Detroit-Grand Rapids Rail Line

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

My problem with the Detroit to Chicago line improvements is that offers so little bang for the buck. It'll cost a few hundred million to make it a little faster than it currently is. And it will be more expensive and only slightly faster than bus or car travel, and hours slower than flying. That same money could have been spent on improving our local bus fleet, expand hours of service, or investing in BRT, light rail, etc. Or putting more uniformed cops on our mass transit, investing in improved technology. Such a lot of money for a small benefit never, ever used by most Detroiters or Michiganders.

[river rat]

What one should recognize is that this project is a JOBS project. Unemployment is not good, especially in an election year. This project will provide jobs, not transportation.

Of interest, there is a private rail transportation project in Florida from Miami to Orlando that may make sense. All Aboard Florida has a sound business plan and a very good study that indicates it would serve as a transportation service as opposed to a political jobs game.

[Junjie]

My problem with the Detroit to Chicago line improvements is that offers so little bang for the buck. It'll cost a few hundred million to make it a little faster than it currently is. And it will be more expensive and only slightly faster than bus or car travel, and hours slower than flying. That same money could have been spent on improving our local bus fleet, expand hours of service, or investing in BRT, light rail, etc. Or putting more uniformed cops on our mass transit, investing in improved technology. Such a lot of money for a small benefit never, ever used by most Detroiters or Michiganders.

A lot of the money came from a pot the Feds had specifically designated for rail travel, though. It's not like Michigan took away money that could have been used on these other things [[or at least, not the majority of it.) Correct me if I'm getting this wrong.

Also, I think the improvement here is much larger than you're suggesting. I used to frequently ride the train from Kalamazoo to Ann Arbor to visit family before I could drive [[and my family members did the same when they were too old to drive on 94), and the number of times we arrived on time might have been in the 5% range if ever. It's not taking the top speed from 80 to 100 or whatever that matters, it's getting rid of the delays caused by freight traffic taking priority on a route with long stretches of single-track. We're talking saving on the order of 30-120 minutes if the thing could just run straight through as scheduled, which is a very large improvement despite not much change in "speed".

From a 2014 News article on purchasing new cars for the route: "The trip now takes about 6 hours most days, but Hoeffner said MDOT's goal is to reduce the time to 4 hours." To me that's a very substantial improvement, and going 4 hours Detroit to Chicago is more or less competitive with driving in terms of time.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Junjie, you make a few points I would concede, and a few that I would disagree with. I remember [[no source recalled) that the improvements, when all done, would shave 1 hour off of the trip. If it is in fact 2 hours saved, that is a more substantial improvement. I do know that I have no faith in any projection provided by either Amtrak or MDOT. When 4 hour train trips to Chicago are running, I may stand corrected. Also, working out the "kinks" of our rail grid is beneficial for all rail use, improving both speed and reliability.

As for the funding of DET-CHI improvements, let me just say a few words. First, wasting money is wasting money, even if it is not as directly being paid by Michigan taxpayers. We are federal taxpayers, too. Second, federal transportation money usually comes with a requirement to fund a percentage of the project at the state or local level. So, millions of our Michigan dollars are still funding this, even if even more is coming from Washington. Third, federal transportation money comes with requirements that put a straight jacket on local planners. Changes in the design or operation of a project can cause years of delays, loss of funding, and in some cases, the repayment of money already spent.

My ultimate opposition to these improvements [[~$200M, IIRC) is that it is a very large amount of money to spend on something that offers no additional service, benefits a small amount of [[mostly affluent) riders, and ignores the fact that there is ample, frequent, affordable bus service, and very fast, frequent and sometimes affordable [[off-peak, bought in advance) air service to and from Chicago. Michigan's transit money would be better directed at finally starting the AA-Detroit rail service [[IF an airport link is included; nearly worthless without one, in my opinion). I would love to see an express rail service from Detroit to Flint, with with only limited stops in between; and those stops becoming hubs for local bus service.

