Docket No. AB 18 Docket No.

AB 31

Sfu:1§:fM S P 21 Su b-:N:O.n SA

Aba ndunme nt or Cross l.a k e Mi c h ig a n Car Ferry Service

SERVICE DATE OCT 131976

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Interstate Commerce Corn m iss io n

Of Iice or Proceedings

En v i 1'0 n men I 0 I A f r air s S I H r r

Buruau or Eco no rn ir:s

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION Washington, D.C.

Docke t. No. AB 18 (Sub-No. 21)

CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY ABANTlONMENT or CAR FERRY SERVICE ACROSS LAKE MICHIGAN BETWEEN LUDINGTON, HICHIGAN, AND KEWAUNEE, MILWAUKEE, AND MANI70WOC, IHSCONSIN

Docket No. AD 31 (Sub-No.5)

GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD CO~ANY AND THE GRAND 'UUlNK.

MILWAUKEE CAR FERP,Y COMPANY ABA.t\[)ONM.ENT OF ITS LAKE MICHIGAN CAR FERRY OPERATION, FROM EASTE&~ PORT OF MUSKEGON TO WESTERN PORT OF MILWAUKEE, IN MUSKEGON COUNTY. MICHIGAN AND MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN

October 12, 1976

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES:

The Chesapeake and Ohio and the Grand Trunk Western Railroads have applied to the In t e r s ta te Commerce Commission for au thoriza tion to abandon their cross Lake Michigan car ferry service. In addition, the Arm Arbor Railroad's car ferry service is being operated by the Consolidated Rail Corporation under subsidies from the States of Wisconsin and Michigan. Should the abandonments be authorized and the subsidies discontinued, it is possible that all car ferry service across Lake Michigan may end. The Commission's Envi ronmen tal Affairs Staff, wi th the assis tance of the Bureau of Economics, has prepared the attached Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this action.

Parties to the proceeding and other interested parties may comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement by the submission of representation to the Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C. 20423, on or befoye December 7, 1976. Add'tional copies of the statement are available upon request to the Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C. 20423.

ROBERT L. OS\OlALD Secretary

SUMMARY

(x) Draft

() Final Environmental Impact Statern~t

OFFICE OF PROCEEDINGS, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

1. Type oE Action

(X) Administrative:

( ) Legislative

2. De5CTiptior; of Action:

The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company proposes to abandon Its car ferry service between Lud i rig Oil Mich., on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, and Milwaukee, Wis. Authority is also requested to abandon yard and tennina1 track and associated structures in Ludington. The Grand Trunk .... ~s tern Rai Lr oad Company a 150 proposes to abandon its car ferry operation from Muskegon, Nich., to Hi lwaukee, as we 11 as its faci 1i ties in Milwaukee. Finally, the Ann Arbor Ra L lroad Company CB.r ferry service between Frankfort, Mich., and Kewaunee is currently being operated by the Consolidated Railroad

Co rpo ra tion pur suan t to subsidies from the S til tes of llichigan and Wisconsin.

If the abandonmen ts are 'IU thorized and the subsidies d i scon tinued, ,,11 Lake MichiRao car ferry service may be terminated.

3. Summary of Environmental Impacts:

All cross Lake Mi.chigan car ferry service will be abandoned. Rail freight, truck, and pas senge r traffic will be re-routed over more circuitous routes. Althoug~ a wide dispersion of traffic is expected, there will be a concentration of r a i land, to a Lesser ex ten t, pa ssenger tra Hic through the Chi cage gateway. Traffic congestion will increase slightly and there will be minimal increases in air emissions. The relative increase in energy consumption wilL

be slight, although II shift from coal burning to oil fired transportation will be involved.

Loss of car ferry related employment and earnings will adversely affect

he harbor cornmun.i t Le s , pa r t Lcu l.e r the smaller port towns which have a less diversified economic. base. Tourism and other secondat:y employment will also be advet:sely affected. Abandonment may lead to a reassessment of other ongoing proj ec t s such a s the Grea t Lakes fish s toc.king progcam and main t enan e dredging of hacbors.

4. Alternatives Considered,

1. Denial of Abandonments

2. Retention of Routes to Optimize Passenger Operations

3. Retention of Routes to Optimize Freight Operations

). Comments on the Draf t Env ironmen al Impac t S ta t"men t Reques ted From:

1. Council on Environmental Quality

2. Environmental Protection Agency

3. Departmenl of Agricultuce

4. Oepartrnenl of Commerce

5. De p a r tmen t 0 f Hous i.ng and Urban Development

6. Depar tmen t of the In terior

7. Depal" tmen t 0 f T'r anspo r ta tion

8. Federal Energy Administration

9. Energy Re s e a Tch and Deve l cpmen t Adminis tra tion LO. Advisory Council on Historic. Preservation

S. Gommen ts on th~ Drat tEn'" i .00IneD ta 1 Impac t S ta tement Reques ted from;

L l , federal MaTi time Commissi'on L2. Federal Power Commission

13. State of Wisconsin

14. S t.a te 0 f Mi en i gaa

15. State. of Illinois

16. Wi s cons i.n Depar tmen t 0 f Tt an spo r ta tion

17. Michigan Depa r tment of S ta te Hl~hW'ays a.ndTransporta tion

18. C i. ty of Milwaukee

19. City of Manitowoc

20. City of Kewaunee

21. City of Frankfort

22. City of LudingtoI1

23. City of Muskegon

24. Si e r ra Club

25. National Wildlife FederatioI1

26. Izaak Walton League

27. National Resource Defense Council

28. Environmental Defense Fund

29. All 0 theT par ties to the proceeding

6. Oa te Made p_vailab!.e to CEq and the Public;

Oc cober Z2! 1976

ii

l.IST OF FIGURES

T.IST OF TABLES

1.0 DESC~IrLIO~ OF ACIIO~

1.1 Introduction

1.2 C&O Ferry Operations

1.3 GTW Fer1C'Y OperA,tionA

1.4 A?n A:r~.,r F Try Opeu.tions 1.S R~lated Ac:ionR

1.6 Ri8to~ical n~ve1opment of Lake

J·tid'.ig~n Fp.rry Service 1.6.1 C"&O HiRtl)l,~y

J. • 6 • 2 t;;"0l Hi 3 t.c::y

1.6.3 Ann Ar.~or ~iRtnry l.5.4 Sll;?De.J."j" of U:l~tor1f')s

187 O"/e;cview of Att:l..t;I·(lc~ 'Lowards Current Car F~rrJ OperAtions

vi

vii

1-1

1-1 1-3 1-5 1-9 1-12 1-16

1-16 1-19 1-21 1-24 1-25

2.0 RELAT:r.O~~SHIP TO l.Am> USE PLANS. POLICIES. 2-J.

MlD COr-.",!:,f;:,OLS

2.1 L!'nd-Uoe 1'!1l<:l SociCl-Economic Character- 2-1 Ls t Lcs

2. 2 ~,.elopmp.nt31 G<')alf\l Md Activities 2-5

2.2.1 Attracting New Manufacturing Industry

2.2.2 Retention of Ex is ting Industry 2-13

2.3 ConcludoD 2-34

3.0 ENVIRO~mAL OO'ACTS

3.1 Introduction .3.2 Traffic Study

3.2.1 Freight Traffic 3.2.2 P saenger Traffic 3.3 Traffic Congestion 3.3.1 RRil Traffic

3.3.2 Motor Vehicle Traffic

iii

3-1 3-1 3-2 3-11 3-16 3-17 3-23

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

3 ,I, E..T'J.e rgy

3.4.1 Ferry Energy Utilization 3.4.2 passenger Fuel COnsumption 3.l~. 3 Rail Freight Fuel Consumption 3 , l, e 4 Over all Energy COns ump t ion

