Are higher-speed trains between Chicago and Detroit economically feasible?
A common refrain heard among people in Michigan is that trains are uneconomic and a sinkhole of costs and no profit. The facts are more nuanced. Some commuter trains firms are profitable and some are loss making. In many countries, railroads are a "for profit" activity. People forget that all railroads in the U.S. were built with private risk capital. The Japanese high speed rail system (they started building it in 1962 when "Made In Japan" was a byword for cheap plastic crap) was privatized and that company was sold for $90 billion to private investors.
What most people don't realize is that the Detroit to Chicago "higher speed" rail line, now fully funded, once in service in 2015 or 2016 will be a very profitable business earning tens of millions of dollars a year in profit based on the most recent (very reasonable) feasibility study available. Delta and Southwest earn substantial profits on their Detroit to Chicago air shuttle service and this will be a cheaper and faster way to get to Chicago.
A look inside the double-decker railcar is toured by visitors at the 2013 Ann Arbor MAyor's Green Fair.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The revenue improvement is also realistic because higher speed trains will shift business travelers like me from planes to trains. By the time I drive to the airport and park, go through security and wait, I've blown 90 minutes and on the other end 30-90 minutes depending upon which airport, where I am actually going and if it is rush hour or not. The elapsed time taxiing and flying is about 60 minutes, so 3 hours to 4 hours. Including the parking fees ($10 or $20 a day, but add 15 minutes to the trip if you use the $10 lot), car mileage ($25), taxi ($30) or mass transit costs ($3) on the other end and the plane ticket itself ($265 to $800 depending upon how far in advance you buy your ticket and which airline you use), air travel costs ($303 to $875) a lot more than the projected round-trip price of $90-$120. What's the advantage in air travel then?
The key is that the higher speed rail has to be reliable and on-time +90% of the time, like the best airlines are. Then passengers would migrate en mass and adding more train cars to an already moving train is cheap, so the extra marginal revenue from those passengers will be very, very profitable.
If it was a stock, I'd be buying it. However due to a federal law called PRIIA, the current $17 million annual loss on the line for the next two years until the higher speed trains run and the service turns profitable must be borne by the state of Michigan and the state legislature is balking at funding it. Maybe the governor should do an initial public offering to raise the money?! If he raised $50 mm privatizing the ownership of the operating route in Michigan in an IPO and in 2015 it earned $18 mm, it would be a great investment! In other words an entity that owns the land hires Amtrak to operate the higher speed rail line and pays any deficits and gets to keep any operating profit. It would still be branded Amtrak.
It's not possible without legislation at the state and federal level, but my reason for raising it is as a thought exercise to show that it is a profitable business and a wise investment for the state to make. This profitable rail business could then fund the start-up costs of commuter shuttle trains.
If the Canadians build out a similar service to Toronto from Detroit, as Governor Snyder is currently trying to do, the economics get better again. This would further improve ridership and the profitability of the "higher speed" rail line. Over time, we can funnel the profits from running this 110 mile per hour service into true high speed rail with speeds of 250 m.p.h. Then you would be able to go from downtown Ann Arbor to Chicago or Toronto in one hour and fifteen minutes or to downtown Detroit in under 15 minutes.
(Stephen Lange Ranzini is president of University Bank and resident of downtown AnnArbor. He's also an occasional columnist on AnnArbor.com.)
Comments
Andrew Smith
Tue, Jul 2, 2013 : 1:03 a.m.
It's relatively easy to make a profit moving freight on rails. It's more difficult to make a profit moving passengers by rail - difficult, but worth doing. Passenger traffic on rail is more likely to be profitable when passenger lines "piggyback" on infrastructure (rails and depots) funded by freight traffic. So one important early step is to encourage more freight on rail - which is incidentally "green," because it's more fuel efficient. To stimulate freight on rail, all we have to do is stop subsidizing the long-distance trucking industry; currently such trucking is subsidized by the the fact that we build our freeways (with taxpayer dollars) to truck specifications instead of passenger car specifications.
Scotticus326
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 5:20 p.m.
