If you haven't already, please read the above article about a trans-Michigan rail line. I am often very skeptical of large scale transit projects, thinking that money spent on local bus/rail options is a much better bang for the buck. But I am at least intrigued by this proposal.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...ofit/80761258/

POSITIVIE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL
It isn't shooting for an outrageously unrealistic "bullet train" or anything of the sort. Existing technology and rail stock could fit the bill. It also has identified, correctly, that stops in Ann Arbor & Lansing [[isn't that really East Lansing station?) make for a more likely success. It also addresses that the train needs to be competitive time wise. One of my main issues with improving our rail link to Chicago is that it is investing hundreds of millions of dollars to make it about as fast [[or slightly faster) than existing [[and non-subsidized) bus service. Lastly, it is involving local transit officials. To succeed on it's own and also be of most transit benefit, riders should be able to easily hop onto mass transit in the destination city. Direct, or at least fast and easy, connections to Detroit, Lansing and GR airports would also be a boost for transit customers, and likely lead to more of them.

CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL
Projections that it will generate a "profit" of $14M annually. Problem: all of human history. I can live with subsidies for transit when they make sense. I cannot abide the pretend world as a rationale for public policy. Like virtually all passenger rail lines in this country for the last century, this line will not be profitable. Also, the ridership projections of up to 1.71M annual trips seems a little high. More than 100,000 people per month with make this trip on this train line? An entire percent of our population will take it every month? Really? What will be the source of construction money? Who will pay for cost overruns? Who, assuming profitability is at least iffy [[of course it's actually wrong, but I'm lending a slight benefit of the doubt for a moment), who would pay the operating subsidy? Who would maintain the new/refurbished tracks, technology and trains? Building it and then not being able to afford operating it is a real and absurd possibility. The "what-ifs" need satisfactory answers before spending and work were to start in earnest. A woman in the article refers to more than half a billion dollars as basically a real bargain for a transportation project. Debatable as the sentiment might be, it entirely ignores the opportunity cost involved. Is this the best use of more than $500M on transit in Michigan? Money available for transit [[or anything else) is pretty finite.

FLAWS IN THE STUDY, OR AT LEAST IN TAKING IT VERY SERIOUSLY
First and foremost, the study was funded, conducted and released by groups openly favoring the project. Second, any "study" conducted about a large transportation project, involving many governments, right of way issues, urban, suburban, and rural environmental issues cannot be very detailed if it cost all of $100,000.

But I do favor launching more study and coming up with proposals for the project should it be deemed wise to move forward [[I am on the fence on that). I think we should take a long, cold, hard look at it.

We should absolutely avoid California's crazy high speed rail fiasco. It would cost many multiples of it's original estimate, and open several decades late. It is being blocked and stymied at every turn by citizens, municipalities and courts for myriad reasons, most of which were predictable. It's estimated ticket cost [[as per it's advocates) is more than $300 per trip, one way in today's dollars. More expensive and slower than flying; 10X as expensive as a bus. It will only serve a tiny fraction of Californians in their lifetime, and not remove a discernible amount of cars from the expressways. And no one has floated a solution to the operating subsidy question all sides concede will exceed $100M annually in today's money. If it were ever actually built [[very much in doubt), the project would really be an alternative transit option for a very small group of very wealthy people who have no problem making that same trip faster and for less money today.

We should avoid that. If a trans-Michigan rail line can be built AND operated in a way that doesn't involve an exorbitant amount of money per rider, if it can attract a lot of riders, and it can be integrated with local transit and logical destinations, it might be worth it. Let the studies begin with the thought "Would it make sense if..." not "Wouldn't it be cool if..."