Detroit-Grand Rapids Rail Line

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

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..."

[MicrosoftFan]

Wouldn't it be cool if we built a Hyperloop from here to Alpena? Tens of people would use it every month!

[casscorridor]

I hope this happens! Doubt I would ever use it though. I've never had any desire to go to Grand Rapids or Lansing, but it would be good for the state overall.

Chicago high-speed rail seems more exciting and useful to more people. As does high-frequency commuter trains to Ann Arbor.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Chicago high-speed rail seems more exciting and useful to more people. As does high-frequency commuter trains to Ann Arbor.

There are 2 reasons I think this project is very different than the improvements on the Detroit to Grand Rapids line. First, cross-Michigan rail service does not currently exist. Detroit to Chicago certainly does. I am not sure how many people would use the new route; that's why we need a real study. The second reason is that for all the hoopla about "high speed rail" between Detroit and Chicago, it really doesn't make it a fast trip. Faster, yes. Fast, no. Several times as long as it takes to fly. A little faster, but much less frequent, than bus travel. And to the extent it's affordable it is affordable by a combination of federal and state subsidies.

Currently there are 3 daily trains between Detroit and Chicago each way. If that were the level of interest in a Detroit-Grand Rapids train it would unquestionably not be worth the money. Moving a few hundred people a day doesn't warrant spending half a billion dollars, especially since that trip is doable by other means. But if it aided thousands of commutes and appreciably stimulated cross-state business and leisure travel, then maybe it does.

[Junjie]

Remember that level of interest is not foreordained but rather varies directly [[well, perhaps more like exponentially...) with service quality. If the train from Detroit to Chicago went 150mph and had ten trains a day, a lot more people would be using it.

[[I'm not saying we should build that service, just saying that it's hard to judge "level of interest" without talking about a specific service plan.)

This is worth a look. East Lansing and Ann Arbor would provide a lot of built-in market. Is there freight on this corridor? A delay-free experience could build ridership quickly and take a few cars off of 96.

[Hypestyles]

so what about the key issue of most rail lines being owned by private companies now [[though they were bailed out by the federal government in the 1970s)...

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

This is worth a look. East Lansing and Ann Arbor would provide a lot of built-in market. Is there freight on this corridor? A delay-free experience could build ridership quickly and take a few cars off of 96.

Absolutely. I imagine that most people won't be travelling one end to the other. In addition to the college students in each city, each location is a major job center. I don't know where the line would run relative to airports, but linking to them would make this a fantastic and well traveled line, I would think.

I don't know about the freight situation. If it is a freight-priority line, we can stop talking about this project now. Messes up Amtrak trains in many places.

[Hermod]

We did have several trains a day on the Pere Marquette/C&O/CSX lines from Detroit to Grand Rapids up until AMTRAK. They weren't heavily used.

Fort Street-Plymouth-Brighton-East Lansing-Grand Rapids

Tracks are still there and you still have tracks to Holland if you want to go all the way across the state.

Not sure how much freight that CSX still runs on those lines, probably just one or two trains a day to service Grand Rapids and Lansing. Passenger stations are probably all gone though.

[Bham1982]

There must be literally dozens of people who would ride this in a typical week. What a great use of scarce taxpayer transit dollars.

Hell, we should cancel the rebuilding of I-75, with its 125,000 daily vehicles, and put everything into the desperately needed choo-choo to GR. It isn't like I-96 already connects these places.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

There must be literally dozens of people who would ride this in a typical week. What a great use of scarce taxpayer transit dollars.

Hell, we should cancel the rebuilding of I-75, with its 125,000 daily vehicles, and put everything into the desperately needed choo-choo to GR. It isn't like I-96 already connects these places.

That's why there should be a real study of both the potential usage and the costs. It's very possible that it wouldn't be worth it. But I think there is also a chance that it would be. I wouldn't want a "Troy Transit Center" situation where taxpayers are shelling out millions and millions to provide several people with an improved experience. It is worth thinking about; that thinking will determine if it is worth doing.

As I have noted here many times, and at the top of this thread, I think transit money is generally best spent on very local projects: more and better bus service being the single best use.

[Junjie]

There must be literally dozens of people who would ride this in a typical week. What a great use of scarce taxpayer transit dollars.

