Ann Arbor to Traverse City study

[James Sofonia]

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.

Where did Amazon locate then?

Back to the list of populations, Traverse City isn't even in there, and probably much further down.

[NSSD70ACe]

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...

Be advised: A2TC is intended to be a connection from northern MI to Metro Detroit/the National Network as much as it is a tourist train to the northern LP.

[Steve B]

It's pretty much a theoretical exercise at this point, and I'm sure the logistics of locomotives, rolling stock and servicing facilities are far, far down the road. Maybe the proponents are using the logic of this line from the movie "Annie Hall" (1977): “Right now it's just a notion, but I think I can get the money to make it a concept, and later turn it into an idea.”

I haven't dug around yet to see if one can read the whole study on the web. Are they hoping for daily year round service, or seasonal daily, or weekend only, or what? Or have they even thought that through? Maybe weekends only in the summer might make money, but how long would it take to recoup the enormous initial investment?

[NSSD70ACe]

It's pretty much a theoretical exercise at this point, and I'm sure the logistics of locomotives, rolling stock and servicing facilities are far, far down the road. Maybe the proponents are using the logic of this line from the movie "Annie Hall" (1977): “Right now it's just a notion, but I think I can get the money to make it a concept, and later turn it into an idea.”

I haven't dug around yet to see if one can read the whole study on the web. Are they hoping for daily year round service, or seasonal daily, or weekend only, or what? Or have they even thought that through? Maybe weekends only in the summer might make money, but how long would it take to recoup the enormous initial investment?

The link is like three posts back...Z posted it.

Basically they’re looking at upgrading speed in increments: 25 excursion service, 60 excursion service, 60 schedules, 90 scheduled, and 110 scheduled. The study gave a sample of I think 6 trains to TC and 3 to Petoskey with 9 trainsets, complete with a sample schedule. I don’t remember what section it’s in through.

[KingsleyRailFan]

I live in Kingsley, 2 miles from the nearest crossing, which is a basic one on a dirt road. However, most of our crossings in the Traverse City-Cadillac area are older ones with old signals and bells, and I think that if they did run that idea, they'd have to upgrade all the crossings except for one or two newer ones. That would cost a fair bit of $$$ to do, but I would look forward to seeing that. Also, considering we have a train once a week (at best) through here, it would be nice to have more rail action.

[NSSD70ACe]

I live in Kingsley, 2 miles from the nearest crossing, which is a basic one on a dirt road. However, most of our crossings in the Traverse City-Cadillac area are older ones with old signals and bells, and I think that if they did run that idea, they'd have to upgrade all the crossings except for one or two newer ones. That would cost a fair bit of $$$ to do, but I would look forward to seeing that. Also, considering we have a train once a week (at best) through here, it would be nice to have more rail action.

The study did acknowledge that and factored it into their total cost.

[PerRock]

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.

Where did Amazon locate then?

Back to the list of populations, Traverse City isn't even in there, and probably much further down.

Nowhere yet, they just announce the 2 finalist cities: Chicago & Miami.

peter

[Saturnalia]

Browsed through the study that was linked at: https://www.groundworkcenter.org/userfi ... 0doymyxrh/

You always know a document will be a great read when it has pages labelled as "intentionally left blank"

[quote=""The Study""]Once the charter train capability has been firmly established then it should be possible to set up some
trial runs to test the market for regularly scheduled service. This could be finally followed by the implementation of regular scheduled service on a basis that makes commercial sense. [/quote]
Detractors call the Illinois Chicago-Quad Cities project the "Cornfield Rocket". That route at least has some merits. This route doesn't. I propose we call it "A best attempt at solving a problem that doesn't exist, with taxpayer funds".

[quote=""The Study""]Starting a scheduled service will likely require the installation of a Positive Train Control (PTC) system. Scheduled service carries with it a higher degree of commercial risk than does charter or excursion operation, and as well it puts the railroad into a position of taking on a public service obligation. For this reason it is likely that some degree of public support (subsidy) will be needed for starting a scheduled service. [/quote]
Change likely to will, and scratch out "commercial risk" and replace it with "taxpayer burden".

[quote=""The Study""]So, a track connection needs to be provided in Ann Arbor to enable direct service to Detroit.[/quote]
It cannot be understated how terrible that geometry is. The two lines were not designed to be connected in the way suggested. It's pretty easy to take a map and draw a line.

