Midwest Regional

Rail Plan

Final Report

October 2021

Midwest Regional Rail Plan
Acknowledgments 

DEDICATION

The Midwest Regional Rail Plan is dedicated to the memory 

of Peter Denitz, dear friend and colleague, who spent a lifetime working 

for equitable mobility in communities.

STUDY ADMINISTRATOR

Federal Railroad Administration 

Will Dyer

Jessie Fernandez-Gatti

Melissa Hatcher

Lyle Leitelt 

Peter Schwartz

USDOT Volpe Center 

Michael Kay

STUDY AUTHORS

WSP 

Wynne Davis

Peter Denitz

Alexis Howland

Foster Nichols

Brandon Williams

HDR 

Anna Lynn Smith

Quetica 

Mark Berndt

Alicia Hanlon

Ben Zietlow

Holly Zimmerman

Metro Strategies

Chrissy Breit

Kyle Duff

Colin Fleming

Laura Wilkison 

DB Engineering & Consulting USA 

Yoav Hagler
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

i 

Contents 

Executive Summary.................................................................................... I

MIDWEST REGIONAL RAIL PLAN NETWORK........................................................................................... I

PLANNING AND ANALYSIS APPROACH..............................................................................................III

RECOMMENDED GOVERNANCE ........................................................................................................ IV

CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................... V

1. Introduction........................................................................................... 1

1.1 IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19.................................................................................................... 1

1.2 STUDY OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 WHAT IS A REGIONAL RAIL PLAN?............................................................................................ 2

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MIDWEST REGION................................................................................ 4

1.5 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF STUDY .............................................................................................. 5

1.6 STUDY PROCESS......................................................................................................................... 6

2. Planning Context................................................................................12

2.1 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................................12

2.2 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND TRAVEL DEMAND ............................................................19

2.3 RECENT AND ONGOING PASSENGER RAIL DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS ....................................33

3. Network Analysis Approach .............................................................40

3.1 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE TIERS ............................................................................40

3.2 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND THE CONNECT PLANNING TOOL.............................................40

3.3 CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION PROCESS ...................................................................................43

4. Technical Process – Building Blocks.................................................46

5. Midwest Regional Network Vision ....................................................57

5.1 FROM BUILDING BLOCKS TO DRAFT NETWORK......................................................................57

5.2 RECOMMENDED MIDWEST PASSENGER RAIL NETWORK........................................................58

5.3 PHASING CONSIDERATIONS...................................................................................................63

5.4 NETWORK IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................68

6. Governance .......................................................................................69

6.1 EXISTING REGIONAL COORDINATION EFFORTS IN THE MIDWEST .........................................69

6.2 MIDWEST GOVERNANCE STAKEHOLDERS ..............................................................................71

6.3 GOVERNANCE APPROACH AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................................72

6.4 REGIONAL COORDINATION CHALLENGES ............................................................................76

6.5 GOVERNANCE FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS...............................77

7. Action Items and Next Steps.............................................................78

7.1 NATIONAL RAIL PLAN..............................................................................................................78

7.2 POSSIBLE INTERREGIONAL PLANNING....................................................................................78

7.3 INCORPORATION INTO STATE RAIL PLANS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLANS . 78

7.4 FOLLOW-ON DETAILED STUDIES ..............................................................................................79

7.5 GOVERNANCE.........................................................................................................................81

8. Appendices ........................................................................................82

APPENDIX A – STAKEHOLDER LIST.......................................................................................................82

APPENDIX B – GOVERNANCE FINAL REPORT.....................................................................................82
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

ii

Tables 

Table 1. Stakeholder Workshops .......................................................................................................... 9

Table 2. Midwest Metropolitan Area Population Growth ...............................................................13

Table 3. Class I Rail Carrier Operations by State ..............................................................................20

Table 4. Amtrak Routes in the Midwest.............................................................................................22

Table 5. Commuter Rail Routes in the Midwest................................................................................24

Table 6. CONNECT Service Tier Definitions........................................................................................40

Table 7. Top 5 Core-Based Statistical Area Pairs by Mode.............................................................45

Table 8. Top CBSA Pairs by Mode for Primary and Major Cities.....................................................45

Table 9. Northwest Proposed Network: Recommendations and Outstanding Issues.................49

Table 10. Southwest Proposed Network: Recommendations and Outstanding Issues.................51

Table 11. Northeast Proposed Network: Recommendations and Outstanding Issues .................53

Table 12. Southeast Proposed Network: Recommendations and Outstanding Issues .................55

Table 13. Benefits to Connectivity of Network Compared to Standalone Corridors1 ...................60

Table 14. Network Key Performance Indicators (2055).....................................................................60

Table 15. Percentage of Network Market Pairs by Travel Time........................................................62

Table 16. Total Addressable Market by Rail-Trip Time (2055)............................................................63

Table 17. Alternative Multi-State Governance Models.....................................................................73

Figures 

Figure 1. FRA Midwest Regional Rail Plan Network............................................................................. II

Figure 2. FRA Regional Rail Planning Study Areas............................................................................... 4

Figure 3. Midwest Regional Rail Plan States......................................................................................... 6

Figure 4. Stakeholder Planning Group.................................................................................................. 8

Figure 5. Population Distribution of Midwest States ..........................................................................13

Figure 6. Midwest Core-Based Statistical Areas................................................................................15

Figure 7. Midwest Core-Based Statistical Areas in the Midwest by Population.............................16

Figure 8. Population Projection to 2055 by Midwest Core-Based Statistical Areas.......................17

Figure 9. Population Growth Rate for Midwest Core-Based Statistical Areas (2015–2055)..........18

Figure 10. Midwest Class 1 Rail Network...............................................................................................20

Figure 11. Freight Density in the Midwest (2017)..................................................................................21

Figure 12. Map of Top 15 Core-Based Statistical Area Pairs for Rail Trips (2015) .............................25

Figure 13. Chart of Top 15 Core-Based Statistical Area Pairs for Rail Trips (2015)............................25

Figure 14. Important Midwest Region Airports for Air Passengers (2019)..........................................26

Figure 15. Chart of Top 15 Core-Based Statistical Area Pairs for Air Trips (2015) .............................27

Figure 16. Map of Top 15 Core-Based Statistical Area Pairs for Air Trips (2015)...............................28

Figure 17. Interstates within the Midwest Study Area .........................................................................29

Figure 18. Chart of Top 15 CBSA-Pairs for Auto Trips (2015) ...............................................................30

Figure 19. Map of Top 15 CBSA-Pairs for Auto Trips (2015)................................................................. 30

Figure 20. Midwest Cities Serviced by Megabus, Greyhound, and Coach USA ............................32

Figure 21. Top 15 Intercity Bus CBSA-Pairs in the Midwest..................................................................33
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

iii

Figure 22. Midwest Regional Rail Initiative ...........................................................................................34

Figure 23. Technical Analysis Flow Chart..............................................................................................43

Figure 24. Mode Share for Intercity Travel in the Midwest, 2015 .......................................................44

Figure 25. Building Block Geographies................................................................................................. 47

Figure 26. Proposed Northwest Network Elements .............................................................................49

Figure 27. Proposed Southwest Network Elements.............................................................................51

Figure 28. Proposed Northeast Network Elements..............................................................................52

Figure 29. Proposed Southeast Network Elements..............................................................................55

Figure 30. Proposed Network for the Midwest Regional Rail Plan.....................................................59

Figure 31. Midwest Network Market Pair Travel Times ........................................................................62

Figure 32. Total Travel Market (Trips for All Modes) by Rail Travel Time (2055)................................. 63

Figure 33. Geographic Scales of Phasing Decisions...........................................................................66

Figure 34. Geographic Scales of Phasing Considerations................................................................. 67

Figure 35. Suggested Phasing Timeline................................................................................................. 68

Figure 36. Current (2018) Understanding of State-by-State Status ...................................................71

Figure 37. Project Approach .................................................................................................................72

Figure 38. Governance Models’ Applicability to Project Phases......................................................75
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

CBSA.............................................................................................................. Core-Based Statistical Areas

CIP............................................................................................................... Corridor Improvement Project

CONNECT..................................................................................CONceptual NETwork Connections Tool

CRISI.............................................................Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement

DOT ............................................................................................................. Department of Transportation

EIS.......................................................................................................... Environmental Impact Statement

FAA ...........................................................................................................Federal Aviation Administration

FACT ..............................................................................................................Future Airport Capacity Task

FRA........................................................................................................... Federal Railroad Administration

HSIPR..........................................................................................High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail

IDOT ...................................................................................................Iowa Department of Transportation

INDOT............................................................................................Indiana Department of Transportation

INFRA .............................................................................................. Infrastructure for Rebuilding America

KDOT.............................................................................................. Kansas Department of Transportation

LRTP ......................................................................................................... Long-Range Transportation Plan

MDOT.........................................................................................Michigan Department of Transportation

MIPRC............................................................................. Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission

MnDOT ....................................................................................Minnesota Department of Transportation

MoDOT .........................................................................................Missouri Department of Transportation

MPO.................................................................................................. Metropolitan Planning Organization

MWRRI ...................................................................................................... Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

MWRRP .......................................................................................... Midwest Regional Rail Planning Study

NCRRP ............................................................................. National Cooperative Rail Research Program

NEPA....................................................................................................National Environmental Policy Act

NHS .....................................................................................................................National Highway System

NICTD...................................................................... Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District

O&M ...........................................................................................................Operations and Maintenance

ODOT................................................................................................. Ohio Department of Transportation

ORDC .............................................................................................. Ohio Rail Development Commission

RTA..............................................................................Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan

SDP....................................................................................................................Service Development Plan

SOGR Program ........................................................................................State of Good Repair Program

SPG ................................................................................................................Stakeholder Planning Group

TIGER........................................................ Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery

TRB............................................................................................................. Transportation Research Board

USDOT.................................................................................................. U.S. Department of Transportation

WisDOT ..................................................................................... Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

I 

Executive Summary 

The Midwest Regional Rail Planning Study (MWRRP) is an intercity passenger rail network planning study 

led by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in partnership with stakeholders from across the 

Midwest. The MWRRP sets forth a strategic forty-year vision for the Midwest’s passenger rail network,

addressing topics including network configuration, service levels, financing, and governance. The study is 

the third in the FRA’s national rail planning effort and follows the studies in the Southwest and Southeast

regions of the U.S. These regional rail planning efforts are intended to support existing state rail plans and 

long-range transportation plans (LRTP). 

The Midwest is a geographically large and economically significant region. The Midwest is also home to 

the most complex rail network in the nation and a rich heritage of railroading. The MWRRP evaluated 

developing rail plans within the context of this regional outlook, which included a current network of 

passenger, commuter and freight rail.

Stakeholders in the Midwest are clear in the understanding that a strong regional rail plan must do the 

following: 

• Integrate rail projects with other transportation modes. 

• Promote greater involvement by many stakeholders to build consensus.

• Identify priorities that support both the logical sequencing of developing networks and the efficient 

use of limited funding.

• Yield cost-effective investments.

MIDWEST REGIONAL RAIL PLAN NETWORK

The MWRRP is the result of a rigorous analysis using the FRA’s CONceptual NEtwork Connections Tool 

(CONNECT), which modeled existing and future baseline conditions to support a future Midwest regional 

passenger rail network. This analysis was refined through a robust stakeholder engagement process. The 

modeling assessed ridership, operating and maintenance costs, capital costs, cost-recovery ratios, and other 

key performance indicators for potential corridors. This resulted in detailed data on route performance, 

network interactions, and potential service levels. It also determined hubs to aggregate service, appropriate 

service tiers for each corridor, and crucial network interactions. This holistic approach resulted in 

recommendations for a full network compared to standalone corridors. 

Overall, it led to a vision for a recommended regional intercity passenger rail network. Figure 1 depicts the 

recommended Midwest regional intercity passenger rail network. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

II

Figure 1. FRA Midwest Regional Rail Plan Network

As shown in Figure 1, the analyses demonstrated that the strongest corridors for prioritized development 

connect to Chicago. The MWRRP work explored several options beyond the hub-and-spoke connections 

to other large metropolitan areas. However, the strength of Chicago’s rail hub cannot be ignored. 

Subregional interconnectivity proved optimal as a first step. Connections to small- and mid-sized cities 

from the subregional hubs was demonstrated to improve the viability of these “pillar corridors.” Pillar 

corridor connections to existing bus, commuter rail, and air service are strong and population growth is 

expected within them. 

The four pillar corridors and the initial service tier recommendations are:

• Chicago–Minneapolis–St. Paul: Core Express

• Chicago–St. Louis: Regional/Core Express

• Chicago–Indianapolis: Regional/Core Express

• Chicago–Detroit: Regional/Core Express

Additionally, if the stakeholder states individually and collectively decided to advance an intercity 

passenger rail network with a greater emphasis on higher speed lines, there could be a case to build even 

more of the corridors at the Regional/Core Express level. Furthermore, if an interregional passenger rail 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

III

study were completed in the future including the Midwest (e.g., connecting the Midwest and Southeast or 

the Midwest and Northeast), there may be significant enough ridership between some interregional 

markets to justify Core Express service over Regional service on some corridors.

PLANNING AND ANALYSIS APPROACH

The FRA study team hosted intensive stakeholder workshops and led a research and analysis process over 

a 24-month period. Lead stakeholders in the process included 12 state departments of transportation and 

the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission (MIPRC). Additional stakeholders included Amtrak, 

freight railroads, transit organizations, councils of government, metropolitan planning organizations

(MPO), chambers of commerce, regional railroads and advocacy groups. During this time, the FRA study 

team and stakeholders:

• Summarized existing rail and transportation plans.

• Assessed existing and potential future passenger travel demand.

• Analyzed the performance of each corridor as a standalone investment and as part of a potential 

network.

• Developed phasing principles and considerations for future prioritization of Midwest corridors.

• Proposed a Midwest governance structure building on MIPRC’s efforts to date. 

• Assembled a comprehensive list of common funding sources currently available for intercity passenger 

rail programs. 

• Identified lessons learned to aid in developing comprehensive regional rail planning guidance.

An extensive 12-state market assessment was conducted to evaluate the current travel market and demand 

to understand travel patterns by mode between major markets. The study area encompasses the states of 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South 

Dakota and Wisconsin. Geography, economy, infrastructure, and population indicators were used in the 

evaluation.

The technical analysis and development of a representative network utilized CONNECT as a basis for 

analyzing the corridors and networks. Assessing existing market data and calibration/validation of the 

CONNECT model came together during an iterative “building block” analytic process. The building block 

analysis resulted in data on the ridership and financial performance of individual corridors and network 

segments under various sets of assumptions about service tier, train routing, service frequency, network 

configuration, and connectivity. 

The Midwest region was broken into five subregions for detailed analysis of capital costs, annual ridership, 

annual ticket revenue, annual operation and maintenance costs, and operating cost recovery ratios. 

Subnetworks within each subregion were evaluated through data sets and key questions around level of 

service, travel demand and market strengths to inform the development of the Midwest Regional Network 

vision, which includes market potential and network interactions.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

IV

“Pivot testing” was conducted following the analysis and prior to defining the elements of the draft 

network. The pivots tested potential network configurations against each other and compared network 

impacts based on ridership, capital costs, and other data points. 

Additional analysis included the following: 

• Examining how the service tier level of the pillar corridors is impacted by fare assumptions with the 

CONNECT model.

• Modifying right-of-way cost assumptions for high-frequency regional service to more accurately 

capture the need for additional infrastructure.

• Conducting a Chicago-focused sub-analysis to understand how the draft network would impact 

Chicago terminal capacity issues.

Once these additional analyses and adjustments were complete, the draft network was developed based 

on the recommended elements from the building block analyses, pivot testing, and service tier analysis. 

The MWRRP also includes phasing recommendations that prioritize regional rail investment from the full 

Midwest perspective. The phasing considerations are important because of the need to prioritize regional 

rail investment from a full Midwest network perspective. The suggested phasing timeline identified Phase 

1 to include Regional and Core Express service to all the major markets and Chicago. 

Phasing of projects was analyzed with the following objectives: 

• Ensure reasonable incremental progress toward the full-network vision. 

• Evaluate quantitative and qualitative performance metrics, such as network ridership, benefits, capital 

costs and operating financial performance.

• Account for other factors such as geographic equity.

• Demonstrate how early-phase actions dovetail with existing plans and programs.

• Provide context and guidance for corridor- and location-specific project planning.

With four pillar corridors and initial service tier recommendations in place, evaluating governance 

structures was the final step in developing the MWRRP. The FRA led governance discussions with the 

goals of verifying successful governance models, identifying gaps, and understanding state priorities. 

RECOMMENDED GOVERNANCE

The implementation of a regional rail plan for the Midwest will require extensive coordination among the 

participating states and stakeholders. Unlike many other regions, the Midwest already has an established 

governance structure supporting passenger rail development. The Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail 

Commission (MIPRC) has served and will continue to serve the region as an effective advocacy and 

governance organization to advance the recommendations of the MWRRP and other regional-level 

planning studies. The FRA will continue to work closely with the MIPRC and Midwest states to advance 

and elevate the MIPRC as a governance structure with the clear authority, responsibility and mandate for 

overseeing and implementing the outcomes of the Midwest’s intercity rail planning initiative. Recognition
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

V 

of the MIPRC’s effectiveness notwithstanding, challenges to expanding governance include protecting 

state’s sovereignty and interests, creating a more robust structure without predictable funding streams, 

and addressing approaches to complex capital and operating cost allocation issues and multi-state roles 

and responsibilities.

Future governance structures will need to address complex issues related to planning and implementation, 

funding schemes, prioritized investments and service operations and system maintenance within the 

context of state and host railroad policy, financial, and regulatory approaches.

CONCLUSION

With the intention of advancing regional rail planning in the Midwest, the full MWRRP report provides a 

detailed explanation of the study process and recommendations. Additional planning efforts from regional 

stakeholders will further expand this 40-year framework for the Midwest passenger rail network to include

a refined prioritization of corridors and investment projects, an enhanced governance structure, and a 

focused funding strategy. 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

1 

1. Introduction 

The Midwest Regional Rail Planning Study (MWRRP) is a multi-state network planning study for intercity 

passenger rail in the Midwest region of the United States. Led by the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) in partnership with stakeholders from across the Midwest, the MWRRP presents a long-term vision 

for intercity passenger rail in the region. The study is part of the FRA’s national rail planning effort to 

develop a national toolkit for the conceptual planning of intercity passenger rail networks at the multi-state 

and megaregion level. The MWRRP examines the potential for intercity passenger rail and creates a 

framework for developing intercity passenger rail connections over the next 40 years. This study builds on 

established Midwest rail initiatives as well as other ongoing state planning efforts. 

The Southeast Regional Rail Planning Study and the MWRRP are the most recent studies following the 

initial Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study (2014). The analysis efforts for each study were based on 

the use of the CONceptual NEtwork Connections Tool (CONNECT), which was used to analyze intercity 

passenger rail corridors and networks. These regional rail planning efforts are intended to support existing 

statewide and regional processes, such as state rail plans and long-range transportation plans (LRTP). 

This final report provides an overview of the MWRRP study, explains the study process—including 

stakeholder input and technical analysis—and documents study findings and recommendations. The 

report concludes with potential governance considerations, and recommended action items and next steps 

for the advancement of the regional rail network in the Midwest.

1.1 IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19

The MWRRP was completed during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. COVID-19 has had and will 

continue to have significant impacts on travel and intercity passenger rail, resulting in reduced intercity 

train frequencies across the United States and in some cases temporary cancelations of service. These 

impacts will need to be fully analyzed as the pandemic subsides and travel patterns resume to fully 

understand the effects. The MWRRP focuses on a long-term vision for intercity passenger rail and assumes 

that intercity travel behaviors will resume in the long term with a growth rate similar to pre-pandemic 

ridership levels.

1.2 STUDY OVERVIEW

Encompassing 12 states in the Midwest, the MWRRP provides further inputs for the FRA’s national rail 

planning effort. The purpose of the study was to advance regional rail planning and to produce a 40-year 

framework for the Midwest passenger rail network. The framework includes a high-level prioritization of 

corridors and investment projects, proposed enhancements for a governance structure, and funding 

strategies for consideration. With a long-term planning horizon of 2055, the study focused on conceptuallevel planning for intercity passenger rail, with the goal of facilitating future rail planning and streamlining 

implementation of projects. Throughout the effort, recommendations from stakeholders were sought and 

incorporated, resulting in the proposed Midwest passenger rail network. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

2 

During the study period, the project team undertook the following efforts to develop this document:

• Summarized existing rail and transportation plans.

• Assessed existing and potential future passenger travel demand.

• Analyzed the performance of each corridor as a standalone investment and as part of a potential 

network.

• Developed phasing principles and considerations for future prioritization of Midwest corridors.

• Proposed a Midwest governance structure that builds upon the MIPRC efforts to date. 

• Assembled a comprehensive list of common funding sources available for intercity passenger rail 

programs. 

• Identified lessons learned to provide comprehensive regional rail planning guidance.

The result of these efforts is the recommended Midwest passenger rail network outlined in this document.

1.3 WHAT IS A REGIONAL RAIL PLAN?

Under FRA’s intercity passenger rail planning framework, a regional rail plan identifies a potential longterm vision for a multi-state intercity passenger rail network. A regional rail plan study process analyzes 

existing conditions, projections of future travel demand, and the optimal role of passenger rail service 

within a multimodal transportation context. The study process is intended to serve as a visioning exercise 

for stakeholders to lay the groundwork for future intercity passenger rail development efforts. 

Many recent federal and state passenger rail planning activities have focused on either (1) individual 

corridors between major cities or (2) comprehensive rail planning within individual states. However, as the 

MWRRP demonstrates, developing rail plans within the context of a broader regional outlook provides 

several benefits: 

• Better integrates rail projects with other transportation modes. 

• Promotes greater involvement by stakeholders and builds consensus. 

• Ensures consistency and minimizes potential conflicts between the development of individual 

corridors within a region

• Identifies priorities that support both the logical sequencing of developing networks and the efficient 

use of limited funding. 

• Yields more cost-effective investments.

A regional rail plan contains two primary components: 

• A network plan that identifies a potential regional network of “candidate corridors” for further study

• Governance strategies to identify challenges and opportunities related to the development and 

delivery of the regional network 

The FRA recommends that regional rail plans include the following information for the purposes of 

identifying multi-state corridors for future evaluation, planning and implementation:
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

3 

• Demographic trends

• Travel patterns and market analysis

• Transportation network conditions and connectivity

• Conceptual estimates of rail network costs, ridership, and financial performance 

• Institutional and governance challenges and opportunities

Consistent with the sketch-level network planning that is undertaken in developing regional rail plans, the 

conclusions presented in these plans are limited to those that can be reasonably supported by that relatively 

high level of analysis. As such, regional rail plans focus, first and foremost, on ruling out those options for 

a region’s future intercity passenger rail network that the analysis demonstrates would be particularly 

disadvantageous, and only presents more precise conclusions where they can be reasonably supported by 

that analysis. In keeping with these objectives, the network planning undertaken in developing regional 

rail plans focuses on the following goals:

• Define the corridors within the future regional network in terms of the geographic markets the analysis 

shows must be served for the corridor to fulfill its full potential (i.e. the “corridor-defining markets”)

• Define the appropriate level(s) of service on each corridor in terms of generalized categories reflecting 

sets general service characteristics (i.e. “service tier”)1

Likewise, regional rail plans are not intended to result in more detailed conclusions of the type that cannot 

be reasonably supported by sketch planning level analysis. As such, regional rail plans do not: 

• Define the specific alignment or rights-of-way (including existing or abandoned rail lines) that would 

be traversed by each corridor

• Define the specific intermediate geographic markets (i.e. those beyond the “corridor-defining markets”) 

that would be served by each corridor

• Define the specific service characteristics (e.g. frequency, trip times, fares, train capacity, etc.) for each 

corridor

While the regional rail planning network analysis necessarily makes certain assumptions regarding these 

more specific network characteristics in order to allow for the generation of useful outputs, these 

assumptions are intended to be “illustrative” or “representative,” rather than recommendations for a 

precise set of network characteristics.

Chapters 1 and 2 of this regional rail plan provide an overview of the planning scope, process, and data. 

Chapters 3 and 4 describe the network planning approach and findings, while Chapter 5 outlines 

governance considerations. Chapter 6 explores action items and next steps for states in the Midwest study 

area and the FRA.

1 See Section 3.1 below.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

4 

Conducted in parallel with the MWRRP, the FRA led a regional planning process in the Southeast which 

is outlined in the Southeast Regional Rail Planning Study.2 These two efforts have further developed and 

refined the principles contained in FRA’s first multi-state regional rail plan (the Southwest Multi-State Rail 

Planning Study)3 published in 2014. See Figure 2 for regional rail planning study areas.

Figure 2. FRA Regional Rail Planning Study Areas

The FRA encourages states to participate in developing regional rail plans to coordinate planning for 

facilities and services that cross, or someday may cross, state boundaries. As described in Chapter 6, a 

regional rail plan complements individual state rail plans and prioritizes corridors that cross state lines for 

additional study and implementation. However, a regional rail plan will not reach the depth and breadth 

of detailed corridor analyses, and further analysis beyond the scope of a regional rail plan is required before 

project implementation. 

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MIDWEST REGION

Many of the Midwest states have long been active proponents for advancing passenger rail. In 1996, the 

Midwest states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin, 

in partnership with the FRA, undertook the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI). The MWRRI is a 

cooperative, multi-agency initiative advancing a robust Midwest passenger rail system based on a huband-spoke network operating at 110 mph across the Midwest. The MWRRI plan focuses on offering 

2 Southeast Regional Rail Planning Study. Federal Railroad Administration. https://www.southeastcorridorcommission.org/copy-of-commission-reports-1

3 Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study. 2014. Federal Railroad Administration. 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L16013 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

5 

business and leisure travelers shorter travel times, additional train frequencies, and connections between 

urban centers and smaller communities. 

