Category Archives: Reports

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%    

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)

 

 

Michigan Passenger Rail Station Community Benefits Study

This report was prepared for the Michigan Department of Transportation
by the Seidman College of Business Grand Valley State University.

 

 Executive Summary 

Passenger rail service is perceived to provide important benefits to Michigan communities. The extent of these benefits has never been quantified in a systematic way and, in 2008, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) contracted with Grand Valley State University to perform a broad based assessment of the community level benefits of passenger rail service.

The main objective of the research project has been to estimate the full range of these benefits at the community level. It is understood that passenger rail services provide important additional benefits to the state and the region in terms of congestion relief, safety, air quality improvement, and energy conservation. These benefits are discussed in the report but statewide or regional benefits are not quantified.

The research included a literature survey of other related studies to assess methodological implications for this project. Conclusions derived were that: benefits are sensitive to ridership activity (which is in turn influenced by service offerings); regional economic data should be used where possible; benefits of foregone travel should be estimated; long term benefits are contingent on local and regional development plans; and, projected benefits represent only estimates at a point in time subject to changing demographics, the economic profiles of different regions and the cost structure of competing forms of transportation.

It is important to recognize that Michigan communities receive only low or medium frequency levels of passenger rail service. Eleven of Michigan’s 22 station communities have only a single daily round trip while the other half have from two to four daily round trips. These levels of service should not be expected to generate the kinds of economic impacts experienced by communities served by commuter rail, light rail, or heavy rail systems with hourly or more frequent service throughout the day. That said, existing Amtrak services to Michigan communities have been found to generate significant benefits and these benefits can be meaningfully quantified.

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, operating under the Amtrak name, has since 1971, been the sole provider of intercity passenger rail service in Michigan. These services are provided to Michigan stations located on three corridors… 

  •  The Wolverine Corridor between Pontiac, Detroit and Chicago
  • The Blue Water Corridor between Port Huron and Chicago
  • The Pere Marquette Corridor between Grand Rapids and Chicago.

Ridership on these services has grown by over 50% thus far this decade—from 457,000 passengers in the year 2000 to 724,000 passengers in 2008.

The 22 stations vary greatly in terms of ownership, age, architecture, staffing, and operation. They range from simple bus stop type shelters to historic restored depots to relatively modern buildings. Only ten of the stations are staffed with Amtrak station agents. Passengers boarding at other locations must purchase their ticket from a ticket machine, travel agent, Amtrak’s web site, or from the conductor on the train. Thirteen of the stations are city owned, five are Amtrak owned, one each are owned by a local transit agency, Michigan State University, MDOT and a private owner. Operating responsibilities lie with cities, transit agencies, Amtrak, civic organizations or a mix of any of these organizations. There is no common model.

The principal objective of this research was to determine the benefits of passenger rail service to a local community. As such, a unique “Community Benefits Summary Sheet” was prepared for each station community. This Excel spreadsheet approach utilized information from MDOT’s Transportation Management System (TMS). The spreadsheet is easily updatable and could possibly be directly integrated with the TMS system. Benefits may be classified into the following categories: 

a. Individual traveler benefits. Passenger trains offer an economical mode of transportation that is usually less expensive than flying or driving. This task compared existing passenger rail costs to costs that would be incurred if there were no passenger rail service in a community and alternative modes were used (or, alternately the trip was foregone). Ridership information was first obtained for each station from MDOT’s Transportation Management System. The second step was to determine whether these travelers would make the trip in the absence of Amtrak service, and, if so, what mode would they use (auto, bus or plane). The 2007 MDOT/University of Michigan on-board survey was used for this purpose. The third step was to determine the costs of alternative mode travel. This was done primarily by internet searches of bus and airline fares assuming a 14-day advance purchase of a round trip ticket on a non-peak travel day. Costs for auto drivers was assumed to be the first half of 2008, IRS rate of $.505 per mile divided by auto occupancy of about 1.8 persons (occupancy levels varied somewhat from corridor to corridor). This information was compiled for all major travel pairs for each station. Total statewide traveler savings were calculated as $20.0 million for those individuals who used Amtrak instead of other modes of transportation. An estimate of the economic benefit of Amtrak service for passengers who would not make the trip in the absence of Amtrak service was calculated at $2.7 million. 