The comparisons here between HSR and air travel, while perhaps apt, are not the only comparisons that need to be made. The vast majority of traffic today between Detroit and Chicago travels by road. If HSR were to be introduced in this corridor, with a ticket cost significantly lower than air travel, HSR is likely to attract a disproportionately-greater number of road travelers (or stimulate entirely new travelers in the market) than steal from air travel. Certainly, some flyers will hit the rails... but in order to "prove" the economics, I think the true measure ought to be whether or not HSR is more efficient than driving (or shared-ride services such as MegaBus or Greyhound). In the dense Northeast Corridor, where driving is synonymous with gridlock -- and many urban dwellers do not own vehicles at all -- the dynamic is very different. But, given the high percentage of personal vehicle ownership in the Midwest (and SEM in particular), and that "traffic" is non-existent between Detroit and Chicago until the Skyway, driving remains a very viable alternative to ANY form of commercial transportation in this market.
Left is Right
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 3:10 a.m.
FYI, Amtrak can already run at 110 on its own tracks between Kazoo and Porter IN (but has not on any of my trips).
Left is Right
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 3:03 a.m.
Air travel from here to the loop is pretty much a loser now. Although I can get there faster by car, I prefer even now to take the train since it's spacious and I can get some work done. The big issues are limited number of trains and the reliability of the service. Poor track conditions. Sidetracked for freight priority. Inter-railroad disputes. On a recent trip back to AA, we were forced to travel no faster than 25 mph from west of Jackson to AA because of a dispute between Norfolk-Southern and Amtrak regarding federal funds for transportation. A 3h15m train? Maybe I'll live in AA and commute to Chicago or vice-versa. I agree that this could be a significant money-maker. Also from here to Toronto and to Detroit.
Bob W
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 4:50 p.m.
On other item. If we are to attempt to make anything work in terms of rail, long distance or otherwise, Congress needs to amend the Highway Transportation funding such that it can no longer be used for expanding the current highway network either by adding new routes, extending existing routes or adding new lanes, maintenance of the existing highway infrastructure only. Yet we keep adding more and of course it will require maintenance down the road and we can't even adequately maintain what we have. Adding more capacity and routes just encourages people to move into rural and suburban areas thereby increasing the dependency on automobiles.
Gerry
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 3:12 p.m.
As a business traveler, I find the train highly advantageous because I can remain productive while riding it. I break out my laptop while waiting at the station, stand up when I hear the whistle, and two minutes later, I am sitting on the train doing productive work. No TSA, no tiny airplane seats, no bumpy ride on 94 that leaves me with motion sickness. Saving the need to take vacation time makes the cost of my ticket inconsequential. On time performance could be better, but there are "civil engineers on the ground" right now addressing that. Thank you for your excellent commentary, Stephen. I always enjoy hearing your innovative solutions to improving Ann Arbor!
Usual Suspect
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 12:56 p.m.
I have always contended that RELIABLE service between Detroit and Chicago, even at 60MPH, would be profitable. When you compare flight and trains on a route this length, you get pretty much the same door-to-door time span (that is, leaving your home to arriving at your final destination) and you don't have all the logistical hassles of the airport (parking, waiting in lines, getting to third base with the TSA, etc). I am convinces business travelers would use the train if it were reliable, but in it's current form it's just too risky to take the train scheduled to arrive at noon if you have a 3:00pm meeting.
GoNavy
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 11:53 a.m.
We have a high speed corridor between Ann Arbor and Chicago: It's known as I-94. It's well-graded and capable of supporting speeds in excess of 130 mph. We've been working on automated automobiles for years now. "Trains" of cars, linked wirelessly and centrally controlled, are likely to be far more appealing to the populace than strings of iron horses riding on dedicated tracks to fixed points. When the automated car and their passenger arrives at its destination, the car is ready to go as individual transportation...no need to switch modes of transportation at the rail station. There's also the undeniable value of choice: The choice where and when to stop, and the choice when to go or stay. The United States took rail technology almost as close to its zenith as possible. We abandoned it when people decided they'd rather fly long distances and driver shorter ones. It's that simple. Despite the existence of a number of conspiracy books that attempt to convince people that Ford, GM and Chrysler ("The Evil 3") colluded to terminate passenger rail travel in the United States, people continue to vote for the automobile to the tune of 15 million vehicles a year. The U.S. still has the largest rail network in the world (accounting for distance traveled and tonnage hauled). We simply choose to use it for its most productive purpose: freight. Europe, with its vaunted passenger rail system, has relegated freight to the roads. It is inappropriate to include Japan in this discussion, as their rail system serves a population density which exceeds even that of the Northeast Corridor. Pushing rail as one part of an election agenda is fine, and I applaud Mr. Ranzini for catering to voters riding the moonbeam here in Treetown. However, for the rest of us whose understanding of transportation is rooted in the reality of history and its choices, rail is a non-starter.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 5:28 p.m.
