An Intrastate Passenger Rail System For Utah Operated by Amtrak Using Existing Union Pacific Tracks

An Intrastate Passenger Rail System for Utah
Operated by Amtrak Using Existing Union Pacific Tracks

Mike Christensen
Mike Christensen
Master of City and Metropolitan Planning
Capstone Professional Project
Department of City and Metropolitan Planning

College of Architecture and Planning
University of Utah
Advisor: Keith Bartholomew, JD

May 2018
Front Cover: A Siemens Charger SC-44 diesel-electric locomotive leads the Amtrak Hiawatha at Milwaukee as the train
awaits a return trip to Chicago. Taken November 4, 2017 by the author.
Back Cover: Sunrise over the Suisun Slough taken aboard the Amtrak Coast Starlight traveling southbound between
Suisun City and Benicia. Taken January 5, 2018 by the author.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.
ii
Table of Contents
iv List of Figures
iv List of Maps
v List of Tables
vii Acknowledgements
1 Chapter 1: Why State-Sponsored Amtrak Service?

1 Introduction
1 Purpose and Need
1 Why Amtrak?
4 Utah State Rail Plans
4 California Zephyr Schedule and On-Time Performance
7 Chapter 2: Survey of Local and Intercity Transit in Utah

7 Existing Local Transit
9 Existing Intercity Transit
13 Comparison of Locations Served
17 Past and Future Intercity Transit
19 Chapter 3: Case Study

19 Introduction to Amtrak
24 Midwestern Overview
24 Prospective Utah Routes
36 Summary of Midwestern State-Sponsored Amtrak Routes
54 Analysis of Prospective Utah Routes
67 Chapter 4: Stations and Improvements

67 State of Existing Amtrak Stations
74 New Stations
87 Necessary Upgrades
110 Probable Upgrades
110 Possible Upgrades
117 Chapter 5: Next Steps and Conclusion

117 Further Visioning
117 Next Steps
118 Conclusion
119 References
iii
List of Figures
5 Figure 1: Potential Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Service Gaps
55 Figure 2: Illustration of Thiessen Radii
List of Maps
2 Map 1: Proposed Routes and Stations
8 Map 2: Existing Local Transit Services in Utah
10 Map 3: Delta/SkyWest
11 Map 4: Amtrak
12 Map 5: Greyhound
14 Map 6: Salt Lake Express
15 Map 7: Saint George Shuttle
16 Map 8: Combined Local Transit Service and Intercity Services
18 Map 9: Former Elevated Transit Routes
20 Map 10: Amtrak’s Three Lines of Business
21 Map 11: Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor
22 Map 12: Amtrak’s Long-Distance Service
23 Map 13: Amtrak’s State-Sponsored Service
25 Map 14: Midwestern Amtrak Routes
26 Map 15: Midwestern Long-Distance Amtrak Routes
27 Map 16: Midwestern State-Sponsored Amtrak Routes
28 Map 17: Midwestern Commuter Rail Routes
29 Map 18: Detail of Midwestern Commuter Rail Routes
30 Map 19: Utah Amtrak Routes
31 Map 20: Utah Amtrak Routes with Prospective State-Sponsored Routes
32 Map 21: Utah Long-Distance Amtrak Routes
33 Map 22: Utah Prospective State-Sponsored Amtrak Routes
34 Map 23: Utah Commuter Rail Route
35 Map 24: Detail of Utah Commuter Rail Route
37 Map 25: Hiawatha — Chicago to Milwaukee
39 Map 26: Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg — Chicago to Quincy
41 Map 27: Lincoln Service — Chicago to Saint Louis
43 Map 28: Missouri River Runner — Saint Louis to Kansas City
45 Map 29: Illini/Saluki — Chicago to Carbondale
47 Map 30: Hoosier State — Chicago to Indianapolis
49 Map 31: Wolverine — Chicago to Pontiac
51 Map 32: Blue Water — Chicago to Port Huron
53 Map 33: Pere Marquette — Chicago to Grand Rapids
57 Map 34: Salt Lake City to Logan
58 Map 35: Salt Lake City to Saint George
60 Map 36: Salt Lake City to Grand Junction
66 Map 37: Utah Routes with Parks administered by National Park Service
68 Map 38: Salt Lake City
69 Map 39: Salt Lake City Detail
70 Map 40: Provo
71 Map 41: Provo Detail
72 Map 42: Helper
73 Map 43: Helper Detail
75 Map 44: Green River
76 Map 45: Green River Detail
77 Map 46: Grand Junction
78 Map 47: Grand Junction Detail
iv
List of Maps Continued
79 Map 48: Logan
80 Map 49: Logan Detail
81 Map 50: Brigham City
82 Map 51: Brigham City Detail
83 Map 52: Ogden
84 Map 53: Ogden Detail
85 Map 54: Moab
86 Map 55: Moab Detail
88 Map 56: Nephi
89 Map 57: Nephi Detail
90 Map 58: Delta
91 Map 59: Delta Detail
92 Map 60: Milford
93 Map 61: Milford Detail
94 Map 62: Cedar City
95 Map 63: Cedar City Detail
96 Map 64: Saint George
97 Map 65: Saint George Detail
98 Map 66: Ogden Yard Alternatives Scenario 1 (Map 1 of 4)
111 Map 78: Cedar City Spur
112 Map 79: Price
113 Map 80: Price Detail
114 Map 81: Cache Cutoff
115 Map 82: 125 MPH
List of Tables
6 Table 1: California Zephyr Schedule and On-Time Performance
9 Table 2: Fare Matrix for Traveling One-Way within Utah aboard the California Zephyr
13 Table 3: Comparison of Locations Served
36 Table 4: Hiawatha Demographics
36 Table 5: Hiawatha Schedule
38 Table 6: Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg Demographics
38 Table 7: Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg Schedule
40 Table 8: Lincoln Service Demographics
40 Table 9: Lincoln Service Schedule
42 Table 10: Missouri River Runner Demographics
42 Table 11: Missouri River Runner Schedule
44 Table 12: Illini/Saluki Demographics
44 Table 13: Illini/Saluki Schedule
46 Table 14: Hoosier State Demographics
v
List of Tables Continued
46 Table 15: Hoosier State Schedule
48 Table 16: Wolverine Demographics
48 Table 17: Wolverine Schedule
50 Table 18: Blue Water Demographics
50 Table 19: Blue Water Schedule
52 Table 20: Pere Marquette Demographics
52 Table 21: Pere Marquette Schedule
54 Table 22: Prospective Amtrak Stations with 2010 Census Population and 2060 Projected Population
56 Table 23: Salt Lake City to Logan Demographics
56 Table 24: Salt Lake City to Saint George Demographics
59 Table 25: Salt Lake City to Grand Junction Demographics
59 Table 26: Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg Demographics with Thiessen Method Radii Population
61 Table 27: Illini/Saluki Demographics with Thiessen Method Radii Population
62 Table 28: Non-Metropolitan Thiessen Radii Population
63 Table 29: Calculation of Grand County 2060 Projected Population Change
64 Table 30: Non-Metropolitan Thiessen Radii Population with 2060 Projected Population
65 Table 31: 2017 Visitation for Parks in Utah administered by National Park Service
87 Table 32: Summary of the Ogden Yard Alternatives
vi
Acknowledgements
I have a lot of people to thank. First off, I need to thank my family for everything they’ve done to support me in this
endeavor. Unfortunately, my dad passed on before I completed this project, but I know he’s been following my progress
from beyond. The Department of City and Metropolitan Planning has been a great home for me over the past years. I
need to thank all my classmates from the MCMP program but need to especially thank Grant Allen for giving me many
pep talks. I need to thank all my TAs but especially Andrea Garfinkel-Castro for keeping me motivated. I need to thank all
my professors but especially my advisor, Keith Bartholomew, for always making me feel welcome. I also need to thank all
my professional mentors but especially Julianne Sabula, Jon Larsen, Kerry Doane, and Matt Sibul. Thanks everyone! :)
vii
viii
Chapter 1: Why State-Sponsored Amtrak Service?
Introduction
The purpose of this project is to introduce the idea of establishing intercity passenger rail routes operated by Amtrak
within Utah that would run on existing Union Pacific tracks. These routes would connect Salt Lake City north to Logan,
southwest to Cedar City, and southeast to Grand Junction. Dedicated connecting buses would connect from Cedar City to
Saint George and from Green River to Moab. Map 1 shows the proposed routes and stations along with the route of the
existing Amtrak California Zephyr.
Purpose and Need

