mw

Mon, Nov 1, 2010 : 10:24 a.m.

Murph: The local situation is a good example Apples and oranges. City streets are required regardless of whether you get around by car, bus, bike, or horse-drawn carriage -- which is why it's appropriate not rely solely on fuel taxes for local roads and streets. The comparison of interest here is between funding/subsidy of inter-city highways vs inter-city rail. People are clearly willing to pay enough in taxes and tolls to pay for inter-city highways. We can see that in Europe, where gas is 2X expensive and tolls on autoroutes are common and also much higher than in the U.S. With inter-city rail, there's no hope of getting passengers to pay tickets/taxes/usage fees, whatever you want to call it, to pay even for maintenance and operation let alone construction (and most rail advocates concede this).

murph

Mon, Nov 1, 2010 : 10:23 a.m.

@TripleVSix - I've been in meetings with representatives from Norfolk-Southern who describe the railroad as a "willing seller", and my understanding of the high-speed rail funding under discussion is that MDOT / Amtrak / Norfolk-Southern have an agreed price range for the transfer of the lines. You may recall that, a few years ago, NS was discussing selling the line to a short-line railroad (out of Missouri, I think?) - this is hardly a core track to them that's being "stolen".

CynicA2

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 8:46 p.m.

... just what Michigan needs - more delusional dreamers with hallucinatory "grand visions" of the future! Most rational Michiganians neither want nor need this overpriced toy for the few. It is really that simple.

shepard145

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 8:15 p.m.

Everone should understand what mass transit is and what it is not. It is NOT a substitute for cars such that interstate traffic will be notably reduced. Even a wildly successful transit system would accommodate a small percentage of the people who use interstates every day. In any case, cars would still be necessary because most regional light rail (subway type) suburban users would still drive short distances to rail stops. again, people need to understand how this works in the real world. With regard to trends, Phil is jumping the gate. People are NOT moving back into urban areas yet for reasons too numerous to list and there is no oil depletion when reserves are higher then theyve been in decades. This generation seems arrogant enough to believe that anything that will EVER HAPPEN must happen while they grace the planet. The price of gasoline today is driven by politics, global markets, nonsensical US regulation and US taxation rather then supply. Again, guessing that US prices at the pump will rise in the future is fine but will have nothing to do with world reserves. This is a nice conversation but were mixing transit systems. Regional passenger trains high speed rail to Chicago is not what we need now in my opinion. As DonBee wrote, these have limited number of stops for speed and cross long distances. when we talk about a run from AA to Detroit and all the stops in between, we want a fast light rail system like that in Minnesota (or RRT) on an elevated track where possible. We DO NOT want dedicated buses, so called Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or street cars (also sometimes referred to as light rail) for long distances (street cars running inside Ann Arbor would be fine). I also want the auto industry and our feeble Washington DC senators at the table to clarify their positions. If the auto industry still views Michigan as little more then a marketing tool to sell more cars at any expense and will kill mass transit behind the scenes (SEMCOG), lets hear it now. Every state and region who has ever developed a successful mass transit system (or a large bridge) has had to deal with folks like CynicA2. Like bedbugs, they are a fact of life and split between those who refuse to face reality, those with no future in Michigan transit or not, those who think cheaper is better and those whos businesses will be harmed by successful mass transit. Many will even come from out of state to spread their brand of good cheer..so if the state is serious, prepare to roll over them with our grand vision for Michigans future.

TripleVSix

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 8:02 p.m.

"The funding just announced would allow for the trackage from Kalamazoo to Dearborn to be acquired from Norfolk-Southern" Is Norfolk-Southern interested in selling, or would the government steal it from them?

CynicA2

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 3:50 p.m.

"Obama calls high-speed rail essential infrastructure when its actually old-fashioned pork barrel. The interesting question is why it retains its intellectual respectability. The answer, it seems, is willful ignorance. People prefer fashionable make-believe to distasteful realities. They imagine public benefits that dont exist and ignore costs that do." Samuelson article, Newsweek - 10/29/10 Great article, AnnArBo! Some of the "true believers" in the fashionable conventional wisdom about high speed rail should do this quick read. High speed boondoggle is more like it!

yohan

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 2:38 p.m.