@GoNavy: Please excuse my joke about Microsoft designing car engines as light hearted banter about a really old classic joke. If you haven't read it, it's a hoot. See: http://homepage.eircom.net/~nobyrne/ms-cars.htm Seriously though, I have two foundational internet security patents in my own name and can discuss UML and whatever else you'd like to discuss regarding software engineering. About Microsoft I was just making a joke, but I also designed a telematics payment system for one of the Big Three (at their request) so I even know a thing or two about vehicle interface "buses". I've served on national and international ISO IT standards setting committees and even represented the U.S. at a United Nations committee that maintains the XML standard dictionary globally. Among the many IT things I've architected and helped build is the Southeast Michigan Health Information Exchange. Our bank's IT has always been very advanced and among our IT services is the best of breed internet based mortgage servicing operation. Among our firsts was the first internet based system to pay your mortgage from any bank account in the U.S., in 1994. There are many people more expert than I in IT and software engineering, however I do have some good experience to lend perspective on the IT challenges facing your vision of driver-less automated cars.
GoNavy
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 4:03 p.m.
@Ross: I have lived in downtown Chicago - the cab situation is abysmal (having also lived in Manhattan). Never did I require a car more in a big city than when I lived in Chicago. Re: My incorrect assertion regarding highway funding - you are incorrect. Much of the original transcontinental rail system in the US was funded (and subsidized) through bond issuance guarantees and land grants at the federal level. That investment came decades (in some cases, a century) before similar funding at the federal level for the National Highway System. Finally, nobody is suggesting hooking up your '85 Dodge Omni to a high-speed highway system any more than we're suggesting hooking up a 1915 Pullman sleeper to a mag-lev rail system. Please keep to apples vs. apples. @Mr. Ranzini: You discuss tire blowouts as if train derailments don't exist. Furthermore, a mechanical failure at 130 mph (or a similarly high, relative speed) is likely to be catastrophic for any party. In addition, the point of my post was *automated* driving - you won't be doing any work at 130 mph other than reading Bloomberg Magazine. Finally, you should refrain from commenting on how Microsoft and software works until you have a better understanding of what it means to be a software engineer. @Gerry: If you want to talk about Fairies and dreams, let's talk about coughing up a few billion dollars for a limited-use investment in fixed infrastructure funded at the federal and state levels..."LOL". There isn't much more to add in terms of a response here, because your post was missing anything worth responding to.
Gerry
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 3:05 p.m.
Let's leave out cookies for the Just-In-Time-Technology-Fairy, who is going to leave an automated I-94 for capable of 130 mph + under our pillows! We can learn about serious science and engineering by reading Popular Mechanics or watching The Discovery Channel on our IPADs, since the cars will drive themselves. Maybe these cars will be powered by water, just like House Republicans (Zach Wamp, R-TN) have promised us! While you sort that out, I will rest easy in the seat of a comfortable train...
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.
The vision of intelligent highways is certainly intriguing, however there are some technical problems to overcome. First, the typical car has millions of lines of computer code in them and the faster you go the less forgiving the car is when something goes wrong. It reminds me of the old joke about how cars would be if Microsoft made them. The "off" button would be labelled START and your engine would conk out all the time with no warning. The engine would have to be rebooted while moving in traffic (come to think of it I used to drive an Oldsmobile Omega like that when I first got out of college)... Also, I would be scared stiff driving 130 m.p.h. in a car for any length of time on a routine basis because a tire blow out at that speed would certainly be fatal! The scariest part is maybe not even my own tire blowing out, but that driver with one head light driving bald tires just up ahead of me...
Ross
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 1:44 p.m.
I get your point, but our cars are certainly not capable of 130 mph. Maybe 85, but I know my own vehicles prefer to stay under 80.... Rail is a non-starter?!? Some of us prefer to have no car to lug around and have to find parking for (have you ever paid for parking in downtown chicago?). Having bathrooms, a food/drink car, and wifi with a big comfy seat is quite different than having your little honda linked to a train of other cars. Your assertion that people continue to choose the automobile over other modes of travel ignores some critical facts. Among them that the highway system was chosen and funded at the federal level. A similar investment in passenger rail could have us all behaving very differently right now. It is not as simple as consumer choices when the choices have been shaped by decades of selective public policy; it's not a fair fight.
