Printable View
"The U.S. Department of Transportation has approved $196.5 million for part of a high-speed Amtrak passenger rail link between Chicago and Detroit."
"The Transportation Department says that will shave 30 minutes off travel on Amtrak's Wolverine and Blue Water services between Detroit and Chicago."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6690857.story
Help me out here. The existing trains will be traveling on these upgraded high-speed rails? Will the trains need to be modified, or are they already capable of the higher speeds?
It would be nice to have the ultra-modern, sleek trains running in Asia and Europe.
*facepalm^Quote:
Originally Posted by vetalalumni
Here's the press release from MDOT:
This is my understanding. Currently, Norfolk Southern owns a 135 mile segment between Dearborn and Kalamazoo. M-DOT will be purchasing this segment. Norfolk Southern has very little motivation to do whatever enhancement that need to be done because their chief concern is moving freight at low speed, not people at high speeds.Quote:
CONTACT: Jeff Cranson, MDOT Director of Communications, 517-335-3084
[[Editor's note: See Fast Facts at end of release.)
MDOT seeks to improve both passenger and freight rail lines with purchase of Norfolk Southern Railway track
October 5, 2011 -- The Michigan Department of Transportation [[MDOT) today announced an agreement with Norfolk Southern Railway [[NSR) to purchase a critical 135-mile segment of railroad track between Kalamazoo and Dearborn. The track is part of Amtrak's Wolverine passenger rail service and also provides freight services to major Michigan companies, including Ford Motor Co. The $140 million purchase was made using Federal Railroad Administration grant funds, which includes an affordable state match.
The purchase will enable MDOT to stabilize and upgrade the track for both passenger and rail freight services. NSR will retain an exclusive freight easement to preserve and grow its freight business.
"Investing in rail service will spark economic development in communities along a corridor linking Detroit and Chicago, two vital Midwest cities," said Gov. Rick Snyder. "A faster, reliable passenger rail system is a priority for younger generations and vital to Michigan's ability to compete globally as businesses look to locate or expand. The rail improvements will also hasten the transport of freight, a priority for Ford Motor Company and other Michigan businesses along the route."
MDOT ownership of the Kalamazoo-Dearborn segment, combined with Amtrak ownership between Kalamazoo-Porter, Ind., will ensure that nearly 80 percent of the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Accelerated Rail Corridor will be in passenger-friendly ownership, giving greater control over the services.
"This important rail infrastructure upgrade will lead to long-term economic benefits for Michigan," said State Transportation Director Kirk T. Steudle. "We plan to work with Norfolk Southern and the Michigan Economic Development Corporation to grow the freight business along this corridor, while supporting intercity passenger rail travel, which has shown remarkable growth in Michigan in the past several years."
"Norfolk Southern is pleased to support Governor Snyder and Secretary LaHood in this important transportation infrastructure improvement project," said CEO Wick Moorman. "Ensuring capacity for freight operations while improving service for passengers will help the Detroit to Kalamazoo rail line reach its highest, best use. Norfolk Southern will continue to serve freight customers on the line."
MDOT has been working in cooperation with the FRA and Amtrak in planning for implementation of 110 mph passenger service over this route. The FRA had selected for award approximately $350 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [[ARRA) funding and High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program funding to MDOT for the acquisition and upgrade of the line.
In addition to the purchase and upgrades, MDOT agreed to build a double track on the busiest freight segment of the line east of Ypsilanti to ensure adequate capacity for both freight and passenger operations. The new track will benefit the production operations of Ford Motor Co., among others.
"We believe this investment in intercity passenger rail will reduce travel times, improve service reliability and allow for future increases in services, which will increase ridership and revenue," said Timothy Hoeffner, administrator, MDOT Office of Rail. "It will set the stage for additional passenger rail service after the completion of the accelerated rail project. And, because NSR retains the freight business, Michigan has a nationally recognized Class 1 operator willing to grow and enhance freight business, which is critical to Michigan's economic growth."
FAST FACTS:
- Record 480,000 passengers on the Wolverine in FY 2010, with FY 2011 ridership exceeding those numbers by 13 percent [[one month left to report.)
- Improvements will allow speeds up to 110 mph on nearly 80 percent of the route between Detroit and Chicago, resulting in a 30-minute reduction in travel time, improved reliability and on-time performance.
- $140 million purchase price, using FRA High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program grant funds, which includes a state match.
So now M-DOT will own that segment and modernize it [[although I don't understand what that entails). I don't know if the trains have to be modified either. I do know in some places they'll be adding parallel tracks so that passenger trains can pass slower freight trains without having to wait to get to certain points.
