APPENDIX E: RIDERSHIP & REVENUE FORECASTS AND OPERATING & MAINTENANCE COSTS 

APPENDIX E: RIDERSHIP & REVENUE FORECASTS AND 

OPERATING & MAINTENANCE COSTS
RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE FORECASTS

The information in this appendix includes the updated ridership analysis that was completed to forecast future 

ridership demands for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Program. The updated 

analysis was completed by the Program Team in 2014 to update preliminary demand forecasts for the 2025, 

2035, 2045, and 2055 planning horizon years to identify the appropriate service scenario. The updated analysis 

is based on previous studies that were completed for the MWRRS Plan. To develop these forecasts the Program 

Team assembled data from existing sources to address the full range of route alternatives. Key issues considered 

by the Program Team included the geographic detail (e.g. analysis zones) needed to distinguish among 

alignment/station alternatives and the areas impacted by the proposed service. Key sources of travel data 

included data developed from previous studies, Amtrak ridership, FAA passenger data, other national data, the 

Volpe Center’s inter-regional auto trip model, and Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois statewide model data. 

The Program Team completed a series of Stated Preference Surveys in the fall of 2012 as well as used 

socioeconomic data and forecasts to estimate market growth throughout the Program Corridor market. Three 

key measures used in the model include population/households, employment, and personal income. Data and 

forecasts provided by each state DOT were used in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. These data sources were 

supplemented by national economic data (Woods & Poole) and forecasts prepared by appropriate sources. 

Current service characteristics provided the Program Team with key independent variables required for mode 

choice modeling and developing the base year calibration. The major mode specification characteristics used in 

the model included line haul travel time, access/egress time, travel cost, and frequency of service. Key inputs 

were refined and updated based on highway network and service data obtained from: service data developed by 

previous forecasting efforts completed by the Program Partners; Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois statewide 

highway network and service data; published timetables (air, rail, etc.); average auto costs (based on latest data 

and estimates for fuel prices and other operating costs); and published fares (or average yields).

Once all the new inputs and data identified above were assembled, the ridership model was reviewed and 

adjusted as needed to match existing conditions. This entailed applying the ridership model to the existing 

conditions and adjusting it so that it accurately forecasts the actual current ridership volumes. The results of this 

analysis are presented in rest of this appendix.

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-1
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. March 2013 | Page 1-1 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-2
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-1 

The Michigan passenger rail system consists of three corridors, namely the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac 

corridor, the Chicago-Grand Rapids corridor, and the Chicago-Battle Creek-Port Huron corridor. It is 

one of the busiest passenger rail systems in the Midwest region, and the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac 

corridor is the most important corridor in Michigan. The state of Michigan has 83 counties, the US 

Census Bureau estimated that the population of the state was 9.88 million in 2012. Michigan hosts a 

large number of finance and business services, manufacturing facilities, universities, military bases, 

and research and high-tech industry. The Bureau of Economic Analysis data shows that the state had 

nearly five million jobs and per capita income was $26,367 in 2012. The Bureau of Economic Analysis 

data and Woods & Poole Economics projections indicate that Michigan’s demographic and economic 

growth will continue over the next several decades, the population is projected to be 10.85 million in 

2040, employment will be 5.67 million in 2040, and per capita income is projected to be $42,237 in 

2040 in 2012 dollars. 

The Michigan passenger rail corridors have a high level of business and commuter travel between its 

urban areas together with significant social and tourist travel. The total annual intercity trips in the 

corridors are estimated to be 138.6 million in 2012. 

Exhibit 1-1 shows the current Michigan intercity passenger rail system. The mainline runs from 

Chicago to Detroit and Pontiac, it has three daily round trips. In addition, there are two branch lines: 

Chicago to Grand Rapids with one daily round trip and Chicago to Battle Creek and Port Huron with 

one daily round trip. The passenger rail system serves 22 Michigan communities: New Buffalo, Niles, 

Dowagiac, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Albion, Jackson, Ann Arbor, Dearborn, Detroit, Royal Oak, 

Birmingham, Pontiac, East Lansing, Durand, Flint, Lapeer, Port Huron, St. Joseph-Benton Harbor, 

Bangor, Holland, and Grand Rapids. The passenger rail system also serves Chicago in Illinois, and 

Hammond-Whiting and Michigan City in Indiana. 

The total ridership in these corridors in 2012 was 792,769, with 495,277 riders in the ChicagoDetroit/Pontiac Corridor, 109,501 riders in the Chicago-Grand Rapids (Holland) Corridor and 187,991 

riders in the Chicago-Battle Creek-Port Huron Corridor. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-3
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-2 

Exhibit 1-2 shows the historical Michigan rail ridership data from 2000 to 2012. The data indicates a 

trend of passenger rail travel growth in Michigan. The passenger rail travel decreases occurring in 

2001 and 2009 were due to economic recessions where ridership drops were seen nationwide. It can 

be seen that the rail ridership increases from 481,223 in 2000 to 792,769 in 2012, a 64.7 percent 

increase or an average annual growth of 4.25 percent. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-4
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-3 

For the purpose of this study ridership and revenue forecast will be made using the COMPASSTM Travel 

Demand Model. The COMPASSTM Multimodal Demand Forecasting Model is a flexible demand 

forecasting tool used to compare and evaluate alternative passenger rail network and service 

scenarios. It is particularly useful in assessing the introduction or expansion of public transportation 

modes such as air, bus or high-speed rail into markets. Exhibit 1-3 shows the structure and working 

process of the COMPASSTM Model. As shown, the inputs to the COMPASSTM Model are base and 

proposed transportation networks, base and projected socioeconomic data, value of time and value of 

frequency from Stated Preference surveys, and base year travel data obtained from government 

agencies and transportation service operators. 

The COMPASSTM Model structure incorporates two principal models: a Total Demand Model and a 

Hierarchical Modal Split Model. These two models are calibrated separately. In each case, the models 

are calibrated for origin-destination trip making in the study area. The Total Demand Model provides 

a mechanism for replicating and forecasting the total travel market. The total number of trips 

between any two zones for all modes of travel is a function of (1) the socioeconomic characteristics of 

the two zones and (2) the travel opportunities provided by the overall transportation system that 

exists (or will exist) between the two zones. Typical socioeconomic variables include population, 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-5
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-4 

employment and income. The quality of the transportation system is measured in terms of total 

travel time and travel cost by all modes, and the induced demand is estimated by considering the 

change in quality of travel offered by all modes. 

The role of the COMPASSTM Modal Split Model is to estimate relative modal shares of travel given the 

estimation of the total market by the Total Demand Model. The relative modal shares are derived by 

comparing the relative levels of service (as estimated by generalized costs) offered by each of the 

travel modes. Three levels of binary choice were used in this study (see Exhibit 1-4). The first level 

separates rail services from bus services. The second level of the hierarchy separates air travel, the 

fastest and most expensive mode of travel, from surface modes of rail and bus services. The third 

level separates auto travel with its perceived spontaneous frequency, low access/egress times, and 

highly personalized characteristics, from public modes (i.e., air, rail and bus). The model forecasts 

changes in riders, revenue and market share based on changes travel time, frequency and cost for 

each mode as measured by the generalized costs for each mode. A more detailed description of the 

COMPASSTM Model is given in Appendix 2. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-6
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-5 

A key element in evaluating passenger rail service is the comprehensive assessment of the travel 

market in the corridor under study, and how well the passenger rail service might perform in that 

market. For the purpose of this study, this assessment was accomplished using the following process 

–

 Building the zone system that enables more detailed analysis of the origin-destination 

travel market and the development of base year and future socioeconomic data for each 

zone. 

 Compiling information on the service levels (times, fares, frequency, costs) in the corridor 

for auto, air, bus, and the proposed passenger rail travel. 

 Identifying and quantifying factors that influence travel choices, including values of time, 

frequency and access/egress time. 

 Developing strategies that quantify how travel conditions will change, including future gas 

price, future vehicle fuel efficiency improvement, and highway congestion. 

 Developing and calibrating total travel demand and modal split models for travel demand 

forecasting. 

 Forecasting travel, including total demand and modal shares. 

The following sections document the modeling process and the forecasting results. 

Total Demand 

Public 

Modes Auto

Air

Surface 

Modes

Rail Bus 

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 1

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-7
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-6 

The zone system provides a representation of the market areas among which travel occurs from 

origins to destinations. For intercity passenger rail planning, most rural zones can be represented by 

larger areas. However, where it is important to identify more refined trip origins and destinations in 

urban areas, finer zones are used. The travel demand model forecasts the total number of trip origins 

and destinations by mode and by zone pair. Because the MWRRI developed an integrated rail network 

for the Midwest, a zone system is needed that incorporates all the corridors of MWRRI. To meet this 

need, a 595-zone system was developed for the Midwest study area based on aggregation of the 

2010 census tracts and traffic analysis zones (TAZs) of local transportation planning agencies. Exhibit 

1-5 shows the zone system for the Midwest study area. Exhibit 1-6 shows the zones in the ChicagoDetroit/Pontiac corridor area. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-8
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-7 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-9
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-8 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-10
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-9 

The travel demand forecasting model requires base year estimates and future growth forecasts of 

three socioeconomic variables of population, employment and per capita income for each of the 

zones in the study area. A socioeconomic database was established for the base year (2012) and for 

each of the forecast years (2015-2050). The data was developed at five-year intervals using the most 

recent data from the following sources: 

 U.S. Census Bureau 

 Woods & Poole Economics 

 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 

 Michigan Department of Transportation 

 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 

 Region 2 Planning Commission 

 Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 

 Battle Creek Area Transportation Study 

 Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study 

 Southwest Michigan Commission 

 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 

Exhibit 1-7 shows the base year and projected socioeconomic data for Michigan. According to the 

data developed from these sources, the population of Michigan will increase from 9.88 million in 

2012 to 11.42 million in 2055, the total employment of the study area will increase from 4.84 million 

to 6.14 million in 2055, and per capita income will increase from $26,367 in 2012 to $54,442 in 

2055 in 2012 dollars. 

Year 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

Population 9,883,360 9,978,825 10,146,370 10,321,439 10,498,203 10,677,246 10,858,363 11,038,972 11,224,963 11,424,044

Employment 4,835,847 4,911,835 5,051,450 5,197,107 5,349,613 5,510,194 5,677,699 5,815,870 5,971,332 6,138,396

Per Capita 

Income 

(2012$)

26,367 27,519 29,583 32,101 35,051 38,433 42,237 45,909 49,902 54,442

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-11
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-10

Exhibit 1-8 shows the socioeconomic growth projections for the study area. The exhibit shows that 

there is higher growth of employment and income than population. Furthermore, travel increases are 

historically strongly correlated to increases in employment and income, in addition to changes in 

population. Therefore, travel in the corridor is likely to continue to increase faster than the population 

growth rates, as changes in employment and income outpace population growth, and stimulate more 

demand for traveling. 

The exhibits in this section show the aggregate socioeconomic projection for the whole study area. It 

should be noted that in applying socioeconomic projections to the model, separate projections were 

made for each individual zone using the data from the listed sources. Therefore, the socioeconomic 

projections for different zones are likely to be different and thus may lead to different future travel 

sub-market projections. A full description of socioeconomic data of each zone can be found in the 

Appendix 1. 

In transportation analysis, travel desirability/utility is measured in terms of travel cost and travel time. 

These variables are incorporated into the basic transportation network elements that provide by 

mode the connections from any origin zone to any destination zone. Correct representation of the 

existing and proposed travel services is vital for accurate travel forecasting. Basic network elements 

are called nodes and links. Each travel mode consists of a database comprised of zones and stations 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-12
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-11

that are represented by nodes, and existing connections or links between them in the study area. 

Each node and link is assigned a set of travel attributes (time and cost). The network data assembled 

for the study included the following attributes for all the zone pairs. 

For public travel modes (air, rail, bus) –

 Access/egress times and costs (e.g., travel time to a station, time/cost of parking, time 

walking from a station, etc.) 

 Waiting at terminal and delay times 

 In-vehicle travel times 

 Number of interchanges and connection times 

 Fares 

 Frequency of service 

For private mode (auto) –

 Travel time, including rest time 

 Travel cost (vehicle operating cost) 

 Tolls 

 Parking Cost 

 Vehicle occupancy 

The transportation travel attribute or service data of different modes available in the study corridor 

were obtained from a variety of sources and coded into the COMPASSTM networks as inputs to the 

demand model. The major sources are as follows. 

The highway network was developed to reflect the major highway segments within the study area. 

The sources for building the highway network in the study area are as follows –

 State and Local Departments of Transportation highway databases 

 The Bureau of Transportation Statistics HPMS (Highway Performance Monitoring System) 

database 

The main roads included in the highway network are shown in Exhibit 1-9. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-13
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-12

Road Name Road Description

Interstate-80 Chicago to Toledo

Interstate-90 Chicago to Toledo

Interstate-94 Chicago to Detroit

Interstate-75 Toledo to Saginaw

Interstate-96 Detroit-Grand Rapids

Interstate-69 Indianapolis-Sarnia

The highway network of the corridor area coded in COMPASSTM is shown in Exhibit 1-10. Two 

networks were developed: one for business travel, one for nonbusiness (commuter, social, tourist and 

etc.) travel. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-14
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-13

United Airlines, Delta, US Airways, and American Airlines serve the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac corridor 

air market. Air network attributes contain a range of variables that include time and distance between 

airports, airfares, and connection times. Travel times, frequencies and fares were derived from official 

airport websites, websites of the airlines serving airports in the study area, and the BTS 10% sample 

of airline tickets. Exhibit 1-11 shows the air network of the corridor area coded in COMPASSTM. Again, 

two networks were developed: one for business travel, one for nonbusiness travel. 

Bus travel data of travel time, fares, and frequencies, were obtained from official schedules of 

Greyhound, MegaBus, Indian Trails, and Lamers operators. Exhibit 1-12 shows the bus network of the 

corridor area coded in COMPASSTM. Again, two networks (business, nonbusiness) were developed. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-15
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-14

Passenger rail travel data of travel time, fares, and frequencies, were obtained from official schedules 

of Amtrak. Exhibit 1-13 shows the passenger rail network of the corridor area coded in COMPASSTM.

Two networks were developed for both business and nonbusiness forms of travel. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-16
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-15

The multi-modal intercity travel analyses model requires the collection of base year 2012 origindestination (O-D) trip data describing annual personal trips between zone pairs. For each O-D zone 

pair, the annual personal trips are identified by mode (auto, air, and bus) and by trip purpose 

(Business and Non-Business). Because the goal of the study is to evaluate intercity travel, the O-D data 

collected for the model reflects travel between zones (i.e., between counties, neighboring states and 

major urban areas) rather than within zones. 

TEMS extracted, aggregated and validated data from a number of sources in order to estimate base 

travel between origin-destination pairs in the study area. The data sources for the origin-destination 

trips in the study are –

 Michigan Department of Transportation 

 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 

 Region 2 Planning Commission 

 Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 

 Battle Creek Area Transportation Study 

 Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study 

 Southwest Michigan Commission 

 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 

 Bureau of Transportation Statistics 10% Ticket Sample 

 TEMS 2012 SP Survey 

 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Study (2004) 

The travel demand forecast model requires the base trip information for all modes between each 

zone pair. In some cases this can be achieved directly from the data sources, while in other cases the 

data providers only have origin-destination trip information at an aggregated level (e.g., AADT data, 

station-to-station trip and station volume data). Where that is the case, a data enhancement process 

of trip simulation and access/egress simulation needed to be conducted to estimate the zone-to-zone 

trip volume. The data enhancement process is shown in Exhibit 1-14. 

For the auto mode, the quality of the origin-destination trip data was validated by comparing it to 

AADTs and traffic counts on major highways and adjustments have been made when necessary. For 

public travel modes, the origin-destination trip data was validated by examining station volumes and 

segment loadings. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-17
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-16

Socioeconomic 

Data

Travel 

Attributes

Trip Matrix 

Simulation 

Control Using 

Intersection/Station 

Traffic Counts

Control Using InterStation 

Volume/AADTs

Trip Matrix

Exhibit 1-15 shows the base Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac corridor 2012 travel market share of rail, air, 

bus, and auto modes. It can be seen that auto mode dominates the travel market with more than 96 

percent of market share. Public modes have less than four percent of travel market share. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-18
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-17

The Stated Preference Analysis was based on results from a broad range of collected stated 

preference survey forms. Stated Preference Survey method uses a quota sampling approach as a fast 

and effective way of gathering consumer information on the importance of different travel decisions. 

This includes such issues as how travelers value travel time (for auto and transit modes) and how they 

value frequency of service and access time (for transit modes). A quota survey, as opposed to a 

random survey or a focus group study, is particularly effective in ensuring that all the important travel 

attributes are measured for the whole population at minimum cost. The quota survey, which has been 

widely adopted for public opinion surveys, is based on the development of representative “quotas” of 

the traveling public. The TEMS analysis requires that, two sets of data be collected: (1) the data that 

define the “travel behavior” quota and (2) the data that define the “personal profile” quota for the 

individuals surveyed. This allows the data to be stratified by such factors as trip length, income, and 

group size, and for the results to be applied to the total population of travelers. 

This section describes the stated preference survey process including the methodology used, sample 

size, survey forms, target locations, and dates of survey deployment along with survey results and 

analysis. 

The essence of the stated preference technique is to ask people making trips in the corridor to make 

a series of trade-off choices based on different combinations of travel time, frequency and cost. 

Stated preference analysis has been used extensively by TEMS to assess new travel options relating to 

time, fares, frequency, comfort and reliability for rail, air, and bus services. Tests of the technique in 

a series of before and after evaluations in North America have produced exceedingly good results. In 

particular, these tests found that the use of "abstract mode" questions in conjunction with "trade-off 

analysis" produced reliable results. 

Three specific trade-offs were analyzed and used for this study: 

 Choices between travel time and travel costs to derive incremental Values of Time for all 

modes 

 Choices between headway times (frequency of service) and travel costs to derive incremental 

Values of Frequency for transit modes (air, bus and rail). 

 Choice between access/egress time (for example, travel time between home and railway 

station)and associated costs to derive incremental Values of Access for transit modes (air, bus 

and rail) 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-19
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-18

One part of the survey contains revealed preference questions while the other part contains questions 

that aim on defining the travel behavior of the surveyed individuals. The revealed preference 

questions which are the profile data collected from the surveys are used in conjunction with origindestination and census data to ensure that the stated preference survey can be effectively expanded 

to properly represent the total population. The collected travel behavior data provides the critical 

component of the factors needed to estimate the generalized cost of travel. 

Generalized cost of travel between two zones estimates the impact of improvements in the 

transportation system on the overall level of trip making. Generalized cost is typically defined in 

travel time (i.e., minutes) rather than cost (i.e., dollars). Costs are converted to time by applying 

appropriate conversion factors, as shown in Equation 1. The generalized cost (GC) of travel between 

zones i and j for mode m and trip purpose p is defined as follows: 

VOT F

VOF OH

+

VOT

TC

GC =TT

mp ijm

mp

mp

ijmp

ijmp ijm *

*



 

Where, 

TT

ijm

 = Travel Time between zones i and j for mode m (in-vehicle time + station 

wait time + connection time + access/egress time), with waiting, connect 

and access/egress time multiplied by a factor (waiting and connect time 

factors is 1.8, access/egress factors were determined by VOA/VOT ratios 

from the SP survey) to account for the additional disutility felt by travelers 

for these activities. 

TC

ijmp

 = Travel Cost between zones i and j for mode m and trip purpose p (fare + 

access/egress cost for public modes, operating costs for auto) 

VOTmp = Value of Time for mode m and trip purpose p

VOFmp = Value of Frequency for mode m and trip purpose p

F

ijm

 = Frequency in departures per week between zones i and j for mode m

OH = Operating hours per week (sum of daily operating hours between the first 

and last service of the day) 

Value of time is the amount of money (dollars/hour) an individual is willing to pay to save a specified 

amount of travel time, the value of frequency is the amount of money (dollars/hour) an individual is 

willing to pay to reduce the time between departures when traveling on public transportation, and the 

value of access is the amount of money (dollars/hour) an individual is willing to pay for reducing 

access time to a mode (e.g. the airport, HSR station, railroad station, bus station) to gain easier 

access to someplace (e.g., an airport). Access/Egress time is weighted higher than in-vehicle time in 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-20
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-19

generalized costs calculation, and its weight is derived from value of time and value of access. 

Station wait time is the time spent at the station before departure and after arrival. On trips with 

connections, there would be additional wait times incurred at the connecting station. Wait times are 

weighted higher than in-vehicle time in the generalized cost formula to reflect their higher disutility 

as found from previous studies. 

In terms of the size of the survey for each of the quota groups identified - usually up to 8 primary 

groups. It has been shown that a sample as small as 30 individuals1 is statistically significant to 

analyze the behavioral difference between groups. These primary groups are based on 4 mode 

groups - auto and transit (that includes air, rail and bus) to 2 purpose groups business and nonbusiness. To improve statistical reliability, TEMS typically seeks 40 to 100 respondents per quota. 

This means that between 320 and 800 surveys are needed for a stated preference survey analysis. 

The 1,500-2,000 surveys were set as a goal for this survey. 

A very important part of the survey process is to identify the desirable survey locations. Exhibit 1-16 

shows the Stated Preference Survey locations map covering Chicago, Kalamazoo, Ann Arbor, 

Dearborn, and Detroit including Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. The surveys were 

conducted both electronically and also in the field. The main aim of the surveys was to target all 8 

quota groups (i.e., Business, Nonbusiness trip purposes for auto, air, rail and bus users). 

 

1

 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: 

Erlbaum. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-21
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-20

The field Stated Preference Survey captured: 

 Rail Users: With the help of Amtrak officials approval, a survey was conducted on the trains 

running between Chicago, Kalamazoo, and Ann Arbor; 

 Auto Users: With the help of the Illinois and Michigan Department of Motor Vehicles authority, 

a survey was conducted at their facilities located at Chicago, Kalamazoo, and Detroit. Patrons 

were interviewed at these facilities by approaching only those who were seated and were 

waiting to be called; 

 Air Mode Users: With the help of Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport Authority, the air 

travelers were interviewed at the baggage claim areas, lobby and outside the security 

clearance areas; 

 Bus Users: With the help of Greyhound, Megabus, Indian Trails and Michigan Flyers officials, 

bus passengers were interviewed in Kalamazoo and Detroit including Detroit Metropolitan 

Wayne County Airport. 

 All Four Mode Users: With the help of Public and Private Organizations such as Chamber of 

Commerce’s at Chicago, Lansing, Kalamazoo, Ann Arbor, and Michigan City, IN, University of 

Notre Dame (South Bend, IN), Ann Arbor University (Ann Arbor, MI), and Northwestern 

University (Kalamazoo, MI), online survey responses were collected from individuals located in 

Detroit- Chicago corridor area. 

Pilot surveys were also conducted prior to actual field and online surveys to test the survey 

questionnaire. This provided a validation of the survey Average and helped the scaling of the stated 

preference questions so that respondents did “trade” time and cost when filling in the survey forms. 

Minor adjustments to wording of questions and format were made to improve the user understanding 

of the forms. 

Field and online survey deployment are shown in Exhibit 1-17. The field survey was conducted in 

September 2012 with interviews between September 13, 2012 and September 26, 2012. The online 

survey was conducted between August, 2012 and January, 2013. TEMS collected 1,916 surveys 

achieving the target range. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-22
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-21

TEMS collected 1,916 surveys, reaching high end of total target (2,000) as shown in Exhibit 1-18. 

Each mode has collected more than 80 responses which is minimum target set by TEMS. Except bus, 

all the other modes have collected more than 200 responses which is high end target set by TEMS. 

Amtrak Train 670

Air 465

Auto 564

Bus 170

Sub Total

Pilot Surveys 47

Total (include pilot 

surveys)

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-23
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-22

Behavioral attributes reflect the behavior of the respondent when travel conditions change. For the 

purpose of this study, stated preference surveys collected the information necessary to identify the 

Value of Time (VOT)2 for all travelers, the Value of Frequency (VOF)3 and the Value of Access (VOA)4. 

There were separate forms for each mode and questions were unique for VOT, VOF and VOA. Exhibit 

1-19 shows that a total of VOT, VOF and VOA responses for all modes were 2,757. 

The responses captured by the revealed part of the questionnaire, show that 22% from business 

travelers and 78% responses are from nonbusiness travelers for all modes as shown in Exhibit 1-20. 

