Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2007 » Train Studies in MI « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Toledolaw05
Member
Username: Toledolaw05

Post Number: 75
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 8:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Is there a link that details what the report of the Michigan studies have been.

Interesting look of what is going on here in Ohio.

http://www.ohiohub.com
Top of pageBottom of page

French777
Member
Username: French777

Post Number: 205
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 10:10 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

they should make a line from Port Huron to Detroit.

looks interesting though!!
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1422
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 10:15 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's kind of scary...
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3789
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 10:16 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The proposed mega superhighway interconnecting Mexico, the US, and Canada will have a secondary destination in Dayton, in addition to its primary hub/terminus in Missouri.

Nope. Detroit is still being slated for nothing other than a minor regional/local freight terminus for SE Michigan.

(Message edited by Livernoisyard on August 22, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1424
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 10:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^Where do you think the connect to Toronto will go?
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3790
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 10:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Connection or passageway through Detroit? There's a big difference.

The Interstates pass through a lot of Podunks--without any need for anybody to stop/trade there.

Besides, Buffalo has more to offer in that regard, and both Detroit and Buffalo officials and transportation experts already know this. Detroit will still be an ugly sister to an ugly Buffalo.

(Message edited by Livernoisyard on August 22, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 667
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 11:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think it's still an open question whether the main Toronto-Chicago line goes through Detroit or Port Huron. Am I wrong?
Top of pageBottom of page

French777
Member
Username: French777

Post Number: 206
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 11:15 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I hope this isn't a Thread crasher but wasn't Detroit going to have an Airport city which World Trade would come and go out of Metro because most major airports have no room for expansion but Metro does.
Top of pageBottom of page

Parkguy
Member
Username: Parkguy

Post Number: 97
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 4:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

French777--
Regarding the airport city/aerotropolis: As of the Mackinac Policy Conference this summer, the plans were still moving ahead.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3071
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 4:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Toledolaw,

To the best of my knowledge, Michigan isn't making an effort to develop a statewide passenger rail system. There is the Detroit-Ann Arbor Commuter Rail Study, currently in progress, and the City of Ann Arbor is attempting to start a commuter rail line reaching north and west of that city. Aside from that, NADA.

Hell, I'd be surprised if MDOT was even aware of the Ohio Hub Plan, considering that it will connect to Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjw
Member
Username: Jjw

Post Number: 418
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 4:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Very interesting site. Thank you for sharing that toledo. I only hope that it could actually happen.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3793
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 4:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MDOT is aware of the railroads. It was the prime mover during the 1990s for the proposed DIFT terminus in SW Detroit. After SW Detroit residents and businesses vehemently rejected it, MDOT next tried to relocate (stick) it in Ferndale or a couple other sites. Apparently, nobody wants it and Michigan's SC ruling concerning eminent domain make a DIFT anywhere in metro Detroit very unlikely.

IOW, MDOT was shot down concerning its railroad plans.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3072
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 4:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sometimes I wonder if people read the posts to which they respond.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 670
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 4:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

True, LY, but that was a proposed freight terminal. There is an intermodal freight terminal in Detroit, a pretty good size one, at Vernor and Dix.

In the Ohio hub study (see link in first post), Cleveland to Detroit via Metro Airport was ranked very high, and the study recommends a 2011 completion but it is dependent on what MDOT does.

I am quite certain MDOT is aware of this.

Michigan has pretty good intercity rail service for a midwest US state: not as good as Illinois, but as good as or better than the others. I am not aware of any plan to improve it, beyond the well known AA-Howell and AA-Detroit initiatives.

The study looks at this as both a passenger and freight corridor.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3795
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 5:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan in Arlington (or wherever in the Beltway) implies that MDOT doesn't have a clue re passenger railroading. However, I believe that MDOT isn't that clueless or ignorant of railroad activities in its back yard. [just my opinion...]

In any event, MDOT doesn't need to accept guidance from the feds or their lackey minions, does it?
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 671
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 5:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you two boys can't get along we're going to turn this thread right around and go back home.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3796
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 5:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The CSX intermodal (in my immediate neighborhood and within listening range, BTW) is option 4 of the DIFT--do nothing (but let the railroad(s) do whatever it wants with its own properties and assets). IOW, the DIFT died because eminent domain could no longer be used for it.

