Gibson, UTU's Michigan legislative director, said in a statement that Byrnes has been an effective leader on transportation issues.
“Representative Byrnes always listens intently, asks the right questions and has a vision for improving transportation in Michigan,” he said. “She is not only attuned to the concerns of our membership, but also the concerns of all of the state’s residents."
Beyond fixing roads and bridges, Warren said improved public transit is essential. She said she thinks transit is treated as an afterthought right now, when instead it could be a major force for investments in community development and a source of new jobs.
Warren cited a poll conducted by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority that showed plans to expand the bus and rail systems In Washtenaw County are supported by nearly three-fourths of area voters, who link good transit to a high quality of life.
“Transit is an essential sustainability tool for our communities,” Warren said. “It not only helps residents cut their everyday costs, but also provides an economical and environmentally friendly alternative to cars and roads.”
Warren said some Washtenaw County residents spend more than 90 percent of their income on housing and transportation costs, when the acceptable range is half that. She said she and her husband were able to become a one-car family two years ago and save $3,000 a year thanks to the transit services in and around the Ann Arbor area.
“We still struggle to get into Metro Detroit by transit for ball games or going out to eat,” she said, “but the transition has been surprisingly easy and empowering. For the benefit of all of us, Michigan needs to invest more heavily and directly in ensuring a comprehensive transit system for this region.”
In addition to increasing revenue through traditional means, Byrnes said the state needs to find innovative ways to maintain and build infrastructure.
"This is why I supported legislation that allows for the state to enter into public-private partnerships," she said. "Projects such as WALLY and the Ann Arbor-Detroit rail line are potential public-private partnerships. Such a partnership would allow these projects to go forward faster than if the state were to undertake them alone. This legislation has passed the House and has had hearings in the Senate Committee on Transportation."
Warren and Byrnes will face off in the Aug. 3 Democratic primary, alongside Scio Township resident Thomas Partridge. The winner will take on either John Hochstetler or Gary Wellings, who are vying for the Republican nomination.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Mick52
Tue, Jul 20, 2010 : 12:28 p.m.
Excellent article Mr. Stanton! With this issue, Ms. Warren is correct and Ms. Byrne's position is proof that term limits should include all offices. Gas is a major target of tax increases at both the federal and state level. In early 2008, U.S. Rep Dingell proposed a $.50/gallon tax on gas, just prior to gas hitting $4/gallon. I though $4/gallon was tough. The 2008 increase was caused by global demand that decreased significantly due to the global recession per US DOT studies. Those studies will tell you that gas prices are very volatile, for many reason gas prices can spike. Thus a further raise in taxes may greatly affect your budget. (Dingell backed down when the prices spiked). The cap and trade bill is going to raise fuel fees too. I had occasion to write to Ms. Byrnes, a year or so back, urging her to support a bill that proposed a change in state park funding. That bill proposed that when you renew your plates, you can get a state park pass for $10, considerably lower than the current rate. This was done in another state (Montana?) and was hugely successful. Damn good idea, I thought, since our state parks are a key Michigan attraction. Her reply was she thinks its unconstitutional. She wrote me to say that vehicle registration fees are by law, for transpo only. Huh? I wrote back: No, its a fee for a state park pass, an additional ten dollars for parks, not for vehicle registration, the state would not loose any registration $$. I do believe the state park funding bill needed a little change, but I think its a great idea. The SOS clerks asks if you want the pass for $10. But state park funding is not as important to Ms.Byrnes as her efforts as chairman of the transpo committee to make herself look like she is doing something. Frankly I thought her response made no sense until I found out she chairs the transpo committee and was looking to raise fees/gas tax for the benefit of her committee position. Registration fees are already very high. Also I believe the gas tax proposal was going to raise gas tax significantly. How do you feel about $4/gallon gas? Its very likely if both state and fed taxes increase. (Gas is high in Europe because of taxes). Is Ms Byrnes giving us any idea of what gas will cost, per gallon under her plan? Is there a guarantee that gas prices will be stable? That is impossible. Gas price rises enough by itself without help from more tax. When gas prices rise, people drive less, so a new tax will have to be significant if prices rise. With the prospect of gas costs spiking again, will raising the taxes really help Michigan's recovery? I do not think so. Perhaps we will have to go to user fees to pay for road improvements. Sure, toll booths are a pain, but it is funding and you have a choice, you don't have to use the toll road if you do not want to. Rail, bike and walking is going to be more common when the economy recovers and gas prices drive faster through your wallet. So Ms Warren is somewhat correct, rail may be a good idea, with user fees. But Detroit to A2 may not work. In order to be effective it will have to serve commuters, requiring stops, which means a long slow ride. A direct Det to A2? Who does that serve? I really think that we need more revenue, but probably the best way is to increase the state income tax with voter approval. These proposals of taxing this, that and the other thing, is frustrating.
