Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning July 2006 » Amtrak Michigan Routes « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Dtwphoenix
Member
Username: Dtwphoenix

Post Number: 54
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 9:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why wouldn't it make more sense for the state of michigan to subsidize an Amtrak route that looped through michigan as opposed to the 3 linear routes into Chicago that they have now?
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/ am2Route/Horizontal_Route_Page &c=am2Route&cid=1081256321995& ssid=133

Have a loop that follows the route:
Chicago,Kzoo,A^2,Detroit,Flint ,Lansing,GR,Holland,Chicago (essentially the Pere Marquette and Wolverine lines with a connection from Pontiac to GR)
Run trains both clockwise and counterclockwise along that route.

Going to this route, the only things you seem to lose are a good Kzoo to Lansing connection, and service to Port Huron.

You gain: Holland to GR to Lansing to Flint to Detroit to A^2 connection.

It seems like you create more routes, and those routes improve connections within michigan, especially into Detroit. Why wouldn't this work?
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1736
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 10:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Amtrak already had cut its Michigan trackage due to economics. Amtrak is barely surviving on a thread as it is. Eventually, the only Amtrak lines surviving might be a run (or series of runs) between the dense Boston and DC areas.

What tree do you derive your income from?
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 734
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 10:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The state of Michigan doesn't subsidize the Pontiac-Chicago line. It subsidizes Chicago-Port Huron and Chicago-Grand Rapids.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dtwphoenix
Member
Username: Dtwphoenix

Post Number: 55
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 10:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What refinery do you derive your income from?

I would have never guessed better integrating Michigan's medium sized cities would be economically detrimental.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1739
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 10:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The three daily Amtrak Chicago-Detroit trains each way are not well utilized. That's the simple truth.

There's a saying--"That's a bad way to run a railroad." It applies here.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 363
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 11:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

huh? Everytime I've rode the train to chicago its been pretty full. You need a connection to Chicago to Access the rest of the country, the only other option is to take a bus to Toledo, which is preferred if you go east, but for going west it means one more mode change.

One of the things they are going to explore from the Detroit to Ann Arbor train is to increase the number of amtrak trips between Ann Arbor and Pontiac. This should help both the Michigan and Woodward corridors, with better coordination with buses to take you to the airport, greenfield village, or downtown.
Top of pageBottom of page

Caquail
Member
Username: Caquail

Post Number: 47
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 11:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A few points:
In FY2006, which just ended, the Wolverine Service carried 438,529 passengers an increase of 8% on FY2005. In 2001 the Wolverine Service carried 294,570 passengers. There have been no cutbacks in any Michigan services in recent years.
Both the Pere Marquette and Blue Water are also showing record levels of rider ship (101,932 and 123,823 respectfully).
As for the routes of the two state supported routes, they were the decided based on traffic volumes and connecting them with the rest of the national network of which Chicago is the hub. Chicago is also the biggest draw for traffic in the Midwest. There is also a higher volume of traffic between Grand Rapids and Chicago then between GR and Detroit. They originally looked at GRR-DET service when they were planning the Pere Marquette in the early 80s.
A service along the route that you describe would have slow running times and would not be competitive with driving times. You would also need new connections at Lansing between CN and CSX, most likely at Holly between CSX and CN and again in Flint.

Regards
C.A.Quail
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4700
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 11:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernois, why is it that you never seem to have anything good to say about any rail in Michigan? Instead of coming from perpetual dark and pessimistic side that you do, how about giving the side of making rail transit both more efficient (due the declined popularity of rail) and trying to connect potential riders to lines? Your username seems so ironic. All you ever seem to throw out there is how none of these ideas will never work, and how horrible an idea rail connects are.
Top of pageBottom of page

Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu

Post Number: 295
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 11:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernois, CAQuail is right - Michigan Amtrak trains - all three on the Wolverine/Michigan Line, the Pere Marquette, and the Blue Water, are doing really well and have been on the upswing from a low point about 5 years ago. Only the PM and Blue Water are state sponsored.

The problem with Detroit to GRP or Pontiac to GRP is that you'd have to do lots of work for Station facilities, not to mention build a few more connections at various places. There is no direct route from Pontiac to Lansing - you have to go via Durand. Or the Holly-Flint routing someone mentioned above.

I wish that Michigan would follow Illinois' lead in increasing their state support, even if by a fraction of as much as in IL. Even if it were just enough for an extra coach on the PM and the Blue Water, I bet they could fill them. Many trains are sold out on all three lines. I'm looking forward to some eight and nine car consists over this coming Thanksgiving Weekend, the busiest time on the Amtrak System.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1742
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 2:06 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Passenger trains are great--for communities that are dense enough. Detroit isn't and won't be for decades, if ever. Chicago has great train service, but it is a bustling city. Even its bad parts are still somewhat decent.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1922
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 10:26 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Chicago has great train service, but it is a bustling city.




Chicago is a bustling city because it has great train service.
Top of pageBottom of page

Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu

Post Number: 296
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 10:55 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Are we discussing commuter rail or intercity rail? Because they're a bit different and should be noted as such....
Top of pageBottom of page

14509glenfield
Member
Username: 14509glenfield

Post Number: 34
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 11:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What percentage of passenger traffic does AMTRAK move from point-to-point today? Ditto..ships, planes, cars, truckers, horses and anything else possible. Railroads were so important in expanding/opening, supplying/defending...this country. Travel changed. It always will. Ridership figures continually change like everything. FREIGHT or PASSENGER...Their distant approach is "music".
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 739
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 11:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"FREIGHT or PASSENGER...Their distant approach is 'music'."

What is that supposed to mean? As far as the freight side of the business, it's largely booming.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjaba
Member
Username: Jjaba

Post Number: 4475
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 3:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernoisyard, how about shaking the oil taxes tree for all kindz transportation, eh?
Just because you're from Livernois, you can still leave your car for adventures.

jjaba.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1745
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 4:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Contrast the few Detroit to Chicago passengers that ride those thrice daily Amtraks with those who ride:
(1) by Greyhound or MEGA buses
(2) by planes (many, many of them)
(3) by auto or truck.

Anybody with even half a brain knows that the total of train passengers are much less than any of the above alternatives. Hitch-hikers on a good day might even be more numerous...
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1924
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 4:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So you'll have no problem putting numbers behind that statement, then.

Even if anti-rail ideologues were able to eliminate passenger rail (under the guise that it's "not popular enough"), what do you do with the people who currently take the train? Force them to drive? Or force them to fly?
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 621
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 5:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It would be great to see Chicago - Toronto service via Detroit-Windsor. An overnight train would be perfect especially if stops were limited and entry into the United States and/or Canada was precleared with Customs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu

Post Number: 297
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 8:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh Livernois Yard -
Megabus only operates two roundtrips between Detroit and Chicago daily. Megabus operates a fleet of MCI E4500 56-seat 3-axle coaches in the US. So, going each way, and assuming each coach was full to capacity, a total of 224 passengers can go back and forth every day. A four coach Amtrak plus a cafe/business class car train could easily carry that many people one way, never mind the fact that seats can be reused as people board and de-train throughout the many stops on the trip. Multiply that by 6 for the Chicago-Detroitland trips, then don't forget about the Blue Water and Pere Marquette routes. True, Greyhound and Indian Trails do offer similar services for portions of these routes, but I don't think Megabus + Greyhound + Indian Trails = Amtrak in terms of riders. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have numbers for the bus lines, and I DO have the numbers for Amtrak, but it's a capacity kind of thing.

