Future Passenger Rail Routes?

[Michael]

It's my understanding that MIGN's passenger trains were not regularly scheduled trains and were ran more as excursions.

You are correct, Jon.

I am enjoying the discussion guys. Some of you have very good ideas. However, service between AA and TC for anything other than an occasional excursion will not be profitable and require subsidies.

Agreed. If it were even remotely profitable it would be done by now but one can dream. I think having a car rental place by the depot would be nice. Just like the airport. What would be really cool, would be to then expand the line to Williamsburg (Turtle Creek Casino) and all stops between. The line does go by the State Park, Airport, parts of downtown, etc...

[justalurker66]

Improve Chicago-Kalamazoo-Detroit ... necessary to keep it alive.
Add Grand Rapids - Lansing - Detroit ... possible.
Extend Detroit - Pontiac to Saginaw/Bay City ... possible but less likely.
Connect Detroit - Toledo ... possible (perhaps as a run through of the Grand Rapids-Detroit service or a Saginaw-Detroit-Toledo run).

How about an Ann Arbor to Traverse City Auto-Train. More likely than anything else I've seen suggested between those two cities. A weekly tourist train MIGHT work ... if the economy improves. Leave Ann Arbor Friday evening and return Sunday night. Most likely a seasonal train.

In a state that is having problems paying for successful passenger rail links I don't see any new routes. But one can dream. Chicago-Kalamazoo-Detroit is the gem of the state ... get that 100% under Amtrak or state control and improve maintenance and the money will be well invested.

If a private company wants to lease a few cars and make a run up to Traverse City I won't stop them.

[sgavan]

Moving slightly off Michigan, but I've always wondered why there isn't a straight Amtrak route from Chicago or Detroit to Florida. I know there used to be one years ago, but was it not viable? I sat on I-75 coming back from Florida for about 4 hours and moved maybe 40 miles last year during spring break. The whole time thinking a train route would have at least a little interest by the thousands of angry people going 10MPH tops. Currently if you want to get from Michigan to Florida by train, it's minimum 48 hours since you have to zig-zag to Chicago, DC, then south. If you have ever driven I-75 to Florida, you probably notice that more than 50% of the plates of other cars are either Michigan or Florida. I think a daily train south from MI or even Cinci would get huge ridership... especially an Auto-train. Maybe I'm wrong... and that's why it was discontinued.

I think a weekly train to TC (seasonal) is viable if marketed as an "experience" with overnight accommodations, rather than just a car alternative. It might be a bit high priced to work, but I'd consider it over hotels and gas. As long as you can rent a car in TC when you get there... or hop on a bus.

[Michael]

I think you have to pickup AMTRAK in Toledo if you want to head South or East and it is still expensive and long. You either have to HATE flying or LOVE trains to go to Florida on AMTRAK because there are lots of cheap and short flights heading there all the time.

[railroadchoad]

The original poster of this topic was interested in service to Mackinac and TC but I wouldn't even bother to dream about such a thing. The population density isn't there. Nor are the tracks.

As far as the NIMBYs are concerned. I realize that there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth over re-installing rail on abandoned roadbeds and on ROWs which would be new. If you read MY post carefully, you will notice that my wish list is for cities WHICH ARE ALREADY LINKED BY EXTANT RAIL!

As to what to do once you get to a city by train: Have you ever flown or taken a train anywhere before? Sometimes people rent vehicles, sometimes they have people meet them at the station/airport, sometimes they take a bus, sometimes they take a cab. What's so hard to imagine about not having your own vehicle to drive when in a town that isn't your own?

We can't be blamed for not being able to picture getting around America without a personal vehicle. Our country has been developed in ways which enslave us to private automobiles since WWII. I am one of those slaves. For every penny the price of gasoline climbs, the more intense out enslavement becomes and the more money we put into the pockets of those who are opposed to American ideals of freedom.

Will passenger trains alone free us from our dependance upon the automobile? Of course not. They are just a piece of the puzzle of transportation planning for a future which is going to have less petroleum available with every passing year. Perhaps if we profess to be railfans we should also consider being advocates for passenger rail options rather than trying to think of reasons why they won't work. This is much is true: There a plenty of people who are in the construction and road-building business who come up with reasons why passenger trains suck. We don't need to add to their efforts.

[justalurker66]

The original poster of this topic was interested in service to Mackinac and TC but I wouldn't even bother to dream about such a thing. The population density isn't there. Nor are the tracks.

Sounds realistic ... although I'd rather look at existing travel statistics along a corridor than just density.

What's so hard to imagine about not having your own vehicle to drive when in a town that isn't your own?