[Junjie]

Junjie, you make a few points I would concede, and a few that I would disagree with. I remember [[no source recalled) that the improvements, when all done, would shave 1 hour off of the trip. If it is in fact 2 hours saved, that is a more substantial improvement. I do know that I have no faith in any projection provided by either Amtrak or MDOT. When 4 hour train trips to Chicago are running, I may stand corrected. Also, working out the "kinks" of our rail grid is beneficial for all rail use, improving both speed and reliability.

Yes, I agree with most of what you say also but perhaps not the ultimate conclusion. I'd join you in the justified "wait and see" attitude on this project. If they can't get really good on time performance - 80-90% minimum - and also cut it to below 5 hours, then I'd agree it'll have been a waste of funds.

As for the funding of DET-CHI improvements, let me just say a few words. First, wasting money is wasting money, even if it is not as directly being paid by Michigan taxpayers. We are federal taxpayers, too. Second, federal transportation money usually comes with a requirement to fund a percentage of the project at the state or local level. So, millions of our Michigan dollars are still funding this, even if even more is coming from Washington. Third, federal transportation money comes with requirements that put a straight jacket on local planners. Changes in the design or operation of a project can cause years of delays, loss of funding, and in some cases, the repayment of money already spent.

Yes, you're right. I just don't think anything is gained by turning that money down for what should be a pretty high-traffic corridor, and saying we'd prefer it had never been spent by the feds isn't very meaningful. Fine if that's your position, but it doesn't say anything about why Michigan shouldn't take the money once it's on offer. Wisconsin and Ohio refused theirs on principle, so now they just have worse service and other states [[like MI) got the money. I agree generally with your concerns on federal requirements, but in this particular case I don't see much potential for problems. The stops, tracks, etc. are all well-defined and nobody's being displaced or having service cut elsewhere to fund this [[well, except WI and OH I guess...). The only question was whether service would be improved on an existing line. I'm happy we said yes to that.

My ultimate opposition to these improvements [[~$200M, IIRC) is that it is a very large amount of money to spend on something that offers no additional service, benefits a small amount of [[mostly affluent) riders, and ignores the fact that there is ample, frequent, affordable bus service, and very fast, frequent and sometimes affordable [[off-peak, bought in advance) air service to and from Chicago. Michigan's transit money would be better directed at finally starting the AA-Detroit rail service [[IF an airport link is included; nearly worthless without one, in my opinion). I would love to see an express rail service from Detroit to Flint, with with only limited stops in between; and those stops becoming hubs for local bus service.

The eventual plan is to go from 3 trains per day to either 6 per day or 10 per day [[with 4 terminating in Detroit and 6 continuing to Pontiac). If either of those happens - of course, not guaranteed - there will be a pretty substantial increase in service. Air is fine if you're going Detroit to Chicago but is a big pain in the rear if you're going between pretty much any other two cities on the line. You're right to point out the bus, and in a better world that'd be sufficient, but suffice it to say a lot of people are never going to consider that option. 94 is a two-lane mess through most of southern Michigan that carries way too much traffic and is often down to one lane in multiple stretches. Good rail service in this corridor is a real benefit and it's operating at a geographic scale that makes sense, with two big anchor metros and two solid university towns on the line. It isn't like the money was being spent on that proposed Ann Arbor to Traverse City line - talk about toys for the affluent!

Well, anyway, I guess I'm just trying to say that given the menu we were offered, I don't see this as a bad choice. If we could take all of that money and use it to do regional rail from AA to Detroit, then yeah, I'd agree with you that it's more valuable. Heck, I'd rather have taken all of the money spent nationwide on high[[er) speed rail and put heavy rail down Woodward and Gratiot [[or similar in any other city). But that was never on the table, so I'm glad Michigan is improving its passenger rail service instead of adding three miles of additional lane on a highway somewhere.

I guess given all of that, I'm surprised that you are even open to looking at a Holland-Detroit line. Fundamental need and desirability seem way below Detroit-Chicago on all counts.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I guess given all of that, I'm surprised that you are even open to looking at a Holland-Detroit line. Fundamental need and desirability seem way below Detroit-Chicago on all counts.