I think it is safe to assume that some of those who do take the train from Detroit to Chicago or vice versa could also have flown or driven, but it was their choice to take the train. After all, getting to Metro way early to have bags checked for a flight to Chicago, sit and wait, sit and wait, get on the plane, fly for an hour, get off the plane assuming their are no delays, wait for your luggage, catch a bus, cab, or Blue (?) line train into Downtown Chitown probably equals the amount of time it would take to Amtrak it to Union Station. Never mind the option of many food choices in the cafe car, the freedom to walk around, and the generally more affordable prices on the train. Never mind that.

Overall, Amtrak ridership has risen for at least 4 years in the row now, and I'd say that means something.

Ottawa - I would support a Chicago-Detroit-Toronto train too, however, there are a few problems. For one thing, new stations would have to be built for both Detroit and Windsor, as their current passenger facilities are not along the lines which connect through the Detroit River MC Tunnel. Secondly, the old favorite way to get from Windsor to Toronto was the Canada Southern, or CASO route (A NYC affiliate). Unfortunately, this has been largely abandoned. Both CN and Canadian Pacific have routes linking Windsor and Toronto, but I don't think they are as direct or in as good of shape as the CASO was. Perhaps someone else knows more about this....
Top of pageBottom of page

Douglasm
Member
Username: Douglasm

Post Number: 704
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 9:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There is one point that is seldom considered when talking about Amtrak, and that is the stops inbetween the end points. Granted, Amtrak may not have the lions share of Detroit/Chicago traffic, but also serves New Buffalo, Niles, Jackson, and Ann Arbor between the end points.

The same "ridership between Chicago and Seattle/Portland" arguement has been used against The Empire Builder, but that arguement doesn't wash when you consider that the train also serves 36 intermediate points.

As to Windsor/Toronto, VIA runs 4 trains each way each weekday. They go through Chatam and Glencoe, so I'm going to assume they run on the CN/NS (ex Wabash) line. Unfortunately, Amtrak doesn't list VIA connections, and I don't know if it would be cost effective to run a bus across the river for rail passengers only.

ANDREW, HELP HERE, PLEASE!! Do you (or anyone else) know who operates on the Canadian Southern? My mind wants to say that's joint trackage with CP, but I'm not sure.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1747
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 9:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There are eight Greyhounds leaving Detroit for Chicago on a typical week day.
Top of pageBottom of page

Caquail
Member
Username: Caquail

Post Number: 48
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 10:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There is a plan in the works for a new station in Windsor I would have to dig around to find the link for it, it's part of a larger railroad relocation plan.

As far as I know there was never any service to Toronto via CASO, which connected Detroit with Niagara Falls and Buffalo. There was service from MC Depot to Toronto on Canadian Pacific but this ended in the 1950s or early 1960s by the 70s the only service on CP was one RDC a day from Toronto to Windsor. CN at the time was running 5 or 6 trips a day from its station in Walkerville. VIA uses the CN route today.

As for thru Chicago-Toronto service via DET. I am of the opinion the route would be better served by a day train, there would be fewer customs issues. The only way to have the pax preclear would be to run the train non-stop from Chicago or Toronto to the boarder. Plus you would have to set customs and immigration facilities in the respective cities.
Now I do think a night train could work, but would route it via Port Heron, have it leave Chicago around midnight arrive in Port Heron around 6 AM make an hour stop for Canadian Customs and arrive in Toronto around 11 AM. Westbound have it leave Toronto around 7PM arrive in Port Heron around 11 PM with an hour for customs, leave around Midnight and arrive in Chicago around 6 AM.

Regards
C.A.Quail
Top of pageBottom of page

Julie
Member
Username: Julie

Post Number: 42
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 11:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you Bustermtu for your thoughts. Livernoisyard - you would be surprised at the people you meet taking the train from Detroit to Chicago. I'd like to think I have at least half a brain, and I've taken the train (by choice) to Chicago numerous times. The train has been more crowded in the past year than I've ever noticed before.

Speaking as someone who commuted from Detroit to Chicago weekly for 8 months, and off and on before that...I have traveled by plane, train, and automobile. If Amtrak happens to have a train that works out with my schedule, I would much rather travel by rail than the other options. No one wants to sit in the construction traffic on 90/94 heading into or out of Chicago. It has added an hour onto my commute when heading into Chicago, and it is a crawl eastbound on a Friday afternoon.

I have been delayed so many times by flying into O'Hare that I started scheduling Monday meetings no earlier than the afternoon, because I can't have my clients unable to count on me. Not to mention the time and cost to take a cab or drive to the DTW airport from downtown, go through security, then take a flight to Chicago that may or may not be on time. You could get a ride or cab to the train station in Detroit and be in Chicago by the time it takes travel by air, for a much lower price.

But to tell you the truth, the main reason I love the train is that it is much more laid back. I've met some really incredible people traveling by rail. Plus if I need to I can make calls on my cell phone or work on my laptop. There are electrical outlets next to the booths in the cafe car and every seat in business class (which costs only $10 more than coach). The experience of traveling by train is much more relaxing by far.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray
Member
Username: Ray

Post Number: 823
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 1:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The train to Chicago is awesome, but it seems like the link between Birmingham and Dearborn is excruciatingly slow.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1748
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 6:16 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The train to Chicago is awesome, but it seems like the link between Birmingham and Dearborn is excruciatingly slow."


You can thank GM and Cadillac for that after WWII when Cadillac forced the NYC to sell its ROW by Clark Street or risk losing some railroad freight business. That forced an extremely slow transit of that area due to all those tight turns involved in order to skirt around/through the Cadillac plant--now virtually a prairie, as industrial parks go.

A decent jogger should be able to keep up with that passenger train for parts of that runaround.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob_cosgrove
Member
Username: Bob_cosgrove

Post Number: 414
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 10:19 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since when are there curves on the MC around the Clark Street plant?

The slowness between Birmginahm and Dearborn is due to station stops in Royal Oak and Detroit and the slow running through Milwaukee Junction.

Unless I'm mistaken West Detroit, the junction near the Cadillac Clark Street plant site is unchanged with the tracks some distance north of Clark Street.

Having led four Bluewater/Detroit Historical Society Amtrak trips to the Marshall Home Tour and the Kalamazoo Aviation Musuem the past two years, the only overly slow running I recall was through Milwaukee Junction in anticipation of stopping at the Detroit Amtrak station on Woodward Avenue in the New Center area.

Out on the mainline we hit 79 m.p.h. and that's recently been raised to 90 m.p.h. west of Kalamazoo on the section Amtrak owns.

Bob Cosgrove
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 741
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 10:43 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Amtrak trains do have to go around some interchange track curves at West Detroit, but they're the same ones that were there long before the timeframe in which Livernoisyard claims they were changed-- and they have nothing to do with GM.

Caquail-- Port "Heron?" (spelled 3 times that way in your message)
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1749
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 11:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Duh! Look at the Grand Trunk Junction at West Detroit before the ROW was altered.

