Category Archives: Reports

Reports

Michigan By Rail Final Summary Report

In June 2010, Michigan Environmental Council (MEC) and the Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers (MARP) convened a series of statewide public forums focused on Michigan’s rail system.  Sixteen Michigan By Rail public forums were held across the state during the summer and fall.

This summary of Michigan By Rail findings provides a brief overview of the Michigan By Rail public forums, a discussion of the five common themes that emerged through each forum, a description of each of the forums including promotional materials, sample press materials and sample maps from each forum that best represent the general direction of that particular forum.

The purpose of the Michigan By Rail public forums was to begin a statewide conversation about Michigan’s passenger rail system, to better understand what Michiganders want out of the state’s passenger rail system, and to encourage citizens to submit their ideas to the Michigan Department of Transportation for incorporation into the official State Rail Plan.

The forums took place on weekday evenings and were primarily participant-driven.  They began with opening remarks which included an explanation of Michigan By Rail public forums and the State Rail Plan.  MEC and MARP clearly distinguished Michigan By Rail public forums from the transportation department’s four listening sessions.

Short introductions of the sponsors, local partners, and elected-official hosts followed the opening remarks.  Three United States congressmen, twenty-five state legislators, more than twelve mayors, and numerous city council members and township officials hosted the events.  Over 100 local partners, including more than 40 municipalities, eighteen chambers of commerce, seven planning departments, six conventions and visitors’ bureaus, and many others, helped publicize the forums.  Roughly 1,100 citizens participated.

Interactive mapping sessions consumed the majority of the forums.  Participants clustered around tables in groups of about ten.  The participants were given large Michigan maps which contained only county lines.  The participants were instructed to first place a sticker on the map which indicated where they considered home.  Then, they placed another sticker on the map at a place that they considered to be important to the state — a natural area, culturally significant place, etc.  Some participants used more than one sticker.  They were then instructed to draw lines on the map where they would like to travel by passenger train.  They also were reminded to consider freight rail traffic.  Finally, a person from each table presented that table’s map to the group at large — summaries of discussions, an explanation of what they drew on the map, and so on. The full group had the opportunity to question and comment on each map.

A representative from Amtrak or the Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers explained Michigan’s current passenger rail system after the map presentations.  The overview of the current system was intentionally delayed until after each table presented its map so as not to influence the mapping session.  The system overview led into wide-ranging discussions that consumed the remainder of the forum.  The discussions varied from forum to forum based on participant interest.  Common themes emerged both in the discussions and written input submitted by participants.

MEC and MARP collected input from participants about the current passenger rail system and their visions for its future.  Participants’ comments and the maps they created were used in the preparation of this document.

Nearly all of the participants wanted an improved and expanded rail system including more frequent and reliable service.  Five passenger rail themes emerged over the course of sixteen Michigan By Rail public forums regarding how to best achieve that goal:

  1. Michigan’s passenger rail system should include a Traverse City to southern Michigan connection.
  2. Michigan’s passenger rail system should connect east Michigan to west Michigan.
  3. Michigan’s passenger rail system should connect Michigan’s universities.
  4. Michigan’s passenger rail system should include commuter rail connections.
  5. Michigan’s passenger rail system should connect to Toledo.

What follows is a brief discussion of each of the common themes.

Michigan’s passenger rail system should include a Traverse City to southern Michigan connection
Each map at each forum included connecting Traverse City to the southern part of the state in some fashion.  The southern connection points varied between Grand Rapids and the Ann Arbor area depending on where the forum was held.  The maps, discussion, and comments, however, were consistent across forums regarding a Traverse City to southern Michigan passenger rail connection.

Michigan’s passenger rail system should connect east Michigan to west Michigan
Almost every map included connecting Michigan’s east side to west side from Detroit to Lansing to Grand Rapids (and often Holland).  Discussions around this passenger rail connection focused on linking together Michigan’s three principal cities (without first traveling to Chicago); commuter possibilities; connecting two major universities, Michigan State University and Wayne State University; make doing business easier in the three cities; and tourist travel — sports venues in Detroit, Art Prize in Grand Rapids, and the Capitol and other state government interests in Lansing.

