$150M for Light Rail >> K-Zoo to Dearborn

**Genesyxx** · October-26-10, 10:33 PM

Michigan this week is expected to receive $150 million in federal money to develop a high-speed rail corridor between Kalamazoo and Dearborn.
Announcement of the funding — through the 2010 High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program — will be made Thursday by the U.S. Department of Transportation, along with the awarding of $3.2 million for project planning.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...#ixzz13Wi95YdE

DetroitDad · October-26-10, 11:09 PM

Great news, but isn't this actually a heavy rail line [[think Amtrak) as opposed to a light rail line [[think middle of the road trolley)? Also the article claims there will be a high speed rail line [[120 mph or higher average speeds), but then also says the top speed will not be over 98-110 mph. Which is it, 110 mph rail or high speed rail?

**Hermod** · October-27-10, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

Great news, but isn't this actually a heavy rail line [[think Amtrak) as opposed to a light rail line [[think middle of the road trolley)? Also the article claims there will be a high speed rail line [[120 mph or higher average speeds), but then also says the top speed will not be over 98-110 mph. Which is it, 110 mph rail or high speed rail?

According to an article in Progressive Railroading, while the track on the new high speed rail would be capable of the higher speeds, the fact that there will be freight trains on the adjoining tracks, will cause DOT to limit top speeds to 98-110 MPH. The only way you could get the higher speeds is if the tracks were physically separated at a greater distance and you don't have enough right-of-way.

**DetroitPlanner** · October-27-10, 07:22 AM

You're not going to get a light rail project travelling at high speeds. This will however be a major boost for the underfunded Ann Arbor to Detroit project. 120 mph is a maximum speed that the tracks will be able to hold. Other factors will keep it lower including at grade crossings and the ability of the equipment to travel safely.

Can someone merge these two threads? http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?t=7562

**professorscott** · October-27-10, 07:42 AM

110 MPH is a decent speed, granted not true "high speed rail" but much better than anything else we've seen around here.

The essential difficulty in going any further [[speed wise) is that in true high speed rail there are no at-grade road crossings. That railroad corridor has lots and lots of at-grade crossings, so if we ever wanted 200 MPH trains, we would have to take each such road and either:

1. Grade separate it, which means bridging over the tracks or tunneling under, which is quite costly, or

2. Cut off the road on each side of the tracks, which creates an inconvenience for drivers.

By sticking to the 110 MPH limit we don't have to do this, which is one of the reasons that is the maximum speed anyone is talking about.

Now, think about it, if it were ever possible for a nonstop train to go from Detroit to Chicago at 110 MPH the whole way, the trip would take something like 2 hours and 45 minutes. And you end up in downtown Chicago. That would be a pretty nice facility to have. Of course, the train will make intermediate stops and it won't actually be 110 the entire way, but it still makes the trip a lot more convenient than it is now.

**bailey** · October-27-10, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by professorscott

110 MPH is a decent speed, granted not true "high speed rail" but much better than anything else we've seen around here.

The essential difficulty in going any further [[speed wise) is that in true high speed rail there are no at-grade road crossings. That railroad corridor has lots and lots of at-grade crossings, so if we ever wanted 200 MPH trains, we would have to take each such road and either:

1. Grade separate it, which means bridging over the tracks or tunneling under, which is quite costly, or

2. Cut off the road on each side of the tracks, which creates an inconvenience for drivers.

By sticking to the 110 MPH limit we don't have to do this, which is one of the reasons that is the maximum speed anyone is talking about.

Now, think about it, if it were ever possible for a nonstop train to go from Detroit to Chicago at 110 MPH the whole way, the trip would take something like 2 hours and 45 minutes. And you end up in downtown Chicago. That would be a pretty nice facility to have. Of course, the train will make intermediate stops and it won't actually be 110 the entire way, but it still makes the trip a lot more convenient than it is now.

which would be nice, however, if it still takes 4hrs+ [[stops, slowing down, speeding back up..etc) why take the train when you can drive? That is what I never understand about any of the plans being put forth and the incredible waste of money on half measures. If it is HARDER to take the rail, the numbers of people needed to take it to make it worthwhile economically aren;t going to be there. If I have to drive to Dearborn, leave my car there, then take a train that takes just as long or longer to get where I could have gone by car at about the same time, they why take it? We need to stop trying to retro-fit the terrible crap we have here and start with real plans for real transit and real high speed rail.