These nonbusiness travel purposes include commuting, traveling to/from school, vacations, 

shopping, visiting friends and etc. 

 

2 Value of Time (VOT) is the amount of money (dollars/hour) an individual is willing to pay to save a specified 

amount of travel time.

3 Value of Frequency (VOF) is the amount of money (dollars/hour) an individual is willing to pay to reduce the time 

between departures when traveling on public transportation. 

4 Value of Access (VOA) is the amount of money (dollars/hour) an individual is willing to pay for the improved 

access time to a mode (e.g. the airport, HSR station, railroad station, bus station) to gain easier access to someplace 

(like airport). 

5

 This total count of VOT, VOF and VOA per mode equals 2,757 and these counts are not equal to 

total survey counts as each transit respondent (most of them) filed out two stated preference 

questionnaires. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-24
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-23

Exhibit 1-21 illustrates distribution of average number of household by income groups along the 

survey study area corridor in comparison with statistical and survey data. It is seen in the Exhibit 1-6 

that survey responses closely follows most of the demographic distribution. This also shows that the 

survey responses are effectively represented, and the margin of error is only ±4%. 

*

* “Other” as indicated by the respondents includes concert, hockey game, funeral, wedding etc.

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-25
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-24

The employment type responses from the survey as shown in Exhibit 1-22 says that 61% of the 

responses are from employed individuals, 11% are from retired individuals, 13% are from students, 6% 

are from unemployed individuals, and the rest are from self-employed, disabled and other 

employment categories. 

Each of these three variables (VOT, VOF and VOA) has been analyzed using the “trade-off’ method. 

The Trade-Off Analysis identifies how individuals choose between time and money in selecting travel 

options. Two trade-off analysis methods, Binary Logit Method and Direct Comparison Method, were 

employed to analyze the Attitudinal Survey Data and determine Values of Time (VOT’s), Values of 

Frequency (VOF’s), and Values of Access (VOA’s).

In the Comparison Method, the trade-off choices made by individuals are ranked in descending or 

ascending (VOT, VOF or VOA) order, along with the individual’s choice between time and money and 

the degree of preference the individual had for that specific trade-off choice. As shown in Exhibit 1-8 

and 1-9, VOT is shown in ascending order from $5/hour to 20$/hour and the degree of preference is 

measured by preference scale stated as “Prefer a lot”, “Prefer a little” and “No Preference” toward 

option A or option B . The individual’s VOT, VOF or VOA is then determined by identifying the point 

of inflection, or the point at which an individual changes from spending more time to save money or 

preferring to spend more money to save time in making a given journey. The Comparison Method 

provides a clear and detailed understanding of how travelers react to the series of binary choice 

trade-off questions. Once the individual trade-off values are determined, the results are averaged to 

give overall population values. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-26
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-25

The Binary Logit Method applies a logit curve to calculate the coefficients of the time and cost 

variables. The individual’s VOT, VOF or VOA is derived as the ratio of time and cost coefficients. This 

method is a less subjective and more rigorous process than the Comparison Method. However, the 

statistical rigidity of the Binary Logit Method frequently provides less understanding of travel behavior 

and gives less analytic ability to interpret behavior effectively. Furthermore, because this method 

cannot incorporate the results for individuals who do not make a trade-off (preferring time or money 

options consistently over the whole range of trade-off choices), the Binary Logit Method can only be 

used at an aggregate level. 

Exhibit 1-23 and 1-24 provides an example of the respondent’s trading behavior and illustrates how 

VOT is calculated using ‘trade-off’ method. Exhibit 1-11 provides an example of the respondent’s non 

trading behavior6. The VOT is calculated for the ‘neutral point’ located in the intersection between the 

line indicating ‘no preference’ and the line connecting the points indicated by the respondent. As 

seen in Exhibit 1-8 the neutral point or no preference line is located at the fourth row indicating that 

the respondent is willing to spend $12 more for 45 minutes less. This implies the respondent is 

willing to spend $16 more for one hour of time saving. Thus, the respondent has a VOT value of $16 

per hour. 

 

6

 These examples (Exhibit 1-8, 1-9, and 1-11) are drawn from previous TEMS Stated Preference 

Surveys, and are designed to show how travelers ‘trade-off’ or ‘do not trade-off’ between time and 

cost options. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-27
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-26

Not all survey respondents illustrated perfect trading behavior (similar to those shown in Exhibit 1-23 

or 1-24). For the data collected, about 30% of the respondents were identified as ‘non-traders’. This is 

shown in Exhibit 1-25, where the 30% (i.e. 22% of very low values of time and 8% of very high values 

of time) non-traders refer to the individuals with either very high values of time or very low values of 

time. The survey is intended to obtain VOT’s mainly from the 70% in the middle (i.e., one standard 

deviation) with weighted non-traders, which is illustrated in Exhibit 1-26. One of 30% non-trading 

behavior examples is shown in Exhibit 1-27. 

 

7 Normal distribution with one standard deviation above the mean. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-28
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-27

VOT calculated based on the example shown in Exhibit 1-27 is assumed to be $45 for three hours 

($15 per hour) or less as there is no trading, and the individual is showing a preference to spend time 

rather than money. 

The Stated Preference Survey results of VOT, VOF and VOA calculated for four modes (auto, rail, bus, 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-29
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-28

and air) and two types of purpose (business and nonbusiness) are presented in Exhibits 1-28 through 

1-30. Based on the calculations, the following observations were made: 

 The hierarchical order of VOT is higher for air access, rail, auto and then bus users, which is 

the typical trend; 

 Business trips have larger VOT, VOF and VOA values than nonbusiness trips;

 The VOT, VOF and VOA values are consistent with those of previous studies (e.g., Bay Bridge 

Travel Survey, 2006, Rocky Mountain Rail Authority (RMRA), 2008) after adjusting to 2012 

dollars for similar trip length. 

$27.49 $24.79

$20.43 $15.05

$39.20 $28.05

$49.43 $39.28

$5.32 $5.28

$10.44 $8.83

$25.60 $18.41

$27.87 $25.68

$53.92 $35.90

$58.81 $46.82

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-30
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-29

An important factor in the future attractiveness of passenger rail is fuel price. Exhibit 1-31 shows the 

Energy Information Agency (EIA)8 projection of crude oil prices for three oil price cases, namely high 

world oil price case that is aggressive oil price forecast, reference world oil price case that is 

moderate and is also known as the central case forecast, and the conservative low world oil price 

case. In this study, the reference case oil price projection was used to estimate transportation cost in 

future travel market. EIA projects oil price to 2035, the oil price projections after 2035 were 

estimated based on historical prices and EIA projections. The EIA reference case forecast suggests 

that crude oil prices are expected to be $104 per barrel (2012$) in 2020 and will remain at that high 

level and will increase to $142 per barrel (2012$) in 2035. 

EIA has also developed a future retail gasoline price forecast, which is shown in Exhibit 1-32. The 

implication of this is a reference case gasoline price of $3.39 per gallon (2012$) in 2020, with a high 

case price of $5.02 per gallon and a low case price of $2.67 per gallon. Since 2012 annual average 

gas price of Midwest region is about $3.6

9 per gallon in a weak economy environment, $4~5 per 

gallon once the economy starts to grow again seems likely. 

 *EIA projections go to 2040, projections beyond 2040 were extrapolated 

 

8

 EIA periodically updates historical and projected oil prices at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/tables_ref.cfm 

9

 Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices from EIA http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_a_epmr_pte_dpgal_a.htm 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-31
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-30

 *EIA projections go to 2040, projections beyond 2040 were extrapolated 

Future improvement in automobile technology is likely to reduce the impact of high gas prices on 

automobile fuel cost with better fuel efficiency. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Center for 

Transportation Analysis (CTA) historical automobile highway energy intensities data has the historical 

Btu (British thermal unit) per vehicle-mile data for automobiles since 1970 as show in Exhibit 1-33. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-32
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-31

From Exhibit 1-34 it can be seen that automobile fuel efficiency has been improving gradually during 

the past few decades but the improvement has slowed down in recent years. Future automobile fuel 

efficiency improvement that was projected and shown in Exhibit 1-34 was based on the historical 

automobile fuel efficiency data. It shows that the automobile fleet fuel efficiency is expected to 

improve by nearly 13 percent by 2055. 

The average annual travel time growth in the corridor was estimated with the projected highway 

traffic volume data and the BPR (Bureau of Public Roads) function that can be used to calculate travel 

time growth with increased traffic volumes: 

 ( 

 

)

 

 

where 

 is future travel time, 

 is highway Average travel time, 

 is traffic volume, 

 is highway Average capacity, 

 is a calibrated coefficient (0.56), 

 is a calibrated coefficient (3.6). 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-33
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-32

The capacity and projected highway link volumes are derived from the Michigan Statewide Model 

(2010 version), which is provided by Michigan Department of Transportation. Historic volume data 

are obtained from Illinois Department of Transportation, Michigan Department of Transportation and 

2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report from Transportation Institute of Texas A&M University. Exhibit 1-

35 shows the projected travel time growths in 2035 for three major city pairs in the study area due to 

increasing highway traffic volumes. 

2012 Travel Time 2035 Projected Travel Time

Ann Arbor, MI – Detroit, MI 43 Min 49 Min

Chicago, IL –Kalamazoo, MI 2 Hour 9 Min 2 Hour 17Min

Chicago, IL – Detroit, MI 4 Hour 15 Min 4 Hour 29 Min

The projected travel times in Exhibit 1-20 were calculated with by computing travel time on each 

segment of the highway route between two cities. The key assumptions are as follows: 

 = 0.56 

 = 3.6 

For example, the highway links between Chicago and Detroit have seen a traffic volume increase from 

5.7 million of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per day to 6.0 million VMT per day from 2008 to 2035. By 

applying the BPR function while assuming same route is used between these two cities in the future, it 

can be calculated that travel time on this highway segment will increase by 0.24% per year with the 

BPR function. 

This section presents the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac corridor total travel demand forecast as result of 

applying the COMPASSTM total demand model. Exhibit 1-36 shows the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac 

corridor total travel demand forecasts for 2035, 2045, and 2055. It can be seen that the ChicagoDetroit/Pontiac corridor travel demand will increase to 135 million in 2035, to 153 million in 2045, 

and increases to 173 million in 2055. The average annual corridor travel market growth rate is 1.2 

percent, which is in line with the socioeconomic growth within the travel market. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-34
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-33

Exhibit 1-37 gives the four passenger rail scenarios that were studied with TEMS COMPASSTM ridership 

and revenue forecasting program. The “Base” scenario is the current Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac rail 

service that has three daily round trips (DRT) and travel time from Chicago to Pontiac is six hours and 

forty minutes. In addition, the “Base” scenario uses the current fuel price and highway travel time in 

the forecasts. Therefore, it produces the baseline passenger rail demand forecast by assuming that 

the current travel market conditions will continue in the future. “Scenario 1” has three DRTs and travel 

time from Chicago to Pontiac is shortened by one hour by infrastructure improvements to become 

five hours and forty minutes. “Scenario 2” has six DRTs and travel time from Chicago to Pontiac is the 

same as that of “Scenario 1”. “Full Build” has 10 DRTs and travel time from Chicago to Pontiac is five 

hours and sixteen minutes. Each of the build “scenarios” also considers projected congestions and 

increase energy prices. 

Scenario

Daily Round 

Trips (DRT)

Average

Speed 

(miles/hour)

Run Time (hr:mm) 

(Chicago-Pontiac)

Base (Current Travel Market Conditions) 3 46 6:40

Scenario 1 (3 DRTs and Improved Travel Time) 3 55 5:40

Scenario 2 (6 DRTs and Improved Travel Time) 6 55 5:40

Full Build (10 DRTs and Improved Travel Time) 10 (7 to Pontiac) 58 5:16

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-35
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-34

Exhibit 1-38 shows the ten forecasts produced for the four scenarios. Forecasts were made for 2025 

and 2035 for the “Base”, “Scenario 1”, and “Scenario 2” scenarios; for the “Full Build” scenario 

forecasts were done for 2025, 2035, 2045, and 2055. 

Base (Current Travel Market Conditions)  

Scenario 1 (3 DRTs and Improved Travel Time)  

Scenario 2 (6 DRTs and Improved Travel Time)  

Full Build (10 DRTs and Improved Travel Time)    

The passenger rail ridership for each scenario and year is shown in Exhibit 1-39. It can be seen that in 

the “Base” scenario rail ridership will be 0.58 million in 2025 and becomes 0.66 million in 2035, this 

is the baseline rail ridership forecast if today’s travel market characteristics including fuel price and 

highway travel time remain the same in the future, so all incremental ridership comes only from 

socioeconomic growth. “Scenario 1” will have 0.9 million rail trips in 2025 and 1.05 million in 2035, 

the increase in rail ridership is due to improved travel time and inclusion of fuel price and highway 

congestion in the demand forecast model. “Scenario 2” will have 1.64 and 1.91 million trips in 2025 

and 2035. The incremental rail ridership compared to “Scenario 1” comes from improved train 

frequency and more convenient schedule. The “Full Build” scenario which has 10 DRTs and fastest 

speed will have 2.43 million trips in 2025, 2.83 million in 2035, 3.3 million in 2045, and 3.85 million 

in 2055. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-36
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-35 

The passenger rail revenue forecast is shown in Exhibit 1-40. It can be seen that revenues increase 

strongly as both travel speed and frequency increase. 

Exhibit 1-41 shows the highest average segment (stop to stop) loading factor in the ChicagoDetroit/Pontiac corridor. Given a train size of 460 seats, it can be seen that the “Base” scenario has 

the highest average segment loading factors of 55% and 65% in 2025 and 2035. ‘Scenario 1” will have 

86% and 101% highest average segment loading factors in 2025 and 2035 if improved travel time, 

fuel price projections, and highway congestions are included in the forecast. Historical data shows 

that passenger rail services with average segment loading factor higher than 75% cannot guarantee 

that all passengers can have a seat during peak operation hours if there is no reservation system 

available. If there is a reservation system the highest allowable average segment loading factor would 

be 80% to 84%. Since there is no reservation system proposed for train operations, it is necessary to 

implement “Scenario 2” in 2025 which in order to reduce the highest average segment loading factor 

to 70%. However again in 2035, the highest average segment loading factor for “Scenario 2” will reach 

82%, 7% higher than the seat capacity limit in peak hours. Therefore, there is a need to increase train 

frequency to the “Full Build” scenario in 2035 to provide satisfactory seat capacity in the ChicagoDetroit/Pontiac corridor. If “Full Build” scenario can be implemented in 2035, the highest average 

segment loading factor in the corridor will be 66%, which is below the seat capacity limit. However the 

highest average segment loading factor in the corridor will reach 78% in 2045, and in 2055 it will be 

90%, this indicates that an even more frequent passenger rail service will be needed in the late stage 

of the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac passenger rail project’s life span.

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-37
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-36

Detailed rail travel demand forecast results for the ten runs are available in the Appendix 3. 

The Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac corridor transportation mode market share forecasts for the “Full Build” 

scenario are shown in Exhibit 1-42. The auto mode continues to demonstrate its dominance in the 

corridor maintaining a market share above 90 percent from 2035 to 2055. Rail market share will 

increase from 2.09 percent in 2035, to 2.16 percent in 2045, and will reach 2.22 percent in 2055. Air 

market share will be 2.40 percent to 2.62 percent in the corridor, and the market share growth is due 

to increased congestion and fuel prices. Bus market share will remain at 0.45 to 0.48 percent. 

The purpose split of the rail ridership for Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac corridor “Full Build” scenario as 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-38
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-37

illustrated in Exhibit 1-43 shows that percentage of each trip purposes of rail travel. The NonBusiness trips account for about 67 to 68 percent of the overall rail travel market, the Business trips 

account for about 32 to 33 percent. 

Exhibit 1-44 illustrates the sources of the rail trips for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac corridor “Full Build” 

scenario in 2035. The trips diverted from other modes are the most important source of rail trips, 

which accounts for 70.6 percent of overall rail travel market. Induced travel demand in the corridor as 

result of the new passenger rail service is 6.2 percent of the rail travel market. As for the diverted 

trips from other modes, 54.1 percent trips are from auto mode, but the auto driving still dominates 

future travel market, this is because auto driving has a strong base in the current Michigan corridors. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-39
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-38

Exhibit 1-45 shows the contributing factors of the increased passenger rail ridership for ChicagoDetroit/Pontiac corridor “Full Build” scenario in 2035. It can be seen that levels-of-service 

improvement of passenger rail accounts for 53 percent of the total rail ridership, and gas price and 

highway congestion increases account for 23 percent of rail ridership 

Exhibit 1-46 shows the comparison of 2030 Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac corridor “Full Build” scenario 

forecast with previous studies. The rail trips rates (trips per 10,000 persons per day) are listed and it 

can be seen that the rail trip rate of Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac corridor is similar to that of Chicago-St. 

Louis corridor. This is due to the similarities of socioeconomics and rail proposals in each corridor. 

The forecast results are much lower than the high-speed rail options developed for other corridors. 

The rail trip rate forecast for Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac corridor is 30 to 40 percent of the Northeast 

corridor 125MPH to 150MPH forecast, 50 percent of the Georgia 130MPH passenger rail forecast, 75 

percent of the Hampton Roads 130MPH passenger rail forecast. The difference is due to the higher 

speeds and frequency of train service in other corridors, and in Georgia and Hampton Roads case, the 

buildup of a dedicated right-of-way. Also the Northeast corridor has much higher socioeconomics. 

Rail Trip Rate 

(trips per 

10,000 5.3 13.3 18.9 5.4 10.3 7.1

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-40
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-39

persons per 

day)

1 The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan, The NEC Master Plan Working Group, 2010

2 Chicago to St. Louis 110 MPH EIS, 2003

3 Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger Rail Corridor EIS, Steer Davies Gleave, 2013

4 Hampton Roads Passenger Rail Vision Plan Alternatives Analysis, TEMS, 2014

Exhibits 1-47 and 1-48 show the apples-to-apples comparison of the forecast results with those from 

the High-Speed Ground Transportation for America (HSGTA 1997) study. It is shown that the forecast 

of this study is slightly lower than the HSGTA study. It is 15 percent lower than the 90 MPH forecast 

and 4 percent lower than the 110 MPH forecast from the HSGTA study once the different assumptions 

between the studies are accounted for. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-41
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-40

The travel demand model was use to forecast the passenger rail ridership and revenue under various 

future socioeconomic growth rates, future fuel prices scenarios, and future highway congestion 

increases. 

Exhibit 1-49 shows the rail ridership changes by assuming different socioeconomic growth rates. It is 

shown that if the annual socioeconomic growth rate from base year 2012 to forecast year 2035 is 

lowered by 10 percent, the rail ridership will decrease by 2.9 percent and if the growth rate is 

increased by 10 percent, the rail ridership will increase by 3 percent. Exhibit 1-50 shows that the rail

revenue will decrease by 3 percent if the annual socioeconomic growth rate is lowered by 10 percent 

and the rail revenue will increase by 3.1 percent if the annual socioeconomic growth rate is increase 

by 10 percent.

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-42
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-41

Exhibit 1-51 shows the rail ridership changes by assuming different fuel price scenarios. It is shown 

that if the fuel price is lowered by 34 percent, which is EIA’s low world oil price projection, the rail 

ridership will decrease by 4 percent and if the fuel price is increased by 101 percent, which is EIA’s 

high world oil price projection, the rail ridership will increase by 14.5 percent. Exhibit 1-52 shows 

that if the fuel price is lowered by 34 percent, the rail revenue will decrease by 4.5 percent and if the 

fuel price is increased by 101 percent, the rail revenue will increase by 16 percent.

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-43
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-42

Exhibit 1-53 shows the rail ridership changes by assuming different highway congestion growth 

scenarios. It is shown that if the highway congestion growth is lowered by 10 percent, the rail 

ridership will decrease by 1.1 percent and if the highway congestion growth is increased by 10 

percent, the rail ridership will increase by 1.2 percent. Exhibit 1-54 shows that if the highway 

congestion growth is lowered by 10 percent, the rail revenue will decrease by 1.2 percent and if the 

highway congestion growth is increased by 10 percent, the rail revenue will increase by 1.3 percent.

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-44
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-43

Exhibit 1-55 shows the elasticity of the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac corridor passenger rail ridership 

forecast to important passenger rail services factors including in-vehicle travel time, train frequency, 

and fare. It can be seen that passenger rail ridership elasticity against in-vehicle travel time is 1.2 

when in-vehicle travel time changes by 10 percent, which means that a 10 percent change in rail invehicle travel time will result in 12 percent change in passenger rail ridership. The travel time 

elasticity includes such factors as service reliability and schedule convenience as well as travel time 

itself. The in-vehicle time elasticity increases gradually as change in in-vehicle time increases, when 

in-vehicle travel time changes by 30 percent, the change in passenger rail ridership is 50 percent. For 

rail frequency, a 10 percent change in rail frequency results in 2.5 percent change in rail ridership 

and a 30 percent change in rail frequency result in 10 percent change in rail ridership, thus gives an 

elasticity of 0.25 to 0.3. For fare elasticity, when rail fare changes by 10 percent, the rail ridership will 

change by 8 percent, and when fare changes by 30 percent, rail ridership changes by 30 percent. This 

is due to the fact that the analysis optimized fare and has elasticity close to 1.0. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-45
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page 1-44 Rail Ridership Change Factor

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-46
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-1 

TECHNICAL APPENDIX

1. ZONE SYSTEM AND SOCIOECONOMIC DATA

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-47
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-2 

THE MICHIGAN PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR ZONES:

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-48
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-3 

1.1 MICHIGAN POPULATION DATA AND FORECASTS

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID

Zone 

Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

1 1

Fowlerville, 

MI 18,781 19,135 19,741 20,367 21,012 21,677 22,364 23,072 23,803 24,556

2 2 Fenton, MI 6,356 6,430 6,557 6,686 6,817 6,951 7,088 7,227 7,369 7,514

3 3 Howell, MI 21,197 21,811 22,874 23,989 25,158 26,384 27,671 29,019 30,434 31,917

4 4 Howell, MI 5,600 5,647 5,726 5,806 5,888 5,971 6,055 6,140 6,226 6,313

5 5 Howell, MI 27,183 27,521 28,093 28,678 29,275 29,884 30,506 31,141 31,789 32,450

6 6 Pinckney, MI 18,506 18,774 19,230 19,698 20,176 20,667 21,169 21,683 22,210 22,750

7 7 Brighton, MI 36,905 37,090 37,400 37,713 38,029 38,348 38,669 38,993 39,319 39,648

8 8 Pinckney, MI 4,394 4,424 4,474 4,525 4,576 4,628 4,681 4,734 4,788 4,843

9 9 Brighton, MI 24,976 24,995 25,027 25,060 25,092 25,124 25,156 25,189 25,221 25,253

10 10

Whitmore 

Lake, MI 9,775 9,826 9,913 9,999 10,087 10,175 10,265 10,354 10,445 10,537

11 11 Brighton, MI 7,593 7,612 7,645 7,678 7,711 7,744 7,777 7,810 7,843 7,877

12 12 Chelsea, MI 43,829 45,125 47,372 49,730 52,206 54,805 57,533 60,397 63,404 66,560

13 13 Dexter, MI 30,419 30,673 31,102 31,536 31,976 32,423 32,876 33,335 33,801 34,273

14 14 Ann Arbor, MI 244,693 245,825 247,722 249,634 251,561 253,503 255,460 257,431 259,419 261,421

15 15

Northville 

TWP, MI 6,285 6,418 6,648 6,885 7,131 7,386 7,650 7,923 8,206 8,499

16 16 Milan, MI 20,288 20,727 21,481 22,262 23,072 23,911 24,781 25,682 26,616 27,584

17 17 Dundee, MI 6,814 7,009 7,346 7,699 8,069 8,457 8,864 9,290 9,736 10,204

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-49
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-4 

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID

Zone 

Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

18 18 Monroe, MI 27,973 28,293 28,835 29,388 29,951 30,524 31,109 31,705 32,312 32,931

19 19 Milan, MI 27,461 27,765 28,281 28,806 29,340 29,885 30,440 31,005 31,581 32,167

