DOCSLIB.ORG

Regional Master Transit Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regional Master Transit Plan Regional Master Transit Plan State of the System and Transit Market Analysis Report August 2015 Prepared by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. State of the System | i Table of Contents Page 1 Overview.............................................................................................................. 1-1 2 Existing Services ................................................................................................ 2-1 Existing General Public Transit Services............................................................... 2-1 Paratransit and Mobility Management ................................................................. 2-45 Existing Institutional and Employer Transit Services ........................................... 2-53 Existing Transit-supportive Systems and Services .............................................. 2-60 Planned and Anticipated Transit Services ........................................................... 2-63 Overall Assessment of Existing Services ............................................................ 2-68 Existing Services Conclusion .............................................................................. 2-82 3 Transit Market Analysis ...................................................................................... 3-1 Development Patterns and Transit Demand ......................................................... 3-2 Elements Driving Transit Demand ........................................................................ 3-8 Existing Population-Based Transit Demand .......................................................... 3-9 Existing Employment-Based Transit Demand ..................................................... 3-24 Existing Travel Flows .......................................................................................... 3-38 Future Transit Demand ....................................................................................... 3-41 2040 Employment-Based Transit Demand .......................................................... 3-46 2040 Future Travel Flows ................................................................................... 3-58 Conclusions and Summary ................................................................................. 3-59 4 Conclusions and Next Steps .............................................................................. 4-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4-1 Major Issues ......................................................................................................... 4-1 Paratransit, Demand Response, and Mobility Management ................................ 4-10 Next Steps .......................................................................................................... 4-11 State of the System | ii Table of Figures Page Figure 1-1 Existing Transit Service in Southeast Michigan ........................................ 1-3 Figure 2-1 Existing Fixed Route Transit Services in the RTA Region by Provider ..... 2-3 Figure 2-2 AAATA System Map ................................................................................ 2-5 Figure 2-3 AAATA Days of Service ........................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-4 AAATA Service Frequencies ................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-5 AAATA On-Time Performance ................................................................. 2-9 Figure 2-6 AAATA Annual Ridership 10-Year Trend ............................................... 2-10 Figure 2-7 AAATA Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours 10-Year Trend ......................... 2-11 Figure 2-8 AAATA Peak Vehicles Operated 10-Year Trend .................................... 2-11 Figure 2-9 AAATA Annual Operating Budget 10-Year Trend .................................. 2-14 Figure 2-10 Existing DDOT Fixed Route Transit Services ......................................... 2-17 Figure 2-11 DDOT Days of Service .......................................................................... 2-19 Figure 2-12 DDOT Service Frequencies ................................................................... 2-20 Figure 2-13 DDOT On-Time Performance ................................................................ 2-21 Figure 2-14 DDOT Pull-Out Rate .............................................................................. 2-22 Figure 2-15 DDOT Annual Ridership 10-Year Trend ................................................. 2-22 Figure 2-16 DDOT Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours 10-Year Trend .......................... 2-23 Figure 2-17 DDOT Peak Vehicles Operated 10-Year Trend ..................................... 2-23 Figure 2-18 DDOT Operating Budget 10-Year Trend ................................................ 2-26 Figure 2-19 DTC On-Time Performance ................................................................... 2-28 Figure 2-20 DTC Annual Ridership 10-Year Trend ................................................... 2-28 Figure 2-21 DTC Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours 10-Year Trend ............................. 2-29 Figure 2-22 DTC Peak Vehicles Operated 10-Year Trend ........................................ 2-29 Figure 2-23 Detroit People Mover ............................................................................. 2-30 Figure 2-24 DTC Annual Operating Budget 10-Year Trend ....................................... 2-31 Figure 2-25 SMART System Map ............................................................................. 2-33 Figure 2-26 SMART Days of Service ........................................................................ 2-36 Figure 2-27 SMART Service Frequencies ................................................................. 2-37 Figure 2-28 SMART On-Time Performance .............................................................. 2-39 Figure 2-29 SMART Annual Ridership 10-Year Trend .............................................. 2-39 Figure 2-30 SMART Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours 10-Year Trend ........................ 2-40 Figure 2-31 SMART Peak Vehicles Operated 10-Year Trend ................................... 2-40 Figure 2-32 SMART Operating Budget 10-Year Trend ............................................. 2-43 Figure 2-33 U-M Transit System Map ....................................................................... 2-54 Figure 2-34 U-M Transit Service Frequencies ........................................................... 2-56 Figure 2-35 Existing Shuttle Services ....................................................................... 2-59 Figure 2-36 Future Transit Services Underway or Under Study ................................ 2-65 Figure 2-37 Weekday Peak Period Service Frequencies .......................................... 2-69 Figure 2-38 Saturday Service Frequencies ............................................................... 