Before and After Abandonment 3 .• 5 Air Quality

3,5.1 Ferry Caused Air Problems 3,5.2 Air Emissions of Re-Routed Traffle

3.5.3 Emission Estimate.s Before and After Abandonment

3,6 Water Quality

3.6.1 sanitary, Litter, and Other

Solid Wastes

3,6.2 Chemical and Oil Discharges 3.6.3 Thermal Pollution

3.6.4 Diverted Traffic

3.7 His eor Lc 3.B Aesthetics 3.9 Sa.fety 3.10 liildlife

3.10.1 Turbidity

3.10.2 Ferry Wastes 3.10.3 Ei'ltkmgered Speciea

3.10.4 Beneficial Impacts Resulting from Ferry Service

3 0 10. 5 ImpBc ts Upon AblIn donmen t 3,11 Huise

3-30 3-30 3-31 3-34 3-34

3-39 3-39 3-41

3-42

3-46 3-47

3-48 3-49 3-49 3-49 3-54 3-56 3-60 3-60 3-61 3-62 3~62

3-64 3~64

4.0 !1ILTERNATlVES AND RELATED TRAFFIC PROJEctIONS 4-1

4.1 Introduction 4-1

/: e 2 Freight Traffic Alt.ernatives and Pro- 4-5

j ec t.Lona

4~2.1 Gencrd Methodology ~ Freight 4-5

Traffic Projec~ions

4.2.2 Specific Applications of Freight 4-9 Treffic Methodology

4"2.3 1980 Base Level Freight Traffic 4-11

Projections

tv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Chntinup.d)

4.2.4 FrE'!igh t 1'r~ff:i.e Pro j e:c t.Lorrs f.or the Aleenattv,:"s

4.3 PSAsenger Tra.fflr: Altern.~t:l.vel'l I'.lld PkOj ec t Lons

4.3.1 General Method0]ogy - PasRenger 7~~~ei~ rroj~ctiClPA

4.4 Opttll'al IJt:IJ.izatinn SecnR,rio

4.4.1 G~~r81 Hethodolo~y and ~aeic A8f1tm1p tions

4.4.2 Optiroll.l Uti.liZAt:l.on Projections for 1980

4.4.3 Con~lu~iCl~p and Comp~ri~on~

4. 5 Envir(lnl1'~DI:",l Imp~,cts of the Alterna-

elveR

I~'; 5. 1 ~niAl of All Ab"'ndnnrnenta

4. :;.2 Up tirnbe PaMens~r Op~i"ationt\ ~.5.3 Opti~ize Frpi~bt Oppration~

4-23

1~-25

4-25

4-30 4-30

4-34

4-40 4-42

4-42 4-43 4-46

5,0 ADVERSE ENVIRO~N'l'AL nP.A.C7S WHICH GANNCYl' 5-1

BE APPl.IED

6.0 RELATIONSHIP BE"::'WEEN SHORT-TERM. USES OF THE 6-1

ENVIRONMr:N'7 AND THE tfAnrrENA8r:E Ma) ENP..ANCF;-

MEN"i.' OF LONr;-TERH PRODlTC7IVI7Y

7.0 IRREVERSIRLE AND IRRETRIEVJ>.13LE COMMITMENTS 7-1 RESOURCES

AP PEND U'. A: U:C PASSENGER RIDERSHIP SURVEY A-l

APPENOIX B: REFERENCES AtilD BIBLIOGRAPHY B-1

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Number

1.1 Lake Michigan Car Ferry Routes

1. 2 Ludington Port Faetli ties

1. 3 Green Bay an d \o'e a tern Rai Ire ad

1.4 Passengers on the Deck of tbe City of

Midland as it Enters Ludington

1.5 Manitowoc Ferry Decks

2 .. 1 State Recrea t Ion Planning Regions

3.1 Transportation Districts in the Cbicago Area

3.2 Typical Areas Where Ferry Piers are Located

A. 1 S.amp le Riders b i P Que s tionna i re

vi

1-4

1·6

1-14

1-27

1-29

2-27

3-18

3-55

A-9

Tab Ie Numher

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

LIST OF TABLES

Annual Ferry Traffic Carried by the c&o, GTW and AA Railroads

1976 C&O Ferry Se~ice Times

C&O Ferry Freight Traffic by Commodity

GTW Ferry Freight Traffic by Commodity

1976 Ann Arbor Ferry Service Times

Ann Arbor Ferry Freight Traffic by Commodity

Total Acerage by Land Use Type

Socia-Economic Characteristics (Wll!ocond.n)

Socia-Economic Gbaracteristi.cs (Michigan)

Potential Dir~ct Car Ferry Job and Earnings Lo88

Estimated Tourist Related Employment

Origin of Tourist Trips to Wisconsin and Michigan

Origin of Summer Tourist Tripa to Certain Regions in Wisconsin and Michigan

Igpacts of Pas.anger Traffic Lo88 on Jobs and Earnings

SWIII18ry of potentta.l Jobs and Earnings Losses

Origination-Destination Breakdown of 1973 Traffic by State for c&o Car Ferries

Ortgination-Destination Breakdown of 1973 Traffic by State for GTW Car Ferries

Origination-DestInation Breakdown of 1973 Traffic by State for Ann Arbor Car Ferries

P.!!seenger Response to Total Abandonment

vii

1-2

1-7

1-8

1-10

1-11

1-13

2-'-

2-3

2-4

2-17

2-24 2-26

2-28

2-30

2-36

3-4

3-6

3-8

3-14

Table Number

3.5

3.6

3.11

3.9

3.10

3.11

3.12

3.13

3.14

3.15

3,16

3.17

4.1

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

R@-Routin~ of Rail Freight Traffic Upon Abandonment

Average Daily Traffic Volumes, for Each Month

IEpact of Additional Traffic on Chicago

Impact of Additional Traffic on the Mackinac Sr:l.dge

Fu~l Consumption Calculations for Passenger Traffi.c Wi tb Present Ferry Service

Fuel Consumption Calculations for Passenger TJ:"8.ffic IUthout: Present Ferry Service

Ferry Related Rail Freight Fuel Consumption

Compaz a tive FUel Consumption for Ferry and Non-Ferry Cases

A.ir Pollutant Emission Factors for Ferries and Other Related Transport Y.odes

Annual Pollutant Emissions With and Without the Ferry Service for Each Line

Annual Total pollutant Emissions With and W~thout: Ferry Service

Total Trafff.c passing Through Each Ferry sarved Co\l!!!lU1lity for 1975

Comparative Accident Totals for Ferry Related T~affic Before and After Abandonment