20 20

Lambertville, 

MI 17,608 17,783 18,079 18,379 18,685 18,995 19,311 19,631 19,958 20,289

21 21

Lambertville, 

MI 27,066 27,331 27,780 28,236 28,699 29,170 29,648 30,135 30,629 31,132

22 22 Monroe, MI 45,172 45,358 45,672 45,987 46,304 46,624 46,946 47,270 47,597 47,925

23 23 Holly, MI 11,291 11,514 11,896 12,290 12,697 13,118 13,553 14,003 14,467 14,946

24 24

White Lake, 

MI 177,487 180,198 184,807 189,535 194,383 199,355 204,455 209,685 215,048 220,549

25 25 Clarkston, MI 44,774 45,170 45,838 46,516 47,204 47,902 48,610 49,329 50,059 50,799

26 26

Lake Orion, 

MI 89,229 91,118 94,356 97,710 101,182 104,778 108,502 112,358 116,352 120,487

27 27 Rochester, MI 16,275 16,431 16,695 16,963 17,235 17,512 17,793 18,078 18,368 18,663

28 28 Rochester, MI 81,562 83,206 86,019 88,928 91,935 95,043 98,257 101,579 105,013 108,564

29 29 Pontiac, MI 12,346 12,408 12,513 12,618 12,725 12,832 12,940 13,050 13,160 13,271

30 30 Waterford, MI 136,601 137,196 138,194 139,199 140,212 141,232 142,259 143,294 144,336 145,386

31 31 Pontiac, MI 13,262 13,142 12,944 12,748 12,556 12,367 12,180 11,996 11,815 11,637

32 32 Troy, MI 11,225 11,235 11,253 11,270 11,288 11,305 11,323 11,340 11,358 11,375

33 33

Northville 

TWP, MI 28,841 29,579 30,850 32,176 33,559 35,001 36,505 38,074 39,710 41,417

34 34 Livonia, MI 155,297 155,210 155,065 154,920 154,775 154,631 154,486 154,342 154,198 154,053

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-50
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-5 

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID

Zone 

Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

35 35 Canton, MI 55,188 56,178 57,867 59,606 61,398 63,244 65,145 67,104 69,121 71,199

36 36 Belleville, MI 32,970 33,817 35,278 36,801 38,390 40,048 41,777 43,581 45,463 47,426

37 37 Belleville, MI 11,064 11,332 11,794 12,275 12,775 13,295 13,837 14,400 14,987 15,597

38 38 Belleville, MI 10,833 11,075 11,490 11,921 12,368 12,831 13,312 13,811 14,329 14,866

39 39 Belleville, MI 3,965 4,008 4,079 4,152 4,226 4,302 4,379 4,457 4,536 4,617

40 40 Westland, MI 91,060 91,039 91,005 90,971 90,938 90,904 90,870 90,836 90,802 90,768

41 41

Garden City, 

MI 108,275 108,040 107,650 107,261 106,874 106,488 106,103 105,720 105,339 104,958

42 42 Romulus, MI 16,849 17,187 17,767 18,366 18,985 19,625 20,287 20,971 21,678 22,409

43 43 Romulus, MI 40,478 40,984 41,842 42,718 43,612 44,525 45,457 46,408 47,380 48,371

44 44 Carleton, MI 21,166 22,009 23,489 25,069 26,755 28,554 30,474 32,523 34,710 37,045

45 45 Flat Rock, MI 34,581 35,528 37,163 38,874 40,664 42,536 44,494 46,542 48,685 50,926

46 46 Trenton, MI 40,311 40,567 40,997 41,432 41,871 42,315 42,763 43,217 43,675 44,138

47 47 Capac, MI 12,008 12,124 12,320 12,519 12,721 12,927 13,136 13,348 13,564 13,783

48 48 St Clair, MI 133,093 134,545 137,000 139,500 142,045 144,637 147,276 149,964 152,700 155,486

49 49

Port Huron, 

MI 18,035 18,422 19,087 19,776 20,489 21,228 21,994 22,788 23,610 24,462

50 50 Romeo, MI 5,451 5,609 5,882 6,169 6,470 6,786 7,116 7,464 7,828 8,209

51 51 Romeo, MI 41,793 43,519 46,555 49,803 53,278 56,995 60,972 65,226 69,777 74,645

52 52 Macomb, MI 506,345 512,553 523,070 533,803 544,756 555,934 567,341 578,982 590,862 602,986

53 53 Roseville, MI 287,599 286,849 285,602 284,361 283,125 281,895 280,670 279,451 278,236 277,027

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-51
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-6 

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID

Zone 

Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

54 54

South Lyon, 

MI 25,312 26,169 27,661 29,238 30,906 32,668 34,531 36,500 38,581 40,782

55 55

Farmington, 

MI 123,781 125,196 127,590 130,029 132,516 135,050 137,632 140,264 142,946 145,680

56 56 Southfield, MI 288,556 290,431 293,584 296,771 299,993 303,249 306,541 309,869 313,232 316,633

57 57 Clawson, MI 172,103 172,023 171,890 171,757 171,625 171,492 171,360 171,228 171,095 170,963

58 58 Detroit, MI 289,780 284,803 276,697 268,821 261,170 253,737 246,515 239,498 232,682 226,059

59 59

Hamtramck, 

MI 285,138 280,409 272,700 265,203 257,912 250,822 243,927 237,221 230,700 224,357

60 60 Detroit, MI 200,020 196,945 191,925 187,033 182,265 177,619 173,092 168,680 164,380 160,190

61 61 Dearborn, MI 73,717 73,346 72,731 72,122 71,517 70,918 70,324 69,735 69,151 68,571

62 62 Dearborn, MI 68,195 68,637 69,381 70,133 70,892 71,661 72,437 73,222 74,015 74,817

63 63 Detroit, MI 93,632 91,809 88,850 85,986 83,214 80,532 77,936 75,424 72,993 70,640

64 64 Southgate, MI 137,538 136,999 136,105 135,217 134,335 133,459 132,588 131,724 130,864 130,011

65 65

Kalamazoo, 

MI 181,304 183,759 185,508 187,809 190,697 194,174 196,528 199,273 202,018 204,702

66 66 Richland, MI 12,174 12,339 12,525 12,708 12,918 13,090 13,281 13,469 13,657 13,851

67 67

Kalamazoo, 

MI 14,639 14,726 14,837 14,957 15,088 15,230 15,329 15,449 15,568 15,682

68 68

Kalamazoo, 

MI 17,803 18,337 19,154 20,216 21,487 23,021 23,626 24,655 25,684 26,639

69 69 Vicksburg, MI 12,042 12,245 12,459 12,675 12,893 12,376 12,863 12,986 13,110 13,364

70 70 Vicksburg, MI 2,402 2,419 2,442 2,472 2,504 2,543 2,562 2,590 2,618 2,644

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-52
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-7 

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID

Zone 

Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

71 71 Galesburg, MI 10,578 10,660 10,799 10,973 11,229 11,525 11,615 11,801 11,987 12,146

72 72

Union Pier, 

MI 9,743 9,719 9,691 9,673 9,657 9,641 9,627 9,593 9,570 9,547

73 73 Buchanan, MI 8,445 8,424 8,400 8,384 8,370 8,356 8,344 8,315 8,295 8,275

74 74 Watervliet, MI 14,865 14,828 14,785 14,758 14,733 14,709 14,688 14,635 14,601 14,565

75 75

Benton 

Harbor, MI 59,451 59,305 59,132 59,022 58,924 58,826 58,743 58,533 58,395 58,252

76 76

Benton 

Harbor, MI 9,435 9,412 9,385 9,367 9,352 9,336 9,323 9,290 9,268 9,245

77 77 Buchanan, MI 13,341 13,308 13,269 13,245 13,223 13,201 13,182 13,135 13,104 13,072

78 78 Bridgman, MI 6,807 6,790 6,771 6,758 6,747 6,736 6,726 6,702 6,686 6,670

79 79 Niles, MI 3,109 3,102 3,093 3,087 3,082 3,077 3,072 3,061 3,054 3,047

80 80 Niles, MI 30,365 30,290 30,202 30,146 30,095 30,045 30,003 29,896 29,825 29,752

81 81 Niles, MI 10,372 10,554 10,868 11,193 11,520 11,846 12,174 12,483 12,803 13,140

82 82 Niles, MI 21,746 22,127 22,787 23,469 24,153 24,837 25,525 26,173 26,845 27,549

83 83 Elkhart, IN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

84 84 Albion, MI 8,891 8,921 8,982 9,052 9,123 9,193 9,265 9,321 9,387 9,452

85 85

Pleasant 

Lake, MI 13,903 13,951 14,046 14,155 14,266 14,376 14,489 14,577 14,679 14,781

86 86

Grass Lake, 

MI 7,622 7,649 7,701 7,760 7,821 7,882 7,944 7,992 8,048 8,104

87 87 Jackson, MI 65,572 65,798 66,247 66,760 67,283 67,802 68,335 68,749 69,231 69,713

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-53
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-8 

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID

Zone 

Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

88 88 Jackson, MI 23,986 24,069 24,233 24,421 24,612 24,802 24,997 25,148 25,324 25,501

89 89 Jackson, MI 14,520 14,570 14,669 14,783 14,899 15,014 15,132 15,223 15,330 15,437

90 90 Jackson, MI 12,523 12,566 12,652 12,750 12,850 12,949 13,050 13,129 13,221 13,314

91 91 Brooklyn, MI 12,525 12,568 12,654 12,752 12,852 12,951 13,053 13,132 13,224 13,316

92 92 Covert, MI 23,956 24,096 24,332 24,571 24,812 25,055 25,300 25,548 25,798 26,051

93 93 Paw Paw, MI 14,533 14,958 15,694 16,466 17,276 18,126 19,017 19,953 20,934 21,964

94 94 Paw Paw, MI 12,299 12,462 12,738 13,021 13,309 13,604 13,905 14,214 14,529 14,850

95 95 Paw Paw, MI 25,999 26,810 28,220 29,703 31,265 32,908 34,638 36,459 38,376 40,394

96 96 Jones, MI 20,305 20,520 20,885 21,256 21,633 22,018 22,409 22,807 23,212 23,624

97 97

Battle Creek, 

MI 62,643 62,834 63,152 63,472 63,665 64,714 64,782 65,180 65,578 65,868

98 98

Battle Creek, 

MI 16,632 16,774 17,013 17,256 17,309 17,521 17,740 17,932 18,123 18,329

99 99

Battle Creek, 

MI 13,806 14,054 14,477 14,913 15,315 15,814 16,212 16,644 17,076 17,518

100 100

Battle Creek, 

MI 18,280 18,413 18,635 18,860 19,063 19,469 19,631 19,876 20,122 20,344

101 101 Athens, MI 8,574 9,012 9,791 10,637 10,958 11,459 12,268 12,908 13,548 14,326

102 102 Marshall, MI 2,382 2,448 2,563 2,683 2,808 2,940 3,077 3,221 3,372 3,530

103 103 Marshall, MI 3,757 3,791 3,848 3,906 3,965 4,025 4,086 4,148 4,210 4,274

104 104 Albion, MI 6,413 6,536 6,745 6,961 7,184 7,414 7,652 7,897 8,150 8,411

105 105 Albion, MI 3,752 3,749 3,744 3,738 3,733 3,728 3,723 3,718 3,713 3,708

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-54
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-9 

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID

Zone 

Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

106 106

East Lansing, 

MI 206,271 207,160 208,870 210,787 212,732 214,666 216,643 218,244 220,060 221,888

107 107 Mason, MI 48,551 48,760 49,163 49,614 50,072 50,527 50,992 51,369 51,797 52,227

108 108

Williamston, 

MI 25,007 25,115 25,323 25,555 25,791 26,025 26,265 26,459 26,679 26,901

109 258

Bruce 

Crossing, MI 82,226 82,236 82,442 82,700 82,928 83,109 83,313 83,495 83,692 83,887

110 259 Ishpeming, MI 93,040 93,497 94,481 95,537 96,568 97,551 98,568 99,518 100,507 101,512

111 260

Bark River, 

MI 23,878 23,900 23,994 24,104 24,207 24,297 24,395 24,480 24,573 24,666

112 261 Munising, MI 17,989 18,046 18,186 18,339 18,484 18,622 18,767 18,899 19,038 19,179

113 262

Rapid River, 

MI 36,945 37,069 37,360 37,680 37,990 38,280 38,582 38,862 39,155 39,451

114 263 Newberry, MI 56,150 56,409 56,973 57,581 58,173 58,738 59,321 59,866 60,434 61,009

115 362 Ludington, MI 55,386 56,072 57,337 58,642 59,929 61,185 62,456 63,705 64,969 66,282

116 363 Muskegon, MI 171,988 173,279 175,796 178,416 180,956 183,383 185,846 188,331 190,813 193,356

117 364 Brethren, MI 24,587 24,621 24,740 24,879 25,014 25,140 25,275 25,383 25,506 25,629

118 365 Holland, MI 386,057 405,659 438,753 472,252 505,692 538,937 572,385 605,327 638,545 675,683

119 412 Petoskey, MI 86,660 90,460 96,962 103,593 110,246 116,890 123,609 130,043 136,626 143,919

120 413 Alpena, MI 72,422 73,487 75,386 77,311 79,185 80,991 82,798 84,702 86,561 88,501

121 414 Frederic, MI 79,610 81,519 84,841 88,207 91,531 94,795 98,071 101,385 104,684 108,204

122 415 Lake Ann, MI 126,701 128,436 131,608 134,881 138,116 141,282 144,491 147,624 150,803 154,117

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-55
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-10

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID

Zone 

Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

123 416 Cadillac, MI 71,287 72,208 73,903 75,657 77,386 79,080 80,797 82,470 84,169 85,937

124 417 Bitely, MI 61,211 63,754 68,083 72,471 76,847 81,192 85,564 89,871 94,215 99,004

125 418

Big Rapids, 

MI 43,089 43,836 45,169 46,533 47,881 49,200 50,533 51,856 53,187 54,586

126 419 Clare, MI 100,833 101,016 101,564 102,191 102,789 103,338 103,919 104,432 104,985 105,540

127 420

West Branch, 

MI 113,496 114,617 116,748 118,965 121,151 123,277 125,442 127,534 129,669 131,873

128 421

Grand 

Rapids, MI 612,587 632,054 665,596 699,660 733,548 767,087 800,862 834,218 867,817 904,252

129 422 Ionia, MI 127,889 130,059 133,939 137,907 141,825 145,665 149,539 153,389 157,258 161,324

130 423 Sanford, MI 83,223 83,352 83,766 84,243 84,696 85,110 85,552 85,935 86,353 86,771

131 424 Midland, MI 106,939 106,671 106,477 106,360 106,208 106,001 105,824 105,595 105,399 105,199

132 432 Ithaca, MI 42,244 42,265 42,401 42,570 42,725 42,859 43,007 43,128 43,265 43,402

133 433 St Johns, MI 76,554 78,928 82,981 87,117 91,268 95,417 99,589 103,599 107,700 112,136

134 434 Saginaw, MI 198,418 197,809 197,261 196,854 196,380 195,806 195,285 194,674 194,120 193,561

135 450 Bad Axe, MI 32,860 32,861 32,941 33,046 33,140 33,218 33,306 33,375 33,455 33,535

136 451 Caro, MI 55,540 55,813 56,402 57,036 57,657 58,252 58,867 59,435 60,030 60,635

137 452 Sandusky, MI 43,027 43,411 44,153 44,934 45,704 46,456 47,227 47,952 48,702 49,474

138 453 Flint, MI 422,669 422,745 423,881 425,336 426,663 427,783 429,035 430,024 431,171 432,306

139 454 Owosso, MI 70,480 70,868 71,684 72,558 73,414 74,240 75,091 75,879 76,704 77,543

140 455 Lapeer, MI 89,004 90,949 94,395 97,934 101,464 104,965 108,517 111,916 115,397 119,100

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-56
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-11

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID

Zone 

Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

141 456 Charlotte, MI 108,702 110,926 114,759 118,705 122,670 126,632 130,622 134,394 138,289 142,409

142 457 Hastings, MI 59,779 61,398 64,210 67,071 69,911 72,718 75,544 78,340 81,154 84,179

143 458 3 Rivers MI, 61,244 61,719 62,648 63,618 64,564 65,473 66,398 67,312 68,234 69,180

144 459 Coldwater, MI 45,250 45,793 46,794 47,824 48,834 49,815 50,806 51,798 52,791 53,822

145 460 Hudson, MI 146,175 147,025 148,796 150,686 152,541 154,330 156,176 157,888 159,676 161,498

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-57
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-12

1.2 MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT DATA AND FORECASTS

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

1 1 Fowlerville, MI 1,124 1,179 1,278 1,385 1,501 1,627 1,764 1,912 2,072 2,246

2 2 Fenton, MI 116 124 138 154 171 191 213 238 265 295

3 3 Howell, MI 8,485 8,741 9,185 9,651 10,141 10,656 11,198 11,766 12,364 12,992

4 4 Howell, MI 7,632 7,769 8,003 8,243 8,491 8,747 9,010 9,281 9,560 9,847

5 5 Howell, MI 10,537 10,864 11,433 12,031 12,660 13,323 14,020 14,753 15,525 16,338

6 6 Pinckney, MI 7,499 7,696 8,035 8,389 8,758 9,144 9,547 9,967 10,406 10,865

7 7 Brighton, MI 22,679 23,205 24,110 25,049 26,026 27,040 28,094 29,188 30,326 31,508

8 8 Pinckney, MI 614 615 616 618 619 620 621 623 624 625

9 9 Brighton, MI 4,296 4,438 4,685 4,946 5,222 5,512 5,819 6,143 6,485 6,846

10 10

Whitmore Lake, 

MI 3,872 4,030 4,309 4,606 4,925 5,265 5,628 6,017 6,432 6,877

11 11 Brighton, MI 5,022 5,165 5,411 5,670 5,941 6,224 6,522 6,833 7,160 7,502

12 12 Chelsea, MI 18,750 19,050 19,561 20,086 20,625 21,179 21,747 22,331 22,930 23,545

13 13 Dexter, MI 8,104 8,260 8,528 8,803 9,088 9,382 9,685 9,998 10,322 10,655

14 14 Ann Arbor, MI 203,741 207,866 214,927 222,228 229,777 237,583 245,653 253,998 262,626 271,548

15 15

Northville TWP, 

MI 552 579 626 678 733 793 858 928 1,004 1,086

16 16 Milan, MI 11,297 11,529 11,926 12,337 12,761 13,200 13,655 14,125 14,611 15,114

17 17 Dundee, MI 3,657 3,703 3,781 3,861 3,942 4,025 4,110 4,197 4,285 4,376

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-58
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-13

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

18 18 Monroe, MI 8,660 8,777 8,977 9,181 9,390 9,604 9,823 10,046 10,275 10,509

19 19 Milan, MI 5,428 5,499 5,621 5,746 5,873 6,003 6,135 6,271 6,410 6,552

20 20 Lambertville, MI 3,026 3,073 3,152 3,234 3,318 3,404 3,493 3,584 3,677 3,772

21 21 Lambertville, MI 6,197 6,272 6,397 6,526 6,656 6,790 6,926 7,065 7,206 7,351

22 22 Monroe, MI 26,781 27,032 27,457 27,888 28,325 28,770 29,222 29,680 30,146 30,619

23 23 Holly, MI 3,402 3,568 3,863 4,182 4,528 4,902 5,307 5,746 6,221 6,735

24 24 White Lake, MI 57,144 58,468 60,744 63,108 65,564 68,116 70,767 73,521 76,383 79,356

25 25 Clarkston, MI 7,307 7,583 8,068 8,583 9,132 9,715 10,336 10,996 11,699 12,446

26 26 Lake Orion, MI 40,853 41,980 43,928 45,967 48,100 50,332 52,667 55,111 57,668 60,344

27 27 Rochester, MI 3,968 4,106 4,346 4,600 4,869 5,153 5,454 5,773 6,110 6,468

28 28 Rochester, MI 86,858 88,561 91,474 94,483 97,590 100,800 104,116 107,540 111,078 114,731

29 29 Pontiac, MI 4,624 4,726 4,900 5,081 5,269 5,464 5,666 5,875 6,092 6,317

30 30 Waterford, MI 96,852 97,645 98,982 100,337 101,710 103,102 104,513 105,944 107,394 108,864

31 31 Pontiac, MI 8,605 8,782 9,086 9,401 9,727 10,064 10,412 10,773 11,146 11,532

32 32 Troy, MI 6,443 6,474 6,527 6,580 6,634 6,688 6,742 6,797 6,853 6,908

33 33

Northville TWP, 

MI 9,539 9,582 9,654 9,727 9,800 9,873 9,948 10,022 10,098 10,174

34 34 Livonia, MI 123,545 123,617 123,739 123,860 123,981 124,103 124,225 124,346 124,468 124,590

35 35 Canton, MI 16,699 17,080 17,736 18,417 19,124 19,858 20,621 21,412 22,234 23,088

36 36 Belleville, MI 10,638 10,621 10,592 10,564 10,535 10,507 10,478 10,450 10,422 10,394

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-59
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-14

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

37 37 Belleville, MI 5,898 5,934 5,995 6,057 6,119 6,182 6,246 6,310 6,374 6,440

38 38 Belleville, MI 784 792 805 819 833 847 862 877 892 907

39 39 Belleville, MI 587 626 696 775 862 959 1,068 1,188 1,322 1,471

40 40 Westland, MI 35,121 35,228 35,407 35,587 35,768 35,950 36,133 36,317 36,502 36,687

41 41 Garden City, MI 25,812 25,992 26,295 26,602 26,912 27,226 27,544 27,865 28,190 28,519

42 42 Romulus, MI 34,299 34,617 35,152 35,696 36,248 36,808 37,377 37,955 38,542 39,138

43 43 Romulus, MI 19,323 19,573 19,997 20,431 20,873 21,326 21,788 22,260 22,742 23,235

44 44 Carleton, MI 8,455 8,529 8,654 8,781 8,910 9,041 9,173 9,308 9,445 9,583

45 45 Flat Rock, MI 14,746 14,738 14,725 14,712 14,699 14,686 14,674 14,661 14,648 14,635

46 46 Trenton, MI 11,435 11,511 11,639 11,769 11,900 12,033 12,167 12,303 12,440 12,579

47 47 Capac, MI 2,503 2,585 2,728 2,878 3,037 3,205 3,381 3,568 3,764 3,972

48 48 St Clair, MI 55,721 56,476 57,756 59,066 60,405 61,775 63,176 64,608 66,073 67,571

49 49 Port Huron, MI 3,281 3,399 3,605 3,823 4,055 4,301 4,561 4,838 5,131 5,442

50 50 Romeo, MI 1,714 1,770 1,867 1,970 2,078 2,192 2,313 2,440 2,574 2,715

51 51 Romeo, MI 14,039 14,372 14,943 15,538 16,156 16,799 17,467 18,162 18,884 19,636

52 52 Macomb, MI 187,928 189,982 193,455 196,991 200,592 204,259 207,993 211,795 215,667 219,609

53 53 Roseville, MI 167,812 168,337 169,216 170,099 170,987 171,879 172,777 173,678 174,585 175,496

54 54 South Lyon, MI 8,107 8,511 9,231 10,012 10,859 11,777 12,773 13,854 15,025 16,296

55 55 Farmington, MI 118,725 120,298 122,966 125,693 128,480 131,329 134,242 137,218 140,261 143,372

56 56 Southfield, MI 237,430 239,201 242,184 245,204 248,261 251,356 254,490 257,663 260,876 264,129

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-60
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-15

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

57 57 Clawson, MI 167,098 168,472 170,789 173,138 175,518 177,932 180,379 182,859 185,374 187,923

58 58 Detroit, MI 58,134 57,611 56,750 55,901 55,066 54,242 53,431 52,632 51,846 51,070

59 59 Hamtramck, MI 216,818 215,604 213,597 211,607 209,637 207,685 205,751 203,835 201,936 200,056

60 60 Detroit, MI 60,278 60,010 59,567 59,126 58,690 58,256 57,825 57,398 56,974 56,553

61 61 Dearborn, MI 47,614 47,693 47,825 47,957 48,090 48,223 48,357 48,490 48,625 48,759

62 62 Dearborn, MI 72,381 72,111 71,663 71,218 70,776 70,337 69,900 69,466 69,035 68,606

63 63 Detroit, MI 41,797 41,387 40,714 40,052 39,401 38,760 38,129 37,509 36,899 36,299