Vivienne Armentrout
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 9:11 p.m.
@Stephen Lange Ranzini, @Speechless, @John Q, imagine big bubblekisses coming at you. Thanks for enlarging and improving the discussion.
John Q
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 8:55 p.m.
"What!? The cost of any particular project doesn't prove whether or not fuel and truck taxes cover the cost of road maintenance." True enough. It highlights the costs of these projects. Multiply I-94 by the hundreds of similar projects across the country and you get the $300 - $400 billion in outstanding projects that's commonly stated as the backlog in existing work that needs to be done. If your gas tax revenue was covering the costs, a backlog of that magnitude would not exist.
mw
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 7:36 p.m.
Actually not or we wouldn't be talking about the need to plow billions of dollars into that system. The rebuild of I-94 through Detroit is estimated to cost close to 2 billion dollars for one project. What!? The cost of any particular project doesn't prove whether or not fuel and truck taxes cover the cost of road maintenance. About 15% of gas tax revenues are spent on mass transit. And with increased fuel-efficiency, the highway trust fund has gone into the red in recent years, but not dramatically -- certainly nothing that a relatively small gas tax increase couldn't address. People don't like to pay higher gas taxes, but they'd certainly pay more and keep driving. Contrast that with mass transit where it is impossible to charge users anything close to what it costs to build and maintain the systems. If train tickets cost enough to pay for the system, nobody would ride. If gas taxes were a bit higher (enough to pay the full cost of highways), people would grumble, pay them, and keep driving.
GreenLiving
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 6:59 p.m.
I've been at meetings where Warren says she supports a gas tax increase -- but only if the formula is changed. That's the right idea to me. I wouldn't mind paying more per gallon if I thought there was an end in sight for ridiculous road expenditures like that godawful expansion of Jackson road west of Ann Arbor. And what I care about is jobs jobs jobs. Every economist agrees that building a transit system creates three times a many jobs/dollar as building a road. Let's get out of the 20th century mentality, people! Byrnes's response is just more of the same from her: can't get the job done. She's supposed to be one of the most powerful people in Lansing. Just pass the bill for god's sake. She talks the same game about jobs -- I did this and I did that, but none of her ideas ever actually got implemented. Except the cottage food thing that the Snooze loves so much. Great, a growth tool where your salary is capped at $15k. Pam's all about the press and none about solving our problems.
John Q
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 3:45 p.m.
"The U.S. interstate system is paid for by its users via federal gas taxes (some of which are siphoned off to subsidize other forms of transport including rail and even bike paths)." Actually not or we wouldn't be talking about the need to plow billions of dollars into that system. The rebuild of I-94 through Detroit is estimated to cost close to 2 billion dollars for one project.
JSA
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 3:31 p.m.
@Stephen Landes, Actually I am aware it is about power. It is also about money. Developers, banks, and politicians potentially stand to make money off of any rail line. That is why they want tax dollars to fund and support them.What is the fun of it for them if they might lose money. @Ghost, Idon't know if the highways will ever show a profit. I expect not. I do know the the use of any highway system will far outweigh the use of any rail system in the United States. You only have to look at the size of the country and the understanding of the amount of freight to be moved to understand this.
mw
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 2:56 p.m.