Orig~_oation-Destination of 1973 Traffic by State for Ann Arbor Car Ferries

Route 1 (Kewaunee-Frankfort) - Historic Car fe~:cy Rail r·reight. Traffic Dat:a 1963-1975 and Base Level projections 1976-1980

viii

3-19

3-25

3-26

3-28

3-33

3-35

3-36

3-43

3-44

3-45

3-57

4-13

4-14

Table Number

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11 4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

A.I

LIST OF TABLES (Oont~nued)

Origination-Destination Breakdown of 1973 C&O Traffic

Route 2 (Kewaunee-Ludington) - Historic Car Ferry Rail Freight Traffic Data 1960-1975 and Baee Level Projections 1976-1980

Rout.e 4 (Manitowoc-Ludington) - Historic Cllr Ferry RBiI Freight Traffic Data 1960-1975 and Base Level Projections 1976-1980

Route 5 (Milwaukee-Ludington) - Historic Car Ferry Rail Freight Traffic Data 1970-1975 and Base Level projections 1976-1980

Route 6 (Milwaukee-Muskegon) - Historic Car Ferry Rail Freight Traffic Data 1970-1975 1Il\d Base Level Projections 1976-1980

Freight Traffic Projections for 1980 for Each Alternative

Ristoric Car Ferry Passenger Traffic Data

Passenger Traffic Proj ections for 1980 for Each Alternative

Optimal Scenario Ferry Trips Per Day

1980 C&O Traffic Under Optimal Utilization Scenario

Optimal Scenario Traffic Totals for Passenger and Freight Traffic on all Routes

Traffic Projections for Maintenance of All Routes

Surmnary of Traffic Pr nj ections

Responses to ICC Car Ferry Survey

ix

4-17

4-19

4-22

4-2/",

4-3J.

4-33

4-41

4-45

A-3

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IHPACr STATEHENT

AB 18 (Sub-No. 21)

CHESAPEAKE AND ('lHIO RAILWAY COMPANY ABANDONYEN'J' OF CAR FERRY SERVICE ACROSS LAKE MICHIGAN BETWEEU LlIDINGTON, MICHIGAN. AND KEWAUNEE. MILWAUKEE. A_1.ID MANITOWOC, WISCONSIN

AB 31 (Sub-No.5)

GRAND TRUNK 'ilESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE GRJ..ND TRUNK MILWAUKEE CAR FERRY COMPANY ABANDONMENT OF

ITS LAKE MICHIGAN CAR FERRY OPERATION, FROM EASTERN PORT OF MUSKEGON TO WESTERN PORT OF MILWAUKEE, IN HUSKEGON COUNTY. MICHIGAN AND MILWAUKEE COUNTY. WISCONSIN

LO Dr-SCRIPTION OF ACTION

1.1 Introduction

Two (If the three operators of cross. Lake Michigan car ferry s e r -

vice, the Chesapeake and Ohio (C&O) and the Grand Trunk Western (GTW)

railroads have applied to the Commission for authority to abandon

their entire ferry operations. The third operator, the Ann ~Ibor

Raih1llY. w~nt into bankruptcy in 1973 and its ferr.y sexvf.ce is

currently being operated hy the Consolidated Railroad Corporation

(ConRail) pursuant to subsidies from the States of Michigan and Wiscon-

sin provided by the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, 87 StOCl_t.

985. Given this unstable state of affairs. it is quite possible r ha t

all cross Lake Michigan ferry service may be discontinued at a future

ds t e . Since all these services are in close proximity, ser ve the same

apprf»od_mRt~ ar aa • and carry large quantities of traffi.c (Sr.'! 'I'Able

1.1), they are evalua ted cumulatively in this environmentAl hlIPI'I-ct

s t.a t.cment ,

1-1

TABLE 1.1
ANNUAL FERRY TRAFFIC CARRIED BY THE /
C&O, GTW, AND AA RAILROADS 1970-197 ~
C&O
·1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
Loaded Cars 77 ,387 52,469 46,'262 41,958 34,104 29,092
Empty Cars 38,778 29,773 12,967 12,741 13,132 12,678
Passengers 170,072 197,465 175,133 174,850 185,054 168,395
Autos 52,443 61,970 57,024 56,457 59,182 54,429
GTW
l..oaded Cars 18,784 10,890 10,537 8,864 7,277 5,161
Empty Cars 6,516 4,045 3,369 4,094 3,112 2,930
ANN ARBOR
Loaded cars 38,593 38,472 33,206 26,421 18,624 14,777
Empty Cars 17 ,842 19,009 17,751 13,245 10,577 B,931
passengers NA NA 20,857 15,227 13,307 14,268
Autos NA NA NA NA 3,949 4,354
Semis NA 2,084 2,254 B09 1,201 1,464
TOTAL
Loaded Cars 134,764 101,831 90,005 77 ,243 60,005 49,030
Em!Jty Cars 63,136 52.827 34.087 30,080 26,821 24,539
Pa.Bsengers 170 ,01'J~_/ 197,465~/ 195,990 190,077 19B.361 182,663
Autos 52,443E_/ 61,970£1 57 ,O24~.1 56,457~/ ~~:13! 58,783
Semis N~/ 2,084 2,254 B09 1,201 1,464 ~/ Sources: (10), (20), (45)' (102).

~/ The Ann Arbor data for these years was not available in time for inclUsion in this draft statement.

1-2

The remainder of this section describes the individuAl feLry

operations, related actions, historical development of Lake Hichlgan

car ferry Qervice. and attitudes concerning the present fer.ry ser~ice.

The £tatement then assesses the environmental impacl:~ aSl:ociated

with complete discontinuance of all ferry service across Lake Michigan.

Freight and passenger traffic studies are presented in order to eter-

mine traffic diversion patterns upon abandonment. These studies are

also used to evaluate the various alternatives to total disccntinuance

which ~rp- presented.

The alternatives section addresses various configurations of ferry

!ler.vice ranging from continuance of all present routes to iIlRintai.!::ing

only one line under current operating conditions. Also pt'<esented Ls

an optimal utilization scenario under improved operating cODd~tions.

The etprironmental impacts associated with the various alternatives will

be preso:'!nt.eci as well as 8 taff projec.tions of car ferry tn,ffic to 1980

unde= the various scenarios.

1.2 C&O Ferry Operations

By application filed on March 18, 1975, the c&O seeks authoriza-

t Lon to abandon its ferry service between Ludington, Mich., On the one

hand, and, on the other hand, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, and Hilwaukee, Wis.

(see Figure 1.1). This proceeding has been assigned Docket No. AB HI

(Sub-No. 21). The distances involved are 61, 97, and 60 miles, ~espp-c-

tivcly. Authority is also requested to abandon approximately 11.04

miles of yard Bnd terminal track and associated structures in Ludington.

The line operates three coal fired steam vessels: the Ci.ty 0: Midland,

the Badger. and the Spartan. The service carries rail frei~ht c ar's ,

passengers, and automobiles. The vessels have cap.ac Lt i.e s of 450-500 1/

passengers and 24 rail cars.