64 64 Southgate, MI 53,899 53,858 53,791 53,723 53,655 53,588 53,521 53,453 53,386 53,319

65 65 Kalamazoo, MI 112,913 114,144 117,773 121,014 125,066 129,483 132,139 135,613 139,087 142,444

66 66 Richland, MI 4,456 4,520 4,677 4,827 5,008 5,225 5,342 5,502 5,662 5,816

67 67 Kalamazoo, MI 2,308 2,316 2,392 2,451 2,509 2,572 2,622 2,679 2,736 2,793

68 68 Kalamazoo, MI 7,461 7,547 7,771 7,984 8,224 8,513 8,683 8,904 9,124 9,338

69 69 Vicksburg, MI 3,730 3,745 3,841 3,909 3,994 4,090 4,149 4,224 4,300 4,372

70 70 Vicksburg, MI 771 768 783 795 804 818 823 833 842 850

71 71 Galesburg, MI 10,521 10,528 10,724 10,851 11,013 11,185 11,293 11,433 11,572 11,704

72 72 Union Pier, MI 5,627 5,661 5,729 5,799 5,873 5,952 6,035 6,125 6,207 6,295

73 73 Buchanan, MI 2,391 2,406 2,435 2,465 2,496 2,530 2,565 2,603 2,638 2,675

74 74 Watervliet, MI 5,047 5,078 5,138 5,202 5,268 5,339 5,414 5,494 5,568 5,646

75 75 Benton Harbor, MI 42,437 42,694 43,206 43,738 44,298 44,891 45,520 46,193 46,817 47,477

76 76 Benton Harbor, MI 3,549 3,571 3,613 3,658 3,705 3,754 3,807 3,863 3,915 3,970

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-61
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-16

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

77 77 Buchanan, MI 6,539 6,579 6,658 6,740 6,826 6,918 7,014 7,118 7,214 7,316

78 78 Bridgman, MI 3,376 3,396 3,437 3,480 3,524 3,571 3,621 3,675 3,724 3,777

79 79 Niles, MI 1,216 1,223 1,238 1,253 1,269 1,286 1,304 1,324 1,341 1,360

80 80 Niles, MI 13,566 13,649 13,812 13,982 14,161 14,351 14,552 14,767 14,966 15,177

81 81 Niles, MI 1,182 1,204 1,245 1,288 1,334 1,384 1,438 1,473 1,518 1,566

82 82 Niles, MI 4,463 4,545 4,699 4,862 5,035 5,223 5,427 5,561 5,730 5,910

83 83 Elkhart, IN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

84 84 Albion, MI 1,751 1,763 1,782 1,801 1,819 1,836 1,853 1,875 1,894 1,913

85 85 Pleasant Lake, MI 1,509 1,520 1,537 1,553 1,568 1,583 1,598 1,616 1,633 1,649

86 86 Grass Lake, MI 1,894 1,907 1,928 1,948 1,968 1,987 2,005 2,028 2,048 2,070

87 87 Jackson, MI 44,034 44,351 44,833 45,302 45,759 46,196 46,613 47,157 47,634 48,123

88 88 Jackson, MI 7,519 7,573 7,655 7,735 7,813 7,888 7,959 8,052 8,133 8,217

89 89 Jackson, MI 7,921 7,978 8,065 8,149 8,231 8,310 8,385 8,483 8,568 8,656

90 90 Jackson, MI 2,372 2,389 2,415 2,441 2,465 2,489 2,511 2,541 2,566 2,593

91 91 Brooklyn, MI 3,079 3,101 3,135 3,168 3,200 3,230 3,260 3,298 3,331 3,365

92 92 Covert, MI 9,451 9,509 9,606 9,704 9,804 9,904 10,006 10,108 10,212 10,317

93 93 Paw Paw, MI 2,537 2,557 2,590 2,624 2,659 2,693 2,729 2,765 2,801 2,838

94 94 Paw Paw, MI 3,247 3,275 3,322 3,370 3,418 3,467 3,516 3,566 3,617 3,669

95 95 Paw Paw, MI 12,292 12,650 13,270 13,920 14,602 15,318 16,069 16,856 17,682 18,548

96 96 Jones, MI 9,387 9,471 9,613 9,756 9,902 10,051 10,201 10,354 10,509 10,666

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-62
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-17

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

97 97 Battle Creek, MI 30,526 30,856 31,413 31,980 32,176 32,378 32,993 33,413 33,833 34,332

98 98 Battle Creek, MI 1,763 1,882 2,098 2,339 2,372 2,409 2,658 2,808 2,958 3,167

99 99 Battle Creek, MI 3,473 3,651 3,970 4,316 4,370 4,431 4,795 5,017 5,239 5,539

100 100 Battle Creek, MI 17,735 18,111 18,757 19,425 19,954 20,578 21,216 21,835 22,453 23,115

101 101 Athens, MI 617 628 646 665 674 683 703 718 732 750

102 102 Marshall, MI 1,537 1,556 1,586 1,618 1,649 1,682 1,715 1,749 1,784 1,819

103 103 Marshall, MI 4,567 4,616 4,699 4,784 4,871 4,959 5,048 5,140 5,233 5,327

104 104 Albion, MI 3,338 3,339 3,339 3,340 3,340 3,341 3,341 3,342 3,342 3,343

105 105 Albion, MI 2,887 2,935 3,016 3,099 3,184 3,272 3,362 3,454 3,549 3,647

106 106 East Lansing, MI 169,271 173,553 180,593 187,640 194,690 201,734 208,772 215,475 222,392 229,738

107 107 Mason, MI 21,544 22,089 22,985 23,882 24,779 25,675 26,571 27,424 28,305 29,240

108 108 Williamston, MI 7,141 7,322 7,619 7,916 8,214 8,511 8,808 9,091 9,382 9,692

109 258

Bruce Crossing, 

MI 32,711 32,972 34,714 36,529 38,430 40,412 42,486 43,788 45,518 47,360

110 259 Ishpeming, MI 39,494 40,243 42,235 44,260 46,312 48,393 50,506 52,263 54,223 56,319

111 260 Bark River, MI 10,765 10,745 10,970 11,200 11,440 11,692 11,956 12,097 12,307 12,520

112 261 Munising, MI 5,345 5,387 5,618 5,848 6,077 6,300 6,525 6,711 6,923 7,143

113 262 Rapid River, MI 15,661 16,093 16,917 17,757 18,616 19,489 20,381 21,161 22,001 22,908

114 263 Newberry, MI 19,180 19,408 20,404 21,418 22,447 23,489 24,551 25,359 26,315 27,331

115 362 Ludington, MI 23,606 24,129 25,265 26,424 27,610 28,818 30,075 31,106 32,254 33,489

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-63
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-18

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

116 363 Muskegon, MI 62,371 63,194 64,710 66,390 68,263 70,356 72,705 73,994 75,798 77,703

117 364 Brethren, MI 8,667 8,658 8,924 9,185 9,450 9,711 9,971 10,157 10,390 10,626

118 365 Holland, MI 177,301 187,711 203,853 221,391 240,419 261,032 283,320 298,504 317,116 338,370

119 412 Petoskey, MI 38,312 40,107 44,345 48,965 53,976 59,418 65,304 68,851 73,590 79,028

120 413 Alpena, MI 26,591 26,646 27,439 28,185 28,893 29,579 30,218 30,832 31,486 32,149

121 414 Frederic, MI 32,168 32,782 34,838 36,989 39,245 41,615 44,123 45,786 47,899 50,198

122 415 Lake Ann, MI 52,793 53,672 56,426 59,227 62,079 64,982 67,928 70,278 72,971 75,846

123 416 Cadillac, MI 28,902 29,615 31,216 32,876 34,595 36,373 38,226 39,657 41,310 43,100

124 417 Bitely, MI 23,253 24,026 25,688 27,494 29,454 31,600 33,924 35,338 37,211 39,295

125 418 Big Rapids, MI 17,201 17,473 18,396 19,353 20,340 21,364 22,425 23,187 24,114 25,107

126 419 Clare, MI 42,750 43,304 45,132 46,959 48,789 50,642 52,519 54,066 55,807 57,643

127 420 West Branch, MI 37,496 38,112 39,777 41,476 43,221 45,037 46,924 48,348 50,019 51,799

128 421 Grand Rapids, MI 291,909 305,453 324,525 344,167 364,354 385,073 406,297 425,914 446,211 468,677

129 422 Ionia, MI 51,941 53,409 55,936 58,760 61,934 65,510 69,550 71,711 74,778 78,151

130 423 Sanford, MI 37,614 38,699 39,961 41,320 42,772 44,325 45,985 47,324 48,799 50,388

131 424 Midland, MI 48,135 48,667 49,535 50,460 51,453 52,506 53,633 54,454 55,424 56,432

132 432 Ithaca, MI 17,188 17,336 17,601 17,868 18,130 18,396 18,659 18,919 19,182 19,451

133 433 St Johns, MI 30,417 31,921 34,662 37,774 41,336 45,430 50,165 52,217 55,581 59,446

134 434 Saginaw, MI 81,429 83,503 86,569 90,089 94,166 98,914 104,474 107,058 111,044 115,410

135 450 Bad Axe, MI 13,576 13,720 13,994 14,283 14,594 14,942 15,334 15,565 15,872 16,195

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-64
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-19

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

136 451 Caro, MI 22,842 22,659 22,811 22,974 23,151 23,347 23,566 23,571 23,696 23,814

137 452 Sandusky, MI 17,217 17,323 17,632 17,943 18,257 18,572 18,893 19,161 19,460 19,765

138 453 Flint, MI 165,074 165,873 170,108 174,991 180,494 186,595 193,285 196,278 201,208 206,330

139 454 Owosso, MI 30,390 30,412 30,739 31,077 31,441 31,826 32,237 32,460 32,786 33,112

140 455 Lapeer, MI 37,761 38,497 40,025 41,527 43,000 44,446 45,871 47,327 48,779 50,316

141 456 Charlotte, MI 42,534 44,110 46,737 49,425 52,172 54,965 57,804 60,319 63,006 65,940

142 457 Hastings, MI 27,250 28,038 29,233 30,449 31,675 32,904 34,139 35,365 36,593 37,913

143 458 3 Rivers MI, 25,155 25,968 26,692 27,397 28,083 28,756 29,427 30,331 31,094 31,915

144 459 Coldwater, MI 18,124 18,443 19,326 20,216 21,121 22,039 22,968 23,739 24,602 25,521

145 460 Hudson, MI 63,495 63,894 65,045 66,264 67,557 68,942 70,417 71,360 72,580 73,835

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-65
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-20

1.3 MICHIGAN PER CAPITA INCOME DATA AND FORECASTS (2012 US$)

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

1 1 Fowlerville, MI 26,445 27,132 28,447 30,011 31,824 33,875 35,835 37,805 39,882 42,112

2 2 Fenton, MI 33,371 34,239 35,898 37,871 40,159 42,748 45,221 47,707 50,328 53,143

3 3 Howell, MI 30,639 31,435 32,959 34,771 36,871 39,248 41,519 43,801 46,208 48,792

4 4 Howell, MI 23,541 24,152 25,323 26,715 28,329 30,155 31,900 33,653 35,502 37,488

5 5 Howell, MI 32,641 33,490 35,113 37,043 39,281 41,813 44,232 46,663 49,227 51,980

6 6 Pinckney, MI 26,571 27,262 28,583 30,154 31,976 34,037 36,007 37,986 40,073 42,314

7 7 Brighton, MI 36,241 37,183 38,985 41,128 43,613 46,424 49,110 51,809 54,656 57,713

8 8 Pinckney, MI 33,691 34,567 36,242 38,235 40,545 43,158 45,655 48,164 50,811 53,653

9 9 Brighton, MI 36,221 37,163 38,964 41,106 43,589 46,399 49,084 51,781 54,627 57,681

10 10 Whitmore Lake, MI 33,095 33,955 35,601 37,558 39,827 42,394 44,847 47,312 49,912 52,703

11 11 Brighton, MI 35,240 36,156 37,909 39,993 42,409 45,143 47,754 50,379 53,147 56,119

12 12 Chelsea, MI 39,512 41,285 44,502 48,510 53,224 58,610 64,241 70,002 76,280 83,283

13 13 Dexter, MI 42,575 44,485 47,951 52,271 57,350 63,154 69,221 75,429 82,193 89,739

14 14 Ann Arbor, MI 32,222 33,667 36,290 39,559 43,404 47,796 52,388 57,086 62,205 67,916

15 15 Northville TWP, MI 33,246 34,738 37,444 40,817 44,784 49,315 54,054 58,901 64,183 70,075

16 16 Milan, MI 33,630 35,138 37,876 41,288 45,300 49,884 54,677 59,581 64,924 70,884

17 17 Dundee, MI 24,289 25,127 26,430 28,014 29,874 32,001 34,244 36,398 38,688 41,214

18 18 Monroe, MI 25,674 26,560 27,937 29,612 31,577 33,826 36,197 38,474 40,894 43,565

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-66
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-21

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

19 19 Milan, MI 27,000 27,932 29,379 31,141 33,208 35,573 38,065 40,460 43,006 45,814

20 20 Lambertville, MI 27,350 28,294 29,761 31,545 33,639 36,034 38,559 40,985 43,564 46,409

21 21 Lambertville, MI 30,149 31,190 32,806 34,773 37,081 39,722 42,506 45,180 48,022 51,158

22 22 Monroe, MI 25,415 26,292 27,655 29,313 31,259 33,485 35,831 38,085 40,482 43,125

23 23 Holly, MI 27,999 29,277 31,960 35,262 39,162 43,670 48,801 53,801 59,315 65,688

24 24 White Lake, MI 33,340 34,862 38,056 41,989 46,632 52,001 58,110 64,065 70,630 78,219

25 25 Clarkston, MI 36,039 37,684 41,137 45,388 50,407 56,211 62,814 69,251 76,348 84,552

26 26 Lake Orion, MI 37,558 39,273 42,871 47,301 52,533 58,581 65,462 72,171 79,567 88,116

27 27 Rochester, MI 46,192 48,301 52,727 58,175 64,609 72,047 80,511 88,762 97,858 108,373

28 28 Rochester, MI 41,028 42,901 46,832 51,671 57,386 63,993 71,510 78,838 86,917 96,257

29 29 Pontiac, MI 18,232 19,065 20,812 22,962 25,502 28,438 31,778 35,035 38,625 42,775

30 30 Waterford, MI 35,439 37,057 40,452 44,632 49,568 55,275 61,769 68,099 75,077 83,144

31 31 Pontiac, MI 59,284 61,991 67,671 74,663 82,920 92,467 103,330 113,918 125,592 139,088

32 32 Troy, MI 40,380 42,223 46,092 50,855 56,479 62,981 70,380 77,592 85,544 94,736

33 33 Northville TWP, MI 53,055 56,066 60,919 66,773 73,620 81,499 91,331 100,600 110,809 122,759

34 34 Livonia, MI 33,076 34,953 37,979 41,628 45,897 50,809 56,939 62,717 69,082 76,531

35 35 Canton, MI 35,016 37,003 40,206 44,069 48,589 53,788 60,278 66,395 73,133 81,019

36 36 Belleville, MI 28,686 30,314 32,938 36,103 39,805 44,065 49,381 54,393 59,913 66,373

37 37 Belleville, MI 35,841 37,875 41,153 45,107 49,733 55,055 61,698 67,959 74,856 82,928

38 38 Belleville, MI 32,886 34,752 37,760 41,388 45,633 50,516 56,611 62,356 68,684 76,091

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-67
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-22

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

39 39 Belleville, MI 24,591 25,987 28,236 30,949 34,123 37,775 42,332 46,628 51,360 56,899

40 40 Westland, MI 25,352 26,790 29,109 31,906 35,179 38,943 43,642 48,070 52,949 58,659

41 41 Garden City, MI 23,242 24,561 26,687 29,251 32,251 35,702 40,010 44,070 48,543 53,777

42 42 Romulus, MI 21,115 22,313 24,244 26,574 29,299 32,435 36,348 40,037 44,100 48,855

43 43 Romulus, MI 28,251 29,854 32,438 35,555 39,201 43,396 48,632 53,567 59,003 65,366

44 44 Carleton, MI 26,678 28,192 30,632 33,575 37,019 40,980 45,925 50,585 55,719 61,727

45 45 Flat Rock, MI 27,496 29,056 31,571 34,605 38,154 42,236 47,332 52,136 57,427 63,619

46 46 Trenton, MI 32,633 34,484 37,469 41,069 45,281 50,127 56,175 61,876 68,155 75,505

47 47 Capac, MI 21,832 22,659 24,124 25,880 27,927 30,266 32,788 35,232 37,859 40,792

48 48 St Clair, MI 24,041 24,951 26,565 28,498 30,752 33,328 36,105 38,797 41,689 44,919

49 49 Port Huron, MI 27,898 28,955 30,827 33,071 35,686 38,676 41,898 45,022 48,379 52,126

50 50 Romeo, MI 29,018 30,229 32,306 34,849 37,851 41,316 45,265 48,969 52,975 57,551

51 51 Romeo, MI 28,626 29,821 31,869 34,379 37,340 40,758 44,654 48,307 52,260 56,774

52 52 Macomb, MI 29,533 30,766 32,879 35,468 38,523 42,050 46,069 49,838 53,916 58,573

53 53 Roseville, MI 24,159 25,167 26,896 29,014 31,513 34,398 37,685 40,769 44,104 47,914

54 54 South Lyon, MI 32,625 34,115 37,241 41,089 45,633 50,887 56,864 62,692 69,116 76,543

55 55 Farmington, MI 37,585 39,301 42,902 47,335 52,571 58,623 65,510 72,223 79,624 88,180

56 56 Southfield, MI 44,532 46,565 50,832 56,084 62,287 69,458 77,617 85,571 94,340 104,477

57 57 Clawson, MI 35,018 36,617 39,972 44,103 48,980 54,619 61,036 67,291 74,186 82,158

58 58 Detroit, MI 17,291 18,272 19,854 21,761 23,993 26,561 29,765 32,786 36,113 40,008

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-68
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-23

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

59 59 Hamtramck, MI 14,587 15,414 16,748 18,358 20,240 22,406 25,110 27,658 30,465 33,750

60 60 Detroit, MI 24,701 26,103 28,362 31,088 34,276 37,944 42,522 46,837 51,590 57,154

61 61 Dearborn, MI 15,161 16,021 17,408 19,080 21,037 23,288 26,098 28,747 31,664 35,078

62 62 Dearborn, MI 29,632 31,313 34,024 37,293 41,118 45,518 51,009 56,186 61,888 68,562

63 63 Detroit, MI 14,350 15,164 16,477 18,060 19,912 22,043 24,702 27,209 29,970 33,202

64 64 Southgate, MI 23,797 25,147 27,324 29,950 33,021 36,555 40,965 45,122 49,702 55,061

65 65 Kalamazoo, MI 24,097 24,932 26,298 28,019 30,042 32,347 34,788 37,124 39,617 42,386

66 66 Richland, MI 36,617 37,887 39,963 42,577 45,652 49,155 52,864 56,413 60,201 64,410

67 67 Kalamazoo, MI 28,042 29,014 30,604 32,606 34,961 37,643 40,484 43,202 46,103 49,326

68 68 Kalamazoo, MI 31,774 32,875 34,677 36,945 39,613 42,652 45,871 48,951 52,238 55,890

69 69 Vicksburg, MI 31,135 32,214 33,979 36,202 38,817 41,795 44,949 47,967 51,187 54,766

70 70 Vicksburg, MI 26,745 27,672 29,189 31,098 33,344 35,902 38,612 41,204 43,971 47,045

71 71 Galesburg, MI 26,977 27,912 29,441 31,367 33,633 36,213 38,945 41,560 44,351 47,451

72 72 Union Pier, MI 33,633 35,130 37,086 39,488 42,291 45,478 49,110 52,563 56,257 60,391

73 73 Buchanan, MI 24,426 25,513 26,934 28,678 30,714 33,029 35,667 38,174 40,857 43,859

74 74 Watervliet, MI 21,657 22,621 23,881 25,427 27,233 29,285 31,624 33,847 36,226 38,888

75 75 Benton Harbor, MI 29,329 30,634 32,340 34,435 36,879 39,658 42,826 45,836 49,058 52,663

76 76 Benton Harbor, MI 18,927 19,770 20,871 22,223 23,800 25,594 27,638 29,581 31,660 33,986

77 77 Buchanan, MI 21,875 22,848 24,121 25,683 27,506 29,579 31,941 34,186 36,589 39,278

78 78 Bridgman, MI 30,729 32,097 33,885 36,079 38,640 41,552 44,871 48,025 51,401 55,178

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-69
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-24

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

79 79 Niles, MI 20,858 21,786 23,000 24,489 26,227 28,204 30,457 32,597 34,889 37,452

80 80 Niles, MI 20,269 21,114 22,271 23,682 25,325 27,190 29,287 31,281 33,411 35,787

81 81 Niles, MI 25,566 26,631 28,091 29,870 31,943 34,295 36,941 39,456 42,143 45,139

82 82 Niles, MI 27,443 28,191 29,699 31,463 33,495 35,793 38,194 40,478 42,898 45,568

83 83 Elkhart, IN 20,670 21,233 22,369 23,697 25,228 26,958 28,767 30,487 32,310 34,321

84 84 Albion, MI 23,876 24,850 26,024 27,499 29,239 31,229 33,480 35,578 37,808 40,296

85 85 Pleasant Lake, MI 24,816 25,830 27,050 28,583 30,391 32,459 34,799 36,980 39,298 41,884

86 86 Grass Lake, MI 31,850 33,151 34,717 36,684 39,005 41,659 44,662 47,461 50,436 53,755

87 87 Jackson, MI 18,202 18,945 19,840 20,964 22,290 23,807 25,523 27,123 28,823 30,720

88 88 Jackson, MI 23,473 24,431 25,586 27,036 28,746 30,702 32,915 34,978 37,170 39,616

89 89 Jackson, MI 29,296 30,492 31,933 33,743 35,878 38,319 41,081 43,656 46,392 49,445

90 90 Jackson, MI 26,054 27,118 28,399 30,009 31,907 34,079 36,535 38,825 41,258 43,973

91 91 Brooklyn, MI 26,837 27,933 29,253 30,911 32,866 35,103 37,633 39,992 42,498 45,295

92 92 Covert, MI 22,159 22,794 24,255 25,999 28,010 30,281 32,681 34,977 37,435 40,177

93 93 Paw Paw, MI 23,969 24,656 26,237 28,123 30,298 32,754 35,351 37,834 40,492 43,459

94 94 Paw Paw, MI 19,603 20,165 21,458 23,001 24,779 26,788 28,912 30,943 33,117 35,543

95 95 Paw Paw, MI 23,681 24,360 25,922 27,785 29,934 32,361 34,926 37,380 40,006 42,937

96 96 Jones, MI 23,556 24,198 25,492 27,006 28,750 30,722 32,783 34,744 36,821 39,113

97 97 Battle Creek, MI 18,134 18,998 20,186 21,630 23,302 25,186 27,312 29,392 31,632 34,128

98 98 Battle Creek, MI 23,135 24,237 25,753 27,595 29,727 32,131 34,843 37,497 40,354 43,539

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-70
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-25

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

99 99 Battle Creek, MI 27,058 28,347 30,120 32,274 34,768 37,580 40,751 43,856 47,197 50,922

100 100 Battle Creek, MI 28,632 29,997 31,873 34,153 36,791 39,767 43,123 46,408 49,944 53,885

101 101 Athens, MI 27,363 28,667 30,459 32,638 35,160 38,004 41,211 44,350 47,729 51,496

102 102 Marshall, MI 23,659 24,786 26,336 28,220 30,401 32,859 35,632 38,347 41,269 44,525

103 103 Marshall, MI 30,568 32,025 34,028 36,462 39,279 42,456 46,038 49,546 53,321 57,529

104 104 Albion, MI 19,945 20,895 22,202 23,790 25,628 27,701 30,039 32,327 34,790 37,536

105 105 Albion, MI 17,322 18,148 19,283 20,662 22,258 24,059 26,089 28,077 30,216 32,600

106 106 East Lansing, MI 23,236 24,582 26,177 28,107 30,306 32,737 35,473 38,304 41,360 44,712

107 107 Mason, MI 31,500 33,324 35,487 38,103 41,084 44,379 48,090 51,927 56,070 60,615