In addition to the MWRRI, leaders from the Midwest states formed MIPRC. Formed by a compact 

agreement in 2000, MIPRC brings together state leaders from across the region to advocate for passenger 

rail improvements. Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota and Wisconsin

are the MIRPC’s current members. The main purposes of the compact are to promote, coordinate, and 

support regional improvements to passenger rail service. The MIPRC worked closely with the MWRRI 

steering committee to advance the Midwestern states’ passenger rail plans. 

While the combined efforts of the MWRRI, MIPRC, and the FRA have significantly advanced passenger 

rail in the Midwest during the last two decades, the Midwest is at a critical juncture for rail project 

advancement. Strengthening the current coordinated, multi-state approach to planning, construction, 

operations, and governance of the rail system is urgently needed to realize a fully integrated passenger rail 

network that links communities throughout the region. 

1.5 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF STUDY 

The Midwest is a geographically expansive region and represents the most complex rail network in the 

nation with a rich heritage and network of passenger, commuter, and freight rail. In this study, the Midwest 

study area is defined as encompassing 12 states (Figure 3). 

Planning for passenger rail development has varied from state to state throughout the Midwest. For 

example, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin have demonstrated substantial support for 

passenger rail by funding studies, completing corridor improvements, and coordinating the 

implementation of new and expanded service. Minnesota and Iowa are engaged in planning to expand 

state and regional passenger rail service in the Midwest but have not financially supported passenger rail 

service. Several Midwest states—including Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio and South Dakota—have 

generally not engaged in planning passenger rail services for various reasons. Five states that border the 

Midwest—Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia4—have minimal passenger 

rail service connecting to the Midwest but were considered complementary jurisdictions for planning and 

developing the regional rail network. The province of Ontario, Canada, is also considered a complementary 

jurisdiction given its proximity to several Midwestern states and ongoing intercity passenger rail efforts.5 

4 Pennsylvania and New York have extensive service in the eastern parts of their respective states and are fully 

engaged in planning, funding and service on the Keystone Line east of Harrisburg, PA, and the Empire Line between 

New York City, Albany, and Buffalo, NY. 

5 Several states/provinces that were not part of the lead stakeholder group—but who had potentially complementary 

service or jurisdictional connections to the network examined in this study—were collectively referenced as 

“complementary jurisdictions” and received study communications as other interested parties.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

6 

Figure 3. Midwest Regional Rail Plan States

1.6 STUDY PROCESS 

1.6.1 Stakeholder Engagement 

Multiple stakeholder groups are associated with the Midwest passenger rail network, encompassing the 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), state DOTs, host and operating railroads, municipal 

governments and advocacy groups dedicated to advancing passenger rail in the Midwest. The FRA 

established the following outreach objectives to guide stakeholder involvement for this study:

• Work directly with states implementing passenger rail service through the planning process. 

• Engage advocates and regional partners in the planning process at key points. 

• Coordinate with implementing and jurisdictional partners. 

• Inform interested parties of project study milestones, study progress and results. 

• Create an avenue for all parties to provide input through in-person meetings, webinars, or the project 

website. 

With these objectives in mind, the FRA established a Stakeholder Planning Group (SPG) to provide 

technical feedback, policy guidance, and ongoing support of the necessary institutional arrangements to 

fulfill the future vision of the plan. The SPG consisted of over 40 participants representing a diverse array 

of entities with an interest in an intercity passenger rail network in the Midwest, including state DOTs, 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), councils of government, transit agencies, Amtrak, freight 

railroads, and passenger rail advocacy groups. The SPG consisted of four main groups:

• FRA – MWRRP study lead and sponsor.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

7 

• Lead stakeholders – Representatives of the 12 state DOTs and MIPRC.

• Additional stakeholders – Thirty additional stakeholders, representing chambers of commerce,

regional railroads, advocacy groups and others, nominated by state DOT representatives and selected

by the FRA to achieve geographic and subject-matter diversity.

• Interested parties – The FRA invited participation from interested parties who were kept informed

about the purpose and progress of the study and were invited to listen in and provide comments during

the SPG meetings.

Figure 4 depicts these entities and their relative involvement in the study. Appendix A provides a full list 

of stakeholders. 

The MWRRP study took place during two phases: 

• Phase I in 2017 completed market assessments and established an initial network concept.

• Phase II in 2020 updated the previous work with refinements made to the CONNECT model.

The SPG offered feedback and guidance to the network planning process in both Phase I and Phase II. Four 

SPG meetings were held during the Phase I study process, with an additional five meetings in the Phase II 

study process (each held virtually and of shorter duration than the Phase I meetings due to the effects of 

the COVID-19 pandemic). The meetings were structured as facilitated workshops where the SPG could 

provide feedback to the study team. Table 1 presents summary-level details for each of these workshops.

A study website provided a primary source for materials as they were developed and solicited comments 

and feedback throughout the process.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

8 

Figure 4. Stakeholder Planning Group
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

9 

Table 1. Stakeholder Workshops

WORKSHOP DATE LOCATION PRINCIPAL TOPICS ADDITIONAL TOPICS

1 Phase I

March 8, 

2017 

Chicago, 

IL

 Regional 

transportation 

assessment 

workshop

 FRA’s project goals

 Lessons learned from previous study

 Discuss guiding principles

 Identify existing plans, challenges and gaps

 Introduce CONNECT

 Governance overview discussion

2 Phase I

June 7, 

2017 

St. Paul, 

MN

 CONNECT Model 

In-depth

 Provide detailed review of CONNECT model 

process

 Share and review first level CONNECT model 

results

 Present results of Lead Stakeholders 

Governance workshop 1

3 Phase I

September 

13, 2017 

Detroit, 

MI

 Discuss building 

blocks and 

obtain guidance 

on selected 

network 

elements

 Breakout groups discuss network element 

results

 Present results of Lead Stakeholders 

Governance workshop 2

4 Phase I

December 

6, 2017 

Chicago, 

IL

 Presentation of 

draft prioritized 

regional rail 

network, Phase I

 Discuss results and receive input

 Present results of additional technical analysis

 Outline governance recommendations

 Discuss actions and next steps

5 Phase II

March 17, 

2020

Web 

Meeting

 Present 

CONNECT 

updates and 

Phase II purpose

 Project purpose, goals, and principles

 Review Phase I Draft Network

 Present CONNECT database and model 

updates

 Define Phase II study purpose

 Re-assessment of baseline conditions with 

updated CONNECT database

6 Phase II

April 21, 

2020

Web 

Meeting

 “State of the 

States”

 Presentations and discussions by stakeholder 

states and MIPRC updating the SPG on rail 

issues within their jurisdictions

7 Phase II

September 

15, 2020

Web 

Meeting

 Phase II 

adjustments and 

exploring 

alternative 

networks

 Comparison of network performance in 

Phase I and Phase II

 Discussing optimization goals and metrics for 

Phase II network refinement

 Exploration of potential network adjustments

 Discussion on network performance priorities

8 Phase II

September 

22, 2020

Web 

Meeting

 Small group and 

full group 

discussions

 Review feedback and questions from Sept 

15, 2020, meeting

 Small breakout groups discuss network 

priorities and preferences

 Full group discussion

9 Phase II

October 

27, 2020

Web 

Meeting

 Presentation of 

draft prioritized 

regional rail 

network, Phase II

 Review feedback from September 2020 

meetings

 Present additional analyses and findings

 Introduce proposed draft network for Phase II

 Full group discussion and additional 

feedback on network
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

10

1.6.2 Introduction to CONNECT 

A key component to the analysis efforts for the study was the use of the CONNECT, a sketch planning tool 

that estimates the overall performance of intercity passenger rail corridors and networks. The Excel-based 

tool assesses the performance of a proposed intercity passenger rail corridor as part of a larger network. 

Originally developed as part of the FRA’s Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study, CONNECT analyzes 

corridors between Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) and is intended for use at the outset of the study 

process, before detailed corridor studies are undertaken. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

defines CBSAs as geographic regions consisting of counties or equivalent entities associated with at least 

one urbanized cluster with a population of at least 10,000, plus adjacent counties having a high degree of 

social and economic integration measured through commuting to work. 6 

CONNECT was used in the Midwest to build a draft intercity passenger rail network, including associated 

service plans, operational data, and the estimated financial and operational performance of the network. 

CONNECT produces a range of ridership, revenue, cost, and public-benefit estimates that provide an 

analytic basis for the decision-making process and a basis for relative comparisons between corridors and 

networks with various configurations and service options. CONNECT also provides an ability to assess the 

relative importance of network connectivity. 

With Midwest rail networks established in previous planning efforts, the CONNECT model identified the 

most compelling corridors within the context of a robust regional network, important connected markets 

and service levels and CBSAs, or urban clusters/areas of at least 10,000 people, that would perform best in 

the context of an overall rail network.

CONNECT is not a substitute for detailed corridor and project planning and does not produce investmentgrade results. The model does not account for intermediate- or smaller-city potential stations between 

CBSAs on a corridor. Furthermore, the ridership, revenue, capital cost, operations and maintenance (O&M) 

cost, and public-benefit outputs represent only order-of-magnitude estimates of potential corridor and 

network performance. 

CONNECT facilitates testing of intercity passenger rail networks by allowing user-defined inputs, which 

the model then uses to calculate estimates of financial and operational performance of a network. 

CONNECT can help illustrate the importance of connecting markets and their potential impact on corridor 

and network performance. As described in Section 3, the MWRRP team utilized CONNECT to inform 

network planning and analysis. Section 3.2 provides more detailed information about CONNECT, 

including intended uses and limitations. 

6 Core-Based Statistical Areas definition based on Office of Management and Budget (2015). Metropolitan and 

Micropolitan Statistical Areas. https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_cbsa.html
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

11

1.6.3 Guiding Principles for Midwest Regional Rail Network Planning 

The following series of guiding principles for the MWRRP emerged during the first stakeholder workshop 

and were ranked in order of importance by the SPG: 

1. Maximize the utility of capital investment across the full range of potential markets and passenger 

types. 

2. Improve regional and intercity rail connections between small- and mid-sized cities and large 

metropolitan areas and among mid-sized cities within the Midwest.

3. Advance corridors that maximize ridership. 

4. Build toward the maximum viable service tier for corridors in the network.

5. Encourage short-term capital investment consistent with state plans and the long-term network vision.

6. Support improvements that are mutually beneficial to passenger and freight rail. 

7. Minimize the friction of passenger transfers.

8. Advocate for regional networks that support national and urban needs. 

9. Maximize economic opportunities from passenger rail corridor development. 

10. Consider regional and intercity rail connections to major airports within the region.

These principles were instrumental throughout the planning process, in particular during the iterative 

analysis efforts preceding the development of the draft rail network. 

Beyond the technical elements of the service network planning, several additional recommendations were 

identified by the SPG as important to consider during the planning process: 

• Broaden the focus beyond Chicago as the sole hub and consider other large metro regions.

• Consider whether it is more important to focus on faster travel times or increased service frequency. 

• Include overall mobility improvement (e.g., multiple modes, seamless transfers). 

• Consider short- and mid-term plan recommendations from states and others, not just 40-year plans.

• Identify mutual benefits to passengers and the freight industry.

• Bring the states together continuously throughout the process.

• Provide rural- and small-area service as part of a national network. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

12

2. Planning Context 

Population, travel demand, and economic activity shape the transportation planning context in the 

Midwest. All three of these planning factors influence the success of intercity passenger rail. As part of 

defining this context and the current baseline conditions, a market assessment was conducted to evaluate 

the current travel market and demand to understand travel patterns by mode between major markets. 

Understanding these dynamics is critical to planning for rail service designed to meet the needs of travelers 

and to compete with other travel modes. Future population growth projections were also evaluated to 

assess where population growth could occur over time and how that growth could affect travel patterns.

This chapter examines these three key planning factors for the Midwest study area and focuses on data 

relevant to assessing the appropriate approach for intercity passenger rail development in the 12-state 

Midwest study area. This high-level information informed the identification of corridors that could be 

included in a multi-state network. 

2.1 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW

The 12 states of the Midwest encompass over 820,000 square miles and include Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

Complementary jurisdictions from some bordering states and Canada were also included in analyses for 

key markets that were within 500 miles of Chicago.

2.1.1 Population

The total estimated population of the Midwest in 2016 was 67,676,480 and accounted for roughly 21% of 

the entire U.S. population.7 In 2016, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio were the top three most populous Midwest 

states and accounted for more than half of the region’s population (Figure 5). Eleven of the study area states 

experienced population growth between the 2000 census and 2016. Michigan was the lone exception with

a 0.3% drop. Besides North Dakota with a 14.6% growth, none of the states grew faster than the national 

average of 13%. 

7 2016 U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year estimate. Note: This study concluded before the updated 

2020 Census figures were made available.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

13

Figure 5. Population Distribution of Midwest States

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 ACS 5-Year Estimate

According to 2017 U.S. Census records (Table 2), Chicago was by far the most populous of the Midwest 

cities with over 9.5 million people, followed by Detroit (4.3 million), and Minneapolis–St. Paul (3.6 million). 

Table 2. Midwest Metropolitan Area Population Growth

CITY 2017 POPULATION CHANGE SINCE 2010 PERCENTAGE CHANGE

Chicago 9,533,040 71,499 0.8%

Detroit 4,313,002 16,685 0.4%

Minneapolis–St. Paul 3,600,618 251,760 7.5%

St. Louis 2,807,338 19,575 0.7%

Cincinnati 2,179,082 64,396 3.0%

Kansas City, Missouri 2,128,912 119,574 6.0%

Columbus, Ohio 2,078,725 176,724 9.3%

Cleveland 2,058,844 -18,427 -0.9%

Indianapolis 2,028,614 140,524 7.4%

Milwaukee 1,576,236 20,282 1.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Many cities in the Midwest have experienced population growth since 2010, consistent with trends across 

the country and global migration to urban centers. From 2010 to 2017, for example, Columbus, Ohio’s 

population increased over 9%, adding 176,724 residents, followed by population increases in Minneapolis–

St. Paul (8%), and Indianapolis (7%). Chicago, Detroit, and St. Louis experienced more modest population 

gains of under 1% since 2010 (Table 2). 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

14

Population Use in CONNECT Analysis 

For purposes of the analysis efforts in CONNECT, the baseline conditions and market assessment were 

conducted using data from the CONNECT model, which uses data aggregated to the CBSA. CBSAs are 

generally subdivided into two smaller geographic units: Metropolitan Statistical Areas (which contain at 

least one urbanized area with a population of 50,000 or more) and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (which 

contain an urban core with a population between 10,000 and 50,000). U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget defines CBSAs to provide a nationally consistent set of geographic entities for use in tabulating and 

presenting statistical data related to the nation’s demographics.

Twenty-eight specific CBSAs in the study area (including “complementary jurisdictions”) within 500 miles 

of Chicago were identified for a detailed market analysis and divided into four categories:

• Primary city: largest CBSA in the Midwest

• Major cities: CBSA population greater than 1.5 million

• Regional cities: CBSA population greater than 500,000

• Other cities: largest city in their respective state, but the CBSA population is less than 500,000

Figure 6 shows the CBSAs identified for analysis by category. Chicago is by far the largest CBSA in terms 

of population and is considered a primary city. Within 500 miles of Chicago, 12 CBSAs are categorized as 

major cities, 13 as regional cities, and 2 as other cities. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

15

Figure 6. Midwest Core-Based Statistical Areas

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

The initial selection of these CBSAs demonstrates the geographic differences in the locations of the cities 

throughout the Midwest. For example, the eastern portion of the study area has more major cities—

clustered in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio—than the western portion of the study area. These types of 

geographic variances were reflected in the technical process and the subsequent draft network described 

in later chapters of this document. 

With a population of approximately 9.5 million people, Chicago is much larger than any other CBSA in the 

Midwest. The next largest, although outside the United States, is Toronto at just over 6 million people.8

However, the Midwest boasts a significant number of CBSAs with populations greater than 1.5 million, 

suggesting that there could be travel demand for improved rail connections between these markets. Figure 

7 shows the CBSAs ranked by their population.

8 Zones in Canada are Census Metropolitan Areas as defined by Statistics Canada.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

16

Figure 7. Midwest Core-Based Statistical Areas in the Midwest by Population

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

CONNECT includes population estimates for 2000 and 2015 for each CBSA, as well as population 

projections out to year 2055.9 As shown in Figure 8, population in most of the CBSAs grew from 2000 to 

2015, but some grew more significantly than others. These estimates predict that Chicago will still be the 

largest CBSA in terms of population in 2055. However, many major cities show similar or greater absolute 

growth values, underscoring the economic strength and importance of these other metropolitan areas (e.g., 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Nashville, and Toronto).

9 Population estimates and projections from CONNECT are derived from Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., data.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

17

Figure 8. Population Projection to 2055 by Midwest Core-Based Statistical Areas

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 

In terms of growth rate estimates, many major and regional cities (such as Columbus, Indianapolis, 

Madison, Nashville, and Minneapolis-St. Paul) are projected to grow more quickly than Chicago (Figure 

9). Notably, these estimates also show declining populations for Buffalo, Cleveland, Dayton, Detroit, 

Pittsburgh, Toledo, and Youngstown through 2055. Many of these cities are in Michigan or Ohio, which 

showed no growth and low growth, respectively, in state population from 2000 to 2015.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

18

Figure 9. Population Growth Rate for Midwest Core-Based Statistical Areas (2015–2055) 

Source: U.S. Census

2.1.2 Economy

The Midwest has a strong agricultural and manufacturing economy. These industries not only supply jobs 

to residents, they also helped build the rail infrastructure in many Midwestern states whose agricultural 

and manufacturing goods are shipped via rail. Understanding the Midwestern economy and its 

relationship to rail and the transportation system is important context for this planning effort. 

The Midwest is a goods-producing region. Common nicknames such as “America’s Breadbasket,” and 

“Industrial Heartland” are synonymous with the 12-state region. The states’ combined gross domestic 

product totaled $3.766 trillion in 2016—20% of the nation’s whole.10 

According to the 2012 USDA Census of Agriculture, the Midwest’s 8.77 billion bushels of corn accounted 

for 85% of the country’s total corn production, its 2.35 billion bushels of soybeans represented 80% of the 

country’s total soybean production, and its 1.06 billion bushels of wheat was just under half of the country’s 

total wheat production. The region’s other agricultural industry highlights include Iowa and Minnesota’s 

25.75 and 8.86 million hogs, respectively (30 and 10% of the U.S. total), the 2.39 and 1.39 million heads of 

cattle in Kansas and Nebraska (32 and 18%), and Wisconsin’s $4.95 billion of milk sales (14% of the U.S. 

total).
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

19

The Midwest region accounted for $622.3 billion worth of manufactured goods and 3.7 million 

manufacturing employees in 2016. These figures equated to 28.5% of the nation’s manufactured products 

and one-third of the nation’s manufacturing employees. 

Manufacturing and agriculture have been strong economies in the Midwest. Historically, these economies 

have contributed to the need for the movement of goods via rail. Rail in the Midwest is an important link 

in the transportation logistics and supply chain industry which benefits and affects passenger movement 

because many passenger lines also interact with or use freight rail lines for service. 

2.2 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND TRAVEL DEMAND

The transportation system serving the Midwest study area is diverse in modes and the markets served. 

Congestion on the transportation network reduces reliability, increases costs, and decreases safety, 

threatening economic growth, environment sustainability, and community livability. As auto and air travel 

continue to grow, demands for alternative mobility solutions will likely grow. 

This section summarizes the Midwest study area’s existing transportation system, including rail, highway, 

air, intercity bus, and ports. This section also provides an overview of the planned improvements that could 

affect the capacity of each mode and influence the viability of a regional rail network.

2.2.1 Rail Network 

The Midwest has an extensive rail network with Chicago as the hub. All eight Class I rail carriers which 

operate in the United States operate in the region.11 Amtrak provides passenger rail service to 11 of the 12 

Midwest study area states. Commuter rail systems can be found in Chicago and Minneapolis. 

Freight Rail 

Freight railroads operated a total of 47,801 rail miles in the region in 2017, with 33,184 belonging to Class I 

rail freight carriers (Figure 10). The 12-state Midwest study area’s total rail route-miles accounted for 35% 

of the nation’s total and its 69,293 employees represent about 38% of all rail employees in the country. 

Figure 10 depicts the Class I rail freight carrier mainlines in the Midwest.

11 Class I rail carriers are defined by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to be any carrier that has annual 

operating revenues greater than $250 million indexed to 1991-level dollars. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

20

Figure 10. Midwest Class 1 Rail Network

Source: National Transportation Atlas Database

All seven Class I freight railroads which operate in the United States operated in Illinois in 2017, six in 

Missouri, five in Indiana and Iowa, four in Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, and the 

states of Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota each have two (Table 3).

Table 3. Class I Rail Carrier Operations by State

State Rail Carriers

IL BNSF, CN, CP, CSX, KCS, NS, UP

IN CN, CP, CSX, NS, UP

IA BNSF, CN, CP, NS, UP

KS BNSF, KCS, NS, UP

MI CN, CP, CSX, NS

MN BNSF, CN, CP, UP

MO BNSF, CP, CSX, KCS, NS, UP

NE BNSF, UP

ND BNSF, CP

OH CN, CP, CSX, NS

SD BNSF, CP

WI BNSF, CN, CP, UP

Source: Association of American Railroads, State Freight Railroad Industry Snapshots

Rail Carriers: BNSF Railway (BNSF); Canadian National Railway (CN), Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), CSX Transportation 

(CSX), Kansas City Southern Railway (KSC), Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), and Union Pacific Railroad (UP).
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

21

As illustrated in Figure 11, the highest volume freight railroad traffic lanes originate in the Powder River 

Basin of northeast Wyoming and travel southeast to Kansas City. Several rail traffic lanes extend into and 

out of Chicago connecting the nation’s rail hub to other major freight rail regions including the West Coast 

(California and the Pacific Northwest), St. Louis, Omaha, Texas, the Gulf Coast, and the East Coast.

Figure 11. Freight Density in the Midwest (2017)

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Freight Facts and Figures, 2017 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

22

Intercity Passenger Rail 

Amtrak operates intercity passenger rail service on 17 routes throughout the Midwest with connections to 

major population centers throughout the country (Table 4), all of which operate, in whole or in part, over 

rail lines owned by other rail carriers (referred to in this context as “Host Railroads”). 

Table 4. Amtrak Routes in the Midwest 

ROUTE

MAJOR CONNECTIONS FROM 

CHICAGO

DAILY 

ROUND 

TRIPS

ROUTE 

LENGTH 

(MI) TERMINALS

HOST 

RAILROAD(S)

Blue Water* East Lansing, Port Huron 1 319 Chicago 

Port Huron, MI

CN, NS

California 

Zephyr

Denver, Glenwood Springs, Salt 

Lake City, Emeryville (San 

Francisco)

1 2,438 Chicago

Emeryville, CA

BNSF, UP

Capitol 

Limited 

Cleveland, Pittsburgh, 

Washington D.C.

1 780 Chicago 

Washington, D.C.

CSX, NS

Cardinal Indianapolis, Cincinnati, 

Washington D.C., New York 

City

1 1,147 Chicago

New York City

CSX, NS

City of New 

Orleans

Memphis, New Orleans 1 934 Chicago 

New Orleans, LA

CN 

Empire Builder Minneapolis–St. Paul, Spokane, 

Portland/Seattle

1 2,205 Chicago

Seattle, WA

Metra, CP, 

BNSF

Hiawatha* Milwaukee 7 86 Chicago 

Milwaukee, WI

Metra, CP

Hoosier 

State*+

Indianapolis 1 196 Chicago 

Indianapolis, IN

CSX 

Illini/Saluki* Carbondale 2 309 Chicago

Carbondale, IL

CN

Illinois Zephyr

& Carl 

Sandburg*

Quincy 2 258 Chicago 

Quincy, IL

BNSF

Lake Shore 

Limited 

Albany, New York/Boston 1 959 Chicago

New York City/

Boston, MA

CSX, NS

Lincoln 

Service*

St. Louis 4 284 Chicago 

St. Louis, MO

CN, UP

Missouri River 

Runner*

St. Louis, Jefferson City, Kansas 

City 

2 283 St. Louis, MO

Kansas City, MO

UP

Pere 

Marquette*

Grand Rapids 1 176 Chicago 

Grand Rapids, MI

CSX, NS

Southwest 

Chief 

Kansas City, Albuquerque, 

Flagstaff, Los Angeles

1 2,265 Chicago 

Los Angeles, CA

BNSF

Texas Eagle St. Louis, Dallas, San Antonio 1 2,728 Chicago

Los Angeles, CA

BNSF, CN, 

UP

Wolverine* Ann Arbor, Detroit, Pontiac 3 304 Chicago 

Pontiac, MI

CN, NS

Source: Amtrak

* State sponsored

+ Service ended June 30, 2019
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

23

Chicago serves as the hub for these Amtrak routes and in 2019, Chicago Union Station was the nation’s 

fourth-busiest station with 3,331,513 passengers. 12 Milwaukee’s Intermodal Station was the only other 

station ranked in the top 25 with 639,713 passengers. 13

In 2019, the Hiawatha service connecting Chicago and Milwaukee was the most utilized service in the 

region, carrying approximately 882,000 passengers.14 The Lincoln Service between Chicago and St. Louis 

was the second most utilized service in 2019 with roughly 628,000 passengers. The other Amtrak routes in 

the top five by passenger counts in 2019 included the Wolverine with approximately 501,000 passengers 

connecting Chicago with Ann Arbor, Detroit, and Pontiac; the Illini/Saluki between Chicago and 

Carbondale with approximately 267,000 passengers; and the Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg between 

Chicago and Quincy with approximately 193,000 passengers. In addition, Chicago serves as the hub for 

Amtrak’s national network of long-distance trains, which carry significant passenger volumes both within 

the region and between the region and the rest of the country. 