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 11:57 p.m.
Do any of these models take into account a decrease in ridership due to increased TSA security? What is the assumed fare? What portion of the billions in cost are paid by the fare vs. taxpayers?
SonnyDog09
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 12:08 p.m.
How long do you think it will be until the TSA expands to include passenger rail? It is simply a matter of when they will do so.
Basic Bob
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 4:11 a.m.
I would take the train to Chicago just to avoid the TSA. I can take a full-size bottle of shampoo, pocket knife, and a set of hand tools in my carry-on.
GreenMan
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 11:48 p.m.
Anybody who flies regularly to Chicago knows the value of a high-speed rail connection. Anybody who has travelled on high-speed trains knows the comfort and convenience. Civilization requires infrastructure plans that reflects a vision of the future. Thank goodness intellectual leadership survives the attacks of those that struggle to see the value of anything.
LXIX
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 10:47 p.m.
Why is it so necessary to travel to Detroit or Chicago or beyond by train? Global corporate board meetings? Sporting events? Weekend getaway? Specialized Health Care? Family reunion? Gambling? Haute Cuisine? Jazz? Tourista economics? Socialized welfare ($ billions in public monies) to fund what need - exactly? For whom- exactly? How about a country-wide network of high-speed tubes for same-day package delivery instead? Materials supporting micro-businesses running their newer-world-order glocal economy? "...running the fastest train in the training industry..."
John
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 8:21 p.m.
"Then you would be able to go from downtown Ann Arbor to Chicago or Toronto in one hour and fifteen minutes or to downtown Detroit in under 15 minutes." This seems like something that really should have happened long ago. In fact, connecting this kind of line with the Toronto/Montreal/NYC triangle would be even better. These days, flying is such a nightmare, and driving is not much better. I'd rather sit in a passenger car and read for a few hours on a higher speed line than fly for over an hour in a sardine can, or drive a car for over 10+ hours.
Mick52
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 7:42 p.m.
A few items that affect transportation use should be considered. First in regard to France, Japan and other countries with high use of rail, the price of gasoline greatly encourages people to look at alternative transportation. Here is a global listing of world petrol prices: http://www.mytravelcost.com/petrol-prices/ Set the factors, fuel type, measurement and currency to see what gas in those countries would cost in US dollars. In those countries, gas is heavily taxed partly to make people use alternate transportation. In order to make a rail system profitable in the US, we might have to resort to this type of gas pricing and taxation. Also the cost of a rail system is, like gas prices, volatile. No matter what we are told about what it will cost to build it, there can be cost over runs in many areas as California is seeing now for its Bay area to LA high speed train: http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_22929875/california-high-speed-rail-costs-soar-again-this http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2012/07/17/the-bullet-train-fiasco-reminds-us-that-california-is-our-greece/ So in order to make this idea profitable, there has to be high ridership. If gas prices in the US are kept low, which the public seems to want, we will not have the leverage seen globally to make people look to alternative modes of travel. Just because systems work in other countries does not mean it will work here. Japan for example has a profitable system but factors we do not suffer in the US in addition to gas prices 1. Historically low pay reduced auto ownership 2. Heavy tolls on urban expressways 3. Thousands of buses in suburban areas to take you to your final destination 4. Downtown employment is much heavier in Japan Source: http://www.demographia.com/db-htld-rail.htm Will it work? Maybe but it is going to cost a lot comparing it to other globaly systems does not mean success in the US.
Steve Hendel
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 6:47 p.m.
"People forget that all railroads in the U.S. were built with private risk capital. " Yes, and built on land given to them by the federal government; further, the right-of-way included in that "land grant" was so wide that the private RR companies were able to profit handsomely from leasing or selling it to businesses which sprung up along the way.
Bob W
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 4:37 p.m.
There certainly was a good deal of corruption as well as you point out. That could never happen these days though. [wink][wink]
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 11:21 a.m.
A lot of political corruption, too!
Bob W
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 11:15 a.m.
Stephen, we seem to be ignoring the monopolistic practices that followed the early railroad successes that surely contributed to their "profitability."
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 10:59 a.m.
Yes, real estate development profits and railroads have been inextricably linked in the successful business plans from the beginning. I mentioned the Japanese example because it is more modern, but the U.S. land grant railroads are also good examples of the symbiotic relationship between a successful railroad and successful real estate developments alone the rail line improving the economics of both.
