Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Rr-638B

Rr-638B

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AT! ON

DETROIT- CORRIDOR HIGH SPEED RAIL TECHNICAL REPORT i -:.-

June 1985

Bureau of Transportation Planning Intercity Transportation Planning Division

This report represents the findings and/or professional opinions of the Michigan Department of Transportation staff. Its publication does not represent an official opinion of the State Transportation Commission.

State Transportation Commission William C. Marshall, Chairman '~--.-; Rodger D. Young, Vice Chairman William J. Beckham Carl V. Pe11onpaa Hannes Meyers, Jr. Shirley E. Zeller Director James P. Pitz ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The preparation of this report supervised by James L. Roach. Principal contributors to form and content Jared Becker, Scott Hercik, and Robert L. Kuehne. Joan Delau, Marvin Harris, Kathy Hundt, Mary Lynn Kelly, John O'Doherty, and Marge Stenske also participated in its preparation. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . i i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi i I . INTRODUCTION 1

II. CORRIDOR CHARACTERISTICS 3

A. Physical and Land Development Features 3

1. Corridor definition .. 3 2. Topography and climate .• 3 3. Land use •. 5 4. ·Population 5

B. Corridor History 7

1. Corporate history and development 7 2. Evolution of rail passenger service 9 C. Existing Rail Services and Facilities 14 1. Rail passenger services 14 2. Rail freight services 18 3. Rail physical plant . 20 4. Rail grade crossings 26

III. SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES & COSTS . 31 A. Track and Right-of-Way Costs 31

B. Station, Maintenance Facilities and Rolling Stock Costs 33

C. Alternatives 35

1. Alternatives A, B, & C == 79 mph and 90 mph 35 2. Alternatives D & E -- 110 mph 36 3. Alternative F -- 125 mph 37 4. Alternative G -- 160 mph 38 5. Alternative H -- 250 mph 39 D. System Development Issues 40 1. Travel time .... 40 2. Airport connections 44 3. Electrification .. 46

i i i IV. EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAVEL 49 A. Existing Travel in the Corridor 49 B. Future Travel in the Corridor . 55 C. Existing and Future Rail Passenger Ridership 57 D. Feeder Services 59 E. Comparison to Other Corridors 62

V. OPERATING REVENUES AND COSTS 63

A. Operating Revenues 63 B. Operating Expenses 64

C. Operating Income 67

VI. CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT ISSUES 69

APPENDICES

A. Travel Times 73

B. Rail Passenger Unit Costs 79

C. Detailed Description of Alternatives 83

D. Detailed Maps of Selected Station Areas 97 E. Rail Passenger Demand Estimates 103 F. Detailed Operating Revenues .. 109

iv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 -Chicago High Speed Rail Corridor...... 4 2 Intercity Rail Passenger System 16 3 Selected Characteristics of the Detroit- Chicago Railroad, 1985 ...... 20

4 Detroit-Chicago Corridor: Existing Track. 22 5 Capital Cost and Travel Time Comparison 41

6 Detroit-Ann Arbor Alternative Routes 45

7 Detroit~Chicago High Speed Rail Corridor Feeder and Connecting Services . . 60 8 Conceptual High Speed Routes in the High Speed Rail Compact Region ... . 61

v LIST OF TABLES

Table

1 Detroit-Chicago Corridor 1980 and 2000 Population . 6 2 Detroit-Chicago Frequencies and Running Times 1915-85 ...... 12

3 Number of Curves in Detroit-Chicago Corridor by Degree of Curvature and Segment, 1985 ...... 25 4 Number of Grade Crossings in the Detroit-Chicago Rail Passenger Service Corridor ... ·...... 27 5 Cost Summary for Rail Passenger Speeds 79 through 250 mph (in millions of 1985 $) • • • • . • • • 34

6 Travel Times and Speeds by Alternative. . 43 7 Detroit-Chicago Corridor Daily Person Trips, 1980 50

8 Selected Modal Splits in the Detroit-Chicago Corridor, 1980 53 9 Comparison of Service Levels and One-Way Fares Between Chicago and Selected Other Communities in the Detroit- Chicago Corridor, May 1985. • ...... 54 10 Total Person Trips for Selected Pairs in the Detroit-Chicago Corridor...... 56 11 Daily Rail Passenger Trips by Alternative for 1985, 2000, and 2010...... 59 12 Population and Travel Data for Selected High Speed Rail Compact Corridors ...... 61 13 Operating Expenses for Detroit-Chicago Corridor (in millions of 1985 $) . . . . • . • . . . • • . . . . • • ...... 65 14 Operating Income for Detroit-Chicago Corridor (in millions of 1985 $)...... 66

vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The high level of interest in the Detroit-Chicago corridor has prompted the Michigan Department of Transportation to develop this appraisal' of the corridor. This report is a companion to the High Speed Rail Corridor Issue Review recently completed by Michigan Consultants, Inc. under with the Department. That report examined energy, environmental and economic impacts, as well as financing and organizational issues i_- i associated with high speed rail development. Principal objectives of this report are to provide information on existing rail services and infrastructure and estimated ridership and costs associated with various approaches to corridor improvement. It is intended that this will assist both the public and private sector in their decision making processes. Summary findings are:

1. The Detroit-Chicago corridor is 280 miles in length and serves two of

the nation's largest metropolitan areas as well as several smaller metropo 1it an areas. Approximately 13 mi 11 ion persons 1 ive in areas adjacent to the corridor. The corridor meets most of the commonly accepted criteria for high speed development potential and is generally considered to be one of the most attractive corridors in the country for new and improved services.

2. The corridor traverses relatively flat terrain with few topographic or soil conditions which would cause developmental .problems. However, the existing rail route has many restrictive curves in the area between Ypsilanti and Battle Creek that would inhibit high speed operations. Those between Ypsilanti and Chelsea would be very difficult to eliminate because of land development and environmental issues.

vii 3. The existing rail route has the following characteristics. Daily Maximum Freight Segment Mileage Ownership Tracks Speed Detroit-Kalamazoo 145 2 60-70 6-8 Kalamazoo-Porter 96 1 79 1 Porter-Chicago 39 Conrai 1 2 79 50

Conrail crews run all passenger trains in the corridor under contract with Amtrak. Rail condition is fair from Detroit to Kalamazoo and excellent between Kalamazoo and Chicago. Freight traffic is relatively light except between Porter and Chicago.

4. Amtrak operates three daily round trips between Detroit and Chicago. A fourth round trip from Battle Creek to Chicago is provided by the Chicago- "International". Corridor ridership has been in the 330,000-390,000 range for the last ten years. Current rail travel times are 5:30. The fastest consistent travel times were 4:45 in the late 1930's and 1940's, although the experimental New Central "Aerotrain" was operated on a 4:20 schedule for a short time in 1956.

5. Amtrak owns and maintains 96 miles of trackage between Kalamazoo and Porter, . This is one of the few Amtrak owned routes in the

country. They have invested $35 million in this segment over the last few years. It is an excellent railroad which could operate beyond 79 mph if were provided.

6. There are 380 highway grade crossings in the corridor, 263 (two pedestrian only) public and 117 private. Two-thirds of the public crossings have flashers and gates. Total elimination of all grade crossings, through closure or grade separation, is estimated to cost

$· 169 million. This is not considered necessary except for the very

viii highest speed alternatives. State operates trains at 110 mph with gated crossings and several European countries operate at 125 mph or more with gates. Consideration should be given, however, to more secure gate closures for higher speed operations.

7. The corridor represents a significant travel market comprised of about 24,000 daily person trips over 50 miles in length. There are 15,100 daily person trips over 100 miles in length. 1980 Average Percentage Mode Daily Trips Share Auto 21,226 88.0 Air 1,670 6.9 Rai 1 937 3.9 301 1.2 Total 24,134 100.0

8. Travel in the co.rridor is expected to grow by 37 percent to 33,000 daily trips in the year 2000 and by 58 percent to 38,000 daily trips in the year 2010. Increasing travel will require additional transportation capacity in the corridor. For example, I-94 will require at least $176 million for widening and other capacity related improvements in the next 25 years. This does not include ongoing maintenance needs. In addition, airport capacity improvements may be required at both Detroit Metro and Chicago O'Hare. Currently, O'Hare Airport is undertaking a $1.4 billion expansion program and Detroit Metro anticipates expenditures of $125 million in the next ten years. The construction of a high speed rail line could reduce or delay the need for these improvements.

9. In 1985, airlines provided 39 daily round trips between Detroit and Chicago ($109 one-way advance purchase fare), intercity provided 12 ($29 fare) and Amtrak provided three ($25 off peak/$49 peak).

ix 10. Amtrak currently accounts for 6.5 percent of Detroit-Kalamazoo trips, 14.1 percent of Kalamazoo-Chicago trips and 4.7 percent of Detroit- Chicago trips. The private automobile accounts for 80-90 percent of all travel and would be the major market source for increased rail passengers. For example, there are 7,400 auto trips each day between Detroit and Chicago, 1,600 air trips, 300 rail trips, and 150 bus trips.

11. The Detroit-Chicago corridor is one of the premier development corridors in the country. However, caution should be used when comparisons are made to others. Foreign corridors such as in and Japan focus respectively on and which are the commercial, governmental, and population centers of an entire nation. Travel patterns in this country are much more dispersed. In addition, downtown areas and feeder systems of public transportation in this country are much less developed than in many foreign countries. Other corridors in this country also have unique characteristics which affect both cost and ridership.

12. Summary information on selected alternative approaches to corridor improvement is provided below. An nu a1 Capital Max. Travel Round Trip Daily Op. Income Costs Alternative Speed Time Frequency Pass. (Mi 11 ions) (Millions)

B 79 mph 4:45 6 3,491 $ 4.3 $ 154.9 c 90 mph 4:20 8 4,683 10.8 207.4 0 110. mph 4:05 12 5,423 15.3 258.3 F 125 mph 3:30 12 7,580 31.4 722.3 G 160 mph 2:40 12 9,234 51.1 1,777.7 H 250 mph 1:40 24 13,416 55.4 2,870.0

X 13. All systems cover operating costs and provide a surplus to apply to debt retirement. In general, the surplus appears to be insufficient to fully amortize capital investment at commercial interest rates. Public involvement of some form appears necessary.

14. Capital and operating cost estimates are most reliable for the 79 and

90 mph levels and become less so for higher speed alternatives. The lower speed alternatives involve conventional railroad construction techniques with well established costing methods and construction experience. Estimates for the 79 mph alternative closely correlate to independently developed Amtrak estimates. More uncertainty is

associated with cost estimates for the construction of higher sp~ed alternatives on new rights-of-way.

15. Most higher speed systems expect to capture 20-40 percent of the travel market. The 125 mph system for Detroit-Chicago is estimated

to capture 24 percent of total corridor travel (those trips over 50 miles in length) while the 160 mph system would capture 30 percent.

16. A choice between an incremental improvement program or a new system development program is difficult. The incremental approach minimizes risk whereas the new system development approach increases risk but offers larger potential impacts.

Incremental. The following supports this approach.

$ Most systems in the world developed in an evolutionary manner. Proven demand justified a series of improvements over a long time period.

e Risk is .minimized because improvements are based upon existing ridership, operating, and construction experience.

e Time-specific capital funding needs are reduced and the potential for combining funding exists (e.g. states, Amtrak, Conrail, SEMTA, local communities). xi New Systems Development. The following supports this approach.

~ Ridership may not respond to evolutionary improvements which do not give the impression of a new, better way to do things.

~Past practices may be discarded and new approaches to work rules, equipment utilization, operating procedures, etc., are possible.

~Significant short-term job impacts exist as does the potential for creating long-term economic impacts on the corridor and the communities and states through which it passes.

~ New technology may induce new trips.

17. Regardless of the system alternative selected, complex issues relating to Amtrak and Conrail exist which need resolution. These relate both to existing right-of-way ownership and to Amtrak's legal and financial views about any improvement program.

18. There is interest on the part of the private sector in developing the corridor. Specifically, Advanced Rail Consortium (ARC), TGV North America, Swiss Rail Export, and American High Speed Rail Corporation have expressed interest. The specific relationship between these entities and the states and local communities through which the corridor passes has to be determined. These issues were addressed in the recent Michigan Consultants, Inc. report.

I The Detroit-Chicago corridor offers many advantages for the development of high speed rail passenger service. A significant population base exists at end points and intermediate locations and there are many opportunities for feeder and connecting services. There are no significant topographic or problems which would cause construction or operating problems and a rail corridor already exists which could be utilized. Much of it is already owned by Amtrak and used almost exclusively as a passenger route. The corridor offers excellent right-of-way access

xii into both downtown Chicago and Detroit. These positive features allow route improvements to be undertaken at reasonable costs vis-a-vis other corridors. This, coupled with a significant travel and revenue base, provides an attractive opportunity for public and private investment. Potential for significant public sector return in terms of mobility enhancement, energy conservation, safety benefits, job creation, and economic development exists. Private sector opportunity exists in terms ot construction of facilities and rolling stock, operations, return on equity investment, and land development.

xiii

I. INTRODUCTION

The Detroit-Chicago corridor is approximately 280 miles in length. with Chicago, the nation's third largest on the western end, and Detroit, the sixth largest metropolitan area on the eastern end. Smaller metropolitan areas including Ann Arbor, Jackson, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, Niles/South Bend, and Gary/Hammond are located at intermediate points. Approximately 13 million persons live in areas adjacent to the corridor.

The corridor is currently one of the busiest rail passenger corridors outside of the northeastern . The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) owns. 96 _miles of the route and operates 6-8 passenger trains each day carrying almost-400,000 passengers annually.

The corridor closely conforms to the Office of Technology Assessment's criteria that a potential high speed transportation corridor have some or all of the following characteristics:

e with high populations and high population densities; e cities with a strong "travel affinity" between them; e cities grouped along a route giving major passenger traffic flows in the 100-300 mile trip range; ®cities with developed local transit systems to feed high speed rai 1.

The Michigan Department of Transportation has been an advocate of improved passenger service in the corridor for many years. Over $8 million in state funding has been provided for station and track improvements and several studies have been sponsored by the Department. The most recent of these is the "High Speed Rail Corrid_or Issue Review" prepared by Michigan Consultants, Inc. The Department has also cooperated with various other organizations interested in the private development of the corridor. These include the Japanese National Railways/American High Speed Rail Corporation, TGV North America, Advanced Rail Consortium, .and Swiss Rail Export Association.

The high level of interest in the corridor has prompted the Department to develop this appraisal of the corridor. A principal objective is to provide order of magnitude information on ridership and costs associated with various approaches to corridor improvement. It is intended that ·this information will ass.isf'both the public and private sector in decision making. Another important objective is to provide an in-depth examination of the existing rail infrastructure, existing non-rail transportation services, and existing travel flows.

The report does not contain a recommendation for a specific

improvement approach, since th~s will depend upon the developmental objectives of the sponsoring organizations and the public and private resources available to undertake the project. The provision of state and federal funding assistance to enhance transportation and economic development objectives might result in a different system type than that proposed by private sector interests having profit motive as a principal objective. Further, the degree of risk and uncertatnty associated with different approaches and the availability of capital resources to either the public or private sector will be a factor in this decision.

2

II. CORRIDOR CHARACTERISTICS

A. Physical and Land Development Characteristics The Detroit-Chicago corridor offers attractive advantages in that a significant population and travel base exists in a physical environment conducive to corridor development and operation. 1. Corridor definition The Detroit-Chicago corridor is defined as an east-west corridor having a terminus in Detroit on the east and Chicago on the west (see Figure 1). The corridor closely parallels both I-94 and the existing Amtrak route between the end point cities and includes Detroit, Ann Arbor, Jackson, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, Niles/South Bend, Gary/Hammond and Chicago. Variations from this are possible especially when high speed services on new alignments are considered. The report assumes that the existing Conrail/Amtrak rail right-of-way would be used for all but the highest speed alternatives. Connecting rail or bus services could serve communities not located directly on the corridor. For planning purposes, the corridor is assumed to be 280 miles in length with the eastern terminus at the proposed Arena Station in Detroit and the western terminus at Chicago . 2. Topography and climate The corridor is located within the physiographic region known as the Lake Plains. This region is composed of relatively flat terrai·n with a general elevation of 500 to 1,000 feet above sea level. The existing rail profile typifies this and has a

3 F!GURE l OE'RO!T-CHJCAGO iHGH SPED EA!L CORR!OOft

' ....t;IJY u \ ) • S~GIHII~• \.~ ~~ ~liNT ~/.1'105 \ • ~ ~ \ • • < • ) q •LONSI!I!Il ' " co_':..:-~-"-} w m-!AileO!t ot:'m ;;!.-1 TO RIL~WitEI '" ~~~mJLj; :a iQftO!'liO <:., ' < S~MTOO "M"OO J 84fTL£ JACJ.$0/l '"" ~-~ ""~.)!US/(lt)!l'll('() ,\ M i C H I G A N ' - I N ~-~--,;:-~-~--r-oH----;--0-- )-L 'Qlif.OO • ro T

low elevation of about 60-0 feet and a high elevation of about 1,000 feet. This results in an existing rail route with easy gradients, none of which exceed 1 percent for any extended distance. Soil conditions along the corridor are also highly suitable for development and there are relatively few wetland areas. These positive factors, while conducive to construction on new right-of-way, tend to mask the fact that improvements along the existing route could be difficult because the eastern portion of the existing line tends to follow stream and river valleys with resultant numerous curves which would inhibit high speed operations. An important topographic feature restricting improvements to the existing route is the Valley between Ypsilanti and Chelsea.