I believe that this would be a good investment and that private equity should back it. If private equity will build and run a high-speed rail system without construction or operating subsidies, more power to them. The massively subsidized U.S. Superhighway system has crowded out these investments. The U.S. interstate system is paid for by its users via federal gas taxes (some of which are siphoned off to subsidize other forms of transport including rail and even bike paths). The Japanese high speed rail system (they started building it in 1962 when Made In Japan was a byword for cheap plastic crap) was privatized and that company was sold for $90 billion to private investors. Japan has a population density (870,000 per sq mile) which is more than TEN times higher than the U.S. as a whole (83,000 per sq mile) and around FIVE times higher than Michigan (176,000 per sq mile...and declining). There is no reason to expect that what makes sense for a densely populated country like Japan (or densely populated European countries) also makes sense for the sparsely populated state and country that we live in. But as I said, if private equity is willing to take the risk to try to build and operate mass transit without subsidy, I have no problem with them trying (I would never invest my own money in such a scheme though).
John Q
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 2:50 p.m.
"Throwing more money at systems and processes that have gotten us where we are and expecting that the results will be different falls into the class of insanity." Insanity is the argument that assumes that whatever level of funding was in place X number of years ago is sufficient for our current circumstances. All of your arguments are based on an assumption that the transportation system that we have can be supported on the methods and levels of funding that were put in place many years ago. We have more people driving more vehicles more miles on many more miles of roadway than we did 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. The state and federal gas tax haven't been increased in 13 years. Are we supposed to believe that the cost of running the transportation system we have today has become less expensive than it was 13 years ago? I don't believe it. With the exception of addressing weight limits, all of the arguments against raising the gas tax are diversions that fail to address the real issue of subsidies for users of the roads in this state.
Val Losse
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 2:42 p.m.
A big problem on our roads are the overloaded trucks that destroy our roads over time. The maximum allowed is 150,000 while other states limit the load to 100,000 lbs. Also we build roads with 17 inches of concrete when in Europe they have found that 27 inches of concrete plus using a high strength concrete increases the life of the road dramatically. The State should really look at the road design and spend the available funds better then they are right now. Mass transit will never work in the States because we are spread all over the country side. By the way it doesn't work in Europe either not without substantial influx of government money.
Husker7
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.
So the chair of the House Environmental Committee is the same Rebekah Warren who drove her 12-mpg Jeep in the Ann Arbor 4th of July parade, right? Maybe that's why she isn't so hot on increasing the gas tax...
Speechless
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 1:29 p.m.
David C:  "... In Michigan There Can Be Nothing Wrong With The Car." JSA:  "... trains that will never break even. Washtenaw County DOES NOT have the population to support them without massive tax increases...." A century of dominance for the personal automobile is coming to a close in the next decade or two. Cheap oil gradually nears its end, and the growing third-world nature of the American economy means that fewer people can afford vehicles. Michigan will need to leave the auto behind and move on. It's one thing to debate whether WALLY or Fuller Station represents a promising transit proposal or a probable wasted investment. The bottom line, though, is that all forms of transportation require huge public subsidies, and the real question is how we allocate these funds. It's time to get past the libertarian fiction that mass transit has to "break even," since auto travel itself would experience a rapid death without major government generosity. These enormous government subsidies, which allow automobile travel to exist, should shift more and more each year toward mass transit — despite the decaying Stadium bridge and the expanding pothole population. Otherwise we once again only delay changes that are inevitable. Vivienne A:  "... Michigan no longer has enough transportation money to provide a local match for Federal funds...." For the time being, Byrnes' proposed gas tax increase does offer help. It would, so to speak, assist in filling a few unsightly potholes along the roadway system, possibly including the Stadium bridge. Down the road, however, raising sufficient total subsidies to fund statewide transportation — in all of its forms, public and private — will require the eventual, complete overhaul of Michigan's tax structure, something which Warren has supported. Without such an overhaul, the state budget promises an annual financial train wreck, with growing line-item carnage each year.
