Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take away all the roads and see how much economic development you'll have.
I don't want to take away all the roads, I want to stop building new ones.
Quote:
Take away all the roads and see how redundant they are.
You would have to take away a lot of roads for them to not be redundant.
Quote:
Roads are paid for by the private sector (taxpayers) and roads recoup costs through their users (taxpayers) The private sector/taxpayers funds everything in this country (unless you believe it is okay for the government to print fiat money).
I agree. I really hope the private sector/taxpayers really enjoy those 3 new miles of I-696 because it just cost them $80 million dollars.
Quote:
Where do you think Dan Gilbert gets his money from? (hint: government/taxpayer insured mortgages)
Yes, and some government workers subsidize Mike Ilitch when they eat his pizza for lunch. What's your point?
Quote:
One rail line is not going to replace an "endless maze of roads".
Nope, but it will make having an endless maze of roads less necessary.
Quote:
Take away the roads and see what happens to investments.
Have nothing but roads and look at how little investment we have.
Quote:
Will light rail be maintained as their revenue source dries up?
Unlike roads, light rail's revenue source can be directly tied to users and usage.
Quote:
Will light rail lead to responsible spending and development?
Yes, absolutely.
Quote:
Will light rail, instead of road maintenance, best serve Metro Detroit in the future?
Yes, absolutely.
Quote:
So will horse-and-buggy rides.
True, just not nearly as well. Light Rail > Roads > Horse & Buggy
If this wasn't all so tragic I'd find it entertaining. For literally decades urban planners have been telling us that the never-ending chain of ever increasing sprawl hooked together by ever longer expressways wasn't sustainable, and for decades people laughed at them.
Now, it turns out that they were right, and all those miles and miles of road that are wearing out and costing a fortune to repair and replace aren't actually sustainable, and of course people's reaction is to attack the alternatives.
Of course light rail won't be entirely self-sustaining. Neither are the roads, which are subsidized by taxpayers. The fact of that matter is that it's incredibly difficult to make transit break even, no matter what form you're using. However, light rail has all sorts of halo benefits for the areas it runs through and has the potential to significantly improve the quality of life and marketability of many properties and neighborhoods in Detroit.
Personally, I think that's got a lot to do with why so many people are opposed to it- they're afraid it might become clear they made the wrong choice in embracing the suburban lifestyle over the city. My coworkers might make fun of me for living in Detroit, but they curse me every time it snows for my 4 minute drive to work.
Most American cities, like Detroit, have an abundance of expressways and an underutilization of rail. So, you can't point to either of these as the culprit for Detroit's problems, otherwise those cities would be in the same shape as Detroit. Detroit's problems are social, not infrastructure.
Most American cities, like Detroit, have an abundance of expressways and an underutilization of rail. So, you can't point to either of these as the culprit for Detroit's problems, otherwise those cities would be in the same shape as Detroit. Detroit's problems are social, not infrastructure.
In what cities is light rail underutilized?
Is it your position that Detroit would look the same if the extensive subway system planned in the 1920s had been built?
If you believe Detroit's problems are only social, then you must also believe that Detroiters are somehow different than everyone else living in other American cities.
For some reason, you seem to believe that because Detroit has an abundance of one type of infrastructure, it doesn't need any other infrastructure to be a viable city. That's like saying that the only component a car needs to function is an engine, but no transmission.
A city needs many types of infrastructure to function properly. One of the key components is mass transit infrastructure. Without such infrastructure, urban areas do not work. Urban areas are not designed to accommodate cars, but rather accommodate people. That's not to say that cars and highways don't have their place, but their place is not to exist at the exclusion of all other forms of transit, including this human activity you may have heard of called "walking." I know, I know, it's a novel concept...
In what cities is light rail underutilized? How many cities can you name have as extensive a light rail system as an expressway system? Compare them mile for mile.
Is it your position that Detroit would look the same if the extensive subway system planned in the 1920s had been built? Yes, because Detroiters (read: autoworkers) would still have preferred cars to rail.
If you believe Detroit's problems are only social, then you must also believe that Detroiters are somehow different than everyone else living in other American cities. Most major cities have good and bad areas that allow the city as a whole to survive, but Detroit is almost all bad area which cannot sustain the city.
For some reason, you seem to believe that because Detroit has an abundance of one type of infrastructure, it doesn't need any other infrastructure to be a viable city. That's like saying that the only component a car needs to function is an engine, but no transmission. At its current density levels, Detroit is adequately served with cars and buses. We could dig out canals through the city and have boat ferries transport people. They have ferries in New York, so why not here. We could build a tramway like NY has to Roosevelt Island. We could have a monorail like Disneyworld. The reason we don't build these things is that we don't need them and don't have the money for them.
