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."

 

[Literalman]

My wife and I went to Vermont last year and used the local bus service. We stayed in Shelburne because Burlington was so expensive. We took the bus to the Shelburne Museum, to dinner, and to Burlington. I would like to visit Michigan again (been there once many years ago), and if I do I wouldn't drive once I get there.

 

[jiml]

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.

Therein is the crux of this discussion. A potentially seasonal train service to a community with a handful of taxis, no Uber or transit to serve the one or two hotels and handful of B&B's hardly screams success. (That applies to many potential destinations - not just the ones in this proposal.)

 

[moselman66]

Traverse City supports remarkable levels of nonstop airline markets in summer -- this July it was nearly 4,000 people per day on average plus 390 at Pellson. This past summer TVC's roster of nonstop destinations included seven east coast airports stretching from Boston down to Washington, three Florida airports, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta, and of course Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis. Tourists flying into Northern Michigan face the same "no car" issue train arrivals will. Some rent, some do fine with shuttles and bikes. Some have a vehicle based at their vacation home, others are visting people who will pick them up at the airport.

People arriving by train will do the same, but I do have concerns it's a different mental calculation when you're coming from Northville or or Grosse Pointe or Farmington Hills instead of Bucks County PA, The Villages FL, or Southlake TX. When you only live 3.5-4 hours from your vacation home do you base a vehicle there? Is it reasonable to have your brother & sister in law provide transportation if you're visting for a week from Florida, but kind of a selfish burden to expect them to cart you around for a week when you could have easily brought your own car up from Novi? Is the inconvenience of not having a car (or the cost of renting one) enough to squash the train as an option? Certainly not everybody is both wanting to and able to drive. And there are about 100k year-round residents in Grand Traverse County alone who could use a train to head to Southeast MI for various reasons. But for the classic tourist migration between metro Detroit and Northern Michigan it may be somewhat less of a "last mile" issue than a "too short a drive to give up my car" issue.

Regarding student populations (along the southern tier of MI or in general) they are not mostly limited to using the train and the start and end of the year. (Trains aren't great for moving in / moving out anyway.) There are other reasons why students have a significantly higher propensity to use a train all through the school year versus the average adult:

--Many do not have a car on campus
--Increasingly young people are delaying learning to drive / driving less than past generations did in their teens/early 20's.
--Students have varied schedules, more flexibility and fewer everyday responsibilities, making frequent short getaway trips eaiser
--Students commonly have friends or significant others who attend different schools to visit
--Many students go home fairly often on weekends and breaks during the term for events, weekend jobs, holidays, or to see friends and family in familiar surrounds
--Young people don't have decades of "I drive everywhere and trains are irrelevant" carved into their brains to overcome

I don't think it's a misplaced focus that the ConnectUS report note university enrollment among such factors as population and business growth.

 

[NorthShore]

A friend of mine regularly vacations in north central Wisconsin, at a cabin located less than a half hour drive from the UP. It's a popular area of several small towns known for forest/fishing/summer recreation (and, now, some winter too with noted snowmobile trails) for people from the Chicago and Milwaukee areas, especially. So much so that Capone and other bootleggers of a century ago had operations in the area, and the Mayor of Chicago in the 1940s had a summer home there. Of course, when this friend took me along for a week, once, I noted the historic train stations which still exist in numerous towns. Decades ago, there was weekend service on the Milwaukee Road and C&NW to these places. And, while, the train might take you to the town center, if you were there to fish (as many men were) what was last mile travel like "back in the day" to get to the lake or cabins? Is there something to learn from this history which might apply to future travel of similar sort? As it stands, today, these rail services are long abandoned. Every weekend there is a long parade of trucks and boats up and down the interstate and state roads for these recreational commuters. Would they sample the train, if it existed, were there a sort of auto train, for instance, to bring along their boats and still get around for anything else they want while in the area?

 

[MARC Rider]

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.

Yeah, I wish that were the case, but all I'm seeing is the buildout of more suburban sprawl, which requires a car for full mobility. People who can't afford new cars just buy used clunkers. Suburban bus service is inadequate, and to be fair to the bus companies, hard to provide to obtain full mobility in the suburbs. The few nice walkable compact neighborhoods where one could live without a car are usually priced out of the range of the average person. This is especially true in the larger cities that have robust economies. Most peoples' choice is sprawl or the slums.

As far as vacation areas are concerned, I haven't been seeing a resurgence in investors building compact all-inclusive resorts, what I'm seeing the Airbnb and VRBO(, which rents out vacation homes, nearly all of which need cars for access.

Although a rail service from the big city to a rural vacation outpost might get some business from big city folks going on vacation, I think it's main (and year-round) customer base is people from the rural areas who want to visit the big city for all sorts of reasons without dealing with the hassles of traffic. Sure, they might be on vacation, but they might also be traveling for business, or to access medical care, etc. That's great, each passenger is one less car to clog the city's traffic and one less car to add to the city's emissions inventory.

As for what's the priority for starting new rail service in a particular state with limited funds, I guess that depends to the local political situation. In the case of Michigan, it might be cheaper and easier to build the north-south line than it would be to connect Detroit with Lansing and Grand Rapids, which might make more sense in the terms of population served. It might also be a bone tossed to the upstate legislators to get them to support passenger rail in general, which would also be worthwhile. Whether we ever get to a point that its self-evident that taxpayers should be supporting passenger rail the way they support highways is an open question. I'm not sure we ever will in my lifetime. People just like their houses and cars too much, and even if they don't, they don't have much choice.