West Detroit
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob_cosgrove
Member
Username: Bob_cosgrove

Post Number: 416
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 11:33 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, but what does West Detroit, which is Junction and Livernois streets and the yards to the west have to do with the Cadillac Clark Street Plant?

Bob Cosgrove
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1750
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 11:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Michigan Line now connects to Milwaukee Jct. through an interlocking that wasn't configured as it was before WWII. Amtrak uses track #1 (northernmost) of the Michigan Line west of West Detroit. The former NYC trackage south of CP-Vinewood was pulled up when the Cadillac plant was expanded during the mid 1940s. Therefore, the meandering of the ROW exists since the end of WWII around to the east of the former Cadillac plant (east of West Detroit).

(Message edited by LivernoisYard on November 16, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob_cosgrove
Member
Username: Bob_cosgrove

Post Number: 417
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 12:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks,

I'll have to go over and take a look.

Bob Cosgrove
Top of pageBottom of page

Hardhat
Member
Username: Hardhat

Post Number: 183
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 3:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Coincidentally, this just came over the "wire" from MDOT...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2006

CONTACT: Janet Foran, MDOT Office of Communications, 517-335-7176

MDOT renews Amtrak contract,
notes record ridership on Michigan routes

November 16, 2006 - - As gas prices soared in 2006, travelers sought the benefits of Amtrak travel, making this year the best on record for the passenger railroad in the state of Michigan. Overall, the state's three Amtrak rail passenger routes showed increases for the year, serving 664,284 passengers and generating revenues of $20.3 million.
"Overall, passenger train routes in Michigan had an outstanding year," said State Transportation Director Kirk T. Steudle. "We attribute this excellent growth to higher gas prices at the pump, and increased marketing efforts on the part of local communities, which helped travelers discover the convenience and comfort of Amtrak. As a result, statewide ridership and revenue for passenger rail service reached an all-time high in 2006."
The operating contract between MDOT and Amtrak for two routes (the Blue Water and the Pere Marquette) recently was renewed for fiscal year 2006-2007, beginning Oct. 1, 2006. The contract is $6.2 million, a 12 percent decrease from the previous year's contract of $7.1 million. This decrease is credited to increases in ridership and revenues on the state-supported routes.
"We take pride in our partnership with the state of Michigan," said Don Saunders, Amtrak General Superintendent responsible for the passenger railroad's Michigan service. "The nearly 130 Amtrak employees in Michigan work to provide quality customer service and that's reflected in the growing Amtrak ridership in Michigan and across the country."
The Port Huron/East Lansing to Chicago train, called the Blue Water, enjoyed a 10.9 percent increase in ridership since last year, with ticket revenues of $3.4 million, up 21.7 percent for this period.
The Grand Rapids to Chicago train, called the Pere Marquette, showed a 5.7 percent increase in ridership over last year, with sales of $2.6 million, a gain of 20 percent for this period.
The Pontiac/Detroit to Chicago trains, called the Wolverine, increased by 79 percent, with sales of $14.3 million, an improvement of 22 percent from 2005.
Of the three routes, the Pere Marquette and the Blue Water are state-supported routes and each offers one daily, round trip. In April 2004, the Blue Water service was reorganized. The route previously had offered service to Canada, but now originates in Port Huron every morning with departures to Chicago.
Passengers on the state-supported routes travel for many reasons, including leisure, business, family, college and medical purposes. The summer months are the busiest, and there are heavy travel periods during the holiday season and spring break.
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 624
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 4:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe the state can support a few extra Wolverine trips....
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 625
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 4:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

From what I understand, Amtrak runs 3 Detroit-Chicago trips per day. If this was Europe, Amtrak would run one trip between the two cities per hour....
Top of pageBottom of page

Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu

Post Number: 298
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 4:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hardhat - Great Article. Glad to see that the state is recognizing that their continued assistance to those two Amtrak routes is a good thing, and that ridership is rising accordingly. (Under the Wolverine ridership stat, it should by 7.9 percent, not 79)

It may seem hard to believe, but Detroit is still a center for freight rail travel. We may not rival Chicago, but we still have quite a bit of inner city rail line around the metropolitan area. That being said, you'll never see Amtrak whip through Detroit at 79 miles per hour. Admittedly, though, they do go pretty fast west of West Detroit through Livernois and the old Junction Yards toward Dearborn. There are many interlockings that must be negotiated, including West Detroit, CP - Bay City, CP - Vinewood, Beaubian St, and Milwaukee Junction. Amtrak north of Milwaukee on the old GTW, the rail is still jointed. It's in pretty good shape, but it's not the welded rail you'll find on the Michigan Line. I don't think that the WWII track consolidation at West Detroit added more than a few minutes onto the travel time between Birmingham and Dearborn. North of West Detroit, trains must cross from the old NYC line onto the Wabash line, at CP - Vinewood. Perhaps in NS built a connection from the old Wabash directly to the old MC mainline at West Detroit (NW Quadrant), that would save some time and eliminate the crossover and then the big turn just east of West Detroit (CP - Bay City). But that is a lot of infrastructure just for 6 little Amtrak trains. The local jobs which connect North/Sterling Yards with Livernois are not enough reason to streamline the interlocking and augment or replace the switches at CP - Bay City. In reality, it would probably just shave off 2 or 3 minutes. If you build that connector, you could basically eliminate CP -Vinewood, but at the same time, have to construct a completely new overpass over Junction St at West Detroit.

Here is a link to a Penn Central Detroit Terminal track diagram from the mid 1970s. CP -Vinewood is where the Vinewood Interlocker is listed, and connects the N&W line with the paralleling PC line. Hope this clears a few things up.
http://www.michiganrailroads.c om/RRHX/imagesRRHX/Maps/PCDetr oitTerminalMapFrom1974Timetabl e[CharlieWhippCollection].pdf

(sorry about the weird hyperlink. Copy and paste the whole link + [CharlieWhippCollection].pdf into your browser address bar and go from there.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath

Post Number: 13
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 4:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow- Kinda looks like Livernois is flat out wrong about the ridership figures, which mirror my own personal experience on the rain which is always busy when ever I ride it.

The idea of one line connecting all cities (vs the current three) though is a non-starter: it would take 12 hours to go from Chicago to Detroit with such a route and probably cost 100's of millions for new connecting tracks. But in comparison to what we a currently pissing away in Iraq, it would be cheap and atleast create something of lasting value.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 742
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 5:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Loud silence from Livernoisyard as he eats his words, "The three daily Amtrak Chicago-Detroit trains each way are not well utilized. That's the simple truth."
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1751
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 6:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

At first blush, it appears that the Detroit-Chicago runs in or out of Metro Detroit are fairly busy.

For the past FY, the total annual Amtrak ridership stats for the Detroit - Chicago trains were: 438,529 passengers.

For a 365-day year, that comes to an average of 1201 passengers/day, and at 6 runs per day, the run average is 200 passengers per run.

More about this later...
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 101
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 1:17 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

doesn't Amtrak own some of the track in Michigan?

...and be very careful if you are trying to figure out some sort of cost-per-passenger figure, because most of the passengers were not going all the way from Detroit to Chicago (or vice-versa). That complicates the equation immensely. A per-passenger mile figure would be much more realistic, but that information isn't immediately available.

