A Rail Line From Detroit To Ann Arbor Is Right In Front Of Our Faces

[royce]

While reading the "Where Detroit Transportation Goes From Here?" thread, someone mentioned that the hold up with a commuter line to and from Detroit and Ann Arbor deals with the freight lines not making tracks available to passenger trains. On this forum several years back I brought up the idea that some of our freeways could allow commuter train traffic.

On almost a daily basis, I travel from the westside of Detroit to Downtown and to the eastside of Detroit using the Jeffries [[I-96) and the Fisher [[I-75) freeways. On a few occasions recently I have traveled to Ann Arbor using I-96 to M14. Given the fact that the Jeffries for a good portion is wider than the Grand Canyon, it would seem possible that a commuter train could actually fit in the left lane of the Jeffries and continue along the Fisher [[which is also very wide) and stop in Downtown Detroit at Woodward. Another commuter train could travel from that spot to Ann Arbor using the Fisher to the Jeffries to M14 and ending on Main Street, at say Liberty.

Obviously M14 would have to be widened and the commuter train would have to become a subway under Main Street to make that portion of the route work, but given the fact that it's taking forever to get a rail line going on regular rail lines, maybe this far-out there idea might make sense sooner than waiting for forever. In my opinion, freeways like the Jeffries, Fisher, Reuther, and Chrysler could be the answer to "rail rapid transit." One day when the world runs out of gas, the freeways maybe exactly where you'll put the new rail lines. Something to think about.

[renf]

Some progress is being made on the commuter rail project that will link Ann Arbor to the employment centers in downtown Detroit. The state of Michigan now owns the former Michigan Central tracks from Wayne west to Ann Arbor and on to K-Zoo. This summer work is underway to improve those tracks for higher speed trains. Work to improve the access of trains to the present depot on Baltimore in the New Center neighborhood has also been funded. This will reduce the Ann Arbor Detroit travel time by some minutes.
The state owns the rail cars that will be used in this forthcoming commuter service. They will be on display this week-end at the Ypsilanti Michigan Central depot in that city's Depottown neighborhood. This is one component of the Ypsi Heritage Fest.

[iheartthed]

I don't think you'd have to widen M-14 to put in a commuter rail line. The clearing between the roadway and the buildings are pretty wide on both sides of the highway. Same goes for running it alongside I-94. The biggest obstacle to putting in a commuter line between Detroit and Ann Arbor is gathering the political support for it.

[Spartan]

A rail from Detroit to Ann Arbor wouldn't make much sense without going by the airport.

[Detroitnerd]

I have very serious doubts about the benefits of laying heavy rail along highway right-of-way. You are trying to mix one mode that promotes density with another mode that doesn't and which takes up precious space and which people do not want to live next to.

For more along these lines, see:
http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...Freeways/page2

[Hamtragedy]

What Spartan said.

[DetroitPlanner]

Some progress is being made on the commuter rail project that will link Ann Arbor to the employment centers in downtown Detroit. The state of Michigan now owns the former Michigan Central tracks from Wayne west to Ann Arbor and on to K-Zoo. This summer work is underway to improve those tracks for higher speed trains. Work to improve the access of trains to the present depot on Baltimore in the New Center neighborhood has also been funded. This will reduce the Ann Arbor Detroit travel time by some minutes.
The state owns the rail cars that will be used in this forthcoming commuter service. They will be on display this week-end at the Ypsilanti Michigan Central depot in that city's Depottown neighborhood. This is one component of the Ypsi Heritage Fest.

Thanks for bringing this up. There already is a proposed line that will link Wayne State, U of M Dearborn, EMU, Greenfield Village/the Henry Ford, Metro Airport shuttle, and U of M. Much of the capital cost has been spent on it, with a new station going up for Dearborn between U of M and Greenfield Village.

The only issue that we have is with operations. There is no funding sources available at the State or Federal level that covers these costs. Since the service is not part of SMART, DDOT, or AATA we cannot tap those for operating either [[even if we could it would mean even more service cuts to the bus systems, so that is not a viable solution).