Annual traffic handled by the C&O fer-

Lies from 1970 to 1975 is presented in Table 1.1.

Y Source: (56).

1-3

FIGURE 1.1

LAKE MICHIGAN CAR FERRY ROUTES

,I '? IrII

~, ,

?-"il-'"

!jr~!I'~ I)

.. ''''dl~Ll p' '=, ~6,;, ~ r o!'

During the non- cour+s t season (Sep tember to June), the vessels

operate on a non-scheduled basis between the four ports. The volume

of freight available dictates what port will be served. In periods

of 10101 traffic, tve> of the bo a r s will he tipci ur :1t Ln d l ng t o n w i r h

the remaining one in operation (see Figure 1. 2). In the tourist sea-

son scheduled service operates twice daily between Ludington and Mil-

wauke'e , Five days a week there is also twice daily service between

Ludington and Manitowoc, The other two days the available ferry will

make a trip to Kewaunee or Manitowoc depending on freight traffic de-

mand. 'Lhere is no summer schedule between Kewaunee and Ludington,

however, there is generally one round trip a day on this route. Sched- 2/

uled service for 1976 lasted from June 11 to September 7.- See Table

1.2 for the 1976 schedule.

The C&O provides the switching service for the ferries at Luding-

ton and Milwaukee. Switching at the other ports is provided by the

Green Bay and Western Railway (Kewaunee) and the Chicago and North

loJestern Transportation Company (Manitowoc).

The main commodities currently transported include chemicals,

food, paper products, and lumber (See Table 1.3). Should the abandon-

ment be authorized, the C&O ptoposes to salvage all vessels, all track,

and all related track structures. Applicant cites the economic infeas-

ibility of continued ferry operations and the availability of alterna-

tive routings as the prime reasons for submitting the application.

1.3 GTW Ferry Operations

The GTW filed for authority to abandon its car ferry operation

from Muskegon to Milwaukee, a distance of 88.8 miles, as well as the

GTW's facilities in Milwaukee, on February 14, 1975 (supplement to

applicatio~ filed on July 25, 1975), This case has been assigned

Docket No. AB 31 (Sub-No.5).

'!:_/ Source: (9).

1-5

FIGURE 1.2 LUDINGTON PORT FACILITIES

Note: Only the slip at the far right is currently operational.

1-6

TABLE 1.2
1976 C&O FERRY SERVICE TIMEs!!
OFFICIAL C&:O SCHEDULE
Leave Arrive Frequency
-,--
Milwaukee 3 :30 p.m. cor Ludington 10 :30 p .m, EDT Daily
Milwaukee 8:30p.m. cur Ludington 3:30 a,m. EDT Daily
Manito'<ltlc 12:00 Noon cor Ludington 5 :00 p.m. EDT Daily
Manito'<ltlc 1:30 a.m. CDT Ludington 6:30 avm, EDT Wed. -sun,
Ludington 6 :00 a,m. EDT Manitowoc 9:00 a,m, CDT Daily
Ludington 7 :00 p.m. EDT Manitowoc 10 :00 p.m. CDT Tues.-Sat.
Ludington 8:30 a.DI. EDT Milwaukee 1:30 p.m. CDT Daily
Ludington 1 ;30 p.m. EDT Milwaukee 6:30p.m. CDT Daily
APPROXIMATE TIMES FOR OIHER ROlll'ES
Leave Arrive Frequency
,---
Ludington 12:00 Midnight EM Kewaunee 3:30 a.m. ClY.[ Daily
Kewaunee 6:00 a.m .. CDT Ludington 11:00 a.m, EDT Daily !! Source: (9).

1-7

§I I"--clMO'>r--.1.f"II"1\ONrlCO f'
..... O..j"II"lIl"lMI"1<'1NNo.O co
"'MN rl
rl
~I CO""'..;;TOO..j"\DO\DO\..j" N
I"-ocoC'I"-M..j"C")MrlC'> co
I"1"'N C")
......
~I M..::l"COl"-..-IlI"lrl..-l "'1..0 co \0
C'>r--.Q'\..-I01"1>.{)U'"\r'l Nr--. ..0
MMNrl..-l ..... \0
......
........_
1Il~ ~I r'l ...... NNII"lQ'\N ...... ..;;Tr'l..j" N
rlO..j"..j"Q'\rl\O..j"NN>'{) r'l
b U"l..j"(Y).-I ...... co
H
CI .-I
0
~
0,.-.,
01/)
c: §[ CJ\CJ\o\\or-IOCOC'>\OV"III"l r--.
)-10 COOrl-:tCOM\OMMMN I'-
i:!:lE-< ..j"1I"l..j"..-I N 0
C"1 0\1.1 N
H 0
...... ~
W ~~
0-1 p:; ~ ~I
~ I-< III ..j"r--.NOV"lr--..-I..-Ir-C"1..j" ......
Ul r-OI'-\OMr'lO\O..j" N N
E-< ~ g lI"Ir--..,..,..-I.-I r-I -e CO
(!)..c N
HE-<
W'-'
~
~
>'
p:; I/)
p:; .u (I)
W u .u
rx. III ::J II
.&.J U ::l
SJ u 0 U (I) .......
::I 1-1 0 .u CO
u U IJlP-o (Il 1-1 u N
j 0 U II) r-ID. >. ::J ._...
1-1 U"O U III 1-1 "0
P-o ::I III U ..-I til Ql 0
U·.-I ::I 1-1 I/) s:: 1-1 ,....,
"'IJ Orl"'IJ wra.,.., D. 0
Q) 1-1.--1 0 .u..-lJ:: ......
• .-1 D. « ,.. IlI{!)U ..-I In .....,
..-I p.. x: IIj III QJ
~~ 1-1 1-1 x: 0...-1
D"'IJUla.O u.u III
1-1 0.--1 <11 ..... ..-I ~ QI
1-1"0 ~ 0 III 1-1 - III 1-1 U tl
o c: 1-<3.uu>.o 0 ~ E; 1-1
..-I QJ III til III '.-1 ::I
Dl ~ a. 1-1 x: ..... 1-1 e H 0
...... <11 0 I-IOU ::I 0 til
!1)I-Ip., >,0 0 III U
U 0 1-1 1-1 -QJ rl <,
• .-1 ~ QJ <II Q) Q) .-I 0 H <Ill
6"0 a...a S.u C Q) rl 1-1 Q)
Q)Orl~·.-IIOOS::IlIU ..c
J::O::l I-IIlI.uOOQJ u
urx.D.<.....lp.,!3<1lZup., 0
1-8 There ar e cur rent.Iy two ferries in operation: th~ M;u-li • s on and

the MihJBukee. Cross-lake a e rvLc e is gene r al.Ly per7.orJT)l'!d wit:' the

Madison making about one rQund trip L1 day, five days a !<leek, while

the Hilwaukee is on standby status, The GTW vessels have capacities

of 24 rElil ear s a trip. As traffic requires. one and 8 ha Lf round 3/

trips per day can be made.- The line carries rail freight only and

has not carried passengers since 1971. (See Table 1.1). Rail B""'itch-

ing service is provided by the GTW in Muskegon And by the C&O in Mil-

waukee. The major commodities currently transported include food,

paper products, and chemicals (See Table 1.4). If the abandonment

is authorized, the GTW plans t-o s s.Ivage all structures and ves se l.s ,

The G'DoI cite s tbe nnp ro f i tllb L 1 i ty 0 f 1 cs opara t ion s and the ne e d to

apply its resources to other, r;:<;)re irnrortant parts of its sysl:l!~ in

its j us t Lf Lcar.Lon for abandonment.