Hell, we should cancel the rebuilding of I-75, with its 125,000 daily vehicles, and put everything into the desperately needed choo-choo to GR. It isn't like I-96 already connects these places.

Underneath the snark I agree with the general concerns, and if someone is going to drop $500 million of transit capital spending on Michigan I would prefer to use it where it would serve the most people [[actual dedicated ROW rapid transit on Woodward, rebuilding the SE Michigan commuter rail network, or similar).

Nonetheless, I think there's an argument for considering it. It might be easier to build broad support for something that serves a lot of communities than something that only serves one community. The processes [[local transit, primarily in SE Michigan and a cross-state train) aren't mutually exclusive anyway - e.g. if this attracts federal dollars that wouldn't have otherwise been spent in Michigan, then it's simply increasing total transit spending.

And while you're right that 96 exists, it may as well not if you are old, or young, or disabled, or have your car in the shop, or whatever. Not to mention it forces you to waste two hours driving that you could be working, relaxing, etc. We leave a lot of people out and a lot of productivity on the table when we build a car-only transportation network. Not like you can just hop on a flight from GR to Ann Arbor, or Detroit to Holland. These types of distances are where good train service could really shine.

Again, just to agree with Mikey that there is reason to look into it in some depth.

[dtowncitylover]

There must be literally dozens of people who would ride this in a typical week. What a great use of scarce taxpayer transit dollars. Hell, we should cancel the rebuilding of I-75, with its 125,000 daily vehicles, and put everything into the desperately needed choo-choo to GR. It isn't like I-96 already connects these places.

California, Illinois, New York, Missouri, and North Carolina all have the same interstate freeways and all have intra-state passenger rail service. Detroit-Ann Arbor-Lansing-Grand Rapids-Holland hits four of the most important cities in the state. While more study is needed, I'm not sure how this could be seen as a negative except in any exuberant costs.

[Bham1982]

California, Illinois, New York, Missouri, and North Carolina all have the same interstate freeways and all have intra-state passenger rail service. Detroit-Ann Arbor-Lansing-Grand Rapids-Holland hits four of the most important cities in the state. While more study is needed, I'm not sure how this could be seen as a negative except in any exuberant costs.

California and New York have high density transit-oriented corridors that are conducive to intercity rail. The other states have lightly used corridors that are essentially irrelevant in terms of ridership.

[dtowncitylover]

California and New York have high density transit-oriented corridors that are conducive to intercity rail. The other states have lightly used corridors that are essentially irrelevant in terms of ridership.

I'm not saying we're comparable to California or New York in terms of potential ridership and costs, obviously not. We're actually more comparable to North Carolina's Piedmont which has grown greatly since 2009.​​ In fact, they're adding two more daily trains by next year.

[Infrastructure]

Does anyone know where to find the study document? I am wondering why the CSX route [[through Plymouth) was eliminated from consideration. Certainly ridership potential is greater along the existing Amtrak corridor by way of Ann Arbor, but I envision that the Ann Arbor / Jackson routes will have some pricey upgrades while the CSX line from Detroit to Lansing should be in pretty good shape. It would be interesting to see the cost/benefit analysis.

In addition, one of the Ann Arbor alternatives each requires some sort of solution to the interchange between the east-west Amtrak / MDOT line and the Great Lakes Central [[north-south line through Ann Arbor). A cumbersome back and forth movement could be done at a relatively low price, but a direct connection will be very pricey.

[ABetterDetroit]

This is just putting the cart before the horse. Without any significant investment in local public transit what is the point of this plan? You will have to drive or get a ride to the the train stops and than either get picked up or rent a car when you arrive at your destination. Way to small of a market, once people are already in their cars they will just drive to Lansing or wherever instead of parking the car and then having no transportation when they get there.

Follow who paid for this "study" and it will lead you to who will most benefit from a billion dollar project in contracts. No way something like this comes in at the numbers first proposed, that's the beginning of the sell job.

[Bham1982]

I'm not saying we're comparable to California or New York in terms of potential ridership and costs, obviously not. We're actually more comparable to North Carolina's Piedmont which has grown greatly since 2009.​​ In fact, they're adding two more daily trains by next year.

