Big 3's decline could restore public transit
So the idea for a rail between Ann Arbor and Detroit is being delayed.
It’s technically for Michigan as a whole, which has had a long history of not having decent public transportation.
Possibly related:
- It's time to eat healthier America, seriously · May 21
- Entitlement isn't going to really help you out in the real world · May 21
- It’s sad, but we really do need to pay taxes · May 14
- Supporting equal rights... Good job Obama · May 14
- Relationships, jobs, where do priorities really fall? · May 7
The reason is simple, and it starts with Motor and ends with City. However, with the realization that cars being made by the Big Three are junk, a new age of public transit might arise in Michigan.
I can’t resist ending the semester without one last history lesson.
Back during the dawn of the twentieth century, Michigan had a sprawling and expanding public transit system, based on those electric trolleys, like the ones you see in San Francisco.
Shortly after the system, which spread through southeastern Michigan, a little southwest and north all the way to Traverse City, Detroit’s auto industry began to boom, and a few years later the transit system was dead.
Most major cities rely on public transit. It’s environmentally less harmful, less expensive to the individual, and theoretically can save time.
Michigan’s public transit is mostly buses in and around the Detroit area, which while helpful, tend to end shortly after the city limits or become increasingly spread out in terms of lines and stops as they leave the city.
With the automotive industry recovering from poor sales and poorer cars, now may be the best time to bring back public transit.
If Michigan built a better public transit system, this would allow people to affordably travel in the state at farther distances, increasing travel, tourism money and also helping to bring the people of the state closer together. It would also mean less commuter traffic, so people would not only have more time, but the highways would be less clogged at rush hour, speeding up traffic, which to be honest will still be large even if diminished from mass transit.
There’s also emissions reform to consider.
More public transit equals fewer emissions from car traffic, which means that auto makers and state Governors in Michigan have some leverage to forestall the reform if they don’t like it.
Okay that’s not a good thing, but for an issue this big you’re going to need all the support you can get, because if the auto makers are good at anything, it’s making Michigan about them. Other large cities have public transit; must Detroit fall behind in terms of population and prestige because of three companies that have had their way in southeastern Michigan for a century?
Detroit has been declining as a city for decades, but with public transit the city could be united with the suburbs to create a more unified area, and with that Detroit could once again prosper.
Plus if the transit spreads across Michigan, all the universities could have better frat parties, because it would be easy to get everyone together. Everybody wins with public transit, because people will still need cars, and with the time and money saved they can spend the time and money elsewhere, allowing business to expand, more time for family, and so on.
If nothing else it will cripple the last final hold the auto companies have on Michigan, which is almost reason enough for me.
- |
by Kenneth Barna
Dear Chris,
Flag for moderationI couldn’t agree with you more about the need for mass transit. Who do you think is going to build the vehicles for it? It will have to be the automobile industry, unless there is some company out there that does this sort of thing.
I am also upset with your bashing of the American automobile companies. They are producing wonderful products, and if the buying public goes out and looks at them, they would agree.
If there is any myth out there about quality, it lies with the Japanese and Korean brands. The recent disclosures of Toyota are going to be just the tip of the iceberg.
One of the biggest problems with mass transit is cost. Not just the initial outlay, but operating and maintenance. The main reason for the decline of bus service in Detroit was that of operating costs. I don’t believe any mass transit system can exist without subsidies. So, every time the bus service could not meet its costs, what did they do? Reduce service routes and increase costs. The minute you start down that road you are doomed to failure, because people will stop using the service, (it no longer comes to their area) or the rising costs prohibit them using it.
Like I have already said, are people going to allow for a government subsidy for mass transit?
by free transit
Well said, Chris. Here is quick history lesson on the streetcar. Where did they go? Watch this video.
Flag for moderationhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-
2486235784907931000&hl=en
If the link does not work, just search for “taken for a ride” on youtube.
Kenneth: Regarding subsidy, you have it exactly backwards. It is the auto system that is subsidized. Public transit is an investment. It is purposely run badly and unit costs are kept high because of political influence of the oil, sprawl, and auto industries.
by Kenneth Barna
Free Transit,
Flag for moderationHow are the automobile industries subsidized? If you are refering to the very recent bailouts of GM and Chrysler, they just happened recently. What subsidies have they received in the last twenty years?
Why would people purposely run things badly?
Lastly, public mass transit must be available, (customers should not have to walk more than six blocks to a stop or station) it must be on time, with waits no longer than thirty minutes, and as I said in my previous comments it must be affordable. I am willing to bet that if you checked any mass transit system in America, they are all being subsidized in some manner.
by free transit
Hi Kenneth. For a list of subsidies go to freepublictransit.org and click on the page “Externalities.” The auto-and-sprawl system supports many for-profit firms: auto manufacturers, fossil-fuel companies, and home builders, for example. But there are costs to this system which are not calculated when adding up the profits of these companies. Those unaccounted costs [externalities] are borne by the taxpayer and future generations. There are also plenty of direct subsidies. The stimulus bill had 30 billion for roads and cash-for-clunkers… to name one.
Flag for moderationTo answer your question about why would people purposely run things badly? The oil companies do not want public transit to be a success, because it would take cars off the road and cut into their revenue.