The corridor has a moderate climate with 70-SO'F summer average temperature ancj 20-30'F average winter temperature. Average snowfall is about 40 inches per year except for lake­ effect snow along the south and west shores o.f . Snowfalls in this area average 70 inches. Typically the eastern portion of the corridor experiences 50 days annually 4 with one inch of snow cover or more. Lake-effect areas (generally west of Kalamazoo to Gary) have one inch of snow cover or more 60-80 days per year.

3. Land use The corridor generally traverses an area of farms and small towns interspersed with highly developed urban land uses. In Michigan, approximately 75 percent of the route passes through agricultural or forest areas. The corridor has intensive urban development at both the Chicago and Detroit end points. For exampie, the 37 miles from Detroit to Ann Arbor and the 40 miles from Porter to Chicago are generally typified by residential, commercial and industrial land uses although significant open areas also exist. The Chicago end of the corridor passes through an industrial area containing much of the nation's steel manufacturing capacity. This area is served by a complex rail, water, and highway transportation system which could present significant engineering and cost complications for high speed services. The existing routes are, however, well engineered and the Chicago end of the corridor already operates at maximum speeds of 79 mph for much of the distance from Porter to . 4. Population Approximately 13 million persons reside in areas adjacent to the Detroit-Chicago corridor (see Table 1). Approximately 85 percent of these persons live in either Detroit or Chicago. This is the largest population base of any of the eight midwestern corridors identified in the High Speed Rail Compact Background Report prepared in May, 1984. 5 TABLE 1 DETROIT-CHICAGO CORRIDOR 1980 AND 2000 POPULATION

Urbani zed 1980 2000 Station Area SMSA 1/ SMSA 1/

Detroit 3,809,327 4,353,413 4,448,262 Ann Arbor 208,782 264,748 381,509 Jackson 81,178 151,495 162,823 Battle Creek 77,789 187,338 187,055 Ka 1 amazoo 154,990 279,192./ 329,0512/ Niles/ S. Bend 226,331 501,5472 532,121 Gary/Hammond 642,781 666,400 Chicago 6, 779,7993/ 7,103,624 7,892,856 Total 11,338,196 13,484,138 14,600,077

Notes: 11 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by U.S. Census. 2/ Includes Benton Harbor and South Bend SMSA's and · Cass County. 3/ Includes N.W. Indiana. Source: U.S. Census for 1980. Year 2000 forecasts based on county level projections developed by individual states.

Corridor population is expected to increase by 1.1 million persons by the year 2000. This represents about an 8 percent increase. However, the continued revitalization of the Michigan and midwestern economy could result in much higher rates of growth.

The corridor contains a relatively affluent population with auto ownership. and income levels higher than the midwestern or national average. It also contains a relatively large number of college and university students including those attending_ the at Ann Arbor and Western Michigan University at Kalamazoo.

6 B. Corridor History

1. Corporate history and development The roots of the existing Detroit-Chicago rail passenger corridor can be traced to the chartering of the Detroit and St. Joseph Railroad Company by the Territorial Legislature on June 29, 1832. This private company was purchased 'by the newly-admitted State of Michigan in 1837. The state, as part of its Internal Improvements Program, was responsible for construction and operation of three main rail routes across the southern part of Michigan. Rail service on the "Michigan Central'' line was initiated in February, 1838, when the first 28 miles were placed in operation between . Detroit and Ypsilanti. This railroad reached Ann Arbor in 1839, Jackson in 1842, Marshall in 1844, Kalamazoo in 1846, and Niles in 1848. Although the railroad earned an operating profit, state revenues from federal land sales and other sources were insufficient to cover debt services. As such, the railroad was sold in 1846 to the privately-held Michigan Central Railroad Company. It reached Chicago in 1852, utilizing trackage rights on the Central on the final 13 miles between Kensington, Illinois and Chicago, an arrangement which persisted until 1957 when all passenger operations shifted to New York Central trackage between Porter and Chicago.

In 1930, the New York Central acquired a 99-year. lease on the Michigan Central, which by then extended into and across southern to Buffalo/ Falls via the Detroit

7 River Tunnel. On February 1, 1968, the New York Central was merged with the Railroad to form the Penn Central Transporta­ tion Company. Following the Penn Central bankruptcy in 1970, and the subsequent Federal regional rail reorganization program, the Detroit-Kalamazoo and the Michigan City-Porter-Chicago segments were conveyed to Conrail on April 1, 1976. The Kalamazoo-Michigan City segment was acquired-by Amtrak on the same date. In 1980, Amtrak acquired the Michigan City-Porter trackage from Conrail.

While the entire line was once a vital freight and passenger route for Michigan Central and later New York Central with major yards at Detroit, Jackson and Niles, the freight function was downgraded between Jackson and Porter in 1957, when the Robert E. Young Yard at Elkhart was modernized and expanded, and most traffic to eastern ·Michigan was rerouted over the rebuilt Elkhart Branch to Jackson via and Tekonsha. During the mid-1960's and then in 1971, significant portions of the under-utilized Kalamazoo-Porter segment were single-tracked.

Since the advent of Conrail, a new operating strategy has evolved with most Michigan freight now moving .south from Detroit to Toledo and then west on the route to the Elkhart yard. Any Michigan traffic destined for the East Coast is routed via Toledo and to Buffalo, allowing Conrail recently to sell its former Michigan Central trackage in Ontario as well as the Tunnel to the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. While the old Michigan Central .main line west of Porter lost its passenger service in 1957, it remains a high tonnage freight route for Conrail, connecting Elkhart Yard with several important rail interchanges in northern Indiana and Illinois. 8 Today, the line in Michigan is largely devoid of overhead freight traffic. The freight operations that do survive involve originations and terminations at on-line automotive assembly plants in Wayne and Washtenaw counties, carloadings generated by the cereal industry at Battle Creek, and traffic destined to the Lansing area via Jackson.

2. Evolution of rail passenger service The Detroit-Chicago Amtrak corridor of today is thus the successor of the original Michigan Central Railroad route constructed between 1837 and 1852. Following the completion of the first segment of the route, Detroit to Ypsilanti, in the win.ter of 1837-38, the official inauguration of passenger service occurred on February 3, 1838, when a two-coach train traveled the 28-mile line in three hours. Despite periodic economic panics compounded by the State-financed construction program and State ownership of the line until 1846, Michigan Central passenger trains finally reached Chicago on May 21, 1852, running at a maximum speed of 18 miles per hour. By 1872, this maximum speed had been raised to 28 miles per hour. Travel times continued to improve as older iron rails were replaced by stronger, less brittle steel rails in the 1870's and 1880's, and as the entire Michigan Central main line was double-tracked early in the 20th Century. The route had developed by 1915 into a major passenger corridor with 13 scheduled trains in each direction weekdays between Detroit and Chicago with the fastest running time listed as six hours 21 minutes.

Further engineering advances including automatic block signals, heavier rail, and automatic train stop devices permitted additional

9 schedule improvements. In 1936, New York Central, the successor of Michigan Central, introduced a new streamlined morning train service between Chicago and Detroit, called the , which operated on 4 hour 45 minute schedule. Shortly afterwards, the railroad instituted a companion early evening service called The .

It should be observed that Detroit-Chicago local corridor service was only one of several functions of the Michigan Central/New York Central passenger line through Michigan. In 1941, for example, four of ten eastbound passenger trains were through trains via

Canada to , ~ and Buffalo, while another three were overnight trains. Thus, true corridor daytime freque~cies were similar to those existing today under Amtrak. Additionally, only six of the ten operated between Chicago and Detroit on a schedule of six hours or less. Of the nine westbound trains scheduled in 1941, three were through runs from the East Coast and another was an overnight Detroit-Chicago service while another two were slow multi-stop daytime locals.

Train frequencies and fastest scheduled running times for selected years reflect the gradual decline of passenger service and steady deterioration of running times from the "golden era" of New York Central passenger service (see Table 2). While best running times hovered around five hours from the mid-30's into the 60's, track co~aitions began to deteriorate and freight trains were given a higher dispatching priority during the mid-1960's. When the 80 mile per hour speed limit was reduced to 70 .mph east of Jackson and to 60 mph b.etween Jackson and Porter in the fall of 1967, a typical

10 five and a half hour running time was expanded to close to six hours. ·The capability for high speed service was further diminished in 1970 when Penn Central scrapped its automatic train stop system. Since the inception of Amtrak on May 1, 1971, scheduled times have been reduced by 25 minutes and frequencies increased.

The corridor has had one modern attempt to develop a high-speed service. Facing increased competition from air carriers and the emerging interstate highway system, the New York Central experi­ mented with a light weight "Aerotrain". Placed in service on

April 29, 1956, with a seating capacity for 320, it operated on a Detroit-Chicago non-stop schedule of 4 hours 20 minutes, or an average speed of 65.3 miles per hour. Due to poor ride characteristics, it was withdrawn from operation before publication of the fall 1956 timetable. Thus, the best consistent passenger service experienced in the corridor to date has been the Mercury/Twilight Limited service of the 1930's and 1940's with,a published 4 hour 45 minute timetable including six intermediate stops.

An analysis of the several Detroit-Chicago corridor timetables indicates that service has traditionally been furnished by all trains to all major cities along the route. At a minimum, stops at Ann Arbor, Jackson, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, Niles, and southside Chicago have been provided by even the fastest daytime trains. Thus, outstate Michigan has been accustomed to a level of service equal to that offered to the Detroit metropolitan area. The Aerotrain non-stop experiment is the only known exception to this observation.

11 TABLE 2 DETROIT-CHICAGO TRAIN FREQUENqES AND RUNNING TIMES 1915-85

Daily No. of Fastest5/ Trains Fastest Intermediate Average Year Railroad (Each Way) Schedule Stops Speed

1915 MC 13 6:21 ? 44.6 mph 1941 NYC 10 4:45 6 59.7 mph 1954 NYC 6 5:00 6 56.7 mph 19564/ NYC 6 4:20 0 65.3 mph

1956 NYC 6 5:10 7 54.9 mph 1960 NYC 5 5:05 8 54.9 mph 19671/ NYC 4 5:25 6 51.6 mph

19702/ PC 3 5:55 6 47.3 mph 19713/ AMTK 2 5:50 7 47.9 mph 1974 AMTK 2 5:45 5 48.6 mph (3 west of Battle Creek)

1985 AMTK 3 5:30 8 50.8 mph (4 west of Battle Creek)

Notes: 1/ Last timetable published with 80 mph passenger train speed 1i mit. 2/ Last Penn Central schedule in corridor. 3/ First Amtrak schedule in corridor. 4/ Aerotrain Experimental. Non-stop, withdrawn after less than six months. 5/ Fastest Average Speed calculated using 283.5 miles for years 1915-1956 (Central Station), 279.3 miles for years 1960 and 1967 (LaSalle St. Station), and 279.6 miles for 1970~1985 (Chicago Union Station). Source: The Official Railway Guide and public timetables.

12 For the purposes of this report, the Detroit-Chicago rail passenger corridor refers to the existing 280 mile Amtrak route via Jackson, Kalamazoo, and Niles. While this has traditionally been the dominant individual line within the overall corridor, three other routes physically exist. These have provided through service in the past, and were analyzed by Amtrak in 1970-1 when its nationaf route structure was developed. The most viable corridor alternative has been the Grand Trunk Western route via , Durand, Lansing, Battle Creek, and South Bend, a distance of 320 miles. This service in the past was usually coordinated with CN/GTW Toronto-Chicago international service, and consisted of two or three trains in each direction daily. High speed was not a prime attribute of the route. For example, in 1954, the best running time was 7· hours 10 mintues, or an average speed of 45 ·miles per hour. In the mid-1960's, the Grand Trunk improved running times and pursued an aggressive marketing campaign with moderate success. Twice daily service continued unt,il the advent of Amtrak on May 1, 1971.

The two other routes are the 336 mile Pere Marquette/ and line via , Lansing, Grand Rapids and Holland, and a combined Norfolk Southern-Conrail (Wabash/Pennsylvania) route via Adrian and , a distance of 294 miles. The Pere Marquette route did not provide through service and required a change of coaches at Grand Rapids. While a 1946 PM timetable shows two coordinated services daily in each direction between Chicago and Detroit, the fastest running time was 8 hours 15 minutes, or 41 miles per hour average speed. By 1954, such service had significantly deteriorated and could not be called coordinated.

13 C&O continued modest Chicago-Grand Rapids and Detroit-Grand Rapids passenger train service until May 1, 1971. The Wabash-Pennsylvania coordinated "Arrow" service was a short-lived attempt in the 1930's by the Pennsylvania to penetrate the Detroit passenger market, but it did not survive into the post-war era.

C. Existing Rail Services and Facilities 1. Rail passenger services Amtrak, legally known as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, was established by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970. Congress created Amtrak to relieve American railroads from the burden of operating an unprofitable intercity passenger service and to defuse the threat of the bankrupt Penn Centra·l, the nation's largest carrier, to abandon aH its passenger services. The private railroads financed Amtrak's start-up costs in exchange for being excused from their passenger common carrier obligations, and the Federal government agreed to subsidize future operating losses and capital needs, if necessary. Most intercity passenger service responsibilities were conveyed to Amtrak ·on May 1, 1971.

Outside of the , where Amtrak actually owns and operates the railroad, Amtrak normally with a freight railroad to operate its passenger trains over the freight railroad's tracks. Operating crews and dispatching services are supplied by the host railroad, which still owns, operates, and maintains the actual railroad. Amtrak provides the ,· rolling stock, fuel, onboard service attendants, station facilities, ticketing and reservations, and marketing functions.

14 Amtrak's contracts require a host railroad to maintain its right-of-way, tracks, and signals over a given line segment at the "level of utility" which existed when Amtrak began operations over that segment, usually May 1, 1971. For the Detroit-Chicago corridor, however, Conrail's level of utility obligation commenced on April 1, 1976, when that carrier assumed operations from Penn Central, and it is only required legally to maintain the line at the level inherited from Penn Central. The corridor is unique for the midwest in that the Kalamazoo-Porter segment (96 miles) is owned, operated, and maintained by Amtrak, although Conrail supplies the operating crews •

.. Amtrak currently operates three daily round trips between Detroit and Chicago (see Figure 2). These trains run on a 5:30 schedule at an average speed of about 51 mph. One of the three trains operates between Toledo, Detroit, and Chicago. This train provides connecting service at Toledo for persons traveling to and from New York City, Boston, and other eastern points. Two other Michigan Amtrak services utilize portions of the corridor; the Chicago-Toronto 'International' uses the corridor between Battle Creek and Chicago thus providing four daily round trips between Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, Niles, and Chicago. The Grand Rapids-Chicago 'Pere Marquette' also utilizes the Porter-Chicago segment as do several other Amtrak trains which use portions of the route into and out of Chicago Union Station.

Ridership on the three Detroit-Chicago trains has been relatively stable over the past ten years, generally ranging from 330-390,000

15 FIGURE 2

Rail Station • One Daily Round Trip 1811!illl811111 Three Daily Round Trips ...... Four Daily Round Trips Five Daily Round Trips

16 passengers annually. Service quality has varied somewhat over the years with on-time performance often suffering because of poor track conditions, track rehabilitation projects, conflicts with freight and other passenger trains, and signal problems. On-time reliability problems, an absence of improvement in terms of frequency or trave 1 times, the deteriorated condition of the Oetroi t Michigan Central Depot and a generally poor midwestern economy have resulted in a static ridership base. i I Several positive actions have been undertaken in recent years which should ameliorate some of the problems. These include upgrading of all existing stations except Detroit through combined state., city and Jlrntrak efforts. Intermodal facilities at Kalamazoo; Battle Creek, and Dowagiac are models of this and Jackson represents an example of the preservation and use of a historic structure for a rail passenger station. New stations have also been constructed at Hammond, Dearborn, and Ann Arbor. In addition, Amtrak has been steadily improving the Kalamazoo-Porter segment.

This program wi 11 be completed by September, 1985 when the entire 96 miles will consist of continuous welded rail (CWR) capable of 79 mph speeds. Approximately $35 million has been expended on this segment for rai 1, grade crossing, and signal improvements. Jlrntrak is also undertaking a major marketing effort in the spring and summer of 1985 which focuses on a new peak/off-peak fare structure.