The Piedmont train in NC carries 466 passengers on an average weekday. Not exactly a compelling case for massive rail investment in MI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont_[[train)

[renf]

I have not seen the report about Holland to Detroit service. I wonder what consideration
was given to the former Pere Marquette line from Lansing to Detroit.
The line from west of Detroit though Jackson and on to Indiana is being upgrades for
110 mph operation. And the state owns, I think, the former Ann Arbor line from that
city to Howell as well as the line from Jackson to Lansing where the JAIL railroad
operates freight service. Using the former Ann Arbor line would seen to require a new
bridge across the Huron River in that city.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

This is just putting the cart before the horse. Without any significant investment in local public transit what is the point of this plan? You will have to drive or get a ride to the the train stops and than either get picked up or rent a car when you arrive at your destination.

I agree completely on two of your points, ABD. First, this plan, more of a suggestion really, I would think is more than a few years away from beginning, if it were decided upon. Everything we say and do now is beyond preliminary. Second, I think ALL transit projects going forward should emphasize interconnectivity with different systems. Any rail investment should be tied to good local transit in the cities served by the new rail service. It is vastly more convenient for the riding public, and the different systems feed each other's service.

[Bucket]

The Piedmont train in NC carries 466 passengers on an average weekday. Not exactly a compelling case for massive rail investment in MI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont_[[train)

466 riders x 365 days = 170,000 riders per year. Supposing each visitor spends $500 during their visit, that's $85 million in direct economic benefit to our state every year. Sounds compelling to me. At least, compelling enough to merit further study.

[dtowncitylover]

The Piedmont train in NC carries 466 passengers on an average weekday. Not exactly a compelling case for massive rail investment in MI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont_[[train)

OMG the Wikipedia page I didn't think to look there or also the Amtrak website. Your micro-analyzing of numbers is neither here nor their considering both the number of passengers and the revenue has risen dramatically from 2009-2014.

[Bham1982]

OMG the Wikipedia page I didn't think to look there or also the Amtrak website. Your micro-analyzing of numbers is neither here nor their considering both the number of passengers and the revenue has risen dramatically from 2009-2014.

You were the one who brought up the Piedmont train as some shining model to aspire to.

It basically has a daily passenger load less than the number of people I pass on the street when getting coffee in the AM. Doesn't sound like there's some pressing need for a billion-dollar train to accomodate a few subway cars worth of people. I-96 will have more people in a minute than this choo choo gets all day.

[dtowncitylover]

You were the one who brought up the Piedmont train as some shining model to aspire to.

It basically has a daily passenger load less than the number of people I pass on the street when getting coffee in the AM. Doesn't sound like there's some pressing need for a billion-dollar train to accomodate a few subway cars worth of people. I-96 will have more people in a minute than this choo choo gets all day.

I didn't say we should aspire to it, I'm saying we should use it as the best comparable case study for intra-state passenger rail.

The car will always rule, there's no doubt about that, but I think this serves a good purpose to diversify transportation options within the state to travel. But more studies are indeed needed and this could be years out if at all.

[Hermod]

The tracks are there [[PM/C&O/CSX). They are probably in rotten shape with slow service freight movements each day. Could they accomodate passengers without inconveniencing frieght? I would say yes, but the ride would be slow and uncomfortable.

[Richard]

Does anyone know where to find the study document? I am wondering why the CSX route [[through Plymouth) was eliminated from consideration. Certainly ridership potential is greater along the existing Amtrak corridor by way of Ann Arbor, but I envision that the Ann Arbor / Jackson routes will have some pricey upgrades while the CSX line from Detroit to Lansing should be in pretty good shape. It would be interesting to see the cost/benefit analysis.

In addition, one of the Ann Arbor alternatives each requires some sort of solution to the interchange between the east-west Amtrak / MDOT line and the Great Lakes Central [[north-south line through Ann Arbor). A cumbersome back and forth movement could be done at a relatively low price, but a direct connection will be very pricey.

Cannot help on the study doc but the whole Detroit to Chi thing was already acquired,worked out with right of way dedicated,the trains have been ready.That part was worked out with a trade off with CSX long time ago,there was some funding lacking but I am sure with the new round of Tiger grants that just became available if the political support is there it should allow for completion.

Most seem to discuss Detroit to Chi and why would Detroit want to head to Chi,I think it will be the reverse,if residents in Chicago want to visit Detroit because of what it will have to offer it becomes and it can become,a day or short weekend trip,why not? It does work both ways.