Bob W
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 10:33 a.m.
Yup. Read "Railroaded"
Dave
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 6:19 p.m.
This WILL fail until there is a double set of tracks from here to Chicago. A single set of tracks for two way high speed travel with slow freight trains will not work. Sorry. It just won't.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Mon, Jun 24, 2013 : 12:02 a.m.
@Dave: All the current bottlenecks that routinely cause delays are being de-bottlenecked. That is a large part of what the $800 million in ARRA money for the train line infrastructure improvements are being used for. In particular a bottleneck just outside Chicago and another just outside Detroit.
Veracity
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 5:19 p.m.
Stephen, Is your enthusiasm for the high-speed rail service between Detroit and Chicago based upon the article you reference, entitled "Midwest Regional Rail System Executive Report - September 2004" found at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/railplan/docs/railmidwest.pdf? If so, then you must be accepting all of the report's premises and suppositions in order to have success. Many conditions must be met to create a best-case scenario that includes profitability. Since the quoted document is nine years old I wonder what cost figures require updating. For instance, on page 15, the cost for infrastructure improvement along the Detroit-Chicago corridor is listed at $873 million and the cost for equipment is listed as $234 million for a total of $1.1 billion, in 2004. Have cost estimates changed since then? Also, anticipate revenues from passenger ticket fees are noted on page 13 for 2014 and 2025. (Obviously, the document assumed that the high-rail system would be operative in 2014.) However, no explanation at how these dollar figures were determined is provided, including anticipated daily ridership numbers. Estimated one way ticket prices are listed on page 9. Funding the estimated $7.7 billion (in 2002 dollars) capital improvement program, as considered on page 17, is speculated but not defined. Federal support may not be as available or predictable as in previous years. Why do none of these uncertainties temper your ardor for high-speed rail service between Detroit and Chicago?
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 6:32 p.m.
@Veracity: Like it or not the $800 million of capital track and equipment purchases to make the 110 m.p.h. higher speed rail a reality was paid for under ARRA (the Economic Recovery Act). The only question now is whether the work is finished in 2015 or 2016. Or, will we fund the train to Chicago until then?
Rick Stevens
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 4:37 p.m.
Our backwards legislature probably can grasp the economics of a state IPO arrangement but since it might make government action look attractive they'll fight it. That's what we have in our state legislature now - people who value ideology over practical, common sense action. All that really matters, more than the benefit to the state, its citizens, etc. is ideology and that 'government is bad' and they will throw the state under the bus to prevent anyone from seeing that government can make a difference in people's lives. So the GOP legislature will block this sensible solution - just watch.
Vince Caruso
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 3:40 p.m.
Two issues not discussed but of great relevance are the 'C' and 'S' words. The 'C' is Carbon Emissions. Trains can emit up to 90% less carbon per passenger than planes. And planes emit high in the atmosphere which is much more harmful. President Obama is planning to present major carbon emissions reductions executive actions this week. Long overdue. Congress has balked at changes which force him to take this route, to his credit, not waiting any longer for the 'Do Nothing Congress'. Michigan and the US are clearly going to have major life changing effects due to Climate Change in our lifetime if we do nothing, and effects are already happening. In Ann Arbor in 2012 we had a record rainfall that cause major flooding on the south west sided. Larger record breaking rain falls and flooding are now commonplace in Michigan. 500 year rains are getting common. The 'S' is Subsidies. All other forms of travel in the US have huge government (and environmental) subsidies. It has been argued, for the last 60 or so years, trains must pay their own way. Even barge travel has subsidies. It has been shown that the Oil Wars of the last decade will cost the US $3 Trillion dollars. And the oil companies have huge tax breaks while they have record profits. FAA and airport construction/maintenance cost over $20 Billion dollars a year. Subsidies that are clearly rewarding the wrong forms of travel from a Climate Change perspective.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 6:27 p.m.
Actually the most recent estimate of the total cost of the endless Middle East wars is $4-6 trillion. For what benefit?
Nicholas Urfe
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 5:43 p.m.
Diesel soot causes cancer. Ever been in chicago station? I have never experienced so much diesel exhaust in my life. It was horrible.
Ren Farley
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 3:33 p.m.
