Toledo commences study to resume Toledo-Detroit passenger rail

**masterblaster** · January-07-19, 02:59 PM

This is old news from a few month ago, but nobody has brought it up.

Toledo is considering resuming/funding passenger train rail service between it and Detroit. The routing would go from Toledo to near DTW to Detroit. Please see below articles:

http://www.wtol.com/2018/11/07/toled...G169iacKs4cXIs

https://www.toledoblade.com/opinion/...es/20181101211

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire...ice-to-detroit

**Bham1982** · January-07-19, 03:04 PM

Hey, if they wanna fund it, that's great. Makes no sense, but it's on their dime.

**dtowncitylover** · January-07-19, 03:44 PM

Yes, please!

"I personally won't ride it" doesn't mean there isn't demand. If we don't start investing in non-automobile infrastructure, we will never change our auto-centric attitudes.

**Bham1982** · January-07-19, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Yes, please!
"I personally won't ride it" doesn't mean there isn't demand.

Right, but the fact that there's no congestion between Detroit and Toledo, and no appreciable commuting patterns, does mean there's no demand.

**Scottathew** · January-07-19, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Right, but the fact that there's no congestion between Detroit and Toledo, and no appreciable commuting patterns, does mean there's no demand.

I know quite a few people that live in\near Toledo and work in Downtown Detroit. They complain of congestion a lot.

I wouldn't say there's "no demand". It's worth looking into doing a study to see if the demand is there.

**dtowncitylover** · January-07-19, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Right, but the fact that there's no congestion between Detroit and Toledo, and no appreciable commuting patterns, does mean there's no demand.

Uhhh no, demand doesn't only occur because of congestion. Demand also comes from the ability to have choices. And when there's only one choice because this backasswards state refuses to leave the 1950s, the demand is muted and therefore people like you like to claim "there is no demand" because we aren't given choices. Having the choice between driving and taking a train in which both will get me there on time, connects to where I want to go, and are both similar in cost, I will always take a train. But because MDOT refuses to promote and invest in transit infrastructure, we're SOL.

This what I mean when I say people in SE Michigan are brainwashed. It's so infuriating to see how complicit we are to settle for basically a C- standard of living.

**MrMichigan** · January-07-19, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by 48307

I know quite a few people that live in\near Toledo and work in Downtown Detroit. They complain of congestion a lot.

I wouldn't say there's "no demand". It's worth looking into doing a study to see if the demand is there.

Agreed. And don't forget the folks from that area who fly out of DTW.

**Richard** · January-07-19, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Right, but the fact that there's no congestion between Detroit and Toledo, and no appreciable commuting patterns, does mean there's no demand.

There was no demand for the automobile or houses in the burbs until it was created,I think adding transportation options is a good idea that would benefit both cities.

Rail is the most cost effective per mile way to move people and let’s them enjoy the scenery along the way.

**douglasm** · January-07-19, 09:36 PM

Note too that a Detroit/Toledo train [[if scheduled correctly) would offer accesability to the Lake Shore Limited, and thus train service from Detrout to Boston/New York City.

**Worldsgreatest** · January-08-19, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by douglasm

Note too that a Detroit/Toledo train [[if scheduled correctly) would offer accesability to the Lake Shore Limited, and thus train service from Detrout to Boston/New York City.

This.

This is why it's important, the people saying "this makes no sense" aren't paying attention.

**Hypestyles** · January-08-19, 06:55 AM

more alternative transportation the better. this needs more publicity though. one of the major problems is the fact that nationwide, so many [[majority?) of rail lines are privately owned, when they should be government owned.

**Bham1982** · January-08-19, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Worldsgreatest

This.

This is why it's important, the people saying "this makes no sense" aren't paying attention.

Huh? Commuter rail to Toledo makes sense because of the one train headed to NYC that stops in Toledo at 3:15 AM?

Yeah, I'm sure there's just an enormous market for New Center-to-Toledo passengers every night at 2 AM. Why didn't Michigan think of this genius idea?

**renf** · January-08-19, 08:09 AM

We are seeing an expansion of rail service, quite rapid in Texas and Florida and along the West Coast, much less so in the East although there are new and revitalized lines in New England. Many of these lines are generating sufficient revenue to sustain operating costs. The Toledo-Detroit line could be linked to the Michigan Central tracks that host the
Wolverine service.
Capital investments in infrastructure are expensive but important. I
thought that, by this time, the federal government would be investing in
the modern rail service that President Trump described while a candidate.

**Bham1982** · January-08-19, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Uhhh no, demand doesn't only occur because of congestion.

Actually, no. Relative transit usage is almost entirely a function of congestion, and has almost nothing to do with "transit choices". Given there is no congestion in this directional, transit makes little sense.

Moreover, commuter rail is overwhelmingly a white collar professional-oriented service, and that's the least professional-oriented corridor radiating out from Detroit. It's essentially the worst corridor possible [[and I'm not sure even the best, the Grand Trunk Line, makes any sense, given it shut down for lack of ridership when Detroit had far more jobs than today).

**Bham1982** · January-08-19, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by renf

We are seeing an expansion of rail service, quite rapid in Texas and Florida and along the West Coast, much less so in the East although there are new and revitalized lines in New England. Many of these lines are generating sufficient revenue to sustain operating costs.

Given there are "many" such lines, as you claim, can you name one, please? Name one which "generates sufficient revenue to sustain operating costs".

In reality, there is no new line in TX, FL or the West Coast that has more than minimal ridership, and none come close to covering even a fraction of costs.

In fact, there is really only one commuter rail line in the U.S. outside of the NE Corridor and Chicago with any meaningful ridership- the Caltrain line between SF and SJ.

**Gistok** · January-08-19, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Huh? Commuter rail to Toledo makes sense because of the one train headed to NYC that stops in Toledo at 3:15 AM?

