II I IIIII III I IIII III III II II IIIII II IIII III III IIIII 3 1293 7753 . 1.1377 .‘ Michigan St, . i: UWW‘Y f ‘ “Elf/55% - .. N0V0123 29m OVERDUE FINES: 25¢perdqyperiten RETUMIMS LIBRARY MATERIALS: P100: in book return to remove charge fro-I circulation records THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT ON TRANSPORTATION ASSEMBLY COSTS IN AGRICULTURE By Jay Dean Tucker A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfiIIment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultura] Economics 1979 ABSTRACT THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT ON TRANSPORTATION ASSEMBLY COSTS IN AGRICULTURE By Jay Dean Tucker The research work entitled "The Economic Impact of Rural Road Development on Transportation Assembly Costs in Agriculture" is designed to address problems in agricultural marketing and rural development which have long been neglected. The adequacy of rural roads to meet current and projected traffic needs is becoming increasingly important to agriculture and rural communities. Although road quality varies sub- stantially, recent reports indicate that more than three-fifths of all U.S. rural arterial and collector (feeder) roads are identified as deficient. Moreover, one-half of the total U.S. rural feeder mileage is deemed unsuitable for sustained heavy truck traffic. Despite these reports, there has been a substantial disinvestment in rural road capital and maintenance programs. When deflated by an index of rural highway construction costs in the last 9 years, combined capital and maintenance expenditures have been cut by more than 30 percent. Recent and potential rail line abandonment decisions, especially in the Midwest, are placing additional stress on the nation's rural road system. This thesis work investigates a localized rural transportation net- work in the State of Michigan. The methodology employed is a linear programming transportation model. With this model an investigation was Jay Dean Tucker conducted into how the commodity flow pattern of grains changed and how aggregate transportation assembly costs were affected when changes oc- curred in the rural transport infrastructure. The major hypothesis to be tested in this research is that improving the rural road network will lead to a significant economic impact upon agriculture and conversely a deterioration of the system will lead to severe economic consequences. In order to test this major premise or hypothesis a major grain producing county in Michigan which had a semi- developed rural road system was chosen for the study area. This county was Lenawee, a southeastern county in Michigan. The initial methodological procedure was to computerize the entire transportation system in Lenawee County. To accomplish this, each inter- section or major breaking point on the road and highway structure was assigned a coordinate point in the X, Y plane. Each section was assigned a number which corresponded to another computer file which contained survey information on the road section type, construction and condition. Based upon safety engineering standards, each segment was assigned a speed of travel. A computer algorithm then traced out the path from each production region to each grain elevator based upon minimizing time 'and distance. An average travel speed was then determined from the distance and time information for each path. Utilizing transport cost data secured from the Interstate Commerce Commission, a schedule of transportation costs based upon the average operating speed was derived. This cost schedule was then used in assign- ing costs to each assembly path. Grain shipments were based upon the l977 production reported by Lenawee County. This production dictated the amount of grain to be Jay Dean Tucker moved over the rural transportation network. The effective capacity of each country elevator and final terminal destination served as the limit- ing constraints in the linear program. Six investment scenarios were investigated in this research. These scenarios were: (l) maintaining the system as it now exists; (2) improv- ing the system so that each earthen, gravel and tar-sprayed road was improved to an asphalt status; (3) no maintenance or construction on the county local roads over a 5 year period; (4) no maintenance or construc- tion on the county local roads over a l0 year period; (5) no maintenance or construction on the county local roads over a l5 year period; and (6) no maintenance or construction on the county local roads over a 20 year period. The empirical analysis showed little support for the major hypothe- sis tested. The total aggregate assembly transportation cost savings from improving the rural road system was $43,820.l0. This was a cost savings of about 2 cents per bushel of grain moved in l977. This cost savings must be compared to $1.7 million which represents the annual resources needed to improve the rural road structure used in this move- ment of grain. When the county local roads are allowed to deteriorate over a 5 year period, the cost to the grain producer is increased by $8,4l2.70 or slightly more than 0.4 cents per bushel. Allowing the local county roads to deteriorate another 5 years produces an added cost of $l9,347.50 to transport costs. This represents approximately 0.9 cents per bushel in additional costs to the grain producer. The analysis indi- cates that at the 10th year of deterioration of the local county roads no further deterioration effect occurs on the transport infrastructure over the 15 and 20 year period. Improvement or deterioration of the Jay Dean Tucker rural road system showed little impact upon optimal commodity flow pat- terns. Total aggregate bushels of grain moved to each country elevator remained the same under each investment scenario. Only minor changes occurred in the movement of grain from producers to country elevators as a result of allowing the county local roads to deteriorate. It appears from this analysis that the rural road infrastructure does not play as important a role in grain production movement as pre- viously thought. It clearly indicates that grain production in this case study alone cannot justify increased investment in the rural road infra- structure. However, this analysis focused only upon one small user of the road system. Before any general policy statements concerning rural road development can be made, assessment of the economic impact upon other users must be made. This general methodological approach can be employed in evaluating the economic benefits of other users of the system. Savings in commuting time or other travel time could be evaluated and added to the cost savings gained through added investment in rural roads. Other benefits, however, are outside of the scope of this model. These benefits would include such cost savings as reduced insurance rates from faster response times by local fire departments, crime prevention as a result of faster response time by local law enforcement agencies, etc. Negative external- ities also occur with the development of the rural road system such as the promotion of urban sprawl, traffic congestion, noise pollution, etc. Dedicated with love to my wife Sara Elizabeth and daughter Ann Elizabeth 11' ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have contributed to the successful completion of this research thesis. Its completion could not have been attained without the support and encouragement of family, faculty and friends. I would like to break with the tradition of recognizing one's wife last and acknowledge first my wife Sara who contributed much to this effort. Without her support and loving encouragement this thesis would never have been finished. To her I owe much and greatly appreciate her patience, understanding and encouragement throughout my doctoral program. To my major advisor and thesis chairman, Dr. Stanley R. Thompson, I owe a special acknowledgment. His constant guidance, constructive criticism and friendship throughout the writing of this thesis is ac- knowledged and appreciated. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Stephen Harsh, Dr. John Hazard and Dr. Alvin House who provided guidance and encouragement as members of my thesis committee. Their continued support and sug- gestions are much appreciated. To Dr. George Dike and Dr. Harold Ecker I express appreciation and acknowledge their support and encouragement throughout the writing of this thesis. Their helpful suggestions and insights into the grain marketing system have contributed to the success of this research. I owe a great debt to the Michigan Department of Transportation for providing the data without which this research could not have been iii accomplished. I especially wish to acknowledge the personnel of the Division of Planning who gave of their time and effort in helping to secure the data base for this research. Those most helpful were Mr. Richard Esch, Mr. Thomas Bordeaux, Ms. Karen Lindsay, Ms. Joyce Newell and Mr. Terry Gotts. I am especially most indebted to the Michigan Agricultural Experi- ment Station who provided financial support for this research. I acknowledge and appreciate the financial resources which they made avail- able to me. The librarians at the Michigan State University Library were especially helpful in directing me to various documents and information contained in the library. I would like to especially acknowledge the help of Ms. Eleanor Boyles whose assistance in the government documents section is much appreciated. To members of my guidance committee, Drs. Shaffer, Allen and Bonnen, I owe a debt for providing direction in my doctoral program. To all the faculty members whom I had in class or had the opportunity to interact with outside the classroom I owe a debt of thanks for the things which they have taught me. I wish to express appreciation to my colleagues and friends at Michigan State University who encouraged me through their friendship. To Ms. Nancy Creed I wish to acknowledge her patience and constant care in typing this research manuscript. Last, but not least by any means, I wish to express my appreciation and love to my parents, Jay and Eldora, for their interest and encourage- ment throughout my academic training. The family environment they iv provided and encouragement and interest they have shown in me have greatly added to the success of this research. To them and my sisters, Joy and Janice, I express my appreciation for their support and encouragement. TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION .......................... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................ LIST OF TABLES ........................ LIST OF FIGURES ........................ CHAPTER I. NTRODUCTION ...................... .l The Problem Setting ................ .2 Research Objectives ................ .3 The Study Area ................... .4 Data Sources .................... l.4.l Descriptive Data .............. l.4.2 Analytical Data ............... l.5 Literature Review ................. l.6 Organizational Framework .............. 1.7 Summary ...................... II. THE EXISTING RURAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IN LENAWEE COUNTY ..................... 2.] Physical Characteristics .............. Legal Systems ................ Surface Type ................ Surface Deterioration Conditions ...... Base Condition ............... Traffic Lanes ................ Surface Width ................ Traffic Sustaining Ability ......... Shoulder Type ................ .l. Shoulder Conditions ............. 2.l.lO Deficient Mileage .............. 2 Service Characteristics .............. 3 Economic Characteristics .............. 4 Summary ...................... E N l N NNNNNNNN .a-a—u—a—aa-a-a LOCDVO‘U‘I-th—I 2 2 2 III. T GRAIN ASSEMBLY MARKETING SYSTEM IN L AWEE COUNTY ..................... 3. Grain Production .................. 3.2 Grain Assembly ................... vi CHAPTER 3.2.1 Wheat .................... 3.2.2 Corn .................... 3.2.3 Soybeans .................. 3.2.4 Oats .................... 3.3 Grain Elevators .................. 3.4 Summary ...................... IV. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURE ........................ 4.1 The Economic Model ................. 4.2 The Mathematical Model ............... 4.3 The Computer Model ................. 4.4 The Analytical Procedure .............. 4.4.l Selection of a Research Area ........ 4.4.2 Location and Volume of Grain Production. . . 4.4.3 Location and Capacity of Grain Elevators . . 4.4.4 Computerization of the Research County . . . 4.4.5 Average Operating Speeds .......... 4.4.6 Grain Transport Costs ............ 4.4.7 Grain Handling Costs ............ 4.4.8 Rural Road Maintenance and Construction Costs .................... 4.4.9 Optimal Commodity Flow and Minimum Aggregate Assembly Cost ........... 4.5 Alternative Solution Models ............ 4.5.1 Investment Scenario I ............ 4.5.2 Investment Scenario II ........... 4.5.3 Investment Scenario III ........... 4.5.4 Investment Scenario IV ........... 4.5.5 Investment Scenario V ............ 4.5.6 Investment Scenario VI ........... 4.6 Feasibility Assumptions .............. 4.7 Summary ...................... ESTIMATION AND PROJECTIONS OF ASSEMBLY COSTS AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND FOR GRAIN IN LENAWEE COUNTY. . . . 5.1 Estimation and Appropriation of Regional Grain Production .................. 5.l.l Selection of the Production Region ..... 5.1.2 Assignment of Production Centroids ..... 5.1.3 Estimation of Regional Grain Production. . . 5.l.4 Appropriation of Regional Grain Production ................. 5.2 Estimation of Grain Assembly Costs ......... 5.2.1 Review of Economic/Engineering Studies . . . 5.2.2 Constituents of Operating Costs ....... 5.2.3 Development of a Modified Cost Structure Study .................... vii Page CHAPTER 5.2.4 Estimation of the Average Operating Speed Cost Schedule ............. 101 5.3 Estimation of Costs Related to Rural Road Maintenance and Construction ............ 104 5.4 Summary ...................... 106 VI. OPTIMAL COMMODITY FLOW AND TRANSPORT EFFICIENCY IN THE GRAIN ASSEMBLY MARKETS IN LENAWEE COUNTY ...... 109 6.1 Investment Scenario I ............... 109 6.2 Investment Scenario II ............... 113 6.3 Investment Scenario III .............. 121 6.4 Investment Scenario IV ............... 126 6.5 Investment Scenario V and VI ............ 131 6.6 Summary ...................... 131 VII. RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS, IMPLICATIONS AND NEEDED RESEARCH ..................... 135 7.1 Impacts and Implications .............. 136 7.1.1 Grain Production Alone Cannot Justify Increased Investment in the Rural Road Infrastructure ............... 136 7.1.2 Improvements and/or Deterioration in the Rural Road Infrastructure has Little or No Effect Upon the Marketing Flow Pattern of Grain .................. 137 7.1.3 Improvements and/or Deterioration in the Rural Road Infrastructure--Impact Upon Producers More Than Local Country Elevators .................. 139 7.1.4 Rural Road Conditions Do Affect the Trans- port Cost Structure of Grain Movement. . . . 140 7.1.5 Grain Transport Routes Will Change to Take Advantage of Improvements in the Rural Road Infrastructure ............. 141 7.1.6 Economies of Scale Exist in the Trans- portation of Grain ............. 142 7.1.7 Standing Operating Procedures Serve as Guides to Expenditures for Rural Road Maintenance and Construction Programs. . . . 143 7.2 Needed Research .................. 144 7.2.1 What Impact Does Energy Prices Have on Rural Road Development? ........... 145 7.2.2 How Do Changing Grain Prices Affect the Utilization of the Transport System? . . . . 145 3 What is the Optimal Transport Structure? . . 146 .4 What is the Optimal Use of the Limited Resources for Transportation Maintenance and Construction on the Rural Road Infrastructure? ............... 148 viii CHAPTER 7.2.5 How Do Improvements and/or Deterioration in the Rural Road Infrastructure Affect Other Activities? .............. 148 7.2.6 What Affect Does Transportation Have on Land Values and Locational Rents? ...... 149 7.2.7 Other Research Questions .......... 149 7.3 Summary ...................... 150 APPENDIX A Michigan Highway Needs ................... 153 APPENDIX B Integrated Computer Map of Lenawee County .......... 154 APPENDIX C Changing Route Patterns as a Result of Changing Road Surface Types ..................... 155 APPENDIX 0 Average Speed of Travel by Road Surface Type ........ 156 APPENDIX E Annual Maintenance Cost Per Mile by Surface Type, Number of Lanes and Functional Class ............ 157 APPENDIX F Construction Cost Per Mile by Surface Type for Constructing a Bituminous Surface Road ........... 161 APPENDIX G Interstate Commerce Commission Table II--Line-Hau1 Costs Adjusted for Effect of Speed ............. 162 APPENDIX H Computer Printout--Existing Rural Road Infrastructure Optimal Linear Programming Solution ............. 163 APPENDIX I Computer Printout-—Developed Rural Road Infrastructure Optimal Linear Programming Solution ............. 165 APPENDIX J Computer Printout--5 Year Deterioration of the Rural Road Infrastructure Optimal Linear Programming Solution ..... 167 APPENDIX K Computer Printout--lO Year Deterioration of the Rural Road Infrastructure Optimal Linear Programming Solution ..... 169 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 171 ix 1-1 2-1 2-2 2—3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 3-2 4-1 5-1 LIST OF TABLES Capital and Maintenance Disbursements for Rural Roads in the United States .............. Road Surface Type by Road Type in Lenawee County, Michigan, 1977 .................... Surface Deterioration Condition by Road Type in Lenawee County, Michigan, 1977 ............ Roadway Base Deterioration Condition by Road Type in Lenawee County, Michigan, 1977 ........ Number of Miles of Traffic Lanes by Road Type in Lenawee County, Michigan, 1977 ........... Deficient Road Mileage by Year and Road Type in Lenawee County, Michigan ............... Average Travel Speed by Road Surface in Lenawee County, Michigan ............... Average Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled by Road Type in Lenawee County, Michigan ........... Construction and Maintenance Disbursements for Rural Roads in Lenawee County, Michigan ........ Real Construction and Maintenance Costs for Rural Roads in Lenawee County, Michigan ........ Agricultural Production, Acres Harvested, Average Yield and Value of Grain in Lenawee County, Michigan, 1977 .................... Country Elevators in Lenawee County, Michigan-- Location, Capacity and Transport Costs to Toledo, Ohio, 1977 ...................... Matrix Format of the Linear Programming Transportation Model ................. Grain Production by Type for Lenawee County and Ridgeway Township, 1977 ................ Page 27 28 32 34 38 41 42 45 47 51 58 69 92 5-2 5-3 6-1 6-2 6-4 6-5 6-7 6-8 1977 Line-Haul Costs Per Vehicle Mile by Average Operating Speed for 2 to 4 Ton Grain Hauling Vehicles ........................ Rural Road Improvement Costs by Road Type, 1977 ..... 1977 Rural Road Network—~Distance and Time Matrix Between Production Units and Country Grain Elevators ........................ 1977 Rural Road Network--Average Travel Speed and Cost Per Bushel for Grain Moved Between Production Units and Country Grain Elevators ............ 1977 Rural Road Network--Annual Optimal Grain Commodity Flow ..................... Rural Roads Identified as Needing Resurfacing to a Bituminous Surface by Road Type and Destination, 1977 .................... 1977 Rural Road Network--Developed System to a Minimum of a Bituminous Surface--Distance and Time Matrix Between Production Units and Country Grain Elevators ........................ 1977 Rural Road Network--Developed System to a Minimum of a Bituminous Surface--Average Travel Speed and Cost Per Bushel of Grain Moved Between Production Units and Country Grain Elevators ............ 1977 Rural Road Network--Developed System to a Minimum of a Bituminous Surface--Annual Optimal Grain Commodity Flow .................. 1982 Rural Road Network--5 Year Deterioration of the County Local Roads--Distance and Time Matrix Between Production Units and Country Grain Elevators . . 1982 Rural Road Network--5 Year Deterioration of the County Local Roads--Average Travel Speed and Cost Per Bushel of Grain Moved Between Production Units and Country Grain Elevators ............... 1982 Rural Road Network--5 Year Deterioration of the County Local Roads--Annua1 Optimal Grain Commodity Flow ..................... xi Page 102 107 111 112 114 116 117 119 120 123 124 125 1987 Rural Road Network--10 Year Deterioration of the County Local Roads-~Distance and Time Matrix Between Production Units and Country Grain Elevators ...... 1987 Rural Road Network--1O Year Deterioration of the County Local Roads--Average Travel Speed and Cost Per Bushel of Grain Moved Between Production Units and Country Grain Elevators ............... 1987 Rural Road Network--1O Year Deterioration of the County Local Roads--Annua1 Optimal Grain Commodity Flow .......................... Empirical Results of the Linear Programming Transportation Model, Commodity Flow, Aggregate Transportation Assembly Cost and Cost Savings ...... xii Page 127 129 130 134 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-1 4-1 4-2 4-3 5-1 7-1 LIST OF FIGURES Components of Bill for Marketing Farm Goods, 1977. . . . Michigan County Boundaries Map ............. General Highway Map of Lenawee County .......... Township Grain Production Region ............ Computerized Road and Highway Map for Lenawee County ......................... Country Grain Elevators for Lenawee County ....... Optimal Solution to the Transportation Linear Programming Problem--Part l ........... Optimal Solution to the Transportation Linear Programming Problem--Part 2 ........... Grain Production Centroids for Ridgeway Township . . . . Per Vehicle Mile Line-Haul Costs by Average Operating Speed for 2 to 4 Ton Grain Hauling Vehicles ........................ Determination of the Optimal Number of Rural Road Mileage ...................... xiii Page 12 13 15 25 56 65 65 73 103 147 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION An important aspect of the agricultural marketing system is the collecting and distributing of commodities and services. Before most goods and services can be utilized by consumers a transportation activ- ity must normally take place. In agricultural production before land can be used it must be accessible and accessibility is a function of the changing technology of transportation and the transport infrastructure.1 This study is designed to investigate one component of this marketing system, the movement of grain between agricultural producers and inter- mediate and final collecting points at grain elevators. The transportation infrastructure influencing grain assembly move- ments in Michigan are rail lines, highways and roads. Michigan has been experiencing a decline, beginning in the 19205, of the total mileage of rail lines serving the state. In 1974 Michigan had 5,963 miles of rail 2 lines. In that same year the state's highway and road system was com- prised of 118,591 miles. The vast majority of this road system (83.2 percent) was made up of rural roads which accounted for 98,675 miles.3 1Infrastructure is a transportation term which refers to the physical attributes of the underlying framework or foundation which facilitates the transport function. 2Michigan State University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan Statistical Abstract, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1978. 3 Ibid. 2 Nonsurfaced rural road mileage accounted for 16,740 mi1es.4 In 1976 rural roads in Michigan had increased slightly to 98,945 miles while non- surfaced rural roads decreased to 15,321 miles.5 Total road system mileage increased to 118,998 miles by 1976.6 The importance to agriculture of the transport system can be seen in the farm output which must be moved to market. In 1977 Michigan farmers harvested and sold 191.3 million bushels of corn, 33.0 million bushels of wheat, 20.9 million bushels of soybeans and 18.7 million bushels of oats.7 In fruit and vegetable production Michigan growers produced 270,000 tons of apples, 81,000 tons of tart cherries, 33,000 tons of grapes, 14,000 tons of prunes and plums, 12 tons of pears, 41,300 tons of snap beans, 63,500 tons of tomatoes, 9,500 tons of asparagus and 114,000 tons of cucumbers for pickles.8 Producers of livestock and poultry slaughtered in 1977: 816,636 thousand pounds of liveweight cattle and 22,109 thousand pounds of liveweight calves along with 909,489 thousand pounds of hogs, 34,836 thousand pounds of sheep and lambs and 29,040 thousand pounds of market turkeys.9 Milk and cream marketed by 10 Michigan dairy farmers in 1977 amounted to 4,761 million pounds. In 1972, the latest figures available, an estimated 96,000 trucks moved 853 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. \IOUT-b Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan Agricultural Statis- tics, June 1978, Lansing, Michigan, 1978. 8 Ibid. 91bid. 1olbid. 3 million truck miles within Michigan to transport the state's farm product.n The importance of transportation to consumers of agricultural pro- ducts can be seen in the proportion of the marketing bill which such services comprise. In relation to expenditures for the marketing of farm products, transportation costs represented 8 percent of the total food marketing bill in 1977.12 As shown in Figure 1-1, transportation was the third most costly component of the food marketing bill behind labor and packaging costs. 1.1 The Problem Setting The adequacy of rural roads to meet current and projected traffic needs is becoming increasingly important to agriculture and rural com- munities. Although road quality varies substantially, recent reports indicate that more than three-fifths of all U.S. rural arterial and collector (feeder) roads are identified as deficient. Moreover, one-half of the total U.S. rural feeder mileage is deemed unsuitable for sustained heavy truck traffic. Despite these reports there has been a substantial disinvestment in rural road capital and maintenance programs. When deflated by an index of rural federal aid highway construction costs during the period 1970-1978 total capital and maintenance disbursements for rural roads have been cut by more than 30 percent (see Table 1-1). In the last 10 years construction costs on roads in Michigan have more than doubled. Inflation has significantly increased the cost of road 1]Michigan State University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, op. cit. leichigan Department of Agriculture, op. cit. COMPONENTS OF BILL FOR MARKETING FARM FOODS, 1977 Corporate Protits° 01'1"“ Transportation“ 7% 8% Business Taxes Interest, Repairs, Etc. Depreciation Packaging /Advertising 3% Rent Labor Costs 47 it °Betore taxes. "Intercity rail and truck. A Residual includes such costs as utilities, fuel, promotion, local tor-hire transportation. SOURCE: Michigan Department of Agriculture FIGURE I-I TABLE l-l. Capital and Maintenance Disbursements for Rural Roads in the United States* Capital Maintenance Year State Local Total State Local Total 1967 Million $a 1970 5,491 748 6,239 1,436 1,264 2,700 1971 5,227 734 5,961 1,444 1,237 2,681 1972 4,882 743 5,625 1,421 1,219 2,640 1973 4,113 732 4,845 1,452 1,233 2,685 1974 3,417 651 4,068 1,386 1,188 2,574 1975 3,957 717 4,674 1,384 1,301 2,685 1976 3,785 683 4,468 1,365 1,265 2,630 1977 3,263 630 3,893 1,416 1,286 2,702 1978 2,900 545 3,445 1,422 1,220 2,642 *Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Outlook, AO-42, Washington, D.C., April 1979. aCurrent dollars were deflated using the price indices for rural federal aid highway construction and maintenance and operation. 6 maintenance programs. Simultaneously, motor vehicle fund revenues have leveled off and not kept pace with inflation. This has been brought about in part because of better fuel economy and lighter weights in automobiles. In 1976 the total combined expenditure of Michigan's County Road Commissions reached $267.1 million. Of this amount, $118.5 million was expended for the construction of roads, bridges, roadside parks, etc. Maintenance expenditures for the county rural road system totaled $122.7 million.13 According to estimates made by the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation, construction costs to eliminate all deficient mileage on the county rural road network in the State of Michigan over the next 12 years will be approximately $10 billion. Of the rural road system currently existing in the State of Michigan, some 36 percent are rated poor and very poor by federal standards. In addition, some 9 percent of the total mileage is rated as fair and notice- ably inferior. According to recent legislative studies, by the year 1986 one-third of the State of Michigan's 116,473 miles of paved roads will need to be resurfaced. In addition, it is estimated that 12,382 miles of paved surface roads are too badly worn for resurfacing and must be rebuilt.M Recent reports published by the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation classified 50,365 miles as inadequate. The county rural road system makes up about 75 percent of Michigan's total road mileage. County rural road inadequate mileage in the state 13Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation, 26th Annual Progress Report for the County Road Commission, Incorporated Cities and Villages of Michigan, ReportTNo.Tl62, Lansing, Michigan, 1978. 14Norris, Carol, Overview: Transportation Package, Michigan House of Representatives, Office of the Speaker, Lansing, Michigan, 1978. — 7 was placed at 38,011 or 75.5 percent of all inadequate mileage. In addition, 1976 estimates place 3,672 bridges in the category of inade- quate. Again, the rural road system accounted for the majority of in- adequate bridges at 2,654 structures.15 Much of Michigan's rural road and bridge system was developed in the early 19005 to meet the traffic needs at that time. However, the capabil— ity of the existing system to accommodate today's increased demands is often inadequate. Many factors have contributed to the present status of the county rural road system in Michigan. The development of the truck and automobile industry in the 19205 and 19305 created a need to surface many of the county rural roads and replace some of the bridges to sustain the gross weights of trucks up to 6 or 7 tons. During the same period, rapid advances were observed in farm productivity through the use of increased mechanization and high yielding inputs. This increased productivity accelerated the deteriora- tion of county rural roads as produce was trucked to market. A recent study indicates that within the next 20 years an increase of over 50 percent is expected in the quantity of grain requiring commercial trans- portation services in Michigan.16 Farm equipment has become increasingly larger as a result of farmer demand and farm consolidation. Disks and row-crop cultivators are up to 54 feet wide. Even though the equipment can be folded to 18 to 20 feet in width, it will not pass through bridges with design widths of 16 to 18 feet. 15Ibid. 16 Thompson, Stanley R., "Transportation Needs for Michigan Grain in 1985 and 2000," Michigan Farm Economics, No. 426, July 1978. 8 Since 1940, Michigan has experienced a 62.1 percent decrease in the 17 The total number of farms and 162.9 percent increase in farm size. increase has brought about the use of substantially larger vehicles. A recent study of rural road and bridge problems in America has indicated it is not uncommon to see tandem-axel trucks with a gross weight of 23 tons using the rural road system.18 The use of the larger farm vehicles to haul grain longer distances has been a competitive response to the availability of low-cost unit trains that are often available at more distant terminal elevators. Recent and potential rail line abandonment decisions are placing additional stress on Michigan's rural road system. The United States Railway Association (USRA) Final System Plan for restructuring the bank- rupt railroads in the Northeast and Midwest lists more than 1,300 miles of railroad in the State of Michigan that were left out of the Final System Plan and ConRail. In addition, some 500 miles of railway are or will soon be under petition for abandonment. If these 1,800 miles of railway were abandoned, a 15 county area of Michigan would be without rail service and many other rural communities would have little rail service. More than half the grain elevators in Michigan are located on light-density lines under abandonment pressure. Abandonment of these lines would require a major adjustment not only in the grain marketing system, but also in the distribution of fertilizer and building supplies. Because of the high degree of substitutability between rail and trucks, rail abandonment will place a substantial added stress on the remainder 17Michigan State University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, op. cit. 18U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Extension Transportation Task Force, The Local Rural Road and Bridge Problem and Alternative Solutions, C. Phillip Baumel. 9 of the state's transportation system, especially the rural road system. Stress on the existing Michigan county rural roads has come about as a result of increasing pressure from an expanding population. The growth of cities and villages have served to increase the traffic flow in rural areas. Interestingly, between 1950 and 1970 rural population in the United States declined a little over 1 percent while Michigan's grew at over 24 percent.19 Estimated 1977 rural population in Michigan stands at 2,970,817, an increase of approximately 60 percent since 1950.20 Continuation of the above trends can result in serious implications for Michigan agriculture and the rural community. As we enter an un- precedented period of rural transportation adjustments, both private and public decision makers, particularly at the state and local levels, are seeking analytical assistance. Hopefully, the results of this research I will enable more effective planning of Michigan's total transportation ‘ system while giving proper recognition to the importance of the rural road component. 1.2 Research Objectives The primary objective of this research is to investigate a localized rural transportation system within the State of Michigan in order to assess the economic impact of improving or developing the rural road 19U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1970, Number of Inhabitants, Michigan, Final Report PC(1)- A-24, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971, Table 9. 20U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Popula- tion Report, Farm Population, Farm Population of the United States: 1977, ‘Advanced Report Series, P 27, No. 50, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1978. lO infrastructure. Previous research efforts such as Riorden2] have sug- gested that transportation costs of hauling grain is a function of the road surface traveled. For a given transport distance the cost of hauling grain is lower on roads with paved surfaces than on earthen or gravel roads. It is the aim of the research to test the hypothesis that improving the rural road network will have a significant economic impact upon agriculture. In evaluating improvements and changes in the rural transportation system attention will be focused upon how it will affect (a) the commodity flow pattern of grains; and (b) aggregate transportation assembly costs of hauling grain. In order to evaluate the major premise of this research, six specif~ ic facilitative objectives must be accomplished. To this end the follow- ing is completed: (1) An inventory and description of the existing rural trans- portation network in Lenawee County. (2) A description of the grain assembly marketing system within the study region. (3) The development of a theoretical framework within which to study the rural transportation network. (4) The estimation of current demand and line-haul costs for grain transportation by production centroid and grain elevator. (5) The implementation of an appropriate programming algorithm to empirically rationalize22 the rural road system. 2IRiorden, E.B., "Spatial Competition and Division of Grain Receipts Between Country Elevators," M.S. Thesis, University of Manitoba, 1965. 22Rationalization as it is used here is meant to theoretically describe the road and highway system and the grain transport movement upon it. ll (6) An evaluation of the economic effects of alternative rural assembly logistical systems on commodity flows and transport efficiency. It is the intention of this research to contribute to a better under— standing of the rural transportation component of grain marketing in agriculture. It is hoped this research will provide insights for more efficient rural transport planning and utilization. 1.3 The Study Area The region which serves as the study area in this research is Lenawee County. Lenawee is a rural county located in southeastern Michigan and is bordered to the south by the State of Ohio, to the west by Hillsdale County, to the north by Jackson and Washtenaw Counties and to the east by Monroe County (see Figure 1—2). Lenawee County, with its county seat located at Adrian, encompasses 753 square miles of area (see Figure 1-3) and has an estimated 1977 population of 85,400. Economically, Lenawee County was chosen for study because of its high grain production, semideveloped rural road system and potential rail line abandonment. Lenawee County ranked first out of the state's 83 counties in 1977 for the production of corn with 12.3 million bushels, first in wheat production with 2.2 million bushels, first in soybean production with 3.7 million bushels and fifth in the production of oats with 0.7 million bushels. In addition, the county is served by five country elevators. According to the Michigan Railroad Plan, 26.4 miles of rail lines in Lenawee County are subject to pending abandonment application. The Wauseon, Ohio to Tecumseh segment of the Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Y) 6 “b 0’ 9% We, 4% cum moo mm “mu «mum at” 1 [MW «.4er 0mm new “I!“ '0 V mu a "scan. mun moo MSW wr: mom mu am new: 1411”" cam mm meow mum mun mam :wuc mm: mram «may :Aanwv "" um uumu ‘ 0mm lam amen mam new. mum T‘w uncut uur um menu 11mm I L “NW3!” . CILNOUI .Mtllafl IVAJIIYINJ' ”A"! 43 #1. as: nm "It!” NINJA“! Ll U I Michigan County Boundaries Map FIGURE 1-2 M0100! 13 @ s. 01.! I- i -' (0" atlas-.\ !. "I. 7! 59,30 .04 5 [‘10 Iv l'. '36.... ’4 ‘1’: 'l.‘ .;u0.|§l- D .l'o’c m3 . .oal’ - c O. 535.... 2.2.5: p.433... '0. Ii.’ 9‘ 23.3! .3... .5 onVuaI-o 5.35:3 33:9... 33m 232.13. 5.2300 wwzfizmi. ad} .5519: Jacuzwo m-_ u¢:o_a xacaou mmzacmA co no: mozgmwz pmcmcwu " ”’3583 O a; as; a an :58 8 1:3 v.3 “a: i >8 1... '4 .53 Ii ‘0}. .029 .‘3 «3 4.05.,” Iii 3 acts...” (5 .|.| srg 5.34 l...| 5.43 E -00! g ‘3 a; 3 92. .33! a! “in. a 3‘ a g 1 1...... in. 4‘ "43'“ 5». Hi. 839‘s iii” 55 .3. 3!: 5. ill '3.» g i AW! 68 I)! it. . l—II Gala 53 If... It“ I! n 3.. Ian 6.. 44...... 51.5! I!“ g in i: .3! 051 r... ”.9- ! oral...- ‘g 353 5! I I. rd: 5.5... In T a”: g 0...... a a.” 3 1" Eu unminfldyuvnflvhfis 0.. o. f a . i6 loll. 7.313 X. s... r... 5 a; 3.3: .53.; 553.! it is «51‘ ~43 I 3w, 9:: air... 3.: 39’ 3!... 3.9.3. «3‘. 3g :3 8 3.8 ‘9‘. n8?! 3.9.1.3.... .{xi 8 1‘3- SEB-a 93.9.0 3 . an! «330: a, 3: .3.‘ 31-3 ' r. .3. ac! cg .numwua III. v! I...- a...» 2‘. lane 50.! 338 IE 3 QE®338 0003 II" 3 i: ii IIII I i a i l4 Railroad, serving Adrian and Tecumseh, filed for abandonment in June 1975. Technical rationale, in addition to economic reasons, existed for choosing this particular county to investigate. Among such factors included geographical configuration and highway planning consideration. The geographical and geological configuration of the land in the study region simplified the framework for empirically rationalizing the county transportation network. In addition, officials of the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation expressed an interest in obtaining information for planning purposes within a group of six counties com- prising two of the state's 14 highway planning districts. Lenawee County was one of these six. By choosing this county it is hoped the research will provide a more integrated and practical result which can be utilized by those officials engaged in and responsible for highway planning. In order to investigate changes in commodity flows and transport costs to agricultural pursuits in grain production and marketing, a smaller production area within Lenawee County was studied. The production area chosen was Ridgeway Township (see Figure l-4), a major producer of grain within Lenawee County. Ridgeway Township is a fertile region of the county, encompassing approximately 26 square miles of land. The road system, being semideveloped, is representative of that found in the county. Since the production region is a subset of the study area, dis- tortions in commodity flows were minimized. 1.4 Data Sources Data which is utilized in this research was obtained or generated from various sources. Both primary and secondary information were made 15 _ . . .. m Jamar“... .3... .u . o . o. . Q. I ' «Jnllola a ‘ii‘ ' V Cw..- - . .. I r .... ‘5 ill. \ z: 09%... .4 3|! ‘0'! ‘ ...-r 3.... I 3'." .3 rm) ¢3m .../.3..qu 53380... OI. 910.. 91. i It; :1... 8 >‘Iptax 83.330» 2.5191 mpg... 24.2.8.1 >PZDOU wmzfizmq ac: >gaxo:z 44xu2uo a .: -\. .0 - .Jt. OICIDIDIo- - SOII’ICIII ... o- ‘ O .. W13~n4. . .... .25.»: u .\. .... ‘.0 III. uh II.‘ II ‘ C on. a": o. n . .. . 1. P . «All a ‘0. - h ...». ¢-— masomu :opmua cowuuauoca =_~Lu n_:mczoh { “ . ...o;’ O . .0 . I 1'! . . a,“ . 'l n *O.. J \ . ‘ to , O o'- 2. ...-wo‘ooof n 0. Q .0: ' . .' i ,0... ‘0... ...3 8‘0 on; 'I I 0 «3g 3.4% . =3 :53 . 4:5 ...:v mad; 3 :5 g 631 ii!) 9.3]... 3.3.. an. 4...?! 8; ..... 3.9.8 I... ... I In ‘1} .6 1 l... 9 'OO'. 5’. r‘ ‘ ‘7' l}!- ‘3‘6: {6 1 «34.2.60 3 9‘. :6...- ...! ll..-" 98 as .5” msa 3:... in. .6. "a ..plu E: u'u 3:333. -. .. . ...8 33.. ll: 8- 1.1... 3.85 g 3; K? ml: 3.65 8:59.. l—II 3.113 was ...-.9. . It" I? a a» 83 v 6‘ a?“ 51!... It... "H .36 S ...-a. :9: "#1 i “av-«N ‘18 2.1.1. .3 o. I. mg $8... ......I .99... 99! its. . as! ’1' 3.! .9.“ l 3. .69 9.1.1.. 6:0. 5:.» 34. waexmrih. fimkuoh..ri . a L . . p {U Ital 3...»: 2.. I... X! ... ”.4. 3:15 a? 54.991. 53.... $3 3.5:: ......a 5 39 was: 59.1. 333: «98.3. .543... toe-3 :33. 23 co. 4.. vi. ”3.34.. 3336.6! 33.3 R. 4.8!. niece! “3‘3;ch 343...! 325: “IS. 3v. 5...! .g' ...b . 3v. ...... a»; .wnnxua 8c. «3" 3 .5: I26... 813 3.‘ it u‘hu.‘ 1:388 335 3 93.3.5. 6.050., (Dad->31: 0003 "ll ill! :2 I : I..I.I.I 363.35. 03 16 use of in this research effort. The major informational needs of this study were satisfied by various governmental units on the federal, state and local levels. In addition to governmental sources, the expertise of faculty members and extension personnel at Michigan State University pro- vided invaluable support in the form of suggestions and facts. A limited amount of the research data was obtained through surveys. l.4.l Descriptive Data Empirical data that was used to describe the existing transportation network within the State of Michigan and the study area, Lenawee County, came primarily from the Michigan Department of State Highways and Trans- portation. This information was the result of integrating two data files, the Michigan Transportation Modeling System Network File and the Michigan Highway Needs File, into one coherent file for the study area. Verifica- tion and additional information was sought from various transportation studies and from officials of the County Road Association of Michigan. Descriptive data relating to grain production within the study area was secured from documents provided by the United States Department of Agri- culture and the Michigan Department of Agriculture. Data relating to grain elevator costs, capacity and operations were obtained through a telephone survey interview with each grain elevator operator in Lenawee County and from information provided by the Michigan Grain and Agri-Dealers Association. Data pertaining to line-haul transport costs as a function of average operating speed was derived from published records of the Inter- state Commerce Commission, Bureau of Accounts. Utilizing this data and information from the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transpor- tation, line-haul costs relating to road surface and type were generated. l7 l.4.2 Analytical Data Data relating to the theoretical and conceptual framework of this research is secured from many sources. In developing the analytical data of this study great reliance was placed upon research by scholars in agricultural economics, engineering, economics and geography. A trans- portation model algorithm available and operational at the Michigan State University Computer Center was utilized in the analytical procedure. l.5 Literature Review Published research results investigating the impacts of rural road development or deterioration on the agricultural community are scarce. The various research efforts which have been undertaken can be classified as either empirical or methodological. Empirical research studies are designed to address a specific problem in relation to rural roads. 