AN INTERCITY RAIL PASSENGER PLAN FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF M. U. P. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JAMES PAUL WARNKE 1975 37 u‘ ' 's _'.'9V ‘ ; :;‘t'~":‘l‘?d‘-' q ABSTRACT AN INTEBCITY RAIL PASSENGER PLAN FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN By James Paul Warnke The railroad system in the United States is currently in a state of flux. From a historical perspective it may be said that deterioration and lack of emphasis have character- ized the industry, especially the passenger system, while freight traffic has also experienced problems. For a signif- icant period of time these events were allowed to go un- checked, but the recent energy crisis has brought the real- ization that a balanced transportation system is necessary if we are to most efficiently utilize our resources. In this same vein, it was determined that the railroads would play a significant role in the restructuring of transportation prior- ities and legislative actions taken in this decade have re- flected these feelings. Rail passenger services have been greatly affected by this process. Amtrak, which was created in 1970, was a huge step forward in the rehabilitation of the nation's rail pas- senger network. Further legislative action, however, placed a greater initiative on individual states in determining their role in the upcoming revitalization. The hOB-B Amtrak pro- vision. in which the states could contract with Amtrak for desired rail passenger service by agreeing to pay two—thirds James Paul Warnke of the yearly operating loss, helped increase the nationwide service. Recently, rail continuation subsidies (aid to en- able states to operate needed lines which were recommended for abandonment) were designated as being available only to those states who prepared a comprehensive state rail plan. The State of Michigan has been integrally involved in the process. They currently aid in the operation of three routes under the hOB-B provision and have reacted to legis- lation by designating some 360,000 for the creation of a statewide rail plan. It is from these developments that this paper has arisen. Given the fact that there is a need to dev- ~elop a state rail passenger plan, this paper will attempt to devise such a system. The report will inventory existing passenger operations within Michigan and point out possible areas of strengths and deficiencies in the present system. From the inventory of such variables as prOperty, social, economic and political factors, areas deserving future service shall become evident. Current legislation shall also be considered, including anal- ysis of the United States Railway Association's Preliminary System Elan and the recently released §t§§§ 33;; Planning Needs Study issued by the Michigan Department of Highways and Transportation. The USRA Plan, although being prepared as basically a freight-oriented report, has definite connotations for passen- ger Operations in terms of lines being :analyzed for possible abandonment, recommendations for passenger route extensions James Paul Warnke and, implications for funding procedures. The State of Mich- igan Report is a conceptual document which is also freight- oriented, but analysis of passenger sections allows one to decipher the scope and direction in which the State views the future of passenger services. Through a combination of the results of analysis on the previous data, plus various limitations given in the forms of policy objectives, derived by the author, a final Michigan State rail passenger plan is proposed in this report. Despite the fact that the State of Michigan has a moder- ately extensive passenger rail system in existence, the plan recommends an extended network, replete with long-range alter- natives for implementation. It is held that this plan provides the optimum passenger service for the State and necessitates political and economic commitment from both the state and fed- eral levels. Although the findings presented by the final plan of this report differ with those reported by the State of Michigan Department of Highways and Transportation, in their conceptual report, it is hoped that data presented in final plan form within this document will be helpful in the final determined State Plan. I AN INTERCITY RAIL PASSENGER PLAN FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN By James Paul Warnke A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING Department of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture 1975 ’ This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Joseph and Lucille Warnke, whose constant aid and support facilitated fulfillment of my educational ambitions. 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge several people, without whose assistance, the preparation of this thesis would be impossible. Professor Donn L. Anderson, who first suggested this possible area of study and was a continual source of contribution throughout the entire process. Several staff members of the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation who unselfishly gave time for interviews and referrals. And finally, my wife Arlene, who, aside from assisting in graphics and editing, rendered assuring comfort and endured many inconveniences during a difficult period. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page L18t Of Tables 0 o o o e o o o o o e e o o o e o o o o o 1 List Of Maps 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 11 Chapter I IntrOduCtlon o o e o o o o o o o o o o o e o o e 1 Inventory.00.99990000009099015 A) B) 0) Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Track Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Track Conditions/Abandonments . . . . . . . l7 Abandonments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Present Passenger Service Performance . . . 24 Passenger Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Commuter Routes/SEMTA . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Social . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Social Benefits of Rail Service . . . . . . 39 Important Variables in Rail Service . . . . uz Trackage Upgrading Pragrams . . . . . . . . .45 Passenger-Freight Conflicts . . . . . . . . #6 I.C.C. Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #7 Identification of Major Cities . . . . . . 51 Marketing and Public Relations . . . . . . 53 Economic . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Amtrak Future Economic Projections . . . . 54 Federal Aid PrOgrams . . . . . . . . . . . 55 F.R.A. Continuation Subsidy Program . . . . 57 Previous State Passenger Programs . . . . . 59 iv Chapter Amtrak's Short-Haul Corridor Emphasis Future Ridership Potential . . . Stanford Research Study . . . . Penn State University Study . . N.Y. State D.O.T. Study . . . . D) Political . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing Political Climate . .5. . Track and Roadbed Conditions . . . Interstate Rail Act of 1974 . . Rail Revenue Act of 197A . . . House Rule #16523 . . . . . . . U.S. Rail Trust Fund . . . . . Rail Electrification . . . . . . . Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use within the State . . . . . Statewide Political Atmosphere . . Senate Bill #559 . . . . . . . House Bill #5707 . . . . . . . The Blue water Limited . . . . 1974 Transportation Bond Issue II Current Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . A)TheUSRA............. Preliminary System Plan . . . . Lines Intensively Analyzed . Recommendations for Rail Passenger Service Rail Continuation Subsidy Pregram . Page .63 .66 .68 e 70 o 70 o 71 .73 .73 .7h .7A .75 .77 .77 .78 .78 .79 .8o .81 .83 .83 . 93 Chapter . B) State of Michigan Rail Needs Study Study Goals . . . . . . . . . . State High-Speed Passenger Routes Areas of Further Study . . . . . System Administration . . . . . Critique of the System . . . . . State Policy Proposals . . . . . III The Final Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . A) EValuation Summary .'. . . . . . . Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . Social . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic and Political . . . . . USRA Plan . . . . . . . . . . . Michigan Rail Needs Study . . . B) Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . C) Final Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . Network . . . . . . . . . . . . Line Descriptions . . . . . . . Impending Route Additions . . . Recommended Route Additions . . Long-Range System Alternatives . D) Summary and Conclusions . . . . . Appendix BibliOgraphy................... vi Page 95 95 97 98 98 100 102 104 104 104 105 106 107 108 111 113 114 116 120 121 128 137 140 Table m-t-‘um 10 LIST OF TABLES Michigan Rail Ownership and Mileage Track Classifications Detroit-Chicago Economic Status Detroit-Chicago Ridership Statistics Major City Designations in the State of Michigan Yearly Amtrak Economic Projections for Michigan Routes Costs of Railroad Electrification Michigan Rail Lines Intensively Analyzed by the U.SORIA. PrOposed Final Plan Route Network Michigan Railroad Abandonments vii Page 15 17 24 26 51 55 77 35 114 Appendix Map QQVOM¢UNH an ha i4 a: +4 ‘o 13 l4 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 LIST OF FIGURES Railroads in the State of Michigan Detroit Metropolitan Area Rail Lines U.S. D.O.T. State Rail Lines Not Potentially Excess Michigan Railroad Abandonments Existing Passenger Routes 1970 Detroit Area Work Trips--County by County 1970 Detroit Area Work Trips--County by City Michigan Gross Ton-Miles Per Year Statewide Major City Designations Alternative Detroit-Chicago Passenger Routes Michigan Lines Intensively Analyzed by the U.S.R.A. Proposed State Passenger Network by the Michigan Rail Study Proposed State Rail Passenger Plan Present Passenger Route Structure Additional Route 1 Additional Route 2 Restructured Alternative 1 Restructured Alternative 2 Addition Alternative 1 Addition Alternative 2 Addition Alternative 3 viii Page 18 19 23 25 34 35 49 52 65 88 99 115 117 ' 123 126 129 131 133 134 136 Introduction A century ago the American railroad system was the most viable and profitable transportation form nationwide, in terms of both passenger and freight movements. In a rela- tively short period of time, however, our rail system has de- clined to the point where its very existence as a transport- ation mode is threatened. The competing modes of highway and air travel had developed such comprehensive, low cost networks that utilization of a mode characterized by unat- tractive fares, poor rolling stock quality, little or no track maintenance. poor on-time performance rates and a rising accident rate seemed absurd. A recent turn of events, however, has made even several of the railroad's severest critics turn back to the rail sys- tem in an attempt to find an answer to the transportation crisis facing our country today. As this crisis developed, and the severity of the situation became clear, it also be- came apparent that this country could not allow its railroads to fade into oblivion. Since this awakening. steps have been taken to revitalize our rail system to the point where it may once again contribute significantly to a nationwide trans- portation system. The first steps in the awakening process came about close to the time when the Pennsylvania Railroad, the largest in the country, let it be known that because of the cumula- tive effects of the ills previously described, it was in perilous financial straits. This paralleled a similar situ- ation in the New York Central Railroad and a merger between the two endangered companies was approved after much debate. As a result of this situation, which was by no means an iso- lated instance, especially for railroads in the Northeast, a group of Senators led by Vance Hartke (Democrat from Indiana) and Lowell Neicker (Republican from Connecticut) introduced a bill to the Committee on Commerce termed the Essential Rail Services Act of 1973. The purposes of the Act were to desig- nate a national network of essential rail lines, to require minimum standards of maintenance on such lines, to create a corporation to acquire and maintain rail lines in the North- east, and provide financial assistance for rehabilitation of rail lines and other purposes.1 Congressional hearings were held on February 28 and March 2, 1973, regarding this approach to the problem, and a large and diverse number of oral and written statements were submitted at this time. By the time the hearings resumed in late May and early June of 1973, the members of the Committee were aware that the situation was far more widespread than previously antici- pated. Many different plans and proposals had been offered by numerous groups and individuals, and it was clear that other legislation on matters such as the Freight Car Bill and 1 united States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Northeast ilroad Transportation Crisis: Hearings before the Subcom- mittee, Serial Number 93-8, Part I, Tuashington: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office. February 28 and March 2, 1973), p. 3. the Surface Transportation Act of 1973 would be closely re- lated to any Northeast Rail Bill.2 Therefore, it was de- cided to postpone further hearings in order to concentrate on studying the various plans and proposals being offered to the Committee. As a result of these developments, the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 came into being. Originally Public Law 93-236 of the Ninety-Third Congress. enacted January 2, 1974, the Act attempted to "authorize and direct the main- tenance of adequate and efficient rail services in the Mid- west and Northeast region of the United States and for other purposes".3 It enunciated seven basic ideaszl+ 1) Identification of an adequate rail service system in the Midwest and Northeast Region (twenty states and the District of Columbia): 2) Reorganization of railroads in the Region into an econom- ically viable system: 3) Creation of an Interstate Commerce Commission Rail Ser- vices Planning Office (RSPO): 2 . United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Northeast Railroad Transportatigg Crisis: Hearin s before Egg Subcom- mittee, Serial Number 93-8, Part II (Washington: U.S. Govern- men; Printing Office, May 30, 31, June 4, 15, 21, 22, 1973), p. 55. 3United States Congress. House. Re ional Rail Reorgan- ization Act 95,1213, Public Law 93-236, 93rd Congress, H.R. 91329 (197;). P0 10 . “Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority, "SEMTA Fact Sheet", SEMTA Publication, (November), 1973. p. 4. 4) Establishment of the united States Railway Association USRA ) : 5) Inception of the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail): 6) Assistance to the States and local and regional transport- ation authorities for the continuation of local rail services threatened with cessation: 7) Provisions of necessary Federal financial assistance at the lowest possible cost to the general taxpayer. Thus, the ground was laid to attempt an overall financial and physical rehabilitation of rail carriers in the region. Of particular concern.were those companies considered bank- rupt (8 companies, 27,181 miles operated). Step five within the Act created Conrail, a unified profit-seeking corporation consisting of all bankrupt railroads in the Region. It was envisioned that Conrail would merge and then rehabilitate the carriers, and by eliminating redundant service, establish it- self as an economically viable company. Conrail was respons- ible for: l) the operation and modernization of properties transferred from bankrupt railroads, 2) negotiating agreements with Amtrak covering passenger properties, and 3) offering employment to workers of the bankrupt railroads, as well as negotiating new working agreements with unions. The next, and possibly most controversial, step in this ongoing process came in February of 1974, when the U.S. De- partment of Transportation. executing one of its prime respons- ibilities under the Act, issued a two-volume Northeast and Midwest regional rail report. The report was a comprehensive attempt to demonstrate the various problems concerning the railroads, as well as to give a basic description of the exist- ing system and to identify/recommend areas where service should be retained. Within the recommedations for future service, however, was a section enumerating "potentially excess" rail lines, which either were not used currently or duplicated other existing services. In all, 61,18“ total miles were studied, with about twenty-five percent (15,575) identified as "potent- ially excess".5 The report was misunderstood by many companies and individuals, who interpreted these as lines doomed for abandonment. A great furor arose concerning what was consid- ered to be an excessive reduction of services. The greatest benefit of the D.O.T. Report-~indeed of the entire Rail Reorganization process~dwas the public awakening aroused by the proposals. The idea that the Federal Govern- ment, through its various agencies, was attempting definitive action to solve the rail crisis caused the states and other vested interest groups to realize that prompt action was re- quired if they were to have a meaningful input into this pro- cess. Statewide interest groups, such as farming concerns and other industrial elements, exerted pressure on the various state legislative and transportation-related bodies to react to these reports and attempt to alter plans which might ser- iously curtail rail services. Many smaller areas, which were 5United States Railway Association Preliminary System Plan for Restructuring Railroads in the Northeast and Midwest Region, (February, 1975), p. 3. experiencing a slowdown in existing rail services or volumes handled by rail, nonetheless had a valid need for such services and could demonstrate the extent to which rail services af- ‘fected them. In other cases, possible rail abandonments would have serious negative impacts upon many social and economic variables, which were not readily apparent in the cursory D.O.T. Report. The legislative framework of the Act itself also provided stipulations for state involvement and participation in the reorganization. Title IV of the Act provides for Federal-aid assistance to be matched by the States for the continuation of local rail services.’ According to the Act: Each State in the region is entitled to an amount for rail service continuation subsidies from fifty per centum of the sums appropriated each fiscal year for such purpose in the ratio which the total rail mileage in such State, as determined by the Secretary and measured in point to point length (excluding yard tracks and sidings), bears to the total rail mileage in all the States in the region. This was particularly important in regard to the potentially excess lines as designated in the final reorganization plan. In lieu of having these lines abandoned, there were several available options open to the States. The States, individual railroad companies, or Amtrak would all be given options to purchase rights to segments designated for abandonment. The States would also be allowed to purchase these segments and, could retain them as public open space areas for recreational 6United States Congress, Rouse. Regional Rail Reorganiz- ation Act of 1222, 6Public Law 93-236, 93rd Congress, H. R. W1T9757.p-6. purposes or as possible future rail connections. In order to qualify for these Federal grants, however, the State had to establish a plan for rail transportation and local rail services, administered and coordinated by a designated State agency. Thus, through the utilization of its most desir- able element, monetary assistance policy, the Federal govern- ment insured State participation in the reorgaization process and enhanced the possibility of creating a truly unified, com- prehensive national rail network. The relationship of this process to passenger service in the State of Michigan is multi-faceted. An extensive network of rail lines traverses the entire State: Upper and Lower Peninsulas, with a variety of ownerships. Throughout the last century, various routes of inter and intrastate passenger routes have extended throughout the State, connecting numerous cities. By 1970, however, this statewide passenger system had been cut to a bare minimum, partly by those conditions of neglect referred to earlier and also because the rail companies real- ized that there was little profit to be gained by passenger service, especially in light of the dilapidated condition of their rolling stock. Thus, they were unwilling to invest fur- ther expenditures to increase the attractiveness of their passenger lines and began an active campaign of discouraging rail travel. The coming of the energy crisis combined with_congestion and high costs in other modes gave rise to the renewed inter- est in a national rail passenger system of which the State of Michigan would be a most viable part. The past two years have witnessed the beginnings of a statewide system in rail passenger service, the scope and extent of which will be determined by the actions of three agencies: the National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), the State of Michigan Department of Trans- portation (under the leadership of the Passenger Rail Division), and the Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority (Semta: a six county regional planning agency based in Detroit). Amtrak was conceived under the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 which charged the Corporation with the twofold respons- ibility of organizing and managing the national rail passenger network of intercity trains under contracts with the various railroads. The legislation defined three basic purposes as the stated objectives and philosophy of this new quasi-public cor- poration:7 1) Provide modern, efficient intercity rail passenger service within the basic rail system of the nation. 2) Employ innovative operating and marketing concepts to dev- elop fully the potential of modern rail service in meeting intercity transportation needs. 3) Strive for operation on a "for profit" basis. 7National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Background pg Amtrak, (September, l97h), p. 5. The railroads were given an option to Join Amtrak upon payment of the equivalent of one year's avoidable loss on passenger service, payments to be made over a three-year period. Railroads that did not Join were required to continue all of their passenger service without charge until 1975. The incentive was sufficient to persuade all but three intercity passenger railroads to Join. In return for their payments, the Joining railroads receive either common stock in the corporatiog or an immediate tax deduction for their amounts paid. The Act also required the Secretary of Transportation to desig- nate a basic system of intercity passenger trains subject to t the following criteria:9 1) Market size - measured by total population of cities along route and total air and rail passenger traffic between major cities on route. 2) Physical characteristics of route and track: measured by route miles, average authorized train speed, scheduled run- ning time and freight traffic. 3) Current train ridership measured by passenger miles per year, passenger miles per train mile and number of trains per week. Other factors evaluated included: current operating costs on route, relationships of route to other city pair route segments, mail revenue, adequacy of other travel modes on routes to be eliminated and service considerations. 8Anthony Raswell, Amtrak: A Critical Appraisal from the Consumer's View oint, Transportation Research Forum Thirteenth Annual Meeting, (1972), p. llfl. 9National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Background 93 Amtrak, (September, 197“), p. 8. 10 On May 1, 1971, the Corporation began management of a sys- tem Operating between twenty-one city end-points designated by the Department of Transportation. Thirteen railroads had signed contracts with Amtrak, while three others: the Denver and Rio Grande Western, the Rock Island and the Southern Rail- way, all declined to participate. Services were to be ex- tended in the following months under three provisions, inher- ent in the Act, which could be initiated by one of several parties having a vested interest in that particular service extension. Under the Act, the Corporation must designate one experi? mental route per year which must be continued for at least two years, after which time it may be discontinued if operating losses or lack of passenger support demand such action. Pro- visions were also made for participation by states or regional agencies in service not included in the basic Amtrak network. Under section 403-3 of the Act, such extensions of service over various routes desired by the state or regional agency will be instituted if that agency agrees to pay two-thirds of the annual operating deficit. A final extension possibility came into existence when, on June 22, 1972, Amtrak negotiated agreements with the governments of Canada and Mexico for in- ternational connecting passenger rail service. After a rather stormy beginning, characterized by poor available rolling stock, hesitant patronage, freight conflicts, poor on-time performances, poor route selection and dilapi- dated right-of-way, Amtrak has come a long way in improving 11 each of these components and is an improvement over the pas- senger system in pre-Amtrak years, when the railroads were actively attempting to discourage public usage. However, des- pite gains in these individual areas, there is much to be accomplished in every aspect involved in the overall system: particularly if the final product is to be a rational compre- hensive nationwide network. The second party involved in the state's rail passenger system is the Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority. SEMTA was created by the Michigan Legislature in 1967 to provide a comprehensive and coordinated system of public transportation for the people of the six counties of Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Saint Clair, washtenaw, and Wayne. The area comprises nearly h,000 square miles, with more than h.6 million residents and includes more than 200 other cities, villages and townships. SEMTA is broadly empowered to plan, acquire, construct, operate and contract for pfglic transportation facilities within its area. Although the Authority was basically organized to manage the metropolitan bus system, it has recently become important in statewide rail passenger service because it has created a division within the agency which is involved with intercity and commuter rail lines radiating from the Detroit region. SEMTA is a state funded agency and thus responsible to the state, but in a statewide rail system the regional agency is an important element in its ability to present regional inter- ests and concerns, especially since the state's largest traffic 10Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority, "SEMTA Fact Sheet", SEMTA Publication, (November, 1973), p. l. 12 generation lies at the focal point of this region. The final agency involved is the State Department of Highways and Transportation in Lansing, in particular, the Rail Passenger section. This is perhaps the most important of the parties involved because it carries the main respons- ibility to insure that adequate statewide service is provided. Given the limited incentives of Amtrak to provide an intra- state route totally supported by the Corporation, combined with such measures as the section “OB-B subsidies and the state plan requirements for-federal aid: it is clear that if comprehen- sive statewide rail passenger networks are to be created, then it is up to the state agency to assume responsibilities for the formulation and implementation of such a plan. It is from these general concepts that this thesis originates. The objective is to propose an Optimum state intercity rail passenger plan for rail passenger service in the state of Michigan. The fact that the state is currently attempting to derive a systems plan for freight and passenger rail travel, clearly demonstrates the need and validity of such a plan and the State effort shall be utilized as a supportive element to the final plan derived by this thesis, but is in no way dir- ectly related to the findings and recommendations of my final plan. The paper will utilize an inventory, analysis, final plan.with alternatives type formula in deriving the final pro- duct. All three related parties: Amtrak, SEMTA and the Mich- igan State D.H.A.T., will be consulted and their inputs and l3 responsibilities defined in relation to all aspects of the final hypothesis. The hypothesis is that: given the demon- strated need for a statewide passenger rail paln, such a plan, with alternatives and a developmental prOgram may be con- structed relative to the needs and constraints of involved agencies. It is acknowledged that there are a number of limitations in the evolution of a study of this nature. Because of the scope and extent of the topic involved in this study, the plan shall concern itself with Michigan's Lower Peninsula only, al- though references will be included regarding the Upper Penin- sula in overall statewide figures and statistics. Another limitation involves the changing and current nature of the sub- ject itself. Rail reorganization and rehabilitation policy is still in the formulation stage at the federal level; thus, this plan.may be subject to various legislative decisions presently not determined. A final and perhaps most important limitation involves the quality and availability of rail passenger data within the state. Although this problem is not limited to Michigan alone, the fact remains that data concerning track conditions, operating agreements, previous rail ridership stat- istics and numerous other items have been poorly documented, if indeed, documented at all. Given the previous historical drapback it is apparent that since the railroads had been down- graded in the eyes of the public and the government, there was little or no effort to keep reliable records. Such documenta- tion was in the hands of the indivdual rail companies and, 1“ given their ambivalent attitude towards passenger service, especially in the last decade, it is not surprising that this data problem exists. The study will be organized in terms of the typical plan- ning process, dividing the development of the final plan into three major sections. The first step involves an inventory of existing rail passenger systems and facilities within the state concerning an analysis of the following variables: property, economic, social-recreational and political. Methodologies and criteria for various plan decisions will be made apparent during this discussion. The second section will attempt to relate the plan formulation process to the various available documents developed by the united States Railway Association and the State of Michigan Department of Highways and Transport- ation. Discussed will be the ESEA Preliminary System 2153, Michigan section and the Michigan Railroad gggg§,§§ggy, a plan- ning report utilized as a primary step in the development of a state rail plan. The final section\will present the final plan with alternatives and an outline of the anticipated imple- mentation process. In this section responsibilities will be assigned to the various federal, state and regional agencies concerned in the actual plan layout. 