It is my understanding that the AATA or the “New Countywide” Transit System will operate all of the Transit service along the connector corridors. This will effectively eliminate U-M’s bus system, more than likely this is why U-M is paying into the study. If you review the original TMP from AATA, this item is in there with the Commuter Rail and Downtown Circulater.

[link]

I suspect there’s more than what I found, but it’s a start.

Yes, the article has been corrected.

$15-$20 million per mile for Bus Rapid Transit
$50 – $60 million per mile for Light Rail Transit
$200 million per mile for Elevated Transit

along with annual operating costs of $.5 million to $1.5 million PER MILE, why would we want to “throw away” even more money on this?

Cooper said, “The people taking trips provided by a connector transit system will not be competing for space on the road system.”

Where is this new “space” going to come from? People’s front yards? How many business and homes would have to be moved to provide the necessary space along Plymouth, through downtown and down South State?

Bravo, Mr. Powers. First for taking responsibility. Second for possibly saving us $60K plus subsequent related expenditures.

What the mayor fails to see (or at least acknowledge) is an even larger picture that includes an historically unprecedented credit bubble in the US (blown up after successive stock and housing bubbles) and a global financial crisis. The past is not always a good basis for predicting the future, especially at this point.

“He cautioned against backing away from transit – offering as a sardonic possibility the idea that the council could also vote to say they did not want more jobs in the city.”

What we want and what will happen within the broader circumstances aren’t likely to be the same thing–not even remotely.

“Hieftje called it wise to invest $60,000 as part of a $1.5 million project. The city can continue to build parking structures, and accept more traffic in the city, or we can invest in transit, he said. He asked that councilmembers show a little bit of vision as the city looks to the future and tries to plan for that.”

It would be wise if the broader context were given consideration, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. It would have been even wiser decades ago, but that train has left the station.

The city needn’t continue(?!!!) to build parking structures if that context is understood. Yes, transit would be preferable, and just maybe it will happen (in the form of buses). I’m not holding my breath, though. Instead, I’m preparing for the coming deflationary depression and a steep drop-off in net available power from fossil fuels.

The first phase will be somewhat counterintuitive, and one that city council members don’t care to understand: prices–including gasoline and other fuel prices–will drop due to deflation. How will a commuter (assuming they’re still employed) with years left on their lease or car loan justify paying for mass transit when they have that sunk cost in a vehicle and gas is dropping in price?

That’s all to say that voting for spending this small amount of money on an unrealistic project is a waste of money (thrown in with a lot more wasted money) that could be spent preparing us for what’s really headed our way. (If you think that “waste” is too strong a word, how about low-odds gamble?)

Is this the **northwest** corner where that failed development is now being revived?