Try it a couple of times and you won't have to use your imagination. Those who are less reliant on their own transportation would likely do better than those who have not seen the inside of a bus since High School (or college if in sports or band). To be without your normal transportation in a distant city one must have a suitable alternative.

Will passenger trains alone free us from our dependance upon the automobile? Of course not.

I wouldn't expect them to. Certainly not the trains being discussed in this thread. Solid local public transit that goes where the person wants to go when they want to go in a reasonable time at an acceptable level of comfort does more to free the dependence on cars. But many end up driving to their rail station - so they still need a car (or taxi).

Perhaps if we profess to be railfans we should also consider being advocates for passenger rail options rather than trying to think of reasons why they won't work. This is much is true: There a plenty of people who are in the construction and road-building business who come up with reasons why passenger trains suck. We don't need to add to their efforts.

Something I learned in debate is that one should know BOTH sides of an argument. If one spends all of their time concentrating on their side of an issue it is easy to beat them. The best debaters can win regardless of the side they have to argue ... because they know both sides so well that they have already worked out counterarguments for anything the opposition might say.

We absolutely need to know the flaws in our proposals. Just like you stated at the beginning of your post - "The population density isn't there. Nor are the tracks." My question would be why do you need population density? At what level would the density be sufficient? How do you determine what level is sufficient? Do you rely on a study or is the minimum level just your opinion? Is the study accredited? Are you? You made a claim, now prove it. (No, you don't have to prove it here ... but hopefully you understand that a blunt statement is going to need to be backed up in a real discussion with people who have the power to decide whether or not to attempt a project.)

As a railfan I would like to keep trains and their tracks around, improve the railroads and see passenger services maintained and grown. But as a taxpayer with a mortgage and my own bills I understand that everything has to be paid for and there is a good chance I'll be writing part of that check --- so spend my money wisely!

[J T]

As far as the NIMBYs are concerned. I realize that there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth over re-installing rail on abandoned roadbeds and on ROWs which would be new. If you read MY post carefully, you will notice that my wish list is for cities WHICH ARE ALREADY LINKED BY EXTANT RAIL!

Really. Please explain how a high speed rail line could be built between Grand Rapids and Detroit without the NIMBYs melting down.

Look, I'm ALL FOR IT, but I'm a realist. There is no way in hell a high speed rail line could be constructed between GR and Detroit without the government TAKING a ton of private land. This isn't the 1800s any more.

[railroadchoad]

I will blame the mainstream media for putting visions of Bullet Trains and TGVs in people's heads. A realistic and more likely option for passenger rail service in Michigan is something that tops out in the 100 to 110 mph range and uses diesel powered locomotives. Please note that this does not require any condemnation of private land to aquire ROW nor does it require any construction of miles of overhead catenary to supply power to the trains.

Top speeds in the 100 mph range make a trip between Detroit and Grand Rapids by rail quicker than what you could travel the corridor non-stop in a car. This even accounts for the time lost by making a few intermediate stops. There would be investment needed in road crossing upgrades in order to protect the public from their own stupidity as well as the possibility of a few closures to some VERY LIGHTLY travelled back roads. A re-evaluation, if not complete elimination of private x-ing along the route would be needed as well. These are the areas where the NIMBYs would probably be at their worst.

As to the lack of evidence that density is needed for passenger rail to be successful: Seriously? It it just happenstance that the nation's busiest passenger rail corridors happen to be in the nations most populous regions? For example: There are A LOT of people who live between Washington, DC and Boston, MA. That would seem to be a great place to haul a lot of people on trains. On the other hand, there are far more people in Kent County, MI than there are in the entire Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Where is a better place to spend scarce money on passenger trains? Were the market is.

We are all probably all wasting our time debating all of this any way due to the fact that with the current political climate we will be lucky to maintain what we have, to say nothing of expansion!

[AARR]

We are all probably all wasting our time debating all of this any way due to the fact that with the current political climate we will be lucky to maintain what we have, to say nothing of expansion!

I do not think any time is being wasted discussing this. I am enjoying the conversation and intreging ideas.

[TraintrackGal]

Keep on going with this. I also enjoy this thread and the reactivation of the spur in Lansing thread too. Somehow, it's very positive and maybe brings us a little bit of hope. You all are really knowledgeable and I learn things whenever I'm on here.

[J T]

I will blame the mainstream media for putting visions of Bullet Trains and TGVs in people's heads. A realistic and more likely option for passenger rail service in Michigan is something that tops out in the 100 to 110 mph range and uses diesel powered locomotives. Please note that this does not require any condemnation of private land to aquire ROW nor does it require any construction of miles of overhead catenary to supply power to the trains.