Bearinabox · October-27-10, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

I have to drive to Dearborn, leave my car there

That sounds like a personal problem.

why take it?

So you can spend those four hours doing something more useful with your time than pushing pedals and turning the steering wheel? So you can stand up and stretch when you feel like it, or eat a snack? So you can drop your concentration and let your mind wander? So you don't have to worry about getting stuck in traffic in I-94's twelve million construction zones, or stopping at those annoying tollbooths they seem to have every couple miles on Chicago-area expressways? So you don't have to shell out for gas, or worry about your car breaking down in Bumfuck, Indiana? Maybe none of those reasons appeal to you, but you aren't everybody.

**bailey** · October-27-10, 08:58 AM

That sounds like a personal problem.

point being, if anyone NOT living near the terminus Dearborn, New Center, B'ham...where ever... is going to have to drive there, or get a cab to get there, or figure out how to take multple busses to get there, or get a ride there...etc and do the reverse to get home. My frustration is with the half measures and disconnected planning that isn't going to ever be easy to use....which will mean people wont use it. how about we get a coherent local rail and maybe an airport line figured out before we go dropping hundreds of millions on kinda fast trains that will only get you as far as kalamzoo?

So you can spend those four hours doing something more useful with your time than pushing pedals and turning the steering wheel? So you can stand up and stretch when you feel like it, or eat a snack? So you can drop your concentration and let your mind wander? So you don't have to worry about getting stuck in traffic in I-94's twelve million construction zones, or stopping at those annoying tollbooths they seem to have every couple miles on Chicago-area expressways? So you don't have to shell out for gas, or worry about your car breaking down in Bumfuck, Indiana? Maybe none of those reasons appeal to you, but you aren't everybody.

Well, I do appreciate all those reasons, but if it's no faster or cheaper than a grayhound or megabus and it stops just as often, why not just take the bus if all those items are important to you?

For me at least, it's not about the cost of getting there, it's usually about my time. If I'm going to chicago [[and I don't think I'm alone here) I'm either going for work or for fun, in neither case do I want to take the slowest means available to get there and back.

**esp1986** · October-27-10, 10:42 AM

No matter how you slice it, this is great news. This project means that the improvements necessary for the Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter line will get done and that project will begin to come to fruition. That line will dump off in New Center and when Light Rail comes through W. Grand Boulevard, then we will have somewhat of a mass transit system. We're taking baby steps, but hopefully we can get somewhere this time around.

**bailey** · October-27-10, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by esp1986

No matter how you slice it, this is great news. This project means that the improvements necessary for the Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter line will get done and that project will begin to come to fruition. That line will dump off in New Center and when Light Rail comes through W. Grand Boulevard, then we will have somewhat of a mass transit system. We're taking baby steps, but hopefully we can get somewhere this time around.

key words..."somewhat of a mass transit system".

**jt1** · October-27-10, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

key words..."somewhat of a mass transit system".

So are you advocating that nothing should be done unless a comprehensive system can be built all at one time?

**iheartthed** · October-27-10, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

which would be nice, however, if it still takes 4hrs+ [[stops, slowing down, speeding back up..etc) why take the train when you can drive?

An Amtrak ticket costs $60-$70 round trip and once you are in Chicago you don't need a car. To drive your car to Chicago would cost $40 for a full tank of gas + $40/day to park in a structure at the hotel.

**bailey** · October-27-10, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

key words..."somewhat of a mass transit system".
So are you advocating that nothing should be done unless a comprehensive system can be built all at one time?