 

[mlanoue]

There are a lot of condos being built in and around downtown TC. My guess is most of them will be used as vacation rentals, as that has been the trend. A train station could be within walking distance of the condos, restaurants, beaches, and other attractions--which is great. But even for something as simple as a regular grocery store, you will need a car or ride public transportation. They've bene pushing for this train for several years now, and I hope I get to take a ride on it one day.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

A friend of mine regularly vacations in north central Wisconsin, at a cabin located less than a half hour drive from the UP. It's a popular area of several small towns known for forest/fishing/summer recreation (and, now, some winter too with noted snowmobile trails) for people from the Chicago and Milwaukee areas, especially. So much so that Capone and other bootleggers of a century ago had operations in the area, and the Mayor of Chicago in the 1940s had a summer home there. Of course, when this friend took me along for a week, once, I noted the historic train stations which still exist in numerous towns. Decades ago, there was weekend service on the Milwaukee Road and C&NW to these places. And, while, the train might take you to the town center, if you were there to fish (as many men were) what was last mile travel like "back in the day" to get to the lake or cabins? Is there something to learn from this history which might apply to future travel of similar sort? As it stands, today, these rail services are long abandoned. Every weekend there is a long parade of trucks and boats up and down the interstate and state roads for these recreational commuters. Would they sample the train, if it existed, were there a sort of auto train, for instance, to bring along their boats and still get around for anything else they want while in the area?

To add to the historic info: I've met people who took the train up to ski (don't know specifically where, just "Wisconsin" - there are a lot of places within the state that it could have been).

 

[ryanwc]

Traverse City supports remarkable levels of nonstop airline markets in summer -- this July it was nearly 4,000 people per day on average plus 390 at Pellson. This past summer TVC's roster of nonstop destinations included seven east coast airports stretching from Boston down to Washington, three Florida airports, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta, and of course Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis.

This is why I’d prioritize not only Grand Rapids-Detroit, but also Detroit-Toledo, another Wolverine and one or even two more frequencies of Blue Water before Traverse City. The northern part of the state attracts a trickle of people from a lot of places, but not enough to sustain a train from any of them. It would need transfers from points south of Detroit and west of Ann Arbor to fill up.

 

[MARC Rider]

Traverse City supports remarkable levels of nonstop airline markets in summer -- this July it was nearly 4,000 people per day on average plus 390 at Pellson. This past summer TVC's roster of nonstop destinations included seven east coast airports stretching from Boston down to Washington, three Florida airports, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta, and of course Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis.

Are those full-size planes or "regional jets"/puddle jumpers? And how does 4,000 people a day compare with the number of people who arrive to the area by driving?

 

[mlanoue]

Are those full-size planes or "regional jets"/puddle jumpers? And how does 4,000 people a day compare with the number of people who arrive to the area by driving?

A lot of regional jets, but I've flown on a few 737s in July. No idea how that compares to driving, but cars would surely dwarf that.

 

[moselman66]

Are those full-size planes or "regional jets"/puddle jumpers? And how does 4,000 people a day compare with the number of people who arrive to the area by driving?

The only single-class 50-seat regional jets were a pair of daily flights to O'Hare, and they made up about 4% of the total passenger traffic for the month.

Three-class regional jets (first class, comfort + coach) were about 44% of passenger traffic, primarily 76-seat aircraft. Most of Traverse City's flights to the northeast, Charlotte, Houston plus many Minneapolis, O'Hare and Detroit were on these. Other than hub airports the huge majority of flights to the northeast from places like Columbus, Raleigh, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Omaha, St Louis, Norfolk, Cleveland, etc are on aircraft of this size and it would be a huge outlier for TVC to get mainline flights.

Full-sized jets (Airbus 320, Boeing 717, Boeing 737, etc) served about 52% of passengers. All three Florida markets, Arizona, most of Denver, Dallas, New Haven and Atlanta and some Minneapolis, O'Hare and Detroit flights were on these aircraft.

I have no idea how many people drive to Northern Michigan but I suspect the inbound flyers are a pretty tiny drop in the bucket. But 4,000k flyers on an average summer day will also greatly exceed the number a train would bring in, even with multiple runs per day.

 

[toddinde]

There are a lot of condos being built in and around downtown TC. My guess is most of them will be used as vacation rentals, as that has been the trend. A train station could be within walking distance of the condos, restaurants, beaches, and other attractions--which is great. But even for something as simple as a regular grocery store, you will need a car or ride public transportation. They've bene pushing for this train for several years now, and I hope I get to take a ride on it one day.

Instacart and door dash are replacing the trip to the store. Uber and Lyft make getting around a lot easier. The need for a car is generally overstated. I telework two to three days a week and my car sits in the driveway. If I want to order something, I frequently use Door Dash instead of running out. The problem with a lot of rail advocates are the misapprehensions. Many believe it’s still the 1980’s and can’t see the changes in society. Many people today can’t afford a car and many don’t want two. Housing costs are higher and taking more income. This is the time of the train.

 

[jis]

MODERATOR'S NOTE: this thread is temporarily locked for cleanup. Too many off topic posts have swamped out the main topic of the thread. It will be reopened after it has been cleaned up.