2-70 State of the System | iii Figure 2-39 Weekday Ridership Top 50 Ranked Routes .......................................... 2-72 Figure 2-40 Weekday Ridership 51-103 Ranked Routes .......................................... 2-73 Figure 2-41 On-Time Performance by System .......................................................... 2-74 Figure 2-42 Pull-Out Rate by System........................................................................ 2-74 Figure 2-43 Annual Ridership 10-Year Trend by System .......................................... 2-75 Figure 2-44 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours 10-Year Trend by System .................... 2-75 Figure 2-45 Peak Vehicles Operated 10-Year Trend by System ............................... 2-76 Figure 2-46 Requested Travel Destinations .............................................................. 2-81 Figure 3-1 Current Land Use .................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2 Street Network Design and Walk Distances to Transit ............................. 3-5 Figure 3-3 Michigan Avenue in Inkster, MI ................................................................ 3-5 Figure 3-4 Relationship Between Population and Employment Densities and Transit Demand ................................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-5 Population Distribution (2010) and Transit Service Coverage ................ 3-11 Figure 3-6 Population Densities and Transit Demand ............................................. 3-14 Figure 3-7 Older Adult Population (2010) ................................................................ 3-15 Figure 3-8 Baby Boomer Population (2010) ............................................................ 3-17 Figure 3-9 Millennial Population (2000) ................................................................... 3-18 Figure 3-10 Millennial Population (2010) ................................................................... 3-18 Figure 3-11 Population of Persons with Disabilities .................................................... 3-19 Figure 3-12 Low Income Individuals (2010) .............................................................. 3-19 Figure 3-13 Zero Vehicle Individuals (2010).............................................................. 3-21 Figure 3-14 Minority Populations (2010) ................................................................... 3-22 Figure 3-15 Increase and Decrease in Demand Based on Demographic Characteristics (2010) .................................................................................................... 3-23 Figure 3-16 2010
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Transportation and Relat- Ed Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998
    S. HRG. 105±429 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELAT- ED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 2169/S. 1048 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- PORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Department of Transportation General Accounting Office National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) National Transportation Safety Board Nondepartmental witnesses Office of Management and Budget Railroad Retirement Board Surface Transportation Board Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 39±864 cc WASHINGTON : 1998 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 ISBN 0±16±056437±9 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont SLADE GORTON, Washington DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey CONRAD BURNS, Montana TOM HARKIN, Iowa RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HARRY REID, Nevada ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATTY MURRAY, Washington LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas STEVEN J. CORTESE, Staff Director LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director JAMES H.
    [Show full text]
  • WALLY North South Commuter Rail Service
    WALLY North South Commuter Rail Service Business Plan Corridor Oversight Committee Washtenaw Livingston Counties Michigan September, 2008 1 Business Plan for the WALLY North South Commuter Rail Service Updated September, 2008 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .................................................................................. 3 1.1 BUSINESS PLAN ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................. 3 1.2 ABOUT THE NORTH SOUTH CORRIDOR COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE.......................................................... 3 1.3 PRIOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WORK.................................................................................................... 6 SECTION 2: MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ....................................................................................... 9 2.1 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE – CURRENT AND PROPOSED ........................................................................... 9 2.2 ANALYSIS AND ACTION ITEMS .............................................................................................................. 10 SECTION 3: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN ..................................................................... 11 3.1 OPERATING PLAN SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 100244 MRA Spring Newsletter.Indd
    A publication of the Michigan Railroads Association SPRING 2010 Federal Positive Train Control Mandate To Be Implemented By 2015 In October 2008 the U.S. Congress passed What is Positive Train Control? example, if a train operator fails to stop a and the President signed the Rail Safety • “Positive train control” (PTC) describes train at a stop signal, the PTC system would Improvement Act (RSIA) which requires technologies being designed and developed apply the brakes automatically. the large U.S. railroads (Class I railroads) to by numerous private fi rms and sold to • Railroads have spent hundreds of millions of install positive train control (PTC) systems by railroad companies that automatically stop the end of 2015 on tracks that carry passengers dollars testing and evaluating different types or slow a train before certain accidents of PTC systems, but it’s still an emerging or certain hazardous materials. Additionally, occur. In particular, PTC is designed to Amtrak and 22 commuter railroads will be technology. To ensure the technology is prevent train-to-train collisions, derailments fully functional and completely safe, much required to install PTC on their rail systems. caused by excessive speed, unauthorized This past December the Federal Railroad more development and testing are needed. incursions by trains onto sections of track Most critical is developing sophisticated, Administration (FRA) issued a fi nal rule where repairs are being made, and movement guiding implementation of PTC. reliable software that can take into account of a train through a track switch left in the the complexities of rail operations. The wrong position.
