'
At least that many.
Brothels?
"This railway here in Traverse City will someday be used as a way to get from here in northern Michigan to Ann Arbor"
I understand the money. It’s not all free to make a commuter line. Not even Groundwork will own the line some other company like brightline someone who is experience with something like this. Or they will make a separate company to own it. It is still a long road ahead but if it goes well I can see a commuter train by the time I ider graduate High school or graduate collage.Plannerdad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 2:10 pmPeople supporting this don’t realize that it costs a lot of money to run a train: crew, fuel, locomotive maintenance, leasing the passenger cars, and technically up keep of the tracks itself should be added. But the SOM will likely cover that cost for the state owned lines.
This isn’t a commuter proposal really…dalek ling wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 8:17 pmI understand the money. It’s not all free to make a commuter line. Not even Groundwork will own the line some other company like brightline someone who is experience with something like this. Or they will make a separate company to own it. It is still a long road ahead but if it goes well I can see a commuter train by the time I ider graduate High school or graduate collage.Plannerdad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 2:10 pmPeople supporting this don’t realize that it costs a lot of money to run a train: crew, fuel, locomotive maintenance, leasing the passenger cars, and technically up keep of the tracks itself should be added. But the SOM will likely cover that cost for the state owned lines.
And Indian Trails already provides a bus from Grand Rapids and other connecting cities to Traverse City for those without vehicles.Saturnalia wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 12:07 pmPart of what bothers me with the plan is that it is pretty much setup to cater to upper income folks who have nothing better to do but take a cruise train from their McMansions in the Detroit Exurbs up to the fancy wining and dining of Traverse City.
Public Transit is supposed to fill a NEEDED hole in the transportation network that private companies cannot provide, and should be applicable to a broad swath of the income ladder. We should not be subsidizing a train for a bunch of rich snobs just so they don't have to drive their Cadillacs or Mercedes to and from the north end of the Mitten like the plebeians do.
I'm not a class warfare guy by any means, but its just another facet of this project that is useless, or at the very least, welfare for rich people.
You had me at the beginning, not gonna like
Ya I believe other commuter routes that MDOT wants like the Coast to Coast should happen first before A2TC in my opinionKenB wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:07 pmA daily train to from Ann Arbor to Traverse City is a great idea. Need to run two trains every day. One S.B. out of TC to AA and one N.B. from AA to TC. That way people in the middle of the route can get to TC or AA. The bad part is in AA you would have to get off train in eather North AA or at the old AA station and cab over to the NYC Amtrak station.
But before this is built (1 million dollars per mile) we should have an Amtrak Train on the C&O from Detroit to Holland, tieing up in Michigan City. Again two trains daily. By tieing up in Michigan City that gives you access to the South Shore and to a destination, the Casino. Just have to build a lay over track in Michigan City.
Train leave Detroit and Michigan City in the Morning. Have to get to Lansing by 0700 for the E.B. train and by 1800 for the W.B. train. That way State workers can go to-from Detroit. without driving. Pool cars avaible in Detroit and Lansing.
Like is signaled, little freight traffic. might have to build at least one siding and signal work around Lake "O" but this would be a viable route. Better than the AA -TC train.
Ken Borg
Interstate highways weren't paid for by bonds (the Mackinac Bridge was built before the Interstates were signed into law). They were paid for by the Highway Trust Fund, which is (mostly) paid for by fuel taxes. Construction was 90% paid by the feds, 10% states.PatAzo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:30 pm...
2) How do you propose to actually pay for it? Not grants and deficit spending. For example interstate highways were financed with bond issues that were repaid with fuel taxes or tolls. The Mackinac was paid for with a bond issue and tolls. Pipe lines were paid for the firms who transport fuels over them.
Ok so what if the taxes went to the HTF and then to projects...same differenceSteve B wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:41 pmInterstate highways weren't paid for by bonds (the Mackinac Bridge was built before the Interstates were signed into law). They were paid for by the Highway Trust Fund, which is (mostly) paid for by fuel taxes.PatAzo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:30 pmFor the proponents of A2TC and Coast to Coast:
1) What are the benefits to society? Not just you think it's a good idea or it's cool. Will workers and business be more productive? Will reduce transportation costs,? i.e. MDOT be able to eliminate highway lanes or automobiles of tomorrow will be so expensive the average Joe won't be able to afford one.
2) How do you propose to actually pay for it? Not grants and deficit spending. For example interstate highways were financed with bond issues that were repaid with fuel taxes or tolls. The Mackinac was paid for with a bond issue and tolls. Pipe lines were paid for the firms who transport fuels over them.
It might be the "same difference" in the end, but it's always good to clarify the facts. PatAzo said the Interstates were financed with bonds. They weren't. House Democrats specifically objected to the sale of bonds to finance construction, so a trust fund was established instead.Saturnalia wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:00 pmOk so what if the taxes went to the HTF and then to projects...same differenceSteve B wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:41 pmInterstate highways weren't paid for by bonds (the Mackinac Bridge was built before the Interstates were signed into law). They were paid for by the Highway Trust Fund, which is (mostly) paid for by fuel taxes.PatAzo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:30 pmFor the proponents of A2TC and Coast to Coast:
1) What are the benefits to society? Not just you think it's a good idea or it's cool. Will workers and business be more productive? Will reduce transportation costs,? i.e. MDOT be able to eliminate highway lanes or automobiles of tomorrow will be so expensive the average Joe won't be able to afford one.
2) How do you propose to actually pay for it? Not grants and deficit spending. For example interstate highways were financed with bond issues that were repaid with fuel taxes or tolls. The Mackinac was paid for with a bond issue and tolls. Pipe lines were paid for the firms who transport fuels over them.
Honestly though public transportation never pays its own way so it is kind of a bad start to assume profitability. One must instead look at the cost/benefit ratio.
I intentionally avoided profitability. Transportation infrastructure is rarely a stand alone profit generator. It would be nice to simply say "taxes" but there is not a well-hole of money at Fort Knox to pay for whatever we want. Identify the revenue source.Saturnalia wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:00 pmHonestly though public transportation never pays its own way so it is kind of a bad start to assume profitability. One must instead look at the cost/benefit ratio.
If you look at the issue more broadly, there is merit to trains vs road travel. That being said, I PERSONALLY see this as something that could be a seasonal venture, but what they "want" is not realistic necessarily. In the United States we tend to look at passenger rail as a waste, and not profitable, when we actually should look at how it could improve our lives beyond that. For every dollar lost in Amtrak/ Passenger rail there is SOME sort of benefit beyond profit/ loss. You have 1 less car tearing up the road and putting CO2 into the atmosphere. There is 1 more parking space open in downtown Traverse City for those who do not have the option of taking the train. There is less of a chance of a road accident both due to less cars being on the road.