Commuter Rail 

Table 5 provides statistics for the three commuter rail services in the region. Two commuter rail providers 

offer service in the Chicago region: Metra and the South Shore Line. Metra trains serve more than 100 

communities across Cook, DuPage, Will, Lake, Kane, and McHenry Counties with 241 stations along 11 

lines emanating from downtown Chicago. In 2018, Metra averaged nearly 290,000 passenger trips each

weekday.15 The South Shore Line is operated by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District 

(NICTD). Between the South Bend Airport in South Bend and the Millennium Station in Chicago the 

commuter rail line serves 17 stations and has an average daily ridership of approximately 11,500.16 In 

Minnesota, the Northstar Line provides commuter rail service between Minneapolis and Big Lake with 

stations in Elk River, Ramsey, Anoka, Coon Rapids and Fridley. Nearly 794,000 rides were provided on 

this service in 2017.17

12 Amtrak Fact Sheet – State of Illinois. March 22, 2021. 

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/statefactsheets/ILLINOI

S19.pdf 

13 Amtrak Corporate Profile. March 22, 2021. 

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/nationalfactsheets/Amtr

ak-Corporate-Profile-FY2019-033120.pdf 

14 Amtrak FY19 Ridership. March 22, 2021. http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/FY19-Year-EndRidership.pdf

15 https://metrarail.com/sites/default/files/assets/2019_fact_book.pdf 

16 https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/2019-Q2-Ridership-APTA.pdf

17 https://www.metrotransit.org/rail-lines-set-records-as-metro-transit-ridership-tops-819-million-in-2017
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

24

Table 5. Commuter Rail Routes in the Midwest 

STATE

SYSTEM 

NAME OPERATOR SERVICE AREA

AVERAGE 

DAILY 

RIDERSHIP

SYSTEM 

LENGTH 

(ROUTE MILES)

NUMBER OF 

STATIONS

IL Metra18 Metra, BNSF, Union 

Pacific

Chicago Metro 

Area

290,000 487.5 242

IL, IN South 

Shore 

Line

Northern Indiana 

Commuter 

Transportation District

South Bend, IN

to Chicago

11,50019 90 19

MN Northstar Metropolitan Council* Minneapolis to 

Big Lake, MN

2,90019 40 7

Sources: Metra Factbook 2019, American Public Transportation Association 2019 Q2 Ridership Report

* BNSF is the host railroad

Rail Network Trips 

Rail is the third most-used mode for passenger trips within the region. The existing rail network has

Chicago as its hub, so it is expected that Chicago would dominate as an origin and a destination. As 

reflected in data incorporated into CONNECT,20 all of the top 15 CBSA-pairs for rail involve Chicago, 

except for the Kansas City–St. Louis trip, which is the fourth most traveled CBSA-pair (Figure 13). Kansas 

City–St. Louis is notable because it is a popular rail route despite having limited service (only two round

trips per day) and a relatively long travel time (5 hours 40 minutes). Chicago to Milwaukee is the most 

traveled rail route (see Figure 13). 

18 https://metrarail.com/sites/default/files/assets/2019_fact_book.pdf 

19 https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/2019-Q2-Ridership-APTA.pdf

20 Within CONNECT, existing rail ridership is Amtrak ridership data from FY2015.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

25

Figure 12. Map of Top 15 Core-Based Statistical Area Pairs for Rail Trips (2015) 

Note: This map represents origin-destination volumes between city pairs and does not reflect the geography of the 

existing rail network.

Figure 13. Chart of Top 15 Core-Based Statistical Area Pairs for Rail Trips (2015)
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

26

2.2.2 Air Network 

The Midwest was home to 5,221 airports in 2019. 21 However, only 165 of these airports recorded 

commercial passengers, 128 airports recorded freight and mail movements, and 47 are used for military 

operations. Air customs is available at 132 locations. Roughly three-quarters of the airports (3,934) are 

privately owned, 1,358 are publicly owned, and the military owns 26 (15 Army and 11 Air Force). 

Chicago O’Hare International had more than 81.8 million passengers in 2019, which was more than double 

the number of passengers for the region’s second-busiest airport, Minneapolis-St. Paul International, which 

had a total of nearly 38.4 million passengers in 2019. Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County was the third 

busiest airport with 36.3 million passengers. Chicago Midway International ranked fourth in the Midwest 

with 20.2 million passengers, meaning the two major Chicago airports accounted for over 100 million 

passengers in 2019. St. Louis Lambert International and Kansas City International both totaled over 10 

million passengers with 15.5 and 11.5 million. respectively. Figure 14 shows the busiest passenger airports 

in the Midwest.

Figure 14. Important Midwest Region Airports for Air Passengers (2019)

Source: U.S. BTS T-100 Market Data, National Transportation Atlas Database

21 National Transportation Atlas Database
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

27

Air Trips 

Air travel is the second most utilized mode in the Midwest after auto travel but includes far fewer 

passenger trips because trips are restricted to cities with commercial air service. 

Based on data incorporated into CONNECT,22 the Midwest’s highest volume air CBSA-pairs are those with 

major airports: Chicago–Minneapolis–St. Paul, Chicago–Kansas City, and Chicago–Detroit. Chicago is on 

one end of 12 of the top 15 air pairs (Figure 15). Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Nashville are the airports 

in the top non-Chicago CBSA-pairs. Most of the air trips are between markets over 200 miles apart (Figure 

16). 

Figure 15. Chart of Top 15 Core-Based Statistical Area Pairs for Air Trips (2015)

22 CONNECT air trip volumes are based on 2015 data from the USDOT’s DB1B 10% ticket sample. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

28

Figure 16. Map of Top 15 Core-Based Statistical Area Pairs for Air Trips (2015)

2.2.3 Roadway and Highway Network 

The Midwest region is home to roughly 64,400 miles of the national highway system (NHS), 12,600 miles 

of interstate roadways, 37,600 miles of U.S. highways, and 13,200 miles of the national freight network—

all representing over a quarter of the nation’s total. Of the 607,751 bridges in the national bridge inventory, 

over a third (210,439) are in the Midwest.23 In addition, the 12 Midwest study area states maintain more 

than 64,000 of state highway. Figure 17 shows the interstates throughout the Midwest study area. 

23 National Bridge Inventory. 2017. Federal Highway Administration. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

29

Figure 17. Interstates within the Midwest Study Area

Source: Federal Highway Administration, FAF4

2.2.4 Automobile Trips 

Based on estimates incorporated into CONNECT, of the top 15 CBSA-pairs for auto trips, Chicago is one 

end of the top four pairs with connections to Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and St. Louis.24 Notably, 

Chicago - Milwaukee is the greatest auto CBSA-pair with almost twice as many trips as the second most 

traveled auto route of Chicago - St. Louis. Eight of the next eleven auto CBSA-pairs do not involve Chicago. 

Most of these are trips within Ohio and between Detroit and other major and regional cities (Figure 18). 

Most of the auto trips also occur in distances under 300 miles (Figure 19).

24 Auto trip volumes are estimated using a set of direct-demand models that was estimated based on intercity auto 

travel data available from a number of state-wide travel demand models and previous rail forecasting studies. The 

auto direct-demand models predict the demand for intercity auto travel between two CBSAs based on factors such as 

population and distance. The same direct-demand models are used to forecast current and future auto trips, with 

future years depending on future estimates of the model inputs.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

30

Figure 18. Chart of Top 15 CBSA-Pairs for Auto Trips (2015) 

Figure 19. Map of Top 15 CBSA-Pairs for Auto Trips (2015) 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

31

2.2.5 Intercity Bus Service 

Megabus, Greyhound, and Coach USA provide intercity bus service to many large urban areas in the 

Midwest. Intercity bus companies Jefferson Lines, Burlington Trailways, Indian Trails, Our Bus, and 

Baron’s Bus Lines also provide regional service to Midwest communities beyond the major population 

centers.

Megabus provides service to 28 communities in the region. A good portion of these communities are found 

within southwest Wisconsin and northwest Illinois, providing connections between smaller cities and 

Madison, Milwaukee, and Chicago. Other services connect Chicago with population centers in Iowa and 

Nebraska along the I-80 corridor, Chicago with Minneapolis-St. Paul, Chicago with St. Louis, Chicago with 

Indianapolis and Cincinnati, and Chicago with Ann Arbor, Detroit, and Cleveland via Toledo. Greyhound 

has stations in 23 locations across nine states in the Midwest region. Coach USA’s services largely overlap 

those of Megabus and Greyhound (Figure 20). 

Jefferson Lines has service in over 70 communities in Minnesota as well as 19 in South Dakota and 

Wisconsin, 13 in Iowa, six in North Dakota, three in Kansas, and one in Omaha, NE. Burlington Trailways 

makes regional connections between communities in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and Nebraska while 

Baron’s Bus Lines focuses services in Ohio and major population centers in the Chicago region, Indiana, 

and Michigan. Indian Trails connects over 70 communities in Michigan, while also providing intercity bus 

service to Chicago, Duluth/Superior, Green Bay, and Milwaukee.

A few intercity bus companies—such as Badger Bus and Wisconsin Coach Lines in Wisconsin, GoBus in 

Ohio, and Peoria Charter in Illinois—focus on providing service connections in a single state. Suburban 

Express connects Chicago and multiple college campuses in Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

32

Figure 20. Midwest Cities Serviced by Megabus, Greyhound, and Coach USA

Source: Megabus, Coach USA, Greyhound

Intercity Bus Trips 

CONNECT does not include bus trip data for all the selected CBSAs. As a proxy, data on scheduled daily 

round trips for intercity bus operators were collected. Since these operators dynamically adjust their 

schedules to demand and price seats so they fill, the number of daily round trips is representative of 

demand for travel between markets. These do not represent ridership numbers, and at a region-wide level,

actual ridership numbers are very small compared to the other three modes. Similar to auto and rail, most 

bus trips are under 300 miles (Figure 21). However, bus travel reveals different demand patterns with new 

market pairs appearing. For example, Chicago-Madison and Nashville-Louisville are significant bus 

markets. Many intercity buses serve college markets whose riders may be more price sensitive than riders 

of other modes.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

33

Figure 21. Top 15 Intercity Bus CBSA-Pairs in the Midwest

2.3 RECENT AND ONGOING PASSENGER RAIL DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

As was discussed in Section 1.2, the Midwest states have long been active proponents for the advancement 

of passenger rail. For the last several decades the states have been at the forefront of building and growing 

state-supported passenger rail services in this region. States continue to be the most important stakeholder 

group for advancing and developing intercity passenger rail development in the Midwest.

2.3.1 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

In 2009, FRA’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program provided an opportunity to 

implement several state-supported corridors identified in the Midwest Regional Rail System. MWRRI 

issued the Midwest Regional Rail System Service Development Plan—a service development plan (SDP) 

for the full Midwest Regional Rail System supporting the creation of individual SDPs for each corridor. 

Eight Midwestern states and the City of Chicago entered into a memorandum of understanding in July 

2009, for the purpose of coordinating individual applications to FRA for funding established by the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to develop the Chicago Hub/Midwest High-Speed Rail 

Corridor. Figure 22 shows the proposed system map of MWRRI in 2004.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

34

Figure 22. Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

Source: Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission 

In addition to these collective efforts, individual states or smaller groups of states have advanced a variety 

of rail corridor studies, feasibility studies, environmental impact statements (EIS), SDPs, and economic 

benefit studies. Additional efforts have been advanced by groups including MPOs and state and national 

rail advocacy groups. The remainder of this chapter provides details on the various rail initiatives in the 

Midwest states. 

2.3.2 Illinois

A statewide $45 billion capital plan for infrastructure, state facilities, education, and environmental projects 

was passed and signed into law in June 2019. The plan contains dollars for rail projects including $100 

million for improvements to the Chicago-Carbondale corridor, $122 million for the 10th Street Improvement 

Project in Springfield, $400 million for the Chicago CREATE program to modernize rail, and other projects 

discussed below.

Illinois High-Speed Railway Commission 

On August 6, 2021, Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker signed a bill authorizing the formation of the Illinois 

High-Speed Railway Commission. The Commission has been tasked with creating a statewide plan for a 

high-speed network connecting Chicago to St. Louis, MO, and will conduct a ridership study and publish 

results and recommendations about governance, frequency of service, and implementation of the plan. The 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

35

new transportation body will consist of the Governor, state legislators, the state Secretary of Transportation, 

the Mayor of Chicago, and other state and City of Chicago transportation and commerce leaders. 

Chicago Union Station 

Amtrak, in cooperation with the City of Chicago and other partners, has recently undertaken a series of 

studies to modernize and improve the layout and passenger flow at Chicago’s Union Station, the terminal 

point for over 50 daily Amtrak trains and 6 of Metra’s 11 commuter routes. 

Chicago Terminal Planning Study 

FRA selected the Chicago Terminal Study for award of grant funding. The purpose of the study is to 

identify infrastructure investments for improved intercity passenger rail service, long-distance Amtrak 

trains, and Metra commuter rail services south of the approach into Chicago Union Station. 

Chicago to St. Louis 

The Chicago–St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor is an existing Amtrak corridor. Improvements to this 

corridor will allow Amtrak’s Lincoln Service trains to run between Chicago and St. Louis, MO, at up to 110 

miles per hour, cutting approximately one hour from the current travel time. This corridor’s improvements 

cost $1.95 billion, of which $1.5 billion are federal funds (primarily HSIPR Program funds). 

Chicago to Detroit/Pontiac 

The FRA in partnership with MDOT, INDOT, and Illinois DOT initiated a study to evaluate passenger rail 

improvements for the Chicago–Detroit/Pontiac Corridor. In 2014, FRA approved and published an 

Alternatives Analysis for the Project. The goal of the project is to expand service in the corridor to ten daily 

round trips by 2035 and to reduce delays. The next steps to continue the Project would be a Project level 

Tier 2 environmental study and Service Development Plan looking at a dedicated passenger track in the

corridor segment from south Chicago through Northern Indiana building on previously funded 

improvements significantly reducing trip time savings and enhancing passenger experience. 

Chicago to Dubuque 

Recent efforts have been underway to restore passenger rail services between Chicago and Rockford. This 

project received $275 million from the 2019 Rebuild Illinois capital program, and as of early 2021, has begun 

preliminary engineering activities. Potential expansion concepts for the corridor between Rockford and 

Dubuque will continue to be studied.

Chicago to Quad Cities 

Illinois DOT is working with Iowa Interstate Railroad and BNSF Railway to reinstate two daily round trips 

between Chicago and Moline, IL. Improvements on the BNSF were constructed, and Illinois DOT is 

working to complete design between Wyanet and Moline, IL. The proposed service would begin at Chicago 

Union Station and terminate at the proposed Moline Multimodal Station and operate at up to 79 miles per 

hour along the 160-mile corridor. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

36

75th Street Corridor Improvement Project 

The largest project to date under the CREATE Program, the 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project (CIP), 

intends to improve mobility for rail passengers, freight trains, and motorists. This project will eliminate the 

most congested rail chokepoint in the region where 30 Metra and 90 freight trains cross each other’s paths 

each day. The USDOT awarded $132 million for the 75th Street CIP and Argo Connections in June 2018 for 

the first phase of construction. 25

BNSF Connection (Western Avenue Corridor Project) 

The BNSF Connection, another CREATE project, completed in May 2019, eliminates train delays by adding 

new tracks and creating a new direct connection between BNSF’s Corwith and Cicero Yards. 

Metra Infrastructure Investment Program 

In 2017, Metra and its partner railroads launched a $216 million construction program that included major 

bridge replacements on the Union Pacific North and Milwaukee West Lines, as well as new track segments 

on the Union Pacific West Line. The program also included improvements to 29 rail stations, replacing 

57,000 rail ties and improvements to the signal system.

2.3.3 Indiana

The state-supported Hoosier State intercity passenger rail route was terminated effective June 30, 2019. 

Indiana’s Local TRAX rail overpass program—which is intended to eliminate railroad crossings, increase 

commuter safety, and improve fluidity in Indiana’s communities—awarded $121 million in state funds to 

12 cities and counties for projects in 2018 throughout the state.

Chicago to Fort Wayne/Columbus 

The Northern Indiana Passenger Rail Association (NIPRA) and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Council 

(MORPC) are seeking to reestablish passenger rail service between Chicago and Pittsburgh via Fort Wayne, 

IN, and Columbus, OH. They are working on establishing passenger service utilizing existing railroad 

tracks, reestablishing historical train stations, and operating under a public-private partnership. Initial 

studies considered trains traveling at a maximum speed of approximately 79 miles per hour and eventually 

up to 110 miles per hour. NIPRA contracted for a feasibility study for the Indiana portions of the route, 

which was completed in 2013, and MORPC contracted for pre-NEPA planning activities for the Ohio 

section of the corridor. MORPC is undertaking further work on the route under its Ohio Rapid Speed 

Transportation Initiative (see section 2.3.9 Ohio).

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) 

The NICTD provides commuter service between Chicago’s Millennium Station and the South Bend 

International Airport over the South Shore Line. Construction is expected to start May 2021 to double track 

the portion of the South Shore Line between Gary and Michigan City. The West Lake Corridor is a proposed

eight-mile extension of the South Shore line from Hammond to Dyer, IN.

25 http://www.createprogram.org/
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

37

2.3.4 Iowa

Recent projects to improve existing intercity services include those undertaken on the BNSF’s southern tier 

route across Iowa, over which Amtrak’s California Zephyr service operates. These recently completed 

improvements include the Burlington Bridge Replacement over the Mississippi River at Burlington, IA, 

and the Ottumwa Subdivision Crossover Improvement Project between Burlington and Creston, IA. The 

ongoing implementation of positive train control on the BNSF network, including on the southern tier route 

across Iowa, will have positive impacts to Amtrak services in the state.26

Chicago to Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska 

Iowa has proposed to expand intercity passenger rail service from Chicago to Council Bluffs, IA, and 

Omaha, NE. The service vision for this corridor is to provide five round trips per day between Chicago and 

Omaha, and seven between Chicago and Des Moines, operating at a maximum speed of 110 miles per hour, 

and was the subject of a Tier 1 Record of Decision in 2013.

Chicago to Iowa City 

Iowa received HSIPR funds from FRA to study intercity rail service between Moline, IL, and Iowa City, IA. 

The Quad Cities – Iowa City Expansion Program would extend Illinois’s Chicago to Quad Cities intercity 

passenger rail service from Moline, IL to Iowa City, IA, with two daily roundtrips at up to 79 miles per 

hour.

2.3.5 Kansas

Kansas is directly served by one just one long-distance Amtrak train, the Southwest Chief which stops at 

six stations in the state. Work began on Colfax County’s (New Mexico) TIGER IX project in Ingalls, KS, in 

September 2020 with rail replacement, crossing improvements, and turnout improvements. Project 

construction in Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico are expected to continue through 2021. KDOT will 

begin work in 2021 on a positive train control project between Dodge City, KS, and Las Animas, CO.

Kansas City-Oklahoma City-Fort Worth Corridor 

In 2011, KDOT and the Oklahoma DOT initiated a Kansas City-Wichita-Oklahoma City-Fort Worth 

Passenger Rail Service Development Plan. The route would be an extension of the current state-supported 

Heartland Flyer service between Fort Worth and Oklahoma City, bringing passenger rail service to Wichita, 

Kansas, and connecting with the Southwest Chief long-distance route in Newton and the Missouri River 

Runner service in Kansas City. The proposed state-supported service would use conventional passenger 

rail equipment and operate at top speeds of 79 miles per hour under an agreement with BNSF. 

Amtrak began bus service between Oklahoma City, Wichita and Newton in 2016. Based on the popularity 

of this service, and local support, there is renewed interest in replacing the bus service with an extension 

of the Heartland Flyer. 

26 Iowa State Rail Plan. February 2017. Iowa Department of Transportation.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

38

2.3.6 Michigan

Michigan has advanced intercity passenger rail services through more than $511 million in federal funding 

to promote Michigan’s Accelerated Rail Program under FRA’s HSIPR Program. Over the past few years, 

MDOT has leveraged state funds with federal grants to make SOGR improvements to the rail networks 

within the state. 

Chicago to Detroit/Pontiac 

MDOT led a multi-state effort in cooperation with Illinois DOT and INDOT to complete a Corridor 

Investment Plan for the Chicago–Detroit/Pontiac corridor. This has included work on a Tier 1 EIS and 

project development effort undertaken from 2014 to 2016. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was 

rescinded by FRA in November 2018 due to the unavailability of funding. However, project-level work will 

continue in the Corridor as defined in the SDP and approved alternatives analysis.

Enhancements to improve speeds in the corridor up to 110 miles per hour were completed for the segment 

between Porter, IN, and Kalamazoo, MI, in 2012. Current efforts are focusing on improvements in the 

Kalamazoo to Dearborn, MI, segment as well as addressing rail congestion between Porter, IN, and Chicago 

that is causing train delays within Michigan. 

Ann Arbor to Detroit 

After route and service alternatives were analyzed for the Ann Arbor to Detroit corridor as part of a draft 

EIS, implementation of regional passenger rail in the corridor is currently being led by the Regional Transit 

Authority of Southeast Michigan (RTA). 

Holland to Detroit 

Independently of MDOT, the Michigan Environmental Council published a pre-feasibility study in 2016 

examining the possibility for operating passenger rail to connect Holland to Detroit. The study concluded 

with a recommendation to pursue further investigation of the route via Lansing/Jackson, which had the 

highest estimated ridership, and via Howell/Ann Arbor, which had the best financial forecasts. However, 

there is no identified funding for any future work related to this service.

2.3.7 Minnesota

Twin Cities to Milwaukee to Chicago 

WisDOT and MnDOT have been pursuing a second daily train between the Twin Cities, Milwaukee, and 

Chicago on Amtrak’s existing Empire Builder route. Final design and construction, as well as initial 

operations, were selected for funding by FRA under the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety 

Improvements (CRISI) and the Restoration and Enhancement (R&E) grant programs. In June 2021, the 

Minnesota state legislature approved the provision of state matching funds toward the capital 

improvements necessary to initiate this second daily round-trip service. This important milestone 

represents the first financial commitment by the state of Minnesota to state-supported intercity passenger 

rail service in nearly thirty years.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

39

Minneapolis to Duluth/Superior 

The Northern Lights Express is a project proposed by MnDOT for intercity passenger rail service between 

Target Field Station in Minneapolis and the Depot in Duluth. The proposed service would make four round 

trips per day while operating on an approximately 152-mile corridor owned by the BNSF Railway. The 

project cleared environmental review in February 2018, when the FRA gave it a “Finding of No Significant 

Impact” on its Tier 2 Project Level Environmental Review.

2.3.8 Missouri

St. Louis to Kansas City 

Missouri was awarded $31 million for high-speed rail projects under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act. In 2011, MoDOT received federal discretionary funding for nine rail crossing hazard 

elimination projects in high-speed rail corridors. 

2.3.9 Ohio

Rapid Speed Transportation Initiative 

In 2018, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission announced a Rapid Speed Transportation Initiative 

to analyze the feasibility of passenger rail in the Chicago-Ft. Wayne-Columbus-Pittsburgh corridor. The 

effort considered two different technologies: passenger rail and hyperloop. The passenger rail component 

builds on the work of the Northern Indiana Passenger Rail Association, which completed a feasibility study 

of the Chicago-Ft. Wayne-Columbus corridor in 2013. In 2019, MORPC completed an environmental study 

that included the first components of a Tier I environmental impact statement (EIS), including an existing 

conditions analysis to examine if there is a need for passenger rail service along the proposed route, and a 

route alternatives analysis along the existing rail corridors to establish baseline information for a future, 

complete Tier I EIS. MORPC’s next steps for the route development include securing funding for a Service 

Alternatives Report, Infrastructure Investment Report, and additional public involvement (as required by 

the FRA to approve and potentially fund the implementation of this service route).

2.3.10 Wisconsin

Chicago to Milwaukee 

WisDOT and IDOT are pursuing service improvements on the Hiawatha which include reducing travel 

times and increasing daily frequencies from 7 to 10 round trips. 

Twin Cities to Milwaukee to Chicago 

As noted in Section 2.3.7, WisDOT and MnDOT are pursuing a second daily train between the Twin Cities 

and Milwaukee and Chicago on Amtrak’s existing Empire Builder route. Final design and construction, as 

well as initial operations, were selected for funding by FRA under the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and 

Safety Investment (CRISI) grant program and the Restoration and Enhancement (R&E) grant programs. 

WisDOT is the lead agency and grant recipient.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

40

3. Network Analysis Approach 

As introduced in Chapter 1, the basis of the technical analysis and development of a representative network 

utilized the FRA’s CONNECT tool. With elements including travel demand, O&M, and capital cost 

estimates, the analysis resulted in a long-term plan for regional rail service in the Midwest. The results are 

at a high or “sketch” level of detail and evaluate an integrated network as a whole, identifying key markets 

for inclusion on specific routes as well as estimating the magnitude of potential costs. 

3.1 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE TIERS

In 2009, the FRA established classifications for the intercity passenger rail services contemplated in regional 

rail plans. This framework describes the stages of development of intercity passenger rail corridors and 

provides consistent definitions of intercity passenger rail service levels.27 The framework classifies intercity 

passenger rail corridors into three distinct service and infrastructure tiers—Core Express, Regional, and 

Emerging/Feeder. The network vision presented in a regional rail plan defines each corridor in terms of 

these service tiers. Defining features of the tiers include maximum speeds, presence of dedicated or shared 

infrastructure, population served, service frequency, and minimum reliability targets based upon on-time 

performance parameters. Table 6 provides the definitions for each of these tiers. 