Both MDOT and SEMCOG have videos online explaining the route and its service.
http://www.heritage.com/articles/201...mode=fullstory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diybaOkp1mU

[iheartthed]

I have very serious doubts about the benefits of laying heavy rail along highway right-of-way. You are trying to mix one mode that promotes density with another mode that doesn't and which takes up precious space and which people do not want to live next to.

For more along these lines, see:
http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...Freeways/page2

Well, commuter rail systems are meant to connect lower density areas with high density hubs, so I don't think it would be much of a problem. The line shouldn't have more than 10 or so stops between Detroit and Ann Arbor if it's going to be an efficient alternative to driving.

Also, as Spartan said, this really needs to connect Detroit and Ann Arbor to the airport. That actually should be the primary focus since both cities need to a rail connection to the airport more than anything else.

[rex]

Would be nice if they would run something from Royal Oak to A2.

[Detroitnerd]

Well, commuter rail systems are meant to connect lower density areas with high density hubs, so I don't think it would be much of a problem. The line shouldn't have more than 10 or so stops between Detroit and Ann Arbor if it's going to be an efficient alternative to driving.

OK, so you have your rail stop serving a low-density area in the middle of the freeway. How do you get people from a low-density area to walk to this station down in the freeway right-of-way? They drive there? Where do you put the big parking lot for the rail station?

Royce keeps posting this idea [[he started the thread last time) and, yes, it is done in some places, like Chicago. But trying to shoehorn one mode, with all its benefits and drawbacks, into another mode, with all its different benefits and drawbacks, seems like an awful lot of wishful thinking. You're going to take people who would rather drive around a parking lot for 10 minutes to get 30 feet closer to a store entrance and ask them to walk a quarter mile to a train station? Or to transfer from a bus? I remain very skeptical, especially when it comes to shelling out money for new heavy rail construction when we already have heavy rail corridors.

[iheartthed]

OK, so you have your rail stop serving a low-density area in the middle of the freeway. How do you get people from a low-density area to walk to this station down in the freeway right-of-way? They drive there? Where do you put the big parking lot for the rail station?

Royce keeps posting this idea [[he started the thread last time) and, yes, it is done in some places, like Chicago. But trying to shoehorn one mode, with all its benefits and drawbacks, into another mode, with all its different benefits and drawbacks, seems like an awful lot of wishful thinking. You're going to take people who would rather drive around a parking lot for 10 minutes to get 30 feet closer to a store entrance and ask them to walk a quarter mile to a train station? Or to transfer from a bus? I remain very skeptical, especially when it comes to shelling out money for new heavy rail construction when we already have heavy rail corridors.

I wouldn't advocate putting it down the center of the freeway. But there is plenty of room along I-94 to put the tracks on one side or the other. Then building the stations and parking lots would be pretty simple from that point...

[Detroitnerd]

I wouldn't advocate putting it down the center of the freeway. But there is plenty of room along I-94 to put the tracks on one side or the other. Then building the stations and parking lots would be pretty simple from that point...

Well, you're still going to end up hoping people will cross frontage roads to get to a train station. Then there are the cross purposes: Freeways create sprawl, the developments aligned with the freeway are low-density development. You want to integrate into this a mode through that works well with high-density development. Why even bother?

Then there's the fact that roads are engineered for cars, not for trains. Even gentle curves require slower speeds for trains. Without good, straight, right-of-way [[the kind that is in existence via our rail corridors), you can't get to high speeds.

And then what about your urban destinations? You're sacrificing lots and lots of land that would be readily developed because you're going to have your stops right near some of the least desirable land in the city?

Ultimately, I feel these plans would be sacrificing the great thing about rail: A 25-foot strip can accommodate two lines of rail. You can place development right nearby on the urban end. A rail cut doesn't take up a lot of space. You want to integrate the slender right-of-way that can carry tens of thousands of persons per hour and put it alongside a freeway? And spend lots of money to do it?

Remember the old saw, "Pay me now or pay me later"? Here's a revolutionary idea: Why don't we do it right? Why don't we decide to actually build our passenger rail corridors properly, along areas of high density, connecting nodes of high density along their own dedicated right-of-way? You know, how it's generally done when planners intend to be successful?