Stephen Landes
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 1:04 p.m.
@JSA The answer to your question is power. This has little to do with creating an economic and social environment where you can thrive and achieve what YOU want to achieve and everything to do with accumulating money and handing it out to special interests like the Mass Transit Association which will funnel it back to legislators in contributions, future employment, or simply being "in" with powerful groups. The last mass transit operation I ever heard of that made a profit was in Spain because at the time they still had a siesta system and four rush hours a day instead of two (adding a round trip for long mid-day breaks). Regardless of the study I doubt you will see any mass transit system make a profit given the proliferation of alternatives we enjoy (including not traveling at all!).
Stephen Landes
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 12:54 p.m.
Why do Democrats automatically turn to tax increases to solve any situation? They are all about power, so it is no surprise that special interests that feed off Federal, state, and local financing support these people. I suggest a different approach: start by determining the nature of the situation and then see what factors are preventing the desired outcome from being realized. with that as a beginning point we have a chance to see just exactly what is required to be done. In the case of transportation we can certainly take a look at the factors that cause deterioration in our infrastructure. One key factor is the load limit permitted on Michigan highways and no where else I know of in the US. Our load limits are double that of surrounding states; so much so that trucks have to be unloaded and reloaded at our border, consolidating loads to take advantage of our load limits. These higher load limits have a negative impact on highway life and, consequently, we pay more for highway maintenance and have worse roads. These highway repairs drain money that could be spent on local roads like our temple to stupidity (the Stadium Bridge). Yes, it might turn out to be necessary to raise a tax now and then to pay for something we need, but raising taxes should be a last resort, not a primary plan. Raising revenue for an ever-growing government is not nearly as important as looking at what we're doing, deciding whether or not we really should be doing some of those things, and then taking a deep look into how we are doing our business to see what needs to be changed. Throwing more money at systems and processes that have gotten us where we are and expecting that the results will be different falls into the class of insanity.
John Q
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 12:35 p.m.
Increase the gas tax. It's that simple. If you don't like paying it, don't drive.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 12:25 p.m.
Several commentators are against investment in inter-city rail. As a bank president who has overseen $275 million in venture capital investments in my 22 year career I strongly support building a high speed rail line (and high speed freight) between Chicago, Ann Arbor, Detroit & Toronto. I believe that this would be a good investment and that private equity should back it. The M1 Rail Project on Woodward Avenue in Detroit is a good example of a private rail project that makes economic sense. All railroads in the U.S. were built with private risk capital. The massively subsidized U.S. Superhighway system has crowded out these investments, but the case for high speed inter-city rail is compelling for many reasons. The Japanese high speed rail system (they started building it in 1962 when Made In Japan was a byword for cheap plastic crap) was privatized and that company was sold for $90 billion to private investors. The most recent detailed study of the economics of the Detroit to Chicago high speed rail proposal indicates that the line would be profitable. See http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/railmidwest.pdf According to the study, after 10 years, it would be generating an annual profit of $18 million on $113 million in revenue and after 20 years, a $32 million profit on $129 million in revenues (using 2002 dollars). While the capital cost would be $1,106 million in 2002 dollars), a zero coupon bond or equity component of the project and tax-free municipal financing along with the substantial and very valuable real estate development rights at and around the stations, could pay for the system. The Toronto leg, paid for by the Canadian government, would further enhance the overall economics of the project beyond the numbers presented above. As noted above, in many countries, railroads are a for profit activity. Unfortunately, Michigan is the Sahara of Venture Capital, so there may not be sufficient private equity capital to pull this off. In the past, when there was a good business idea searching for capital, the backers were sent to Wall Street where after much back-room deal-making the money was raised (just as the money was raised to build many of the railroads in the U.S.). Unfortunately, the geniuses on Wall Street decided a number of years ago that slicing, dicing and buying pieces of debt paper with massive leverage was a more profitable activity than raising the capital to build up good businesses (a/k/a making money the old fashioned way). That is a major reason why our country has not grown any new jobs for the past decade. Especially in a great depression, where the country should be searching out good investments and valuable projects to back with the public purse I agree with some famous words from the last Depression that Perhaps you will think the proposals too ambitious, too idealistic, altogether too grand. But isnt this a merit?
kenUM
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 12:13 p.m.