15 Qhapter ;,Inventorz A) Property The State of Michigan has 6,614 miles of railroad trackage which may be broken down in the following form:* TABLE 1 Upper Peninsula Main Track Milpp_ l) Chciago and North Western Railway 467.96 2) Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and 183.68 Pacific Railroad 3) Copper Range Railroad 70.96 4) Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad 66.72 5) Lake Superior and Ishpeming Railroad 134.53 6) Manistique and Lake Superior Railroad 38.47 7) Marquette and Huron Mountain Railroad 23.57 8) 800 Line Railroad 655.58 2933; Peninsula 1) Ann Arbor Railroad 287,54 2) Boyne City Railroad 7.24 3) Cadillac and Lake City Railroad 21.17 4) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad 1,463.68 5) Detroit and Mackinac Railway 232.05 6) Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Ra1lroad 46.67 7) Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad 117.14 8) Grand Trunk Western Railroad 834.88 9) Ludington and Northern Railway 4.76' 10) Penn Central Railroad 1,890.19 *from Official Railway Map 91 Michigan, Michigan Public Service Commission. 16 TABIIE 1 (Cont'd.) 11) Norfolk and Western Railway 119.82 12) Port Huron and Detroit Railroad 19.08 13) Delray Connecting Railroad# 3.16 14) Detroit Terminal Railroad# 16.29 15) wyandotte Southern Railroad# 4 4.08 16) Wyandotte Terminal Railroad# 4.07 As might be expected, a great proportion of the total trackage lies in the lower section of the Lower Peninsula. Lines do traverse the entire width and length of the state with a certain amount of parallel service being offered. The Detroit Metropolitan area is heavily congested with lines which also include a number of railroad companies which are regional- ly oriented, that is, restricted to within the Detroit area alone. As from the introduction, Michigan once had a rather viable passenger system which, given the high profit revenues from freight, suffered from an increasing neglect by the vari- ous railroads. As the recent financial crises began to ad? versely affect the state's railroads, what little revenues that were available had to be utilized for necessities such as pri- mary operating expenses and fuel. The result of these proced- ures was the rapid decline of operating equipment, particularly, trackage and roadbed. The following list demonstrates the max- imum allowable operating speeds over the various classes of track as prescribed by the Department of Transportation:1 # Detroit Metropolitan Area Railroads 1Federal Railroad Administration, "Continuation of Local Raigéservices", U.S. Qapartment pg Transpgrtation, (April, 1974), p. 757. 1? TABLE 2. I Maximum Freight Maximum Passenger __§peed Speed Class 1 Track 10 mph 15 mph Class 2 Track 25 " 3O " Class 3 Track ‘ 40 " 60 " Class 4 Track 60 v V 30 n Class 5 Track 80 " 9O " Class 6 Track 110 " 110 " The amount of deterioration that has resulted from the previous years' neglect may be demonstrated by the fact that over fifty percent of the total trackage in the Lower Penin- sula is considered to be lower than Class 1. This total also includes some lines that are generally considered to be main- lines for freight service. The Department of Transportation, viewing such conditions as poor trackage, decreasing service and certain amounts of parallel routes was compelled in their January, 1974 Report, to designate some 2,275 miles of Michigan trackage as "poten- tially excess". This was 37 percent of the total Michigan trackage, the highest percentage of any state examined within the report. The report suggested that all rail lines in the northern section of the Lower Peninsula were excess, with the exception of the C and 0 line as far north as Manistee: and the entire Detroit and Mackinac Railroad between Bay City and Cheboygan. Proposed abandonments in Southern Michigan were selectively chosen in the hOpes of ending duplicative routes 'and multiple railroad pickup and delivery services that were 18 FIGURE I SUPIIIOB It. ' “3 loathed . mrlmw- ’4 \\\isrquem P". «1 s s L fic'b: s L. I‘M" u 12 3, 27 I ”a 0 ‘-_.___~_ ' o ' M. M n r fi§ 91.. «- Msuistiqmz (,3 ‘0 C . .17er MM 30 P 0 "“ \fiwij M. gram.- 3‘ "‘m‘ LAKE MICIIIG Csztonc ,«2 . M) 44 KM 35 In 38% "nglirlinnw (T 7!. X'u'M'i U 31'. LV1\hI.\' HANDY RAILROAD MAP Michig, an Formula by Hand Shun: .- .\-|ad n L 3.1 ‘ ’mupan) NTAREO 3.2:?) Ste. Mule 'L‘acaos) ‘6 Siuhr Sir. Mule LAKE Ill'ix‘OA \hi boy gs n ' qt Ignace ruvu C I ‘~ICY'¢. WISCONSIN? ”Jr-'- 0“. Cd. ‘- 4’0 04’.\4 'Ul‘c- If. Manton q, C a (Mrs "t’y \ laddwn N. lip-let". / at; a: was ‘ he as _\ a V: e N a, c N ,- Hora'dl lull [‘3‘0" ' (-11] I "u‘ C :‘ 2 0 fl '3 . J F . had ~ § $1” (3 .9 I? 3% Stanton "Hwy-C '° « 3:," rill-5 ’Wa. Jso _ ' I C} c\. again: 0| 4 HILSKPG§X\ /G ”e Z a: a. ‘01 MI“, 0 ‘ I h£\s\ Rut-Hon! o ‘ 1 61"" ”"kc‘ou Be ‘ .3 i: lding “who; O'r‘.“.‘.‘.2. c - 0 u' G '"""\“U;3 "#113,? 1° and n nfl 5" ° "“ G . c .20 Love 1‘5 3 7 ‘4 d ' l‘unleo-i f...‘ u 0 Lake 3 1:!“ Crew! Led. :- L.“ m? Io ~13." ‘ \Iesrll-ry‘l \\Si\' '1 [oilsrvuk m M ‘1 .q “no. 6.0a .Anegn {\2‘,‘ \WIH; amnion ' ' 3% Island PM! .1 I! 1" 5 ‘ C°“"""° , pm How: 3.l'm’t “\uron Icy/ .nuugbau- Phys) ()ah ,n'. VI It ”A“ ‘ 3 c 08 ‘\\ lunch! {‘1“ ‘A“". '0 :0>\“£!‘1v‘1‘d Pfl:k' 1T, l'l."}\‘ . s; ‘ ' ' '1’1l‘ J: . \, [lul‘l'llll J’ “CHOW“. . R03". 1. 0 ' [flyphyulu Mjldln'fflt .IC‘. :( I. C—_ I’hluafl CI - ‘ l ’5 b.“ . Q. A r 5}: 5d 7‘3"”. [ll-ARC” '-‘ ’ ' . ' ea " " " . . ' ~ Nu m x. 1‘3.— AAlbion , 1} on...“ AL?” "ha" I} /v'-‘;, 1' “'md-ut 1‘3““? '2 2‘ “1W 7" ‘\~ .’1 {K'Jl’l :"C,'. .u "‘ Cvak I‘llh‘rs’u‘ JC- Arr-3.1:. ”ll“... ('1 “a l‘ 0‘ 2 “ h¢.(.‘ v ‘0 h“ 1..“ ‘ hndo“e \/ .DC n ' \arllbm l"\‘.\hn. l‘ Inf“. cl. J Lunion ‘I | I i'.l.u,n ’ b ' ‘ " ‘.f '1‘“. J \ VAJ 1.:nslv::\lh' q . ‘ Fun/.18 Quincy a u- “ Guido-Io! ,( , )llllh-hlo ' “hi" ionroc \ s ' w . ‘1 '- 0 E ’c‘. l'xgww “arbor '- 35 ‘ml A3. Mendel; ’9. a O, o I ' .‘u ”.1 C333 Clty 0 Ta Caro - ,_- 7 "Ul'nfi‘ H alt-w!) ’V‘ f‘ o 5‘2““ ’ 'e c . ° C: 31111? N ’grt‘ Sisrlcltc 3' >2; *1 ° YAI\C\ Inlay C I” P—-..\ - o-—- o. 3131? 19 FIGURE 2 Detroit Metropolitan Area 3311 Lines --_-. I -' I i I IIvoNIA : I I .I I I L J I w “i I I -----J L . "L ,...J' -oO-' —. \ -- .. - J penile-mam : mama O. o---a‘\.fl’ - . -“---- .’ ONTARIO C A N A D A 3 I: 1 \ I ‘5; I I .' I I I I I | I I I I \ I. I O I 3 ‘I k; I : SCflLfi MILl-S ' I g N I \ 84;; II. I,‘ hdi Xu- 20 FIGURE 3 0.8. D.O.T. State Hail Lines Not Potentially Etcess | \hISIJgnII-e '" ‘ "‘ ,_ "nun cautcncn .‘lachm Cal. hcboygnn /' ‘7 ' Roger! C"! . \ Omnnay ._ I, ‘ CMVOIX \ . ‘ I‘ ‘k ‘ ‘1 ' - ., «m o ., ‘ 6» 3‘0”: . . O. (‘1!) > new!“ I can .. Gum. Wm- ,, A D vs; Fellow. Ikl' utIdl m dancelona :I ’4'» c/ . 1" - Guy-ling O A .uoll JG. ' "3 : . ° ' scoda .JSL T3“ 3' 4‘ wt» CRY fun-5.1:" Jc. . a ' JAlabuucr *3 D.O'I West Branch Maniac-I ' ‘ National Cw ' I I I ' . :t g, 1‘ Cum 0 N. tpoor“ '.v/ “a, ‘ ‘9‘: . Fa- ‘ N 'J ‘ $9} m Alum" LndingIo‘n' ' - - ‘ ‘ “.53, 0‘ ' Can“! u: g x . . ‘ r o .. ._ u 'I :c: - 1 .nconmlg ? »‘ ref IMI “ ' Iu-gndj't - flu! ‘ p Sebcwo‘ » I: Essen?” '0 n“ 'l l“ r. .. C383 C 9" Ina-cm "' . 36‘: U 3 .7' 3' .' ' - ‘5 1' II" '0 rte:“ .o. I ’— “'hl Eta. ' 5., WM b" I f r ‘ 9 r' ”I ' L:II-I of 'h (Sq-1r ‘ \V “Rb “ "7‘ i 6‘- stxrzcg’x , _ a! . ' w: ‘ N , )Ioskegon "fight! ‘1, , auchurd ‘ . \ sIc \., t “‘6. Conu'o L. YII‘.“.J' CRY _ 9v 0 S',J0‘ln3 7" a ' fl , ‘ :6 ”.773“ lam; -II.I."I " \IIIUIOII .,I ' ‘-I \ h "l"\" , -.,'.l bl! \\'I) :x! IDS 'j IIImIII-m {IN-rum) 1 , Allegw ,. 3 Era?“ .I.- ‘ . Ighh‘l‘d lut- II1UMI\¢‘:* MCI! "nun | ‘ I , \ - I _-m.1':tOQ‘,-/ f7. 6' 'r v , . I . -‘ l , ‘~ ['Id"'r“ ’ ’ ‘ I. ‘ v V "¢f hluzj' k) "/Iflfun 'y‘” ‘ . J j . ' J" . W's! run I reek / - r u. .. / k...“ 'l.'."’ "on"! I" . '- | “.n" ‘.l. ““1 /\‘ .y:f\d"‘l' "JO'C', . . n-IIU" /I. “(I.n- -| ' ROI! I II- ’\ ”I u.“ ‘ _ Ir:nl- Ill mm . r' m“: M .>\ RV” .. .) \ p/fl J-HJII-m‘r L’ o “I ”I ‘ . .. ’ . f ‘ '(‘xlco I I-nn‘u-l.‘ I. III”. III. I J\"r'n" /‘ .'~\‘flnf0‘" ' ‘.mmm. ,MMW WWW—m- . v; A o l . . ‘ I, \ o ‘ I C“" “a“ ', ' ~ ' ‘ ' :2“ III Mn"... --'-—-"'”‘:‘- “ ..._.."‘ " ’92; -4 _L_‘L:...._.. L .4.",',"'." "W" ,\ . I, A [\I': [21”]: .. - "l---~ 1 "- I I'...“"_ -,.I. ' 4""‘ I - ‘ .7 : __‘ A - ”- w- ‘ \ “" 21 essentially local in nature. Citing the heavy overall freight density within the Detroit area.* most of the metropolitan rail lines would be retained. The oeverall reaction to the D.O.T. Report was one of general concern, due particularly to the high percentage of trackage proposed to be excess. There was little opposition from the passenger point of view which was quite understand- able given the fact that there was only one passenger line cur- rently in existence and there were no specific plans for ex- pansion within the state at that time. Thus, the Report was concerned mainly with freight ton-mile traffic and total line revenues and practically all of the concerns created by the report were in terms of freight oriented concerns. Despite this lack of real concern towards passenger movements, passen- ger lines were later to receive a greater emphasis due to the increasing effects of the energy crisis combined with an in- creased awareness within the rail reorganization process of the need for a comprehensive rail passenger system. Relatively speaking however, it would be safe to state that the D.O.T. Report had no adverse effect upon existing passenger service within Michigan, although the magnitude of their recommenda- tions would certainly affect future concerns in terms of pass- enger route expansion. Besides those abandonments suggested by the D.O.T. Re- port, there have also been a number of line abandonments which have been requested by the various railroads through regular *The D.O.T. Report cited Detroit as the third largest freight traffic generator in the Midwest-Northeast Region. 22 Interstate Commerce Commission procedures. In several in- stances. these abandonments are identical to segments which are designated potentially excess by the Report and in the vast majority of cases. these abandonments are in the primary status of being applied for and not yet approved. The fact remains however, that these abandonments have a good chance of approval and must be examined in terms of their potential value regarding any future passenger rail network. Once an abandonment has been approved, options are readily available to remove trackage and roadbed. as well as selling the rail right-of-way for another use. Naturally, once this process takes place, costs of restoring service to the area. either by negotiating to reacquire the property rights or by establishing a new line in a parallel area, have risen immeasurably. There is a listing of abandonment applications and/or approvals within the state of Michigan during the last few years in the appendix, while the following map graphically illustrates these areas. I The majority of these abandonments Occur on lines which have freight related service only. but the magnitude of these abandonments, in terms of total miles and geographical dis- tribution. will certainly have far-reaching effects upon pos- sible future passenger services. These abandoned lines must be given low priority in determining new network routes, given the increased investment necessary to restore these lines to viable service levels. Present passenger service within the state may be divided x 23 MD M) FIGURE 4 6 Michigan Railroad A mews band Onmenta 3 3 I. 3 , c H :17 MNKFORT H! mm: TH ‘ gonna 3 x“; . ”llama ‘33; 1a 0 Snsmnw 30 . Peer HINT , “0800 O Mme Powflaq, W '-j‘ a o o a: RNA) Jim: 0 Mean ocrnorr ,4, 27 a was ' ' .enosmn) Th'hlfifiiA & N.‘ 24 into two sections: intercity and commuter. The first attempt at restoring service was initiated by Amtrak when Detroit was named among the twenty-one major cities designated by the Secretary of Transportation for rail passenger service. On May 1. 1971 service began on the short-run route between Chi- cago and Detroit. The service entails two trains per day each way running along some 283 miles of Penn Central trackage, 217 of which lies within the state of Michigan. After leaving Detroit other station stops along the route are: Ann Arbor, Jackson, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo and Niles. The route is en- tirely financed by Amtrak and. although it still runs at a def- icit has shrunken in recent years, as was anticipated by Amtrak in their first annual report.2 TABLE 3. Actual Fiscal Year 1223 Revenue - 3 1.2 Expense - 3 2.2 Deficit - $ 1.0 {lagged Fiscal Year 122a Revenue - $ 1.“ Expense - 3 2.9 Deficit - 3 1.5 Planned Fiscal Year 1225 Revenue - $ 2.7 Expense - $ 3.6 Deficit - 3 0.9 - 2National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak Annual. Report: 1222, (February, l97h). p. 5. 25 FIGURE 5 Existing Michigan Passenger Routes thumwe’"n- .-_.- "“' -‘ .—.....-..-‘_ { sun-u conserves foyne 0, 6‘ .- Clty > 1b,... MI: (‘0'! .‘l 03"" \l‘of‘ !‘\"’"‘ “Harbor BC It“ I \ ” Sebewl' ° B6: mfidsl 6f) Essen . 21Waukce 71‘? y" V O 1 (\. n sacrxm Q—T’“ "‘ $.13 l "1'.- / 21 ., 9 19 SLClarlcs 9 ‘i a. Cl“ '0'“! .‘Jnrleltc . J . 73°. Nuts /a ”P I \f‘ ('1‘; safii'fl’ I , 22 v ‘ : 3 ' Lockh‘on'l . o\ ‘9 andrf‘° .u ““15“ ' - _ l..- .dmg r” .mngi ’ 1m- (‘ity \n . . . Owuun o L" " "\ \l I ’0er 7:] ' L1 (I k if!" 10 8‘30““! JCor mna" U - - 3, {SW-4 R "'“L‘. “ 1 .2 . 'ILLYT Port HUI- u! G'md ‘l.n \ ' __ 6 ' n a U. 9 I . I 009‘” o . 2 J LL-hcd‘s Ohll g‘ 3 mum! o J '. ’— a,“ J ' Fonts-mi . c". ’4 '0 Richmond '11. L‘ x U “I", ,. ..onxc¢ c 6 Oxford e- I.‘ \LAICC 0". use Cr-md bulge , p ' f ("[011 “U“, _ . t ) 1 ,0 “M7 |_ ,..:1~lr‘p "; . 1“! ' . \5 unitary _\\ .1“ union ‘ _ ’ '1 IASSI' ’4 ' I e L:- r m ’0 i . r rf‘) "‘ I '- " u at ' n Hilton! ron‘i“ J ' - _ )1 ,C‘, .II n! ' é ' , . ., ’ _3 Nuhnue ‘4 \“uun “0““ '3 ' C ' ‘ Chum” ’{ 43 $ ~ " " ' /; r ‘ Ammr . _M l. e le 14hr,“ '1‘ ' ~ LAA . u-\ . J I23; 1dr N4}. ‘ ""Kh‘flfld PH:"./ 5 -1 ._»:_{,1; l- g \ ( If. Ian-I 6 Home" ”at. la. 6" , Wynne“??? "mun-am: J / /\ I' t ' \'<0\ ‘.\.:‘.‘.1)l-;'|‘-ROL] ’/ 2.", “I a . ‘1 l .1" In; 'M 1 \ ‘\ :“d‘”, 7‘ 7‘ . . 4v" tine-'0 (:3 I 1 - ""0fd _ H llllu‘ -g- . . N?f\\dpf 4m . [\‘5 \, errk 3" '7" / . I. . 1.". .\/""' I," Hill. I. I... ['0' " I \ l'um «A ’ b‘ ."‘h.' 'wo ‘ fl ”0"" f C “.fl\'l...‘.' ‘H‘S‘ ‘I‘ ;\1) * ’/\‘: \ r:ndo“n // *‘x “to D'“'"" ya k I! ~ “ hobo!“ /h"‘\."“" '4 '.~./uu ( u ) l'lmtun Cuba,” \rro'fn on ’ ' .EI .- . on 'd 6 a 0 ’ I, (‘th ‘ larcellul /‘ 5 ,( U""’““°' /'I’ ' .‘ ’ «7’ \ ' .' / “It... ,,, . “'1'. J- .|\nssv \l‘umiv; ] “ i 7" '5 ' Qulnry . not I "ICAGO ° ‘ uuuqmlls \ fir L c Cul-lvotur ,6 . Huh-Id. , 7’ ‘ Lit? I (1 a ‘. Wk," . ”Cir. . l'“|"",)- ‘2‘ I A‘|fL.n /‘ yv' '. UH//,‘"'nl0:‘ . . . g.‘ ml fun-ughhnr ' ’9") “(onion J U ulkc'l "mug“ "—-"'-“‘d ( d t." "' ‘ A” ' ‘ V \ . , 9- ‘; at ' ' ‘ ’ a . , , , ",- ' a‘ I I I ‘\ M . fl . h... 1 \ H . 'OVJ I ‘ ‘ . ‘n‘ A. : u. ‘L‘ 3 ‘ “‘|l“"“l| Q 1. h. t “fl--. M 2.. e' tn a“ '-"° o..- " .W '..q " :: b"."”l' 1" ..‘ ..:Hl‘ ......'. . , .— ' .a t a _ , I I. u h: \_/‘_\ [4. j _ H _ A a :mzava—‘hm-l \ v n 1nl£DU 26 Amtrak on-time performance for the Detroit-Chicago route fell from 91.1 percent in 1972 to 7h.” percent in 1973.3 A variety of factors may be the cause of this problem. Poor equipment and track maintenance were primary reasons for de- lays, but other items. such as competition with high density freight movements, signal failures and passenger or employee related delays also contributed. However. in the latest year. on-time performance has improved and stabilized near the 80 percent level. Ridership, another important factor in the evaluation of a passenger line, has been on the rise ever since the inception of service. TABLE ’4 . ' CHICAGO-DETROIT 5000 CIECH’OINT CHICAGO LEGEND: 1971 — 1972 N“ n... 1973 r->—Ro—q Q fill)" | | mm~ l f \ \ 1000-4 * M”MO8MMM>‘ JMIFEBIHARIAPRIMYIJUNIJULI Rue] SEPIOCTIRov] 05c HONTHS or YEAR m CENTRAL STRIKE (FEBRUARY 8, 1973). Besides these statistics. ridership for 1970 and the first months of 1975 have been such that there has been a request 31bid.. p. 11. “Ibid.. p. 55. 2? for more cars on each trip and an overall increase of trips from two to four per day each direction. The Detroit-Chicago run has also benefited from an in- tegral commitment from the state of Michigan in terms of sta- tions and marketing. Stations along the line have been up- graded and refurbished so as to provide a reasonable amount of passenger comfort and convenience. Road signs designating location and directions to the various rail stations have been constructed by the Michigan State Department of Highways on all major arterials leading to the rail terminal facilities. Another indication of the current status of the Detroit- Chicago run may be demonstrated by the fact that it is current- ly being seriously considered for Turboliner service. The Turboliner is a French-built. high-speed passenger train.which has been currently operating in the Chicago-Saint Louis corri- dor. In October of 197h, the Turbo replaced the daily runs of the Wolverine and the Saint Clair. Amtrak's con- ventional passenger service from Chicago to Detroit. The five-car Turbo, which daily operates between Chicago and Saint Louis, was on a test run to deter- mine if Amtrak's turbine service should be extended there in the spring of 1975. Next spring Amtrak will receive four more Turbos, boosting its Chicago- based fleet to six. Some time prior to the time Am- 5 trak officials must choose a route for the new service. From all indications from Amtrak thus far. it seems relatively certain that the Detroit-Chicago corridor will be chosen for the Turbo service. a welcome addition indicating a healthy line. 5David Gilbert, "Fast Turbo Tests Detroit Run", The Chi- cago Tribune. (October 24, 197“). p. 7. 28 The second intercity passenger route run in the state of Michigan is the Blue water between Chicago and Port Huron. The Blue water Limited, Amtrak's new Chicago/Port Huron train, started regular revenue service on Sunday, September 15, 197#. The train follows the present Penn Central route of Amtrak's Chicago/ Detroit run to Battle Creek where it takes to the rails of the Grand Trunk Railroad to Port Huron. The train is being run as a result of an agreement between Amtrak and the Michigan State Department of Highways and Transportation under the now famous “OB-B provision of the Amtrak law. As is required by the agreement, the State of Michigan has aggeed to pay 2/3 of the cost of operating the train. The Blue water Limited travels some 325 total miles, 259 of which is within the State of Michigan. After leaving Port Huron, other Michigan stops include Lapeer, Flint, Durand, Lansing/East Lansing, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo and Niles.* The establishment of this service was an important step forward in the movement towards an overall statewide passenger system in that it demonstrated the willingness of the State Department of Highways and Transportation to commit itself financially to rail passenger transportation. Since this system has been in existence for such a short time there are no statistical data present on its Operational status. Through examination of Amtrak press releases and the various testimony presented at the recent Interstate Commerce Commission Hearings on Amtrak service, in early March of this year. the general view on the state of this line is one of 6William Fahrenwald, "The Blue water Limited", The Fast Mail, h (September, 1974), p. 4. *The Lapeer and Durand stops are minor stops with limited facilities. ' 29 optimism. Although there is currently an operating deficit, it is not as great as was anticipated at service inception.l On-time performance has been as reliable as the other Amtrak routes (approximately 75 to 80 percent). Ridership has also been greater than was originally hoped for. particularly in the Lansing/East Lansing area. A great deal of credit regarding these achievements was credited to good station location. This is particularly interesting considering the fact that station location was a very controversial issue, so much so. that it caused a lengthy delay in service inception. It was originally hoped that the Blue Water Limited would begin service sometime in early May of l97h. As was previously noted. service actually began in mid-September of the same year. The problem was the location and creation of a stop in the Lan- sing/East Lansing area. The controversy centered over the choice between two locations: one, an original rail station, now converted into public use (a restaurant) which was located in the heart of the Lansing business district. The second choice was on a section of the Michigan State university campus, which, although located in an area of less intensive land use, was readily accessible to the large student population and the adjacent highway system. Despite the fact that arrangements had been made to locate in the downtown site, a number of dif- ficulties over the purchase price of the building, plus the in- creasing awareness of the benefits entailed in the East Lansing location resulted in a reversal of the original decision. A second problem arose when it was realized that the new conceptual 30 plan for the facility had its direct access channeling pass- engers over a set of rail lines. The end result of this pro- cess however, produced the location that seems best under the limited amount of experience since the run has begun. A more important point was that the actual commencement of the route was delayed close to five months simply because of problems which could have been more than adequately solved by a reasonable amount of planning. This particular situation is by no means unique in the current restoration of passenger service throughout the country. Stations which are virtually dilapidated, having fallen into disuse many years hence, have been pressed into service in order to care for the needs of rail passenger travel. Although the great proportion of term— inals in Michigan are in relatively good shape, the station at Niles is a problem area. Although Niles is not one of the more important stops along the Blue water route, in terms of passen- ger volumes, a need exists to provide adequate facilities for rail passengers' needs. At present the station, which was built in the mid-1900's is shuttered and closed, but improve- ments must be made if Amtrak service in Michigan is to become a viable entity. It would seem that these problems would be corrected in the near future given the overall positive trends of facilities within the state. Ground was broken for a new terminal at Port Huron in August of 197b. Total project cost, with two-thirds being paid by the State of Michigan Department of Highways, is $223,500. Completion is expected in early 1975. Four other stations on 31 the Grand Trunk's portion of the Port Huron-Chicago route were upgraded by painting, remodeling, building new platforms and installing train-serving facilities, also with state sup- port.7 On October 30, l97h, at the Joint request of the states of Michigan and New York and made possible through an agree- ment with the Canadian government, Buffalo-Detroit (the Empire State Express) service was inaugurated. The Empire State Ex- press was an extension of existing New York-Buffalo service, connecting Detroit with New York via southern Ontario. Be- cause of the advantages this service provided for both states, a unique agreement was reached for funding. The route was to be state subsidized under the “OB-B provision with New York, Michigan and Amtrak each paying one-third of the yearly oper- ating deficit. The service was instigated partially because New York connecting service to the west had been previously run through Cleveland and Buffalo. General lack of interest in terms of patronage caused abandonment of the route, but a general desire remained to provide the east-west connection. Thus, the Detroit-Buffalo service is hoped to be the means of fulfilling this desire while also stimulating the necessary level of passengers to insure continuation. A final proposal should be mentioned, which is a definite planned addition to the Michigan system, to the point where ' a formal request has been made to Amtrak. The request is for 7National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak Annual . e ort: 122#, (February, 1975), p. 19. 