I'm a little concerned because we're spending a lot of money for a little benefit. We're not shaving off a lot of time here as travel time will still be in the ballpark of driving. The main benefit of taking a train is that you don't have to fork out $50 a night for parking.
I'm a huge fan of mass-transit, but I just don't know if doing 110 mph in limited sections is going to be fast enough. Ideally I'd like to see faster speeds, fewer stops, and get the time down to about 2 hours. That would require sustained speeds of around 150 to 160 and very few stops.
30 minutes isn't very much but I think the parallel tracks might help keep the passenger trains on schedule which Amtrack doesn't have a good reputation for.
If it were up to me of course we would invest more money more wisely into infrastructure and we'd have a nation-wide bullet train network but it's not up to me. :)
This isn't high speed rail. It's just a little less slow than before. Amtrak's website lists the current time as 5 hours, 36 minutes. Taking a half hour off of that still makes it only about the same speed as driving. Fundamentally, there are a few reasons why it's not faster: it is not even close to direct, it has numerous stops, and it will not have sustained speeds of 110 mph [[the press release merely says the approved improvements will allow speeds of up to 110 mph on much of the route).
Also take note the misleading ridership statistics. "480,000" riders per year is not that many travelling Detroit to Chicago. That includes anyone who rides any part of the line. Most of it's riders are those who take it as commuter rail within an hour or so of Chicago. Does anyone think that the Detroit Amtrak station has thousands of people coming and going each day? Stand out there and count.
The money would be better spent on local transit, such as buses and light rail. If someone wants fast, they are going to fly; the train is not competitive. If riders want cheap, they will take MegaBus. If they want convenience, they will drive. Amtrak- even if these improvements are done on time and on budget [[not likely by history of rail infrastructure projects)- is not competitive. I wish it were, I love rail travel. But spending huge amounts of money on modest improvements to lightly used routes is foolish. Doubly so when states, the federal government, and Amtrak are all facing massive structural deficits. We're cutting bus service for far more people, at much less money, than this project will benefit. The money for transit is small and finite. This "high speed rail" is a giant waste. Both Detroit and Chicago could better invest this money locally on local transit issues.
The US isn't comparable to Europe or Japan for rail service. For one thing, they are much more densely populated, with major population centers closer together. Additionally, both flying and driving are considerably more expensive in both places. Also note, most high speed rail in the world loses money. Buckets of it. Japan is covered in high speed rail, but only has 2 profitable routes. China has very recently laid down massive amounts of rail and has discovered that they can't afford to operate most of it, let alone the generations they will spend paying off construction. Only two areas of he US generate traffic to warrant considering such sums: the Northeast corridor [[DC to Boston), and the Pacific Coast [[Seattle to San Diego). I am not saying those areas could be profitable; they still lose money. But at least the ridership numbers are substantial.
Columnist Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner has written a great deal critical of high speed rail. Here are 3 relatively recent columns of his on related topics:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...igh-speed-rail
http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...ter-city-buses
http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...oondoggle-cont
"It's Just A Little Less Slow Than Before Rail Approved."
Sometimes Marketers have to stretch the truth when the truth just doesn't quite hit the mark.
The eastern third of the U.S. and Canada is just as dense as western Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
All forms of transportation are subsidized and "lose money". Can we stop with the fake arguments against rail travel that pretend that other forms of transportation make money or are operate without subsidies?
Specifically to the Detroit-to-Chicago route, MikeyinBrooklyn also makes a few comments that are flat-out wrong. His claim that "Most of it's riders are those who take it as commuter rail within an hour or so of Chicago" has no basis in fact. Anyone familiar with the commuting options in the Chicago area would know that commuters have other train options and aren't taking Amtrak. But more fundamentally, the numbers show that Mikey's claim is wrong.
http://www.annarbor.com/Amtrak_rider...first_half.pdf
He also claimed that MDOT stated "the misleading ridership statistics. "480,000" riders per year is not that many travelling Detroit to Chicago."
He's the one making misleading statements. Nowhere in the press release does it claim that 480,000 people are riding from Detroit to Chicago. It states that there have been 480,000 riders on the train in the past year. That takes in people riding the train in either direction. If you tally up the passenger boardings, there are more people getting on the train in Michigan at stops 2 hours or more from Chicago than get on the train in Chicago. That shows that the majority of users are from Michigan destinations and are not commuters living within an hour of Chicago.
If people want to be parrots for right-wing hacks like Barone, that's your choice. But don't run around making false claims that are easily debunked unless you want to guarantee that people are going to tune out your comments because you can't even get the basic facts straight.
