Rural Freight Rail and Multimodal Transportation Improvements – the Upper Peninsula of Michigan Final Report Project Number: 2010-0295 Pasi Lautala, Ph.D, P.E. Gregory Graman, Ph.D., Frank Pentti, David Nelson Student Researchers: Irfan Rasul, Akalu Tafesse, Sean Pengelly, Sumanth Kalluri Michigan Technological University Rail Transportation Program 1400 Townsend Drive Houghton, MI 49931 Prepared for: Michigan Department of Transportation Office of Research and Best Practices 425 West Ottawa Lansing, MI 48933 April 30, 2014. Report No. 2. Government Accession 3. MDOT Project Manager RC-1606 No. James D’Lamater 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Rural Freight Rail and Multimodal Transportation July 18, 2014 Improvements – the Upper Peninsula of Michigan 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Org. Report No. Pasi Lautala, Gregory Graman, Frank Pentti, David Nelson, 1208021 Irfan Rasul, Akalu Tafesse, Sean Pengelly, Sumanth Kalluri 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Michigan Technological University 1400 Townsend Drive 11. Contract No. Houghton, MI 49931 2010-0295 11(a). Authorization No. 8 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Michigan Department of Transportation Covered Office of Research and Best Practices Final Report 425 West Ottawa Street October, 2012 – April,2014 Lansing MI 48933 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Affordable freight transportation is a requirement for survival for rural industries, and in many cases requires the presence of freight rail systems. This study investigated the transportation system in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (U.P.). The main outcomes of the study included development of interactive map of the U.P. rail system and facilities, analysis of truck and freight rail commodity flows, shipper and railroad input collected via shipper survey and interviews, and investigations on potential transload facility development. Some of the main findings and conclusions included; 1) there is a lack of accurate data on U.P. businesses and commodity flows, 2) while the overall rail system outlook is positive, some light density spur lines may be in jeopardy, 3) shippers and railroads share similar concerns, offering common ground for potentially low-cost improvements, if collaborative environment can be established, 4) there is great interest for a local intermodal/transload facility, but low individual shipper volumes suggest collaborative approach for facility development. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Freight Rail, Commodity Flows, Upper Peninsula No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the Michigan Department of Transportation. 19. Security Classification - 20. Security Classification - 21. No. of 22. Price report page Pages Unclassified Unclassified 143 i This publication is disseminated in the interest of information exchange. The Michigan Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as MDOT) expressly disclaims any liability, of any kind, or for any reason, that might otherwise arise out of any use of this publication or the information or data provided in the publication. MDOT further disclaims any responsibility for typographical errors or accuracy of the information provided or contained within this information. MDOT makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding the quality, content, completeness, suitability, adequacy, sequence, accuracy or timeliness of the information and data provided, or that the contents represent standards, specifications, or regulations.” The research has been partially funded by the National University Rail (NURail) Center, a US DOT-OST Tier 1 University Transportation Center ii Acknowledgements (in company • Donna LaCourt, Michigan alphabetical order) Department of Agriculture and Rural Development • All Shipper Survey respondents and • Scott Robbins, Michigan Forest Stakeholder meeting participants Products Council • Anthony Hatch, ABH Consulting • J.B. Yelsky, Michigan Mining, LLC • Randy Scott, C2AE • Jonathan Riehl, Michigan Tech • John Abbitt and Jim Weber, • Clinton Jones, Jr, Mineral Range Carmeuse Railroad • William Vajda, City of Marquette • John Kantola, Northern Hardwoods • Chris Hellem, Brian Buchanan, Mike • Wendy Gehlhoff, Florence County Zimmer and Thomas Tisa, CN EDC/Northwoods Rail Transit • Steve Williams, DA Glass America, Commission Inc. • Jerry McKenzie, Osmose • John Duncan Varda, DeWitt, Ross, • Libby Ogard, PrimeFocus, LLC & Stevens • Scott Pugh, US Forest Service • Thomas Klimek, Escanaba and Lake • Barbara Van Alstine, US Forest Superior Railroad Service • P.J. Stoll, Bob Robison and Garry • Kim Stoker, WUPPDR Kehler, Graymont • Robert Peters, Western U.P. • Henry Schienebeck, Great Lakes Michigan WORKS Timber Professionals Association • Bob Niemela, White Pine Copper, • Carlos Bertoni and colleagues, LLC Highland Copper Company, Inc. • Dennis Leong and Frank Huntington, • Jake Hayrynen, J.M. Longyear WisDOT • Cynthia Kuber and Dawn Johnston, • UPEDA and other Upper Peninsula KK Integrated Logistics Economic Development Agencies / • Mark Massicotte, L’Anse Asscociations Manufacturing, Inc. • Kelly Krolik • L’Anse and Baraga area manufacturers • Darryl Babbitt, Lake Superior and Ishpeming Railroad • Ryan Hoel and Matthew Johnson, Eagle Mine (Lundin Mining) • James D’Lamater, Nikkie Johnson and Jesse G Williams, MDOT • Brian Heath, MJ VanDamme, Inc. iii Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background and Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 1.2. Michigan Freight (Rail) System........................................................................................... 1 1.3. The Upper Peninsula and its (Freight) Rail System............................................................. 4 1.4. Study Objectives, Scope and Tasks ..................................................................................... 6 1.5. Report Organization ............................................................................................................. 7 Chapter 2 – Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 8 2.1. History of Upper Peninsula rail lines & service closures .................................................... 8 2.1.1. Rails-to-trails Program in the Upper Peninsula.............................................................. 10 2.1.2. Recent Changes in Rail Ownership ................................................................................ 11 2.2. Past Studies on Upper Peninsula Freight/Rail ................................................................... 12 Chapter 3- Methodology ............................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Task 1: Data collection and implementation of interactive map ....................................... 14 3.2 Commodity Flow Analysis ................................................................................................ 15 3.3 Railroad interviews ............................................................................................................ 16 3.4 Shipper Survey and Outreach ............................................................................................ 16 3.5 Analysis of Shipper and Rail Service Provider Concerns ................................................. 18 iv 3.6 Case Studies and Comparative Analysis............................................................................ 18 Chapter 4 – Study Findings........................................................................................................... 19 4.1. Task 1: Rural Rail Infrastructure Map ............................................................................... 19 4.1.1. Map Coverage ................................................................................................................ 19 4.1.2. Map Parameters .............................................................................................................. 19 4.1.3. Proof-of-Concept Map ................................................................................................... 20 4.1.4. Recommendations for Map Maintenance and Updates .................................................. 21 4.2. Task 2: Commodity Flow Analysis ................................................................................... 22 4.2.1. Limitations with TRANSEARCH Data ......................................................................... 22 4.2.2. Flow and Commodity Classifications ............................................................................ 23 4.2.3. Truck Movements .........................................................................................................