1.& Ann Arbor Fer~y Operations

The Ann A bo r originally !:iled an application for abandonment of

its car ferry operations on June 19, 1972 (Docke t No. AB 49). The ap-

plication requested authority to abandon the entire Ann Arbor Railroad 4/

line from Thompsonville, Mich •• to Frankfort- (22.£..0 miles) as well as

all ferry operetiolJs bef:'l.l?-ell Frankfort and Kewaunee (63.67 miles) and

between Fr~nkfort and Manitowoc (79.73 miles). Unscheduled ferry ser-

vice i~ cur~ently provided for about ~o round trips a day six day~

sl

a week, be tl'leen Frankfort snd Ke\o'&unee- (See Figure 1.1). Approximate

service t imes are shown on Table 1.5.

1/ Source: (65)_

':_/ ':L;,e I'.C:::U .1 fen:~' slips "'-:C-I! a Elbe~ta ~"bicn is a sfn'l.ll t:Q""l adjacent to Fr~nkfor.t_

~_/ Source: (~), (54),

1-9

TABLE 1.4

GTW FERRY FREIGHT TRAFFIC BY COMMODITY!I (Thousands of Tons)

TOTAL

1973 1974!!/
123 141
160 77
66 58
17 13
28 10
19 7
10 7
7 5
20 5
6 4
31 7
487 334 Commodity

Food or Kindred Products

Pulp, Pa~er. or Allied products Chemicals or Allied Products Petroleum or Coal products Lumber or Wood products

Stone, Clay, or Glass Products Containers, Shipping, Returned Empty Waste or Scrap Materials

Mixed Shipments; Except Forwarder Nonmetallic Minerals

Other Commodities

~I Source:(29).

bl 1975 traffic was not available in time for inclusion in this dr af t statement.

1-10

'0 '0 • III • 10
-= !: E >.. E >.
CU III • l\I • 'II
0.."0 0.. "0
U) III .... ....
>, >. >-....-1 >'''''''
CU It! III 0 ttl 0
""0 "tl '1;;1::I:! 1J::I:
c C C ;::
0 0 0"0 0'0
:E: L: L: ~ :I: t:
<U
u w u LJ
0.. 0.. o..E 0..8
Q.! Q.! (jJ (Ij
u u U !lJ U III
:< III ).; til X X
(Ij >, QJ >. ClI >. Gl >.
ttl III CU <tl
>''0 >''0 >''1;;1 >,'0
.--l ~ .-< . .., ,...., III rl III
. .., rl ...... ..-< .... (II 'rl III
!11 0 III 0 III ::l III ::l
C;:J:! PX Of-< ell-<
....... ~ Ei ~ t;
IlIl u u u u
tJ)
~
H C
..... 0 8 E' 6
0 <11
;..J Z a. o,
u
H III N .--I '" '-D
> :> .-< rl
0-: . ..,
W 1-0 0.. a. 0.. 0-
Ul 1-0 a. a. P- c,
U"\ ...: -c « ...: -«
>-'
rl 0-:
0-:
W ~ u w
t-l U. Q) U) 1-0 I-<
~ Q) CU 0 0
0-: c:: C lI-j 4-4
t--< 0 :J ::l X ~
~ til III t: C
~ ~ 3' cu III
QJ II) 1-0 ""
~ :><: ~ ~
~
\,{)
r,
a.
.-< t; b S t;
I.t.l W U u
E! E e E
III <11 0.. III
~I 0'> co .--l ..-<
0.. 0.. 0.. 0-
a. 0. 0.. ~ .--..
« « « -.:t
Q;
U
u w 1-0
1-0 I-l Q) (II :I
0 a Q) (Ij 0
"-' ... c § (J)
.:r: ~ ::l
C § III 'II <,
<d ~ 3: nJl
,_. 1-1 Q) <II
U. u. :><: ~
1-11 The Ann Arbor currently owns two vessels: the Viking and the

Arthur K. Atkinson. The Arthur K. Atkinson broke its crank shaft in

1973 thereby necessitating an embargo of service be twaen Frankfort

and Manitowoc. The Viking, the only vessel currently in service, has

a capacity of about 300 passengers and 24 rail cars. Passengers, auto-

mobiles, and truck and r a f.L freight are carried by the ferry (See Table

l c L) •

6/

There has been no scheduled summer service since 1971.-

The m~jor commodities currently hauled include paper products,

wood, and chemicals (See Table 1.6). Switching service is provided by

the Ann Arbor at Frankfort and by the Green Bay and Western (GB&W)

At Kewaunee. The reason cited for the abandonment was a continuing

loss of revenue resulting from the line's operation. The Ann Arbor

went into bankruptcy in 1973 and the abandonment application was dis-

missed on June 25, 1975. When the United States Railway Association's

Final Sys tern plan for bankrup t rail lines in the northeas t was approved,

the ferry service was not recommended for inclusion in the newly form-

7/

ed Consolidated Railway Corporation (ConRail).- However, the ferry

line is currently being operated by ConRail under subsidies from the

Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973.

1.5 Related Actions

If cross Lake 11ichigan ferry service terminates, feeder lines in

Michigan and Wisconsin could be adversely affected. The most seriously

impacted line could be the Green ~ay and Western Railroad (See Figure

1. )) . Opera t ing be tween \../inona, Minn., and Kewaunee, Micb igan, the

GB&W is the only major east-wes route across the central part of

Wisconsin. With the Ann Arbor or the C&O ferry service, it provides

6/ Source: (54).

71 The Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 gave the U. S. ka i.I> way Association jurisdiction over abandonments by bankrupt railroads in the northeast region.

1-12

TABLE 1. 6

a/ ANN ARBOR FREIGHT TRAFFIC BY COMMODITY-

(Thousands of Tons)

COl!lrllodity

Pulp, Paper, or Allied Products Lwnber or Wood products Chemicals or Allied Products Food or Kindred Products Primary Metal Products

Stone, Clay, or Glass Products waste or Scrap Materials Nonmetallic Minerals Electrical Machinery Transportation Equipment Other Commodities

TOTAL

e] Source: (102) .

1 -13

1975

204 91 77 66 53 46 30

8 B 6

18

607

FIGURE 1.3

GREEN BAY A~D WESTERN RAILROAD

1-1/-1

SQurce: (97).

a bypass route around Chicago. The relatively small size of this line

(250 miles of main-line) necessitates extensive interchange of traffic

with con.necting carriers in order to maintain viability. In 1974, 37-

percent of the 85,161 carloads of total GB&W interchange traffic was

8/ exchanged with the C&O and Ann Arbor car ferries at KewBunee.- The loss

of this traffic could seriously sffec t the future viability of the

GB&W which in turn could impact a large area across central Wisconsin

including Green Bay.