b. Local business benefits. Travelers may utilize the train to travel to or from a community where they may use a taxi, rent a car, stay at a hotel, and eat at a restaurant. They may attend a conference or a sports event and they may shop in the community. This may vary from community to community but these and similar expenditures send a stream of benefits to many parts of the area. On-board survey data was used to determine the percentage of travelers that used taxis, rental cars, or local transit to access the train. Information was also obtained on passengers using hotels as well as length of stay. Respondents also indicated a primary trip purpose such as business or shopping. These responses allowed the research team to develop estimates, for example, of the number of persons who used taxis, stayed at hotels and shopped in station communities. The team was careful to isolate persons spending money in Michigan as opposed to Chicago or other out-of-state locations. Since Chicago is an important destination for Michigan train travelers it was important to exclude certain costs for travelers who resided in Michigan and were going to Chicago. As such, a conservative approach was utilized that considered Michigan hotel stays, meals, shopping and other activities for only non-Michigan residents. These types of direct expenditures send a stream of benefits throughout the community and were subject to an economic multiplier that resulted in local community benefits of $25.7 million. 

c. Amtrak Expenditures. Amtrak operates all of the passenger rail services in Michigan. As such, Amtrak expends considerable amounts of money in Michigan for employee wages, supplies, and stations. In 2008, Amtrak employed 115 persons in Michigan. There are 48 persons involved in train operations as engineers, conductors, or train maintenance workers. There are 27 persons involved with station services including selling tickets. There are 40 employees involved in track and signal maintenance jobs related to the Amtrak owned track between Kalamazoo and Porter, Indiana. These employees were assigned to individual stations based on their work assignments. Other costs such as hotel, meal, and taxi costs for crew layovers in Michigan were also calculated by station, as were estimates for fuel and other supplies purchased in Michigan for use on Michigan services. As might be expected Amtrak expenditures are heavily weighted towards those station communities that serve as a crew base for Amtrak employees. Pontiac and Niles are good examples of stations with modest ridership but high levels of Amtrak expenditures. Costs for Amtrak vendor procurements that were not directly related to Michigan train operations were not included (e.g., purchase of over $1 million in shoes from a Michigan vendor). Direct and indirect expenditures associated with Amtrak service in Michigan amounted to $13.6 million. 

  

The 22 Michigan communities with Amtrak stations receive $62 million annually in quantifiable benefits attributable to passenger rail service. These benefits are summarized below for each of the three corridors. It is important to state that these represent quantifiable benefits attributable only to the local communities. Additional benefits more difficult to quantify relate to how the existence of passenger rail service in a community enhances its image as a place to live and do business. Significant additional benefits also accrue to the region and the state related to traffic congestion relief, safety, energy conservation, and air quality improvement. These benefits are substantial and research for the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) indicates that safety and vehicle emission costs alone amounted to $.07 per vehicle mile in 1999. It is important to emphasize that these and other macro level benefits must be included in any consideration of the overall value of Amtrak service. 

Summary of Quantifiable Community Benefits

Pere Marquette Corridor Blue Water Corridor Wolverine Corridor Total Statewide
Traveler savings $2,808,380 $4,283,972 $12,872,105 $19,964,456
Non-traveler savings $ 345,737 $ 545,449 $ 1,848,575 $ 2,739,761
Local business benefits $3,572,199 $2,942,865 $19,159,480 $25,674,544
Amtrak expenditures $ 551,035 $1,949,089 $11,133,556 $13,633,680
Total community benefits $7,277,351 $9,721,374 $45,013,716 $62,012,441

Telephone interviews of community leaders and field surveys of each station were conducted as part of the work effort. This enabled the research team to obtain information and determine perceived and actual benefits associated with having an Amtrak station in a community. In general, there was a high degree of community support for the stations. The importance of the station to the community varies depending on the size and nature of the community and the type of station. In the smaller communities, the station may serve as a focal point for local activities and may even provide meeting space for public events or house the offices of the local chamber of commerce. In many cases, the station is seen as the only public link to intercity transportation because of the lack of intercity bus service or access to air service.