Sandy, to answer your questions (as I always do). Yes, the current east - west / Norfolk Southern / Amtrak rails trough Ann Arbor are already continuously welded such that there are no gaps between the sections of rail. The north - south / Ann Arbor Railroad tracks are not welded. They still go clickety-clack, clickety-clack (not ka-chunk, ka-chunk, listen closely). The east-west line used to be double tracked until sometime in the late 80s when the north most track was removed except for some areas around Chelsea. However the right of way is still there. The north - south line is and always was single track except for some passing sidings north and south of town.

fensk

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 1:43 p.m.

Shepard145.....I agree! Ann Arbor to Detroit with stops in Ypsi, Dearborn, the airport would be great. It might encourage us in Washtenaw County to enjoy sports, events and restaurants in Detroit and between more often. I like the train. I have taken the train to Chicago many times. A faster train would be great. But I wonder if we improved what was here in Metro Detroit, if Michigan/Detroit would benefit? I know Detroit cannot compete with Chicago for entertainment and a vacation destination...but I would pay for a safe ride to Comerica Park for a game and dinner!

DonBee

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 1:34 p.m.

@murph - The Ypsilanti Millage fixed the sewage and water system at the same time the streets were re-done. If you lived in the area, you would have seen the large pipes in front yards and the deep trenches down the streets to improve the water and sewage. Local Streets are the responsibility of the local governments. The highway system (Interstates - I-94 for example and the United States routes US-12 for example) are paid for from federal user fees, tires, gas and user fees. More than 78 billion of this money was used for other purposes from 2004 to 2008, this left the highway trust fund underfunded. In the Stimulus Package (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) there was money above and beyond what was available in the Highway Trust Fund to accelerate construction to provide jobs. Airports are covered by the taxes on tickets - which is why the airlines now unbundle food, luggage and other fees - so they don't have to pay the tax. The Airport fund is well enough over funded that the GAO recommended lowering the tax rate. As electric cars, high mileage cars and other efficiencies happen the Trust Fund will be in worse trouble. Too All - I too have lived in Europe and worked on the TGV system. I know what it takes, and the money that allocated will not provide even a 110 MPH. Grade crossings alone will make it a hazard to operate at 110 MPH, in europe the tracks and roads do not cross for high speed trains. Only those in the 90 MPH and below actually have grade crossing. I want to see high speed rail, it would save me time and trouble. But one thing to remember about high speed rail is it uses very limited stops. You step off the high speed trains to regional trains and regional trains to local trains or trams. Typically the last 10 miles takes as long as the 100 miles before. Right now the bus is faster than the train on most routes. The Megabus on the east coast is normally full and offers prices that are less than any train or plane. Good rail infrastructure is important to our future, but the hodge podge of unconnected lines and the half-way measures to spread the wealth across the nation is a poor answer the real need. If we want jobs in wholesale quantities, then the answer should have been on par with the National Defense Highway Act. If we spent the ARRA funds all on rail we would have made a big step up.

Phillip Farber

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 12:06 p.m.