Burlington Northern Inc. (BN) has applied to the Commission for

9/ authorization to acquire control of the GBlM througb stock ownership.-

The BN has capacity problems in Chicago and control of the GB&W is

one of several solutions that has been considered. The volume of traf-

fie potentially routed by the BN would depend on the extent to which

the C&O and Ann Arbor expand ferry freight capacity. Tbe ferries are

currently operating at close to capacity levels (about 70-percent),

and more trips and/or more vessels would be needed to significantly

expand traffic vo Lumes , (The GB&W contacted the c&O several years ago

to determine if service to Kewaunee could be increased but was informed that extra capacity was not available.I01 It should be noted that

the proposed acquisition agreement carries a stipulation that if ferry

service is not available by the time the agreement is approved and

finalized, the arrangement may be cancelled.

The Chicago & North Western, Milwaukee Road, and Sao Line Railroads

have also applied to the Commission for authority to acquire certain

segments of the GB&W and to abandon the remaining trackage of the line.

~/ Source: (33) .
J../ Source: (33).
10/ Source: (64). 1-15

1. 6 His torical Development of Lake Michigan Ferry servicelll

Shipping operations across Lake Michigan began in the middle 1800's

to provide an east-west route for freight which would be shorter and

more economic al than an all r ai 1 route through Chicago. A Milwaukee

to Grand Hallen, Mich., water route was started in 1849 with paddle

vessels. Passengers and freight were transported on this line. From

the late 1850's until the early 1890's, the Detroit and Milwaukee Rail-

road. the Flint and Pere Marquet te Railway. and the Toledo, Arm Arbor,

and North Michigan Railroad all operated cross-lake service with leased

vessels. The principal commodities transported were eastbound grain and

flour. In addition, passengers and other general cargo were carried.

1.6.1 C&O History

In terms of number of ships in service and volume of freight and

passengers carried, the largest Great Lakes car ferry service has been

that of the Pere Marquette Railway (PM) and its successor, the Chesa-

peake and Ohio Railroad.

The PM was formed by three other lines: the Flint and Pere Mar-

quette (F&PM), the Chicago and \<lest Michigan (C&WM), and the Detroit,

Grand Rapids and Western (DGR&W).

In 1874, the f&PM reached Luding~on which had an excellent harbor

and "las one of the most important lumber ports on Lake Michigan. The

l:_ne started cross-lake grain, lumber, and passenger shipments to She-

bOYGen 5n 1875 with a leased boat. The principal routes run by the

F&PM cbr ough the 1880' s we re between Milwaukee and Ludington, Manis tee,

aTtd Frankfort. In 1883, it purcbased two steamers and added several

[~ore VEssels through the 1880's. In 1890, a new route was added from

Lua "neten to Hanitowoc.

III The information in the ensuing historical sections is based on sources: (22), (23), (101), (117).

1-16

The DGR&W started its ferry service in 1897 betwf"en thp. C&Wli port in Muskegon Bnd Milwaukee with 8 leased steamer. ~he FPM, DGR&W. and CW&H merged to form the Pere Marquette Railway in 1900.

The PM reduced service to Muskegon starting in 1900 and finally terminated it in 1908. Ferry s er vf.ce out of Ludington was quite successful, however, increasing from 27,000 cars in 1900 to 75,000 in 1904. World War I brought great amounts of traffic to the PM as it did to the Ann Arbor. During the war the ferries (along with the rest of the American railroad system) were nationalized Bnd placed under the supervision of the Uni ted States Railway As aoc La.t Lcn in order to provide the most efficient. service possible. The vcs.se Ls were returned to private ownership after the war.

The 1920's was a period of rapid growth of cross-lake service.

TlolO changes occurred by the end of this decade which fur t.he r belped to stimulate ferry traffic. First, the Perc Marquette became part of the C&.O system. This served to increase the transportation of coal, which was a stable commodity as opposed to automobiles upon

which the PM bad become so dependent. The second change was an increase in tourism. The old passenger traffic of lumbermen traveling

in and out of tbe wooded lands was replaced by a great influx of travelers moving between Chicago, Milwaukee, and the resort country of Michigan north of Ludington, and also by vacationers journeying between Minneapolis-St. paul and Detroit who used the Manitowoc-Ludington ferry route as a short cut. Since the existing ferry fleet. was not particularly well suited for passenger traffic, new modernized ferries were added in 1929 and 1930.

1-17

The depression of the 1930's hurt cross-lake traffic so the num-

ber of active steamers on the PM was accordingly reduced. However,

by the late 1930' s traffic was making rapid improvements as compared 12/

to its depression levels.-- Therefore, in 1940 a new vessel, the

City of Midland, the largest vessel on Lake Michigan, was added.

During World War II, the vessels were used for training Coast

Guard personnel as well as for part of the national railroad network,

The post war period was one of continued prosperity for the Pere

Marquette. Its ferries were am.ong the earliest vessels to have radar,

and along with several other technological improvements, the liners

accident record became outstanding.

On June 6, 1947, the Pere Marquette was formally absorbed into

the C&O. However, there were no major service changes. After a few

years, the C&O started an expansion program and in 1952, the spar tan

and the Badger were added to its fleet. Auto traffic became heavy

enough by 1955 to warrant the addition of upper deck loading ramps

for cars at Manitowoc and Ludington. In 1960,a second ramp was added

at Ludington as well as a new one in Milwaukee. By 1961, che C&O

car ferries hauled 132,000 freight cars, 54,000 automobiles, and

153,000 passengers.

In an attem.pt to increase productivity, the railroad industry in

the mid-1960 ISS tarted running longer trains with longer or higher rail

cars. SLnce the ferries could only accomodate a maximum of 24 cars

per trip, the longer train bad to be split up for the cross-lake move-

meat. 1'his reduced p rio r time advan tages a f the service. Specializa-

12/ In fact, in 1939, the City of Flint logged over 100,000 miles.

This single year figure has been only surp aaaed by the transatlantic liner, Europa.

1-18

tion of equipment necessitated the shipment of more empties, westbOlDld coal traffic dropped off. and delays through Chfcago decreased to the point where the ferries no longer saved transit time in wany cases. As traffic volumesdecreased overall service began to deteriorate. The ferry fleet was then reduced as one vessel was destroyeo by fire and two otbers were sold. The remaining ferries (Spartan, Badger, and City of Midland) are coal burners which require large crews (as many as 70 crewmen in sunmez) and have higher ton-mile costs of shipp Lng freight as compared to diesel engines. In addition, coal burning vessels present greater pollution problems than other oil burning boats on the Lake. In 1972, an effort to abandon the Kew,!\unee route was denied (Finance Docket No. 26374). Therepfter,

due to alleged increasing costs, decreasing traffiC, and the aVAilability of other alternative routings through Chicago ana elsewhere, the C&O applied for abandonment of its entire ferry operation on March 18, 1975.