In this habitat of halfmeasures, where glib ideas win the day, maybe that's just a crazy idea.

[chicagoforlife]

The difference between what we have here in Chicago and what you guys are proposing is that in Chicago it's just the CTA L that runs down the expressway medians, the CTA L is rapid transit for the city; Metra runs the commuter rail here and doesn't use any expressway medians for their tracks.

However there are still park and ride lots at various CTA L stations and are at stations along the expressway medians like Forest Park, Harlem [[O'Hare branch), Cumberland and Rosemont on the Blue Line. The Harlem park and ride is very small and has a small lot just south of the expressway, the Cumberland park and ride is the largest one and has over 1,600 parking spaces, it's a parking ramp just south of the expressway in a business area.

It can be done but you need a wide expressway median and for the most part the one's in Chicago aren't very long stretches, I think the O'Hare Blue Line branch that runs in the median of the Kennedy is about 11 miles, that would be the longest stretch of expressway median. On the Eisenhower it cuts to the south of the expressway after Central and the Dan Ryan branch of the Red Line is about 9 miles long.

[Detroitnerd]

The difference between what we have here in Chicago and what you guys are proposing is that in Chicago it's just the CTA L that runs down the expressway medians, the CTA L is rapid transit for the city; Metra runs the commuter rail here and doesn't use any expressway medians for their tracks.

CFL: Thanks for contributing.

BTW, are there any good online sources for images of these freeway-integrated rail stops? I'd like to take a look if I can.

[DetroitPlanner]

CFL: Thanks for contributing.

BTW, are there any good online sources for images of these freeway-integrated rail stops? I'd like to take a look if I can.

Try Google maps. You should be able to see the stations from all angles.

[chicagoforlife]

CFL: Thanks for contributing.

BTW, are there any good online sources for images of these freeway-integrated rail stops? I'd like to take a look if I can.

No problem.

This site might be able to help ya out, http://www.chicago-l.org/operations/index.html#line

The lines that run in the medians are Blue Line [[O'Hare branch); Blue Line; [[Forest Park-Congress branch) and Red Line [[Dan Ryan branch). The oldest one is the Blue Line's Forest Park-Congress branch.

In case you are wondering how you access these stations, the station entrances and exits are on expressway overpasses, you walk on the overpass and in the middle is where you go and get on the train. There is a long staircase that takes you down to the platform and there is also an elevator.

[iheartthed]

Well, you're still going to end up hoping people will cross frontage roads to get to a train station. Then there are the cross purposes: Freeways create sprawl, the developments aligned with the freeway are low-density development. You want to integrate into this a mode through that works well with high-density development. Why even bother?

Then there's the fact that roads are engineered for cars, not for trains. Even gentle curves require slower speeds for trains. Without good, straight, right-of-way [[the kind that is in existence via our rail corridors), you can't get to high speeds.

And then what about your urban destinations? You're sacrificing lots and lots of land that would be readily developed because you're going to have your stops right near some of the least desirable land in the city?

Ultimately, I feel these plans would be sacrificing the great thing about rail: A 25-foot strip can accommodate two lines of rail. You can place development right nearby on the urban end. A rail cut doesn't take up a lot of space. You want to integrate the slender right-of-way that can carry tens of thousands of persons per hour and put it alongside a freeway? And spend lots of money to do it?

Remember the old saw, "Pay me now or pay me later"? Here's a revolutionary idea: Why don't we do it right? Why don't we decide to actually build our passenger rail corridors properly, along areas of high density, connecting nodes of high density along their own dedicated right-of-way? You know, how it's generally done when planners intend to be successful?

In this habitat of halfmeasures, where glib ideas win the day, maybe that's just a crazy idea.

Well, I think what's being proposed here is more like the NJ Transit, LIRR or SEPTA systems. It's targeting 2 groups of people: 1) people traveling to/from the airport to points along the route, 2) people traveling to/from points along the route to either terminus of the line [[Detroit/Ann Arbor). I agree, the termini for the route should be in pedestrian oriented areas of Detroit and Ann Arbor. But basically, I think of this is a commuter line and distinct from a high density urban rail line [[like what the M1 Rail on Woodward is intended to be).