Five stations in the corridor generate over 100 passenger boardings a day. These stations account for 83 percent of all passengers in the corridor. It is interesting to note that the Detroit end of the corridor originates more passengers than the

17 Chicago end when the three Detroit area stations of Detroit, Dearborn, and Ann Arbor are considered. Station boardings are shown below. 1984 Average Daily Station Passenger Boardings Chicago 315 Ann Arbor 142 Detroit 123 Dearborn 108 Kalamazoo 104 Batt 1e Creek 46 Niles 35 Jackson 31 Toledo 28 All others 29

2. Rail freight services freight operations in the Detroit-Chicago corridor, in terms of

both frequency and tonnage, are relatively 1 ight except for the western segment beyond Porter, Indiana.

a. Detroit-Kalamazoo A daily average of eight local and through freight trains are operated between Detroit and Jackson while from Jackson to Kalamazoo, the frequency drops to six trains daily. The through trains diverge from the corridor at Kalamazoo and operate south to Robert E. Young Yard at Elkhart, Indiana. This frequency does not cause major problems on this double track route and additional passenger train frequencies could be accomodated. Further, the . relatively light freight densities (below 10 million gross tons annually) would not seriously degrade any improvements or cause major maintenance problems for high speed services. A pending issue is the desire of Conrail to eliminate one of two mainline tracks. They feel that a single track line would be adequate to

18 handle existing passenger and freight train operations and that improvement funding could be expended more effectively on only one track. Resolution of this will likely depend on the pending sale of Conrail either through a public offering or to the Norfolk Southern (NS). Sale of Conrail toNS, including conditions to divest lines for competitive reasons and to protect regional railroads, could impact this segment and freight traffic could significantly increase or decrease. b. Kalamazoo-Porter This segment experiences very light freight traffic densities with only local trains serving local industries. There is no overhead traffic. Freight service is provided by Conrail under a traffic rights agreement with Amtrak. Between Kalamazoo and Michigan City less than 1.0 million gross tons annually is handled while between Michigan City and Porter the figure rises to 2.2 million gross tons annually. Freight operations are infrequent: a Burns Harbor-Porter-Niles local turn operates three times weekly while a Kalamazoo-Niles local turn operates twice weekly (this Kalamazoo based crew also functions as a Jackson turn thrice weekly). Despite their infrequent operations, these locals in 1984-85 were being scheduled at daylight hours and were causing some delays to passenger trains on the mostly single-track railroad. c. Porter-Chicago The western 40 miles of the corridor experiences heavy densities, especially between Porter and Pine (Gary), where Chesapeake and Ohio trains utilize trackage rights. Up to 51 freight trains and 12 passenger trains daily operate over this territory, which serves as Conrail's principal access from 19 Elkhart to the strategic Chicago and Streator gateways with the western transcontinental carriers. Conrail tonnage reaches 45-50 million gross tons per mile while C&O train movements generate approximately 14 million gross tons annually. Without sophisticated dispatching procedures, this double track segment could experience some freight train interference, particularly near Pine, Indiana Harbor, and Englewood. The contemplated sale of Conrail to Norfolk Southern would likely increase the train frequencies and tonnage operating over this segment.

3. Rail physical plant The existing Detroit-Chicago corridor may be subdivided into three distinct segments. Each has unique physical, ownership, and operating characteristics (see Figure 3).

FIGURE 3

SELECTED CHARACT!RISTICS OF DETROIT-CHICAGO ~AILROAO, 1985

O'Wnership Conrat 1 Amtrak Conra i 1 Conrail I' I' 'I I' 'I I I Maxi mum Speed 79 mph 79 mph I so mph I 70 mph I I I I I I Number of Tracks I Double + I Single I Double I Ooubl e I I I I I I I I Rail Type C>/R CWR I Bolted I Bo I ted I I I I I I I I Oai ly Trains 50f'/10P 1F/SP I 8F/6P I 8F/SP I I I I I I ill ill ill Station(.} CHI' HMI PTR ' MCI• NLS• OOA• ' KAl' BTl uXN' CER• oer Milepost 280 204 241 228 191 ... • • 179 •143 120 75• 37 7 •0 I' 'I 'I I I I I lltstanc:a I 3§ 1111111es ! 918 miles I 10€1 miles 37 miles I ' ' '

a. Detroit-Kalamazoo This 145 mile segment is owned, maintained, and operated by Conrail and consists of a double track mainline generally

20 maintained for 70 mph passenger train speeds between Detroit and Jackson and 60 mph between Jackson and Kalamazoo (see Figure 4). From 6-8 freight trains per day use this line, carrying about 9 mgt annually and operating at a maximum speed of 50 mph. Track conditions are fair with deterioration and slow orders beginning to cause problems. Ride quality has been described by Amtrak as choppy. The rail is 127 pound jointed rail generally laid during the 1940's. Most of the line was tied and surfaced in the late 1970's and early 1980's. There is virtually no.welded rail. This rail has experienced several hundred million gross tons (mgt) and the entire line is in need of major work including new continuous welded rail (CWR) if higher speed services are to be considered. The portion of this line from Ypsilanti to Chelsea has many curves which would require realignment for very high speed services. Significant curves also occur between Chelsea and Kalamazoo. The Detroit­ Wayne segment utilizes a centralized track control system while the trackage west of Wayne is protected by an older automatic block signal system with each train track signalled in one direction. Through downtown Battle Creek, Amtrak and Conrail trains operate over the mainnne of the Grand Trunk Western under a recent rail consolidation project. This entire segment contains no drawbridges and only four at-grade crossings with other railroads. In general, this route offers good access into the Detroit terminal with few areas of freight train congestion or severe gr.ade crossing problems in the metropolitan area. The 1.4 mile segment between Michigan Central Depot and the new Station will require new construction by both SEMTA and Amtrak. This may occur by 1986.

21 FIGURE 4

DETROIT - CHICAGO CORRIDOR·. t.X!ST!NG TRACK

~--(MP 1.4) DETR01T ·· MC DEPOT (MP 1.4) CP 20th St. West Detroit TW/CR Town line DEARBORN (i'

Conrai 1 ANN ARBOR ( MP 37) (Owner)

• JACKSON (MP 75) Jackson

BATTLE CREEK (MP 120) (MP 119) Grand Trunk Battle Creek (Owner) (MP 121) Bend

BO Tower CR Conra i 1 (t~P 143) (Ownet•) CR KALAMAZOO

Oshtemo (MP 145) Lawton Dowagiac Ni 1es East NILES (MP 192)

Amtrak (Owner)

Three Oaks

Michigan City 10th Porter (MP 241)

Pine tndiana Harbor Canal Hick Drawbridge Conrail (Owner) ./CR To Ft. Wayne

Whiting ·t h'-tt &OCT HAMMOND (MP 265) River • Drawbridge r- Englewood TA

Alton Jet. !CG S. Branch of (MP 279) orawbri dge Amtrak (Owner) 0 CHICAGO UNION STATION (::P 286) (NOT TO SCALE I

22 b. Kalamazoo-Porter This 96 mile segment is owned; operated, and maintained by Amtrak. It represents the only significant railroad line owned by Amtrak outside of the Boston-New York- corridor. The line is single track, with five passing sidings and centralized track control. By summer of 1985, the entire line will consist of 127 pound CWR constructed to FRA class 6 (110 mph) standards. The absence of c·ab signal capabi 1ity currently limits maximum speeds to 79 mph. There are very few non-tangent track segments and most public grade crossings are protected with flashers and gates. Only limited local freight service is operated by Conrail under a trackage rights agreement, and only two at-grade crossings·with other railroads exist (both at Michigan City). A drawbridge over Trail Creek at Michigan City is a possible source of interference on this line. Amtrak dispatches trains on the Kalamazoo-Porter segment from Drawbridge Tower at this location. Approximately $35 million has been expended by Amtrak on'this line in recent years. It is an excellent railroad easily capable of higher speeds if signal and other improvements are made. c. Porter-Chicago This 40 mile segment is a multi-track freight and passenger mainline owned, maintained and operated by Conrail with Amtrak ownership and operation only in the immediate vicinity of Chicago Union Station. Most of the route is controlled by TCS,with CWR predominant and extensive rehabilitation undertaken by Conrail since 1976. The segment contains few

23 grade crossings. There is only one grade crossing in Illinois, and most of the line in the Chicago area is located on a viaduct. Except for a s•19' curve at Englewood and the Wye connection at Porter, curvature is moderate with long tangents. This permits a maximum passenger train speed of 79 mph for approximately half of the route, and authorized speeds of 70 mph or better for 32 of the 39 miles. Several movable drawbridges (Indiana Harbor Canal, Calumet River, and South Branch of the Chicago River) pose potential sources of train delays. In addition, five at-grade railroad crossings are encountered, with the most significant being the RTA (Rock Island) commuter line at Englewood. Between Porter and Pine (16 miles), Chesapeake and Ohio freight trains operate under a trackage rights agreement. Considerable congestion is experienced in the final 1.7 miles entering Chicago Union Station due to RTA commuter operations and Amtrak yard facilities. In general, the Porter-Chicago segment is a well-maintained, multi-use railroad with a heavy emphasis upon efficient freight and intermodal traffic interchange at Chicago.

In considering this line for higher speed service, one must recognize that much of the line from Ypsilanti to Kalamazoo follows the Huron, Kalamazoo, and other rivers and contains many curves which will severely restrict high speed operations. For example, there are 95 curves in this 117 mile segment in excess of 1"00' (see Table 3). This is the maximum curvature which can be taken at 110 mph with 6 inches of superelevation and 3'' unbalance. A 2" curve is limited to 80 mph and a 3" curve to

24 TABLE 3 NUMBER OF CURVES IN DETROIT-CHICAGO CORRIDOR BY DEGREE OF CURVATURE AND SEGMENT, 1985

Detroit- Kalamazoo (MP145)- Porter- Degree of-l/2/ Kalamazoo (MP145) Porter Chicago (46th St. )3/ Curvature (Conrail-owned) (Amtrak-owned) (Conrail-owned) Tot a 1

Less than 1'00' 28 15 11 54 1'00' - 1'59' 64 12 4 80 2'00' - 2'59' 33 7 6 46 3'00' and Above 7 2 7 16

Total 132 36 28 196

Notes: 1/ Compound curves listed under sharpest degree of curvature. 2/ Reverse curves listed as two separate curves. 3/ No curve data available north of 46th St. in Chicago. Source: Conrail, Maintenance Programmed Track Charts for Western Region (Chicago Division), Western Region (Michigan Division), and Western Region (Detroit Division).

25 Degree .Maximum Curvature Speed

1 '00 1 110 mph 1 '30 I 93 mph 2'00 1 80 mph 2'30 1 72 mph 3'00 1 65 mph 3'30 I 61 mph 4'00 1 57 mph 65 mph. The practical effect of this is that virtually the entire line between Ypsilanti and Kalamazoo would have to be relocated if sustained speeds in excess of 90 mph are to be provided. 4. Railroad grade crossings A major issue associated with high speed rail improvement projects involves the treatment of at-grade railroad/highway crossings. There are currently 380 grade crossings in tbe corridor, 263 public (two pedestrians only) and 117 private (see Table 4). w/o Gated Gates Total

Public Crossings 172 91 263 Private Crossings 3 114 117 Total 175 205 380

Approximately two-thirds of the public crossings are gated at present with additional gates to be installed during the 1985 construction season. Michigan standards for grade crossings requires that crossings have gates when train speeds exceed 70 mph and that automatic warning devices be activated at least 20 seconds before the arrival of the train into the crossing area. Most of the crossings without gates are located between Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo (66 of the 89 public crossings without gates are in this segment). Of these non-gated public crossings, 38 have no

26 TABLE 4

NUMBER Of GRAD£ CROSSINGS IN !HE D£ TROI I-CHICAGO Rl\ll PASSENGER SERVICE CORRIDOR

DE!ROII-ANN ARBOR ANN ARBOR-KALAMAZOO KALAMAZOO-PORTER PORTER-CHICAGO !DIAL (38.4 miles) (108. 7 miles) (93.6 miles) (39.3 miles) (280.0 miles)

With W/0 With W/0 With W/0 With W/0 With W/0 Categor~ Gates Gates 1 otal Gates Gate$ Total Gates Gates Total Gates Gates l otal Gates Gates l otal

Pub} ic 28 2 30 70 66 136 67 19 86 9 0 9 172 89 261

Private 0 4 4 77 78 0 31 31 2 2 4 3 114 117

farm 0 0 0 0 44 44 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 66 66 Residential 0 0 0 0 23 23 0 6' 6 0 0 0 0 29 29 Industr-ial 0 4 4 1 10 11 0 2 2 2 2 4 3 18 21 Recreational 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

Pedestrian Only 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 ..__,N Iota! 28 6 36 71 143 214 67 50 117 11 2 13 175 205 J8o1/

Notes: 1/ Of the 380 grade crossings, 337 are located in Michigan, 42 in Indiana, and·one in Illinois.

Source: MJOT ,-Bureau of Transportation Planning, Intercity Transportation Pl ann.ing Oi vision~ automatic warning devices at all. Twenty-three are located between Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo and fifteen between Kalamazoo and Porter.

Private crossings serve farms, homes, and industrial plants. They are usually without stop signs, crossbucks, or any other kind of protection or warning device. In addition, trains are not required to sound their horns or otherwise provide warning. The roadways leading to such pr.ivate crossings are owned and maintained by the adjacent property owners, but the actual grade crossings are maintained by the railroad. While in Michigan, a railroad is obligated to provide access to land-locked farm lands at its own expense, other types of private crossings are created by voluntary agreement with the· property owners responsible for all maintenance and insurance expenses incurred by th.e railroad. Vehicular usage of private crossings varies considerably from infrequent use of farm crossings, moderate use for residential properties and heavier use where commercial or industrial establishments have their only access over the line.

It would be desirable to reduce these crossings through outright purchase of the easement, by constructing access roads or by consolidating several property crossing points at a single location. These solutions may be considerably cheaper than providing grade crossing· protection devices ($80,000 for flashers with gates) or grade separations ($600,000+).

The entire issue of grade crossings must be considered if the existing alignment is to be used for higher speed services.

28 There are no legal requirements governing this issue. New York State operates trains at 110 mph with gates and some European countries operate up to 125 mph or more with gates. However, European gate systems provide a more secure closure (i.e. one cannot run under or around gates) and there is safety space inside the right-of-way if a vehicle is trapped after the gates are down.

As a general statement, all new line construction for high speed operations should provide for grade separations. Existing crossings should gradually be eliminated by closures, roadway consolidations, and grade separations. This results in obvious safety benefits as well as a significant reduction of crossing and signal maintenance costs. The desirability of moving toward a goal of no at-grade crossings should not, however, preclude proceeding with improvement programs which continue to use conventional gates and other protection devices.

Elimination of all existing crossings would involve separating approximately 189 public, seven private, and two pedestrian crossings. In addition, some 72 public and 110 private crossings would be closed. Private crossing closures may involve purchasing the easement rights of the involved property owners, providing access roads, initiating legal action to close unauthorized crossings, or outright purchasing of affected properties. The total cost of eliminating all grade crossings between Detroit and Chicago is estimated at $169 million.

29

III. SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND COSTS A variety of corridor improvement alternatives were considered. These ranged from relatively low cost improvements to the existing track structure to higher speed 160 mph rail and 250 mph magnetic levitation systems. Costs and travel time estimates were developed for each alternative. An in-house model considering existing and future engineering features, train acceleration/deceleration rates, and other criteria was used to estimate the travel times.

Alternative costing is grouped into two major categories: (1) track and right of way costs, and (2) station, rolling stock, and maintenance facility costs. The first category represents a fixed cost and, for tbis report, are assumed not to vary wi.th the train frequencies utilized. Obviously, higher frequencies beyond those shown could result in schedule delays and the resultant need for capital expendi­ tures for capacity improvements. The second category, particularly rolling stock costs, is a variable cost closely related to train frequencies. A. Track and Right-of-Way Costs The process involved a number of engineering or other judgments for each alternative which significantly impact costs and travel times.

It is important to emphasize that the alternatives, although described in terms of mph (e.g. 90 mph alternative), do not mean that the entire corridor would operate at that speed. Locally imposed speed restrictions, curves which limit speed, areas where speeds must be reduced (e.g. certain junctions, bridges or crossings with other railroads) may mean that a significant

31 portion of a corridor is operated at less than the maximum speed which describes the alternative. A decision to operate a longer portion of the route at the maximum speed implies significantly higher costs. For example, the cost to eliminate 10 miles of curve restrictions to allow 90 mph running between Ypsilanti and Chelsea would be prohibitive in the context of the 90 mph alternative. There would be only a modest time saving for a huge expenditure. In general, decisions were based upon what appeared 'reasonable' for a particular alternative. The percentage of each alternative which operates at the maximum speed is shown­ in the appendices.

The issue of grade crossings is another example where considerable judgment is involved. There are few legal or engineering require­ ments which provide guidance on this issue beyond the need for gates at all public crossings where speeds exceed 70 mph. Trains are operated in New York State at 110 mph and Great Britain operations of 125 mph or more with gates are common. Again, judgmental decisions were made for each alternative. It must be emphasized that other assumptions could be made which would significantly increase or decrease the cost of each alternative.

A set of unit costs was utilized in the costing process. These were derived from various reports dealing with conventional or high speed rail projects. Other costs were obtained from discussions with Amtrak engineers or from sources within the Michigan Department of Transportation. The reliability of the

32 cost estimates is most accurate for the lower speed alternatives and least accurate for the higher speeds. This is due to the fact that conventional rail construction is commonplace and costs are well documented. Both Amtrak and other railroads have considerable experience in rehabilitation and/or upgrading of conventional rail facilities. An indication of this is that independentJy developed cost estimates from Amtrak correspond very closely to the costs contained in this report for the 79 mph option. The costs for the higher speed options were developed through use of·a unit cost per track mile approach. A review of numerous studies for high speed, very high speed, and super speed systems was undertaken (see Appendix B). This resulted in the following unit costs. Cost Per System Type Track Mile 125 mph $1.6 mill ion 150-160 mph $4.4 million 200-250 mph $7. 3 mi 11 ion Track and right-of-way costs range from $79.5 mill ion for the 79 mph alternative to $2.6 billion for the 250 mph magnetic levitation system (see Table 5).

