High-speed railway could link Mich. cities with Chicago, Midwest
Tweet
The distance from Detroit to Chicago might not seem so far if plans for a high-speed railway linking Midwest cities are approved.
The railway, which would have Chicago as its central hub linking Detroit, St. Louis and Madison, Wisc., is a potential recipient of money from the federal stimulus package, President Barack Obama’s administration announced last week.
The stimulus package allocated $8 billion to high-speed rails, in addition to $5 billion over five years laid out in the 2010 budget. Obama highlighted 10 rail corridors that could receive federal money, including one that serves the route from Detroit to Chicago.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm, along with seven other Midwestern governors, signed a request last week for $3.4 billion to begin updating the tracks.
The first-round grants, which would go toward upgrading and increasing speed on existing tracks, could be announced by the Transportation Department as early as the end of summer, according to The Associated Press.
Existing trains in the United States travel no faster than 80 mph, and building high-speed rails would allow them to travel at about 110 mph, Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said.
“Michigan is especially well situated because we own the tracks from the Indiana border up to Kalamazoo,” Magliari said. “On those tracks, we have been testing speeds of 95 miles per hour.”
Because passenger trains share the tracks with freight trains, the signaling system between trains will have to be improved to diminish delays as passenger trains wait for
freight trains, which can only travel at 45 mph, Magliari said.
Although prices for a high-speed rail have not been determined, Magliari said tickets for faster Amtrak trains tend to be more expensive.
Accounting sophomore Jonathon Dicicco, who is from the metro-Detroit city of Sterling Heights, said he normally drives to Chicago, but if faster trains could cut down the travel time he would reconsider.
“It would be nice to get some time taken off, even if it’s just an hour,” he said. “I think it’s worth it, even with a raised price.”
But MSU economics professor Kenneth Boyer said improving the tracks won’t necessarily be enough to make public transportation a success in Michigan.
For the high-speed rail plan to work, cities along the route must have adequate public transportation, Boyer said.
“Chicago has good public transportation, but Detroit obviously does not,” he said. “Certainly, the outlook for a high-speed rail in Michigan is very dim.”
Still, Boyer said, the United States will need to move toward more rail transportation in upcoming decades.
“We’re going to realize that automobile-based transportation is not ideal for intercity transportation,” he said. “There are going to be too many cars, and we can’t build the amount of roads to accommodate them.”
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
student
(04/21/09 8:11am)Report
Can you say Amtrak? There is already an Amtrak station that connects EL with Chicago and the rest of the major cities in the US.
Thad
(04/21/09 8:17am)Report
In reality this is going to be a huge waste of money. Amtrak looses billions of dollars a year and this will absolutely do the same. So for $8 billion we get a train that goes 115mph instead of 80mph?? And that’s supposed to revolutionize a failed industry? The current Amtrak train from EL to Chicago is a disaster and has very limited ridership. That will not change with a “high speed track”.
This is yet another example of clueless politicians who propose ways to spend our tax dollars on failed projects. What about spending $8 billion and cutting taxes, or just not spend $8 billion so our deficit doesn’t get even huger? What a novel idea.
Adam
(04/21/09 8:30am)Report
Thad, the funds will go toward repairing outdated tracks, improving the signal systems to streamline track sharing, as well as increasing the maximum speed. These things have all hamstrung Amtrak for a number of years, keeping ridership low due to frequent delays and high costs. The additional money might be exactly what the industry needs.
GoingSlow
(04/21/09 9:09am)Report
110 is high-speed rail? Although it’s faster than what we’ve got now, that’s about half the speed of many trains in Europe.
EL to Chicago is about 200 miles. Some of the best trains can travel at 200 mph. Just over one hour to Chicago…now that would be interesting!.
If we’re going to do this, at least do it right…separate tracks for safety and to reduce delays, no crossings at grade, and fence off the tracks. Anything else…I agree with above…a waste of money.
David
(04/21/09 10:17am)Report
Cheaper, faster, or more convenient…trains need to offer at least one of these advantages, while not offsetting it with a disadvantage in one of the others. Trains work in Europe because: auto ownership is much more expensive than in the States; population densities provide for economies of scale; and the rail terminals are either in a desirable destination, or linked into another mass transit system. Even if gas prices go through the roof (remember, Amtrak has to buy fuel on the open market, too), I don’t see rail travel taking hold in the U.S.
Quick question: any posters ever take a train out of Michigan? I did twice—one Windsor-to-Toronto for a pleasure weekend, and one EL-to-Chicago for a wedding. Fun enough…but not enough to make me want to sell my car and buy a season-pass.
Go Public Transportation!
(04/21/09 10:30am)Report
No one considers that when you add up the money that local, state and federal governments spend on road infrastructure, it’s an order of magnitude above what we spend on Amtrak every year. It’s just that people have decided driving wasteful personal vehicles across the country is a God-given right, and that having an efficient public transit system is a liberal boondoggle.
Amtrak not friendly
(04/21/09 12:13pm)Report
Would be nice if Amtrak offered more than juts a 7:30am train to Chicago for a weekend trip. Need to make it more affordable and flexible. Would love to have other options.
student
(04/21/09 2:36pm)Report
It would be better a train from the D to the EL.
JR
(04/21/09 3:49pm)Report
I absolutely agree with GoingSlow… if they’re going to make it much more efficient and faster than the current options, make it competitive with the Euro-rail style transport systems. See, if it’s too expensive or impractical for travelers to use, they won’t use it enough to make it even worth it.
If that train went 200 miles an hour and got from Detroit to Chicago in a little over an hour, or Detroit to Lansing in a half hour… people would use that provided it’s not outrageously expensive. However, if I can drive there in just about the same time and have the convenience of picking my own times, why wouldn’t I just do that. That’s why people drive there.
There needs to be a high-speed train (200mph), with multiple runs per day to make it feasible… then people would leave their cars at home and hop aboard.
Steve
(04/21/09 7:28pm)Report
How about we start with Amtrak actually running on-time then money can be put into developing a new rail system?