1.6_2 GTW History

The direct route of Grand Haven to Milwaukee bad been served for about 50 years when the Grand Trunk decided to establish ferry service on it in 1903. The decision to enter the car ferry business was based upon the success of the Ann Arbor and pere Marquette operations. The Grand Trunk Car Ferry Line Corporation (GTCFL). a. GrW subs i dt.ary I

was set up to run the service and started with one vessel. The GTCFL defaulted on bonds in 1905 and oper at.Lon of the. line was taken over by the Grand Trunk. The fleet size grew steadily through the 1920rs.

1-19

Starting in 1925, due to greater growth in Muskegon as compared

to Grand Haven and because Muskegon had a safer harbor for the ferries, eTW considered moving its Michigan port from Grand Haven to Muskegon. Grand trunk trackage to Muskegon was inadequate so an effort was made to obtain trackage rights over the Pennsylvania Railroad's (PRR)

Grand Rapids-Muskegon branch. Talks began with PRR to set up a jOint Grand Trunk-pennsylvania line from Grand Rapids to Milwaukee. Meanwhile, during 1927 ferry operations ceased because of a controversy involving the legality of Canadian owned boat lines (such as the GTW) operating entirely within the United States. Due to thi,s controversy Grand trunk began to push for pennsylvania's ownership of 7S-percent of the ferry service. However. because of the depression, the negotiations for the transfer of ownership and the move to Muskegon were terminated. In the mid-l930' 6 -negotiations resumed, and the legality of operation question was resolved in favor of the GTW.

The e as tern terminus was fir~ally shifted to Muskegon in 1933

and the joint operation agreement between the Pennsylvania and Grand Trunk was finalized by 1936. However, traffic on the joint operation never approached expected levels. Rail cars generated by the PRR never rose above 7,664 (in 1948), which was far less than the originally predicted 30.000. 'By 1947. conversion of the steamers to oil bu~ing permitted crew reductions of 10 per boat. From 1948 on,

b ec ause 0 f di version of eastbound dairy tnovements to trucks. traffic declined considerably. This plus a strike which stopped tbe ferry service in 1952 caused PRR to apply to withdrawn from the ferry service. This appiicat.ion \-las granted in 1953. The Grand Trunk continued to Or~r2te the service alone,

1-20

The GTW ferries never carried automobiles and therefore never

carried very many passengers. This enabled the Grand Trunk to reduce

. d i 13/

~nsurance costs an crew s ze,--

The line currently bas B fleet of two vessels and it frequently

leases one of these boats to other ferry operators (usually the Ann

Arbor). The unprofitability of the ferry service has always been a

problem and this is cited as the major reason in its application to

abandon its ferry operations dated July 25, 1975.

1.6.3 Ann Arbor Bistory

The Ann Arbor Railroad's predecessor, the Toledo, Ann Arbor and

North l'lichigan, was the first to operate railroad car ferries on Lake

Michigan. This line bought two wooden car ferries in an effort

to reduce the cost of transporting its break-bulk (non-containerized)

freight and initiated service across the lake from Frankfort to Kewaunee

on January 8, 1892.

The railroad line (ferries plus rail trackage) was built to serve

as a route from Toledo to ports in Wisconsin and basically duplicated

the Pere Marquette's Toledo to Ludington route. The Ann Arbor had

almos t no originating traffic and together with the Green Bay and

Western in Wisconsin served as a Chicago bypass.

These were not only the first car ferries on Lake Michigan, they

were also the first anywhere designed for lengthy crips on open water.

The new service was initially unsuccessful. Business depressions and

delays caused by the weather caused shippers to become wary of the

car ferries, and the Toledo, Ann Arbor and North Michigan went bank-

rup t in 1893.

13/ More than 15 passengers necessitates expanded life saving capability and substantially increases insurance costs.

1-21

In 1895, the bankrupt railroad was reorganized as the Ann Arbor Railroad. This reorganization marked the beginning of decades of profitability for the Ann Arbor car ferry operation. In the summer

of 1895 the line prOVided ferry service between Frankfort and Kewaunee, Henominee, Escanaba, and Gladstone. In 1896, a route to Manitowoc

was added. Maintenance cos ts for the boats were similar to that of locomotives and inves tmen t cos ts were far less thaneq ui vaLen t rail construction expenses. The service therefore proved quite successful.

Traffic on the Ann Arbor increased to 25.977 cars in 1900, and 27,644 in 1903. Due to American preparation for World War I, traffic on tbe cross·lake ferries increased rapidly after 1915. In tbe 1920's the Ann Arbor had a major dominance of eastbound movements since its connections preferred to deliver westbound freight to Chicago for delivery to western railroads rather than give it to the Ann Arbor at Toledo. In an effort to resolve this imbalance problem, the line was sold to the Wabash in May 1925, and the Ann Arbor has since had a more balanced traffic breakdown. However, even today eastbound movements outnumber westbound by more than 2 to 1.

By 1925, annual traffic reached 80,272 cars, as compared to 32,297 in 1910, thereby necessitating fleet expansions. However, traffic dropped during the depression and the larger boats were often laid up. from 1937 until the early 1960' s , service was provided regularly to Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Manistique, and ~enominee.

Heavy traffic arising during World War II was handled by the existing fleet plus some chartered boats. By the early 1950's the need to improve the system became more and more evident. Improvements were necessitated by stringent coast Guard regulations, overall higher wage rates, high labor costs needed for coal burning boats, and

1-22

increaSingly stringent environmental standards. Since new boats were prohibitively expensive, it was decided to rebuild the three newest boats as oil burners. The three steamers were rebuilt in 1959

(Arthur K. Atkinson), 1962 (City of Green Bay), and 1965 (Viking).

In 196~ the Norfolk and Western (N&W) took over the Wabash. Since the N&W had little enthusiasm for the ferry, the Ann Arho:r: wound up under the control of the Detroit, Toledo, and Ironton (DT&I). The ferry operation suffered in 1967 when westbound automobile traffi.c began to flow through Chicago and when labor costs began rising at increasing rates. The Manistique route was abandoned in 1968, and Menominee service was terminated in 1970. At this time, Ann Arbor management believed that operating with only one upgraded line would be best (Kewaunee) which it would service with one existing and one new boa t , However I the cost of a new boat was too high (app roxtmat e Ly $18 million). Furthermore, the app Ld cat.Lon to abandon the MflnitO~70c route was rejected by the Commission in 1972 (Finance Docket No. 26373). The Ann Arbor responded with an application to terminate its entir2 ferry service plus 22.40 miles of track in Michigan (Docket No. AB 49). By this time the fleet size had been reduced to t~o ferries (Viking and Ar thur K. Atkinson). When the Arthur K. Atkinson broke its crankshaft in 1973, an embargo was placed on the Manitowoc route. This left the current operation of the Viking operating bet~leen Frankfort and Kewaunee.

The Ann Arbor had defaulted on a loan from the DT&I in late 1972 and was allowed to gf) into bankruptcy a year later. This negated

the abandonment; application and made the Ann Arbor tog~ther "of:::1:: other bankrupt rail lines eligibl~ for inclusion in the United States Railway Association's Final System Plan. The Ann Arbor was not

1-23

141

recommended for inclusion.- However, on April 1, 1976, the date Con-

Rail went into operation, the Ann Arbor ferry operation was taken

over by the States of Michigan and, later Wisconsin, which are fund-

ing ConRail's operation of the line under Regional Railroad Reorgani-

zation Act subsidies.