B. Stations, Maintenance Facilities, and Rolling Stock Costs All but two alternatives, 150 mph and 250 mph, assume use of existing stations except in Detroit where it is assumed that the proposed would be used (see Appendix D). Other existing stations would be upgraded to provide increased parking facilities and other improvements. In addition, high level platforms would be provided for the 90 mph and higher speed alternatives. New stations at new locations are assumed for the 160 mph and 250 mph alternative . . 33 TABLE 5

COST SUMMARY FOR RAIL PASSENGER SPEEDS 79 THROUGH 250 MPH (IN MILLIONS OF 1985 $)

A B c 1/ 0 1/ E 2/ F 2/ G 2/ H 79 mph 79 mph 90 mph 110 mph 11.0 mph 125 mph 160 mph 250 mph (Single (Double (w/cab­ (Low (Moderate (High (Very High (Super Item Track) Track) signals) Realign) Realign) Speed) Speed) Speed)

Track and Roadbed $49. 1 $67.0 $70.0 $86,3 $126.8 $576.0 $1,584.0 $2,628.0 Construction

Passing Tracks 9.4 4.6 4.8 4.8 9.8

Signals and 9.7 5.6' 20.6 20.6 19.6 Communication

Fencing 0 . .0 0.0 3.9 4.6 4' 1 Grade Crossings 4. 1 4. 1 4.3 13.4 21.3

Engineering and 7.2 a. 1 10.4 13.0 18.2 Contingency (10%)

Total $79.5 $89.4 $114.0 $142.7 $199.8 $576.0 $1,584.0 $2,628.0

Stations $7.0 $7.0 $14.0 $19.0 $19,0 $20.0 $40.0 $60.0

Maintenance 6.0 6.0 7.0 10.0 10,0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Facilities 3/

Rolling Stock 3/ 46.5 46.5 63.9 85.2 85.2 103.0 126. 1 150.0

Engineering and 6.0 6.0 8.5 11.4 11.4 13.3 17.6 22.0 Contingency {10%)

Total 3/ $65.5 $65,5 $93.4 $125.6 $125.6 $146.3 $193.7 $242.0

Grand Total $145.0 $154.9 $207.4 $268.3 $325.4 $722.3 $1,777.7 $2,870.0

Sample Service 6 6 a 12 12 12 12 24 Frequency

Travel Time 5:00 4:45 4:20 4:05 3:50 3:30 2:40 1:40 (Hours:minutes)

Notes: 1/ Route relocation costs were computed using a unit cost of $1.5 million per track mile and distributed among the cost items for alternatives D and E.

2/ Unit costs of $1.6 million, $4.4 million, and $7.3 million per track mile were used to derive the costs for alternatives F. G, and H respectively.

3/ Maintenance facilities and rolling stock costs vary with service frequency. The costs shown are for the frequencies indicated. Source: MOOT, Bureau· of Transportation Planning, Intercity Transportation Planning Division.

34 Alternatives assume a variable number of five or six car train sets with sufficient passenger capacity to meet expected

I passenger loads. Average ridership is expected to be in the 200-300 passenger per trip range. A twenty percent car reserve is also provided for maintenance and/or higher demand periods. Costs for locomotives are also included. The number of train sets varies with train frequency and speeds. As speeds increase, additional daily trips can be provided with a given set of equipment. Maintenance facility requirements vary with the number of train sets.

C. Alternatives A total of seven alternatives were developed ranging from a 79 mph system to a 250 mph magnetic levitation system. Detailed descriptions of each·alternative are contained in Appendix C.

1. Alternatives A, B, & C == 79 mph and 90 mph These alternatives represent improvements to the existing corridor infrastructure to allow maximum speeds of 79 mph (A & B) and 90 mph (C). Alternative A is essentially a single track railroad with passing sidings and will allow 5:00 scheduled service versus 5:30 at present. Most of the improvements involve upgrading line speeds from Detroit to Kalamazoo. Alternatives B & C assume a combination of single and double track railroad. The double track segments facilitate train meets and reduce delays resulting in a 4:45 minute

schedule (B) and 4:20 ·~chedule (C). This represents a 45 minute reduction and a 1:10 reduction from existing schedules. Cab-signals would be provided in the 90 mph alternative to comply with FRA requirements. 35 Costs for these alternatives range from $80 to $114 million for track and right-of-way construction. An additional $65.5-$93.4 million is needed for stations, rolling stock, and maintenance facilities. These alternatives could possibly be undertaken in conjunction with Amtrak and could use their Chicago maintenance facility and locomotives and other rolling stock already in their fleet. This approach could reduce variable costs. These alternatives also offer the possibility of.a joint undertaking with SEMTA, Conrail (or its successor) and Amtrak. For example, SEMTA has plans for an Ann Arbor­ Detroit commuter service and is proceeding with the development of track and station work into Joe Louis Arena. Further, Conrail has a legal "level of utility" obligation to maintain track at speeds in effect on April 1, 1976. This is generally 70 mph between Detroit and Jackson and 60 mph between Jackson and Kalamazoo. The possibility of single tracking portions of this double track route would allow rehabilitation funds to be used to develop a higher speed single track line. In surrmary, the possibility of a jointly-funded improvement program exists which would provide benefits to all affected parties.

2. Alternatives 0 & E == 110 mph These alternatives consist of upgrading the existing route to allow maximum speeds of 110 mph in 45 percent of the corridor (D) and 51 percent of the corridor (E). Approximately 12 restrictive curves are eliminated in alternative (D) whereas alternative E involves relocation of approximately 47 miles of line between Ann Arbpr and Kalamazoo. This area has some of the

36 most restrictive curves on the entire corridor. These alternatives

result in 4:05 (D) and 3:50 (E) schedules for six stop service. Key features include: ocombination single and double track CWR railroad obi-directional CTC with cab signals ~90 mph speeds Porter to Chicago · orelocation of 47 miles for alternative D ~fencing in built up areas where speeds exceed 90 mph ®elimination of all public and private crossings when speeds exceed 90 mph and ADT exceeds 2500 (E) or 5000 (D) Alternative D costs $142.7 million for track and right-of-way costs and $125.6 in variable costs for a total of $268.3 million. Alternative E costs $197.8 million and 125.6 million for a total

of $325:4 million.

3. Alternative F == 125 mph This alternative represents the first true "high speed'' rail system although rail Infrastructure and rolling stock character- istics may be fairly conventional. This alternative is referred to as "high speed" as the high speed rail community generally considers 125 mph to represent the demarcation point between conventional and high speed systems. These systems are typified by Amtrak services (120 mph) services in the U.S. Northeast Corridor and British HST services. Canadian LRC equipment is designed for this category of service. These systems usually involve existing rail rights-of­ way upgraded to permit higher speeds. Use of this right-of-way with some freight and conventional passenger services is common and diesel or electric motive power may be used.

Alternative F represents an example of this type of high speed service. A new single track with long double track segments is proposed which would use the existing rail right-of-way whenever

37 feasible. Areas with severe curvature problems would require relocation. This alternative differs from previous alternatives

in that it provides an all new track in'frastructure and signal system specifically designed for 125 mph operation. Previous alternatives represented evolutionary changes and improvements which built upon existing track and signal structures. This alternative is capitalized at a level sufficient to construct a very reliable, high quality system. Key features include:

~ single track CWR railroad with long double track segments • bi-directional CTC with cab-signals • use of existing right-of-way where possible s'relocation where restrctive curves or other conditions warrant ~fencing in all built up areas • elimination of most at-grade crossings This alternative would allow a 3:30 scheduled time for six stop service and would cost a total of $722.3 million. This includes $576.0 million for track and right-of-way costs, and $146.3 in variable costs for stations, rolling stock and mainten- ance facilities.

4. Alternative G -- 160 mph This category is typified by the Japanese and the French TGV systems. Both are designed to operate in the 160 mph range although only the French system routinely operates at this speed. These systems operate on dedicated passenger rights-of-way which were built on new alignments. Electric propulsion involving overhead catenary lines are used.

Alternative G consists of a new single track railroad with long double track segments to facilitate passing. Most of the railroad would be constructed on new right-of-way, either through open 38 country or in the I-94 freeway right-_of-\'lay. Existing rail rights-of-way would probably be used to gain access to the Detroit and Chicago stations. New alignments would allow places like Benton Harbor or South Bend and Detroit Metropolitan Airport to be served (see Appendix D). Key features include: ~ ~ew single track railroad with long ·double track segments e use of new rights-of-way except in urban areas • complete fencing ~ no at-grade highway crossings ~ all new stations • electrification This alternative would allow a 2:40 travel time for six stop service. This is an average speed of 105 mph. A non-stop express could make the run in slightly over 2 hours. Cost of this alter- native would be $1.8 billion with $1.6 billion for track and right-of-way improvements and $200 million for variable costs relating to rolling stock, stations, and maintenance facilities.

5. Alternative H == 250 mph The Japanese and Germans are developing magnetic levitation systems capable of 250 mph speeds. The levitation feature causes the vehicle to travel a small distance above the guideway system with no physical contact. A linear induction electric motor propels the vehicle. Trains of up to four cars carrying 400 passengers ·are contemplated with average end point to end point speeds of 200 mph being typical. These systems are expected to be in the developmental stage for the next several years pending results of extensive full scale prototype testing in West Germany and in Japan. Construction costs are expected to be somewhat higher than for very high speed rail systemms. However,

39 ongoing operating and maint~nance costs are expected to be lower than for conventional steel wheel/steel rail systems. The principal advantage associated with these systems is that higher speeds and reduced travel times will dramatically increase passenger loads. This in turn increases revenues and the financial viability of a project. systems represent an unproven entity both in terms of actual construction ·costs and operating viability.

Alternative H anticipates the construction of a 250 mph magnetic levitation system between Detroit and Chicago. This alternative consists of a single guideway with passing sections. Existing rail or highway right-of-way, as well as new rights-of-way through open country, would be used as appropriate. New alignments would allow places like Benton Harbor, South Bend or Detroit Metropolitan Airport to be served (see Appendix D).

This alternative would allow 1:40 travel time for six stop service between Detroit and Chicago. This is an average of 168 mph. A non-stop express could make the trip in 1:11. The cost of this alternative is $2.9 billion with $2.6 billion for right-of-way construction and $300 mill ion for variable costs associated with rolling stock, station and maintenance facilities.

D. System Development Issues 1. Travel time A principal goal of a capital investment program for the corridor

is to improve travel times~ This, in turn, makes the corridor more attractive to a larger segment of the total travel market which directly translates into increased revenues and improved

40 financial viability. The existing Amtrak service operates on a 5:30 travel time schedule resulting in a 51 mph average speed.

Travel time savings become increasingly more expensive as one proceeds through the alternatives. The cost to reduce travel times by one hour from the existing Amtrak schedule is approxi­ mately $200 million. The second hour saved costs about $500 million, and the third hour saved costs about $2.0 billion (see Table 5 and Figure 5).

FIGURE 5 CAPITAL COST AND TRAVEL TIM£ COMPARISON 3000 ~ VARIABLE CAPITAL COST

~ <1'1 11m FIXED CAPITAL COST 0: ..J"' 1'1-H ALTERNATIVE ..J 0 Q

U'l "' 2000 ..."' G 1.1. 0 "':z:: ...0 _, ... 1000 ...:z:"' ~ ...(j) (}) 0 '-'

0 a:oe 1 HHJ TRAVEL TIME (HRS:MJN)

It will be difficult for improved rail services to compete with Detroit-Chicago air travel times even when allowing for access times to and from the airport. However, Kalamazoo-Chicago rail travel times for all alternatives are similar to, or 41 significantly better than, air. All rail alternatives are faster than either the automobile or intercity bus (see Table 6 and Appendix A). It is important to note that rail can still effectively compete with air for Detroit-Chicago Total Elapsed Time 1/ Detroit­ Ka 1 am a zoo Mode Chicago Chicago Air 2:45 2:20 79 mph rail 5:10 2:48 90 mph rail 4:55 2:38 125 mph rail 3:55 2:08 160 mph rail 3:05. 1:48 250 mph rail 2:05 1:18 Auto 5:16 2:40 Intercity bus 7:00 3:45 11 Includes access time, wait time, and travel time for downtown to downtown trip. passengers because it can provide more useful time for the traveller to sleep, read, or conduct business. The air trip is broken into small, generally unuseable, time segments which inhibit these activities. The rail mode can also offer other advantages which tend to offset the time issue for the Detroit-Chicago trip. First, it can offer more schedule reliability during adverse weather situations. Second, it can provide a higher degree of comfort and has the capability of providing a premium class service for business and other travellers. Third, the fare structure can be expected to be significantly lower than that for air.

42 TABLE 6 DETROIT-CHICAGO "TRAVEL TIMES AND SPEEDS BY ALTERNATIVE

6-Stop 6-Stop Non-Stop Maximum Actual Running Time Schedule Average Average Alternative Speed Non-Stop 3-Stops 6-St(JpS Time Speed Speed

A 79 mph 4:191/ 4:3o1/ 4:401/ 5:00 56 mph 65 mph

B 79 mph 4:061/ 4:181/ 4:2811 4:45 59 mph 69 mph

c 90 mph 3:441/ 3:561/ 4:0611 4:20 65 mph 75 mph

0 110 mph 3:2311 3:351/ 3:461/ 4:05 69 mph 83 mph 110 mph 3:141/ 3:261/ 3:361/ 72 mph2/ """w E 3:50 86 mph F 125 mph 2:51 3:03 3:15 3:30 79 mph2/ 97 mph G 160 mph 2:06 2:18 2:30 2:40 104 mph2/ 132 mph

H 250 mph 1:15 1:25 1:35 1:40 166 mph2 222 mph

Notes: 1/ Model run. Other.s estimated. 2/ Assumes 277 miles. Source: MOOT, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Intercity Transportation Planning Division. 2. Airport Connections Corridor connections to la\ge airports such as Detroit Metropolitan or Chicago O'Hare would significantly increase corridor ridership.

These airports handle an enormous number of passengers ~­ approximately 30,000 persons per day enplane and deplane at Detroit Metro while over 110,000 persons per day enplane and deplane at Chicago O'Hare. A corridor which started in , served Metro Airport, intermediate cities, downtown Chicago and O'Hare Airport.would be very attractive. Chicago O'Hare would be difficult and expensive to serve and such a plan could probably not be implemented for many years. However, this should be considered in long range planning. For the near term, better connections with the link between Chicago Union Station and O'Hare Airport should be developed.

Service to Detroit Metro Airport could be accomplished in several different ways. One approach would be to use the Norfolk and Western Railroad line from downtown to the airport area (see Figure 6 and Appendix D). This route passes by the airport entrance but is still about one mile from the terminal buildings. A shuttle bus or could be utilized to transfer passengers from the train station to the airport terminal. The disadvantage of the N&W route is that a connection back to the Conrail line would be expensive and time consuming. The use of the north-south C&O right-of-way is a possible way to accomplish this but engineering problems exist due to two right-angle turns which would severely reduce speeds.

44 I ~ I FIGURE 6 DETROIT-ANN ARBOR AlTERNATIVE ROUTES

Existing Alternate A --- Alternate 8 ---l'll!ll!liiD.SUIIlil Alternate c Existing Station 0• Potential Station ...... Possible Peoplemover The cost and trav~l time disadvantages of this option would have to be compared to the extra passenger revenue generated. The Metro Airport alternative functions best with a relocation of the entire route south of Ann Arbor. This would also have the advantage of bypassing the restrictive curves between Ypsilanti and Battle Creek.

The second approach to serving the Detroit Metro Airport would be to provide a bus or people mover shuttle between the airport terminals and a new station site on the existing Amtrak route. The distance is about four miles and the shuttle could also serve the long term airport parking lots located north of I-94. Service to other existing or new airports along the route may also be possible.

3. Electrification Electrification of the railroad offers certain advantages in terms of reduced fuel costs, lower engine maintenance costs, better acceleration and motive power characteristics, and higher speeds. Conversely, these advanatages must be considered in the context of high front end capital costs and high catenary maintenance costs. Installation costs range from $300,000-400,000 per track mile resulting in $105-140 million for electrification of the Detroit-Chicago corridor. Only the 160 mph alternative is assumed to have a conventional rail electrification system. The 250 mph magnetic levitation system utilizes electricity as an essential component.

46 The decision to electrify is essentially related to frequency. It is necessary to have a relatively high density of tr·affic so that its operating efficiencies are sufficient to offset intial capital and on-going maintenance costs. A minimum of 10 round trips per day would probably be necessary before serious consideration of electrification should occur. Conventional diesel-electric locomo­ tives offer ample speed and power up to about 125 mph. Amtrak locomotives have special gearing allowing 110 mph running, and other locomotives such as the Bombarier LRC and the British HST are designed for 125 mph or more operating speeds.

'I

47

IV. EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAVEL Existing and future person travel in the corridor is the basic parameter around which new rail passenger services must be planned. The propensity to use new services will be dependent on specific price, travel time, user conveniences, and other attributes of the rail system compared to alternative modes such as plane, auto, and bus. Ridership on the corridor can be enhanced by the provision of feeder and connecting services to and from off-corridor locations. Further, improved service can be expected to induce new travel. A longer term issue is the effect that improved systems will have on land development and economic development, which can generate increased travel demand.

A. Existing Travel in the Corridor In 1980, the Detroit-Chicago travel market consisted of 24,100 person trips per day, between 17 city pairs, which were over 50 miles in length (see Table 7). It is assumed that this represents the principal market for improved rail passenger services. Trips less than 50 miles in length offer some potential but access times involved in getting to and from the station as well as wait times tend to negate higher rail system speeds. Thus, except for the captive rider or the passenger who has a trip origin or destination at or near the station, it will be unlikely for high speed rail to capture a significant portion of this market. The potential for shorter distance home to work commuter travel exists between some city pairs and ridership estimates assume that some of this will occur. However, extensive commuter

49 TABLE 7 DETROIT-CHICAGO CORRIDOR DAILY PERSON TRIPS, 1980

City Pair Air Ra i 1 Bus Auto Tot a1 OET -JXN 1 17 45 6,166 6,229 DET-BTL 3 16 31 691 741 . DET-KAL 29 60 26 838 953 DET-NLS 0 20 2 132 154 DET-CHI 1,550 316 136 7,433 9,435 ARB-BTL 0 8 7 439 454 ARB-KAL 0 30 13 407 450 ARB-NLS 0 13 1 35 49 ARB-CHI 0 151 11 584 746

JXN-KAL 0 5 3 1,443 1,451 JXN-NLS 0 3 1 67 71 JXN-CHI 4 33 4 405 446

BTL-NLS 0 4 0 118 122 BTL-CHI 19 52 2 406 479 KAL-NLS 0 11 1 562 574 KAL-CHI 64 151 .16 840 1,071 NLS-CHI 0 47 2 660 709

Total 1,670 937 301 21,226 24' 134

Total trips over 50 miles in length: 24,100 Total trips over 100 miles in length: 15,300

Source: MOOT, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Intercity Transportation Planning Division.