This is an interesting and informative essay presenting very convincing evidence about the values of higher speed rail on the Detroit to Chicago run. Michigan has consistently been losing population in recent years. With higher speed rail from Niles into downtown Chicago, you can foresee a gradual incorporation of the southwest corner of Michigan into the Chicago metropolitan area with population growth in that area. To keep the facts straight, Amtrak is a private corporation with stockholders. It is not a federal government agency. However, without federal and state government support, it would not survive for long. If there really is a profit to be made in passenger rail in the United States, investors could purchase Amtrak.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 1:27 p.m.
Japan's mountainous terrain makes the cost of building rail multiples of the cost of building rail here. The cost of building a rail line is the most important cost in its feasibility.
Angry Moderate
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 6:18 p.m.
Yeah, the high-speed rail in California has been fast, easy, and cheap to build--just as its supporters promised when they got taxpayers to vote for it.
Rod Johnson
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 2:21 p.m.
Someone's paying passengers? Sign me up!
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 1:56 p.m.
Well of course you need paying passengers above the cost of operation. That is the point of my column.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 1:35 p.m.
actually paying passengers is the most important part.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 1:26 p.m.
The link to the feasibility study is: www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/railplan/docs/railmidwest.pdf
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 2:10 p.m.
thanks for the link. But given its a 2004 study I'm skeptical about the projected profits. According to the Brookings Institute in a March of 2013 release only 3 Amtrak lines in the country turned a profit in 2011 and they were all on the eastern seaboard, where coincidentally area and population most resemble Japan of anywhere in this country. link to Brookings study... http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2013/03/01%20passenger%20rail%20puentes%20tomer/passenger%20rail%20puentes%20tomer.pdf If I went in to your bank to get a loan for a house and brought in my tax return from 2004 my guess is you'd ask for something more recent.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 1:04 p.m.
Steve, you mention a feasibility study that shows this plan "earning tens of millions of dollars a year in profit" yet i don't see a link to the study. You provide a link to the high capacity transit costs in other stories . Also to begin a piece using Japan as a success is problematic. In terms of square miles the entire nation of japan would only be the 6th largest State in America yet in terms of population it nearly matches our top 8 states combined. Also when factoring cost for a plane versus a train its better not to throw in ancillary costs for one but not the other.
Umlud
Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 12:08 a.m.
You wrote, "the fact that Japan is long and narrow only adds to the notion that it is tailor made for trains." I agree. And the two near-contiguous megalopolis areas that stretch from Chicago to Boston to DC is also a long and (due to constraints of water to the north and mountains to the south) also narrow, which should - to extend your logic - add to the notion that it, too, is tailor made for trains. Indeed, you recognize part of this already, because you reference the Eastern seaboard. I'm just suggesting that you could extend that same logic from NYC to Chicago (via Detroit). As for #3, I was trying to answer your point. You mention that you could have a friend drop you off, but - unless your friend works at the airport and you both live in Romulus - it's not likely to be as convenient compared to an Ann Arborite dropping off a fellow Ann Arborite at the train station. The additional costs in time incurred by driving from Ann Arbor to DTW is far different from the cost of driving from one location in Ann Arbor to near the downtown of Ann Arbor (i.e., your calculation didn't account for your friend having to drive back to Ann Arbor). Still, good points. Thanks for the opportunity to explain them further.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 10:44 p.m.
the fact that Japan is long and narrow only adds to the notion that it is tailor made for trains. Your looking at a huge number of people jammed in to a small elongated area which is why trains work so well there. Its why trains work well on the eastern sea board here in America. its why the only 3 Amtrak train lines in America that run a profit are on the eastern sea board. As to number 3, are you arguing my point or making it? I can get dropped off at metro by a friend in 20-25 minutes. If I drove to the train station from my house at packard and Platt, parked in the free parking and legally crosssed the tracks it would take me 15-20 minutes to be inside the train station. I'm not anti train but I would bet everything i have that the Detroit to Chicago line will never make tens of millions of dollars a year in profit.
Umlud
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 10:02 p.m.