No, I don't want a comprehensive system built or nothing at all, but is a Comprehensive PLAN too much to ask for? I'm saying our "baby steps" seem to be leading to nowhere. What is the endgame of what's planned? Sort of fast trains that go to Kalamazoo [[110 is not "high speed")... Maybe a stop up near i94 around the airport that you will then need a 25 minute bus ride to get you to the airport.... Maybe a train that goes to AA....and when it gets to detroit you can take a train in a 3.4 mile loop until MAYBE 2025 when the one and only line will be extended to 12 mile.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

An Amtrak ticket costs $60-$70 round trip and once you are in Chicago you don't need a car. To drive your car to Chicago would cost $40 for a full tank of gas + $40/day to park in a structure at the hotel.

Ok, but lets say that I would like to leave chicago? hell, lets just say I need to leave or return at different times than the 3 a day train schedule..and I would like to get there in less than 6 hours? lets say I will be staying with friends or family or expenseing my parking and per night parking is not an issue?

I would love to take the train. I would love for it to be an option. But if it's still the slowest or least convenient option, is it going to be anymore in demand that it is now? Is it too much to ask that high speed actually MEAN high speed?

**Detroitnerd** · October-27-10, 12:00 PM

Gosh, don't people get rides to the airport from their friends? When Detroit had a serious rail link, it was common for whole families of Detroiters to drive down to MCS to pick up their relatives and friends. Why is that so different from having ma or sis drive you to Metro?

**jt1** · October-27-10, 12:04 PM

I think it is reasonable to expect a comprehensive plan.

**iheartthed** · October-27-10, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Ok, but lets say that I would like to leave chicago? hell, lets just say I need to leave or return at different times than the 3 a day train schedule..and I would like to get there in less than 6 hours? lets say I will be staying with friends or family or expenseing my parking and per night parking is not an issue?

I would love to take the train. I would love for it to be an option. But if it's still the slowest or least convenient option, is it going to be anymore in demand that it is now? Is it too much to ask that high speed actually MEAN high speed?

Honestly, the train is pretty competitive with driving as it is currently. There isn't a significant difference in travel time on the train than in an automobile. [[And if that's your primary concern then another option is to take a bus which would have a virtually identical travel time to driving your own car.) Finding a train that can accommodate your schedule might be an issue, but most people can probably find a way to schedule around such a thing if it means saving $150.

I have visited Chicago multiple times and never once used a car to get there. For what I do when I'm in Chicago, I never have need for a car. So it usually doesn't make much economic sense for me to bring a car to Chicago, and be burdened with the associated costs of having the car with me, when I'll have very little use for it. My situation is the same for many people, but not everyone... Which is why no one is advocating that we rip up I-94.

**Detroitnerd** · October-27-10, 12:22 PM

Well, it's not like you just superglue rails down on the street and run a trolley down them. It takes time and money. It does seem absurd, though, to argue that you'd take the train if it ran out where you live, even as you say it's too expensive to lay track near everyone's home.

Subsidies for transit create the environments we live in, condition our behavior in ways we might not realize.

Subsidize roads only -- as metro Detroit has done -- and you get the kind of far-flung, centerless development that rail cannot serve well. Take a place like Troy, which never had any rail link worth talking about: It is now almost impossible to serve with rail in any meaningful sense. That's what sprawl has done: Every ten years, it has created another 10 percent of "urbanized" land that can't really be served by rail.

Then there's the psychological component: Grow up in an environment like that and you don't realize the essential difference between driving [[switching radio stations, having half-focused cell phone calls, speeding up, slowing down, hitting jams, having breakdowns) and riding a train [[plug in your laptop, talk to folks, have phone calls where you can pay attention, eat, meet new people, network, etc.). When I first came back from New York, I could not believe that I'd get into somebody's car for a "short trip" and would be sitting in the passenger seat for an HOUR just to get somewhere. Everybody winds up spending more time in transit here than you ever do in New York, and yet people think trains represent too much of an investment in their time to take. Even as they're unwitting prisoners behind the wheel ...