As for Amtrak going away, certain ideologically driven politicians keep trying to kill it, but they alway fail, and they always will. It's too popular with too many people - particularly with the people who vote.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 646
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 1:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I just wish they owned more of their ROW. The stretch between Kalamazoo and Michigan City is teriffic. Unfortunately, the difference over such a short stretch is not very dramatic. Now, if the trains could travel at high speed for the whole route...

For instance, (and I know this is not comparable), the stretch of ROW that my Metra train in Chicago runs on (owned by Union Pacific) is fully welded rail, 100% grade-separated, so even in densely populated residential and urban areas, trains pass through at top speed. Unfortunately for me, once my train leaves all the interlockings behind, it only travels about 4 more miles before my stop.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1925
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 11:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

For a 365-day year, that comes to an average of 1201 passengers/day, and at 6 runs per day, the run average is 200 passengers per run.




Hmmm. That's more passengers than a typical puddle-jumper airplane, and about five times more than on a packed Greyhound bus.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1752
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 12:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Hmmm. That's more passengers than a typical puddle-jumper airplane, and about five times more than on a packed Greyhound bus."


And now for the real story...

Those 200 passengers per average Amtrak Detroit-Chicago run is the total of all passengers who ride anywhere during that ride. So, the average number of passengers at any given time per run is much less than 200--probably only about 1/3 that number. BTW, Ann Arbor provides about 1/2 of the Metro Detroit numbers below. And I'd bet that they are not all heading towards Detroit.

Detroit - Chicago Corridor Station Activity Summary

Station Boarding
Pontiac 8,757
Birmingham 9,658
Royal Oak 12,391
Detroit 27,197
Dearborn 35,664
Greenfield Village 45
Ann Arbor 69,429

Subtotals (Metro Detroit including Ann Arbor)/year 163,141
Average (Metro Detroit)/day 447
Average (Metro Detroit)/run 74


Total (Entire Service Area) 438,529
Total (Entire Service Area)/day 1,201
Total (Entire Service Area)/run 200

Chicago 185,915
Average (Chicago)/day 509

Board at Chicago 42%
Board at Metro D 37%


Station Deboarding
Pontiac 8,279
Birmingham 9,989
Royal Oak 12,709
Detroit 27,787
Dearborn 34,174
Greenfield Village 37
Ann Arbor 67,932

Subtotals (Metro Detroit)/year 160,907
Average (Metro Detroit including Ann Arbor)/day 441
Average (Metro Detroit)/run 73

Total (Entire Service Area) 438,529
Total (Entire Service Area)/day 1,201
Total (Entire Service Area)/run 200

Chicago 181,439
Average (Chicago)/day 497

Deboard at Chicago 41%
Deboard at Metro D 37%
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 744
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 1:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Focusonthed wrote, "the stretch of ROW that my Metra train in Chicago runs on (owned by Union Pacific) is fully welded rail, 100% grade-separated,"

It's nowhere near 100% grade-separated (more like 5%), but the vast majority of the track between Pontiac and Chicago is welded rail.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 102
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 1:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What's your point?
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 648
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 1:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I said the stretch that my train runs on. It's grade-separated at least throughout the city of Chicago and Evanston, and I never go further north. You don't know what train I ride, so it's interesting that you could claim that I am wrong.

Edit: Burnsie, nevermind, I misunderstood what you were saying. Agreed, the vast majority of the Amtrak route is welded rail...it'd be an intolerable ride at 70-100mph otherwise.

(Message edited by focusonthed on November 17, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 745
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 1:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My point is that Focusonthed didn't seem to understand that the Detroit-Chicago route is nearly completely welded rail.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 649
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 1:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I've edited my post, and my original post was more to do with grade separation and ROW ownership than welded rail. Most to all passenger trackage is probably welded rail, I'd say.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 103
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 2:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Burnsie, I was referring to Livernoisyard's statistics. I don't see what he's driving at, other than the assertion that more people get on the train at Ann Arbor than Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu

Post Number: 299
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 2:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

PS - The Amtrak trackage in Michigan extends from Porter, IN to just west of the BO Interlocking Tower in Kalamazoo. I believe they are now running 95mph over most of the trackage, and are testing for the next incremental increase - to 105mph, with a final goal of 110mph. Even if Amtrak could increase their speeds east of Kalamazoo, they would not be able to go 95 the whole way. Especially around Ann Arbor-Ypsi-Chelsea where the line is rather curvy and crosses the Huron River many times over. Still, there is a noticable increase in speed west of Kalamazoo. Often, an Amtrak from the west will arrive at Kalamazoo station 10 or more minutes early, and then have to wait at the station until it's scheduled departure time.

Livernois, what source do you have for your numbers? Ann Arbor is the busiest station on the line and it does not surprise me that they have so many departures from Chicago, but overall, Detroit+Dearborn+Royal Oak+Birmingham+Pontiac totals equal 180,831, while Ann Arbor equals 127,705. These are FY2005 numbers, so the 2006 numbers ought to be higher still. The second busiest station overall on the line is Kalamazoo, with over 88,000 riders, followed by Dearborn, Detroit, and Grand Rapids on the Pere Marquette line. My source is here, for anyone else who wants to see these statistics: http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/fact sheets/MICHIGAN05.pdf

As an interesting side note - the aside from the 95mph Michigan Territory, the NEC/Keystone lines in the northeast, and a few sections of track in Illinois, these is one other place where Amtrak trains can go over the otherwise mandated 79mph speed limit. Amtrak's Southwest Chief through portions of New Mexico and possibly Colorado has a speed limit of 90mph, and some of this is over jointed rail! But the line is very straight and flat in these places.

The only part of the Chicago-Pontiac line that is not welded, I believe, is the GTW stretch north from Milwaukee Jct.

As a final note, I investigated the Greyhound website for info on their Detroit-Chicago run. They do have six departures each way each day, but at least one round trip takes over 9 hours if I recall correctly, considerably more than the Amtrak.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1754
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 3:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Livernois, what source do you have for your numbers? "

Don't you trust MDOT's FY numbers?

The last time I checked, there were eight Greyhounds daily from Detroit to Chicago, not six.
Top of pageBottom of page

Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu

Post Number: 300
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 3:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernois - I only asked because you did not give a source in your original post with those ridership figures. No need to question my trust or lack thereof.

My mistake, you are correct that there are 8 daily departures Detroit - Chicago a la Greyhound. However, at least one is still over 9 hours long, whether there are 8 or 80.

PS - there is an interesting article in this month's TRAINS magazine about the Amtrak Thanksgiving rush, and it mentions Michigan trains more than once. Just in case anyone is interested.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 652
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 4:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Now I would LOVE a 3.5 hour train ride to Detroit. Factoring in the time it would take me to get to O'Hare or Midway, security, waiting around, then get to Detroit, wait for baggage, etc...the train starts to REALLY look good.

And I take it all the time as is.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath

Post Number: 15
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 4:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Who cares how many trips Greyhound runs: Who the hell wants to ride a bus when you can take a train? :-) For comfort, ability to walk around, have a beer, etc in the lounge car- I'll take Amtrak or any train for that matter.