Yeah, I'm sure there's just an enormous market for New Center-to-Toledo passengers every night at 2 AM. Why didn't Michigan think of this genius idea?

Do you ever take those rose colored glasses off?

If Toledo wants to spring for this, and it provides for a future options of other routes [[right-of-way being a big detriment to passenger rail traffic)... then what is the problem to add a future option that might grow the business to a passenger rail option to the Chicago-NYC corridor, or to other points south in the future?

**townonenorth** · January-08-19, 08:20 AM

I'd take it to Toledo for Tony Packo's.

**Bham1982** · January-08-19, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

If Toledo wants to spring for this, and it provides for a future options of other routes [[right-of-way being a big detriment to passenger rail traffic)... then what is the problem to add a future option that might grow the business to a passenger rail option to the Chicago-NYC corridor, or to other points south in the future?

If Toledo wants to fund a 2 AM train from New Center to Toledo, fine by me. I have no problem with it. I'm sure people will be lining up for that 16 hour 3 AM train to NYC.

**casscorridor** · January-08-19, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

If Toledo wants to fund a 2 AM train from New Center to Toledo, fine by me. I have no problem with it. I'm sure people will be lining up for that 16 hour 3 AM train to NYC.

The purpose would be for commuters, not Amtrak passengers.

**dtowncitylover** · January-08-19, 09:33 AM

bHaM kNoWs EvErYtHiNg, ReMeMbEr?!

We're not going to change our car-centric lifestyles until we have choices. And yeah, I think if there was a 11 PM train from Detroit that arrived maybe 12:15 am in Toledo. I'd rather wait for the train to NYC, then have to deal with driving/parking.

**thomprod** · January-09-19, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by douglasm

Note too that a Detroit/Toledo train [[if scheduled correctly) would offer accesability to the Lake Shore Limited, and thus train service from Detrout to Boston/New York City.

I took such a connection back around 1988 to visit Boston. Not sure when the Detroit-Toledo link stopped.

**Sandhouse** · January-09-19, 04:06 PM

I don't understand the fetish for commuter trains.

A rail connection between Toledo, DTW, and the Amtrak line at Wayne would require expensive realignment of rail junctions, station platforms, a shuttle to the airport, an overnight storage terminal, expensive equipment, payment to the railroads, and would suffer interference from freight moves. And it would be slow.

A bus would be much faster and require no capital expenditure. It could have hourly departures, like the Michigan Flyer route that connects East Lansing, Ann Arbor, and DTW. It could travel up I-275 to the airport, and then turn east to Dearborn and Detroit. At a penalty in delay, it could use US-23 and stop at Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti, although it would make more sense to connect with the Michigan Flyer at DTW.

**dtowncitylover** · January-09-19, 04:37 PM

How do you know they will be slow? How about if we actually invest in rail infrastructure so they're not slow. Instead of spending billions on I-75, let's have Amtrak and MDOT spend billions on buying rail so we're not beholden to private interests like NS [[who don't care to share even though they should and it's a fucking stupid we allow the rails to be privately held. How about we sell I-75 to a private business, let's see how Jack and Jane in Clarkston deal with that!), upgrading the infrastructure, building more tracks, electrifying the system, and working out timetables for freight and passenger rail. Trains have their own right of way and unlike buses can usually be trusted to be on time. Buses are also committed to the elements. If there's inclement, buses are going to run late. But a train can usually plow its way through unscathed.

Would a bus also not require an overnight storage terminal?

**iheartthed** · January-09-19, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by renf

We are seeing an expansion of rail service, quite rapid in Texas and Florida and along the West Coast, much less so in the East although there are new and revitalized lines in New England. Many of these lines are generating sufficient revenue to sustain operating costs. The Toledo-Detroit line could be linked to the Michigan Central tracks that host the
Wolverine service.
Capital investments in infrastructure are expensive but important. I
thought that, by this time, the federal government would be investing in
the modern rail service that President Trump described while a candidate.

California is throwing more money at mass transit than anywhere else in the country. In 20-50 years, Los Angeles will likely be the most populous region in the country because of it.

Why the West Coast Is Suddenly Beating the East Coast on Transportation

When New York City’s transportation commissioner returned from a recent trip to California, she seemed downright jealous. There were electric scooters in Oakland. New train lines in Los Angeles. Self-driving cars in the Bay Area. She tried them all.“It is an incredibly exciting time to be in urban transportation,” the commissioner, Polly Trottenberg, told a breakfast gathering of powerful New Yorkers, pointing to California’s progress.

Her glee signaled a noteworthy and sobering shift. Wasn’t it her city that was once the envy of the nation when it came to transportation?

Not anymore. The subways on the East Coast that allowed New York, Washington and Boston to thrive are showing their age and suffering from years of neglect, while cities on the West Coast are moving quickly to expand and improve their networks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/nyregion/transportation-east-coast-vs-west-coast.html

**iheartthed** · January-09-19, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sandhouse

I don't understand the fetish for commuter trains.

A rail connection between Toledo, DTW, and the Amtrak line at Wayne would require expensive realignment of rail junctions, station platforms, a shuttle to the airport, an overnight storage terminal, expensive equipment, payment to the railroads, and would suffer interference from freight moves. And it would be slow.

A bus would be much faster and require no capital expenditure. It could have hourly departures, like the Michigan Flyer route that connects East Lansing, Ann Arbor, and DTW. It could travel up I-275 to the airport, and then turn east to Dearborn and Detroit. At a penalty in delay, it could use US-23 and stop at Ann Arbor or Ypsilanti, although it would make more sense to connect with the Michigan Flyer at DTW.

Buses are not as efficient as trains. And buses are also not faster than trains unless there is some obstruction of the train.