Coast‐To‐Coast Passenger Rail Ridership and Cost Estimate Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COAST‐TO‐COAST PASSENGER RAIL RIDERSHIP AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY PREPARED FOR: Michigan Environmental Council Grant Fiduciary: Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority PREPARED BY: Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. FEBRUARY 2016 FINAL REPORT This page intentionally left blank COAST‐TO‐COAST PASSENGER RAIL RIDERSHIP AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY: FINAL REPORT About the Michigan Environmental Council & Michigan By Rail Michigan Environmental Council (MEC), a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, is a coalition of more than 70 organizations created in 1980 to lead Michigan’s environmental movement to achieve positive change through the public policy process. These organizations place a high priority on transportation issues as key to Michigan’s economic success and environmental quality. MEC is a co‐founder and convener of Michigan by Rail—an informal coalition of advocates working together to improve and expand passenger rail in Michigan. Coalition members include the Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers (also a co‐founder of the coalition), Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities, Friends of WALLY and the Midwest High‐speed Rail Association. Michigan By Rail was involved in hosting public meetings across the state in 2010 to collect feedback for the Michigan Department of Transportation’s State Rail Plan and hosted the first Michigan Rail Summit in 2011. The group is now working to advocate in support of multiple rail expansion and improvement projects across the state. Michigan By Rail led the public engagement portion of this study. For More Information Michigan Environmental Council 602 W. Ionia Street Lansing, MI 48933 517‐487‐9539 environmentalcouncil.org / mibyrail.org Introducon February 2016 Page i COAST‐TO‐COAST PASSENGER RAIL RIDERSHIP AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY: FINAL REPORT This page intentionally left blank Introducon February 2016 Page ii COAST‐TO‐COAST PASSENGER RAIL RIDERSHIP AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY: FINAL REPORT Acknowledgements This study was prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. (TEMS) and managed by the Michigan Environmental Council. The Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority served as the grant fiduciary for the study. Funding was provided in part by a Federal Transit Administration Service Development and New Technology grant and supplemented by a local match generously provided by the following organizations: Ann Arbor DDA Cascade Charter Township City of Plymouth Experience Grand Rapids Greater Lansing Convention & Visitors Bureau Holland Convention & Visitors Bureau Ingham County Economic Development Corporation Livonia Chamber of Commerce Macatawa Area Coordinating Council Michigan West Coast Chamber of Commerce Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce The steering committee played an active role throughout the development of this report. Steering committee members include: Michael Benham, Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority Julia Roberts, Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority Dan Sommerville, Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority Roger Hewitt, Ann Arbor DDA Andrea Faber, Grand Valley Metro Council Steve Bulthuis, Macatawa Area Coordinating Council Larry Krieg, Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers John Langdon, Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers Tausha Drain, Michigan Department of Transportation—Office of Passenger Transportation Kim Johnson, Michigan Department of Transportation—Office of Passenger Transportation Therese Cody, Michigan Department of Transportation—Office of Rail Lori Essenberg, Michigan Department of Transportation—Office