Arguments against improving passenger rail infrastructure based on lack of density and on people's "desire to drive" may apply in 2010 but what about in a decade's time? If we can see events on the horizon at odds with the status quo doesn't it make sense to begin planning and development of rail, even plain old 90 mph rail, now? The U.S. vehicle fleet shrunk by 4 million to 246 million from 2008 numbers. The poor economy put owning and operating a car out of reach for many families even as gas prices remained largely at $3/gallon ($80/barrel). Fewer cars, a trend toward smaller more fuel-efficient vehicles, car-sharing, trip-bundling and increased use of alternative modes all mean lower gas tax revenues. As @murph pointed out, only ~50% of the money supporting highways comes from direct gas taxes. We could raise all of the other tax revenue sources as that 50% shrinks. Or raise gas taxes. Or both. Yet, with every increment to gasoline taxes, some number of families will give up on long-distance commuting or on owning a personal car entirely. It's a vicious circle. Given the unprecedented level of consumer and government debt, a stagnant economy with high unemployment and government gridlock we are in for a protracted period economic trouble. Some even say a historic reversal in our standard of living. This implies that commuters will seek cheaper ways to travel between work, shopping and home. The suburban expansion has crested and is reversing. People are moving back into cities. One benefit is lower transportation costs derived from less travel overall. Some are doing without cars altogether, especially in metro areas that have good public transportation, allowing them to put the $7000 average annual cost of owning and driving to other uses. The facts about oil depletion are so plain that anyone who looks at the numbers honestly must conclude that transportation fuel prices will rise continuously from here on out. This economic reality promises extremely hard times for the airline industry. We can expect ticket prices to escalate significantly. Same for automotive gas prices. I don't want the size of my tax bill to be increasingly weighted toward maintaining inefficient transportation modes that were economical when oil was $20/barrel. And yet, I'd still like to be able to travel to Chicago. If we still want to be able to move about the U.S. economically and affordably we are going to have to rebuild our passenger rail system. We simply will not have the capital, energy or fiscal (tax) resources necessary to maintain the superhighway system at an acceptable level of service. Air travel, the only other contending long distance mode, will be priced out of reach for increasing numbers. That leaves the most efficient mode: rail. Let's get on with it.

Speechless

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 12:02 p.m.

It's great to see increased funding priority being given at last to trains, commuter rail and to other modes of public transportation. I also appreciate the letter writer offering constructive questions and criticisms on the future use of funding allocated for the rail line between Detroit and Chicago. This represents the kind of transporation discussion we should be having, and which we should have had a long time ago. An ideological subtext for arguments against public support for mass transit is that the automobile is the only legitimate and reliable form of day-to-day transportation. If you do not have regular access to a working vehicle, then the assumption is that you will be economically and socially crippled — and quite rightly so. Sadly, the notion of being fully functional without a vehicle has been such a strange concept to Americans and especially to Michigan residents, so very many of whom just can't wrap their heads around it. If you live in a city of any size, getting around the area inexpensively through use of one or more forms of public transit ought to be considered be an essential amenity. And you should be able to quickly connect to nearby cities as well. This should be as basic to everyday life as having downtown sidewalks or street drains. Or plumbing and electricity, for that matter. Also, a thanks to murph for providing a helpful reality check on major tax subsidies for roads and automobiles. Those who argue stridently against public support for mass transit keep repeating the same deceptive talking point again and again about how auto travel supposedly funds itself.

Lovaduck

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 11:27 a.m.

shepard and others of similar bent, I agree completely. I was always dismayed in Michigan when any talk of mass transit was greeted with outcries close to "high treason". I know that Michigan is the capitol of the auto industry and depends on it for much of its revenue, but think of the future. I know that as a former East Coaster who grew up on public transportation, I may have a bias in favor of it (I now DO drive everywhere,'cause I have to) but other than the economic factor or fear of persons who use public transportation, I have never understood the visceral horror and repulsion that seems to greet any proposal for better mass transit--something we will really need in the future. I understand people being afraid that their GUNS will be taken away by the big, bad government--but are they now worried that their CARS will be taken away and they'll have to go on efficient mass transit with "just anybody"? Try living in LA gridlock and see how desperately needed public transportation is. No buses just won't do.

shepard145

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 10:47 a.m.