50 services are usually provided by local or regional transportation agencies with high density commuter equipment and are not considered in this report. The joint use of rail facilities by both intercity high speed and local commuter service can offer advantages and economies to each system. The proposed SEMTA commuter line between Detroit and Ann Arbor is an example of this. Both systems could utilize common tracks and stations and the c.ommuter line could act as a feeder to the intercity service.

Person trips in 1930 were divided among the different modes as follows.

1980 Average Percentage Mode Daily Trips Share Auto 21,226 88.0 Air 1,670 6.9 Rail 937 3.9 Bus 301 1.2 Total 24,134 100.0

A person's decision to use a particular mode will depend on a variety of considerations. In general, rai 1 is perceived most favorably for intermediate distance travel, 100-300 mi 1es. This range allows rail to effectively compete in terms of cost, trave 1 time, and convenience with the automobile and in terms of price and

51 travel time with plane travel. Below 50, or even 100 miles, rail has difficulty competing with the point-to-point flexibility of the private automobile. Above 300 miles it has trouble competing with the travel time advantages of air travel. It is interesting to review modal splits associated with short, medium, and longer distance travel markets in the Detroit-Chicago corridor (see Table 8). Rail is very weak in the short distance market which is dominated by the automobile. It is strongest in the intermediate distance ffiarkets such as Detroit-Kalamazoo and Kalamazoo-Chicago where it can more effectively compete with auto and air. Its position starts to weaken on the longer trips because of air competition. One exception to this is the Ann Arbor-Chicago market where rail has ·a 20 percent market share. Presumably this is caused by the large number of trips associated with the University of Michigan. It is significant that the Kalamazoo-Chicago market shows rail with a 14 percent market share, and the Battle Creek-Chicago city pair with an 11 percent share. One may assume that the combination of train frequencies (4 round trips daily), auto competitive travel times, concentration of business and recreation opportunities in the downtown Chicago area, high parking costs, and in the Chicago area, help make rail a major factor in these markets" It is important to emphasize that higher speeds and higher frequencies would expand the attractiveness of rail vis-a-vis the other modes. It reduces travel time and expands the markets in which rail can be competitive.

52 TABLE 8 SELECTED MODAL SPLITS IN THE DETROIT-CHICAGO CORRIDOR, 1980

It is clear that the auto mode represents the largest source of future rail travellers. Between 75 and 90 percent of all intermediate and longer distance travel is by private automobile. Air is, and will continue to be, a major competitive force between Detroit and Chicago. However, high cost and low frequencies make it less of a factor in the other city pairs.

Rail passenger service must compete for the traveller with other public transportation services. As Table 9 shows, airlines provide 39 daily round trips between Detroit and Chicago and 16 round trips between Kalamazoo and Chicago. There is, however, almost no airline service available between Chicago and other corridor communities. Air fares are very expensive compared to rail or intercity bus. For example, a ticket purchased on the

53 TABLE 9

COMPARISON OF SERVICE LEVELS AND ONE-WAY FARES BETWEEN CHICAGO AND SELECTED OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE DETROIT-CHICAGO CORRIDOR, MAY 1985 ' Air Intercity BUS Intercity Rail I Fare Fare fare I Da i 1 y 3 Day Same Daily Oat ly Round Advance Day Round 1) One-ha 1 f Round Community Trips Purchase Purchase Trips One-Way Round Trip Trips 1J Peak Off Peak I

Detroit y 39 $109.00 $173.00 12 $38.00 §./ $29.50 3 $49.00 $25.00 11 .11 ••• Jackson 0 None $109.00 5 $31.00 $29.45 3 $41.00 $21,50 1 Battle Creek 1 None §/ $ 79.00 1/ 8 $18.00 $14.50 4 $29.00 $15.00 Kalamazoo 16 None $79.00 .Y 10 $17.50 $14.25 4 $28.00 $14.75 I ' Notes: 11 One-half round trip intercity bus fare is the round trip ticket price divided by two.

£1 Peak rail fare applies when station departures are scheduled between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00p.m. on Fridays and Sundays.

~Detroit to Chicago nonstop air fare via Midway, American, and Republic airlines charge $109.00 with latter two airlines requiring 3 days advance pur~chase. Jet America has a $59.00 discount fare with their full fare being $173.00.

1/ Detroit to Chicago intercity bus round trips (12) comprised of 6 , 3 Trailways (2 via Toledo}, and 3 Greyhound Lines connecting with Indian Trails at Kalamazoo.

~ Trailways offers a $19.00 fare for a 1:30 a.m. Det~oit departure time via Toledo to Chicago.

§/Battle Creek to Chicago nonstop one-way discount fare is ·$79.00 with the full fare being $96.00 (via Air ).

1/ Battle Creek to Chicago intercity bus round trips (8) comprised of 5 Greyhound Lines and 3 Indian Trails round trips.

a/ Kalamazoo to Chicago intercity bus round trips (10) comprised of 5 Greyhound Lines and 5 Indian Trails. Greyhound actually has 7 trips from Chicago to Kalamazoo, but only 5 from Kalamazoo to Chicago.

aJ These 39 nonstop round trips are provided by seven commercial air carriers with Republic Airlines providing 13 of them.

Source: Official Airline Guide 1May 1985), Russell's Official Bus Guide (May 1985), The Official Railway Guide (Ap_ri 1/May 1985), and telephone contacts with selected ticket agents.

54 day of travel from Detroit to Chicago costs $173 versus Amtrak:s peak $49 fare or off-peak $25 fare. A three day advance purchase air ticket typically costs $109.' Air fares are available for as low as $39 but these require 30 day advance purchase, are limited

to certain days (e.g. Tuesday & Wednesday), and have a 1 imited number of available seats. Intercity buses provide 12 daily Detroit-Chicago round trips at fares ranging from $29 to $38. In general, bus fares are somewhat higher than Amtrak's new off-peak fare. structure.

B. Future Travel in the Corridor Travel in the corridor is expected to increase from 24,100 daily ... trips over 50 miles in 1ength in 1980 to 33,200 trips in year 2000 (see Table 10). This represents a 38 percent increase resulting from changes in population growth and vehicle miles of travel. A continuation of this rate of increase would result in a 58 percent increase to 38,000 trips by 2010. It should be noted that these volumes represent only trips made between stations located on the corridor (e.g. between Detroit and Kalamazoo). Additional sources of passenger ridership include:

~ trips with one end on the corridor and the other end off the corridor (e.g. Kalamazoo-St. Louis). o trips with one·end in Michigan off the corridor and the other end on the corridor (e.g. Lansing-Chicago).

@ trips with one end in Michigan off the corridor which would use the corridor to get to a destination off the corridor (e.g. Lansing-St. Louis).

@ long distance trips which originate and terminate off the corridor which pass over the entire corridor (e.g. Toronto­ St. Louis).

55 It is estimated that those additional markets represent 20-40 percent of the corridbr market itself. The ability to capture these trips will be dependent on the quality of connecting services. TABLE 10 TOTAL PERSON TRIPS FOR SELECTED CITY PAIRsl/ IN THE DETROIT-CHICAGO CORRIDOR

City Pair 1980 2000 DET-JXN 6,229 7,179 DET -BTL 741 816 DET -KAL 953 1,149 DET -NLS 154 185 DET -CHI 9,435 14,359 ARB-BTL 454 602 ARB-KAL 450 659 ARB-NLS 49 71 ARB-CHI 746 1,543 JXN-KAL 1,451 1,846 JXN-NLS 71 91 JXN-CHI 446 630

BTL-NIS 122 146 BTL-CHI 479 638 KAL-NLS 574 753 KAL-CHI 1,071 1,603 NLS-CH I 709 973 Total 24,134 33,243

Note: llrncludes trips over 50 miles in length. Source: MOOT, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Intercity Transportation Planning Division.

56 C. Existing and Future Rail Passenger Ridership The financial viability of high speed rail services depends on the relationship between passenger and other revenues and operating and debt service costs associated with operation and construction. The number of passengers who will use an improved system is a variable depending upon various combinations of frequency, travel time, and cost. As frequency and travel time are improved, ridership may be expected to increase. This increase may be influenced upward or downward by the fare policy adopted by the operator and by the costs and services offered by other transport modes.

Passenger demand forecasting is a difficult and controversial undertaking requiring many assumptions and interpretations. However, well designed computer models are capable of considering the range of factors which influence mode choice. The forecasts contained in this report were derived from those developed by the of Chicago in their recent report entitled, "High Speed Rail in the Midwest: An Economic Analysis". The Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) report used three models, the Stopher-Prasker model, the Peat-Marwick Mitchell (PMM) model, and the Transmode (TM) model to forecast ridership. The PMM and TM models were each found to have favorable attributes and an in-house process was designed to merge the results of the two forecasts and to establish new equations to forecast ridership under different speed and frequency assumptions. The FRB forecasts assume that higher performance systems will induce new travel that is not currently included in the travel market .

.57 The forecasts used herein are higher than Federal Reserve Board estimates. This is due to the addition of passengers from feeder or connecting services, from city pairs less than 50 miles apart and from passengers originating or terminating in smaller cities. These ridership sources were riot included in FRB estimates. A complete set of 1985 ridership forecasts for various speed and frequency alternatives is presented Appendix E.

Improved rail service will result in a higher percentage of trips being made on the rail mode. Most high speed services expect to capture 20-40 percent of the travel market -- that is, 20 to 40 percent of all trips in a corridor may be expected to travel by train. At present, 3.9 percent of all corridor trips over 50 miles in length (937 out of 24,134 trips) are by train. This increases to about 24 percent for 12 round trips at 125 mph and to 40 percent for 24 round trips at 250 mph. These ranges seem consistent with actual experiences elsewhere in the world or'with estimates prepared for other corridor studies.

If one assumes that rail travel would increase at a commensurate rate with overall travel in the corridor, a 38 percent increase would be expected by year 2000 and a 58 percent increase would occur by year 2010. For illustrative purposes, this results in the figures presented in Table 11.

58 TABLE 11 DAILY RAIL PASSENGER TRIPS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 1985, 2000, AND 2010 Max1mum ·oa1 ly Passenger Trips Alternative Speed Frequency 1985 2000 2010 A 79 mph 6 3,129 4,138 4,944 B 79 mph 6 3,491 4,818 5,516 c 90 mph 8 4,683 6,463 7,400 D · 110 mph 12 6,423 8,864 10,148 E 110 mph 12 6, 919 9,548 10,932 F 125 mph 12 7' 580 10,460 11,796 G 160 mph 12 9, 234 12,743 14,590 H 250 mph 24 13,416 18,514 21,197

Source: MOOT, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Intercity Transportation Planning Division. D. Feeder Services Ridership estimates assume that a moderate sized feeder network exists (see Figure 7). The development of feeder and connecting services offer the potential for significant ridership and revenue contributions to the corridor. Examples of these services include:

® Flint and Lansing connections with the corridor at Jackson. This would allow travelers from Lansing to go east toward Detroit or west toward Chicago.

® Grand Rapids connections with the corridor at Kalamazoo. Passengers may go east or west. • Canadian point connections with the corridor at Detroit. • Eastern (Cleveland, ) and southern (Toledo, Columbus, ) connections with the corridor at Detroit. • St. Louis, or connections with the corridor at Chicago. The importance of these connecting services cannot be overemphasized. The existence of conventional or high speed services in other corridors will allow through trains and connecting passengers to greatly increase corridor ridership. The need for compatible equipment in connecting corridors is essential to assure run-through operations.

59 FIGURE 7 DETRO IT-CH I CAGO fll GH SPEED R/\1 L CORRIDOR POTENTIAL FEEDER AND CONUECTlNG SERVICES

J.. ' ).. 111 BAY~ : ~-~ 'ClTY High Speed Rail Route "' : -.: - . llllllllliiHIIIi!lllllllll Rail Feeder Rout®s • UIUIIIIIIB Bus feeder Routes "' - Existing Stations ~nd/or - SAG INA\• Urb3nheo:l Areas. - - -GRAND ·~ • Corridor Termini/Hubs "' RAPIDS - FLJNT u - ...... •·--lliilllll- •I : .-.""' '\ • I -« ....- "" \ fANSJNG \\ a •I "< ' • '<-"' ' c, BATTLE CREEK

MICHIGAN

N

ILLINOIS TO CINCINNATI FIGURE 8 HIGH SPEED RAIL COMPACT REGION CG~CEPTUAL HIGH SPEED ROUTES

' CHICAGO jt,' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' / ' ' fll' SPR/NGfi!LO '' I ' ST.LOUIS G I (

TABLE 12 POPULATION AND TRAVEL DATA FOR SELECTED HIGH SPEED RAIL COMPACT CORRIDORS

SMSA Pop./ Daily Person Trips3/ Pop .1/ Mile Over Over Corridor (000) Mil es2/ (000) 100 Mi. 50 Mi. 1. -Harrisburg- 8,055 313 25.7 22,000 NA Pittsburgh

2. Pittsburgh-Cleveland- 10,774 327 32.9 l3' 700 38,500 Detroit 3. Cleveland-Columbus- 6,142 272 22.6 14,200 18' 400 Cincinnati

4. Detroit-Columbus~ 8,728 304 28.7 13,200 25,800 Cincinnati 5. Detroit-Kalamazoo- 12,925 275 47.0 15,900 26,000 Chic ago

6. Ci nc inn at i- ~ 10.315 295 35.0 15,900 NA Chic ago 7. Chicago-Milwaukee 8,051 87 97.7 NA NA 8. Chicago-Springfield- 9,460 291 32.5 14,500 NA St. Louis

Notes:!/ 1980 U.S. Census of Populatiqn for SMSA's (over 200,000 population in contiguous urban areas) only. 1/ Highway mileage from 1984 Rand McNally Road Atlas. 3/ Preliminary estimate of total person trip travel by corridor. The columns represent the total number of person trips between corridor communities which are over 100 miles or over 50 miles in distance.

Source: High Speed Rail Compact Background Report, May 1984.

Gl In addition to connecting rail services, it is desirable that intercity bus connections be provided to and from other parts of the state. The trend toward intermodal stations will facilitate this approach.

E. Comparision to Other Corridors The High Speed Rail Compact identified eight midwestern corridors which have potential for high speed rail passenger service (see Figure 8 and Table 12). These corridors are generally in the 250-300 mile distance range in whic.h surface transportation can be time competitive with air for end point to end point travel and

significantly faster than air or auto for tr~el to or from inter­ mediate points. Each of the corridors is anchored by a major metropolitan area and several have large population centers between the major end points. Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati and Detroit­ Cleveland-Pittsburgh are examples of this. The Detroit-Chicago corridor ranks first among the long distance corridors in population density and is one of the top corridors in terms of total person trips.

62

V. OPERATING REVENUES AND COSTS The financial characteristics of each alternative are defined by operating revenues and costs and by the initial capital costs associated .---- with system development.

A. Operating Revenues Operating revenues were determined by multiplying the number of annual passengers by an assumed average fare. A base fare was

r-:-_! established at $18. This is based upon a fare structure of 10 cents per mile for an average trip length of 180 miles. The fare per mile was based on Amtrak's 1985 peak - off peak fare structure for the corridor including adjustments for reduced fare passengers (e.g. children). The average trip length was estimated using 1984 corridor . data from Amtrak. Average trip lengths were assumed to remain similar to those existing today. In general, the base average fare was factored upward to reflect the service quality provided by each alternative. For example, the 79 mph alternative provides only slightly better service than existing Amtrak service. As such, a factor of 1.1 x the assumed average fare of $18 was used. Conversely, the 250 mph alternative has a factor of 1.6. The higher factors for higher quality systems also reflect the likelihood of additional premium fare passengers, such as business travellers, being attracted to the improved service.

Each alternative also contains an additive to reflect package express or other freight revenues. This could include trackage right fees or other revenues from rail freight operations using corridor tracks. This figure is capped at $7.0 million since no traditional rail freight revenues are likely with 160 mph or 250 mph systems and the package express market is assumed to be fully

63 developed with the 125 mph system. No revenues were assumed for meal or concession sales since, in the past, these have not contributed to net income.

Amtrak generated $7.8 million in corridor revenues in 1984. The alternatives range from in $25.1 million in revenues for the 5 round trip, 79 mph system to $149.0 million for the 250 mph Maglev system (see Table 14 and Appendix F).