of Rail Tim Hoeffner, Michigan Department of Transportation—Office of Rail Al Johnson, Michigan Department of Transportation—Office of Rail Liz Treutel Callin, Michigan Environmental Council Jon Cool, Michigan Railroads Association Dusty Fancher, Midwest Strategy Group Alex Bourgeau, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Ben Stupka, Southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority Rick Chapla, The Right Place Susan Pigg, Tri‐County Regional Planning Commission Michigan Environmental Council would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Sally Mead Hands foundation, which made the contribution of our staff to this project possible. Acknowledgements February 2016 Page iii COAST‐TO‐COAST PASSENGER RAIL RIDERSHIP AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY: FINAL REPORT This page intentionally left blank This Acknowledgements February 2016 Page iv COAST‐TO‐COAST PASSENGER RAIL RIDERSHIP AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY: FINAL REPORT Table of Contents ABOUT THE MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL & MICHIGAN BY RAIL I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS III CHAPTER 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1‐1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1‐1 1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE 1‐2 1.3 PROJECT SCOPE 1‐3 1.4 PROJECT METHODOLOGY 1‐3 1.4.1 STUDY PROCESS 1‐5 1.5 FREIGHT RAILROAD PRINCIPLES 1‐6 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT 1‐7 CHAPTER 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE COAST‐TO‐COAST CORRIDOR 2‐1 2.1 BACKGROUND HISTORY 2‐1 2.2 COAST‐TO‐COAST RAIL CORRIDOR: HISTORICAL REVIEW 2‐2 2.2.1 PRE‐MWRRS ERA, STUDIES AND REPORTS 1971‐1985 2‐7 2.2.2 MWRRS ERA, STUDIES AND REPORTS 1994‐2004 2‐10 2.2.3 POST MWRRS ERA, STUDIES AND REPORTS 2005‐PRESENT 2‐17 2.3 CONCLUSIONS 2‐23 CHAPTER 3 SERVICE AND OPERATING PLAN 3‐1 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3‐1 3.2 TRAIN TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS 3‐1 3.2.1 ROLLING STOCK AND OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS 3‐4 3.3 OPERATING PLAN DEVELOPMENT 3‐5 3.4 TRAIN TECHNOLOGY OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 3‐6 3.5 TRAIN SCHEDULE DEVELOPMENT 3‐7 3.5.1 OPTION 1: NS VIA LANSING/JACKSON 3‐7 3.5.2 OPTION 2: AA VIA HOWELL/ANN ARBOR 3‐9 3.5.3 OPTION 3: CSX VIA PLYMOUTH/WAYNE 3‐11 3.6 COMPARATIVE RUNNING TIMES SUMMARY 3‐13 3.6.1 BENCHMARK COMPARISON 3‐15 Table of Contents February 2016 Page v COAST‐TO‐COAST PASSENGER RAIL RIDERSHIP AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY: FINAL REPORT 3.6.2 CONCLUSION 3‐15 3.7 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST METHODOLOGY 3‐16 3.7.1 VARIABLE COSTS 3‐18 3.7.1.1 TRAIN EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 3‐18 3.7.1.2 TRAIN AND ENGINE CREW COSTS 3‐18 3.7.1.3 FUEL AND ENERGY 3‐19 3.7.1.4 ONBOARD SERVICES (OBS) 3‐19 3.7.1.5 INSURANCE COSTS 3‐20 3.7.2 FIXED ROUTE COSTS 3‐21 3.7.2.1 TRACK AND RIGHT‐OF‐WAY COSTS 3‐21 3.7.2.2 STATION OPERATIONS 3‐24 3.7.2.3 SYSTEM OVERHEAD COSTS 3‐25 3.7.3 OPERATING COST BREAKDOWN AND THE COST OF DEDICATED TRACKS 3‐25 3.7.4 COMPARISON TO THE PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008 COSTS 3‐27 CHAPTER 4 PRIORITIZED CAPITAL PLAN 4‐1 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4‐1 4.2 TRAIN OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS 4‐2 4.2.1 SHARING WITH FREIGHT RAILROADS 4‐2 4.2.2 CONSISTENCY WITH TRAIN OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS 4‐2 4.3 CAPITAL COST ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 4‐3 4.3.1 INFRASTRUCTURE UNIT COSTS 4‐3 4.3.1.1 TRACK 4‐4 4.3.2 STRUCTURES: APPROACHES, FLYOVERS AND BRIDGES 4‐4 4.3.2.1 TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEMS 4‐5 4.3.3 CROSSINGS 4‐6 4.3.4 OTHER COSTS 4‐7 4.4 SEGMENT AND ROUTE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS 4‐8 4.4.1 COSTING SEGMENT #1 – HOLLAND TO GRAND