We're talking about 25' of elevation loss in about 1600' of track. That's not insurmountable. But boy will the wheels be singing you the song of their people on that curve. I'm sure Ann Arborites will love the new bridge over their whitewater park, all the new piers. Gasp - we can't forget the fish and the blue-spotted-right-footed frog. Lord help them.

[quote=""The Study""]Typically, a track upgrade above 60-mph would entail rail welding or rail replacement, along with new ties and ballast. Curve spirals would be adjusted to provide smooth transitions, and all public crossings would have active protection installed if they could not be closed.[/quote]
Harder to make it sound any easier. Doesn't actually make it any easier. What are ribbons of 133RE going for these days?

[quote=""The Study""]To reach this [Traverse City] station, arriving trains would have to pull past the station across the Boardman River rail bridge, and only then reverse into the station. This would be a time consuming and tedious movement.[/quote]
I wish these people did the study for the new Grand Rapids Station.

[quote=""The Study""]Therefore, as shown in Exhibit 2-6, a short (1½ mile) connection track south of Boardman Lake (past Beitner Park) could connect the former PRR line to the ex-Pere Marquette along the west shore of Boardman Lake. By taking this approach the train could pull directly into the station and continue directly to Williamsburg without reversing direction. [/quote]
But the blue-spotted-right-footed frogs!

The study goes on a lot longer but I'm bored. I'll classify this one as a "you can't be serious?" type of study.

Traverse City seems to think of itself as a large metropolis. It isn't. It's time for them to realize this. As an alternative to trying to drum up this hilarious scheme, just add more lanes to the local highways.

It's high time US 131 was completed as a freeway through to a junction with I-75. Add a branch to Traverse City and consider the problem solved. It'll be useful to all people instead of a few, probably see higher farebox in terms of traffic volumes driving fuel tax and registration receipts, and actually solve a problem.

[Saturnalia]

They might get their 1.5 million riders by 2040. That would only be 1373 passengers per week.

Or about 205 passengers per day, over 20 years

Or about 410 passengers per day, over 10 years

Or about 820 passengers per day, over 5 years

Or about 4110 passengers per day, over a single year.

For context, the Amtrak Pere Marquette sees 106,000 passengers per year, or 290 passengers per day. The Blue Water pulls in 191,000, for 523 passengers per day. The Wolverines do 590,000, but there are 3 round trips, so controlling for that we get 538 passengers per day.

Take a look at this. It's MDOT's AADT map. Shows you how much traffic there is on our State Trunkline System on the average day throughout the year.
http://mdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer ... 8835862c73

Per this map, 64000 vehicles use US23 north of Ann Arbor daily. Assume 1.5 people per car and get 96,000 passengers per day.

It looks like the busiest road in Traverse City is M-72 east of downtown at 35,000 vehicles per day. That's 52,000 passengers per day, estimated.

13,000 vehicles per day use M-72 east of Williamsburg, which is how I assume most people driving from Ann Arbor would get to Traverse City. Using our 1.5 occupancy estimate, that's 19,500 passengers.

If we assume that this line carries 1.5 million people per year, that covers 4.2% of traffic on M72 east of downtown TC daily.

Over 5 years? 0.86%. 10 years comes to 0.42%. Get the picture?

This service has no reason to exist. It solves no problem, provides no solution.

I like trains as much as anybody really can. But this idea sucks.

[Raildudes dad]

The good thing is these folks will be able to smoke their doobies legally after Nov 6th. The only ones to benefit are the consultants "writing" the reports.

[Schteinkuh]

The good thing is these folks will be able to smoke their doobies legally after Nov 6th. The only ones to benefit are the consultants "writing" the reports.

Yeah, I want what they're having please

[Doktor No]

I got to about page 63 of the study before my eyes glazed over....nice looking study though. Graphs, lines, maps, cool pictures. Actually they should snag some good used RDC's from Dallas and go for it. Next they could perhaps do a study on connecting all the northern casino's, Little River, rebuild the trackage north of Manistee to TC....start at Kazoo, go to GRR, then north on the MQT to Manistee, new tracks on existing roadbed to TC then Turtle Creek, and trackage rebuild to Charlevoix and Petoskey on the old C&O right of way...beautiful right of way, most beautiful and scenic....THERE YA HAVE IT...Casino Scenic Railway!

