DOCSLIB.ORG

Coast‐To‐Coast Passenger Rail Ridership and Cost Estimate Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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.
Recommended publications
  • Venture Trainsets Redefining the Intercity Rail Experience

    Venture Trainsets Redefining the Intercity Rail Experience

    Venture Trainsets Redefining the intercity rail experience usa.siemens.com/mobility Venture Trainsets | Mobility Next generation rail, built for North America. With our latest, intercity trainset, Built, tested, and proven Siemens is redefining what intercity rail While designed and built for tomorrow, the can be. It’s an unsurpassed passenger Venture trainsets are a proven product. Our experience that’s also raising the bar for vehicles are in use throughout North America efficiency with service-proven vehicles and have been built on a tested and designed for tomorrow and in production service-proven platform. Benefiting from today. In short, the Venture is a 21st century decades of experience in North America, trainset that’s being embraced by passengers, we’ve developed them to meet the unique operators, and agencies alike. needs of the market. All vehicles are designed and validated in accordance with FRA Riders will enjoy new levels of comfort and regulations, APTA standards and PRIIA 305 convenience along with the latest amenities. specifications for next generation equipment. The Venture features spacious interiors and flexibility for multiple configurations of First in safety economy, business, cafe and cab cars. Providing the most protection for the riding Integrated crash energy management public is our top priority. That’s why Venture provides next generation safety. trainsets feature the safest rail car design on Reduce operating costs and enhance the market. All carbodies incorporate Crash sustainability with the clean and green Energy Management (CEM) crumple zones Charger diesel-electric locomotive. Light to absorb energy at both ends of the car. and powerful, it delivers maximum Our design also includes a controlled performance and reliability up to collapse feature to enhance safety in the 125 mph.
  • 40Thanniv Ersary

    40Thanniv Ersary

    Spring 2011 • $7 95 FSharing tihe exr periencste of Fastest railways past and present & rsary nive 40th An Things Were Not the Same after May 1, 1971 by George E. Kanary D-Day for Amtrak 5We certainly did not see Turboliners in regular service in Chicago before Amtrak. This train is In mid April, 1971, I was returning from headed for St. Louis in August 1977. —All photos by the author except as noted Seattle, Washington on my favorite train to the Pacific Northwest, the NORTH back into freight service or retire. The what I considered to be an inauspicious COAST LIMITED. For nearly 70 years, friendly stewardess-nurses would find other beginning to the new service. Even the the flagship train of the Northern Pacific employment. The locomotives and cars new name, AMTRAK, was a disappoint - RR, one of the oldest named trains in the would go into the AMTRAK fleet and be ment to me, since I preferred the classier country, had closely followed the route of dispersed country wide, some even winding sounding RAILPAX, which was eliminat - the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804, up running on the other side of the river on ed at nearly the last moment. and was definitely the super scenic way to the Milwaukee Road to the Twin Cities. In addition, wasn’t AMTRAK really Seattle and Portland. My first association That was only one example of the serv - being brought into existence to eliminate with the North Coast Limited dated to ices that would be lost with the advent of the passenger train in America? Didn’t 1948, when I took my first long distance AMTRAK on May 1, 1971.
  • FEDERAL REGISTER VOLUME 32 • NUMBER 247 Friday, December 22, 1967 • Washington, D.C

    FEDERAL REGISTER VOLUME 32 • NUMBER 247 Friday, December 22, 1967 • Washington, D.C

    FEDERAL REGISTER VOLUME 32 • NUMBER 247 Friday, December 22, 1967 • Washington, D.C. Pages 20697-20760 Agencies in this issue— Agricultural Research Service Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Agriculture Department Air Forée Department Atomic Energy Commission Business and Defense Services Administration Civil Aeronautics Board Civil Service Commission Commerce Department Consumer and Marketing Service Emergency Planning Office Farm Credit Administration Federal Aviation Administration Federal Communications Commission Federal Highway Administration Federal Housing Administration Federal Power Commission Federal Trade Commission Fish and Wildlife Service Fiscal Service Interior Department Internal Revenue Service Interstate Commerce Commission Mines Bureau National Aeronautics and Space Administration Navy Department Securities and Exchange Commission Detailed list of Contents appears inside. 2-year Compilation Presidential Documents Code of Federal Regulations TITLE 3, 1964-1965 COMPILATION Contains the full text of Presidential Proclamations, Executive orders, reorganization plans, and other formal documents issued by the President and published in the Federal Register during the period January 1, 1964- December 31, 1965. Includes consolidated tabular finding aids and a consolidated index. Price: $3.75 Compiled by Office of the Federal Register. National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration Order from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Published daily, Tuesday through Saturday (no publication on Sundays, Mondays, or on the day after an official Federal holiday), by the Office of the Federal Register, National FEDEMUaPEGISTER__ _ Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration (mail address National Area Code 202 - Phone 962-8626 Archives Building, Washington, D.C. 20408), pursuant to the authority contained in the Federal Register Act, approved July 26, 1935 (49 Stat.
  • March 25, 2019 Volume 39