A few points on your second and third paragraphs that actually undermine your argument. 1. It is true that Japan is smaller than the five largest US states. However, this is not the useful measurement, since Japan is a very LONG country, where LENGTH is far more important than area. For example, the straight-line distance between Sapporo and Kagoshima (the north and south terminals of the famous Bullet Train) is ~960 miles. This is further than the straight-line distance between Detroit and Oklahoma City. In this sense, Japan is LONGER than any one US state, and is actually more similar to comparison with a REGION of the US than a single state. 2. You are absolutely correct that Japan's population density is higher than the United States'. However, that metric is not a relevant one, since demographic distributions in Japan and the US are so dissimilar. Instead, like above, Japan is quite comparable to the joint-megalopoli of the Great Lakes region and the Northeastern region. Japan has a physical area of ~145,000 sqmi, and the combined GL-NE Megal has a physical area of ~173,000. Furthermore, the population densities are far more comparable (867 ppl/sqmi vs. 523 ppl/sqmi, respectively). The use of the megalopolis (aka "megacity") concept has been used for regional planning for several decades now, and is far more useful a concept when it comes to regional transport than state and county lines. 3. The ancillary costs for a traveler who lives in the city of Ann Arbor to get to the train station could be the cost of gas (if he's getting dropped off by a friend/spouse), $1.25 (if he's paying for AATA fare), or up to ~$20 (if he's getting a cab; I could be wrong here, I've not taken a cab in years). The costs at "the other end" would be the same as listed above. Therefore, the costs could be as low as almost $0.00 (pay back your friend/spouse for gas money) or as high as ~$20 (get a cab).
mgoscottie
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.
Pretty weak retort, point to the author.....
A2comments
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 11:34 a.m.
"A look inside the double-decker railcar is toured" ?? Picture caption I question whether speeds ever approach these levels. Did they in the Northeast with Amtrak? Nope.
Steve
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 11:33 a.m.
I'm generally for anything that starts out privately funded and is made profitable... Look at Tesla, the first successful and profitable electric car company. They paid back their loans, are in the black and its model S sedan labeled "car of the year" by consumer reports. I'm also for private public partnerships... Look at The Michigan Flyer.. A private company provides pleasurable, on time trips from Lansing, A2, to DTW. A great price, wifi, comfy seats, free water... nice... Now, they partnered with the AATA.... If Amtrak or the state wants to make its rail successful, they gotta privatize the thing, or work with a pvt company to make it profitable, .. FIRST... if they don't , because the GOV'T can't do a damn thing right... I think it's set up to fail... because that's just the nature of big bureaucracy... It's one thing to loan a pvt company a bit of money, but you can't promise it'll be profitable later... it has to be profitable almost right away... I WANT HIGH SPEED RAIL TO SUCCEED... I DON"T CARE about my personal tax dollars, but I care about it succeeding... RAPID RAIL TRANSIT IS IMPORTANT... ALTHOUGH ACELA (supposed fast rail) in the NorthEast may be slightly in the black, people find it sometimes cheaper to fly and find it not worth the efficiencies of the gov't funded rail. Personally, you can take the "ghetto" China-Town Bus from Boston/New York/DC for like 10 or 15 bucks... and often better service than Amtrak.... ACELA business class is Amtrak's only success since ridership has been increasing over the past few years and people find the experience generally positive (as compared to driving on Route 95 - an 8 lane mega highway. I WISH WE COULD FIND A WAY for PVT companies to get in there... IF you can get speeds up to 100-150 MPH, people will choose it over their car... but won't if it only maxes at 60 mph..... Seriously, the privately funded and operated M-1 Rail in Detroit will be up before the state gets i
arborarmy
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 1:16 p.m.
"If Amtrak or the state wants to make its rail successful, they gotta privatize the thing, or work with a pvt company to make it profitable, .. FIRST... if they don't , because the GOV'T can't do a damn thing right" Can we therefore presume you're for the privatizing of the nation's road system? Its airports? Its air traffic control system? Its military? It's law enforcement? Ad infinitum. Of course you are.
1bit
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 11:05 a.m.
Nice article, Stephen. I've done the math on this as well and came to roughly your same conclusions. The transit time calculation from Ann Arbor to Chicago of roughly 3 hours is was makes this viable as it really negates the benefit of air travel. Our legislature is stuck in a mindset that any spending is bad and wasteful. In this regard in particular, they lack the vision, imagination and courage to make the appropriate decision. That's where private investors can help and an IPO might be one way to do it. Alternatively, an easier way may be through the sale of bonds. We are long past due for having a reasonable high speed rail option.
Sue
Sun, Jun 23, 2013 : 10:54 a.m.
Steven, I always enjoy reading your articles. They are well written, easy to follow and of course, I usually agree with them. Thank you for laying out the costs and benefits. As a frequent Chicago-bound traveler, I would LOVE there to be a fast, reliable, ON TIME way to get there. Well done!