[chapmaja]

Per this map, 64000 vehicles use US23 north of Ann Arbor daily. Assume 1.5 people per car and get 96,000 passengers per day.

Why does it feel like any time I am trying to go north on US-23 in the mid-afternoon time period all 64,000 vehicles are trying to use the roadway at one time.

I know this will get away from the railroad aspect of things while I rant, but what was MDOT thinking with US-23 between M-14 and I-96.

They accomplished the following.
1) A very nice flex lane system which substantially increases the traffic flow from basically the Livingston - Washtenaw County Line to M-14 by creating a 3rd lane to be used during heavy traffic periods. This along with a change in traffic flow dynamics at the south end of the section at M-14 greatly improves the traffic flow.

2) A nice new section of express way I-96 in Brighton where it crosses US-23 and interchanges with US-23.


The problem is they didn't address the entire mess that is US-23 between M-14 and I-96.


One of the biggest problems with traffic flow on northbound US-23 in the afternoon is the traffic approaching the I-96 interchange. In the wonderful planning and creation of the new interchage they left the biggest problem intact. That problem is the fact traffic needing to exit US-23 for westbound I-96 (traffic from AA to much of Brighton and Howell) needs to take a left lane exit ramp with a speed of 30 mph. This means traffic having to switch lanes as it approaches the interchange. Add in the fact the ramps themselves are only 30 mph ramps you have a situation where traffic backs up onto the travel lanes of US-23 very quickly. This is why traffic is often backed up a couple miles south of the bridge. (As an example today I took a parallel road to the next exit up (Lee Rd) from where I normally would get on US-23. Traffic on US-23 was going 35 if that, while I was going a much faster 45-50 mph. I passed a lot of cars I would have been merged with had I gotten on US-23 at Silver Lake Rd which is where I normally would.)


Maybe with all this money MDOT is spending on studies they can look at the fact traffic flow in certain portions of this state is still terrible and needs to be correct. Some things make absolutely no sense in today's travel patterns. I have mentioned US-23 from the end of the flex route to I-96. The other one is I-94 across the state. Someone explain why I-94, which is one of the densest truck traffic routes in the country from what I've heard is two lanes for the majority of its route across the state including through AA and Jackson. Why on Earth, with traffic flowing like it does in AA, is I-94 still 2 lanes in each direction from the US-23 split to the M-14 interchange. Trying to get through the south side of AA during the evening rushour is a chore because of too many cars and not enough space from State St to US-23.


The state really needs to look at the transportion priorities and a rail route between AA and the middle of nowhere (I'm mean TC) isn't a priority for that money.

[Saturnalia]

One of the biggest problems with traffic flow on northbound US-23 in the afternoon is the traffic approaching the I-96 interchange. In the wonderful planning and creation of the new interchage they left the biggest problem intact. That problem is the fact traffic needing to exit US-23 for westbound I-96 (traffic from AA to much of Brighton and Howell) needs to take a left lane exit ramp with a speed of 30 mph. This means traffic having to switch lanes as it approaches the interchange. Add in the fact the ramps themselves are only 30 mph ramps you have a situation where traffic backs up onto the travel lanes of US-23 very quickly. This is why traffic is often backed up a couple miles south of the bridge.

I appears to me that the very likely cause of this problem - and the reason why it wasn't corrected - is the lack of space in that interchange. They'd have to put in those big flyover ramps and there just doesn't seem to be room for them. It'd create one of those massive towering interchanges, and the space is just too small. Ask all the surrounding landowners to vacate, then we'll talk.

The other one is I-94 across the state. Someone explain why I-94, which is one of the densest truck traffic routes in the country from what I've heard is two lanes for the majority of its route across the state including through AA and Jackson. Why on Earth, with traffic flowing like it does in AA, is I-94 still 2 lanes in each direction from the US-23 split to the M-14 interchange. Trying to get through the south side of AA during the evening rushour is a chore because of too many cars and not enough space from State St to US-23.

Unfortunately I-94 is a half-hour shorter than I-90/I-75 to get from Chicago to Detroit, so all of the intermodal shipments get rubber-tired across the state, heading for Detroitland and Canada. Can't really change that, especially since I-90 is a toll road - providing an incentive for truckers to avoid the turnpike.