Michigan’s passenger rail system should connect Michigan’s universities
Participants consistently mentioned a desire to connect Michigan’s universities and colleges. Some Michigan college towns are currently served by Amtrak; increasing service frequency, re-scheduling to accommodate the academic calendar, and connecting the college and universities together were reoccurring points.  The rationale that surfaced most typically in connecting the state’s academic institutions was to allow for instructors and students to more easily work and study at more than one institution.

Michigan’s passenger rail system should include commuter rail connections
Participants at each forum discussed the need for some sort of commuter rail service connecting the principal cities to outlying areas, particularly Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint and Grand Rapids.  These discussions included a direct rail connection to Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW).

Michigan’s passenger rail system should connect to Toledo
Connecting Michigan’s existing passenger rail system to Toledo came up at each forum.  Participants discussed that one must travel to Chicago — or by motor coach to Toledo — to travel to points east such as New York.  Connecting Toledo to the Wolverine at Ann Arbor or Detroit was typically suggested.

More information, including photos of all of the participant-created maps, as well as local news articles covering many of the forums, is available at www.michiganbyrail.org.

Tim Fischer, Deputy Policy Director
Michigan Environmental Council

The full Michigan By Rail Summary Report is available online as a PDF file for viewing, downloading, or printing at:

http://bit.ly/fSYINU

FYI, News, Reports

Election results: Transit millages in Michigan

Voters have overwhelming supported transit millages and proposals in Michigan during the 2010 election cycle. In many cases, the ballot proposals passed with a greater than 2/3 majority. Here is a listing of ballot proposals compiled by Transportation for America:

Bay County – Type: Property tax
Bay County voters were asked to approve a five-year, 0.75-mill renewal for operations of the Bay Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The renewal is expected to generate about $2.2 million a year. The rate has not increased since it was first approved by voters in 1981. The revenue is used to match state and federal grants, which all totaled fund Bay Metro’s $7 million annual budget.

August 3, 2010
Approved
64%-36%

Bennington Township – Type: Property tax
Voters are being asked to approve a 0.15-mil levy, which will run for four years, for the purpose of providing public transportation within Bennington Township from SATA at a reduced cost. If approved, the millage would raise an estimated $14,400 in its first year.

November 2, 2010
Approved
66%-34%

Branch County – Type: Property tax
Voters were asked to approve a 0.35 millage renewal to support the operation of the Branch Area Transit Authority (BATA) bus service. Local voters have always approved renewals. The tax will continue until 2014, and is expected to raise about $464,770 in its first year.

August 3, 2010
Approved
70%-30%

Clare County – Type: Property tax
Voters were asked to approve a five-year millage renewal for Clare County Transit Corportation. The total request was for 0.3 mills, with 0.2953 mills being renewed and 0.0047 mills being restored. The tax was originally approved in the 1980s. It is estimated to generate $312,068.00 the first year. Clare County Transit has an annual operating budget of approximately $1.2 million. Funding comes from the local millage, fares and state and federal grants.

August 3, 2010
Approved
61%-39%

Caro – Type: Property tax
Voters in Almer Charter and Indianfields townships and the City of Caro were asked for 1 mill for three years for the Caro Transit Authority to operate Thumbody Express. The measure is expected to generate $231,000 annually.

November 2, 2010
Approved
62%-38%

Eaton County – Type: Property tax
Voters in Eaton County were asked to increase the millage for EATRAN to 0.5 mill to allow service expansion and some fixed-route service.

August 3, 2010
Failed
45%-55%

Eaton County – Type: Property tax
A measure identical to the failed August 3 measure. The proposal would replace the 0.2469 mill levy with an 0.75 mill tax levy for five years, from 2012 through 2016. The county Board of Commissioners voted to put this measure back on the ballot two weeks after the disappointing August election.

November 2, 2010
Failed
40%-60%

Genesee County – Type: Property tax
On the ballot was a five-year renewal measure for a 0.4 mill tax to support the Mass Transportation Authority’s countywide bus system. In its first year, the tax is expected to generate about $4.5 million. Countywide property taxes have been approved for MTA everytime they have been on the ballot since 1996.