0n the other hand, the objective of the methodological research studies is to develop or demonstrate the use of modeling techniques for use on applied problems such as those addressed in this thesis. Highway studies have consistently concluded that few rural roads have a benefit/cost ratio which would exceed a value of l. In 1973 Smith, Wilkinson and Ansche123 concluded that, In some of the more densely populated neighborhoods with rela- tively stable population, a strong case could be made for investments in road improvement to bring them up to all-weather standard. However, in thinly populated communities, or ones in which rapid declines can be expected, such expenditures are not justified on economic grounds. This study intended to support the findings of the Coordinator of 23Smith, Eldon D., J. Keith Wilkinson and Kurt R. Anschel, "Economic Costs and Benefits of Rural Road Improvement in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Fields," Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report l8, University of Kentucky, October l973, p. 24. 18 24 and the National Resources Planning Board (NRPB).25 Transportation The NRPB document concluded that, Of the vast highway mileage in the United States, many thousands of miles of little traveled routes (rural roads) have no legitimate claim for improvement with public funds. Other empirical studies have been designed to measure specific impacts upon the agricultural community. The most common measure of rural road economic impact is to look at the change in the value of rural property as improved roads are provided to link typical locations not served by paved roads. Two such studies which have demonstrated a posi— tive relationship between rural property values and rural road develop- 26 and William L. Garrison.27 ment have been made by Mordecai Ezekiel Most methodological studies have demonstrated the usefulness of linear programming techniques as tools to investigate rural road prob- lems. Linear programming has been used to solve such problems as determining the optimal bus routing in rural areas and establishing the optimal logging routes to be used in the National Forests by the U.S. Forest Service. Economic rationale is generally the foundation of most linear programming models. Clyde Weller28 has pointed out the need for 24U.S. Congress, House, "Fourth Report of the Federal Coordinator of Transportation on Transportation Legislation," House Miscellaneous Documents, 74th Congress, 2nd Sess., l936. 25National Resources Planning Board, Transportation and National Policy, May 1942, p. 399. 26Ezekiel, Mordecai, Factors Affecting Farmers' Earnings in South- eastern Pennsylvania, U.S. Department of Agricolture, Bulletin 1400, 1926. 27Garrison, William L., Allocation of Road and Street Costs-The Benefits of Rural Roads to Rural Property, Washington State Council for Highway Research, June 1956. 28Weller, Clyde 6., "The Economics of Rural Road Systems," Proceed- ings of the National Symposium on Transportation for Agriculture and Rural America, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 15-17, l976, p. l89. 19 other considerations beyond economic efficiency. Weller has stated, The economics of road systems is complex, but not impossible to compute. The optimization of alternate routes or alternate systems must be based on the best blend of the optimizing rationales: (l) efficiency, (2) safety, (3) environmental, and (4) political. The use of linear programming to solve transportation problems has been 29 demonstrated mathematically by Snodgrass and French. A modification of the transportation linear programming technique was developed by C. Phillip Baumel.30 This methodological procedure is a transshipment plant location model which is designed to determine the number, size and loca- tion of plants. This type of model may be very useful in addressing such problems in rural road development as the determination of the location and number of miles of rural roads to optimize a given system. Although this research has identified previous studies relating to rural roads, there currently exists a void in the research literature on the role, importance and economic impact of rural roads on the agri- cultural community. l.6 Organizational Framework This study has been organized into seven major chapters. Each chapter has then been further broken down into various topical com- ponents. Chapter I serves as an introduction to the study and is designed to outline the basic research hypothesis and objectives, problems and 29Snodgrass, Milton M. and Charles E. French, "Simplified Presenta- tion of 'Transportation-Problem Procedure' in Linear Programming," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 39, No. l, February l957, pp. 40-5l. 3oLadd, George W. and Dennis R. Lifferth, "An Analysis of Alterna- tive Grain Distribution Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 57, No. 3, August 1975, pp. 420-4BO. 20 geographical area of study. It is designed to give a brief description of the Michigan rural transport system and the problems facing rural Michigan which impact upon grain commodity movements and costs. This chapter briefly profiles the geographic study area and its important demographic and economic characteristics. It also serves the purpose of identifying the researchable hypothesis of the study and the pro- cedure for testing such supposition. Finally, this chapter explores the various major sources of data utilized in the research study. Chapter II is designed to acquaint the reader with the existing rural transportation infrastructure within the study area. To accomplish this end the chapter identifies various physical, economic and service characteristics of the grain transport system as it exists in Lenawee County. Chapter 111 provides a descriptive analysis of the grain assembly marketing system as it exists within the study region. This chapter characterizes the grain production in Lenawee County, including size and distribution of production, value of product, farm size, etc. It identifies such factors as who undertakes the assembly function and how it is made operational. Finally, this section identifies both inter- mediate and terminal grain elevators with respect to location, capacity, number, size, operations, etc. Chapter IV presents the theoretical considerations and research methodological procedures employed in the analysis of the research prob- lem investigated. The various topical components discussed in this chapter include the economic model, the mathematical model and the computer model which were applied in helping to solve this research prob- lem. This chapter outlines in detail the analytical procedures used in 21 making the various models workable for the study region, including a discussion of the alternative transportation scenarios investigated and the feasibility assumptions employed. Chapter V is a discussion of the techniques applied in deriving estimations of regional grain supplies, grain assembly costs and rural road development and maintenance costs. This chapter is designed to provide the basic parameter values which were incorporated into the methodological procedures outlined in Chapter IV. Chapter V1 is a presentation of the empirical results of the research effort. It is intended to convey the values which the optimiza- tion models developed in Chapter IV regard as relevant to the analysis of the study. Chapter VII in this research study is the economic and policy analy- sis of the results presented in the previous portions of this investiga- tion. It discusses the impact of rural road development and their implications for grain producers and elevator operators. The chapter also serves to summarize the study and point out areas of further needed research. l.7 Summary Recent economic and financial trends relating to increased produc- tivity, rail line abandonment pressures, declining real expenditures for rural road capital and maintenance programs and increasing pressure from an expanding population have combined to contribute to the deterioration of Michigan's rural road infrastructure. It is the same road network which must facilitate the movement to market of Michigan's expanding agricultural production. A continuation of these trends could have serious implications for Michigan agriculture and the rural community. 22 This study is an attempt to empirically analyze some of these implications and to investigate the economic impact of further develop- ing the rural road system. As such, it is designed to fill a void in the transportation/marketing research literature which exists in the analy— sis of rural road development and/or deterioration impacts to agriculture. To achieve this, the study is designed to test the hypothesis that the improvement of the rural road network will result in a significant economic impact upon agriculture. In evaluating improvements and changes in the rural transportation system attention was focused upon how it affects (a) the commodity flow pattern of grain; and (b) aggregate transportation assembly costs of hauling grain. Lenawee County was chosen as the study area for this investigation based upon both economic and technical rationale such as its high grain production, semideveloped rural road system and potential rail line abandonment. Using an optimization model, the study investigates the economic consequences of grain movements in this study area between producers and the five local intermediate country elevators and the terminal elevator facilities located in the Toledo, Ohio area. CHAPTER II THE EXISTING RURAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IN LENAWEE COUNTY The purpose of this chapter is to acquaint the reader with the rural transportation network as it presently exists in Lenawee County. In presenting the inherent characteristics of the transportation system found within the study area of this research it is intended to provide a better understanding of the research problem under investigation. To accomplish that end, this chapter is subdivided into three principal characteristic categories. These major divisions are the physical char- acteristics, service characteristics and economic characteristics of the transport infrastructure. To secure the needed information for this chapter, many sources were utilized. Paramount among informational sources was access to computer files located within the Michigan Depart- ment of State Highways and Transportation. Other sources included re- ports, publications and conversations with officials of the United States Department of Transportation and the Lenawee County Rural Road Commission. 2.l Physical Characteristics As was previously pointed out in the Introduction to this research study, the State of Michigan's total road infrastructure is comprised of approximately l19,000 miles of road. Lenawee County is crisscrossed by l,642 of these miles or l.4 percent of the total road and highway infra- structure in the state. The road system in Lenawee County was primarily surveyed and laid down at the turn of this century. Because of the 23 24 influence of the grid system of surveying,1 Lenawee County's rural road network is laid out in a pattern of squares, each encompassing approxi- mately l square mile of area. This pattern can be seen on the following page in the computer map of the complete transportation system located in Lenawee County. 2.l.l Legal Systems The road system in Lenawee County is categorized into five major classifications called legal systems. Legal systems primarily distin- guish road usage and jurisdictional responsibilities. Legal system l delineates the state trunk lines which include state highways, U.S. high- ways and interstate highways. The major north-south highways in Lenawee County are U.S. l27 and M-156 and M-52. Running in an east-west direc- tion through the county are U.S. l2, U.S. 223, M-34 and M-SO. Legal systems 2 and 3 are the county primary and local roads, respectively. The great majority of Lenawee County's total road network is comprised of these county roads. There exists l,350 miles of county roadway in the study area of which 896 miles are county local roads. Legal systems 4 and 5 identify the street networks within incorporated cities and villages. Legal system 4, having the smallest amount of mileage at 6l miles, is the classification used to categorize all major streets within the jurisdiction of incorporated areas. Legal system S is the local streets within the same jurisdiction. 1The grid system is a method of surveying which in its simplest form is the establishment of boundaries based upon a progression of rectangles usually in the shape of squares. 25 Computerized Road and Highway Map for Lenawee County FIGURE 2-1 __‘V _:' , q _ ‘ -_ . .,r‘ ‘PW‘: | .t I ' ; ‘. 1: ‘T-‘d ,1 ihf?;-'y .\ z" .. - A - 4+" -K'T 74"" T“ -5 E's-m». -Tttfl _:. “I w“- ‘f .. ' +‘+‘F +-‘ , H :‘ ‘k-fi’47‘r‘ti: ‘ {13" J-++ F4..{‘1."l '-:H -r+¢+++— fi‘ _1 ' Y ++1 F+WJ~r+JLT Rf." -_" " ‘ I-f". -1; . +++++eAr-++.L “+41 +£- ; .r ‘rt‘tzxL-l- +++ \ ‘ .u- w M»- '4 "1 — I-A-J+++o+iI-- fi- ‘JH‘Ti H ‘ {Jr-+4 3:33-11:16 ,---L4__L. ‘- L 11f+fl4+ ...-r ~- .7—7I' “14‘: Of 'A Ti"? 1.: +-+.§,.~+ v—l‘rr‘v "Av-Hm I I" '—+++LrL_J,_ -L—r -T}+'r PL; _ _J I [T’ITT*T+'Y+TH , u tTL "+4. L:+;rl"’"‘ 0 : 26 2.l.2 Surface Type There are six surface type structures of roads located in Lenawee County (see Table 2-1). Surface type structures include (a) graded and drained earth; (b) gravel and similar; (c) bituminous surface treated gravel; (d) mixed bituminous surface on gravel of 1 inch or more; (e) mixed bituminous surface on concrete or brick or black base of 1 inch or more; and (f) concrete. As indicated in Table 2-l, gravel and similar material surfaced roads account for most of the surface type in Lenawee County. This surfacing material is found on 709 miles of road. The second most prevalent surface type is bituminous surface treated gravel.2 This type of surface makes up 442 miles of roadway in the county. Together, these two road surface types account for 70 percent of the total road mileage in Lenawee County. Road surface consisting of a mixed bituminous exterior of l inch or more on gravel and on concrete, brick or black base constitute 295 miles and l42 miles of roadway, respectively. Concrete surfaced roads cover 43 miles and graded and drained roads account for ll miles. 2.l.3 Surface Deterioration Conditions The road and highway infrastructure within the State of Michigan is surveyed and rated by state and county engineers according to surface deterioration conditions. There exists five such deterioration factors or categories--excellent, good, fair, poor and very poor. Table 2-2 indicates the surface deterioration conditions by existing road type for the study region of this research effort. A rating of excellent is given 2A bituminous surface treated gravel is a gravel road which has been sprayed with an oil-tar mixture. 27 .Amcmmc zmzcmw; m.cmmw;uwz mo mmwuaum mcwgmmcwmcm soc» : mxmpv cowmw>wo mcwccmPQ .cowumpcoamcmgh new mxngmwz macaw mo “casucmqmo :mmwnuwz ”mucaome Pepe» Neo._ me Nep mam New mo“ F. mucaou .1: III. min. .11. III. II. quo4 mmmppm> om _ F om «N m o ucm auwu .8 .8: mmm_PP> Po _ OF me e o 0 use xavu quog com o e um mm_ Foo FF auczou xcoswgm «me 0 me ¢m_ Pmm ow o auczou mmcwb xcagh Fe_ Fe mm mm o o o mumum Ammpwzv _muoe mpwcucou mmmm xum_m co Pm>mcw _m>mco cmF_svm cucmm waxy umom mudgucou .xuwcm co mowcczm cmummch new umcwmco co mumwcsm mzocwssuwm mumcczm Fm>mcw new maocwsspwm umxwz vmxwz maocwszpwm umumcm maxh mumeczm umox RNNmF .cmawnowz .Xuczou mwzmcmg cw waxy uwom an maze mummczm cmom .F-N mgm553 as; ea .5 . o w... 55:. - ......th 9». . on: a». 133.1... ooooo ‘3 163125... .111. 2.1!»... :58 '2' 5.1.4 5% 'OI| 5‘.“ it, a; 3 9h .3...- 3... "4:11 J 9? sun 2... g 1.... 5...: .6. 0...] E: ml. @ 8:35 HUI. :32 :3 it: u! _ 11.. It: 8...: 58.48 .5? r3. SAX is. ...—II 9; 3.5 I?! III . . .. . 1 . . . . . . r91. 3‘ S I!» [Jim-3 331. $1, 3 .1131 a!!! .3... 8.5... :8: “.4. g liar." g ...-.3 ...c a I. «Bil in! 0.3.5 i... 3' 15:10 'Y It. 3‘ lml 9.... 3.: 98!. lo 0 l. and“ 3‘ 3..ka 3 .2! .3. .1 a «.52 ....73 R. I). .5 .313 ‘V: Job—‘0‘. ...a I?“ 5 ‘D". 1.3... a!!! 3:931- .lv . 5.....3 was...) 1.3 I 35 .81. ...—.1. p.331. «5934. aft... 2!! ‘94! I.” 3 ...: '03.. ..353. 0.3.4.3‘! .aNsll 5 {it-18. 3.25: 23.5 5‘ .318 3.52... ‘2 8! 53! . ...? ... . o .ilcgtloflv. ll. IIIII . l ,. . . . . . . . . .. . mu; ca 83.! 3 ‘3 ... ’3 an?" I.‘ i .3333: 3‘ ." 55>. 0008 [936‘ -..:00 . 9"." C’ O O ‘ :‘s . O. i. 3 52.3 2.223s 53.8... I..." a: nice-3 .38 II. ...I. 93 III a a! 23.0... ...: 3 ...-3.3.! 'II '8 3...... vii '4 ‘J 5 8.3.833 53.8... 33¢ clan! 99...“. an": I 8‘980.I 5.2300 wmzfizm.‘ .2: >435... .2523 I I 9 I l i 57 to the terminal elevator located in the Toledo, Ohio area. While rail transport is of little importance in grain marketing in Lenawee County, all country elevators have access to rail lines. Besides acting as an outlet for farmers to sell or store their grain products, the local elevators provide many of the essential inputs used by these producing agents. Generally available at these elevators are many seed grains, livestock feed, fertilizer, etc. In the grain assembly marketing system these local elevators partic- ipate in the transporting, storing, scalping, blending and drying func- tions. When grain is moved into the elevator, foreign matter is removed through a process of scalping which increases the grade of the grain. By blending various grades of grain, the local elevators can improve the overall grade, and hence, obtain higher prices for their grain. Because of chances of spoilage and fire, the grain must be dried before it can be stored. This drying process is usually accomplished by use of low heat dryers. Once dried, the grain is usually stored in large bins at the elevator awaiting shipment to terminal elevators or disposal by the farmer if he is simply storing and has not sold to the elevator. The transport of grain to the terminal elevator is done in 30 ton trucks. Part of this transport function is accomplished through rental agreements with contract haulers and part is undertaken by elevator owned trucks. The truck fleet involved in hauling grain from the local elevators is quite small in Lenawee County. The major hauler at Blissfield and Jasper own two trucks and contract out the grain not hauled by their company owned fleet. Table 3-2 provides information on elevator capacity, location and operating costs of transportation. From this table it can be 58 .zpwumgmu mmmcopm cmgu gmmcmF mw xpwomaou m>wpomwwm .copm>m_m :wmgm mgu we use new one? mZon mo mmzmumm nowcmg m Lm>o umcogm mp u—zoo sows: cwmcm mo pesosm _mpop mg» m? prumqmu m>waumm$u .mex P we a .32?» ct ucwoa mco xcm um umcoum we :86 cows: :wmcm we acaosm _muou mgu m? xuwomamo mmmcoumm .mcmmmcms use mcoumcmao coum>mpm mcwummxm mg“ mo >w>czm mcogqump new cowpmwuomm< mcmmeoqum< can :wmcw cmmwzuwz "mugsomx m cm ooo.om~.~ ooo.oop._ Lmammw m mm ooo.ooo.m ooo.oom._ upmwwmmwpm m mm ooo.m~m ooo.opm :mwcu< o_ we ooo.om~ ooo.oo~ copcwpu m mm ooo.omp._ ooo.ome coauwcm AFmgm:m\mpcmuv Amm_wz :_v Ampmzmzm c_v cowumoob 02:0 .oum_oe owco .oumpop op m>wuumccm mammtoam Loom>mPu op mumou “commence mucmpmwo “commence a .Nppommmu mcwumcmao xuch wufim_ .owno .oum_op op mpmou ucoamcmch van xuvumamu .cowpmuob--cmmwcuwz .xpcaou mmzmcmd cw mcopm>mpm xcucaoo .N-m m4m