Currently transportation options in Utah outside of the Wasatch Front are limited to driving, flying, and some buses.
Intercity passenger rail is presented as an option to increase the mobility choices of both Utah residents and visitors to
Utah.
Why Amtrak?
There are multiple operational models for creating an intercity passenger rail system. However, few are feasible in the
context of Utah’s near-term intercity transportation needs.
Building a new railway on a new right of way is what comes to mind for many people, when met with the concept of an
intercity passenger rail system. In 2015, students from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the
University of Utah completed a study of high-speed passenger rail connecting Salt Lake City and Las Vegas. The proposal
assumed conventional steel rails with electric trains powered by an overhead catenary system capable of traveling at up
to 250 mph (400 km/h). The estimated travel time between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas would be just under 2 hours.
While the study mostly overlooked transportation needs of those travelling within Utah, the cost estimate for the pro-
posal sheds light on potential drawbacks of creating a new railway. The total just for constructing the new railway came
to $14.4 billion (Student Engineering Associates 2015). Simply stated, the long approval and construction time coupled
with high cost push high-speed rail as an option for transportation within Utah decades into the future.
With the high cost of new rights of way, using existing railways and rights of way is the only remaining option. In 2010,
the Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors was compiled under
the direction of the Transportation Research Board. The guidebook details the best practices for utilizing existing railways
and rights of way (Bing 2010).
Utah is no stranger to using existing rights of way to construct passenger rail. The FrontRunner commuter rail line—
owned and operated by the Utah Transit Authority—runs 82 miles (132 km) between Ogden and Provo in an existing
right of way purchased from Union Pacific and parallels Union Pacific tracks. The tracks used to run FrontRunner between
Ogden and Provo are used exclusively by FrontRunner trains with the exception of limited freight trains accessing freight
spurs adjacent to the FrontRunner tracks during hours when FrontRunner is not operating. FrontRunner operates Mon-
1
Map 1: Proposed Routes and Stations
2
days through Saturdays on hourly headways with half-hourly headways during the weekday rush. Although using an
existing right of way lead to lower construction costs for FrontRunner, its construction cost was in the billions of dollars
and only justified by its hourly or better headways. Simply stated, the construction of extensive lengths of exclusive rail-
way—even on existing rights of way—would not be appropriate for intercity passenger rail running at headways far less
than hourly.
Utah is also no stranger to using existing freight tracks to operate passenger rail. The FrontRunner commuter rail line
uses 6 miles (10 km) of Union Pacific freight tracks to run limited rush service north from Ogden to Pleasant View. The
service is limited to weekdays only with two morning trips and two evening trips. During those periods, Union Pacific
operates no freight trains on the 6 miles (10 km) of track. As freight traffic is light between Ogden and Pleasant View, this
does not pose a problem for Union Pacific. This is in contrast with Amtrak’s California Zephyr, which crosses Utah running
on Union Pacific freight tracks and operating in mixed traffic with freight trains.
Gaining access to existing tracks can be a difficult process, which is explained in detail in the TRB guide (Bing 2010). There
are three operational models, through which to operate publicly-subsidized passenger trains using existing freight tracks:
1. A state or regional entity purchases passenger trainsets, hires crews, and pays the freight railroad for ac-
cess to its tracks. There are many examples of this in the context of commuter rail. In fact, most commuter
rail systems in the United States utilize existing freight tracks in some way as evidenced in the aforemen-
tioned FrontRunner example of service between Ogden and Pleasant View. However, it is interesting to
note that no examples of this operational model exist in the context of intercity passenger rail in the Unit-
ed States. The reason behind this will be explained in the third model.
2. A state or regional entity hires the freight railroad to operate passenger trains. There are some examples of
this in the context of commuter rail. For example, the WES (Westside Express Service) provides half hour
headways during the morning and evening rush along a 15-mile (24 km) line between Beaverton and Wil-
sonville, Oregon. The service is paid for by TriMet—the regional transit agency for Portland metropolitan
area—but the trains are operated by the Portland & Western Railroad, who also owns the tracks (Friesen
2008, Schmidt 2009). The operation of intercity passenger rail by private companies in the United States
is extremely rare. In 2017, Brightline began intercity passenger rail operations in Florida on a 70-mile (112
km) line between Miami and West Palm Beach with eventual plans to extend the line 170 miles (274 km)
further to Orlando. Trains operate on hourly headways. Brightline is owned by Florida East Coast Industries
and will operate on tracks owned by the Florida East Coast Railway, which is also owned by Florida East
Coast Industries. Brightline will be funded using private capital; however, a federal loan was key to its initial
start (Roustan 2017, Sigo 2017, Veciana-Suarez 2017). Again, it is interesting to note that few examples
of this operational model exist in the context of intercity passenger rail in the United States. The reason
behind this will be explained in the third model.
3. A state or regional entity hires Amtrak to operate passenger trains. The National Railroad Passenger Cor-
poration—known as Amtrak—was created in 1970 by the Passenger Rail Service Act in order to relieve
struggling freight railroads from the obligation to operate passenger service. “In return for relief from the
burden of passenger service, the participating railroads were required to give Amtrak rights of access to
their networks and agreed to an avoidable-cost formula for track-use charges (Bing 2010, U.S. Govern-
ment Accountability Office 2016).” In other words, freight railroads are required to provide reasonable
access for Amtrak trains to use their tracks at a reasonable price. The ability of Amtrak to negotiate more
effectively with freight railroads than state or regional entities could on their own is the reason the two
previously-mentioned operational models are seldom used in the United States.
State-sponsored Amtrak service is the basic operational model used by 18 states to provide intercity passenger rail ser-
vice; however, the specific details vary from state to state. At minimum and in order to take advantage of the access to
freight tracks provided for under the Passenger Rail Service Act, state-sponsored Amtrak trains must be operated by en-
gineers and conductors employed by Amtrak. Other operational aspects need not be provided by Amtrak. For example,
locomotives and passenger cars can be owned and maintained by entities other than Amtrak, such as private companies
or the state or regional entities themselves, and on-board food service can be provided through private concessioners
rather than through Amtrak.
3
Among the 18 states sponsoring Amtrak service, the details of operations vary widely. Some states have Amtrak provide
all operational aspects, while others provide their own locomotives, passenger cars, and concessions. A recent experi-
ment by the State of Indiana tested the minimal possible involvement by Amtrak. Indiana hired Iowa Pacific Holdings to
provide locomotives, passenger cars, and concessions for the Hoosier State between Chicago and Indianapolis (Govern-
ment Accountability Office 2016). The experiment was initially hailed as a success; however, after Iowa Pacific continually
asked Indiana to cover cost-overruns, the State of Indiana terminated the contract with Iowa Pacific and returned to
having Amtrak provide all operational aspects (Ambrose 2017, McGowan 2017, National Association of Railroad Passen-
gers 2017).
Utah State Rail Plans

A survey of the 1996 and 2015 Utah State Rail Plans reveal a stark contrast in attitudes towards passenger rail. The 1996
plan paints a bleak future for passenger rail in Utah. Along with wrongly forecasting the loss of Amtrak’s long-distance
routes, the plan fails to mention any proposals for the rail system that would be built by the Utah Transit Authority soon
thereafter, with the except of mentioning the purchase of rail corridors by the Utah Transit Authority (Utah Department
of Transportation 1996). Unfortunately, reaching the plan’s author, Caine Alder, for comment is impossible as he has
passed away in the years since (Keeslar 2018).
The 2015 plan paints a somewhat more positive future for passenger rail in Utah. The plan identifies potential intercity
passenger rail service gaps in Utah:
1. Between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles via Las Vegas, which was once served by Amtrak’s discontinued
Desert Wind.
2. Between Salt Lake City and Seattle via Boise, and Portland, which was once served by Amtrak’s discontin-
ued Pioneer.
3. Between Salt Lake City and Denver via Rock Springs and Laramie, which was once served by Amtrak’s dis-
continued Desert Wind.
Figure 1 is taken from the 2015 plan and shows the route of the California Zephyr along with the three aforementioned
service gaps. Additionally, the plan specifically identifies a need to “investigate the feasibility of intrastate passenger rail
service between Salt Lake City and Cedar City via Milford, with connecting motor coach bus service from Cedar City to St.
George.” The plan also highlights the possible tourism benefits of increasing passenger rail service in Utah:
“With five national parks, seven national monuments, two national recreation areas, and one national his-
toric site, Utah is a prime national and international tourism destination. However, most out of the state or
international tourists rely on auto and air travel to reach Utah and its scenic attractions. Unlike other areas
in the western United States, Utah does not have rail passenger service that lends itself to being used by
our domestic or international visitors. Amtrak’s sole remaining train serving the mountain west region, the
Chicago to San Francisco Bay Area California Zephyr, is not scheduled or equipped to cater to the majority
of those wishing to visit Utah.” (Utah Department of Transportation 2015)
The 2015 Utah State Rail Plan was written by Daniel Kuhn of the Utah Department of Transportation and Vern Keeslar of
the consulting firm Parametrix (Keeslar 2018).
California Zephyr Schedule and On-Time Performance

Indeed, the California Zephyr does not lend itself to adequately serving visitors to Utah and travelers within Utah in
terms of schedule and also on-time performance. The scheduled departure times of the California Zephyr are shown in
Table 1. Aside from the late arrival time in Salt Lake City, the afternoon and evening journey of Train 5 (the westbound
California Zephyr) are suitable for most travelers. However, the early departure times from Salt Lake City and Provo ren-
der travel on Train 6 (the eastbound California Zephyr) unsuitable for most travelers.
Additionally, the route of the California Zephyr stretches 2,438 miles between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area
4
Figure 1: Potential Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Service Gaps
Source: Utah Department of Transportation 2015

