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.

 

[MARC Rider]

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.

Funny you should mention Maine and Vermont. I've actually used Amtrak to get to those locations for touristic reasons. You absolutely have to rent a car when you get to those destinations. In both cases, it's a little complicated to transfer from the Amtrak station to the car rental. And Portland isn't exactly the "hinterlands" of Maine. I've found that the easiest thing to do is take the Acela to Boston and have Enterprise car rental pick me up at South Station. Of course, when I do that, I have to deal with Boston traffic, and avoiding having to deal with traffic is one of the main reasons that I like taking the train.

Also, when you get to your destination, I guess if you stay in an all-inclusive resort, you don't need a car, but most vacationers don't stay in all-inclusive resorts any more, at least not up in the part of Maine where I vacation. You absolutely need a car to get food, see the sights, and so forth.

Anyway, I'm not saying that there's *no* market for vacation travel, I just think that there's not enough to sustain an expensive train service.

The same goes for travel by college students. It's highly seasonal. Sure, at the ends and beginning of the school terms the trains are packed. But what about the rest of the year. All of these services need a large and diverse traveling public to ensure consistent ridership through the year.

 

[toddinde]

Funny you should mention Maine and Vermont. I've actually used Amtrak to get to those locations for touristic reasons. You absolutely have to rent a car when you get to those destinations. In both cases, it's a little complicated to transfer from the Amtrak station to the car rental. And Portland isn't exactly the "hinterlands" of Maine. I've found that the easiest thing to do is take the Acela to Boston and have Enterprise car rental pick me up at South Station. Of course, when I do that, I have to deal with Boston traffic, and avoiding having to deal with traffic is one of the main reasons that I like taking the train.

Also, when you get to your destination, I guess if you stay in an all-inclusive resort, you don't need a car, but most vacationers don't stay in all-inclusive resorts any more, at least not up in the part of Maine where I vacation. You absolutely need a car to get food, see the sights, and so forth.

Anyway, I'm not saying that there's *no* market for vacation travel, I just think that there's not enough to sustain an expensive train service.

The same goes for travel by college students. It's highly seasonal. Sure, at the ends and beginning of the school terms the trains are packed. But what about the rest of the year. All of these services need a large and diverse traveling public to ensure consistent ridership through the year.

Funny you should mention Maine and Vermont. I've actually used Amtrak to get to those locations for touristic reasons. You absolutely have to rent a car when you get to those destinations. In both cases, it's a little complicated to transfer from the Amtrak station to the car rental. And Portland isn't exactly the "hinterlands" of Maine. I've found that the easiest thing to do is take the Acela to Boston and have Enterprise car rental pick me up at South Station. Of course, when I do that, I have to deal with Boston traffic, and avoiding having to deal with traffic is one of the main reasons that I like taking the train.

Also, when you get to your destination, I guess if you stay in an all-inclusive resort, you don't need a car, but most vacationers don't stay in all-inclusive resorts any more, at least not up in the part of Maine where I vacation. You absolutely need a car to get food, see the sights, and so forth.

Anyway, I'm not saying that there's *no* market for vacation travel, I just think that there's not enough to sustain an expensive train service.

The same goes for travel by college students. It's highly seasonal. Sure, at the ends and beginning of the school terms the trains are packed. But what about the rest of the year. All of these services need a large and diverse traveling public to ensure consistent ridership through the year.

I appreciate what you’re saying, but I don’t agree. Of course many people will continue to drive, but many will take the train. It’s not not a tourist run although that will be a big part of the business. A third of people in America can’t drive. These services are vital for a whole host of reasons including families traveling to visit relatives, people traveling to doctors appointments, etc. I’m not sure why people forget that you always needed a ride from the train station to where you were going. In the horse and buggy days, it was a carriage. Today it’s friends, families, shuttles, ride share, etc. it just isn’t a big deal. My family rented a cabin in northern Wisconsin this summer. My younger daughter and I arrived by air and were picked up by my older daughter who drove. In any event, these rural services are extremely popular, like the New England services we mentioned and the Virginia services. I live in rural Arizona, and people line up to get on the Sunset Limited, and these aren’t tourists or leisure travelers. The leisure, sleeper travelers tend to believe they are the market, but they’re a minority. Most Amtrak passengers ride coach and are using the train for transportation. I pick up a friend in Benson all the time, and the station is busy. All get rides to the station and the last mile thing isn’t a deterrent. Do local governments have to work on shuttles to meet the train? For sure. But it’s not a huge deterrent and I think a lot of cars will be staying in driveways as people ride the train. At least that’s been what’s happened everywhere else. In fact, I don’t know of an unsuccessful new Amtrak route where ridership and revenue hasn’t exceeded projections.

 

[west point]

The no cars for many persons is a very difficult multi situations problem. The costs for a new car or even a 8 year or less old one has become too expensive for many persons. Many of those who I have spoken to think that that is the plan by certain POLs to keep them "down on the farm". Also, they feel as a side note not likely to be able to vote. Or. not gum up various locations with them being present.

Now the transportation situations for the Hoi Poli are now getting rather problematic. Lets face it Amtrak does not serve many of the locations that persons in need live. What is now worse the intercity bus lines are rapidly disappearing mostly due to robber investors with some exceptions.

Maybe it is time to go to the old Jitney type of transportation. Many more Amtrak routes are needed with the 750 mile restrictions gone. But as well more thruway bus routes. Then supporting small van type connections for near last mile transportation for riders. So, for a LP train route it will depend on last mile transportation available for those stations that are not close enough to residents and visitor locations. Will that happen? I have many doubts.

 

[Burns651]

Some people have mused on here about preferring Detroit to Grand Rapids...Implementing this service on lightly used track is a lot easier than on an extremely busy railroad.

Couldn't help but laugh at the description of the CSX Detroit-Grand Rapids line as an "extremely busy railroad."