    [Show full text]
  • Coast‐To‐Coast Passenger Rail Ridership and Cost Estimate Study
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Toledo-Detroit Ridership Feasibility & Cost Estimate Study
    Toledo-Detroit Ridership Feasibility & Cost Estimate Study PREPARED FOR: The City of Toledo and Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Government PREPARED BY: Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. MAY 2019 FINAL REPORT Toledo-Detroit Ridership Feasibility & Cost Estimate Study Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE .................................................................................................1-3 1.3 PROJECT SCOPE .............................................................................................................1-4 1.4 PROJECT METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................1-4 1.4.1 STUDY PROCESS .................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.5 FREIGHT RAILROAD PRINCIPLES ..........................................................................................1-7 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT .........................................................................................1-8 CHAPTER 2 APPROACH TO CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT 2-1 2.1 HISTORY OF PASSENGER SERVICES AND STUDIES .....................................................................2-1 2.2 MICHIGAN RAIL FREIGHT TRENDS .......................................................................................2-5 2.3 FREIGHT INTEGRATION OPPORTUNITIES
    [Show full text]
  • 2045 Regional Transportation Plan Public Comments Received As of October 2017
    Appendix E This document contains public comments received from the adoption of the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan in June 2013 until October 2017. 2045 Regional Transportation Plan Public Comments Received As of October 2017 State/ First Name Last Name Organization Title County City Date Comment Province Mark Flanders Citizen Wayne Detroit MI 7/1/2013 In favor of rail on Woodward Avenue. Working with the Moroun family to get them to announce a re-opening date for Mark Flanders Citizen Wayne Detroit MI 7/2/2013 the Michigan Central Station. Jimmy Ward II Citizen 7/3/2013 Opposed to I-94/I-75 Expansion City of Hazel Jack Lloyd Mayor Oakland Hazel Park MI 7/5/2013 Impact of I-75 expansion on my city (Did not speak) Park Made comment through meeting contact us form. Comment is below: I posted details about the upcoming Taylor meeting, and this is a response. Thought you might pass it along so it does not happen again... "Thanks for sharing-- unforutnately, if the I-94 Expansion/I-75/I-94 reconstruction public hearing is reflective of how SEMCOG conducts many of their meetings and "takes public Diane Mente Citizen Wayne Woodhaven MI 7/8/2013 input", I'm guessing this will do little to nothing in regards to public input. Plenty of SEMCOG members didn't even look at those giving public input--not that it was necessary to hear, it's a sign of interest and respect. It's not that hard to turn your chair around if you're sitting at a round table and make sure you are actually looking at someone." It's been shown again and again that adding lanes doesn't reduce congestion- it worsens it.