August 3, 2010
Approved
63%-37%

 

Ingham County – Type: Property tax
The proposal would combine and reauthorize two levies approved by voters in 2004 and 2006 for public transportation services elderly and disabled. The 0.48 mill would raise approximately $3.641 million a year.

August 3, 2010
Approved
67%-33%

 

Ingham County – Type: Property tax
This measure for the Capital Area Transportation Authority would replace replace two existing levies with a single renewal and an increase totalling 3 mills. This rate was approved by voters in 2004, but was subsequently reduced by a change in a constitutional provision. The millage is expected to generate approximately $18,001,980 in its first year.

August 3, 2010
Approved
63%-37%

 Lapeer County – Type: Property tax
This proposal asks voters to renew the 0.25 operating fund millage for the Greater Lapeer Transportation Authority. It was approved by voters in 2006 and was set to expire in 2010. It will be applicable in the townships of Deerfield, Elba, Lapeer, Mayfield, and Oregon and the City of Lapeer, for a period of five years, from 2011 to 2015. It is estimated to raise $290,000 in its first year.

August 3, 2010
Approved
67%-33%

 

Ludington, Mason County- Type: Property tax
This proposal asked voters to renew the 1 mill operating fund millage for the Ludington Mass Transportation Authority that was approved in 2006 for four years. The tax would be extended for five years, from 2011-2015 in the city of Ludington. In its first year it is estimated to generate $262,945.

August 3, 2010
Approved 

Scottsville, Mason County – Type: Property tax
This proposal asked voters to renew the 1 mill operating fund millage for the Ludington Mass Transportation Authority that was approved for 2 years in 2008. The millage would be levied for five years, from 2011-2015 in the city of Scottsville. In its first year it is expected to generate $23,460.

August 3, 2010
Approved 

City of Saginaw – Type: Property tax
The measure asked voters to approve a 3-mill, five-year renewal of the levy for the Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Services. The measure is necessary to maintain operations in preparation for a potential countywide measure in 2015.

August 3, 2010
Approved
65%-35%

 

Shiawassee County – Type: Property tax  

August 3, 2010
Approved 

Spring Lake – Type: Property tax
Voters will consider a two-year renewal of 0.9898 mills to pay for the village’s participation in the Harbor Transit transportation system. The levy would be within the village’s authorized operating tax, and would not involve a change in its millage rate. It is expected to generate $84,786 annually.

November 2, 2010
Approved
80%-20%

 

St. Joseph County – Type: Property tax
St. Joseph County voters in August will get a request to renew for four years a 0.33-mill property tax originally approved in 2007. The tax generates $583,000, about 45 percent of the St. Joseph County Transportation Authority’s $1.3 million budget. It is set to expire next year.

August 3, 2010
Approved
61%-37%

 

Van Buren – Type: Property tax
Request to renew  0.2480 mill for public transportation services for seniors and disabled people for 5 years, from 2011-2015.. The levy is expected to bring in $734,431 in the first year.

August 3, 2010
Approved
68%-32%

 

Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties – Type: Property tax
Voters in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties voted on a two-year millage renewal to fund local SMART bus service in their communities. The 0.59-mill property tax funds bus service in the 23 suburban communities that have chosen to “opt in” to the system by voting on the tax. SMART gets about half its revenue from property taxes, and has recently trimmed $11 million from its budget — $7 million through cuts and $4 million through a fare increase that took effect Dec. 1.

August 3, 2010
Approved
Oakland- 78%
Wayne- 74%
Macomb-72%

Wexford – Type: Property tax
This proposal asked voters countywide to consider a 0.6 mill levy to support operations for the Cadillac/ Wexford Transit Authority. The levy would be renewed for four years. The CWTA had $2 million in total expenses in 2009. This operating millage is expected to generate $591,285.