32 connecting service from Port Huron to Toronto, extending the opportunity of establishing a direct Chicago-Toronto route through transferring with the Blue water. Although little is known on the present status of this request, one might expect approval, Judging on decisions on previous requests. There is-also the added incentive of expanding international ser- vice routes, a point which Amtrak feels is a desirable market- ing component. Service will be provided, if approved, through the “OB-B subsidy program. The remaining existing passenger service within Michigan may be considered commuter service operated through the South- eastern Michigan Transportation Authority (SEMTA). In mid 1973 SEMTA entered into a purchase of service agreement with the Grand Trunk Railroad for continued and improved commuter service between Pontiac and Detroit. "Service Operates along the Woodward corridor which is one of the most historical cor- ridors in the Southeast Michigan region. It is centered on Woodward Avenue which has long served as the primary access to the hinterland of early Detroit."8 The commuter service presently operates at the following stations: Pontiac (Huron Street) Bloomfield Hills Station (Long Lake Road) Charing Cross Station (Charing Cross Road) Birmingham Station (Maple Road) Oakwood Blvd. Station (12 mile road) 8Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority, SEMTA's Current Projects, (November. 1973). p. III-B-l. 33 Royal Oak Station (11 mile road) Pleasant Ridge Station (10 mile road) Perndale Station (9 mile road) Chrysler Center (Highland Park) Milwaukee Junction (Grand Blvd.) Detroit (Saint Antoine) There are three trains operated inbound during the morning peak period and three outbound during the evening peak, Monday through Friday, as well as one post peak inbound morning train from Birmingham. Despite heavy competition from surrounding freeway systems, the line currently carries over a thousand passengers per day. The exact numbers vary from day to day depending on the season, day of the week, weather conditions, and special events held within the downtown area. The recent energy crisis has added to ridership, as well as the parallel in- creased congestion on Interstate 75. the route's main highway competitor.9 Trip length between Pontiac and Detroit is 26 miles and the average travel time is 58 to 60 minutes including stops. This gives an average speed of only 26 miles per hour and it is clear that if travel times could be improved, ridership would increase at a significant rate. SEMTA is currently evaluating projects which will deter- mine to what extent the Grand Trunk commuter line will be improved. With the amount of existing daily work trips within the area (see Tables). it is clear that some method of allev- iating the massive congestion involved must be found. In ap- proaching this problem SEMTA states: 91bid., p. III-B-l. 34 FIGURE 6 1970 WORK TRIP INTER-COUNTY EXCHANGE w/o DETROIT ‘0 O) N v. I L959 24,085 3 . V LIVINGSTON OAKLAND MACOMB on ROIT 3.3. 0‘ 6,082 13,715 ,’ lASHTENAw WAYNE N CD ('0 v. MONROE 472 ST. CLAIR . 1970 WORK TRIP INT E R-COUNTY EXCHANGE CITY OF DETROIT 35 LIVINGSTON OAKLAND ‘ WASHT‘ENA'w r MONROE DETROIT FIGURE 7 ST. CLAIR a? s‘ ' MACOMB O -, I V I: m. g 3" m E. v ; 1' VII‘ I In 1“. I LO’ I -, I- 3} ‘i A 69$ , It? . _. I {I :1 ’, 8 f- _It f‘ .LI I ‘- ' s E II | 0') .- .:- '«i I. : g , I 3, 36 The ultimate objective is to provide a sector of the region's population with a satisfactory choice in the management of their work trips. Additional- ly, if a significant percentage of the population which travels the Woodfield Corridor by auto switch into transit vehicles, positive changes would take place throughout the urban structure, such as greater transit ridership and consequently a reduc- tion in operating deficits. Increased patronage will have a favorable impact upon traffic congestion and its many ramifications. Loss of time, air and noise pollution, accident probability, stress and strain upon the commuter as well as on the vehicle, and other products of congestion should be reduced if the experiment succeeds and more people adopt public transportation. Increased patronage will finally strengthen service, and may ensure its continuation or even enhance schedule frequency and/or quality of service. In- creased available transit services will expand the Opportunities for mobility and increase the sense Of satisfaction within the community on the pais of persons who may have access to the service. The second commuter run is Amtrak's daily Detroit to Jackson service, begun on January 20, 1975. Service is on the heavily traveled Penn Central route, a distance of some 7» miles. This service is also run under the 403-B two-thirds state subsidy prOgram. Perhaps the most interesting and en- couraging aspect about the service is that Amtrak has con- sented to participate in what must be considered a commuter route, despite the intercity connections. The official pol- ' icy of Amtrak had been to shy away from such short-run com- muter type Operations, but the advent of Jackson-Detroit service indicates a change in viewpoint and Opens new avenues for other types of in-state short-run routes. 1°1bid.. pp. III-B-3, III-B-u. 37 The route runs three trains to Detroit in the morning and evening peak periods with offpeak service throughout the day at regular intervals. Stops are made at Jackson, Ann Arbor, Yipsilanti. Dearborn and several Detroit stations. Present ridership status is reported as satisfactory, at slightly higher levels than when the Penn Central controlled Operations. This service originated from a Penn Central daily oper- ation between Ann Arbor and Detroit. Operations were then limited to a single Budd car which was based in Jackson. Daily service was subsidized partially through a purchase of service agreement with SEMTA, acting under the auspices of the Michigan Department of Transportation. In early 1973, when it became evident that the Penn Central was indeed going bankrupt and that service on this line would eventually be discontinued, SEMTA organized a feasibility study regarding the possibilities of taking control of Operations. Prior to the completion of this study, however, it became evident that there were distinct opportunities available in terms of oper- ating service through Amtrak's hOB-B option. Negotiations were made with the state in terms of arranging such service and the route was officially absorbed into the Amtrak frame- work in January of 1975. Although there are no clear statements as to the conclu- sions. if any, that were reached by the original feasibility study, it would seem safe to conjecture that route status in terms of levels of Operation and patronage was such that 38 continuing service was deemed desirable. Furthermore, it was quite evident that an Amtrak takeover, although by no means a cure-all, would represent a substantial increase in the overall level of service and act as a stimulus to ridership growth. The deteriorated condition of the Penn Central roll- ing stock, plus their antagonistic attitude presented towards passenger service in general presented distinct Opportunities for service improvement. One improvement was made immediately--the designation of Jackson as a terminal. Previous service had at one time limited passenger travel to the Ann Arbor corridor, despite the fact that the train was stationed in Jackson and had to make this daily trip in any case. Other future plans for this route include "the increase in the frequency of trips made daily, refurbishment of on line station facilities, obtaining new rolling stock as soon as possible and negotiating an agree- ment with the soon to be created Conrail system regarding their ownership of the right-of-sway."11 11James Wiljanen, Interview, (October 16. 1973). 39 ”£9.12; A second important area to be considered in any state- wide passenger rail plan, as well as in an overall national system, consists of the social aspects or benefits afforded by the provision of this service. Public opinion towards the recommended mode also plays a most important role in that ridership is determined by such attitudes. Amtrak has been constantly criticized most severely for its inability to show a profit at the end of each fiscal year. The problem is not Amtrak's continuing non-profitability in terms of dollars and cents, but rather the inability of its critics to realize the social benefits involved, social bene- fits that may more than balance a certain amount of economic loss. The basic problem in this however, is that there are no quantifiable methods presently available to measure social benefits in order to gauge the percentage of economic loss for which they compensate. The fact remains that such social benefits exist and, in many cases, adequately counter the ef- fects of yearly Operating deficits. A case in point is the position taken by noted social critic Lewis Mumford who claims that if the nation is to have a truly humane, efficient and balanced transportation system, then the railroads must play a vital role in the overall framework. Mumford points out that "Between 1920 and l9u0 the United States still had one of the most efficient passen- ger-train services on the planet. As long as the transporta- tion system was in balance, the railroad, as the central #0 element in a national system, enabled all the subordinate parts to function effectively. When the railroads respons- ibility for passenger service slackened, the entire system 12 The early economic attractiveness of became unbalanced." the developing highway and air systems, encouraged a massive overemphasis towards these systems to the point where we have overdeveloped them today. Such policies as the Highway Rev- enue Act of 1956 which enabled a great expansion of the Inter- state Highway network, virtually duplicating the existing railroad system, was a great boon to the trucking industry; a more effective method of killing off the railroads could not have been invented. Mumford recommends three main points for reorganizing the system:13 1) Halt further highway construction before any more urban neighborhoods are depopulated or spoiled for family resi- dence by high-rise buildings, and before any more agricul- tural land is covered with wall to wall concrete. Turn over the federal funds which are currently allotted to highways to the rebuilding of the entire rail network. 2) As a minimum immediate goal, restore as many passenger .trains as were available in 1950, by providing at least minimal trains of two or three cars, newly designed, with full provision of baggage, manned by skeleton crews. Allo- cate public funds not only for redesigning and manufacturing 12Lewis Mumford, "We've Got to Get Working on The Rail- roads", Harper' 3 Magazine, (August,1972), p. 2. 13Ib1d.. p. u. 41 rolling stock, as well as repairing neglected equipment, but for assembling and training a new generation of rail- road workers. Restoration of adequate service is the prime condition for making the railroad popular again. 3) Reduce the disgraceful body count from auto accidents by lessening needless motor travel--such as long distance com- mutation and cross-country haulage. This can be achieved largely by restoring all the railroad's attractions of com- fort, safety and diminishment of fatigue over long distances. Mumford acknowleges that the turnaround will not occur overnight and that a certain amount of financial loss must be expected. especially in the early time period. These financial sacrifices must be made in order to regain the balance in our national transportation system and we must not ignore the social benefits, which, although not numerically quantifiable, do represent an important element in the system. It should be remembered that it was an over-emphasis on economic variables that resulted in our present situation and such a mistake should not be repreated. Thus, in the preparation of a statewide rail passenger system for Michigan, these social aspects will exist and should be recognized as compensatory for financial losses which might occur during the various stages of plan preparation. In deal- ing with an intrastate system such as the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, it should be realized that we are concerned with a route structure that must be considered short-range in scope. This is an important factor in that Amtrak's long and medium 42 range routes are responsible for a great percentage of yearly financial deficits. Yearly deficits on the Michigan state system could therefore be considerably smaller than might be expected from Amtrak averages and projections. The energy efficiency Of rail travel, particularly when compared to air and auto travel is an advantage: besides this fact, passengers utilizing rail travel will actually save money, given compet- itively priced rail fares in contrast to the increasing costs of auto travel. The competing highway network will also bene- fit from a viable rail network, in that the greater the number of riders on the rail system, the fewer are left to the high- way system. This is especially important in the State of Michigan which has a most complete highway network, but is often plagued by overuse and congestion. Many peOple have argued that the average American traveler will not leave his car to travel by rail, but a number of studies have proven that this is not the case. The necessity is that rail ser- vice must be reliable and attractive in order to stimulate ridership necessary for success. As was pointed out, Amtrak has generally been lacking in the provision of these amenities, but this criticism must be qualified in terms of the recent advances made in these directions, and the state of the indus- try at the time of its recent turnover. These Optimistic views notwithstanding, Michigan service must be attractive and reliable in order to be competitive. As examples of the variables which patrons consider to .be important in their choice of travel mode, the following‘ “3 studies are Offered: Alexis N. Sommers in a traveler mode choice survey in North Carolina ranked the following factors in terms of pas- senger's importance:1u 1) Door to door travel time 2) Convenience 3) Scheduling h) Comfort-Cleanliness-Noise 5) Terminal access and egress 6) Necessity for transportation at endpoints 7) Reliability-On-Time performance 8) Cost 9) Safety Allan N. Nash and Stanley J. Hille also studied public attitudes towards transport modes in Baltimore, Maryland and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and returned definitive results regarding what would be considered important attributes to an overall ideal transportation system. Although their study divided trip purposes into work vs non-work, there were no dramatic differences between the two, thus leading them to believe that it was feasible to determine overall categorical preferences. Another drawback was the fact that the sample was taken from college freshmen, hardly an ideal universe, but study reliability and validity is still thought to be high after an examination of the results. The following list 1“Michigan State Department Of Highways and Transporta- tioné)Re ortuf222: 1221 Average TwentyrFour Hour Traffic Flow, 197 O p0 0 of factors, arrayed in order of importance suggests basic attributes necessary for a successful transport system (e.g.. passenger rail).15 1) Reliability of destination achievement (including elements of safety and confidence in the vehicle): 2) Convenience and comfort: 3) Travel time (but with large trip purpose differences); 4) Cost: 5) State of vehicle (with cleanliness overshadowing newness): 6) Self esteem and autonomy (with emphsis on independence rather than pride): 7) Traffic and congestion (both in and out of the vehicle): and 8) Diversions (including nature of travel companions, avail- ability Of radio and scenery). What these studies show is reliability and travel times are generally considered to be more important than cost. This is especially true in work trips, which is important in the Michigan rail passenger system in that the great majority of the Amtrak clientel are students and businessmen traveling in work or work-related functions. Lansing, the state capital, and Detroit, the chief economic and business generator, are vital nodes in the system. The extensive state system of edu- cational institutions throughout the southern Lower Peninsula should be considered in route selections. 15A11an N. Nash and Stanley J. Hille, Public Attitudes Towards Transportation Modes: 1 Summary 2; Two Pilot Studies, Paper from the 47th Annual Meeting of the Committee on Socio- 'Economic Aspects of Highways, p. 43. 45 In order for the Michigan passenger rail system to be competitive, it seems that good travel speed, coordinated and frequent scheduling are most important in the ability of the system to attract patronage. These ideas, in turn, point out where general improvements must occur. Massive trackage and roadbed improvements must Occur before a reasonable increase in travel speeds may be reached. As an example of a positive- thinking attitude towards track rehabilitation within the state, a Michigan-based railroad passenger group, the Michi- gan Association of Railroad Passengers, has proposed a five- step prOgram for the upgrading Of trackage for the nation's passenger trains. ' I The proposal was made in a reply statement dated November 15, 1974, to the Interstate Commerce Commission's Adequacy 9; Intercity 33;; Passenger Service - Track Standards. The case is an attempt by the Commission to design track standards for the nation's rail passenger system. The recommendations of the Association were concerned with high-speed service (e.g., Detroit-Chicago corridor). However. it might be applied on a nationwide basis. The pro- posals include the following:16 1) Begin immediate removal of slow orders to bring track standards to the level of May 1, 1971, the date of Amtrak's takeover. 2) Install centralized traffic control signaling along the entire length of the passenger routes. MARP estimated that 16Joseph C. Schleen (ed.), "Michigan Rail Passenger Group Proposes Track Upgrading Plan to the Interstate Commerce Com- mission", Traffic World, (November, 1974). p. 54. 46 this would raise traffic capacity by fifty percent for a asingle track, and three percent for a double track. 3) Double track for both routes. 4) Eliminate grade crossings. The passenger group says that this is essential for safe operation at high speeds. 5) Upgrade one track to class six, leaving the other at the May 1, 1971, level. The slower tracks would be used by freights: the faster track would be used by Amtrak, thus eliminating the problems incurred by dual usage. The MARP proposal calls for payment for the first phase by the railroads, with upgrading being cared for by a two per- cent freight rate surcharge. These surcharges would remain in effect for phases two through four, when Amtrak and the railroads would split the cost. Phase five would be funded entirely by Amtrak since only they would stand to gain from the improvement. Another basic problem in regard to speed improvements of passenger trains is the relative amount of passenger4 freight conflict on line. In many cases it has been pointed out that passenger trains have been sidetracked in order to permit freight traffic to pass. This was basically because neither the federal government nor Amtrak had control of such procedures. The individual railroads on which these passen- ger trains Operated would naturally give precedence to their own revenue-producing trains. In this process however, they were doing serious damage to the Amtrak process, which was manifested by horrendous on-time percentages. These procedures 47 have improved to a certain extent, but the conflict still is very much in existence and, with ambitious plans for passenger route expansion, there must be a solution to this problem. The Interstate Commerce Commission hearings regarding intercity rail passenger service under Ex Parte 27?, Sub 2 also addressed this issue. The case is investigating the feasib- ility of upgrading passenger trackage to enable train speeds up to 110 miles per hour and their effects on freight traffic. Three major freight haulers: the Burlington Northern (B.N.), the Chessie System and the Missouri Pacific (MoPac), testified in regard to the problem.17 The Burlington Northern said that increased passenger train speeds over upgraded existing rail lines would greatly increase delay to freight trains. Reasons for the delay included signal spacing requirements and additional necessary clearance time for the high speed passenger trains. The resultant congestion would be intolerable, reported the B.N., not to mention interruptions and delays to local freight switching movements. In its October 22, 197a statement, the Chessie System stated that high-speed passenger train service is not compatible with heavy tonnage and heavy capacity freight cars on the same track. The road stated that super elevation requirements and stress increases on rail and track structure necessary for the high-speed operations create serious difficulties for run- ning freight traffic over the identical tracks. The Missouri Pacific cited past experience in noting that it is much more efficient to main- tain a more nearly uniform Speed for passenger and freight trains instead of high speeds on certain segments and lower levels on others. 17Joseph C.Sche1een (ed.), "Railroads Fear that High- Speed Passenger Trains Could Interfere with Freight Movements", Traffic World, (November, 1974), p. #5. b8 HoPao also noted that most freight carriers would be quite reluctant to increase freight train speeds even if they were given the Opportunity. It told the I.C.C. that when freight train speed was over 60 miles per hour, the possibility of equipment failure was much greater. Greater operating speeds also mean greater fuel consumption, which causes higher operating expenses. Most lines recommended that for passenger speeds of 110 miles per hour, separate rights-of-way would be necessary. Host carriers also admitted that this process would take at least ten years and overall costs would be quite prohibitive. The considerations presently being given to the Detroit- Chioago corridor in terms of high-speed service make this last point most important, particularly when one considers that the entire state is well traversed with moderate and large volume freight lines (See Map). The Detroit-Chicago corridor has a very high density in terms of freight traffic, especially east of Kalamazoo. With possible turbine service at speeds of 110 miles per hour, there are some very apparent problems. Given the volumes on the remaining lines and considering var- ious options for a statewide passenger, it is clear that trade- offs and concessions are necessary on both sides of the freight- passenger arguments. A final socially-oriented variable concerning the formu- lation of a statewide passenger rail plan involves the types of geOgraphical area served. Previous sections have estab- lished that the plan limit itself to the Lower Peninsula, but this still leaves a vast area to be patterned into a final system. From examples and patterns in similar attempts at 49 HE Boy ‘ Tux FIGURE 8 Michigan Gross Ton-Miles Per Year HLPENA 'emainder O - .9 1 - 4.9 .00 5'19-9 20+ mew ISTEE = ’ \ LL HQ 0... ' UDIWG‘TOAS""‘ .. ..,,.o'o . .0. ' .0 g . _ ,FC‘ .0 tmr .""§c MM 0 a QURNPD e O L 0 .0 ‘ 'OLMMD O g. e ....9.IU:HDU . . . O. o Kmmnm DETROIT mtg; LRHE ERIE. 49 arson-"M FIGURE 8 Michigan Gross P570 . Ton-Miles ' Per Year HLPENA 'emainder O - .9 mm: 1 " “'9 _ any ”#5.: O C . 5 "" 19.9 20+ , mama?“ = \LLaa lg... ' youwe‘rorfi'nn ., ..,,.o 0. .00. 00. a. FORT ..e {NET ....".e ‘IHURC‘ o QURNI‘D 4. L9 .0 .. o ‘. n S 4le .. OI § 000.31,”), 0 . . .0 O. o e . . . . ’0'. o "o: unmet... .' ' 'e .0 e. e O .0 . . O o e O . . . ..... O. . '°"' «manna " .1» ' . .9 0.. ‘ .: ‘ EhTTLE " ' - o ., 0mm“ .o' ”m, t' ' . ' :' o. e ." ‘- O HORMU rung . .' e‘ LRHE ERIE. 50 such plan formation the rather idealistic goal of serving all "major" population and recreational centers has emerged. Holding to this rather general statement, the following Table is offered as a preliminary conceptual outline, which is by no means a final plan, but rather a method of limiting to a workable size, the number of areas to be finalized in later sections. These areas defined in the following Table are chosen not only for their sufficient population base (10,000+ in most cases), but also their geographical relationship in terms of the existing rail pattern and their proximity to recreational areas. United States Bureau of the Census, Population 9; Places: Table fig, Michigan, 1960 and 1970, (1970), p. 24. TABLE 5. City Albion Alpena Ann Arbor Battle Creek Bay City Benton Harbor Cadillac Cheboygan Detroit East Lansing Flint Grand Haven Grand Rapids Holland Jackson Kalamazoo Lansing Manistee Midland huskegon Muskegon Heights Niles Pontiac Port Huron _Saginaw Traverse City Yipsilanti 51 1970 Population 12,112 13.805 99.797 38.931 49.449 16,481 10.000 5.553 1,511,482 47,540 193.51? 11.844 197.649 26.337 45,484 85.555 131,546 7.723 35.176 44,631 17,304 12,988 85.279 35.794 91.849 18,048 29.533 i change from 1960 - 5.0 - 6.0 +48.2 -11.9 “'7e8 -13.9 - 1.2 - 5.2 - 9.5 +57.4 - 1.8 + 7.0 +11.5 + 6.5 -1o.3 - 4.5 422.2 - 7.2 +26.6 - 4.0 611.5 - 6.2 +*3.7 - 0.8 " 605 " 201 +40.9 Presently Served bygAmtrak Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 52 FIGURE 9 Statewide Major City Designations \‘JSI. Ignace ’Y'IICQ conund- Mackina- cu, \ ’0 c 9° . V ' heboygan 0 —~m—h.‘ - "W " 0‘ n rsCi'y v . we a ‘ .ay View a’, . Once-3y 4 ¢ Challevolx 1‘ C . \4?§M”“’~. 2: oyuc n . n , Nature" °. a (All! > . Oyu Isl . “ Gaylord n N Dr! «in a 2 /’(’I[a4 . . - u A? /Mancelona N ‘ H dim-ac, .r; - Grayling mutton! 1. 5‘. number... _ ' (’0' ‘r \. taro-cm. , ‘ J COMM '0‘? 3'" Mnntos g. Kaku :_. um ('ilu c. .‘ Missal-h .' L C" ‘ \nndv..m a Mauls! . a n ‘ Cum. 0 'o d l .' d . a O N. Spa-er“ lk/ ‘ J '04 8,," R 7 Lndingidh _ - WW3 "a c, :91! Cit, = 1'“ :3 - cott“.” ‘6 h - e N ° Big Rapids 3: 8 8GINA“ S‘ LOUIS I hunt I ‘ . é‘ouo' ~‘ Q‘CHO .— \ZC'II ' C} fl 5 ‘ «31'5" &' ca ‘3 ' Had. I" e, Yale Can-stuck 9 1rd“) C“! «N; I, Q ‘1'. 6 ,0 ‘-——-.:_:V . \.I I ' { ‘\ ) . - z . e I , It. I. ~ . I'ntt um ’ ~37?” .. 1' ..'l.u «N? r o . - _; a V l/ ’ l ' ., 17 'I‘? . Vivi-amnion ’ ’ \r .grnuw; l J l-y\~ “a Rt ml )fl (. \): N ‘nsflfli‘ ‘ \ ". {ighlaml Park ' 3 H: untrnmd _ O "0 U. .s . in“ ,L‘.\_"pfi\1|{0fl L 40‘ \(‘is Ann ““4”: Winds"? (1 c\lh”: rr \u.ru.lml Jr o' r ("W-rt \rhI-l’ - “ \. .- . «It! K M O 2| . i.’ .' _' x, .\/.:<:../'%):1 -.-.e i I k n 0) If. 1 . v - ~ \'.' yandoud . ‘3 ‘ [[5an HMnmor‘ I'Jl‘fl. l lam" ;\/rheho'l /l llchfl " ;/ unmaCfl, June-uh. 1 ”'I,‘ I uI/dl “u":é Cu Idea' n '5’" Us. - Instr“). *1 - . ' C ""2qu "4.4070 ) \ :u. long lr/D'W‘HJA . . . .:!| .3 )4, '2 0 \\ N's-Mott's," Harceuua \\ \ LAKHIUHH n 'i'ol.I-;|w\ . . fl A'.‘II'I"‘ -. -. ___-__....._._ “1 52 FIGURE 9 Statewide Major City Designations \BSthnace vulva COaaIcho-I Vacuum- ca, 1, c U . - w a 0: hcboygan --——-7—-.._.-__._.-.. --..... ”A 00 R C! \ e asters :3 ¢ ‘ ~ay View é) Onau-ay 4 \ Charlevoix \ . ' \5 ,aPetoskc-y ,f 7 are: 'r . Nadir" :- " Cuy > Reynold! " Gaylord Q n N W _ 6 n ,M curs é a . Mupd . h . ° 5/” ’ /Mance|ona u = H INm-nu mg m l'n freakfon _ ‘ G 3 ' 3 O 4 c, (mirth-“hon "'- e. e ' 9 ‘ - we flbnrennm . Melisa J's. ‘ J Capra-wk ' "C O 3"“ Stanton 0. Kaku 7 but ('Ilu e. . K ' Nissan-h .-. ‘ _hnndvam'n Mauls! ' ‘ ., " West Branch $333.53” Cadilld- v 9 ' . l A , ' N. Kpnrlh. W.