**Gistok** · October-27-10, 12:24 PM

Bailey.... when was the last time a bus went 110 MPH.... and didn't have to stop at traffic lights or freeway backups on the way?? How did you come up with the fact that it would take the same amount of time for a train that it takes for a bus??

Yes apparently a train is not to your liking.... but to many it is a relaxing experience. I also doubt that Chicago public transit would be to your liking either... since you're at the mercy of mass transit and not your very convenient automobile [[stuck in Chicago's legendary traffic).

Somehow I doubt that any mass transit plan would be to your liking... since it doesn't start at your doorstep...

**bailey** · October-27-10, 01:22 PM

Bailey.... when was the last time a bus went 110 MPH.... and didn't have to stop at traffic lights or freeway backups on the way?? How did you come up with the fact that it would take the same amount of time for a train that it takes for a bus??

When will anything being proposed actually go 110 mph? right now its going to allowed...not averaged, but the top speed alowed, on a portion of the trip to chicago. nothing it even on the drawing board going further. I didn't "come up with" it, as it stands now if you look at amtrak and megabus' shedule the trips are within 5-10 minutes of each other and the cost is the same. How much time is getting knocked off that train trip in being able to go 20-30mph mph faster [[maybe) for a small portion of the trip? How many MORE stops is the train going to make? I understand that the bus is likely slower on average due to traffic issue, but, my point about bus vs. train was more in response to the "letting mind wander", "not concentrating on driving", cost of the trip and "being able to stand up" comments.

Yes apparently a train is not to your liking.... but to many it is a relaxing experience. I also doubt that Chicago public transit would be to your liking either... since you're at the mercy of mass transit and not your very convenient automobile [[stuck in Chicago's legendary traffic).

AGAIN for the 5th time. A HIGH SPEED rail link between Detroit and virtually anywhere is VERY MUCH to my liking. Chicago's public transit is also VERY MUCH to my liking. in fact i have a chicago card in my wallet

Somehow I doubt that any mass transit plan would be to your liking...

When Detroit has a plan for mass transit, I'll let you know.

Gosh, don't people get rides to the airport from their friends? When Detroit had a serious rail link, it was common for whole families of Detroiters to drive down to MCS to pick up their relatives and friends. Why is that so different from having ma or sis drive you to Metro?

I understand that back in nineteen dickity-two [[they had to say 'dickity' because the Kaiser stole the word 'twenty') ma and pa loaded up the family in the model T and drove from waaaay out on McNichols to meet the kinfolk in from Toledo, but are you saying Detroit NOT having a rail link from it's airport to Downtown is just something we should just live with because that's the way it has always been? A Detroit NOT having a way to then get from that downtown terminus to anywhere else is again, something we are striving NOT to change?

The biggest problem facing Metro Detroit is it's own resident's low expectations and refusal to demand anything more than the barest of minimums. The next biggest problem is the failure of anyone to hold the region's leaders accountable for repeatedly failing to meet the ridiculously low bar set for them.

oh, wait..it's all about baby steps.

**Detroitnerd** · October-27-10, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

I understand that back in nineteen dickity-two [[they had to say 'dickity' because the Kaiser stole the word 'twenty') ma and pa loaded up the family in the model T and drove from waaaay out on McNichols to meet the kinfolk in from Toledo, but are you saying Detroit NOT having a rail link from it's airport to Downtown is just something we should just live with because that's the way it has always been?

No, I'm saying that if the objection to taking a train from Dearborn [[or Pontiac, or Birmingham, or Royal Oak, or Detroit, etc.) is that you have to drive to the station, park, then get on the train, this isn't much different from the situation with the airport. And I give rides to my friends to the airport all the time, so I don't see how it's a major stumbling block to taking a train. That's why I noted you could get a ride to a train station as well as an airport. Or that, historically, Detroiters have always been willing to give somebody a ride to the train station.

I don't understand how this became conflated with a rail link to the airport, which sounds like a good idea anyway.

**BrushStart** · October-27-10, 01:57 PM

My question is this:

If I live downtown, will I be able to walk to the light rail line from my apartment, take it to the Amtrack station in New Center, and then be able to get to Metro Airport in under an hour and Chicago in under 4.5 hours?

