(The following story by Chris Christoff appeared on the Detroit Free Press website on September 20, 2009.)
DETROIT, Mich. — Fikre and Lakisha Prince of Detroit chose to take a train for their Chicago getaway — their first train trip.
At $58 each round-trip, they saw a bargain and a little adventure last week.
“I’ve flown all my life,” said Fikre Prince, 29, as they waited for the noon train at the Amtrak station in Dearborn. “This is a new experience. Just for the romance of it.”
The romance of train travel isn’t part of Michigan’s collective psyche, not in a state where the automobile dominates.
But with a new president on their side, passenger rail advocates hope for a breakthrough, with a good dose of federal money. Michigan is elbowing with other states for part of $8 billion Washington is dangling to upgrade passenger train service around the United States. The state wants $830 million as its part of a Midwest high-speed rail plan.
Whether that money would be well spent is debatable. A General Accounting Office study found that passenger rail projects around the world typically cost 45% more than original price tags, and they often overestimate the number of riders they’ll get. A Senate committee last week blocked any high-speed rail construction grants until the Transportation Department develops standards that show the projects work.
Even if they can, don’t expect to see U.S. trains crisscrossing the country at 220 m.p.h., like those in Japan.
Top speed of the modern diesel trains would be 110 m.p.h.
Still, it’s faster than Amtrak’s current top speed of 80 m.p.h. in Michigan (except for a faster 20-mile stretch in west Michigan).
But a 110-m.p.h. train is not a game-changer, said Eric Morris, a transportation researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, and expert on high-speed rail.
“You would see an improvement in the number of riders, if fares didn’t rise too much,” he said. “I don’t see it as a terrific improvement in mobility.”
Morris said increased diesel rail travel would have a modest environmental benefit, from fewer cars on the road. But he added, “Why should taxpayers in Michigan, who will never use this service, pay for a better, faster ride for businessmen who need to travel to Chicago?”
The Midwest high-speed rail plan would increase from three to as many as 10 the number of daily, round-trip Amtrak trains between Detroit and Chicago. There also would be six Chicago runs daily to Port Huron and to Grand Rapids.
Richard Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, said better, faster service will encourage more passengers between Michigan cities, not just to Chicago.
In 2008, there were 724,658 passenger trips between Chicago, Detroit, Grand Rapids and Port Huron (including cities in between). Of those, 474,475 were between Detroit and Chicago, according to the Michigan Department of Transportation.
Some of the $830 million for Michigan would pay for laying new track to allow faster Amtrak trains to pass freight trains.
Tim Hoeffner, MDOT’s high-speed rail administrator, said eliminating delays and raising the top speed would make a difference. A trip from Detroit to Chicago would take four hours instead of nearly six.
“With trains, it’s not how fast you can go, it’s how little you go slow,” Hoeffner said.
Hoeffner said giving riders more departure times, with few delays, would make rail service more attractive. However, Amtrak tickets would cost as much as 50% more.
Keeping prices as low as possible is important to increasing ridership, said Anthony Perl, director of urban studies and a transportation scholar at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, British Columbia.
“If gas costs $5 a gallon, and interstates are falling apart because there’s not enough money to maintain them, the train might start to look like a good alternative,” Perl said.
Train riders want fast, cheap, hassle-free trips
Twenty laid-back travelers waited at Dearborn’s Amtrak station last week for the noon train to Chicago.
Some were veterans who would appreciate a faster train. Some were first-timers.
“I just wanted to see what it was like,” said Bob Rejefski, 65, of Allen Park, a GM retiree taking his first train ride to spend a couple of days in Chicago.
Rejefski had heard horror stories from a coworker who once endured eight hours on an Amtrak train to reach Chicago because of delays by freight trains. The normal time from Dearborn is five hours.
But he said the $58 round-trip ticket was a good deal.
The state is seeking an $830-million chunk of federal money to upgrade Amtrak’s Michigan lines to Chicago. It would allow faster trains — up to 110 m.p.h. — and eventually set as many as 10 daily round trips between Chicago and Detroit. There are now three.
“It would be nicer if it was a little faster,” said Marsha Linart, 45, of Grosse Ile, a first-time train traveler headed to Chicago for a seminar.
She said she’d like more departure time options.
“It’s easier than driving; I get to relax. A plane cost $100 more,” Linart said.
Carrie Okma, 28, of Ferndale commutes by Amtrak once a month to Chicago. She is an engineering consultant for a Chicago firm designing batteries for electric cars.
“It’s much less hassle than flying. The train is more spacious, I can work on it,” Okma said, adding, “I’ve almost never been on an Amtrak train that’s arrived on time.”
This day, the train arrived on time in Dearborn.
Mattie Thomas, 65, of Detroit, said she loves the train ride to Chicago and has done it a dozen times. She said she’d pay more for faster, more frequent trains.
“A lot of people don’t ride the train because it takes so long to get from one place to another,” Thomas said. “Once you get them there sooner and faster, sure, they’ll go.
“You get what you pay for.”