I strongly believe if they added more trains the readership would just increase that much more, as it would be more convenient. Just look at California as an example.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1755
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 5:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"strongly believe if they added more trains the readership would just increase that much more, as it would be more convenient. Just look at California as an example."


Are you a product of CA schools? How will adding more trains increase literacy???
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 628
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 5:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LY: that was a cheap shot, everyone is entitled to the occasional typo (especially when the intended meaning is clear).
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 104
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 6:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The California rail initiative (and, to a lesser extent, the Pacific Northwest initiative) has indeed been successful. Train is about the only reasonable way around the gridlocks that are Sacramento-San Jose, and Santa Barbara - San Diego. Even the San Joaquins route is a pretty attractive alternative in the central valley.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1757
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 7:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Passenger trains are a losing proposition. Because they cannot operate without public subsidies, if the ridership (or whatever it's called these days) increases to the point that more trains are used, then more taxpayers' funds (subsidies) will be spent. It's not like interurban bus systems (e.g., Greyhound) or the airlines in the private sector which are more run like businesses.

In short, trains tend to be socialistic.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 747
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 9:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Passenger trains are a losing proposition. Because they cannot operate without public subsidies"

Roads and airports are a losing proposition. Because they cannot operate without public subsidies.

"if the ridership...increases to the point that more trains are used, then more taxpayers' funds (subsidies) will be spent"

If the traffic increases to the point that more lanes on our freeways are needed, then more taxpayers' funds (subsidies) will be spent.

"In short, trains tend to be socialistic."

In short, roads tend to be socialistic.

"bus systems...or the airlines in the private sector which are more run like businesses."

They're so hardcore capitalist that they rely on taxpayer-funded roads, air traffic control, airports, and other goodies. From

http://www.michigan.gov/docume nts/MDOT_FiveYearProgram2005_a ccomplishments_114591_7.pdf

here are some examples of how much "free market" the buses are in Michigan:

"MDOT used state and federal funds to provide operating assistance for intercity bus service in northern Lower Michigan and the Upper Peninsula...Additionally, state funds were provided Greyhound Lines ($60,000) and Indian Trails, Inc. ($50,000) to market intercity bus service in Michigan...MDOT released a contract to the City of St. Ignace...for the design and construction of a new public intercity bus transportation facility...the state purchased and leased ten intercity busses to Indian Trails and Greyhound...the busses cost $4.0 million"

Those busses are leased at well below market value.

From

http://www.michigan.gov/docume nts/MDOTsec726_60873_7.pdf

we learn that "Greyhound has received 10 lift-equipped, over-the-road, intercity buses through the bus capital assistance program to date...All of these buses have been or will be leased to Greyhound for $1.00 per year. An application for another five buses has been received for FY 2000. If this request is approved, these buses will be leased to Greyhound for no less than $1,000 per year."
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 105
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 9:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Passenger rail is the only nationalized mode of transportation in the US (Nationalized under Richard Nixon as a form of corporate welfare, btw) but it is NOT the only form of transportation that is subsidized by the government.

The airlines are heavily subsidized, from development of the aircraft, to the operation of the airports. Cars and buses travel over "socialistic" public roads and the "socialistic" interstate highway system.

We have real problems facing us in this nation. Using simple-minded analogies and inaccurate terms like "socialistic" doesn't help matters. More intelligent thinking is needed.

(Message edited by dalangdon on November 17, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu

Post Number: 301
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 12:33 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The AP News Wire picked up MDOT's recent ridership report which Hardhat copied here. 2006 was the BEST YEAR ever for Amtrak in Michigan. Lots of TV stations and newspapers are printing it! :-)

Here's the Detroit News' version:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20061117/U PDATE/611170452/1131/SPORTS020 1
Top of pageBottom of page

Dtwphoenix
Member
Username: Dtwphoenix

Post Number: 56
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 1:03 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If we go out on a limb and say that Amtrak lines won't contract until they're only a run (or series of runs) between the dense Boston and DC areas, but might actually expand. How might they expand? What increases in michigan services would be most beneficial for their cost?

-Somehow getting right of way priority would be very helpful. that way trains could be depended on to run on time.
-Continue increasing the speeds on the routes,
especially the Chicago to Kzoo portion, helping both Wolv. and B.Water.
-add a daily round trip to the Wolverine line.
-add a daily round trip to Pere Marquette.
-Mr.Quail mentioned that a GR to DET routing was looked at in the early 80's when the Pere Marquette was started. So a GR/Lans/AA/DET route has been studied; a Lansing/AA/DET route; and now an AA/DET route. Implement a GR/Lans/AA/DET route.
-Fill in time gaps of inter-city rail on the AA/DET corridor with commuter rail.
-add a station in Wayne to service the airport.
-add a Pittsburgh/Cleveland/Detroit daily round trip. Amtrak stations are present Toledo to Pittsburgh, but they are only serviced by other routes in the middle of the night. This line could connect with Michigan services.
-maybe there would be a market for weekend service, DET/AA/Mt.Pleasant/Cadillac/Tr averse City/Boyne.

Others probably have a better knowledge or opinion on which of these ideas or other ideas would be most beneficial to improve rail travel in michigan.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1761
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 10:28 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The airlines are heavily subsidized, from development of the aircraft, to the operation of the airports. Cars and buses travel over "socialistic" public roads and the "socialistic" interstate highway system."


More socialist blather...

Apparently, this spendthrift socialist believes that even more socialism is in order, especially for "investing" in a mode of transportation that clearly has not been utilized or preferred by the travelling public during the past six decades.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 750
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 10:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So, socialistic funding is OK for roads and airports, but not rail? That's not what you seemed to imply originally, when you said, "In short, trains tend to be socialistic." One could only infer from that statement that you believe socialistic equals bad. But ah, not in the case of roads and airports.

"a mode of transportation that clearly has not been utilized or preferred by the travelling public during the past six decades."

We aren't talking about the past six decades. We're talking about the here and now, as in: Amtrak ridership reaching a 35-year high in Michigan this past year.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1762
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 11:04 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Amtrak ridership reaching a 35-year high in Michigan this past year."


Yawn! A 35-year "high" but still insignificant when compared to the totals.

This is analogous to the rankings in education: Michigan's schools are in the bottom quartile nationally, with Detroit's schools even much worse that that. Yet, the educationists proudly boast whenever their schools are almost up to the national average--itself, a national disgrace for the past four decades.

So rail ridership is up. Big deal! Its cost is much higher overall compared to buses when all the subsidies are counted. And the train is limited to where the rail are laid. No exceptions, short of derailment. Let them ride buses!
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 106
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 12:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernoisyard, sorry to burst your little ideological bubble here, but studies by people who actually know what they are talking about have proven that transportation subsidies (including the Amtrak subsidy) actually create more economic activity than the cost of the subsidy. That is a positive use of tax dollars, which helps spread the tax burden out further.

Rational people can look at the big picture and understand that all modes of transportation are subsidized. Pragmatic people can see that rail is a vital component of the transportation system, because the other modes are disproportionate polluters, and they all - including air - have capacity issues

(We could get deep into the weeds and start throwing around terms like "economy of scale" and "BTU consumption" but my transportation wonkiness would just drive everyone away. (I have to watch myself, lest I become the pariah at cocktail parties)

Lastly, wise land use - which leads to higher property values for homeowners and developers - dictates that we find an alternative to sprawl, including sprawling airports. We can't find our way out of gridlock simply by building more highways.