The NS (54% owner of Conrail) was to build one nearby too--between Central and Lonyo on the Michigan Line (otherwise formerly known as Junction Yard--now Livernois Yard). However, the NS just might vacate Detroit entirely soon. Conrail still exists in three locations--Detroit being one. The others are back east. They are merely terminal railroad operations today--much like the Union Belt of old.

(Message edited by Livernoisyard on August 22, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3073
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 5:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Does anyone know why the Ohio Hub hasn't received any mention in Michigan? You'd think it would have gained some press, considering it will connect Detroit to DTW, Toledo, and beyond. It just seems a little out of whack.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 672
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 5:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the clarification LY. One of my daytime gigs is not far from where you live. Ate at Las Brisas yesterday (no buffet though).

Regarding what MDOT knows, this is from MDOT's own web site, a portion of a mid April press release:

"April 18, 2007 - - Improved passenger rail service offers a convenient, alternative way to travel, which translates into substantial economic benefits for users, communities and states, according to a new report issued by the nine states participating in the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI). The MWRRI consists of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Enhanced passenger rail service provided by a 3,000-mile Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) could generate $23.1 billion in user benefits from time savings, congestion relief and emission reductions during the first 40 years of the project. For Michigan, the benefits could total between $2.3 billion to $3.5 billion, in addition to creating 6,970 new, permanent jobs, and $138 million in extra household income.

'This report shows that an investment in providing frequent and reliable passenger rail services pays enormous benefits,' said Kirk T. Steudle, director, Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)."
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3074
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 5:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As I understand it, the Ohio Hub is separate from the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, although complementary. The only segment of the MWRRI that is proposed to run through Ohio is from the Indiana State Line to Cleveland.

If Ohio can get 80% funding from the federal government for rail upgrades, they estimate the state will see $17 billion in economic benefit for a $1 billion investment.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3797
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 5:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ohio is nearly ideally located for increased railroad operations. Michigan, being a pair of peninsulas and out of the way for most traffic, is not a hot location. Especially with Michigan ceasing to be significant in manufacturing these days.

Notice how many auto and Tier plants are closing here but not elsewhere. Hell, they're even being built or expanded in nearby Indiana and Ohio. Obviously, it's not only in real estate where LOCATION is vitally important.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3075
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 5:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^^^You do understand that the Ohio Hub and MWRRI are both *passenger* rail plans, correct?
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 673
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 5:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan and LY,

The Ohio Hub is both a passenger and freight rail plan. Michigan's main freight rail lines still carry quite an impressive amount of traffic.

MWRRI is purely a passenger plan, near as I can tell.

Ohio is more central so there will be more lines there, but upgrading lines here to 110 MPH (and adding more trains per day) would be beneficial.

It's a decent plan; I'm waiting to see if it has legs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3798
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 5:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, and passenger railroading is far more difficult to pull off financially than freight operations. Is there really a need for it? Just because some think so doesn't make it so. [The converse might be true, BTW.]

Wonder why they all but disappeared since April Fools Day in 1971 except for the Boston-DC area. The rest of the country doesn't or won't use the railroads to justify their expense. But those who earn their livelihood building public infrastructure are those who probably want to see them built the most.

(Message edited by Livernoisyard on August 22, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3076
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 5:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes. People have been clamoring for rail service in Ohio (much as they have in California and Illinois). You can only add so many lanes to the Turnpike and I-71. Governor Strickland wants to use the system as a tool to promote economic growth and revitalize the urban areas.

quote:

The rest of the country doesn't or won't use the railroads to justify their expense.



Not if there's only one train a day.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3800
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 5:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

OT a bit: I can set my clocks by the Amtraks coming by here daily--especially at 12:10 and 6:10 PM. But, there's barely enough demand for three round trips daily. And Amtrak takes an extra hour for the Detroit-Chicago run than when that same route ran back during the steam locomotive era.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 674
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 6:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The passenger service was never as important to the railroads as the freight service, going all the way back to the 19th century. If you look at intercity travel in the US, there are three ways to get around: roads, trains, airlines. The airlines are very stressed financially and the airports are capacity stressed.