    March 25, 2019 Volume 39

    MARCH 25, 2019 ■■■■■■■■■■■ VOLUME 39 ■■■■■■■■■■ NUMBER 3 13 The Semaphore 17 David N. Clinton, Editor-in-Chief CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Southeastern Massachusetts…………………. Paul Cutler, Jr. “The Operator”………………………………… Paul Cutler III Cape Cod News………………………………….Skip Burton Boston Herald Reporter……………………… Jim South 24 Boston Globe & Wall Street Journal Reporters Paul Bonanno, Jack Foley Western Massachusetts………………………. Ron Clough Rhode Island News…………………………… Tony Donatelli “The Chief’s Corner”……………………… . Fred Lockhart Mid-Atlantic News……………………………. Doug Buchanan PRODUCTION STAFF Publication…………….………………… …. … Al Taylor Al Munn Jim Ferris Bryan Miller Web Page …………………..………………… Savery Moore Club Photographer……………………………. Joe Dumas The Semaphore is the monthly (except July) newsletter of the South Shore Model Railway Club & Museum (SSMRC) and any opinions found herein are those of the authors thereof and of the Editors and do not necessarily reflect any policies of this organization. The SSMRC, as a non-profit organization, does not endorse any position. Your comments are welcome! Please address all correspondence regarding this publication to: The Semaphore, 11 Hancock Rd., Hingham, MA 02043. ©2019 E-mail: [email protected] Club phone: 781-740-2000. Web page: www.ssmrc.org VOLUME 39 ■■■■■ NUMBER 3 ■■■■■ MARCH 2019 CLUB OFFICERS BILL OF LADING President………………….Jack Foley Vice-President…….. …..Dan Peterson Treasurer………………....Will Baker Book Review ........ ………12 Secretary……………….....Dave Clinton Chief’s Corner ...... ……. .3 Chief Engineer……….. .Fred Lockhart Contests ................ ……….3 Directors……………… ...Bill Garvey (’20) ……………………….. .Bryan Miller (‘20) Clinic……………..………3 ……………………… ….Roger St. Peter (’19) Editor’s Notes. ….….....….12 …………………………...Gary Mangelinkx (‘19) Members ............... …….....12 Memories .............. ………..4 th Potpourri ............... ..…..…..5 ON THE COVER: March 9-10 Show Running Extra....... .….……13 and Open House memories. (Photos by Joe Dumas) 2 FORM 19 ORDERS Fred Lockhart MARCH B.O.D.
  • Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study

    Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study

    Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study PHASE I REPORT Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TT AA BB LL EE OO FF CC OO NN TT EE NN TT SS Section 1 – Data Collection & Application 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Purpose 1.3 Overview of Data Required 1.4 Application Section 2 – Peer Group Analysis 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Purpose 2.3 Overview of Peer Group Analysis 2.4 Conclusion Section 3 – Institutional Issues 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Purpose 3.3 Overview of Institutional Issues A. Organizational Issues B. Process Issues C. Implementation Issues 3.4 Summary Institutional Recommendations Appendix • DDMA Rail Study – Peer Property Reference List Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-1 List of Tables Table 1-1 Data Application Table 2-1 Peer Group Data Table 3-1 Procurement of Services Table 3-2 Virginia Railway Express Insurance Table 3-3 Commuter Rail Systems and Sponsors Table 3-4 Funding Sources Table 3-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Existing Agencies as Sponsor of Proposed Rail Passenger Service List of Figures Figure 3-1 Risk, Liability and Insurance of Railroad Operations Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-2 1 DD AA TT AA CC OO LL LL EE CC TT II OO NN && AA PP PP LL II CC AA TT II OO NN 1.1 INTRODUCTION The usefulness of virtually any study is directly related to the quality of the input or source material available. This is certainly true for the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study.
  • Transportation: Request for Passenger Rail Bonding -- Agenda Item II

