Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Anything pertaining to railfanning in Michigan.
User avatar
KC
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:22 pm
Location: Northern Lower Michigan

Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by KC »

Still making news in northern Michigan.

https://www.9and10news.com/2018/10/08/n ... n-service/

Kelly
"I feel like an old railroad man
...and I know I can walk along the tracks,
It may take a little longer but I'll know
how to find my way back"

Image

User avatar
DaveO
Read more, think more, post less
Posts: 1453
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:57 pm
Location: Between here and there

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by DaveO »

It made the Detroit media.

If it's such a sure thing then why:
a) isn't somebody currently providing the service?
b) is in the process of starting the service?
or
c) has announced they will shortly provide the service?

They predict 1.5 million riders by 2040.
For comparison, the 2017 figures for the 3 Wolverine round-trips shows about 460,000 riders and look how many years that service has been going.

I should have been a consultant. Only 1 problem, I prefer being truthful about things.

chapmaja
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:02 pm

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by chapmaja »

They might get their 1.5 million riders by 2040. That is if they started running the trains today and run specials each weekend of the year for golfing and skiing season. That would only be 1373 passengers per week. I'm not sure they would even get the 1.5 million total by then if they started now. The only 1.5 number I see floating around in reality is the 1.5 million dollars being deposited in the consultants bank accounts for these ideas.

NSSD70ACe
The Conrail Guru
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:34 pm
Location: Bottom of Lake Mead

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by NSSD70ACe »

Did any one of those "consultants" realize that the tracks needed to connect Ann Arbor's current station and the GLC tracks are grade separated?

AA residents are already freaking out about the prospect of building a new station to replace the current one. I can only imagine what they'll say when they'll have to build a second station just for this service.

Edit: The report wants to use the original AA station. Looking at Google Maps, the AA station is farther south than I originally thought it was. However, it would be an INCREDIBLY tight turn:

https://imgur.com/a/3pnE6Dj

It's not a perfect drawing, but it would be close. I think it would make a little more sense to run to TC from Detroit via the Plymouth Sub. Building a connection there would be far cheaper and easier to do, while not giving up the AA market, as they can either take the train to Detroit (as the TC train would have to be a connection to and from the Wolverine) or drive to Howell. Terminate the Wolverines in Detroit too and service Detroit-Pontiac via commuter service once MCS is back, but that's a story for a different time.

The other thing is that, if 90/110 MPH is truly a goal, SRI should be kept in the loop if they aren't already. Once PTC gets involved, it could mean trouble for SRI's operations since it is expensive to install. At the same time, the consulting groups apparently would be looking at "GLC/SRI" to privately operate the route, based on this excerpt from page 82, section 4.1.1.5:
If GLC and the Steam Railroading Institute were chosen to operate the scheduled service, this allocation for insurance cost seems to be adequate for covering at least GLC’s incremental costs for purchasing the additional insurance.
Why would the group not be looking to Amtrak for this? After all, the current belief at Amtrak HQ is that corridors are the future...I would think they'd be all over this.
Last edited by NSSD70ACe on Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
:roll:

the contents of the above post are my opinion and mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

User avatar
PerRock
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Manchester, MI
Contact:

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by PerRock »

So there is actually an interchange between the AA & MDOT in Ann Arbor, however it has been overgrown from decades of non-use & recently essentially removed. It would require a reverse maneuver to get from one to the other. But essentially the middle track at the New Center curves up to the AA making an easy connection yo go south.

the WALLY project wanted to build 2-3 new stations in Ann Arbor along the AA. One would be along Plymouth Road, then one downtown (probably between Washington & Williams) and then finally one down in Ferry Yard, by the Stadium for Football services.

If one were to build a new connection... looking at the map I'd probably suggest spurring off MDOT just west of M14 & essentially following up Whitmore Lake Rd. Then cutting back over the the AA/GLC near Osage.

Not only is your suggestion a tight corner, it's also a steep climb as well.

peter
Given the choice; I fly Amtrak.
American Trainz Group

chapmaja
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:02 pm

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by chapmaja »

I had not thought of running a connection from up near Whitmore Lake Rd.

What I think would be the easiest routing would be to have the route leave the Amtrak route just across the river north of Huron Bridge Park. Then have the route curve gently so it goes parallel to M-14 until it gets to the interchange area, then it would curve east under the interchange, running between EB and WB sections of 23/14 before turning north and going under NB 23/WB M14 then it would connect to the AA main just south of US-23.

User avatar
NS3322
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:08 pm
Location: CP-LEVITT

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by NS3322 »

How long would it even take to go from AA to TC?

Stinger4me
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:37 am
Location: In Michigan

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by Stinger4me »

Some of those folks must have some good prescription medications. I believe they might be known as "thought modification chemicals".