5
over a scheduled travel time of 51 hours. Simply stated: the longer a train’s route, the greater the opportunity for delay.
Table 1 shows the 2017 median delay, median departure time, mean delay, mean departure time, greatest delay, and
greatest departure time (Amtrak Status Maps Archive Database 2018). The possibility of relatively-long delays makes
long-distance Amtrak trains less than ideal over relatively-short travel distances. In comparison, delays on state-spon-
sored Amtrak routes are significantly shorter. For example, in 2017 the Heartland Flyer, which runs 206 miles between
Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, had a median delay of 7 minutes and a mean delay of 11 minutes, and in 2017 the Illinois
Zephyr and Carl Sandberg, which run 258 miles between Chicago and Quincy, together had a median delay of 1 minute
and a mean delay of 6 minutes (Amtrak Status Maps Archive Database 2018).
Table 1: California Zephyr Schedule and On-Time Performance
2017 Greatest Delay (hh:mm)

2017 Median Delay (hh:mm)
2017 Mean Delay (hh:mm)

2017 Median Departure
2017 Latest Departure

2017 Mean Departure
Scheduled Departure
Station
↓ Train 5 - Westbound ↓
Grand Junction 4:10 PM 0:21 4:31 PM 0:46 4:56 PM 7:32 11:42 PM
Green River 5:58 PM 0:33 6:31 PM 0:57 6:55 PM 7:40 1:38 AM
Helper 7:20 PM 0:40 8:00 PM 1:03 8:23 PM 7:36 2:56 AM
Provo 9:26 PM 0:42 10:08 PM 1:07 10:33 PM 9:46 7:12 AM
Salt Lake City 11:30 PM 0:13 11:43 PM 0:59 12:29 AM 9:02 8:32 AM
↓ Train 6 - Eastbound ↓
Salt Lake City 3:30 AM 0:37 4:07 AM 1:14 4:44 AM 20:49 12:19 AM
Provo 4:35 AM 0:36 5:11 AM 1:14 5:49 AM 20:48 1:23 AM
Helper 6:37 AM 0:39 7:16 AM 1:19 7:56 AM 20:49 3:26 AM
Green River 7:59 AM 0:37 8:36 AM 1:19 9:18 AM 20:51 4:50 AM
Grand Junction 10:23 AM 0:27 10:50 AM 1:11 11:34 AM 20:34 6:57 AM
Source: Amtrak 2018, Amtrak Status Maps Archive Database 2018
6
Chapter 2: Survey of Local and Intercity Transit in Utah
Existing Local Transit
Map 2 gives an overview of existing local transit services in Utah.
Utah Transit Authority
Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) service district encompasses all of Salt Lake, Weber, Davis, and Utah Counties and por-
tions of Tooele and Box Elder Counties. This single district includes more than 75% of Utah’s population (approximately
2.2 million residents), and its north-south extent spans more than 100 miles. UTA operates 1 commuter rail line over 88
miles of track, 3 light rail lines over 45 miles of track, 1 streetcar line over 2 miles of track, and more than 100 bus routes.
A one-way UTA fare is $2.50 for buses, light rail, and streetcar, while a one-way UTA commuter rail fare varies from $2.50
to $10.30 depending on distance traveled. UTA also operates 4 express bus routes, the one-way fare of which is $5.50.
UTA also operates 7 ski bus routes with service to ski resorts, the one-way fare of which is $4.50. Park City Transit and
UTA collaborate to operate a bus route connecting Park City and Salt Lake City, the one-way fare of which is $4.50 (Utah
Transit Authority 2018).
Park City Transit
Park City Transit operates 14 bus routes serving Park City and its surroundings (approximately 20,000 residents) in Sum-
mit County. Park City Transit is fare free. Park City Transit and UTA collaborate to operate a bus route connecting Park City
and Salt Lake City, the one-way fare of which is $4.50 (Park City 2018).
Cache Valley Transit
The Cache Valley Transit District operates 16 bus routes serving the city of Logan and surrounding communities (approxi-
mately 95,000 residents) in Cache County. The Cache Valley Transit District is fare free (Cache Valley Transit District 2018).
Cedar Area Transportation
Cedar Area Transportation (CATS) operates 1 bus route serving Cedar City (approximately 28,000 residents) in Iron Coun-
ty. A one-way CATS fare is $1.50 (Cedar City 2018).
SunTran
SunTran operates 6 bus routes serving Saint George, Santa Clara, and Ivins (approximately 85,000 residents) in Washing-
ton County. A one-way SunTran fare is $1.00 (St. George 2018).
Basin Transit Authority
The Basin Transit Authority (BTA) operates 3 bus routes serving Vernal, Roosevelt, and Duchesne (approximately 18,000
7
Map 2: Existing Local Transit Services in Utah
8
residents) in Duchesne and Uintah Counties. A one-way BTA fare is $1.00 (Basin Transit Authority 2018).
Existing Intercity Transit

Delta/SkyWest
Delta Airlines provides the only scheduled intrastate air passenger service within Utah, the flights of which are operated
by regional operator SkyWest. There are 2 roundtrips per day between Salt Lake City and Cedar City, and a one-way fare
starts around $95. There are 4 roundtrips per day between Salt Lake City and Saint George, and a one-way fare starts
around $160 (Delta 2018). Map 3 shows the two Delta routes serving Utah.
Amtrak
Amtrak’s California Zephyr crosses Utah once a day in each direction on its 2,438-mile journey between Chicago and the
San Francisco Bay Area. The California Zephyr makes four stops in Utah: Green River, Helper, Provo, and Salt Lake City.
Due to its night schedule, the California Zephyr is less than ideal for providing an intrastate travel option for Utah. The
westbound train departs Green River at 5:58 pm and arrives in Salt Lake City at 11:05 pm, while the eastbound train de-
parts Salt Lake City at 3:30 am and arrives in Green River at 7:59 am. Table 2 shows the fare matrix for traveling one way
within Utah aboard the California Zephyr (Amtrak 2018). Map 4 shows the route of the California Zephyr across Utah.
Table 2: Fare Matrix for Traveling One-Way within Utah aboard the California Zephyr
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City

Green River
Green River
“Saver” “Value”
Fares Fares
Helper
Helper
Provo
Provo
Green River $11.00 $20.00 $22.00 Green River $17.00 $30.00 $34.00
Helper $11.00 $10.00 $16.00 Helper $17.00 $18.00 $25.00
Provo $20.00 $10.00 $8.50 Provo $30.00 $18.00 $13.00
Salt Lake City $22.00 $16.00 $8.50 Salt Lake City $34.00 $25.00 $13.00
Source: Amtrak 2018
Greyhound
Greyhound operates four bus routes which serve locations in Utah. Three of the routes serve the Wasatch Front. Two of
the routes serve Cedar City and Saint George:
• Portland, OR – Denver, CO: Two daily round trips between Portland and Denver make stops in Tremonton,
Ogden, and Salt Lake City.
• Reno, NV – Denver, CO: One daily round trip between Reno and Denver make stops in Salt Lake City, Park
City, Heber City, Duchesne, Myton, Roosevelt, Fort Duchesne, and Vernal.
• Salt Lake City, UT – Las Vegas, NV: One daily round trip between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas make stops in
Provo, Parowan, Cedar City, and Saint George.
• Los Angeles, CA – New York City, NY: One daily round trips between Los Angeles and New York City make
stops in Saint George, Cedar City, Parowan, Richfield, and Green River.
A one-way Greyhound fare from Salt Lake City to Saint George is approximately $41 (Greyhound 2018). Map 5 shows the
four Greyhound routes that serve Utah.
9
Map 3: Delta/SkyWest
10
Map 4: Amtrak
11
Map 5: Greyhound
12
Salt Lake Express
Salt Lake Express provides multiple daily bus runs connecting Salt Lake City with Las Vegas, NV, and Page, AZ, to the south
and with Boise, ID, Great Falls, MT, and Jackson, WY to the north. Salt Lake Express also provides service within Utah to
Logan, Brigham City, Ogden, Provo, Beaver, Cedar City, and Saint George. A one-way Salt Lake Express fare from Salt Lake
City to Saint George is approximately $48. A one-way Salt Lake Express fare from Salt Lake City to Logan is approximately
$30 (Salt Lake Express 2018). Map 6 shows Salt Lake Express’ service area.
Saint George Shuttle
Saint George Shuttle makes four daily roundtrips between Salt Lake City and Saint George with stops in Midvale, Orem,
Springville, Nephi, Fillmore, Beaver, and Cedar City. Thirteen daily roundtrips also provide service from Saint George to
the Las Vegas Airport. Two daily roundtrips also provide service from Saint George to Springdale/Zion National Park. A
one-way Saint George Shuttle fare from Salt Lake City to Saint George is approximately $50. A one-way Saint George
Shuttle fare from Salt Lake City to Nephi is approximately $25 (St. George Shuttle 2018). Map 7 shows Saint George Shut-
tle’s service area.
Comparison of Locations Served

Map 8 combines the previous map of local transit service and the various maps of intercity services into one map. Table
3 compares the aforementioned service availability at the proposed stations of the proposed rail system. An X denotes
the presence of the service.
Table 3: Comparison of Locations Served

