Comments on: Guest Column: 21st century employers want mass transit

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:09:24 +0000

I’ve sent in suggestions and plans to both the Engler admin and Granholm Admins about the needs and benefits of Commuter trains in Michigan for the last decade.

not much progress or recognition of that need has even been discussed.
Elev trains or running between highways would help alleviate issues with land procurement and footprint.

By: Neil Karl

Neil Karl — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:13:01 +0000

What is the conclusion about the current mass transit design for Southeastern Michigan? Is it that government (SEMCOG) cannot successfully design a successful mass transit that will compete with autos. Among some cities I am familiar with, that is what the Chicago, Cleveland, and Philadelphia systems try to do. Each of these cities is similar to Detroit,in that the city is bounded on one side by a body of water, and widely spread out.

To compete with autos, the mass transit must have dedicated rail with 24/7 service. The choice of transit vehicles is also important. Locomotives with a train of passenger cars should not be used. Instead self-propelled transit cars like the Silverliner, linked in one or more cars together, is much more cost effective. Limiting mass transit to three counties: Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb is very crippling. Mass transit should travel the major 5 corridors out of Detroit to Port Huron, Flint, Lansing, Ann Arbor, and Monroe. Bus systems should not be the center piece of the design, but should link the rail corridors.

A local rail line up Woodward would seem to be less cost effective than buses.

By: Christopher Currie

Christopher Currie — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:38:11 +0000

I live and work in Detroit. In my opinion Michigan bears the greatest burden in light of recent events concerning the automotive industry companies. Unemployment was already a major problem here and now it is worse. Now that the federal government, via taxpayer money, are majority stakeholders in General Motors, I feel that the engineering and mass-production/assembly resources at GM (and if possible, Chrysler) can and should be used to help design and implement comprehensive mass-transit systems like high speed rail, light rail, and alternative-fuel buses for use both regionally and nationwide. Weren’t the auto factories refitted during World War II to build tanks and such? The American auto industry’s backyard of Michigan would be great to start pilot projects connecting cities with 21st century transit systems.
Public Transit systems help to lessen the overall fuel emissions made by the vehicles we drive. It also helps those who currently can’t afford their own vehicle meet family, work and school obligations. It would be a means of bolstering America’s workforce, especially Black America, and go a long way toward strengthening the economy. In the midst of public debate on what GM’s restructuring means, I feel that there is a missed opportunity not being explored. The auto companies historically had not supported mass transit if only because it theoretically detracts from their revenue. A governmental “hands off” mantra is not the proper approach to this unique and virtually unprecedented situation.

By: Mike Anthony

Mike Anthony — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:16:23 +0000

I want mass transit to work: for the US generally, and for Michigan in particular. But nothing in my experience supports its economic indepedence apart from massive, perpetual government subsidies. I am suspicious of the claim that mass transit “pays off” when no mass transit system in the world has ever paid off according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

This does not mean that I am not similarly romanced by the notion, however. I love taking trains. I like someone else doing the driving; talking to new people, snacking or reading, while I’m getting there… etc, etc.

At best, I visualize the train system along Milwaukee Avenue running out of downtown Chicago. All those wonderful ethnic neighborhoods and businesses growing along the train terminals….I’d like that for Michigan.

At worst, though, I recall the traffic jams in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm as, by slow degrees every year, train ridership has decreased as more Europeans aspire to the town&country commuter lifestyle of Americans. I have been going to northern Europe pretty much every year since 1980 and I have seen mass transit ridership decline as such. Much of it has to do with projecting social status. Wiser marketing minds in the auto industry know: whether you are riding a mule, or riding in a gold, guilded carriage, how you move yourself is highly personal, and the people will not go quietly into mass transit unless there are radical changes in human nature. (Obama’s auto-industry team better get smart about this, pronto, or we risk evisceration of what remains of GM. But I digress.)

I regret sounding like a cynic. I think this is all possible as long as we know that economically independent transportation systems are nearly impossible. The airline industry, for example, has — on average — never made a profit. Net-net, its never made an industry wide profit since…well…ever….even going back to the Wright brothers. It just pushes numbers around the ledger to effect spot phenomena that looks like profit until the bankruptcy laws permit them to file for relief, again and again. That’s socialist mass-transit funding, American-style.

If you put the societal and environmental benefit into the equation, however, there is a strong argument; though once again, people will always trend toward projecting social status through their transportation means(just as they do their clothes and jewelry and such).

If you’re looking for ideas to make mass transit possible then you’d have to make personal transit less affordable and less comfortable and more status projecting. (Some of the Asian countries like Korea have concepts on the table that propose “personal mass transit” that have pods that permit people to purchase 1st, 2nd and 3rd class accomodations.) More draconian, and perhaps silly and unrealistic measures would be a) stop repairing the roads so much, b) placing a massive tax on satellite radio and other conveniences and safety features that make driving automobiles so comfortable and safe, c) taxing every automobile and every gallon of gas into oblivion.

Most of European gas tax dollars go to subsidizing the train systems. If Michigan is comfortable with that, then I say, “Go For It”

Hope this helps Michigan.

By: Charles Ybema

Charles Ybema — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:31:58 +0000

So SE Michigan is going to move from producing 16M auto a year to 10M and we still expect to “need” a new mass transit system?

I love these economic studies whereby every dollar taxed and spent by gov’t always results in accelerated returns. $3 – $10 per $1 invested, that’s the Keynesian multiplier on speed!

Truth is, if every rider saved $ 8,400 per year then they should be willing to fund up to $ 8,399 per year to ride–why should the rest of the state or country subsidize their ridership.

And as for the 77% of riders, why wouldn’t they want someone else to foot part of their ridership bill.