August 3, 2010
Approved
61%-39%

 

Ypsilanti – Type: Property tax 
City of Ypsilanti voters were asked to approve a charter amendment to levy an additional 0.9789 mills specifically for public transit, restoring the original 20 mills that had been reduced. With the amendment in place, Ypsilanti would secure an additional $281,429 in revenue in 2011 for bus transportation through the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

November 2, 2010
Approved
72%-28%

Reports, Ridership statistics

Michigan Ridership Growth 2000 – 2009

Route Round Trips Passengers  Growth
per Day 2003 – 2009 2003 – 2009
Blue Water          
Port Huron to 1 80,890 → 132,851 64%
Chicago          
Pere Marquette          
Grand Rapids to 1 73,392 → 103,246 41%
Chicago          
Wolverine          
Pontiac/Detroit to 3 326,367 → 444,127 36%
Chicago          
  Wolverine Blue Water Pere Marquette   Total   Wolverine/3
FY 2000 320,383 108,266 64,825   493,474   106,794
FY 2001 295,227 105,114 58,836   459,177   98,409
FY 2002 299,729 91,714 60,127   451,570   99,910
FY 2003 326,367 80,890 73,392   480,649   108,789
FY 2004 366,291 94,378 87,767   548,436   122,097
FY 2005 406,499 111,630 96,471   614,600   135,500
FY 2006 438,529 123,823 101,932   664,284   146,176
FY 2007 449,107 127,642 104,819   681,568   149,702
FY 2008 472,393 136,538 111,716   720,647   157,464
FY 2009 444,127 132,851 103,246   680,224   148,042
               
% gain 2000-2008 47.4% 26.1% 72.3%   46.0%    
% gain 2000-2009 38.6% 22.7% 59.3%   37.8%    
% gain last 7 yrs 36.1% 64.2% 40.7%   41.5%    
% gain last 6 yrs 21.2% 40.8% 17.6%   24.0%    
% gain last 5 yrs 9.3% 19.0% 7.0%   10.7%    
               
% gain 2007-2008 5.2% 7.0% 6.6%   5.7%    
% gain 2008-2009 -6.0% -2.7% -7.6%   -5.6%    
               
% gain lowest to highest year 60.0% 68.8% 89.9%   56.9%    
Reports, Ridership statistics

Michigan Amtrak Station Activity 2008-09

 

City Boardings
+Alightings FY08		 Boardings
+Alightings FY09		   Change 2008-2009   # trains daily 2008 # trains daily 2009 Boardings
+Alightings per train FY08		 Boardings
+Alightings per train FY09
Albion 1,817 1,539   -15.3%   2 2 909 770
Ann Arbor 148,594 133,454   -10.2%   6 6 24,766 22,242
Bangor  3,710 3,397   -8.4%   2 2 1,855 1,699
Battle Creek  57,264 51,571   -9.9%   8 8 7,158 6,446
Birmingham  19,714 18,695   -5.2%   6 6 3,286 3,116
Dearborn  75,840 72,407   -4.5%   6 6 12,640 12,068
Detroit  59,973 60,684   1.2%   6 6 9,996 10,114
Dowagiac  2,919 2,435   -16.6%   4 4 730 609
Durand 9,310 9,283   -0.3%   2 2 4,655 4,642
East Lansing  51,012 52,010   2.0%   2 2 25,506 26,005
Flint  26,134 26,108   -0.1%   2 2 13,067 13,054
Grand Rapids  57,465 52,393   -8.8%   2 2 28,733 26,197
Holland  40,463 36,804   -9.0%   2 2 20,232 18,402
Jackson 27,902 27,432   -1.7%   6 6 4,650 4,572
Kalamazoo 119,121 112,804   -5.3%   8 8 14,890 14,101
Lapeer 7,473 7,023   -6.0%   2 2 3,737 3,512
New Buffalo  3,297 3,952   19.9%   2 2 1,649 1,976
Niles 19,286 18,329   -5.0%   7 7 2,755 2,618
Pontiac  16,546 14,512   -12.3%   6 6 2,758 2,419
Port Huron  14,115 13,967   -1.0%   2 2 7,058 6,984
Royal Oak  30,362 29,382   -3.2%   6 6 5,060 4,897
St. Joseph/Benton Harbor 8,521 8,470   -0.6%   2 2 4,261 4,235
Total Michigan Station Usage  800,838 756,651   -5.5%          

(data source: Amtrak Michigan Fact Sheet 2009)