RAPIDS 4‐9 4.4.2 COSTING SEGMENT #2 – GRAND RAPIDS TO LANSING 4‐10 4.4.3 COSTING SEGMENT #3 – LANSING TO JACKSON 4‐10 4.4.4 COSTING SEGMENT #4 – JACKSON TO ANN ARBOR 4‐14 4.4.5 COSTING SEGMENT #5 – ANN ARBOR TO WAYNE 4‐14 4.4.6 COSTING SEGMENT #6 – WAYNE TO DETROIT 4‐15 4.4.7 COSTING SEGMENT #7 – LANSING TO HOWELL 4‐15 4.4.8 COSTING SEGMENT #8 – HOWELL TO ANN ARBOR 4‐15 4.4.9 COSTING SEGMENT #9 – HOWELL TO WAYNE VIA PLYMOUTH 4‐17 4.5 EQUIPMENT AND OVERALL CAPITAL COST SUMMARY 4‐17 Table of Contents February 2016 Page vi COAST‐TO‐COAST PASSENGER RAIL RIDERSHIP AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY: FINAL REPORT CHAPTER 5 DEMOGRAPHICS, SOCIOECONOMIC & TRANSPORTATION DATABASES 5‐1 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5‐1 5.2 ZONE SYSTEM 5‐2 5.3 SOCIOECONOMIC DATABASE DEVELOPMENT 5‐5 5.3.1 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 5‐5 5.3.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS AND GROWTH 5‐6 5.3.2.1 POPULATION 5‐8 5.3.2.2 EMPLOYMENT 5‐8 5.3.2.3 PER CAPITA INCOME 5‐9 5.3.3 SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY 5‐10 5.4 BASE TRANSPORTATION DATABASE DEVELOPMENT 5‐10 5.4.1 BASE TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS 5‐10 5.4.2 ORIGIN‐DESTINATION TRIP DATABASE 5‐14 5.4.3 VALUES OF TIME, VALUES OF FREQUENCY, AND VALUES OF ACCESS TIMES 5‐15 5.5 SUMMARY 5‐17 CHAPTER 6 COAST‐TO‐COAST TRAVEL DEMAND FORECAST 6‐1 6.1 FUTURE TRAVEL MARKET STRATEGIES 6‐1 6.1.1 FUEL PRICE FORECASTS 6‐1 6.1.2 VEHICLE FUEL EFFICIENCY FORECASTS 6‐3 6.1.3 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC CONGESTION 6‐4 6.2 THE TRAVEL DEMAND FORECAST RESULTS 6‐5 6.2.1 RAIL SCENARIOS 6‐5 6.2.2 TOTAL DEMAND 6‐5 6.2.3 RIDERSHIP FORECASTS 6‐6 6.2.4 REVENUE FORECASTS 6‐9 6.2.5 STATION VOLUMES 6‐11 6.2.6 SEGMENT LOADINGS 6‐12 6.3 MARKET SHARES 6‐14 6.3.1 PURPOSE SPLIT 6‐15 6.3.2 SOURCE OF TRIPS 6‐15 6.4 CRITICAL FACTORS THAT DRIVE THE RAIL FORECAST 6‐17 6.5 CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL PLANS & PLANNING PRACTICES FOR SENSITIVITY OPTION ROUTE 2 6‐20 6.5.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUES 6‐20 6.5.2 CONCLUSION 6‐24 6.6 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 6‐25 6.6.1 79‐MPH SERVICE 6‐25 6.6.2 110‐MPH SERVICE 6‐26 6.7 CONCLUSION 6‐27 Table of Contents February 2016 Page vii COAST‐TO‐COAST PASSENGER RAIL RIDERSHIP AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY: FINAL REPORT CHAPTER 7 ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS –PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 7‐1 7.1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 7‐1 7.1.1 INTRODUCTION 7‐1 7.1.2 FINANCIAL RESULTS 7‐2 7.2 ECONOMIC RESULTS 7‐4 7.2.1 INTRODUCTION 7‐4 7.2.2 MEASURES OF FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 7‐4 7.2.3 KEY ASSUMPTIONS 7‐5 7.2.3.1 RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE FORECASTS 7‐6 7.2.3.2 CAPITAL COSTS 7‐6 7.2.4 OPERATING EXPENSES 7‐6 7.2.5 USER BENEFITS 7‐7 7.2.6 ECONOMIC RESULTS 7‐9 7.3 FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE SENSITIVITY OPTION 7‐11 7.3.1 FINANCIAL IMPACTS 7‐11 7.3.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS 7‐12 7.4 CONCLUSION 7‐13 CHAPTER 8 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 8‐1 8.1 INTRODUCTION 8‐1 8.2 MEETING PURPOSE 8‐2 8.3 MEETING FORMATS 8‐2 8.4 PUBLIC FEEDBACK 8‐3 8.4.1 TRADITIONAL PUBLIC MEETINGS 8‐3 8.4.2 CAMPUS MEETINGS 8‐6 8.4.3 ONLINE ENGAGEMENT 8‐7 8.5 CONCLUSION 8‐9 CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 9‐1 9.1 CONCLUSIONS 9‐1 9.2 NEXT STEPS 9‐4 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Table of Contents February 2016 Page viii COAST‐TO‐COAST PASSENGER RAIL RIDERSHIP AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY: FINAL REPORT Chapter 1 Project Overview SUMMARY Chapter 1 of this report sets out the background and purpose of the Coast‐to‐Coast Passenger Rail Line project, including outlining the study’s goal, the scope, and the methodologies used.