Quote Originally Posted by Hermod View Post
From a look at the rail map of the US and from "Official Guides" of the railroads from the thirties, forties, and fifties.

Even in the days of the car ferries, it was only traffic originating or terminating in Detroit that went into Detroit. Traffic to or from the east-west trunk lines in Ohio [[Erie, Nickel Plate, NYC, B&O, PRR) would move north o the C&O )Pere Marquette) or Ann Arbor and run through Plymouth or Ann Arbor.

In theory, traffic could move across Canada on the C&O or NYC and pass through Detroit on the way to Chicago, but traffic not bound for Detroit usually went from Buffalo to Chicago via the east-west lines in Ohio.

Detroit was a destination and not a hub.

Detroit [[and the whole state of Michigan) is off "the beaten path). So long as Detroit has viable industries that traffic in goods to be transported, it will be a significant "point of origin" and a destination. Geography says it will not be a hub except for intra-state Michigan
Quote Originally Posted by Hermod View Post
traffic.

Think of the state of Michigan as a suburban subdivision cul-de-sac. Not Michigan's fault, but simple geography.


 It won't be a hub like Chicago, but I'm not so sure that the historic maps are a good indicator of who the riders would be today. Per the Toronto website, their population has grown by almost 2.5 times since the 50's:
In 1901, the City of Toronto's population was 208,040. The geographic area that is now [[2006) occupied by the City of Toronto was 238,080.
In 1951, the City of Toronto's population was 675,754. The geographic area that is now [[2006) occupied by the City of Toronto was 1,117,470.The suburban boom had started, increasing the population outside the city.
In 2001, the population of the amalgamated City of Toronto was 2,841,500.
I think the question will be, will those people take the train to Chicago, or fly?