Faster trains coming to Detroit - Chicago Amtrak line

[Novine]

The lack of political support isn't in Ferndale and Royal Oak. It's in Pontiac, more precisely in the County Executive's office. There's support in SE Oakland County for extending light rail from Detroit. But LBP has blocked any effort to make that happen.

[mwilbert]

Good luck getting two small communities to commit general funds to this. All transit needs operating subsidies. SMART has enough issues covering their current system and would not be interested in giving more to two communities if it means cutting from others. M-1 is being paid for and run by the private sector. Can you think of the private sector doing the same for what will essentially be used as a food court/bar train?

No, but I don't expect light rail from downtown to Royal Oak to be funded by the local communities or by the private sector either. Any significant expansion of public transit is going to have to be funded by some kind of broader tax.

People use terms like "parking shuttle" or "bar train" as if that were a bad thing. These are legitimate uses of public transit and would make those areas more attractive. Connecting relatively close, walkable parts of the the area via public transit seems more likely to add value than trying to divert people from their cars for longer trips, although to the extent that can be done I think it would be great.

[wolverine]

I would so rather spend our Amtrak subsidies on paying for better buses, routes, and light rail in SE Michigan. Why? Lots more people use it than could ever use Amtrak in Michigan. Train travel from Detroit to Chicago is purely a pleasure ride for those who prefer it to other forms of travel. I prefer sailing to Chicago. Should that be subsidized? Buses are massively cheaper and 15% slower than the train. Plane travel is much faster, and price competitive with Amtrak if you plan ahead. And both bus and plane travel much more frequently.

I love rail travel. I have taken the train up and down the east coast repeatedly [[I have also taken buses all over the east). Those eastern cities move hundreds of thousands of people every single day by rail. We never, ever would, even if the subsidy were so large to make it price competitive. It just does not warrant the huge subsidy we need to give it in the midwest. Except for the blow to our civic self-esteem some would feel, abolition of Amtrak service in our whole state would be largely unnoticed.

The $25M annual Amtrak subsidy repurposed to local transit could pay for M1 rail into Oakland county in 5 years, or replace all of SE Michigan's bus fleet in that time. That does not include the Amtrak infrastructure costs. Or fund a good chunk of commuter rail to Ann Arbor. Resources are finite; those are more productive places to put the money. It will serve far more people, and take more cars off the road, which is more environmentally friendly.

That's not fair to other cities who have functioning and funded regional and local transit. Here in Chicago we WANT high speed trains to Detroit. I don't want to take a bus and taking a plane to Detroit is inconvenient. I love the ease and comfort of rail travel downtown to downtown. I hate taking buses long distance. Just because you think your region would benefit from redistribution of transit funds doesn't mean it's good for the rest of the country.0

Actually Chicagoan's would love it if Detroit got michigan central station renovated and the tunnels upgraded so we could take high speed rail to Toronto. The $300 million it would take to rehab the station is merely half the cost it will take to renovate Union station in coming years. Start asking the Feds for $$$

[DetroitPlanner]

No, but I don't expect light rail from downtown to Royal Oak to be funded by the local communities or by the private sector either. Any significant expansion of public transit is going to have to be funded by some kind of broader tax.

People use terms like "parking shuttle" or "bar train" as if that were a bad thing. These are legitimate uses of public transit and would make those areas more attractive. Connecting relatively close, walkable parts of the the area via public transit seems more likely to add value than trying to divert people from their cars for longer trips, although to the extent that can be done I think it would be great.

You completely missed my point. The paragraph is about operation not capital costs. Read the second sentance that states 'operating subsidies'. You will not get Farmington Hills to increase their taxes to run a service like this that will not be in their interest.

In addition this thread is about Amtrak and the services that connect to it. This service will not be of value to the low number of people who board or depart from the Royal Oak station.