Ford Considers Buying Detroit's Central Station

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

printman2000

Engineer
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
3,785
Location
Amarillo, Texas
According to this report, Ford is pursuing a deal to purchase the abandoned Michigan's Central Station. Located just outside downtown Detroit, the massive transit station has sat empty for about 30 years and recently became a symbol representing a decaying Detroit.

Crain’s is reporting that the deal between Ford and the current owner, the Moroun family, could be announced as soon as next month.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/20/ford-could-change-detroit-by-buying-its-defunct-train-station/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Excellent News! Perhaps well see Trains using this Faded Jewel again someday!

Update: I agree about the slim and none chances of Amtrak returning, and also about Buffalo Central, but one can dream!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Maroun family owns the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor. They have fought to protect their interests for years. If there was anything in this that could result in Detroit-Windsor passenger rail coming it would likely be tied to something that guaranteed them a piece of the action.
 
If Ford is putting up the money to restore that old white elephant, then perhaps Amtrak will return to Michigan Central. However, it will still be wildly oversized for today's passenger trains. Restoring direct service between Detroit and Toronto will require a lot of work since VIA's line to Windsor comes nowhere close to the CP's route through the Detroit River tunnel.
 
Outside of restoration and reuse, I would not get too excited about Ford Motor Company buying Michigan Station and seeing Amtrak return service there. There are key reasons why. An automotive companies management would not be for improving passenger rail. They make a product that directly competes with that form of transportation. Even if Ford buys the building, they will use it exclusively for their own business. Look what happened in Omaha with Burlington Station. A television news channel purchased, restored it and uses it for their own use. It sits right near the tracks (I believe that the platform is still there) but there is no incentive for the TV news channel to dedicate even a small part of the building as a passenger station. Omaha once had 5 railroad stations. Three still remain but unused by passenger rail. Now all they have is an Amshack building! If you consider the number of trains per day that Amtrak runs in the midwest, there is neither the volume or the passenger load to support a large passenger station in most big cities. I wish that this wasn't the case but it is..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if Ford does indeed restore it, and even if they were willing to make an "accommodation" for Amtrak trains...the question is: Would Amtrak be willing to move back in?

How would it impact current Amtrak train service in the area? It is my understanding that the station is now "off-route", especially since the trains go on to Pontiac...

I think a more likely return to a former station would be if the Buffalo Central Terminal received a renovation, since it sits on both the Niagara Falls and Cleveland routes, and is closer to the city than is the current Depew station.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is big. Very big.

Crain's has a great article, as well:

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20180319/news/655651/sources-ford-pursues-deal-to-buy-redevelop-michigan-central-station

Some things to take away from this news:

- Ford recently purchased the nearby Factory to house 200 employees. This would be a nice extension of that campus, so to speak.

- Ford recognizes that young people like 1) an urban feel, 2) big cities, and 3) public transportation. From the article: "Steudle [director of MDOT] said he's receptive to ... connecting the old train station to the central business district in the same way the QLine streetcar system connects the New Center area with downtown." If they can connect the station to the Q-Line, and/or offer a dedicated express shuttle bus route (similar to the shuttles in the Bay Area), they're golden. If they want to attract recent college graduates, purchasing this building is a great way to do it.

- Ford can get a whopping amount of tax incentives/credits if they purchase and renovate the station.

One thing that I would love:

If Ford occupies MCS and puts their name on the building, the skyline will feature the Renaissance Center (General Motors) on one end and Ford/MCS on the other, similar to the way the Sears Tower and the Hancock Building form "bookends" on each end of Chicago's skyline.