Salt Lake City
Saint George
Brigham City
Green River
Cedar City
Milford
Helper
Ogden
Nephi
Logan
Moab
Provo
Delta
Local Rail X X X
Local Bus X X X X X X X
Amtrak X X X X
Delta X X X
Greyhound X X X X X X
Salt Lake Express X X X X X X X
Saint George Shuttle X* X** X X X
*Saint George Shuttle stops in Midvale and at the Salt Lake City International Airport rather than downtown Salt Lake
City.
**Saint George Shuttle stops at the Orem FrontRunner station rather than Provo.
Source: Amtrak 2018, Cache Valley Transit District 2018, Cedar City 2018, Delta 2018, Greyhound 2018, Salt Lake Ex-
press 2018, St. George Shuttle 2018, St. George 2018, Utah Transit Authority 2018
13
Map 6: Salt Lake Express
14
Map 7: Saint George Shuttle
15
Map 8: Combined Local Transit Service and Intercity Services
16
Past and Future Intercity Transit
Elevated Transit
The story of Elevated Transit provides a cautionary tale of the impermanence of intercity transit in Utah. Beginning in
August 2014, Elevated Transit provided service within Utah on two routes:
• Salt Lake City – Richfield: One daily roundtrip between Salt Lake City and Richfield made stops in Provo,
Nephi, Moroni, Fairview, Mount Pleasant, Ephraim, Manti, Gunnison, Centerfield, and Salina.
• Salt Lake City – Blanding: One daily roundtrip between Salt Lake City and Blanding made stops in Provo,
Spanish Fork, Price, Green River, Moab, and Monticello.
Map 9 shows the routes formerly operated by Elevated Transit. The service provided by Elevated Transit was subsidized
through funding from the Utah Department of Transportation under a five-year contract. In June 2017, the Utah De-
partment of Transportation suddenly canceled the contract. Due to the pending litigation between Elevated Transit and
the Utah Department of Transportation, details of the canceled contract are currently limited (Davidson 2014, Herndon
2014, Elevated Transit 2018, Fuller 2018). Unfortunately, the availability of intercity transit in Utah is highly dependent on
subsidies and venture capital. Elevated Transit is an unfortunate example that services can often disappear overnight.
United/SkyWest at Canyonlands Field Airport
Worth noting is the return of passenger airline service to Canyonlands Field outside of Moab. Starting May 1, 2018,
United Airlines will provide service between Canyonlands Field and Denver International Airport, the flights of which will
be operated by regional operator SkyWest (Grand County 2018). A one-way ticket from Moab to Salt Lake City via Denver
will cost between $130 and $250 (United 2018). While this a convenient service for connecting to Denver, the travel time
(including the layover in Denver) makes the travel time flying to Salt Lake City considerably longer than driving directly
from Moab to Salt Lake City.
17
Map 9: Former Elevated Transit Routes
18
Chapter 3: Case Study
Introduction to Amtrak
Amtrak operates three lines of business:
1. Northeast Corridor.
2. Long-Distance Routes.
3. State-Sponsored Routes.
Map 10 shows the Amtrak system broken down by the three lines of business. The Northeast Corridor is highlighted in
gold, long-distance routes are in blue, and state-sponsored routes are in red. States lacking Amtrak service are in white,
states with Amtrak service are in blue, and states with Amtrak service that also sponsor routes are in yellow.
Northeast Corridor
Map 11 shows the Amtrak system with the 456-mile Northeast Corridor running from Boston to Washington via New
York City, Philadelphia, and Baltimore highlighted in gold. Frequency on the Northeast Corridor is more than 35 round
trips per weekday. The Northeast Corridor is the longest length of track owned by Amtrak. Additionally, the Northeast
Corridor is also host to portions of eight commuter railroads: MBTA (Massachusetts and Rhode Island), Shore Line East
(Connecticut), Metro-North Railroad (Connecticut and New York), Long Island Rail Road (New York), NJ Transit (New York
and New Jersey), SEPTA (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware), MARC (Maryland and DC), and VRE (DC and Virginia).
Additionally, Amtrak owns track from Philadelphia to Harrisburg, New Haven to Springfield, and Michigan City to Kalama-
zoo.
Long-Distance Service
Map 12 shows the Amtrak system with the long-distance routes highlighted in blue. Amtrak’s long-distance routes op-
erate almost exclusively on tracks owned and operated by freight railroads. With the exception of two routes that make
three trips per week, all long-distance routes operate daily. Long-distance routes vary in length from 764 miles to 2,438
miles.
State-Sponsored Service
Map 13 shows the Amtrak system with the state-sponsored routes highlighted in red. With the exception of the pre-
viously mentioned lengths of track owned by Amtrak, Amtrak’s state-sponsored routes operate almost exclusively on
tracks owned and operated by freight railroads. State-sponsored routes vary in length from 86 miles to 704 miles and in
frequency from one round trip per day to sixteen round trips per day.
19
20
Map 10: Amtrak’s Three Lines of Business

Map 11: Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor
21
22
Map 12: Amtrak’s Long-Distance Service

Map 13: Amtrak’s State-Sponsored Service
23
Midwestern Overview
Map 14 shows the region surrounding Chicago. Amtrak stations are represented as black dots, long-distance Amtrak
routes are shown as blue lines, state-sponsored Amtrak routes are shown as red lines, and the Metra and South Shore
Line commuter rail routes are shown as green lines. The labeled cities are end points of state-sponsored Amtrak lines.
Map 15 highlights the long-distance Amtrak routes surrounding Chicago. Map 16 highlights the state-sponsored Amtrak
routes surrounding Chicago. Map 17 highlights the Metra and South Shore Line commuter rail routes, while Map 18
gives a more detailed look at the commuter rail routes.
Prospective Utah Routes

Map 19 shows the region surrounding Salt Lake City and the passenger rail lines as presently constituted. Amtrak stations
are represented as black dots, long-distance Amtrak routes are shown as blue lines and the FrontRunner commuter rail
route is shown as green lines. The labeled cities are end points of prospective state-sponsored Amtrak lines.
Map 20 adds prospective state-sponsored routes in red to the region surrounding Salt Lake City. The dashed red line
represents bus service between Cedar City and Saint George and between Green River and Moab. Map 21 highlights
the long-distance Amtrak routes surrounding Salt Lake City. Map 22 highlights the prospective state-sponsored Amtrak
routes surrounding Salt Lake City. Map 23 highlights the FrontRunner commuter rail route, while Map 24 gives a more
detailed look at the commuter rail route.
24
Map 14: Midwestern Amtrak Routes
25
Map 15: Midwestern Long-Distance Amtrak Routes
26
Map 16: Midwestern State-Sponsored Amtrak Routes
27
Map 17: Midwestern Commuter Rail Routes
28
Map 18: Detail of Midwestern Commuter Rail Routes
29
Map 19: Utah Amtrak Routes
30
Map 20: Utah Amtrak Routes with Prospective State-Sponsored Routes
31
Map 21: Utah Long-Distance Amtrak Routes
32
Map 22: Utah Prospective State-Sponsored Amtrak Routes
33
Map 23: Utah Commuter Rail Route
34
Map 24: Detail of Utah Commuter Rail Route
35
Summary of Midwestern State-Sponsored Amtrak Routes
The following summarizes the midwestern state-sponsored Amtrak routes. Schedules and mileages are from Amtrak
(Amtrak 2018). Ridership counts are from the Rail Passengers Association (Rail Passengers Association 2018). Populations
are from the 2010 Census (U.S. Census 2018). Map data is from The National Map Small-Scale Collection (National Map
2018) and the National Transportation Atlas Database (Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2018).
Hiawatha — Chicago to Milwaukee
The Hiawatha runs 86 miles between Chicago and Milwaukee and had a ridership of 792,103 passengers in 2015, which
is an average of 159 passengers per train. Table 4 gives basic demographics for the five stations along the route. Table 5
shows the schedule of the Hiawatha. Map 25 highlights the route of the Hiawatha in red with its stations in black.
Table 4: Hiawatha Demographics

2010
2010 2010 Census
Census Census 25-mile
City County Radius
Mile State City Population County Population Population
0 Chicago 2,695,598 5,669,264
Illinois Cook 5,194,675
18 Glenview 44,692 5,488,797
63 Sturtevant 6,970 Racine 195,408 1,383,441
78 Wisconsin Milwaukee Airport 1,588,158
594,833 Milwaukee 947,735
86 Milwaukee 1,559,633
Source: Amtrak 2018, Rail Passengers Association 2018, U.S. Census 2018
Table 5: Hiawatha Schedule