I am for determining the following:
-what is the realistic expectation for ridership?
-what is the realistic construction cost for the project?
-what kind of ongoing subsidy would the project require?

After those are answered in detail a decision could be made.

As for need and desirability, let me just point out that there currently is no rail service on the Detroit to Holland route [[I am not sure, even if completed, that the train should go to Holland), unlike with Chicago to Detroit. And the other modes of transit have significantly smaller service than Detroit to Chicago.

I am always open to looking at things. I just think we [[people in general) get excited about a project and the specifics matter less and less. If the specifics make sense, I am all for the project.

[schulzte]

There is one major missing piece in the proposed cross state railroad. Could the rail route be shifted to directly connect to Metro Airport? There are railroad tracks running on the northern bound of the property that go to Downtown Detroit. If the route could run from Downtown to the airport and shift back up to Ann Arbor, now you've really got something. The airport is only 2 miles out of the way. It would add significant expense, but if you could really get on and off the train at DTW and walk into the terminals, this goes from being a dumb project to a transformative one. It might put Capital City Airport out of business, but its kind of silly to fly between Lansing and Detroit just to make connections anyway.

Think about flying into Metro Airport, hopping on a train, and being able to go to Downtown Detroit, maybe Pontiac and Birmingham Northbound, or Ann Arbor, Howell, Lansing, Grand Rapids and Holland westbound. That would be a very impressive project and provide a stable customer base for viable operations.

[renf]

Good observation! The rail proposals should consider a modification that would take
the Michigan Central tracks to and through Metro airport.

[Lowell]

There is one major missing piece in the proposed cross state railroad. Could the rail route be shifted to directly connect to Metro Airport? There are railroad tracks running on the northern bound of the property that go to Downtown Detroit. If the route could run from Downtown to the airport and shift back up to Ann Arbor, now you've really got something. The airport is only 2 miles out of the way. It would add significant expense, but if you could really get on and off the train at DTW and walk into the terminals, this goes from being a dumb project to a transformative one. It might put Capital City Airport out of business, but its kind of silly to fly between Lansing and Detroit just to make connections anyway.

Think about flying into Metro Airport, hopping on a train, and being able to go to Downtown Detroit, maybe Pontiac and Birmingham Northbound, or Ann Arbor, Howell, Lansing, Grand Rapids and Holland westbound. That would be a very impressive project and provide a stable customer base for viable operations.

Just checking the maps, there unfortunately doesn't appear to be easy way to connect an Ann Arbor - Detroit line to the airport. The line that passes adjacent to the airport bend south to Milan where it meets a line from Ann Arbor but that is way out of the way. The right of way issues to bend the Ann Arbor line south to the one passing the airport would seem prohibitive as you note. Too bad.

Too bad also that Willow Run wasn't converted to Metro as I see it sits right next to the Ann Arbor - Detroit Line.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Schultze you are spot on. Lowell, I wish I had your knowledge of the details of our rail system in Michigan. I think that in order for a Detroit to GR line to attract a lot of riders, it would need to connect with the airports [[ideally Capital City and GR Ford airports would be linked in addition to Metro). I do not know the GR or Lansing airport's proximity to their cities or rail lines. IIRC from the AA-Detroit rail proposal, the train to AA will pass less than a mile North of the airport. I think, simultaneously with building a rail line, the RTA should build a monorail that runs a loop to the airport terminals, parking garages, and the new train station.

Most people, I don't think, would ride the Detroit to Holland/Grand Rapids end to end. Rather, it would be ridden in pieces. Airports would be both a major destination for people riding the new rail line, and a source of passengers finishing their trips. It could be a real boon to riders, cities, and the local transit systems the rail line would feed.

If airport access could be built into the proposed cross-Michigan rail line, it would go from being an unlikely possibility to terrific plan worth fighting [[and paying) for.