In larger communities, the service is viewed as one part of the multimodal transportation system but an important asset to the community. The location of the facility determines its potential for acting as a catalyst for further community economic development. The direct impact of the station on local businesses was generally acknowledged but little hard data was available. Restaurants and bars near stations receive additional business from travelers waiting for the train or disembarking in the community. Taxis serve most stations if the community is large enough to support a taxi service.

In tourist-oriented communities, rail service provides direct access (walking) to local attractions. This is the case in St. Joseph, Dearborn (Greenfield Village platform) and New Buffalo. The survey respondents viewed passenger rail service as an important option for minority 10 and low income populations in the communities. It was also seen as an important service for college students in university communities such as East Lansing, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, and Albion.

A number of station communities have recently improved their stations and others are planning to do so. The report contains case studies of strategic approaches to station development by six Michigan communities. The report also contains a discussion of other community development benefits resulting from station development initiatives. This includes increased employment, increased property values and increased tax base. The concept of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is discussed. Further, a literature review was undertaken of economic impacts associated with rail related developments. Most of the national research deals with developments in high-density urban areas where high levels of transit service are being proposed. This is quite different from the Michigan situation but does offer some insight on the strategic and developmental aspects of station development. The authors did obtain information on economic development issues relating to a proposed new commuter rail service in Wisconsin and the Amtrak “Downeaster” service from Boston to Portland. The latter service is more closely aligned with Michigan type services, but with important differences in terms of corridor length and service frequency. Economic studies of the “Downeaster” service expect significant growth in ridership and local development adjacent to the stations over the next few years.

Significant local economic benefits are associated with the provision of Amtrak service in Michigan. This research indicates local communities currently realize $62.0 million annually in benefits. Additional benefits accrue to the region, state, and nation in the form of congestion relief, air quality improvement, energy conservation, and safety. The benefits accrue to the local community even though service is very limited with only a single daily round trip provided to half of Michigan’s stations. This severely limits the potential for economic development impacts. The implementation of greatly improved levels of service and train speeds such as those in the proposed high speed Midwest Regional Rail System would dramatically change station area dynamics and overall benefit levels for local communities. The addition of commuter services in the southeast Michigan region would also result in major station development opportunities. 

 A complete copy of this report is available at the Michigan Department of Transportation website:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Michigan_Passenger_Rail_Station_Community_Benefits_Study_299920_7.pdf 
 

 

The Public Benefits of Passenger Trains

By Kay Chase, Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers

September, 2007

 The transportation system in the U.S. is facing daunting challenges which demand new solutions – solutions that include greater reliance on rail to move both people and goods.

 The challenges include increasing highway congestion, cancellations and delays at airports, rising fuel costs, greenhouse gas emissions, and, particularly in Michigan, an aging population and inadequate financial resources for highway maintenance and construction. All of these are making travel more time consuming, costly, polluting, and dangerous.

 In the period 1990-2001, vehicle travel on Michigan interstate highways increased 33%, while lane miles increased only 3% (TRIP, page 3). Highway traffic is expected to increase another 40% by 2026 if no new capacity is added. This will result in congested conditions on two-thirds of the state’s urban interstates and one-third of the rural interstates (TRIP, page 5).

 Michigan faces two additional challenges: (1) an aging population, and (2) severe financial constraints that are hampering maintenance of the existing system, let alone allowing for future road expansion.