"Warren cited a poll conducted by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority that showed plans to expand the bus and rail systems In Washtenaw County are supported by nearly three-fourths of area voters, who link good transit to a high quality of life." As I recall the "voters" polled by the consultants that AATA contracted with; talked by telephone to just over 1000 registered voters in Washtenaw County. So it is really no surprise that 75% of those folks were in favor of an enhanced version of AATA. The statement; three quarters.......I think is taken out of context.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 12:06 p.m.
@Edward R. Murrows Ghost says stunhsif's trucks (he's in the trucking business) ought pay roughly 10 times the taxes they pay, as they are, on average, 10 times as destructive to the roads as the average car. Actually, each fully loaded truck does 100,000 times more damage than a passenger car on the road. Damage grows exponentially not in a linear fashion, so Im very unimpressed that Stunhsifs tractor trailers (actually) pay 20x as much in diesel taxes than cars per mile traveled. If trucks had to pay their fair share, it would revive the railroad industry in Michigan and that would save everyone money on their transportation costs unfortunately, the truck subsidy and their subsidized profits would go away. In fact, if no trucks traveled the interstates and they were made correctly, they would last FOREVER. Some Roman roads made 2,000 years ago with concrete are still in good shape. Detailed info on the flaws in MEDCs current construction practices are in my post on May 10 to this story, which also has a lot of good comments on this issue: www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/fuel-tax-hike-needed-to-rebuild-michigan-roads-and-our-economy/ @stunhsif earlier in the year had some excellent comments about needing to get rid of the 40 wheel gravel trailers. They destroy the roads. @stunhsif says why should I pay for mass transit if I dont use it? Let me explain using AATA as an example. Person A uses AATA. Person B does not use AATA. Both pay into the system in the form of taxes and/or fees (fares). What's in it for Person B? Every person who uses AATA reduces the number of car-miles on county roads. This in turn reduces the maintenance costs of county roads and Person B's taxes. Every person who uses AATA reduces the number of cars on county roads, reducing the average congestion Person B experiences getting to work. Time=money, so this also has a real net value to Person B. The existence of transit tends to cluster housing over time into denser nodes, diminishing sprawl. This in turn reduces the total size of the road network needed to support the same population, reducing Person B's taxes. Does this mean that Person A and Person B should contribute the same amount to the same system? No, as Person A is clearly getting more value from AATA than Person B. However, Person A pays taxes plus user fees, while Person B pays taxes. What's the right balance between taxes and fees as a funding source for AATA? It's not 100/0 and it's not 0/100. It's somewhere in between. I'm sure an actual transit expert could weigh in with the empirical, nationally-determined average balance, but my simplistic reading of an unverified earlier comment on AnnArbor.com on the above referenced article suggests the current balance for AATA is 83/17. What's a fair balance? I don't know. I do know it's not 0/100.
Martin Church
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 11:54 a.m.
Typical Democrats who love to tax and spend and never do the math. first as more people transfer to mass transit less revenue will be generated from the Gas tax. Less Gas tax, less money for mass transit. Raise the gas tax, less money available for the local businesses who hire local workers. Less workers, less Gas tax, Less Gas Tax means less money for transportation Higher Gas Tax, translates into less employment, less population, less electoral votes. Loss of Manufacturing jobs in the auto industry. Less need for Mass Transit. Lower the gas Tax, increase Jobs because people can then afford to buy the cars we make. More jobs mean more money in the state treasury for Mass Transit. And of course if everyone that can is driving less need for mass transit. Ask your self a simple question, why was the rail system from Detroit to Ann arbor canceled. Or wait it wasn't Amtrak runs every day on those same tracks and it is empty. Mass transit paid for with Federal Dollars and no one is riding on it. So why would the state invest in a failed system. You want a rail system start with what exists today.
