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

[Genesyxx]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[iheartthed]

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]

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.

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?

[DetroitPlanner]

[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]

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...)

[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.

[bailey]

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]

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?

[Detroitnerd]

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 ...

[BrushStart]

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]

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.

[Hardhat]

The Granholm Administration checks in...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 28, 2010
Contact: Janet Foran, MDOT
517-335-7176 or 517-937-7219

Granholm Says $161 Million for High-Speed Rail Will be Transformational, Create Jobs

LANSING – Governor Jennifer M. Granholm today applauded the announcement from the Obama administration that Michigan will receive $161.1 million for three grants for high-speed rail projects that will support at least 1,200 jobs. The grants are part of the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program.

“This investment is the beginning of a transformation of our state’s high-speed rail transportation system, giving people a travel option that is good for jobs, good for business and good for the environment,” Granholm said. “Train travel provides an alternative to highway travel that reduces congestion, energy use and emissions.”

The largest grant, for $150 million, will be used to improve rail services along a 135-mile section of track between Dearborn and Kalamazoo that is currently owned by Norfolk Southern Railway. The grant includes funding for possible acquisition of track and infrastructure upgrades, including new signals, crossing improvements and technical timing devices called positive train control. These improvements are intended to stabilize the rail line and restore passenger rail speeds to 79 mph, with future train speeds expected to reach 110 mph on this corridor. Work could begin as early as summer 2011.

A second grant for $7.9 million will remove some of the conflicts between rail passenger travel and freight traffic on the West Detroit Connection. The grant provides funding for building a new bridge over Junction Avenue in west Detroit, constructing 1.3 miles of new connector track, plus construction of three new crossovers and signal improvements. These upgrades are expected to shave travel time for passenger rail by up to 10 minutes and will connect the high-speed passenger line to the Detroit New Center station.

The two grants will improve both existing intercity passenger service and future high-speed intercity passenger service, as well as set the stage for regional services such as the proposed Ann Arbor-to-Detroit passenger rail service.

A third grant, for $3.2 million, will produce a corridor investment plan for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac high-speed rail corridor. This includes an environmental impact document that will help pave the way for increased speeds and frequencies on the route. This is an important step for the overall success of the federally designated 304-mile high-speed rail corridor.

[casscorridor]

We are still paying for the mistake of subsidizing private railways 150 years after they were built. The railways that built this country would have not been possible without government support and investment, just like many other industries such as utilities or aerospace. We let a few individuals/corporations have all the control over the rails, while we the taxpayers foot the bill. Now, 150 years later our federal government [[Amtrak) pays the corporations to use the rails that we built! But it is never too late to fix the mistake and take back control over the railways. The railways should be public, just like the freeways. Private trucks travel on public roads. Imagine if the freeways were privately owned, and public buses paid to use them!! Sounds ridiculous, but it isn't really any different. Unfortunately, it will be extremely hard to take back ownership, because once ownership is given to a private company it is close to impossible to get it back. So the at the very least, the federal government could invest in a completely new passenger railways system. The money would be well spent, for this is not a short term investment, as the system we built 150 years ago is still in place, and probably will be in another 150 years. But again, once ownership is given to private hands it is hard to ever get it back, so having it public from the start is important. The sad thing is that in this day and age our government doesn't see the benefit from making those sorts of massive long-term investments.

[Hermod]

We are still paying for the mistake of subsidizing private railways 150 years after they were built. The railways that built this country would have not been possible without government support and investment, just like many other industries such as utilities or aerospace. We let a few individuals/corporations have all the control over the rails, while we the taxpayers foot the bill. Now, 150 years later our federal government [[Amtrak) pays the corporations to use the rails that we built! But it is never too late to fix the mistake and take back control over the railways. The railways should be public, just like the freeways. Private trucks travel on public roads. Imagine if the freeways were privately owned, and public buses paid to use them!! Sounds ridiculous, but it isn't really any different. Unfortunately, it will be extremely hard to take back ownership, because once ownership is given to a private company it is close to impossible to get it back. So the at the very least, the federal government could invest in a completely new passenger railways system. The money would be well spent, for this is not a short term investment, as the system we built 150 years ago is still in place, and probably will be in another 150 years. But again, once ownership is given to private hands it is hard to ever get it back, so having it public from the start is important. The sad thing is that in this day and age our government doesn't see the benefit from making those sorts of massive long-term investments.

The reality was that, in the 19th century, the federal government was land rich and cash poor. In the populated parts of the country, railroads were built without federal government support and were quite prosperous. In the less populated parts of the country, it did not make economic sense to build a railroad as there were no customers and the government couldn't sell the land for farming because it was not economical to ship cash crops. As a result, the railroads were offered a subsidy in federal land as an inducement to build what would otherwise be an unprofitable line of track.

The federal government offered railroads "alternate sections" of government lands to build track through sparsely settled lands. In other words, for an east-west rail line, the railroad got one square mile north of the track for the first mile of track, one square mile south of the track for the next mile of track, and so on. The railroad could then sell these lands to settlers.

