[amtrakwolverine]

semcog is a proposed commuter rail that will run from detroit to Ann Arbor using existing rails. stops include the detroit amtrak station derborn among others. currently all detroit has is the DPM(Detroit people mover) and intercity buses.

http://www.semcog.org/AADD.aspx

heres a quick time video on it.

http://www.semcog.or...AAtoDetroit.mov

no word on a start up date.

another train to ride

[zoltan]

I'm all for more commuter rail. Really, commuter rail doesn't do that much for increasing access to jobs, as probably the majority of users own cars, and often drive them to the stations, as walking distance access to commuter rail usually isn't that great, and it tends to benefit those in the professions, working regular 9-5 hours. However, in terms of mitigating environmental damage and congestion by getting cars off the roads, it's the cheapest and easiest solution, one that focuses on the heaviest flows at the busiest times, one that uses existing technology, and one that is tried and tested, and proven to be effective. So I'll be happy if the present proliferation of systems and the present growth of existing systems continues.

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

I hope 1 day it will happen more and more people in Michigan are riding the trains.

[birdy]

zoltan, on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, 05:06 AM, said:

I'm all for more commuter rail. Really, commuter rail doesn't do that much for increasing access to jobs, as probably the majority of users own cars, and often drive them to the stations, as walking distance access to commuter rail usually isn't that great, and it tends to benefit those in the professions, working regular 9-5 hours. However, in terms of mitigating environmental damage and congestion by getting cars off the roads, it's the cheapest and easiest solution, one that focuses on the heaviest flows at the busiest times, one that uses existing technology, and one that is tried and tested, and proven to be effective. So I'll be happy if the present proliferation of systems and the present growth of existing systems continues.

I agree. I say get the meat in the seats any which way you can. That means having more than the minimum number of cars, well padded comfortable chairs and even lounge cars to exploit the comfort advantage of rail. That also means building parking garages for the commuters, instead of lecturing the customers on how they shouldn't be hypocrites by driving their cars to the rail station, which is how the New Mexico Rail Runner is handling the problem.

The parking lots need to be available but as unsubsidized as possible compared to the rail. I don't have a problem with a guy driving his car to the train station, as long as he pays full freight for his parking. (For the guy who carpools, I'd give him a discount). I'm with you Zoltan, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

[Green Maned Lion]

The guy who carpools gets a discount by either splitting the cost, or alternating it based on who is driving. Why give him more?

[birdy]

Green Maned Lion, on Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 01:06 PM, said:

The guy who carpools gets a discount by either splitting the cost, or alternating it based on who is driving. Why give him more?

Well, to minimize the number of parking places that need to be built, without externalizing the cost on the surrounding neighborhood. Also, to maximize the huge advantage rail has at the margin compared to almost any other form of transportation. The cost of carrying one extra passenger on rail is almost nil.

[Green Maned Lion]

But you aren't explaining why the inherrent cost savings are not sufficient.

[amtrakwolverine]

All cities on new Ann Arbor to Detroit rail line pining for new depots

http://www.pressandg...081217004.shtml

This post has been edited by KISS_ALIVE: 05 January 2009 - 02:12 AM

[trainfan]

I think if Detroit is ever going to come back it needs a world class light rail system! The people mover
just dosnt do it!!! I think the old way of thinking was " We build cars why do we need public transport"


Trainfan

[amtrakwolverine]

there have been talks about expanding the people mover.

[Joel N. Weber II]

KISS_ALIVE, on Mon, Jan 5, 2009, 03:12 AM, said:

All cities on new Ann Arbor to Detroit rail line pining for new depots

http://www.pressandg...081217004.shtml

The Dearborn station location probably precludes an airport station, given that a Detroit to Ann Arbor train either will go past that Dearborn station, or it will go past the airport, or it will do something rather that will make it painfully slow for trips from Ann Arbor to downtown Detroit. I guess it would be possible to have half the Ann Arbor to Detroit trains to go via the airport and half via the Dearborn station, or something.

[Elizabeth]

Ann Arbor is, I think, one of the few cities in Michigan that may experience something of job growth in the next few years, since we're going heavily into the health care/"life sciences" industry. The challenge will continue to be, how to find parking for the thousands of commuters to those jobs, PLUS the students who live here (with cars), PLUS the regular day-t-day area commercial traffic, etc. Add snow (like this weekend) and you've got tough driving situations on debatable roadways (I'm thinking US-23, primarliy, at which the WALLI train is targeted).

Getting people to/from DTX seems like a no-brainer, but you've got to make a connection in Dearborn and then shuttle, or detrain people near the NS crossing at Middlebelt, Michigan, etc., near Romulus. (Maybe Wayne would be a better connection location.)

In the current TRAINS magazine there's an article on light rail allocations for various cities:
Honolulu, 3.7 billion for 20 miles of elevated rail;
Seattle, 17.8 billion over 20 years for a 36-mile light rail system;
California, 86 million annually for this & that, incl. a new 70-mile commuter systm north of SF;
and New Mexico, 27 million annually to support the Rail Runner
(February TRAINS p.26)

In Michigan, our billions are going to loans to the auto industry. I'm not an auto industry critic -- both sides of my family came to Michigan in the 20s and made a life here because of Ford and GM. But it sure would be nice to be able to hop on the "T" into town and see the Tigers or the Lions, have dinner, and get home. And I imagine several folks might find tailgating at the Big House a little more amenable if they didn't have to drive here and park.