Table 6. CONNECT Service Tier Definitions

SERVICE TIER

TOP 

SPEEDS 

(MPH)

OTHER COMMON 

CHARACTERISTICS PRIMARY MARKETS SERVED

MINIMUM RELIABILITY 

TARGET

(ON-TIME PERFORMANCE)

Core Express Over 125 Frequent service; 

dedicated tracks, 

except in terminal 

areas; electric-powered

Serving major 

metropolitan centers

99%

Regional 90–125 Frequent service; 

dedicated and shared 

tracks; electric- and 

diesel-powered

Connecting mid-sized 

urban areas with each 

other or with larger 

metropolitan areas

95%

Emerging / 

Feeder 

Up to 90 Tracks shared by 

passenger and freight 

trains

Connecting mid-sized 

and smaller urban areas 

with each other or with 

larger metropolitan 

areas

85%*

* On-time performance target might increase in the future

3.2 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND THE CONNECT PLANNING TOOL

As introduced in Section 1.6.2, CONNECT is a high-level, sketch planning tool that estimates the 

performance of user-defined intercity passenger rail corridors and networks. The MWRRP used 

CONNECT as the primary analytical tool to test and compare the effects of network performance. This 

27 High-Speed Rail in America, High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan. April 2009. Federal Railroad Administration. 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02833
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

41

section provides an overview of the CONNECT planning tool, limitations of the tool, and a summary of 

the analysis process.

3.2.1 CONNECT Overview

FRA developed CONNECT to provide an 

analytical tool to evaluate the performance of 

intercity passenger rail corridors in the context of 

multi-corridor rail networks. CONNECT allows 

users to define service assumptions and 

facilitates the analysis of service tiers and 

network configurations to identify a range of 

appropriate service characteristics for each corridor within a regional rail network context. At a sketch level, 

the tool enables users to develop and generate a baseline rail network, service parameters, network 

performance data, and capital and operational cost estimates. CONNECT results can be used to provide a 

coarse-level screening to inform the decision-making process in the early stages of corridor and network 

rail planning, and thus can be used in regions that have minimal experience or analysis in assessing 

intercity passenger rail corridors. 

CONNECT uses CBSAs to define corridor configurations and as the catchment areas for corridor and 

network populations. CONNECT relies on a national trip table of CBSA-to-CBSA travel demand data for 

CBSA-pairs between 50 to 800 miles of each other. The CBSA‐based geography provides flexibility for highlevel sketch planning and enables CONNECT to account for ridership and cost, independent from specific 

station locations, alignment alternatives, and short-distance trips (trips less than 50 miles) that would not 

be typical markets for intercity passenger rail systems. Long-distance intercity passenger rail services (over 

800 miles) are excluded because trips exceeding this distance typically default to air travel as the most 

convenient mode of transportation. 

CONNECT provides high-level forecasts informed by assumptions for the service tier, proposed train 

frequencies, and CBSAs served. The tool produces order-of-magnitude estimates for ridership, revenue, 

capital and O&M costs, and other performance outputs that enable the user to understand relative 

differences in service and frequency options for various corridor and network configurations. Capital cost 

calculations consist of a simplified costing model, and O&M costs calculations are based on a simplified 

service plan defined in terms of daily frequencies and average speeds. 

Used in the early stages of the planning process, the CONNECT tool acts as a “coarse screen” and helps 

stakeholders identify the most compelling options from a wide range of configurations before proceeding 

to more in-depth and detailed analysis on specific alignments. 

CONNECT can supplement ongoing corridor analyses within regions, such as the Midwest, that have 

corridors undergoing various stages of more detailed planning and project development, but where 

potential markets outside of a corridor-specific study area have not been evaluated. In such a case, 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

42

CONNECT can help the user better understand the potential implications of connecting travel markets and 

the potential impact of these markets on the future network.

CONNECT Update 

During the first phase of the MWRRP and Southeast Regional Rail Plan, which occurred concurrently, FRA 

identified necessary updates to the trip table database and CONNECT model to improve the accuracy of 

model assumptions and results—updates related primarily to auto trip volumes and their calculations. 

Based on the CONNECT updates, the proposed Midwest rail network was reevaluated with an updated 

model to confirm network performance and necessary adjustments in the second phase of the study. 

3.2.2 CONNECT Limitations

CONNECT is designed to allow users to define and assess a number of rail networks options, but is not a 

substitute for detailed network planning, location-specific demand modeling and revenue forecasting, or 

more detailed corridor planning and environmental studies. CONNECT produces order-of-magnitude 

estimates applicable to regional planning including estimates of ridership, revenue, capital and O&M costs, 

and other performance indicators, but not investment or construction grade results. Nevertheless, these 

estimates empower the user to conceptualize and compare the potential performance of a defined network.

CONNECT uses generalized calculations rather than corridor-specific outputs and does not reflect the 

same level of accuracy as a detailed, corridor level study in determining the ridership, revenue, or capital 

and operational costs of existing corridors. CONNECT results are acceptable in comparing similar corridor 

and network configurations to determine general feasibility. Furthermore, CONNECT data is generalized 

at the CBSA level, which limits the ability to analyze corridor and network performance to a CBSA-toCBSA basis. For example, identifying multiple station stops in one CBSA will not alter the ridership results 

directly (i.e., additional stops do not increase catchment areas or travel time access), but it will increase 

travel time due to an additional station stop and dwell, which affects ridership results. 

Importantly, the capital cost calculations are derived by a simplified costing model that uses unit costs 

derived from domestic and international averages that can be modified by the user. In addition, the cost of 

capital (debt service), for example, is not included in these calculations. For this reason, the model may 

underestimate total capital costs over time. To calculate O&M costs, CONNECT applies a simplified service 

plan consisting of daily frequencies and average speeds to drive the cost estimates and similar to the capital 

cost calculations, uses domestic and international averages.

In terms of revenue, CONNECT looks at only projected fare revenue. Ancillary revenues such as real estate 

development, commercial leases, value capture, and tax increment financing, are all location specific and 

are not included in this model. For that reason, this model may underestimate a corridor or network’s 

revenue potential.

3.2.3 Summary of Analysis Process

Assessing existing market data and calibration/validation of the CONNECT model came together in a 

single effort during an iterative process to analyze network building blocks as part of the network planning 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

43

phase of the project. Figure 23 identifies the process including the four stakeholder workshops during 

Phase I of the study28. 

Figure 23. Technical Analysis Flow Chart

3.3 CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION PROCESS

The technical analysis began with an assessment of existing market data–comparing the existing travel 

flows on all modes between all CBSAs in the Midwest. In this step, the underlying growth projections for 

the CBSAs were analyzed along with the projected growth in travel between them. The results of this 

analysis were presented to stakeholders in the first workshop in March 2017 and used to identify six major 

markets to test in the first round of network planning efforts.

In parallel with assessing existing market data, a calibration/validation exercise was performed to assess 

how accurately CONNECT was modeling the existing and future baseline corridors in the Midwest. The 

initial step of this validation exercise focused exclusively on the ridership module, and those results were 

shared with stakeholders in the first workshop. 

28 As noted above, Phase II of the study was undertaken in order to incorporate refinements to the CONNECT model, 

and included additional stakeholder workshops that followed a similar, but not identical process as that depicted in 

Figure 33.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

44

The main network planning task began with the identification and analysis of the six major city pairs that 

dominate automobile and air travel in the region. This step identified the size of each of these markets and 

assessed the potential for intercity rail to capture market share from the automobile and air modes, based 

on improving rail-trip time and service frequency in these markets. 

The next step in the process was to examine relatively small geographic sections of the Midwest region to 

examine which combinations of service tier, route, frequency and network connectivity generated the best 

potential ridership performance at acceptable levels of capital cost and operating cost recovery. The major 

market analysis findings helped define network building blocks structured within five subregions

organized around six major markets. Within each of these subregions, a set of network planning questions 

was developed. These questions addressed the potential main line routes, network interactions and 

appropriate service levels for the corridors included in the subregion. The building blocks, in turn,

consisted of various network configurations developed to test and respond to these questions. 

At the second stakeholder workshop in June 2017, the major market analysis results, draft network 

questions and building block configurations were presented for stakeholder review and input. 

Following the second workshop and based on stakeholder feedback, the questions and building blocks 

were revised. An iterative process advanced of running the building block models, assessing the data 

against the questions, refining the model inputs, and then running CONNECT again. These refined results 

were used to continue to work through the issues and address the defined questions. 

3.3.1 Existing Market Assessment 

The existing market assessment was completed using the underlying travel data within CONNECT for 

year 2015. Automobiles are the predominant mode for intercity travel in the Midwest (Figure 24). 29 In 2015, 

the 135.0 million auto trips in the Midwest dwarfed the combined trips of all other modes: 12.2 million trips 

by air, and 1.5 million trips by rail, and 1.4 million trips by bus. 

Figure 24. Mode Share for Intercity Travel in the Midwest, 2015

The most common intercity auto trips are between cities fewer than 300 miles apart. The most popular rail 

trips are similarly between cities fewer than 300 miles apart. The top two auto market pairs are in the top 

three rail market pairs with Chicago–Milwaukee the top pair for both modes (Table 7). In the top rail 

markets, rail is competing primarily with automobile travel. The top air markets are different from the top 

auto and top rail markets, except for Chicago–Detroit and Chicago–St. Louis. The travel market between 

Chicago–Detroit is the second most traveled auto market pair, and the third most traveled for air and rail, 

underscoring the high travel demand between those two cities. Three of the top air market pairs are greater 

than 300 miles apart, while Chicago–Detroit is separated by over 200 miles. If rail were to compete with 

these air markets, it may need to deploy a different product and service than in the top auto markets. For 

29 This analysis was based on travel data for the primary, major, regional, and other markets within the study area, as 

defined in the baseline conditions assessment. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

45

example, investment may need to focus on high-speed rail infrastructure rather than incremental 

improvements to existing service. 

Overall, Chicago is the dominant travel demand center in the Midwest, with it being the most common 

destination from other major markets by any mode. (Table 8) 

Table 7. Top 5 Core-Based Statistical Area Pairs by Mode

RANK AUTO AIR RAIL

1 Chicago–Milwaukee Chicago–Minneapolis–St. Paul Chicago–Milwaukee

2 Chicago–Detroit Chicago–Kansas City Chicago–St. Louis

3 Chicago–Indianapolis Chicago–Detroit Chicago–Detroit

4 Chicago–St. Louis Chicago–St. Louis Kansas City–St. Louis

5 Chicago-Minneapolis/St. Paul Chicago–Nashville Chicago–Grand Rapids

Table 8. Top CBSA Pairs by Mode for Primary and Major Cities

PRIMARY/MAJOR CBSA TOP TRAVEL PAIR – AUTO TOP TRAVEL PAIR – AIR TOP TRAVEL PAIR – RAIL

Chicago Milwaukee Minneapolis/St. Paul Milwaukee

Toronto Detroit Chicago Chicago

Detroit Chicago Chicago Chicago

Minneapolis/St. Paul Chicago Chicago Chicago

St. Louis Chicago Chicago Chicago

Pittsburgh Chicago Chicago Chicago

Cincinnati Chicago Chicago Chicago

Cleveland Chicago Chicago Chicago

Kansas City Chicago Chicago St. Louis

Columbus Chicago Chicago Chicago

Indianapolis Chicago Minneapolis/St. Paul Chicago

Nashville Chicago Chicago Chicago

Milwaukee Chicago Minneapolis/St. Paul Chicago

Note: The primary city (Chicago) is in red and major cities (with CBSA population greater than 1.5 million in 2015) are 

indicated in blue.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

46

4. Technical Process – Building 

Blocks 

The building block analysis was an iterative analytic process designed to elicit data on the ridership and 

financial performance of individual corridors and network segments under various sets of assumptions 

about service tier, train routing, service frequency, and network configuration and connectivity. The data 

were used to draw interim conclusions about the best performing service assumptions and network 

connections for the various elements of the network. The analysis narrowed the field of alternatives and 

informed the development of a limited set of high-performing full-network alternatives. The building block 

analysis was framed in the context of several specific questions pertaining to portions of the network. These 

questions were answered individually, with input from the study’s stakeholders, and the resulting data 

used in a later step to combine corridors and routes into alternative networks for further evaluation. 

This process is unlike a traditional alternatives analysis that initially identifies an exhaustive list of potential 

alternatives, performs an initial screening of alternatives to reduce the list to a manageable size, and only 

then undertakes a full quantitative analysis of the reduced list of alternatives. The building block approach 

was developed to facilitate the early generation of quantitative data, allowing the analysts and stakeholders 

to learn from the early performance results and steer subsequent rounds of analysis to those alternative 

network and service configurations that show the most promise. From this process, the draft recommended 

network emerged at the back end of a sequential process of testing and refining to discover the network 

configuration that had the potential to generate the best overall ridership and financial performance. 

The purpose of the building block analysis was to identify preferred routes through the network, key hubs 

where service can be efficiently aggregated, appropriate service tier, and key network interactions that will 

drive network configuration decisions. Data were assessed across a range of scales, from origin-destination 

data and segment data, to corridor and network data depending on the issue addressed. This process 

resulted in a set of elements recommended for inclusion in a network vision, as well as a range of options 

and trade-offs where the analyses did not clearly identify a preferred solution.

The recommended Midwest passenger rail network elements as well as the options and trade-offs were 

shared at the third stakeholder workshop in September 2017. Stakeholder feedback on these issues was 

used to develop a draft final network for analysis. In the final analytic step of the study process, the draft 

final network was run in CONNECT to assess ridership, operation and maintenance costs, capital costs, 

and cost-recovery and benefit-cost ratios. The results of the full-network analysis were presented in the 

fourth and final workshop in December 2017. Stakeholder feedback from that workshop was used to inform 

the refinement and development of the final network vision. That final network vision was subject to 

further refinement in Phase II of the study, in order to incorporate improvement to the CONNECT model.

The study area was divided into four geographies for the building block analysis: 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

47

• Northwest

• Southwest

• Northeast

• Southeast/East30

In this round of analysis, the building blocks were tested within these geographies (Figure 25). In later 

rounds of analysis, the implications and results from these partial networks were used to assemble a 

reduced set of alternative unified networks for further analysis and evaluation. 

Figure 25. Building Block Geographies

Corridors tested within CONNECT were analyzed with service characteristics that correspond to one or 

more of the three service tiers as defined by the FRA: Core Express, Regional or Emerging. Within the 

building block analysis, the model’s baseline was made with a number of representative assumptions

regarding service tier and service frequency:

• Emerging service offers eight trains per day. 

• Regional service offers 16 trains per day. 

• Core Express service offers 24 trains per day. 

30 The East geography significantly overlaps with the Northeast and the Southeast geographies. In this analysis, East 

geography results were grouped with the Southeast geography. In the subsequent phases of the study, issues to do 

with the East geography were captured in either the Northeast or Southeast geographies.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

48

This provided a basis for an initial assessment of service tier performance in each corridor, as well as an 

even-handed comparison of corridors with each other. The representative service frequency assumptions 

were refined in later rounds of analysis to improve the balance among ridership demand, service capacity, 

and cost.

Based on the building block process, another category of corridors was identified as network independent. 

These network independent corridors showed potential to become part of the network in the future but 

did not enhance overall network performance significantly enough to be included in the proposed network 

at a Regional, Emerging, or Core Express level. Such corridors could act as supplemental links in the 

network and can be developed independently from the high-performance network.

While the building block analysis resulted in a set of initial conclusions regarding the preferred network 

configuration in each of the four subregional geographies, many of those conclusions were revisited and 

modified based on both further analysis performed as part of assembling the subregional networks into a 

region-wide Midwest network, and a result of the additional analysis undertaken during Phase II of the 

study.31

4.1.1 Northwest

Five corridor configurations connecting Chicago to Minneapolis-St. Paul were tested at the Core Express 

tier in the Northwest geography. Two of the five corridors configurations were advanced due to higher 

ridership performance. From this assessments, Milwaukee and Madison were determined to be significant 

markets critical to the operational viability of a Core Express corridor between Chicago and MinneapolisSt. Paul and should be included on any mainline route alignment. Rochester is also a major market and 

could be considered either as an intermediate market on the mainline route or as a market to and from 

Minneapolis-St. Paul with connections to the mainline route to Milwaukee and Chicago at Minneapolis-St. 

Paul. Further analysis beyond this study is required to determine which of these corridors is most 

appropriate, and both options should be carried forward for more detailed planning. 

The three Emerging, Regional and Core Express service tiers were all tested on an assumed corridor 

between Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul. There was strong ridership growth at each incremental service 

tier, with huge gains (for the corridor, and between the Minneapolis-St. Paul/Chicago CBSA-pair) moving 

to the Core Express tier. Based on this analysis, Core Express service is warranted between Chicago and 

Minneapolis-St. Paul based on the significant ridership gains at that level. 

Several additional cities were tested as part of the analysis for the Northwest geography building block, 

including the ridership benefit of using Milwaukee as a hub for service to Green Bay, Madison, and 

Minneapolis-St. Paul. Green Bay was also tested for demand to Chicago and between Green Bay and other 

markets. Madison was tested as a branch service to Milwaukee and Rockford, as well as on the mainline to 

Minneapolis-St. Paul. The analysis found that the configuration with the highest network ridership for 

Madison and for the network was to route the Core Express mainline between Milwaukee and 

31 See Chapter 5.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

49

Minneapolis-St. Paul via Madison. The strength of the Rochester market as a branch connection to 

Minneapolis-St. Paul versus as a station on the main line service south to Milwaukee and Chicago was also 

tested. 

Service from Minneapolis-St. Paul was tested as a potential hub for service to markets such as Duluth, 

Fargo, and Sioux Falls. Strong ridership demand to Duluth was noted, warranting Emerging service. Fargo 

and Sioux Falls had much lower travel demand. For all three, investment decisions in providing service 

can be made independent of the rest of the network. 

Based on the building block analysis and stakeholder feedback, the initial preferred configuration for the 

Northwest geography of the network is summarized in Figure 26 and Table 9. 

Figure 26. Proposed Northwest Network Elements

Table 9. Northwest Proposed Network: Recommendations and Outstanding Issues

RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION

 Service Tier Minneapolis-St. Paul - Chicago Core Express

 Route via Milwaukee, Madison

 Green Bay as Emerging from Milwaukee

 Service to markets between Madison and Minneapolis-St. Paul on main line subject to follow up routespecific analysis

 Markets beyond Minneapolis-St. Paul (Sioux Falls, Fargo, Duluth) independent decisions

OUTSTANDING ISSUES

 None
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

50

4.1.2 Southwest

Two corridor configurations connecting Chicago to St. Louis were tested at the Core Express tier in the 

Southwest geography. A configuration via Champaign was eliminated from further consideration because 

it had higher capital costs and did not offer significant network ridership benefits. The route via Champaign 

also created longer trips for riders traveling from Kansas City to Chicago, and it generated lower volumes 

of transfer passengers from a circumferential route connecting Champaign, Bloomington, Peoria, and 

Davenport. 

A second corridor analysis of two routes between Kansas City and Chicago was also performed to 

understand which route maximizes the total corridor and off-corridor ridership. A Kansas City–Chicago 

direct route had relatively low ridership compared to other Core Express corridors into Chicago that were 

examined as part of the study. Because of the relatively small size of the Kansas City market, the significant 

distance from Chicago, and the lack of any major destination between Kansas City and Chicago, a direct 

high-speed connection was determined as not cost-effective relative to the other major markets and 

therefore was not carried forward as part of subsequent analyses. 

The three service tiers were tested between Kansas City and St. Louis. There was ridership growth at each 

increase in service tier, but overall demand was limited. Regional service unlocked ridership between 

Kansas City and St. Louis, but Kansas City to Chicago ridership sees significant gains only once there is 

Core Express service on the Kansas City–St. Louis corridor (and the Chicago–St. Louis corridor). However, 

this Core Express service did not significantly affect Kansas City–St. Louis CBSA-pair ridership. Regional 

service therefore appeared to provide an appropriate level of performance for the Kansas City–St. Louis

corridor and was carried forward for further analysis.

Service to Wichita and Topeka was assessed for the effect on performance of the corridor between Kansas 

City and St. Louis. The building block analysis also examined whether services to Omaha and Dubuque 

would benefit from being aggregated onto a single corridor through Rockford or whether they were better 

served on separate alignments. 

The building block analysis also examined the value of a new circumferential route connecting Davenport, 

Galesburg, Peoria, and Champaign with a hub at Bloomington. Finally, the demand for new markets 

beyond Carbondale (e.g., implications of extending the Chicago - Carbondale corridor to Memphis and a 

direct connection from St. Louis to Memphis) were examined. 

Based on the building block analysis and stakeholder feedback for the Southwest geography, the initial 

preferred network configuration for the Southwest geography is summarized in Figure 27 and Table 10. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

51

Figure 27. Proposed Southwest Network Elements

Table 10. Southwest Proposed Network: Recommendations and Outstanding Issues

RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION

 St. Louis-Chicago Route via Bloomington

 Regional service St Louis to Kansas City; Kansas City - Chicago service via St Louis

 Emerging circumferential route once mainline is built out

 Other corridors recommended as Emerging and somewhat independent of other network 

considerations (Carbondale, Quincy, Dubuque, Iowa/Omaha)

 Quincy connection to either Davenport or Bloomington.

OUTSTANDING ISSUES

 Service Tier St Louis - Chicago: Regional or Core Express
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

52

4.1.3 Northeast

Two corridor configurations connecting Chicago to Detroit were tested at the Core Express tier in the 

Northeast geography. Figure 28 shows these corridors and ridership in standalone and network contexts 

in 2055. The three service tiers were tested on the corridor between Chicago and Detroit. The Chicago–

Detroit corridor saw significant ridership gains moving from Emerging to Regional service with more 

modest ridership gains moving from Regional to Core Express service. 

Figure 28. Proposed Northeast Network Elements

The building block analysis examined several other permutations for rail service between Chicago and 

Michigan.

• Potential benefits to routing the mainline corridor through South Bend and the potential for Emerging, 

Regional, and Core Express services from Detroit to Toronto

• Serving Lansing and Grand Rapids markets with a direct connection to Detroit on a coast-to-coast route 

or with branch connections to the mainline

• Identifying any benefit to making Ann Arbor a service hub in the Northeast geography, as a strong 

intermediate market on the Chicago - Detroit main line

• Determining whether Fort Wayne was best served by a direct connection to Chicago or by connecting 

to Core Express service in South Bend
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

53

For the corridor between Cleveland and Toledo, three different options were examined:

• Direct Core Express service via South Bend

• Direct Regional service via Fort Wayne

• Service via Detroit connecting to a Core Express mainline

The building block analysis ultimately suggested two possible network configurations for the Northeast

geography: one based around Regional mainline service that follows the existing route from Chicago to 

Detroit and another one based around a Core Express mainline from Chicago to South Bend to Detroit. 

Figure 28 illustrates these two configurations.

Based on stakeholder feedback, a network with Regional corridor service from Chicago to Detroit along 

the existing route was carried forward into another round of analysis. Given the incremental ridership 

potential associated with Core Express service in this market, a second alternative configuration assuming 

Core Express service on a new high-speed route via South Bend was also carried forward. 

Assuming a mainline from Chicago to Detroit along the existing corridor, Table 11 summarizes 

recommended elements based on the building block analysis and outstanding issues to be examined in 

future studies. 

Table 11. Northeast Proposed Network: Recommendations and Outstanding Issues

RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION

 Chicago - Detroit via existing intermediate markets

 Regional service to Toronto 

 Regional service Cleveland and Toledo via Fort Wayne

OUTSTANDING ISSUES

 Service Tier Chicago - Detroit Regional or Core Express

 Columbus to Chicago via Fort Wayne or Indianapolis

 Michigan network configuration (e.g., coast-to-coast versus perpendicular connections to mainline)
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

54

4.1.4 Southeast

Two corridor configurations connecting Chicago to Indianapolis were tested at the Core Express tier in the 

Southeast geography. Emerging and Regional services were tested on a representative route from 

Indianapolis to Cincinnati. Emerging and Regional services were also tested to Louisville and extending 

on to Nashville. 

The building block analysis evaluated three different configurations to serve Columbus: 

• Via a Core Express connection to Indianapolis (Columbus-Dayton-Indianapolis) 

• Via a Core Express connection to South Bend (Columbus-Fort Wayne-South Bend) 

• Via a direct Regional route to Chicago (Columbus-Fort Wayne-Chicago) 

The building block analysis suggested two possible configurations for the Southeast geography: one with 

a direct Regional connection from Chicago through Fort Wayne to Columbus and another with Columbus 

served by a Regional connection to Indianapolis. Figure 29 illustrates these two configurations. Both were 

carried forward into an additional round of analysis.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

55

Figure 29. Proposed Southeast Network Elements

Table 12 summarizes recommended elements based on the building block analysis and outstanding issues 

to be examined in subsequent phases of the study.

Table 12. Southeast Proposed Network: Recommendations and Outstanding Issues

RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION

 Regional service Indianapolis - Cincinnati and Indianapolis to Nashville

 Regional 3C Corridor

 Regional service Cleveland - Pittsburgh

OUTSTANDING ISSUES

 Service Tier Chicago - Indianapolis Regional / Core Express

 Columbus to Chicago via Fort Wayne or Indianapolis

Additional building block analyses were tested in the Southeast geography: 

• Emerging and Regional service connecting Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland

• Emerging connection from Cleveland to Buffalo

• Emerging and Regional connections between Cleveland and Pittsburgh

• Detroit - Indianapolis connection via a direct route
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

56

The building block analysis shed light on the relative merits of a wide range of network configurations and 

routing and service tier choices, enabling the definition of a limited set of full-network scenarios for further 

analysis that reasonably maximize the ridership and financial performance of the network elements in each 

of the four geographies of the region. This early analysis identified several corridors where the ultimate 

recommendation for the full network is relatively clear. These elements were then fixed and carried 

forward in all subsequent alternatives, narrowing the field of possible combinations to be analyzed. 

