• Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson is pitching an intercity high-speed rail network for Michigan
• Benson isn’t saying how she’d pay for it but is optimistic she could avoid tax increases. Skeptics aren’t so sure
• The state is currently studying potential Arbor-Traverse City and Detroit-Lansing-Grand Rapids rail lines

---

Jocelyn Benson wants to be the governor that puts Michigan back on rails.

“A statewide transit and high-speed rail system” is a central part of her plan to modernize Michigan’s infrastructure, Benson told Kalamazoo-area business and government officials in a recent economic development speech. 

“My vision and my hope is to connect communities across our state in a significant way that makes it easier to go from, let’s say, Detroit to Lansing or Detroit to Grand Rapids in less time than it takes to drive,” Benson told Bridge Michigan this week in an interview.

As with any big infrastructure project, the devil is in the details, and the Democratic gubernatorial hopeful is still ironing out her rail plans. Benson, who currently serves as secretary of state, could also face political pushback if she proposes major spending to build out a rail network or subsidize its operation.  

“We need trains about as bad as we need the tax hikes to go with them,” state Rep. Matt Maddock, a Milford Republican who serves on the House budget committee, told Bridge when asked about Benson’s push. 

RELATED: 

• MDOT studying plan for fourth passenger rail route in Michigan 
• Passenger trains returning to Michigan Central station by 2028 
• Grow Michigan’s economy? Many pledges, few plans at forum 

Dreams and plans for new train travel in Michigan have come and gone over the years, but with Amtrak ridership at all-time highs and lifestyle preferences shifting among the young, Benson is betting train service could be a powerful attractant for talent and business alike.

For a state that has long staked its identity and legacy on cars as the focus of transportation policy, Benson is willing to break with the past, arguing a robust intercity rail system could be “transformational for our economy” — while clarifying any plan she finalizes wouldn’t come at the expense of long-sought road funding.

“(Rail transit) can foster key business partnerships between cities. It can boost tourism and intercity travel,” Benson said. She’s casting the proposal as part of a broader economic development agenda that includes expanding regional and rural public transit. 

Benson sees better transportation as a means to reverse the state’s population stagnation and grow the economy. She wants to implement a train system “in a way that expands our workforce base, so that you can start or have a business in Kalamazoo and work in Ann Arbor and travel there easily.”

Advocates for expanded rail travel options note younger generations have consistently reported they want to live in walkable communities with more transportation options.

Michigan has just three passenger rail lines at present and all lead out of the state to Chicago: 

• The Wolverine line from Metro Detroit to Chicago, with stops in cities along the I-94 corridor
• The Blue Water line, stretching from Port Huron through Flint, Lansing, and merging with the Wolverine line at Battle Creek
• The Pere Marquette line, which follows Michigan’s west coast from New Buffalo up to Grand Rapids

Passenger rail service on those routes is run by Amtrak, and it’s not particularly frequent. From Detroit to Chicago, the most popular line, there are often just three daily departures, and tickets often rival the cost of car travel. The other routes see just one passenger train a day.

As she continues to develop her plan, Benson said “everything is on the table” for potential new routes. But she specifically mentioned the possibility of a route between Detroit and Grand Rapids, Michigan’s largest cities, and even mentioned the Upper Peninsula, saying it’s a region “where transit is top of mind for a lot of residents and an exciting thing that people want to see.” 

She views intercity rail as connections around which local transit authorities could expand their services, Benson said. 

Big questions

What “high-speed rail” means can be a little squishy.

“That’s the real question: are we talking true high-speed rail, or just a few more passenger trains?” said Andy Kunz, the president and CEO of the US High Speed Rail Association, an advocacy group. 

Bringing the sleek, 200 mph-plus bullet trains increasingly common in Japan, China and Europe, to Michigan would be a huge lift. Those require their own dedicated track and electrical infrastructure installed — along with getting the land rights for those routes — something that was a years-old headache for California’s Los Angeles-to-San Francisco high-speed rail project.

Between those options and running diesel-powered trains on existing freight lines, “you’re talking billions of dollars in difference,” Kunz said. 

California’s 220-mph high-speed line, as one expensive example, is projected to cost north of $100 billion. 