1 1 ° 1 5 l .s p 1 ° I 5 b 1C2 +(bu) o 900 1000 Grain Moved to Elevator E2 FIGURE 4-I Optimal Solution to the Transportation Linear Programming Problem--Part l (bu) 1 1C2 Grain Moved to Elevator E, 9CH) I SOOf -..—1.--..-C, 9 b a(bu) O 500 900 Grain Moved to Elevator E2 FIGURE 4-2 Optimal Solution to the Transportation Linear Programming Problem--Part 2 66 tij = the sum of the transport assembly and handling costs of moving a single unit of the commodity from i to j; xij = the amount of the commodity shipped from i to j. The problem then is to: 1'1 m Minimize: Z 2 t.. x.. 1 i=1 j:] 1.] 13 ( ) m Subject to: iil xij 5_DJ (2) n < Z x.. = C. 3) j=l ij 1 xij 3_O (4) The solution of the transportation problem equation (1) provides the optimal commodity flow of grain at the minimum aggregate transporta- tion assembly and handling cost. Constraint (2) insures that no more grain will flow to an elevator once the elevator's grain capacity or handling ability is reached. Constraint (3) moves all the grain produc- tion for each producing region through the marketing system. Negative grain movement is prohibited by constraint (4). 4.3 The Computer Model The computer model utilized in this research analysis was the trans- portation linear programming model. The software employed in this analysis is known as the "Agricultural Economics Linear Program Package: Version 2" developed and made operational at Michigan State University in April of 1975. This particular linear programming package was executed on the CDC-6500 computer and is designed to handle modest-sized linear programming transportation problems. The computer model is 67 intended to solve for the optimal commodity flow which will minimize the aggregate transportation costs in the system. In this research study of analyzing the optimal commodity flow pat- terns and aggregate transportation costs resulting from various rural road development scenarios the resulting transportation matrix was formulated into two distinct parts. These parts or activities as they are known in linear programming are: (1) The supply regions which are the points of origin for the commodity flow. These are defined as the grain producing areas of which there are 26 in this study. (2) The elevator consumption regions are points of intermediate and final destinations for the grain flows. These regions locate the six country elevators within this research project. The matrix size for the transportation problems investigated were comprised of 32 rows and 156 columns. The first 26 rows represented the supply regions or production points. These activities reflect the grain production in these 26 regions. These rows are treated as equalities. The next six activities represented one of the six elevators to which the grain could be shipped. Five of these activities were for one of the five local grain elevators serving as intermediate stoppage of the grain before reaching its final destination. The capacity constraint sign placed upon these five activities was "less than or equal to." The final activity represented the terminal elevator to which all the grain flowed. Since the grain production in this study region flowed to the single terminal elevator, its capacity constraint was the "greater than or equal to" sign. 68 Table 4-1 provides an illustration of how the transportation prob- lem matrix was constructed and appeared in the analysis. The matrix was i~ constructed by this author as a modified form of a transshipment model.‘V75 This was done so because of the relative ease of manually manipulating the cost data so it would fit into a linear transportation programming form and the desire to reduce the dimensions of the matrix for efficiency in calculations. Table 4-1 contains three supply regions (5], S2 and 53), two inter- mediate country elevators (C1 and C2) and one terminal elevator (C3). These six activities are the six rows under the heading locations. The column headings S1 C1 through S3 C3 represent the activity of shipping grain to one or more of the three elevators, either C1, C2 or C3, from one of the supply regions S], S2 or $3. As an example, S2 C1 is the activity of shipping grain from the second production region (i.e., $2) to the first local grain elevator (i.e., Cl)“ A close examination of the matrix in Table 4-1 reveals the two con- straints (2) and (3) discussed in the mathematical model. The rows labeled C1, C2 and C3 relate to the capacity constraints of inequality (2). Row C1 contains the value 1 in columns 1, 4 and 7 and the value 0 in the remaining columns. This row indicates that the sum total of all grain shipped to elevator C1 from all production regions S], 52 and S3 must be less than or equal to 1,150,000 bushels. Rows C2 and C3 are interpreted in the same manner. Constraint (3) is meant by rows S], 52 and S3. Row S1 which contains unit values in the first three columns and O elsewhere is interpreted to mean that the summation of all grain shipped from supply region S1 to all elevators C1, C2 and C3 must be exactly 80,200 bushels. Rows $2 and S3 are interpreted in the same manner. TABLE 4-1. Programming Transportation Model 69 Matrix Format of the Linear S1 S1 S1 S2 S2 S2 S3 S3 53 Locations C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 Constraints Supply S1 1 1 1 = 80,200 Region 52 1 l 1 = 80,200 S3 1 1 1 = 80,200 Elevator C1 1 l l §_l,150,000 Consumption 02 l 1 1 5 3,000,000 Region C3 1 l l 3_O Unit Cost -9 -13 -14 -9 -14 -14 -8 -13 -14 of Transport 70 Located at the bottom of Table 4-1 is a row of negative numbers. These figures represent the respective costs per bushel to move and handle the grain being shipped from each supply region to the terminal elevator via any local elevator. In column 51 C1 is found a figure of -9. This is interpreted to mean that for every bushel transported to the terminal elevator (C3) via local intermediate elevator (C1), the aggregate transport and handling cost is 9 cents. Column 51 C3 repre- sents the cost of transport in directly shipping to terminal elevator C3 from production region S]. The numerical value of -14 signifies a cost of 14 cents per bushel moved. These figures have a negative sign before them indicating a cost involved in the movement of grain to satisfy the constraints in this problem. The computer program is designed to maxi- mize the value of the objective function. By placing a negative sign in front of each value in the objective function forces the computer to find the smallest negative value, and hence, minimizes these transport costs. The computer model generated a significant amount of information. The output obtained through this computer model was the following: (1) The quantity of grain shipped from each production region. (2) The destination of the grain shipped from each production region. (3) The quantity of grain received at each country elevator. (4) The origin of the grain shipped to each country elevator. (5) The aggregate transport and handling cost involved in the shipment of all grain in the marketing system. (6) The marginal cost of grain shipment at each supply region. 71 (7) The marginal value of increasing grain elevator capacity by l bushel. 4.4 The Analytical Procedure In order to investigate the economic impact upon grain producers and country grain elevators of rural road development, it was necessary to generate data of sufficient quality, quantity and form. These data were used to analyze the economic benefits and costs of various investment sce- narios. The following nine step procedure was used to develop the data: 4.4.1 Selection of a Research Area The selection of the geographical area to study was the first crit- ical step in this investigation. Careful consideration had to be given in the selection of a research area to ensure against potential biases in the analytical results. The selection of a region with a highly devel- oped road and highway infrastructure would have tended to understate the economic impact of development with regard to the typical road infra- structure existing in Michigan and the U.S. Likewise, choosing a road and highway system which was extremely underdeveloped would have over- stated the economic consequences. Since the central focus of this thesis was rural road development impacts, the selection of a research area with a mixture of road types and conditions was of prime importance. Another consideration in selecting a "good" geographical area of study was road and highway usage. In order to better measure the econom- ic impacts of rural road development, the rural road network must be moderately to heavily used. A region of low agricultural activity gen- erates lower traffic volumes on rural local roads than do areas of higher agricultural activity. Therefore, another criteria of importance 72 in selecting an area of research was the degree of agricultural produc- tion taking place which required transportation services. Several potential regions of the State of Michigan were identified based upon the degree of road and highway development and agricultural production. Secondary criteria such as geographical configuration and highway planning considerations, as were discussed in Chapter I, were the determining factors in the choice of Lenawee County, Michigan as the research area. 4.4.2 Location and Volume of Grain Production The second step in this analytical procedure involved the designa- tion of grain production regions and an estimation of the grain produced and transported from each production point. Chapter V presents a more detailed explanation of the estimation procedure and empirical results for grain production. Therefore, suffice it to say that the 1977 grain production was estimated for the entire production region and appropri- ately distributed among the various production points. The political boundaries of Ridgeway Township delineated the region in which production movement was studied. Ridgeway is one of the 22 townships within the study area and is located in the northeast section of Lenawee County. This smaller region was chosen to reasonably ensure that the optimal movement of grain from the various production centroids to the country elevators identified in this study would indeed be expected to flow only to those local elevators identified and not to points outside the study area. Twenty-six production points were defined in this study. Figure 4-3 displays the physical location of each production centroid and the political boundary of the production region, Ridgeway Township. Each 73 3 :8: w axle-flu... . i 25:33 8363; .8» 333:3 552695 596 I... 8 E i 3 55 g '21 II I iIIa N ”(iii-i 111 If n 33 1535! III! I up i 3 8 a 8 '8 — 5o . in! '38 g» I! g I i S g .3 1 ma: coon 1 I“. A? 3:: gal 13 To. '3 i D. ..\ . . 1111121 Elli". II I: v: 3 is .305)- II It. 'IS. ‘ on". on 5:2“... whiff 528:. I u’s I‘ . pl!!! :3. 3 ...-3!.- ggso. >389: Uh‘h. 21919.1 >538 $342.5 . .. .. .... . ... . ... . ...... a4: >33? ngwo Illlllll l i 74 production point encompasses approximately 1 square mile of area and was defined by the existing road infrastructure. The geographical center of each production area identified the production centroid. The use of township plat maps to identify the location of all farming units enabled the estimation of the initial commodity flow direction from each centroid. Thus, the rural road along which most of the farmlands were adjacent was defined as the route to which the grain production outflow was initiated. 4.4.3 Location and Capacity of Grain Elevators Grain leaving the production regions is initially sent to country grain elevators. The third step in this analysis then was to locate these consumption points known as country grain elevators and estimate the amount of grain which they could handle. With the cooperation of the Michigan Grain and Agri-Dealers Association and the local grain elevators this task was accomplished. Six grain consumption points were identified in this study, five local grain elevators in the county and a terminal elevator outside the State of Michigan (see Figure 3-l). It is estimated that because of the operating characteristics of local grain elevators in which grain is con- tinually flowing through, an average grain elevator can handle and process 2.5 times as much grain as storage capacity per year. Thus, the actual capacity of each elevator was determined and multiplied by a factor of 2.5 which gave the effective capacity of each elevator. To determine the location of the country elevators and their respective storage capacities, each owner or manager was interviewed by a telephone survey. 75 4.4.4 Computerization of the Research County Because of the complex nature of the county road and highway system and the tens of thousands of pieces of information on this network, the county road and highway infrastructure was computerized as the next pro- cedural step. This enabled faster, easier and more efficient manipula- tion of the data needed in this research effort. The Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation pro- vided the computer facilities and data base for this undertaking. Previously, a "Needs Study" was conducted by this agency and the informa- tion gathered was placed on computer tape. Information obtained through this engineering survey study included road surface, road type, condi- tion, base factor, shoulder conditions, etc., for each segment of infra- structure in the county. Appendix A, Michigan Highway Needs, lists the 42 items which were computerized for each road segment. Road segmenta- tion was delineated by both physical and engineering characteristics. Physical segmenting included defining road sections by natural or'man-made boundaries such as road intersections, bridges, rivers, lakes, etc. Engineering segmentation was used to define road sections based upon technical boundaries such as changes in road surface (e.g., gravel, earth, concrete, etc.), traffic lanes, etc. Road segments ranged from as small as 0.05 miles to many miles in length. Initially, each road segment was identified off the computer print- out and placed on a master map with the proper identifying codes listed for each segment. This master map was next placed on a X, Y grid with the X-axis defining the southern boundary of the county and the Y-axis defining the western boundary. Each segment on the road and highway system was then assigned two pairs of X, Y coordinates and the 76 appropriate identifying code which corresponded to the "Needs File" tape. Once this was accomplished, the complete network became operational and changes in the road and highway infrastructure could be brought about in the computer (e.g., changing road types) and the results calculated (e.g., changes in driving times). Appendix B provides the completely integrated computer map of Lenawee County. Appendix C indicates how changing the road surface changes the route taken when the objective function is to minimize driving time. Next, the location of each production centroid was placed in the system and connected to the appropriate road segment. In the same manner each grain elevator was located and connected into the road and highway network. The terminal elevator was linked into the system via the major state trunk lines running from the county to Toledo, Ohio. This procedure now allowed the computer to calculate the driving times and distance between each production point and each local and terminal ‘grain elevator. 4.4.5 Average Operating Speeds The fifth procedural step in this analysis was the derivation of the average operating speeds between each production center and each grain elevator. To accomplish this a computer algorithm developed by the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation was employed in conjunction with the computerized road and highway network. Based upon safety engineering standards, each segment link on the computerized road and highway network was assigned an average operating speed as determined by the link road type and condition. Appendix D indicates the average speed of travel by road surface type as determined by safety engineering standards. The computer algorithm then traced out 77 the path from each production region to each grain elevator based upon minimizing the travel time. Such physical path tracings can be seen in Appendix C. The computer then calculated and printed out the time in minutes required to go from each production center to each elevator and the distance in miles of the route taken. Utilizing the distance/time relationship given by the following equation: (distance traveled in miles) x (60 minutes) (total travel time in minutes), = mph the average operating speed was determined for each path. This process was repeated for each investment scenario investigated in this research. 4.4.6 Grain Transport Costs Having determined the various transportation routes and average Operating speeds, the next procedural step involved developing a method- ology for estimating transportation costs. The estimation of these costs accounted for factors such as vehicle depreciation, driver's wages, oil, fuel, insurance, taxes, etc. This operating cost was developed into a schedule of costs relating the vehicle mile expenditure at various operating speeds. This schedule of transportation costs was derived by modifying a l973 transportation cost study done by the Interstate >Commerce Commission. Chapter V presents a more detailed discussion of this study and how the transport costs utilized in this research were developed and estimated. Total line-haul costs of moving grain from a production point to a grain elevator was then easily derived by multiplying the appropriate vehicle mile cost as determined by the average operating speed over that route by the total round-trip distance. This figure was then divided by 78 the total bushels moved from that given production region to determine the cost per bushel of grain transported to that given grain elevators. These transport costs were added to handling costs at each elevator and become the parameter values used in the transportation linear program as previously discussed in this chapter. 4.4.7 Grain Handling Costs This is the seventh procedural step involved in establishing the costs associated with grain handling. This is a cost which must occur at each intermediate elevator before the grain reaches its final destination at the terminal elevator. The physical movement of grain through the system via an intermediate stopping point involves an added cost associated with handling the grain. This handling cost is essentially the expense for unloading the incoming shipments from smaller vehicles, consolidating the shipments and finally loading the grain onto larger vehicles for movement to the terminal elevator. The estimation of handling costs were determined by telephone sur- veys with the intermediate country elevator operators. The reported handling costs associated with all grains average 3 cents per bushel. 4.4.8 Rural Road Maintenance and Construction Costs To serve as a point of reference for evaluating the benefits derived through rural road development, the costs of such development must be known. The eighth procedural step in the analysis was designed to approximate such costs. Appendix E and F provide such data. Appendix E displays the annual maintenance cost per mile by surface type and number of lanes and Appendix F indicates the cost of construction per mile by surface type being upgraded to a bituminous surface. These cost figures 79 were secured from the Michigan Department of State Highways and Trans- portation Planning Division. In evaluating the cost of construction which had an expected life of 12 years it was necessary to determine the annual cost for comparison with the present benefits derived by agricultural grain producers and elevator operators. The critical variable in estimating the annual resource needs is the discount rate. This discount rate used in this study was lO percent. This figure was used because it represented the approximate rate being paid on municipal and state bonds. Utilizing the accounting formula for determining the annual principal and interest costs needed to meet the financial liability, the total annual construc- tion cost of improving those roads used by grain producers and elevator operators was calculated. 4.4.9 Optimal Commodity Flow and Minimum Aggregate Assembly Cost The final procedural step in this research was the determination of the optimal commodity flow for grain and the minimum aggregate assembly cost associated with this optimal commodity flow. To achieve this, a transportation linear programming package was used. To make this trans- portation linear programming model operational, the following parameter values discussed in this section were used: (1) The transportation costs were defined as the sum of the transport costs and handling cost for shipment to the terminal elevator.2 These costs became the values in the objective function to be minimized. 2These costs were actually transshipment costs since they included the total cost of transport from producer to local country elevator and then from local country elevator to terminal elevator. 80 (2) Grain production was estimated and evenly distributed among the 26 production centroids. The grain production in bushels for each production region then became an operational constraint in the model. Such a model forced all grain produced to be moved through the system to the terminal elevator. (3) The local elevator capacity was determined and the effective capacity calculated. These calculations then served as the limiting constraints on how much grain could be shipped to each local elevator. The solution of the transportation problem by linear programming techniques provided: (l) the optimal commodity flow path for grain pro- duction; (2) the minimum aggregate transport and handling cost associated with this optimal flow; and (3) the marginal values on each of the constraints. This transportation linear programming model was operated six dif- ferent times for the six investment scenarios investigated. These vari- ous investment scenarios are discussed in the following section of this chapter. The parameters discussed in articles (2) and (3) remained un- changed in each computer run. Only parameter (l) relating to transporta- tion costs changed as the rural road network was either improved or allowed to deteriorate. 4.5 Alternative Solution Models Six alternative investment scenarios were examined in this research analysis. This was undertaken to estimate the differing potential impacts to agriculture of changing local investment policies. In Michigan the County Road Commission, as established by law, has the 8l responsibility of constructing and maintaining the county road system. Their decisions on not only how much to appropriate to construction and maintenance, but where it is distributed impacts upon the agricultural sector of the local economy. The following investment scenarios were considered in this research analysis. 4.5.l Investment Scenario I In this particular investment plan the goal is to maintain the rural road system as it presently exists within the research area. No improvements or deterioration of the infrastructure occurs under Invest- ment Scenario I. 4.5.2 Investment Scenario II This investment plan is designed to make improvements to the exist- ing rural road structure in Lenawee County. Funds are assumed to be allocated in such a manner as to allow all earthen, gravel and tar sprayed roads used in transporting grain to be reconstructed. These rural roads are redesigned to become asphalt paved thoroughfares. 4.5.3 Investment Scenario III Deterioration in the existing rural road system is allowed to occur under Investment Scenario III. Under this investment strategy the county primary system is maintained to existing standards, but no maintenance or construction occurs on the county local roads over a 5 year period. This investment scenario and the remaining three are realistic to assume. In past years revenues devoted to rural road maintenance and construction have failed to keep pace with such costs as inflation continues to soar. The revenues collected for maintenance and construction are primarily from a set fuel tax and weight tax on vehicles. These taxes have not 82 been increased recently. Better fuel economy and lighter vehicles have served to compound the problem of rural road financing. With falling real revenues, the local County Road Commissions must face some dif- ficult resource allocation questions. Indications are that any severe cuts in funding will be at the expense of the local county roads as attempts will be made to maintain the county primary system as it now exists. 4.5.4 Investment Scenario IV Like Investment Scenario III, this investment plan is a deteriora- tion model. This investment scenario is designed to preserve the county primary system at the expense of allowing the county local network to deteriorate over the next lO years. 4.5.5 Investment Scenario V Investment Scenario V is designed to analyze the economic conse- quences to agricultural producers of a l5 year deterioration of the local county roads. The primary county road system, as before, is maintained to the existing standard. 