The railroads started getting into trouble when the US government poured vast sums into building, with taxpayer money, expressways. These made the railroads (which had been built by private capital) to some degree redundant.

The main justification (to me) of passenger railroad improvements is to relax the capacity strain on air traffic by providing good service between cities at short-to-medium distances. Detroit to Chicago, Detroit to Cleveland, Cleveland to Columbus are good examples. If we didn't need so many airplanes making those kinds of short hops, the air lanes would not be taxed so severely, and the airlines might even be able to somehow turn a profit.

I think an overall useful transportation policy with regard to intercity travel, if I was in charge of the government, would be:
1. Maintain the highways for people who drive;
2. Improve the passenger RR service for trips of (say) 350 miles or less;
3. Keep the longer non-auto trips to airlines;
4. Improve intermodality.

MWRRI can help with #2 and #4 IMHO.

By the way, in parts of the world with good RR
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3801
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 6:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Michigan's total trackage miles peaked in either 1910 or 1911 (forget...). There were too many railroads running parallel operations most everywhere during much of the railroading era. So, railroads were continually going broke and being reformed for well over a century and a half. After the severe rationalization during the late 1970s/early 1980s, today's mileage in Michigan is but a small fraction of the 1910 figure. You can confer the timeline at michiganrailroads.com for that.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 675
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 6:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One of the interesting scams that came about, when railroads became very important, is that one company would build a line serving the same communities as an existing line, in a slightly different corridor. The idea many times wasn't to make money, but to force the existing railroad to buy you out. Another scam was "water", valuing a railroad well in excess of any true value for the purpose of borrowing money. (Good thing nobody does that anymore.)

Moving to the more modern times, up to the 1970s: another problem the railroads faced in the later days was featherbedding. Yet another problem was the ICC would not allow the railroads to rationalize rates or to abandon unprofitable services.

A problem I face is I don't remember how I meant to end the partial sentence that ends my last post (and I don't know how it got cut off in the first place). Ahh, middle age.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 1131
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 6:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernoisyard, they didn't disappear on April Fool's Day, 1971. Amtrak started on May 1, 1971.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 1260
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 6:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The rest of the country doesn't or won't use the railroads to justify their expense


Meanwhile, (I believe) all Michigan services saw significant increases in ridership over the past several years, as did services in Illinois (both states where rail lines conveniently serve population density and destinations). Unlike Indiana for instance, which has only 2 lines, with EXTREMELY infrequent service, and stops only in Indianapolis and Hammond.

Similarly, yesterday I was checking out the Texas Eagle schedule. For some reason, it takes 1.5 hours to get from Dallas to Fort Worth, and 10 HOURS to get from Dallas to San Antonio. No wonder they don't ride.

(Message edited by focusonthed on August 22, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3802
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 6:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The first two energy crises during the 1970s spelled the end to the ICC and its DOT counterpart's fuel-wasting regulations. That was probably the only thing I could hand Carter the credit for doing--looking the other way and not have the DOT/ICC enforce federal interstate truck tariffs dating back to FDR. Most trucks then were forced (by law) to be empty about 1/2 the time.

In due time, most of the states did likewise.
Top of pageBottom of page

Douglasm
Member
Username: Douglasm

Post Number: 917
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 8:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Although I didn't read all the material, with the coordinated bus service it appears to me that someone has been studying the California system as designed by Amtrak and CalTrans. It's an interconnected system of rail and bus that has seemed to be very effective.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 676
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 11:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Interconnected" is essential to any kind of transportation system. With cars, the way we built things in the US, it's automatic; you can get from anywhere to anywhere. People would be stunned if you couldn't. In the old days, between transit within a city and railroads and bus service between cities, you could get pretty near anywhere without a car, unless you were going out into the middle of nowhere.

Nowadays, simple trips by car are next to impossible without. Michigan has pretty good rail service, as I said. Try getting from Port Huron to Detroit without a car. Go ahead, I'll wait. There are lots of other examples.