However, within a few of the geographies there remained trade-offs between different configurations and 

other issues that needed further study before definitive conclusions could be drawn. The subsequent efforts 

of the study, which examine potential full-network alternatives, further analyzed these issues, allowed for 

trade-offs to be made, and final recommendations to be developed.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

57

5. Midwest Regional Network 

Vision 

This chapter summarizes the recommended Midwest Regional Network vision. The vision includes 

recommendations for high-performance, intercity passenger rail network in the Midwest through 2055 and 

phasing considerations for future detailed studies.

5.1 FROM BUILDING BLOCKS TO DRAFT NETWORK

An integral part of the network analysis approach outlined in Chapter 3 was the incorporation of feedback 

received through individual discussions with the lead stakeholders to address ongoing state and regional 

planning efforts. Additionally, coordination was conducted with the Southeast Regional Rail Planning 

Study to consider connectivity from the Southeast region of the U.S. Following review of the building block 

analysis at the third stakeholder meeting in September 2017, the following issues were identified that 

needed additional analysis and/or modification in the CONNECT model prior to defining the elements of 

the draft network: 

• Conducting pivot testing on outstanding issues from the building block analyses to make a 

configuration recommendation

• Examining how the service tier level (of the pillar corridors) is affected by fare assumptions with the 

CONNECT model

• Modifying right-of-way cost assumptions for high-frequency Regional service to more accurately

capture the need for additional infrastructure

• Conducting a Chicago-focused sub-analysis to understand how the draft network would affect 

Chicago terminal capacity issues

These outstanding issues were examined via different “pivots.” The pivots tested potential network 

configurations against each other and compared network impacts based on ridership, capital costs, and 

other data points. 

The pivot testing examined the following issues:

• Service to Columbus from Chicago

• Service to Grand Rapids and Lansing

• Circumferential route variations

Once these additional analyses and adjustments were complete, the initial draft network was developed. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

58

5.1.1 Phase II Adjustments

Phase II of the study assessed the impact of the updated underlying trip table within the CONNECT model 

on the Phase I network planning process. As a result of the update, some of the building block findings 

were adjusted. The changes to the recommended configurations are summarized below:

• Green Bay to Milwaukee is a network independent corridor.

• The circumferential route in the Southeast geography was removed from network consideration.

• Detroit to Toronto service is a network independent corridor.

• Indianapolis to Nashville is a Regional corridor with Core Express potential.

• The 3C Corridor is a network independent corridor.

5.2 RECOMMENDED MIDWEST PASSENGER RAIL NETWORK

5.2.1 Proposed Rail Network

Figure 30 shows the Midwest’s proposed rail network. Corridors integral to the network are shown with

defined service tiers. Corridors integral to the network are those that significantly influence ridership on 

the other corridors, and their service tier should be determined with consideration of other network 

decisions. The integral corridors are shown with recommended service tiers of either Core Express, 

Regional/Core Express, Regional, or Emerging. Regional/Core Express is proposed on three of the four 

pillar corridors (Chicago–St. Louis, Chicago–Indianapolis, and Chicago–Detroit), indicating that these

corridors should have a minimum of high-frequency Regional service with the potential for Core Express 

service. 

If the stakeholder states individually and collectively decided to advance an intercity passenger rail 

network with a greater emphasis on higher speed lines, there could be a case to build even more of the 

corridors at the Regional/Core Express level than those depicted in Figure 30. Furthermore, if an 

interregional passenger rail study were completed in the future including the Midwest (e.g., connecting 

the Midwest and Southeast or the Midwest and Northeast), there may be significant enough ridership 

between some interregional markets to justify Core Express service over Regional service on some corridors.

The proposed network also includes corridors defined as network independent, small market, or future 

corridors. Network independent corridors do not significantly add ridership to connecting corridors (nor 

receive significant connecting ridership) in the network. However, they may be important for local 

transportation needs or may have potential to be developed to meet those needs. These network 

independent corridors were included in the proposed network but were not included in the network testing 

within the CONNECT model. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

59

Figure 30. Proposed Network for the Midwest Regional Rail Plan

5.2.2 Basic Performance (Key Performance Indicators)

The proposed base network was tested in CONNECT to determine estimates of ridership, capital costs, 

O&M costs, and operating cost recovery ratios. However, stakeholders understood during this process that 

the CONNECT analyses should be considered with several important caveats, mainly that CONNECT 

intentionally applies approximate and simplified methods for estimating values and is not a substitute for 

detailed corridor and network planning. 

One of the advantages of CONNECT is the allowance for analyzing and planning rail service at the network 

level instead of an individual corridor level. A rail network enhances the performance of individual 

corridors by fostering connections to other corridors and enabling more travel options for passengers. 

Network planning also illustrates how investments in one corridor can create benefits in disparate 

corridors, underscoring the need for multi-state participation and stakeholder engagement. 

There are many benefits for the Midwest to planning and investing in rail service at a network level. When 

considering corridors in the draft base network in a standalone context (i.e. with each corridor considered 

independently of all others), connections are provided between 189 CBSA-pairs. In a network context, 

which allow for connections that span up to two corridors32, the number more than quintuples to nearly 

32 CONNECT limits the number of possible inter-corridor transfers to one, based on the assumption that travelers 

would be unlikely to make a rail trip that requires two or more transfers.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

60

1,100 CBSA-pairs. Intercity ridership increases by 41% from 12 million annual trips in the standalone 

context to 17 million annual trips in the network context. Revenue increases 59% moving from the 

standalone context to the network context. Moreover, these gains in market pairs, ridership and revenue 

coincide with modest declines in operation and maintenance costs and capital costs (Table 13). 

Table 13. Benefits to Connectivity of Network Compared to Standalone Corridors1

MARKETS SERVED2 INTERCITY RIDERSHIP3 REVENUE O&M COST CAPITAL COST

Sum of Standalone 189 12 M $0.9 B $1.6 B $120 B

Network 1,088 17 M $1.5 B $1.5 B $116 B

Percentage Difference 476% 41% 59% -2.5% -3.3%

1 Performance outputs for the primarily Regional version of the network

2 Total number of market pairs on network with maximum of one transfer

3 Year 2055 intercity demand

Overall, the sketch-level analysis undertaken using the CONNECT tool showed that the recommended 

Midwest passenger rail network would serve a substantial number of riders and would have the ability to 

generate sufficient revenue to cover its operating costs. The full proposed network includes close to 3,100 

route miles, would carry 17 to 33 million annual trips in 2055, and generates $1.5 billion to $1.9 billion in

annual revenue (Table 14). The network nearly covers its operating costs.

Table 14. Network Key Performance Indicators (2055)

ROUTE 

MILES

ANNUAL 

RIDERSHIP 

(IN M)1

ANNUAL

REVENUE 

(IN B $S)

ANNUAL O&M 

COST

(IN B $S)

INITIAL CAPITAL 

COST

(IN B $S)

Full Network2 3,100 17 – 33 $1.5 – $1.9 $1.5 – $1.9 $116 – $162

1 Range shown represents outputs from the Regional and Core Express networks 2 Total linked trips for network ridership

Through the full study process, a number of key findings emerged: 

• Chicago remains the core driver of intercity ridership throughout the network accounting for nearly 

30% of all trips in 2055. Minneapolis/St. Paul is the second largest market with over 11% of trips 

originating or ending there.

• In 2055, the Core Express corridor between Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul would serve over 35% 

of all network riders for at least one segment of their trip.

• The network leverages the strength of the Chicago market to provide key through-connections (e.g. 

Milwaukee - St Louis, Indianapolis - Minneapolis) that otherwise would not have the volumes required 

to justify the frequencies or investments in travel time.

• Core Express service between Nashville, Indianapolis, and Chicago could improve the performance of 

connecting corridors, such as to Cincinnati and to Columbus, as well as provide a gateway connection 

to Atlanta.

• When at the Core Express service tier, the corridors from Chicago to Minneapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, 

Indianapolis/Nashville, and Columbus all have an operating cost recovery ratio of greater than one.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

61

• The Midwest passenger rail network provides important gateway connections to other regional rail 

networks in the East, Southeast, Texas, Southwest, and West regions of the U.S.

• Within the Midwest passenger rail network, several markets have the potential to operate as hubs, 

connecting different regional, long-distance, and local rail services, such as St. Paul-Minneapolis, 

Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Kansas City.

5.2.3 Transportation Network Considerations

Investing in a higher quality, higher speed intercity rail system has potential implications for the larger 

transportation network. These types of benefits are important for communicating the vision to a broader 

audience.

A significant benefit of investing in a higher speed intercity rail system is a reduction in travel time between 

markets. Figure 31 shows the number of market pairs and their travel times for the existing intercity 

network, 33 a “Regional base network” (which assumes the portions of the recommended network 

designated as “Regional/Core Expressed” are implemented at the Regional service tier), and a “Core 

Express base network” (which assumes those same portions of the recommended network designated are 

instead implemented at the Core Express service tier). On the existing network, relatively few market pairs 

are served in fewer than two hours. The number of market pairs gradually grows as travel time increases, 

reaching a modest peak in the 7- to 8-hour travel band. Generally, ridership falls after 4 hours, and 6 hours 

is a long trip for most intercity passengers. 

In the current Midwest intercity passenger system about 18% of possible travel pairs are less than 4 hours 

apart and about one-quarter of them are less than 5 hours apart (see Table 15). However, the Regional base 

network significantly improves on this with close to 30% of all possible travel pairs less than 4 hours apart 

and 42% of travel pairs less than 5 hours apart. In the Core Express base network, almost half of the possible 

travel pairs are less than 4 hours apart and more than 60% of the possible travel pairs are less than 5 hours 

apart. The proposed Midwest network offers access to more markets with shorter travel times.

33 The existing intercity network includes nine state-supported routes operating in 2020: Chicago-Milwaukee, 

Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Detroit, Chicago-Carbondale, Chicago-Quincy, Chicago-Port Huron, Kansas City-St. 

Louis, and Chicago-Grand Rapids. This does not include the Amtrak Hoosier service from Chicago to Indianapolis 

which was suspended in 2019.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

62

Figure 31. Midwest Network Market Pair Travel Times

Table 15. Percentage of Network Market Pairs by Travel Time

TRAVEL TIME EXISTING NETWORK REGIONAL NETWORK CORE EXPRESS NETWORK

< 1 Hour 0% 2% 5%

< 2 Hours 5% 9% 15%

< 3 Hours 11% 18% 31%

< 4 Hours 18% 29% 49%

< 5 Hours 26% 42% 64%

Another benefit to examine is the “total addressable market” (i.e. trips across all modes, or total travel 

demand potential, for the CBSA-pairs that would be served by the recommended network) in relation to 

the rail-trip time. For the existing network, close to 35% of estimated addressable market travel demand in 

2055 occurs with trips shorter than 4 hours. With the Regional base network, 39% of total trips are within 

a 4-hour rail trip, and on the Core Express base network over 60% of the total addressable market is within 

a 4-hour rail trip (Figure 32 and Table 16).
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

63

Figure 32. Total Travel Market (Trips for All Modes) by Rail Travel Time (2055)

Table 16. Total Addressable Market by Rail-Trip Time (2055)

TRAVEL TIME EXISTING NETWORK REGIONAL NETWORK CORE EXPRESS NETWORK

< 1 Hour 0.2 M 12 M 27 M

< 2 Hours 5 M 29 M 63 M

< 3 Hours 17 M 48 M 105 M

< 4 Hours 22 M 67 M 134 M

< 5 Hours 29 M 97 M 154 M

Fare levels are also an important consideration. The proposed rail network was developed using a set of 

fare assumptions targeted to reach an operating recovery of one, meaning annual revenue covered annual 

operating expenses. However, it is possible that alternatives with higher fare levels, while reducing overall 

ridership, are able to generate a substantial operating surplus.

5.3 PHASING CONSIDERATIONS

Phasing considerations are important because of the need to prioritize regional rail investment from the 

full Midwest network perspective. Identified phasing objectives include the following: 

• Ensure reasonable incremental progress toward the full-network vision. 

• Evaluate based on quantitative and qualitative performance metrics, such as network ridership, 

benefits, capital costs, and operating financial performance.

• Account for other factors such as geographic equity.

• Demonstrate how early-phase actions dovetail with existing plans and programs.

• Provide context and guidance for corridor- and location-specific project planning. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

64

Nine phasing principles were identified to guide future infrastructure investment in and development of 

rail in the Midwest.

1. Respect state and local priorities. Corridors with significant project development completed and 

political support should be considered for early-phase investment if they do not conflict with the vision. 

Political, institutional, and public preferences should be considered when making investment and 

phasing decisions. Prioritization based on state and local priorities should be commensurate with state 

and local funding contributions.

2. Begin by implementing the most cost-effective initiatives. The implementation order of corridors

should be driven by merit-based performance. The corridors should be evaluated based on benefits, 

costs and valuation of risk. These quantitative measures are based on scenarios and risk assessment. 

Performance for different corridors and segments should be compared. After establishing merit-based 

prioritization, the subsequent phasing criteria principles should be considered to develop a feasible 

phasing and implementation plan.

3. Develop “enabling corridors” ahead of “dependent/contributing corridors.” It is important to 

understand the extent to which a corridor depends on other corridors in the network to reach its 

ridership potential or enables significant network ridership on other corridors. “Enabling corridors” 

are essential links for overall network connectivity and provide connections to 

“dependent/contributing corridors.” Dependent/contributing corridors rely upon enabling 

corridors/segments for connectivity, primarily into Chicago. They contribute significant incremental 

ridership to associated enabling corridors, improving network performance. A third category is 

independent/non-contributing corridors. These corridors do not depend upon enabling segments for 

connectivity, and they do not contribute significant ridership to enabling corridor segments. The 

performance of these corridors is independent of the network. Figure 31 identifies enabling, dependent, 

and independent corridors in the recommended Midwest passenger rail network. 

As an example, a minor corridor with a terminus at a connection point to a high-capacity corridor may

be a highly dependent/contributing corridor if a significant percentage of its ridership is transferring 

to major markets served by that high-capacity corridor. Its ridership in a network context would be 

significantly higher than in a standalone context. An enabling corridor would be the main line in this 

case that allows for the additional ridership on dependent corridors. A corridor in which the 

performance is roughly the same in a standalone and network context is neither a dependent nor 

enabling corridor. This would be an independent corridor, and the decision to invest would then likely 

be independent of other network decisions. In terms of phasing, enabling corridors should be 

supported before the dependent corridor.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

65

Figure 42. Enabling, Dependent, and Independent Corridors

4. Build upon current plans and programs. Many states have invested time and money identifying and 

advancing near-term rail projects prior to developing this shared regional vision. These near-term 

improvements could be interim steps to implementing the full vision plan for a much larger investment 

or a final configuration. The network phasing plan should consider plans and projects already initiated 

while also ensuring that future programs support the MWRRP’s vision. 

This criterion indicates that current projects should proceed. Subsequent phases of current plans and 

programs should be synchronized with the MWRRP vision. Common elements between current plans 

and the MWRRP should proceed and differing elements can be reconciled on a case-by-case basis. 

Future options should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. 

5. Protect future service tier and routing choices. The phasing plan should preserve flexibility for futuredecision-making and for adaptations necessary due to changes in future travel demand. Robust

investments should occur in early implementation phases ahead of investments that foreclose future 

options or force decisions prior to full commitment. Additional analysis, evaluation, and decisionmaking are required in corridors where there is not a clear recommended service tier or route in the 

draft network. Analysis of these corridors should occur in early phases to enable service tier and route 

decision-making before options are limited by the nature of the network and affiliated infrastructure.

6. Maintain geographic equity. Building a regional rail network is a multi-decade commitment requiring

sustained support from multiple states over a long period. If earlier criteria result in a phasing plan in 

which parts of the region are ignored for a significant period, the phasing plan should be adjusted to 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

66

introduce an appropriate degree of geographic equity. Investments should be spread throughout the 

region and all participating states should realize service benefits in early phases.

7. Maintain capacity-demand balance. The network should be built in a way that balances capacity and 

demand. Capacity and performance should be improved incrementally, in line with projected future 

demand. Network investments should reflect anticipated growth rather than react to growth.

8. Maintain acceptable operating performance. Phasing and implementation of the full-network buildout should optimize the operating cost-recovery ratio and infrastructure utilization. Network 

construction should avoid phasing that significantly lowers operating cost recovery ratio or creates 

underutilized corridors.

9. Maintain balanced pace of investment. Network phasing should occur in way where annual capital 

investment is in line with funding and delivery resources. Short-term projects can be based on 

current/planned resources while long-term projects can be based on anticipated/required resources, 

which can be challenging given the difficulty in forecasting future available resources. Ideally, phasing 

should occur in a way that maintains a relatively balanced pace of investment over the expected 

implementation period to avoid front- or back-loading projects as well as wide annual fluctuations in 

capital costs.

When considering regional coordination and governance (further discussed in Chapter 5), investment 

phasing decisions can be made using three geographic scales (Figure 33). 

• Local: individual, discrete projects

• Corridor: single, city-to-city corridor

• Midwest network: impacting multiple projects and corridors

Figure 33. Geographic Scales of Phasing Decisions

In addition, three main factors were used to determine the most appropriate scale for decision-making. 

This included analyzing where benefits would be realized along with where trade-offs or consequences 

would be felt. Finally, where funding commitments would be needed was also an important consideration.

Layered geographies may be used for phasing decisions. At present time, investment and phasing decisions 

are made at the local and corridor scales. However, a new framework is needed to reflect the MWRRI

perspectives and priorities, including leveraging and acting on the ridership benefits of network 

connectivity as well as geographic equity of investment and network development. Federal, state, 

metropolitan area and rail carrier interests need to be represented collectively at the decision-making scale 

of the region (Figure 35). 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

67

Figure 34. Geographic Scales of Phasing Considerations

A suggested phasing timeline would implement core network elements first. Thus, Phase 1 would include 

Regional and Core Express service to all the major markets and Chicago. Phase 2 would prioritize 

investment in corridors that significantly affect network ridership and connectivity. Phase 3 would 

implement corridors that modestly contribute to network performance. The phasing of independent/noncontributing projects (i.e., corridors with limited network implications) can be determined at the corridor 

or local scale, depending on local initiatives and funding (Figure 35).
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

68

Figure 35. Suggested Phasing Timeline

5.4 NETWORK IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS

Developing and implementing a regional rail network is a complex and difficult process. The involvement 

of multiple government agencies acting at different levels and across different jurisdictions, as well as 

private rail operators and owners, necessitates an interstate governance structure. Unlike many other 

regions of the United States, the Midwest has an established governance structure, MIPRC, which is largely 

responsible for leading the effort to advance the MWRRP. The governance component of this study 

evaluates the future needs and role of a governance structure moving forward. However, MIPRC will play 

an important role in the phased development of the Midwest regional rail network by working to advance 

passenger rail programs, projects, and priorities that are the outcome of the MWRRP.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

69

6. Governance 

The multi-state 40-year framework developed for the MWRRP includes a prioritization of corridors and 

investment projects, a funding strategy, and a governance structure. A successful implementation of this 

regional rail plan will require extensive coordination among the participating states and other involved 

stakeholders. 

Passenger rail projects are often complicated by a mix of private and public owners and operators of 

infrastructure and rolling stock, as well as a legacy of more than 40 years of federal law, regulation, and 

commercial negotiations among the affected parties. Coordination among these entities must address 

complex issues from corridor planning to implementation efforts. At the same time, coordination must also 

consider each state’s regulatory, financial, political, and institutional framework along with host and 

operating railroads’ policies and perspectives.

Regional governance structures can provide direction and advance a unified vision, as well as provide the 

platform to support multi-state planning and legislative initiatives. Ultimately these can lead to longerterm investments to implement multi-state corridor improvements and new demand-oriented passenger 

rail services. 

The development of this chapter reflects extensive input from the lead stakeholders and summarizes FRA’s 

approach, analysis, and conclusions related to governance to move multi-state rail projects forward in the 

Midwest. 

6.1 EXISTING REGIONAL COORDINATION EFFORTS IN THE MIDWEST

One of the FRA’s objectives for the governance task in the MWRRP was to remain consistent in the 

approach with other previous and ongoing studies. In all the regional rail plans conducted to date, the 

FRA’s focus has been on convening stakeholders to explore the formation of a governance framework that 

can be used to advance the outcomes of the plan. In the Southwest and Southeast regions of the U.S., where 

the FRA also led regional rail plans, neither region had an existing functional governance structure. In 

contrast, the Midwest has a long-standing governance structure in MIPRC. Formed by compact agreement 

in 2000, MIPRC brings together state leaders from across the region to advocate for passenger rail 

improvements. Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and 

Wisconsin are MIPRC’s current member states. Further described in Chapter 2, the main purposes of the 

compact are to promote, coordinate, and support regional improvements to passenger rail service in the 

Midwest. 

Even prior to the formation of MIPRC, the Midwest was active in advancing passenger rail. Also described 

in detail in Chapter 2, the MWRRI launched in 1996 with nine states and the FRA as a cooperative, multiagency initiative focused on developing a 21st century passenger rail system in the Midwest centered on 

Chicago. The MWRRI focused on offering business and leisure travelers shorter travel times, additional 

train frequencies, and connections between urban centers and smaller communities.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

70

The Midwest region is larger and more geographically complex than the Southwest and Southeast regions, 

has several established intercity passenger rail corridors, and can draw upon decade’s worth of experience 

of states working together to undertake planning and capital investments required to advance and improve 

service. The coordinated efforts of the MWRRI, MIPRC, and the FRA have significantly advanced intercity 

passenger rail in the Midwest during the last two decades and serve as the foundation for the examination 

of governance in the Midwest. Some large-scale highlight achievements for passenger rail in the Midwest 

follow. 

When FRA’s HSIPR Program launched in 2009, the Midwest states were well-positioned to undertake 

significant improvements to their state-sponsored corridors. Since 2010, Illinois has led the nation’s thirdlargest portfolio of investments in intercity passenger rail. The Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail 

Corridor Program is a $1.6 billion investment that includes major improvements to track, signal systems, 

stations, and equipment to increase passenger and freight performance and improve safety across the 

nearly 284-mile corridor. 

While major programs were each led by a single state, they often required close coordination between

adjacent states and always required some form of agreement with the host and / or other tenant railroads. 

Lessons learned from these state-led programs informed the FRA’s examination of governance structures. 

Additionally, Midwestern states have worked together to undertake multiple corridor-specific planning 

efforts. 

The most significant undertaking from a governance perspective in the Midwest has been the delivery of 

the Midwest fleet of locomotives. Funded by an FRA grant to the Midwest states to replace aging 

locomotives with modern equipment capable of high-speed operations along eight state-supported routes 

in the region, the Midwest states participating in the locomotive pool of equipment formed a governance 

structure—using authority derived from MIPRC—to own, operate, maintain, and potentially procure 

additional locomotives. This recent undertaking in multi-state governance was closely examined as part of 

the governance portion of the MWRRP.

In recognition of the Midwest’s established governance structure, its complexity, and the Midwest states’ 

history of successfully implementing large programs, the FRA’s approach to governance in the Midwest

differed from other regional rail planning studies. The FRA’s objectives in terms of governance for the 

Midwest were modest. Through the MWRRP, the FRA sought the following: 

• Verify what was working in terms of the existing governance structure. 

• Identify any existing gaps. 

• Understand the states’ priorities in terms of advancing and elevating their existing governance 

structure. 

• Make recommendations on how to advance projects in the Midwest in a manner that is consistent with 

the outcomes of the MWRRP. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

71

The remainder of this chapter outlines existing efforts for governance in the Midwest and the FRA’s 

approach to realizing the objectives of the MWRRP. It concludes with recommendations for governance as 

it relates to the strategic prioritization, advancement, investment and funding of corridors and projects. 

6.2 MIDWEST GOVERNANCE STAKEHOLDERS

The FRA’s approach to governance first focused on classifying these parties into several distinct categories, 

each of which were subject to a different level and type of engagement relative to the examination of 

governance in the Midwest. 

The FRA led the MWRRP governance discussions. Representatives of state DOTs in the Midwest region 

and MIPRC were the lead stakeholders and primary participants in discussions related to governance. The 

states were categorized by their level of support for passenger rail and/or their proximity to the Midwest 

as shown in Figure 36. The FRA facilitated three governance-specific workshops during the study with the 

lead stakeholders. These workshops were held preceding the MWRRP SPG meetings. 

Figure 36. Current (2018) Understanding of State-by-State Status

Additional stakeholders, comprising representatives of other groups with an interest and a relationship to 

governance as potential partners in undertaking projects such as host railroads, local municipalities and 

MPOs, received regular updates on governance discussion topics and considerations during the SPG 

meetings. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

72

6.3 GOVERNANCE APPROACH AND INSTITUTIONAL 

CONSIDERATIONS

The FRA started its examination of governance in the Midwest by identifying and classifying stakeholders 

as they related to the MWRRP (described in Section 1.5). This step was critical in determining which 

stakeholder groups would be subject to which kind of engagement in terms of governance. Next, the FRA 

conducted a high-level review of governance frameworks that might apply to projects that result from the 

MWRRP. The FRA engaged the lead stakeholders in a series of workshops to examine and understand a 

variety of topics related to governance on a regional scale before developing findings and conclusions. 

Figure 37 summarizes this process. 

