Michigan North-South Rail Passenger Project

[MARC Rider]

The route to Traverse City + Petosky would largely serve vacation and second home travelers and give year-round residents access to Southeast Michigan. It would also bring access to a handful of smaller Central Michigan communities who don't have the benefit of tourist & vacation home community money.

I would not want to rely on "vacation and second home" travelers to support a service. In my experience tourism by rail mostly consists of people either riding for the cross-country experience or people traveling to large cities where they can get around without a car. My recent rip on the Canadian was an example -- I not only enjoyed the classic long-distance streamliner trip, I also was able to explore Toronto, Vancouver, and Seattle, none of which required a car at the destination. Most cities in North America require the use of a car when you get to a destination. When you start adding the cost of a car rental to everything else, most people will just drive the whole way with their own car, which they're paying for anyway, even if it's sitting at home in the driveway.

 

[toddinde]

I hate to say this but I'll believe it when I see it. A couple of years back there was talk about a Detroit / Ann Arbor/ Toledo/ Detroit Airport train. (T-Train) I think the upgrades to track 3 in Toledo were for this project, however now it has gone completely silent. Don't get me wrong, it seems any place that gets new rail service it usually goes well and beats expectations, getting it off the ground seems to be the big lift.

These are completely different times. It’s not like a few years ago. There is a nationwide interest in rail because there has to be. The country is growing too large to continue to be served by highways and air alone. We will exceed the population of the EU by 2050 on a smaller land area. The economy has changed, and car ownership is increasingly out of reach. Governments can’t afford to continue to just expand roads which cost more and more to maintain. It’s simple economics and demographics. Developing passenger rail is worldwide phenomena. Our peer competitors all have it. If we don’t expand what we have, we’ll be left behind. But the worst thing anyone can do is not recognize that the world has changed and see things through the lens of the past which admittedly, was not good for passenger rail.

 

[toddinde]

I would not want to rely on "vacation and second home" travelers to support a service. In my experience tourism by rail mostly consists of people either riding for the cross-country experience or people traveling to large cities where they can get around without a car. My recent rip on the Canadian was an example -- I not only enjoyed the classic long-distance streamliner trip, I also was able to explore Toronto, Vancouver, and Seattle, none of which required a car at the destination. Most cities in North America require the use of a car when you get to a destination. When you start adding the cost of a car rental to everything else, most people will just drive the whole way with their own car, which they're paying for anyway, even if it's sitting at home in the driveway.

You’re just guessing at what might happen. If that were the case, the airports would be empty, and nobody would fly. In these days of Uber, Lyft and Waymo, the last mile problem isn’t a problem. A town like Traverse City or Petosky is just as walkable as Toronto or Montreal. People traveling to a resort are very likely to stay on the resort or maybe do an excursion, but that is another service easily booked separately. In any event, nowhere in the U.S. where rail has been expanded has your theory been proven. All expansions of rail have been wildly successful, including into the hinterlands of Maine and Vermont.

 

[John Bredin]

I would not want to rely on "vacation and second home" travelers to support a service. In my experience tourism by rail mostly consists of people either riding for the cross-country experience or people traveling to large cities where they can get around without a car. My recent rip on the Canadian was an example -- I not only enjoyed the classic long-distance streamliner trip, I also was able to explore Toronto, Vancouver, and Seattle, none of which required a car at the destination. Most cities in North America require the use of a car when you get to a destination. When you start adding the cost of a car rental to everything else, most people will just drive the whole way with their own car, which they're paying for anyway, even if it's sitting at home in the driveway.

If they had the $$ to re-lay the tracks between Petoskey and Mackinaw City, you'd have a destination that is (1) famously car-free, and (2) popular with Chicagoans and other urbanites who drive there now because you have to.