“ Rot. .I 1"” I???" Au-lm Ludingtdh 0" c a ; 7°40... - (”Mug U “c as I. Evan ' e " “A ‘ For! “I ‘3 . ' J "‘Ifift‘ \f l‘t‘??? Iona“ 3 ' u .3 “'hi 0 " SAGL\I\O“ ' Q Sewaygo n ”ifrnd' Inkr 0 4 St LOE“:O rain“ I no a SI I marl-‘5 ~ bunton m. u MUSKHG\ \ , Hushgon "eight. /E:ocL ford I: Q Uc'ndihg .E a q Shiford I anti/1‘” . ., IU\ .unuu; 1: II\’ ' W an "I /‘ S\ l) RI 5 .Il ”fl . (‘ : = N ‘U'. V. H‘ \ [0“ A '- IDIHJF ’ .llL'“ hind P‘rk 51» ('LJ u.- : 4 H nuimmd 5‘:.N'-DI-Z1ROU (f/go ‘ ' \'. ind el' ' 2| I! 1:". / ) ”Nina‘s ., l‘|".r':" Je. . I‘fllll" (’u/r: "L I. ‘ “‘GC'IICII' u“’n\/’\ '/,/ l5" .yanONO ‘ 'rva- n a J \ ) Cuba) 4 7.) J a 4 \ \ (hraInIm! Jr Hellenic p): “‘1;‘\‘ '5‘ \ . a sw‘”“ \"Iiun '— .. IlunIov u ‘v Irl chin e l-"Chnfi'd afllfl‘ ‘0‘ . ~ ~ . /% Univ. CH, . J-IanVHn . ' run/us! ”a 5 Qumvy " "'1' ‘ C"'“""' ’6 ‘ "mum. . . "Tl-N HMnnIoc l‘un‘ho .‘ V I 4 AdU‘fl "" /('III‘I‘A,( I“ I" I, l'u'uflald-DI ‘ 'C’\,/ “full-05 x, “l“ on “ll-'00“ .’:’u-::(qu. 1,107 1 ”‘0‘- I r P / \ -. f- . . ' . v \\ ’ II ' ’ I‘M I ' f/‘T‘ "“"u .L. “at. 9 ea ' u" I -lf" :4 o _- o l- . o — I o u— o o ‘ e- ‘ ‘ , ‘ . , A , I .‘ ., an I - A I. z I" " Ocean" /0 \\ 8-100!"qu Marcella! ‘\ Icmo L AK)“: ER“: 53 The state is well known for its social and recreational attractions. particularly in terms of winter sports in the upper areas of the Lower Peninsula. There are three main rail lines that spread northward into these areas, one of which is presently involved in abandonment procedures. In examining these upper areas in terms of patterns or particu- lar sub-regions of recreational concentrations. it was found that these locations were spread rather evenly throughout. It might also be noted that immediate suburban-type areas in the metropolitan areas around Detroit were not considered in the major cities designations. The lower half of the Lower Peninsula, besides having major population areas grouped in close, proximate route patterns, also had other attractive components such as educational centers, recreational areas. historic attractions and various other cultural focal points. A final, but most important aspect in the consideration of the rail plan is the marketing or public relations pro- gram. Although it is more than evident from the examples presented previously that Amtrak, the State of Michigan and various public groups are all actively involved in promotion of passenger rail service, it is most important that these efforts continue. It is through such marketing procedures that public support is encouraged both in the form of rider- ship and in terms of legislation favoring rail passenger service. 54 C) Economic Ever since the inception of Amtrak in 1971. vast amounts of government monies have been poured into the tills of the quasté-public corporation in order to insure its survival. Because of this large input of funds, the economic phase of rail passenger service has been the source of the greatest amount of criticism and public concern regarding the future of Amtrak. "Amtrak revenues have grown moderately (e.g., 52.6 million in '71 to 60.2 million in '72), but losses have con- tinued (e.g., 37.8 million in '71 to 36.5 million in '72)."19 Thus, economic conditions must be of prime importance in any attempts to evolve a statewide system. Although it has been recently demonstrated that social benefits may make up eonomic deficits where they exist in a limited sphere, it must be demonstrated that projected routes will incur deficits that are not of an unreasonable nature and that there are sufficient state and federal programs available to fund the final system. Recently Amtrak published a series of projected profit and loss by route statements which gave future anticipated figures for the three existing Michigan routes. Figures given in millions:20 19David Lawrence, "PrOgress in Amtrak", gllustrated U.S. ewe. (May. 1972). p. 52. 20 National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak Annual Report: 1224, (February, 1975), p. AI-S. I 55 TABLE 6. Ball Load Passenger 1) petroit-Chicago Revgnue Cgst Ngt Factor Miles 1.9 “.5 -2.6 63.7 37.6 2.5 3.5 -1.0 57.5 00.8 3.3 3.8 -0.5 57.6 50.5 6.7 0.3 +2.” 50.0 83.0 6.9 0.7 +2.2 50.0 85.0 Fiscal year 70 Fiscal year 75 Fiscal year 76 Fiscal year 77 Fiscal year 78 2) Port Huron-Chicago gov. Cost Net L.Factor Rail Pass. 3 3 Miles Fiscal year 75 - .h .7 -0.3 33.5 5.7 Fiscal year 76 - .5 .9 -0.4 33.5 7.2 Fiscal year 77 -_ .5 .9 -0.# 33.5 7.2 Fiscal year 78 — .5 .9 -0.4 33.5 7.2 3) Jackson-Detroit Revenue Cost Net L.Factor Rail Pass. 3 3 Miles Fiscal year 75 - .1 .3 -0.2 00.0 1.1 Fiscal year 76 - .l .h -0.3 00.0 2.2 Fiscal year 77 - .l .h -0.3 00.0 2.2 Fiscal year 78 - .1 .4 -o.3 no.0 2.2” From these figures it can be noted that although operat- ing deficits will shrink and patronage should rise, financial losses will continue. Thus. there must exist sufficient finances to compensate for this. On the federal level all indications point towards a con- tinuing policy of expanding monies available to Amtrak. The federal government has poured vast amounts of funds into Am- trak and late last year the "Interstate Commerce Commission granted Amtrak the ability to issue some $500 million in bank 56 notes which may be issued to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the United States Railway Association, a Fed- eral Financing Bank, or any other similar federal agency. The Commission also noted that any notes given to cover de- faults in principal or interest will be guaranteed by the Secretary of Transportation.u21 President Ford mentioned that since the Corporation (Amtrak) was charged with the respons- ibility of providing modern and efficient service, funds should be provided as necessary to allow Amtrak to expand and modernize equipment and make various other improvements. Recently, as of the beginning of 1970, the trend in Wash— ington was towards a realization that Amtrak will not assume profitability for a fairly long period of time, as evidenced by the fact that even several Amtrak executives have admitted this fact. As this realization develOps, it is seen that since Amtrak is currently in debt to an ever-mounting degree. it is quite ridiculous to expect the Corporation to extract itself from the federal-owed indebtedness and still maintain a course towards reaching financial viability. Thus, a move- ment is currently afoot to absolve the Amtrak debt by chang- ing loans to grants and continuing this practice until Amtrak is closer to self-sufficiency. If this procedure is put into practice it would greatly extend the opportunity for route expansion. 21Joseph C.Scheleen, (ed.), President Ford asks addition- al Amtrak Appropriation", Traffic World. (October. 1970), p. #5. 57 Another method by which federal funding is available to Amtrak, and thus, also to the state of Michigan is under the Rail Continuation Subsidies issued by the Federal Railroad Administration under the Regional Rail Reorganization.Act of 1973. Details of the Act say that: "A state may receive the transitional funding if rail services within its boundaries are discontinued under the provisions of the Reorganization Act. Eligible states must (1) develop a comprehensive stats rail plan; (2) have the jurisdiction to deve10p and maintain efficient rail services: (3) assure fiscal responsibility; and (h) comply with the regulations. The legislation authorized up to $180 million over a two-year period."22 Under section 255.7 regarding Rail Service Continuation Assistance: The federal share of the cost of providing rail service continuation sub- sidy under section #02 (b) (i) of the Act shall equal seventy per-centum'of such costs and shall not exceed a term of two years. The state share shall be 30 per-centum. In no event, however, may the non-federal share be augmented by any federal funds directly or indirectly unless the funds are provided through a federal program which specifically authorizes the augmentation of a non-federal share of a federally subsidized prOgram with such funds. Also, the basic appor- tionment for each state in the region is deter- mined by the Administrator in accordance with the provisions of section 402 (b) (i) of the Act. Persuant to such provisions the Administrators have determined that the total mileage of all states in the region is 61,180 miles: that the total mileage in each state in the region and their ratio to ghe total mileage in the region is as follows:2 22Federal Railroad Administration, "Continuation of Local Rail Services", U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Register, 39 (April, 197A).p. 1235s. ' "' 23Ibid.. p. 12530. 58 The state of Michigan was determined to have total state rail mileage of some 6,159 miles, which was 10.1% of the total rail mileage within the region. Thus, under the terms stated within the rules, Michigan is entitled to 10% of the basis apportionment of $180 million over the two year period. This means that the state is guaranteed up to $9 million each year for the two years in federal funding. To obtain this aid, Michigan's share would come to approximately $2.7 million each year, if the maximum amount of federal funds were to be util- ized. Viewing these legislative actions it seems that federal funding will be more than adequate in the coming years and, especially under Amtrak's 403-3 state subsidy prOgram, it would appear that the time is ripe for the development of compre- hensive state rail networks. The federal government has dem- onstrated both its willingness for the development of such plans and the continuing financial aid to make the plans work, in its planning requirements prior to assistance eligibility. The state of Michigan has. through past funding experiences and present planning directions, been more than eager to com- ply with their own necessary expenditures to involve federal participation. As early as May of 1970 the state was voicing reassuring attitudes towards the eventual result of the Rail Reorganization Act. Edgerton T. Bailey, head of the freight section of the Michigan State Department of Highways and Trans- portation, stated that: "Combined federal-state subsidies of $13 million a year will bolster shaky Michigan railroad lines 59 starting in mid-1975. Michigan's share of federal rail sub- sidy under terms of the Reorganization Act would amount to about $9 million. The state share is an additional 30 mil- lion per year to appropriated by the Legislature. The sub- sidy runs for two years, but could well be extended. Lines would receive enough money to offset losses, plus a reasonable rate of return."2h The state has had a history of supporting rail passenger measures in both intercity service under Amtrak and commuter lines under SEMTA. In the 1973-74 General Transportation Fund, in the Capital and Demonstration Grants section the following measures were approved:2 1) $500,000 to SEMTA for the development of 500 parking spaces to serve the Grand Trunk and Penn Central rail facilities. 2) $60,000 for the statewide rail needs study, towards the formation of a state rail plan. 3) $136,350 towards the assumption of the state share in pro- viding Amtrak service in the Port Huron-Chicago corridor. Remaining deficits were to be assumed by Amtrak and inter- ested regional governments. The 1974-75 General Transportation Fund, in its Capital and Demonstration Grants program, designated approval for the 2n - Associated Press, "Shaky Rail Lines Bolstered by Sub- sidies", The Lansing State Journal, (May 197“), p. B-7. 25Michigan State Department of Highways and Transporta- tioné The General Transportation Fund: 1223-20, (July, 1973), DP. ’90 60 following rail-related projects:26 1) $950,000 towards the current Port Huron-Chicago Amtrak service. - To provide one daily round trip - To make physical plant improvements at Battle Creek - To make track capacity improvements at Lansing and Flint 2) $435,000 towards establishing a Toronto connection off the Port Huron-Chicago Amtrak service. - To provide one daily round trip during the last half of the 1974-75 fiscal year. - To make improvements at Port Huron, including U.S. Customs and Immigration Facilities. 3) $307,400 to SEMTA for the Grand Trunk Western Commuter Rail Demonstration Project. - For the purchase, renovation and modernization of exist- ing equipment . - Purchase and upgrading of twelve used coaches and two used locomotives. ' - Revision of downtown terminal trackage. 4) $367,600 for Amtrak line capacity and reliability improve- ments. - To provide a passing track at Lawton with necessary signal and interlocking work. There is no indication that this cooperation will be dis- continued, particularly since the state is currently in the 26Michigan State Department of Highways and Transporta- tion, The General Transportation Fund: 1224-25, (July, 1974), PP. 111'1Vo 61 process of completing their statewide rail plan, which will make them eligible for federal aid. Another encouraging prospect concerning the establishment of the Michigan passenger plan relates to the recent change in command of the Amtrak organization. On January 29, 1975, Paul H. Reistrup, a former vice-president of the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, was named as the new president and chief executive officer of Amtrak. He replaced ROger Lewis, original president who incurred a great deal of opposition over several of his operating theories and procedures which were implemented during his reign. Upon assuming control of the operation, Reistrup stated that: "I have no illusions about this new job. We are look- ing at a situation where expenses are twice as high as reven- ues. I do not see how it is possible for Amtrak to make a profit in the corporate sense of the word, but something has to be done to reverse the expense trend. As an interim goal, Reistrup seeks to reverse the trend towards rising costs per passenger mile, even if the total deficit grows as traffic expands. The main weapon to be utilized in Reistrup's arsenal will be a growing emphasis on short-haul service in corridor areas."27 This is most important in that the state of Michigan in its development of a state passenger plan will be emphasizing short-haul corridor type movements. The recent inclusion of 27Louis M. Phelps, PAmtrak Seen Stressing Short-Haul Runs Under its New President", The Wall Street Journal, (January, 1975). p. 2. '“" 62 the Jackson-Detroit corridOr is a prime example of this type of route. Reistrup also noted that a good way to improve cost performance is to obtain greater seating density and more passengers per train. Since the greatest percentage of the Amtrak market consists of older people and college students, who would drive if they did not take the train and would be unlikely to fly, you may attract them in large numbers only in corridor markets where there is a sufficient amount of traf- fic between two cities. He noted that up to this point in time, Amtrak has not done a thorough job in developing these market areas, especially in the Great Lakes region. Track re- pairs will be the prime priority, as opposed to recent emphasis on the more dramatic and exotic high-speed equipment and meth- odologies. It seems that the current re-emphasis within the Amtrak organization, indeed, within the entire federal rail structure, will assume a profile that will be easily adeptable to the type of procedures necessary in the formulation of a Michigan state rail passenger plan. A final consideration given in the economic outlook for passenger rail system. regards the ridership potential or de- mand for such service.) It was mentioned in previous sections that one of the greatest problems in drawing up a plan of this sort was in terms of the lack of available data regarding pre- vious routes. As might be expected, there are no available figures on passenger demand from those railroads which oper- ated passenger lines years ago. That data which is available 63 consists of relatively new and unstructured figures related to ridership on existing Amtrak routes. In the case of the state of Michigan, two of the three existing routes are so recent that any type of meaningful ridership figures from which trends may be derived are non-existent. As was shown in the revenue/expense table, Amtrak has predicted rising ridership figures for all Michigan passenger routes within the next few fiscal years. It is true that in some instances a peaking period is predicted in a relatively recent time, but the ridership rate will be such as to re- tain economic stability. This, of course, relies on the val- idity of the Amtrak projections which may be a bit optimistic. When viewing the existing changes that have occurred in those present Michigan routes, plus the attitudes that Amtrak and the federal government have manifested, one has to be encour- aged about the possibility of stimulating future ridership figures. A study which lends some idea as to the possible passen- ger volumes on intrastate routes in Michigan is one performed by the Stanford Research Institute in July, 1971. They were contracted by the state of Michigan to examine three alter- nate routes in the Detroit-Chicago corridor: a) Route 1 . Detroit-Durand-Lansing-Battle Creek-Kalamazoo- Chicago b) Route 2 a Detroit-Lansing-Battle Creek-Kalamazoo-Chicago 0) Route 3 a Detroit-Ann Arbor-Jackson-Battle Creek-Kalamazoo- Chicago 28John W. Billheimer, Analysis 21 Alternative Rail Pass- enger Routings in the Detroit-Chicago Corridor, (July, 1971), p. 3. 64 Using variables of total travel time, total out of pocket per capita cost (dollars), frequency of service, and the number of families within the SMSA or city pair having annual incomes of $10,000 or more, a demand model was de- fined and results were calibrated for each route and by shift- ing variables within each route. The resulting annual passen- ger levels and losses per route were enough to indicate that route 3, the present route utilized within the corridor, was best suited to handle the operation. The conclusion of this study indicated that even the best suited of the three routes was quite unlikely to make a profit and that passenger service within the state would be a risky operation. Despite the negative attitudes expressed within this particular report, there are a number of factors inherent in the makeup of the study which lend more positive outlooks to- wards passenger ridership on interstate routes. First of all a number of figures within the study are totally irrelevant to future passenger routes in the state because they examined anticipated train speeds of 80, 150 and 250 miles per hour. These expected speeds are totally absurd in relationship to an overall intrastate system and it was routes that anticipated such speeds which were the cause of the greatest percentage of anticipated revenue losses. This study was completed prior to the recent energy crisis and the turnaround of attitudes favoring passenger route extensions. Thus, this particular study had a prime emphasis on the route's obtaining a profit in strict monetary 65 FIGURE 10 Alternative Detroitéchicago Passenger Routes / \flfiuxnace _ __ , ‘ annu- .. .' CC'IhltYIOI Vat-hast Cat, R'C-10. 1". face!» It. 0 scoda In?! {‘in K .\. adsmrn West Branch National City Part A tum: Port 11099 A Harbcr Bud)? CL I'm-d . 6\3\13r1euc 2,- MUSK EC \' Muskexon Heights 1 (‘ho “tr-“w i1: \lorna . F'ushicr /I:°ockrlurd c\ 3 ‘ “Catlin; "unsung b StJohn! I" \ c I ‘ 6 Grand “awn ‘ . 2 H hmmrqwu : I'urIIand .‘ .Irdu' ! V \Jlf Odcau - C 'If‘d have “all nd '0 HES—A '2 C H'Hodbar’ L. \Vfil L f\ . P. I, (U 0’0 _ ,..... ."a :m a n. dJ. “‘3“ ,. . - H: 1’“ ll South Haven '1‘ r v i'..-melJI’ I... do .' r. . (1,; g (1.. II I ‘ ‘F ”.c_ I’lalnaal“ 1 .r’l'- 88‘0LT of .s._ - \\ I‘Id «If ~. IN 0' ' / ('ou'." ./ "\- h'.r",/.r4 ‘ ‘ I u-_, '_',I ./, \cr 0‘ 0,;0 ‘ ‘ Bangor I \- ‘ . . .. , II "ford/é K.\L.\.\l.\'/I , / Inulc ‘ ‘ _ . _ .‘ . “'3' c‘."' '\ . I. /.. ‘ffCl‘k / I'.I.¢]‘vh! JI-\ "" ' M. / . "a: l'au . . . 1.Q(~J9 0' 'IIIUII \Iv , u' u °~ "um?! ‘ ‘ F I ’y” ’ urn f. ’3 0' V. ,. /~n.\‘ _ \‘. \\> . _ aquo .. .4 ‘ Sancp I Dnuu o “1“..." LINN...” 'uunl L.” gun". .uu p,":'"am- . arnwkrun r ‘0 ' .- v ' " dm-mI‘II7 J _ a. "so" Varccllna \ - u I \ JunoaylL. 9 ’ “ r " :nr/Il ‘ '_ I" ' I an“ n-Ho \, ., Qumry CAGO I 0‘)!“ I'm | I. ',.-‘ Culdinh-r ’{ ‘IHIIJI‘. ' ‘ “"‘ ‘ "'"W um... '. 5 (Mains ’ | . ' u I I " 'C' I H W ’ o ' ”u" _'b(" I any law , ' /’4 tun-uh Iludoon ‘0 // . '1 2w. 'lll‘ \ / « .0 " - -. - - ._. "I.° ”OUR-it“. . ...u.ba -‘ «In. l‘....: [/12 I '"I'." b V ‘ ‘ /I' l ‘l . p O.— o .— ‘ g Q ~— - _ - ' ‘1‘ ... ‘a I o I Bxlthl-I- Pli.’ . _ . __ _,, .'-.l'l' .- 5/" . ' ,.' ’7, I, 'l'. . . . . . . * ‘ t ‘ | . ‘. - ‘ - - A . A _ - , my ‘7" 66 terms. Recent trends have fostered the idea that any type of structure such as a passenger rail system which offers a neces- sary travel function to the public, need not be overly con- cerned with the ideal of realizing profits. The government has shown an ability to aid in the funding of the passenger rail system and. with this help, there is no valid reason why a reasonable national system could not be created. The feder- al government expends an enormous amount of funds towards pro- Jects that are certainly much less beneficial than rail pas- senger service and it would seem quite logical that these expenditures could continue until such time as a national sys- tem was created that was viable and comprehensive in nature and organized to such a point that profit-making, or at least a break-even point was reached. With the energy crisis very much a part of everyday life and our public highways becoming ever more congested. the time has certainly arrived when rail passenger service must be revitalized to assume its necessary share of the national traveling public. . Two other studies seem to have theories on possible pas- senger train ridership which are much more compatible to the Michigan intrastate situation. The basic problem, as was ex- plained previously. is that given the current crises and trends in government involvement, most existing passenger demand mod- els are too profit—oriented and tend to dismiss changes or ex- tensions that could be very necessary. The first study is a Passenger Preference for Travel Mode. done by Pennsylvania State University on train travelers between 67 Philadelphia and Harrisburg in 1970. The study compared trip modes of auto. rail, air and bus and purposes of business, commuter, personal and student. as well as a combination of all purposes. Results were reported and utilized in the state of Pennsylvania's response to the D.O.T. Report which stated that: Rail passenger service is Justified in corridors of 150 to 180 miles in length because it is the preferred mode. Usually, it will be the fastest, safest, least costly mode (including value of time) for this distance. For distances of less than 150 miles, rail passenger service is the preferred mode of common carrier travel for the same reason. Rail travel maintains over 25% of the total market until 300 miles are exceeded, as only the highest density travel corridors can support rail travel for non- stop distances in excess of #00 miles. When rail service is scheduled to provide convenient service with standard transportation load factgrs (“B-51%), rail service is reasonably economical. 9 The study also noted that rail service is very important to the public convenience and necessity. A diesel rail car requires a half gallon of fuel per mile to move 80 seats with #0 passengers: that is 80 passenger miles per gallon. Auto- mobiles average 20 passenger miles per gallon. Buses at 50% load factor, average 96 passenger miles per gallon, better than rail, but buses lack the passenger attraction to divert sufficient patronage from the automobile to accomplish any- thing significant. It is notable that in the Penn State Study. bus was not the preferred mode for any trip purpose, for any distance of travel. It has also been proven that for buses 29Milton J. Shapp, Pennsylvania's Reaponse to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Rail Cut PrOposals, (March, 1971’)! p0 2%. I 68 to become significantly important, exclusive bus lanes must be utilized. When these lanes are created, costs of bus travel in terms of overall expenditures, actually rise to a greater level than that of rail service. A final point raised by the study demonstrated the dis- proportionate advantages given to air and highway travel as compared to rail. The case is raised that future legislative apportionments should more equally balance rail finances as Opposed to their competing modes. It seems that airways in particular, should be examined in terms of equitable payments for federal monies received. v The second study is one performed by John F. Direnzo and Louis P. Rossi for the New York State Department of Transport- ation. They developed a diversion model concerning four modes: auto, bus, air and rail for both business, non-business and all trip purposes. They studied trips made between:30 1) New York City - Buffalo 2) New York City - Montreal 3) New York City - Albany Their basic results found the following to be true for rail passenger travel: 1) Passengers were completely divertible to rail if the train was faster and less expensive. 2) Passengers were not divertible to rail if train service was 30John F. Direnzo and Louis P. Rossi, 5 Diversion Model for Selected Cities, New York State Department of Transporta- tion, (December, 1970), p. 52. ' 69 slower and more expensive 3)-Passengers were possibly divertible if: a) train service was faster, but more expensive or _ b) train service was slower, but less expensive Both these studies present positive vieWpoints for an intrastate rail system in a state such as Michigan where travel corridors are present and intercity mileage is of a short-range nature. Despite the fact that there are no strictly objective data available for predictions, the previous ideas present theories that seem to indicate a good possibility of obtaining sufficient ridership along expanded passenger routes. 70 D) zglitical An integral element in any type of system such as passen- ger rail service which depends so heavily on governmental fund- ing and support, is the political climate towards that partic- ular system on both the federal and state level. The federal government assumed an active role in the railroad crisis when it became apparent that several large northeastern rail comp- anies were about to go bankrupt. As the federal process con- tinued, it became evident that passenger service would have to be assisted if it was to become a viable aid in solving some of the severe transportation problems existing in the country. Due to several legislative actions which defined positive long-term federal involvement in Amtrak and the establishment of statewide rail plans, governmental attitudes towards rail service, especially passenger, have changed dramatically. Given these commitments, plus the fact that the energy crisis and environmental programs will continue, it seems virtually assured that such political favoritism is not merely a passing trend. Although there are political critics of Amtrak in Washing- ton who hasten to point out the weakpoints in the system, the majority of legislators realize that Amtrak is in its incept- ual phase and that the overall benefits far outweigh its lia- bilities. One outspoken critic of the aid given to rail pass- enger service is Claude S. Brinegar who stated that if one might return to the year 1971 and could know that Amtrak, in l97h, would be requesting $200 million per year in subsidies, he would most certainly wonder if Amtrak would in fact be in 71 existence. The organization's officials have been quick to qualify such attacks however. Amtrak's projected deficit for the fiscal year that began July 1, 1974, they point out, is less than the $h22-million forecast for the New York Transit Authority: the nearly $1 billion the Government will pay to oper- ate the Federal Aviation Air Traffic Control Sys- tem for planes, and the $5 billion spent each year for interstate highways. They also remind their critics that they took over a dying industry, and kept an alternative to the auto, the airplane and the bus-~all of which oper- ate on oil-based fuels-rolling. If a serious en- ergy crunch comes, Amtrak executives add, the growing gational investment in trains will surely pay off. Besides those legislative measures already in effect, for example, the local rail service continuation subsidies under the Regional Reorganization Act, there are a number of other measures currently being seriously considered which, if en- acted, would have a tremendous impact upon statewide passenger rail service. It might also be noted that all of these meas- ures are positive-oriented; that is, there are no serious measures now being proposed that would act contrary to the ex- pansion and solidification of the nationwide passenger rail system. Perhaps the greatest amount of talk, and justifiably so, is concerned with the deteriorated trackage and roadbed and what methods must be taken to rehabilitate the system. "The number of train derailments caused by faulty railroad track has jumped sharply in recent years and federal officials say 31Robert Lindsay, "Amtrak: A Very EXpensive Solution". The New York Times, (December. 