↓ Northbound ↓
329 331 333 335 337 339 341 343
Mo-Fr Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Fr
Mile City Hiawatha Hiawatha Hiawatha Hiawatha Hiawatha Hiawatha Hiawatha Hiawatha
0 Chicago (CT) 6:10 AM 8:25 AM 10:20 AM 1:05 PM 3:15 PM 5:08 PM 8:05 PM 11:25 PM
18 Glenview 6:32 AM 8:47 AM 10:42 AM 1:27 PM 3:37 PM 5:32 PM 8:27 PM 11:47 PM
63 Sturtevant 7:10 AM 9:25 AM 11:20 AM 2:05 PM 4:15 PM 6:14 PM 9:05 PM 12:25 AM
78 Milwaukee Airport 7:24 AM 9:39 AM 11:34 AM 2:19 PM 4:29 PM 6:28 PM 9:19 PM 12:39 AM
86 Milwaukee (CT) 7:39 AM 9:54 AM 11:49 AM 2:34 PM 4:44 PM 6:45 PM 9:34 PM 12:54 AM
↓ Southbound ↓
330 332 334 336 338 340 342
Mo-Sa Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily
Mile City Hiawatha Hiawatha Hiawatha Hiawatha Hiawatha Hiawatha Hiawatha
86 Milwaukee (CT) 6:15 AM 8:05 AM 11:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:45 PM 7:35 PM
78 Milwaukee Airport 6:26 AM 8:15 AM 11:10 AM 1:10 PM 3:10 PM 5:55 PM 7:45 PM
63 Sturtevant 6:43 AM 8:28 AM 11:23 AM 1:23 PM 3:23 PM 6:08 PM 7:58 PM
18 Glenview 7:24 AM 9:06 AM 12:01 PM 2:01 PM 4:01 PM 6:45 PM 8:36 PM
0 Chicago (CT) 7:57 AM 9:34 AM 12:29 PM 2:29 PM 4:29 PM 7:14 PM 9:04 PM
Source: Amtrak 2018
36
Map 25: Hiawatha — Chicago to Milwaukee
37
Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg — Chicago to Quincy
The Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg run 258 miles between Chicago and Quincy and had a ridership of 206,625 passen-
gers in 2015, which is an average of 143 passengers per train. Table 6 gives basic demographics for the ten stations along
the route. Table 7 shows the schedule of the Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg along with the schedules of the California
Zephyr and the Southwest Chief, which also provide service in the corridor on their routes from Chicago to Emeryville
and from Chicago to Los Angeles, respectively. Map 26 highlights the route of the Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg in red
with its stations in black.
Table 6: Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg Demographics

2010
2010 2010 Census
City County Radius
0 Chicago 2,695,598 5,669,264
Cook 5,194,675
14 La Grange 15,550 6,917,641
28 Naperville 141,853 DuPage 916,924 4,963,855
52 Plano 10,856 Kendall 114,736 1,182,653
83 Mendota 7,372 La Salle 113,924 137,751
Illinois
104 Princeton 7,660 Bureau 34,978 95,035
131 Kewanee 12,916 Henry 50,486 189,404
162 Galesburg 32,195 Knox 52,919 82,898
202 Macomb 19,288 McDonough 32,612 60,318
258 Quincy 40,633 Adams 67,103 112,075
Table 7: Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg Schedule

↓ Westbound ↓ ↑ Eastbound ↑
381 5 3 383 380 6 4 382
Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily
Carl California Southwest Illinois Illinois California Southwest Carl
Sandburg Zephyr Chief Zephyr Mile City Zephyr Zephyr Chief Sandburg
7:35 AM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:55 PM 0 Chicago (CT) 10:33 AM 2:50 PM 3:15 PM 9:51 PM
7:54 AM 6:14 PM 14 La Grange 10:01 AM 9:18 PM
8:10 AM 2:34 PM 3:35 PM 6:30 PM 28 Naperville 9:45 AM 1:53 PM 2:42 PM 9:02 PM
8:33 AM 6:53 PM 52 Plano 9:20 AM 8:38 PM
9:00 AM 4:24 PM 7:20 PM 83 Mendota 8:51 AM 1:19 PM 8:09 PM
9:21 AM 3:44 PM 4:46 PM 7:41 PM 104 Princeton 8:29 AM 12:33 PM 12:58 PM 7:47 PM
9:44 AM 8:04 PM 131 Kewanee 8:05 AM 7:23 PM
10:18 AM 4:38 PM 5:35 PM 8:38 PM 162 Galesburg 7:36 AM 11:41 AM 12:08 PM 6:54 PM
10:56 AM 9:16 PM 202 Macomb 7:00 AM 6:18 PM
to EMY to LAX from EMY from LAX
11:57 AM 10:17 PM 258 Quincy (CT) 6:12 AM 5:30 PM
Source: Amtrak 2018
38
Map 26: Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg — Chicago to Quincy
39
Lincoln Service — Chicago to Saint Louis
Lincoln Service runs 284 miles between Chicago and Saint Louis and had a ridership of 569,986 passengers in 2015, which
is an average of 195 passengers per train. Table 8 gives basic demographics for the eleven stations along the route. Table
9 shows the schedule of Lincoln Service along with the schedule of the Texas Eagle, which also provides service in the
corridor on its route from Chicago to San Antonio. Map 27 highlights the route of Lincoln Service in red with its stations
in black.
Table 8: Lincoln Service Demographics

2010
2010 2010 Census
City County Radius
Mile State City Population
County Population Population
0 Chicago 2,695,598 5,669,264
Cook 5,194,675
12 Summit 11,054 6,645,193
37 Joliet 147,433
Will 677,560 2,548,153
74 Dwight 4,260 146,929
Livingston 38,950
92 Pontiac 11,931 86,672
Illinois
124 Bloomington-Normal 52,497
McLean 169,572 217,389
156 Lincoln 14,504
Logan 30,305 90,353
185 Springfield 116,250
Sangamon 197,465 237,088
224 Carlinville 5,917
Macoupin 47,765 96,336
257 Alton 27,865
Madison 269,282 1,357,400
284 Missouri Saint Louis 319,294
N/A* 319,294 2,119,113
*Saint Louis is an independent city.
Table 9: Lincoln Service Schedule

↓ Southbound ↓ ↑ Northbound ↑
301 303 21 305 307 300 302 22 304 306
Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily
Lincoln Lincoln Texas Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Texas Lincoln Lincoln
Service Service Eagle Service Service Mile City Service Service Eagle Service Service
7:00 AM 9:25 AM 1:45 PM 5:15 PM 7:00 PM 0 Chicago (CT) 10:00 AM 12:20 AM 1:52 PM 8:40 PM 11:10 PM
9:48 AM 5:37 PM 7:22 PM 12 Summit 9:24 AM 11:44 AM 7:51 PM 10:27 PM
7:57 AM 10:15 AM 2:40 PM 6:05 PM 7:50 PM 37 Joliet 8:59 AM 11:19 AM 12:56 PM 7:26 PM 10:02 PM
10:49 AM 6:39 PM 8:24 PM 74 Dwight 8:17 AM 10:32 AM 6:41 PM 9:22 PM
11:06 AM 3:27 PM 6:56 PM 8:41 PM 92 Pontiac 7:59 AM 10:14 AM 11:39 AM 6:23 PM 9:04 PM
9:14 AM 11:39 AM 4:04 PM 7:29 PM 9:14 PM 124 Bloomington 7:31 AM 9:46 AM 11:08 AM 5:56 PM 8:36 PM
12:10 PM 4:37 PM 8:02 PM 9:47 PM 156 Lincoln 7:00 AM 9:05 AM 10:25 AM 5:24 PM 8:00 PM
10:15 AM 12:50 PM 5:14 PM 8:39 PM 10:24 PM 185 Springfield 6:32 AM 8:37 AM 9:55 AM 4:56 PM 7:32 PM
1:28 PM 5:49 PM 9:19 PM 11:04 PM 224 Carlinville 5:50 AM 7:55 AM 9:15 AM 4:14 PM 6:45 PM
11:20 AM 1:59 PM 6:22 PM 9:50 PM 11:35 PM 257 Alton 5:22 AM 7:25 AM 8:45 AM 3:47 PM 6:17 PM
12:20 PM 3:00 PM 7:21 PM 10:45 PM 12:30 PM 284 Saint Louis (CT) 4:35 AM 6:40 AM 7:55 AM 3:00 PM 5:30 PM
to SAS from SAS
Source: Amtrak 2018
40
Map 27: Lincoln Service — Chicago to Saint Louis
41
Missouri River Runner — Saint Louis to Kansas City
The Missouri River Runner runs 283 miles between Saint Louis and Kansas City and had a ridership of 176,895 passengers
in 2015, which is an average of 121 passengers per train. Table 10 gives basic demographics for the ten stations along
the route. Table 11 shows the schedule of the Missouri River Runner. Map 28 highlights the route of the Missouri River
Runner in red with its stations in black.
Table 10: Missouri River Runner Demographics

2010
2010 2010 Census
City County Radius
0 Saint Louis 319,294 N/A* 319,294 2,119,113
13 Kirkwood 27,540 Saint Louis 1,001,876 2,093,956
52 Washington 13,982 Franklin 101,492 436,630
81 Hermann 2,431 Gasconade 15,222 87,100
125 Jefferson City 43,079 Cole 75,990 180,464
Missouri
189 Sedalia 21,387 Pettis 42,201 72,686
218 Warrensburg 18,838 Johnson 52,595 93,979
260 Lee's Summit 91,364 1,521,564
273 Independence 116,830 Jackson 674,158 1,642,057
283 Kansas City 459,787 1,744,694
*Saint Louis is an independent city.
Table 11: Missouri River Runner Schedule