4.5.6 Investment Scenario VI The last investment strategy is the most dramatic deterioration model. In this investment plan the County Road Commission allocates funds sufficient enough to maintain the primary rural roads, but no maintenance or construction occurs over a 20 year period on the county local rural road system. 83 4.6 Feasibility Assumptions In any dynamic economic system it becomes imperative that many simplifying assumptions must be made in order to make the analysis feasible. Analyzing the economic consequences of rural road development is no exception. The number of exogenous variables which impact upon the endogenous variables in this analysis are numerous. It becomes impossible from both a practical and financial perspective as well as a time constraint to incorporate into a model all the possible variables. Thus, certain feasibility assumptions must be made to make this research possible. The major simplifying assumptions include the following: (l) Grain production is assumed to occur at a single geographi- cal point and not a geographical region. This assumption may have the tendency to either overstate or understate the distance involved in the actual movement of grain. However, because of the large number of production points this problem may in the aggregate be offsetting. (2) Grain production is assumed to be uniformly distributed among the various production points. This assumption was necessitated by a real lack of production data at such a disaggregated level. It is believed that this assumption is not too unrealistic since land fertility is constant in the production area and no single farm has a large competi- tive edge over other units. (3) Grain on-farm storage is assumed to be of no greater dura- tion than 1 year. This assumption assures that all grain produced in 1 year will be moved through the marketing system. The actual on-farm storage capacity in Lenawee (4) (5) (6) (7) 84 County plus prevailing farm practices indicate this is a realistic assumption. Grain movement is assumed to occur by means of a 2 to 4 ton farm truck with a single bed attached. Given the size and operating procedures of farming units in Lenawee County, this model movement assumption seems quite appropriate. The economic units in the model are assumed to be character- ized by rational profit maximizing behavior. Working in an environment approaching pure competition where the grain producer cannot affect the price he receives for his grain he will attempt to minimize all costs. Therefore, it is assumed that the economic actors in this model will attempt to minimize the cost of handling and transportation. It is assumed that all transportation cost functions are identical for each production region. Only distance and average operating speed are assumed to affect the per bushel cost of transportation. This assumption is a fair treatment of transportation costs since it is assumed the same type vehicle is used uniformly throughout the production region and geographically this region is relatively flat. In the selection of routes to be taken from one point to another it is assumed that the criteria are based upon mini- mizing time. This assumption follows logically from the cost minimization assumption. The major variable in calculating transport costs is the vehicle operator's wages or opportunity cost. As time involved in travel is diminished, cost also falls. (8) (ll) (12) 85 In moving the grain produced it is assumed that all of the commodity is shipped to the terminal elevators located in the Toledo area either directly from the production region or by way of an intermediate country elevator. This is perhaps not an assumption, but a statement of reality. The actual flow pattern in Lenawee County does closely follow this assumption statement although it is suspected some leak- age occurs in the system. Grain elevators are assumed to operate in a perfectly com- petitive market where price differentials paid for commodi- ties reflect only transportation costs. Thus, producers face relatively competitive prices which do not affect the movement of grain or their decisions where to sell. It is further assumed that no price changes occur in any region during the analysis. During the analysis in this research it is assumed no exoge- nous variables interact with the grain elevator operators to make them want to increase their storage capacity. It is assumed that all grain shipped from the intermediate local grain elevators depart by truck only. The vehicles used in transporting such grain is assumed to be 30 ton trucks. Again, this assumption is a mirror of the environ- ment in which the elevators operate. All intermediate grain elevators utilize 30 ton vehicles and no grain has been shipped by rail for over 5 years. In moving grain from each production centroid it is assumed that the existing bridge structure does not constrain the movement of the 2 to 4 ton grain hauling vehicles. 86 4.7 Summary This chapter has been intended to explore the theoretical considera- tions and methodological procedures applied to this research work. The nature of this research problem has been to determine the optimal com- modity flow pattern and aggregate transportation costs under six invest- ment scenarios. The scenarios included improving the rural road and highway network, maintaining the existing system and deteriorating the county local roads. In order to accomplish this analysis, an economic model concerned with minimizing the aggregate transport and handling costs in the system was used. A transportation linear programming equation constituted the mathematical model employed. This model was designed to minimize the transportation costs subject to a set of constraints on grain production, commodity movement and grain elevator effective capacity. A nine step analytical procedure was employed in the analysis. The various steps included: (1) the selection of a study region; (2) the location and estimation of the volume of grain produced; (3) the location and determination of the capacity of grain elevators; (4) the computer- ization of the research county; (5) the derivation of average operating speeds between production regions, intermediate country elevators and the terminal elevator; (6) estimation of transport costs; (7) estimation of grain handling costs; (8) establishment of rural road maintenance and construction costs; and (9) determination of the Optimal commodity flow pattern and minimum aggregate transportation cost. To make the analysis feasible from a practical and financial per- spective as well as a time constraint it was necessary to establish feasibility assumptions. These assumptions were: (1) grain production 87 occurred at a single point; (2) production was uniformly distributed; (3) storage of grain was for 1 year or less; (4) grain was moved from farms by 2 to 4 ton farm trucks; (5) economic actors are characterized as rational profit maximizers; (6) transportation cost functions were identical for each production region; (7) route selection was based upon minimizing time; (8) all grain eventually flows to the terminal elevator; (9) prices remain constant and are competitive; (l0) grain elevator storage capacity remained constant; (ll) all grain shipped from local intermediate elevators was by 30 ton trucks; and (12) existing rural bridges did not constrain the flow of grain from producers to grain elevators. CHAPTER V ESTIMATION AND PROJECTIONS 0F ASSEMBLY COSTS AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND FOR GRAIN IN LENAWEE COUNTY This chapter is devoted to a more detailed discussion of the method- ology employed in estimating the demand for grain transportation and transport costs than was presented in Chapter IV. The estimations obtained from these methodological procedures are derived in this chapter and serve as part of the data base for the computer analysis. The chapter is divided into three sections, each covering a specific estima- tion. Section 5.1 estimates the derived demand for transportation services through developing grain production for Lenawee County and apprOpriating the production to production centroids. Section 5.2 is intended to develop the operating costs associated with the physical transportation of grain between production centroids and grain elevators. Section 5.3 is devoted to estimating the costs related to maintaining and constructing the rural road infrastructure. The primary source of data to enable these estimations and projections to be made were secured from governmental agencies. The three principal sources were the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Michigan Department of Agriculture. 5.l Estimation and Appropriation of Regional Grain Production As a result of the aggregation problem inherent in governmental sources of data, it became necessary to attempt to disaggregate the 88 89 official census output. In order to obtain an estimation of the demand for transportation services it was essential to not only know how much production occurred, but also where. Information gathered by the Michigan Department of Agriculture on statewide grain production was available only at the county level. The problem then became one of dis- tributing the Lenawee County grain production to the appropriate produc- tion centers within the study area. To estimate the 1977 production of grain for the production region and then apportion it among the produc- tion centroids the following steps were accomplished. 5.l.l Selection of the Production Region The first step involved the selection of a representative region within the study area out of which the flow of grain could be investi- gated. Considerations in the selection of such a production region included: (l) grain producing potential; (2) geographical location with respect to the country grain elevators; and (3) degree of rural road development. The first criteria, grain producing potential, was designed to insure that the region chosen produced a sufficient enough supply of grain for transport in order to better able measure the economic con- sequences of rural road development. Because of the sandy soil charac- teristics of the western half of Lenawee County, this criteria dictated the production region be located in the eastern portion of the county. The second consideration in choosing a production region is an attempt to insure that the actual production would in all probability be trans- ported to the grain elevators identified in this research. Therefore, the production region must not be located close to grain elevators in neighboring counties to Lenawee County. Furthermore, because grain in Michigan generally flows in a southeastern direction, the production 90 region had to be geographically located as much as possible southeast of grain elevators not identified in the study. Finally, the production region had to have a representative mix of rural road types and condi- tions. This criteria was designed to make sure that the empirical results of the analysis were not biased. This was discussed in Chapter IV under the section "The Analytical Procedure." These three criteria were met best by Ridgeway Township. Ridgeway Township is a fertile grain producing area encompassing approximately 26 square miles of area and is located in the northeastern portion of Lenawee County. Figure 4-3 defines the geographical location of the production region in this research. 5.l.2 Assignment of Production Centroids Once the production region was chosen, the next task involved the locating of production points or centroids. This was necessitated by the characteristics of the transportation linear programming model employed in the analysis. In the linear programming model grain can flow only between specifically designated points and not regions or areas. Therefore, such points must be established to represent geograph- ical areas of grain production. In order to closely represent areas of grain production each centroid must specify a defined or bounded region and must typify a relatively small number of grain producers. The most logical boundaries to utilize in this research was the matrix formed by the road network itself. The road system in Ridgeway Township was con- structed in such a pattern that the areas defined were approximately 1 square mile. Thus, the township could be concisely defined into 26 pro- duction areas represented by l of 26 production points. This number of 91 centroids, so defined, was of sufficient number to portray the individual producing units. Lacking sufficient data on grain production on such a micro level, the production centroid was assigned the geographical center of each area. The determination of the road upon which the grain initially flowed to form such a central point was based upon the location of the farming units. Utilizing a plat map of Ridgeway Township, the location and size of each farming entity was determined. The initial entrance upon the rural road system was at the point where the vast majority of the grain production occurred. 5.l.3 Estimation of Regional Grain Production To estimate the 1977 grain production for Ridgeway Township it became necessary to devise a distributional methodology. Grain produc- tion data was available only on a county basis from the Michigan Depart- ment of Agriculture. To distribute the 1977 Lenawee County grain produc— tion it became necessary to evaluate the historical township production data collected every 5 years by the Census of Agriculture. Unfortunately, this practice of presenting township data was discontinued and more recent figures do not display this fine a level of data collection. However, based upon the limited amount of information available, a dis- tribution scheme was developed reflecting primarily the 1959 census data. This distributional methodology procedure and results were confirmed by the local county extension agent as being relatively accurate and portray- ing actual conditions in Ridgeway Township. Table 5-1 displays the township production by grain produced for 1977. As can be observed from this table, Ridgeway Township produced 2.1 million bushels of grain, representing 11.1 percent of the total county production. 92 TABLE 5-1. Grain Production by Type for Lenawee County and Ridgeway Township, 1977* Production in Bushels Lenawee Ridgeway Distributional Grain County Township Factor Corn 12,260,000 1,263,500 0.103 Wheat 2,220,000 166,500 0.075 Oats 749,000 72,700 0.097 Barley 3,000 100 0.040 Soybeans 3,669,300 594,400 0.162 Total 18,908,300 2,097,200 *Source: 1959 Census of Agriculture and Michigan Agricultural Statistics, June 1978. 93 5.1.4 Appropriation of Regional Grain Production Since no data, historical or otherwise, are available at a level smaller than a township, it became necessary to establish a method to al- locate the township estimation of grain production to each centroid. A careful examination of Ridgeway Township revealed the land was uniformly fertile and that the grain farms were relatively of the same economic and operational character. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to distrib- ute the grain production uniformly among the production points. Thus, each production centroid was assigned a production value of 80,700 bushels. This figure of 80,700 bushels became one of the constraints in the linear programming model. 5.2 Estimation of Grain Assembly Costs One of the more crucial steps in this research analysis involved estimating the cost associated with transporting the grain production over the rural road system. The problem presented was to develop a methodological procedure which could be uniformly applied to any stage of development in the rural road system. Therefore, it became essential to find a common denominator upon which to derive these cost estimates. The common denominator of measure was found in the average operating speed between origin and destination points as the rural road network was developed or allowed to deteriorate. As the rural road infrastruc- ture was improved, engineering safety standards allowed for increased speeds over the new improvements which led to decreased travel time and increased average operating speeds. Likewise, as the infrastructure deteriorated, average operating speeds fell as road conditions became poorer upon which to travel. 94 In order to derive a schedule of the estimated costs of the trans- port of grain two distinct procedural steps were involved. The first procedural step involved estimating the grain producer's transport cost. The second process was the method of obtaining the grain elevator operator's cost of transportation. Four steps were involved in determin- ing transport operating costs for grain producers. These four steps were as follows. 5.2.1 Review of Economic/Engineering Studies The first step involved a review of economic/engineering studies to assess their potential in helping to develop a producer's average operat- ing cost schedule. The objective in reviewing these studies were three- fold. First, the review was undertaken to determine what constituted transportation costs. This part of the review was essential in determin- ing what elements of transport cost must be identified and measured to be useful in the investigation. The second reason for the review was to investigate how other researchers derived transportation costs. This was done to determine how grain transport costs might be established and used in this thesis. Finally, it was hoped that a relevant study might be identified which could be utilized directly in this research effort. Incorporating such an accepted cost study into this research would serve to strengthen the analysis. 5.2.2 Constituents of Operating Costs The second step involved in estimating operating costs for this study was to determine the cost constituents of grain truck operations. Transport costs can be broken into two major cost categories: (1) fixed costs; and (2) variable costs. The fixed costs of transportation are 95 expenditures which are independent of the operation of the vehicles used in grain movement. These costs must be met irrespective of whether the transportation function is performed. Variable transport costs are com- prised of those costs which are dependent upon quantity of traffic operations. These costs move in an upward direction with increased usage of the vehicle. Several studies have identified various components of the cost structure associated with truck transportation.1 Most cost structure studies of agricultural transport functions have identified five components of fixed costs and five components associated with vari- able costs. The fixed cost category of grain transport is comprised of charges for depreciation, insurance, interest on investment, licenses and taxes and miscellaneous. Depreciation reflects the decline in the truck's value over time.2 A depreciation charge is the amount of resources which must be set aside each year in order to replace the truck at the end of its productive life. Insurance charges are the pre- miums which are paid by haulers to guarantee against financial losses. These losses include damage to the vehicle, vehicle commodity contents, 1McBride, Glynn and Robert D. Boynton, An Analysis of the Milk HaulinggCost Structure in Lower Michigan, Agricultural Business, Research Report No. 325,'East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1976. Kulshreshtha, Surendra N., "Cost of Grain Hauling by Farm Trucks in Saskatchewan," Agricultural Science Bulletin, Farm Management 810, Publication No. 241, Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan, 1974. Claffey, Paul L., Running Costs of Motor Vehicles as Affected by Road Design and Traffic, Highway Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 111, Washington, D.C., 1971. 2In accepted accounting practices depreciation is generally charged as a fixed cost. However, it can be argued that depreciation is com- prised of two parts; first, depreciation due to the passage of time (fixed cost) and second, depreciation due to usage of the vehicle (vari- able cost). Here, depreciation is used as a fixed cost. 96 pr0perty and injury to the driver and other parties. Interest on in- vestment is a cost associated with the repayment of any loans incurred in the purchase of the truck minus the principal payment. This is a charge for the present use of resources to be repaid in the future. Licenses and taxes are fees which must be paid to local, state and federal governmental authorities for the privilege of operating on the roads and highways. The miscellaneous category of fixed costs would in- clude such items as depreciation on any structures used in storing the vehicles and imputed interest charges on owned capital. The variable costs associated with grain transportation include the driver's wages, tires, fuel, repair and maintenance and miscellane— ous. The wages paid to drivers are the calculated labor costs involved in hauling grain. This labor input cost for driving the grain trucks from production regions to country elevators are the driver's wages. Tire expenditures involve the cost of replacement of tires. This is similar to depreciation charges only that the tires wear out with usage over the road system. This represents the amount of resources which must be set aside for each vehicle mile traveled in order to replace the tires at the end of their productive life. Fuel costs are charges for the cost of gasoline or diesel fuel used in shipping the grain from pro- duction region to country elevators and returning. Repairs and mainte- nance costs include the charges for such items as tune-ups, oil changes, antifreeze and lubrications. Miscellaneous costs associated as variable include items not generally accounted for in the above discussed cate- gories. These would include items such as batteries and wiper fluid. In estimating the operating costs of grain trucks used by producers these variable and fixed costs were accounted for in the estimation procedure. 