1974), p. b. - 72 things could get worse before they get better. More than 7,000 trains were derailed in 1973, a twenty-seven percent hike over the 5,508 that went off the track in 1972. When youive got track that's in good shape, you just don't have de- railments, said John Ingram, F.R.A. Administrator. There are some railroads that have remarkably good track (solvent west- ern carriers), but in the country as a whole, it is deterior- ating."32 The article also points out that Amtrak's twenty-six de- railments this year and the vast majority of poor on-time per- formance rates are caused by poor condition of the right-of—way. Slow orders, which, because of track conditions, may drOp al- 'lowable Operating speeds to ten miles per hour, have plagued Amtrak recently. Amtrak reported nearly 52,000 slow orders in 1973. This situation, given federal indifference, will only get worse. The railroads experiencing these poor track condi- tions are those who are currently in dangerous financial con- dition. Thus, what little revenues are generated by current operations (the rate of return in railroads is about three percent), must be immediately utilized to continue Operations. This inability to rehabilitate rights-of—way means slower trains, which translates into even lower profits yet. This impossible situation must be altered and the aid should logically be in some type of federal assistance or strategy. As a direct re- sult of these problems, four separate alternatives have been 32John W. Ingram, "Electrification: The Logical Step", The Philadelphia Inquirer, (September, 197a). p. 3. 73 proposed. The first is the Interstate Railroad Act of 197“, spon- sored by Senator Vance Hartke (Democrat, Indiana). "The Act would provide loan guarantees and outright federal grants paid from general tax revenue to private railroads to bring a net- wOrk of trunk railroad lines designated by the Department of Transportation up to high standards.u33 The second alternative is another proposal by Senator Hartke, co-sponsored by Senator Lowell Weicker (Republican, Connecticut), the Railroad Revenue Act of 1974. Describing the Act as one possible approach to solving the track and roadbed problems facing so much of our nation, Hartke said that the Bill would create an Interstate Railroad Corporation that would take over, maintain, and finance a national railroad track system, but allow the present carriers to remain in private ownership. While there is no mandatory conveyance require- ment, those carriers who convey their lines to the new corporation, would have the benefits of Operation over the system: those carriers who decided not to join, may instead maintain their trackage to the standards required by the legis- lation.. Those lines acquired by the new corpor- ation would be exempt from state and local prop- erty taxes, but this loss in needed revenue for state and local government would be made up by equivalent payments to the states by the federal government. Costs of this program would be financed for a six year period, by a one percent tax on all surface freight shipments. Long-term maintenance would be enabled by a charge of one 33w1111em c. Harsh, "Push Interstate Rail Not to Rebuild Roadbeds", The Chicago Sun Times, (October, 1974), p. 6. 31’Joseph C.Sdhe1een, (ed.), "Rartke-Weicker Bill Would Use Two Levies for Rail Track Rehabilitation“, Traffic World, (September, 19?#), p. 13. ' 7“ dollar per 1,000 gross ton-miles on freight and passenger car- riers utilizing the system. This proposal currently exists as Senate Bill #012. A third alternative is currently a proposal before Cong- ress: HouseRule #16523. Introduced by Representative Har- rington (Democrat, Massachusettes), before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, the Bill has four basic objectives:35 1) The designation of a national network of essential rail lines. 2) The creation of a non-profit corporation to acquire and (maintain these lines. . 3) The provision of minimum standards for rail line maintenance. h) The provision of financial assistance to not only the cor- poration, but also to the states for rehabilitation proced- ures. The final proposal was submitted by Pennsylvania Governor Hilton J. Shapp in his response to the original D.O.T. rail cut proposals. An early and vocal critic of the Report, Gov- ernor Shapp published a document calling for the establishment of what he terms a united States Rail Trust Fund. "The fund, similar to the Highway Trust Fund that is fed by the Federal Gasoline Tax and is used to build interstate and other feder- ally aided highways, would be raised through a five percent surcharge on railroad freight revenues. This surcharge would be used to repay thirty-year government backed bonds. Proceeds from the bonds would be used by private railroads to rehabilitate, 35Joseph C.S¢he1een. (ed.), "House Rule Number 16523", 'Traffic World, (September, 1970), p. 62. 75 modernize and expand their track, electrify heavily used main- lines and modernize their yards."36 Although none of these proposals is currently near realiz- ation, the mere fact that they have been presented and have been cordially received is a promising sign. The implications which this type of legislation.would have on rail passenger service in Michigan would be far-reaching. With adequate rights- ofaway, on time performances and reliability would greatly in- crease and should stimulate increased ridership, a factor vital to the prOgram's success. Given the current crisis in rail transportation, the question seems to be not whether action will be taken to solve track dilapidation, but rather, the methods utilized in the solution. A second major topic now being considered for the railroads is the concept of electrification. Noting the amount of freight moved per gallon of fuel by rails and the relatively low emis- sions from diesel locomotives, John Ingram states that: The energy crisis, for all its frustrations and inconveniences, has precipitated a new appreciation for the public carrier and the virtues of economy and efficiency in transportation. Clearly, a super railroad system would be a valuable asset for the United States. The energy crisis has given a new urgency to the development of alternatives to pet- roleum-based transportation power systems. The next lOgical step, then, is electrification of high-density intercity freight and passenger lines."37 Rail electrification is not new to the United States. Sev- eral present metrOpolitan areas (New York, Chicago and 36William C. Harsh, "Push Interstate Rail Not to Rebuild Roadbeds", The Chicago Sun Times, (October, 197A), p. 6. 37John W. Ingram, "Electrification: The Logical Step", The Philadelphia Inquirer, (September, 1974), p. 3. 76 Philadelphia) have electrified their commuter lines. The number of actively electrified lines in our country is some- what less than half of our total national route miles. This figure may be compared with such foreign countries as SWitzer- land. Japan, West Germany and Sweden, all of whom have some forty to ninety percent Of their total trackage electrified. After a rather intensive study, a government task force has concluded that the federal government, the Department of Trans- portation and the Federal Rail Administration should have an active role in this electrification process. Citing a possible goal of electrifying some 20,000 or more route miles, approxi- mately 10 percent of the total nationwide, the government is convinced that electrification represents the key to the future for heavy density rail passenger and freight lines. In his report entitled a United States Rail Trust Fund, Governor Milton J. Shapp of Pennsylvania makes a strong case for the electrification of rail routes. The following are pre- sented as the basic justifications for electrification:38 1) Electric locomotives are less expensive to operate than diesel because they need less maintenance; maintenance is less expensive and they are more reliable. 2) Electric locomotives have a significant reserve potential reserve for use on start-ups, grades, and in changing speeds. The result is shorter trip times and smaller locomotive fleets. 38 p. 31. Milton J. Shapp, A United States Rail Trust Fund, (197A), 77 3) High-speed passenger service is most effective on electrified track. This is so because electric engines can achieve run- ning speeds more quickly, and are cleaner and more reliable than diesels. 4) Electrification will provide a significant opportunity to use an energy source which is not petroleum-based. It will enable a part of the transportation system to rely on coal, nuclear and hydro-produced power instead of diesel fuel. Also, the following costs are particular to rail electri- ficationzag 'IABLE 7. 1) gggtg (1968-69 dollars) 23; Track Mile [Q A) Centenary 53,750 B) Substations 10,000 C) Electrical Distribution 1,250 D) Signalling (Standard CTC to Electric) 11,500 E) Communications 6,700 P) Other Costs (Bridges, Tunnels, Etc.) 1,202 G) Total Cost Per Track Mile ' 8#,h02 2) Cost Adjustment to 1974 Dollars x 1,215 3) Total Costs Per Track Mile, 197A Dollars 102,5u8 Electrification's relationship to passenger rail service in the state of Michigan is, at best, unclear. Although the 'benefits electrification are undeniable, there are no such lines present within the state. It would seem that in the 39Ib1d.. p. 53. 78 frame of an overall statewide system, there is certainly a place for such procedures, but the fact remains that current conditions are such that there is much to be done prior to the consideration of electrification. The importance of this, is that the topic is being seriously considered and there seems reasonably good chances for affirmative government action in the near future. The state of Michigan has also had a history of political receptiveness towards rail progress. As was shown in the in- ventory, Michigan has been particularly impressive in their willingness to involve itself in the expansion of passenger rail routes within the state under the 403-3 subsidy prOgram. They currently operate one international route and have def- inite plans for another and their ability to obtain Amtrak's assistance in the commuter-type Jackson-Detroit route, was most impressive. Michigan's current funding and commencement in formulating a statewide freight-passenger system is another indication of their political commitment towards state rail systems. . Previous legislative actions had begun paving the way for this governmental interest. "Enrolled Senate Bill Number 559, the MetrOpolitan Transportation Authorities Act of 1967, created Detroit-based SEMTA, which was empowered to plan trans- portation facilities in the area, acquire real and personal property, institute condemnation proceedings, apply for grants and loans from the federal government, sell, lease or use any .property acquired for the purposes of the Act, grant to util- 79 ities, the rights of prOperty use of transportation facilities, contract with other governmental units for various services and exercise various other powers defined within the Act."uO The second major piece of legislation was Enrolled House Bill Number 5707, an act to amend various sections of Act Num- ber 51 of the Public Acts of 1951. under this Act, the motor vehicle highway fund was created, in.which: “The general transportation fund is created within the motor vehicle high- way fund. There is appropriated each fiscal year from the motor vehicle highway fund to the general transportation fund an amount equal to the net revenues, after deducting a propor- tionate share of refunds and collection costs offered by law, from one-half cent per gallon of the tax on gasoline and liq- uified petroleum gas imposed by Act Number 150 of the Public Acts of 1927, as amended, deposited in the motor vehicle high- way fund after January 31, 1973. All monies in the general transportation fund are appropriated each fiscal year and the Department of Administration shall cause to be paid from the fund such amounts and at such times as are certified to it by the Department of State Highways persuant to this act, but no moneys shall be expended from the general transportation fund after June 30, 1975 except as specifically appropriated by the 4 legislature." 1 “OState of Michigan Legislature, The MetrOpolitan Author- ities Act g; 1262, (July, 1967), p. l. “11b1d., p. 3. 80 Basically what this meant was the 1/2 penny of the gas tax would be utilized for non-highway uses. This total came to approximately twenty-three million dollars per year. Governor William Millikin, recently elected to another four year term, is an avid proponent of rail expansion in the state. 'He has supported virtually every pro-passenger railroad measure introduced on all governmental levels. He actively participated in the inaugural run of the Blue Water Limited, in which he stated that: "We are celebrating something we once took for granted and later abandoned." He also promised that: "Although the Blue Water is Michigan's first state assisted passenger train. it won't be the last."42 He also went on to promote what was the state's most ambitious rail fund proposal to date: the $1.1 billion Bond Proposal, which was placed be- fore the state's voters in November of l97h. The inauguration of the Blue Water service was hopefully the beginning of a vast program to bring back the passenger train to Michigan. State voters voted on a $1.1 billion transportation bond issue on November 5, 1974. $326 million of the money would be used to develop or rebuild rail and bus systems. The remainder of the money would be utilized for airport development ($100 million), port development ($50 million), bicycle and other non-motorized modes ($25 million), urban transport- ation ($540 million) and new systems (520 million). The rail allocation includes improving of both freight and passenger facilities and $80 million has been set up to upgrade 650 miles of track with signal, grade crossing and possible route reloca- tion projects. 315 million would be used to up- grade 500 miles of track to intermediate speed, including signal and grade crossing improvements; Money has also been allocated to purchase a suf- ficient number of cars to equip new trains. The quoy Arpan, "The Inaugural Trip of the Blue Water Lim- iteg: Chicago-Port Huron", The Past Mail, h (October, 197“), p. e 81 bond solution to old and obsolete terminals, both bus and rail, is to establish ten intermodal term- 62%;: igcmiggiegifiges and upgrade or replace all The bond proposal failed the referendum vote by a margin of close to fifty-seven percent. Although some were quick to interpret this failure as a negative public indication towards rail service, it has generally been reported that this was not true. The measure was heavily laden with aid to all modes and it was several of these which incurred the public's displeasure. It was generally agreed that the rail-oriented elements of the proposal would have passed on their own merits, but the com- prehensive package was too Optimistic in its attempts to suc- cessfully enact an all-encompassing comprehensive prOgram. Most experts feel that the package will be presented again, in a new reduced form and that this new proposal which would still include the rail related legislation, should be successful. The bill had also included a $5h2 million grant through SEMTA, which would be the state's share of an urban mass trans- portation system for the southeast section of the state. "The key to the SEMTA prOposal calls for 75 miles of high level (exclusive right of way) transit in six major corridors. It was believed that rail rapid has the inside track. There is a five phase construction prOgram for the area and the plan is an all encompassing multi-modal idea for the Detroit metropolitan area. Although there was no sure feeling as to the exact problem areas within the legislation, it seems that the SEMTA plan was a tenuous inclusion, especially due to the fact that u3Ibid., p. 12. 82 this accounted for approximately half of the overall grant. At this time it is not specifically known in what areas cuts will be made, but the intercity rail related sections were generally agreed to be necessary and not harmful. Thus, al- though the defeat of the transportation bond prOposal was a setback, it is not being viewed as a defeat. Other such meas- ures (e.g., New York State) were rejected several times before their ultimate acceptance and it seems that Michigan's pro- posal may need but a few trimmings and alterations to make it an acceptable product. Chapter 1;, Current Legislation A) The united States Railway Association The second step of the overall U.S. Department of Trans- portation's regional rail reorganization process was the re- sponsibility of the United States Railway Association. Their task was to develOp a "Final System Plan" providing for the reorganization of rail services and the disposition of rail properties of the bankrupt railroads. The Association was authorized to issue obligations totaling not more than $1.65 billion to be used for making the loans necessary for the com- pletion of the Act. On February 26, 1975, the Association published a "Preliminary Systems Plan" as a preliminary phase in final plan preparation. The Regional Rail Reorganization Act contemplated that this report and the plan which it describes would be 'preliminary', and the Association wishes to stress the aptness of that description. The February 26, 1975 statutory deadline has given the Association less than eight months from the date the Board of Directors to office to conduct a transportation planning effort of great complexity. During the period between the release of this re- port and the completion of the Final System Plan, USRA will continue the collection and refinement of relevant data and will develop more fully as- pects of the rail services plan that are now tent- ative.1 Although this preliminary plan is conceptual in nature, many of the recommendations presented will be included in the final plan and, by law, become mandatory routes in the USRA system. In terms of the relationship of the preliminary plan to proposed Michigan passenger service, there are areas of 1United States Railway Association, Preliminary System Plan for Restructuring Railroads in the Northeast and Midwest Region, (February, 1975): p. 3. 83 0"? definite comparison. Despite the fact that the USRA plan is limited to discussion of the bankrupt reorganized railroads and is heavily freight-oriented in terms of data analysis and implementation, sections regarding proposed line abandonments, proposed passenger route extensions and future subsidy prOgrams. The Plan designates the following Michigan rail lines for intensive analysis:2 21bid., p. 523. TABLE 8 85 Intrastate - Penn Central USRA Line fi 391 ' 392a .39“ 395/395a 398 #02 404 “36 #38 #38a ##0 ##0a ##0b #41 #02 M3 hhh hhfia .h45 ##5a ##5b ##6 ##6a ““7/hu7a/hu7b 222212319 Lenawee Jot to Ida N s W King East of Adrian to Adrian Grosvenor to Moreni Lenawee Jct to Manchester Jonesville to Litchfield Montgomery to Bankers Fort Wayne Jot to Horton Oakman Spur to Dearborn Cairo to Colling vassar to Caro Bay City to Gaylord Bay City to Water Street Jot Gladwin Branch at Pinconning Gaylord to Mackinaw City Mackinaw City to St Ignace Bay City to Midland Hunger to Denmark Jet Vassar to Denmark Jct vassar to Millington Millington to Lapeer Jot Lapeer Jot to Oxford Saginaw to Hagar Denmark Jct to Hagar Saginaw to Bay City TABLE 8 (Cont'do) #51/#52/#53 #5# #5#a #55 #55a‘ #56/hs7/hss #58a #59/#59a #60 #61 #61a #63 #63a #63b #63d #6#/#65 #6#a #66 #70 #72 #72a #73 530a 635 636 680 Rives Jct to Grand Rapids Mackinaw City to Cadillac Cadillac to Cedar Springs Lansing to Jackson Lansing to Saginaw State Line to Vicksburg Kalamazoo to Three Rivers Jct Kalamazoo to Vicksburg Grand Rapids to Moline to Plainwell Cedar Springs to Comstock Park Camstock Park to Grand Rapids Plainwell to Otsego Otsego to Dorr Dorr to Byron Center Lamar to Grand Rapids Parchment to Doster Plainwell to Kalamazoo Kalamazoo to Dowagiac Traverse City to walton Jct Muskegon to Fuller Muskegon Heights to Muskegon Haires to Three Rivers Jct Hudson to Cement City Niles to Benton Harbor Carleton to Detroit Buchanan to Dowagiac 87 TABLE 8 (Cont'd.) 688 Oxford to Utica 692a/693a White Pigeon Jct to Hillsdale 698 At Cheboygan (D & M Trackage Rights) Ann Arbor Railroad 1300 Dundee to Owosso 1301 Owosso to Thompsonville Interstate - in}; m . 1302/1303 Thompsonville, Michigan to Kewaunee, Wisconsin Penn Central #01 Montgomery, Michigan to South of Angola, Indiana #67 Buchanan, Michigan to Michigan City, Indiana 637 Niles, Michigan to South Bend, Indiana 393 N,& W King east of Adrian, Michigan to Vulcan, Ohio #37 Carleton, Michigan to Alexis, Ohio (0&0 Rights) 530 Hudson, Michigan to Bryan, Ohio 88 FIGURE 11 Michigan Lines Intensively Analyzed by the U S R A ‘it Imma- 1 an nun CS‘.IC’|¢I 'fa'h-w. Cu, Iayling Fnulfo _ .o o h \ Thompaumn '2‘ inch: It. I H!" ' scoda o. ' Adina . t c- e 9 T Maniacs " In" ‘ 5" “ u . 7?;1)’, w. as City ‘ Cadilh National City ham-In Jc. j I . ' Alston" ,, I l '* - 9 h N Ewe-7M ./ R d Lndingto’n ‘. c.. C’tn‘ C‘s, . ‘ . - g . Port Hope Huber Bmch I'll“ Cloud '~ 1 Win chal ’- 0 {News} go a ”on" [eh F""‘"" .9 (if, 'Iau- - . n 23 ~ 9 ,2 3 Alum (gall):5 ' q _j o Stanton ("MM"- / ‘ Dar. '1}, n. 9 . . a .. e ,. c. s 311:3“.ch " ”my. ‘ . . , 632°“ r . I "IIIKCKOII ’lfl‘hls , ”h ID loclJord c - ‘ 1g - I; ‘ ' . , L- -'I. .u). . YR c Q 01 I Com ‘c.(. b ‘ \ In ‘ . ' I . ' . ‘0 c, "‘ , _ _ 0...“ _ ‘ - ancc .‘ lmln) Cltbr ‘3‘ o ’ ,nryah‘rj -."‘“i‘ L. -. KAN“ b 5‘ John! wfi' ' . - :4 C 20 ‘2 ' ' A; ,/ .. ' ' ’ RAPIDS ‘ '_ ' y] lVT 3" 1 a Grand "cf-n -. _ 6 Y,“ - ‘ . :o J ‘1 ' . Port Huron .31, lo;.e,1‘5 'NHI - 9 «Hand 0 / ) .‘. . . i \\ C ’ ’ /: 0 ‘-)Q ’~ ”"d‘J. V ‘ufl wd . “ .U'N'NC O7 0 d 5 I Bagh‘flwfld ‘E/é; \1‘.’ \ 1“. 0:. "uh ‘ (3'1 rd ersz' '- '1‘ F 4% \. I, no" "A ‘ ’0 ~WT7'.1..III-12‘R ' 1 -\ tbur \Vill‘ '1. L a 9 "uni! W 'l \NSIS. W I l v H A Hula... ". I‘m-lethal. 5‘4"“). \9 (t 4"- '~ 3h .00 "0“” h . Al'ut‘Lh I) o chem '; " : . h" . p ”I On.‘ p ‘7 , .- . .. I» uh! 9, '. Inn. 1 “I 1- " I: rI‘m It ' LAFP ' 80¢! ' Cm JJ'. U"“|v . ‘ \5 I“ ' ' A "I ' ‘ r) u - - h ".v'n T‘ ~ I" PI IIA‘ I ’7 IN'd-Iaf Jr, . I' I) ‘H'HJ‘ 1 . ‘ 6 iy/ ' [a .“ “h!“ ‘d p.;k' 5T. ' "A! ‘ ‘ :v , '5 C. a: I ‘ z n: cvue M“ Han Jr. ,7 . , l“)mvul' cg "nu“: erkl ‘ C u . I, ' ' \ ,("_II..'H' (.b‘ . _ ' Linger .- ,1L‘ “_Li‘m g} / \c\\5(z:‘ Ann Ipm‘o t\”,\-—~ DE I‘m; T ,u Q, . , I, ,. .,_‘ - . w an... H J, -‘ w m ...r "frtfotdx hA"“'\"\/" ' :- ’ "full" ‘ ‘0 I ’—T,"—' v 'TT \\n;’/' .g- i..." h 4,:0 ( 1 . w/ (”NJ /) I'. T’T\_ I ~ Ln...“ 5 (: r'"""“ J" K‘. «HI: /‘ r” ' “fin. nae"- "who V: "' “ / mm M ,, ~ . * ' ~‘" If "‘ swine ' """' ‘ n- 5 a ‘8‘,ny I ‘ “"1”" . \ mid-um In. . v "d "m,” ( u “ththCIlC‘ “I", \ .. '. . 33nd I“! ‘ l‘..’.}"‘e“. A. 5, at. nu . .n I .mtuu at)! Par!" 4. _1~.|I -\ I‘ H' - - I ' ._ ‘. ’ 'Il-‘I'.r \1IICLHUI /‘ llhlfl ‘J-lyn" | ‘.\\l‘ ' ‘\ ' \ 1.7.) \ \\/N V , 4.7),]. -o ‘ _ r ' I' 8 \ . . ud'hf‘y "/ ‘ ' . K'AGO 0° flush-n m n. H h. ‘ "‘ ‘ """"0"" (4’4” "Module . "L ' M ,l , V :‘H' ‘ \ \) ("II \‘ “ t O C I. I" £f'. ' . . J I). "'8'“ ‘ C 4 IL.‘ . ' \ 5 "Manson "' “ "ude 11‘! _l . “I ‘r, N...” '0" l"...... ‘e‘ |I .8 Jlbn‘ ' " t / -' ulnhI-nnrll- ~ - -- —- . 00—..- " *‘ H ' ‘ .rll" '- -- 'I ' / n v . ' I) 1‘ A '1', I" ‘ ‘ '1 Rx ‘ .--0‘ I . ”-— \ ‘ ll...-.Hun * l n-a\l L‘lnl 89 This intensive analysis section covers some 1,616 miles of trackage (total includes trackage rights) in the state. In terms of existing passenger routes, there is one area of com- parison: the Penn Central line from Kalamazoo going west to the Indiana state line at New Buffalo. The line is currently utilized by both the Chicago-Detroit and Chicago-Port Huron routes and is vital to the continuity of any statewide passen- ger system. given its strategic position in terms of Chicago. In its analysis of this particular segment, the USRA divides the line into three different sections: Kalamazoo to Dowagiac (# #66), Dowagiac to Buchanan (# 680). and Buchanan to Michi- gan City. Indiana (# #67). Kalamazoo to Dowagiac was not recommended for inclusion within the Conrail system. Information provided to the USRA from the Rail Services Planning Office, various shippers on line and interested governmental agencies demonstrated that the line generates an excess financial burden in terms of freight revenues and that overall freight volumes were not sufficiently high to merit inclusion in the final system of Conrail.* Discussions were held with Amtrak and the State of Michigan regarding the route's necessary status in terms of passenger operations and both authorities stated that studies were currently underway to determine how the purchase or lease of the segment would be carried out. Dowagiac to Buchanan was divided into two subsegments after preliminary analysis by the USRA, one of which was to be *It should be here noted that Conrail, while considering passen- ger needs in the structure of its preliminary findings, will not have passenger operations under its Jurisdiction. 