    Transportation: Request for Passenger Rail Bonding -- Agenda Item II

    Legislative Fiscal Bureau One East Main, Suite 301 • Madison, WI 53703 • (608) 266-3847 • Fax: (608) 267-6873 Email: [email protected] • Website: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb October 31, 2019 TO: Members Joint Committee on Finance FROM: Bob Lang, Director SUBJECT: Department of Transportation: Request for Passenger Rail Bonding -- Agenda Item II REQUEST On October 3, 2019, the Department of Transportation (DOT) submitted a request under s. 85.061 (3)(b) of the statutes for approval to use $13,248,100 BR in GPR-supported, general obligation bonding from DOT's passenger rail route development appropriation to fund the required state match for a recently awarded Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) grant for the purchase of six single-level coach cars and three cab-coach cars to be placed into service in the Milwaukee- Chicago Hiawatha corridor. BACKGROUND DOT is required to administer a rail passenger route development program funded from a transportation fund continuing appropriation (SEG) and a general fund-supported, general obligation bonding appropriation (BR). From these sources, DOT may fund capital costs related to Amtrak service extension routes (the Hiawatha service, for example) or other rail service routes between the cities of Milwaukee and Madison, Milwaukee and Green Bay, Milwaukee and Chicago, Madison and Eau Claire, and Madison and La Crosse. Under the program, DOT is not allowed to use any bond proceeds unless the Joint Finance Committee (JFC) approves the use of the proceeds and, with respect to any allowed passenger route development project, the Department submits evidence to JFC that Amtrak, or the applicable railroad, has agreed to provide rail passenger service on that route.
  • Northern Michigan Rail Ridership Feasibility and Cost Estimate Study

    Northern Michigan Rail Ridership Feasibility and Cost Estimate Study

    NORTHERN MICHIGAN RAIL RIDERSHIP FEASIBILITY AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY PREPARED FOR: The Groundwork Center For Resilient Communities Grant Fiduciary: Bay Area Transportation Authority PREPARED BY: Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. OCTOBER 2018 FINAL REPORT This page intentionally left blank NORTHERN MICHIGAN RAIL RIDERSHIP FEASIBILITY AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY About the Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities The Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities works with people to build a thriving local farm and food economy; to make Michigan towns and villages stronger, more walkable, bike-able, and transit- friendly; and to develop local, clean energy. They seek to achieve on-the-ground results in northwest Michigan and leverage them to support other communities and improvements to state policy. All of this is designed to strengthen the local economy, protect the environment, and build community. Re-establishing passenger rail service between Ann Arbor, Petoskey, and Traverse City—homes to growing technology industries—will link the growing northwest with population centers in the southeast and universities along the way. Civic and business leaders believe this effort will help our state attract the next generation workforce that wants to live and thrive in Michigan without depending on a car. Groundwork believes that bringing passenger rail service back to northern Michigan is possible in less than a decade with a focused campaign of public engagement, technical analysis, and support from community, state and federal agencies. For More Information Groundwork center 148 E. Front Street, Suite 301 Traverse City, MI 49684-5725 (231) 941-6584 [email protected] Introduction October 2018 Page i NORTHERN MICHIGAN RAIL RIDERSHIP FEASIBILITY AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY This page intentionally left blank Introduction October 2018 Page ii NORTHERN MICHIGAN RAIL RIDERSHIP FEASIBILITY AND COST ESTIMATE STUDY Acknowledgements This study was prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc.
  • MDOT Michigan State Rail Plan Tech Memo 2 Existing Conditions

    MDOT Michigan State Rail Plan Tech Memo 2 Existing Conditions

    Technical Memorandum #2 March 2011 Prepared for: Prepared by: HNTB Corporation Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 2. Freight Rail System Profile ......................................................................................2 2.1. Overview ...........................................................................................................2 2.2. Class I Railroads ...............................................................................................2 2.3. Regional Railroads ............................................................................................6 2.4. Class III Shortline Railroads .............................................................................7 2.5. Switching & Terminal Railroads ....................................................................12 2.7. State Owned Railroads ...................................................................................16 2.8. Abandonments ................................................................................................18 2.10. International Border Crossings .....................................................................22 2.11. Ongoing Border Crossing Activities .............................................................24 2.12. Port Access Facilities ....................................................................................24 3. Freight Rail Traffic ................................................................................................25
  • 1.0 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action

    1.0 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action

    1.0 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action 1.1 Description of the Proposed Action The City of Ann Arbor, Michigan in partnership with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have proposed to construct an intermodal station within the City of Ann Arbor. This project would support the existing Amtrak intercity service between Detroit, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois, the planned Midwest High Speed Rail service between Detroit/Pontiac and Chicago and the future proposed regional commuter rail service (see Section 1.6, Relationship to other Transportation Planning Initiatives). This Environmental Assessment will include an evaluation of the existing station location along with other alternatives in Ann Arbor, and will assess their ability to support current and future Intercity Passenger rail service, in addition to local and regional transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation. 1.2 Project Study Area Exhibit 1.1: Project Study Area Source: ESRI The project study area is located in the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, along the rail line used by the Wolverine Intercity Passenger rail service, (see Exhibit 1.1) from where the City boundary on the northwest meets the rail line, southwest through the city to the city limits at the intersection of US Highway 23 and the rail line. The project study area for the proposed intermodal station is completely within the city limits of Ann Arbor as the City of Ann 1 Arbor will assume ownership of a new station. The existing station is located at 325 Depot Street, northwest of the central Ann Arbor downtown area, the University of Michigan (U-M) central campus and the U-M Medical Center.
  • The Michigan Passenger Welcomes Submissions on Passenger Rail Vacant Issues for Publication