JSA
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 11:34 a.m.
will never understand why all these politicians want trains that will never break even. Washtenaw County DOES NOT have the population to support them without massive tax increases. Speaking for someone living outside Ann Arbor proper, I would never trust AATA to run anything efficiently. I certainly don't trust any poll they commissioned. You can make a poll say anything based on how you phrase questions and how you determine who is to be polled.
Mr. Tibbs
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 11:32 a.m.
hey ghosty.... more ignorance on your part I see. if this man you claim to be a trucker actually is a truck driver. he already pays 20 ties more for the plates he puts on his vehicle than you do, and if it wasn't for trucks bringing you your daily intake of food.... ann arbor continues to prove its narrow mindedness. how does the grocery store actually recieve its daily stock from the railyards? anyone? and you people actually vote.
snapshot
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 11:23 a.m.
I think an Ann Arbor to Detroit rail system would be great as lon as the end of the line ended in an area that wouldn't result in a possible end of the line for its riders. Often what should be a "light rail" turns into a "fright rail" because of geography, security, and management issues.
Monica
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.
Wow, with Warren's short-term thinking, Byrnes gets my vote. To simply take money from road and bridge projects and use it to build an Ann Arbor to Detroit rail project would devesate our already crumbling roads and bridges. Forget the Stadium Road bridge, the roads would be closed. We can't keep dividing the pie into different proportions, picking a system of winners and losers. Eventually we have to increase the size of the pie. Not to admit this is nothing but political posturing. Yeah, it's 3 weeks from the election but we are smart enough to see through this... I hope!
bhall
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 9 a.m.
This article is very confusing. There's lots of quotes from Warren, talking and talking about how great transit is and the needs of the community, but the report doesn't seem to ask her how she would pay for it. And then there are lots of cut and lift quotes from press releases from people endorsing Byrnes, but it doesn't look like you actually talked to real people, or Byrnes herself, to ask her to respond to Warren's criticism. Like a lot of things on this site, you could have benefitted by waiting to figure everything out, instead of spewing the verbal you know what.
xmo
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 8:37 a.m.
Why do they (Democrats) always want to increase our tax burden? Why not spend less especially during tough economic times.
Vivienne Armentrout
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 8:18 a.m.
@Larry White, the county Road Commission has no jurisdiction over the Stadium Bridge. That is the city of Ann Arbor's responsibility. I'm voting for Pam Byrnes - her work on this issue is excellent. Read the report - it is eye-opening. Michigan no longer has enough transportation money to provide a local match for Federal funds. That means that projects like the Stadium Bridge might not be built, even if Federal funds are allocated by Congress, if MDOT is not able to match the grant with the required amount.
sbbuilder
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 8:16 a.m.
Using the AATA survey to tout expansion of the bus system shows either a lack of understanding of voters' real opinions, or a tacit approval of an already too heavily subsidized system, or both. Why, oh why, is the only tendered solution to our woes to increase taxes? Can a business simply raise prices of their products to improve their bottom line? Or, do they do every thing possible to cut costs to remain competitive? Ditto to Mr Goldsmith re the poll.
BHarding
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 8:03 a.m.
@stunhsif Strange argument. I don't have kids, but I don't resent that my taxes pay for public schools. One day I hope to be car-free, but I'll understand paying for road maintenance. All of these things contribute to our quality of life here.
David Cahill
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 7:59 a.m.
I'm voting for Warren, but I hope she re-thinks her position on this particular issue. Because of Michigan's low population density, mass transit will always be an expensive "stepchild". I think sticking with the present system is better than trying to come up with a formula that favors mass transit. "In Michigan There Can Be Nothing Wrong With The Car."
kathryn
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 7:14 a.m.