    [Show full text]
  • WALLY Commuter Rail Status Report / Assessment of Stakeholder Support
    35 WALLY Commuter Rail Status Report / Assessment of Stakeholder Support June 2012 STATUS OF FUNDING AND EXPENSES FOR WALLY On September 15, 2011, the AATA Board requested that staff confirm support for the WALLY project, and passed the resolution reproduced below. Resolution 36/2011 EXPENDITURE OF WALLY FUNDS WHEREAS, the Transit Master Plan (TMP) adopted, by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) Board of Directors in April, 2011, includes the Washtenaw and Livingston Railway (WALLY) project as a possible long‐term commuter transportation improvement, and WHEREAS, the AATA Board wishes to insure that future expenditures of public funds for WALLY are contingent upon there being viable, realistic, and sustainable public support for the project, and WHEREAS, AATA will seek assurances and renewed commitments for WALLY from the State of Michigan, Livingston County, The City of Howell, the Ann Arbor Railroad, and others important to the success of the project, and from this information will draft an updated WALLY position statement, now therefore IT IS RESOLVED, that funds contained in AATA’s 2012 Fiscal Year Budget and designated for WALLY purposes will not be expended without the future express consent of the Board. AATA staff has taken a number of actions in response to the Board’s directive and this paper reports on the outcome of those actions. FY2012 FUNDING AS BUDGETED AATA’s budget for Fiscal Year 2012 contains a $230,000 line item for the WALLY project. The source of these funds is as follows: 36 Table 1 ‐ FY 2102 WALLY FUNDING
    [Show full text]
  • ON TRACK the E-Bulletin of the Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers [email protected]
    ON TRACK The E-Bulletin of the Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers www.marp.org [email protected] Issue # 42 March 2015 The Michigan Association of Railroad Proposal I on the May Ballot Passengers, Inc. (MARP) is a 501 (c)(3) non- profit corporation established in 1973 to Does More than Fill Potholes improve passenger train service, travel If you are feeling confused about Proposal 1, you’re not alone When conditions for passengers, and to work for the th preservation of historic rail stations. Michigan voters go to the polls on May 5 , they will be asked if they want to raise the state sales tax by a penny — from 6% to 7%. This is the tax Monthly meetings are held at locations around the state. Check the website for dates and that you pay on most goods purchased as you go about your daily venues. The public is invited to attend. activities. Sounds simple enough. What makes this a little more complicated is that several pieces of legislation are tied to the ballot issue MARP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE and will go into effect upon passage. This package of bills will direct new 2014-2016 money to road and bridge repair, support costs of operating passenger Larry Krieg Chair trains and local transit systems, give a boost to the School Aid Fund, share Jim Wallington Vice-Chair additional revenues with local units of government, and reinstate the Jeanie Merckel Treasurer Earned Income Tax Credit to help low-income workers. position open Secretary John Langdon Governmental/Public Affairs Under Proposal 1, all state gas taxes paid at the pump are guaranteed in Coordinator the state constitution to go to transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • ON TRACK the E-Bulletin of the Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers [email protected]
    ON TRACK The E-Bulletin of the Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers www.marp.org [email protected] Issue #35 August 2014 The Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers, Inc. (MARP) is a 501 (c)(3) non- “Revenue Service” for WALLY? profit corporation established in 1973 to improve passenger train service, travel In one of the most exciting events in recent Michigan railroading, the conditions for passengers, and to work for the Friends of WALLY have announced that demonstration runs of the MiTrain preservation of historic rail stations. passenger coaches will be a feature of the 54th Annual Howell Melon Fest. The Monthly meetings are held at locations around Michigan Steam Railroading Institute, in partnership with Great Lakes the state. Check the website for dates and Central Railroad will provide the motive power and crew for hour-long venues. The public is invited to attend. rides available to the public from 10am to 4pm on Saturday and Sunday, August 16 and 17, at $20 per adult, $15 per child. This will be the first time MARP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE the cars will be used for a revenue service. In addition, visitors will be able 2012-2014 to tour a MiTrain Passenger Car on display in front of the Historic Train Robert Tischbein Chair Depot Museum throughout the festival. Larry Krieg Vice-Chair Jeanie Merckel Treasurer Kudos to MARP member Steve Manor and the Friends of WALLY who have Hugh Gurney Secretary worked with MDOT, SEMCOG, and Michigan Steam Railroading Institute to John Langdon Governmental/Public Affairs make this happen! Coordinator Kathleen Newell Membership Coordinator WALLY is the proposed commuter train that would connect Livingston and Kay Chase Communications Coordinator north Washtenaw Counties to downtown Ann Arbor as a vital part of Jim Wallington Meetings Coordinator relieving congestion the US-23 corridor.
    [Show full text]