B. Operating Expenses Operating expenses are determined by application of a train mile cost to total train miles operated (see Table 13). It is assumed that indirect costs such as stations, reservations, and advertising are included in train mile costs. Train miles are ·determined by· the number of trains x distance. Thus

6 daily round trips = 12 one-way trips @ 280 miles = 3,360 daily train miles x 355 days= 1,226,000 annual train miles

Existing Detroit-Chicago Amtrak services incurred $11.8 million in costs in 1984. This includes such things as train crews, fuel, railroad expenses, equipment maintenance, on-board train services, station services, marketing, insurance, and general support. This results in costs of $18 per train mile. This is considered by Amtrak to be "short term avoidable costs" and

~epresents the direct costs associated with Detroit-Chicago train operations. Additional Amtrak overhead costs (e.g. Chicago Union Station costs and overall Amtrak administrative services) increase the cost per mile. This report assumes that higher frequencies and different labor, management, and equipment utili.zation approaches would result in cost efficiencies and

64 TABLE l3 OPERATING EXPENSES FOR DETROIT-CHICAGO CORRIDOR (in millions of 1985 $)

Annu a1 Cost/ Track Frequency Train Miles Train Operating Mtn. Tot a1 Alternative (RT's) (Thousands) Mi 1ell Cost Costs2/ Costs

A 795 mph 6 1,226 $15 $18.4 $ 4.9 $ 23.3

B 790 mph 6 1,226 $15 $18.4 $ 5.4 $ 23.8 c 90 mph 8 1,635 $15 $24.5 $ 6.1 $ 30.6 D 110 mph 12 2,453 $15 $36.8 $ 7.2 $ 44.0 E 110 mph 12 2,453 $15 $36.8 $ 7.2 $ 44.0 F 125 mph · 12 2,453 $15 $36.8 $ 7.9 $ 44.7

G 160 mph 12 2,453 $15 $36.8 $10.1 $ 46.9

H 250 mph 24 4,906 $15 $73.6 $20.0 $ 93.6

Notes: 1/ Existing Detroit Chicago Amtrak services have short term avoidable costs of S18/train mile. Grand Rapids-Chicago trains cost $15/train mile. French TGV costs adjusted for U.S. application are $16 total operating costs including track maintenance. For comparative purposes $15/train mile has been used. This assumes that higher fuel and equipment maintenance costs for higher speeds are offset as increased frequencies and better equipment utilization reduce overhead and other costs. 2/ Assumes track and signal maintenance cost of $15,000 mile/yr. for 79 mph, $17,000 for 90 mph, $20,000 for 110 mph, $22,000 for 125 mph, and $28,000 for 160 mph. Also assumes 360 track miles (single and· double track segments) for alternatives 8 through H.

Source: MOOT, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Intercity Transportation Planning Division.

65 TABLE 14 OPERATING INCOME FOR DETROIT-CHICAGO CORRIDOR (in millions of 1985 $)

Frequency Operating Operating & Mtn. Operating Alternative (RT's) Revenues Costs · Income 1/

A 795 mph 6 $ 25.1 $ 23.3 $ 1.8 B 790 mph 6 28.1 23.8 4.3 c 90 mph 8 41.4 30.6 10.8 D 110 mph 12 59.3 44.0 15.3 E 110 mph 12 63.8 44.0 19.8 F 125 mph 12 76.1 44.7 31.4

G 160 mph 12 98.0 46.9 51.1

H 250 mph 24 149.0 93.6 55.4

Note: 1/ Surplus available for debt reduction. Source: MOOT, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Intercity Transportation Planning Division.

66 that a total cost of $15/train mile is reasonable. This assumes that higher fuel and equipment maintenance costs associated with higher speed service is offset as greater frequencies and better equipment utilization reduce overhead and other costs. Track and signal maintenance costs are calculated separately and represent an additional cost.

C. Operating Income All alternatives show an operating profit (see Table 14). The size of the surplus generally increases as speeds increase. This is largely due to the increased ridership and revenues associated with ·.higher speed systems. The net operating income is available to amortize debts associated with initial capital.construction or for profit distribution.

It is important to emphasize that those alternatives generating the greatest amount of operating income do not necessarily represent the best economic investment. Operating income must be compared to the initial capital costs and debt service costs associated with the different alternatives. In addition, the selection of any "best'' alternative must consider corridor mobility problems, investment needs for other modes, job impacts, energy consumption, economic development issues, and a variety of other factors.

67

VI. CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT ISSUES There are a variety of non-quantitative, non-technical issues, which must be considered in the development of improved transportation services. The following, although not an exhaustive list, are indicative of these kinds of issues. A. Technology Regardless of the development option chosen, emphasis should be placed on incorporating advanced technology that has proven performance records. Unproven technology can significantly increase.the financial risk of the venture and could significantly deter the ultimate financial viability of the corridor once in operation.

B. Local Transit Services Corridor development must be integrated with existing and proposed transit services in each of the major communities served. Coordination with transit providers can assure a supportive role between these modes.

C. Technical Resources High speed rail development requires a very precise and demanding marriage between right-of-way, signalling, vehicles and operating practices. All aspects must evolve in a highly coordinated manner. l-t - ' D. Evolutionary Development All existing high speed rail systems in the world have resulted from a carefully researched evolutionary program where primary rail corridors have literally grown into high speed operations.

69 E. Transport Capacity Through major past investment, air and highway travel have now reached somewhat of a performance plateau in terms of attract1veness, speed and affordability. The rail mode is the on·ly means of transport that, in the foreseeable future, offers the potential for dramatically enhancing the ease and convenience of mobility between major population, tourism and commercial centers. High speed rail represents a potential to introduce a dramatic enhancement to existing regional mobility levels by more effectively utilizing . already existing transportation land resources.

F. All Weather Reliability High speed rail can offer the most reliable and safe means of travel service during adverse weather conditions.

G. Financial Viability While high speed rail development can be viewed as a measure or symbol of regional pride and accomplishment, the longer term commercial viability and social benefits derived from such a system must be the standard by which success is determined.

H. Corridor Characteristics In viewing potential corridor candidates for high speed rail development, it is critical to understand that each corridor possesses unique geographic, market, environmental and operational characteristics. If such corridors are to succeed, the high speed rail system application must match such characteristics. Thus, the system that might prove most successful along the Detroit­ Chicago corridor may differ from systems that might be effectively implemented in other corridors.

70 I. Right-of-Way Use of new right-of-way as opposed to existing right-of-way can be assumed to both increase program costs and development lead times.

J. Grade Crossings Research is necessary to attempt to develop grade crossing protection practices that can be applied in certain cases instead of difficult crossing closings or expensive grade separation.

K. Freight Services While high speed rail requires dedicated passenger train trackage, the potential does exist for this right-of-way to be effectively utilized by lighter weight expedited freight train operations. Containerized freight, operating primarily at night, could move time sensitive cargo in an expedited manner when compared to conventional rail freight operations.

L. Operating Responsibility

A Detroit~Chicago high speed rail system would require that the system be controlled by the operator instead of a freight railroad. High speed trains cannot perform to their potential if they are simply a tenant to a conventional rail freight system.

M. Commuter Rail Commuter rail operations in both southeastern Michigan and the Chicago area could benefit from right-of-way investments in high speed track.

71 N. Economic Development System design should be coordinated with local economic development efforts to most efficiently permit each of these programs to be supportive of the other. Forecasting of potential economic development benefits offered by high speed rail is, for all practical purposes, impossible to accurately predict and may be difficult to clearly measure once they have occurred. It can be assumed that high speed rail can contribute along with other factors to the economic properity of regions served. by such a system. It cannot be assumed, however, that high speed rail by itself will guarantee such economic vitality.

72

·APPENDIX A

TRAVEL TIMES MODAL TRAVEL TIME COMPARISONS

Detro it­ Ka 1amazoo­ Mode/Time Component Chic ago Ch i c ago Air Downtown to airport :30 :20 Wait time/arrival time cushion :20 :20 Scheduled flight time 1:00 :45 Deplane time/walk to ground transportation :15 :15 Airport to downtown Chicago :40 :40 Total elapsed time 2:45 2:20

Rail Taxi to train station :10 :08 Wait time/arrival time cushion :15 :10 Detrain time/walk to ground transportation :10 :10 Train station to destination :10 :10 Total access time ---:-45 --:-38 3-stop express schedule

Scheduled train time @ 79 mph maximum 4:25 2:10 Total elapsed time (including access time) 5:10 2:48 Scheduled train time @ 90 mph maximum 4:05 2:00 Total elapsed time (including access time) 4:55 2:38 Scheduled time @ 125 mph maximum 3:10 1:30 Total elapsed t~me (including access time) 3:55 2:08 Scheduled train time @ 160 mph maximum 2:20 1:10 Total elapsed time (including access time) 3:05 1:48 Scheduled train time @ 250 mph maximum 1:20 :40 Total elapsed time@ 250 (including access time) 2:05 1:18 Bus

Scheduled travel time 6:15 3:15 Total elapsed time (intluding :45 or :30 access time) 7:00 3:45 Auto

55 mph average + 10 minute stop 5:16 2:40

Source: MOOT, Bureau of Transportation Planning , Intercity Transportation Planning Division,

75 TRAVEL TIME MODEL RUN FOR 90 MPH ALTERNATIVE (6 STOPS)

DETROIT TO CHICAGO

MILE SPEED ENTERING CASE DWELL NAME OF ARR TIME DEP TIME F'OST LIMIT SPEED TIME LOCATION HR:MN:SC HR:MN:SC

0.0 DETROIT - JO 0: 0: 0 30.0 0.0 A 1. 4 0.0 CP 15TH STRE 0: 3: 6 0: 3: 6 40.0 30.0 A 2.8 0.0 BAY CITY JUN 0: 5: 14 0: 5: 14 30.0 30.0 A 2.9 0.0 WEST DETROIT 0: 5:26 0: 5:26 50.0 30.0 A 3.6 0.0 0: 6:21 0: 6:21 50.0 50.0 A 4 :s ·0.0 CITY ORDINAN 0: 7:26 0: 7:26 90.0 50.0 A 7.7 3 . 0 DEARBORN . 0: 10: 12 0:13:12 90.'0 0.0· A 11 . 7 0.0 0:16:45 0:16:45 90.0 90.0 A 12.0 a.o 10 17M 0:16:57 0:16:57 90.0 90.0 A 28.2 0.0 0:27:45 0:27:45 90.0 90.0 A 28.8 0.0 10 10M 0:28:12 0:28:12 60.0 60.0 A 29.2 0.0 30 OSM 0:28:36 0:28:36 65.0 60.0 A 36.8 0.0 20 57M 0:35:38 0:35:38 60.0 60.0 A 37.3 0.0 30 04M 0:36: a o: 36: a 50.0 50.0 0 37.4 3 • 0 ANN ARBOR 0:36:31 0:39:31 50.0 0.0 c 37.8 0.0 40 35M 0:40:29 0:40:29 60.0 49.5 A 38.7 0.0 30 02M 0:41:24 0:41:24 80.0 60.0 A 40.8 0.0 20 OOM 0:43: 2 0:43: 2 70.0 70.0 A 41.4 0.0 20 20M 0:43:33 0:43:33 75.0 70.0 A 47.7 0.0 20 15M 0:48:35 0:48:35 70.0 70.0 A 49.2 0.0 20 24M 0:49:53 0:49:53 65.0 65.0 A 49.6 0.0 20 57M 0:50:15 0:50:15 80.0 65.0 A 52.3 0.0 10 SOM 0:52:18 0:52:18 90.0 80.0 A 53.9 0.0 10 17M 0:53:23 0:53:23 90.0 90.0 A 60. 1 0.0 10 10M 0:57:31 0:57:31 90.0 90.0 A 67.7 0.0 10 27M 1: 2:35 1: 2: 35 75.0 75.0 A 68.3 0.0 20 02M 1: 3: 4 1: 3: 4 85.0 75.0 A 74.0 0.0 10 34M 1 : 7: 11 1 : 7 : 11 50.0 so:o A 75.5 2.0 JACKSON 1: 9: 14 1:11:14 50.0 0.0 A 77.5 0.0 CITY OROINAN 1: 14: 8 1: 14: 8 90.0 50.0 A 81.8 0.0 10 15M 1: 17:10 1: 17: 10 85.0 85.0 A 82.3 0.0 10 36M 1:17:31 1:17:31 90.0 85.0 A 88.8 0.0 10 30M 1 : 21 :53 1 : 21 :53 70.0 70.0 A 90.6 0.0 20 16M 1:23:26 1 : 23: 26 85.0 70.0 A 94.5 0.0 10 31M 1:26: 17 1:26: 17 50.0 50.0 A 96.2 0.0 ALBION CITY 1: 28: 19 1:28:19 80.0 50.0 A 76 1os. a c 0 10 48M :36:23 1:36:23 70.0 70.0 ·A 107.2 0.0 20 21M MARSH 1: 36: 44 :36:44 85.0 70.0 A 113.2 0.0 1D 35M 1 : 4 1 : 1 1 : 4 1 : 1 65.0 65.0 A 113.8 0.0 20 36M 1; 41: 34 1 : 41 : 34 75.0 65.0 A 118.9 0.0 20 02M 1:45:42 1:45:42 50.0 50.0 A 119.5 0.0 1; 46; 31 1:46:31 20.0 20.0 A 119.8 0.0 !NT' LOCK LIM 1:47:25 1:47:25 50.0 20.0 A 120.8 2.0 BATTLE CREEK 1; 49: 3 1 :51 : 3 60.0 0.0 0 121. 1 0.0 1:51:57 1: 51:57 20.0 20.0 A 121.5 0.0 !NT' LOCK LIM 1: 53; 9 1:53: 9 85.0 20.0 A 127.7 0.0 10 42M 1; 58; 1:58: 70.0 70.0 A 130.3 0.0 20 30M 2: o: 15 2: o: 15 lio .'!i 70.0 A 133.9 o.o 2: 2:44 2: 2:44 65.0 65.0 A 135.3 0.0 CITY ORDINAN 2: 4: 2 2: 4: 2 90.0 65.0 A 140.0 0.0 2; 7: 14 2: 7: 14 80.0 80.0 A 142.9 0.0 10 57M 2: 9:28 2: 9:28 50.0 50.0 A 143.4 3 . 0 KALAMAZOO 2:10:20 2:13:20 50.0 o.o c 143.5 0. 0 URBAN AREA 2:13:49 2: 13i49 50.0 24.7 A 144.5 o.o URBAN AREA 2: 15: 8 2: 15: 8 80.0 50.0 A 149.6 o.o 20 OOM 2: 19: 4 2: 19·: 4 90.0 80.0 A 155.6 0.0 2:23: 5 2:23: 5 90.0 90.0 A 156.0 0.0 1ll 12M 2:23:21 2:23:21 90.0 90,0 A 178.0 0.0 2:38: 3 2:38: 3 65.0 65.0 A 180. 1 0.0 CITY ORDINAN 2:39:59 2:39:59 90.0 65.0 A 192.0 2.0 NILES 2:48:28 2:50:28 90.0 0.0 0 192.2 0.0 2:51:14 2:51:14 70.0 70.0 A 194.5 0.0 20 26M 2:53:12 2:53:12 85.0 70.0 A 198.8 0.0 Hl 45M 2:56:16 2:56:16 90.0 85.0 A 217.0 0.0 3: a: 24 3: 8:24 90.0 90.0 A 218.9 0.0 10 30M 3: 9:40 3: 9:40 90.0 90.0 A 228.0 0.0 3:15:53 3:15:53 40.0 40.0 A 229.9 0.0 MICHIGAN CIT 3:18:44 3:18:44 90.0 40.0 c 230.5 0.0 1D 15M 3:19:22 3:19:22 90.0 72.6 A 240.5 o.o 3: 26: 13 3:26:13 40.0 40.0 A 240.6 0.0 PORTER 3:26:22 3:26:22 40.0 40.0 A 240.7 0.0 MP 482.2 3:26:31 3:26:31 70.0 40.0 A 241.5 0.0 MP 483.0 3:27:19 3:27: 19 90.0 70.0 A 259.5 0.0 MP 501. 1 3:39:23 3:39:23 70.0 70.0 A 261.7 0.0 MP 448.5 3:41:18 3:41:18 55.0 55.0 A 264. 1 0.0 MP 450.9 3:43:58 3:43:58 30.0 30.0 A 77 264' 7 0. 0 MP 451 '5 3 :45: 10 3: 45: 10

55.0 30. 0 D ,. 265. 2 1.0 HAMMOND 3: 46: 7 3: 47: 7 55.0 0. 0 A 266.9 0.0 MP 453.7 3: 49: 30 3:49:30 90.0 55.0 A 273.0 0.0 MP 459.8 3:53: 48 3:53:48 50.0 50.0 A 274.0 0.0 MP 460.8 3:55: 2 3:55: 2 30.0 30.0 A 274.2 0.0 MP 461.0 ENG 3:55:27 3:55:27 25.0 25.0 A 274.5 0.0 MP 461.3 58T 3:56:10 3:56:10 70.0 25.0 A 279.3 0.0 MP 466' 1 ALT 4: 0:41 4: 0:41 30.0 30.0 A 279.4 0.0 MP 466.2 sou 4: 0:53 4: 0:53 30.0 30.0 A 279.5 0.0 MP 466.3 4: 1 : 5 4: 1 : 5 30.0 30.0 A 280.5 0.0 MP 467.3 4: 3: 9 4: 3: 9 10.0 10.0 A 281.0 CHICAGO UNIO 4: 6: 12

DETROIT TO CHICAGO STATION TIMES DETROIT - .JO OEP 0: 0: 0

DEARBORN ARR 0:10:12 DEP 0:13:12

ANN ARBOR ARR 0:36:31 DEP 0:39:31

.JACKSON ARR 1 : 9: 14 DEP 1:11:14

BATTLE CREEK ARR 1:49: 3 DEP 1 : 51 : 3

KALAMAZOO ARR 2:10:20 DEP 2:13:20

NILES ARR 2:48:28 OEP 2:50:28

HAMMOND ARR 3:46: 7 DEP 3:47: 7

CHICAGO UNIO ARR 4: 6: 12

78 APPENDIX B

RAIL PASSENGER UNIT COSTS RAIL PASSENGER FACILITIES UNIT COSTS - (In 1985 Dollars)

.Mainline & Passing Tracks Upgrading from Bolted-Rail to CWRl/ $ 300,000 per track mile Construct roadbed & install new CWR, ties and ballast $1,000,000 per track mile Turnouts $ 24 '000 each Switch Heaters (electric or propane) $ 5,000 each Acquisition of Right-of-Way $. 50,000 per mile

Signals

Upgrading from CTC to Cab Signals $ 10,000 per track mile/direction CTC Installation $ 35,000 per track mile/direction CTC Installation with Cab Signals· $ 40,000 per track mile/direction

Grade Crossings-Protection FLS with Gates $ 80,000 per crossing Cantilevered FLS with gates $ 110,000 per crossing Sign~ (for private crossings) $ 1,000 per crossing

Grade Crossings-Closure

Stub Street $ 2,000 per crossing Cul-de-sac (gravel) $ 4,000 per crossing Cul-de-sac (paved) $ 10,000 per crossing

Grade Crossings-Separation Two Lane (under 10,000 ADT) $ 600,000 per crossing (10,000 ADT or more) $ 700,000 per crossing Four Lane (under 10,000 ADT) $1,100,000 per eros sing (10,000 ADT or more) $1,200,000 per crossing Pedestrian $ 100,000 per crossing

Fencing (Chain-link, 6 foot high) $ 64,000 per fence mile Electrification $ 350,000 per track mile

Notes: 1/ Includes necessary ballast; ties, surfacing, etc. If cascaded rail were used the $300,000 figure would be reduced to $200,000 per track mile. Source: MOOT, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Intercity Transportation Planning Division.

