|
Comments:
Brian - 2004-04-06 19:15:42 A lot. Rider revenue would never pay for it. It would probably have to be subsidized. But it's money well spent. I doubt a station would cost much considering a preexisting structure (the now-shuttered depot) could be used.* * * * * * * * * * * * Steven B. Cherry - 2004-04-06 21:06:14 I wrote a post about the possiblity of light rail but I couldn't find any recent information. I assumed the project was abandoned.* * * * * * * * * * * * Tuesday - 2004-04-06 21:27:06 What I don't understand about the whole Amtrak line is that it stops in Pontiac instead of continuing on to intersect the northern line and thus make a loop so Eastern-Michigan folks could take the train all the way to Toronto instead of backtracking through Battle Creek or having to find transportation to Windsor. (Man, that was a long sentence!) Otherwise, I love the idea. Especially since the train will stop at Metro Airport. That would be nice to be able to just hike down to Depot Town instead of leaving my car at the Airport.* * * * * * * * * * * * laura - 2004-04-06 21:49:56 The Metro Airport stop is what appealed to me, too. No long-range parking...no hassle. Tuesday, I'm with you on the lack of train to Windsor...I recently had to take a bus to Canada to hook up with the Canadian trains. It'd be wonderful to get on a train in Ypsi to go to Canada. Write those letters, please, people!* * * * * * * * * * * * Michael McC. - 2004-04-07 09:33:48 I like trains, and I wish they were a reasonable alternative, but the subsidies aren't sustainable, particularly with the economy. I think that trains are dead as a viable transportation alternative. I wish it wasn't so, but I don't think they'll ever come back.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-04-07 09:47:20 It's ridiculous to me that governmental systems build roads for cars, not auto companies, yet train companies have to construct their own tracks! I've never seen that as fair. As far as sustainability, aren't freight trains the cheapest way to transport things? Even if passenger service is in and of itself unsustainable, if a rail co. does both, can't the less sustainable passenger side of things kind of be absorbed? * * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-04-07 10:42:16 For probably historical reasons, the system is backwards for rail. In all other modes of transport, the government builds and owns the infrastructure (roads, airports, shipping channels) and private entities build and own the means (cars, planes, ships). In rail, private companies build and own the infrastructure (tracks) and the government owns the means (Amtrak). It should be the other way around for rail, but probably never will be due to vested interests, inertia, etc.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-04-07 11:28:47 Tom, that is interesting, and bizarre. I wonder what explains it. And I'm still pondering Michael's grim assessment and trying to think of a way around it...* * * * * * * * * * * * Michael McC. - 2004-04-07 12:00:55 I only meant that the subsidies aren't sustainable. The railroad companies threw it all away on living large, and the car companies along with the oil lobby ate their lunch.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-04-07 12:04:45 Well, I know my dad is still bitter about the way GM destroyed his hometown of Baltimore's trolley system in order to establish bus lines...* * * * * * * * * * * * Brian - 2004-04-07 13:34:32 The additional infrastructure, the construction of stations, and maintenance facilities would not be paid for by a private company. The $80M required to do this would as well as the operating costs would not come from the state or federal government, but from the local communities involved (i.e. the communities would have to supplement what the fares don't cover). A study on this project was completed in 2002. I would think the DDA could link the results to their website. Maybe someone more interweb adept than I can find it somewhere. In addition, the Ypsi depot is privately owned. There has long been talk about turning it into a brew pub/eatery. Buying it in order to transform it back into a station won't be cheap.* * * * * * * * * * * * Steven B. Cherry - 2004-04-07 13:39:38 They way around "it" is to convince a million people that taking trains would be better than sitting in their SUVs in traffic for two-hours per day. Considering this I have to agree with Michael, people will never give up their cars, we've built our cultrue, transportation, and urban planning around the automobile. * * * * * * * * * * * * Tuesday - 2004-04-07 15:27:57 The ever increasing cost of gasoline (supposedly going to be up to $3 this summer) without the increase in wages to compensate will be the biggest tool proponents of light rail have and we should use to the fullest extent!* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-04-07 15:33:39 that's a sharp- and forward-thinking comment in my opinion. To my knowledge, all trains use diesel engines, which are around 40% more efficient then regular internal combustion engines. * * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-04-07 15:50:42 I'm generally against emminent domain, but the old depot station seems like a prime candidate. It's one thing to steal peoples' homes to sell the land to a developer, it's another to force someone to sell a former public property back to the citizens.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-04-07 15:58:09 For as long as I've lived in Ypsi (4 years this summer) no one's done a thing with it to my knowledge.* * * * * * * * * * * * Brian - 2004-04-07 16:28:21 Didn't you once think the old city hall was abandoned too?* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-04-07 18:23:10 Hm? No. I don't know what you mean, unless I'm not remembering some comment or other.* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-04-08 08:33:54 Going back a few comments: Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines, on the other hand they are also dirtier, with higher emissions of nitrous oxide and particulate matter (soot) than gasoline. On the third hand (or whatever), you get more passenger miles/unit of fuel with trains than with cars, so pollution is reduced if more people take the train. In Europe, most of the trains are electric, so they are very clean. However, you do have the problem of generating and delivering the electricity to the trains.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-04-08 12:02:52 thanks Tom; that's a good explanation. The sticking point is getting car-centric people to take the train, or at least having it available long enough so that people develop the habit of riding it.* * * * * * * * * * * * Michael McC. - 2004-04-08 14:34:08 The only great trains I've ever seen were government subsidized, because overall it's cheaper than individual transport, but individually it isn't. And I think that the governments were basically socialist, as in European. so barring some essential change in the way America works, I don't see them coming back. Bush IS in the oil bidness, after all, and he's got a lot of fans who aren't going anywhere.* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-04-08 16:13:09 Yes, great trains are gov't subsidized (or hideously expensive - see Switzerland). However, roads, airports, shipping channels, etc are subsidized, and there are no good policy reasons why subsidies can't be shifted from roads to rail. Politically, though, it's impossible.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-04-08 16:16:44 I agree, glumly, with Tom. But is the situation here a bit more hopeful? I mean, the whole passenger system is already in place...all they're talking about, after all, is creating a stop. * * * * * * * * * * * * Brian - 2004-04-08 17:57:26 I would take a train to Dearborn to work if I could. The only problem is where my office is located in relation to the Amtrak station. I would have to hop on a bus once I got there. My commute would more than double. That's not a lot of incentive to change my modes of transportation. I think the more important question is how much is this going to cost our community? After seven years of studying, I would hope someone knows.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-04-08 21:40:55 Well...I take the bus every day from Y to A, which takes 60 min door to door instead of the 30 min by car. However. I read the paper every day (which I wouldn't find time to otherwise), I don't worry about idiot drivers, I don't pay parking, I read the most interesting story on tornados in the Nat'l Geo on the way home today, and I peoplewatch. The time became a non-factor because I get those other benefits from riding the bus.* * * * * * * * * * * * DaveD - 2004-04-10 11:43:15 I got sick of dealing with cars and traffic, and have been riding the AATA bus and bicycling. The trips take longer, but it's so stress free, I wouldn't have it any other way. If this went through, it would be a godsend for a lot of people like me. I only live a few blocks from Depot town, and I would probably take it to downtown Detroit every weekend. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-04-10 11:47:33 Welcome to the blog, DaveD! I'm with you. The only time I use my car is shopping on the weekends. We have till Thursday to send an email (link in posting as you saw) or write a letter--even a short little email would be one more voice in support of this plan!. I too would take weekend daytrips to Detroit, and visit my sis in Lansing, too. Ideally, I'd commute to work in AA that way, if cost-effective. That would be sweet--I'd love that.* * * * * * * * * * * * florist - 2005-10-12 02:26:31 Please check the pages dedicated to seeds seeds http://www.flower4us.com/sympathy-flowers.html http://www.flower4us.com/sympathy-flowers.html ...* * * * * * * * * * * * add your comment: |