 A report prepared in 2006 for the Michigan Department of Transportation states “The dominant socioeconomic change in Michigan is expected to be the increase in aging and retired populations.”     (SocioecTR, page 30)

 Consequently, MDOT predicts a tripling of highway fatalities among persons 65 or older in the next 25 years if present trends continue.     (SafetyTR, page 20)

 On the subject of safety, it is worth noting that “There has not been a single passenger death, other than from natural causes, on a Michigan train since Amtrak’s inception.” (personal communication, John DeLora, Executive Director of the Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers).

 It is not unreasonable to assume that commuter and passenger trains will assume a greater role in Michigan’s future transportation system. The state of Michigan, along with other states throughout the Midwest, appears ready to place greater reliance on off-highway solutions to meet future transportation needs.

 The recently completed Michigan State Long Range Transportation Plan (MichSLRP)    foresees a revenue gap that will hamper both maintenance and repair of existing roads and bridges and the ability to add new capacity to the system. With nearly 60% of the state’s interstate highways in fair condition or worse – and with the looming bankruptcy of the Federal Highway Trust Fund – the need for new solutions is critical.

 The State Long Range Plan proposes investing “in all transportation modes” and acknowledges the need for “adding new capital . . . expanding transit and rail passenger service.”  (MichSLRP “Preferred Vision”, p.18)

 Because travel by rail is safe, energy efficient, cost effective, and convenient, it seems clear that the state’s rail system offers the greatest potential for meeting future travel needs, given the challenges outlined above.

 The transportation sector accounts for nearly a third of U.S. energy consumption. Cars and light trucks account for 60% of U.S. energy consumption, domestic air carriers 7%, Class I freight railroads 2%, and commuter- and intercity-rail a tiny 0.2%.     (ORNL, Table 2.6)

 On the basis on energy consumed per passenger mile, passenger rail (Amtrak) is 27% more efficient than cars, 57% more efficient than light trucks, and 43% more efficient than certified route airlines.

                       Transportation Mode        Btu per passenger mile

                       Personal trucks                         4,329

                      Certified air route                     3.959

                      Cars                                          3,496

                      Intercity rail (Amtrak)              2,760

                           Source: Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 26 (2007), Table 2.12

 Technical improvements in equipment and changes in operating procedures have allowed Amtrak to cut its fuel use 10% over the period 2004-2006 – even while carrying more people on more trains (AMTRK-1).

 Despite these efficiencies, rising fuel prices added $43 million to operating expenses over the period. This fact highlights the need for excellent track and signal maintenance and efficient dispatching to avoid fuel-wasting delays while enroute.

 Growing concern with greenhouse gas emissions and the implications for global climate change make it likely that carbon will be regulated in the near future. Because the transportation sector accounts for almost a third of U.S. energy use, the highest share recorded since 1970  (ORNL, Table 2.1), and a third of the carbon dioxide emissions (ORNL, Table 11.4), the need for fundamental change is clear.

 Passenger train travel, being more fuel efficient on a per passenger mile basis, will emit far less carbon dioxide.

 For a trip of 280 miles, roughly the distance between Chicago and Detroit, one standard 5-car passenger train carrying 300 passengers will emit 19.5 tons less CO2 than 191 automobiles carrying an equivalent number of passengers and almost 13 tons less CO2 than the two airplanes needed to carry the same number of passengers (adapted from GHG spreadsheet developed by ELPC).

 gal.fuel useda  x  CO2 factorb  =  CO2 emissions per vehicle

CO2 emissions per vehicle  x  no.vehicles to move 300 people  =  lbs. CO2

 Intercity Train (diesel)  –  a 5-car train will move 310 people

(281c x 1.75)  x  22.384 = 11,007  x  1 = 11,007 lbs  or  5.5 tons CO2

 Automobile  –  at 1.57 passengers per automobile, 191 vehicles needed to move 300

(279 / 20.8)  x 19.594  =  263  x  191  =  50,199 lbs.  or  25 tons CO2

 Air  –  a Boeing 737-700 seats149 in all economy configuration

(0.9 hr.  x 970)  x  21.095  =  18, 415.935  x  2  =  36,832 lbs.  or  18.4 tons CO2

 a based on Amtrak 1.75 gals/train mile est.; 20.8 mpg fleet average for automobiles; Air Transport Action Group est. of 970 gal jet fuel/flight hour

CO2 factor calculated by Energy Information Administration

 Aside from the substantial savings in fuel use and harmful emissions, train travel has some less obvious, but important, advantages over air travel. Train stations are typically located in downtown areas, thus saving the time and fuel needed to drive to airports many miles from the urban center. In addition, trains serve many smaller communities that have no commercial air service, bringing people to jobs, shopping and education facilities.

