HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2012, 8:58 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Will View Post
So do all these other communities have their own transit systems if they aren't part of SMART?
No. Most of them are far too small for it to even make sense to do so. Some of them have dial-a-rides, but that's it. DDOT and SMART are the only fixed-route operators in the region.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 11:45 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
A series of (nearly 20) transit bills hit the state house, today, and among the first will be the creation of a regional transit authority for Southeast Michigan. Have to say that I wasn't even aware the legislation had already been written:

Quote:
...

The package of nearly 20 bills would also create a regional transit authority for southeast Michigan -- another overdue plan that legislators might move first. Rep. Rick Olson, R-Saline, sees changes down the road.

...

Bills would also allow the regional transit authority in southeast Michigan to ask voters to approve an optional regional registration fee for transit services. The fee on passenger vehicles would be $1.20 for each $1,000 of the list price of a vehicle.

...
BTW, Michigan actually has had a regional transit act in place for decades, but they were never given actual taxing power. This will amend the current act, I believe, to actually give them teeth.

Now, let's see how the sponsors even begin to go about getting this through both houses...
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 1:15 PM
subterranean's Avatar
subterranean subterranean is offline
homesick alien
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean View Post
The governor is definitely behind transit and regionalism, and I'm not smacking my stamp of approval on this person wholesale by any means, but he's got the support from the legislature on basically every issue that's come to the table, so why not this? His staff know the benefits of regionalism from a business perspective. He should be pushing this regional authority as an economic development driver and working with the suburban counties to sign on. If they don't, then make it a mandate funded by raising the gas tax and carve out that increment for the authority.
^A comment I made in October. I guess tying it to vehicle registrations is probably more politically feasible, but I still think this guy basically gets what he wants (save for the bridge), so a gas tax will probably get through, too.
__________________
Having more does not keep you from wanting more. And if you are always wanting more...I can tell you from experience, happiness will never come.

Last edited by subterranean; Jan 26, 2012 at 1:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 1:17 PM
fishrose's Avatar
fishrose fishrose is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midtown Detroit
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
The streetcar pick is pretty darned definitive, if you ask me. In fact, before the 9 mile line went off the rails, the biggest contention between the city and the private investors was whether it would be a light rail or a streetcar. The private backers had been pushing for a curb-running streetcar from the very beginning. It was only with the introduction of, and planning primacy of, the Detroit Department of Transportation that we got the plan that included running it like a light rail from the fairgrounds to downtown, and then running it like a streetcar within the immediate CBD.

With the city now taken out of the picture, I don't see how this isn't going to revert back to being an in-traffic tram. Dan Gilbert, who seems to be one of the major spokesmen and backers of this thing, has been dead-set on the beginning about a side-running tram, and this is the problem with the business leaders having so much say. They aren't transit guys, and it's shown in Gilbert's (empirically false) belief that the only way this can be successful is if it picks people up at the curb.
Well, they still need approval from the federal DOT to build the thing. Unless they want to go through another 5-year environmental review they're going to have to stick with the FEIS for phase 1 that was already approved, which is curb-running downtown and in the median north of I-75.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 1:23 PM
subterranean's Avatar
subterranean subterranean is offline
homesick alien
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishrose View Post
Well, they still need approval from the federal DOT to build the thing. Unless they want to go through another 5-year environmental review they're going to have to stick with the FEIS for phase 1 that was already approved, which is curb-running downtown and in the median north of I-75.
Good point.
__________________
Having more does not keep you from wanting more. And if you are always wanting more...I can tell you from experience, happiness will never come.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 3:26 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,869
Quote:
Bills would also allow the regional transit authority in southeast Michigan to ask voters to approve an optional regional registration fee for transit services. The fee on passenger vehicles would be $1.20 for each $1,000 of the list price of a vehicle.
...by optional do they mean that each person will be able to opt out of the fee when they renew their registration? How is that any better than the way SMART is currently funded?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 4:11 PM
fishrose's Avatar
fishrose fishrose is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midtown Detroit
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
...by optional do they mean that each person will be able to opt out of the fee when they renew their registration? How is that any better than the way SMART is currently funded?
I don't see how they could feasibly make it optional on a personal basis and still generate significant revenue. I haven't read the legislation, but my guess is that "optional" means individual municipalities can opt out based on a local vote, or that individual residents can choose between a vehicle registration fee or a flat tax.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 8:18 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
...by optional do they mean that each person will be able to opt out of the fee when they renew their registration? How is that any better than the way SMART is currently funded?
EDIT: Looks like they found the bill over at DetroitYes:

Quote:
SB 909

Sec. 10.

(1) An authority may raise revenues to fund all of its activities, operations, and investments consistent with its purposes. The sources of revenue available to the authority include, but are not limited to, all of the following:


(a) Fees, fares, rents, or other charges for use of a public transit system.

(b) Federal, state, or local government grants, loans, appropriations, payments, or contributions.

(c) Proceeds from the sale, exchange, mortgage, lease, or other disposition of property acquired by the authority.

(d) Grants, loans, appropriations, payments, proceeds from repayments of loans made by the authority, or contributions from public or private sources.

(e) The proceeds of a special assessment levied undersubsection (2).

(f) The proceeds of a motor vehicle registration fee collected under subsection (3).

(g) Investment earnings on the revenues described in subdivisions (a) to (f).

(2) An authority may levy a special assessment within the public transit region only as approved by the board and the electors of the public transit region.

(3) An authority may collect a motor vehicle registration fee dedicated to the purpose of public transit, if authorized under the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923.

(4) The authority shall ensure that not less than 85% of the money raised in each member jurisdiction through either a special assessment under subsection (2) or a motor vehicle registration fee under subsection (3), or both, is expended on public transit service provided in that member jurisdiction.

(5) After the first 12 months of operation of a rolling rapid transit system, and annually thereafter, the authority shall provide a report to the legislative body of each member jurisdiction showing the cost of service and revenue generated in each member jurisdiction.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height

Last edited by LMich; Jan 27, 2012 at 12:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 8:53 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich View Post
EDIT: Looks like they found the bill over at DetroitYes:
That sounds a lot better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 6:47 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
That sounds a lot better.
This Ann Arbor Chronicle article explains it even better. Anyone interested in the regional transit authority should read the entire thing. It takes a POV from Ann Arbor, but still describes the formula by which the authority will be funded. Some of it was a bit confusing, to me. Sounds like a county could levy a special assessment, but 90% of that would have to go for roads, but that the RTA could levy a special assessment in addition to a county levying an assessment, but this RTA assessment would strictly be for mass transit:

Quote:
Michigan Regional Transit Bills Unveiled

The Ann Arbor Chronicle Staff

January 26, 2012

Following an early morning announcement on Jan. 26 from state representative Rick Olson (District 55) – that a transportation improvement package for Michigan would be introduced in both houses of the legislature today – the text of the 17 bills is now available.

Much of the package deals with road funding, but some of the bills establish a regional transit authority (RTA) for southeast Michigan and its funding. Here’s a brief initial glance at some of the possible legislation.

HB 5309 establishes the region of the RTA as Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties. The counties are not mentioned by name, but rather are described in terms of their population – a move likely used to avoid the 2/3 majority vote required under Michigan’s constitution (Article IV Section 29) for the legislature to enact local or special acts.

...

While most votes of the RTA board would require a simple majority, placing certain ballot measures before voters in the region – including a vehicle registration fee – would require a 4/5 majority (eight of ten members) of the board. The vehicle registration fees are addressed in other bills in the package.

