response 126 of 158:

Apr 27 05:08 UTC 2002

Teh elevated rail is a nice idea, but you are eliminating any commercial
traffic, restricting it to passenger use only.  And imagine what the cost
would be in concrete structures laid from point a to point be every 50 feet
with clearance to exceed the tall trucks that pass under them.  16 feet?

response 128 of 158:

Apr 28 17:46 UTC 2002

You know, a high speed passenger rail service between Detroit and 
Lansing would be really nice. But there is no point arguing if it 
should happen or should not happen because it just plain is not going 
to happen at this point. I think people would get over the 
inconvenience of having the smaller roads closed off so bridges could 
be built over the line but building those bridges and closing the roads 
and making sure the tracks can handle those speeds is just plain way 
too expensive to even consider in this part of the USA. 

Good urban planning on a state level can help with this. I totally 
support that by the way. The thing of it is, the thing that Sindi just 
isnt getting, is that most people around here dont really see sprawl as 
a problem. They like living in low density areas and driving a lot. I 
am not sure it is possible to fight that although I suppose it is 
possible to vote with one's feet and to support whatever public 
transportation options are available. I would gladly pay more tax 
dollars to subsidize public transportation. I would LOVE to see all 
AATA busses have no fare. I think this would benefit everyone, even 
those who never ride the bus and who still wouldnt even if it were 
free. 

response 130 of 158:

Apr 28 23:30 UTC 2002

I like living in low-density areas myself.  We've got 47 acres.  I don't want
to live cheek by jowl with neighbors; I'd rather not have to deal with them
except when I want to.  It's also nice to be able to have huge parties, and
we've got lots of space for people to park cars.

I wouldn't mind having a city apartment to live in occasionally, but not as
a full time thing.  I like the space, and the not having people up your nose,
too much.

response 132 of 158:

Apr 29 15:21 UTC 2002

I'm not suggesting that everyone should do it.  I'm saying that I intend to
keep living in a low-density environment, and it would be hypocritical of me
to try to force other people to live in a high-density one.  People should
be allowed to make the choice.  Unlike you, I don't feel the need to pressure
people to conform to my lifestyle.

response 134 of 158:

Apr 29 17:13 UTC 2002

Sure, but it's too expensive for them to do it very often.  The Pittsfield
Township purchase was unusual, and it remains to be seen whether they'll get
to hold on to all of it or have to sell it.

The problem with the puchase of development rights program -- which is
state-funded, unlike what Pittsfield Twp. did -- is that they can only pay
a very small amount per acre.  It's reasonable for farmland as farmland, but
it's from 10-20% of what the land is worth for development, if that.  I think
the figure I've heard is 5-8K per acre.  That won't keep seriously developable
land out of development; they'll have to focus on stuff that won't be really
developable for 15-20 years at current growth rates, or land that isn't
suitable for other reasons.  I've done some research on this.

response 136 of 158:

Apr 29 17:54 UTC 2002

Re #131: The whole point is that the systems for keeping cars off the
tracks when trains are coming just don't work, because people ignore
them by driving around the gates or not paying attention to the signals.
 People are just plain impatient.

When it's a freight train going 40 mph, the result of someone cutting it
too close is the occupants of the car die, the engineer is traumatized,a
and the railroad gets sued by the car driver's family.  If it's a
passenger train going 120 mph, you're likely to have a dramatic
derailment with a lot of people on the train hurt or killed.

I believe there was an accident like that in England a year or so ago
when a Land Rover got in an accident and rolled down an embankment onto
the train tracks.

response 138 of 158:

Apr 29 19:14 UTC 2002

Re #135:  I agree.  I personally deeply wish the programs were better funded.

Re #136:  The guy fell asleep and his Land Rover rolled onto the tracks and
          got stuck.  He was on the phone to the cops when the train hit.
           He's been sentenced to prison time.

Re #137:  It can happen, but if they want to be able to save more they'll
          have to pay something closer to development prices.  (Not the same,
          necessarily, but a lot closer.)

response 140 of 158:

Apr 29 20:07 UTC 2002

Answer to 139 - about 42,000 traffic fatalities in the US per year (deaths
caused by cars).  Did not find info for deaths caused by trains, but one site
reported on a train-car collision caused by the car driver driving
intentionally along the railroad embankment instead of the road.  On average
2-3 times per year a motor vehicle will block a train track and the majority
of cases are due to vandalism.  40% of traffic fatalities are alcohol related.
I doubt that any train accidents are alcohol related unless there was a drunk
car driver on the tracks.  They are designing train wagons now to be more
crash-proof but it is difficult to keep vandals from driving on the tracks,
particularly the kind that drive a long distance off the road to reach the
tracks.  

response 142 of 158:

Apr 29 21:15 UTC 2002

But it is the car driver who is drunk.  A lot of car-car accidents are
alcohol-related.  Your protesting the existence of trains because some stupid
drunk drivers manage to drive in front of them could be extended to protesting
the existence of cars because people walk in front of them.  (And some stupid
drivers drive in front of them, going through yellow lights).

response 144 of 158:

Apr 30 13:16 UTC 2002

Re #142: I'm not protesting trains, I'm saying that the irresponsible
drivers and the legal climate in the U.S. would not mix well with high-speed
rail lines.  I suspect railroads see them as a serious liability risk, and
rightly so.  Juries often find in favor of the families of people that drove
out on the tracks, because the railroads are seen as uncaring corporations
with deep pockets.

response 146 of 158:

Apr 30 14:59 UTC 2002

So what are the car companies?  The oil companies?
Do irresponsible drivers mix well with anything?

response 148 of 158:

Apr 30 15:05 UTC 2002

The point is that people are arguing against public transit because it
interferes slightly with the use of cars, which I consider a rather
self-centered viewpoint.  Cars interfere with public transit and pedestrians
and even other cars.  Even drivers would benefit if more people took the train
instead of driving.