(Btw, in the old days, a football DID stop at Michigan Stadium, at Ferry Field.)

[amtrakwolverine]

a little off topic but i was told that a long time ago they wanted to put a subway in but couldn't do it for some reason. anyone got any info on that.

[birdy]

Build it. You won't regret it. Railrunner in puny little New Mexico is about as marginal a project as you could see, but its wildly successful. The free pass period isn't over for Santa Fe, so they had to strand a couple of hundred passengers in Albuquerque last Saturday afternoon. A couple of things I noticed:

1. Train doesn't have to be faster than car. Just competitive in terms of speed.

2. Thoughtful planning of connections at terminals helps with ridership a lot.

3. A rock-solid connection to the airport is the anchor to the system.

4. Comfort is a big selling point for the train. Don't short-change it by striving to pack them in like sardines.

5. Plan for the contingency of success. Railrunner has no practical way to collect the fares from the many riders. The two conductors are overwhelmed.

6. Standard-gauge is the way to go if your topography permits.

[Joel N. Weber II]

birdy, on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 10:24 PM, said:

6. Standard-gauge is the way to go if your topography permits.

Are you claiming BART would have been better off with a narrower gauge than was actually used?

[birdy]

Joel N. Weber II, on Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

birdy, on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 10:24 PM, said:

6. Standard-gauge is the way to go if your topography permits.

Are you claiming BART would have been better off with a narrower gauge than was actually used?

No, I'm saying don't use light rail where standard gauge rail works, because of the scalability advantage of standard gauge. I don't want to call it " heavy rail", because I know that there is a weird,yet official, definition of what constitutes light rail that can encompass what most people consider to be full size trains.

By the way, the'free' period has been pretty pernicious. They promised three months, so now the operators have painted themselves into a corner. It would have been better had they had, say, three days free period and then an indeterminate "reduced fare" period where they could have charged enough to keep the train from stranding people at the station, which creates the worst possible scenario: ticked off passengers, no revenues, no real idea as to where the demand lies. The strandings took place Saturday. One might think that this would be an indication that there is more weekend demand than expected and that perhaps service should be offered on Sunday. (The line held a photography contest and someone entered a picture of a bald eagle flying by the train). But most of the passengers were joy-riders, so who knows? To add insult to injury, some of the stranded passengers of course, were on the Albuquerque side of the line, where there was no free fare. Those fare-payers had the privilege of paying for a ticket and then getting left on the platform. Anyway, even if the system charged the Santa Fe passengers $2 a ticket, certainly a token amount, they would collect maybe half a million dollars during the three month trial run period. I figure the system burns maybe $4,000 of diesel a day, so they ought to at least try and recover that, even during the trial period.

On the plus side, the promoters evidently bought a reasonable amount of rolling stock, so they have a fair amount of latitude to adjust service.

Finally, a small matter, but the livery of the Railrunner (locomotive is the head of the roadrunner, cars, are the body and tail) is the best ever since the Santa Fe (the railroad, I mean) in War Bonnet livery. We have to look at it for the next fifty years, so I'm glad they paid a couple of bucks to have someone design something nice.

[George Harris]

birdy, on Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 11:34 PM, said:

Joel N. Weber II, on Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

birdy, on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 10:24 PM, said:

6. Standard-gauge is the way to go if your topography permits.

Are you claiming BART would have been better off with a narrower gauge than was actually used?

No, I'm saying don't use light rail where standard gauge rail works, because of the scalability advantage of standard gauge. I don't want to call it " heavy rail", because I know that there is a weird,yet official, definition of what constitutes light rail that can encompass what most people consider to be full size trains.

Birdy,

I don't quite know what you are thinking here, but I don't think it is track gauge.

Most light rail system tracks in this country are built at standard gauge. (4'-8 1/2") Generally, the axle load on these cars is in the same range as that of the "heavy rail" systems such as WMATA, which is also built at standard gauge.

BART is a world of its own, track gauge is 5'-6", but the axle load of their cars is very light.

By the way, 5'-6" is the same as the Indian broad gauge system.

[AlanB]

Actually Light Rail refers more to the capacity of the rail car to carry passengers, as in they carry a lighter load than a traditional heavy rail car. Additionally light rail systems can interact with traffic on city streets. Heavy rail on the other hand typically does not have grade crossings, never runs in a traffic lane, and is generally a closed system in that it does not interact with any other trains. NYC's subway, Chicago's El, LA's subway, and BART are all examples of heavy rail.

[Joel N. Weber II]

AlanB, on Thu, Jan 22, 2009, 08:57 PM, said:

Actually Light Rail refers more to the capacity of the rail car to carry passengers, as in they carry a lighter load than a traditional heavy rail car. Additionally light rail systems can interact with traffic on city streets. Heavy rail on the other hand typically does not have grade crossings, never runs in a traffic lane, and is generally a closed system in that it does not interact with any other trains. NYC's subway, Chicago's El, LA's subway, and BART are all examples of heavy rail.

I think that gets into whose definitions you believe. IIRC, the Federal Transit Administration divides things into commuter rail (anything that has ordinary track connections that can be used to move a whole train at once onto the tracks of a traditional freight railroad will be in this category), heavy rail, and light rail, as Alan describes. I believe the Federal Railroad Administration defines heavy rail as anything that interconnects with the freight railroads and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of their rules, and light rail as the various forms of isolated passenger only tracks.