 In summary, passenger rail offers a number of public benefits, among them:

  • Time- and cost-effectiveness
  • Safety
  • Fuel efficiency
  • Fewer harmful emissions

 Americans are responding by riding the trains in record numbers and demanding faster and more frequent trains. A recent Harris poll asked “Who should have an increasing share of passenger transportation?” 44% of respondents said passenger trains should have an increasing share, with commuter trains a close second at 35%. A mere 11% favored an increasing share for cars. Movement of goods by freight rail was favored by 63%. Asked about their priorities for future passenger transportation, 47% said safety was their first concern, 44% said energy efficiency, while only 29% rated cost as a priority.      (Harris)

 Investment of public dollars at all levels has spurred economic development in urban centers. Rising fuel costs and concerns with greenhouse gas emissions demand expansion of the transportation system to include greater reliance on trains – passenger, commuter and freight – to move people and goods.

 Continued success will require a mutually beneficial partnership with the freight railroad industry, an industry that offers many of the same public benefits.

 In conclusion, passenger trains offer substantial public benefits that include safety, convenience, and cost-effectiveness, while lowering emissions of greenhouse gases

 Improving trip times and increasing the number of trains on corridors connecting the nation’s downtown business centers can significantly improve regional transportation, often at a fraction of the cost of expanding highway or airport capacity. Many states have focused on rail corridor development as a critical element of improving access to city centers. With modest funding, these corridors could be able to better manage growing highway congestion and provide important environmental, economic and transportation benefits.

  — Amtrak Government Affairs “Corridor & State Trains”, February 2007

 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *     

REFERENCES

AMTRK-1      “Energy Efficient Travel”, June 2006

                   http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/Energy_Efficient_Travel.pdf

AMTRK-2      Amtrak Fact Sheet, FY 2006 “State of Michigan”

                   http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/MICHIGAN06.pdf

AMTRK-3      Amtrak Government Affairs “Corridor and State Trains” (Feb. 2007)

                   http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/CorridorTrains.pdf

ELPC            Environmental Law & Policy Center, Chicago IL

                   http://www.elpc.org

Harris          The Harris Poll #14, February 8, 2006

                   www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=638

TRIP            Michigan Report, “Saving Lives, Time, and Money” (June 2006)

                   www.tripnet.org/MichiganInterstateReport062706.pdf

MichSLRP     Michigan State Long Range Plan

                   www.michigan.gov.mdot

MWRRI-1     Midwest Regional Rail System, “Benefiting Michigan’s Economy”

                   http://michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT-MWRRI_Michigan_brochure_193255_7.pdf

MWRRI-2     Midwest Regional Rail System, Executive Report (September, 2004)

                   http://michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT-MWRRI_Executive_Report_193254_7.pdf

ORNL           Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 26 (2007), published by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for Transportation Analysis

                   http://cta.ornl.gov/data/index.shtml

SafetyTR      Highway Safety Technical Report (MDOT 2006)

http://michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_TR_Safety_Report_7-28-06_166942_7.pdf

SocioecTR    Socioeconomics Technical Report (MDOT 2006)

                   http://michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_SocioecTR_20060807_Final_167

566_7.pdf

Amtrak Timeliness Study Results

September, 2004

Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers (MARP) has conducted a timeliness study for AMTRAK trains serving the state of Michigan. The study period covers September 1 through September 30, 2004. Data for the study was obtained directly from AMTRAK’s website-based train status database.