↓ Westbound ↓ ↑ Eastbound ↑
311 313 314 316
Daily Daily Daily Daily
Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri
River River River River
Runner Runner Mile City Runner Runner
9:15 AM 4:00 PM 0 Saint Louis (CT) 1:55 PM 9:40 PM
9:44 AM 4:29 PM 13 Kirkwood 1:13 PM 8:58 PM
10:21 AM 5:06 PM 52 Washington 12:31 PM 8:16 PM
10:49 AM 5:34 PM 81 Hermann 12:03 PM 7:48 PM
11:36 AM 6:22 PM 125 Jefferson City 11:18 AM 7:03 PM
12:46 PM 7:39 PM 189 Sedalia 10:04 AM 5:49 PM
1:20 PM 8:09 PM 218 Warrensburg 9:34 AM 5:19 PM
2:04 PM 8:50 PM 260 Lee's Summit 8:51 AM 4:36 PM
2:20 PM 9:06 PM 273 Independence 8:34 AM 4:19 PM
2:55 PM 9:40 PM 283 Kansas City (CT) 8:15 AM 4:00 PM
Source: Amtrak 2018
42
Map 28: Missouri River Runner — Saint Louis to Kansas City
43
Illini/Saluki — Chicago to Carbondale
The Illini and Saluki run 309 miles between Chicago and Carbondale and had a ridership of 288,843 passengers in 2015,
which is an average of 198 passengers per train. Table 12 gives basic demographics for the eleven stations along the
route. Table 13 shows the schedule of the Illini and Saluki along with the schedule of the City of New Orleans, which also
provides service in the corridor on its route from Chicago to New Orleans. Map 29 highlights the route of the Illini and
Saluki in red with its stations in black.
Table 12: Illini/Saluki Demographics

2010
2010 2010 Census
City County Radius
0 Chicago 2,695,598 5,669,264
Cook 5,194,675
24 Homewood 19,323 4,178,410
57 Kankakee 27,537 Kankakee 113,449 215,584
82 Gilman 1,793 Iroquois 29,718 70,047
115 Rantoul 12,941 234,774
Champaign 201,081
129 Illinois Champaign 81,055 249,097
173 Mattoon 18,555 Coles 53,873 116,994
200 Effingham 12,328 Effingham 34,242 74,833
253 Centralia 13,032 Marion 39,437 119,089
289 Du Quoin 6,109 Perry 22,350 174,670
309 Carbondale 25,902 Jackson 60,218 188,396
Table 13: Illini/Saluki Schedule

↓ Southbound ↓ ↑ Northbound ↑
391 393 59 58 390 392
Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily
City of City of
Saluki Illini Saluki Illini
New Orleans Mile City New Orleans
8:15 AM 4:05 PM 8:05 PM 0 Chicago (CT) 9:00 AM 1:00 PM 9:45 PM
8:56 AM 4:46 PM 8:54 PM 24 Homewood 7:44 AM 11:44 AM 8:27 PM
9:22 AM 5:12 PM 9:23 PM 57 Kankakee 7:13 AM 11:15 AM 8:00 PM
9:44 AM 5:34 PM 82 Gilman 10:53 AM 7:38 PM
10:10 AM 6:00 PM 115 Rantoul 10:27 AM 7:12 PM
10:25 AM 6:15 PM 10:34 PM 129 Champaign 6:10 AM 10:14 AM 6:59 PM
11:05 AM 6:55 PM 11:13 PM 173 Mattoon 5:23 AM 9:31 AM 6:16 PM
11:29 AM 7:19 PM 11:37 PM 200 Effingham 4:57 AM 9:07 AM 5:52 PM
12:16 PM 8:06 PM 12:25 AM 253 Centralia 4:10 AM 8:23 AM 5:08 PM
12:49 PM 8:39 PM 289 Du Quoin 7:51 AM 4:36 PM
1:45 PM 9:35 PM 1:21 AM 309 Carbondale (CT) 3:16 AM 7:30 AM 4:15 PM
to NOL from NOL
Source: Amtrak 2018
44
Map 29: Illini/Saluki — Chicago to Carbondale
45
Hoosier State — Chicago to Indianapolis
The Hoosier State runs 196 miles between Chicago and Indianapolis and had a ridership of 29,348 passengers in 2015,
which is an average of 71 passengers per train. Table 14 gives basic demographics for the six stations along the route.
Table 15 shows the schedule of the Hoosier State along with the schedule of the Cardinal, which also provides service in
the corridor on its route from Chicago to New York City. Map 30 highlights the route of the Hoosier State in red with its
stations in black.
It should be pointed out that the Cardinal provides service between Chicago and New York City via Indianapolis three
days per week, while the Hoosier State provides service between Chicago and Indianapolis the remaining four days per
week. Together, the Cardinal and the Hoosier State provide daily service between Chicago and Indianapolis.
Table 14: Hoosier State Demographics

2010
2010 2010 Census
City County Radius
0 Illinois Chicago 2,695,598 Cook 5,194,675 5,669,264
29 Dyer 16,390 Lake 496,005 2,857,359
75 Rensselaer 5,859 Jasper 33,478 93,375
122 Indiana Lafayette 67,140 Tippecanoe 172,780 256,805
149 Crawfordsville 15,915 Montgomery 38,124 143,397
196 Indianapolis 820,445 Marion 903,393 1,601,693
Table 15: Hoosier State Schedule

↓ Eastbound ↓ ↑ Westbound ↑
850 50 851 51
SuMoWeFr TuThSa SuTuWeFr MoThSa
Hoosier Hoosier
Cardinal Cardinal
State Mile City State
5:45 PM 5:45 PM 0 Chicago (CT) 10:00 AM 10:00 AM
6:44 PM 6:44 PM 29 Dyer 8:29 AM 8:29 AM
7:35 PM 7:35 PM 75 Rensselaer (CT) 7:40 AM 7:40 AM
9:46 PM 9:46 PM 122 Lafayette (ET) 7:36 AM 7:36 AM
10:20 PM 10:20 PM 149 Crawfordsville 6:58 AM 6:58 AM
11:39 PM 11:39 PM 196 Indianapolis (ET) 6:00 AM 6:00 AM
TuThSa MoThSa
to NYP from NYP
Source: Amtrak 2018
46
Map 30: Hoosier State — Chicago to Indianapolis
47
Wolverine — Chicago to Pontiac
The Wolverine runs 304 miles between Chicago and Pontiac and had a ridership of 458,412 passengers in 2015, which is
an average of 209 passengers per train. Table 16 gives basic demographics for the sixteen stations along the route. Table
17 shows the schedule of the Wolverine. Map 31 highlights the route of the Wolverine in red with its stations in black.
Table 16: Wolverine Demographics
2010
2010 2010 Census
City County Radius
16 Hammond 80,830 Lake 496,005 4,831,690
Indiana
52 Michigan City 31,479 LaPorte 111,467 352,133
62 New Buffalo 1,883 276,528
Berrien 156,813
89 Niles 11,600 593,789
102 Dowagiac 5,879 Cass 52,293 606,998
138 Kalamazoo 74,262 Kalamazoo 250,331 459,400
160 Battle Creek 52,347 434,485
Calhoun 136,146
184 Albion 8,616 352,578
208 Michigan Jackson 33,534 Jackson 160,248 286,593
243 Ann Arbor 113,934 Washtenaw 344,791 1,429,901
271 Dearborn 98,153 3,358,968
Wayne 1,820,584
281 Detroit 713,777 3,419,315
292 Royal Oak 57,236 3,641,052
296 Troy 80,980 Oakland 1,202,362 3,655,129
304 Pontiac 59,515 3,427,843
Table 17: Wolverine Schedule
350 352 354 351 353 355
Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily
Wolverine Wolverine Wolverine Mile City Wolverine Wolverine Wolverine
7:20 AM 12:40 PM 5:50 PM 0 Chicago (CT) 10:32 AM 3:50 PM 10:25 PM
7:46 AM 16 Hammond 3:03 PM 9:37 PM
8:28 AM 6:53 PM 52 Michigan City (CT) 8:57 PM
9:39 AM 2:56 PM 8:04 PM 62 New Buffalo (ET) 3:09 PM 9:47 PM
10:04 AM 3:17 PM 8:24 PM 89 Niles 2:44 PM 9:27 PM
10:15 AM 102 Dowagiac 9:14 PM
10:47 AM 3:51 PM 8:58 PM 138 Kalamazoo 9:16 AM 2:11 PM 8:45 PM
11:13 AM 4:17 PM 9:24 PM 160 Battle Creek 8:51 AM 1:47 PM 8:21 PM
9:54 PM 184 Albion 8:19 AM
12:06 PM 5:10 PM 10:18 PM 208 Jackson 7:56 AM 12:53 PM 7:27 PM
12:48 PM 5:47 PM 10:55 PM 243 Ann Arbor 7:20 AM 12:17 PM 6:51 PM
1:17 PM 6:16 PM 11:24 PM 271 Dearborn 6:51 AM 11:48 AM 6:21 PM
1:40 PM 6:46 AM 11:54 PM 281 Detroit 6:33 AM 11:30 AM 6:03 PM
2:04 PM 7:10 PM 12:18 AM 292 Royal Oak 6:10 AM 11:07 AM 5:40 PM
2:12 PM 7:17 PM 12:25 AM 296 Troy 6:03 AM 10:59 AM 5:33 PM
2:39 PM 7:45 PM 12:55 AM 304 Pontiac (ET) 5:50 AM 10:45 AM 5:20 PM
Source: Amtrak 2018
48
Map 31: Wolverine — Chicago to Pontiac
49
Blue Water — Chicago to Port Huron
The Blue Water runs 319 miles between Chicago and Pontiac and had a ridership of 178,636 passengers in 2015, which is
an average of 245 passengers per train. Table 18 gives basic demographics for the eleven stations along the route. Table
19 shows the schedule of the Blue Water. Map 32 highlights the route of the Blue Water in red with its stations in black.
Table 18: Blue Water Demographics