Yes, the roads are getting bumpy....but personally, I'd much rather see my tax money go to getting mass transit up and running. A rail line to Detroit would be wonderful! I won't drive into Detroit for events--the driving is crazy--but I'd go by train; and I know younger adults who would love to have a commuter line so they don't have to drive to work.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 7:14 a.m.
Well, here is and idea for Transportation, let's lower the costs of building roads and securing bus and train service.. Transportation infrastructure in Michigan is very expensive. Our roads don't seem to last as long as roads in Ohio, PA, or even North Dakota.. A open bid process, without certain restrictions, would allow for alot more road work (perhaps twice) within the same Michigan road budget. The State has Road money - maybe they should pay a market rate for work.
stunhsif
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 7:09 a.m.
I don't use public transportation, don't make me pay for it. Raise the prices for the users to make it sustainable or they can ride their bike to work or go on foot.
81wolverine
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 6:51 a.m.
There's no question a lot more money needs to be found for maintaining and fixing Michigan's roads and bridges. Even IF improvements in processes and quality of road repairs were improved, we'd still need far more funds than available today. This article does not detail how Warren's plan for changing the transportation funding formula will find the billions in extra money needed. What we DO know is that Michigan's gas tax law is badly outdated and has not generated the necessary money to keep up with increases in repair costs and gas prices. That's something that can be done TODAY to get more money to fix our crumbling roads. Legislators have been messing around with this problem for years now and accomplished nothing. As unpopular as raising any taxes is, it's the fastest and most logical way to get more money into the transportation budget. There's only so much money the state has available for all the things we need to use it for today, and expecting money to magically be found from within the existing budget is ludicrous.
InsideTheHall
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 6:05 a.m.
Spot on Larry. Sometimes we get lost in the intramural discussion amongst ineffective liberal legislators. If they can'y fix in a bridge how in the heck are they going to "Fix Michigan"? And the last thing we need to do is waste taxpayer earn money on a rail line that cannot sustain itself and likely to degrade into the drug pipeline between Detroit and Ann Arbor.
Lisa
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 6:02 a.m.
@Larry White - Pam Byrnes was previously on the Washtenaw County Road Commission, not Rebekah Warren.
Lisa
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 5:59 a.m.
Clearly just raising the gas tax is the wrong reform, said Warren, who currently represents Ann Arbor in the state House. The people of Michigan deserve to have a better solution than just more of the same broken system. Amen! I don't want my taxes raised and dumped down a hole. There are so many problems with the current road construction and repair system in Michigan. Some of the roads they've rebuilt in the last few years started to fall apart within a year (like M-14). Why would you dump more money into a broken system until the money we invest is properly used to build high quality roads that last using correct "state of the art" methods (which MDOT doesn't do)??? @Alan - we need to change the formula for state transportation funding to have more mass transit funding to get to the maximum we're allowed under the state constitution - I believe it was said the cap was 10% at one of the City Democratic Party debates - we don't even spend that maximum cap yet on mass transit. If there is some other poll that exists I'm not aware of it, so Rebekah is noting the best available information.
Larry White
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 5:54 a.m.
Hey Pam from the House Transportation Committee and Rebekah from Washtenaw County Road Commission, the Stadium Bridge is still setting idle. Transportation is problably not a good topic for either of you to address!
Vivienne Armentrout
Mon, Jul 19, 2010 : 5:44 a.m.
The survey is meaningless because no "plans" have been discussed. According to the story, Warren opposes a gas tax but wants increased funding from undesignated sources, and would direct that toward paying for mass transit. Byrnes has chaired a committee that has a full report out. A gas tax and increased vehicle registration fees may be part of that plan, but the story gives no information on what the major recommendations of the task force were. (I believe that they do include mass transit, since the state has existing programs to foster that.) Isn't the real point that Warren is pushing the local rail projects like WALLY and the Ann Arbor - Detroit rail? But if she is suggesting that state and local taxes can fund these alone, a better explanation of her "plan" is needed. BTW, my memory of the AATA survey is that people favored more mass transit but not new taxes to pay for it. Perhaps links to an earlier AnnArbor.com story would be helpful here.