Michigan mass transit efforts collapse because voters, politicians and our inexperienced transit planners fail to understand the real nature, cost and value of mass transit. Michigan has some of the busiest freight tacks in the United States, some with 35 trains a day and owners make their money moving freight so transit will always be a minor annoyance to them. Given that, these tracks will rarely provide the kind of high level service that regular daily transit riders require so if the line is to be successful, it MUST BE A DEADICATED TRACK. People gripe about the expense but what is the cost for an underfunded, twice a day, frequently late joke on freight tracks with reconditioned cars that nobody will ride two months after the opening ceremony? There is something wrong with this generation of Michiganders who think this state is unfit for any substantial investment. Prior generations built the Mackinac Bridge (complaining about the economy then) while in Boston they spent $14.6 billion to burry 3.5 miles of freeway! Mass transit construction is all about the FUTURE ECONOMY but we seem to have little faith Michigan is worth the investment. Meanwhile, we pour hundreds of millions into conventional roads with the nations highest load limit, knowing they will crumble and have to be repaved in 10 years or less. even worse, by the way our taxes are collected, matched and allocated, state and federal bureaucrats have all but guaranteed that this appalling waste of money jobs program will continue indefinitely. As planned, this passenger train line will offer insufficient service and fail. Lets junk it now and demand our elderly, snoozing democrat senators in Washington make it Michigans turn to get the $5 billion we need to connect Ann Arbor to Detroit (Ypsilanti, metro airport, Dearborn, etc.) with a real subway type light rail on dedicated tracks Chicago can wait.

murph

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 10:33 a.m.

Ms. Schopbach - you're very right in pointing out that track repairs alone are not enough to get the Chicago - Detroit corridor running reliably at 110 mph. Fortunately, MDOT, Amtrak, and the other players involved understand this, and the track "upgrades" you refer to are not the only changes being proposed. First, keep in mind that we're not talking bullet train speeds here - the midwest high-speed rail network is envisioned as running at about 110mph rather than the TGV speeds of 200-300mph. This may not be quite as glamorous, but it's a goal that's very doable with the existing corridor, and will get riders from Detroit to Chicago in under 4 hours, including stops. As others have pointed out, that's better than you can reasonably do either by car or plane. (The segment of track from Kalamazoo to the Indiana border already runs at this speed, in fact.) You mention the freight traffic as another issue - and the current proposal would address this. The funding just announced would allow for the trackage from Kalamazoo to Dearborn to be acquired from Norfolk-Southern, allowing for priority to be given to passenger rail and avoiding sidetracking delays. Additional double-tracking would also be added to allow for the passing needs that you mention. Work is already underway in Chicago to clear up some of the congestion Michigan's trains encounter. The "Englewood Flyover" currently under construction will separate out the biggest source of delay for Michigan's trains - a rail intersection that serves 150 trains daily. Track control, priority over freight, double-tracking, signal and intersection improvements, track speed upgrades - yes, it's all necessary to get high-speed rail running, and it's all part of the current plan.

Tim Darton

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 10:29 a.m.

It would be better to call this "higher" speed rail because it won't be as fast as European systems but to be that fast they would have to spend billions instead of millions. This is a sound plan, to improve the existing rails instead of building new, put in two track where needed to allow trains to pass and make the Ann Arbor to Chicago trip a sure fire 3 hours. But this work will also make the commuter rail plan work and that is the real bonus. When gas prices go back up commuter rail will be essential. Note that the chamber of commerce is backing the commuter rail. They want their employees to be able to get to work. The UM is going to buy a ticket for any employee who will ride it and leave their car at home. With over 40,000 workers that is a huge incentive that will go a long way to making it work.

murph

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 10:14 a.m.

@mw - that's a good story, but unfortunately untrue. Road are heavily subsidized by the public, not just by the fuel excise tax. Nationally, a study by the Pew Charitable Trusts estimates that so-called user fees (fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, tolls) only pay about 51% of highway funding, with the rest coming from property, sales and income taxes, and other sources: http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/highways/funding/ The local situation is a good example: In Ann Arbor, there's a 2-mil streets millage - and has been for over 25 years. http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/project_management/Pages/StreetMillage.aspx In Ypsilanti, there's about 3 mils to repay bonds used to rebuild local streets about 5 years ago. In the townships, well, the situation is much much worse - you need only look back on this site's archives to find stories of bridge closures, paved roads being turned into gravel, talk of special assessments, and things like "Washtenaw County Road Commission to be 'broke' by end of 2012" - http://www.annarbor.com/news/lima-township-residents-hit-with-multiple-bridge-closures-washtenaw-county-road-commission-officials/ So the story that roads pay for themselves while transit requires subsidies, like I said, is a nice story. In reality, though, all forms of transportation require public support, whether roads, airports, rail, or bus. And with good reason: having a robust transportation system has positive externalities - it benefits even the people who aren't using it directly - by getting people and goods where they need to be to make the economy go.

mw

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 9:55 a.m.