Top speeds in the 100 mph range make a trip between Detroit and Grand Rapids by rail quicker than what you could travel the corridor non-stop in a car. This even accounts for the time lost by making a few intermediate stops. There would be investment needed in road crossing upgrades in order to protect the public from their own stupidity as well as the possibility of a few closures to some VERY LIGHTLY travelled back roads. A re-evaluation, if not complete elimination of private x-ing along the route would be needed as well. These are the areas where the NIMBYs would probably be at their worst.

If you think the Plymouth sub can be upgraded to 110 mph, I'd like to have what you're smoking. No matter HOW much they upgrade the line, I can still drive between GR and Detroit faster, cheaper and more convenient in my car.

Now, if they construct a dedicated line, that's a different story. But again...NIMBYs.

[Fred]

In regards to the Chicago-Florida train, yes Amtrak had The Floridian back in the 70's running on the former Monon/LN main, problem was track was SO BAD train constantly derailing, slow speeds made it even a tougher ride. Here in Michigan always thought psgr service to metro airport was most feasible as also a line right down into JLA. Now with so few people actually working in downtown Detroit can't see need for any commuter service.

[MSchwiebert]

I too had thought that a Detroit to Florida route would be viable, but the problem is that none of the north south routes are really viable from a capacity perspective. Think NS is going to be willing to open up their Detroit-Ft. Wayne- Cincinnati route, Or CSX their Detroit-Toledo-Cincinnati routing to the headaches that Amtrak would bring? Even the routes via Columbus suffer from capacity constraints.
As for "high speed rail" being a viable alternative to auto travel, even if gas were to double in price I don't think there would be a change in auto use habits. There would be an acellerated trend toward more diesels, hybrids and alternative fuels as well as a continuation toward "right sizing" vehicle ownership for a greater percentage of use (for example, you won't see as many folks having a 1 ton Dually with the biggest gas engine available for hauling air around 95+% of the time). There is a long way to go before the "tipping point" is reached.

[Michael]

One possible way to get around the having to aquire massive amounts of land for a new ROW for high speed trains would be to have them use the exsisting Highways. You see this in Chicago for example down the center of the freewway but I am not sure how exactly it could be done here. It would save a ton of money not having to buy up land but you would be limited to the exsisting freeways and if you do that you might as well skip the train and just have a dedicated super high speed lane for vehicles.
Came up with an idea and shot it down myself

[TrainWatcher]

I will blame the mainstream media for putting visions of Bullet Trains and TGVs in people's heads. A realistic and more likely option for passenger rail service in Michigan is something that tops out in the 100 to 110 mph range and uses diesel powered locomotives. Please note that this does not require any condemnation of private land to aquire ROW nor does it require any construction of miles of overhead catenary to supply power to the trains.

Top speeds in the 100 mph range make a trip between Detroit and Grand Rapids by rail quicker than what you could travel the corridor non-stop in a car. This even accounts for the time lost by making a few intermediate stops. There would be investment needed in road crossing upgrades in order to protect the public from their own stupidity as well as the possibility of a few closures to some VERY LIGHTLY travelled back roads. A re-evaluation, if not complete elimination of private x-ing along the route would be needed as well. These are the areas where the NIMBYs would probably be at their worst.

If you think the Plymouth sub can be upgraded to 110 mph, I'd like to have what you're smoking. No matter HOW much they upgrade the line, I can still drive between GR and Detroit faster, cheaper and more convenient in my car.

Now, if they construct a dedicated line, that's a different story. But again...NIMBYs.

Can't agree more JT. The Plymouth Sub will never see Passenger service again, it just won't happen.

I too had thought that a Detroit to Florida route would be viable, but the problem is that none of the north south routes are really viable from a capacity perspective. Think NS is going to be willing to open up their Detroit-Ft. Wayne- Cincinnati route, Or CSX their Detroit-Toledo-Cincinnati routing to the headaches that Amtrak would bring? Even the routes via Columbus suffer from capacity constraints.
As for "high speed rail" being a viable alternative to auto travel, even if gas were to double in price I don't think there would be a change in auto use habits. There would be an acellerated trend toward more diesels, hybrids and alternative fuels as well as a continuation toward "right sizing" vehicle ownership for a greater percentage of use (for example, you won't see as many folks having a 1 ton Dually with the biggest gas engine available for hauling air around 95+% of the time). There is a long way to go before the "tipping point" is reached.

Actually I am going to CHI next weekend. It was cheaper at $84 round trip on Amtrak than it would be filling my Escape and dealing with Chicago traffic. To be truthfully honest I have never been a big Amtrak supporter, and this trip may change my mind on how Michigan Amtrak service is conducted, and I will try hard to keep an open mind on my trip. There is enough traffic to support all 6 Wolverines as well as both PM and Blue Water both EB and WB, and with traffic increasing I can see where in the day of HIGH and I mean $4+ a gallon gas, Amtrak needs more routes to be opened so they can tap into the money that they haven't seen since their inception.