[iheartthed]

The difference between what we have here in Chicago and what you guys are proposing is that in Chicago it's just the CTA L that runs down the expressway medians, the CTA L is rapid transit for the city; Metra runs the commuter rail here and doesn't use any expressway medians for their tracks.

And that's what I hope doesn't happen in Detroit. If Detroit ever gets a true rapid transit urban rail line then it will hopefully not be built in freeway medians. But I don't see a reason for not putting a Metra like system along the freeway. Most people would be accessing the stations by car anyway...

[Detroitnerd]

If it comes right down to it: How about taking I-94, putting four railbeds down in it, two local, two express, and then covering it over, and putting a boulevard up above it. Seriously. Fuck I-94.

[poobert]

I was enjoying a plate of freedom fries, listening to the new Limp Bizkit album, still feeling thankful that we had a Mission Accomplished in Iraq. I was about to head to the theater to see Bad Boys II when I realized we lost power. I pulled my flip cell phone out of my cargo pants with 7 pockets but it wasn't working. I remember feeling dejected that I would miss One Tree Hill. Boom.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

A rail from Detroit to Ann Arbor wouldn't make much sense without going by the airport.

Agreed completely. I am not sure how much traffic this project will get, once it is up and running, but I am for giving it a try. Making practical stops is imperative, also tying in other transit options and several park & ride locations. The airport, I would imagine, would be the consistently busiest stop, serving both travellers to either AA or downtown, and also the thousands that work in and around the airport. I hope they somehow integrate a very functional stop there. The "BWI Airport" stop outiside Baltimore is not a good model. The station is served by MARC commuter rail and Amtrak trains. But wait for trains can be long; the trip from the terminal to the station is long and slow [[requiring a shuttle bus), and tickets are moderately expensive for MARC and outrageously expensive for Amtrak; they don't have any kind of integrated commuter pass. If they can make train to the airport competitive with driving, it might just work.

[professorscott]

The "BWI Airport" stop outiside Baltimore is not a good model. The station is served by MARC commuter rail and Amtrak trains. But wait for trains can be long; the trip from the terminal to the station is long and slow [[requiring a shuttle bus)...

The commuter rail that SEMCOG has been working on [[for years and years) unfortunately will have all of these characteristics. They are planning on just a small number of trains per day, mostly to serve peak-hour commuters, and there is no chance of the trains actually entering airport property. [[They will use existing track, except in midtown where some new track is being added because we can't have the service at all otherwise.)

I'm not saying the commuter rail won't serve a purpose; it certainly will, but it's not going to be like in cities where there is frequent train service directly from the airport into town.

[Zug]

I was enjoying a plate of freedom fries, listening to the new Limp Bizkit album, still feeling thankful that we had a Mission Accomplished in Iraq. I was about to head to the theater to see Bad Boys II when I realized we lost power. I pulled my flip cell phone out of my cargo pants with 7 pockets but it wasn't working. I remember feeling dejected that I would miss One Tree Hill. Boom.

Wrong thread, but for some reason I really enjoyed reading it in the middle of this one. Lol. Freedom fries! 'Murica!

[chicagoforlife]

And that's what I hope doesn't happen in Detroit. If Detroit ever gets a true rapid transit urban rail line then it will hopefully not be built in freeway medians. But I don't see a reason for not putting a Metra like system along the freeway. Most people would be accessing the stations by car anyway...

Detroit isn't really setup to have mass transit lines in expressway medians. Maybe I-94 out to the airport for a little ways but that's about it.

It works better for Chicago because the first line that was put in an expressway median was the Forest Park branch of the current Blue Line. The expressway replaced the old Garfield Park L and the end of the line was originally at the LaSalle/Congress station in the Milwaukee-Dearborn subway. So since it was replacing an old L line in the first place it did make some sense.

[Cliffy]

Would be nice if they would run something from Royal Oak to A2.

Amtrak already covers that route.