NSSD70ACe
The Conrail Guru
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:34 pm
Location: Bottom of Lake Mead

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by NSSD70ACe »

NS3322 wrote:How long would it even take to go from AA to TC?
Study says about 5 hours at 60 mph, and maybe 3.5-4 at 110 mph.
:roll:

the contents of the above post are my opinion and mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

User avatar
Saturnalia
Authority on Cat
Posts: 15385
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
Location: Michigan City, IN
Contact:

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by Saturnalia »

I’d rather have them spend those millions on freeway improvements we can all benefit from!
Thornapple River Rail Series - YouTube
Safety today is your investment for tomorrow

User avatar
~Z~
Sofa King Admin
Posts: 12909
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Contact:

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by ~Z~ »

Browsed through the study that was linked at: https://www.groundworkcenter.org/userfi ... 0doymyxrh/
No mention of self driving, autonomous cars, or electric vehicles. By their date of 2040 of when they expect to see lots of travelers on the train, I can only wager that for the people who don't want to drive themselves to Traverse City from Detroit, they won't need a train to take them and then find shuttles around TC, but will just use electric cars to automatically take them to where they need to go.
Webmaster
Railroad photos on Railroadfan.com

NSSD70ACe
The Conrail Guru
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:34 pm
Location: Bottom of Lake Mead

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by NSSD70ACe »

After reading the study, I have many questions. Some of them are repeats from before:

1) Why is GLC/SRI listed as a potential operator but Amtrak isn't? Current philosophy at 60 Mass is that corridor services are the future. I would've thought that, with MDOT involved, Amtrak would've been part of this. Not only that, but SRI is only a tourist organization. Working a scheduled service would be completely new territory, even if they worked in conjunction with GLC. Power is another issue. GLC has the various 4-axles along with the two 6-axles, but outside of that, nothing. Perhaps a purchase of power is possible, but it would need HEP (as none of GLC's current power has it) or a generator car, which SRI only has one of. Amtrak would be in a far better position to handle these operations.

2) Why are they looking at building a sharp bridge connection with a steep climb? It's not rocket science. At the same time, a backup move is operationally inefficient. They should look at a different routing that is both operationally efficient as well as in the market. One idea is routing the train up the Plymouth Subdivision. Howell is close enough to AA, but a new station plus a wye connection would need to be built.

3) Where will the train care facilities be? Apparently, Owosso is a frontrunner because of GLC/SRI, but neither one of them has the space to care for nine trainsets. Granted, it isn't likely that all nine would be in Owosso at the same time, but it should be a consideration.

4) Has SRI been involved with any of this? 90 and 110 MPH running requires PTC. It could severely impact SRI's operations if they need to end up becoming PTC-compliant. At the same time, the initial steps of this service involve a large expansion of excursion trips across the entire GLC system, including trips to all the way to Petoskey on the north end and south to Ann Arbor for football games. Right now, CN won't allow trips to cross the Flint in Durand because they want $200 million in insurance. GLC/SRI only has $25 million (did not specify if that figure was combined or for each organization). This also makes me question why GLC/SRI was listed as a potential private operator but Amtrak wasn't, as Amtrak has more than enough to cover it.

I would love to have service like this in Michigan, but the above questions are just a sample that need to be ironed out.

Also, about the highway upgrades: The entire point of projects like this is to get traffic OFF the highways. You wouldn't believe how many people say that I-94 is a death trap on social media after an accident, yet few of them consider Amtrak an alternative. Some of the worst drivers I've seen are from out of state, mainly IL, IN, and OH. If we had actual rail transportation connecting the major cities in the Midwest, maybe we wouldn't have all these accidents on our congested highways or have to spend mega millions every year trying to fix them. Our society has become too reliant on cars. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say they wouldn't go someplace if they couldn't have their car. We seem to have forgotten what it is like to get off your behind and WALK. Or use PUBLIC TRANSIT. It isn't just for those who can't afford it! It's supposed to be for everyone to use! I'm not saying Amtrak or bus service isn't without problems but if we keep ignoring them or underprioritizing them, we will end up in a shameful place with even more congested highways.

The thought process of the country is turning. It isn't a coincidence that Amtrak ridership has been increasing. People are starting to understand that passenger rail is truly an option. Amtrak ridership was up 8.4% in MI for FY17, with the Wolverine and PM showing the most growth, and 1.5% nationally, with 7/15 routes showing an increase in ridership and 1, the Empire Builder, showing no change. The time to invest in passenger rail is now.
:roll:

the contents of the above post are my opinion and mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

Plannerdad
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 685
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:21 pm

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by Plannerdad »

"The thought process of the country is turning."

There appears to be more people interested in mass transit and passenger rail, especially among Millennials. However, people are reluctant at best to pay what it would cost to initiate operations and ongoing operating subsidies. It is unlikely to be covered by revenue generated by the service itself. There have been some local transit millages, but I am not aware of any coving a corridor like this one. And about half of the latest Michigan transportation funding package excludes spending on transit service. Legislators need to be convinced of its value.

Also, since we came out of the recession, volumes are up on most highways and I am guessing some of the people in those cars are younger than me.

Instead of building a station right in AA, consider what AMTRAK has done in some cities; locate a remote station, near the city, along a main highway and along the existing rail line. People are used to driving out of town to an airport.