Figure 37. Project Approach

6.3.1 High-Level Review of Governance Frameworks

The FRA spent the first several weeks of the MWRRP examining relevant governance frameworks 

applicable to the development of Midwest intercity passenger rail programs. These frameworks are found 

in the Regional Rail Planning Governance Structures White Paper in Appendix B.

The FRA drew from two main sources for governance frameworks related to passenger rail programs. The 

first is the report from the FRA’s Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study from September 2014. In this 

document, the FRA describes the approach taken by the Southwest states to work through their governance 

and institutional issues, receive input from stakeholders, consider various governance models, and 

ultimately report on the stakeholders’ governance findings and recommendations. 

The second document, Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs, is a 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) research paper, from the National Cooperative Rail Research 

Program (NCRRP) released in September 2016. The TRB research paper summarizes conclusions from 

literature research and case studies from existing rail and other multi-state institutional models and is

complemented by focus group discussions. A critical review and assessment of the data resulted in the 

recommendation of eight governance models. However, the study also states that “no single governance 

model has proven to be particularly effective for advancing passenger rail” partly because no model was 

applied for the complete lifecycle of a program that begins at planning and ends at O&M. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

73

The FRA identified the role of a governance framework, types of organizations typically involved in 

governance, and challenges implementing an effective governance structure. Table 17 summarizes the 

eight types of governance models that are generally applicable in intercity passenger rail programs.

Table 17. Alternative Multi-State Governance Models

NO. MODEL DEFINITION

PHASE OF

DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLES

1 Coordinated 

State Efforts

Where two or more 

states agree to 

coordinate 

passenger rail efforts 

within their 

respective states.

 Visioning 

 Planning

 Pacific Northwest Rail 

Corridor

 South Central High-Speed 

Rail Corridor

2 Coalition/ 

Partnership

Where multi-state 

partners convene 

on a voluntary basis 

to carry out 

activities of 

common interest. 

May also be carried 

out in coordination 

with a non-profit 

corporation.

 Visioning 

 Planning

 I-95 Coalition

 Coalition of Northeastern 

Governors

 Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative 

 Amtrak Northeast Corridor 

Infrastructure Master Plan

Working Group

3 Single State 

Agency 

Contracting 

with or on 

Behalf of 

Other States

Where an existing or 

newly created entity 

within a single state 

addresses multistate interests, 

primarily through 

contractual 

arrangements with 

other states.

 Design

 Construction

 Operations 

and 

Maintenance

 Chicago–Detroit/Pontiac 

Corridor Investment Plan

 Chicago to Quad Cities

 Chicago to Milwaukee 

Hiawatha SDP for Three 

Additional Frequencies 

 Chicago to Milwaukee to 

Twin Cities EIS and 

Additional Frequency to 

the Empire Builder

 Northern New England 

Passenger Rail Authority



4 PublicPrivate 

Partnership

Where the 

government and 

the private sector 

enter into an 

arrangement that 

allows for greater 

private-sector 

participation in the 

delivery of 

transportation 

projects.

 Design

 Construction

 Operations 

and 

Maintenance

 All Aboard Florida

 Texas Central Railway

 Amtrak Hoosier State 

Service

 CREATE 

5 Multi-State 

Commission

Where two or more 

states coordinate 

multi-state interests 

through a formal 

agreement that 

establishes a 

governing body.

 Planning

 Preliminary 

Design

 Midwest Interstate 

Passenger Rail

Commission 

 Southeast High-Speed Rail 

Corridor Project: VirginiaNorth Carolina
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

74

NO. MODEL DEFINITION

PHASE OF

DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLES

6 Multi-State 

Special 

Authority

Where an 

independent entity, 

often a distinct 

governmental body, 

delivers a limited 

number of public 

services within 

defined boundaries 

across state lines 

and can exercise a 

broad range of 

typical 

governmental 

powers.

 Design

 Construction

 Operations 

and 

Maintenance

 Washington Metropolitan 

Area Transit Authority

 Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey

7 FederalState 

Commission

Where a body of 

federal, state, and, 

sometimes, local 

leaders organize to 

address a critical 

need.

 Planning  Appalachian Regional 

Commission 

 Northeast Corridor 

Infrastructure Operations 

and Advisory Commission

8 Freight 

Railroads 

Where freight 

railroads lead 

delivery of 

passenger rail 

services.

 Design

 Construction

 Operations 

and 

Maintenance

 No current examples for 

intercity service

Source: National Cooperative Rail Research Program 

The eight governance models were discussed in more detail with state DOT representatives throughout 

the duration of the MWRRP.

The FRA recognized the need for a governance structure that can be tailored based on the phase or stage 

of the program or project. Not all states within a region will have a role in advancing specific corridor 

programs or projects, and as programs and projects of regional significance are advanced, funded, 

designed, and constructed, the various stakeholders’ responsibilities change over time depending on the 

nature of the program. Transitions in stakeholders’ responsibilities may occur in parallel as different 

segments within the network are prioritized and implemented. To account for these changing 

responsibilities, states require the ability to develop and implement additional governance models that 

provide the needed structure, processes, and decision-making models specific to the program or project.

Figure 38 shows the NCRRP study’s recommendation for which models are most applicable to the main 

project phases.
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

75

Figure 38. Governance Models’ Applicability to Project Phases

Source: National Cooperative Rail Research Program 

Over time, a governance structure may transition to a model better suited to specific project phases. The 

stakeholders can also refine and tailor the model to specific needs as the project progresses and changes to 

scope and objectives occur. An overall parent governance structure can form sub-structures for specific 

purposes. Some of these sub-structures can become permanent groups, while others may be limited until 

their assignments are completed. 

In summary, various multi-stakeholder governance models have been implemented for many different 

purposes. For regional rail planning and implementation, there is no “one model fits it all” framework that 

spans from the initial vision through managing day-to-day O&M. 

6.3.2 Regional Governance Stakeholder Workshops 

Lead stakeholders were engaged in a series of discussions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of 

the various models from both an individual state and a regional perspective. These discussions were 

facilitated by the FRA as part of the states-only workshops with state DOT representatives and MIPRC.

• Lead Stakeholder Governance Workshop #1: St. Paul, Minnesota. During this workshop, the FRA 

discussed how a functioning governance framework is needed to advance the findings of the MWRRP. 

The FRA and the states discussed some of the challenges the states face in implementing a functioning 

governance framework. The FRA reviewed the governance model white paper with the state DOTs. 

Following the discussions, each state DOT representative answered a series of questions on legal 

limitations, capabilities, applicable governance frameworks, and successes and gaps related to existing 

arrangements. 

• Lead Stakeholder Governance Workshop #2: Detroit, Michigan. The FRA reviewed the previous 

governance discussion before presenting a case study focused on the governance aspects of a major 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

76

capital investment program. The Chicago–Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment 

Program was selected as the example. The FRA and states discussed the role of governance in 

optimizing Midwest operations through an operational council. The discussion concluded with ways 

to elevate the status and standing of MIPRC. 

• Lead Stakeholder Governance Workshop #3: Chicago, Illinois. The states and the FRA built on the 

previous discussion on elevating the status of MIPRC. The group discussed MIPRC’s 2018 action plan 

and advocacy strategy. The group discussed what the FRA and USDOT can do from a federal 

perspective to assist MIPRC in advancing its goals and how MIPRC can advance/support the phased 

network development approach that is the outcome of the MWRRP. The workshop concluded with a

discussion on how MIPRC can engage (or be engaged by) non-state or nonmember entities to advance 

the prioritized development of the network.

6.4 REGIONAL COORDINATION CHALLENGES

As with any multi-party agreement, regional rail plan stakeholders may be confronted with conflicting 

interests and goals, limited available resources, legal and regulatory frameworks, or conflicts with existing 

agreements. Stakeholder interviews and governance model workshop discussions revealed several 

potential challenges that a governance model will need to address and proactively manage. A governance 

model must address and proactively manage a number of challenges: 

• Lack of or limited political support

• Limited resources

• Conflicting or divergent levels of interest

• Conflicting or competing objectives for prioritizing projects in an unpredictable and constrained 

funding environment

• Slow decision-making process within federal, state, local and railroad organizations

• Equitable stakeholder representation relative to role within the region

• Difficulty determining sustainable cost-sharing commitments

• Difficulty maintaining transparency and providing an open process for stakeholder participation and 

engagement 

• Competing or conflicting federal, regional, state, and local laws, regulations, and responsibilities

• Difficulty in communicating the public benefits of a singular project to the broader region

Despite these challenges, successful regional governance models exist. Further, the FRA recognizes that a 

variety of multi-stakeholder governance models have been implemented for many different purposes. For 

regional rail planning and implementation, it is unlikely that only one governance model framework will 

be used from the initial vision through day-to-day O&M. The models presented provide an overview of 

what has been successfully used in the intercity passenger rail environment, but ultimately the lead 

stakeholders need to jointly discuss and develop a tailored approach that best meets each entity’s needs, 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

77

accounting for individual limitations, while achieving the goal of advancing regional rail planning 

outcomes.

6.5 GOVERNANCE FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

CONCLUSIONS

The MWRRP verified what is working in existing governance structures, identified gaps, and defined state 

priorities in terms of advancing and elevating current governance structure. This section summarizes the 

FRA’s findings and makes recommendations on how to advance projects in the Midwest in a manner that 

is consistent with the outcomes of the MWRRP.

1. The Midwest is unusual in that it already has an established governance structure—MIPRC. Unlike 

other regions where the FRA is conducting similar studies, the Midwest has been unique in that it had 

an established region-wide governance structure prior to the initiation of the study, which required a 

different study and evaluation focus from other regional studies.

2. MIPRC is an effective organization with strong support among the Midwest states to continue as 

the region’s governing body. MIPRC will be used as a governance structure to advance the outcomes 

of the MWRRP and other regional-level planning studies. It is a priority of the Midwest states to expand 

MIPRC’s relevancy but doing so must be balanced with protecting the sovereignty and individual 

interests of the states. The Midwest states seek to increase federal support of MIPRC and request that 

the FRA work closely with MIPRC to identify ways to include MIPRC at the federal level and to elevate 

MIPRC’s profile. MIPRC will play a role in the phased network development that is an outcome of the 

MWRRP, and MIPRC will continue to examine ways to expand its ability to represent nonmember

interests. 

3. The lack of a predictable funding stream results in reduced incentives for states to work together 

beyond the existing governance framework. If funding for regional rail development becomes 

available, the Midwest states will have to act immediately. This necessitates a need for them to address 

the many governance issues related to developing and delivering a complex rail program across 

Midwest state lines now.

4. Governance frameworks beyond MIPRC will be required to address the complex issues of 

delivering a major network development program, and the more robust the governance structure, 

the more competitive and successful this effort will be. Future governance structures will need to 

address complex issues such as assignments of roles and responsibilities and approaches to complex 

cost allocation issues, particularly in situations where the benefits of investment are disproportionately 

distributed across a corridor, and several other issues.

. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

78

7. Action Items and Next Steps 

The MWRRP network would provide a coordinated multi-state vision for the optimal role of regional 

intercity passenger rail service in the multimodal transportation context. This integrated vision for a 

regional rail network considers how linkages with other modes could create an integrated transportation 

system to carry travelers from origin to destination throughout the region in a cost-effective manner. This 

chapter describes recommended actions and next steps to advance the Midwest regional rail network.

7.1 NATIONAL RAIL PLAN 

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 directed the FRA to lead the development of 

a long-range national rail plan consistent with approved state rail plans and national mobility needs to 

“promote an integrated, cohesive, efficient, and optimized national rail system for the movement of goods 

and people[.]”34 Early planning efforts included the development of a Preliminary National Rail Plan 

(October 2009), which provides a springboard for developing a long-range plan by illustrating the role that 

rail plays in meeting strategic goals and identifying policies to improve rail mobility within the 

transportation system.35 With this policy context, the FRA has continued to engage in regional rail planning 

efforts in partnership with the Midwest region stakeholders in this study and other multi-state planning 

studies.

7.2 POSSIBLE INTERREGIONAL PLANNING

A potential future study that examines connections between the Midwest and other regions has been 

identified as an opportunity to further integrate the MWRRP into a larger interregional and national rail 

network. As described in Chapter 1, the MWRRP’s primary analysis encompassed developing a regional 

network for the 12-state Midwest study area. Although not the focus of the study, connections to significant 

travel markets outside of the Midwest region were considered, such as connections to Texas, Atlanta, 

Washington, D.C. Philadelphia, and New York City. As noted in Chapter 1, the Southeast region and the

FRA conducted the Southeast Rail Planning Study simultaneously to identify a vision for a highperformance, multi-state intercity passenger rail network in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.

7.3 INCORPORATION INTO STATE RAIL PLANS AND OTHER 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLANS

The MWRRP network would support rail planning objectives and existing statewide processes, including 

development of state rail plans and LRTP efforts, and would facilitate future project-specific planning 

34 Overview, Highlights and Summary of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. March 10, 

2009. Federal Railroad Administration. https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/overview-highlights-and-summarypassenger-rail-investment-and-improvement-act-2008-priia

35 Preliminary National Rail Plan. October 2009. Federal Railroad Administration. 

https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/preliminiary-national-rail-plan
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

79

efforts such as corridor studies. The MWRRP is a vision for enhanced regional rail connectivity that is 

intended to complement MPO long-range plans, state rail plans, and multi-state rail planning efforts in 

prioritizing additional studies and implementation strategies to enhance passenger and freight rail 

services. This long-term vision and consensus approach for planning and implementation will help 

establish a unified platform for developing passenger rail in this region.

Throughout the development of the MWRRP, the Stakeholder Planning Group (see Chapter 1) provided 

background information for ongoing state rail planning efforts and initiatives to be considered during 

development of the regional rail network. Additionally, the lead stakeholders provided feedback at key 

milestones during the planning study, which resulted in a collaborative vision for the future highperformance passenger rail network in the Midwest. The recommendations within this report provide 

opportunities for future development of high-performance passenger rail connectivity based on the 

conceptual planning efforts conducted at the regional (multi-state) level. Due to the conceptual-level 

planning, this regional rail plan is not intended to replace the need for detailed project-specific corridor 

planning and environmental studies that would be required prior to project implementation. 

7.4 FOLLOW-ON DETAILED STUDIES

The Midwest has a well-established history of advancing passenger rail planning both in individual states 

as well as via regional efforts encompassing multiple states. As the Midwest continues to progress with 

projects identified in state rail plans and other planning documents, it is anticipated that the outcomes from 

many of these projects will affect the MWRRP network. 

7.4.1 Corridor Specific

The greatest number of follow-on studies to the MWRRP will be corridor specific. These could be efforts 

that further advance development of corridors already established, such as the Chicago to Detroit/Pontiac 

corridor in Michigan and Illinois, or that evaluate corridors where there is a choice to be made for specific 

alignments, similar to the pivot testing described in Chapter 4 to identify recommended configurations for 

the various corridors.

It is anticipated that these studies could be led by state DOTs and potentially others in support of further 

refining the MWRRP vision. Efforts could consist of further refinements of potential network configuration 

options to compare impacts on different corridor alignments based on ridership, capital costs, and other 

evaluation criteria. These studies can also serve to formally advance passenger rail segments that were 

identified as network independent, small markets, or future corridors on the map for the MWRRP network. 

These refinements would serve to further inform the MWRRP network and facilitate study sponsors further 

advancing their project through the federal planning process. 

Current state rail plans identify many of these efforts with potential next steps including:

• Chicago to Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor

• Chicago to Dubuque Passenger Rail 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

80

• Chicago to Quad Cities and Iowa City Passenger Rail

• Chicago CREATE Program

• Chicago to Indianapolis Service Improvements 

• Chicago-Fort Wayne-Lima, OH NEPA 

• Chicago to Council Bluffs, Iowa and Omaha Nebraska Tier 2 EIS

• Kansas City-Wichita-Oklahoma City-Fort Worth Corridor Preliminary Engineering and Project NEPA

• Ann Arbor to Detroit FEIS

• Twin Cities to Milwaukee to Chicago SDP and NEPA (second daily round trip on Amtrak’s Empire 

Builder) 

• Minneapolis to Duluth/Superior (Northern Lights Express) Preliminary Engineering 

• Lima, OH-Columbus-Pittsburgh NEPA

• Milwaukee to Chicago increase Amtrak’s Hiawatha service to 10 daily roundtrips

Details on each of these initiatives are provided in Section 2.2.3 Rail Network. 

7.4.2 Chicago Union Station

Amtrak, Metra, the Chicago Department of Transportation, the Illinois DOT, and the Regional 

Transportation Authority are working with a master developer to advance the next phase of improvements 

at Chicago Union Station. Most improvements are for pedestrian and vehicular access, Americans with 

Disabilities Act compliance, and customer amenities such as restaurants and services in the station’s Great 

Hall. Other improvements to the area include enhancing public green space, replacing a parking structure 

with a new office tower one block south of the station, and renovating the fourth through eighth floors of 

the Headhouse with a ninth-story addition for two hotels. Construction on these efforts began in late 2019. 

However, the service volumes into Chicago Union Station envisioned under the MWRRP are far greater 

than those assumed under these recent planning efforts, and follow-on planning work will be needed to 

determine how those higher service volumes may be accommodated in the long-term. 

7.4.3 Chicago Access

Illinois DOT is advancing a Chicago Terminal Planning Study. This project will define the priorities for 

future investment in rail infrastructure in the Chicago area, identifying the operational feasibility, financial 

feasibility, and benefits of improved passenger rail service through the Chicago Terminal Area. This effort 

builds on and complements recent efforts completed and underway for the Chicago–St. Louis High-Speed 

Rail Corridor, the CREATE Program, and Chicago–Detroit/Pontiac Tier I EIS and SDP. The effort is 

identifying potential alternatives for Metra and Amtrak trains, to evaluate the trade-offs associated with 

intercity passenger rail travel time and reliability, freight and transit enhancement opportunities and 

operational impacts, network redundancy, degree of public corridor ownership, economic development, 

and life cycle cost. However, the service volumes operating into Chicago are far greater under the network 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

81

envisioned under the MWRRP than what is being considered under the Chicago Terminal Planning Study. 

As such, follow-on planning work will be to determine the exact routes these corridors will traverse to 

access Chicago, and what improvements will be needed along those routes to accommodate the anticipated 

service volumes.

7.5 GOVERNANCE

As summarized in Chapter 6, implementing a regional rail plan requires extensive coordination among the 

participating states and various other involved stakeholders. While MIPRC has served and will continue 

to serve the Midwest states as a means to advocate for and advance passenger rail programs that are the 

outcome of the MWRRP, future governance bodies in the Midwest will be required to address a myriad of 

highly complex issues related to planning and implementation efforts, costs, benefits, funding, prioritized 

infrastructure investments, service operations and system maintenance, while considering each state’s 

regulatory, financial, political, and institutional requirements as well as host and operating railroads’ 

policies and perspectives. The FRA will continue to work closely with MIPRC and Midwest states to

advance and elevate MIPRC as a governance structure with the clear authority, responsibility and mandate 

for overseeing and implementing the outcomes of the Midwest’s regional planning initiative in order to 

coordinate and implement rail improvement projects across multiple jurisdictions. 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan

82

8. Appendices 

APPENDIX A – STAKEHOLDER LIST

APPENDIX B – GOVERNANCE FINAL REPORT 
Midwest Regional Rail Plan `

1

Appendix A: 

Stakeholder List – March 2021 

Name Organization

Dick Rogers Amtrak

Patricia Casler BNSF Railway

Jeff Sriver Chicago Department of Transportation

Erin Aleman Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

David J. Berger City of Lima, Ohio

Susan Crotty City of Lima, Ohio

Scott Kuxmann CN

J. Mark Howell Conexus Indiana

Mark Fisher Council of Great Lakes Region

Marco Turra CSX

Kevin Brubaker Environmental Law and Policy Center

Andrea Woodard Greater Des Moines Partnership

Rick Harnish High Speed Rail Alliance

Todd Popish Illinois Department of Transportation

Venetta Keefe Indiana Department of Transportation

Kristin Brier Indiana Department of Transportation

Bridgett Hail Indiana Department of Transportation

Amanda Martin Iowa Department of Transportation

John Maddox Kansas Department of Transportation

Peter Fletcher La Crosse Area Planning Committee

Greg Youell Metropolitan Area Planning Agency - Council 

Bluffs/Omaha

David Kralik Metra

Steve Baas Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce

Sara Moore Michigan Department of Transportation 

Jeff Martin Michigan Department of Transportation 

David Warm Mid-America Regional Council

Ron Achelpohl, PE Mid-America Regional Council

Laura Kliewer Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission 

Dan Krom Minnesota Department of Transportation

Frank Loetterle Minnesota Department of Transportation

Troy Hughes Missouri Department of Transportation

Brad Neumann Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County

Craig Wacker Nebraska Department of Transportation

John Edwards Norfolk Southern

Scott Zainhofsky North Dakota Department of Transportation

Jim Styron North Dakota Department of Transportation

Rebecca Geyer North Dakota Department of Transportation

Joseph L. Schofer PhD Northwestern University

Matt Dietrich Ohio Rail Development Commission

Megan McClory Ohio Rail Development Commission
Midwest Regional Rail Plan `

2

Name Organization

Jim Mathews Rail Passengers Association 

Sean Jeans-Gail Rail Passengers Association 

Lynne Keller Forbes Sioux Falls Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Joel Jundt South Dakota Department of Transportation

Jack Dokken South Dakota Department of Transportation

Kathleen Lomako Southeast Michigan Council of Governments

Mike McCarthy Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

Mark Bristol Union Pacific Railroad

Christopher P.L. Barkan University of Illinois - RailTEC

Denver Tolliver PhD Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute at North 

Dakota State University

Phil Nelson Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Arun Rao Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Crystal DuPont Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Diane Paoni Wisconsin Department of Transportation
` 

1 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Midwest Regional Rail Plan 

Governance Final Report 

Appendix B

RPD-211005-001
` 

2 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Contents 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................4

Approach ....................................................................................................................................................................5

Step 1: Identify Governance Stakeholders .................................................................................................................5

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) ...................................................................................................................6

State Departments of Transportation ....................................................................................................................6

Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission ....................................................................................................9

Additional Stakeholders .........................................................................................................................................9

Step 2: Conduct High-Level Review of Governance Frameworks ........................................................................... 10

Step 3: Examine Regional Governance Topics......................................................................................................... 13

States-Only Governance Workshop #1: St. Paul, Minnesota .............................................................................. 13

Lead Stakeholder Governance Workshop #2: Detroit, Michigan ........................................................................ 16

Lead Stakeholders Governance Workshop #3: Chicago, Illinois ......................................................................... 19

Step 4: Develop Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations ................................................................................. 19

Appendices 

Appendix 1: Governance Whitepaper ..................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix 2: Governance Workshop Presentations ................................................................................................ 39

Appendix 2.1 Introduction to Governance, MWRRP Workshop, Chicago, IL presented on March 9, 2017 ....... 40

Appendix 2.2 Governance Workshop: St. Paul, MN presented on June 6, 2017 ................................................ 45

Appendix 2.3 Governance Workshop: Detroit, MI presented on September 12, 2017 ...................................... 51

Appendix 2.4 Review of Governance: Chicago, IL presented on December 6, 2017 .......................................... 65

Appendix 3: Summary of Governance Discussions ................................................................................................. 89

Appendix 4: MIPRC Presentation on Legal Authorizations by State ....................................................................... 95

RPD-211005-001
` 

3 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Executive Summary 

The implementation of a regional rail plan requires extensive coordination among the participating states and 

other involved stakeholders. Coordination must address a myriad of highly complex issues related to planning 

and implementation, such as: 

 What is the process for prioritizing investments across the network? 

 What are the investment, operating and maintenance costs? And, how will costs be shared? 

 To whom will the benefits accrue? 

 Once projects are implemented, who will be responsible for operations and maintenance? 

 Will different governance structures be required as projects/services evolve from planning and 

implementation, to operation and maintenance? 

Addressing these questions must also take into account each state’s regulatory, financial, political, and 

institutional requirements as well as host and operating railroads’ policies and perspectives. A core part of any 

Federal Railroad Administration-led regional rail plan includes the examination of regional governance 

frameworks. A governance structure with the clear authority, responsibility, and mandate for overseeing and 

implementing the outcomes of a regional planning initiative can facilitate the coordination and implementation 

of rail improvement projects across multiple jurisdictions. 

Unlike other regions where FRA is conducting similar studies, the Midwest is unique in that it has an 

established governance structure, the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission (MIPRC). Because of the 

existence of MIPRC, FRA treated governance in the Midwest differently than other regional rail planning efforts 

where there is no governing body and the focus is on the potential options for establishing one. FRA’s 

governance efforts in the Midwest Regional Rail Plan (MWRRP) focused instead on validating the ability of 

MIPRC to advance regional rail planning efforts and explored ways to elevate the standing of MIPRC. Through 

the MWRRP, FRA found that there is clear consensus among the states that MIPRC is working and strong 

support for the continuation of the governing body as an advocate for passenger rail well as a desire to 

expand MIPRC’s relevancy and responsibilities as a governing body in the Midwest.

Despite the success of MIPRC as a regional governance framework relative to other regions in the US, the 

MWRRP also concluded that the lack of a predictable funding stream creates a paradoxical situation for 

advancing future governance frameworks that will inevitably be required to implement major corridor 

programs. There is little incentive for states to strengthen the existing governance framework to advance 

subsequent phases of programs when there is no certainty that funding will ever be made available to justify 

additional authorities. Yet, when funding does become available, the states may not have addressed the 

needed governance issues related to developing and delivering a complex rail program across state lines. 