It is THE PERFECT time for Amtrak to shine, as it might change peoples way of thinking about passenger railroads. Not saying Amtrak will ever be what passenger railroads of the 40;s and 50's were but heck if you get the right combo, they actually might be able to start turning profits. I mean compare it:

A Gallon of Gas in 1971 (Year Amtrak was Created): $.30
A Gallon of Gas in 2011: $3.55 and increasing

It WAS cheaper to drive everywhere back then, now? Heck with out all the traffic and headaches its a whole lot better to take the train.

[justalurker66]

Amtrak to Chicago is fine if you're going to downtown Chicago or don't mind finding other transportation to finish the trip. I can beat the South Shore out of South Bend to Chicago and even beat the price (including parking at the South Shore's downtown station) if I take my wife along. I'm a railfan and I'd love to be able to say passenger rail is better than all other modes but it just has not proved true.

A few years ago I had a "use it or lose it" week of vacation ... gas prices were approaching $4 and my wife and I decided that with prices going up it might be the last chance to take a long drive vacation. So we drove to Washington DC and back for around $200 in gas (plus another tank of get around town gas). No car rental and we used our car to get to their public transportation rail to go into town when needed. Later that year a friend organized a group trip of about 20 people and we got a pair of group rate tickets to go back to DC. The trip took four hours longer by train and only cost the same because of the advance purchase group rate. The current non-discounted trip booked 30 days in advance is over $300 for two people. I can still drive cheaper - and 25% faster even with food and potty stops.

The I-94 corridor is a good one and I hope Michigan continues to support and improve service along that line. There is a real potential to create a fast service that people WILL prefer to driving or flying. The distances are far enough to be a "big trip" worthy of spending money so one does not have to drive without being so far that people don't go. Money spent wisely to buy and maintain that line will pay off.

Good luck on your trip --- pay attention to the difference in the journey on three segments.
1) Detroit to Kalamazoo
2) Kalamazoo to Porter (just past Michigan City where Amtrak joins the NS line into Chicago)
3) Porter to Union Station (NYC/PC mainline into Chicago with heavy freight traffic)

When you get back you'll wish that the whole trip was as good as the second segment. The third segment shouldn't be bad (although improvements are coming). The first segment needs help (please fund).

[MSchwiebert]

Here's an interesting chart showing the price of a gallon of gas in constant dollars. It'd be interesting to see if there's a current edition out there, but it does show that everything is relative.

http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/facu ... soline.pdf

[Robert MacDowell]

Here's an interesting chart showing the price of a gallon of gas in constant dollars. It'd be interesting to see if there's a current edition out there, but it does show that everything is relative.

http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/facu ... soline.pdf

Doesn't work. The problem is the "constant dollars". They're using an index; inflation; which is measured by the costs of certain goods. ONE OF THEM IS GASOLINE! HELLO! The cost of petroleum also figures heavily into the cost of the rest of the goods. Either because petroleum is a feedstock (any chemical or plastic) or just because of transport (goods from China) and generally our production economy is addicted to oil. Modern factory farming uses >1 calorie of fossil-fuel energy to make 1 calorie of food energy, for instance (that's the problem with ethanol) so when oil goes up, non-organic food goes up too. OF COURSE petroleum and inflation move in lock-step!

The only time they separate is when an external crisis separates them, e.g. oil embargos (1973 and 1980) or the explosive economic growth in China/India, whcih you can see right on the chart from 2002 onward. China tanked, oil tanked and now they're coming back up again.

Claiming that means oil isn't going up ... that's like plotting the cost of gold jewelry, indexed to the cost of gold, and as a result proclaiming that the cost of gold jewelry has not gone up!

[MSchwiebert]

Maybe it wasn't the best tool for the job, but I wanted to convey that the "I paid 39 cents a gallon for gas back in 1969, that those 39 cents are not the same as 39 cents today. As for the farming, having grown up on a family farm (700 odd acres) I find the whole "organic" thing/fad rather interesting. It's the efficiency of the American farmer that allows "organic" farms to be possible. It simply would be impossible to feed the number of people that are fed today by our farmers. There would not be enough land available to offset the loss in yields that going "organic" would entail.(Even in the vegan ethanol free utopia some wish for) There's very valid reasons why the romanticized notion of "40 acres and a mule" hasn't existed for several generations now.

[Nighttrain404]

I can say this but if they are going to add passenger traffic from AA to TC the tracks needed to be upgraded. And the cost would be to high the train maintains a slow speed and the tracks would have to be upgraded. Thats why the dinner train up here derailed all the time.