User avatar
James Sofonia
Grand Traverse Dinner Train 1996
Posts: 1701
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:56 pm
Location: Traverse City, Michigan

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by James Sofonia »

I think this sounds fun. No problem with me if they spend several million $. I might even ride it a couple of times a year.
Last edited by James Sofonia on Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NSSD70ACe
The Conrail Guru
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:34 pm
Location: Bottom of Lake Mead

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by NSSD70ACe »

Plannerdad wrote:"The thought process of the country is turning."

There appears to be more people interested in mass transit and passenger rail, especially among Millennials. However, people are reluctant at best to pay what it would cost to initiate operations and ongoing operating subsidies. It is unlikely to be covered by revenue generated by the service itself. There have been some local transit millages, but I am not aware of any coving a corridor like this one. And about half of the latest Michigan transportation funding package excludes spending on transit service. Legislators need to be convinced of its value.

Also, since we came out of the recession, volumes are up on most highways and I am guessing some of the people in those cars are younger than me.

Instead of building a station right in AA, consider what AMTRAK has done in some cities; locate a remote station, near the city, along a main highway and along the existing rail line. People are used to driving out of town to an airport.
I agree that this process is very early in the development stages. I also believe that as millennials get older, the thought processes in our legislators will change as well, either by them realizing that passenger rail and other transit is of value or by replacing them with people who hold those ideologies. Certainly, there will be holdouts, especially in rural areas, but I think by and large, we could see that shift.

As far as a second station goes, I’m not sure it’s the answer. I know Ann Arbor is looking at building a completely new station near the UM medical center on Fuller. However, that would not solve any of the issues regarding the connection of the Michigan Line and the GLC/AA. The only other option I can think of other than completely routing the train away from AA would be to build the new station opposite the old one in that vacant lot and turn it into a bus/train depot. It would be a large facility that could service as the central terminus point of the local bus routes as well as a transfer point to and from the TC train and the Michigan Line.
:roll:

the contents of the above post are my opinion and mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

User avatar
NS3322
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:08 pm
Location: CP-LEVITT

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by NS3322 »

NSSD70ACe wrote:
NS3322 wrote:How long would it even take to go from AA to TC?
Study says about 5 hours at 60 mph, and maybe 3.5-4 at 110 mph.
Thanks! What would it be currently?

PatAzo
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1368
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:20 pm

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by PatAzo »

DaveO wrote:I should have been a consultant. Only 1 problem, I prefer being truthful about things.
Hey maybe we can commission a study to relay the GR&I to Mackinaw!

User avatar
DaveO
Read more, think more, post less
Posts: 1453
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:57 pm
Location: Between here and there

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by DaveO »

1 Detroit 713,777
2 Grand Rapids 188,040
3 Warren 134,056
4 Sterling Heights 129,699
5 Lansing 114,297
6 Ann Arbor 113,934
7 Flint 102,434
8 Dearborn 98,153
9 Livonia 96,942
10 Clinton (charter township) 96,796
11 Canton (charter township) 90,173
12 Westland 84,094
13 Troy 80,980
14 Farmington Hills 79,740
15 Macomb (township) 79,580
16 Kalamazoo 74,262
17 Shelby (charter township) 73,804
18 Wyoming 72,125
19 Southfield 71,739
20 Waterford (charter township) 71,707

Listed above are the 20 largest municipalities in Michigan based on the 2010 Census.
The proposed service would service exactly one. That is Ann Arbor.
Passenger service like this will only succeed if you run the service to where potential passengers actually live.

User avatar
NS3322
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:08 pm
Location: CP-LEVITT

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by NS3322 »

While the TC train would be cool, I would rather see commuter trains and light rail in the metro Detroit area before this.
While there were numerous reasons, lack of public transportation in Detroit was a big reason Detroit was not even considered by Amazon for its second HQ.

User avatar
NS3322
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:08 pm
Location: CP-LEVITT

Re: Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

Unread post by NS3322 »

DaveO wrote:1 Detroit 713,777
2 Grand Rapids 188,040
3 Warren 134,056
4 Sterling Heights 129,699
5 Lansing 114,297
6 Ann Arbor 113,934
7 Flint 102,434
8 Dearborn 98,153
9 Livonia 96,942
10 Clinton (charter township) 96,796
11 Canton (charter township) 90,173
12 Westland 84,094
13 Troy 80,980
14 Farmington Hills 79,740
15 Macomb (township) 79,580
16 Kalamazoo 74,262
17 Shelby (charter township) 73,804
18 Wyoming 72,125
19 Southfield 71,739
20 Waterford (charter township) 71,707

Listed above are the 20 largest municipalities in Michigan based on the 2010 Census.
The proposed service would service exactly one. That is Ann Arbor.
Passenger service like this will only succeed if you run the service to where potential passengers actually live.
1. Ann Arbor 113,934
2. Whitmore Lake 6,201
3. Hamburg/Brighton 30,000
4. Howell 9,489
5. Durand 3,446
6. Corunna 3,497
7. Owosso 15,194
8. Ithaca 2,910
9. Alma/St. Louis 17,000
10. Shepherd 1,515
11. Mt Pleasant 26,016
12. Clare 3,118
13. Cadillac 10,355
14. Manton 1,287
15. Kingsley 1,480
16. Traverse City 15,479

Yeah the numbers are not huge...

Post Reply