108 108 Williamston, MI 31,231 33,039 35,184 37,778 40,733 44,000 47,679 51,483 55,590 60,097

109 258 Bruce Crossing, MI 20,218 20,709 22,478 24,606 27,069 29,875 33,081 36,006 39,190 42,901

110 259 Ishpeming, MI 23,868 24,730 26,517 28,645 31,069 33,765 36,769 39,671 42,801 46,322

111 260 Bark River, MI 22,560 23,562 25,263 27,294 29,627 32,265 35,240 38,143 41,286 44,822

112 261 Munising, MI 20,619 21,455 23,248 25,369 27,800 30,532 33,570 36,572 39,842 43,538

113 262 Rapid River, MI 23,014 24,218 26,170 28,477 31,113 34,064 37,336 40,701 44,370 48,457

114 263 Newberry, MI 20,816 21,163 22,774 24,697 26,889 29,350 32,109 34,578 37,237 40,311

115 362 Ludington, MI 21,558 22,415 24,052 25,983 28,187 30,658 33,306 35,966 38,838 42,024

116 363 Muskegon, MI 20,155 20,970 22,109 23,506 25,140 27,001 29,079 31,047 33,148 35,494

117 364 Brethren, MI 22,739 23,308 24,985 27,044 29,419 32,119 35,188 37,948 40,925 44,368

118 365 Holland, MI 25,168 26,065 27,889 30,149 32,822 35,912 39,029 42,153 45,528 49,274

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-71
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-26

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

119 412 Petoskey, MI 27,601 28,291 30,218 32,675 35,600 38,974 42,394 45,662 49,182 53,148

120 413 Alpena, MI 21,670 22,215 23,714 25,549 27,684 30,118 32,767 35,202 37,818 40,799

121 414 Frederic, MI 23,060 23,657 25,275 27,274 29,628 32,329 35,209 37,890 40,775 44,055

122 415 Lake Ann, MI 27,078 27,920 29,812 32,131 34,808 37,810 41,064 44,165 47,501 51,254

123 416 Cadillac, MI 20,306 21,154 22,779 24,707 26,920 29,410 32,102 34,805 37,737 41,007

124 417 Bitely, MI 20,900 21,434 22,876 24,660 26,762 29,186 31,653 34,016 36,554 39,403

125 418 Big Rapids, MI 19,939 20,426 21,692 23,199 24,916 26,829 28,848 30,762 32,803 35,077

126 419 Clare, MI 19,223 19,991 21,426 23,102 24,989 27,071 29,408 31,705 34,181 36,944

127 420 West Branch, MI 21,114 21,811 23,502 25,533 27,882 30,554 33,496 36,304 39,348 42,810

128 421 Grand Rapids, MI 26,438 27,684 29,598 31,992 34,834 38,121 41,570 45,057 48,836 53,040

129 422 Ionia, MI 20,121 20,945 22,153 23,639 25,392 27,418 29,639 31,757 34,027 36,566

130 423 Sanford, MI 30,399 31,450 33,401 35,862 38,784 42,148 45,990 49,462 53,196 57,488

131 424 Midland, MI 24,431 25,336 26,984 29,046 31,488 34,303 37,567 40,524 43,713 47,393

132 432 Ithaca, MI 19,302 20,156 21,466 23,023 24,797 26,787 29,031 31,225 33,584 36,213

133 433 St Johns, MI 28,197 28,817 30,749 33,080 35,858 39,125 42,591 45,733 49,106 52,969

134 434 Saginaw, MI 23,110 24,056 25,564 27,436 29,632 32,132 35,081 37,776 40,678 44,005

135 450 Bad Axe, MI 22,164 22,805 24,364 26,254 28,443 30,927 33,749 36,314 39,074 42,241

136 451 Caro, MI 21,086 21,590 22,905 24,488 26,329 28,430 30,782 32,871 35,103 37,659

137 452 Sandusky, MI 20,691 21,236 22,588 24,203 26,076 28,211 30,561 32,708 35,006 37,616

138 453 Flint, MI 23,405 24,229 25,888 27,950 30,387 33,193 36,428 39,367 42,542 46,211

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-72
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-27

Zone 

Index

Compass 

Model ID Zone Description 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

139 454 Owosso, MI 23,522 24,450 25,962 27,772 29,879 32,283 34,978 37,530 40,269 43,348

140 455 Lapeer, MI 25,161 26,045 27,527 29,227 31,150 33,288 35,466 37,698 40,071 42,627

141 456 Charlotte, MI 27,209 28,223 30,036 32,166 34,597 37,316 40,071 42,915 45,962 49,268

142 457 Hastings, MI 25,734 26,451 28,174 30,337 32,907 35,880 39,044 41,981 45,139 48,729

143 458 3 Rivers MI, 21,418 22,275 23,797 25,600 27,658 29,958 32,450 34,928 37,596 40,552

144 459 Coldwater, MI 20,173 20,935 22,265 23,866 25,716 27,784 30,061 32,260 34,620 37,254

145 460 Hudson, MI 22,543 23,387 24,637 26,146 27,896 29,879 32,104 34,192 36,415 38,897

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-73
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-28

The COMPASSTM Model System is a flexible multimodal demand-forecasting tool that provides 

comparative evaluations of alternative socioeconomic and network scenarios. It also allows input 

variables to be modified to test the sensitivity of demand to various parameters such as elasticities, 

values of time, and values of frequency. This section describes in detail the model methodology and 

process used in the study. 

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPASSTM MODEL SYSTEM 

The COMPASSTM model is structured on two principal models: Total Demand Model and Hierarchical 

Modal Split Model. For this study, these two models were calibrated separately for two trip purposes, 

which are Business and Non-Business. For each market segment, the models were calibrated on base 

year origin-destination trip data, existing network characteristics and base year socioeconomic data. 

Since the models were calibrated on the base year data, when applying the models for forecasting, an 

incremental approach known as the “pivot point” method is used. By applying model growth rates to 

the base data observations, the “pivot point” method is able to preserve the unique travel flows 

present in the base data that are not captured by the model variables. Details on how this method is 

implemented are described below. 

2.2 TOTAL DEMAND MODEL 

The Total Demand Model, shown in Equation 1, provides a mechanism for assessing overall growth in 

the travel market. 

T

ijp = 

e

0p(SEijp

)

1pe2p Uijp 

 Where, 

T

ijp

 = Number of trips between zones i and j for trip purpose p

SE

ijp

 = Socioeconomic variables for zones i and j for trip purpose p

U

ijp 

= Total utility of the transportation system for zones i to j for trip purpose p

 2 ,1 ,0 ppp

 = Coefficients for trip purpose p 

Equation 1, the total number of trips between any two zones for all modes of travel, segmented by 

trip purpose, is a function of the socioeconomic characteristics of the zones and the total utility of 

the transportation system that exists between the two zones. For this study, trip purposes include 

Business and Non-Business. The socioeconomic characteristics consist of population, employment 

and average income. The utility function provides a measure of the quality of the transportation 

system in terms of the times, costs, reliability and level of service provided by all modes for a given 

trip purpose. The Total Demand Model equation may be interpreted as meaning that travel between 

zones will increase as socioeconomic factors such as population and income rise or as the utility (or 

quality) of the transportation system is improved by providing new facilities and services that reduce 

travel times and/or costs. The Total Demand Model can therefore be used to evaluate the effect of 

changes in both socioeconomic and travel characteristics on the total demand for travel. 

2.2.1 SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES 

The socioeconomic variables in the Total Demand Model show the impact of economic growth on 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-74
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-29

travel demand. The COMPASSTM Model System, in line with most intercity modeling systems, uses 

three variables (population, employment, and average income) to represent the socioeconomic 

characteristics of a zone. Different combinations were tested in the calibration process and it was 

found, as is typically found elsewhere, that the most reasonable and statistically stable relationships 

consists of the following formulations: 

 Business EiE

j

( I

i

+ I

j

) / 2 

 Non-Business (PiE

j

+P

j

Ei) / 2 (I

i

+I

j

) / 2

The Business formulation consists of a product of employment in the origin zone, employment in the 

destination zone, and the average income of the two zones. Since business trips are usually made 

between places of work, the presence of employment in the formulation is reasonable. While the 

income factor is correlated to the type of employment, higher income levels generate more Business 

trips. The Non-Business formulation consists of all socioeconomic factors, this is because commuter 

trips are between homes and places of work, which are closely related to population and employment, 

and income factor is related to the wealth of the origin zone and the type of employment in the 

destination zone, leisure and social trip are correlated to population in the origin zone and 

destination zone and the average income of the two zones. 

2.2.2 TRAVEL UTILITY 

Estimates of travel utility for a transportation network are generated as a function of generalized cost 

(GC), as shown in Equation 2:

U

ijp

 = f(GCijp) 

 where, 

GC

ijp

 = Generalized Cost of travel between zones i and j for trip purpose p

Because the generalized cost variable is used to estimate the impact of improvements in the 

transportation system on the overall level of trip making, it needs to incorporate all the key attributes 

that affect an individual’s decision to make trips. For the public modes (i.e., rail and bus), the 

generalized cost of travel includes all aspects of travel time (access, egress, in-vehicle times), travel 

cost (fares), and schedule convenience (frequency of service, convenience of arrival/departure times). 

For auto travel, full average cost of operating a car is used for Business, while only the marginal cost 

is used for Commuter and Other trips. In addition, tolls and parking charges are used where 

appropriate. 

The generalized cost of travel is typically defined in travel time (i.e., minutes) rather than dollars. 

Costs are converted to time by applying appropriate conversion factors, as shown in Equation 3. The 

generalized cost (GC) of travel between zones i and j for mode m and trip purpose p is calculated as 

follows: 

VOT F

VOF OH

+

VOT

TC

GC =TT

mp ijm

mp

mp

ijmp

ijmp ijm *

*



Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-75
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-30

 Where, 

TT

ijm

 = Travel Time between zones i and j for mode m (in-vehicle time + station 

wait time + connection time + access/egress time), with waiting, connect 

and access/egress time multiplied by a factor (waiting and connect time 

factors is 1.8, access/egress factors were determined by VOA/VOT ratios 

from the SP survey) to account for the additional disutility felt by travelers 

for these activities. 

TC

ijmp

 = Travel Cost between zones i and j for mode m and trip purpose p (fare + 

access/egress cost for public modes, operating costs for auto) 

VOTmp = Value of Time for mode m and trip purpose p

VOFmp = Value of Frequency for mode m and trip purpose p

F

ijm

 = Frequency in departures per week between zones i and j for mode m

OH = Operating hours per week (sum of daily operating hours between the first 

and last service of the day) 

Station wait time is the time spent at the station before departure and after arrival. On trips with 

connections, there would be additional wait times incurred at the connecting station. Wait times are 

weighted higher than in-vehicle time in the generalized cost formula to reflect their higher disutility 

as found from previous studies. Wait times are weighted 70 percent higher than in-vehicle time. 

Similarly, access/egress time has a higher disutility than in-vehicle time. Access time tends to be 

more stressful for the traveler than in-vehicle time because of the uncertainty created by trying to 

catch the flight or train. Based on previous work, access time is weighted 80 percent higher for rail 

and bus travel. 

The third term in the generalized cost function converts the frequency attribute into time units. 

Operating hours divided by frequency is a measure of the headway or time between departures. 

Tradeoffs are made in the stated preference surveys resulting in the value of frequencies on this 

measure. Although there may appear to some double counting because the station wait time in the 

first term of the generalized cost function is included in this headway measure, it is not the headway 

time itself that is being added to the generalized cost. The third term represents the impact of 

perceived frequency valuations on generalized cost. TEMS has found it very effective to measure this 

impact as a function of the headway. 

2.2.3 CALIBRATION OF THE TOTAL DEMAND MODEL 

In order to calibrate the Total Demand Model, the coefficients are estimated using linear regression 

techniques. Equation 1, the equation for the Total Demand Model, is transformed by taking the 

natural logarithm of both sides, as shown in Equation 4:

)log( )()log( Tijp   10 pp SEijp  2 p Uijp

Equation 4 provides the linear specification of the model necessary for regression analysis. 

The segmentation of the database by trip purpose resulted in two sets of models. The results of the 

calibration for the Total Demand Models are displayed in Exhibit 1. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-76
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-31

Business log(T

ij

) = -9.575 + 0.530 log(SEij) + 0.624U

ij

 R

2=0.87

 (-194) (21) (613) 

 

 where U

ij

 = log[exp(-2.480+0.979UPublic ) + exp(-0.005 GCAuto)]

Other log(T

ij

) = -9.623 + 0.447 log(SEij) + 0.711U

ij

 R

2=0.92

 (-130) (252) (725) 

 

 where U

ij

 = log[exp(-3.796+0.971UPublic ) + exp(-0.005 GCAuto)]

(1) t-statistics are given in parentheses. 

In evaluating the validity of a statistical calibration, there are two key statistical measures: t-statistics 

and R2. The t-statistics are a measure of the significance of the model’s coefficients; values of 1.95 

and above are considered “good” and imply that the variable has significant explanatory power in 

estimating the level of trips. R2is a statistical measure of the “goodness of fit” of the model to the 

data; any data point that deviates from the model will reduce this measure. It has a range from 0 to a 

perfect 1, with 0.3 and above considered “good” for large data sets. Based on these two measures, 

the total demand calibrations are good. The t-statistics are high, aided by the large size of the data 

set. The R2 values imply good fits of the equations to the data. 

As shown in Exhibit 1, the socioeconomic elasticity values for the Total Demand Model are 0.53 and 

0.36 for business and non-business trips, meaning that each one percent growth in the 

socioeconomic term generates approximately a 0.53 and 0.36 percent growth in the total business 

and non-business travel market respectively. 

The coefficient on the utility term is not strictly elasticity, but it can be considered an approximation. 

The utility term is related to the scale of the generalized costs, for example, utility elasticity can be 

high if the absolute value of transportation utility improvement is significant. This is not untypical 

when new transportation systems are built. In these cases, a 20 percent reduction in utility is not 

unusual and may impact more heavily on longer origin-destination pairs than shorter origindestination pairs. 

2.2.4 INCREMENTAL FORM OF THE TOTAL DEMAND MODEL 

The calibrated Total Demand Models could be used to estimate the total travel market for any zone 

pair using the population, employment, per household income, and the total utility of all the modes. 

However, there would be significant differences between estimated and observed levels of trip 

making for many zone pairs despite the good fit of the models to the data. To preserve the unique 

travel patterns contained in the base data, the incremental approach or “pivot point” method is used 

for forecasting. In the incremental approach, the base travel data assembled in the database are used 

as pivot points, and forecasts are made by applying trends to the base data. The total demand 

equation as described in Equation 1 can be rewritten into the following incremental form that can be 

used for forecasting (Equation 5): 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-77
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-32

Total Demand 

Public Auto 

Air Surface

Rail Bus 

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 1

Where, 

T

f

ijp

 = Number of Trips between zones i and j for trip purpose p in forecast year f

T

f

ijp 

= Number of Trips between zones i and j for trip purpose p in base year b

SEf

ijp

 = Socioeconomic variables for zones i and j for trip purpose p in forecast year f

SEb

ijp 

= Socioeconomic variables for zones i and j for trip purpose p in base year b

U

f

ijp

 = Total utility of the transportation system for zones i to j for trip purpose p in 

forecast year f

U

b

ijp 

= Total utility of the transportation system for zones i to j for trip purpose p in 

base year b

In the incremental form, the constant term disappears and only the elasticities are important. 

2.3 HIERARCHICAL MODAL SPLIT MODEL 

The role of the Hierarchical Modal Split Model is to estimate relative modal shares, given the Total 

Demand Model estimate of the total market that consists of different travel modes available to 

travelers. The relative modal shares are derived by comparing the relative levels of service offered by 

each of the travel modes. The COMPASSTM Hierarchical Modal Split Model uses a nested logit 

structure, which has been adapted to model the interurban modal choices available in the study area. 

The hierarchical modal split model is shown in Exhibit 2.

(exp( )) 2

1

b

ijp

f

b p ijp

ijp

f

ijp

b

ijp

f

ijp U U

SE

SE

T

T

p



















 



Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-78
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-33

The main feature of the Hierarchical Modal Split Model structure is the increasing commonality of 

travel characteristics as the structure descends. The upper level of the hierarchy separates private 

auto travel – with its spontaneous frequency, low access/egress times, low costs and highly 

personalized characteristics – from the public modes. The lower separates Maglev – a faster and more 

comfortable public mode from Transit, which provides slower conventional rail and bus services 

within the corridor. 

2.3.1 BACKGROUND OF THE HIERARCHICAL MODAL SPLIT THEORY 

The modal split models used by TEMS derived from the standard nested logit model. Exhibit 3 shows 

a typical two-level standard nested model. In the nested model shown in Exhibit 3, there are four 

travel modes that are grouped into two composite modes, namely, Composite Mode 1 and Composite 

Mode 2.

Each travel mode in the above model has a utility function of U

j

, j = 1, 2, 3, 4. To assess modal split 

behavior, the logsum utility function, which is derived from travel utility theory, has been adopted for 

the composite modes in the model. As the modal split hierarchy ascends, the logsum utility values 

are derived by combining the utility of lower-level modes. The composite utility is calculated by 

log exp( )

k k k

k

N N N i

i N

U U   



  

 (1) 

where 

 Nk is composite mode k in the modal split model, 

 i is the travel mode in each nest, 

 Ui is the utility of each travel mode in the nest, 

 is the nesting coefficient. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-79
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-34

The probability that composite mode k is chosen by a traveler is given by 

exp( / )

( )

exp( / )

k

i

i

N

k

N

N N

U

P N

U







 

 (2) 

The probability of mode i in composite mode k being chosen is 

exp( ) ( )

exp( ) k

k

i

N

j

j N

U

P i

U











 (3) 

A key feature of these models is a use of utility. Typically in transportation modeling, the utility of 

travel between zones i and j by mode m for purpose p is a function of all the components of travel 

time, travel cost, terminal wait time and cost, parking cost, etc. This is measured by generalized cost 

developed for each origin-destination zone pair on a mode and purpose basis. In the model 

application, the utility for each mode is estimated by calibrating a utility function against the revealed 

base year mode choice and generalized cost. 

Using logsum functions, the generalized cost is then transformed into a composite utility for the 

composite mode (e.g. Public modes in Exhibit 2). This is then used at the next level of the hierarchy 

to compare the next most similar mode choice (e.g. in Exhibit 2, Public mode is compared with Auto 

mode). 

2.3.2 CALIBRATION OF THE HIERARCHICAL MODAL SPLIT MODEL 

Working from the lower level of the hierarchy to the upper level, the first analysis is that of the Rail 

mode versus the Bus mode. As shown in Exhibit 4, the model was effectively calibrated for the two 

trip purposes, with reasonable parameters and R2 and t values. All the coefficients have the correct 

signs such that demand increases or decreases in the correct direction as travel times or costs are 

increased or decreased, and all the coefficients appear to be reasonable in terms of the size of their 

impact. 

Business log(PRail/PBus) = 3.697 - 0.013 GCRail + 0.010 GCBus R2=0.70 

 (84) (-303) (322) 

Other log(PRail/PBus) = 2.326 - 0.006 GCRail + 0.005 GCBus R2=0.75 

 (108) (-309) (377) 

(1) t-statistics are given in parentheses. 

The coefficients for the upper levels of the hierarchy of Surface mode versus Air mode and Public 

versus Auto mode are given in Exhibits 5 and 6 respectively. The utility of the composite modes is 

obtained by deriving the logsum of the utilities of lower level modes from the model. The model 

calibrations for both trip purposes are statistically significant, with good R2 and t values, and 

reasonable coefficients. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-80
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-35

Business log(PSurface/PAir) = -5.972 + 0.979 USurf + 0.009 GCAir R2=0.80 

 (-147) (425) (222) 

 where USurf = log[exp(3.697-0.013GCRail ) + exp(-0.010 GCBus)] 

Other log(PSurface/PAir) = -3.179 + 0.981 USurf + 0.005 GCAir R2=0.79 

 (-85) (137) (63) 

 where USurf = log[exp(2.326-0.006GCRail ) + exp(-0.005 GCBus)] 

(1) t-statistics are given in parentheses. 

Business log(PPublic/PAuto) = -2.480 + 0.979 UPublic + 0.005 GCAuto R2=0.90 

 (-190) (384) (203) 

 where UPublic = log[exp(-5.972+0.979USurface ) + exp(-0.009 GCAir)] 

Other log(PPublic/PAuto) = -3.796 + 0.971 UPublic + 0.006 GCAuto R2=0.88 

 (-210) (266) (326) 

 where UPublic = log[exp(-3.179+0.981USurface ) + exp(-0.005 GCAir)] 

(1) t-statistics are given in parentheses. 

 

2.3.3 INCREMENTAL FORM OF THE MODAL SPLIT MODEL 

Using the same reasoning as previously described, the modal split models are applied 

incrementally to the base data rather than imposing the model estimated modal shares. Different 

regions of the corridor may have certain biases toward one form of travel over another and these 

differences cannot be captured with a single model for the entire system. Using the “pivot point” 

method, many of these differences can be retained. To apply the modal split models 

incrementally, the following reformulation of the hierarchical modal split models is used (Equation 

6): 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-81
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-36 ( () )

)(

)(

b

B

f

B

b

B

f

A GCGC GCGC

b

B

b

A

f

B

f

A

e

P

P

P

P





 

For hierarchical modal split models that involve composite utilities instead of generalized costs, the 

composite utilities would be used in the above formula in place of generalized costs. Once again, the 

constant term is not used and the drivers for modal shifts are changed in generalized cost from base 

conditions. 

Another consequence of the pivot point method is that it prevents possible extreme modal changes 

from current trip-making levels as a result of the calibrated modal split model, thus that avoid overor under- estimating future demand for each mode. 

2.4 INDUCED DEMAND MODEL 

Induced demand refers to changes in travel demand related to improvements in a transportation 

system, as opposed to changes in socioeconomic factors that contribute to growth in demand. The 

quality or utility of the transportation system is measured in terms of total travel time, travel cost, 

and worth of travel by all modes for a given trip purpose. The induced demand model used the 

increased utility resulting from system changes to estimate the amount of new (latent) demand that 

will result from the implementation of the new system adjustments. The model works simultaneously 

with the mode split model coefficients to determine the magnitude of the modal induced demand 

based on the total utility changes in the system. It should be noted that the model will also forecast a 

reduction in trips if the quality of travel falls due to increased congestions, higher car operating costs, 

or increased tolls. The utility function is acting like a demand curve increasing or decreasing travel 

based on changes in price (utility) for travel. It assumes travel is a normal good and subject to the 

laws of supply and demand. 

2.5 REFERENCES 

 

 M.E. Ben-Akiva and S.R. Lerman, Discrete Choice Analysis: 

Theory and Application to Travel Demand, MIT Press, 1985. 

 E. Cascetta, Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on the the 

Theory of Road Traffic Flow (Lyon, France),1996. 

 A. Daly, Estimating “tree” logit models. Transportation Research B, 21(4):251-

268, 1987. 

 A. Daly, J. Fox and J.G.Tuinenga, Pivot-Point Procedures in Practical 

Travel Demand Forecasting, RAND Europe, 2005 

 T.A. Domenich and D. McFadden, Urban Travel Demand: A 

behavioral analysis, North-Holland Publishing Company, 1975. 

 T. Garling, T. Laitila, and K. Westin, Theoretical Foundations of Travel 

Choice Modeling, 1998. 

 D.A. Hensher and L.W. Johnson, Applied discrete choice 

modelling. Croom Helm, London, 1981 

 J.L. Horowitz, F.S. Koppelman, and S.R. Lerman, A self-instructing 

course in disaggregate mode choice modeling, Technology Sharing Program, USDOT, 1986. 

 F.S. Koppelman, Travel Prediction with Models of Individual Choice 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-82
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-37

Behavior, PhD Submittal, Massachusetts Institute, 1975. 

 J.J.Louviere, D.A.Hensher, and J.D.Swait, Stated Choice Methods: 

Analysis and Application, Cambridge, 2000 

 R.D. Luce and P. Suppes, Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, 

1965. 

 K.G. Rogers, G.M. Townsend and A.E. Metcalf, Planning for the work. 

Journey –a generalized explanation of modal choice, Report C67, Reading, 1970. 