90 recommended for inclusion in the Conrail system, while the other will be served by Conrail if passenger service is con- tinued on line under Amtrak or with the aid of other transport- ation agency sponsorships. The first subsegment, from Dowagiac to Niles, was reassessed on the basis of traffic data at Dow- agiac and found profitable. The second, from Niles to Buchanan. was re-evaluated on the assumption that the line will be oper- ated by Amtrak, who will bear its maintenance costs. This sub- segment will be served by Conrail on the condition that pass- enger service continue and the fixed plant costs are born by' the passenger entity. The final section, Buchanan to Michigan City, Indiana was not specifically ruled upon. Citing the fact that no signifi- cant information had been provided by interested parties, plus the fact that Amtrak and the State of Michigan expressed con- cern over the status of future passenger traffic on route. the OSHA determined that the line did not appear, at first glance, to be financially self-sustaining in terms of freight traffic. They asserted that preliminary analysis will be completed some- time between the publication of the Preliminary Plan and the Final Plan. Thus. it appears that the existing state passenger net- work has been given financial responsibilities by the Prelim- inary Plan. The percentage shared by Amtrak and the state is at present unknown, but given the fact that a current state- subsidized route (Chicago-Port Huron) is operating on this line. seems to demand some type of state assistance in the acquiring 91 or lease of these segments. Of definite benefit to the passen- ger system is the fact that since this line is not being in- cluded in Conrail and freight operations will be severely cur- tailed, the process of upgrading the Detroit-Chicago corridor to high-speed Turboliner service. with a minimum of freight conflict is greatly facilitated. It_does not seem apprOpriate at this time to discuss the ramifications which the remaining line segment decisions have on proposed passenger extensions. It is merely sufficient to note their presence and location. realizing that newly proposed passenger routes lying on such lines have this additional bene- fit/constraint according to the Preliminary Plan recommenda- tions. The second major impact of the USRA Preliminary Systems Plan on Michigan passenger service, concerns the recommenda- tions for regional passenger service endorsed by the plan. The Plan acknowledges both the advantages and necessity for rail passenger service within the region and outlines existing Am- trak routes as a given. In a policy of limiting their passen- ger recommendations to high-speed corridor service, the USRA identifies and later recommends specific city pairs to be served by passenger service, with the Northeast corridor re- ceiving special emphasis as deserving dense, high-speed service. In regard to the State of Michigan, two basic corridors were identified: Detroit-Chicago, and Detroit-Cincinnati. According to the data compiled by the USRA,3 "Detroit- 31bid., p. 181. Chicago, route length of some 28# miles, serves 12.85 million total population (Detroit = 4.#3 mill.. Chicago a 7.61 mill.. intermediate SMSA's . .81). Present service level is approxi- mately 6'50" travel time with 2 daily round trips. This com- pares to 6'00" highway travel time. The recommended service level is to attain 5'00" transit time and upgrade service to # daily round trips. The DetroiteCincinnati route, 282 miles in length, serves 7.42 million total population (Detroit = #.43 mill.. Cincinnati = 1.38 mill.. intermediate SMSA's a 1.61). There are no present routes serving this area and highway travel time is 6'00". Transit time for the recommended service is to be 5'30", con- sisting of 2 daily round trips. Thus, the plan suggests elevating Detroit-Chicago service to four daily round trips and establishing new Detroit-Cinciné nati service. Because of the powers given to the USRA in their ability to designate a final system, plus the considerable amount of governmental backing, it seems almost assured that these new changes will be implemented. Given the overall sta- tus of the Detroit-Chicago corridor, upgrading the number of daily trips can only aid in the overall success of the system. The Detroit-Cincinnati corridor is another valuable addition to the Amtrak system. Besides the endpoint cities, this route will also serve such areas as Toledo and Dayton and generate greater traffic in terms of people into the Detroit metropol- itan area, also giving the Michigan population alternative ~- route patterns towards southern destinations. It would seem 93 at first glance that the State of Michigan would incur no financial responsibilities in this newly designated route. Service is between two major population centers and bi-state in nature, which is the type that Amtrak usually funds. It also seems that new routes designated by the USRA will be en- tirely Amtrak funded, given the nature of the USRA criteria and the fact that both are government sponsored/funded. The final USRA ruling having connotations for Michigan passenger service regards federal funding procedures for rail continuations. As was mentioned in the economic inventory, sections #02 and #03 will provide monies to assist regional states in Operating rail services, freight and passenger,,over properties that will not be included in the Final Plan, but which the states deem necessary to prevent unemployment, energy shortages, or degradation of the environment and provide loans to assist states or local/regional transportation authorities in.modernizing or acquiring properties not included within the Final Plan. Not only are these articles valuable in themselves, but there are current movements to increase section #02 funds, now authorized for two years, to eight years of availability. If an eight year prOgram was approved, areas of service which were not included in the final plan, but were essential to comprehensive service (e.g., statewide passenger service) would be easily created at a minimum of statewide expense. The USRA Preliminary Systems Plan has nay connotations for rail service for states within the designated regions. In the State of Michigan, the Plan expands passenger route services 9“ by creating a new route and increasing frequencies on another. Its generous subsidy programs avail massive federal funds to aid in state-operated services and, by decreasing freight traffic on a major corridor, it facilitates the transition of that service to high-speed status. 95 B) The State of Michigan Railroad Needs Study The State of Michigan has issued for publication through the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation, a Planning Report on Michigan Railroad Needs. This report is a preliminary step in the overall statewide endeavor to estab- lish a viable, comprehensive freight/passenger mmmwork which will be submitted to the federal government in the form of a State Plan. This report is a preliminary study of the state- wide rail need and is not to be considered as representative. of final state policy regarding discussed properties, routes, or traffic. Despite this fact, the report is quite useful in determining where_the main.areas of emphasis lie and what prioritized goals, are envisioned for the final plan. It also alerts various public agencies, vested interest groups and the general public as to where areas of possible conflict lie, allowing them sufficient time to let their own views and needs be known so as they might be incorporated in some way into the final system. The following are the goals for the Michigan railroad planning processzu 1) To provide and maintain an adequate and efficient railroad network within Michigan and linked to the regional and national network. 2) To promote present and future financial viability, stability, “Michigan Intercity Railroad Task Force, The Michigan Railroad Needs Study, (February, 1975), p. 17. 96 and efficiency within the Michigan railroad system. 3) To maintain and promote competition as needed in the pro- vision of transport services. h) To provide service for existing economic base activities and subsequently encourage desirable patterns of social and .economic growth and development within Michigan. 5) To minimize adverse social and economic impacts of changes in railroad service. . 6) To promote the ec010gica1 and aesthetic quality of the en- vironment. 7) To improve the energy efficiency of transportation services. 8) To provide for the equitable distribution of public subsidy costs among state, regional, and local Jurisdictions pro- portionate to the benefits received. 9) To develop the institutional capability for implementing policy, i.e., enabling legislation and funding provisions to carry out chosen State policy regarding railroads. Although the report is heavily concentrated on freight routings, there is a section on passenger movements which des- cribes the conceptual outlook of the state towards a final passenger system. Under section 3.1.2.h., Passenger Routes and PrOposals, the existing system is acknowledged with em- phasis on the fact that the State has entered into subsidy agreements with Amtrak. It is also pointed out that this re- establishment of passenger service within the state is the be- ginning of an extensive prOgram of service extensions planned for the late 1970's and early 1980's. 97 A system has been designed to connect major urban areas within the state, a major urban area being defined as one with 50,000 plus population. These areas would be serviced by high- speed (80-110 mph), high frequency (at least four round trips per day) rail passenger routes. There were no specifics as to when this system would be operational. "Based on criteria that included pOpulation, availability of existing direct trackage, and present corridor travel vol- ume by all modes, five corridors were identified for high-speed, high-frequency service. In order of priority they are:"5 1) (Chicago) Kalamazoo-Ann Arbor-Detroit 2) (Chicago) Battle Creek-Lansing-Flint-Port Huron 3) Detroit-Flint-Saginaw-Bay City h) Detroit—Lansing-Grand RapidseMuskegon 5) Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-(Chicago) The costs involved in preparing the right-ofdway for such high speed and frequency operations are such that the State has designated the new system to aim for achievement of this route structure over a minimum of trackage miles. For example, the Port Huron and Grand Rapids routes will utilize sections of the Detroit-Chicago mainline, rather than traditional routes demanding other line improvements. Grade Crossing improvements or eliminations are mentioned specifically as methods which, although accruing great public benefits to the overall system, are quite costly to investigate and implement. 51bid., p. 50. 98 "An estimated $175 million would be needed for the five route system to finance stations, and upgrade track and signal. systems. This amount would have been provided by the $1.1 bil- lion bond issue which was defeated in the November election. Alternate methods of financing are being explored, including the possibility of a revised bond issue in 1976."6 Besides the basic system which was previously listed, there have been four generalized areas defined for further study:7 1) North-south service on both the east and west side of the Lower Peninsula 2) Connections with the high-speed network at Grand Rapids and Bay City 3) North-south service from eastern Wisconsin north into the Upper Peninsula #) Eastdwest service across the Upper Peninsula between Ontario and Wisconsin/Minnesota Final determination on the creation of these routes would be made based on population, track availability, nearness to key recreational areas, and potential shared benefits for im- proved freight service. Administration of this newly prOposed system could be con- tinued under the present agreements between Amtrak and the State, by a proposed quasi-public State Rail Corporation (Cur- rently under consideration by the legislature), or by a 61bid., p. 52. 71bid., p. 52. 99 FIGURE 12 Proposed State Passenger Network By the Michigan Rail Study {I gm. Ignace icoutcncw Machine‘s cu, National City -. fa r ' inseam you A sum \pon flow . Harbor BL .tcb p 5' idland swing 5%ch c{/Collln: .' 3‘. ,',\ S .iGl.\ A0“ fi-fisf/ St. Lem - c r‘ : 0 1'0"!" 23 - O '8' Lind": '~ A 0 4 x7 . ‘ .> III...“ /q. n ' 1, “Mariette O Chosen"): 8 w ‘ 0 '39? ‘ s cm ' v-L — 3! o N . f {nhh' [5“ a v 'w J" “Non: Yak . e! ' ‘ F3 “who!“ l' lav C (y , . . On 0530 La u‘r‘ r. . 4",, \ Fund '9 lg‘”"“ t—‘l 1' 1: {IL ‘31) \( or m .a" U ‘ 4.. ' -' _ ‘3 \l‘llbb' ‘ _ ' Grind "I 'n J :0“) ‘ ‘ ______ . _. ' . I. Ll-\T ’ i'ott '{uqu I ~ " . Luau J ya” ‘3 )kl'urflmd “innit“! a." . Oxford , H‘ ‘ {Olly t mdu‘f ‘Akf (Urn-xi)“: '1 i" .5 ' 9, llamilqu Way!“- . ‘Jvfl‘af‘ .‘n ggm .mv! 1‘ ad e" Puma“, 1!.«Inlun.d ' it \) [La-'0' "u”dfld Jr l."f‘l u. I IIford } L Illh ‘ Wallfnmt /5\T3\ / r :\ g .' i L rm k Benton lluho / l" ”. .\/\, “"‘ "‘ llunw' /: swag-{0.4.x I) "train x Al'ho ' ‘ ""‘"'“'I /l. .llt‘hnnlll “'0" L I“ ‘ P11 “IN.',. \ \‘huoh r A“ ‘v’\ r_. nun-n‘C-li J l (115", Yuccllue /\ _. D 1)“ J I ,. / fluff-ll ULOIV| I\ ()ulnv) .4 - a) b '- 'I in I... J} \.\\:’/\\ ,’\1onro«:‘ .‘ "5 I ll ill-Jalo‘ I " ‘ I CHICAGO . J‘uflunsn . .‘ .uulmu‘ \ "I "0:. p \"|O:l.1c" ‘ "" . 0 'Lu'rfn) n f ‘ I . ‘ ‘ C. / .44 ’ “ v (5‘ undunlmr “ ' H \ “(flu-00 J'HIL". |‘ud..y, ' /‘ /’( k” r: ”C. "’1‘." . . . an}... I.- ‘u I In. | V‘ , J/ ;(_.‘)m‘ L v s ‘ ‘ A .0— . U ‘ ‘ fl ‘ P":U.-nd‘ O ' ‘ t 41/ A / I. A M, L R H. .‘M.’ .0 O " «gnuwn . r, I H'IrhI-nn PM", ', o . q o ' " / ’ L, - . ‘_ v' /'\ g o .‘IIIII- ,‘loc-v-Ilvh’ 100 combination of these three parties. Since public subsidae tion is certain to be required for these proposed efforts. it is stated that goals should clarify the need for such aid. A consultant has provided the State with a report on how to deter- mine or evaluate rail passenger proposals. It is stated that this report will be utilized by the State in regard to all new passenger route proposals. Despite the fact that this preliminary report is Justifi- ably long-range and quite general. it gives a clear indication as to the scope and extent by which the State is committed to improving the passenger rail system. The resubmission of the transportation bond proposal and the possible creation of the statewide rail corporation are hopeful signs for the future of the final network. One area of concern arising from the contents of this re- port concerns the five-route designated high-speed, high-fre- quency network. The problem is not with the cities designated for service. nor the priorities established for plan implement- ation, but rather that this extensive system is designated for high-speed service. As was stated in previous sections of this paper, creation of high-Speed service is both a costly and com- plicated venture. The Detroit-Chicago is definitely deserving of such service and it is but a matter of time before such improvements are instituted; however, the remaining routes designated by the State with the exception of Port Huron-Chicago, are experimental in nature. It would seem much more Justifi- _able to insert these lines as 60 mph speeds with medium 101 frequency service, at least until their success could be firm- 1y gauged in terms of public benefits and ridership rates. By creating such an extensive high-speed network, there also in- volves freight conflicts. The proposed passenger network would force the substantial amount of freight traffic currently run- ning on the lines to either adapt to higher speeds, or resort to utilizing other lines. This is particularly difficult con- sidering the fact that freight carriers are not willing to run at higher speeds and there are few. if any, alternative routes available as substitute freight routes. Thus, it seems that this extensive high use proposal is relatively inoperable. By utilizing this 60 mph basic speed network, fixed costs of implementation would be reduced greatly, such sunken funds would not be lost if passenger service was later downgraded or modified since freight would still benefit from improvements, and monies would be available to more seriously consider the four generalized areas of future expansion as designated by the report. Another concern regarding the report deals more specific- ally with the four lower priority areas of future expansion. Although these are generally stated. they involve service on rail lines that are currently in JeoPardy according to prelim- inary indications of the USRA. Thus. they should be compiled into more than merely a conceptualized form so as to indicate interest in these segments and persuade the USRA to hold Judge- ment that would abandon these segments and make reinstatement at a later date much more costly. 102 The overall feeling towards the report is one of optimism, If anything, the State has acted in an overly ambitious manner towards the future system. which is the complete opposite of what one might have expected given the previous years' attitudes on passenger service. The basic goals and objectives of the State are clear and concisely presented and consider all as- pects of concern which are involved in transportation and are in tune with those desires expressed by federal legislation re- garding the formulation of such state plans. ‘A final section of the report recommends some eighteen rail-related positions which the State should adopt as official policy concerning future rail decisions. Of this list. the following have direct impact upon the creation of a final ex- panded statewide rail passenger system:8 a) All federal-aid funds for railroad prOgrams will be utilized to the greatest extent possible. b) The Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 provides funds (which require 30% matching) to subsidize continuation of rail service. It will be the State‘s policy to continue in operation for the two-year period any lines that meet the criteria established for the subsidy funds. c) A State Rail Plan that meets criteria published by the Fed- eral Railroad Administration will be produced, with adequate- opportunity for public participation before implementation. The Department will seek out and promote adjustments in services and traffic in their attempt to preserve service. ————— 81bid.. pp. 99-102. 103 with abandonment only as a last resort. d) Line abandonment proposals are expected to continue in fut- ure years. The State will require that official notifica- tion of intent for such abandonment be made at least one year in advance of submitting a formal petition to the Inter- state Commerce Commission so that the State can pursue an effective planning process in cooperation.with the carrier and the communities affected. e) Major decisions on the extent of the rail system should not be made on the basis of projected availability of track and ties for needed upgrading of the system. Such "limitations" should be considered as temporary deficiencies that could be corrected over time, while the loss of rail service must be considered "irreversible". f) Michigan believes that rail passenger transportation has many advantages not currently being exploited. Preliminary studies indicate the viability of some corridors is greatly enhanced by considering passenger service potential. fPro- posals for expanded Michigan inter-city and commuter rail service will be deve10ped and evaluated. Such State policies, if formally adopted, would lay a firm groundwork for creation and support of a truly unified, com- prehensive State rail plan for both passenger and freight move- Inents. It coordinates fully with present Federal aid programs, .sets strict priorites, and rationally examines important as- .Pects of rail-related actions prior to making final decisions. 10“ ggapter l;; The Final Plan A) ENaluation Summary The State of Michigan has an extensive layout of rail trackage covering virtually all areas of the Lower Peninsula. For the most part, trackage standards in the state are less than adequate; however. conditions are such that with a reas- onable amount ofrepair, rights-of—way could be restored to acceptable (e.g., 60 mph) standards. In terms of existing passenger service, the State has shown itself to be a leader in the Amtrak program, especially in terms of the “OB-B shared subsidy program. The Detroit- Chicago route has experienced increased ridership to such an extent that high-speed Turboliner service is soon to be imple- mented along the line. Besides this route, the State also Operates three of the eleven state-subsidized Amtrak lines nationwide, consisting of 631 of the total 1,972 miles in this system. These lines have shown every indication of success since their inception and two are particularly noteworthy. The Detroit-Buffalo service marked the first time that two states had ventured into a single subsidized line. The De- troit-Jackson route was important in that it marked the first Amtrak commitment to short-run service of this kind. Another proposed route from Port Huron to Toronto provides direct service from the United States to Canada. The Port Huron to Chicago route was heavily endorsed by many political figures in the state and began service after a series of minor difficulties which delayed the original 105 proposed startup date. As is the case with the other state- wide routes, preliminary indications have shown that the line is faring better than was predicted. Terminal facilities within the State are currently in a phase of transition with many stations located on existing passenger routes being renovated in order to provide the prOper comfort and services for passengers. Although this process is certain to be long term in nature, given the years of dilapi- dation that preceded the reorganization process, the extent _and nature of the state's commitment is such that future pros- pects in terms of these facilities is most Optimistic. In Chapter II it was demonstrated that there exists a number of social benefits provided by rail passenger service. Because of these benefits, it is possible to de-emphasize the necessity for tangible economic gain on such routes. Such ideas have also fostered the theory that rail passenger rout- ing is a public service and may be federally subsidized and provided irrespective of economic gain. Social-related studies ranking variables involved in the provision of rail passenger service, according to passenger preference. enables us to realize what services should be pro- vided in order to attract the maximum ridership potential. Variables such as reasonably good and reliable travel times, good scheduling and an adequate level of comfort are integral elements to be provided in order to obtain good ridership. Rail passenger/freight conflicts must also be considered in any widespread route structure. Previous experiences, 106 especially in high-volume areas, have alerted us to the prob-- lems created by poor freight-passenger coordination. Although freight volumes may be benficial in terms of retaining lines that might otherwise be abandoned, in most cases, such con- gestion may result in poor On-time performances for delayed passenger trains. Another consideration was the fact that freight trains are incompatible with high-speed passenger rights-of—way and, in most cases, are content to travel at med- ium speeds (e.g., 60 mph). Utilizing criteria developed in terms of desired network conceptualization, twenty-seven Michigan cities were selected in terms of their population and social-recreational attrac- tions as candidates for receiving rail passenger service. Four- teen of these selected cities currently have passenger service, including commuter runs. Economic and political considerations which were reviewed in their respective sections, demonstrated several important points about a future statewide network. Primarily, although there is expected to be no dramatic upward changes in terms of yearly operating deficits on existing Michigan rail passenger lines, Amtrak studies demonstrate gradual cutbacks in Operat- ing losses as progress is made on rolling stock and roadbed improvements and ridership rates increase to peak levels. Des- pite this fact, outlooks for funding within the state are most Optimistic. Michigan has demonstrated a willingness and abil- ity to commit state funds to rail passenger prOgrams and recent efforts (e.g., $60,000 towards state rail plan deve10pment,. 107 31.1 million bond issue) have done nothing to dissuade this outlook for future years. The “OB-B prOgram insures the avail- ability of obtaining desired rail lines and the Rail Continu- ation Subsidy prOgram offers the funding aspects to the vari- ous states desiring to institute such service. Federal involvement has also increased to the point where nationalization of the right-of—way and possible electrifica- tion of various passenger lines, especially in corridors of high accessibility, are being seriously considered on Capitol Hill. The State of Michigan has been prOgressing towards a system of track rehabilitation through the utilization of vari- ous state funds and Federal unemployment Relief monies. Both these measures are positive steps towards aiding the current rail crisis, particularly in the case of restructuring the rights-of-way. The recently released Preliminary Systems Plan of the united States Railway Association had several definite impli- cations for Michigan rail passenger routes. Penn Central and Ann Arbor railroad lines, which comprised a significant pro— portion of the total state trackage, were intensively studied with regard to their potential abandonment. Although these recommendations did little to hinder the existing system, they manifest many ramifications towards lines that may be included in a final comprehensive rail network. This is not to infer that the USRA Plan is incorrect in their abandonment assump- tions. nor that it is harmful towards future rail networks, but rather that it must be recOgnized as a stimulus to action 108 in terms of designating lines which have present unperceived values or those which will be necessary at a future date.' The USRA Plan also added another route to the present Michigan system when it designated the creation of service in the Detroit-Cincinnati corridor. Although the Plan is but a recommendation for future service, when one considers the pol— itical and legal impact given to the USRA's final network, it is plain to see that such suggestions will be implemented at time of Final Plan adoption. The final impact of the USRA Plan proposed increasing from two to eight years, the $90 million per year rail con- tinuation subsidies available to states who wish to retain or commence service on a line not recommended for inclusion in the Final Systems Plan. A last, but most important recent event which_concerns the future state of a Michigan passenger rail plan, is the con- ceptual network presented in the Michigan Preliminary Planning Report on a State Rail Plan. This report, though conceptual in nature, details a future rail passenger system which demon- strates the scope and extent of the network envisioned to be the final state system. Although this thesis is in no way connected with the efforts currently underway by the Michigan State Department of Highways and Transportation regarding form- ation of a state rail plan. networks conceived within the criteria of this paper must duly note and consider prOposals presented by the State as indicative of their final legislative policy. 109 The State has also detailed generalized long-range policy considerations detailing general geographical areas to be served by lines yet to be specified. The implication is that consideration of these alternative policies will commence only at such time when completion of the basic route system is com- pleted.' Financial probabilities are also enhanced by the pro- motion of creating a quasi-public rail corporation whose basic responsibility would be to create and Operate a statewide rail system consisting of those lines abandoned by the USRA and not currently Operated by Amtrak agreement. In this cursory examination of the State Report, one basic area of question arises. The high-speed, high-frequency nature of their proposed passenger network seems to be in conflict with existing conditions, such as freight movements and incre- mental costs. The tremendously high capital investment in- volved in creation of this network, plus the fact that although areas of- further study are defined, they are not elucidated regarding alternative areas of expansion after the primary sys- tem is created. The relationship of this State conceptual report to the final plan to be presented in this paper had no significant effects, save the fact that general directions are outlined. The State Report was utilized not as a guiding criteria for policies presented in this plan, but rather as a supportive element in network design similarity. For the most part, the State Report greatly enforced the overall scape of the network prOposed within this paper. The State's ideas were much higher 110 in terms of financial commitment, their network was more in- tensive, and their alternatives broader in scope. Thus, the network prOposed here seems most rational when compared with the much more extensive plans prepared by the State. 