2010
2010 2010 Census
City County Radius
62 New Buffalo 1,883 276,528
Berrien 156,813
89 Niles 11,600 593,789
102 Dowagiac 5,879 Cass 52,293 606,998
138 Kalamazoo 74,262 Kalamazoo 250,331 459,400
160 Battle Creek 52,347 Calhoun 136,146 434,485
Michigan
208 East Lansing 48,579 Ingham 280,895 520,603
238 Durand 3,446 Shiawassee 70,648 660,371
256 Flint 102,434 Genesee 425,790 712,076
274 Lapeer 8,841 Lapeer 88,319 679,789
319 Port Huron 30,184 St. Clair 163,040 206,217
Table 19: Blue Water Schedule

364 365
Daily Daily
Blue Water Mile City Blue Water
4:00 PM 0 Chicago (CT) 11:45 AM
6:10 PM 62 New Buffalo (ET) 11:24 AM
6:32 PM 89 Niles 11:04 AM
6:43 PM 102 Dowagiac 10:49 AM
7:11 PM 138 Kalamazoo 10:19 AM
7:38 PM 160 Battle Creek 9:52 AM
8:47 PM 208 East Lansing 8:45 AM
9:24 PM 238 Durand 8:04 AM
9:55 PM 256 Flint 7:32 AM
10:21 PM 274 Lapeer 7:06 AM
11:31 PM 319 Port Huron (ET) 6:20 AM
Source: Amtrak 2018
50
Map 32: Blue Water — Chicago to Port Huron
51
Pere Marquette — Chicago to Grand Rapids
The Pere Marquette runs 176 miles between Chicago and Grand Rapids and had a ridership of 94,262 passengers in
2015, which is an average of 129 passengers per train. Table 20 gives basic demographics for the five stations along the
route. Table 21 shows the schedule of the Pere Marquette. Map 33 highlights the route of the Pere Marquette in red with
its stations in black.
Table 20: Pere Marquette Demographics

2010
2010 2010 Census
City County Radius
89 St. Joseph 8,365 Berrien 156,813 200,356
116 Bangor 1,885 Van Buren 76,258 254,442
Michigan
151 Holland 33,051 Ottawa 263,801 580,766
176 Grand Rapids 188,040 Kent 602,622 874,590
Table 21: Pere Marquette Schedule

370 371
Daily Daily
Pere Marquette Mile City Pere Marquette
6:30 PM 0 Chicago (CT) 9:11 AM
9:15 PM 89 St. Joseph (ET) 8:16 AM
9:51 PM 116 Bangor 7:38 AM
10:34 PM 151 Holland 6:54 AM
11:39 PM 176 Grand Rapids (ET) 6:00 AM
Source: Amtrak 2018
52
Map 33: Pere Marquette — Chicago to Grand Rapids
53
Analysis of Prospective Utah Routes
Future Demographics of Utah
Table 22 shows prospective Amtrak stations in Utah along with 2010 Census population and 2060 projected population.
Populations are from the 2010 Census (U.S. Census 2018). Population projections for 2060 were calculated by the State
of Utah (Governor’s Office of Management & Budget 2018). The 2060 population projections show that the State of Utah
is expecting significant growth to occur in the 50-year period between 2010 and 2060.
Table 22: Prospective Amtrak Stations with 2010 Census Population and 2060 Projected Population
2060 2060
2010 Projected 2060 2010 Projected 2060
Census City City Census County County
City Population Percent County Population Percent
City Population Estimate Change County Population Estimate Change
Logan 48,174 111,717 132% Cache 112,656 273,817 143%
Brigham City 17,899 27,346 53% Box Elder 49,975 77,030 54%
Ogden 82,825 106,934 29% Weber 231,236 449,053 94%
Salt Lake City 186,440 234,704 26% Salt Lake 1,029,655 1,812,891 76%
Provo 112,488 189,400 68% Utah 516,564 1,398,074 171%
Helper 2,201 2,508 14% Carbon 21,403 24,384 14%
Green River 1,132 1,053 -7% Emery 10,976 12,141 11%
Moab 5,046 7,823 55% Grand 9,225 14,301 55%
Grand Junction 58,566 *N/A *N/A Mesa 146,723 *N/A *N/A
Nephi 4,733 14,465 206% Juab 10,246 27,502 168%
Delta 3,436 4,482 30% Millard 12,503 16,311 30%
Milford 1,420 2,870 102% Beaver 6,629 13,502 104%
Cedar City 28,857 79,886 177% Iron 46,163 127,795 177%
Saint George 72,897 307,037 321% Washington 138,115 581,731 321%
*Utah's 2060 population projections are not available for Colorado locations.
Source: Governor’s Office of Management & Budget 2018, U.S. Census 2018
Summary of Prospective Utah Routes
The following summarizes the prospective Utah routes. Mileages were calculated using GIS. Populations are from the
2010 Census (U.S. Census 2018). Map data is from The National Map Small-Scale Collection (National Map 2018) and the
National Transportation Atlas Database (Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2018). Additionally, 25-mile radii populations
surrounding stations were calculated in GIS using the Thiessen method in order to avoid double-counting the populations
of overlapping radii. Figure 2 illustrates the utility of the Thiessen method.
54
Figure 2: Illustration of Thiessen Radii
55
Salt Lake City to Logan
The prospective route runs 110 miles between Salt Lake City and Logan. Table 23 gives basic demographics for the four
stations along the prospective route. Map 34 highlights the route of the prospective route in red with its stations in
black.
Table 23: Salt Lake City to Logan Demographics

2010
2010 Census
2010 2010 Census Thiessen
Census Census 25-mile 25-mile
City County Radius Radius
Mile State City Population County Population Population Population
0 Salt Lake City 186,440 Salt Lake 1,029,655 1,383,998 1,182,016
37 Ogden 82,825 Weber 231,236 546,201 441,606
Utah
58 Brigham City 17,899 Box Elder 49,975 381,443 48,227
110 Logan 48,174 Cache 112,656 159,515 120,435
Source: U.S. Census 2018
Salt Lake City to Saint George
The prospective route runs 340 miles between Salt Lake City and Saint George. Table 24 gives basic demographics for the
seven stations along the prospective route. Map 35 highlights the route of the prospective route in red with its stations
in black. The dashed line represents dedicated bus service between Cedar City and Saint George.
Table 24: Salt Lake City to Saint George Demographics

2010
2010 Census
44 Provo 112,488 Utah 516,564 636,399 526,160
86 Nephi 4,733 Juab 10,246 60,503 28,672
147 Utah Delta 3,436 Millard 12,503 8,202 8,202
219 Milford 1,420 Beaver 6,629 6,625 6,625
287 Cedar City 28,857 Iron 46,163 46,154 46,154
340 Saint George 72,897 Washington 138,115 130,646 130,646
56
Map 34: Salt Lake City to Logan
57
Map 35: Salt Lake City to Saint George
58
Salt Lake City to Grand Junction
The prospective route runs 294 miles between Salt Lake City and Grand Junction. Table 25 gives basic demographics for
the six stations along the prospective route. Map 36 highlights the route of the prospective route in red with its stations
in black. The dashed line represents dedicated bus service between Green River and Moab.
Table 25: Salt Lake City to Grand Junction Demographics