If the answer is yes, then I am satisfied with the present plans being a starting point. If not, then I think this is all a waste.

Any hodgepodge transit plans are okay if they can be pieced together to create a better transit system. It seems to me that main goals of transit should be this:

1. Get people up and down the major local thoroughfares, like Woodward, Michigan Ave, Grand River, and Jefferson

2. Get people to other transit hubs, like Amtrack and Megabus stations

3. Get people to major destinations, like the airport, and to other cities, like Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, and Chicago

While this high-speed line only adds efficiency to what is already being done, it is an improvement and definitely fits in with an overall functional transit system. Assuming that M1 light rail actually materializes, a high-speed connection to the airport and Chicago is the next logical step. Those two things: M1 light rail and Detroit-Chicago commuter rail do form the skeleton outline of a complete system. At a minimum, these two systems complement each other and work well together from a transit standpoint. What other initial connections would be a higher priority?

With M1 and Detroit-Chicago rail running, there is potential to continue to branch off. Get these two "organs" functioning in unison and people may start to appreciate the ease and speed in which they can get from downtown Detroit to downtown Chicago.

**Parkguy** · October-27-10, 02:27 PM

The current rail from Detroit to Kalamazoo is leased by Amtrak, and is limited to lower speeds. The rail between Kalamazoo and Michigan City is owned by Amtrak, and has already been upgraded to the 110 mph standard. Between Kzoo and the state line the train really moves. It is smooth, quiet, and fast. This grant will upgrade the eastern portion of the line to that standard.

As for people not taking the train, look at the numbers. Most trains are full, especially west of Ann Arbor, and ridership was up another 8 percent last year on the Wolverine service [[DET-CHI) and up 18% on the Blue Water [[Port Huron-CHI), and revenues were up too.

As for having to get to the station-- well, yes. You have to get to the station. When I use the train from Dearborn, I drive and park there. Just like I do at the airport. And it is really 40 bucks a day to park in downtown Chicago, sometimes with no in-and-out privileges. You can park out in Rosemont or somewhere for $12 a day, with a half-hour El ride into downtown, but if you stay more than 24 hours you'll pay $12 per day or portion flat rate. Be sure to add road tolls for some of the ring expressways. I guess each traveler has to figure out the costs and balance the benefits.

**DetroitPlanner** · October-27-10, 02:59 PM

[quote=bailey;193469]which would be nice, however, if it still takes 4hrs+ [[stops, slowing down, speeding back up..etc) why take the train when you can drive? [quote]

Last time I drove to Chicago and parked at the Hilton it was $40 a night for parking alone. Add to that several dollars in tolls, wear and tear on the car, gasoline, and stress of driving in Chicagoland traffic. The train looks very attractive in comparison. The only reason why I drove was because I had a meeting in Ann Arbor that got over at a time where I would have to wait several hours to get a WB train and parking at the Ann Arbor train station stinks.

**Hypestyles** · October-27-10, 03:24 PM

how are they going to solve the problem of the rail lines being largely still owned by these private freight companies? That's a major stumbling block to the rapid-rail projects.. the federal government needs to do something, buy all the tracks back-- no private company owns the highways.. [[i don't think...)

**ghettopalmetto** · October-27-10, 03:45 PM

Let's clear this up.

This is not "light rail". It's not even "heavy rail" or "rapid rail". It's intercity rail. And frankly, it's about time we decided to start catching up to countries far poorer than us, like Poland.

The tracks will be able to accommodate both 110 mph passenger trains and slower freight trains due to two major technological improvements:

1. construction of additional passing sidings and double-tracking
2. improved signalling

From what I understand, freight companies are generally in favor of these improvements, as the additional track capacity will allow them to operate more freight trains with less scheduling conflicts and fewer delays. It also provides potential for increased rents from passenger lines.

Maybe at some point before I'm six feet underground, we'll get *really* ballsy and have trains that run on [[gasp) electricity!