Between the demolition of a large part of the regional transit network in the mid 20th century and the diminishment of service by both passenger rail and intercity bus lines, quite a large segment of the population can't travel at all anymore.

Anything we can do to correct that, within reason, we ought to do. The argument ought to be about what are the limits of "within reason".
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 66
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 2:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The day that bus lines and airlines cover the full cost of the infrastructure they use, that will be the day that we can determine whether people would choose rail service when available. Amtrak gets knocked for its government subsidies when every form of travel in this country is subsidized in one way or another.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3807
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 4:12 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The 75-year old pix of Royal Oak (1932) showed that Woodward was already eight lanes wide back then during the height of the Depression. If Gratiot were also eight lanes wide, that would have enabled plenty of cars to siphon off former railroad ridership between Detroit and Port Huron.

No wonder why there's no rail service there. The demand would not be sufficient to justify the expense.

Were eight lanes really needed then or was that another government work program during the Depression?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3079
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 11:59 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Airlines receive about TEN times the annual subsidy that Amtrak gets, and still struggle to turn a profit. This doesn't include things like the government's multi-billion dollar rescue of U.S. Airways after 9/11/01, even though the company was already headed toward bankruptcy well before then. That's right--a private-sector company received more government funding in 2001 than the entire government-run train system.

Never mind the "incredible" service you get these days at the airport.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 679
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 12:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's why I suggest the government ought to have a more comprehensive transportation policy, and support those things that make sense. If you look at my post above, I suggest "350 miles or less" as a trip-length to be supported by rail travel; in another thread where we posted a WSJ article, Amtrak's CEO said trips of "100 to 500 miles" represent their opportunity for growth.

If I'm going to Chicago, it takes about as long for me to drive to the Amtrak station and walk off the train in downtown Chicago as it does for me to drive much further to Metro Airport, deal with all the airport nonsense, fly to O'Hare and then have to navigate to downtown. And I find it less frustrating. And this is without the entire line functioning at high speed.
Top of pageBottom of page

Quozl
Member
Username: Quozl

Post Number: 1281
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 12:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Airlines? I think you mean the U.S. commercial airport system receives about TEN times the annual subsidy that Amtrak gets danny boy.

I could post the link of the U.S. Department of Transportation Funding for 2007 but being that you are a know-it-all pretentious east coaster I bet you already have it.

BTW danny boy, the federal government collects user fees from airline passengers and freight shippers to partially recoup their investment.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3810
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 12:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Paul Harvey mentioned today that some 2 billion on the planet fly each year. What figure for global train ridership is there? And more germane, what figures for each in the US?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3080
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 12:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Correct, Quozl. A commercial airport system, without which, the airlines don't function. What would happen if the airlines were forced to build and maintain airports, handle air traffic control, and remove snow/ice? They'd be out of business in half a heartbeat.

Amtrak, on the other hand, has to maintain not only its own equipment, but track, bridges, tunnels, and electrification in the Northeast, operate its own stations, and conduct its own dispatching. The analagous functions for airlines are all publicly financed. Never mind that Amtrak has its own police department, whereas the federal government handles security at airports.

If you want to talk "user fees", $12-$15 on a plane ticket doesn't even BEGIN to cover the costs of the air travel system.
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 680
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 12:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Government subsidizes, directly and indirectly, transportation of every kind. The question is (or ought to be) how much to what and for what purpose.

Toll highways are the only pieces of transportation infrastructure in North America that are financially self-supporting. Beyond that it is a question of what ought the government to support and to what extent.

LY, we have a crappy rail system so I would expect the numbers to be low. You can fly from pretty near any mid-size or large city to any other one; you can't take trains between lots of important places. Try to go from Detroit to Pittsburgh on a train for instance. In countries with good rail service, people use it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3081
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 12:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lyard,

In fiscal 2006, Amtrak carried a record 24.3 million passengers. This might seem to pale in comparison to air travel. Consider, though, that in the one corridor where Amtrak has its own infrastructure (the NEC), Amtrak carries more passengers between DC and New York than all airlines combined, giving it a majority of the market share.

