Detroit-Grand Rapids Rail Line

**Bham1982** · February-23-16, 08:01 AM

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** · February-23-16, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · February-23-16, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · February-23-16, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · February-23-16, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

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** · February-23-16, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

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.

**Bham1982** · February-23-16, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

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)

**Bucket** · February-24-16, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

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** · February-24-16, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

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** · February-24-16, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

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.