97 5.2.3 Development of a Modified Cost Structure Study In August of 1972 the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) under- took a large study of the cost structure involved in the transportation of freight. This study served as the foundation for developing the cost schedule used in this research. The ICC study was regional in nature, developing and reporting costs by four regions. These four regions were the Middle Atlantic, Southern, East-South and South Central. The most appropriate region to this analysis was the South Central territory which included freight movements in and among the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama. This study was based upon the individual carrier's 1973 annual reports and supple- mental survey information gathered by the ICC. Supplemental statistics were required by the ICC of five major carriers in the South Central territory. These carriers were: (1) Central Motor Lines, Inc.; (2) Gordon Transport, Inc.; (3) Overland Transportation Company; (4) Pic-Walsh Freight Company; and (5) Terminal Transport Company, Inc. Six sources of information were utilized in developing these trans- port cost figures. ICC forms numbered 2, 4, 7, 10 and 11 along with field reports formed the data base in the analysis. Form 2, traffic analysis, is based upon a continuous probability sample basis of inter- city freight bills. These freight bills and other sources such as bills of lading provided information on freight movement, weights and type of shipments. Form 4, pickup and delivery time study, supplied pertinent information on time and motion studies used in distributing costs to pickup and delivery services. The data gathered for this form was from a probability sample basis covering 5 randomly selected days and a random selection of trips. Form 7, line-haul trip report study, was 98 based upon a probability sample basis of a random selection of trips and a random selection of 7 days at each terminal. This provided in- formation on such factors as length of haul, load factor, etc. A random sample of terminals combined with a random sample of all termi- nals on 5 days provided data for Form 10, the platform study. This was used to derive data on handling weights, costs, etc. Form 11, analysis of peddle-trip operations, was used to separate peddle operations between line-haul and pickup and delivery operations. ICC field studies and reports provided additional accounting and statistical information as needed to supplement the carriers' annual reports. From the data collected and analyzed, the ICC was able to derive many cost components associated with truck transportation. Cost data reported included variable costs for terminals, platform handling, weight moved, pickup and delivery, etc. The cost schedule most essential to the analysis of rural road development was Appendix G's Table II, Line-Haul Costs Adjusted for Effects of Speed. The ICC, using the cost constitu- ents identified above, derived a cost schedule based upon operating Speed. Once the usefulness of the ICC procedure was established, it became necessary to derive a method of modifying this component of the cost structure study to the needs of this research analysis. Essentially, two things had to be accomplished; the 1973 study had to be updated to 1977 and the cost schedule modified to reflect the operating cost of the much smaller 2 to 4 ton vehicles. To update the ICC cost study to reflect the 1977 cost structure, use was made of the Consumer Price Index for transportation as reported in the 1978 Economic Report of the President. The total line-haul cost 99 per vehicle mile based upon the actual cost study average speed was 52.230 cents in 1973. In 1973 the transportation index was 123.8. In 1977 this index had increased to 177.2 which when applied to the 1973 cost of transportation translated into an average operating speed cost of 74.759 cents per vehicle mile. The accuracy of this derived figure was reasonably guaranteed when compared to the average operating speed cost of 75 cents per vehicle mile as reported by the American Trucking Association. With the completion of the 1977 cost update procedure it became necessary to establish a method of modifying the ICC updated cost struc- ture to reflect the difference in operating costs between the larger 40,000 pound vehicles in the ICC study and the 2 to 4 ton trucks used for the hauling of grain between producers and local grain elevators. After consultation with a leading expert in transportation? a methodology was established which reasonably insured accurate cost information for inclusion in this research. The procedure was comprised of six steps. The first step was already accomplished by updating the average 1973 operating cost per vehicle mile to reflect 1977 costs. The second step in the analysis involved the assignment of the various costs at each operating speed. This was accomplished by distributing the 1977 cost by the same percentage factor as existed in 1973. The percentage distribu- tion factor was defined for each operating speed as that 1973 operating speed cost divided by the average 1973 operating speed cost. The percent- age distributional factor was then multiplied by the 1977 cost of 3The author is indebted to Professor Donald J. Bowersox of the Department of Marketing and Transportation Administration, Michigan State University, who provided invaluable assistance in developing this methodological procedure. 100 74.759 cents. Since the ICC cost study was done in increments of 5 miles per hour, each unit mph was obtained through interpolation. The major difference in costs between vehicle types was due almost solely to fuel consumption rates. Therefore, the third step involved the determination of fuel rates as they existed in 1977. Since most of these vehicles operated on diesel fuel, this type of fuel cost was obtained for 1977. Data secured from the Michigan Department of Agri- culture as reported in the 1978 Michigan Agricultural Statistics indicated average diesel fuel costs per gallon in 1977 was 46.8 cents as compared to 22.8 cents per gallon in 1973. Making use of information supplied by Michigan's truck dealers on the average miles per gallon obtained by the larger vehicles and the smaller 2 to 4 ton vehicles pro- vided the needed data to complete steps 4 and 5. Step 4 involved esti- mating the cost per vehicle mile of diesel fuel for the larger vehicles. The large trucks averaged 4 miles per gallon which indicated a vehicle mile cost of 11.7 cents in fuel consumption (i.e., 46.8 cents/4mpg). Step 5 was designed to determine the fuel cost per vehicle mile on the smaller vehicles. These vehicles were obtaining an average 8 miles per gallon which translated into a fuel consumption cost of 5.85 cents per vehicle mile. Subtracting the two fuel consumption costs involved in steps 4 and 5 (i.e., step 4 minus step 5) provided a measure of the cost savings between the two vehicle types. Step 6 was accomplished when this cost differential was accounted for in the updated 1977 cost schedule. The schedule was modified by deducting the cost differential so that the new schedule reflected operating costs for the 2 to 4 ton grain hauling vehicles. 101 5.2.4 Estimation of the Average Operating Speed Cost Schedule The final step was the completion of the average operating speed cost schedule utilizing a methodology developed above. A cost schedule was compiled ranging from 15 mph to the legal speed limit of 55 mph. The costs of operation at these extreme speeds was a low of 61 cents per vehicle mile at 55 mph and a high of $1.435 per vehicle mile at 15 mph (see Table 5-2). The cost schedule showed a downward sloping curve when cost is plotted as a function of operating speed (see Figure 5-1). The primary reason for the downward leping cost curve is due to savings in wages paid as operating speeds increase. Increased operating speeds mean decreased travel time which translates into lower labor costs which is the major cost factor in transportation. The second component of this cost structure study for the transport of grain involved estimating the costs incurred by grain elevator oper- ators in moving grain commodities from their storage facilities to the terminal elevator located in the Toledo, Ohio area. This was necessitated by the fact that the vehicle types used in this segment of the grain marketing system were larger than those used by farmers, but smaller than those vehicles reported on in the ICC study. As indicated previously in this thesis, all the grain elevators utilized the same single-bed vehi- cles with a maximum capacity of 1,000 bushels when transporting their grain. Routes chosen by the grain elevators in shipment to the Toledo area did not vary as road conditions changed except in the case of the eleva- tor located at Jasper. Also, all elevators were located on or within easy reach of major state trunk lines and rural county primary roads. For these two reasons the cost structure did not change with differing 102 TABLE 5-2. 1977 Line-Haul Costs Per Vehicle Mile by Average Operating Speed for 2 to 4 Ton Grain Hauling Vehicles Average Operating Transportation Costs Speed (Cents Per (mph) Vehicle Mile) 15 143.469 16 137.736 17 132.003 18 126.270 19 120.537 20 114.802 21 111.357 22 107.912 23 104.467 24 101.022 25 97.575 26 95.287 27 92.999 28 90.711 29 88.423 30 86.136 31 84.496 32 82.856 33 81.216 34 79.576 35 77.936 36 76.709 37 75.482 38 74.255 39 73.028 40 71.803 41 70.852 42 69.901 43 68.950 44 67.999 45 67.048 46 66.438 47 65.828 48 65.218 49 64.608 50 64.000 51 63.400 52 62.800 53 62.200 54 61.600 55 61.000 103 150 - 140 - .130 - 120 .. no - IOO - 90 - 80 - 7o - (Cost per Vehicle Mile in Cents) l 1 l 1 l I I 1 20 3O 4O 50 (MPH) SOURCE: Interstate Commerce Commission, Cost of Transgorting Freight, 1973 Per Vehicle Mile Line-Haul Costs by Average Operating Speed for 2 to 4 Ton Grain Hauling Vehicles. FIGURE 5-1 104 investments in the rural road infrastructure except in the case of Jasper. In order to determine the transport cost structure associated with the 1,000 bushel capacity vehicles, a survey of all five Lenawee County grain elevators was conducted. The information secured by this method proved to be consistent among all five elevators. The survey was de- signed to determine the round trip cost per bushel of grain shipped from the particular grain elevator to the terminal elevator in Ohio. All five county elevators cooperated in the survey and provided information to derive the following cost structure. Rate Charges Per Bushel Elevator Location Per Trip Britton 5¢ Clinton 10¢ Adrian 8¢ Blissfield 5¢ Jasper 6¢ As indicated previously, the cost structure remained unchanged throughout the analysis with the exception of the Jasper Elevator. As the road system was improved, a time savings occurred in the shipment of grain from Jasper to Toledo to warrant a 1 cent reduction in trans- port costs. Therefore, Jasper's transport rate was estimated at 5 cents per bushel per trip as improvements in the rural road system were made. All other investment scenarios used the survey results of 6 cents per bushel per trip. 5.3 Estimation of Costs Related to Rural Road Maintenance and Construction To evaluate the economic consequences of various rural road invest- ment scenarios, it is necessary to know the cost to local governments as 105 well as the benefits and costs to grain producers. Such construction and maintenance costs are essential criteria measures against which to evaluate any benefits or costs derived through various rural road invest- ment decisions. Construction and maintenance costs used in this research study were derived from engineering cost studies undertaken by the Michigan Depart- ment of State Highways and Transportation, Transportation Planning Division. Based upon historical records of costs, engineering design standards and the 1974 Highway Needs Study Update, the department was able to generate annual maintenance costs per mile by surface type and number of lanes and construction costs per mile by design standard and type of construction. Maintenance costs vary substantially depending upon the number of lanes which must be maintained, the road surface and the road type. The better the surface material comprising the roadway, the more costly it is to maintain. Likewise, as the number of lanes increase and as us- age increases as portrayed through the road functional classification,4 maintenance expenditures per mile increase. Annual maintenance costs range from as low as $945 per mile for typically two lane gravel and earthen roads to as high as $17,550 for six lane hard surface state trunk lines within urban areas. Appendix E displays the annual mainten- ance costs per mile by surface type, number of lanes and functional class. Rural construction costs vary substantially depending upon the de- sign standards and type of construction. New construction on rural 7Functional classification is similar to legal systems as discussed previously in this study. Functional classifications denote road usage and jurisdictional responsibility. 106 roads can vary from as little as $40,800 per mile for rural local access roads to as high as $1,008,200 per mile for state trunk line rural mile- age. In this particular research study the interest is in construction costs on county primary and local roads. More specifically, the interest is in the construction cost of replacing various surface types with a bituminous surface. Table 5-3 indicates the cost of construction by road type. 5.4 Summary This chapter has been divided into three segments, each covering a specific estimation. The first segment dealt with estimating the derived demand for transportation services. This was accomplished through four steps. These steps were the selection of the production region, assign- ment of production centroids within the region, estimation of regional grain production and appropriation of the regional grain production to each production centroid. It was estimated that 2.1 million bushels of grain required transport from the production region in this study with each of the 26 producing units shipping 80,700 bushels of grain. The second part of the chapter estimated the costs associated with the movement of grain. Two cost components were identified and measured. The transport cost incurred by the producer and the transport cost incur- red by the grain elevator operator. The grain elevator operator's cost structure was established through a survey of all existing grain eleva- tors within the study area. The grain producers' cast schedule was derived by modifying an Interstate Commerce Commission cost structure study of freight movement in l973. Utilizing this study, producers' transport costs were derived as a function of average operating speed. 107 TABLE 5-3. Rural Road Improvement Costs by Road Type, 1977* Upgrade to a Bituminous Surface Road Type (Cost Per Mile) Bituminous Surface Treated Gravel $82,400 Gravel and Similar $82,400 Graded and Drained Earth $82,400 Unimproved Earth $111,500 *Source: Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation, Transportation Planning Division. 108 The final section estimated local and state government costs of maintaining and constructing the rural road system. This was accomplish- ed by the Michigan State Department of Highways and Transportation based upon historical records of costs, engineering design standards and the 1974 Highway Needs Survay Update. CHAPTER VI OPTIMAL COMMODITY FLOW AND TRANSPORT EFFICIENCY IN THE GRAIN ASSEMBLY MARKETS IN LENAWEE COUNTY The intent of this chapter is to present the empirical findings from the computer analysis of the optimal grain commodity flow pattern and the minimum transport assembly costs associated with such grain movement. This chapter investigates the empirical results of six dif- ferent investment scenarios which involve (l) maintaining the current rural road infrastructure; (2) upgrading the present rural road system; and (3) four deterioration models of the county local road network over a 5 year, 10 year, 15 year and 20 year time period. The empirical re- sults are all recorded in constant 1977 dollars and involve 1977 produc- tion levels for ease of comparison. 6.1 Investment Scenario I The first rural road investment scenario investigated involved assessing the economic consequences of maintaining the rural road system as it presently exists in Lenawee County. Under this investment decision it is assumed that the Lenawee County Road Commission would provide re- sources sufficient enough for the upkeep of the existing rural road net- work. The empirical results af this particular investment scenario serves as the yardstick against which the remaining five investment decisions are measured. Based upon the computer analysis of the existing rural road infra- structure type, condition, usage and driving characteristics, 109 110 determination as to the travel time and distance between each production point and local grain elevator was made. Table 6-1 displays the distance and time matrix between production units and country grain elevators. From this table it can be observed that the grain elevator located at Britton is the closest to all production points, being no farther than 8 miles from any given production centroid. Toledo is the farthest grain elevator from the producing region studied. The Toledo terminal elevator is located between 27 and 39 miles from the grain production in Ridgeway Township. Travel time involved in grain transport to any given elevator is as low as 4 minutes to Britton and as high as 48 minutes to Toledo under the existing rural road infrastructure. Utilizing the relationship between time and distance, the average operating speed was established between each production point and each country grain elevator. Table 6-2 indicates the average travel speeds calculated. This table shows that on the poorer roads the average operating speeds were reduced drastically. The lowest average operating speed was 20 mph with many speeds found to be in the 205. Access to major state trunk lines between production regions and grain elevators served to increase average operating speeds. The greatest operating speed was 54 mph with 15 routes between production regions and the elevator at Toledo operating at 50 mph or greater. The transport costs per bushel of grain moved is given in Table 6-2. This was derived utilizing the transport cost schedule established in Chapter V plus costs associated with the handling of grain and the load capacity of the vehicles involved in transporting the grain commodities. Grain assembly cost from Ridgeway Township ranged from 2.2 cents per bushel to 31.5 cents per bushel. lll .copumugoamcuep use mxuzgmp: macaw mo acoEugonoo :uapgupz "ougacma oN mp a Np mp o pe mm Np vN Nn mp mN mN mp N pp mp w Ne Nm mp MN pm Np mN NN «N mp pp op 0 cc me NN mm em mp oN NN nN mp mp mp m cc Ne oN mm mm Np MN NN pN pp op op m pe mm pN mN pm op NN on oN op mp mp m me mm pN mN em mp pN aN up w pp mp p cc Nm op mN pm op oN on mp a Np mp m e? an ap eN mN mp up an mp mp Np Np - m Ne mm MN mN «N m up pm mp op Np Np m we mm NN mN mN pp pp mm oN pp mp ep m me an mN mN mN m op on pN mp mp mp m me No oN Nm NN o mp on «N mp mp op e No we mN on aN m «p cm NN ep oN up e oc me on mm mN m mp on NN ep oN op a oe me on mm mN m Np mm oN cp op mp m oe me wN mm eN m pp on pN mp mp mp m me No oN Nm NN o op pm pN mp vp mp N co co NN om NN o a an ON pp mp Np m we Nm mN NN oN op m an oN ep mp op e Ne pm mN NN NN m N am NN mp op m m we Nm aN NN oN m m Nn oN cp mp pp m we Nm NN NN «N N m Nm ON mp ep pp N we mm mN mN mN o c mm mN mp mp mp N on No on Nm mN e m mm mN mp ON mp m an ma pm mm oN o N mm pN cp cN ep m pv ma mm mm NN p p pmappzv pmmuacpzv compo» goamoa upuppmmppm cnpgu< coucppu couupem evapop Leanna upoppmmppm capgu< coucppu couupgm seem oucoumpa mspp 8 ameoua>mpm spasm aeucaou use maps: copuuavoga cmmxpmm xpguaz ospp use mucmumpoiixgozpmz umom poeaz NNmp .puo m4m8gp ~m888>< oh 8goua>8pm 8.888 xgucsou 8:8 88.8: 88.8888888 8883888 um>oz 8.8.8 .8 p828=m .88 8888 888 88888 po>8gp 88888>po m:.::8p: :opp8pgoam:8.p .:o.umu.o:8:8:8 8:8 mzngmp: 8.88m 88 8:828:8889 :8mpgupz "wugzoma 8.888 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8888..z .888. 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 88.88 8888.88.88 88.88 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 888.888 888 8888.8 8.8.8 8.88 8.88 8..8 8.88 8.88 ..88 88..:.8 888 .8>8.8 p8>8go umuwmgp 8.88. 8.88 ..88 8.88 8.8. 8.8. 8.88 888.888 8888.888.8 .888. 888.8. 888888 8.8..88..8 88.888 8888..8 88.8.88 888. 8888 m:8888.388m .o 8882 :. mmppz «..mp .:op.8:p.88o 8:8 8:88 cmom >8 mummgam 8:8:p538pm 8 o. 8:888888888 m:pummz 88 88...»:88p 8888: p888: .quo m4m<8 117 .8o.u888888888» 888 888388.: 8.88m 88 8888888888 888.8u.: .uugaom8 am up ¢~ ~— NN NN Nu —~ mw pm on om aw m— om mp pm a— —m cm mm om mm NN mm mm cm mm on mm mm mm mm NN um —~ mm ow mm ow mm —~ mm om mm —~ mm mw mm cm mm cm 888.8. 888888 8.8..88..8 88.888 8888..8 8888.88 NP op ~— mp 88 m— pp Np up mp m. m. op mp @— op mp 88 n. m. n— mp 88 mp up .. .88..z. m— «— ~— @— mp v. v. m. «p «— mp «— mp m— mp «8 ep mp N— o. o_ N. N. mp e— v— mmummmvemmmeevnvmmmnmmmemo 888888.o oe mm mm mm mm me mm .8 88 me mv —v o8 mm an ac Fe —m mm mm mm mm mm on .m —n mm em mm mm mm mm mm on on en en mm em mm mm ow .8 mp Np pm ow w. s. 8. mp mp 8. mp pm - n~ mm mm —~ —N m. pm Nu p~ pm on mu om - cm on mu om em Fm mm mm em mm mm ow cm on mm mm sw mu mm mu mm mm on pm um “88838.2. «N mm mm mN mm mm mm em Nu MN Nm mm ow cw ow em mm NN NN a. Q. —~ pm mm 8N mm _— e. F ‘DlflQl-DLDQQ‘DLD‘DLD‘D‘DN‘DOQQO‘NO‘O‘GO‘ T 888.8. 888888 8.8..88..8 88.888 8888..8 8888.88 mEph up ow mm PNMQ’ NNNN PNMQmONQGOPNM¢mONQGO o-o—o—v-o—I—o—o—o—v-N 8888 888ou8>8pu 8.8.8 xgucsou 888 88.8: =o.uuauog8 8883.88 x..p8z 85.. 8:8 ouc8um.au-mU8.8=m 8888.8:u.m 8 mo 585.8.2 8 a» emumxm 8888.8>oo--xgozumz 8888 .8828 88a. .muu u8m88. 88888>< a. 88888>8.u 8.888 88.8388 888 88.8: 88.8838888 8883.88 88>oz 8.888 mo .88838 888 8888 8:8 888nm .8>88. 88888><--888.8:m 8:88.Esu.m 8 .8 838.8.: 8 88 E8umxm 8888.8>8o--x.ozu8z 888m .8838 ..m. .8.» w.m<. 120 TABLE 6-7. 