You make a great point there. How much do our roads make us? Nothing, they're wholly subsidized minus a few bridges that have tolls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
Good post Novine. Mikey "strayed off the rails" pretty far in his post.
Also, Mikey and other posters in this thread are guilty of perpetuating damaging misinformation about high speed rail. They equate U.S. plans for high speed rail with the bullet trains of Asia and Europe. This is wrong. In the U.S. rail transit industry, the term high speed rail refers to 100-120 mph routes. Research abundantly shows that if Amtrak's NorthEast and MidWest routes could consistently maintain these speeds, ridership would increase significantly [[even more than the healthy gains of the past decade). Bullet trains travel at 200+ mph and require huge new infrastructure investments in rolling stock, track upgrades and creating 100% grade separation from local roads. Yes, it's train travel, but it might as well be a completely different mode of transportation. Bullet trains are unnecessary in Michigan and have nothing to do with what is going with the Wolverine routes.
One other data point is the cost for this upgrade compared to other proposed transportation projects. It's costing the state about $1 million per mile to acquire the rail line and the feds will cover the $1.45 million per mile to upgrade the line with improved signals, track improvements, etc. Total cost per mile is around $2.45 million. For comparison, it's projected to cost $175 million per mile to widen I-94 from 6 to 8 lanes in Detroit. The cost to add one lane in each direction on I-75 in Oakland County is projected to cost $37 million a mile. Oakland County states that it costs them up to $1 million dollar per mile to pave a gravel road. For all the hand-wringing there will be about the cost for this project, it gets the state ownership of the busiest passenger rail line in the state and provides upgrades to that line to allow train speeds up to 110 MPH at a cost that's less than 2.5 times per mile what it costs to pave a 2 lane gravel road.
While I get the logic behind your statement and agree with it... the problem is selling that to a local population that spends a few hours EVERY DAY sitting in traffic on I-94/ I75 but only, maybe once every ten years, takes a train anywhere. THAT is the problem. Very few people here see the value [[bargain that it is) in investing ANYTHING in rail. The vast majority demand nice wide roads, and then elect representatives to make that happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
And over the years, we've sunk TRILLIONS of dollars into highway construction, and we still have such clusterfucks. Your answer is to throw more money at freeways and encourage more driving? Ever hear of Atlanta's "Freeing the Freeways" program in the 1980s?Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Ignore the whiners and build the God damned trains so we can catch up with the rest of the developing world. Necessity isn't a democratic process that should be left to the lowest-common-denominator turdbasket to decide.
The rest of you, get passports and go somewhere. The trains in Vietnam are better than Amtrak.
The hardest part to swallow is that we built all our great rail lines 150 years ago with private funds. They matured into massive, for-profit transportation companies serving every region in an efficient way and employed hundreds of thousands across the continent - jobs, I might ad that can't be done from India.
We *had* all this sixty years ago and gave it up in exchange for "personal transportation", itself another discussion entirely.
No. that is not my answer. It's what will happen though as the reality of the situation is that catering to the whims of the lowest common denominator turdbasket is precisely what happens in a representative democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
But I guess we could lobby some local pillars of the community to work outside the political quagmire and use their vast wealth and influence to get a coherent, forward thinking mass transit and a rail plan together that would serve the metro area. Yeah, some one call Illitch...oh wait.
For Fiscal Year 2010 here are some facts to add to the discussion. Below is a list of all the cities on the Wolverine route and how many passengers. It should be noted that New Buffalo, Michigan City and Hammond Whiting are the only ones that could even be remotely considered to be in commuting distance to Chicago
City Boardings + Alightings
Albion 1,636
Ann Arbor 140,735
Battle Creek 52,057
Birmingham 22,286
Dearborn 80,502
Detroit 67,971
Dowagiac 3,169
Jackson 28,506
Kalamazoo 113,061
New Buffalo 9,967
Niles 18,488
Pontiac 15,981
Royal Oak 34,306
Michigan City IN, 3.395
Hammond-Whiting 6.638
The five Detroit area stations had a combined total of 221,064 passengers, an average of 605.65 passengers per day. For Dearborn and Detroit that number may include passenger using the connecting bus to the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited at Toledo.
As for the speed issue, the San Joaquin between Oakland and Bakersfield California [[315 miles) has a top speed of 79 MPH, in fiscal 2010 it carried 977,834 passengers. This year it will top 1,000,000 passengers California's experience has been that reliability and frequency are more important then speed. So with 70% of the route capable of 110 running I think we can expect to see ridership continue to grow.
Regards
C.A.Quail