The government profited by the increase in value of the other government lands near the tracks which the government land offices could sell to settlers at a higher price. The government also profited by the growing rail network linking all parts of the country.

[bibs]

I took the train from St Louis to Birmingham around the 4th of July. What surprised me most was the amount of time it took to get from Dearborn to Birmingham. The train crawled along at 2mph through the junction connection to the Detroit station. There was freight train on a adjacent track. It look about an hour and fifteen minutes to get from Dearborn to Birmingham. The train really didn't pick up speed until it was north of Hamtramck.
I'm thinking the junction up grade mentioned in the arcticle will shave off more than 10 minutes because your seperating passenger trains from freight trains and it might eliminate the sharp curve. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being 25 minutes and I don't think I'm exaggerating. If seperate tracks were built from the Detroit station to the Ferndale area, I bet another twenty minute would be shaved off. Do the trains buffs on this form agree with me?

[pkbroch]

We also went from Birmingham to Chicago, round trip, this past August. The stretch from Dearborn station to Birmingham took One and one-half hours most of the time we were sitting on the rails for long time periods with freight trains. This was on a Friday at 6pm.

Until this improves it's faster to drive to the Dearborn station. The parking is free and safe, you can wait inside and they have restrooms. The problem with Birmingham and Royal Oak is they have no real stations or weather shelters for the passengers, just sidings.

[rooms222]

We also went from Birmingham to Chicago, round trip, this past August. The stretch from Dearborn station to Birmingham took One and one-half hours most of the time we were sitting on the rails for long time periods with freight trains. This was on a Friday at 6pm.

Until this improves it's faster to drive to the Dearborn station. The parking is free and safe, you can wait inside and they have restrooms. The problem with Birmingham and Royal Oak is they have no real stations or weather shelters for the passengers, just sidings.

Free or cheap parking, at least for suburban areas, is an important adaptation for rail in our area. The free parking in Dearborn is why it outboards Detroit for Amtrak.

This weekend, I flew to St. Louis and discovered they have a relatively new light rail system that now has two lines. The first built was from the Airport to Illinois through downtown. The second splits off to an alternative suburb.

Some observations:

Free parking at almost all suburban stations...Great way to encourage use

Honor system rather than turnstyle. Got asked for ticket twice by pairs of security guards [[with private logos on clothes and official vests).

Charged $3.75 from airport, but gave a two hour bus pass as well.
Charged $2.25 for single ride, including to airport or from IF you bought it earlier. Thus, incoming travelers paid a buck more leaving [[was fine with that).....

Connections at all universities and community colleges seemed very important...They all had their own station [[or two)

Very nice experience.

Could we dream of making a system that shoots over to Windsor as one of the spurs?
They included Illinois in this system from the beginning and got their tax base to pay for some of it.

[BrushStart]

Free or cheap parking, at least for suburban areas, is an important adaptation for rail in our area. The free parking in Dearborn is why it outboards Detroit for Amtrak.

This weekend, I flew to St. Louis and discovered they have a relatively new light rail system that now has two lines. The first built was from the Airport to Illinois through downtown. The second splits off to an alternative suburb.

Some observations:

Free parking at almost all suburban stations...Great way to encourage use

Honor system rather than turnstyle. Got asked for ticket twice by pairs of security guards [[with private logos on clothes and official vests).

Charged $3.75 from airport, but gave a two hour bus pass as well.
Charged $2.25 for single ride, including to airport or from IF you bought it earlier. Thus, incoming travelers paid a buck more leaving [[was fine with that).....

Connections at all universities and community colleges seemed very important...They all had their own station [[or two)

Very nice experience.

Could we dream of making a system that shoots over to Windsor as one of the spurs?
They included Illinois in this system from the beginning and got their tax base to pay for some of it.

You know, I'm having a lousy morning so I just want to rant...

How is that ST. LOUIS, a poorer rust-belt city of 350,000 has a light rail system and Detroit doesn't? What a joke. Look how many people in Metro Detroit are crying for basic amenities, and yet we can't get even 3 miles of rail built. I mean, it's laughable. The fact that people are still debating issues like this makes me lose it. Are there still people out there that think that light rail is an unnecessary item? I sincerely hope not. And, it's not just light rail. Detroit just keeps falling further behind. I was in GR over the weekend visiting friends and although they don't have light rail [yet], it is stinking depressing for me, a Detroiter. As small as GR is, it has a functional and clean bus system that runs on time. Sidewalks aren't littered with glass and trash. There are no vacant storefronts. On "Health Hill" or whatever it is that they just built over there, all of their urban planning has a pedestrian-friendly design. GR is more cosmopolitan and actually appears to be a BIGGER city than Detroit because city planners have made it walkable. There's no massive parking lots in the middle of blocks. Public spaces are open and attractive. I just don't get what the problem is here. None of this is news, but I am so tired of the lack of progress on projects like light rail and other things. It's embarassing.

Thanks for letting me rant.