111 B) Goals and Objectives of the Final Plan In attempting to establish a statewide passenger plan, there is a need to define the various goals and Objectives which will guide the selection of routes and. thus, the final route pattern. As far as long-range, comprehensive goals are concerned, those evolved in the Michigan Rail Needs Planning Report (listed on page 95 of this paper) are quite thorough and will be utilized in this plan as the long term policy ob- jectives for the preparation of this network. In this thesis, a series of short-range concerns have been deve10ped derived from analyses of previous sections, which will place limits on network formulation. These re- straints or limitations, which are utilized as immediate goals and objectives in the derivation of the plan. are as follows: 1) All proposed and alternative lines shall Operate on existing trackage 2) Proposed and alternative routes shall be intra-state in nature; all connections to areas outside the state of Mich- igan may Occur on the high-speed, high-frequency Detroit- Chicago corridor line. 3) High priority shall be given to those prOposed lines which lie on trackage currently designated as not for inclusion in Conrail in the USRA Plan, in order that their value in terms of passenger service be realized prior to release of the Final Plan. . h) All prOposed and alternative routes shall aim to achieve 60 mile per hour Operating speeds in order to insure that_ 112 speeds will be such to make rail service competitive with other modes, but not so high as to present problems for accompanying freight traffic. 5) Although realization of an economic profit shall not be a necessity for immediate or short-run plans, attempts will be made to structure a system which will not abuse the fact that funding aid is available. 6) Conceptual networks established by previous sections (e.g., cities eligible on the basis of papulation/recreation at- tractiveness) while valuable in the sense of establishing limits for system creation, are not all-inclusive universal elements which must be served by passenger routes. Final network arrangements shall be made in terms of combinations of various conceptual systems which, in congruity amongst themselves, are supportive to the extent of deserving ser- vice. . Thus, I have developed these six short-range policy ob- Jectives from the data analyzed in the previous sections. Their purpose is to provide rational limitations on the form- uflation of my final plan network and alternatives for further study. The State of Michigan's goals, while well-conceived and quite thorough, are the type of broad range policies most useful in a preliminary conceptual network. My goals, on the other hand, are conceived as action-oriented prerequisites to final plan formulation. 113 c) The Final Plan The following is the route structure I prOpose for the final systems plan regarding a state rail passenger network. The first section details the basic proposed plan including existing routes, routes not yet in existence, but certain to be implemented in the light of their recommendation by‘a given authority and routes prOposed as additions to the system, rec- ommended as aresult of analysis completed within this work. The second section details alternative routes which would re- place or restructure final plan segments which through various situations, were deemed apprOpriate to be changed. The final section relates alternative routes which are additions to the basic structure prOposed in the final plan. Routes are ident- ified in terms of major cities on route. llfl TABLE 9 I. Einal Plan Network II. III. a) Existing System 1) Detroit-~Ann Arbor--Jackson--Battle Creek--Ka1amazoo-- Niles--Chicago 2) Port Huron--Flint--Lansing--Battle Creek--Kalamazoo-- Niles-~Chicago 3) Detroit--Buffalo, New York (through Canada) eh) Detroit--Yipsilanti--Ann Arbor--Jackson *5) Detroit--Birmingham--Pontiac b) Subsequent routes (in final prOposal stages) 6) Port Huron--Toronto, Canada (connecting with Port Huron--Chicago) _ .r 7) Detroit--Toledo, Ohio--Dayton, 0hio--Cincinnati, Ohio 0) Newly proposed routes 8) Detroit--Pontiac--Flint--Saginaw--Bay City-~Midland 9) Detroit--Pontiac--Durand--Lansing--Grand Rapids-- Muskegon-~Grand Raven--Holland--Benton Harbor-rNiles (connections with Detroit-Chicago) Restructured Alternative Routes 1) Detroit--Pontiac--Durand--Lansing--Grand Rapids-~Kalamazoo 2) Detroit--Livonia--Howell--Lansing--Grand Rapids--Kalama- zoo and/or Muskegon routes. Additional Alternative Routes 1) Bay City--Alpena--Cheboygan 2) Bay City-~Grayling--Cheboygan 3) Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo--Cadillac--Traverse City-~Petosky-- Mackinaw City . *Lines are listed in order of my priority. 115 FIGURE 13 Propsed State Rail Passenger Plan —----—.—-- Menace ‘ uuwu co-ucv-en “(m-haste Cu, ’° ~¢ Cheboygan _ _ ----..-..._.__..-_ """" as R c“ b. oxen y ‘ {.y View 9) Onsway 9 ’f‘ \ r J 7 l etoskcy .9 A 27 " ‘ G) 3 ' (bus 0 i 'Inc '4' .9 c . City > Return! ' ' C v. Emerson , Gaylord H $1 . [5.24m ' a I C“ Jaw-It h V ,5" / ' I! nlliamm‘mra rncru ~ Grsyling Frankfort: U'LVNII O a ‘0 C VL WING-1h ‘ -o '0 - slanton Lat-c ('il" “est Branch 2:3 was City Nominal City A! alter Jc. ‘ y 141cm“? 9 9 o e 19 ’ 7 Owner 4‘ 0“ .- I‘ port II-Jvc .mnwing ‘9‘ é/ " 8 {ch ‘ (I l - n Palm" 3 Cuff. Hath .f o -' C l 1’ o ”dz: Scbc“ C . . v | , Lu: numb \ .n "and. Em“ 12/ [001“!!! ‘ 51:. Puma: V; w q' u 21 wnukcc 33“ .C1 I. N ‘ 0, Cnl’o / O O )al’l‘u "J WI:\ KM 10 O a S. ‘615 [\“.. "‘ Wulnwl .Ic Sewaygcxf? "03:14” 5.2% :0 St. Lanna 0" II“. , a 5‘0, I h H c ,- N J A O C ‘* 3 n S'.,Cl.arlre~' 2: ij'enl £2" - ,7 tan' 0 "M“ 4 3.1mm: . ’ I Ma hp; rem *, C9 “‘50“ ’ I Q ‘3 .? MLSKECg'S’ in". Zr: .' .. 1‘10 ." O C) {canlflfi U)" ( ‘ 0 . 1| at J’ t Muskegon Bcsghh '9 z " 10W" --v ”1.1“ Non a \ F ulhlh‘ ‘ Ow nsso " ‘ ' L r: GRIND SLJO‘I'H ("w-mus" b . ‘ c ,"I'; 3%,; :\I'HDS 0 “1.le | rand l u '1. , ‘ ' t i: : ‘-’ lune”) 10m. U ' "VYHJOJ ' -m1 ‘0 Le\¢ ()dr~o.)\. \Cr' m‘) lldb!“ . ~ . 9 "osmium: I I e Wayland M , “no“. ’ Allegyu : . a ”’0 “Mn.- Len-Ce 800th "IV n "W ""3 1' mm“ an . , , .n ‘ “ PIC PluluICu 0‘ L' I,.r!.nnd Jr KIWI If. f‘ ‘ f I A l ”apt? I, .r l I , a '0 I\'I/I:\; . \ "flips." d k \l‘ A“ \l‘ / “3' 'W \. ( rock I I u ‘1“ ' .x 3.."“5 "IbeI/ “I too I/ a u a. I», SLJOfi‘P 1‘ ', \\ (dd-H"! «'d vac-It Co! ‘ .’« Anoltrqf! /, \ II‘ .t Mucdluefl , Unlufl‘JIIIh'hnI‘ U J /4 ..,. i‘It/P-nu/ul UU‘NY I .- t .IIQI‘HI)‘. \ "I":" ‘ Lu. Ju-lrr ’6 "”1..th Nacho :1 / ,LC lflkl'l IlCAGO . Buchanan 1. , Livowfl ‘ MW I/«r‘w’mfi __.. ,4._.._.\..... , (I. llllu’lhlm c .Jua‘ \: - _o Mla‘fiv' u...cr.te a "when "" t 3,. MI. % V -_ C C § ‘ a .1v.,5}.f§kdl-u Ilumirmn.‘ \ ) 5r. . LAM: ' i" mou'! K ‘ I _r, . ’ L.D1YI‘HL‘YLJ ‘.‘ ‘ ‘3, ‘ffl‘ “If .uoo ~41"! . III. Ira4irm‘“ I ‘ II“ '-I'°I’ " \iuntoc‘ LAKEIHUN Q l 116 In describing these elements which make up the final recommended Michigan rail passenger plan it seems appropriate to give a detailed description of the various parameters under which these lines shall operate. We shall first address those lines recommended for the basic systems plan:* 1) The Detroit-Chicago line will be key line in the overall system. IIt should be upgraded for high-speed {80-110 mph), high-frequency service. Current plans provide for three turbo- liners which would run three round trips per day. Amtrak also has another turboliner ordered, but the route to which it will be assigned is as yet undecided. As is recommended in the USRA Preliminary Systems'Plan,1 ideal service would consist of four round trips per day and for this reason, the plan recommends that the final turboliner be relegated to the Detroit-Chicago corridor. Such frequent service will enable reliable connec- tions to be made between this line and the remaining intra- state system, towards points outside the state. Station upgrading and refurbishing should continue On line: especially in the case of the terminal facility at Niles, which is currently in less than adequate condition, but under the new plan, will act as a pivotal point in the cohesiveness of the system as a whole. Given the fact that this route, as well as the following four. are currently in operation, it is not necessary to reiterate economic, social, etc. aspects of 1United States Railway Association, Preliminary Systems Plan for Restructuring Railroads in the Northeast and Midwest Region, (February, 1975)} p. 27. *Lines are listed in order of my priority. .E [ICAGO f O ’I o I , , “. ..v , I” U"): mu,- . ”airl—u a 00—.- -' -c "Infilnn l‘lla'l' 1 a -- :5 / ‘J"“‘t'—-'-. /" [w ‘n .. u. 'I .o- ..u 4‘ A‘ .. 1' ' ‘ \ .‘I‘fiffl—I- 117 FIGURE 1“ Present Passenger Route Structure Q Busing-c ' ‘ urn-II .1 cc-ucncw ‘lcrh'uv Cal. Sech/t“) . c' s dc Sue: . SAGIN A0“ St. 1.0m! J’lsinu Newsygo n 1!. (2" (H, 0 z :- 1‘. :L’nrd 9\ “new" ”I“ “an“ . . _g lludmg Flue‘flnc [VMIY C197 é. ’ . " 03'0“? s ' ' ' v \v/ mnxn ~ on" -; , . - . ,. ): \l'l|)S ‘ . 6 "\ \3\ LIST ’ \ l’u't Huru F t \O (”‘5 . ‘9 o ’ 'Utdnd O J . 1’!" ‘ ‘ —“ 3' c ’ . .flm” ‘ " vs I. _' ”m mInd . ..UH'H'C ’- d O “If“.‘I vLLL.‘. warhmn-wmgww ,5». :1 - ‘ \V I‘tumllun “°"“"'I.\.\'.~71.' u 1: Healthy. - . . 2 fullenule 6. a . ’3 fiashube ' \lan "0.." g I“ .‘ I ’ ,, ’3 d a ’. ’ .' .. ' Chll'ul" ’ t bd ' ‘ N "s. - ‘ . , ,- _ 3 Lou". Latch! ' . : -\l: ... ‘ £37.47 ,-:' .n .t "- , Wham-"‘3 ‘ “ .u. (IA-'5 { \AI. hgmwcn‘ .- /\’-" ”'"I J" drum-u. Lara Jc. 5 ’3. v |'!,-moul;\\\ H II\I"!‘““ 1 . J] : n \N:\ A" M I ‘ - “"Nh - '.\ «(“9“ Ann “w. c" N M ['Niui L“ enger ,“ r-u .. . . \m' .V. o I KM .\.\l.\7.' I'Hllr ‘ . , . ” I" . m \/’ (Ink .b'g. / 'J I'ea Pa" \ '\ I lu- t a. " . ‘ ' ,. .\ ndoite / Baton ll‘wrbo’ “m _. .' u ..m [4" c I .x a “J“? . I [n:.hl \ Irhebul‘ /l.llthfl-lcl all I ) .r _nh‘n "' . I \ hu- m.... .VA «olrmr'V a, ' u/nlon‘ml \ \// Clan Man-allu- \\ - ’ /./d 1.0,... 6 ’ . r "I Jun)". 5 an]... Hum}! \ / . ‘ t -""I"'“' " - (4.1.10... nun-w. , . . \ g . . . , ‘ rf . , names- D a""""" ' hur- lifuva'lo II‘ , _ ‘ Ajnn“ ' "" . . . .\ o‘ \g,» ..........u.... ' % Ill-mum 5"" "' Ila-Icon; ‘ uh- ! \ '/ \ :hl. h”. ' ‘ l I L A It I‘. 1" 1‘ ’ NOD,» ' ‘Ir'nfl ' 118 the route which have been presented in previous chapters. It may be sufficient to state that in the case of the Detroit- Chicago route. the full operating costs are absorbed by Amtrak. Thus. financial burdens on theState Department of Highways and Transportation are minimal, although the plan strongly 'recommends such assistance that may be offered by the State re- garding various operating aspects be given whenever possible. 2) Port Huron-Chicago. This route is recommended for contin- ued service with increased attempts at upgrading operating speeds to an average of 60 miles per hour through trackage and roadbed improvements. A prime difficulty at the present time is the scheduling of two round trips per day., Given the in- creased importance of this secondary mainline, especially with the expected international service to Canada, it is recommended that service be increased to three daily round trips. As in the case of the previous line, station improvements must con- tinue, with the newly conceived international terminal at Port Huron to be the prime concern. Other station improvements must also be effectuated in order to alleviate present condi- tions which have several cities utilizing trailers as temporary g terminals pending the construction of more adequate facilities. This route is operated under a 403-3 subsidy agreement requiring that the State pay 2/3rds of yearly operating losses incurred on route. The State should also direct efforts to- wards obtaining better equipped rolling stock in order to pro- vide modern and comfortable service on route. _3) Detroit-Buffalo. New York service through Canada should also 119 continue. This_route is a model of bi-state cooperation in rail passenger and provides a route service which, although desirable, was found to be unsuccessful in other route alter- natives. It is recommended that one round trip per day ser- vice continue unless ridership increases to the point where additional service is deemed desirable. Provisions should be directed by the State of Michigan to improve trackage to the point where a 60 mile per hour speed would be averaged. Pos- sibilities exist and should be researched regarding arrange- ments with Canada to provide stops in that country and in at- tempting to lease or purchase Canadian equipment. _Cost considerations on this route should be minimal in the sense that the usual two-thirds operating agreement has been decreased to one-third shares for each of the parties in- volved. #) The Detroit-Jackson commuter type route. Another novel decision in regard to Amtrak expansion should be continued with increased scheduling adjustments made as deemed necessary by ridership rates. It is expected that trackage will be no real problem considering the fact that this route lies on the Detroit-Chicago corridor. Instead. major efforts should be aimed at obtaining rolling stock in much better condition than is currently utilized on route. 5) Detroit-Pontiac service is currently in very good shape. Since this is also a commuter type operation, there is little major implications regarding the overall plan. It is recom- mended. however. that this important service continue at 120 present levels of service. Funding agreements between the Grand Trunk Railroad and the State of Michigan, through SEMTA should also continue, with preparations made for possible State or State/Amtrak takeover should unforeseen circumstances threat- en route continuance. It should be mentioned in respect to the two lines Just previously described that, in the light of present attempts by SEMTA and the City of Detroit to obtain a metropolitan transit system under federal funds from the Urban Mass Transportation Authorityz, there may be necessary alterations of these current commuter operations caused by the implementation of such action. The following two routes are included in the existing sys- tem; although they are not presently operating, it is but a matter of time before their implementation. 6) Port Huron - Toronto service is in_the final stages of ap- proval. Given the nature of this service (international) plus the fact that Canadian rolling stock is to be utilized in the operation and higher standards of Canadian rights-of-way, it seems that this service will be beneficial to all parties in- volved. Although the funding procedures are not presently known, it would seem that such costs to the State would be re- stricted towards improving the Port Huron international termin- al and two-thirds of the yearly operating loss on route which should not be very high given the extent to which this service exists within the state. (The implication is that the Canadian 2Thomas Kizzia. "Rail Rapid for the Motor City". Railway Age, (September. l97h). p. #2. 12,1 section of the route will involve minimal operating losses, given the present structure of their rail system). 7) Detroit-Cincinnati. Ohio service as recommended by the USRA Preliminary Systems Plan is endorsed by this plan. Besides providing valuable service to several high density areas not currently being served, it also gives Michigan residents a number of alternative connections from their statewide net- work. Recommended service calls for two daily round trips per day between the two areas. Given the fact that the USHA has recommended the creation of this route, it is necessary upon legislative approval of the Plan, that Amtrak fund total oper4 ations on route. Other facilityftype provisions which would be provided by individual states. present no real problem since the only Michigan terminus is Detroit. and this area is already well-developed in terms of facilities for handling passenger services. The one problem that should be guarded against in relation to this additional service is the increased conges- tion created at Detroit. High priority should be assigned to coordinating rail passenger traffic within the Detroit metro- politan area so as to facilitate passenger movements in these areas. .' The following routes are new system components. Justified on the basis of previous inventory data evaluation and are also recommended for inclusion in the final plan. 8) Detroit-Tri-Cities service is recommended on the fact that this relatively concentrated high population area (Saginaw, Bay City. Midland = approx. 176.47h pop.) as designated by 122 the major cities map, is not currently served by passenger service. There are relatively large highway volumes within this general area as demonstrated by the State 1971 Average Traffic Flow Map and such a route would provide viable con- nections with both the Port Huron-Chicago and Detroit-Chicago routes. Total route mileage from Detroit to Midland is approx- imately 12h miles: good relative length for this type of ser- vice and the route runs over a combination of Grand Trunk Western. Chesapeake and Ohio and Penn Central trackage. The Penn Central trackage runs from Saginaw north to Bay City and from Bay City west to Midland and both of these sections are recommended for inclusion within the Conrail network., From all available sources researched within this report, this trackage is classified as no better than class 1.. In order to achieve the desired 60 mile per hour averages. it will be necessary to achieve class 3 and. given the fact that this speed reliability is a necessity in order to achieve suf- ficient ridership volumes. it is hereby recommended that all‘ funds received in the state rehabilitation efforts, be given, as first priority, to those routes which are designated to operate passenger service. From examination of other hOB-B subsidy routes which en- tail conditions similar to those encountered here it is pos- sible to estimate the state's share in terms of yearly oper- ating loss to the route. Both of the new routes recommended for service within this final plan network would be operated .with Amtrak under the #OB-B service arrangement. Although the 123 FIGURE 15 Additional Route 1 “9' “ma c { Iruvu CC‘IILCY g. . Madman Cu. Bellows v . huncelcna ‘74 (Meta Is. to 3:ch t Turns West Branch ?m use City National City . ”Ana aun- Jr. §' Lydon" ) , u m Audi- vcri Hope Axmmor Beach nut ... - Wm" ind Ax o ' e . Bl! “nude 00, Mth d d 1 [2.6 ~ - 3" n . v' n " “ p, l “m ‘ 9. Mi 1 leasant . _ a C33: Cxiy l m a. ‘ ZI wuukcc M‘ (I J " inmost- . r o r ' '-'\W" u . ' r0 I“, “l. ‘0 - SAG“: A“ #9 . c 0 Yew. ayig n 1119...:(J , .' q ‘ q ‘ Pole! ‘3 C“! ‘ - C 2 ‘ . L ‘02: a Pair.“ - . ; , o it“ csC. b. . ‘ o .. t 9" ~ 0‘ . - .. Lt sec" 8M1. 3’1” 1| I, ”Mr MI'SKECO\ 2‘! "3 rt “‘0 \ _ C! "m": aim-lone Musk: 0 ° ' ' ' ' I J ~ O c : v ' \t‘ L. rtl ‘ ° “"533.“ u ’ ”I‘M? ° 50"“? L1: 0! GRAXD ,h"dl.\r’oi Grand nun. «ml-,— .mmus 0 Q c. o "v u _ I (umu .‘o lurfland ,- . .L'orriu '2. '. LJll ms' \uu 0: g... Cmrd we“. \Wfllumstun ’ ’ " -<_~ lo T ‘9 Ilamihon Wayland .5 fowl'c’hulc ’ . Allegm ’ . “up. "fr-ll . ’3 ‘0 _ "I?“ 5. " ‘Higt land I’M \-Humlrm \c‘. |F‘-‘- Dl-HOU' f/ .-.. I’l'lllr lA":‘. m Rm“ )0. H. (Unfit! JC‘ \ .' rbl‘fluulh 5L. C“ bc‘o". Ann ’11., .11.‘ ' 1 Lb \Ibinn \/ \ ,. - Ct cl r an "at”? 1" ' ‘ ...—"3311': ll “ '/2& vii“. unl’ ' ‘ I ‘ _ ‘ I .Q .J \> N‘Vt' .a “' , _ l , L Kerk ’. [‘ 0"”,(‘1 J.-V “2““... §’\ / I P. n". C) Benton um... / x -. u “ q , . l’r ...! ‘I on!!! ’ ', .* h. 6 I- ‘ II! no g "00"! Cu ‘ “"‘flw'u‘ v . -- .“ ly3ndona I ' c/O Srhoah-rufl \6 c n d ) ' , 1 r:\.iuu c. ”O'CCHUI \\ o & /(‘ Unmu‘C 3!] Jl\ . v ..J \ vl‘lc ‘ 'L"; 5 '.III'I"' on." JIM : .2 . ‘ A60 '3 (.rJ’ ‘ CI..|‘..'I‘I % ‘ ’ IIIHOI'.!. ' ’ ' . ‘ ILIItrIU '9 ’4" d ' M \ n f . A i ‘ . ' ‘ y "Nb-«n Udflwl" “ 1 .—.A-- r‘fl“ I MUOC ' :0 (1:? )T". " ‘, I I’I’T‘r‘" |\’ l “H“. m A . . . .- W.” . r .. ' .ru I “-1 mi {.t. n't‘l-.. \ ,. ...-— -./‘-'I—;I. T._%.-. .—-.. ‘ Ir . _-‘ .' . I I I- ' ‘ul . . .-.! n .A' A ‘(V_\: .. 111‘} 14" 12h state has mentioned the possibility of a state rail corpora- tion, the fact that this proposal is in the conceptual stages necessitates that new routes be run under the Amtrak system. Based on previous 403-3 data, it seems that with a minimum of '50% load factor (average number of passengers carried as com- pared with available numbers of seats) the route would cost the state approximately $64,800. for the first year. These losses would be expected to decrease as improvements were made on line and ridership increased. Viewing this total in terms of previous and committed Michigan rail funds. it seems that there would be no real problem in handling such a deficit. One particularly innovative idea concerning this route is the fact that the line extends to Midland, as opposed to merely stopping at Saginaw and Bay City. This was recommend- ed due to the fact that there was relatively little extra mileage involved (19 miles one-way), the USRA Plan had not scheduled this Penn Central segment for abandonment and the combination of the population involved (Midland a over 35,000) plus the fact that it was deemed desirable to keep people in this area from having to travel to Bay City or Saginaw for train connections. It is often the case that once a potential public transportation passenger enters his auto, he often changes his mind concerning the public mode and utilizes his car for the entire trip, especially in the case of a short- run trip. _ Other major areas served by this Detroit-Tri-cities route _are: Flint, Pontiac and the northern suburbs of the Detroit 125 metropolitan area. 9) Detroit-Niles via Grand Rapids and Muskegon. A basic in- consistency in the existing passenger network was the fact that the Grand Rapids area was not being served. The second recommended route tied in the Grand Rapids area with its two major cities of interaction: Lansing and Detroit. Observing the population/recreational map (Figure 9). it was also dis- cerned that Muskegon and several cities located along the west- ern shoreline were_not being served, but seemed to possess several desirable aspects regarding the inception of this serf vice. Thus, a second major new route was devised, stretching some_300 miles in total length, which would connect the major areas of Detroit, Lansing. Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Muskegon Heights, Grand Haven. Holland, Benton Harbor and connect with the Detroit-Chicago corridor at Niles. Connections with Port Huron/Toronto-Chicago could also be made at Lansing. The route runs along Grand Trunk Western. Chesapeake and Ohio and Penn Central trackage. Of the 38 miles between Grand Rapids and Muskegon, 28 would be utilized on Penn Central prOperty not scheduled for inclusion within the Conrail network (the re- maining 10 miles would be traveled on Grand Trunk parallel right-of-way). If the State were to wish to purchase this segment for passenger service. costs of acquisition could run close to $1.8 million,3 but some of this might be regained by 3Richard M. Corbett. Recommendation for the Chicago Area flailugzgtgm’fgg.l221, A Technical Report, (September. 1973), . 1 . '6 1.- In I}- .41 126 FIGURE 16 Additional Route 2 Wt. I zmce "(mu ceuccho- ”1"le C“. /'ui sanctions x I t ( ' w Grayling 1' Frankfort ' ‘1‘ inch JG. 0 O . - seeds . \ ' e' ' t Tums 4‘ was City 1Adam-(er Jc. pm: A usun \‘Port II we .11: «her Beach Hart : . ”It Rapids Mt“ "I'ch ll: unlrrmck Whit. Cloud UL ~ ._ . A‘ ~ Fremont a Magma: p Hoosurtl lab St. Louis 0" i n g I c - 9 ° \ sedlr ~ CPLCharll's. ~ ChJQH‘ Dam ”on: Marlene MUSKBC\ . (‘h - nine . \ v /o e a flushes“: “(lfihis ‘ a. C 'h‘ockfurd . o .I‘-"" a - CunHlus 3‘ B'fildln‘ \:“u.} incl“. S‘OITII ' . l'lth , I , . .. V 0a 0850 rflrysl C3 sl-i‘l'fl', u! l-RA.‘ l) 0 S! John! 0 id . \(‘or'mus U 0 . , : \l‘ L. ‘ ' a\ ‘ ‘9 Lowell‘s on“ " .3 J . wt. 0 v |url|nnd . . ferried . q Lake I“ Iro‘IRCr-md lzdvr - ‘. [Venn Boll II o ‘ ‘ ...I!- ,pp p, a ‘ In. and -u" ‘ .' u , VH”;IC‘.I"DD . 0 - l A\\'\ o ’ u u . - - - ’4 can on ~ r ;”\. c. a <- .. 'u C " ' u “h Iilford “Wyn - . . . o". " r ‘_ I ‘ “"1“ ‘ v 5 - u...“ “do: /" "nus-w ‘ r I '3 a fig I 5- . _ . \:'\ it. )I'OII ‘ (: w "..q, . )whr 9 ~ _ I " ’ .‘wt‘n M ‘ LAKP Grand Jr. 0""5" ‘ ’ ' " - ark ’\ runny"! Jr " Brim“. ' 9 . 5" nhghlnnd l' 5 r, c'. Ilh‘ {- , . V [Wynn-nth \ n . C, Iblnurl'. ‘ Ul ‘ "vl"'(' l'. .rl !'- .D 0"."i ‘Rofo’ .u ____..\../- /7 -' 'W'u'd at O .Wy’ I" dnr M- ugo R uh! «In- J ‘5 ‘."ht“ . {éLL—_Aflfll. 30 U H Mm. ~ I..\I,.\.\I.w Ilaiilv '2 yrs I. , S} 1 Chuck . It: Lore. m “.[bu M. .- L‘ \ /\: ‘ «.1 “Jose;- I’- D Dent"! / “00 \;3 undo!!! }.'.u"~|,‘.,~_ \\ Srkoolrrqfl c '. ' _ Tunic. (‘1 n " " ' ' . 0": '7 {4' “u" h. \‘ “ ' M J'mNVIIw _ f I" :\/ _ . i -..r‘. 5 ' Uulm‘y . V . ICAG a“... ‘ ”“V‘ H. \ II u-r, .. CuldI‘M-r 4 "Ill-dale 3'3"." ‘ o l ...“ 1 Nd" 3‘ [hung h r 4’ ' ii - 3'0“” -~..//.\lonroc‘ ' " o 'Cumunhuc ’- 9 ”\3 “my“. Hat-Lou Mud-(ml |u - [batch (I roan». L - \\ -_L—- II l‘. . b‘ i i ‘ NHL“. Realm; 9 A. m.- g’. 0 ..c'. “I LI O .— . .‘L ' ' . z - -‘- ”I a ‘ ,. _ _ : 97001.07 (1 I I I..-‘a”..‘ . . . . . ‘ . II . -l’l“ . _-—--# 127 leasing with freight carriers. The remaining Penn Central seg- ment from Benton Harbor to Niles is recommended for inclusion in the Conrail system. The key item here seems to be the will- ingness and ability of the State to purchase the excess seg- ment. As was also stated. another key point here could be the amount of lease monies offered by freight carriers whowished to utilize the line. Potentially, the line serves some 2.1 million people in the major cities alone and provides service to the northwest and western sections of the lower half of the Lower Peninsula. At 50% load factor, the first year deficit could reach some 3.8 million (Michigan share of loss). Again, these figures would lOgically improve as prOgress was instituted on route re- structuring. It is also true that these figures are averages and actual operating losses could be somewhat lower than is given in the previous two routes. With these two additions to existing and proposed/approved route lines, we have what is essentially the finalized route structure for recommended Michigan rail passenger service. The proposed lines are varied in length. frequency and type of service and effectively blanket the lower half of the Lower Peninsula with these lines. It is believed that, given the framework of the previous chapters and the analytical processes contained within, it is feasible both economically and opera- tionally for the State to create this system. Although the prime source of state-created funds ($1.1 billion Bond) is _still in doubt. there exists alternative state and federal 128 sources from which these funds may be derived. This is not to underestimate the attractiveness of the Bond Proposal which. if it passes next attempt. will greatly speed up terminal and roadbed rehabilitation processes and spur overall economic gain on routes benefiting from these improvements. These route additions have been presented in the order in which they should be implemented and the entire process is aimed at a completion date of 1980, at which time the system should be fully operational. Despite the fact that this sys- tem is viewed as the most desirable and economically viable system for the State at this time. there are a number of other possibilities or alternatives which have been raised in the analysis sections of this report, and areas of future study defined by the State in their Planning Report. A short dis- cussion of these alternatives follows, noting that it is recom- mended that the preceding overall systems plan be implemented prior to addressing these issues. Two of the alternatives regard changes that might be made on proposed final plan routes and the other three mention possible areas of future long- range (1990?) additions to the system. I Restructuring Alternatives 1) This first alternative is in relationship to the Detroit- Niles. via Grand Rapids and Muskegon route. This alternative entails utilizing the Penn Central Grand Rapids to Kalamazoo line. which is slated for inclusion in the final Conrail net- work. as an alternative to the western shore route pattern. This route would be necessary in the case that problems 129 FIGURE 17 Restructured Alternative 1 QEIJgMcc ‘ true" °“ - — / ecu-echo- .. Vech'uu Cd. [hamster Jc. d Alabaucr » - 9 National CU;- \I Scrxygo -. Mags-d] . 