As for adding lanes, money doesn't grow on trees. They've probably avoided adding that additional lane for much the same reason as they have on US-23: there are tons of obstructions to adding another lane. There are multiple bridges to be widened, and multiple to be moved back to clear the way. I'm not native to that area so I don't know firsthand, but I'd hope that MDOT has been planning that third lane when they build new structures, so when they finally pull the trigger it can be a much smaller, cheaper project. Chances are, MDOT has already been working on this grander-scheme project for years, bit by bit.

The State, as you know, has many challenges with its road infrastructure. While we'd all like to see additional capacity in many areas, the first priority is maintaining what we've already got. If you look at MDOT's project manifest for any given year, you'll see some capacity expansion but mostly rebuild/replace.

As always, there's no law that states you cannot donate to MDOT or that you have to file a tax return. Perhaps you might consider leaving more of your cash with the State, to forward the funding for all of these projects ahead a bit!

I know, I know, I'm a libertarian-leaning guy, and believe me I will still let 'er rip on all the capacity expansion and improvements I want to see in Grand Rapids. But that's where we all run into the practicalities of actually running a Statewide Highway network.

[Ben Higdon]

Is it just me or did they get carried away with how high they raised the roadbed of I-96 above 23? I haven't been through it in a bit but seems like it has 18-20ft clearance, which requires an even longer and steeper grade for both directions of traffic.

[J T]

One of the biggest problems with traffic flow on northbound US-23 in the afternoon is the traffic approaching the I-96 interchange. In the wonderful planning and creation of the new interchage they left the biggest problem intact. That problem is the fact traffic needing to exit US-23 for westbound I-96 (traffic from AA to much of Brighton and Howell) needs to take a left lane exit ramp with a speed of 30 mph. This means traffic having to switch lanes as it approaches the interchange. Add in the fact the ramps themselves are only 30 mph ramps you have a situation where traffic backs up onto the travel lanes of US-23 very quickly. This is why traffic is often backed up a couple miles south of the bridge. (As an example today I took a parallel road to the next exit up (Lee Rd) from where I normally would get on US-23. Traffic on US-23 was going 35 if that, while I was going a much faster 45-50 mph. I passed a lot of cars I would have been merged with had I gotten on US-23 at Silver Lake Rd which is where I normally would.)

Aside from not coming up with a solution to that NB 23 to WB 96 ramp, the temporary reduction of 3 lanes to 2 lanes on EB 96 through that interchange is annoying. And yes, there is still plenty of room for a third lane. I was absolutely perplexed the first time I drove through there after it was completed.

[Steve B]

There are just as many lanes as before. They're merely split up between express and local ones. For most of the way there are actually more than before: two lanes for express & two lanes for local, in both directions. You can drive all the way through on either set. The room for another lane you refer to is actually needed for shoulders for both lanes, wider than the old standard.

[J T]

There are just as many lanes as before. They're merely split up between express and local ones. For most of the way there are actually more than before: two lanes for express & two lanes for local, in both directions. You can drive all the way through on either set. The room for another lane you refer to is actually needed for shoulders for both lanes, wider than the old standard.

They should have kept three lanes for "express." Let the exiting folks duke it out for themselves on those two lower speed lanes.

[fmilhaupt]

Is it just me or did they get carried away with how high they raised the roadbed of I-96 above 23? I haven't been through it in a bit but seems like it has 18-20ft clearance, which requires an even longer and steeper grade for both directions of traffic.

I'd like to think that they learned lessons from the damage sustained by the Joy Road, Warren Road, Eight Mile Road and Pleasant Valley bridges over the years, and wanted to plan against idiots who shouldn't be driving trucks because they can't be arsed to know how tall their loads are.

[Ben Higdon]

Is it just me or did they get carried away with how high they raised the roadbed of I-96 above 23? I haven't been through it in a bit but seems like it has 18-20ft clearance, which requires an even longer and steeper grade for both directions of traffic.

I'd like to think that they learned lessons from the damage sustained by the Joy Road, Warren Road, Eight Mile Road and Pleasant Valley bridges over the years, and wanted to plan against idiots who shouldn't be driving trucks because they can't be arsed to know how tall their loads are.

Thats a good point. It would be bad news for that to happen to the 96 overpass.