If you don't want to ride the choo-choo, then don't. But don't try to rationalize your dislike as being some sort of waste of tax dollars. If you want to go down that road, I suggest you direct your attention to the military contractors who are currently fleecing us with absolutely no oversight.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1763
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 12:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"If you want to go down that road, I suggest you direct your attention to the military contractors who are currently fleecing us with absolutely no oversight."


Another red herring. So, all it takes to get what you want is comparing that against the military and their civilian contractors? Anyway, we definitely know what sides of some fences you sit on.

Whatever happened to merits? Maybe some of this former sanity will eventually return after viewing the recent voting trends away from AA. BTW, several of those new Democrats who were elected to the House are far to the right of the Democrat leadership. That doesn't bode well for the New Socialists and the Deaniacs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu

Post Number: 302
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 1:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What exactly do your big words have to do with the topic at hand here? This isn't even hijacking a thread, it more like crushing it - like a penny under the wheel of a speeding Amtrak going faster than your car on I-94 west of Kalamazoo! :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1764
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 1:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This thread is already some five dozen posts deep.

Passenger rail is just another duplication of transportation services that primarily appeals to the novelty of rail transportation today. However, it's hard to justify the high costs of rail over buses for the vast majority of the country outside the densely populated regions. Chicago qualifies; Detroit or Milwaukee don't.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath

Post Number: 16
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 1:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LY, No offense- But your statement "Passenger trains are a losing proposition. Because they cannot operate without public subsidies" is simply moronic on multiple levels. If receiving a subsidy quantifies "a losing proposition" , does that make every taxpayer somehow being robbed because they drive a car on a subsidized road, fly on an airplane whose engineering was funded with taxpayer money, on an airline who just pawned off their pilots pensions on the poor US taxpayer, from a heavily subsidized airport? I don't think so. So what is the difference with a subway train or Amtrak?

Could you imagine a major city like New York without passenger rail (commuter trains, subways)???? What about the scenario if everybody took a bus, or drove a car on the same day in NYC and didn't take the subsidized train? It would create a traffic jam that would take months to unclog. So how does this make passenger rail a "losing proposition"? There is a reason mass rail transportation exist in such places: Its called common sense. Passenger rail is the most efficient means of moving large quantities of people and goods across land (where waterways do not exist) in an energy efficient manner. Period. If busses were more efficient, then they would have them instead of subways- but guess what? They are not. Did it ever in your closed mind occur to you that possibly some of us might actually be happy to gladly pay taxes, to ride a subway in such a city, and not have to live in your capitalist utopia and not be forced to drive in your non-subsidized world and have to pay a toll every 10 miles? Yes this happens in many places- they are called democracies, where citizens actually approve of such things.

Funny, as I recall, it was not Amtrak who ask the Gov. for billions for a bailout after 9/11, which the airlines got, and they still went bankrupt, (even rental-car companies tried this) despite your other ridiculous statement:"airlines in the private sector which are more run like businesses." couldn't save their sorry asses without federal money.

So please, go back to your Adam Smith utopia where pure capitalism reign supreme (which has never really existed- as every government throughout history has somehow subsidized something, even going back as far as the Romans who moved armies across their state-built roads). Ironically Adam Smith, who by most standards could be considered by many as pretty serious capitalist, even advocated government funding for infrastructure, which Smith writes are: "vital are the many infrastructure projects which facilitate the flow of commerce." I am sure you'll try to prove me wrong on this detail, and say he was not as capitalist as he could be, and completely ignore the big picture, which is that there is a need for mass transit in densely populated areas.

Personally- I wouldn't want to live in such a place, where I'd have to pay a toll for everything. I'll happily spend my tax dollars on a subsidized train. If this somehow makes me a bad or evil person so be it. I suspect however the 300 million Americans living here also like their subsidized transportation, be it trains,planes,boats,or cars.

Please, go ahead, and find another typo, rather than explain the real issue.

(Message edited by Cinderpath on November 18, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 376
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 1:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Transportation is a public good allowing business to take place. Transportation is subsidized through user fees and other supplemental government programs.

To lure industry, local communities are willing to build road networks or improve them so that a truck can properly turn. The public good is put in place to facilitate trade. Could you imagine the cost of doing business if there were no roads, rails, airports, or cargo ships?
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 107
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 3:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LY, I knew that if I bought up military spending you would automatically equate that with being a peacenik or something. Very predictable tactic when you can't support your end of an argument.

You have no idea of why my politics are, and I suspect you have very little idea of what your own politics are. Whatever is spoon fed to you by whoever you listen to on the AM dial, I suppose, judging from your recent talking point (the dems being suddenly conservative)

But to come back to the topic: Please define the "high costs" of rail.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 4718
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 4:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think our current society shows the high costs of not having rail and proper infrastructure supporting the total freedom of movement.

BTW, there is no use in arguing with Livernoisyard. He's thoroughly and absolutely convinced that rail should not work, and thus can not work. You can't argue with someone that will go out of the worlds backwards to find a reason why something can't work.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1766
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 5:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit doesn't have the money to afford a pot to piss in. So, it's quite logical that the city is ever so eager to add a few more $ billions to its ballooning $2+ billion bonded debt--NOT.

And the young know-it-all spendthrifts with their life, err... Sim City game, experiences are going to save us great unwashed and uneducated from ourselves and commit the region to needless infrastructure spending that won't bring in any business other than the construction costs to build any such boondoggles. And half of those monies will be from overtaxing its citizens to the breaking point.

If there's such great interest, then ask yourself why no mayor in the past few decades has pushed for these infrastructures? The city of Detroit is in no position to commit $ hundred of millions to billions.

So answer this very simple question: Where's the money? If it weren't for the money, it could have been built already--brainiacs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath

Post Number: 17
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 5:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cute- but you still did not answer the question about that "Passenger trains are a losing proposition. Because they cannot operate without public subsidies" because it is factually incorrect- It cleary is in some cases the only solution (Subways in NYC for example) or answered any of my points. And why should Detroit only pay for this? All the light and heavy rail projects across the country are getting federal money to do this, as they subsidize every other transportation project. And yes they have been a boon to communities creating jobs, and attracting businesses and housing along their routes. I.e. Portland, Seattle , Houston,Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City,LA, even not so metro Albuquerque and Nashville now have heavy rail operations. Their economies also seem to be doing better than ours.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1767
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 6:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

More pipe (and bong) dreaming...

The Feds will only pay up to 60%, if they come across with anything. So your brilliant rationalization is quite hollow. There's no appreciable money coming from the debtor city of Detroit, and the strapped state government is going to have to make some cuts of its own from its previous plans due to the tail-spinning local and state economies and business bankruptcies and downsizing. Less business and jobs = less tax revenues.

So as I said before: Where's the [local] money coming from???
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 383
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 12:07 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernoisyard, the Feds don't pay squat for operating.

The proposed line would need the buy-in and fiscal commitment of Wayne County, Washtenaw County, all communities served by the service, and the State for it to be funded properly and equitably.