Several other corridor services have seen double-digit percentage increases in ridership, particularly the routes in the Northeast, Illinois, and California(!). This suggests that if the necessary investments are made where train service is competitive, people will ride the train.
Top of pageBottom of page

Quozl
Member
Username: Quozl

Post Number: 1282
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danny boy, what vitamins do you take? Do you go to the doctor once a week for colonic irrigation? I want to know your secret on how you know SO much about EVERY freaking subject on this forum, including but not limited to: bridge disasters, urban development & renewal, finance, transportation, racial profiling, etc. Please share won't you?

Amazingly you are never wrong, you always have THE correct answer. You are SO smart I think you should run for President of the Universe.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd

Post Number: 1292
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes. Northeast Corridor is the MOST!

Want to be in a hurry? Instead of taking a cab out to JFK, LaGuardia or Newark, and then going through security, paying for overpriced sticky buns, listening to security announcements ad nauseam, I'd take the subway to Penn and go to Philly on the train. Several competitive levels of service.

CHEAP: Take NJ Transit to Trenton and transfer to SEPTA. Makes lots of stops, but goes right into downtown Philly. I think it cost $24 one-way; cheaper than a cab ride to JFK. It does take several hours, though.

FAST: The Metroliner is fast, but more expensive. Costs about $50 one-way, I think. Makes limited stops, goes about 80 mph in some places, more expensive at times of peak demand. Gets you to Philly in less than two hours.

EXPENSIVE: The Acela makes only the most major stops, and at times exceeds 100 mph. Gets you to Philly in just over an hour. It costs more, but you get more. You get your own 120 v. outlet, larger seats, greater comfort. And I don't think it's more than $70 one-way. (It's been a while.)

The line is fully electrified, with four tracks admitting local and express service. It's the way to go, no question about it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3082
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Danny boy, what vitamins do you take? Do you go to the doctor once a week for colonic irrigation? I want to know your secret on how you know SO much about EVERY freaking subject on this forum, including but not limited to: bridge disasters, urban development & renewal, finance, transportation, racial profiling, etc. Please share won't you?

Amazingly you are never wrong, you always have THE correct answer. You are SO smart I think you should run for President of the Universe.



Did I write anything that was incorrect? If so, I would expect you could address the points I made instead of resorting to juvenile personal attacks.
Top of pageBottom of page

Quozl
Member
Username: Quozl

Post Number: 1283
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am not resorting to juvenile personal attacks. I want to know how you know everything about anything. Simple question, simple answer Dan.

Double-digit percentage increases in ridership? Source please, as it clearly is not the Bureau of Transportation Statistics - Transportation Statistics Annual Report (TSAR) from December 2006.

(Message edited by quozl on August 23, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3083
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Between an engineering background, and being somewhat of a transit dork, you tend to learn quite a bit about things like this. I'm not so sure I've ever posted anything on racial profiling, though....

Fastest-growing passenger routes, fiscal 2005-2006:
Route (states) Pct. growth
Downeaster (Maine, Mass.) 22.9%
Piedmont (N.C.) 17.4%
Ethan Allen (Vt., N.Y.) 14.4%
Keystone (Pa., N.Y.) 12.7%
Blue Water (Chicago-Mich.) 10.9%
Carolinian (N.C., N.Y.) 10.9%
Hiawatha (Wis., Ill.) 10.5%
Albany, N.Y.- Niagara Falls-Toronto 9.3%
Acela-Metroliner (D.C., Boston) 8.8%
Vermonter (Vt., D.C.) 8.8%
Chicago-St. Louis 8.3%

Entire system 1.1%

Source: Amtrak

http://www.usatoday.com/travel /news/2006-11-28-amtrak-riders hip_x.htm
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1440
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


CHEAP: Take NJ Transit to Trenton and transfer to SEPTA. Makes lots of stops, but goes right into downtown Philly. I think it cost $24 one-way; cheaper than a cab ride to JFK. It does take several hours, though.