While MIPRC has proven to be an adequate framework for advancing planning studies on a regional scale over 

the last two decades, and several Midwest states have successfully undertaken several planning efforts for 

improvements to services that span multiple states, advancing passenger rail programs beyond the planning 

phase will require additional governance frameworks to address the complex issues of delivering a major 

RPD-211005-001
` 

4 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

corridor improvement program. Furthermore those program of projects that are governed by a strong and 

experienced structure will be more competitive for federal funding opportunities. Roles and responsibilities, 

cost allocation, right-of-way acquisition and ownership are just a few of the complicated issues states will need 

to resolve. Finally, MIPRC will play an important role in the phased development of the Midwest regional rail 

network by working to advance passenger rail programs, projects and priorities that are the outcome of the 

MWRRP. 

Introduction 

The Midwest Regional Rail Plan (MWRRP) is a collaborative, multi-state effort to produce a 40-year framework 

for the Midwest intercity passenger rail network, including a prioritization of corridors and investment projects, 

a funding strategy, and a governance structure. This document summarizes FRA’s approach, analysis and 

conclusions related to governance in the MWRRP. 

One of FRA’s objectives for the governance task in the MWRRP is to remain consistent with other previous and 

on-going studies. In all the regional rail plans conducted to date, FRA’s focus has been on bringing stakeholders 

together to explore the potential to form a governance framework that can be used to advance the outcomes of 

the plan. In the Southwest and Southeast regions, where FRA also led regional rail plans, neither region had an 

existing functional governance structure. In contrast, the Midwest has a long-standing governance structure, 

MIPRC. Formed by compact agreement in 2000, MIPRC brings together state leaders from across the region to 

advocate for passenger rail improvements. MIPRC's current member states are Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wisconsin. The main purposes of the compact are 

to promote, coordinate and support regional improvements to passenger rail service. 

Furthermore, the Midwest region is larger and far more complex than the other two regions and currently has 

several, established intercity passenger rail corridors and decades’ worth of experience of states working 

together to undertake planning and capital investments required to advance and improve intercity passenger 

rail service. 

In recognition of the Midwest’s established governance structure, its complexity and the Midwest states’ history 

of successfully implementing large programs FRA’s approach differed to other regional rail planning studies. 

FRA’s objectives in terms of governance were modest. Through the MWRRP, FRA sought to: 

 Verify what was working in terms of the existing governance structure 

 Identify any existing gaps 

 Understand the state’s priorities in terms of advancing and elevating their existing governance structure 

 Make recommendations on how to advance projects in the Midwest in a manner that is consistent with 

the outcomes of the MWRRP 

The remainder of this document outlines FRA’s approach to realizing these objectives. It includes FRA’s 

conclusions and recommendations for governance as it relates to advancing the prioritization of corridors and 

investing in projects as well as funding strategy that collectively comprise the MWRRP. 

RPD-211005-001
` 

5 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Approach 

FRA started its examination of governance in the Midwest by identifying and classifying stakeholders as they 

related to the MWRRP. This step was critical in determining which stakeholder groups would be subject to 

which kind of engagement in terms of governance. Next, FRA conducted a high-level review of governance 

frameworks that might apply to projects that result from the MWRRP. FRA then engaged the lead stakeholders 

in a series of workshops to examine and understand a variety of topics related to governance on a regional 

scale. FRA then developed findings and conclusions that are summarized in the Executive Summary and at the 

end of this document. 

Exhibit 1: Project Approach 

Step 1: Identify Governance Stakeholders 

Geographically the Midwest is an expansive region and represents the most complex rail network in the nation 

with a rich heritage and network of intercity passenger, commuter, and freight rail. There are multiple 

stakeholder groups associated with the Midwest passenger rail network, encompassing the US DOT, state DOTs, 

host and operating railroads, municipal governments and advocacy groups dedicated to advancing passenger 

rail in the Midwest. Because of this large universe of parties, FRA’s approach to governance first focused on 

classifying these parties into several distinct categories, each of which were subject to a different level and type 

of engagement relative to the examination of governance in the Midwest: 

 FRA was the project sponsor and is the federal agency responsible for the development of the nation’s 

intercity passenger rail system. FRA led the MWRRP governance discussions. 

 Lead Stakeholders were representatives of the State DOTs in the Midwest region and MIPRC. These 

representatives were the primary participants in discussions related to governance. 

 Additional Stakeholders were representatives of other groups with an interest and a relationship to 

governance as potential partners in undertaking projects such has host railroads, local municipalities, 

and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). These representatives received regular updates on 

governance discussion topics during the MWRRP workshops. 

Identify 

Stakeholders

Conduct HighLevel Review of 

Governance 

Frameworks

Examine Regional 

Governance Topics

Develop Findings, 

Conclusions & 

Recomendations

RPD-211005-001
` 

6 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Formed in 1967, the FRA is the federal agency responsible for the 

development of the nation's intercity passenger rail system. FRA informs 

and implements Administration policy regarding the nation's intercity 

passenger rail systems and sponsors passenger rail improvements and 

services. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 

(PRIIA), which created new railroad investment programs and 

reauthorized Amtrak for five years, affirms federal involvement in 

developing the nation’s intercity passenger rail system. The FRA provides 

financial assistance, quantitative analysis, environmental research, 

project reviews, research and development, technical assistance, and 

supports development of intercity passenger rail policy. In addition, the 

FRA studies potential high-speed rail corridors and regions across the 

country, such as this study. 

Under FRA’s discretionary funding programs, FRA evaluates potential intercity passenger rail programs and 

projects on a variety of factors. A major evaluation criteria for complex, multistate corridor programs is the 

adequacy of the proposed governance framework. Additionally, FRA is responsible for monitoring and 

overseeing federally funded programs as they advance through the implementation stages, and FRA’s ability to 

efficiently interact with the established governance structure is critical to the success and continued funding of 

the program. 

State Departments of Transportation 

For the last several decades, states have been at the forefront of building and growing state-supported 

passenger rail service. As the primary recipient of federal funding for such programs, and as the primary 

investor in state-supported services, states are by far the most important stakeholder group responsible for 

advancing passenger rail in the Midwest. The chart below depicts the Midwest states’ level of involvement on 

planning for and advancing passenger rail in the Midwest. 

RPD-211005-001
` 

7 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Exhibit 2: Current Understanding of State by State Status on Planning for Regional Passenger Rail Service 

 

The Midwest has long been an active proponent for the advancement of passenger rail, and has a history of 

undertaking successful governance frameworks for the advancement of both passenger and freight rail 

programs. In 1996, the nine Midwest states of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin, in partnership with the FRA, undertook the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI), a 

cooperative, multi-agency initiative to advance a robust, Midwest passenger rail system based on a hub and 

spoke network operating at 110 mph across the Midwest (see Exhibit 3). The plan focused on offering business 

and leisure travelers shorter travel times, additional train frequencies, and connections between urban centers 

and smaller communities. 

Midwest states 

with substantial 

support

Illinois 

Michigan

Wisconsin

Missouri

Indiana

Engaged states 

with no financial 

support of service

Minnesota

Iowa

Midwest states 

generally not 

engaged in 

planning service

Ohio

North Dakota 

South Dakota 

Nebraska

Kansas

Complementary 

Jurisdictions

Pennsylvania 

Kentucky 

Tennessee

West Virginia

New York

Ontario, Canada

RPD-211005-001
` 

8 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Exhibit 3: MWRRI Vison for Midwest Passenger Rail Network 

Source: Midwest Regional Rail Initiative 

When the federal High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program launched in 2009, the Midwest was wellpositioned to undertake significant improvements to their state-sponsored corridors. Since 2010, Illinois has led 

the nation’s third largest portfolio of investments in intercity passenger rail. The Chicago to St. Louis corridor 

improvement program (CIP), is a $1.6 billion investment that includes major improvements to track, signal 

systems, stations, and equipment to increase passenger and freight performance and improve safety across the 

nearly 284-mile corridor. The $126 million Englewood Flyover Project in Chicago grade separated two of the 

most heavily traversed passenger and freight corridors in the Midwest. Further east, Michigan led the multimillion-dollar purchase of a 130-mile segment of the Chicago to Detroit (CHI-DET) corridor, and is currently 

overseeing infrastructure improvements to modernize the signal system and rehabilitate the track to maximize 

RPD-211005-001
` 

9 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

speeds and reduce travel times. On the same corridor, Indiana is overseeing a $72 million infrastructure 

improvement project in northern Indiana that will increase operational flexibility for both passenger and freight 

trains. While these major programs are each led by a single state, they often required close coordination 

between adjacent states and always required some form of agreement with the host and / or other tenant 

railroads. Lessons learned from these state-led programs informed the FRA’s examination of governance 

structures. Additionally, Midwestern states have also worked together to undertake multiple corridor-wide 

planning efforts. These planning efforts require agreements and close coordination between states and the 

experiences and lessons learned through these studies also informed FRA’s governance analysis. 

Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission 

Formed by compact agreement in 2000, MIPRC brings together state leaders from across the region to advocate 

for passenger rail improvements. Current member states are Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wisconsin. The main purposes of the compact are to promote, coordinate 

and support regional improvements to passenger rail service. The combined efforts of MWRRI, MIPRC and FRA 

have significantly advanced intercity passenger rail in the Midwest during the last two decades and serve as the 

foundation for the examination of governance in the Midwest. 

The most significant undertaking from a governance perspective in the Midwest has been the delivery of the 

Midwest fleet of locomotives. Funded by a grant to the Midwest states to replace aging locomotives with 

modern equipment capable of high-speed operations along eight state-supported routes in the region, the 

Midwest states participating in the locomotive pool of equipment formed a governance structure, using 

authority derived from MIPRC, to own, operate, maintain and potentially procure additional locomotives. This 

recent undertaking in multi-state governance was closely examined as part of the governance portion of the 

MWRRP. 

Additional Stakeholders 

Given the broad range of the MWRRP, the state DOT representatives were asked to contribute names of 

individuals who should be considered as “Additional Stakeholders” that compromise the remainder of the 

Stakeholder Planning Group. With the goal of achieving a good balance of geographic and subject-matter 

diversity, the state DOT representatives nominated and FRA selected approximately 30 “additional 

stakeholders”, representing the following groups: 

 Intercity and commuter rail operators 

 All Class 1 and selected other host railroads 

 Local governments 

 Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

 Business / Freight interests (chambers of commerce, business associations) 

 Academia (University Transportation Centers, and rail specific research centers) 

 Passenger rail advocacy groups (state/city or corridor associations) 

 Other advocacy groups (environmental, safety, etc.) 

RPD-211005-001
` 

10

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

These additional stakeholders were provided regular updates on the status and progress of FRA’s examination of 

governance throughout the study. The MWRRP Public Involvement Plan provides more information on the 

make-up of the stakeholder planning group and the process used to determine membership. 

Step 2: Conduct High-Level Review of Governance Frameworks 

FRA spent the first several weeks of the MWRRP examining governance frameworks that were relevant and 

applicable to the development of Midwest intercity passenger rail programs, and ultimately produced a white 

paper, titled, “Regional Rail Planning Governance Structures White Paper”, which can be found in Appendix 1. 

FRA drew from two main sources for governance frameworks related to passenger rail programs. The first is the 

report from FRA’s Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study, September 2014. In this document, FRA describes 

the approach taken by the Southwest states to work through their governance and institutional issues, receive 

input from stakeholders, consider various governance models, and ultimately report on the stakeholders’ 

governance findings and recommendations. The second document “Developing Multi-State Institutions to 

Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs” is a Transportation Research Board (TRB) research paper, from 

the National Cooperative Rail Research Program (NCRRP) which was released in September 2016. The TRB 

research paper summarized conclusions from literature research and case studies from existing rail and other 

multi-state institutional models, complemented by focus group discussions with experienced practitioners. A 

critical review and assessment of these models resulted in the recommendation of eight (8) governance models 

as preferred options. However, the study also states that “no single governance model has proven to be 

particularly effective for advancing passenger rail” partly because no model was applied for the complete 

lifecycle of a program from planning to operations/maintenance. 

The whitepaper discussed the role of a governance framework, what types of organizations are typically 

involved in governance, and explored many of the challenges with implementing an effective governance 

structure. The paper then described in greater detail the eight types of governance models that are generally 

applicable in intercity passenger rail programs: 

Exhibit 4. Description of Alternative Multi-State Governance Models from “Regional Rail Planning Governance 

Structures White Paper” 

No. Model Definition

Phase of

Development Examples

1 Coordinated 

State Efforts

Where two or more states agree to 

coordinate passenger rail efforts 

within their respective states.

 Visioning

 Planning

 Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor

 South Central High-Speed Rail

Corridor (SCHSRC)

2 Coalition/ 

Partnership

Where multi-state partners 

convene on a voluntary basis to 

carry out activities of common 

interest. May also be carried out 

in coordination with a non-profit 

corporation.

 Visioning

 Planning

 I-95 Coalition

 Coalition of Northeastern 

Governors

 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative 

(MWRRI)

RPD-211005-001
` 

11

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Exhibit 4. Description of Alternative Multi-State Governance Models from “Regional Rail Planning Governance 

Structures White Paper” 

No. Model Definition

Phase of

Development Examples

 Amtrak Northeast Corridor (NEC)

Infrastructure Master Plan

Working Group

3 Single State 

Agency 

Contracting 

with or on 

Behalf of 

Other States

Where an existing or newly 

created entity within a single 

state addresses multi-state 

interests, primarily through 

contractual arrangements with

other states.

 Design

 Construction

 Operations 

and 

Maintenance

 Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor

Investment Plan

 Chicago to Quad Cities

 Chicago to Milwaukee Hiawatha 

SDP for Three Additional 

Frequencies 

 Chicago to Milwaukee to Twin 

Cities EIS and Additional Frequency 

to the Empire Builder

 Northern New England Passenger 

Rail Authority (NNEPRA)

4 PublicPrivate 

Partnership

Where the government and the 

private sector enter into an 

arrangement that allows for 

greater private-sector 

participation in the delivery of 

transportation projects.

 Design

 Construction

 Operations and 

Maintenance

 All Aboard Florida (AAF)

 Texas Central Railway

 Indianapolis-Chicago Hoosier State 

Service

 CREATE

5 Multi-State 

Commission

Where two or more states 

coordinate multistate interests 

through a formal agreement that 

establishes a governing body.

 Planning

 Preliminary 

Design

 Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail

Commission (MIPRC) 

 Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor

(SEHSR) Project: Virginia-North 

Carolina

6 Multi-State 

Special 

Authority

Where an independent entity, 

often a distinct governmental 

body, delivers a limited number 

of public services within defined 

boundaries across state lines and 

can exercise a broad range of 

typical governmental powers.

 Design

 Construction

 Operations and 

Maintenance

 Washington Metropolitan Area 

Transit Authority (WMATA)

 Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey

7 FederalState 

Commission

Where a body of federal, state, 

and, sometimes, local leaders 

organize to address a critical need.

 Planning  Appalachian Regional Commission

(ARC)

 NEC Infrastructure Operations and 

Advisory Commission

8 Freight 

Railroads

Where freight railroads lead 

delivery of passenger rail services.

 Design

 Construction

 Operations and 

Maintenance

 No current examples for intercity 

service

RPD-211005-001
` 

12

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

The eight governance models were discussed in more detail with the state DOT representatives throughout the 

duration of the MWRRP. 

In the whitepaper, FRA also recognized the need for governance structure(s) that can be tailored based on the 

phase or stage of the program or project. Not all states within a region will have a role in advancing specific 

corridor programs or projects, and as programs and projects of regional significance are advanced, funded, 

designed, and constructed, the various stakeholders’ responsibilities change over time depending on the nature 

of the program. Transitions in stakeholders’ responsibilities may occur in parallel as different segments within 

the network are prioritized and implemented. To account for these changing responsibilities, states require the 

ability to develop and implement additional governance models that provide the needed structure, processes, 

and decision-making models specific to the program or project. 

The illustration below shows the NCRRP study’s recommendation for which models are most applicable to the 

main project phases. 

Exhibit 5. Governance Models’ Applicability to Project Phases 

 

Over time, a governance structure may not only transition to other models better suited to specific project 

phases. The stakeholders can also refine and tailor the model to specific needs as the project progresses and 

changes to scope and objectives occur. The illustration below shows how an overall parent governance structure 

can form sub-structures for specific purposes. Some of these sub-structures can become permanent groups, 

while others may be limited until their assignments are completed. 

RPD-211005-001
` 

13

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Exhibit 6. Governance Organization and Division into Sub-structures 

FRA concluded in the whitepaper that various multi-stakeholder governance models have been implemented for 

many different purposes. For regional rail planning and implementation, there is no “one model fits it all”

framework that spans from the initial vision through managing day-to-day operations and maintenance. The 

models presented provide an overview of what has been successfully used in the intercity passenger rail 

environment, but ultimately the Lead Stakeholders need to jointly discuss and develop a tailored approach that 

best meets each entity’s needs, taking into account individual limitations, while also achieving the goal of 

advancing regional rail planning outcomes. 

Step 3: Examine Regional Governance Topics 

The whitepaper was used as a tool to engage the Lead Stakeholders in a discussion on the advantages and 

disadvantages of the various models from both an individual state and a regional perspective. FRA facilitated 

three states-only workshops with the state DOT representatives and MIPRC. The presentations used by FRA to 

guide these discussions can be found in Appendix 2 and detailed meeting notes can be found in Appendix 3. 

States-Only Governance Workshop #1: St. Paul, Minnesota 

The Lead Stakeholder workshop was hosted on June 6, 2017 in St. Paul, Minnesota. The full presentation used 

to guide this discussion can be found in Appendix 2.1. During this workshop, FRA discussed how a functioning 

governance framework is needed to advance the findings of the MWRRP. FRA and the states also discussed 

some of the challenges the states face in implementing a functioning governance framework. FRA then 

reviewed the whitepaper with the state DOTs. Several key points were highlighted during this discussion. 

RPD-211005-001
` 

14

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Notably, that states have a relatively easy time making capital investments with state and federal funding, but 

funding on-going operations is difficult for some states, and that each requires a different form of governance 

structure. There was some skepticism about the effectiveness of Public Private Partnerships (P3). They are 

viewed as more of a delivery mechanism than a governance model, and there are downsides to P3s when the 

private partner runs out of funding or decides the partnership is no longer going to be profitable, as one state 

recently experienced with an intercity passenger rail partnership. There was a recognition that intercity 

passenger rail investment in the Midwest is predominantly on privately-owned freight right-of-way and this is an 

additional complexity not faced by other modes of transportation. Other issues related to governance discussed 

by the group were the challenge of creating a framework that can withstand political shifts and changes and the 

governance framework’s ability to create, generate and expend revenue. There was some discussion about the 

limits of a commission like MIPRC to raise revenue, unlike an authority where there is a specific statutory 

authority to do so. Throughout the discussion of the whitepaper there were multiple comments that MIPRC 

served the Midwest well in advancing for both planning and the recent Midwest equipment procurement. 

After the group discussed the whitepaper, each state representative was asked to answer a series of questions, 

summarized below. 

Legal Limitations, Capabilities and Applicable Governance Frameworks 

The first discussion topic the states’ representatives discussed were the legal limitations, capabilities and 

applicable governance structures. The group expressed several common themes, summarized below: 

 Many states receive funding for rail projects through a general appropriation, but most states did not 

have a dedicated funding source for passenger rail projects and several states were strictly prohibited 

from spending transportation-generated revenue (gas taxes) on rail projects. 

 Several states have active and successful loan programs for rail projects within their states, mainly for 

private and industry-related projects but some financed projects also benefit intercity passenger rail. 

 The three states with the most state-supported rail programs—Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin—also 

appear to be the states with the most flexibility and experience in terms of funding and supporting 

multi-state projects. 

 While many states could participate and fund planning studies that spanned outside of their state, most 

states were prohibited from spending design and construction funding outside of state jurisdictions. 

 While most states were prohibited from spending construction dollars outside of their state, several 

states cited examples—mostly bridge projects—where two states successfully collaborated on a major 

infrastructure project, evidence that “where there is a will, there is a way” regarding the ability of states 

to execute multi-state capital program. 

 A state’s sovereign immunity adds additional complexity when considering partnering with other states 

to undertake multi-state infrastructure investments. 

 Several states noted that their continued participation in MIPRC was evidence of their state’s support 

for advocating for intercity passenger rail. 

During the same timeframe as the Lead Stakeholder workshop #1, a summary review of the legal authority by 

state to invest in intercity passenger rail programs and services at the 2017 MIPRC annual meeting. This 

presentation has been included for reference as Appendix 4 to this paper. 

RPD-211005-001
` 

15

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Successes and Gaps Related to the Existing Arrangements

Next the states’ representatives were asked to discuss what is working well, what are the significant gaps in the 

current applicable governance structures and what, if any, would be the states’ priority focus for advancing a 

governance structure under the MWRRP. Below are the highlights from this discussion. 

 The use of MIPRC’s authority in the recent locomotive procurement is an example of successfully 

implementing a multi-state governance structure. The participating states had recently leveraged the 

authority vested through their state’s MIPRC legislation to implement a governance structure that 

allowed the states to own, operate, maintain and potentially procure additional rolling stock. By all 

accounts from the participating states, the use of MIPRC’s “umbrella” was a success because it enabled 

participating states to more quickly to create a simple governance structure for the ownership, 

operations and maintenance of the fleet. The Compact gave legal constitutional authority to come 

together as states, and the states were able to implement an agreement much more quickly. Without 

MIPRC’s authority, the equipment fleet governance would have been significantly more complicated. 

The lessons learned from this recent initiative could be applied to a corridor investment case study. 

 Despite the many successes of the advocacy group, there remains a gap in the level of influence MIPRC 

is able to command. MIPRC doesn’t have the same level of clout as other, similar governance 

structures, such as the Northeast Corridor Commission, and the perspective of the Midwest states is 

that other rail projects get more attention from US Congress and US DOT. Furthermore, when FRA, 

USDOT, and Amtrak focus on passenger rails in the Midwest, it appears that including or collaborating 

with MIPRC is an afterthought. The Midwest states and FRA should consider ways to elevate and raise 

the political profile of MIPRC. 

 Working with host railroads can be a very complicated and frustrating process, and often agreements 

with host railroads make advancement in passenger rail programs cost prohibitive because the host 

railroad asks for so much up-front investment. 

 There is a desire among the Midwest states for FRA to better support MIPRC to help advance rail 

priorities and enable states to work together to optimize their interactions with Amtrak and host 

railroads and therefore identify opportunities to improve Midwest operations. 

 Another example of successful collaboration among states has been through corridor planning studies. 

Over the last decade, FRA and the Midwest states have invested in a number of corridor investment 

plans, which are ready to be implemented. A corridor approach to these plans was necessary in order to 

drill down to the level of detail required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) so that the FRA 

and state partners could adequately examine the level of investment in each corridor. To varying 

degrees, these plans outline investments required to advance specific corridors. The upcoming Chicago 

Terminal study will examine the optimal configuration of several intercity passenger rail corridors 

converging on Chicago. These studies have provided an opportunity for state rail teams to gain 

technical experience and build relationships with their counterparts in other states. Such studies also 

provide an opportunity for the states to engage directly with the host railroad to discuss investments 

RPD-211005-001
` 

16

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

required to improve service, as typically the relationship with the host railroads is predominantly 

through Amtrak. Multi-state coordination provides an advantage when working with host railroads in 

presenting a “common voice” from the passenger rail perspective. 

 Over the last several decades, every state has evolved in terms of intercity rail. Changing political 

priorities have impacted on-going rail programs. Building technical expertise at the staff level has been 

key to continuing momentum through changing political priorities. The more the state rail teams gain 

direct experience and build relationships with their counterparts in other states, the more the states will 

continue to weather changing political tides and continue to optimize shared operations in the Midwest. 

 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the FRA-administered High Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program resulted in a fundamental shift away from viewing the Midwest as a 

network through the work of MWRRI and MIPRC. HSIPR instead invested in projects on primarily a 

state-by-state basis. Midwest states have successfully invested billions of dollars in the Midwest 

network though this approach, but the network perspective fostered through MWRRI and MIPRC was 

lost in the predominantly state-focused HSIPR program. However, the Midwest equipment 

procurement provided an opportunity for the Midwest states and FRA to re-adopt a more networkfocused perspective. 

 There is a desire among several Midwest states to explore opportunities to contract with other 

operators besides Amtrak, but the cost of procuring liability insurance across state lines for a contract 

operator is prohibitive. Furthermore, from the Midwest state’s perspective, FRA has enabled Amtrak to 

make it even more prohibitive for states to work with any operator besides Amtrak because the FRA 

Office of Safety does not require Amtrak to provide same level of safety certification as if a state hired a 

contractor to operate the same service. 

 It is FRA’s role to provide capital funding, but in the current fiscally constrained environment, there is 

not enough money to fund all worthy investments. Furthermore, the lack of a predictable funding 

stream makes it difficult for states to support a project that may benefit the network but not the state, 

because there is no confidence that there will be other opportunities for funding. The states’ willingness 

to subject themselves to a regional governance framework that prioritizes investment in terms of the 

network, rather than the current situation of each state pursuing its own projects and program would 

assist the Midwest in advancing priority projects that focus on optimizing the network. 

Lead Stakeholder Governance Workshop #2: Detroit, Michigan 

The second states-only workshop was hosted on September 13, 2017 in Detroit, Michigan. During this 

workshop, FRA reviewed the previous governance discussion and then presented a case study focused on the 

governance aspects of a major capital investment program. FRA and the states then discussed the role of 

governance in optimizing Midwest operations, and concluded the discussion with ways to evolve and elevate 

the status and standing of MIPRC. The full presentation developed to support this discussion can be found in 

Appendix 2.2. Each of these topics is summarized below. 

