Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jbr12

Urban Spawling in Michigan

14 posts in this topic

I saw an article in the TC thread about traffic and found this bit of information buried near the bottom of the article:

In Michigan, the problem of driving too much is particularly acute, and its effects go beyond boosting the accident rate. A study by the Michigan Department of Community Health found that, because of the state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


One way to change the mindset would be to increase the tax bill of each person per mile that they drive in areas that have a mass transit system, and make the amount that a person pays to use mass transit system be tax deductible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the Automotive Industry Juggernaut, its obvious that Michigan would become an example of the Automobile centric lifestyle gone too far. Well there is California. Other than Grand Rapids' RAPID bus service and the Detroit's people mover, not much can be said about mass transit in this state. So Mass transit needs to happen in our cities and state. Added to this is the challenge of changing the automotive mindset so deeply ingrained into Michiganians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a problem that needs to be addressed, but there is no real quick solution. A lot of the time mass transit wouldn't operate due to the lack of riders throughout the state (not enough densely populated areas). Cities need to bring more people back in the city and stop the urban sprawl. I know Lansing, EL, Grand Rapids, and Detroit are all trying to bring people back into the cities. As more people come back to the cities mass transit will be needed. Another problem is that people would rather drive their cars somewhere instead of walking or using public transportation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mass transit-low density argument doesn't work.

The regions across the country implimenting mass transit into their infrastructure include some of the most low density (Phoenix, Charlotte, Houston, Albuquerque, Las Vegas).

Detroit is the same size as Atlanta, yet twice as densly populated. Atlanta has heavy rail mass transit...and so does San Francisco and New York City.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mass transit-low density argument doesn't work.

The regions across the country implimenting mass transit into their infrastructure include some of the most low density (Phoenix, Charlotte, Houston, Albuquerque, Las Vegas).

Detroit is the same size as Atlanta, yet twice as densly populated. Atlanta has heavy rail mass transit...and so does San Francisco and New York City.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all starts with attitudes and education. Government regulation can curb sprawl and make it less appealing but at the end of the day it local governments job to plan and grow (within legal boundaries) in the way its citizens desire. Until the anti-urban, pro-township attitudes of people can be changed, sprawl will continue due to market forces. If people don't want it, you can't force it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government policy can do a lot of things, true. Unfortunately in Michigan our policy maker have aimed and scored a bullzeye to shut the place down. Shows where there interest lies. I'm sure transit and growth policy is at the bottom of priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Its pretty noticable that just about every city in MIchigan has sprall, but one different place that I've noticed that doesn't is MIdland, I know theres not much growth but whats there is contained mostly within its city limits and not very "patchy" how did they do it? Are the townships surrounding it charter?

Its like Lexington Kentucky where it just grows outward, ulthough its sprall, its a very controlled growth and keeps the density without reachingout for miles eating up patches of farmland. Its also almost entirly within its cit limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is because if you get utilities from Midland you have to become part of the city of Midland. Part of the city of Midland is even in Bay county.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One way to change the mindset would be to increase the tax bill of each person per mile that they drive in areas that have a mass transit system, and make the amount that a person pays to use mass transit system be tax deductible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is because if you get utilities from Midland you have to become part of the city of Midland. Part of the city of Midland is even in Bay county.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Michigan is at a natural disadvantage when it comes to sprawl, because you can drill a hole just about anywhere in the state and get clean water, and most of the soil is good for on-site septic systems. In many other states, the location of utilities dictates where you build, because you can't get water, at least not without incurring a large expense to get it. Many of our main contributors to sprawl, the suburban and exurban developments, don't have utilities and don't need them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting juxtaposition of posts. One of the limitations of sprawl in Midland is that it's groundwater tends to contain a lot of brine (the reason Dow settled there). So it is one place in the state that digging a hole and finding fresh water is less likely. But Midland (in partenership with Sagnaw) pipes wonderful water from an intake on Lake Huron at Whitefish Point. Midland tax rates might be high, but the city provides excellent services for the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.