Michigan's DOT may get Wisconsin's Talgo Trains

[jimmyr]

I agree entirely that Amtrak improvements will lead to no economic boom, except for the contractors involved. And while faster Amtrak service [[moderately faster, by the way; it will never rival air travel- which it does on the East coast- or be much faster than driving) will benefit the few Michiganders that use it in a given year, that does not really warrant spending the money. I realize that they are spending the money anyway, but putting that money into SE Michigan transit projects would benefit many, many more people. Foolish decision. Not unlike building a very expensive train depot in Troy, that- assuming it ever opens- will slightly improve the train-going experience of up to dozens of people a day. Some people are just so happy to make bad decisions with other people's money!

Glad you agree. M-1 won't provide any boom either, slugger.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Don't know how that posted twice.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Glad you agree. M-1 won't provide any boom either, slugger.

It already is. The Woodward corridor has been undergoing a moderate boom for several years now. It will only intensify as the project gets ready to open.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

At least Governor Walker took a break from suppressing voter rights to take time to hurt damage rail service.

Always makes me giggle.

[ghettopalmetto]

Our cities are less densely populated and further apart than they are on the East coast, where rail is widely used because it is more practical for many people than driving.

So why is it that practically every Amtrak train running through the Great Lakes region is sold out?

You keep talking about local transit spending. I think that's an intentional distraction on your part. Local transit is a different animal than intercity rail, and comes from a different pool of money. You wouldn't advocate for more local roads in lieu of interstate freeways, would you?

There is no scenario on the horizon where rail travel to Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland or anywhere else would become a heavily traveled route.

Go ahead and just *try* to buy a ticket on the Lake Shore Limited. Even though it comes to Cleveland once a day, in the middle of the night, takes longer than driving to Chicago [[and maddeningly long to New York, Boston, or Philly), it is perpetually sold out. So don't tell us there's no demand. There was no demand to drive on Interstate highways either--until they were actually BUILT.

Frankly, you're making shit up just to justify your preconceived ideology. The facts do not bear witness to your claims.

[jimmyr]

^ Good on you for calling out his bullsh*t.

[dtowncitylover]

Glad you agree. M-1 won't provide any boom either, slugger.

Riiiiiggghht....

[DetroitPlanner]

Faster rail to and from Chicago benefits [[1) kids that flee to Chicago after graduating from college, so they can visit parents over Thanksgiving and Christmas and [[2) kids originally from Chicago area that attend a Michigan university and [[3) miserable 22-27 y.o. college grads in SE Michigan after college, so they can go see how friends are living in a functional major city.

Faster rail does not provide a magical economic boom for a dysfunctional region.

If you're going to be a killjoy with every post at least research what you are going to say first.

Faster rail will also get the 50 percent of Illinois who want to leave the God-foresaken state move to Michigan! http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...257579171.html

The train runs both ways ya know. The grass is definitely not greener in Chicago.

[oladub]

Let's say that airports are fifteen minutes further than downtown bus or rail stations at each end of a trip for the average passenger and that we have to get to an airport an hour earlier than a flight instead of 20 minutes early for a bus or train. That gives a bus or train a 70 minute edge over planes useful only for trips of no more than maybe 250 miles. A bus would have the additional advantage of more stops for some people so they wouldn't have to somehow get to the nearest big city airport or train terminal.

One advantage trains have over planes and busses has to do with how nasty a drive is. Driving from the Michigan State line to downtown Chicago is a nasty trip especially driving one's own car but annoying enough in a bus. A train, in theory, should be able to shoot right through Chicago, Gary, and Hammond. That would be worth a few dollars by itself.

Now, just for fun, I'm going to go to Travelocity, Amtrak, and Mega-us to compare air, rail, rail, and bus fares and transit times for [[arbitrarily) Detroit to Chicago one way one month from now June 3.

Best air fare $95 Metro to Midway 1hr19min flight time [[plus 70 min. see above)
Amtrak $34 for 'value' coach seat 5hr34min
MegaBus $1 [[really) 5hr15min

Using my guesstimate numbers, a plane saves 2hr36min. compared with a MegaBus and 2hr.55min. compared with a Amtrak.

[ABetterDetroit]

I don't care too much about what kind of rail car the state buys. I am still convinced that all federal money dedicated to intercity rail is best spent on the relatively heavily used East coast, and to a lesser extent the West coast.