A city needs many types of infrastructure to function properly. One of the key components is mass transit infrastructure. Without such infrastructure, urban areas do not work. Urban areas are not designed to accommodate cars, ...then what are the roads for?...but rather accommodate people. That's not to say that cars and highways don't have their place, but their place is not to exist at the exclusion of all other forms of transit, including this human activity you may have heard of called "walking." I know, I know, it's a novel concept...
I am not totally opposed to rail. It's just that there has to be a need for it. When traffic comes to a stop because there are so many full buses on the road, then I'll support rail.
How many cities can you name have as extensive a light rail system as an expressway system? Compare them mile for mile.
That's the beauty of it. You don't have to build as many miles of rail as you do roads, you just need some. In fact, you only need enough rail to allow a semi-dense urban core to thrive so that people who prefer the convenience of city life do not need to rely on a car for everything. Metro Detroit has some great suburbs, but it totally lacks the infrastructure to maintain a viable urban environment.
Quote:
Yes, because Detroiters (read: autoworkers) would still have preferred cars to rail.
It's easy to say that when there is no alternative to driving. Many people do prefer mass transit. A recent study by the Detroit Suburban Alliance shows it, the number of college grads who move to cities like Chicago shows it, and most importantly, the lack of thriving urban environments in Metro Detroit shows it.
The goal of this region should be to diversify the economy. The only industry that loves roads is the auto industry. You are not going to attract a diversity of businesses if your flagship city lacks an essential piece of urban infrastructure.
Quote:
Most major cities have good and bad areas that allow the city as a whole to survive, but Detroit is almost all bad area which cannot sustain the city.
I strongly disagree that Detroit is almost all bad areas, but even if that were true, there would be a reason for it. That reason, is not that Detroiters are somehow outliers or cut from a different cloth than the rest of the U.S. This city has experienced pains that are incomprehensible to most other cities. People here have major scars, but at the same time, we are essentially the same as other Americans. Given the same opportunities, economically and socially, most Detroiters would succeed.
Quote:
At its current density levels, Detroit is adequately served with cars and buses. We could dig out canals through the city and have boat ferries transport people. They have ferries in New York, so why not here. We could build a tramway like NY has to Roosevelt Island. We could have a monorail like Disneyworld. The reason we don't build these things is that we don't need them and don't have the money for them.
Detroit's density is more than sufficient to justify mass transit. Even with significant abandonment, the city still has more than 6,000 people per square mile and some parts exceed 10,000 people per square mile. Additionally, Bing's plan calls for increasing the density of viable city neighborhoods. Detroit ranks #29 on the list of American cities that rely on mass transit, which puts it midway between NYC at the top and LA at bottom. So, Detroit is not a city unfriendly to mass transit. However, the current bus system, which is insufficient, needs to be supplemented by permanent mass transit that would drive new development and create a marketable urban environment.
The problem is definitely not money. The state spend billions on roads every year. In Metro Detroit we're spending 80 million on repaving 3 miles of expressway. THREE MILES! The entire cost of light rail is trivial compared to what we spend annually on roads. This region still has one of the largest GDP's in nation. We have money for light rail, we just don't have regional cooperation or the foresight to see the benefits.
Quote:
...then what are the roads for?
As I said, roads serve their purpose. In cities, they allow for deliveries, taxi cabs, buses, tourists, and commuters. However, roads should not trump all other forms of transportation. If you carve up the entire city with highways and 6-lane roads, you make walking anywhere nearly impossible- you defeat the purpose of creating density. Where Detroit has parking lots, it should have residential buildings, retail, entertainment and workplaces.
All other major American cities, including those you mentioned (NY, Chicago, LA) have expressway systems as extensive as Detroit's and they are also much more heavily used in those cities, so it's not as if Detroit is some aberration in its construction of and dependence on expressways. Yes, light rail, and any other form of transportation, can supplement the expressways, but it will not replace them. If a light rail system was built, we would still need 6 lane expressways criss-crossing the city. In fact, if light rail creates all the new development that you claim, the expressways would probably be even more heavily utilized.
If Detroit never faced the widespread abandonment that it has, then you might have a slim case for light rail. But the fact that Detroit couldn't support a light rail system (streetcars) even when it had twice the population and even when the metropolitan area was much more compact and suitable for light rail, that should be an indication that light rail would not be sustainable.
Now if we had very high gas prices that were sustained at high levels by government taxation and not by global political panics and speculation, that might generate a greater demand for mass transit. And if the social problems in Detroit were resolved and the population stabilized and grew with new housing subdivisions, that would help. If you could somehow prevent new construction on the outskirts of the city, that would drive demand inward. But these three suggestions, all of which I am in favor of, face strong opposition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