Having those names featured in the skyline, in prominent positions... Detroit will really, truly look like "The Motor City" again.
default_wub.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
- Ford recognizes that young people like 1) an urban feel, 2) big cities, and 3) public transportation. From the article: "Steudle [director of MDOT] said he's receptive to ... connecting the old train station to the central business district in the same way the QLine streetcar system connects the New Center area with downtown." If they can connect the station to the Q-Line, and/or offer a dedicated express shuttle bus route (similar to the shuttles in the Bay Area), they're golden. If they want to attract recent college graduates, purchasing this building is a great way to do it.
An express bus route (doubling up the current DDOT service) connecting Downtown, the Michigan Central Station, the nearby factory (although I can't seem to find exactly where its at) that then goes out to Ford's Campus in Dearborn would seem a natural fit and probably quicker to implement.

One thing that I would love:

If Ford occupies MCS and puts their name on the building, the skyline will feature the Renaissance Center (General Motors) on one end and Ford/MCS on the other, similar to the way the Sears Tower and the Hancock Building form "bookends" on each end of Chicago's skyline.

Having those names featured in the skyline, in prominent positions... Detroit will really, truly look like "The Motor City" again.
default_wub.png
As a displaced SE Michigander, that would be great to see!
 
An express bus route (doubling up the current DDOT service) connecting Downtown, the Michigan Central Station, the nearby factory (although I can't seem to find exactly where its at) that then goes out to Ford's Campus in Dearborn would seem a natural fit and probably quicker to implement.
Exactly. Not having to commute (especially in the winter) could be a huge draw for people. There are many nice suburbs within a few miles of Dearborn.

Here's a link to The Factory:

http://factorycorktown.com/

It's only a few blocks from MCS, near the intersection of Michigan and Rosa Parks.
 
What if the lost commuter rail service to Detroit becomes a reality. MCS could become an anchor and Ford would have their employees able to commute in by rail. Far fetched probably but 30 years ago who would have thought SO CAL train service would become so popular ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
similar to the way the Sears Tower and the Hancock Building form "bookends" on each end of Chicago's skyline.
The what and the what? *grin* Oh, you mean the Willis Tower and 875 North Michigan Avenue?

Snark aside (and I still catch myself saying Marshall Fields for Macy's on State Street), that is good news.
 
Ford is in an invidious financial position and a bad competitive position. I hope this bodes well, but don't be surprised if Ford starts halfway in on the project and then runs out of money or decides they can't afford to finish it.
 
" - Ford recognizes that young people like 1) an urban feel, 2) big cities, and 3) public transportation."

Sarah Z.

Do young people care as much about public transportation now that Uber is a thing? When I lived on Capital Hill in DC, Metro made a huge difference in how I lived. Now with Uber, if I moved back I don't think Metro would be a factor at all. I am not saying that quote is wrong, I just am not sure than #3 is as important today as it would have been 5 years ago.
 
" - Ford recognizes that young people like 1) an urban feel, 2) big cities, and 3) public transportation."

Sarah Z.

Do young people care as much about public transportation now that Uber is a thing? When I lived on Capital Hill in DC, Metro made a huge difference in how I lived. Now with Uber, if I moved back I don't think Metro would be a factor at all. I am not saying that quote is wrong, I just am not sure than #3 is as important today as it would have been 5 years ago.
Uber/Lyft and public transit serve different classes and needs of young people. For someone who is low income and/or a commuter, public transit beats rideshare services in cost per mile every time. For someone who is higher income and/or a vacationer, rideshare services may be more attractive. It seems that in this case, the former is applicable.
It also comes down to whether an area is served by public transit or not. For this young twenty-something, public transit, walking, or biking will be the mode unless Lyft is the only option.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, while apartments and houses in Detroit are still quite affordable, the cost of car insurance is prohibitive.
 
That makes sense. Uber seems inexpensive to me now, but when I was in my 20's I might have been singing a different tune on what is affordable.

" - Ford recognizes that young people like 1) an urban feel, 2) big cities, and 3) public transportation."
Sarah Z.

Do young people care as much about public transportation now that Uber is a thing? When I lived on Capital Hill in DC, Metro made a huge difference in how I lived. Now with Uber, if I moved back I don't think Metro would be a factor at all. I am not saying that quote is wrong, I just am not sure than #3 is as important today as it would have been 5 years ago.
Uber/Lyft and public transit serve different classes and needs of young people. For someone who is low income and/or a commuter, public transit beats rideshare services in cost per mile every time. For someone who is higher income and/or a vacationer, rideshare services may be more attractive. It seems that in this case, the former is applicable.