"We already subsidize the highways to a huge degree." No, we don't. We have dedicated fuel taxes to pay for interstate highways. And as the situation in Europe demonstrates, if the current fuel taxes in the U.S. aren't high enough to cover the entire cost, people would pay much higher taxes (and high tolls besides) and STILL continue to drive. (People would complain, undoubtedly, but they wouldn't stop driving -- just as they haven't in Europe where taxes push the price of gas to the $7/gallon range with expensive tolls on top of that) On the other hand, if you added taxes to train tickets enough to even to pay for operation and maintenance (let alone construction), virtually nobody would pay the exorbitant cost of the tickets and ride the train. Highways can be funded by usage taxes, but trains require subsidies. If we had a high-speed rail line between Detroit and Chicago, all the people who could not use the train (basically anybody in Michigan not near the I-94 corridor) would be stuck subsidizing the lucky few who could hop on a high-speed train in Ann Arbor and be whisked to downtown Chicago for the weekend at a subsidized bargain price.

AnnArBo

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 9:48 a.m.

Very good article about the nonsense on this project; http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/29/why-high-speed-trains-don-t-make-sense.html

UMBirder

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 9:16 a.m.

Whenever possible, I take Amtrak to Chicago (from Ann Arbor). It is much more convenient than flying and it drops you off in the center of the city - not way out on the edge. Even with the slow train it is more convenient than flying and with a fast train it would be even better. For regional travel fast trains make a lot of sense. We already subsidize the highways to a huge degree. Anyone who has traveled in Europe or other countries with excellent rail systems would appreciate the same here.

Technojunkie

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 8:37 a.m.

Rail also only makes sense for dense urban neighborhoods or for supporting the creation thereof. Given the state of the housing market and anti-development attitude of A2 city government I don't see how Michigan would develop the population density necessary to support high-speed rail. Buses make a lot more sense. Totally agree about needing parallel tracks if it's going to be done though. I've never understood why this hasn't been standard practice. I'd be curious to know the cost of parallel 60MPH tracks vs. parallel high-speed tracks and trains?

mw

Sun, Oct 31, 2010 : 8:33 a.m.

Keep in mind a few things when thinking about the French TGV system. First of all, the TGV tracks are a completely separate system. No freight trains are allowed on those tracks -- partly for reasons of weight and partly because having a mix of trains of high and normal speeds would be a big problem. Second, Americans who've only been to Europe as visitors and taken the trains have a mistaken idea that train-travel is how most Europeans get around. Not true. The French (and other European countries) have freeway systems at least as extensive as in the U.S. and the auto traffic is worse than in the U.S. Paris (along with London, Madrid, and Madrid) all have worse traffic than Los Angeles: http://www.thecarconnection.com/marty-blog/1046742_beijing-mexico-city-have-most-painful-commutes-for-drivers Despite the very high gas taxes and high toll rates, Europeans still drive far more than they take trains. The share of auto travel vs train travel has grown in Europe in recent decades just as it has in the U.S., and the reasons are the same -- there, like here, most trips are not being taken from one city center to another and travel between two points outside the city centers is much more efficiently and conveniently done by car. A true high-speed rail system would cost a fortune (comparable to the cost of building the interstate highway system), but if Europe is a guide, when finished it would carry little or no freight, only a small fraction of intercity passenger traffic, and would require large ongoing operational subsidies on top of the enormous construction costs.