But Benson isn’t ruling anything out. She said she would “identify the rates that make the most sense,” look “at what tracks have already been laid down across the state, and what’s possible on those existing tracks with regards to building high-speed rail.”

After US rail infrastructure was privatized under President Jimmy Carter, Michigan’s major railways are owned almost exclusively by freight companies. They represent the majority of traffic on those routes, and how frequently and quickly passenger trains can travel along them is limited by freight traffic. The route between Detroit and Grand Rapids, for example, is owned by CSX Transportation, which is part of a duopoly on Eastern US freight lines. 

Electrifying rail would also be needed to squeeze the most speed out of existing railways. Similar rail electrification projects in the US have cost as much as $40 million per mile — California’s Bay Area CalTrain project — but elsewhere in the world it has been as low as $10 million per mile, Goldwyn said.

Diesel-powered trains would be significantly slower, perhaps 130 mph, but would keep costs down. 

“Most politicians default to the easier one,” Kunz said, “because it’s something you can actually do in a few years, whereas (true) high speed, you’re looking at from the time you get the idea to the time you have trains running — minimum 10 years.”

What it’ll take

The biggest hurdle to any train project may be political will. 

A century ago, Michigan’s south Lower Peninsula had a robust system of electrified streetcars that connected the region, which was largely removed with the advent of the automobile. Regional frictions and resistance to tax increases have killed ambitious transit projects in the years that followed.

Since 2009, momentum has been slowly building for a north-south rail line between Ann Arbor and Traverse City. The state Department of Transportation is also studying the feasibility of a Detroit-Lansing-Grand Rapids passenger line. And while the state Legislature has provided funding for the studies, there’s nothing lined up to pay for them if they’re seen as good prospects.

Opponents of more passenger trains simply turn to California’s pricey projects when criticizing any plans to expand train service in Michigan.

The potential Ann Arbor-Traverse City route “is a $4.6 billion boondoggle that leftists will turn into a $10+ billion scam just like they did in California,” Maddock, Republican state lawmaker, said in a social media post. 

Critics argue taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund a service they may not use, and that construction is far too expensive for the benefits it confers.

But high-speed rail has also proven popular in some Republican-led states. In Texas, planning is underway for a bullet train between Houston and Dallas. In Florida, the Brightline intercity rail train between Miami and Orlando travels as fast as 125 mph with a diesel-powered engine, and ridership surpassed 3.1 million last year. 

Brightline is both privately owned and operated, and expansions have been proposed.

“High-speed lines tend to be profitable at the operating level,” said Eric Goldwyn, an assistant professor at New York University and member of the school’s Transit Costs Project. “The capital costs (to build out the lines) are not. You have to put up a bunch of money, and recouping that money is difficult.”

Still, Benson argued she could craft a state rail system without having to necessarily raise taxes. 

“I’ve seen public-private partnerships as critical or even international or multi-state funding partnerships to help us achieve what is needed to build this,” she said. 

“To me, this is about an investment in business, in tourism and job creation in our future, it will ultimately generate more revenue on all of those fronts.”

Michigan lawmakers formed a bipartisan public transit caucus in 2025. It currently boasts more than 50 lawmakers, and last year’s state budget included record funding for local transit agencies, who have seen ridership fall in recent years. 

“Those things are technically feasible and possible, and we are beginning that work now to make sure it’s implementable during… what I hope would be Gov. Benson’s term in office,” said Rep. Jason Morgan, an Ann Arbor Democrat who chairs the caucus. 

Morgan has endorsed Benson, who is competing with Genesee County Sheriff Chris Swanson for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination and the chance to take on the winner of a crowded GOP primary. He said they’ve also spoken about a potential funding increase for local buses. 

With frequent enough train service, Morgan said, “you essentially have the opportunity to create commuter rail,” not just between major cities, but “ all those communities in between.”

Benson is framing the argument by connecting transit access to other issues.

“If you can’t afford car insurance, and if you don’t have a car, you can’t afford to have one in Michigan — good luck getting work, to the doctor’s office, to child care,” she said. “That isolation that other states have figured out how to build around is something that we have a responsibility to address as well.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com