We as a the population of a car dependant region and state need to start understanding the true costs of transportation. As our region gets older and poorer, the problem of transit will excaberate. We need to fund all sorts of transportation options in order to function.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1770
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 2:27 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Livernoisyard, the Feds don't pay squat for operating."


I know that, but any expansion (outside of Amtrak's regular system) will obviously require huge capital costs, of which the Feds would require some heavy matching costs on the part of the locals. Confer the preliminary, now dreaded, SEMCOG report for any indications of these capital costs (plans CRT1 or CRT2).

From some posters, there seems to be some confusion on their part in that they believe the Feds will come to the rescue for footing all the capital costs of an expanded train system and perhaps, even its operating costs. Fat chance, because that's not how that works.

If Detroit plans to forestall receivership, it behooves its management that every step be made with austerity in mind. The business expectations (including some tens of thousands of additional manufacturing jobs lost) concerning Detroit or Michigan are continually bleak in its reporting for the foreseeable future (through 2012 or so).

Going overboard with grandiose train (or other rapid transit) plans is not anything resembling austerity.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 108
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 11:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LY, I think you are confusing Amtrak with transit. While many cities and regions contract with Amtrak to provide transit services, they are not required to do so. There are several companies out there that specialize in this, as well as several freight railroads.

As far as inter-city passenger railroad is concerned, Amtrak can add routes at its own discretion at anytime, based on the federal allocation to passenger rail. The municipalities have nothing to do with it. Improvements/upgrades to the right-of-way are between Amtrak and the host railroad.

States can enter into agreements with Amtrak to run trains where they provide part of the operating costs, but again, that has nothing to do with the municipalities along the line.

Multiple states can get together (as in the Midwest rail initiative, the Amtrak Cascades, and the Amtrak Hiawatha service) and pay Amtrak for services. Again, no funding is required on the civic level.

About the only time a city gets involved is in station operation - and then, usually only when the station is historic, and the city wants to highlight it. Even then, their participation is usually limited to owning the property. Maintenence and operations fall to a combination of Amtrak and private interests. Since the current Detroit Amtrak station is not historic, that's not an issue.

btw, this monopoly of service is at the host railroad's request, for they don't want to deal with a bunch of different companies going across different railroads - it's a business decision reached by several publicly operated companies, not a communist plot.

(Message edited by dalangdon on November 19, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Dave
Member
Username: Dave

Post Number: 111
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 12:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LY-getting back to the point of the state subsidies of the Pere Marquette and Blue Water lines, I hope you noticed in the MDOT release It was reported that the state subsidy dropped significantly for next year because of the increased ridership last fiscal year.
As far as a train route including major cities in a circle. That is not needed. It may be wise to look at adding a Detroit, Lansing, Grand Rapids service and/or a Detroit, Flint, Saginaw service. I think that much of the infrastructure for this exists in freight routes.
I didn;t know that Amtrak restructured the Blue Water route to no longer be a Chicago-Toronto link. How does that work now? Does it still exist but you take a bus from Port Huron to Sarnia to link with VIA?
dave
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1771
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 12:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Amtrak can't be very free with its funds. The Congress only appropriated $1.4 billion for its 2006/2007 FY. That funding was necessary to keep Amtrak from bankruptcy. Few of its runs are healthy--revenue versus costs.

On another matter: If commuter rail were to happen in Metro Detroit, some problems with freight operations in the Conrail Shared Assets Area are bound to occur. Two or more commuter rail trains cannot share the same Amtrak track (#1 on the Michigan Line). Also the freight operations on track #2 switching north at CP-LOU would have to cross track #1. Similarly, there are bound to be problems on the Davison Subdivision northwest of Milwaukee Junction to Pontiac, hindering the Canadian National trains.

I doubt that the four major freight railroads servicing Metro Detroit would welcome all those inevitable delays.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 109
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 12:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LY, again, you are way off.

The Amtrak subsidy exists to keep the railroad running, not to "keep it from bankruptcy". It was never intended to make money.

The reason Amtrak exists in the first place was to relieve the private railroads of the burden of transporting passengers (corporate welfare) because, as anyone who has studied the matter knows, no one ever made a dime off of transporting people. That's why Greyhound is on the verge of collapse, and why the airlines are subsidized.

If you want to talk numbers, Amtrak has broke records for ridership for the last several years, despite flat subsidies. So much for your theory that no one rides the train.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1772
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 12:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Amtrak can't be very free with its funds. The Congress only appropriated $1.4 billion for its 2006/2007 FY. That funding was necessary to keep Amtrak from bankruptcy. Few of its runs are healthy--revenue versus costs.

On another matter: If commuter rail were to happen in Metro Detroit, some problems with freight operations in the Conrail Shared Assets Area are bound to occur. Two or more commuter rail trains cannot share the same Amtrak track (#1 on the Michigan Line). Also the freight operations on track #2 switching north at CP-LOU would have to cross track #1. Similarly, there are bound to be problems on the Davison Subdivision northwest of Milwaukee Junction to Pontiac, hindering the Canadian National trains.

I doubt that the four major freight railroads servicing Metro Detroit would welcome all those inevitable delays.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1225
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 12:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm sure if this commuter rail came to be, they would add sidings to accommodate the extra traffic.
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 632
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 12:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dave, below is the old press release from VIA Rail. The release does not answer your question, but I assume one would have to take a cab. I would assume that a shuttle is not available as (likely) neither Via or Amtrak would wish to guarantee such a connection (a shuttle service might insinuate that the two networks are linked). In my opinion, a shuttle should be offered at Sarnia/Port Huron and Windsor/Detroit.


For immediate distribution - Friday, March 05, 2004

All-Canadian service to Sarnia beginning April 23, 2004

Toronto- VIA Rail Canada is pleased to confirm the continuation of service between Sarnia and Toronto effective April 23, 2004. While Amtrak's International will cease to operate between Chicago and Toronto as of Thursday, April 22, 2004, communities currently served by this train will continue to be served by two daily VIA departures to/from Sarnia and Toronto via London and Kitchener. The move to an all-Canadian operation and the full time use of VIA Rail equipment means passengers can look forward to at-your-seat service, and a consistent selection of snack and beverage options. VIA's stainless steel, recently refurbished cars feature baggage racks at the end of each car so passengers do not need to worry about storing bags in overhead bins that may be difficult to reach. VIA's cars are one level so there are no additional stairs to climb to get to your seat. Additionally, with services originating in Sarnia, the time attributed to complete cross-border inspections will be eliminated. As a result, VIA passengers can expect to see significant improvements to the on-time performance of these trains. Beginning Friday, April 23, 2004 VIA train #88 will originate in Sarnia, departing at 7:25 p.m. and arrive in Toronto at 11:27 p.m. Beginning Saturday, April 24, 2004 Train #85, will depart Toronto at 06:35 and arrive in Sarnia at 11:05 a.m. These trains will also continue to serve the communities of Brampton, Georgetown, Guelph, Kitchener, Stratford, St-Mary's, London and Strathroy. Customers wishing to travel to Chicago from Canadian points can consult Amtrak at 1-800-USA-Rail or visit their website at www.amtrak.com VIA Rail Canada is the national passenger rail service, connecting some 450 communities from coast to coast. Demand for VIA's rapid intercity services in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor has grown in recent years, as more Canadians turn to train travel as a hassle-free and cost-efficient alternative to congested roads and airports. Passengers can book their tickets by calling 1-888-VIA-RAIL, at kiosks in major Corridor stations, at www.viarail.ca or through their travel agents.