81 COMPI\Rfi.TTVE CHARACTERISTICS 1\NO COSTS

Proposed Corridor Travel Avero1ge Oa i 1 y Oai 1 y Capita 1 Cost pee System Length Time Speed Round Track Passengers Costs 1I Track Mile Number Corridor (Mi lesJ (Hrs:Minl (mph! Trips Miles (0001 ( Smi 1 1 1ons l l$m1llions1

125 2/ 3/ 4/

I ""'"Chicago-MilwauKee (FRBJ 85 0:58 170 1. 3-;L , 202 ,, 2 Chicago-St. Louis (fRBJ 282 3:23 " " 564 i. j -4. B ' 863 " ,5 3 Oe-trol t-Chtcago (FRS J 279 3:36 "78 " 558 1. 6-5. 8 ' 853 ,," 4 Cetrol t-Chi cago (ARC! 280 2:58 94 " 080 14.0 ' 779 0' 5 -Tampa 3:29 90 "16 440 7,8 ' 237 $5," 1 6 Philadelphia-Pittsburgh '"340 3:58 86 GHO 11, 4 "'S1,845 7 7 Washington-Me~ York City 224 2:30 90 26 700 23 0 $2,341 "S3 3 Median " 0 150-160 mph 2/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ B/ 9/ 10/

Chicago-Milwaukee ! FRB l 85 0:45 113 12 125 1 . 6-3. 9 445 3 6 ' Chicago-St. Louis (FRS l 282 2:50 100 12 564 1 .4-5. B s' 1. 868 3 3 ,' Oetrott-Chtcago (FRS) 279 2:56 95 12 558 ,, o~1. 3 $1,849 ' 3 3 4 Oetroit-Chtcago I..JNRl 280 2:20 116 560 2,8 $2,39::1 ' 4. 3 - 254 2: 15 113 " 314 4,7 s 1 '682 ' 5, 4 6• Los Angeles~San. Oiego 132 0:59 134 57' 264 100.0 $3. 153 "1' ,9 7 Miami-Tampa 314 2:23 131 16 440 8,4 <;2, 55 j 5, 8 8 Philadelphia-Pittsburgh 314 3: 16 96 628 14. I S7, 169 ' .4 • Toronto- 395 3:10 125 14 500 7 <;2, t7B '"4. 4 Median ' 4, 4 200-250 mph 2/ 4/ 7/ 9/ '

I Chicago-MilWaukee 1 FRB l 85 o, 176 85 2.4-5 ,7 621 , 2 Chicago-St. Lou! s 1 FRB l "46 160 "12 564 2. 1· 9. 5 ' 3, 390 "$6' 0 3 Oetrolt·Chtcago (FRS l '"279 "1 :50 152 5511 3. 0- 12 0 • 3, 947 1 4 Los Angeles-Las Vegas 230 I' 15 184 22" 330 10. 1 ' .924 " B 5 Miami-Tampa 1:45 180 16 440 9' 4 ' 4,704 $10." 7 Philadelphia-Pittsburgh '"313 2:26 120 626 16 . $10,024' 0 • Medl an '"$7, 3

Notes: 1/ The numbers presented In this table represent a synthesis of various ~eports and articles. They are subject to our Interpretation of the report contents. An attempt Yas made to equalize• costs in terms of the year and components for comparative purposes. That Is. all costs have been converted to 1985 dollars using the consumer price index for the Detroit urban area. Station and vehicle costs have been ~xcluded when identifiable.

2/ Proposed system numbers 1, 2 and 3 (top.speeds 125, 150~60, and 200-50 mph~. The figures were obtained from the Fe-::1eral Reserve Bank fFRBJ of Chicago publication entitled "High Speed Rail in the MidWest: An Eco~mic Analysis" elated 1984.

3/ Proposed system number 4 (top speed 125 mphl. The figures were obtained from the Advanced Rail Consortium fARCl workpaper entitled "Oeveloping High Speed Rail Transportation in the Chicago-Oetrolt Corridor,'' no date although costs are eJ

4/ Proposed system number 6 I top speed 125 mphl, number 8 ftop speed 150-50 mphl. and number 6 (tap speed 200-50 mphl, The Figures were OCtained from the Pennsylvania High Speed Int~rcity Rail Passenger Commission report entitled "Pennsylvania High Speed Rail Feasibility Study: Preliminary Report (Phase 11~ and its Executive Summary. Ridership figu~es are the base demand for the year 2000; high demand ridership estimates are somc~hat more than double these figures. Oouble track is assumed for all three Philadelphia, Pittsburgh alternatives presented In this table.

S/ Proposed system number 7 (top speed 125 mph). The fi~1res were obtained from the Office of Technology Assessment report dated 1983. The costs {$2.9 bl"llio~n are assumed to be 1983 dollars.

6/ Proposed system numoer 4 I top speed 150-60 mphl. The figures were obtained from a ..Japanese National RailYays paper entitled HPreliminary studies for a High Sp~ed Rai I Construction Project !n the Chicago Hub Corridors," dated Oecember 1984. It is ~ssumed that the costs are 1984 dollars (seep. 271, Also the S110 million station cost has been excluded.

11 Proposed system number 5 I top speed 150-60 mphl, number 4 I top speed 200~50 mph!. The figures were obtained from The Technical Center report entitled "Las Vegas to Los Angeles High SpP.cd/Super Speed Ground Transrortation System Feas1t>i I i ty Study," dated ..January 27. 1983. Two passing sections are assumed, one at 50 mile"> and one at 155 miles from the Ontarto terminal, each 30 miles in length for the 150-60 mph system and 50 miles in length for the 200~50 mph system.

8/ Proposed system number 6 (top speed 150~60 mph). The figures were obtained from the High Speed Rail Association "Speedlines" Vol 2. No ! . ..January 1985. The article is entitled ~concensus: California AHSRC Decision will have Minimal Effect Elsuwhere." It is assumed that the $3100 million capital cost is a 1984 figure and includes station and vehicle costs. Ho~ever, these costs are not !dentlfiable so the full $3100 million has been updated to 19S5 and included in this table.

9/ Proposed system number 5 (top speed 125 mphl, number 7 1 tep speed 150-60 mphl, and number 5 {top speed 200-50 mphl. The figures were obtained from the Sarton-Aschman Associates. Inc. repor-t entitled "The florida High Speed Rai I Study," dated Septemoer 1984. Ridersn1p estimates are for the year 2000. ·.All costs are in 1983 dollars. !tis assumed that all three systems have 126 miles of double track.

10/ Proposed system number

Source: MOOT, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Intercity Transportation Planning Division.

82 APPENDIX C

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Alternative A: 79 moh With Sinale Track

This alternative consists of a single track, FRA Class 4, 79 mph railroad from Detroit t~ Porter, excepting Detroit to Dearborn which would be double track. Bi-d i recti on centra I i zed train contra 1 (CTC) signa I i ng and cant i nuous we 1ded rai I (CWR) are assumed. The would be relocated to the Joe Louis Arena area requiring a one mile extension of the existing main I ine track. The existing multiple-track Conrail line between Porter and Chicag·o Union Station would be used. This alternative allows attainment of 79 mph speeds in 70 percent of the 280 mile corridor and costs $79.5 mi I lion.

o Track and Roadbed Construction. Instal I continuous welded rai I between Detroit and Kalamazoo. This consists of replacing two bolted-rail main I ine tracks between Detroit and Dearborn, and one between Dearborn and Kalamazoo with continuous welded rai I and retiring the other bolted-rai I main I ine track between Dearborn and Kalamazoo excepting those segments to be used as passing tracks. Rehabilitate tie, ballast, and other track materials as required. Reconstruct trackage at Porter, Alton Junction, and South Chicago to enhance running times.

o Passing Tracks. Provide passing tracks at approximately 10 mile intervals. This wi 1 I include three passing tracks between Detroit and.· Ann Arbor, eight between Ann Arbor and Ka I amazoo, and six between Kalamazoo and Po~ter. The passing tracks at Jackson,· Battle Creek and Kalamazoo would be CWR. AI I others would be bolted-rail. AI I but one of these use the existing roadbed, ballast, and ties.

0 Signals and Communication. Install CTC signaling (capable of ~a~c~c~o~m~m~o~d7a~t~in~g--~c~a~b~~s~i~g~n~a~J7i~ng) in both directions between Detroit and Kalamazoo. Use existing CTC signaling west of Kalamazoo.

o Grade Crossings. Provide gates at all public crossings. This wi I I involve instal I ing gates (including flashing I ight signals where necessary) at 89 crossings currently without such protect[on. No additional protection wi I I be provided at private crossings.

o Cost-by-Item. 1985 $ (m i I I ions)

Track and Roadbed Construction (155.1 track mi Jes) $49. I Passing Tracks (17 passing tracks) 9.4 Signals and Communication (139. 1 route miles) 9.7 Grade Crossings (89 crossings) 4. 1 Engineering and Contingency (10%) ].2 Tota 1· $79.5

85 UCTROIT - CHICAGO CJ~R!O.Jil; 7J '<\Pii SL.GLE TPhC

CETrOii - JOE LOL;I S (:~P "J) SE:lTA Owner (,IP 1.4) CP 15th St. West Detroit

Southfield X-way DEARGORli (;;p 8} l4ayne \Hllow Run Conrail Ann Arbor (Owner) Four 1'1i1e Lake • Grass Lake

Jackson ,;;. JAC!~SOi! (.'-lP 75) CR To Lansing~ • Bath Nills . arsila 11 11 GTW To Lansing '-----{';.Jp 119) Grand Trunk Battle Creek BATTLE. CREE:~ (r-1P ] 20) (Owner) :·lP lZl} • south Bend Augusta Conrail CR (Owner) 80 Tower CR K.Ali\1!1!\ZOO (!·iP 143) Oshtemo NP 141) Lawton

Do~1agi.ac

iHles tast

Amtrak • (Owner) Dayton

Three Oaks

Hicn.igan City Trai 1 Creek ~ra1·1brioqc

lOth Street C&O io 0',and Rapids Porter \ _:<-x<'CR to Elkhart :IP 241) ,\,,

Pine &0 H.tck. IHoIH:~B~X$C tndiana :tarbor Can.Jl Drawbridge Conrail Wayne (Owner)

1-lhtting -t+H-ifH+I'ifH+H.,_ B&OCT J-!A;-1~·1m~o (HP zos J • Calumet River Engle~wod Drawbridge

i1P 279) Alton Jet. S. Cranch of Chior::o RivDt Orawbri dge Amtrak (Owner) C!I!CAGO U~ilrJii ST/\T!O:: (::P 230!

(NOT TO SCALE)

86 Alternative 8: 79 mph with Double Track Segments

This alternative consists of a combination of single and double track, FRA Class 4, 79 mph railroad from Detroit to Porter. Double track is assumed between Detroit-Ann Arbor, Battle Creek-Kalamazoo, and Porter"Chicago. These double track segments are designed to faci I itate train meets, reduce travel time, and improve schedule rei iabi I ity. AI 1 main I ine track would be continuous welded rai 1 (CwR) with centralized train control (CTC) signaling. This alternative allows 79 mph speeds in 70 percent of the 280 mile corridor and costs $89.4 mi IIi on.

o Track and Roadbed Construction. -Install continuous welded rai 1 between Detroit and Kalamazoo. This consists of replacing two bolted-rai I main I ine tracks with continuous welded rai I between Detroit and Ann Arbor, and between Battle Creek and Kalamazoo. Replace one bolted-rai I main I ine track with continuous welded rail between Ann Arbor and Battle Creek and retire the other excepting those segments to be used as passing tracks. Rehabi 1 itate tie, ballast, and other track materials as required. Reconstruct trackage at Porter, Alton Junction, and South Chicago to enhance running times.

o Passing Tracks. Provide passing tracks at approximately 10 mile intervals. This wi 1 I include five passing tracks between Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo, and six between Kalamazoo and Porter. Only the ·6.0 mile passing track at Jackson would be CwR. AI I others would be bolted-rail. AI I but one of these use the existing roadbed, ballast, and ties.

o Signals and Communication. Instal I CTC signaling (capable of accommodating cab signaling) in both directions between Ann Arbor and Battle Creek. Existing ABS signals would be retained on existing double track segments and existing CTC retained between Kalamazoo and Chicago.

o Grade Crossings. Provide gates at a II pub I i c crossings. This wi II involve installing gates (including flashing 1 ight signals where necessary) at 89 crossings currently without such protection. No additional protection wi I I be provided at private crossings.

o Cost-by-Item. 1985 $ (millions)

Track and Roadbed Construction (214.8 track miles) $67.0 Passing Tracks (II passing tracks) 4.6 Signals and Communication (79.4 route miles) s.6 Grade Crossings (89 crossings) 4. I Engineering and Contingency (10%) 8. I

Total

87 DETROIT - CHICAGO CORRIDOR - 79, 90, &. 110 rnpt1 COitFlGURATIGr.!.

SEMTA DETROIT ~ JOE LOUIS (MP 0) OwnerlMP 1.4} CP 15th St. Canada West Detroit

• DEARBORN (MP 8) Wayne -,.,'++-j'++,l-H.-'-"-'' C&O

• ANN ARBOR (MP 37) Conrail (Owner) Ann Arbor

Four Mile Lake

Grass lake JACKSON (MP 75) Jackson To Bath Mills Marshall TO (MP 119) BATTLE CREEK U1P 120)

Grand Trunk Battle Creek {Owner) South Bend (MP 121 I

80 Tower I Conrail r) KALAMAZOO (MP 143) Oshtemo uw 145) lawton Dowagiac

Niles East NILES (MP 192)

Amtrak Dayton (Owner) Three Oaks

. Trail Creek Drawbridge l~ichigan City CR To Elkhart 1Oth Street '~Vnd Rapids Porter (MP 241 I

Pine Indiana Harbor Canal Hick Drawbridge 1 Conrai 1 Ft. 1iayne (Owner) Whiting HAMMOND (MP 265) Calumet River Englewood tH-H H.f.. p H-J+h- RTA Drawbridge +H+ICG L(MP 279) Alton Jet. S. Branch of Chicago River '~'~""'~ Drawbridge Amtrak (Owner) • CHICAGO UNION STfiTl'!'l (:~P 280) (NOT TO SCALE)

88 Alternative C: 90 mph With Cab Signaling

This alternative consists of a combina~ion of single and double track, FRA Class 5, 90 mph railroad from Detroit to Porter. Double track is as.sumed between Detroit-Ann Arbor, Battle Creek-Kalamazoo, and Porter-Chicago. These double track segments are designed to faci I itate train meets, reduce travel time, and improve schedule rei iabi I ity. Bi-direction centralized train control (CTC) signaling with cab signals and continuous welded rai 1 (CWR) are assumed on all mainline tracks. The existing multiple-track Conrail line between Porter and Chicago Union Station would be used with signal improvements necessary to a! low 90 mph. This alternative allows attainment of 90 mph speeds in 59 percent of the 280 mile corridor and costs $114,0 mi I I ion.

o Track and Roadbed Construction. Instal I continuous welded rai I between Detroit and Kalamazoo. This consists of replacing two bolted-rai I mainline tracks with continuous welded rai I between Detroit and Ann Arbor, and between Battle Creek and Kalamazoo. Replace one bolted-rail mainline track with continuous welded rail between Ann Arbor and Battle Creek and retire the other excepting those segments to be used as passing tracks. Rehabi I itate tie, ballast, and other track materials as required. Reconstruct trackage at Porter, Alton Junction, and South Chicago to enhance running times.

o PassJng Tracks. Provide passing tracks at apP.roximately 10 mile intervals. This wi II include five passing tracks between Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo, and six between Kalamazoo and Porter. Only the 6.0 ini le passing track at Jackson would be CWR. AI I others would ·be bolted-rai I. All but one of these use the existing roadbed, ballast, and ties.

o Signals and Communication. Install CTC with cab signaling i,n both directions between Detroit and Chicago.

o Fencing. Install fencing in built-up areas where speeds of 90 mph are attained. This consists of fencing 30.3 miles between Detroit and Porter. No fencing would be required west of Porter.

o Grade Crossings. Provide gates at all pub I ic crossings. This will involve installing gates (including flashing light signals where necessary) at 89 crossings currently without such protection. Place warning signs at alI private crossings.

o Cost-by-Item. 1985 $ (mi II ions)

Track and Roadbed Construction (214.8 track miles) $ ]0.0 Passing Tracks (II passing tracks) 4.8 Signals and Communication (280.0 route miles) 20.6 Fencing (30.3 route miles) 3.9 Grade Crossings (89 crossings) 4.3 Engineering and Contingency (10%) 10.4

Total $114 .o

89 Alternative 0: I 10 mph With Low Amount of Track Realignment

This alternative consists ?f an upgrade of the existing I ine to a single and double track rai I road operating at maximum speeds of I 10 mph. Double track is assu~ed between Detroit-Ann Arbor, Battle Creek-Kalamazoo, and Porter-Chicago. These double track segments are designed to faci I itate train meets, reduce travel time, and improve schedule rei iabil ity. Because of curve restrictions speeds in many areas east of Kalamazoo are I imited to less than 95 mph , while the predominant running speed between Kalamazoo and Porter is 110 mph. Bi-directional centra I i zed train contra I (CTC) signa I i ng and cant i nuous we I ded ra i I (CWR) is assumed and some restrictive curves would be eliminated .. The existing Conrai I I ine between Porter and Chicago Union Station would be used with improvements necessary for 90 mph running on some segments. This alternative allows attainment of 110 mph in 45 percent of the corridor and 90 mph or more in 70 percent of the corridor and costs $142.7 mi I I ion.

o Track and Roadbed Construction. Instal I continuous welded rai I between Detroit and Kalamazoo. This consists of replacing two bolted-rai I mainline tracks with continuous welded rai I between Detroit and Ann Arbor, and between Battle Creek and Kalamazoo. Replace one bolted-rai I mainline track with continuous welded rai I between Ann Arbor and Battle Creek and retire the other excepting those segments to be used as passing tracks. Rehabi I itate tie, ballast, and other track materials as required. Selected curves would be realigned principally between Ann Arbor and Battle Creek to permit higher Speeds. Reconstruct trackage at Porter, Alton Junction, and South Chicago to enhance running times.

o Passing Tracks. Provide passing tracks at approximately 10 mile intervals. This wi II include five passing tracks between Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo, and six between Kalamazoo and Porter. Only the 6.0 mile passing track at Jackson would be CWR. AI I others would be bolted-rai I. AI I but one of these use the existing roadbed, ba I I as t, and ties.

o Signals and Communication. Install CTC with cab signaling in both directions between Detroit and Chicago.