It also comes down to whether an area is served by public transit or not. For this young twenty-something, public transit, walking, or biking will be the mode unless Lyft is the only option.


Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
As a millenial who loves urban living, I take Uber and Lyft rarely. I don't want to own a car, but of course I do want/need mobility. Without a car, taking a daily Uber or Lyft would really add up. Combine that with the fact that the ethics of these companies are questionable and that San Francisco has actually found Uber and Lyft have added to the congestion on city streets means I don't really like supporting them more than necessary. Cities shouldn't be designing themselves around the idea that these venture capital fueled money losers are more than just a piece of the urban mobility puzzle. (Should I tell you how I really feel?
default_wink.png
)

Instead, I much prefer having a comprehensive public transit system along with infrastructure that is designed with pedestrian & bikes in mind. Add to this inexpensive additions like bike sharing, one way scooter rentals, one way car shares, along with taxis/rideshares, and the city starts to become a nice place to live pretty quickly. Living a 20 minute bike ride down a protected bike lane to work makes my commute easy, less stressful, and consistent. It also is better for the environment and makes me generally healthier. In addition to giving people mobility, people also want to have housing close to where they work and play. Having dense housing near offices, public transit, restaurants and shops is really a key reason cities have become so attractive. You can only add so many lanes roads, and wide roads don't equal less congestion or "healthier" cities.

I love seeing places like Detroit and companies like Ford embracing more than just the suburbs. Detroit could become a really great, urban city again (not to say it isn't) and Ford occupying the historic Central Station could be a part of that revitalization.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a millenial who loves urban living, I take Uber and Lyft rarely. I don't want to own a car, but of course I do want/need mobility. Without a car, taking a daily Uber or Lyft would really add up. Combine that with the fact that the ethics of these companies are questionable and that San Francisco has actually found Uber and Lyft have added to the congestion on city streets means I don't really like supporting them more than necessary. Cities shouldn't be designing themselves around the idea that these venture capital fueled money losers are more than just a piece of the urban mobility puzzle. (Should I tell you how I really feel?
default_wink.png
)

Instead, I much prefer having a comprehensive public transit system along with infrastructure that is designed with pedestrian & bikes in mind. Add to this inexpensive additions like bike sharing, one way scooter rentals, one way car shares, along with taxis/rideshares, and the city starts to become a nice place to live pretty quickly. Living a 20 minute bike ride down a protected bike lane to work makes my commute easy, less stressful, and consistent. It also is better for the environment and makes me generally healthier. In addition to giving people mobility, people also want to have housing close to where they work and play. Having dense housing near offices, public transit, restaurants and shops is really a key reason cities have become so attractive. You can only add so many lanes roads, and wide roads don't equal less congestion or "healthier" cities.

I love seeing places like Detroit and companies like Ford embracing more than just the suburbs. Detroit could become a really great, urban city again (not to say it isn't) and Ford occupying the historic Central Station could be a part of that revitalization.
As a fellow urban millennial, I agree with you word for word.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
DesertFlyer summed it up nicely.

What I read more and more isn't so much that millennials prefer public transportation but that they don't want to own a car. I think that line of thinking turns into a statement like "millennials prefer public transit".
 
DesertFlyer summed it up nicely.

What I read more and more isn't so much that millennials prefer public transportation but that they don't want to own a car. I think that line of thinking turns into a statement like "millennials prefer public transit".
Thank you for that clarification.
Based on our thoughts, I offer a hypothesis welcome to be critiqued:

Many millennials prefer not to own a car, which tends to result in frequent usage of public transit (more likely in commuter or lower income cases), bicycles (more likely in commuter cases), and rideshare services (more likely in leisure or higher income cases). Preference against vehicle ownership is the attitude causing these behaviors.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
Back
Top