-30-
Catherine Kaloutsky Public Affairs Toronto (416) 956-7683
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1227
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 2:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The thing I find interesting about that press release is how they talk about the service now offered on all VIA trains after the canning of the International. A little slam at Amtrak there, but VIa does have great service. Although I have always had great service on the Wolverine. The conductors and snack car attendant are always very helpful. I have to say changing the International to the Blue Water has much increased it being on time and therefore ridership. I rode the International while at MSU, and I was 5 hours late into Chicago (but on time on the way home).
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 111
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 4:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Amtrak and VIA are similar critters, but the Canadians did it better than we did, and have been a little bit more committed to the process. The decision to keep and refurbish their vintage equipment was, in my opinion, a good one. But then again, they don't carry the volume of passengers Amtrak does, so platform length isn't as much of an issue - and they had more time to convert their toilets to a retention system.

One thing I don't like about VIA is the at-seat service. I like to get up and walk around. But other than that, it's great.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1229
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 5:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I always thought VIA carried more passengers than Amtrak.
Top of pageBottom of page

Douglasm
Member
Username: Douglasm

Post Number: 708
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 6:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No they don't. Comparisons between Amtrak and VIA are a little iffy, because during a budget crunch VIA made the decision to pretty much abandon passenger rail west of the Windsor/Sarnia/Toronto/Montrea l/Quebec City corridors. If you look at a VIA map, except for the Canadian and directed service there really isn't anything west of Sarnia.

Amtrak, on the other hand, is finally beginning to look at the viability of it's long distance trains, and it's only been over the past 15 years or so seriously looking at corridor traffic, and expanding to fill the short to medium haul needs of travelers.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1231
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 6:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Looking at a map of VIA Rail service, I always thought they had more train routes than that.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 112
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 9:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think there's definitely a place for the long distance routes, as they serve areas that don't have other affordable means of transit, or no transit at all. Also, their operation takes a minimal amount of subsidy, yet assures that there is political support for Amtrak throughout the country.
Top of pageBottom of page

Douglasm
Member
Username: Douglasm

Post Number: 709
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 9:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That is one of the arguements for keeping long distance service. The Empire Builder, between Chicago and Seattle/Portland serves alot of cities that have little bus or air service (the air service they have is generally operates with a federal subsidy). Unfortunately for Amtrak, their losses are high on these runs which function almost like VIA's directed service.
Top of pageBottom of page

Douglasm
Member
Username: Douglasm

Post Number: 710
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 10:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

BTW, for those of you who don't know what directed service is, VIA is mandated to supply rail service to those areas that don't have easy access at resonable price by other transportation. Winnipeg/Churchill-Putakawagan Manatoba, Sudbury/White River, Ont., Jasper/Prince Rupert B.C. and Victoria/Courtenay B.C. (I'm not real sure about the last two) are directed service. I don't know the status of the runs on the Quebec, North Shore and Labrador.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dalangdon
Member
Username: Dalangdon

Post Number: 113
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 11:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually Douglas, the Empire Builder is one of the most successful western LD routes; Its allocated costs are very low, its ridership is high, and it enjoys strong city pairings on both ends, particularly in the Chicago/Milwaukee/Minneapolis corridor. On the western end, Portland and Seattle connections to and from Glacier Park/Whitefish are extremely popular. And the Empire Builder is essentially the only public transportation in eastern Montana and western North Dakota, as it's boardings will attest. Only the Amtrak Auto Train enjoys higher revenue and ridership numbers outside of the NE Corridor.
Top of pageBottom of page

Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu

Post Number: 303
Registered: 09-2004
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 12:29 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Having traveled a few of the long distance routes on Amtrak myself, I can completely see their value. They DO provide services to some remote and not so remote places. They provide complete services - baggage, dining cars, sleepers, etc. They connect some important places and are a great alternate to flying if you've got the time. They're a great way for American to get to know itself. And - because I like trains - I'm glad we still have the remains of some of the greatest trains and routes across our country. It gets to me sometimes when we have people who only focus Amtrak on the NEC and other corridors and pretty much wish to scrap or ignore long distance service. Many of the long distance routes currently in service are doing quite well (they may not be making money - but ridership is going up and their revenues are increasing). The experiment with the Empire Builder to refurbish cars and improve service has increased ridership - although almost all long distance trains are seeing ridership increases at this time. That same refurbishment was originally supposed to happen to the California Zephyr in 2006 and Southwest Chief in 2007, but with David Gunn's firing and the usual money woes, that didn't happen. Still, Many long distance trains, in the east side and west side of the country, are showing increases in ridership and some of them constantly have additional coaches or sleepers to meet demand. The focus on rebuilding equipment is certainly helping increase capacity, and if the demand is there, the numbers will go up. I hope the recently hired CEO of Amtrak, with his railroad background, will see the value of this and continue such rebuild and refurbishment programs.

For spring break the last two years, I have taken Amtrak one way to my destination in sunny southern California. My college friends all think I'm crazy, but the trip from Chicago to LA on the Southwest Chief is unbelievable. The price is cheaper than flying and I enjoy the amenities of the dining car and sightseer lounge with the Superliner Consists. The scenery is unbeatable - It's a beautiful country we live in!

Even though long distance service has been absent from Michigan since the Niagara Rainbow stopped running in the late 1970s, it's just a quick connecting Thruway bus ride from Lansing, AA, Dearborn, or Detroit to Toledo to connect with the Capitol Limited to Washington or the Lake Shore Limited to New York or Boston!

(Message edited by busterwmu on November 20, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1927
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 3:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Passenger rail is just another duplication of transportation services that primarily appeals to the novelty of rail transportation today. However, it's hard to justify the high costs of rail over buses for the vast majority of the country outside the densely populated regions. Chicago qualifies; Detroit or Milwaukee don't.




So, Livernoisyard. How about providing some financial numbers, huh?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1928
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 3:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DTWPhoenix, you might be interested in the Ohio Hub Plan:

http://www.ohiohub.org

Not too shabby for a state that has, like Michigan, greatly suffered economically.
Top of pageBottom of page

Upinottawa
Member
Username: Upinottawa

Post Number: 633
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 4:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Does the Ohio plan have political support?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1929
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 4:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Ohio Hub plan has broad political support. Gov.-elect Ted Strickland has made it a centerpiece of reinvigorating Ohio's cities, and increasing the economic competitiveness of the state. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) is the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Railroads, and is very much in favor of the plan. The Ohio Senate unanimously passed a resolution in favor of the system in May, and the House was expected to follow suit.

Right now, the Ohio Hub is contingent on federal funding of capital costs, pending passage of a passenger rail funding bill in Congress. In the meantime, Ohio has been making targeted improvements to its freight lines in preparation for implementation of the 3C Corridor line.

I should also mention that the freight railroads are supportive of the Ohio Hub, too, as the improvements made to their tracks allow them to move more freight.

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