Two other bills in the package (HB 5012 5312 and HB 5011 5311) provide another possible mechanism for funding public transportation and the RTA. HB 5312 provides that counties can adopt a voter-approved additional vehicle registration fee of up to $1.80 per $1,000 of the list price of a vehicle as determined by the existing statute. This county-based vehicle registration fee is not restricted to just the four counties in the RTA. Any county could enact such a fee and use some of that revenue to fund public transportation – but 90% of the revenue would need to be spent on roads, under Article IX Section 9 of Michigan’s constitution. This local, county-based voter-approved vehicle registration fee adds a new section 801k to the Michigan Vehicle Code.

And HB 5311 allows the RTA to enact an additional vehicle registration fee of up to $1.20 per $1,000 of the list price of a vehicle as determined by the existing statute – if voters in the RTA region approve it. It’s possible that a county in the RTA region could enact an additional vehicle registration fee on its own (801k), and that the RTA could also enact one.

The rules for how an 801k-enacted vehicle registration fee (by a county) could interact with a fee that is approved by voters in the RTA region are also set forth in HB 5311. The first condition is that the county-based vehicle registration fee and the RTA-based fee can’t sum to more than $1.80 per $1,000 of list value.

The second condition is that the county-based fee would be adjusted downward, if necessary, to meet the first condition. Because the RTA can only enact a fee up to $1.20, but a county can enact one up to $1.80, it’s not possible for the RTA to take all of a county’s fee that the county had intended to invest locally. The limiting case would be that a county enacted a $1.80 fee, and the RTA enacted $1.20. That would result in a reduction of the county fee to $0.60 – leaving the RTA fee at $1.20.


It appears that an RTA region-wide referendum on a vehicle registration fee would pass or fail based purely on the region-wide vote. In the specific case of Washtenaw County, there’s no provision that the referendum would need to get support from a majority of voters inside Washtenaw County in order for the fee to be imposed in Washtenaw by the RTA. Such a provision would be somewhat unusual, but it’s the kind of safeguard that the Ann Arbor city council has built into a pending agreement that it may enact to establish a countywide transit governance structure in Washtenaw County.

...
A few additional observations:

- I like that the SMRTA will only include the old metro core counties (Macomb, Oakland and Wayne) and Wahstenaw County starting out.

- One thing that's bothering me is the make up of the board. Of the 10 member board (really, 9 if you don't count the non-voting representative of the governor), all the counties get 2 members, but Detroit city only gets 1. I'm not aware of a regional board in that area where the state's largest city isn't given equal representation. If they think they can get this done without the votes of Detroit Dems in the legislature, I guess they could go this route. If they want to assure a bipartisan vote and a better chance of the bill passing on the whole, they'll equalize the board.

- I'm still confused about whether or not the two bills are mandating/dictating the type of transit along the first severel routes. I keep reading "rapid rolling stock" which I think each bill defines as BRT, but I think the state shouldn't be mandating the type of transit and rather simply facilitating the creation of the body to make it's own decisions about what mode of transit is best along any given line.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height

Last edited by LMich; Jan 30, 2012 at 8:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 4:07 AM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 2,261
Meanwhile the DDOT is being whittled away further:

Weekday and Weekend schedule changes (PDFs) that take effect at the start of March eliminate all late night (1 to 4 AM) service in Detroit.

Would this leave Detroit as the largest US city/metro without 24 hour bus service?
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 4:52 AM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dralcoffin View Post
Meanwhile the DDOT is being whittled away further:

Weekday and Weekend schedule changes (PDFs) that take effect at the start of March eliminate all late night (1 to 4 AM) service in Detroit.

Would this leave Detroit as the largest US city/metro without 24 hour bus service?
Yet they want to build a 110 mile BRT. Where are the buses going to come from? Where are the extra staff going to come from? How are they going to maintain the buses they have now? What about the buses that have broken down? How are they going to pay for it? How are they going to maintain the system? How about the streetcar idea which has been brought back but made smaller? How are they going to take care of that streetcar?

There has to be an answer or else it's just laughable.