1.6.4 Summary of Histories

The once highly successful Lake Michigan car ferry services now

all allegedly operate at a loss and their future is in serious doubt.

Since l:ross-lake steamer service was terminated in the early 1970's,

the three ferry services represent the last: vestige of over 100 years

of cross-lake shipping service.

Two major turning points helped to set the tide against the ferry

service. The first was the depression of the 1930's which caused traf-

fic losses to the previously profitable lines. The loss in traffic pre-

vented the lines from making needed improvements and acquisitions of

equipment. The second turning point was World War II. Although traf-

f i c increased during the war, new cons true tion and equipment improve-

ments were not made to the extent necessary_

Furthermore, costs of labor and maintenance increased as the ves-

sels became older. These increases were intensified by post war infla-

tion.

Lastly, as im[)r:-ovements were made in the all rail route through

Chicago, the time advantages of the ferry routes were reduced.

141 Source: (108).

1-24

1.7 Overview Of Attitudes Towards Current Car Ferry Op~rBtions

In a proceeding as important as this one Rn in-depth exBmin~tion of all facets of the ferry service is called for.

This is in recognition of the transports tion and iMti.tutional characteristics of the service. Therefore, this section will provide 6 background of attitudes regarding curr~nt ferry operations which do not nonRBlly appear in an environmental impact statement. Emphasis will be placed on passenger operations which received only secondary consideration in the previous sections.

The staff made several on-site evaluations of the ferry services and conducted a comprehensive survey of ferry passengers (s~e Appendix A). In addition. the stRff c~refully weighed the opinions of the communities involved, the ferry employees, the attitudes of the passengers. and overall operational philosophy employed by the railroads. The discussion below is intended to represent an overview of these opinions and attitudes; that is. how those affected by the abandonment s viE!\"

the car ferry operation. Whether these opinions are justified has not been addressed.

Over the last 100 years the ferry service has become quite an ins ti tu t 1. on in the mi dwe st. The c oImlUni t 1. es a erved are proud of the service and in Borne instances have also become quite dependent on it. Furthermore, townspeople and loc31 officials at both the Michigan and Wisconsin ports have expressed the fear that not only will people who work for the c~r ferries lose their joba, but substantiAl numbers of jobs related to the ferries such 8S food and laundry services '..,ill be lost also. It was felt that areas with B strong tourism

trade would be particularly impacted.

1-25

Many ferry riders make the trip B highlight of their ve-

cation. In some cases, parents specifically take their chil-

dren on the vessels to show them wha t; 8 real ocean voyage would

be tike (see Figure 1.4). In other instances riders have be-

come quite dependent on the service. For example,there are

passengers who live in Wisconsin and have summer homes in

Michigan. They can only r e.ach them conveniently via the fer-

ries. The passenger survey undertaken by the Commission found

that the passengers feel very strongly that ferry service

should be maintained. ~~ny passengers openly expressed the

ap'nian that the minimal advertising and poor scheduling was

an obvious effort to discourage service.

The length of the scheduled C&O service has slowly dwin-

died (April 26 to October 24 in 1970 vs. June 11 to September 7

in 1976-- a decrease of 52-percent). Ann Arbor scheduled

passenger service was eliminated in 1971, and the Grand Trunk

terminated all passenger service in 1971. The C&O fleet has

dropped from 6 to 3 vesaels, and there have been similar de-

c ce as es for the GTI] and AA. It was felt that the inconvenient

travel times disco~raged a number of potential passengers

Furthermore, C&O advertising expenses have dropped from

$36,OL9 in 1968 to $30,894 in 197]. Lack of current lnfor-

mation on routes and schedules l..rould also tend to constrict pas~£nger utilization.~/

Severill observations were made on the site visits regl_!rding

the quality of serviceto ferry passengers.

15/ The Lmpo r t.anc e of advertis Lng revenue was demons tra ted in a 1968 pas!>enger st.:rvey conducted by the CW. In a tabulation of the results, it t-1a s noted tha t "f or every extra dollar i u-

vested this year in advertising, we got (so fer) $11.50 back." Source: (11).

1-26

FIGURE 1.4

PASSENGERS ON DECK OF THE CITY OF MIDLAND AS IT ENTERS LUDINGTON

:,,' '-'

- ~~-. ".,," .!.'~ -

1-27

Passengers with round trip tickets and auto reservations for the first trip were notadviaed that additional return trip reservations were needed. Reliable information concerning non-scheduled service between Kewaunee and Ludington. was not easily obtainable. Indeed, it is not even listed on C&O advertising for passengers. The American Automobile Association travel guide for Michigan and Wisconsin lists the embargoed Manitowoc-Frankfort routing but not the Kewaunee-Ludington or Kewaunee-Frankfort routings. On June 21. 1976, during the pass enger aurvey , the Corrmission s t8 ff rode the non~8chedu1ed route. Discussion with C&O officials had indicated that this

boat left Kewaunee at a pproxima te ly 6 a.m. The actual depar-
ture time waB about: 4 8.m., but not because the vessel was overcrowded. There were 12 freight cars (about 52 percent of capacity) and no paying passengers on it.

A number off ac iIi tie!! and ope ra t i anal PI' ac tic es were als 0 observed which culDmt.lla tive Iy cou Ld limH optima 1 utilization of the ferry vessels, Two of the three slip!! tn Ludington, ss we 11 as one of two in Man! tCMoe, are currently in need of r epai.r . Thts iseapeeially B problem in Manitowoc because the damllged Slip cannot have rllil cars loaded or unloaded on it. However, this is the a lip that has the upper deck l oe df ng ramp for .automobiles. Therefore I a ferry

must load 8Ut08 in one s Hp, pullout,. re-dock,. and load rail c s rs on the other slip (s ee Figure 1.5). This add! abou t 1

hour to the trip and therefore when there is heavysutomobile and ra i 1 freight: tra f fie the ferries rsre ly leave on time. There

1-28

FIGURE 1.5

MANITCUOC FERRY DOCKS

CNW Ferry Slip At Manitowoc Which Cannot Currently Support Rail Cara

Ferry Has Now Redocked At Other Manitowoc Slip. Note Upper Deck Loading Ramp For Slip On Right.

1-29

are no current definite plans to repair any of the slips or adjust the upper deck loading ramp in Manitowoc. Additionally. actions such ss adding bow thrusters to the C&O vessels whtch could cut down on the 1 hour delay have not been taken.

The staff also noted that deferred switching at the ports would also tend to reduce the utili%stion of the vessels. The

CNW does not load freight cars in Manitowoc between 2:30 p.m. Saturdays and 6:30 A.M. Mondays. This csuses ferries to leave with no freight whatsoever during weekend rons. In Frankfort

the Ann Arbor (now ConRail) would at times consolidate freight cars in order to form longer trains for transhipment through Michigan. Cars were kept at the port for a number of days, thereby tending to reduce possible time savings associated with cross-lake shipments.

1-30