    The Michigan Passenger Welcomes Submissions on Passenger Rail Vacant Issues for Publication

    Th e Michigan Passenger Your Source For Passenger Rail News Since 1973 Spring 2012 Volume 39, Number 2 Study looks for speed savings between Detroit and Chicago By Larry Sobczak Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and cials, an important focus of the The U.S. Department of the Norfolk Southern Railway study will be reducing conges- Transportation (USDOT) is un- will contribute $200,000 each. tion by linking a double track Michigan Association dertaking a new $4 million study “This is an important part- passenger main to the 110 mph of Railroad Passengers to reduce passenger and freight nership in our efforts to reinvent service at Porter. The study will www.marp.org rail congestion between De- Michigan, specifi cally creating build on progress Michigan has troit and Chicago along the high an accelerated rail connection already made by achieving 110 speed rail corridor. between Detroit and Chicago for mph service from Porter to Ka- WHAT’S lamazoo. The USDOT announced both citizens and businesses,” INSIDE May 4 that it will contribute $3.2 said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. “This is an important step million towards the study while According to USDOT offi - (See STUDY, page 8) Passengers head “south of the border” See Page 3 Meeting highlights See Page 4 Rewarding Amtrak adventure See Page 5 Celebrate National Train Day See Page 6 Grade crossing crashes discussed See Page 7 Amtrak and Canadian National trains meet in the city of Detroit. This is one of three areas in Michigan Recall targets transit that Amtrak claims it is delayed by the freight train operator.
  • (Amtrak) PTC Implementation Plan Revised July 16, 2010

    (Amtrak) PTC Implementation Plan Revised July 16, 2010

    National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) PTC Implementation Plan Revised July 16, 2010 Revision2.0 Submitted in fulfillment of 49 CFR Part 236, Subpart I, § 236.1011 Revision History AmtrakPTCIP.doc Date Revision Description Author 4/12/10 0.1 Release for internal comments E. K. Holt 4/16/10 1.0 Release to FRA E. K. Holt Revised per FRA comments of 6/18/10 E. K. Holt PTCIP, Appendix A and Appendix B 7/16/10 2.0 revised i PTC Implementation Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Amtrak Background.................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Overview of Amtrak Operations......................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Northeast Corridor ...................................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Northeast Corridor Feeder Lines ................................................................ 8 1.2.2.1 Keystone Corridor (Harrisburg Line) ......................................................... 8 1.2.2.2 Empire Connection ..................................................................................... 8 1.2.2.3 Springfield Line .......................................................................................... 9 1.2.3 The Michigan Line.......................................................................................... 9 1.2.4 Chicago Terminal.......................................................................................
  • Amtrak Train Collision with Maintenance-Of-Way Equipment Chester, Pennsylvania April 3, 2016

    Amtrak Train Collision with Maintenance-Of-Way Equipment Chester, Pennsylvania April 3, 2016

    Amtrak Train Collision with Maintenance-of-Way Equipment Chester, Pennsylvania April 3, 2016 Accident Report NTSB/RAR-17/02 National PB2018-100263 Transportation Safety Board NTSB/RAR-17/02 PB2018-100263 Notation 57150 Adopted November 14, 2017 Railroad Accident Report Amtrak Train Collision with Maintenance-of-Way Equipment Chester, Pennsylvania April 3, 2016 National Transportation Safety Board 490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20594 National Transportation Safety Board. 2017. Amtrak Train Collision with Maintenance-of-Way Equipment, Chester, Pennsylvania, April 3, 2016. NTSB/RAR-17/02. Washington, DC. Abstract: On April 3, 2016, about 7:50 a.m. eastern daylight time, southbound Amtrak train 89 (train 89) struck a backhoe with a worker inside at milepost 15.7 near Chester, Pennsylvania. The train was authorized to operate on main track 3 (track 3) at the maximum authorized speed of 110 mph. Beginning on the morning of April 1, Amtrak had scheduled track-bed restoration―ballast vacuuming—at milepost 15.7 on track 2 on the Philadelphia to Washington Line. Track 2 had to be taken out of service between control points Baldwin (milepost 11.7) and Hook (milepost 16.8) for the 55 hour duration of the project. As train 89 approached milepost 15.7, the locomotive engineer saw equipment and workers on and near track 3 and initiated an emergency brake application. The train speed was 106 mph before the emergency brake application and 99 mph when it struck the backhoe. Two roadway workers were killed, and 39 other people were injured. Amtrak estimated property damages to be $2.5 million.