You know what would work for Detroit? A Taxi system. At least it would give people jobs, and people could travel in and out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 5:18 AM
Centropolis's Avatar
Centropolis Centropolis is offline
disneypilled verhoevenist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: crystal pepsi tesseract
Posts: 11,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post

You know what would work for Detroit? A Taxi system. At least it would give people jobs, and people could travel in and out.
By taxi do you mean something other than taxi?
__________________
You may Think you are vaccinated but are you Maxx-Vaxxed ™!? Find out how you can “Maxx” your Covid-36 Vaxxination today!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 1:58 PM
miketoronto miketoronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,978
This is just ridiculous. I agree Detroit needs to consolidate some bus routes. But cutting late night service like that and decreasing the frequency on so many routes, is just sad.
__________________
Miketoronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2012, 7:49 PM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dralcoffin View Post
Meanwhile the DDOT is being whittled away further:

Weekday and Weekend schedule changes (PDFs) that take effect at the start of March eliminate all late night (1 to 4 AM) service in Detroit.

Would this leave Detroit as the largest US city/metro without 24 hour bus service?
No bus service after 1am? Sounds like a brilliant plan to encourage drinking and driving. Christ, even suburban Mississauga and Brampton have buses that run until 3am or so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2012, 1:23 AM
Cleveland Brown's Avatar
Cleveland Brown Cleveland Brown is offline
Always A Classic
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Will View Post
No bus service after 1am? Sounds like a brilliant plan to encourage drinking and driving. Christ, even suburban Mississauga and Brampton have buses that run until 3am or so.
Nah, I highly doubt many bar drinkers in Detroit take the bus. And this will have no effect on the suburban nightspots of Royal Oak, Ferndale, and Novi as they aren't part of DDOT as it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2012, 10:42 AM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Brown View Post
Nah, I highly doubt many bar drinkers in Detroit take the bus.
Obviously they don't take the bus if it stops running at 1am.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2012, 6:35 PM
Cleveland Brown's Avatar
Cleveland Brown Cleveland Brown is offline
Always A Classic
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,894
^ Over the last few years DDOT has proven so unreliable, even during prime rush hour, that the only people that still use it are those who are unable to afford a vehicle or legally prohibited from obtaining a driver's license. Even if these people drink, they wouldn't (or could not) waste their money at bars and clubs.

And DDOT does not cover the suburbs (it ends service within the first half-mile outside Detroit's city limits, always has).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2012, 8:19 PM
miketoronto miketoronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Brown View Post
^ Over the last few years DDOT has proven so unreliable, even during prime rush hour, that the only people that still use it are those who are unable to afford a vehicle or legally prohibited from obtaining a driver's license. Even if these people drink, they wouldn't (or could not) waste their money at bars and clubs.

And DDOT does not cover the suburbs (it ends service within the first half-mile outside Detroit's city limits, always has).

Choice riders stopped taking DDOT decades ago.

Michael
__________________
Miketoronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2012, 8:45 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,745
A bit more info...

- DDOT says this will effect 500 riders, or less than 0.5% of daily ridership, but 6% of daily costs.

- It didn't really make the news, but these cuts are a result of the privatization of DDOT's management, which took place at the beginning of the year. The mayor has made no secret about wanting to end all subsidies to DDOT, so this constant attack on the system isn't any surprise. He's shown many times that he doesn't understand the importance of mass transit in the city, or maybe simply that he doesn't care.

Given the city's decade-long decline, DDOT should have been spun off as a public agency (as opposed to keeping it a city department) supported by a millage long ago. Keeping it as a formal city department, yet not funding it out of the general fund -- in essence a city department that is funded as if it were an agency -- was always setting the department up for a disaster like this in a city with a perpetually shrinking general fund.

What is happening is exactly what everyone knew was going to happen when management was privatized (Parsons Brinckerhoff is the firm, BTW, running the system, now). DDOTs become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where you cut a shoddy system into the bone and then leadership disingenuously asks "why is ridership shrinking (in a city with fewer and fewer auto-owning citizens)?" DDOT's a joke, because the current city administration is a joke when it comes to transit.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:12 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.