0 Fencing. Install fencing . in bui It-up areas where speeds of 90 mph or more are attained. This consists of fencing 35.8 miles between Detroit and Porter. No fencing assumed west of Porter.

o Grade Crossings. Separate or close alI pub I ic and private crossings in segments where train speeds exceed 90 mph and the ADT is greater than 5000. Provide gates at alI other public crossings (including flashing I ight signals where necessary) currently without such protection. Install signs at all other ·private crossings where train speeds attain at least 90 mph, but are less than I 10 mph. This involves separating 12 crossings, gating 80 crossings, signing· 36 crossings, and closing 66 crossings.

90 o Cost-by-Item. 1985 s (millions)

Track and Roadbed Construction (214.8 track mi 1es) $ 86.3 Passing Tracks (11 passing tracks) 4.8 Signals and Communication (280.0 route mi Jes) 20.6 Fencing (35.8 route mi Jes) 4.6 Grade Crossings ( 194 crossings) 13. 4 Engineering and Contingency ( 1O%) 13.0

Total $142.7

91 AI ternat i ve E: 110 mph With Moderate Amount of Track Rea I i gnment

This alternative consists of a single and double track rai !road operating at maximum speeds of 110 mph. Double track is assumed between Detroit-Ann Arbor, Battle Creek-Kalamazoo, .and Porter-Chicago. These double track segments are designed to faci I itate train meets, minimize travel time, and achieve schedule reliability. It consists of an upgrade of 147.1 miles of existing line and the construction of 46.9 miles of I ine on new right-of-way between Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo. This wi I I use the 1-94 right-of~way where possible and eliminate many of the most restrictive curves on the route. Bi-directional centralized train contra I (CTC) signa I i ng and cant i nuous ·we I ded ra i I (CWR) are assumed. The existing 'onrai I I ine between Porter and Chicago would be used with improvements for 90 mph running on some segments. This a! lows attainment of 110 mph speeds on 61 percent of the 277 mile corridor and costs $199.8 mi I I ion.

o Track and Roadbed Construction. Instal I continuous welded rai I on all segments. Realignment unit cost of $1.8 mil I ion per track mile is assumed to construct trackage in the freeway median, along edge of freeway right-of-way, or in an entirely new right-of-way. Rehab! I itate tie, ballast, and other track materials as ·required. Reconstruct trackage at Porter, Alton Junction, and South Chicago to enhance running times.

o Passing Tracks. Provide passing tracks at approxjmately 10 mile intervals. This wi II include five passing tracks between Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo, and six between Kalamazoo and Porter. Six of these would be continuous welded rai 1 with three requiring construction of a roadbed. Five would be bolted-raJ I as they are existing passing tracks.

o Signals and Communication. Instal I CTC with cab signaling in both directions between Detroit and Chicago.

0 Fencing. Install fencing in bui It-up areas where speeds of 90 mph or more are attained. This consists of fencing 32.2 miles between Detroit and Porter. No fencing would be required west of Porter.

0 Grade Crossings. Separate or close a II pub I i c and private crossings in segments where train speeds exceed 90 mph and the ADT is greater than 2500. Provide gates at a II other pub II c crossings (inc I ud I ng flashing I i ght signals where necessary) currently without such protection. I nsta II signs at a II other private crossings where train speeds attain at least 90 mph, but are less than 110 mph. This involves separating 36 crossings1 gating 49 crossings, signing 10 crossings, and closing 87 crossings.

o Cost-by-Item. 1985 $ (mi II ions)

Track and Roadbed Construction (211.8 track miles) $126.8 Passing Tracks (II passing tracks) 9.8 Signals and Communication (277 route miles) 19.6 Fencing (32.2 route miles) · 4. I Grade Crossings (182 crossings) 2 I . 3 Engineering and Contingency (10%) 18.2

Total 92 Alternative F: 125 moh With Moderate Amoun~ o~ Track Realianment

This alternative consists of a new single track railroad with long double track passing sections. This alternative differs from previous evolutionary alt'ernatives in that it provides for all new track infrastructure and a sophisticated signal system designed for 125 mph service. The existing rai 1 right-of-way between Detroit and Chicago would be used with some relocation where curves or other factors restrict speed. The area between Ypsi I anti and Kalamazoo is the most I ikely area for I ine relocation. This alternative is estimated to cost $576.0 mil I ion, excluding terminal and rol I ing stock costs.

0 Track and Roadbed Construction. Instal I new continuous welded rai I and related materials on all segments.

o Passing Tracks. Provide passing tracks at appropriate intervals. This consists of constructing pas~iAg. tracks at each station and other locations as necessary to accommodate train meet situations.

o Signals and Communication. Install appropriate signal systems.

o Fencing. Install fencing in built-up areas throughout the corridor.

o Grade Crossings. Separate or close most public and private crossings. This includes alI areas where high. speed operations are provided.

0 Cost. The cost to construct this alternative is estimated to be $576.0 million. This assumes a unit cost of $1.6 mi I I ion per track mile for 360 track miles.

93 Alternative G: 160 moh With High Amount of Track Realignment

This alternative consists of a new single/double combination track, electrified, 160 mph railroad from Detroit to Chicago. Double track segments would be provided where train meets or traffic conditions warrant. Most of the rai I road between Detroit and Porter would be constructed in a new right-of-way, either through open country or in the 1-94 right-of-way. Thus, most of the curves would be eliminated and most communities by-passed. Existing rai I rights-of-way would probably be used to gain access to the Detroit and Chicago stations. This allows attainment of 160 mph speeds in more than 90 percent of the approximately 260 mile corridor. New alignments would allow places 1 ike Benton Harbor or South Bend and Detroit Metropolitan Airport to receive direct service. The co~t would be $1.6 bi 1 I ion, excluding terminal and rol 1 ing stock costs.

o Track and Roadbed Construction. Construct main! ine track in new rights-of-way relatively free of curves and communities except where stations are located.

a Passing Tracks. Provide passing tracks at appropriate intervals. This consists of constructing passing tracks at each station and other locations as necessary to accommodate train meet situations.

o Signals, Electrification and Communication. Install appropriate signal and electrical control systems.

o Fencing. Instal I fencing throughout the corridor.

a Grade Crossings. Separate or close al 1 pub I ic and private crossings.

0 Cast. The cost to construct this alternative is estimated to ~1.6 b iII ian. This assumes a unit cost of $4.4 mi 1 I ion per track mile to provide alI the above features.

94 Alternative H: 250 moh With Entirely New Guideway

This alternative consists of a single guideway, magnetic-levitation, 250 mph system from Detroit to Chicago. A combination at-surface and elevated guideway, by-passing most communities, with passing sections would be constructed. Existing rail or highway rights-of-way, as wei I as new rights-of-way through open country, would be used where appropriate. New alignments would allow places I ike the Benton Harbor or South Bend urbanized areas, and Detroit 1\etropol itan Airport to receive direct service. The cost would be $2.6 bi II ion, excluding terminal and vehicle costs.

o Guideway Construction and Route Location. ·Instal I a single guideway between· Detroit and Chicago. This consists of constructing a guideway in new rights-of-way free of restrictive curves and communities except where stations are located. Some stations included in the other high speed alternatives may be eliminated to increase the percentage of the route which could be operated at 250 mph. The guideway would be located in existing transportation (freeway, rai I) rights-of-way to the extent possible to promote the multi-modal transportation corridor concept. Development of scenic vistas would be achieved by strategic guideway routing. Stations would be located to maximize user convenience and promote economic development. The guideway would be primarily elevated through urban areas and at-surface in undeveloped areas.

0 Passing Sections. Provide passing sections at approximately 50 mile intervals. This consists of constructing passing sections at each station and other locations as necessary to accommodate train meet situations.

o Signals and Communication. Install appropriate signal and control systems.

0 Fencing. Install fencing where the guideway is at-surface. This consists of fencing 160 miles between Ann Arbor and the Porter area. Little or no fencing would be required between Detroit and Ann Arbor and between Porter and Chicago as an elevated structure would be used in most of these segments.

o Grade Crossings. Separate or close alI pub I ic and private crossings. Separations wi I I generally be accomplished through use of an elevated, magnetic-levitation guideway.

0 Cost. The cost to construct this alternative is estimated to b;$2.6 bil I ion. This assumes a unit cost of $7.3 mi I I ion per guideway mi Je to provide alI the above features.

95 APPENDIX D

DEIAll.ED MAPS OF SEIECI'ED STATION AREAS DETROIT STATION AREA m ll!!l!!illllllllllili !lil!illl SEMTA Trackage to .Joe Louis Arena (New) II !llll!!l!!illllllla Amtrak Trackage (Owned by Conrail) ~~~~~ CN Trackage to Canada Conrail Freight Trackage Downtown People Mover (Under Construction

0

Pass. Station · "Windsor

99 DETROIT METROPOLITAN AIRPORT AREA

IIIIBIIDI!IIUI/Hl l-94

i!1m1!1 illlliiBlllfllilllll Norfolk and Western Railway

ill a lfiilllllll am Potential People Mover

IIIII Terminal Buildings

(\\??J Parking Areas

0 0

AIAI'OIU

0 500 1000 Scale 1" = 850 tt. I ' W(NOll~ 'gl. g: :OAII -~r ~~ ~-: :~H .. ~us~ ," ~-;CH(ST?

@ V<.SOtl Chicago Harbor Michigan

VANSUII!N ~

rt:..M1;\_zJ:i' ~-,_ !"i j CHICAGO UNION STATION AREA ~ -'( ll ' \ Grant "'..;..Ailf1 ~ Union Station Park ...... Amtrak Trackage l' l ---- Rapid Tr011sit-EI..,..Ied POU I '

CJ.gRlfO.. • ~ :~-,....r'"'~ ~ \PAI!lt~ i ' l ,!' ~ ...... :.:.:_....-...~ i MAJCWl!LL a ' ..I UTH I ,.,~ ...

l 01 APPENDIX E

RAn. PASSENGER DEMAND ESTIMATES DETROIT-CHICAGO RAIL PASSENGER DEMAND ESTIMATES (1985 DAILY PASSENGER TRIPS) 1/

Maximum Average Time Daily Round Trips Speed Speed (minutes) 3 6 8 12 24 79 (existing) 51 330 1,196 2,394 2,768 3,512 4,140 79 s 56 300 1,742 3,129 3,612 4,576 5,421 79 D 59 285 2,011 3,491 4,027 5,100 6,052 90 65 260 2,437 4,062 4,683 5,926 7,046 110 69 245 2,692 4,404 5,077 6,423 7,644 110 74 230 2,946 4,747 5,470 6,919 8,241

~ 0 m 125 80 210 3,286 5,203 5,996 7,580 9,037 160 105 160 4,136 6,344 7,307 9,234 11,027 250 168 100 5,156 7,714 8,882 11,219 13,416

Note: 1/ Ridership estimates assume the existence of feeder or connecti~g services and service to some smaller communities. Source: MDOT, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Intercity Transportation Planning Division. 1984 RAIL PASSENGER TRIP TABLE

CHICAGO-OETROITcTOLEOO

(AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS)

******* OESHNAHON ******* TDL on DER VPS 1\RB ~XN Ali BTl KAL DOA NLS MCI HMI CHI TOTAL :tORI GIN* lOl 0 16 3 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 29.

DET 14 0 11 3 0 3 8 0 3 3 73 121

DER 4 0 0 0 31 2 0 5 14 0 4 2 51 114

·vps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ARB 4 10 29 0 0 2 0 3 13 0 5 2 72 141

4 2 0 0 3 0 33 ~ uXN 2 0 2 2 0 0 17 0 (J) AU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BTL 1 3 5 0 2 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 25 44

KAL 3 B 14 0 13 2 0 .5 0 o· 3 0 54 103

DOA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NLS 0 3 4 0 5 2 0 4 0 0 0 17 37

MCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5

Hill 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 11

CHI 75 48 0 71 16 24 52 3 16 2 3 0 312

TOTAL 28 123 108 142 .30 45 104 3 34 5 12 3Hl 952 INTERCITY RAil PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

CHICAGO - DETROIT - :TOLEDO RIDERSHIP ------.JAN MAR APR MAY JUN JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAl ------YEAR fEB 1974 17' 288 16,780 21 ,870 22,988 20,075 20,787 22,737 24' 049 13,941 14,860 17,903 23,338 236,616

1975 17,838 14' 911 18,191 29,957 32,890 39,551 41,238 41' 386 23,944 26,605 32,672 30,799 349,982

1976 28,281 26, 123 27,296 35,784 36,059 34,246 36,441 35,922 24,610 27' 193 27' 128 30,459 369,542

1977 23,800 20,713 23,836 31.692 35,704 32. 136 33,840 31 '627 21, 128 22,815 26,909 29,205 333,405

1978 25, OS 1 23,479 29,980 28,430 32,487 31,364 28,972 31.296 21,807 25,330 30,755 33,489 342,440

1979 26,548 23,981 27,704 37,978 39,990 40,641 40,626 42,253 26,853 25,286 27,685 28,755 388,300

.....,0 1980 24.066 25,394 28,701 33,076 34,647 35,201 38' 147 41 '026 27,493 29,293 31.703 34,220 382,967 1981 29. 142 28,623 31. 883 39,453 36,505 35,401 37,507 38,743 25,449 26. 187 30,846 33,539 393.278

1982 31,151 26,425 27,675 32,053 30,596 30,403 33,898 34,645 23,324 26. 142 28,622 31. 862 356,796

1983 24,467 23,423 26,798 33,885 35,382 27,593 27,848 27,863 26,240 28,300 35,139 37,879 354,817

1984 25' 122 23,094 28,497 31' 525 34,419 35,289 34,637 32,900 21. 947 22,607 27,335 29,879 347,251 ------1985 22,943 21,074 25,690 69,707 Notes: a- Third daily round trip added between Detroit and Chicago on Aprt1 25, 1975. b- Service between Detroit and Toledo iniUated Augu·st. 1980. APPENDIX F

DEI'AILED OPERATING REVENUES OPERATING REVENUES FOR DETROIT-CHICAGO CORRIDOR (in millions of 1985 $)

Annua 1 Passenger N\w-Pas2; Train 1985 Fare11 Average Passengers Revenue Revenue Total Alternative frequency Factor Fare (Thousands) (Mi 11 ions) (Mi 11 ions) Revenue

A 79 S mph 6 1.1 $ 20 1,142 $ 22.8 $ 2.3 $ 25.1

B 79 D mph 6 1.1 20 1,270 25.5 2.6 28.1 c 90 mph 8 1.2 22 l, 709 37.6 3.8 41.4 0 110 mph 12 1.3 23 2,344 53.9 5.4 59.3

~ E 110 mph 12 1.3 23 2,523 58.0 5.8 6 3.8 F 125 mph 12 1.4 25 2, 767 - 69.2 6.9 76.1

G 160 mph 12 1.5 27 3,370 91.0 7.0 98.0

H 250 mph 24 1.6 29 4,897 142.0 7.0 149.0

Notes: 1/ Assumes service improvement supports higher fare. Base fare is assumed to be $18. In addition, higher speed services will generate more business travel at premium rates. 2/ Assumes 10% of passenger revenues to a maximum of $7.0 million for package express, freight and other non- passenger revenues. Source: MOOT, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Intercity Transportation Planning Division

Top View