Actually, it can be done in under 2 hours if the schedules are in line. If you catch the express train it's only 40-45 minutes to Trenton and then 30 minutes into Philly.
Top of pageBottom of page

Quozl
Member
Username: Quozl

Post Number: 1285
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the source Dan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jsmyers
Member
Username: Jsmyers

Post Number: 1915
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

FAST: The Metroliner is fast, but more expensive. Costs about $50 one-way, I think. Makes limited stops, goes about 80 mph in some places, more expensive at times of peak demand. Gets you to Philly in less than two hours.


There is no metroliner any more, the brand has been dropped, the trains are generally called regionals, and they don't go 80 in some places, they generally cruise at 125 mph on straight stretches, which is most all of NY-Philly.

I used one last week to get from DC to Philly in about 1:45.

quote:

EXPENSIVE: The Acela makes only the most major stops, and at times exceeds 100 mph. Gets you to Philly in just over an hour. It costs more, but you get more. You get your own 120 v. outlet, larger seats, greater comfort. And I don't think it's more than $70 one-way. (It's been a while.)


The Acelas generally goes a bit faster than the regionals, topping out at 135 mph south of NY and 150 mph north of New York on straight stretches. When I got my $101 round trip DC-Philly regional ticket, the similar Acela trip was about $170 round trip. Because of revenue management, demand, and when you buy, prices can vary a lot.

quote:

I can set my clocks by the Amtraks coming by here daily--especially at 12:10 and 6:10 PM. But, there's barely enough demand for three round trips daily.


Bullshit.

Those three trains are as heavily used as they've been in decades. During the weekends, they are usually close to being sold out at some point along their run.

Amtrak's major problem right now is capacity. They don't have enough trains to meet their demand (especially on the long distance routes). And there isn't enough track capacity for fast and reliable service.

Train's top speeds are slower in many cases than they used to be because of federal regulations. Instead of regulating modern traffic control and signals into use, they regulated speed out of use.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd

Post Number: 1293
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Point taken, Iheart. After an hour in Trenton, the station's Burger Thing starts to look a little too good. ;)
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1443
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Point taken, Iheart. After an hour in Trenton, the station's Burger Thing starts to look a little too good. ;)

I try to avoid going inside that station at all costs... sometimes that cost is frostbite. :-(
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 681
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Having spent part of my life in NY state, upstate of NYC, I got used to the luxury of being able to just jump on a train whenever I wanted to go somewhere. When I had a business trip in Toronto, I parked the car in Oakville for the weekend and took the GO train into the city, then used the subways and streetcars to get around. Very nice time! I don't mind driving when I have to, but when I'm in an unfamiliar town, I prefer not to.

In MI we have two separate opportunities, and it will be interesting to see if we act on either:

1. MWRRI, providing for higher-speed travel and more frequent trains on existing routes;
2. Commuter-style service in several corridors around the Detroit area: AA-Howell, AA-D, D-Port Huron, Flint-D, D-Monroe. Tracks exist; stations can be built; RRs can be negotiated with.

It's a shame there is no railroad going east-west anywhere in the north suburban area. The nearest E-W tracks are Port Huron to Flint, too far north to do any good (from a metro Detroit viewpoint).
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 69
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 3:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"It's a shame there is no railroad going east-west anywhere in the north suburban area. The nearest E-W tracks are Port Huron to Flint, too far north to do any good (from a metro Detroit viewpoint)."

Doesn't CN/GTW run through Pontiac, Waterford and Springfield to Holly? That won't get you to Rochester Hills although the ROW is still there (rails-to-trails).
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 684
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 4:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Novine,

That is a segment of a primarily north-south line that runs from Detroit to Petoskey. It is owned by CN south of Durand and Great Lakes Central RR north of there.

My point was, one of the transit needs (according to all the various studies) is to connect Macomb and Oakland Counties, and there is no existing track that can be used for this.

The ROW you are talking about in the Rochester area is no longer owned by any railroad. It has transitioned to public ownership for two trails, one in Oakland and one in Macomb County. As it is, that old railroad, long abandoned and torn up, was a bit too far north and too meandering to serve a commuter purpose to any great extent.

Incidentally, my source for this is a recent MDOT state railroad map, very good stuff. If anyone's interested I'll post a link.

Prof. Scott

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.