 A.G. Wilson, A Statistical Theory of Spatial Distribution models, Transport 

Research, Vol. 1, 1967. 

 D. Quarmby, Choice of Travel Mode for the Journey to Work: Some 

Findings, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1967. 

 T. Yai, S. Iwakura, and S. Morichi, Multinominal probit with structured 

covariance for route choice behavior, Transportation Research B, 31(3):195-208, 1997. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-83
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-38

3.1 Base (Current Travel Market Conditions) Passenger Rail Forecast Results 

Passenger Rail Forecast Results

Year Daily Round 

Trips (DRT)

Average

Speed 

(miles/hour)

Run Time 

(hr:mm) (ChicagoPontiac)

Annual 

Ridership 

(million trips)

Annual 

Revenue 

(million 2013$) 

Annual 

Passenger Miles 

(million miles)

Annual Train 

Miles (million 

miles)

2025 3 46 6:40 0.58 $23.99 120.68 0.67

2035 3 46 6:40 0.66 $40.01 141.21 0.67

Annual Passenger Rail Incremental Ridership 

Year Daily Round Trips (DRT) Average Speed 

(miles/hour) Run Time (hr:mm) (Chicago-Pontiac) Natural Growth (million trips)

2025 3 46 6:40 0.08

2035 3 46 6:40 0.16

Annual Passenger Rail Station Volumes 

Station 2025 Annual Station Volume 

(thousand ONs and OFFs)

2035 Annual Station Volume 

(thousand ONs and OFFs)

Chicago Union Station, IL 483 561

Northwest Indiana, IN 8 10

Michigan City, IN 3 4

New Buffalo, MI 15 16

Niles, MI 13 14

Dowagiac, MI 5 5

Kalamazoo, MI 77 83

Battle Creek, MI 47 55

Albion, MI 2 2

Jackson, MI 31 33

Ann Arbor, MI 178 209

Dearborn, MI 120 139

Detroit, MI 72 82

Royal Oak, MI 53 63

Birmingham, MI 31 36

Pontiac, MI 16 17

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-84
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-39

Annual Passenger Rail Segment Loadings 

Station Link 2025 Annual Segment 

Loading (million trips)

2035 Annual Segment 

Loading (million trips)

Chicago Union Station, IL-HammondWhiting, IN

0.48 0.56

Northwest Indiana, IN-Michigan City, IN 0.55 0.65

Michigan City, IN-New Buffalo, MI 0.55 0.65

New Buffalo, MI-Niles, MI 0.54 0.63

Niles, MI-Dowagiac, MI 0.53 0.63

Dowagiac, MI-Kalamazoo, MI 0.53 0.62

Kalamazoo, MI-Battle Creek, MI 0.46 0.54

Battle Creek, MI-Albion, MI 0.42 0.49

Albion, MI-Jackson, MI 0.42 0.49

Jackson, MI-Ann Arbor, MI 0.40 0.47

Ann Arbor, MI-Dearborn, MI 0.26 0.30

Dearborn, MI-Detroit, MI 0.14 0.16

Detroit, MI-Royal Oak, MI 0.10 0.12

Royal Oak, MI-Birmingham, MI 0.04 0.05

Birmingham, MI-Pontiac, MI 0.02 0.02

Passenger Rail Segment Loading Factors 

Station Link 2025 Segment Loading 

Factor

2035 Segment Loading 

Factor

Chicago Union Station, IL-HammondWhiting, IN

48% 56%

Northwest Indiana, IN-Michigan City, IN 55% 64%

Michigan City, IN-New Buffalo, MI 55% 64%

New Buffalo, MI-Niles, MI 53% 62%

Niles, MI-Dowagiac, MI 53% 62%

Dowagiac, MI-Kalamazoo, MI 52% 61%

Kalamazoo, MI-Battle Creek, MI 46% 54%

Battle Creek, MI-Albion, MI 42% 49%

Albion, MI-Jackson, MI 42% 49%

Jackson, MI-Ann Arbor, MI 40% 46%

Ann Arbor, MI-Dearborn, MI 26% 30%

Dearborn, MI-Detroit, MI 14% 16%

Detroit, MI-Royal Oak, MI 10% 11%

Royal Oak, MI-Birmingham, MI 4% 5%

Birmingham, MI-Pontiac, MI 1% 2%

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-85
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-40

3.2 Scenario 1 (3 DRTs and Improved Travel Time) Passenger Rail Forecast Results 

Passenger Rail Forecast Results 

Year

Daily Round 

Trips (DRT)

Average

Speed 

(miles/hour)

Run Time 

(hr:mm) (ChicagoPontiac)

Annual 

Ridership 

(million trips)

Annual 

Revenue 

(million 2013$) 

Annual 

Passenger Miles 

(million miles)

Annual Train 

Miles (million 

miles)

2025 3 55 5:40 0.90 $54.61 193.64 0.67

2035 3 55 5:40 1.05 $63.88 225.77 0.67

Annual Passenger Rail Incremental Ridership 

Year

Daily 

Round 

Trips 

(DRT)

Average

Speed 

(miles/hour)

Run Time 

(hr:mm) 

(ChicagoPontiac)

Diverted 

from Auto 

(million 

trips)

Diverted 

from Air 

(million 

trips)

Diverted 

from Bus 

(million 

trips)

Natural 

Growth 

(million 

trips)

New 

Induced 

(million 

trips)

Total 

Increment 

(million 

trips)

2025 3 55 5:40 0.26 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.41

2035 3 55 5:40 0.31 0.03 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.55

Annual Passenger Rail Station Volumes 

Station 2025 Annual Station Volume 

(thousand ONs and OFFs)

2035 Annual Station Volume 

(thousand ONs and OFFs)

Chicago Union Station, IL 747 875

Northwest Indiana, IN 12 14

Michigan City, IN 5 6

New Buffalo, MI 34 38

Niles, MI 19 22

Dowagiac, MI 7 9

Kalamazoo, MI 92 107

Battle Creek, MI 72 84

Albion, MI 3 3

Jackson, MI 36 41

Ann Arbor, MI 365 425

Dearborn, MI 189 218

Detroit, MI 99 113

Royal Oak, MI 73 85

Birmingham, MI 40 46

Pontiac, MI 19 23

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-86
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-41

Annual Passenger Rail Segment Loadings 

Station Link 2025 Annual Segment 

Loading (million trips)

2035 Annual Segment 

Loading (million trips)

Chicago Union Station, IL-Hammond-Whiting, IN 0.76 0.88

Northwest Indiana, IN-Michigan City, IN 0.87 1.01

Michigan City, IN-New Buffalo, MI 0.87 1.01

New Buffalo, MI-Niles, MI 0.82 0.96

Niles, MI-Dowagiac, MI 0.81 0.95

Dowagiac, MI-Kalamazoo, MI 0.80 0.94

Kalamazoo, MI-Battle Creek, MI 0.75 0.88

Battle Creek, MI-Albion, MI 0.70 0.82

Albion, MI-Jackson, MI 0.70 0.82

Jackson, MI-Ann Arbor, MI 0.68 0.79

Ann Arbor, MI-Dearborn, MI 0.42 0.48

Dearborn, MI-Detroit, MI 0.23 0.26

Detroit, MI-Royal Oak, MI 0.13 0.15

Royal Oak, MI-Birmingham, MI 0.06 0.07

Birmingham, MI-Pontiac, MI 0.02 0.02

Passenger Rail Segment Loading Factors 

Station Link 2025 Annual Segment 

Loading Factor

2035 Annual Segment 

Loading Factor

Chicago Union Station, IL-HammondWhiting, IN0.75 0.87

Northwest Indiana, IN-Michigan City, IN 0.87 1.01

Michigan City, IN-New Buffalo, MI 0.87 1.01

New Buffalo, MI-Niles, MI 0.82 0.96

Niles, MI-Dowagiac, MI 0.81 0.95

Dowagiac, MI-Kalamazoo, MI 0.80 0.94

Kalamazoo, MI-Battle Creek, MI 0.75 0.88

Battle Creek, MI-Albion, MI 0.70 0.82

Albion, MI-Jackson, MI 0.70 0.82

Jackson, MI-Ann Arbor, MI 0.68 0.79

Ann Arbor, MI-Dearborn, MI 0.42 0.48

Dearborn, MI-Detroit, MI 0.23 0.26

Detroit, MI-Royal Oak, MI 0.13 0.15

Royal Oak, MI-Birmingham, MI 0.06 0.07

Birmingham, MI-Pontiac, MI 0.02 0.02

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-87
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-42

3.3 Scenario 2 (6 DRTs and Improved Travel Time) Passenger Rail Forecast Results 

Passenger Rail Forecast Results 

Year

Daily Round 

Trips (DRT)

Average

Speed 

(miles/hour)

Run Time 

(hr:mm) (ChicagoPontiac)

Annual 

Ridership 

(million trips)

Annual 

Revenue 

(million 2013$) 

Annual 

Passenger Miles 

(million miles)

Annual Train 

Miles (million 

miles)

2025 6 55 5:40 1.64 $101.15 346.28 1.35

2035 6 55 5:40 1.91 $117.96 402.79 1.35

Annual Passenger Rail Incremental Ridership 

Year

Daily 

Round 

Trips 

(DRT)

Average

Speed 

(miles/hour)

Run Time 

(hr:mm) 

(ChicagoPontiac)

Diverted 

from Auto 

(million 

trips)

Diverted 

from Air 

(million 

trips)

Diverted 

from Bus 

(million 

trips)

Natural 

Growth 

(million 

trips)

New 

Induced 

(million 

trips)

Total 

Increment 

(million 

trips)

2025 6 55 5:40 0.69 0.19 0.09 0.08 0.09 1.14

2035 6 55 5:40 0.82 0.22 0.11 0.16 0.11 1.41

Annual Passenger Rail Station Volumes 

Station 2025 Annual Station Volume 

(thousand ONs and OFFs)

2035 Annual Station Volume 

(thousand ONs and OFFs)

Chicago Union Station, IL 1,262 1,470

Northwest Indiana, IN 23 27

Michigan City, IN 10 12

New Buffalo, MI 30 35

Niles, MI 22 25

Dowagiac, MI 7 8

Kalamazoo, MI 139 167

Battle Creek, MI 107 126

Albion, MI 6 7

Jackson, MI 112 128

Ann Arbor, MI 622 725

Dearborn, MI 325 375

Detroit, MI 268 307

Royal Oak, MI 163 190

Birmingham, MI 108 125

Pontiac, MI 73 87

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-88
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-43

Passenger Annual Rail Segment Loadings 

Station Link 2025 Annual Segment 

Loading (million trips)

2035 Annual Segment 

Loading (million trips)

Chicago Union Station, IL-Hammond-Whiting, IN 1.26 1.47

Northwest Indiana, IN-Michigan City, IN 1.41 1.65

Michigan City, IN-New Buffalo, MI 1.41 1.65

New Buffalo, MI-Niles, MI 1.35 1.57

Niles, MI-Dowagiac, MI 1.35 1.57

Dowagiac, MI-Kalamazoo, MI 1.34 1.56

Kalamazoo, MI-Battle Creek, MI 1.35 1.58

Battle Creek, MI-Albion, MI 1.33 1.55

Albion, MI-Jackson, MI 1.33 1.54

Jackson, MI-Ann Arbor, MI 1.29 1.49

Ann Arbor, MI-Dearborn, MI 0.88 1.01

Dearborn, MI-Detroit, MI 0.56 0.64

Detroit, MI-Royal Oak, MI 0.34 0.40

Royal Oak, MI-Birmingham, MI 0.18 0.21

Birmingham, MI-Pontiac, MI 0.07 0.09

Passenger Rail Segment Loading Factors 

Station Link 2025 Segment Loading 

Factor

2035 Segment Loading 

Factor

Chicago Union Station, IL-Hammond-Whiting, IN 63% 73%

Northwest Indiana, IN-Michigan City, IN 70% 82%

Michigan City, IN-New Buffalo, MI 70% 82%

New Buffalo, MI-Niles, MI 67% 78%

Niles, MI-Dowagiac, MI 67% 78%

Dowagiac, MI-Kalamazoo, MI 66% 77%

Kalamazoo, MI-Battle Creek, MI 67% 78%

Battle Creek, MI-Albion, MI 66% 77%

Albion, MI-Jackson, MI 66% 77%

Jackson, MI-Ann Arbor, MI 64% 74%

Ann Arbor, MI-Dearborn, MI 43% 50%

Dearborn, MI-Detroit, MI 28% 32%

Detroit, MI-Royal Oak, MI 17% 20%

Royal Oak, MI-Birmingham, MI 9% 11%

Birmingham, MI-Pontiac, MI 4% 4%

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-89
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-44

3.4 Full Build (10 DRTs and Improved Travel Time) Passenger Rail Forecast Results 

Passenger Rail Forecast Results 

Year

Daily Round 

Trips (DRT)

Average

Speed 

(miles/hour)

Run Time 

(hr:mm) (ChicagoPontiac)

Annual 

Ridership 

(million trips)

Annual 

Revenue 

(million 2013$) 

Annual 

Passenger Miles 

(million miles)

Annual Train 

Miles (million 

miles)

2025 10 (7 to Pontiac) 58 5:16 2.43 $138.90 465.29 1.95

2035 10 (7 to Pontiac) 58 5:16 2.83 $162.03 541.52 1.95

2045 10 (7 to Pontiac) 58 5:16 3.30 $189.39 631.67 1.95

2055 10 (7 to Pontiac) 58 5:16 3.85 $220.77 734.86 1.95

Annual Passenger Rail Incremental Ridership 

Year

Daily Round 

Trips (DRT)

Average

Speed 

(miles/hour)

Run Time 

(hr:mm) 

(ChicagoPontiac)

Diverted 

from Auto 

(million 

trips)

Diverted 

from Air 

(million 

trips)

Diverted 

from Bus 

(million 

trips)

Natural 

Growth 

(million 

trips)

New 

Induced 

(million 

trips)

Total 

Increment 

(million 

trips)

2025 10 (7 to Pontiac) 58 5:16 1.30 0.26 0.14 0.08 0.15 1.93

2035 10 (7 to Pontiac) 58 5:16 1.53 0.30 0.17 0.16 0.18 2.33

2045 10 (7 to Pontiac) 58 5:16 1.80 0.35 0.20 0.25 0.21 2.81

2055 10 (7 to Pontiac) 58 5:16 2.11 0.40 0.23 0.36 0.25 3.35

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-90
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-45

Annual Passenger Rail Station Volumes 

Station

2025 Annual Station 

Volume (thousand 

ONs and OFFs)

2035 Annual Station 

Volume (thousand 

ONs and OFFs)

2045 Annual Station 

Volume (thousand 

ONs and OFFs)

2055 Annual Station 

Volume (thousand 

ONs and OFFs)

Chicago Union Station, IL 1,672 1,946 2,271 2,644

Northwest Indiana, IN 35 41 47 55

Michigan City, IN 19 23 27 33

New Buffalo, MI 70 81 94 108

Niles, MI 79 91 107 124

Dowagiac, MI 17 19 23 27

Kalamazoo, MI 476 566 673 797

Battle Creek, MI 268 312 367 429

Albion, MI 10 12 14 16

Jackson, MI 155 179 208 240

Ann Arbor, MI 830 969 1,134 1,323

Dearborn, MI 418 483 560 647

Detroit, MI 384 440 507 582

Royal Oak, MI 199 231 268 311

Birmingham, MI 130 151 176 204

Pontiac, MI 90 108 129 154

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-91
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-46

Annual Passenger Rail Segment Loadings 

Station Link

2025 Annual 

Segment Loading 

(million trips)

2035 Annual 

Segment Loading 

(million trips)

2045 Annual 

Segment Loading 

(million trips)

2055 Annual 

Segment Loading 

(million trips)

Chicago Union Station, IL-Hammond-Whiting, IN 1.67 1.95 2.27 2.64

Northwest Indiana, IN-Michigan City, IN 1.92 2.23 2.35 3.04

Michigan City, IN-New Buffalo, MI 1.91 2.23 2.34 3.03

New Buffalo, MI-Niles, MI 1.83 2.13 2.24 2.90

Niles, MI-Dowagiac, MI 1.82 2.11 2.22 2.87

Dowagiac, MI-Kalamazoo, MI 1.80 2.10 2.20 2.84

Kalamazoo, MI-Battle Creek, MI 1.91 2.23 2.35 3.04

Battle Creek, MI-Albion, MI 1.83 2.13 2.48 2.89

Albion, MI-Jackson, MI 1.82 2.12 2.48 2.88

Jackson, MI-Ann Arbor, MI 1.73 2.01 2.35 2.73

Ann Arbor, MI-Dearborn, MI 1.20 1.39 1.62 1.87

Dearborn, MI-Detroit, MI 0.79 0.92 1.07 1.24

Detroit, MI-Royal Oak, MI 0.42 0.49 0.57 0.67

Royal Oak, MI-Birmingham, MI 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.36

Birmingham, MI-Pontiac, MI 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-92
Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan Alternatives Identification and Evaluation

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. June 2014 | Page A-47

Passenger Rail Segment Loading Factors 

Station Link 2025 Segment 

Loading Factor

2035 Segment 

Loading Factor

2045 Segment 

Loading Factor

2055 Segment 

Loading Factor

Chicago Union Station, IL-Hammond-Whiting, IN 50% 58% 68% 79%

Northwest Indiana, IN-Michigan City, IN 57% 66% 70% 90%

Michigan City, IN-New Buffalo, MI 57% 66% 70% 90%

New Buffalo, MI-Niles, MI 54% 63% 67% 86%

Niles, MI-Dowagiac, MI 54% 63% 66% 86%

Dowagiac, MI-Kalamazoo, MI 54% 62% 66% 85%

Kalamazoo, MI-Battle Creek, MI 57% 66% 70% 90%

Battle Creek, MI-Albion, MI 54% 63% 74% 86%

Albion, MI-Jackson, MI 54% 63% 74% 86%

Jackson, MI-Ann Arbor, MI 51% 60% 70% 81%

Ann Arbor, MI-Dearborn, MI 36% 41% 48% 56%

Dearborn, MI-Detroit, MI 24% 27% 32% 37%

Detroit, MI-Royal Oak, MI 12% 15% 17% 20%

Royal Oak, MI-Birmingham, MI 7% 8% 9% 11%

Birmingham, MI-Pontiac, MI 3% 3% 4% 5%

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-93
Technical Memorandum 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 

AUGUST 28, 2014 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-94
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | i

Contents

1 PURPOSE OF THIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ............................................................................................... 1

2 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Existing Service ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.2 Funded Capital Improvements Included in the No Build Alternative ........................................................................ 2

2.2.1 Illinois Projects .................................................................................................................................. 2

2.2.2 Indiana Projects .................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2.3 Michigan Projects .............................................................................................................................. 3

3 OPERATING SCENARIOS ..................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 No Build Alternative Operating Scenario .................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Interim Service Operating Scenario ............................................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Full Build Alternative Operating Scenario ................................................................................................................... 7

4 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY .................................................. 9

4.1 Cost Expense Categories ........................................................................................................................................... 10

4.1.1 Maintenance of Way ........................................................................................................................ 10

4.1.2 Maintenance of Equipment .............................................................................................................. 11

4.1.3 Operations and Transportation ......................................................................................................... 11

4.1.4 Fuel .................................................................................................................................................. 11

4.1.5 Sales and Marketing ......................................................................................................................... 11

4.1.6 Stations ............................................................................................................................................. 11

4.1.7 General and Administrative ............................................................................................................. 13

4.1.8 Capital Equipment Overhaul ............................................................................................................ 13

4.1.9 Police, Security and Environmental Safety ...................................................................................... 13

4.2 Key Annual Operating Statistics ................................................................................................................................ 13

5 OPERATING AND COST ESTIMATES ................................................................................................................. 14

5.1 No Build Alternative (2035) ......................................................................................................................................... 14

5.2 Interim Service (2025) ................................................................................................................................................. 16

5.3 Full Build Alternative (2035) ....................................................................................................................................... 16

5.4 Comparison of Operating and Maintenance Costs .................................................................................................. 19

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-95
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | ii

Figures

Figure 1: Current Amtrak Wolverine Schedule .............................................................................................................. 

Figure 2: No Build Alternative Schedule ....................................................................................................................... 

Figure 3: Interim Service Schedule - 2025 ................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 4: Full Build 2035 Schedule .............................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 5: No Build Alternative Cost Categories Percent of Total .............................................................................. 20

Figure 6: Interim Service Scenario Cost Categories Percent of Total ........................................................................ 21

Figure 7: Full Build Alternative Cost Categories Percent of Total ............................................................................. 21

		

Tables

Table 1: Operating Cost Categories and Primary Cost Drivers .................................................................................... 9

Table 2: Key Operating Statistics ............................................................................................................................... 14

Table 3: No Build Alternative Operating and Maintenance Costs ................................................................................. 

Table 4: Interim Service (2025) Operating and Maintenance Costs ............................................................................... 

Table 5: Full Build Alternative (2035) Operating and Maintenance Costs ................................................................ 18

Table 6: Comparison of Service Alternative Operating and Maintenance Costs by Major Cost Categories ............. 19

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-96
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 1

1 PURPOSE OF THIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 

The purpose of this technical memorandum is to describe the process used to develop the Operating and 

Maintenance (O&M) costs for the Chicago-Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program (the Program). This 

document describes the operating scenarios for the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative, the methodology 

for calculating the O&M costs, and the O&M cost estimates for the No Build and Build Alternatives. 

2 BACKGROUND 

The States of Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois are active partners in jointly improving passenger rail services 

between Chicago and Detroit / Pontiac through the Chicago-Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program. The 

states are working on improving the infrastructure to accommodate up to 10 daily round trips between Chicago and 

Detroit with seven daily round trips between Detroit and Pontiac, Michigan operating at speeds up to 110 mph. 

2.1 Existing Service 

Amtrak currently operates passenger rail service between Chicago Union Station and Michigan on three routes. 

Amtrak operates three round trips per day between Chicago and Pontiac, which is known as the Wolverine Service. 

Wolverine trains take approximately 6 hours 30 minutes to travel approximately 300 miles between Chicago and 

Pontiac, at an average speed of 47 mph. The Wolverine schedules are shown in Figure 1. In addition, Amtrak 

operates one round trip per day on the Pere Marquette route (Chicago – Holland – Grand Rapids) and one round 

trip per day on the Blue Water route (Chicago – Battle Creek – Port Huron). For the purposes of this EIS the Pere 

Marquette and the Blue Water are considered feeder routes and the O&M costs, ridership and revenue for these 

connecting routes are not included in this analysis of O&M costs for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor. 

The State of Michigan provides operating subsidies for this service according to the requirements of Section 209 of 

the Passenger Rail Infrastructure and Investment Act of 2008 (PRIIA)1

 This law requires Amtrak to develop and 

implement a single, nationwide standardized methodology for establishing and allocating the operating and capital 

costs among the states and Amtrak for all routes that are less than 750 miles long. 

 

 

1

 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. Public Law No. 110-432, Division B, enacted Oct. 16, 2008, 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-97
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 2

Source: Amtrak Schedule Effective May 19, 2014

2.2 Funded Capital Improvements Included in the No Build Alternative 

Near-term service improvements intended to improve the intercity rail passenger’s experience will be implemented 

along the Corridor under the No Build condition. This section describes those improvements that are committed by 

the Program Partners and are in various phases of delivery. The improvements that are funded are considered to be 

a part of the No Build Alternative. Non-funded projects (i.e., projects that do not have full construction funding in 

place) are not included in the Committed Project Lists. Operations modeling completed for the Program assume 

that these improvements are implemented. These projects will occur independently, with or without implementation 

of the Build Alternatives. The detailed list of these projects is provided in Appendix B of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

2.2.1 Illinois Projects 

The No Build Alternative in Illinois consists of the continuation of the existing passenger rail service on the 

existing trackage with the current level of maintenance and no appreciable change to current track configuration or 

operations. 

The Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) is a partnership between 

U.S. DOT, the State of Illinois, City of Chicago, Metra, Amtrak, Association of American Railroads, Belt Railway 

EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

Station M iles Ar/Dp 350 352 354 Station M iles Dp/Ar 351 353 355

CHICAGO IL 0.0 D p 7 00A 12 50P 6 00P P ONTIAC, M ICH. 0.0 D p 5 00A 10 35A 5 40P

Hammond-Whiting IN 16.0 D p 7 29A 1 19P Birmingham, M ich. 8.3 D p 5 13A 10 49A 5 53P

M ichigan C ity IN 52.8 D p 1 58P 7 01P R o yal Oak, M ich. 12.6 D p 5 20A 10 57A 6 00P

N ew B uffalo 62.9 D p 9 17A 3 09P 8 12P DETROIT, M ICH. 22.7 A r 5 40A 11 17A 6 20P

Niles M I 89.8 D p 9 47A 3 33P 8 35P DETROIT, M ICH. 22.7 D p 5 43A 11 20A 6 23P

D o wagiac M I 102.3 D p 9 57A Dearborn, M ich. 31.9 D p 6 06A 11 43A 6 45P

Kalamazoo M I 138.3 D p 10 45A 4 18P 9 20P Ann Arbor, M ich. 61.9 D p 6 41A 12 17P 7 21P

Battle Creek M I 161.0 D p 11 17A 4 50P 9 57P Jackson, M ich. 98.9 D p 7 23A 12 58P 8 01P

Albion M I 185.6 D p 5 18P Albion, M ich. 119.8 D p 1 21P

Jackson M I 206.5 D p 12 08P 5 34P 10 47P Battle Creek, M ich. 144.4 D p 8 17A 1 54P 8 55P

Ann Arbor M I 243.5 D p 12 55P 6 26P 11 30P Kalamazoo, M ich. 167.1 D p 8 50A 2 25P 9 26P

Dearborn M I 273.5 D p 1 25P 6 56P 12 01A D o wagiac, M ich. 203.1 D p 9 51P

DETROIT M I 282.7 A r 1 54P 7 23P 12 28A Niles, M ich. 215.6 D p 2 58P 10 03P

D ETROIT M I 282.7 D p N ew B uffalo , M ich. 242.5 D p 3 28P 10 24P

R o yal Oak M I 292.8 D p 2 18P 7 47P 12 52A M ichigan C ity, Ind. 252.6 D p 9 34P

Birmingham M I 297.1 Dp 2 26P 7 54P 12 59A Hammond-Whiting IN 289.4 D p 3 20P 10 18P

P ONTIAC M I 305.4 Ar 2 53P 8 22P 1 29A CHICAGO ,ILL. 305.4 A r 10 12A 4 08P 11 07P

Train Number Train Number

Figure 1: Current Amtrak Wolverine Schedule 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-98
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 3

of Chicago, BNSF Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, Canadian National Railway, CSX Transportation, Indiana 

Harbor Belt Railroad, Norfolk Southern Corporation, and Union Pacific Railroad that is focused on investing in 

critically needed improvements to increase the efficiency of the region’s passenger and freight rail infrastructure in 

the Chicago area. Fully funded CREATE projects will provide improvements on several of the alternative routes 

into Chicago that are being considered. These projects are listed in Appendix B of the DEIS. 

Improvements to support the Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail service are also currently underway. As a result 

of that project’s 2004 Record of Decision (ROD), the Chicago to St. Louis corridor was selected by the FRA for 

$1.1-billion of corridor improvements between Dwight, Illinois and St. Louis. These improvements include 

upgraded track built and maintained to 110 miles per hour standards, siding and crossovers, grade crossing surfaces, 

signals and warning system, stations, and new higher-speed passenger trains. A Tier 1 EIS for the full build-out and 

routing between Chicago and Dwight, Illinois was completed, and the ROD was signed in December 2012. 

In March 2013, FRA recommended that the State of Illinois lead a multi-state procurement of 35 new nextgeneration locomotives and 130 bi-level rail cars to be funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Procurement of Midwest Train Equipment Fleet will modernize train equipment within Illinois, Michigan, 

Missouri, California, and Washington and enable passenger rail service to operate higher speeds. 

The only major committed roadway project that will add new capacity in Illinois that is under construction and will 

affect the movement of freight and, to a lesser degree, the movement of passengers between Chicago and 

Detroit/Pontiac is the addition of a new interchange connecting Interstates 294 and 57 on the Tri-State Tollway in 

the south suburbs near Harvey, Illinois. 

2.2.2 Indiana Projects 

There are a number of planned and programmed rail improvements included in the No Build within Indiana and 

they are listed individually in Appendix B. Most of these improvements are included in the Indiana Gateway 

Project, which began construction in 2013. As part of FRA’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program 

(HSIPR), Indiana was the recipient of a $71.4-million grant for the construction of eight separate improvements 

along the congested railroad segment from Porter, Indiana west to the Illinois state line. Seven of the improvements 

will be on track owned by NS and the eighth will be on Amtrak’s Michigan line at Porter, Indiana. The work will 

include crossover tracks and related signal improvements, and additional sidings. 

There are currently no major roadway projects that will add new capacity to the transportation system within the La 

Porte INDOT District that are expected to significantly affect travel between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac. 

2.2.3 Michigan Projects 

Under the No Build scenario, Amtrak’s Wolverine Service will continue to operate on the existing Amtrak route 

within Michigan. From the Michigan/Indiana state line to Kalamazoo, Michigan, passenger trains currently run at 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-99
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 4

speeds up to 110 mph, and will continue to do so in this section of the Corridor. Between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, 

Michigan, MDOT has purchased the 135-mile section of track previously owned by NS, and has secured federal 

funding for rail improvements in this section of the Corridor that would allow speeds up to 110 mph. The rail 

improvements between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan include track rehabilitation, replacement of track ties, 

turnouts, and ballast, curve modifications and installation of ITCS (Defined in Footnote #20) and Active Warning 

Systems at all crossings. 

In Detroit, a new connection track between Conrail Shared Assets Operations (CSAO) Michigan Line and CN 

Shoreline Subdivision trackage at West Detroit Junction has been funded. Improvements will separate freight and 

passenger service in this area, therefore reducing conflicts and improving intercity passenger service reliability. 

Recent investments have been made at four different station locations in Michigan. Improvements at the Battle 

Creek Station included renovation of the station’s interior lobby, bathrooms, ticketing areas and offices, lighting, 

signage, and bringing the facility into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The interior 

improvements along with the refurbishment to the exterior façade and installation of new exterior lighting were 

completed in June 2012. Pontiac, Michigan also constructed a new 4,500 square foot intermodal station that 

officially opened in August 2011. Construction of a new 16,000 square foot Dearborn Intermodal Passenger Rail 

Station has also been funded and is expected to be completed in early 2014, while construction of the new Troy 

Multi-Modal Transit Center is anticipated to provide a new 2,000 square foot intermodal station for the City of 

Troy, Michigan. 

There are no major roadway projects that would add significant capacity to the transportation network programmed 

within or near the Corridor in Berrien, Van Buren, Cass, Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Jackson, Washtenaw, Wayne or 

Oakland counties. 

3 OPERATING SCENARIOS 

3.1 No Build Alternative Operating Scenario 

The No Build Alternative for this analysis is the current frequency of Wolverine service being operated by Amtrak 

(three round trips a day between Chicago and Pontiac). The No Build Alternative assumes that all of the currently 

funded projects described in Section 2.2 have been constructed and that maximum speeds between Porter, Indiana 

and Dearborn, Michigan are 110 mph. As a result the end-to-end travel times have been significantly reduced. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-100
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 5

Source: RTC Generated No Build Schedule (8-26-2013). HDR, Inc. 

3.2 Interim Service Operating Scenario 

Annual operating and maintenance costs have been estimated for the first full year of service (2035) of 

implementation of six round trips per day interim service. The operating plan assumes that the full set of capital 

improvements identified for the Full Build Alternative (see Section 3.3), which allow increased speed and 

frequencies. Key elements of the operating plan include: 

 The rail network will be upgraded to allow for passenger train speeds up to110 mph. Capacity enhancements 

will also be made to minimize conflicts between passenger and freight trains. 

 The total number of daily round trips between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac will increase from the current three 

to six daily round trips between Chicago and Pontiac. A schedule for this service has been developed and is 

included in Figure 3. 

Service frequencies for branch line services (Pere Marquette between Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids, Michigan and 

Blue Water between Battle Creek and Port Huron, Michigan) will remain at their current levels of one trip per day. 

The O&M costs, ridership and revenue for these connecting routes are not included in this analysis of O&M costs 

for the interim service level. 

EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

Station M iles Ar/Dp 350 352 354 Station M iles Dp/Ar 351 353 355

CHICAGO IL 0.0 D p 7 20A 12 50P 6 00P P ONTIAC, M ICH. 0.0 D p 6 32A 9 42A 6 22P

Hammond-Whiting IN 16.0 D p 7 47A 1 17P Birmingham, M ich. 8.3 D p 6 45A 9 56A 6 35P

M ichigan C ity IN 52.8 D p 1 57P 7 00P R o yal Oak, M ich. 12.6 D p 6 52A 10 04A 6 42P

N ew B uffalo 62.9 D p 9 37A 3 09P 8 12P DETROIT, M ICH. 22.7 A r 7 15 A 10 27A 7 05P

Niles M I 89.8 D p 10 07A 3 33P 8 35P DETROIT, M ICH. 22.7 D p 7 18A 10 30A 7 08P

D o wagiac M I 102.3 D p 10 17A Dearborn, M ich. 31.9 D p 7 26A 10 38A 7 15P

Kalamazoo M I 138.3 D p 10 55A 4 08P 9 10P Ann Arbor, M ich. 61.9 D p 7 55A 11 07A 7 43P

Battle Creek M I 161.0 D p 11 18A 4 31P 9 33P Jackson, M ich. 98.9 D p 8 27A 11 39A 8 15P

Albion M I 185.6 D p 4 54P Albion, M ich. 119.8 D p 11 56A

Jackson M I 206.5 D p 11 59A 5 15P 10 15P Battle Creek, M ich. 144.4 D p 9 10A 12 24P 8 57P

Ann Arbor M I 243.5 D p 12 33P 5 49P 10 49P Kalamazoo, M ich. 167.1 D p 9 35A 12 49P 9 21P

Dearborn M I 273.5 D p 12 59P 6 16P 11 16P D o wagiac, M ich. 203.1 D p 9 46P

DETROIT M I 282.7 A r 1 21P 6 38P 11 38P Niles, M ich. 215.6 D p 1 12P 9 58P

DETROIT M I 282.7 D p 1 24P 6 41P 11 41P N ew B uffalo , M ich. 242.5 D p 1 42P 10 19P

R o yal Oak M I 292.8 D p 1 42P 6 59P 11 59P M ichigan C ity, Ind. 252.6 D p

Birmingham M I 297.1 D p 1 49P 7 06P 12 06A Hammond-Whiting IN 289.4 D p

P ONTIAC M I 305.4 Ar 2 26P 7 43P 12 43A CHICAGO ,ILL. 305.4 A r 10 44A 2 19P 10 49P

Train Number Train Number

Figure 2: No Build Alternative Schedule

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-101
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 6

Figure 3: Interim Service Schedule - 2025 

Source: Michigan Department of Transportation

EASTBOUND

Travel

Station M iles Times Ar/Dp 702 704 706 708 710 712 714

CHICAGO Ill. 0.0 0:00 D p 6 00A 9 20A 12 00P 5 35P 6 00P 7 00P

Suburban near Gary, Ind, 16.0 0:18 D p 6 27A 12 27P 6 02P 7 27P

M ichigan C ity, Ind. 52.8 0:53 D p 1 07P 6 42P 8 07P

N ew B uffalo , M ich. 62.9 1:02 D p 8 19A 11 37A 2 19P 7 54P 8 19P 9 19P

Niles, M ich. 89.8 1:22 D p 8 42A 12 00A 2 43P 8 17P 8 42P 9 42P

D o wagiac, M ich. 102.3 1:32 D p 8 52A 12 10P 8 27P 9 52P

Kalamazoo, M ich. 138.3 2:01 D p 5 56A 9 21A 12 39P 3 18P 8 56P 9 21P 10 21P

Battle Creek, M ich. 161.0 2:28 D p 6 23A 9 48A 1 06P 3 45P 9 23P 9 48P 10 48P

Albion, M ich. 185.6 2:51 D p 6 36A 4 08P

Jackson, M ich. 206.5 3:11 D p 7 06A 10 31A 1 49P 4 28P 10 31P 11 31P

Ann Arbor, M ich. 243.5 3:44 D p 7 39A 11 04A 2 22P 5 01P 11 04P 12 04A

Dearborn, M ich. 273.5 4:09 D p 8 04A 11 29A 2 47P 5 26P 11 29P 12 29A

DETROIT, M ICH. 282.7 4:24 A r 8 19A 11 44A 3 02P 5 41P 11 44P 12 44A

DETROIT, M ICH. 282.7 4:27 D p 8 22A 11 47A 3 05P 5 44P 11 47P 12 47A

R o yal Oak, M ich. 292.8 4:51 D p 8 43A 12 08P 3 26P 6 05P 12 08A 1 08A

Birmingham, M ich. 297.1 4:58 D p 8 50A 12 15P 3 33P 6 12P 12 15A 1 15A

P ONTIAC, M ICH. 305.4 5:16 A r 9 18A 12 43P 4 01P 6 40P 12 43A 1 43A

WESTBOUND

Travel

Statio n T imes M iles D p/ A r 701 703 705 707 709 711 713

P ONTIAC, M ICH. 0:00 0.0 D p 4 00A 6 32A 9 51A 1 30P 4 52P 7 20P

Birmingham, M ich. 0:13 8.3 D p 4 13A 6 45A 10 04A 1 43P 5 05P 7 33P

R o yal Oak, M ich. 0:20 12.6 D p 4 20A 6 52A 10 11A 1 50P 5 12P 7 40P

DETROIT, M ICH. 0:40 22.7 A r 4 40A 7 12A 10 26A 2 10P 5 32P 8 00P

DETROIT, M ICH. 0:43 22.7 D p 4 43A 7 15A 10 29A 2 13P 5 35P 8 03P

Dearborn, M ich. 0:54 31.9 D p 4 57A 7 26A 10 40A 2 24P 5 46P 8 14P

Ann Arbor, M ich. 1:24 61.9 D p 5 27A 7 56A 11 10A 2 54P 6 16P 8 44P

Jackson, M ich. 1:55 98.9 D p 5 58A 8 27A 11 41A 3 25P 6 47P 9 15P

Albion, M ich. 2:13 119.8 D p 8 45A 11 59A 7 05P 9 33P

Battle Creek, M ich. 2:40 144.4 D p 5 43A 6 43A 9 12A 12 26P 4 10P 7 32P 10 00P

Kalamazoo, M ich. 3:01 167.1 D p 6 11A 7 11A 9 40A 12 54P 4 38P 8 00P 10 29P

D o wagiac, M ich. 3:29 203.1 D p 6 36A 1 19P 10 53P

Niles, M ich. 3:42 215.6 D p 6 49A 7 49A 1 32P 5 16P 11 06P

N ew B uffalo , M ich. 4:01 242.5 D p 7 10A 8 10A 1 53P 5 37P 11 27P

M ichigan C ity, Ind. 4:10 252.6 D p 6 20A 1 03P 10 37P

Suburban near Gary, IN 4:44 289.4 D p 6 54A 1 37P 11 11P

CHICAGO ,ILL. 5:06 305.4 A r 7 35A 8 35A 10 47A 2 18P 5 02P 11 52P

Train Number

Train Number

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-102
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 7

3.3 Full Build Alternative Operating Scenario 

Annual operating and maintenance costs have been estimated for the first full year of service implementation to 

occur in 2035. The operating plan is based on the recommended capital improvements to the corridor which allow 

increased speed and frequencies. Key elements of the operating plan include: 

 The rail network will be upgraded to allow for passenger train speeds up to110 mph. Capacity enhancements 

will also be made to minimize conflicts between passenger and freight trains. 

 The total number of daily round trips between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac will increase from the current three 

to ten daily round trips between Chicago and Detroit with seven daily round trips between Detroit and Pontiac, 

Michigan. A schedule for this service has been developed and is included in Figure 2. 

 Service frequencies for branch line services (Pere Marquette between Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids, Michigan 

and Blue Water between Battle Creek and Port Huron, Michigan) are increased to four trips per day. The O&M 

costs, ridership and revenue for these connecting routes are not included in this analysis of O&M costs for the 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-103
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 8

Figure 4: Full Build 2035 Schedule 

Source: Michigan Department of Transportation

EASTBOUND

Travel

Statio n M iles T imes A r/ D p 700 702 704 706 708 710 712 714 716 718 720 722

CHICAGO Ill. 0.0 0:00 D p 6 00A 7 00A 8 00A 10 00A 11 00A 12 00P 5 35P 6 00P 6 35P 7 35P

Suburban near Gary, Ind, 16.0 0:18 D p 8 18A 11 18A 5 53P 6 53P 7 53P

M ichigan C ity, Ind. 52.8 0:53 D p 11 53A 6 28P 7 28P 8 28P

N ew B uffalo , M ich. 62.9 1:02 D p 10 02A 12 02P 1 02P 7 37P 8 02P 8 37P 9 37P

Niles, M ich. 89.8 1:22 D p 10 22A 12 22P 1 22P 7 57P 8 22P 8 57P 9 57P

D o wagiac, M ich. 102.3 1:32 D p 10 32A 12 32P 1 32P 8 07P 9 07P 10 07P

Kalamazoo, M ich. 138.3 2:01 D p 6 01A 7 01A 8 40A 9 40A 11 01A 1 01P 2 01P 2 40P 8 36P 901P 9 36P 10 36P

Battle Creek, M ich. 161.0 2:28 D p 6 28A 7 28A 10 03A 11 28A 1 28P 2 28P 9 03P 9 28P 10 03P 11 03P

Albion, M ich. 185.6 2:51 D p 6 41A 7 41A 2 51P

Jackson, M ich. 206.5 3:11 D p 7 11A 8 11A 12 11A 2 11P 3 11P 10 11P 10 46P

Ann Arbor, M ich. 243.5 3:44 D p 7 44A 8 44A 10 06A 11 10A 12 44A 2 44P 3 44P 4 06P 10 44P 11 19P

Dearborn, M ich. 273.5 4:09 D p 8 09A 9 09A 10 31A 11 35A 1 09A 3 09P 4 09P 4 31P 11 09P 11 44P

DETROIT, M ICH. 282.7 4:24 A r 8 24A 9 24A 10 46A 11 50A 1 24A 3 24P 4 24P 4 46P 11 24P 11 59P

DETROIT, M ICH. 282.7 4:27 D p 8 27A 11 53A 1 27A 3 27P 4 27P 4 49P 11 27P

R o yal Oak, M ich. 292.8 4:51 D p 8 51A 12 17P 1 51A 3 51P 4 51P 5 13P 11 51P

Birmingham, M ich. 297.1 4:58 D p 8 58A 12 24P 1 58A 3 58P 4 58P 5 20P 11 58P

P ONTIAC, M ICH. 305.4 5:16 A r 9 16A 12 42P 2 16P 4 16P 5 16P 5 38P 12 16A

WESTBOUND

Travel

Statio n T imes M iles D p/ A r 701 703 705 707 709 711 713 715 717 719 721 723

P ONTIAC, M ICH. 0:00 0.0 D p 4 03A 4 33A 9 46A 2 53P 3 35P 6 52P 7 20P

Birmingham, M ich. 0:13 8.3 D p 4 16A 4 46A 9 59A 3 06P 3 48P 7 05P 7 33P

R o yal Oak, M ich. 0:20 12.6 D p 4 23A 4 53A 10 06A 3 13P 3 55P 7 12P 7 40P

DETROIT, M ICH. 0:40 22.7 A r 4 43A 5 13A 10 26A 3 33P 4 15P 7 32 8 00P

DETROIT, M ICH. 0:43 22.7 D p 4 46A 5 16A 7 15A 10 29A 3 36P 4 18P 5 05P 5 35P 7 35P 8 03P

Dearborn, M ich. 0:54 31.9 D p 4 57A 5 27A 7 26A 10 40A 3 47P 4 29P 5 16P 5 46P 7 46P 8 14P

Ann Arbor, M ich. 1:24 61.9 D p 5 27A 5 57A 7 56A 11 10A 4 17P 4 59P 5 46P 6 16P 8 16P 8 44P

Jackson, M ich. 1:55 98.9 D p 5 58A 6 28A 8 27A 11 41A 4 48P 6 47P 8 47P 9 15P

Albion, M ich. 2:13 119.8 D p 8 45A 11 59A 7 05P 9 33P

Battle Creek, M ich. 2:40 144.4 D p 5 43A 6 43A 7 43A 9 12A 12 26P 5 33P 6 06P 7 32P 9 32P 10 00P

Kalamazoo, M ich. 3:01 167.1 D p 6 11A 7 11A 7 41A 8 11A 9 40A 12 54P 6 01P 6 29P 7 11P 8 00P 10 00P 10 29P

D o wagiac, M ich. 3:29 203.1 D p 6 36A 8 36A 1 19P 10 53P

Niles, M ich. 3:42 215.6 D p 6 49A 7 42A 8 49A 1 32P 6 39P 11 06P

N ew B uffalo , M ich. 4:01 242.5 D p 7 10A 8 03A 9 10A 1 53P 7 00P 11 27P

M ichigan C ity, Ind. 4:10 252.6 D p 6 19A 8 19A 1 02P 10 36P

Suburban near Gary, IN 4:44 289.4 D p 6 53A 8 53A 1 36P 11 10P

CHICAGO ,ILL. 5:06 305.4 A r 7 15A 8 10A 8 21A 9 15A 10 20A 1 58P 7 05P 7 09P 7 51P 11 32P

Train Number

Train Number

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-104
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 9

4 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 

Operating and maintenance costs have been developed from unit costs used in conjunction with the service units 

developed in the operating plan to project total costs. Unit costs were developed primarily from the costs provided 

by Amtrak for the FY 2014 Wolverine train operations2

. The unit cost estimates were developed by Amtrak’s 

Performance Tracking (APT) system in compliance with the PRIIA Section 209 Cost Methodology Policy. Each 

cost category is driven by the operating data that is most appropriate for that type of expense. For example, the 

costs for train crews and on-board service labor are driven by total train hours, the cost for fuel is driven by total 

train miles and the costs for track maintenance are driven by total track miles. The cost drivers used for each cost 

category are shown in Table 1 below. 

Table 1: Operating Cost Categories and Primary Cost Drivers 

Cost Driver Cost Category 

Track Miles  Maintenance of Way – Track and Signals 

Train Miles

 Maintenance of Equipment 

 Fuel 

 Police and Security

Train Hours

 On Board Service Labor and Support 

 Train and Engine Crew Labor 

 Train and Engine Overhead and Support

Passenger Miles  Insurance 

 Passenger Inconvenience

Unit Trips  Yard Operations

Ridership

 Sales and Marketing 

 Commissions 

 Information and Reservations

Fixed Costs  Stations 

 General Administration

The No Build Alternative assumes that the current level of Wolverine service – three daily round trips – will remain 

in place. The O&M costs for the No Build Alternative are therefore calculated based on the current year (FY2014) 

cost estimates provided by Amtrak in 2013. 

 

2

 Appendix II. Michigan State-Supported Service. Section 209 Services Operating Pricing. Amtrak FY 2014. Provided by Michigan Department of 

Transportation, July, 2014. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-105
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 10

4.1 Cost Expense Categories 

The costs have been calculated for several major cost categories for each of the components of service operations. 

A description of the components of each of these expense categories is provided below. 

4.1.1 Maintenance of Way 

The capital improvement plan for the corridor calls for an upgrade of tracks to allow for passenger train operations 

at speeds up to110 mph. In order to operate at this speed, all tracks must be maintained in compliance with the 

Federal Railroad Administration’s Class 6 track standards. This is a significantly higher standard of maintenance 

than is currently in place on the corridor. With the exception of the Amtrak-owned section of track between Porter, 

Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan, the tracks are currently maintained at FRA Class 4 standards, which allow for a 

maximum passenger train speed of 79 mph. 

The annual cost of maintaining a mile of track to FRA Class 6 standards is estimated to be $58,438. Two sources 

for this cost item have been identified. The Chicago – St. Louis Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement3

assumes a track maintenance cost of $48,000 per track mile per year (2011 dollars). Inflating this estimate to 2013 

dollars gives a cost of $52,283 per mile per year. The Draft Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger Rail Corridor Investment 

Plan4

 uses a methodology developed by Zeta –Tech for the FRA to calculate a 2013 cost of $58,438 per mile per 

year for Class 6 track.5

 The higher cost per track mile figure (developed for the Charlotte to Atlanta Corridor) is 

used in this report as the more conservative estimate. 