Data was collected by four MARP members who were each assigned specific trains: Blue Water-Kaz Fujita; Pere Marquette-John Langdon; Wolverine eastbound-Jim Wallington; and Wolverine westbound-Mike Whims. MARP wishes to thank these members for their valuable efforts.

The study was prompted by continued complaints from passengers regarding AMTRAK’s timeliness performance. A preliminary study conducted by MARP in June-July, 2004 indicated serious timeliness delays, some of which were considered perhaps due to startup problems on the Blue Water and other non-recurring events. The September study is both a confirmatory study and a baseline against which future studies will be compared.

The results of the September study indicate that serious deficiencies exist in AMTRAK’s ability to deliver timely service on Michigan’s ten (10) daily trains. On average, an eastbound passenger could rely on reaching a train’s final Michigan destination city on-schedule only 36% of the time, and a westbound passenger could rely on an on-schedule arrival in Chicago only 9% of the time.

The September study results indicate that performance varies from train to train. The westbound trips are clearly less reliable than eastbound, and the somewhat subjective honor of the worst performance is shared by the Blue Water westbound and the Wolverine mid-day westbound #353 trains. In fact, anyone who rode the #353 Wolverine train never reached Chicago on time during September.

This report includes a summary sheet of performance data by train, followed by the actual data collected by each member. Although data format used by each member differs, a standard convention is utilized where (+) indicates lateness. Also, an early arrival is counted as on time in the summaries. A cancelled train (due to freight problems for instance) was not counted in the averaging.

      MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS				
                 September, 2004 AMTRAK Timeliness Study Results				

BLUE WATER West #365 			Dp PTH	Dp LNS	Dp BTL	Ar CHI
% of time train met schedule		90%	20%	7%	3%
Ave. departure from schedule (min.)	0.8	32.8	45.0	71.8

BLUE WATER East #364 			Dp CHI	Dp BTL	Dp LNS	Ar PTH
% of time train met schedule		87%	10%	0%	30%
Ave. departure from schedule (min.)	7.5	27.4	37.6	39.4

PERE MARQUETTE West #371 		Dp GRR	Dp HOM	Dp NBM	Ar CHI
% of time train met schedule		100%	7%	3%	10%
Ave. departure from schedule (min.)	0.0	6.3	18.6	25.5

PERE MARQUETTE East #370 		Dp CHI	Dp NBM	Dp HOM	Ar GRR
% of time train met schedule		90%	28%	24%	31%
Ave. departure from schedule (min.)	0.4	14.3	16.3	14.3

WOLVERINE early West #351 		Dp PNT	Dp DET	Dp BTL	Ar CHI
% of time train met schedule		69%	0%	0%	10%
Ave. departure from schedule (min.)	5.1	18.9	33.1	32

WOLVERINE mid-day West #353 		Dp PNT	Dp DET	Dp BTL	Ar CHI
% of time train met schedule		38%	0%	0%	0%
Ave. departure from schedule (min.)	14.7	26.6	46.0	42.5

WOLVERINE evening West #355 		Dp PNT	Dp DET	Dp BTL	Ar CHI
% of time train met schedule		79%	18%	3%	23%
Ave. departure from schedule (min.)	7.5	19.6	30.4	28.3

WOLVERINE early East #350 		Dp CHI	Dp BTL	Dp DET	Ar PNT
% of time train met schedule		80%	17%	30%	30%
Ave. departure from schedule (min.)	9.8	25.3	29.5	31.9

WOLVERINE mid-day East #352 		Dp CHI	Dp BTL	Dp DET	Ar PNT
% of time train met schedule		83%	23%	17%	20%
Ave. departure from schedule (min.)	3.8	25.3	30.6	29.1

WOLVERINE evening East #354 		Dp CHI	Dp BTL	Dp DET	Ar PNT
% of time train met schedule		90%	20%	33%	30%
Ave. departure from schedule (min.)	1.1	15.6	15.1	16.3

Data source: AMTRAK