20 ”A: I it, i, urn o...‘ 2 (\lllmA 4 Cal” ‘7 ‘f o- Stanton CHIC"! I: L. the» 3" ' ' arIctte ‘ (‘n 91., / c “‘SQ“ Io .. ' N 19. - v y. C“, Chvnnmfl ‘ godJord O '4 2 v ‘9 I. .h"' “(.35 5‘ IT‘ . ' ' . o I m ”firms “ 1"‘3‘1'02 /( r flumincw Ill ’ . vld‘,’ Iwono .: CR \.\D g, Johns 0 I gramme" U 0 4: u-ms , ‘ ' - ‘ P‘ . * . 26 g. 9 3’ Iouc‘l‘b 0|“. ‘ P - .‘ ' . 4 . mm: '\‘v" and . Pi ..‘nru‘t . , l 4 l“‘ ”"" “X'T' :l J l rdu'.‘ ... ch - II - ' ... our u [U y ’ ' . ,u~ . . 2 ' v’o . I; (rd-finely ' . . . \VI'I‘JHIILUC - ‘9 Hamilton I'ANbI-\ ' ‘4 ~ '1 1 . a g * C . ‘ ' . _. F l I ‘0 . VI” .1 on em: a q Hilford you.” u U b q n “0"" \ ' ._ _ _ 2 AIIegm ‘ - d “9 I, I) "' "um “nuugnau. ‘. I A O I": ~ a O S. y". :0:\ PI-):IOSI ”3“ cu“ 3 - I" "l' r Tuna ..t‘ ""2“ LaldamI N0?" ‘ "W ( (A A P." M‘h ".'\n T“ C'Vlld Jr 0‘ 559v \,\ .. “I [Jr ’ R‘vid' ['v' (i 6‘ ., :nfi‘lighlnnd P .I’ \ 5 ._. Ll! ‘IL‘: {:3 if. I'Iglnwrl I ...r ,ln/ NcI' evuc Rana JC. 9 ’0 v II \ HnInIIIIIIC.- :Louih " . N. ' " ‘ , m: IRO I w. D ['0 .I.“ '" WM” MI "/1" ‘ c“ indwf "_11 p:\.\ a) i’j/ 2]]. Av" ”Au“. 0 ..I ‘ID'I. (1,9,4; 7’ h‘ (H 17-” (‘2 ‘ (at. \ ()\ Q 3 s . I “5 o I’ /~. '5 “' "1W“ (.1 II..uI.- '3 . . Cfcck 2. u ramp“: Jc. Mm“. 4:..5" Q‘ I; ’ I.‘ Home! 'nchfI‘C' o 7“ )‘ndo‘t‘. "lnn'ou Due-tut 6 ‘\ brhoolcran Una-Hut ‘\ ‘ ll: rec... v Culd‘l'cc ’6 ') \‘Iclebfl‘ 0 LIlrhfluM uncut CI! ) \ I H» Unnunlfdy .3 . JIInOI‘Hu' :. Q N ‘n-d‘l. r'|.r'"‘| ] ‘ ‘ H“; //\Ionro¢‘ “qu0 O I Adria ‘ “when . ’ -(' “run-on ’ “when w \ I‘ '- \" ' b/“Ji .lqr:|:_..%.oi|l I k v , ,I . I g . '. l1 "KI': [JRIE In...“ III! New I. .. I. 'I ‘ _‘n-fl- 132 there seems to be no Justifiable need for such service at the present time, it is admitted that such a course of actionmay be feasible in the long-range future. It is true that major cities have been defined as being located in this area and that numerous recreational attractions are located here: how- ever this population is not significant enough to attract passenger train service. If an imaginary line was drawn east to west from Bay City to the western shores, less than 10% of the State's total population would be contained north of this area. The recreational attractiveness of this area is such that the major highway network is most prevalently utilized. It is viewed here that the only possible foreseen value of such train service, at least in the near future, would be in terms of weekend service, especially during the winter months. A ski train could be successful, in terms of ridership, but the amount of fixed costs necessary to arrange this service would be such as to make overall financial viability question- able. ' Thus, it is the recommendation of this plan that such northbound service does not at this time seem feasible: how- ever, in the light that these variables could change in fut- ure years, three separate options are discussed regarding possible routes on which such service could be utilized. Alternative one uses the Detroit and Mackinaw Railroad and travels along the eastern shore, serving such cities as Alpena and Cheboygan. Although this route has the potential of serving the greatest population base. it traverses an area 133 FIGURE 19 Addition Alternative 1 W31. .Tfiece ! Inn-u Co-ucho- Verb-hen Cu, 6‘ . a g , '6 "I _ - ~ -—...._._.r '7 Rogers City 1010!: I y \‘icw' ‘ Onawsy ’4' $ ‘5 l'doskcy .- a g P95. 6’ for be 0 ‘ City > R.~~).J any“ EMOGQ . l ' A‘Dcn. $ ‘ talkers ' :; [8-qu fi , \ a "7 . cflom ¢ Gm‘ling o '15 I'm?! 1:. O scoda (at! C If: ‘ T‘w“. ‘ s Von-lumen Wm B . , Ci'y ranch In . lit. Pleasant V V g\ Ncwnygo a HorJIJJ ' "I ' “:64” :- cc. Sm/arnm I cod‘r’ spat-3‘ /ROCqurd 0 IN gin. Conan». l'lrh u-GRA.\ D ’5 .‘l [US ,hr'ab Grand Ha y en SAGINAOW' . Midland :C ZIwaukce g \ijy/A I" \‘3. 1'5 o J "on, National Cay “Mama" .Ic. Part A uutin Port 1“)": x “who: Bench I he!” .:¢,‘\‘ U IIIHlIf Hurt). In" M”! "Ive“ PIT-5" Grand 1,. Otsego J . H l J ‘ d "Kmh‘l‘n /A ".Q mun-II; . h" "" L Run JG. 55 . ' ' Uan'or‘1 ‘ M" ‘ Ib' \ Ch 380‘ I ‘. 3.: ' o / ' " ' O ——_‘“\ "H. /{‘\P r _Chelu. \(hnr ’43,” -\‘ ”“1 “W a BALAMA /.I ,15. m “01‘. CI ) ) / rfl'oficllI‘ If. ‘ , *"1". i;- If- . {3“ 9 nude!“ 6 Ilbufl\/u ' I. /.'103'n(u° r.“ ..I.' \\ Y.nak'dr' ' "H 'I’ ‘ «IJ1\;\ ("one Mart-0H." ‘ 3111/” Man 7 CI ‘ J-DHCIII'E. V \ . ‘ ' ‘1‘ / ‘ JO". “tr/J. ”u." .y / Ii (snug-«III " ‘ i C lIlI-II r ‘ 'Iluhdl‘. lCAco .Il 3'“ ‘ . L“.|:l.:l (J :5 ° " ' If,” {‘oflf0:‘ & C. . 0 Wc.'n.‘..l,‘n'.n'l. '.-c'\3 IlnIhwn 4, 1": ::rl "unison . . . “I'III-I'I I” I! -II.HI'I ‘* ‘ . I to. D" I ' . ‘4 V I . . ‘-' I-“' lhlduul' .fir...u. .._..% “ lpf1hl': EI‘II‘ lflt FIGURE 20 Addition Alternative 2 .WL luau-c I -—-—- _. - I” {COIhtCNOI ’ .‘Yockina- Col, I o I “ <‘ , ‘3 ; Cheboygan ~ o, . c ~7 4' Rogers it: s ,. e) on.“_. . Chirkvoix 1‘ I” \Iow . 3 I _J’ 4" ‘5 'eioskey a ‘ 2, o I \ E hill - I 6 310) or ‘ . Marilyn! a 2'. N City > "a”: In! F U .m'lal ”to“! _ 8 '$ " Rd-‘uu . n 5 s .H “(4914’ a ' ... ' 3‘ . chelcnn I v" 'w . \' “ “"Mu' urn r3‘f.” - ' .° (Meridian ‘ " -> ‘56 a Temp-aural“ ‘ . I J‘ J . (. uk '0 "Icon . 2‘ "u" . scodt . K I a 1 C- .0 a «It I ‘ “w‘. Menistee \ “we“ Bun: . “.5 City .N'alI'mml Cuy our Jr. y). l L. n .I , N. Error“ . 1:34 pm! Anew! Ludlngloh " You How R Ilmbc? “"“h Scbc QKJ Nd! nd ‘ . 5 “Fa Ecscxv)‘e° '( ZI woaufi‘ec ”h“; 4C] 31;" III-I. Mu". ‘ o ‘ 2I SLLOUi.‘ *‘C‘ 9 I 1"." 23 \a. ‘81. L hath" 3 (:le0“ Mu It: It! (“I—'3“; Ou'oi-Io ‘ * I. or mul U Perk ‘ Spring [a r¢\¢,1 GR AX" ’0'”! -r I g I' .‘U “)5 _ LL‘“C”‘5 W / k" )>\l' I 4 \' !- md If! u" .0 , l" 'Jloer! .‘ ’2" «LJH‘H‘O F \ W IILImsluo ’ ' ’ \Ohic (Maya bat-In: 14'ng . HAP " s: I'LIM' .- IIIIIIIIrnmC'A <2 “vb“ .- -so.\' A -. “Pm—- 1 pm 110 r J 3 .\IMo 0 C“ “h 5"] Inn '//7:". *- “_ Pr Chm“ Ar‘N-r "In \ /.- /, '. \\ .ndmr 1 ~ -—.--.——~,, -(7I"'"\/" no," Fol Q _ Gaylord ' ‘ ll ' .‘7 . ' ' V' 3" 3.1. and a / ., 1 and: c 'c .' Mancelcns :1 .5. 1p ... J u' unru' wry O 1‘ free Gr: 1i!) 1 .iy J l o Merle-rho ‘L Wam- Jo. Via Cornish 'fc _ into?! Jr. lnnton O . - scoda ‘ ' L! ‘J F P . Q l {.9 s l r l I 0' s ,‘ 1“.“ lianahr k. " Sandtful'u . - “ West Branch “fl “IS Ci” CadiNSC National City. -. AM" J‘- :Alawuf * 5 . , 9 . , .. «t . R._. 0:! r~ " pan A‘HU" l a at .5 J . Port 509° 3 3 ‘n’bor BC: \Cb i Rapids _ a. ’o'o. ~ I‘” ' S . l'ulm . 9 —3 e um Cd! i ?‘”' n P9» ‘ / . 0,4,1 ’Puizlt.\ n‘usv . ‘ \ 3 G a m»- .w [_.n . N..." St. Minsk , - n I, (llv YVll' w 2 0’ "JUN" n. t 3 - ‘2 4:10 3 I.) ‘ ‘ c Stanton “h ‘51. .Charlrs «53.33.11 ~ ’1}; ;reo (I. ‘ O“ Marlene 1 4'.” ”Ll-I21" \ I _ Cgfs CHC'UND‘ 4 Ihlr' 4 '4 Imlcy City or, , 3‘ \ . ' Port llunm I d.- Rxchmrld 71.4.9." I Cumnocs . l‘u‘. . Qprirtlle r (51:.\.\'I\ ,\ .ums . 8.1-7»- ., .1. .. 7’ ‘ - i '4’“, /1..l..m.mv a _ ' ~- . \Vulllamstun ‘ )‘srirc “ " ‘ a _A ....L;:.'3 q (wgylnnd .. foalenulc _ V \ ,- T5." “no. 0' , ‘ . . : Allc‘u, ‘ .. I . .... IHII‘L'JI. :\ . o .c_ ~. U 9‘ 'J‘ ‘09\ R :13] Oak . ,0 1"" ‘JN'. Lakshmi «- N '"h‘ '3 k I. {A} Otu-x. .. ”v‘fi‘: lmd P at ‘1 r 1.1! (:de'Jr- ‘4 ', IJI'HIl Jr I a I». . we ‘ h UHIIVUI 0k...“ h. ' P‘ynwum" islumitlmflil 2 .-..,. < v R ...”. .: f). -‘.n“ \\ \ “50% I ‘ 71pm ['1‘ho '0 llInflflf , ..f' ‘ » ‘|hi"“ 6 SC“ I P “L'II‘“'. fién‘r p.:,.7ntlf ‘ \'D U I "- /:’... ‘w |nd‘llr r... 2 ’;.\\\\ a).=I:/_ I ”'0' N-nu' C) 0‘ ‘ :Jfl. 0 x.\l.,\.\n/.hu_-/,.3” mm.- '2 ) Cruk l‘iuuvld Jr (zflvmuuk/ ("0rd f \ W ( nlnc . i l' I “I“"J‘Ifl'ci/ aw . “I200 1'“ d on Humor 0 n'(.'u' A ' Vnrlcbul‘l 0 Luchflnld r‘o'umI " \ \rhonkra" /-p \ \\ O \ ‘ I r,. 0| P/Nln-gllua 4“ b M Dunn Llen'. H ‘. i ' ‘I V .K / A; ‘.r/l|. UM”?! \ \ll‘ 5 '5 i snug-0H0 ‘ H In" , Cold..(cf ‘CAGO .‘fuuhua: . Kuhn"; p ’ .... ”0.0.! , ' -r‘. H.:. I'- \“ p,.v,. |- I ./'/;T Avg“ :(""".0‘ J” A-u—“o - /'_-"-:-..51"_r‘_..—..A . I’AK}: ERIE 137 D) Summary and Conclusions In summation, it may be said that the State of Michigan is well on its way towards a state rail passenger network. A combination of the various existing social, economic. politi- cal trends. with the existing and immediately proposed passen- ger rail routes, give the State an excellent base from which to begin. Recent proposals aim to establish new service in. beneficial areas and to upgrade and improve existing routes, rights-of-way and rolling stock. Despite the fact that it has been demonstrated that there are sufficient attitudes and monies available to provide for the initiation of extensive passenger networks. it is the position of this thesis that these factors must be applied with a certain degree of caution. A prime goal in this study was to develop a state system that would be comprehensive in terms of national and state ' needs, but also viable in terms of not being over-extended to the degree where service would be provided in areas not pres- ently having, or not capable of generating, sufficient economic consistency. True, this paper has demonstrated that economics alone cannot be the sole criteria for route determination, but it is also inversely true, (and this paper has applied this principle), that the mere non-emphasis on economic gain does not connote expansion wherever possible. The final route net- work was formulated not in terms of one or several aspects analyzed in the Inventory, but as a system which was evolved from the application of all gathered criteria. It is not be- lieved that a system can be constructed, at least one that 138 would be viable for the long term. from the application of a igeneral categorized criteria (e.g., to serve all cities of 10,000 or more). There would be no quicker method of killing off such a new system than to over-extend its capabilities in terms of ridership or economic capabilties. Thus. the recommendations in the final plan presented within this paper are tempered by these factors and two basic route additions are proposed, which would serve two specific markets (the tri-city area and the Grand Rapids-Muskegon area) not presently being served. It was also these types of con- siderations that led to the determination to designate these new lines, as well as existing lines, as medium-speed, medium- frequency routes, in order that they might be compatibly in- tegrated with freight traffic. It is also realized that_because of the possible chang- ing events in this area. especially in terms of ridership and economic support, there might be the necessity for revision of these proposals. Thus, a series of restructuring alter- natives is given for these new lines. which, although restrict- ing or altering former line structure, enable service to con- tinue in the basic market area. Because of expressed political persuasions from the state and those reiterated in the State Rail Needs Study. it is realized that there may be some future time when rail passen- ger service to the northern half of the Lower Peninsula may be viable and desirable. As has been stated, it is the viewpoint of this paper that such an alternative is not currently feasible. 139 Nevertheless. three alternative routes are listed demonstrat- ing possible patterns to this area. It would seem that exist- ing bus service would easily handle the transit ridership currently occuring here and there should be a consideration of arranging schedules in order to facilitate passenger inter- face between these modes.* Also, there is a possible market‘ for special trains such as winter ski trains on these routes, but this depends on the amount of northern trackage remaining in the future, as well as the availability of funds for crea- tion of such service. *Amtrak has current agreements with Greyhound Bus Lines to establish intermodal service in areas not served by passenger rail. ' APPENDIX Michigan 1) Railroad Company - Terminii - County - Length in Feet Docket Number - Status - Date Filed ‘ - 2) Railroad Company - Terminii 5. County - Length in Miles - Docket Number - Status - Date Filed - 3) Railroad Company Terminii - Counties - Length in Miles - Docket Number - Status - Date Filed - #) Railroad Company Terminii - APPENDIX TABLE 10 Railroad Abandonments* Grand Trunk Western Brush Street to Saint Antoine (within Detroit) Mayne 880' AB-Bl New Application March 19. 1973 Penn,Centra1 Adrian to Clayton Lenawee 6.3 AB-S Sub¢36 Approved, effective thirty-five days from date March 27, 19F3 Penn Central (owned by the Penndel Co.) Cedar Springs to Mackinaw City Kent, north to Cheboygan 20l.9 AB-S Sub l”9 New Application April 2, 1973 Chesapeake and Ohio ' Southwest of Coleman, to Northeast of Mount Pleasant - *Abandonment data gathered from issues of Traffic World. ICC De- cisions sections, dated January. 1973 through February, 1975. County Length in Miles Docket Number Status . Date Filed 5) Raierad Company Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Status A Date Filed 6) Railroad Company Terminii Counties Length in Miles Docket Nwmber Status Date Filed 7) Railroad Company Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed 8) Railroad Company Isabella 11.64 , AB-l9 Sub-6 New Application June 25. 1973 Penn Central (portion owned by Penndal Co.) Sturgis. Michigan to Kendallville, Indiana Saint Joseph 37 AB-S Sub-172 New Applications ‘JUIY 23. 1973 Penn Central Gaylord to Mackinaw City Otsego to Cheboygan 62.3 AB-S Sub-175 New Application July 23, 1973 Penn Central Albion City Line to its terminus Calhoun .2 . AB-5 Sub-189 New Application August 27. 1973 Penn Central 9) 10) 11) Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railraod Company Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Eaton Rapids Line to terminus Eaton .6 AB-S Sub-190 New Application August 27, 1973 Penn Central Lansing City Line to Terminus Ingham .6” . _ AB-S Sub-191 ’ New Application August 27. 1973 Penn Central Fort Mayne Junction to Horton Jackson 14.7 AB-S Sub-193 New Application August 27, 1973 Grand Trunk Western Marne to Grand Haven Ottawa 21.5 AB-31 Sub-2 New Application October 28, l§7h 12) 13) 14) 15) Railroad Company Terminii Counties Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Rai lraod Company Terminii Counties Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Grand Trunk Western Imlay City to Caseville Lapeer to Huron 66.3 AB-Bl Sub-3 New Application October 28, l97h Chesapeake and Ohio Lakeview to Edmore Montcalm 12.5 26885. Approved, effective thrity-five days from date December 19, 1974 Chesapeake and Ohio williamsburg to Elk Rapids Grand Travese, Antrim 9.. AB-18-5 New Application 197# Chesapeake and Ohio Traverse City to Northport Leelanau 32. 26757 16) 17) 18) 19) Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii Counties Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii Counties Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii County Length in Miles New Application 197“ Penn Central Traverse City to Walton Junction Grand Traverse 26 AB-S-hB New Application 197k Cadillac and Lake City Missaukee Junction to Lake City Wexford, Missaukee 12 AB-h Sub-1 New Application 1974 Chesapeake and Ohio Remus to ‘ Edmore Montcalm, Mecosta, Isabella l6 AB-lB-l New Application 197a Chesapeake and Ohio Port ROpe to Harbor Beach Huron 7 20) 21) 22) 23) Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii Counties Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii Counties Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Rai lroad Company Terminii Counties Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii Counties 2692? New Application l97h Penn Central Lansing to Paines Ingham, Clinton. Shiawassi, Saginaw 59 AB-5-19l New Application 197“ Penn Central Grand Rapids to Plainwell Kent, Allegan “3.. AB-S New Application 197a ‘ Penn Central Hastings to Charlotte Barry. Eaton 27. . AB-5-150 New Application 1974 Penn Central» Doster to Richland Barry. Kalamazoo 2h) 25) 26) 27) Length in Miles Docket Number Status _Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii Counties Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii Counties Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii 8 26939 wa Application l97h Penn Central Kalamazoo to Richland Junction Kalamazoo 9 26706 New Application 197h Penn Central Kalamazoo_to South Haven Kalamazoo. Van Buren 39 26696 New Application 197“ Grand Trunk Western Jackson to Lakeland, Jackson. Ingham, Livingston 35 AB-31-1 New Application 197h Penn Central Jackson to Alvordton, Ohio 28) 29) 30) Counties Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Railroad Company Terminii County Length in Miles Docket Number Status Date Filed Jackson, Lenawee. Hillsdale 43 (in Mich.) AB-5-112 New Application 1974 Lake Superior and Ishpeming (Upper Penin- sula) Marquette City line Marquette 2.4 _ AB-68 Sub-1 _ Approved. effective 35 days from September 3. 1973 September 3, 1973 Chicago and North Western (Upper Peninsula) wakefield to Connorsville Gogebic 5-3 AB-l Sub-5 Approved. effective 35 days from date July 23, 1974 Chicago and North Western (Upper Peninsula) Swanzy to New Swanzy Marquette 4.19 AB-l Sub-4 Certificate and Order, Effective 35 days from date February 10. 1975 B I B L I O G R.A P H Y 1) Arpan, Roy "The Inaugural Trip of the Blue Water; Chica 0- Port Huron", The Fast Mail, October, 1974, Volume , NWbCI"? e 2) Asher, Joseph. "The Ten Myths Holding Back Rail Transit", Going Places: The 15th Annual Issue 2: General Electric, 970- 3) Associated Press. "Shaky Rail Lines Bolstered by Subsidies", The Lansing State Journal, May 21, 1974. 4) Bailey, Edgarton W. Interview, Rail Freight Section of Mich- igan State Department of Highways, Lansing, Michigan, February 13. 1974- 5) Billheimer, John W. Analysis Lf Alternative Rail Passenger Routings lg the Detroit- Chicago Corridor, Stanford Re- search Institute, July, 1971. 6) Committee on Commerce of the United States Senate. Northeast Railroad Transpprtation Crisis. Hearings before the Sub- committee, U. 3. Government Printing Office. Washington D. 0., February 28 and March 2,1973, Serial Number 93- -8, Part I. H 7) Committee on Commerce of the United States Senate, Northeast Railroad Transportation Crisis: Hearings before the Sub- committee, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. 0., May 30,31, June 4,15, 21,22,1973. Serial Number 93-8, Part II. 8) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania' 8 Response to the U. S. Department Lf Transportation Report Ln Rail Service in the Midwest and Northeast, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg: March 28,1974. 9) Congress of the United States. Regional Rail Reorganization Act of i922, Public Law 93-236, 93rd Congress, H.R. 9142, January 2,1974. 10) Corbett, Richard M. Recommendation for the Chicago Area Rail System for $225; A Technical ReportI Chicago Area Trans- portation Study, September, 1973. 11) Direnzo, John F. and Rossi, Louis P. A Diversion Model for Selected Cities, New York State Department of Transport- ation, Publication Number TPO70602, December, 1970. 12) Fahrenwald, William. "The Blue Water Limited", The Fast Mail, September. 1974, Volume 4, Number 6. 140 13) l4) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 2n) 25) 26) 27) 141 Federal Rail Administration. "Continuation of Local Rail Services", The Federal R ister, U. S. Department of gransportation, April, 197E,m mrt II, Volume 39, Number 7. Federal Rail Administration, "New Regulations for Rail Con— tinuation Subsidies", U. S. Department Lf Transportation News, Washington D. 0.: January 28,1975. Foggin, James H. Aspects Lf Railroad Right-of-Way NatiOnal- ization, Transportation Research Forum Proceedings. Fourteenth Annual Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, Richard B. Cross 00., 1973, Volume 14, Number 1. Gilbert, David. "Fast Turbo Train Tests Detroit Run", The Chicago Tribune, October 24, 1974. Graham, Harold L. "Rebirth: united States Ra11 Passenger System", Travel Agent Magazine, April 23, 1973. Haroldson, Thomas. "State of Michigan to Examine Rail Cut PrOposals", The Michigan State News, East Lansing. February 18,1974. Harrison, S.L. "A Mass Transit Report for Selected States", Mass Transit, November/December, 1974, Volume I, Number 5. Harsh, William C. "Changes in the Amtrak Contract May Bring a6Bette£ Ride for All", The Chicago Sun Times, September 1.197. . . Harsh, William C. "Push Interstate Rail Net to Rebuild Road- beds", The Chicago Sun Times, October 4, 1974. Haswell, Anthony. Amtraki A Critical Appraisal from the Consumer' s Viewgoint, Transportation Research Forum Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, Richard B. Cross 00., 1972, Volume 13, Number 1. Hill, Timothy W. Interview, Southeastern Michigan Transport- atizn Authority, Rail Division, Detroit, February 19, 197 . Ingram, John W. "Electrification: The LOgical Step", The Philadelphia Enquirer, September 27, 1974. Kizzia, Thomas. "Rail Rapid for the Motor City", Railwaz Age, September 9, 1974. _ . . Lawrence, David. "PrOgress in Amtrak", Illustrated U.S. News, U.S. News and World Report Inc., May 8, 1972. Lindsay, Robert. "Amtrak, A Very Exgensive Solution", The New York Times, December 1, 197 . 28) 29) 30) 31) 32) 33) 31+) 35) 36) 37) 38) 39) #0) #1) th McKinney, Kevin. gnterview, Michigan State Department of Highways, Rail Passenger Section, Lansing, Michigan, October 30. 1973- Mckinney, Kevin. Interview, Michigan State Department of Highways, Rail Passenger Section, Lansing, Michigan, February 14,1974. McNally, Rand. Handprailroad Atlas Lf the United States, Rand McNally and Company Publishers, Chicago, 1973. Michigan, State of. Department Lf State Highways and Trans- portation, General Transportation Fund: lQZQ-ZE, Bureau of Urban and Public Transportation, July 11, 1973. Michigan, State of. Department 2: State Hi hwa s and Trans- portation, general_Transportation Fund: Igzu-zg. Burzau of Urban and Public Transportation. February, 197 ... Michigan Intercity Railroad Task Force. The Michigan Rail- road Needs Study: A Reply to the Governor, Michigan Department of Transportation, February, 1974. Morley, R. L. "Michigan Legislature Approves Transportation Bond Proposal", Institute for Rapid Transit Di est, washington, D. C., September TO, 1974, Number 25. Mumford, Lewis. "We're Got to Get Working on The Railroads", Harpers Magazine, August, 1972. Myers, Edward T. "The State of the Industry: Congress Holds .the Key", Modern Railroads, December, 197”. Nash, Allan N. and Hills, Stanley J. Public Attitudes Towards Transportation Modes: A Summary Lf Two Pilot Studies, A Paper presented at the E_th Annual Meeting on the Com- mittee on Socio-Economic Aspects of Highways. National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Amtrak Annual Re- port: 1223, Amtrak Publication, Washington, D. 0., February 15, 197A. , . National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Amtrak Annual Re- port: 122A, Amtrak Publication, Washington, C. D., February 15, 1975. _ National Railroad Passenger COrporation. Background Ln £2? trak, Amtrak Publication, Washington, D. 0., September 23. ”197“- Phelps, Lewis M. "Amtrak Seen Stressing Short-Haul Runs Under Its New President", The Wall Street Journal, January 30, 1975. . 42) #3) an) #5) #6) 47) 48) “9) 50) 51') 52) 53) 54) 55) 56) 1&3 Peucker. Thomas K. The Law of Travel and Its Applications to Rail Traffic, Harvard _Sohool of Design, Cambridge, Mass., January, 1969. Quandt, R. E. and Baumol, W. J. "The Demand for Abstract Travel Modes: Theory and Measurement", The Journal of Regional Science, Volume 6, Number 2,1933_' Quandt, R. E. and Baumol, W. J. Studies in Travel Demand, Volume ll, Mathematica Publishers, September. 1936. Rail Services Planning Office. Implementation of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1223, Interstate Commerce Commission Publication, Washington, D. C., March 18,1974. Rail Planning Section, State of Michigan Department of Trans- portation. The Michigan Rail Needs Study: A Planning Report, Michigan State Department of State Highways and _ Transportation, January, 1975. _ Scheleen, Joseph C. (Editor). "President Ford asks additional Amtrak Appropriation", Traffic World, October 14. 1974. Scheleen, Joseph C. (EditOr). "Hartke, Weicker Bill Would Use Two Levies for Rail Track Rehabilitation", Traffic World, September 2, 1974. Scheleen, Joseph C. (EditOr). House Rule Number 16523", Traffic World, September 2, l97h. Scheleen, Joseph C. (Editor). "Michigan Rail Passenger Group ' Proposes Track Upgrading Plan to the Interstate Commerce Commission", Traffic World, November 25, 197h. Scheleen, Joseph C. (Editor). "Railroads Fear that.High-Speed Passenger Trains Could Interfere with Freight Movements", Traffic World, November 4, l97h. Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority. SEMTA's Current Projects, SEMTA Publication, Detroit, November, 1973- Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority. SEMTA Fact Sheet, SEMTA Publication, Detroit, November, 1973. Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority. 1970 Work Tri Inter-County Exchange In and Around Detroit, SEMTA PubEication, Detroit, September, 1970. Servant, Annie. "The Value of Time in Intercity Travel", The ITA Journal, Bulletin Number 33, October 7, 1974. Shapp, Milton J. (Governor of Pennsylvania). A United States Rail Trust Fund, Pennsylvania Office of State Planning and Development. Pennsylvania Department of Transport- ation, Harrisburg. 197M. 1&4 5?) Shapp, Milton J. "Governor Shapp Offers Detailed Analysis of Rail Services Planning Office Report on Pennsylvania Railroads", Traffic World, October 1“, 1974. 58) Shapp, Milton J. Pennsylvania's Response to the U. S. Depart- ment Lf Transportation's Rail Cut Proposals, Office of the Governor, Harrisburg: March, 1973'. 59) Shedd, Thomas. "Amtrak Outlook", Modern Railways, Chicago: Volume 29, Number 9, September, 197a. 60) Sommers, Alexis N. "Towards a Theory of Traveler Mede Choice". Urban and Regional Ground Transportation, June, 1973. 61) Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. Sepgct II: Study Lf the 1925 Rail System in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Metropolitan Area, SEPTA Publication, Phil- adelphia: July, 1968. 62) State of Michigan. Report $223, 1921 Average Twenty-Four Hour Traffic Flow, Department of Highways, Lansing: 1972. 63) State of Michigan, Public Act £204, Enrolled State Bill fjfig, Metropolitan Transportation Authorites Act Lf1962. Lansing; July 10,1967. 64) State of Michigan. Public Act £322, Enrolled House Bill £520 2, The MotLr Vehicle Highway Fund, 1922 Lansing. January 3, 1973- 65) Ullman, K. B. High Speed Rail: Problems and Prospects, Office §f6gigh Speed Ground Transportation, Washington, D. C., 9 . 66) United States Bureau of the Census. Population Lf Places; Table f_, Michigan, 1960 and 1920, U. S. Census Bureau, washington D. C.,‘l970. 67) United States Department of Transportation. Rail Service in the Midwest and Northeast Region; A Report by the Secre- tary Lf Transportation, U. S. Department of Transporta— tiofl, washington, D. 0.; Volumes I and II, February 1, 19? 68) united States Railway Association. "Strategic Options for the Conrail Concept", USRA News, Office of Public and Govern- mental Affairs, Washington, D.C.: August 22, l97h. 69) United States Railway Association. Preliminar System Plan for ReStructuring Railroads in the Northeast and Midwest Region, USRA Publication, Washington D.C.; Volumes I and 11, February 26,1975. ms 70) West, Carl. "Rail Agency Hit as wasteful", The Pittsburg Press, January 10, 1975. 71) UilJanen, James. Interview, Station WKAR. East Lansing, Michigan, October 16j—1973. "7'1? WIT @flifllfliflflflfl ME T