RPD-211005-001
` 

17

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Topic 1: Case Study Governance: Chicago - Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Program

The FRA presented a case study based on the Chicago - Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment 

Program (CHI-DET CIP) and examined what type of governance structure would be required for implementation. 

The CHI-DET route encompass the physical infrastructure, track, and right-of-way between Chicago and Pontiac, 

Michigan and the CHI-DET CIP focuses on constructing the infrastructure needed to accommodate an interim 

phase of six Daily Round Trips (DRTs) by the year 2025 and then construct the remaining infrastructure to 

complete full build-out of the program by the year 2035. The program assumes express travel time between 

Chicago and Detroit of 3 hours and 46 minutes, and provides a dedicated passenger corridor that would 

accommodate two continuous main tracks between Chicago Union Station and Porter, IN, and beyond Porter, 

existing infrastructure will be upgraded to accommodate higher-speed passenger rail service.

An immediate next step for the CHI-DET CIP is the completion of the Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) EIS and FRA’s Record of Decision (ROD) on the recommended service and routing alternative. 

Following completion of the Tier 1 EIS and ROD, the area studied will be broken into subareas and a Tier 2 

environmental analyses and preliminary engineering (PE) will be conducted that identify the exact locations of 

where program-related actions will take place. 

This program presents a particular challenge related to the distribution of capital costs relative to benefits 

among the states and other potential beneficiaries (such as existing host railroads), and to undertake Tier 2 

environmental analyses and PE, and to continue to advance the CIP into the subsequent phases of program 

implementation, the sponsor states will need to develop a governance structure. The case study examined what 

would such a governance structure look like. 

The FRA concluded that a relevant starting point for consideration is the Midwest Equipment Fleet Ownership 

Agreement. Because of the recent success of the Midwest Equipment Procurement and the use of the authority 

vested in MIPRC to execute this agreement, there were several relevant aspects of this agreement that would be 

applicable to an agreement / governance structure for the CHI-DEP CIP, including: 

• Legitimate, legally-binding agreement 

• Establishes a process to oversee and fulfill agreement

• Establishes an entity to represent involved states; vests decision-making authority with the entity

• Assigns roles and responsibilities

• Defines the intent of the program

• Describes the methodology for determining cost allocation 

• Defines a dispute resolution process 

• Requires annual financial planning process 

• Addresses activities in non-participating states 

RPD-211005-001
` 

18

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

• Addresses defaults on payments and withdrawal of parties 

• Addresses indemnification 

However, there were several areas that would require further development in order to implement the robust 

governance structure required to oversee a major corridor improvement program. These areas include but are 

not limited to: 

• Much more detail required on the roles and responsibilities of the states’ oversight entity

• More robust cost allocation methodology required

• Assignment of responsibilities for oversight of design and environmental work

• Determination of which state’s procurement process should be used

• Assignment of responsibilities for overseeing or performing land acquisition and ownership of ROW

• Determination of which state’s procurement process is used

• Process for how to interact with host, tenant or adjacent railroads and ROW owners 

• Assignment of roles and responsibilities for operations planning and station planning

• Process for how to interact with Amtrak and the Midwest Fleet Manager 

The case study discussion concluded with the recognition that, from the states’ perspective, US DOT and states 

have done similar programs for decades, and several states cited the interstate highway system and major 

bridge programs between two states as examples. However, the lack of a dedicated and predictable funding 

source is the primary reason states have not advanced governance structures for corridor programs. This is a 

paradoxical situation, there is little incentive for states to work together when there is no certainty that funding 

will ever be made available, yet, when funding is available, the states will not have addressed the many 

governance issues related to developing and delivering a complex rail program across state lines. 

Topic 2: Governance and Optimizing Midwest Operations through a Midwest Services Operational Council 

The next discussion topic was exploring ways to optimize operations in the Midwest through existing or 

improved governance structures such as MIPRC. Through the Midwest Equipment Procurement, the 

implementation of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act (PRIIA) Section 209, which requires 

Amtrak and states to allocate costs for state-supported Amtrak routes, the Midwest states have been 

increasingly successful in coordinating as a collective unit with Amtrak. Working together can consolidate the 

states’ influence with Amtrak, and provide more focus on key issues that are important to more than one state. 

There is the ability to recognize and present economies of scale, and there are opportunities to better optimize 

efficiencies within the network operationally. The Midwest states have expressed a strong desire to brand the 

Midwest service as a geographically-distinctive offering. 

RPD-211005-001
` 

19

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

FRA suggested the states consider the creation of a Midwest Services Operational Council. Under MIPRC, similar 

to the Midwest Fleet Ownership Agreement, this would establish the ability for the Midwest States (presumably 

those with state-supported service) to hire an operations manager that would function like a Joint Powers 

Authority (JPA) for regional services and create an executive director of the Operations Council. The counsel 

would be responsible for developing and implementing a cohesive brand, optimized timetables, and other 

service efficiencies. This type of arrangement could also support each state’s negotiation of PRIIA Section 209 

costs and work closely with Amtrak on all issues related to regional services. The cost allocation could be 

derived through a similar methodology as the Midwest Fleet Ownership. 

In response, the states explained that they are already doing many of these activities informally and with 

increasing regularity, and expressed concerns over giving up sovereignty. They also expressed an inability to 

spend additional time or resources creating an intermediary to represent states. While FRA would have 

supported developing a draft agreement for a Midwest Operations Council under the governance task of the 

MWRRP, the states were not interested in pursuing this concept, as that this type of arrangement also hinges on 

reliable funding which the states don’t currently have which you mention in other places.

Topic: 3: Elevating the Role of MIPRC 

The last part of this working session included a brief discussion on exploring ways to elevate MIPRC’s standing 

and status. FRA noted that one way to increase the prominance of MIPRC is to bestow more responsibility and 

authority as the Midwest has already done in developing the framework for owning, operating and maintaining 

the Midwest equipment fleet. FRA suggested using and expanding MIPRC’s role when advancing future corridor 

improvement programs like the previouysly discussed case study, and / or establishing an Operations Council 

and making the executive director possibly an employee of MIPRC. 

The states then discussed other ideas for raising MIPRC’s profiles and ways to evolve MIPRC to reach the same 

level of recognition as other governance structures like the NEC Commission. The group agreed to continue this 

discussion as the main topic for the next and final workshop, discussed below. 

Lead Stakeholders Governance Workshop #3: Chicago, Illinois 

The final governance session was held in Chicago, Illinois on December 5, 2017. At this meeting, the states and 

FRA built on the previous discussion on how to elevate the status of MIPRC. The group discussed MIPRC’s action 

plan and advocacy strategy for 2018. The group also discussed what FRA and US DOT can do from a federal 

perspective that will assist MIPRC in advancing its goals, and how MIPRC can advance/support the phased 

network development approach that is the outcome of the MWRRP. The group also discussed how MIPRC can 

engage (or be engaged by) non-state or non-member entities to advance the prioritized development of the 

network. 

Step 4: Develop Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations 

The governance task for the MWRRP focused on verifying what’s working in terms of the existing governance 

structure, identifying any existing gaps, and understanding the state’s priorities in terms of advancing and 

elevating its existing governance structure. This section summarizes the FRA’s findings and makes 

RPD-211005-001
` 

20

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

recommendations on how to advance projects in the Midwest in a manner that is consistent with the outcomes 

of the MWRRP. 

Finding #1: The Midwest is unique in that it already has an established governance structure, MIPRC. Unlike 

other regions where FRA is conducting similar studies, the Midwest is unique in that it has an established 

governance structure, which required a different focus than other, similar studies. 

Finding #2: MIPRC is an effective organization and there is strong support among the Midwest states for the 

continuation of this governing body. MIPRC will be used as a governance structure to advance the outcomes of 

the MWRRP and other regional-level planning studies. It is a priority of the Midwest states to expand MIPRC’s 

relevancy, but doing so must be balanced with protecting the sovereignty and individual interests of the states. 

There is also a clear desire from the Midwest states to increase federal support of MIPRC, and the Midwest 

states requested FRA to work closely with MIPRC in the future to identify ways to include MIPRC at the federal 

level and to elevate MIPRC’s profile. MIPRC will play a role the phased network development that is an 

outcome of the MWRRP, and MIPRC will continue to examine ways to expand its ability to represent nonmember interests. 

Finding #3: The lack of a predictable funding stream results in reduced incentives for states to work together 

beyond the existing governance framework. However if funding does become available, the states will need to 

be prepared immediately. This necessitates a need for them to address the many governance issues related to 

developing and delivering a complex rail program across state lines now.

Finding #4: Additional governance frameworks beyond MIPRC will be required to address the complex issues 

of delivering a major corridor improvement program, and the more robust the governance structure, the 

more competitive the program of projects will be. Future governance structures will need to address complex 

issues such as assignments of roles and responsibilities, approaches to complex cost allocation issues, 

particularly in situations where the benefits of investment are disproportionately distributed across a corridor, 

and a number of other issues. 

In conclusion, the implementation of a regional rail plan requires extensive coordination among the participating 

states and various other involved stakeholders. While MIPRC has served and will continue to serve the Midwest 

states as a means to advocate for and advance passenger rail programs that are the outcome of the MWRRP, 

future governance bodies in the Midwest will be required to address a myriad of highly complex issues related

to planning and implementation efforts, costs, benefits, funding, prioritized infrastructure investments, service 

operations, and system maintenance, while taking into consideration each state’s regulatory, financial, political, 

and institutional requirements as well as host and operating railroads’ policies and perspectives. FRA will 

continue to work closely with MIPRC and the Midwest states to advance and elevate MIPRC as a governance 

structure with the clear authority, responsibility, and mandate for overseeing and implementing the outcomes 

of the Midwest’s regional planning initiative in order to facilitate the coordination and implementation of rail 

improvement projects across multiple jurisdictions.

RPD-211005-001
` 

21

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Appendix 1: Governance Whitepaper 

RPD-211005-001
` 

22

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

23

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

24

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

25

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

26

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

27

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

28

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

29

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

30

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

31

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

32

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

33

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

34

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

35

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

36

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

37

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

38

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

39

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Appendix 2: Governance Workshop Presentations 

Below are the slide presentations used to guide the discussions for each of the governance sessions. 

RPD-211005-001
` 

40

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Appendix 2.1 Introduction to Governance, MWRRP Workshop, Chicago, IL presented on March 

9, 2017 

RPD-211005-001
` 

41

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

42

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

43

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

44

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

45

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Appendix 2.2 Governance Workshop: St. Paul, MN presented on June 6, 2017 

RPD-211005-001
` 

46

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

47

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

48

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

49

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

50

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

51

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Appendix 2.3 Governance Workshop: Detroit, MI presented on September 12, 2017 

RPD-211005-001
` 

52

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

53

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

54

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

55

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

56

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

57

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

58

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

59

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

60

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

61

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

62

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

63

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

64

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

65

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Appendix 2.4 Review of Governance: Chicago, IL presented on December 6, 2017

RPD-211005-001
` 

66

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

67

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

68

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

69

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

70

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

71

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

72

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

73

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

74

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

75

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

76

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

77

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

78

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

79

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

80

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

81

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

82

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

83

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

84

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

85

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

86

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

87

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

88

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

89

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Appendix 3: Summary of Governance Discussions 

FRA hosted three governance sessions throughout the duration of the MWRRP. These meetings focused on 

examining governance topics relevant to the Midwest. The pertinent information derived from these meetings 

is summarized in Chapter 3 of this document. This appendix provides a more detailed record of the wideranging discussions that occurred during these meetings. 

Legal Limitations, Capabilities and Applicable Governance Frameworks 

During the state’s-only session on June 6, 2017 in St. Paul, MN, the state representatives discussed the legal 

limitations, capabilities and applicable governance structures. Below is a summary of this discussion topic. 

 Minnesota. From a policy perspective, the state of Minnesota has vested broad authority in the county 

rail commissions’ to plan, design and implement rail projects and programs in coordination with the 

federal government. Although 15% of the gas tax can be used towards transit projects, Minnesota can’t 

use gas tax towards passenger rail. The only source of funding for passenger rail is through the annual 

appropriation from the state’s general fund. The only capital funding available is through general 

obligation bonds, and this funding cannot be used outside the states. The Minnesota rail team 

recognizes that a dedicated funding source for intercity passenger rail is needed, and there needs to be 

a way of conducting joint procurements. However, the state is not likely to spend money on 

construction in other states. 

 Ohio expressed a background with having a very good experience with Public Private Partnerships (P3). 

The Ohio representative views P3s to be active in Ohio, provide very flexible contracting mechanisms, 

and can allow for investment across state lines. 

 Illinois. Representatives from Illinois notes that this state has very limited statutory authority and 

resources and no funding sources. In 2016, Illinois voted to amend the constitution to require all 

transportation taxes and fees be spent exclusively on transportation projects, and at the time of the 

stakeholder session it was still unclear how this would apply ton intercity passenger rail projects. Illinois 

uses other fees, and all together, around $50M was used for intercity passenger rail this year. A lot of 

clarification, questions, cooperation. 

 Indiana. Passenger rail in Indiana is still in its infancy, and the state has a lot of work to do in terms of 

developing funding sources. There is a great degree of concern over where the money will come from. 

Indiana is a member of MIPRC and participated in the Chicago—Detroit—Pontiac study both as a study 

partner and a monetary contribution. Indiana views its participation in the study as a success. Indiana 

also cited the Ohio River Bridges project with neighboring state Kentucky as another example where 

interstate projects have been successful and included significant involvement by the Indiana governor. 

In Indiana, for bridge procurements, the state can only fund improvements for within the state. The 

successful execution of this project involved amending the constitution of each participating state to 

include specifying roles and responsibilities, and then each state conducted its own procurement. 

Although this project was entirely a highway initiative, it is a good example of undertaking a bi-state 

RPD-211005-001
` 

90

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

program through the execution of the state law. The structure is there, albeit for a different mode. 

Indiana also noted restrictions on spending any state funding on construction in other states. 

 Iowa. The state of Iowa has political and financial hurdles to overcome in order to advance intercity 

passenger rail programs beyond the planning stages. Iowa is not part of MIPRC – the state’s withdrawal 

from MIPRC was a political decision. Over the last several years, Iowa has successfully participated in a 

number of regional studies, and have undertaken other, non-passenger rail projects and programs 

across state lines or within the region and noted that “where there’s a will, there’s a way” when a state 

is supportive of multistate programs. Iowa can spend money on studies across state lines, but like 

several other states, is prohibited from spending state funds on construction outside of the state. 

 South Dakota. While the state owns or leases over 500 miles of rail throughout the state, South Dakota 

does not have passenger rail. The State has successfully provided rail loans to private entities. Within 

the state, highway funding can only to be utilized for highways and road bridges. State funding is not 

eligible for rail projects. The state is able to pool funding for studies, and can participate with 

surrounding states on bridges for river crossings, but even this type of undertaking is a challenge. The 

state is technically allowed to spend funds for improvements in other states. 

 North Dakota. Passenger rail in North Dakota is very much in its infancy. The state has legal limitations 

and the state is not allowed to enter into P3s. The state has an active rail loan program, which funds 

some projects that benefit intercity passenger rail. The state doesn’t have a complex legal framework in 

place. On the highway side, the state has implemented projects with railroads like Canadian National. 

The state does not have authority to spend funds in other states, but has funded rail projects that are on 

or near the border. 

 Michigan. The state of Michigan has dedicated funding though a comprehensive transportation fund for 

non-highway, non-aviation projects. The state is allowed to use up to 10% of fuel tax, as well as a 

portion of sales tax generated from auto-related sales (e.g., AutoZone) on non-highway programs. 

These funds are used for marine, rail and public transit. Funding is appropriated to specific programs 

and modes within the comprehensive transportation fund. Michigan can also use a portion of 

registration fees towards rail projects. This can be a rather complicated funding source whereby there 

are occasionally limitations on this type of funding and sometimes such funding is appropriated to rail 

projects but then taken away from them. Michigan currently has an active rail program, and the state 

can also own and operate rail infrastructure and equipment, to include owning and operating 

equipment or infrastructure in other states. Michigan has successfully delivered several multistate 

projects, and has worked closely with Canada on a number of international border projects. The 

Michigan representative cited a successful project with Wisconsin, where Wisconsin led the project and 

Michigan funded the project. Michigan provided some oversight for this project, Michigan reimbursed 

Wisconsin’s consultants on a limited basis, but Wisconsin was entirely responsible for the delivery of the 

project. There was some discussion about a state’s government immunity not extending across borders, 

and therefore construction oversight must be the responsibility of the state where the work is being 

accomplished in order to ensure indemnity. A complexity related to interstate projects is the inability 

RPD-211005-001
` 

91

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

require partner states to forego their state’s rights, and employees of one state can’t be required to sign 

liability waivers for another state. Also, Michigan noted that the state has the ability to fund projects in 

other states. 

 Wisconsin. The state of Wisconsin has taken advantage of a number of opportunities to support 

projects across state lines. The state can operate, collaborate on projects, own equipment, and 

continues to participate in MIPRC. The Wisconsin representative confirmed that the state can own 

equipment, and there is no limitation on expending funding in other states. Funding comes to the state 

department of transportation in one big pot, and is not separated by mode. 

Successes and Gaps Related to the Existing Arrangements

During the state’s-only session on June 6, 2017 in St. Paul, MN, the state representatives discussed what is 

working well, what are the significant gaps in the current applicable governance structures and what, if any, 

would be the state’s priority focus for advancing a governance structure under the MWRRP. Below are the more 

comprehensive comments from the discussion. 

 Changing political priorities sometimes impact on-going rail programs that are being implemented at the 

staff level. 

 There are a number of non-rail examples within the state of Iowa where the state has successfully 

entered into bi-state agreements. Iowa has also successfully worked with Illinois and Nebraska to 

advance planning and some preliminary design work for the Chicago—Iowa City—Omaha intercity 

passenger rail corridor. 

 It was noted the importance of developing and maintaining relationships with counterparts in other 

states. These relationships are very helpful to maintaining momentum and will be helpful in working 

through network issues in the future. 

 The group discussed the success of the Hiawatha Line and how over the years of Illinois and Wisconsin 

supporting this service, the two states have developed a number of different tools to administer the 

corridor. 

 The group discussed the success of the recent locomotive procurement and all of the various lessons 

learned through this undertaking. The locomotive procurement working group was currently working 

through governance structures on how to own, operate, maintain and possibly procure additional 

locomotives. 

 The states were also working through a very complicated lease agreement with Amtrak. It was noted 

that multi-state agreements, councils, legislation all add additional layers of complication to multi-state 

initiatives, not to mention the additional complexity of dealing with host and operating railroads. 

 It was noted that while there have been challenges with multistate agreements and governance 

framework for the equipment procurement, compared to other models explored the framework being 

developed for the Midwest locomotive fleet was a success. The use of the MIPRC “umbrella” has 

RPD-211005-001
` 

92

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

enabled the several states to more quickly to create a simple governance structure for the ownership, 

operations and maintenance of the fleet. Without the authority vested in the states through the MIPRC 

legislation, the equipment fleet governance would have been significantly more complicated. The 

Compact gave legal constitutional authority to come together as states, and the states were able to 

implement an agreement much more quickly. 

 Another successful example has been the states coming together for corridor planning studies. This 

coordination has provided an advantage when working with host railroads. There was a suggestion to 

work to formalize this type of activity where states approach a host railroad or Amtrak as a collective 

group to achieve better results and cost efficiencies. States are doing things as a group – an advantage 

in working with host railroads. It was noted that currently the relationship with the host railroads is 

almost predominantly through Amtrak. 

 The group discussed opportunities to gain efficiency through a network approach to dealing with 

Amtrak. From an FRA perspective, it appears that each state works independently to optimize their 

state-supported service, and there is the potential for a more collective, regional approach to operating 

the services could be beneficial in order to maximize utility and efficiency. 

 One state representative noted that such interactions with Amtrak are already trending this way. 

Examples like the Hiawatha line show that three decades of two states working together and building 

close working relationships has resulted in an increasingly successful service. 

 Over the last several decades, every state has evolved, particularly in the face of changing political 

priorities in terms of intercity rail. One representative noted that technical work and organizational 

ability are key – the more the state rail teams get to know each other and are able to communicate on a 

routine basis, the more the states will continue to optimize shared operations in the Midwest. 

 Much of the current situation of state-led programs is a result of how federal funding from the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) were implemented. ARRA and the resulting FRA funding 

programs were a total “game changer” for the Midwest. For decades the Midwest has organized and 

advanced planning around a “network” model through MWRRI and MIPRC, but because of the way the 

ARRA funding was distributed to individual states, the focus was on state-by-state basis. The Midwest 

has successfully followed this “corridor development” approach to implement billions of dollars in 

investment throughout the Midwest, but the equipment fleet procurement forced the Midwest states 

and FRA to re-adopt a more network-focused perspective. Through the equipment procurement, states 

are working together and because the equipment ownership is shifting from the operator to the states, 

the main point of friction is not among states, but between the collective states procuring the 

equipment and Amtrak. 

 Under the current agreements with Amtrak, once equipment costs are removed from the current 

structure, some states could see fare box recovery ratios that are much more reasonable. It is the intent 

of these states to invest any excess revenue into additional equipment which will result in additional 

savings of not having to lease equipment from Amtrak. 

RPD-211005-001
` 

93

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

 It was noted that there is a fundamental shift occurring in the Midwest so that rail is on a level playing 

field with sister modes. 

 The group discussed gaps regarding MIPRC – when activities occur, MIPRC doesn’t appear to have the 

same level of clout as other, similar governance structures like the Northeast Corridor Commission (NEC 

Commission). Other rail projects get more attention from US Congress and US DOT, the example of the 

re-establishment of Gulf Coast service was cited (an FRA representative noted that this effort was not an 

applicable example for a number of reasons). When FRA, USDOT, and Amtrak do something in the 

Midwest, it appears that MIPRC is an afterthought. Another example cited was the Oklahoma City to 

Kansas City operational study, where FRA coordinated directly with individual states instead of MIPRC. 

It was suggested that the group and FRA consider ways to elevate and raise the political profile of 

MIPRC. It was noted that MIPRC has spoken before Congress, but it doesn’t appear that US lawmakers 

view MIPRC as a constituent, they often go to individual states for information instead. 

 There is a desire among the Midwest states for FRA to better support MIPRC to help advance rail 

priorities and enable states to work together to optimize their interactions with Amtrak and host 

railroads. There was some discussion that working with host railroads can be a very complicated and 

frustrating process, and often agreements with host railroads make advancement in passenger rail 

programs cost prohibitive because the host railroad asks for so much up-front investment. As long as 

Amtrak is the only railroad with host preference agreements, unless a state outright acquires the 

railroad, it will be difficult to advance service improvements without Amtrak. Some states expressed 

better results by negotiating directly with the host railroad for special trains or other similar situations 

where working with Amtrak has been historically difficult. 

 There was some discussion about liability and how, from the Midwest state’s perspective, FRA has 

enabled Amtrak to make it prohibitive for states to work with any operator besides Amtrak. FRA Office 

of Safety does not require Amtrak to provide same level of safety certification as if a state hired Herzog 

to operate the same service. However, some states that have tried to hire an operator other than 

Amtrak have seen significant costs associated with selecting a third party operator, in that they 

continually add on fees. 

 There was additional discussion about treating the Midwest like a network verses a series of corridors. 

As noted previously, over the last decade a number of corridor investment plans have been completed 

and are ready to be implemented. To varying degrees, these plans outline investments required to 

advance specific corridors, and there is a least one upcoming study—the Chicago Terminal Study— being 

undertaken by the states with support from FRA to understand the optimal configuration of networks 

where corridors converge. FRA noted that a corridor approach was necessary in order to drill down to 

the level of detail required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in order to adequately 

examine the level of investment in each corridor. 

 It was suggested to view the Midwest as an assembly of corridors, but to do so through a network lens 

operationally. For example, analyze running through trains from Milwaukee to Chicago to Grand Rapids 

RPD-211005-001
` 

94

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

and also reduce travel times. What does this connection mean from a network perspective? Or, 

examine Champaign to Detroit. In other words, view the network in a non-traditional manner. There 

are more efficient way to operate a network than as a system of spokes that hub on Chicago. The goal 

of the Midwest states should be to develop a logical short-term process to optimize the network for the 

Midwest. 

 There was some discussion about working with Amtrak and how individual state interactions with 

Amtrak could be improved if they were more informed by what’s going on between Amtrak and other 

states. 

 There was some discussion about FRA’s role to provide capital funding, but in the current constrained 

environment there is not enough money to fund everything. If the Midwest states were willing to 

subject themselves to a regional governance framework that prioritized what was best for the network 

in terms of investment, rather than the current situation of each state pursuing its own projects and 

program, such a governance structure could assist the entire Midwest in advancing projects that truly 

build out the network. The Mid America Association of State Transportation Officials (MAASTO) has 

acted in this role to prioritize FASTLANE grant applications, and the Chicago Region Environmental and 

Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) has been a successful partnership that effectively prioritizes 

and leverages federal dollars. 

 There was some closing discussion of how to best develop and implement a prioritized list of corridors. 

 The group also expressed an interest in examining what would be required from a governance 

perspective for a multi-state corridor like the Chicago to Detroit corridor in terms of next steps are to 

examine what would be required from a governance perspective to advance Tier 2 environmental 

documents and preliminary engineering, final design, land acquisition, construction and operations. 

RPD-211005-001
` 

95

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

Appendix 4: MIPRC Presentation on Legal Authorizations by State 

MIPRC hosted its 2017 annual meeting on October 9‐10 in Wichita, Kansas. As part of the agenda, MIPRC 

presented the following material, which provides an overview of each states legal authority. 

RPD-211005-001
` 

96

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

97

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

98

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

99

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

100 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

101 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001
` 

102 

Midwest Regional Rail Plan

RPD-211005-001