1977 Rura1 Road Network--Deve1oped System to a Minimum ofaa Bituminous Surface-—Annua1 0ptima1 Grain Commodity F1ow Grain Shipped to To1edo Via (in Bushe1s) To From Britton CTinton Adrian B1issfie1d Jasper To1edo 1 80,700 2 80,700 3 80,700 4 80,700 5 80,700 6 80,700 7 80,700 8 80,700 9 80,700 10 80,700 11 80,700 12 80,700 13 80,700 14 80,700 15 80,700 16 20,200 17 60,500 18 80,700 19 80,700 20 80,700 21 80,700 22 80,700 23 80,700 24 80,700 25 80,700 26 80,700 Tota1 1,150,000 948,200 121 from the northern most producing regions whi1e the excess southern town- ship production was shipped to the grain e1evator 1ocated at B1issfie1d. The minimum aggregate transportation assemb1y cost savings from making improvements in the rura1 road network was $43,820.10. This represents a cost savings of approximate1y 2 cents per bushe1 of grain moved. The tota1 aggregate transportation assemb1y cost was $297,135.60. The tota1 mi1eage of rura1 roads needing improvement as determined from the optima1 commodity flow pattern was 125.1 mi1es. Based upon the engineering cost studies of the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation, the resources needed for such an improvement was esti- mated at approximate1y $10.3 mi11ion. The 1ife expectancy of this rura1 road project is estimated at 12 years. Using this 1ife expectancy and a discount rate of 10 percent,1 the annua1 resources needed for payment of the principa1 and interest on construction bonds for the needed improve- ments were approximate1y $1.7 mi11ion. Thus, any annua1 benefits from this rura1 road infrastructure must be eva1uated with respect to at 1east the immediate cost of $1.7 mi11ion. 6.3 Investment Scenario III The next set of investment decisions are based upon the assumption that 1imited resources for construction and maintenance wi11 force the County Road Commission to reduce their effort in the rura1 road mainte- nance program. The most Iogica1 cuts wou1d occur on the 1ess frequent1y uti1ized rura1 roads. These rura1 roads are the county 1oca1 roads. The third investment scenario is designed to investigate the economic 1The discount rate of 10 percent was the approximate rate being paid on state and 1oca1 bonds at the time of the ana1ysis as reported in the Na11 Street Journa1. 122 consequences of a11owing the county 1oca1 roads to deteriorate through 1ack of maintenance over the next 5 years. Based upon the computer ana1ysis of this deterioration mode1's rura1 road infrastructure type, condition, usage, age and driving characteristics, a determination was made as to the trave1 time and dis- tance invo1ved in moving grain between each production point and 1oca1 grain e1evator. Tab1e 6-8 disp1ays the distance and time matrix between each such points. The indications from this tab1e are that distance invo1ved changed very 1itt1e whi1e a pronounced increase in trave1 time is observed in many of the grain movement routes. A1though the maximum time of trave1 remains at 48 minutes to T01edo, the minimum trave1 time increases by 1 minute from 4 to 5 minutes. Emp1oying the re1ationship estab1ished between time and distance, the average operating speed and the estimated trave1 cost per bushe1 of grain moved were derived. Tab1e 6-9 provides this data. The deteriora- tion of the county 1oca1 roads has an impact upon the grain movement in Ridgeway Township by reducing average operating speeds which, in turn, increase transport costs. The minimum average operating speed fa11s from 20 mph to 16 mph as a resu1t of deterioration over a 5 year period. Maximum average speeds fa11 from 54 mph to 51 mph. The grain transporta- tion assemb1y costs, as a resu1t of 5 years of neg1ect of the county Toca1 roads, show a 1977 rea1 cost increase. Incorporating these new transport cost figures into the objective function to be minimized in the 1inear transportation mode1 provides the soTution for the 5 year deterioration investment scenario. The optima1 commodity f1ow pattern of grain produced and transported from Ridgeway Township to ToIedo, Ohio is provided in Tab1e 6-10. The so1ution to 123 .88.888888m888. 888 888388.: 88888 88 8888888888 888.88.: “888888. 88 8. 8 8. 8. 8 .8 88 .. 88 88 8. 88 88 8. 8 .. 8. 8 88 88 8. 88 .8 .. 88 .8 88 8. .. .. 8 88 88 .8 88 88 8. 88 .8 88 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 .8 88 .8 8. 88 88 .8 .. 8. 8. 8 .8 88 .8 88 .8 8. 88 88 88 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 .8 88 88 8. .8 88 8. 8 .. 8. . 88 88 8. 88 .8 8. 88 88 8. 8 8. 8. 8 88 m8 8. 88 .8 8. 8. 88 8. 8. 8. 8. 8 .8 88 88 88 88 8 8. .8 8. 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 88 88 .8 .. .. 88 88 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 .8 88 88 8 8. .8 .8 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 88 88 .8 8 8. 88 88 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 88 .8 88 8. 8. 88 88 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 88 . 88 .8 8. 8. 88 88 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 88 88 .8 8. 8. 88 88 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 88 88 88 . .. .8 .8 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 88 88 .8 8 8. .8 .8 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 .8 88 .8 8 8 88 88 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 88 88 88 .. 8 88 88 8. 8. o. 8 .8 .8 88 .8 88 8 . 88 88 8. 8. 8 8 88 .8 88 .8 88 8 8 .8 88 8. 8. .. 8 88 .8 .8 .8 88 . 8 .8 88 8. 8. .. 8 88 88 88 88 88 8 8 88 88 8. 8. 8. 8 88 88 .8 88 88 8 8 88 88 8. 88 8. 8 .8 88 88 88 88 . 8 88 .8 8. 88 8. 8 88 88 88 88 .8 8. . .88..zv .88888.zv 888.8. 888888 8.8..88..8 88.888 8888..8 8888.88 888.8. 888888 8.8..88..8 88.88< 8888..8 8888.88 8888 88888m.8 85.. 8. 888888>8.8 8.888 8888888 888 88.8: 88.8888888 888x888 x.888z 88.. 888 888888.8--88888 .8888 888888 888 .8 88.8888.88888 8888 8--8883882 8888 .8888 888. .818 888<. 124 8.88 8.8. 8.8 8.8. 8... 8.8 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 8.88 8... 8.8. 8.8. 8.8. ..8 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 8.88 8.88 8.8. 8.8. 8.8. 8.. .8 88 88 88 88 88 88 8.88 8.88 8.8. 8.8. ..8. 8.. 88 .8 8. .8 88 88 88 8.88 8... 8... 8.8. 8.8. 8.8 .8 88 .8 88 .8 88 88 8.88 ..88 .... ..8. 8... 8.8 88 88 88 .8 88 88 .8 8.88 8... 8.8 8.8. 8.8. 8.. 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 8.88 8.8. 8.8. 8.8. 8.8. 8.8 .8 .8 88 88 .8 88 8. 8..8 8.8. 8.8. ..8. 8.8. ..8 88 88 88 .8 88 88 8. 8.88 ..8. 8.8. 8.8. 8.8. 8.8 88 88 88 88 88 .8 .. 8.88 ..88 8.8. ..8. ..8. 8.8 88 88 88 88 88 88 8. 8.88 8.88 8... 8... 8.8. 8.8 88 88 88 88 88 88 8. ..88 8.88 ..8. ..8. 8... ..8 88 .8 .8 88 .8 88 8. 8... 8.88 8.8. 8.8. 8.8. ..8 88 88 88 .8 .8 88 8. 8... 8.88 8.8. 8.8. 8.8. ..8 88 88 88 .8 .8 88 8. 8.88 8.88 8.8. 8.8. ..8. 8.8 88 88 88 88 88 88 .. 8.88 8.88 8.8. o... 8.8. 8.8 88 88 88 88 88 88 8. 8.88 ...8 8.8. 8.8. 8.8. 8.8 88 88 88 88 88 88 8 8..8 .4.8 8.8. ..8. 8.8. 8.8 .8 .8 88 .8 88 8. 8 ...8 ..88 ..8. 8.8. 8... 8.8 88 88 88 88 .8 .8 . 8.88 ...8 8.8. 8.8. 8.8. 8.8 .8 88 .8 88 .8 88 8 8.88 ..88 8.8. 8.8. 8.8. 8.8 88 88 .8 88 88 88 8 8.88 ..88 8.8. ..8. ..8. 8.8 88 88 .8 88 88 88 8 8..8 8.88 8.8. 8.8. 8.8. 8.8 88 88 88 88 88 88 8 ...8 8.88 8... 8.8. ..8. 8.8 .8 88 88 88 88 88 8 8.88 8.88 8.8. ..88 8.8. ..8 88 88 .8 88 .8 8. . 888.8. 88.888 8.8.8.8... 88.888 888:..8 8888.88 888.8. 88.888 8.8..88..8 88.888 888:..8 8888.88 8888 ..88888 888 888888 8888 88888888. .8858 88888 .8>88. 88888>< 8. 88888>8.8 8.888 8888888 888 88.88 88.888888. 8883888 88>8: 8.888 .8 .88888 888 8888 888 vmmnm .268. 8088m>opu :pagm agucaou can maps: copuuavogu consume xpguuz map» can oucaumpa--muuoz _ouob aueaou as» co capuago.euuao Lam» op--xeo3aoz snag pats: “no. .ppuo w4mNLp umogm>< or mgouo>a.u apnea Nguczou ucn Naps: copuuano.m cumzuoa uo>oz cpogu mo pugmam so; umou as. comam pc>ogp uuugo><--mvaom pouod Nuance as» we copuogopgouuo Lao» op--x.ozuoz coca pN.=¢ swap .Npuo u4m

——I @ C". and/or Getter 0- low I- Ooe SI“ Z-Ioth Sreeo ® Shower-Cort Condition I-6ooe z-Ferr l-Poor @Ieeron math (Feett @ mm -or- Icy (rm I @ lose Factor t-Eecetleot Z-Gooe 3- Four 0"" 5"!" _— ® Drainage Factor I-eaeorote S-teteoohte s-Ieoeeeeoto t-FroeooelFeIt access Contvczl rote-eel S-O-e-ooy —'t 69 Trattic Operation o-n-mt-mu ItemI I~Olle~oee trusts-ore Deal 9- too In u-emeoe H ® Direction ot Travel On 0mm Hrs 2 -so o-ea «as __4 ® Terrain O-ltt Whoa l-Leeel lorot l-lollrog Iorot @ Average Daily Trattic (lees) t-Est. burr T ® 30th high Hoar ® Trottic Espoosioh Factor ® Per Coot Con-erclot Vehicles ® Par Coot Sight Restriction Q9 [listing Land rm t-lorol z-m. s-coo —-I @ rum Lone Use r-emr z-m. s-coa ___) @ liteege Control t-loChoogo 2.3.4.9.6 -See Ioooot H - - @Soociol Costiog Coee APPENDIX B INTEGRATED COMPUTER MAP OF LENAWEE COUNTY 154 Integrated Computer Map of Lenawee County JDT/LENAUEE/U'IS/l . 4. rt. 3 e .. .N. ...» Arias 4t 1.. «.114. 7+ 1+...fihfifiawfiréhwl it}... «.../.14 .1... x..... .....man. 8.44.... 1+H+ffi+r $4....“ :..¢..4.fa......r p i+v7++ «.«rflf... -. .. I: pp”... t....tr.+++ 2a - ...... cVfitlwtca++rTl ......++.+++. L fly... . ..f .....rttf...1++++++. 1H4: +M.«.M..+++.+. 14.1.1.1. ......" .. +.. «.1 . I+4+++++t ....Nx “......wfp. .r..$i....++++.r+. ...N..- ...N. «.-.... ..N....IT. ls N . .#«* .U. I. LICLWP+++++I+I 4...... Er b J .. ...xr....+++.r++. 4.“..1.T 1HHHULI4 . I .+.1......+.krc evil}. “.1pr uttHduI... ...“ .. “III; . t-..r#+++++. . p \LJIJ... t pinup-irrklflu A. 43...... .- .. #«...:-.n+t..hr .c .++++.T .7 «LS»: ...... ”pi..- fit... 11.... titre... If .. .1111... ...... ...+.....+..r...r..++.u$.a+~ CI... FT... .++.......J..J.. . -+++ hilfiurjr. . 44.3. TTTTT. 41 u. m1 . .r 4 1....1 .fltc ...TTT. . p. .rwtrfi.»++i.. ...N It 4:13. .\r++%+ 3. . . T++L4 ,. . 4.41.1.3tu- ......«T... I frilfirtrflpuH+I r814...th . pi APPENDIX C CHANGING ROUTE PATTERNS AS A RESULT OF CHANGING ROAD SURFACE TYPES 155 Computerized Base/Upgrade Map JDT/LENAUEE/BASE/t. tag; FROH zone 32 JDTrLENAUEE/UPGRADE/l. TREE rnon zone 32 “1 r -...-.Ii' )fl --.--o-J APPENDIX D AVERAGE SPEED OF TRAVEL BY ROAD SURFACE TYPE 156 Road Surface Type Unimproved Earth Graded and Drained Earth Gravel and Similar Bituminous Surface Treated Gravel Mixed Bituminous Surface on Gravel Mixed Bituminous Surface on Concrete, Brick or Black Base Concrete Average Safet Operating,$peed TO 10 20 30 35 35 40 mil APPENDIX E ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST PER MILE BY SURFACE TYPE. NUMBER OF LANES AND FUNCTIONAL CLASS 157 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS PER MILE BY SURFACE TYPE AND NUMBER OF LANES As Used in the 1974 Highway Needs Study Update Transportation Planning Division Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation SURFACE TYPE EQUIVALENTS Needs Study Surface Type Code Surface Type Code 6 Bituminous on Rigid Base 1 7 Concrete 8 Brick 5 Freeway Bituminous 4 Bituminous on Flexible Base 2 9 Other 3 Bituminous Surface Treated 3 Gravel Gravel and Similar 4 Graded and Drained Earth Unimproved Earth O—‘N Per Program Listing 158 Annual Cost Per Mile Number of Lanes Surface Functional Class Type 02 O3 05 06 O7 08 8 18 O9 10 20 Statewide Arterial (Rural) Regional Arterial (Rural) Local Arterial (Rural) Principle Collector (Rural) Secondary Collector (Rural) Residential (Rural) Residential (Urban) (F.C. 08) (F.C. 18) Local Access (Rural) Industrial/Commercial (Rural) Industrial/Commercial (Urban) + _) hwmm-a—e-e N-e—a—a hwad «b-waNNN—‘d bwwNN-J _J #MNN-d NOS-5N hN-bN-b-bN-hm N-DNDN-h N NNbNhN NN-bNO’t-DN NN-DN-h N DNNNN $6.075 8,100 9.450 5,400 4,725 6,075 7.425 4,050 5,400 3.375 1,080 4.050 5,400 3.375 4,725 1,755 945 2,970 4,185 1.755 2.970 1,350 1,755 945 2,295 3,240 2,160 2,970 2,700 1,620 2,295 1.350 2,700 1,620 1,215 945 945 1,890 4,725 7,425 4,050 6.750 2,700 2,430 & Functional Class 12 - Statewide Arterial (Urban) l3 - Regional Arterial (Urban) 14 - Metro-Area Arterial (Urban) 15 - Local Arterial (Urban) 16 - Principal Collector (Urban) l7 - Secondary Collector (Urban) 159- Surface _Txpg_ NNN—a-e—qu waNN—I—I—a—I waNNN—J—I—I—I pummmmpddp bbwwNNNN—J—‘d Number of __l-jfléL. bN-hNCDOl-bNOW-DN NNOt-thOl-DN NNCDO‘DNCDO-DN NNmOl-bNmO‘I-hk) OthNCDO‘bN Annual Cost Per Mile $ 8.100 10,800 14,175 17,550 7,425 10,125 13,500 7,425 10,125 13,500 16,875 6,750 9,450 13,500 16,875 3,375 1,080 6,750 9,450 12,825 14,850 6.075 8,775 10,800 12,825 4,725 1,080 6,750 9,450 11,475 13,500 5.400 8.100 10,125 3,375 945 5.400 8,100 10,125 4,050 6,750 8,775 11,475 2,700 4,725 945 1.890 160 Surface Number of Annual Cost Functional Class Type Lanes Per Mile l8 - (See 08) 19 - Local Access (Urban) 1 2 $2.025 2 2 1,350 2 4 2,295 3 2 1,350 4 2 945 20 - (See 10) APPENDIX F CONSTRUCTION COST PER MILE BY SURFACE TYPE FOR CONSTRUCTING A BITUMINOUS SURFACE ROAD 161 RURAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT COSTS BY ROAD TYPE* Upgrade to Bituminous Surface Road Type Cost Per Mile Bituminous Surface Treated Gravel $82,400 Gravel and Similar $82,400 Graded and Drained Earth $82,400 Unimproved Earth $111,500 *Source: Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation. APPENDIX G INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TABLE II--LINE-HAUL COSTS ADJUSTED FOR EFFECT OF SPEED 162 TABLE II. LINE-HAUL COSTS ADJUSTED FOR EFFECT OF SPEED1 South Central Territory Line Line-Haul Running Speed (Miles No. Per-Hour) (l) 1 42.9 Miles Per Hour (Actual Cost Study Average Speed) .............. 2 15 Miles Per Hour (Assumed Speed) ...... 3 20 Miles Per Hour (Assumed Speed) ...... 4 25 Miles Per Hour (Assumed Speed) ...... 5 30 Miles Per Hour (Assumed Speed) ...... 6 35 Miles Per Hour (Assumed Speed) ...... 7 40 Miles Per Hour (Assumed Speed) ...... 8 45 Miles Per Hour (Assumed Speed) ...... 1 Total Line- Haul-Cost Per Vehicle- Mile (2) 52 108. 87. 73. 65. 59. 54. 50 .230 ¢ 725 008 978 291 086 432 .813 When the average speed for a specific haul is known to be sub- stantially different from the overall speed for the cost study as shown on Line 1, Column 1 above, select from Column 2, above, or interpolate therefrom, the cost per vehicle-mile which corresponds with the known speed and substitute such cost for the overall cost shown on Line 1, Column 2. See Item lO-B of explanatory data for description of the applica- tion of the data in this table to specific movements of traffic. APPENDIX H COMPUTER PRINTOUT--EXISTING RURAL ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIMAL LINEAR PROGRAMMING SOLUTION O 0 0 [L Atttvtttts (.1940 v I buy bUU u-o—e-n C41 bu'. rscxho IN hLNthlr V. ‘u‘yl‘? Orr-Ann.“ ch ace-Mei. 5...? L‘CLUIJCOI U‘l\‘-)Uk‘r LOC 00¢: 300000 UCC‘L C‘.‘ 163 OVIO'NC-qu OOOOC‘C 01’. 00 030001 “”5030”: OCC 6 fit: JOUC C UL‘go~'Z.0\-t u.‘ e n ”C: W'M u oan’JUOCOO rooouooooocon.soonu00pc ”C0. of us 0'- OhM -‘DC£~J()L C '- 0(,.’ ‘UC C.‘ s'sWIh 05 C C :‘OIAOOO prurtxa (PU'. Na or we. -‘9‘, F-flétfldfi. crocamne. hm”.- o; HCC~:wC5fl~£- AH$ (a: 'J'. N pecuhmo wfVOci- O I O I 0 O O O :otlupbnfi r: (r); r or Q-LIQQ-“f‘h'N‘CthQFO ‘i: cc 0" H01 sQfllJ f-PQNKNNNNNPWQI‘O smog: ':N':P ( CO~I"'IU- -50 N2: h‘gdlczlgéb Pia“? .- e- o- p—pp—i 7V 7‘ w - fifi and efiuflV‘t'thflWufiIfiV‘V‘WlflW :tflefi“) mmmmnmwmwwmmmmmw urnmrrmmm Ir nomwnnmv If duh/Hf wwwwmunuwwmwwmm v v‘ fi—w JP.M~JV‘\ \G‘ JDPP.»'\~IU\NLCFNP140NK) Che“. 35“; ’fQ' »‘.I‘J~‘ LN) CP'yv‘Q d.’~& porepr'rnwmnncwnummrnn-~nedeqeddevnmnnmuuws€GVC¢~~NNNN~NFNO&&&I8‘~ m>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>p>>>>>>>>>>>b>>>>>>>>>>>>>>yr>>>>>>>r>>>>>r>>>>>>> e—o-o—o-o-pe-e-p-e—o-e-e-e-o-o-p-h-r-e—e—pe—e—O—o-o-e—o-e-e-o-o-e-o-e-o-v-u-e-o-o—e-o-r-o- :o—e—o—h-o-o-r o-u-e- o-o-o-o-u-o-o-o—r-o-e-o-e-t-‘o-I— 5 ———Il-. h—m C“. t. >a>>>>2TJ>>5>>’>$)>>>)>>))>)>J>>5>J>>>>>)3));I>>>>>>>)>>>)>>)>>55)>5>>>)> 91.5: 9“. CM'JO-“e‘t 'HJ‘ré r ‘1’ '3o 5 f- ‘2? t..-r... ._I r '5'...“¢" ¢*$ o o o o o o o o o 0‘..." ~s"h‘.\f-- P Wuv'fi'hn-"JV I I I I I I I I I none-M‘Ca‘ho ddu‘omhflfiIM o-rQ-P'onvbff SOLVE SBLNTION ( P. 5118! l. 2°) OPTIIAL -340°5570.0000 OhJECTXVE FUNCIICNI STILUTXLN H .‘_= v—‘v pp 1 —w v (43‘ 0‘ 0‘ 0m an‘cooc C'C)‘ ( 0' .Ofi.‘ u“\?-NO-‘-t‘-'°~;( Ca . (‘C'Oh‘OC—‘Oss‘lx ’. A Op‘ow' COGOOCJC‘OC‘L‘C-k' COO-DCIOCOOCIO'ZCO Gt“ 9;.r. 36" ." C'hTCI.-OVC'N-QL\J( {:ch CaloocaooeoooogooeooIOIOOoo nos-co '.'OfiO.2‘0CU'NUQOhOOOOOQC-‘DO '.‘ )1 Usi'QcQo‘O- “4006;100:906ON-OL-OO huts MNNNNNI‘. NBNILILquNNNthkhsh 2:." I\ ( e' 'f)- 0’: ‘5‘ ‘3 I U- wt (3 JC Lo‘)...‘ '3 at a a cot-‘0 73.10 puLmNqu s‘mur'x‘a a; Qv‘ J‘VlV‘V'eyIIMWWoSWUGo/Hfienb‘uhfls‘ltfieflV‘IflViU‘N/Is’ rash" "J‘FNWL‘PNI .y...- r wraith; «tr-nge 1"WO‘N-WO )‘ sDPv-N'IP‘V'QV‘ rel-re e-e-o-e-o-e- b) w>>>>u>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>p>> uo-e—o-r-e-o-o-a-o—o-a-e-o-e—o-e-e-h-o—o-a-o—o-I-t-e-o- V—V" “fir“ :>>>>>;>>>;)>=>>’>>>J I>;J>;> 3 ~>~~P o-o-o-o-o-Ow :e-e-h;o—e-e-a—o- Pe-h o-t:e-r—o- o—uus. UUUUUUUUQUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU O‘CQ‘CG ‘CC‘CC‘C‘ ‘Q‘CCQ‘C<¢¢( d ICES SHADUU PR Cd toe-a-h-o—::o—o—o-a--o-o-o-e-—e—u-o-o-a-o—o—o-e—u-e-o-h h-e-u-a-o-r-a-o-r-r-p:o-o—e—o-»—:o-a-o-o-o-o-u-;—o—e-o—o-o—e-o-o—h—r-o—a—po-D-O-O— WUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVUUUUUUUUQUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 0““Q‘¢“‘~“C“‘¢C¢“‘£(‘<“‘(“C‘fl€¢\.‘C“‘C‘¢‘C““““(<‘OLC“‘C“¢““ U C 2 v.09“ ‘3'- 96" 1x IO'DfiJOnC. 'C‘qfii‘.‘k‘fi;$ (‘ -. CC .‘ L‘C‘Cetoe. 0 ‘e?!. -.' I‘C Os Us 2‘. OL'OJ '.(0JU‘O3\'§¢\LC< Ce- U'J».k‘- -‘C Ordibk‘ 00° L‘CZCO-avkut-SCOU ‘QC .:(‘()n')..()0u 'C)(.ot.‘IO I O O I O O C O O O O I . C D O . . . CC C“ L‘O~.0\‘ COCO; 00°C 0&06060‘; pfi‘UgO O.‘ 001‘ U‘N NW murmur»...nunvmmannciwmmmmv‘mmmmmmn Int/HI Havana/HI crew-Ar v s1v‘5flv' vte-rv‘ II no If comm UL ~d-Uuphp‘beJWJJU-Ud-uh- .0- db.“- uuupuwa uuvUL t..siuuuuuuusnug'kuu»uuugvsouu urunnnxxxxrunnuxnxxuxunxxxnxn Ufldeflefih—‘WUUH‘H'UKJUU‘UUI‘-.JIMUUW‘JUU 0(‘00LC ¢OL{‘ch'ao. "C' .‘ Zahn‘tfib‘:c-OO k". S .-- "t. k LO'C' .‘f. Jnxss (N s" «.0’. (e\ (1:0“C0' 'fi‘ I' t ‘ QJC fi(’\ 5 N r\ c.-:‘f ZCZO .' owe-u \. \o-Pdv-u-‘uu- sic-e I; PJVO" "Jv'fifi Nu!) OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOO0.0.0.0.000 0".)q “e-e-e-.-L- nave-UP) ’ .- L : \ryr..Lr-.rs::e r..r‘.-rcN’rtV'eNNh-Nmt‘amt‘lrf .Pv-Pe- mead-e- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII SLACKS bwh- uwbbbdbowhuu rpm du‘obhAJt-NWJ um os‘II-eflu uuuubuvs UUHUU-tb vb L'uuw—«uws vUUUU izpuwwaAE¢¢JJJCa3::43nuiuza8:; --‘—-----&-b--fi.- ----fi-b--—.--e~& .‘ 5"~“QE‘#~U.J O'tw'de hit. “g FF "P'- F' f Peu~f.l‘4(¢,y(\r‘~~ 'rdm“|l“hn , h F“d ‘1» J ‘Jl‘3J'H'CJJE1'I dU-—\_U'. . ‘ :,~—§ '8- “ .UC Ark P's WI er. 9TH l erg 164 OCIC‘OCIO QOUVO LIL-c Lac ur-r. Q. .0 UraslUUg-\)\,L 9° C”. -.nt'gsct g4 I I I I I I I I I I I C'NN ha“ I I "Jil‘t‘NLOIokPN hunsnnsn*‘¢ r Pr I-I-I-I-I-g-c-I- L16".~OOCOOOQO 000:; O»\ ac" A C-mPKLvJMNm I I I I I I I I I I I ”NF“: wanna-fig nun N’dNtVNIVNNNNN I I I I I I I l I I I 8'13 CI-KQQT INC JG “’4. 3. “Q“ I-I-I-O-I-r PrI-I- O¢N~~IG-~~IW~O C C 9"“.3-“44 Q-fl "F"P"'PPP >>>>>>>>> >3- u—I-r-I-r-o-r-I-o-I—I- ~~~~~~~~~m ' >>3>>>>>b>> "Mon—nu-FI-INI‘ I—I-r-I-u-I-I-D-I-r-a- UUUUUWUUUU C ““l“““ CO-DCOCN‘C‘C‘C’OOO’NDI our-Mr) MV‘OC'C- 00(4500004‘C‘fi coc-ronC-ru'-oounoc-c 00.30653! CDUO'M-O-‘DOO CC»- ‘330’. 0006 °~ can fir“ ULOtWI.L)Gr>L:<‘Qc-QQC fioL- -L-¢‘ 00.3..20“¢“COLOOOC O~30CD()£ kax'ChUt O'.‘O( 00? L 0", I’d OUOF'M rO 1C 30900090 “DL'IQt-AQmNNNQQ‘J q.~u\v~¢oFI.\'~“V‘(1€ Lu - I‘crxr - NNV¢\';~1I a ~-,c ‘ohkgmm III.IIIooIIIIoooooooIoo.o-Icoon-o...IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII P‘N" «LNV-‘vf-s' ‘cv-MOAL “Jan: (I; 93$~UOJ¢NUOMUQUMPOI c a PtNPUMCLahyIM goo .- I- I- I- I- I- I-I-u- V’V‘IWMWV‘NflV-J mmmmmnamwmmmwmmwmmmmmmmv‘ma mafia-2mfiflWV‘WWVJU}U}V‘WWIOWWW ‘v—v v—L fi fi ‘ v—v—w fl v—v—V v—V'w gonna Ln '.. 3 95"wa a. :Gq-Mdn c N O Qv-N-f‘v‘crs A .9 r.v~.~tmfs*;‘OI-~‘u 05:1; c-ermo I00 0 0 90:“: I. 'OuOuOg-Uv-v- Po-c- ...-v-~~~~m.vu~m~ww‘r~ar.w~fiq v. ~14 q aggmgxnmfi I-I-I-I-v-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-r-v-O v-PI-I-I-I-v-v-I-I-I-Pv PFO-I-I-r r PPFPI-I-I-PI- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bh>>>>>>>>>r>>>>>>b>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>pb>>> upppphpprkph—phphbhpppphrbhhhnp»pup—pzpphppuphhpppppphz _‘ >,)>>55‘))))’>)>>>)>>>>>)>>>>>>>>Ja>>>>)’)5>>a)">>>>,’ I-b:r-r-O-v-I-bo-I-—t—I-I-I-I->>I-I- .- hi- I- phI-I-I-b—r-PhI—O-hZ—P I-I-o—I-I-p-I—I-t- I-I-I-b: WUUUUUUUUUUUUU WUUUUUVUUUUUUUBUUVUUUUUWUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ‘C‘C“‘.QC‘C“‘C“C‘Q“‘CCQ‘fi‘C‘QCC““Q“‘C‘CQ‘C“C.“ FRIC! DANG! (VER UNICN CPIIHAL SPIUIIUN HOLDS OCOUOUQs-OOQOOOOOO CCC'JOC IDLGC CL‘C CC JO 's.'\"|" ' 5‘50“ (Cr:0\ :“NN. A“"~.‘Il"‘§“‘ I I O C C O O C U . O :cmus~m¢u~~.nu~hm¢uL~,m, ICVIVIIY PthF 1' hit BOUND UFPER BOUN " II 843.): o-NV‘QI‘CNI'.O¢"I-M ka‘tVGC‘fi‘VCQONNW I-v-o-r-o-I-o-v-orI-I-c-I-q- '- cocooc‘onoc 0000000 (DOOOCK‘C'C OOOOOUOCIO G .39 ‘9‘ I2. a) ‘2 -Ma‘ ‘II-O u‘htaos- 9" Na. \an- NO OIOOOOOOOOOOOCOOC a hhds"\ U‘I'HINILKOCIQQLW I-ro-oc-v-I-fl.c-o-v-I-I-I-pI-~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ >(5-IC‘vON'U'K-nm n4 OLNLM FI-J '- U ‘ v-v-Nrewvc 45v «5.5:; T HQ F I-Nnomv-NOOmI-NP‘OU‘O'O ...-r .PI" VQU’ O~Nofi°é >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>b> r-o-o-v-c- u-u—o-v-o—v-u-u-u-u-I-I- >>>)>)>)>>)>>>>,> FF;PP u—r-ppr-u-o-o-u-u-I-u- uuuuuuavuuuuuuvuu ‘Q““CC‘_‘CC‘C“C APPENDIX I COMPUTER PRINTOUT--DEVELOPED RURAL ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIMAL LINEAR PROGRAMMING SOLUTION a-.."\‘ -- ..u "‘~'.-...‘o.q\-’ ~. 00° 00° 00° 000 I O O 000 00 0° , v-O In“ 08 NN man new» 00qu UUU I!“ W Urdu II c-n .- no 000 > 000 '- 000 "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000 vooooooooooaaoooccooacoocooooooocooooooooooooocoooooocoocoooooocsooooooooo 0 o o (0.200000000000003000000000000000000000000000o00006000000000000000000000000 00M cmo;cuo~.cc~mc~ooon.\' “5(‘-¢O‘C"‘~~“('o‘ouc~(CC“"-~INOC~~*~“’ (NCQQOONNC‘DOO . 000.0I...I.........OOOIOOOOOOCOIOIOO 0.00.00.00.00.........OOOOOOUOOOOOO :coechc-Aonoenw'vonsmocm ah“ bkoQéwsx~omr~woocomo~mzcac~=~cc¢vo~d~po '- c- c- v- 0‘ .— t 0 8 2 mammmmnmmwaw:mmmmnmammnmmammmanmmmmm«om-mammmm”mammmwmmwwwmmnwmnmmnawmmm ...N-nu : a — V_V.V V V V VVVV _V 900 I- "II-— 83C 0 3&4. z'U’CI-‘q.~95‘PNG1‘VN‘OC-Nm4‘Nibaoxmfld“JuWN-Coffbf' 40hx3omfl'4-‘vc03°P~~1¢>>>>>>>>pu>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>r>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>pbrb>>>>>>>>> o-u-u-u—o—u—o-v—t—O-I-o-I—c-o-o—r-v-u-v—t—v-v-c—u—u-I—o-o—o-O-r-c-I-o-Inna-nonpu-pa..—u-v-u—u-I-I-o-t-I-u—p-I-v-a-o-I—v-o-o-I-I-D-o-I-O-I-I-t- G)>>>>J>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>J>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>5>>)>’ )3) pt—bhbh:::~—hpu—ht—ph:o—:v—r-v-u-u-bu-I—t-Pub;:U-——I-I-u—u-I-v-u—b—o-I-o-I-D-O-t-I-bbe-PF-O-thPI-br:hhhb: 6'30 muuuvuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu0009009999000 338 CC‘C‘C‘4‘(4(‘C(£§¢£¢‘(((CC‘C‘1‘<‘(Cu£a NKNOhfia-OQV'NOO N 00.00.00.000'00'0000 000000 Pc-c-c-q-v-v-q-o-Pv-c- H"PC'FPC'FPP I 000000000000000000000000000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 000000000000000000000000000 HNMN MM NWNNPuIANfiNNKNMNN 000000000GUILuOUOOOUUUOOOQOO g £8~“££‘&I~~£fll¢0~0££$£$£¢nflfl III I! 2 U (3 C ~ .4 0°00 00 I pmmamwnmmnnanaamwmmnwwmmmmnw a 0°00) 0° . z 2 — h ‘ __ V fifi . n nn‘n .n. u I n . ...