Not sure where you are going on a few of these Mike. When I write that check in April every year am I supposed to feel proud that it doesn't come back to MI?

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Not sure where you are going on a few of these Mike. When I write that check in April every year am I supposed to feel proud that it doesn't come back to MI?

Well, ABD, my perspective on federal money is that it should be spent wisely, even if that money doesn't come my way. The feds subsidize rail service via Amtrak, as well as grants to improve track & bridge infrastructure in various places. When they spend X dollars on rail service subsidies for the Boston to DC corridor, it can be justified because hundreds of thousands of people use it day in, day out. When they spend money on Amtrak service in Michigan, there is no corresponding justification based on passenger traffic. Similarly, all federal spending should be spent in what appears to be erratic fashion, but isn't. Iowa gets far more in agricultural aid than Arizona does. Alaska has more missile defense spending per capita than any other stay. Michigan gets more freshwater preservation money than any other state. The needs for various programs vary depending on the state. The expansive Midwest with widely spaced cities full of drivers don't have rail needs and demands on the same level as the East Coast, even on a per capita basis. If your pride is dependent on the level of federal spending that comes back to Detroit, you will be forever disappointed. I would be proud if the feds just spent money wisely or efficiently [[neither of which they do, of course).

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

So why is it that practically every Amtrak train running through the Great Lakes region is sold out? You keep talking about local transit spending. I think that's an intentional distraction on your part. Local transit is a different animal than intercity rail, and comes from a different pool of money. You wouldn't advocate for more local roads in lieu of interstate freeways, would you? Go ahead and just *try* to buy a ticket on the Lake Shore Limited. Even though it comes to Cleveland once a day, in the middle of the night, takes longer than driving to Chicago [[and maddeningly long to New York, Boston, or Philly), it is perpetually sold out. So don't tell us there's no demand. There was no demand to drive on Interstate highways either--until they were actually BUILT. Frankly, you're making shit up just to justify your preconceived ideology. The facts do not bear witness to your claims.

Ghetto, please note that my posts on this topic have been clearly an expression of my opinions. No attempt was made, directly or indirectly, to confuse or mislead: I laid out my opinion on the relative value of spending on local bus/light rail vs intercity [[Amtrak) rail subsidization. I cited few facts, but also didn't deny any either. The "making shit up" you cite I think refers to my opinion; I have no opinion on your opinion of my opinion, other than to suggest that just labelling an adversary's argument simply shit is the rhetorical equivalent of tapping out in submission wrestling. The norm is to pose an alternative argument, buttressed by facts where relevant [[note: just expressing an opinion, as opposed to arguing in court, does not need documentation; it needs facts when one is asserting it as definitively true; I only label my opinions as opinions; you are surely free to disagree). I also find it rather curious that the prime example of busy Midwestern rail service you cite, the Lakeshore Limited, runs but once a day [[even if often full), and does not enter the state of Michigan for even an inch. I never said there was "no demand" anywhere in my posts. The twice I have round-tripped to Chicago my train was far from full, but I will accept for sake of argument your statement that most trains in Michigan are sold out [[although what kind of business model wouldn't add more trains or railcars if they are consistently full?) Merely I argued that filling one train per day from NYC to Chicago does not warrant hundreds of millions in infrastructure improvements and subsidies in Michigan. There is some demand for intercity rail in Michigan, but not much, relative to commuter bus demand [[and light rail and BRT, when they are operational). You are partially incorrect in saying that local transit and intercity rail have different funding sources. Ultimately, both are supported by both state and federal money, although through different programs. Such resources are reallocated every year, through votes of Congress and the Michigan legislature. The funding sources for both are federal and state tax dollars. My advocacy is for directing federal money for intercity rail where it will get the most passengers per dollar spent: that is not in the Midwest anywhere, and certainly not in Michigan. I have always thought that "bringing home the bacon" is poor public policy, making political choices over intelligently deciding how to spend limited resources. As for the state money, I think the legislature should spend transportation money on local rail and bus, which will benefit far more people, and help improve the neighborhoods they serve. While I will refrain from analyzing your psychological need to see as an evil, excrement-spewing enemy someone advocating different transportation spending than you do, I will suggest that you and Jimmy regroup and mount a more concise defense of Michigan's Amtrak subsidies. I will gladly entertain your argument, when I can discern one.