The capital plan identifies numerous improvements that will need to be made to accommodate the higher speed 

passenger rail service. With all of these improvements in place, approximately 101 miles of the 305 mile long 

corridor will be double tracked, so a total of 406 miles of track will need to be maintained. With the exception of 

short sections of track in the urban areas on either end of the corridor where speeds will be restricted and Class 4 is 

sufficient, this track will be maintained to Class 6 standards when service is fully implemented. Ultimately a 

portion of this cost may be shared by other passenger and freight users of the corridor, but for the purposes of this 

estimate all track maintenance costs have been included in the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor O&M Costs. 

 

3

 Chicago – St. Louis Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Illinois Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration, 2012. 

4

 Draft Atlanta to Charlotte Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan. Georgia Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration. May 

2014 

5

 Federal Railroad Administration. Technical Monograph: Estimating Maintenance Costs for mixed High Speed Passenger and Freight Rail Corridors. August 

2004. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-106
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 11

4.1.2 Maintenance of Equipment 

The annual costs for equipment, labor and facilities related to the maintenance of the locomotives and passenger 

cars is included in this expense category. The operating plans for the interim and full build-out assume that new 

high speed rail locomotives and passenger cars will be purchased for exclusive use on this Corridor. All of this 

equipment is new, and there is no data available on the actual costs of maintaining this equipment. However, it is 

reasonable to expect that the costs of maintaining this equipment will be comparable to the costs of maintaining the 

current Amtrak fleet in use on the corridor. Therefore the unit costs utilized in the Amtrak 2014 Wolverine O&M 

cost estimates are used to develop the maintenance of equipment costs for all of the scenarios analyzed. These costs 

are calculated on a per train mile basis. 

4.1.3 Operations and Transportation 

This cost category includes both the train and engine crew labor and the on-board service labor required to operate 

the rail service. Also included in this category are materials and supplies, overhead and management expenses and 

the costs of moving trains in and out of storage yards. These costs are calculated using 2014 Wolverine unit costs, 

with the cost driver being the total number of train hours. The exception is Yard Operations, where the Cost Driver 

is Unit Trips where a “Unit” is the number of coaches and locomotives on a train. For example a typical trainset of 

6 coaches and 2 locomotives is 8 units. 

4.1.4 Fuel 

It is assumed that each train will be powered by two high horsepower diesel-electric locomotives specifically 

designed for high speed operations and that meet all current federal emissions standards. An average consumption 

rate of 2.42 gallons per mile was estimated based upon other studies conducted across the nation. Assuming a diesel 

fuel cost of $3.90 a gallon in 2013 dollars, this translates into a cost of $9.44 per train mile. 

4.1.5 Sales and Marketing 

This category includes the cost of marketing and advertising the rail service in order to attract passengers. Also 

included in this category is the Corridor’s share of the cost of the national information and reservations network. 

The unit costs for these items are calculated from the Amtrak 2014 Wolverine cost estimates. The cost driver for 

these expense categories is annual ridership. 

4.1.6 Stations 

The proposed schedule for each alternative includes stops at 16 stations in Illinois, Indiana and Michigan. This 

includes 15 existing stations and one new suburban station in a location in northwest Indiana. 

Four stations will be manned and served solely by the Chicago – Detroit/Pontiac Corridor trains: 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-107
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 12

1. Ann Arbor 

2. Detroit 

3. Jackson 

4. Dearborn 

Three manned stations will be shared with trains operating on the Pere Marquette and/or Blue Water routes: 

1. Niles 

2. Kalamazoo 

3. Battle Creek 

Eight of these stations will be unmanned. Some of these unmanned stations will also be served by the Pere 

Marquette and/or Blue Water trains: 

1. Northwest Indiana6

2. Michigan City 

3. New Buffalo 

4. Dowagiac 

5. Albion 

6. Royal Oak 

7. Birmingham 

8. Pontiac 

Chicago Union Station is a major regional hub station that is served by numerous Amtrak long distance and 

regional trains as well as by Metra commuter trains. Amtrak currently allocates costs to the Wolverine service 

based on its portion of use of the station. 

Costs have been projected for each type of station based on previous Wolverine charges and other national studies. 

With the large increases in ridership that are projected in 2035 it is anticipated that usage and thus O&M costs will 

increase significantly. The costs used for the interim and full build-out O&M is twice the average cost per station 

that were identified in the detailed Amtrak 2011 Section 209 Wolverine Route cost estimates. 

 

6 An exact location of a suburban station in Northwest Indiana has not yet been identified and will be the subject of future studies. The current Amtrak station 

at Hammond/Whiting is unmanned. Depending on the location and projected demand, this could end up being a manned station. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-108
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 13

4.1.7 General and Administrative 

This category includes the Corridor’s share of general administration and liability insurance. Also included is the 

cost of “passenger inconvenience,” which includes payments for replacement tickets and alternative transportation 

necessitated by service delays. 

The unit costs for Insurance and Passenger Inconvenience are calculated from the rates provided by Amtrak for the 

Wolverine service for 2014. The General Administration costs are expressed as a percentage of total O&M cost. 

The 9.0% percent General Administration rate was calculated from an analysis of several current Amtrak routes and 

from estimated O&M costs for proposed services. 

4.1.8 Capital Equipment Overhaul 

When Amtrak calculates the cost of providing service on the Wolverine corridor, it calculates a cost of utilizing 

their current fleet of locomotives and coaches. In this calculation, Michigan is charged for the Wolverine’s portion 

of the cost of major overhauls for all of the vehicles used in service in the Midwest. These costs are based on 

Amtrak’s annual program of major equipment overhauls. 

The No Build Alternative, the Interim Service Scenario and Build Alternative all assume that new coaches and high 

speed locomotives will be purchased to provide service in the corridor. The long term cost of major capital 

overhaul has been calculated on a train mile basis using the Amtrak 2014 Wolverine cost estimates. 

4.1.9 Police, Security and Environmental Safety 

This category includes the cost of keeping the rail operations safe and secure, including the provision of railroad 

police, security services and the prevention and remediation of environmental impacts. The Unit Costs for these 

items were developed from the Amtrak 2014 Wolverine Cost Estimates. The Cost Driver for these line items is 

train miles. 

4.2 Key Annual Operating Statistics 

Key annual operating statistics for the current Amtrak service (2013) No Build Alternative (2035), the Interim 

Service Scenario (2025) and the Build Alternative (2035) have been calculated based on the current and proposed 

service scenarios and ridership projections. These statistics are shown in Table 2. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-109
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 14

Table 2: Key Operating Statistics 

Operating Statistics Current Amtrak 

Service (2013) 

No Build 

Alternative (2035) 

Interim Service 

(2025) 

Full Build Alternative 

(2035) 

Ridership 509,100 1,050,000 1,640,000 2,830,000 

Passenger Revenue $19,398,853 $63,880,000 $99,690,000 $162,030,000 

Service Frequencies 3 Round 

Trips/Day 

3 Round 

Trips/Day 

6 Round 

Trips/Day 

10 Round Trips/Day 

(Chi-Det) 

7 Round Trips/Day 

(Det-Pon) 

Corridor Length in Miles 305 305 305 305 

Track Miles 376 387 387 406 

Train Miles 674,272 668,826 1,354,223 2,212,849 

Train Hours 14,272 12,398 25,678 35,058 

Unit Trips 15,330 15,330 40,880 70,080 

Number of Stations 16 16 16 16 

Passenger Miles 105,448,566 225,770,000 346,280,000 541,520,000 

5 OPERATING AND COST ESTIMATES 

Using the methodology described above, O&M costs have been calculated for both the No Build and the Build 

Alternatives and for the Interim Service Scenario for the Chicago – Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor. The 

No Build Alternative maintains the current frequency of service (three round trips per day), but assumes that all of 

the currently funded improvements are in place in 2035. The Interim Service O&M costs are for the first full year 

of operations of 6 round trips per day in 2025. The Build Alternative O&M costs are for the assumed first full year 

of operation (2035) of the proposed service of ten daily round trips between Chicago and Detroit with seven daily 

round trips from Detroit to Pontiac, Michigan operating at a maximum speed of 110 mph. All costs are shown in 

2013 dollars. 

5.1 No Build Alternative (2035) 

The total annual operating and maintenance costs are shown in Table 3 below. The cost drivers and unit costs are 

listed, as well as a brief description of the source for each cost item. The No Build Alternative cost estimates 

assumes that MDOT-owned equipment will be used to operate the service. No equipment lease costs are included 

in the Capital line item. The cost for periodic major overhauls of these coaches and locomotives is included in the 

Maintenance of Equipment line item. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-110
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 15

 

Table 3: No Build Alternative Operating and Maintenance Costs

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

MoW Track & Signal - Class 4 Track Miles 158 $48,468 $7,657,944 Costs from 2013 ATL-CLT ADR

MoW Track & Signal - Class 6 Track Miles 229 $58,438 $13,382,302 Costs from 2013 ATL-CLT ADR

Subtotal 387 $21,040,246

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Maintenance of Equipment Train Miles 668,826 $8.90 $5,950,000 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

MoE Supervision, Training & Support Train Miles 668,826 $2.41 $1,612,000 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

MoE Yard Operations Train Miles 668,826 $0.31 $208,000 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $7,770,000

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

On Board Service Labor and Support Train Hours 12,398 $80.93 $1,003,328 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Commissary Provisions and Management Train Hours 12,398 $62.36 $773,127 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Train & Engine Crew Labor Train Hours 12,398 $410.52 $5,089,609 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Yard Operations Unit Trips 15,330 $39.20 $601,000 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

T&E Overhead & Operations Mgmt Train Hours 12,398 $124.79 $1,547,123 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $9,014,188

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Fuel Total Train Miles 668,826 $9.44 $6,312,380 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $6,312,380

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Marketing and Sales Ridership 1,050,000 $1.57 $1,645,846 Actual Wolverine Ridership FY2013

Commissions Ridership 1,050,000 $0.82 $860,047 Actual Wolverine Ridership FY2013

Information & Reservations Ridership 1,050,000 $2.25 $2,366,000 Actual Wolverine Ridership FY2013

Subtotal $4,871,893

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Manned Stations - Route Each 4 $850,000 $3,400,000 Ann Arbor, Detroit, Jackson, Dearborn

Shared Stations - Route Each 3 $600,000 $1,800,000 Battle Creek, Niles, Kalamazoo

Unmanned Stations Each 8 $10,000 $80,000

Hammond, MI City, New Buffalo, 

Dowagiac, Albion, Royal Oak, 

Birmingham, Pontiac

Chicago Union Station - Shared Each 1 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Share of Total Amtrak CUS Costs

Subtotal $8,280,000

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

General and Administration Share of all $62,279,706 9.0% $5,605,174 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Insurance Train Miles 668,826 $1.262 $844,000 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Passenger Inconvenience Total Passengers 1,050,000 $0.079 $83,000 Actual Wolverine Ridership FY2013

Subtotal $6,532,174

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Equipment Overhaul - Coaches Lump sum 1 $2,078,000 $2,078,000 Wolverine FY2014 Equipment

EquipmentOverhaul - Locomotives Lump sum 1 $1,205,000 $1,205,000 Wolverine FY2014 Equipment

Subtotal $3,283,000

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Police Train Miles 668,826 $0.35 $234,000 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Security Strategy & Special Ops Train Miles 668,826 $0.82 $547,000 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $781,000

Total $67,884,880

Cost per Train Mile 668,826 $101.50

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Passenger Revenue Ridership 1,050,000 $60.84 $63,880,000 TEMS Demand Model

Stations 

General & Administrative

Capital Equipment Overhaul

Police, Security & Environmental/Safety 

TOTAL:

OPERATING REVENUE

Maintenance of Way

Maintenance of Equipment

Operations-Transportation

Fuel

Sales & Marketing

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-111
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 16

5.2 Interim Service (2025) 

The total annual operating and maintenance costs for the first year of operation (2025) of the interim service level 

of 6 round trips per day are shown in Table 4. Since it is assumed that the equipment serving this corridor will be 

owned by the State of Michigan, no equipment lease costs are included in the Capital line item. The cost for 

periodic major overhauls of these coaches and locomotives is included in the Maintenance of Equipment line item. 

5.3 Full Build Alternative (2035) 

The total annual operating and maintenance costs for the first year of operation (2035) of the full build-out 

alternative are shown in Table 5. Since it is assumed that the equipment serving this corridor will be owned by the 

State of Michigan, no equipment lease costs are included in the Capital line item. The cost for periodic major 

overhauls of these coaches and locomotives is included in the Maintenance of Equipment line item. 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-112
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 17

 

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost( 2013 DollarData Source/Comments

MoW Track & Signal - Class 4 Track Miles 158 $48,468 $7,657,944 Costs from 2013 ATL-CLT ADR

MoW Track & Signal - Class 6 Track Miles 229 $58,438 $13,382,302 Costs from 2013 ATL-CLT ADR

Subtotal $21,040,246

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Maintenance of Equipment Train Miles 1,354,223 $8.90 $12,047,419 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014 plus 

additional charge for equipment overhauls

MoE Supervision, Training & Support Train Miles 1,354,223 $2.41 $3,263,939 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

MoE Yard Operations Train Miles 1,354,223 $0.31 $421,153 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $15,732,511

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

On Board Service Labor and Support Train Hours 24,644 $93.16 $2,295,832 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Commissary Provisions and Management Train Hours 24,644 $71.79 $1,769,082 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Train & Engine Crew Labor Train Hours 24,644 $472.58 $11,646,128 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Yard Operations Unit Trips 40,880 $39.20 $1,602,667 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

T&E Overhead & Operations Mgmt Train Hours 24,644 $143.65 $3,540,153 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $20,853,861

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Fuel Train Miles 1,354,223 $9.44 $12,781,157 From Atlanta to Charlotte Study

Subtotal $12,781,157

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Marketing and Sales Ridership 1,640,000 $1.57 $2,570,654 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Commissions Ridership 1,640,000 $0.82 $1,343,312 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Information & Reservations Ridership 1,640,000 $2.25 $3,695,467 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $7,609,432

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Manned Stations - Route Each 4 $850,000 $3,400,000 Ann Arbor, Detroit, Jackson, Dearborn

Shared Stations - Route Each 3 $600,000 $1,800,000 Battle Creek, Niles, Kalamazoo

Unmanned Stations Each 8 $10,000 $80,000 Hammond, MI City, New Buffalo, Dowagiac, 

Albion, Royal Oak, Birmingham, Pontiac

Chicago Union Station - Shared Each 1 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Share of Total Amtrak CUS Costs

Subtotal $8,280,000

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

General Administration Share of all $99,501,122 9.0% $8,955,101 Average of existing and proposed services

Insurance Passenger Miles 346,280,000 $0.014 $4,847,920 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Passenger Inconvenience Passenger Miles 346,280,000 $0.000 $127,303 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $13,930,324

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Equipment Overhaul - Coaches Train Miles 1,354,223 $3.11 $4,207,485 MDOT-Owned Equipment

EquipmentOverhaul - Locomotives Train Miles 1,354,223 $1.80 $2,439,855 MDOT-Owned Equipment

Subtotal $6,647,340

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Police Train Miles 1,354,223 $0.35 $473,798 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Security Strategy & Special Ops Train Miles 1,354,223 $0.82 $1,107,553 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $1,581,350

Total $108,456,223

Cost per Train Mile 1,354,223 $80.09

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Revenue Data Source/Comments

Passenger Revenue Ridership 1,640,000 $61.68 $101,150,000 TEMS Demand Model

Stations 

General & Administrative

Capital Equipment Overhaul

Police, Security & Environmental/Safety 

TOTAL:

OPERATING REVENUE

Sales & Marketing

Maintenance of Way

Maintenance of Equipment

Operations-Transportation

Fuel

Table 4: Interim Service (2025) Operating and Maintenance Costs 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-113
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 18

Table 5: Full Build Alternative (2035) Operating and Maintenance Costs 

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost( 2013 DollarData Source/Comments

MoW Track & Signal - Class 4 Track Miles 53 $48,468 $2,568,804 Costs from 2013 ATL-CLT ADR

MoW Track & Signal - Class 6 Track Miles 353 $58,438 $20,628,614 Costs from 2013 ATL-CLT ADR

Subtotal $23,197,418

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Maintenance of Equipment Train Miles 2,212,849 $8.90 $19,685,915 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014 plus 

additional charge for equipment overhauls

MoE Supervision, Training & Support Train Miles 2,212,849 $2.41 $5,333,394 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

MoE Yard Operations Train Miles 2,212,849 $0.31 $688,180 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $25,707,489

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

On Board Service Labor and Support Train Hours 35,058 $93.16 $3,266,077 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Commissary Provisions and Management Train Hours 35,058 $71.79 $2,516,717 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Train & Engine Crew Labor Train Hours 35,058 $472.58 $16,567,918 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Yard Operations Unit Trips 70,080 $39.20 $2,747,429 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

T&E Overhead & Operations Mgmt Train Hours 35,058 $143.65 $5,036,263 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $30,134,404

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Fuel Train Miles 2,212,849 $9.44 $20,884,869 From Atlanta to Charlotte Study

Subtotal $20,884,869

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Marketing and Sales Ridership 2,830,000 $1.57 $4,435,946 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Commissions Ridership 2,830,000 $0.82 $2,318,032 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Information & Reservations Ridership 2,830,000 $2.25 $6,376,933 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $13,130,911

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Manned Stations - Route Each 4 $850,000 $3,400,000 Ann Arbor, Detroit, Jackson, Dearborn

Shared Stations - Route Each 3 $600,000 $1,800,000 Battle Creek, Niles, Kalamazoo

Unmanned Stations Each 8 $10,000 $80,000 Hammond, MI City, New Buffalo, Dowagiac, 

Albion, Royal Oak, Birmingham, Pontiac

Chicago Union Station - Shared Each 1 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Share of Total Amtrak CUS Costs

Subtotal $8,280,000

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

General Administration Share of all $142,561,425 9.0% $12,830,528 Average of existing and proposed services

Insurance Passenger Miles 541,520,000 $0.014 $7,581,280 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Passenger Inconvenience Passenger Miles 541,520,000 $0.000 $199,079 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $20,610,888

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Equipment Overhaul - Coaches Train Miles 2,212,849 $3.11 $6,875,182 MDOT-Owned Equipment

EquipmentOverhaul - Locomotives Train Miles 2,212,849 $1.80 $3,986,811 MDOT-Owned Equipment

Subtotal $10,861,993

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Cost Data Source/Comments

Police Train Miles 2,212,849 $0.35 $774,202 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Security Strategy & Special Ops Train Miles 2,212,849 $0.82 $1,809,781 Unit Cost From Wolverine FY2014

Subtotal $2,583,983

Total $155,391,954

Cost per Train Mile 2,212,849 $70.22

Cost Category Cost Driver Units Unit Cost Annual Revenue Data Source/Comments

Passenger Revenue Ridership 2,830,000 $57.25 $162,030,000 TEMS Demand Model

Maintenance of Way

General & Administrative

Maintenance of Equipment

Operations-Transportation

Sales & Marketing

Stations 

Fuel

TOTAL:

OPERATING REVENUE

Capital Equipment Overhaul

Police, Security & Environmental/Safety 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-114
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 19

5.4 Comparison of Operating and Maintenance Costs 

This technical memorandum provides operating and maintenance cost estimates for three service scenarios for the 

Chicago – Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program. The major costs for the three scenarios are shown in 

Table 6. The No Build Alternative includes the current level of service, but it also includes significant upgrades in 

the speed and capacity of the rail corridor as the result of the completion of projects that are fully funded and 

expected to be in place by the year 2017. 

The 2035 No Build Alternative O&M costs are almost twice the current Amtrak operating budget, which is 

projected to be $36.9 million in 2014. This increase in cost is due primarily to Maintenance of Way costs which 

will be required to maintain the track between Porter, Indiana and Dearborn, Michigan to FRA Class 6 standards. 

Ridership and revenue are also projected to increase substantially, primarily as a result of the reduction of trip travel 

times resulting from continuous 110 mph operations. This alternative shows an operating deficit of approximately 

$4.0 million. Figure 5 shows the breakdown of costs by category for the No Build Alternative. 

Table 6: Comparison of Service Alternative Operating and Maintenance Costs by Major Cost Categories 

Cost Item 

No Build Alternative 

(2035) 

Interim Service Scenario 

(2025) 

Build Alternative 

 (2035) 

Cost % of 

Total Cost % of Total Cost % of Total 

Maintenance of Way $21,000,000 30.9% $21,000,000 19.4% $23,200,000 14.9% 

Maintenance of Equipment $7,800,000 11.5% $15,700,000 14.5% $25,700,000 16.5% 

Ops-Transportation $9,000,000 13.3% $20,900,000 19.3% $30,100,000 19.4% 

Fuel $6,300,000 9.3% $12,800,000 11.8% $20,900,000 13.4% 

Sales & Marketing $4,900,000 7.2% $7,600,000 7.0% $13,100,000 8.4% 

Stations $8,300,000 12.2% $8,300,000 7.7% $8,300,000 5.3% 

General & Administrative $6,500,000 9.6% $13,900,000 12.8% $20,600,000 13.3% 

Capital Equipment Overhaul $3,300,000 4.9% $6,600,000 6.1% $10,900,000 7.0% 

Police, Security & Safety $800,000 1.2% $1,600,000 1.5% $2,600,000 1.7% 

TOTAL $67,900,000 100.0% $108,400,000 100.0% $155,400,000 100.0% 

 

PROJECTED REVENUE $63,900,000 $101,200,000 $162,000,000 

OPERATING RATIO 94.1% 93.4% 104.2% 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-115
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 20

The Interim Service Scenario includes 6 round trips per day operating on the same infrastructure that is included in 

the No Build Alternative. This scenario is an intermediate phase in 2025 towards implementing the full Build 

Alternative. All of the rail infrastructure improvements included in the No Build Alternative are assumed to be in 

place for this interim service scenario. Because the amount of service provided has doubled as compared to the No 

Build Alternative, costs associated with train miles and train hours have increased substantially. This includes the 

categories of Ops-Transportation (on-board labor), Maintenance of Equipment and Fuel. Since the infrastructure 

improvements in the Interim Service Scenario are the same as those in the No Build Alternative, the Maintenance 

of Way costs are identical. This alternative shows an operating deficit of approximately $7.3 million. Figure 6 

shows the breakdown of costs by category for the Interim Service Scenario. 

The Build Alternative includes all of the improvements necessary to allow 10 round trips per day on the corridor. 

This includes substantial improvements to the South of the Lake section between Chicago, Illinois and Porter, 

Indiana, a 10-mile section of double track on the Amtrak territory near Niles, Michigan, and double tracking the 

entire segment between Dearborn, Michigan and Pontiac, Michigan. This increases the amount of Class 6 track in 

the corridor and increases Maintenance of Way Costs. The frequency of service and ridership increase over the No 

Build Alternative, so costs associated with train hours, train miles and ridership all also show substantial increases. 

This scenario shows an operating surplus of approximately $6.6 million. Figure 7 shows the breakdown of costs by 

category for the Build Alternative. 

Figure 5: No Build Alternative Cost Categories Percent of Total 

 

Maintenance of

Way

30.9%

Maintenance of

Equipment

11.5%

Ops‐

Transportation

13.3%

Fuel

9.3% Sales &

Marketing

7.2%

Stations

12.2%

General &

Administrative

9.6%

Capital

4.9%

Police & Security

1.2%

No Build Alternative

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-116
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS | 21

Figure 6: Interim Service Scenario Cost Categories Percent of Total 

Figure 7: Full Build Alternative Cost Categories Percent of Total 

 

Maintenance of

Way

19.4%

Maintenance of

Equipment

14.5%

Ops‐

Transportation

19.3%

Fuel

11.8%

Sales &

Marketing

7.0%

Stations

7.7%

General &

Administrative

12.8%

Capital

6.1%

Police & Security

1.5%

Interim Service Scenario

Maintenance

of Way

14.9%

Maintenance of

Equipment

16.5%

Ops‐

Transportation

19.4%

Fuel

13.4%

Sales &

Marketing

8.4%

Stations

5.3%

General &

Administrative

13.3%

Capital

7.0%

Police &

Security

1.7%

Full Build Alternative

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Tier 1 EIS E-117