-x.. ----- .. AAA I ... ._- _AI-AIU "5‘0 00 u s a 0900005uuuuuuCuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ”Nut 00 > 8 u C : VV== ' ' 0 0 0 .J O t- a 1.quxaazxaazazauzaucuxxcca3:143 "ii-S 6' G H U 'NnOflPNC’u‘PNrQWNOV~¢35(NQ' filfi$Q---;“B$3‘LLBO-QQ-Q$3--B& arena-m N a U- 1 a: FmMMQQ¢Q¢\N;~oo"NfiI-\~l~lfl JI I I I I I I I 3 a on Pro-P'v-v-v-c-v- O ..I u- u t 0 n nwmncnaNNOOrwnenchL9O¢~ncnaha: In no u>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bh>b>>> 8 'PPv-"v-FPPMNNNNMW J ) :non—I-o-v-r-hzu—u-tho-u-o—nr-u—I-u-I—t-u-p-p g d u = .- :>>>>>;>>>>>>>>>>3>>>>;>>>>; 3 n 9 fl W“ o coarwncno a n u :bphpp;——n:»P—ppphpphh:h~—»h 9331113))313133111321133333113 qcnvmnamn c b a buuuuauuuuuuavuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Q;000-C00:0¢LLC;JCQ¢30030000000 t-v-v-rPI-c-v-o- ; 3 g =¢¢t“£§‘¢§CCCC¢¢(C¢C‘CC‘¢C‘ 518(1338383‘“ 38318083288688838 O I I ‘x , l .I .I . I O I I ,. I I | I I . I O . O I 000000000 00 n¢n<~x9cap~ KRKMNWQQ "PPPC—P "rt-.- 006 00000000 00000000000 00000000000 fluNNNNOQCON 0000......O 00C’OCOOMPP c-PNN-‘.'\le~~ I I I I I I I I I I I NMO 01-h mo.- ooo~~~rmm c-v-v-u-Pmi-P O OVQQOWSO 0 0"- ‘uf'fidwt {in PPf'C-v-PI-P'PC- >>>>>>>>>>h PFPDhHPPF~P ——~~~~ HAH— >>>))> >>>>> ~~—u.--‘~—~ b—I-I-ho—O-I-o-I—I- UUUUUUUUUUU ‘0‘0‘0‘0‘0‘ OOOOQOCOOCCCOOCOOOCDOOCOOCOOCOCOOCOOOODO 300°0000s30000000000000000000000 ~~rcc°‘CCCNNqfi-QQOC&' QOCC‘CFJ-fl C(C:4fi¢4~flot§o ......o.....o.. ......otooooooo 0.000... LN“ 0 60 OPNU‘ MN” 09 fit:0~‘~3~ OOflNONONPO‘O 0‘ 0";NO0V‘M00 «mammwmwnmmwm wwammwwmwwnannmwa mnnwmwnamwmmnmwmmmmmmwmg w 7‘ V 7‘ fifi v Ofu‘fl..\(' \a own-mark l. )OPMQuflthJOC-NFK‘ (N Lav-NMcmN‘anMm¢r~)Oo-~N 0 0000000900000OOOv'opprp¢~~~~~~~~vmmnmmnrnqqqeqccnnannn v-v-v-Po-v-c-I-v-"U-v-v-v-v’v- Pv-v-v-Pv-v-Pv-o-Po-PPPF—u-c-PPPPv-c-O-PPP >r>>p>>>>>r>h>>p>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>p>>>>>>>>>>> bun-un—o-r-v-pU-pbr-t-o-nI-u-u-hv-I-o-I-o-O-o-v-o-u-u-c-o-zu-I-I-r-I-I-r-Z—po-u-nhu-u-u-I-I-u- 0”)3)">>>”>>)>>>>3)>))’>JJ>>J>>J>)J)’J)5)>>>>,”)>’ uhnhI—ho—b-o—ppp b-p;F~FPP:I—P:P;thbi "PP—PP-U-P-t-F-PPI-PI-I-I-O-b 90000090000000«00900000000000000000uuuuuuuuuuuJUUUUUUU (0000‘ 0000000000400000000000000410. (00“. C000000000000 PRICE RANGE OVII UNI¢fl OPTIHAL SOLUIION MOLDS I ACIIVIIY PRICE PRICI ). .— UPPEI BOUND BOUND I b 00 >0‘ILU— 00°C. 300! \n‘ .COOF N158 Nhghz 2 I I N {OCH-NW. wlIf-QN c30v-00 “W‘Ccc‘. 000006550" Per-v-C-Pcv-q-Pc-v-I-Pp '- . COOOIDOO~0000000000 OCOOOOOI 00000?) 3000 UCQOQQ¢.000 K ’. 14‘ x40. NN I O I I O C O I O . .NNWM’" JV'UO rwpv-v-Po-v-u- I I I I I I I I I I 5‘0405NVN o-v-v-v-v-r-c- I I I I I I I —J >0woo~seo.muncaa~uoo p U -.o Pv-NN-fnt c cancNannc . r PKMQJ‘PN-o‘OOAU-NfiOsfic-0 "C-r ..‘5o‘e'd. OQNK‘,° >>>>>>>>>>>>prpbbr O-h—O-I-O-I-I-I-Pl-DO—FO-U-p: ;>>‘a;‘:>>:>>>>>>;;; ——== ‘ pup—pp—p—Pv—u—p—n—bp uuuuouuuuvu'auuuuuu ds<¢¢¢¢¢¢¢<¢‘§¢<¢( APPENDIX J COMPUTER PRINTOUT--5 YEAR DETERIORATION OF THE RURAL ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIMAL LINEAR PROGRAMMING SOLUTION I-.—“ '7’ r; 1’) CK“ o€.oc.can::c-a ‘3‘ (¢I’JC'(JC'I‘Q Of (‘04:)CC-00 N0 flit-CU "db-'3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‘us’ ("FAFFUO —C 4!. on!" Viv-'0‘. N I I I I I I I I I 03-00-0'.‘ “ECI' ‘ C O 300"." luflfqn nun-autumn 167 -... ;-cu"r5t.cpoyv¢ rag-n; Ccuuggr‘cfit'cC‘Hftf 5r? cooro :ch.CUL (r506 o: occupat- Oct'iut Brno c-;.c.ot‘ou:.ocac.ocsoc_flnor ocnnr oomnuononoc-c Decor-oos‘oon¢»unoocnnhfioot0906000000 e out ’ c-c one-toga; on c L at. cc ooooococ- vac»: canon: u-ac ocn a: cmoc oafiocu. at am). 0000 c. a ‘O-OFZC0B-‘O C u 00' @110 ‘4' 6CD “03".5 3.3.; :~¢’- NFC»: 1 J a. «xv-«c: cc ofttvs’DCéJ «most-manna «Mn-- 090 P 3.700 000000000000000000000.00000000000.000000000000000 0.0000000000000000. ¢.‘.c-:r.c¢-tnwo.on~smnn ”0 If: F‘s-N 06060421.“)‘9‘00 00l-1N2;uh¢ Gnu!“ 0“ hhncu 0 2 0‘ u— 0" 00%.!) I001 V‘U“ div www.mmmmvrunv.flmnmmmmmmnmmmo‘IMWMV. WMWMV‘VWWWMWWMS‘JIVJWMB'. unawawwmmmwmmvwwva ~-— ..IIO-nu-n ...—...u—p-Q—a-nunfi-U— 00-3. 6.010 0"“0‘ PtFC‘Oo—I‘.V‘.O Jh-‘U‘0fl' cmcnc O‘NCJDNCCI-C" ." C 55:01:. MC“ t. 5—PéCV Lh¢0°_’lC€Fa’ Hw~nfl~~~r.s\f.m finauuffltnmunfiv V2.00CCOC.‘ .al-J'o ea .6 II J is 'm ‘0FNF~FFFFF:%:S&L‘C CRCING 1N NONOPIINIL ACTIVIIHS huh->-b>>>>>>>>>r>>r>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>r>>>>br>>>>> >>>>>>>>>h>>>>>fi>>k>>>>>>>b h—phbhhb—hbhwpbbhh>ruphhhhpppbhFh—hhhhbhhbhb>hh~hhbhrphhhbhhhbwbbhhhbhhh: m-‘n—-.—---—- g 0,) a I!) ‘.‘>>>;>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>’>>>> ’>;);Yb>>>>’>>>>>>>>>>)>>>>>\>>>>>D>>>>>>>>: ~—~~HI~—-— 0-0-0-0-0—0-0—0-0-0-0—0—0-0-h 0—0—0—0—0—r-0-0-0-0-0-0-pv-r-t—hht-h-D-o-o—I-o-o-r 0—0-0- hu—ht-I—F-hth-hP—v-v-bt-I-bv-t-b-I-I-U-o-I-I-P mUUU LJUUUUL)UUUUUUUUUuuuuu0UUUUUUQU¢JUUUUUUUUUUJx'UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUL'UUUUUUUUU O‘CC ‘4 6‘1400"0‘t4‘C4444Q‘4‘4‘4‘C‘44‘Cdddd‘dddid004(1‘41(d‘fl‘0‘1‘d‘i‘fld‘fl‘fi‘ U (:000C'C-OOC coonocuthHC-crnooooo 0009,0000cOC‘DOO(IC¢‘CICD¢;CJPL0(IC'000 CUU~°(3“C‘£"JCJGO(I{ 00000000000000 00060009: CDCIOslt‘OCC-C‘DGOUOOC‘“00 000.00000000000000000000000.0 000000000000000000000004300000 0 mwanmmmmwvmmmmmmJWMMmmmmmmmmm .10. v .:V.v..rmunch-wwwvnmv'vunmc “:me 5|— J- o‘-.JoII~0-|iub «x..-0- 0—0. th'dbhvdb'L-UU O bv'-’&?u'JUL'UJUU¢-4L 0000; 9990.01. uuu c. xxxxaax‘nxxxaxaxuxxax)unuxxnaur 0 mebdflUI-ubhh UUulUI—Jubwwulub'uuk‘HUI-I 0 O o . c couooopouochoonuouooooc000.069 a awn-90cm on: nonovfluunoc uc-ucr (.00 C (2209901..‘cor'fi‘Ch...¢u¢-r-p¢.¢n:.c- _¢'---..-(;-)C :' chrc‘f.’ ..u r.: (‘1‘ ...-‘n .2099 n cout- chance-Dooneooooooonaoonc to taunt”! m:\.cnc~co—-L‘.Nnc onto-0c twnnao C‘ CUGI-C"C.‘CsCL‘DC‘CLOOOC)O¢O£‘OC|0 00000000000000.00000000000000 c can! host ocuc acct oc-c‘nuc coca: new-:a-u-«J .fl—uunvf'r-muava' . a neazhzao If. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (\fl- «sunfémmwwfi(vuwmwN—H-o—NN—OA I Doapooosoncoooounoouooouoco IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII anus. out-Pa -0: ocurononoc ouaoo r~~~r ~l~~\.. p~p~v~~r~v~v~~r~v~v~r~v~r~v~~v~ 0063130!IHJC'QDUQCIQK‘OC'DCJHD'DOC-000 J’ mama-z;{Nuaaa’awacmaxwxa.n;soxa I: N 2 U 0 1 0" .1 Q . v; o 3 Slaw“ aw:wgwwuvvmvrwwrmwgSMVN-n .....-a- dbubuquh—UUh-I-luus' uudw'uuuuu u 0 .I ozzuuauu JUUJUUQUVSIUUUUUIJUHJUUU 2 0— O -Vfi— 3 0 0- m dzzcca-Claudutauuuuinuxuua‘lxkl. o 0-0 p uni-no. «bpswoutnhrr.0‘uo~&raccomwno unuaauauu¢aa-auanama¢uauaaaa1 m o— g: P. pun-crutcc.‘ wstaLaCL—o—nmntcai J! 3 a .0 unnu-c—nnn— u 0 d 5 U - . t O In —~¢.-‘o.-.cr~¢-o-o-N-n~r. thtoo—mno» ~LV~QO u u u>>>>>>bb>>p>>p>>>r>>>>h>>>> z d—duflmdflflflhflwhmwwflafi O ) t-r-r-r-v-u-I-hr-0-0-0-0-0-0-0—0—0-0-0—0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0- O. J _l 0- P C I- ~>>>>>>>>>t>>>>>>>,,>>’)>)>’ g u- & U = ‘ a u upphbkph—hhbprhppphhhhbhhup» osjvaxxnagaauim0a;10una:>n;maa C b 5 huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 10005000000000000900000;000000 '- 5 J. Ud‘Q‘CCCCddflddfl‘dCQCQC-l00010 :83CCKC.‘II‘£I¢¢EJUC¢CJII’IRI‘8‘. m 0 G C I68 0000¢v000000 LOCL. cure-u:- nJQCO-If'g‘4vt‘t, C‘QLInL-0'9~CCD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‘ “N “f4 II ".00! $910 1 0—90 hhhshshnwaa on‘cflflv‘r‘r-"Hfifl C‘C‘Ofibcfifanr‘fa CL—Q'oCCdV’CJLCa 0000C GL‘C‘GIOI‘ —'-'~‘,. 0‘: ..Cfix O O O O I O O O O O O 0" C’C"’7"" “AWN“? NI“.NI’.I\N I I I I I I I I I I I Fn—Lfin'y“ 115w was-(wont: rem ~~~Ofiofl~~fl~~ 0%‘I‘uIOC‘V‘IJGCC .‘ L.v-—.‘.-.".OO O .0 gnu—oflfiun—d—I" >>>>>>>>>>> rbhhhhbhhwh ~0—0—u-04-00—wn-1-n— >>>>$3>>>>) 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0—0-I- UUUUUUJUUUU fiddddddd‘fid fee '70 P-Lr‘u :00 0"— C‘""C‘o-Jt mac var-ht" c; "not -.-r-c nor v P‘CuC-I‘t‘t t. a: r: hhocnnnn c-c- or '1coonno003c aunococ-noooc‘onnooocue-o: oaP nor-ace 0.00 not.» c manor 'nuoc~o':ocnorn ~r.¢ ODDI‘CFOIJUC conc-arr-Gnoccoonc‘cc Ira or... ”u; tul.‘ J .‘n. a 0:4 H.410 -‘Ifi~0." the tuu' an: Shh-Nu: ”0°C occur: In: a-hIINr- O 0.00.00000QOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOIOC $1.16 F‘Ifl'~¢¢~l~ ‘I0000:0¢' ‘3zo:wn—hu¢co~romnnba ”(rt-'00 HBO-ILFN‘OO .- ‘ — I! d 0‘ — MIAVaVHrIV‘IPI/‘IflwIflIflI/JU-WMV WVWWVIM WWVIMWWVIWWWU‘U‘. WWJIUIVM‘EWUIUIWVIMWWU‘WICVIWV‘ fi .0 v '— ON'IO o' - :Fxc "NILOrNQO DQWCU' \l ”U D-CJM01\B~IMI'GC.WO¢‘NOZG Udfilfi‘"? U”Cd')f J .‘C D-U‘U arc o o 0 .3. u (3!. .1: uu—u——«~r.r.¢.:.¢n\m(.a..~' 0 1.01010}! and a .1 c C 0 0:53.51; u“. 0n.-Madonna—ducnn-lc‘o-Iow-‘o-nnc-nn—n-Ifl—Nun—Rondo-0000Idno-Ido-I—IFIFINO! >>>>>>>0>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>¥0p>>>b>>>>>>p>>r>>>>>>r>>>r> 0-0-0-0- 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0—0—0-0-0-0-u0-0-0- 0-0-0—0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-v 0-0- 0-0-0-0-0-0-0—0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0— 00>>>’),))’>>'D>”>”’>>>50000‘D;3’>>‘>)0)>3> :>5‘>>”>,)>, hhhhphppbuphppbhbbhhhhbh—phphbhhpbI-hhpphbp:bbhphh;>hhbp UWUUUWUUUIIIIUUUUUUUUUUtJUUUUUUt'UUUUUWUUUUUUUUUUWUUUU U 0000.1010000“Q‘QCCC‘CC‘C‘dC‘C‘QO‘fl‘fifl0000000100000000‘000 PIICL RANGE OVER VHICH IDIIHIL SOLUIIOV HOLDS PRICE UPPER ROUND ACIIVIYV FRICF BOON" >¢ ID.- 0‘0 )1; "all .- U ‘ ocaontancnc‘nnooocona ouocwIbucuocuc‘nooon 0:400 0(1‘ I‘L-P. LC‘C.C—C¢J0 unfit-OS r 'n‘ ~A I'al'u'afllf. urn 00000000000000000 aaaazaszwxxat: ‘0 0"“ I I ‘WU‘OFK -0 Ir'ILFluO'D-‘N Lfis‘u'tu'ILIDch‘d’i J0hl~v~ “avid-don" “Hanna-0.00! 0000C'00lfl00! I.‘- ‘0000 00:4: L-C 0‘ L30? 00(0000 ObOOuC‘CI‘OC‘000¢'-6)00 an: thumn n~flfi .‘nL‘ISK-i 00000000000000000 10.50‘00‘ 00" o'cumnc- O ~~a~d~oowl§~~duurgfiu IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .;-wu.fl¢ III—.‘v-IOI" :00 $0 qd~I¢o)QFCKul £5 0" HF”? III-'50-, (ac-NF: N150! via-0ND)”. C O 8 00950000 ’y->>>>>>>>>>fippp bphhtpv-I-I-be-O- 0-0-9-0- ;>)>:>;a>>$,>,>’: ...... Ont-:9 0-0-0-0-0-0-0—5-pp0- SSUUULDUUU'JL‘UuugIUU a.‘¢¢‘d¢¢¢¢¢u‘-«¢ APPENDIX K COMPUTER PRINTOUT--TO YEAR DETERIORATION OF THE RURAL ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIMAL LINEAR PROGRAMMING SOLUTION 169 GO (‘0 00 (It. 0 O C 0 ' O O O Ifl F . N mm mm H... UU xx m b'u U n .- — GO > CD I- (1‘) v-r..:(ou:~_~g «.....5‘ «of :\ .-¢...:¢o .‘sg-I...‘ g»; ..rrahnr‘r c--‘IUIIc-“I\<..ocDru-buutu4‘1): car-Act- :‘nocuv fic-Ioau€o¢‘C-h Ou‘ uncvouc‘once-oneocoocac-apucnor-coonooooucooc acnc‘annuoc.<000000Rodooocouéuoounaooogg o 0 Qt :‘UI. ..Qg-‘.gufi~'w, g,r..1c.uac :.r.¢~r.c Ibg‘OCIOs I0-Isnc.¢"€ DIJC‘IC-IIC Iounp.‘u mlfmopcuoataLouf-L‘I00‘); (Ina§.¢ (.900 sic-O -..CN.L “fig..."I -‘g.."s).~.’_£;r ‘3'." "0!; I} -Nh¢.‘.~.c\(\“ik"v& d.'\~‘..‘I&r§‘3t\.F—F'-ICP~—~'.Ur-.ngo‘U'INQP'.“ I do...goo-00.0.0.0.oooocoo-000.0000...coco-0000000.0.0.0..oooooo-oooooooooo. C\Dan'Iu‘IC'IC‘J'J‘I)IV"C IV. OIM‘. in: N flair-IV ~Dw 7~~sttfi¢~fi -0F~¢u‘l§-Patvcr~&nflt\up¢UII‘I£J.¢ mp1¢w~ugn ‘ III '1 In F I! a! ... "f; ‘ .Q n .- a L4 2 . 3 z «JIJII/‘u'v-V‘U‘vctu‘wnmv nmrnmumwnv-mmmvwv unnmmmmmmmmmmvwww.mmmmnwumw-hmwmmmv.macammmmmmm t..»: z—--——— r. r. fi—u—o-n- “'0‘"- “" fi—“ = - ___ “F” """"""-"‘"' UU '- a... «:1 L‘ 3 Q EFF-Cd -0 0 an'.’.¢h:Q—r.r. tuba-9 COMOOW ~810~0~n'-CJ‘.FC J—IJ'T¢&F¢'JI‘ I'm?!» DSJ‘U—hcu-LF‘Io-QIII' 0*h9ofl c- Nfl—Mdo-anrflfo‘v.\‘-".I'.‘.‘~(\nn'f.r..o. ”5". . C C C ‘ 8 C U‘."f-f-o‘.’t o $ ‘J-‘fl‘ ‘ ‘hhhhhhh~5¢-c~ 1 3.“: 8891-0 'J 1 v-N Q 0'14? 1>>>> D >b FD r>>>>>>> >>>>r>>>>>>>>> uh»r'U-bv-n->>>>>>>>*--oprr>>b>p v p>>>‘>>) >>~>>> ht- I-I-o-I-t-u'o—b-u-J-v-I-o-u-o-I-o—u-I-b-r-v-r-I—o-O-u-h-b—v-I—I—b-v-h-o—r-I-u-I-I-D-o—D-I-I-o-o-v-I-I—I-i-I-t-r FI-h-I-O-I-D-o-I-fi-r-I-I-I-I-O-o- h9q~~~—m~o-—o——.n .— — ‘ _V .“>'>\.5‘t:-‘2>>>>>>)>)>> p>>>)t->>)>>>)>>>>>>>5‘-‘)>)>>>5>’>>>$>>tro>tfi>>>h>>‘a’>>>a) ”..~_~-DC— ~._- —_ g —‘ efifi *— )J ht-o-o-o-po—v-o—o—c-u—c-I—o—u-I-I-I-o-u-h-o-v-I-I-I—I—r-v-u-u—I-o-i-u—u-u-o-t-o—I—v-I—ho-I-I-I-r PP—h—I—PU-I-I—hO-U-I-I-I—v-I-D-I-I-I-I-I-o- Uf' 91941:'JuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuquuuuUL). uuuuuuuyuuuuuuu..quuuuuvuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupuuuu 3.x S‘C‘i1914.8d‘d‘d-IQQ.Q“‘44Q‘Q“§CQ“Q§¢C‘I4i¢§‘¢4‘SQHQ‘QQQ‘Q‘QQ‘C‘“I'~I~ld4"‘1“‘ U 0 CIJUL‘C’C'C fic: '.'r’-¢as‘CIL'O':¢-IJCH‘- 'C ”I -‘.,cu"° ngut‘unb; I'D-fit I‘.Ifa\o"I)( cubs: C nan (SUCIO Qut‘IC‘L‘DuC-Uuras‘c'£-'.C"JU¢)_¢UI-(.c|..¢ ub‘a‘cg (IF.:)\'.(.'C‘I3"IC.J'IIII.€4(‘IC . I:-ut.nc-\.cg.:'.(u1¢.° Ion-000......oucoooooooooo.o.. comatosrcoc. 3UUB‘CIDC‘OOUQ\|L o§¢oooo 0’1'0 cc.” C..— 000“! I‘Jl‘u N O I')/|I‘.III'IU"6‘.V.V3I‘K'HAV ViWIfifllIfiVlW~lHfiv~v IOU ”my. 5H 'V:'s‘.b'¢ If'dso- U" («fit-54W! VII/An! V Iu'ay:.'-I\'II..-flm blu-s'ub -bn-n-h----b--la B.“ odu-ukb --\- _‘g. I-Udu u {L.U'JMUUUL LIB‘UL.".‘J~¢'.4'4LJ'.‘I I;Ug;l,ag-L Ugly) a IAX‘IIVD’VIXKXhNIXDhfiklux-xux‘ C; ddbUUwubd-Ibbkbub'UuUbadu-sbh-‘whluu O o '9 .V CHOOCAOODQQIIOP‘I"‘OL‘C‘u-JGOI'IOOIJOCIC-Q n DCJJJDC-LIUCIL.{3¢PcfoklnrzCFOEUk‘C‘L‘g—lJnt‘IQ - IIIIL- r" u 'u If”);"|I ‘\l:—‘)\'-:'("I\(o\,UIIK (‘u -a- I r.” I.'-"\‘ -“f“ -I'-¢ «‘Icua- I N nut 4. t. .-. -.c quu '9 canoeno9200:)nDOcH-auc‘nr.Gannon Nae—:nc :' vac—ac: CAD : w‘u-afihr 4.; who (a onoccngooacuuouuugucogouuooo 00.00.00.000.000.000.000.00... ' b 0;)“: (‘Lst-I‘Iu‘ s-QI'CI-‘auO;'Ca£-“D—I€)£«:a I'm-"iv" CP.".r\hls'-h‘.fll(~‘I—'JC J: c :§‘i‘bi‘96° .r, o o o o o o o I I o o o o o I o o o o o o o o o o o a 3‘.‘JN\dC.I Ignaz-n.9,“ .I (\I‘.f\r.n—n~—H\¢\pn I OOOOOUunOLOflGOUchovnQUfiGOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII €3L3'.‘I,Ifh' c c .’.\'CIL nahncat c-c‘;.nnuc.':° sshnh~v~~hn .‘NFKNNNFNFFNP‘NI‘NN A O'JC -.¢---.':v . .‘ICJ' -c-oooo’ :ot‘hI C‘I‘fioO '- b¢&&¢.&:~xu~..muxr1x¢.x sxwaa: I.- n X U c‘ J oauooooo m “c.“‘ (c.3469 (I;I.nr_-(J.KIIJ O v.1 ‘76-’35.“ o o o o o o o o B-‘I-~J"~cl. ‘IN"O.I‘ ~- .A I I I I I I I I a Darv'nCU“ C In .' .' Jul (‘1! «coda-I‘d"- MWWVIm ‘fiU'U‘I/IU’VIVJS'IWJIWJ’WMV’UIVIUIWIN/NI) . ... ...... -- ‘ .—‘ -——v—-— 5.1. Uhk-b‘UbUI—Jb. ul- stub.-.I.I.'uI-I. LII-..-"..w in. .91 ‘UUUUUUUUUHU\)I— UkN—‘UUUUL & UUUU _—~~~—D‘_-C~_ HbCF‘u SOLUYIOH Raul-IJILBJJJ:YJOIJBKILJ‘I“OBCUB*IQ nhtrhs‘flhvcird‘x-hn’u nownaoo~nac h&h&-&$h° I..I\..3u0 .aaau $.12. ih¢mga u-a-Ic'oO-JCd‘qnm‘thC t cI—nn'fi’OO.‘ nundu—u-u-u-u-I 1k CCS ‘“ O I _.~,~1¢._- ._-.~::9 o—Nnop-IF x3 U—CJUZQ" ~0~zc~a S'I.I I. P. SCLVt OFIlp‘L SOLU'ION I DPJ‘CIIVL FDHCIIOM: h>>>>>>>>§>>>>>>b>>>>>br>>>b a ~~~H~flflvNNhNUhNhrnnnn ant-bI-I-I- I—u-o-u-I-I- I—I—t-I-I-I—I—r-I-r-pI-p-u-I-b Q ~>>>>>>>ab’>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> g ;——»~»-—»ppup—JF—pppppphpppp cam‘;‘3:3303‘1-3933333113311332 puvuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 40C000009006HOUvJOOOOOOOOODObOO 131¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢1c183l(Its‘xuslxxugg m UC‘CCd.“‘¢l§‘.‘¢§£d¢¢fl£fi““ ‘ I70 ("error-ous: ¢.c~4u¢~noc-owo I. truce-vague uric cuun~uu o o o o o o o o o o GINO N0. I I cr¢~zattum FFfiFFFnCCC ——-—~~~—‘~ OOGC‘.§OUO°° r.¢-ur‘LIJCoIJO OU:IOC‘L'Dfi-3° up. ". 'c-I‘.‘.“C 9...!“ ‘ ‘\ 31 ”N‘ OCIDC’VIV'rKV-Ou'. ~‘fl~”———~~ ON: C 5‘ IVOZ. un—n-uflc . q .5: "flu-nu—ntiufl >>>>>~>>>> I-DPO-D-I-O-O—O-O- *U—mu—u‘uI-QM >’ >> a >>>>’ w——-~—~~~ O-h-o-O- F-I—h-r-I—O- UUUU'JUUUUU ‘(Cd dd ‘4“ I‘I or '4.~L'f'fins-¢ CV «4.6-C r;( 4')" .II‘UI‘ .‘Iv- La‘.u’¢.p.)\‘c;fu"o¢ upo:~¢”--norvz.o:)ta out-c-(‘FOGOOOOOGBOSC O: ooaooeoanocu-c‘n 100:»onoocranrnooocon Op: DUI. 'Js‘t ac or". (’c- Jugs. C‘LI- 4.6;:ucudpobnucacunr-I:hucsuc‘ousuuuuoo finch—n-m.~cxaxzwn-oau‘rugnhnf‘HJoRfiIcucchwhfi--cévhumn 0.000.000... 0.000.000...000000000000...00.000.00.00 C F‘VI$F)~U IVnCV‘SKSPO“C :‘OILFMFHOCO$OD'CC‘V‘~ CC Fate flb'ac'fifllf‘u‘éflfl .- '0 '- ... GI! 04 o- " GI “WU‘IVIJIWI‘IWWVIV‘MUOMWMJIJIU‘G‘. VIIDV‘HIIVI u’NflV’I/‘Ifl V'I/‘WWJIIDIDWV‘WV‘W J‘JN’ "J. U‘U’O‘Ifib) 'OCJlflfi‘U‘FI-FSCI- " C. CDC-“J5 share—rum:- 1?th at." .5 FCC d—Vffl-"0 C‘U‘Olfio‘a‘ 'c- c 30". ‘I 2“; SI L f‘c-IZI-flflo-Iozon—fdffl. (v:€\0‘. O. 3hr. ".5" Po". .I- C C C C. O 9' I. uvfg'un _‘fl :_=7<:=~"~~~‘“~N~~fidn '— v v >b>>>>>>>>>>~>>>.v»>b>>>>>p>>u>>>>r>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0:20-th-I-I-O-b—u-I-I-o-o-I-I-r-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-bp h—I-u-r-u-I-rI-u-v-I-I-v-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I- _=- ,”>>;>:"’>>’>)>>>>)>‘D‘)))>,>)>>,;>5$‘>>J’>;‘>)>>‘): ’ Och-:I-b: bhpth-u-bo-v- o-I-I-v-I-I-D-I-c-o—v ...-:- o-Zp—hI-o-o-c-I—p-I—u-a- O-thO-FbI-F— OI Maul-II)UUUUt4UWUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU “‘M“~‘“““‘.“‘“.‘.‘.C“‘“““.“““‘“‘.‘.“““ aHICh OPIXIIL SUIUTILN wttcs PRICE RING! CVFI HUCE hPPCR BOUND ICIIVIVV PRHI LfiUfR BOUND ICIIVIVV caoI-»¢-.0c~ncoooaau—oo C.Cth)’JC;¢IIahOlet'QnU I on r‘x‘clc .’~I'-IH' act-u: 'IC‘I‘.‘ 99 a u's’ 5’ .‘ ."I-‘I-‘I' 55:“ n’s‘ufi fa coo-00.00.0000 o. Lit-A30. tfinatm‘fl Q are I I H. :0 ~ac C "Amt! .‘.-.~IO\c—.~r £‘-J‘-1~£4‘-£(~L‘.‘IQ¢I6-hhohl~ flflflfiflvflfl—Id ...-tion" 0 do! 0 000900“ 7COPOC‘DOOO—‘O. C-I Ot’loauufifif‘dnfiro.30 0° OCOOOC‘C'C‘DCIOL'OC‘OO 00 "co—“" 15~.'~L-: b-. .L‘ N :0 OOOOOOOOOCCIOOOO O. =N.g¢«us¢cnehx.¢ fic u—nnc—u—uc.~~¢.‘—nnuu an“ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II HI ‘I‘vL‘ ~ " .' F he“ :(.G‘ '0 n—ne'v.o¢. ct‘hFQA-OOI‘ I O o—hno 5'. v-Fd‘a u :o—~nc J’s-co III—nan. .01 oIVs ”h~‘§i": >>br>s>>>>>>>>>p>bh I-I-u-u-v-u-I- I—I—I-I-I—t-u-I-u-I-I-I- >>>,>)>>>J’>”3)),’ p:—I—D-'-D-h-b-PI-O-I-O-hbhbh UUUUUUUUUUUUUL'UUUUU CCCCC“‘4~1C¢“Q“‘ BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Agrawal, R.C. and Earl O. Heady, Operations Research Methods for Agri- cultural Decisions, Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1972. 805, H.C., Spatial Dispersion of Economic Activity, Rotterdam, Netherlands: Rotterdam University Press, 1965. Bressler, R.G., Jr., City Milk Distribution, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1952. Cardozo, Jacob Nunez, Notes on Political Economy (1826), New York, New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1960. Dunn, Edgar 5., Jr., "The Equilibrium of Land-Use Patterns in Agri- culture," Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 2l, No. 2, 1955, pp. 173— 187. Garrison, William L., et al., Studies of Highway Development and Geo- graphic Change, Seattle, Nashington: University of Washington Press, 1959. Greenhut, Melvin L., Plant Location in Theory and in Practice: The Economics of Space, Chapel’HilT, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1956. Heady, Earl 0. and Nilfred Candler, Linear Programming Methods, Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1973. Interstate Commerce Commission, Cost of Transporting Freight Class I and Class 11 Motor Carriers of General Commodities, 1973, Statement No. 2Cl6-73, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1978. Isard, Walter, Location and Space Economy, New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1956. Johnson, Alvin Saunders, Rent in Modern Economic Theory: An Essay in Distribution, Ithaca, New York: Press of Andrus and Church, 1903. Kulshreshtha, S.N., An Economic Analysis of Farm Truck Ownership, Utili- zation and Cost of Hauling Grain in Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: UnTVersity of Saskatchewan, August 1973. 171 172 Kulshreshta, S.N., Cost of Grain Hauling by Farm Trucks in Saskatchewan, Farm Management 810, Publication No. 241, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Saskatchewan, August 1973. Lefeber, L., Allocation in Space: Production, Transport and Industrial Location, Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1958. Losch, August, The Economics of Location, New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, T954. Lukermann, Fred and P. Porter, "Gravity and Potential Modes in Economic Geography," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 50, 1960. Pp. 493-504. Metcalf, Kenneth N., Transportation Information Sources, Detroit, Michigan: Gale Research Company, BoOkiTower, T965. Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan Agricultural Statistics, June 1978, Lansing, Michigan, 1978. Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation, 26th Annual Progress Report for the County Road Commission, Incorporated Cities and Villages of Michigan, Report No. 162, Lansing, Michigan, 1979. Michigan Grain and Agri-Dealers Association, Michigan Grain and Agri-Deal- ers Association 1978 Directory, Saginaw, Michigan: National Grain and Feed Association, 1978. Michigan State University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan Statistical Abstract, East Lansing, .Michigan: Michigan State University, 1978. Michigan State University/Highway Traffic Safety Center and Michigan State Highway Department, Economic and Social Effects of Highway Improve- ments...A Summary, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1961. Norris, Carol, Overview: Transportation Package, Lansing, Michigan: Michigan House of’Representatives, Office of the Speaker, 1978. Ricardo, David, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, London, England} J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1937. Riorden, E.B., “Spatial Competition and Division of Grain Receipts Between Country Elevators," M.S. Thesis, University of Manitoba, 1965. Siddal, William R., Transportation Geography--A Bibliography, Manhattan, Kansas: Kansas State University Library, 1969. Stevens, Benjamin H., ”Linear Programming and Location Rent," Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, 196l. pp. 15-26. 173 Stollsteimer, John F., "A Working Model for Plant Numbers and Location," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 45, Part 1, August 1963, pp. 631- 645. Thompson, Stanley R., ”Transportation Needs for Michigan Grain in 1985 and 2000," Michigan Farm Economics, No. 426, July 1978. Turner, John Roscoe, The Ricardian Rent Theory in Early American Economics, New York, New York: The New York University Press, 1921. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Rural Transportation, Serial No. 95-15, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 16, 1977. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Truck Trans- portation Costs of Bulk Milk, by Harold W. Lough, AGERS-33, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1977. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Extension Transportation Task Force, The Local Rural Road and Bridge Problem and Alternative Solu— tions, by C. Phillip BaumeT. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Report, Farm Population, Farm Population of the United States: 1977, Advanced Report Series, P27, No. 50, MarCh 1978. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Popula- tion: 1970, Number of Inhabitants, Michigan, Final Report PC(1)- A24, 1971, Table 9. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1976, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. von Boventer, Edwin, "The Relationship Between Transportation Costs and Location Rent in Transportation Problems," Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 3, 1961, pp. 27-40. Weber, Alfred, Theory of the Location of Industries, Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1962. Wolfe, Roy 1., "Land Use and Transportation," The Canadian Geographer, Vol. 7, 1963, pp. 148-149.