2010
2010 Census
44 Provo 112,488 Utah 516,564 636,399 526,160
118 Utah Helper 2,201 Carbon 21,403 22,555 21,971
189 Green River 1,132 Emery 10,976 1,211 1,172
*238 Moab 5,046 Grand 9,225 10,213 10,213
**294 Colorado Grand Junction 58,566 Mesa 146,723 143,822 143,822
*Mileage measured Green River to Moab.
**Mileage measured Green River to Grand Junction.
Comparison with Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg and Illini/Saluki
For purposes of comparison, Table 6 and Table 12 have been reintroduced as Table 26 and Table 27 with added 25-mile
radii populations surrounding stations, which were calculated in GIS using the Thiessen method in order to avoid dou-
ble-counting the populations of overlapping radii. Again, Figure 2 illustrates the utility of the Thiessen method.
Table 26: Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg Demographics with Thiessen Method Radii Population
2010
2010 Census
0 Chicago 2,695,598 5,669,264 2,629,864
Cook 5,194,675
14 La Grange 15,550 6,917,641 1,848,673
28 Naperville 141,853 DuPage 916,924 4,963,855 1,835,675
52 Plano 10,856 Kendall 114,736 1,182,653 278,585
83 Mendota 7,372 La Salle 113,924 137,751 91,361
Illinois
104 Princeton 7,660 Bureau 34,978 95,035 36,221
131 Kewanee 12,916 Henry 50,486 189,404 50,215
162 Galesburg 32,195 Knox 52,919 82,898 82,975
202 Macomb 19,288 McDonough 32,612 60,318 54,964
258 Quincy 40,633 Adams 67,103 112,075 110,783
59
Map 36: Salt Lake City to Grand Junction
60
Table 27: Illini/Saluki Demographics with Thiessen Method Radii Population
2010
2010 Census
0 Chicago 2,695,598 5,669,264 2,629,864
Cook 5,194,675
24 Homewood 19,323 4,178,410 1,465,306
57 Kankakee 27,537 Kankakee 113,449 215,584 163,346
82 Gilman 1,793 Iroquois 29,718 70,047 32,189
115 Rantoul 12,941 234,774 44,284
Champaign 201,081
129 Illinois Champaign 81,055 249,097 203,810
173 Mattoon 18,555 Coles 53,873 116,994 97,826
200 Effingham 12,328 Effingham 34,242 74,833 65,832
253 Centralia 13,032 Marion 39,437 119,089 107,806
289 Du Quoin 6,109 Perry 22,350 174,670 74,023
309 Carbondale 25,902 Jackson 60,218 188,396 146,764
Comparing the demographics of the Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg and Illini/Saluki routes with those of the three routes
to Logan, Saint George, and Grand Junction, the following similarities and differences become evident:
Similarities:
• Geographically, the route lengths of the Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg (258 miles) and the Illini/Saluki (309
miles) are similar to the prospective routes to Logan (110 miles), Saint George (340 miles), and Grand
Junction (294 miles).
• Demographically, the two Illinois routes and the three prospective Utah routes connect populations of
between 100,000 to 150,000 (Quincy, Carbondale, Logan, Saint George, and Grant Junction) with large
metropolitan populations exceeding 1 million (Chicago and Salt Lake City).
Differences:
• Demographically, there is more intermediate population along the two Illinois routes than the three pro-
spective Utah routes. Excepting stations served by commuter rail (Chicago, La Grange, Naperville, and
Homewood in Illinois and Salt Lake City, Ogden, and Provo in Utah) in order to exclude the metropolitan
population of each route, sums of non-metropolitan population for each line are shown in Table 28. The
non-metropolitan population for the Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg is 705,104, the Illini/Saluki is 935,880,
the Logan route is 168,662, the Saint George route is 220,299, and the Grand Junction Route is 177,178.
• Demographically, Chicago’s metropolitan population is larger than that of Salt Lake City. The Chicago–Na-
perville, IL–IN–WI Combined Statistical Area has a population of 10 million, while the Salt Lake City–Pro-
vo–Orem Combined Statistical Area has a population of 2.5 million.
61
62
Table 28: Non-Metropolitan Thiessen Radii Population
Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City
Illinois Zephyr/ to to to
Carl Sandburg Illini/Saluki Logan Saint George Grand Junction
2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
Census Census Census Census Census
Thiessen Thiessen Thiessen Thiessen Thiessen
25-mile 25-mile 25-mile 25-mile 25-mile
Radius Radius Radius Radius Radius
City Population
City Population City Population City Population City Population
Chicago 2,629,864
Chicago 2,629,864 Salt Lake City 1,182,016 Salt Lake City 1,182,016 Salt Lake City 1,182,016
La Grange 1,848,673 Homewood 1,465,306 Ogden 441,606 Provo 526,160 Provo 526,160
Naperville 1,835,675 Kankakee 163,346 Brigham City 48,227 Nephi 28,672 Helper 21,971
Plano 278,585
Gilman 32,189 Logan 120,435 Delta 8,202 Green River 1,172
Mendota 91,361
Rantoul 44,284 Sum: 168,662 Milford 6,625 Moab 10,213
Princeton 36,221
Champaign 203,810 Cedar City 46,154 Grand Junction 143,822
Kewanee 50,215
Mattoon 97,826 Saint George 130,646 Sum: 177,178
Galesburg 82,975
Effingham 65,832 Sum: 220,299
Macomb 54,964
Centralia 107,806
Quincy 110,783
Du Quoin 74,023
Sum: 705,104
Carbondale 146,764
Sum: 935,880
Future Demographics of Utah Revisited
Revisiting the 2060 population projections sheds additional light on the non-metropolitan populations in Utah. Table 30
uses the 2060 County Percent Change estimates to give an estimate of future 2060 Thiessen 25-mile Radius Population at
each prospective station. Non-metropolitan population is again summed for each of the routes, which highlights signif-
icant growth to occur in the 50-year period between 2010 and 2060. As 2060 population growth estimates for Grand
Junction were unavailable, the sum of the population growth for all other prospective stations was used, which resulted
in an overall growth of 120% as shown in Table 29.
Table 29: Calculation of Grand County 2060 Projected Population Change

2060
2010 Projected 2060
Census County County
County Population Percent
City County Population Estimate Change
Logan Cache 112,656 273,817 143%
Brigham City Box Elder 49,975 77,030 54%
Ogden Weber 231,236 449,053 94%
Salt Lake City Salt Lake 1,029,655 1,812,891 76%
Provo Utah 516,564 1,398,074 171%
Helper Carbon 21,403 24,384 14%
Green River Emery 10,976 12,141 11%
Moab Grand 9,225 14,301 55%
Nephi Juab 10,246 27,502 168%
Delta Millard 12,503 16,311 30%
Milford Beaver 6,629 13,502 104%
Cedar City Iron 46,163 127,795 177%
Saint George Washington 138,115 581,731 321%
Sum: 2,195,346 4,828,532 120%
Source: Governor’s Office of Management & Budget 2018, U.S. Census
2018
63
64
Table 30: Non-Metropolitan Thiessen Radii Population with 2060 Projected Population
Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City
to to to
Logan Saint George Grand Junction
2010 2060 2010 2060 2010 2060
Census Thiessen Census Thiessen Census Thiessen
Thiessen 2060 25-mile Thiessen 2060 25-mile Thiessen 2060 25-mile
25-mile County Radius 25-mile County Radius 25-mile County Radius
Radius Percent Population Radius Percent Population Radius Percent Population
City Population Change Estimate City Population Change Estimate City Population Change Estimate
Salt Lake City 1,182,016 76% 2,081,150 Salt Lake City 1,182,016 76% 2,081,150 Salt Lake City 1,182,016 76% 2,081,150
Ogden 441,606 94% 857,585 Provo 526,160 171% 1,424,045 Provo 526,160 171% 1,424,045
Brigham City 48,227 54% 74,336 Nephi 28,672 168% 76,961 Helper 21,971 14% 25,031
Logan 120,435 143% 292,724 Delta 8,202 30% 10,700 Green River 1,172 11% 1,296
Sum: 168,662 Sum: 367,060 Milford 6,625 104% 13,494 Moab 10,213 55% 15,833
Growth: 118% Cedar City 46,154 177% 127,770 Grand Junction 143,822 *120% 316,408
Saint George 130,646 321% 550,272 Sum: 177,178 Sum: 358,569
Sum: 220,299 Sum: 779,197 Growth: 102%
Growth: 254% *Grand Junction estimated using Table 29.
Source: Governor’s Office of Management & Budget 2018, U.S. Census 2018
Discussion
The population of the prospective Utah routes may not be as significant as the population of the Illinois Zephyr/Carl
Sandburg and Illini/Saluki. However, considering the tremendous population growth projected for Utah, the routes merit
further study. An additional consideration is the growing number of visitors to Utah’s National Parks. Table 31 shows the
2017 visitation numbers for parks in Utah administered by the National Park Service (National Park Service 2018). Map
37 shows the prospective Utah routes along with the parks in Utah administered by the National Park Service.
Table 31: 2017 Visitation for Parks in Utah administered by National Park Service
2017
Recreation
Name Designation Visitors
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 4,574,940
Zion National Park 4,504,812
Bryce Canyon National Park 2,571,684
Arches National Park 1,539,028
Capitol Reef National Park 1,150,165
Cedar Breaks National Monument 909,199
Canyonlands National Park 742,271
Dinosaur National Monument 315,859
Rainbow Bridge National Monument 108,418
Natural Bridges National Monument 107,443
Timpanogos Cave National Monument 100,740
Golden Spike National Historic Site 67,811
Hovenweep National Monument 39,970
Source: National Park Service 2018
65
Map 37: Utah Routes with Parks administered by National Park Service
66
Chapter 4: Stations and Improvements
The following examines the existing Amtrak infrastructure in Utah and the upgrades necessary to accommodate the
proposed Utah state-sponsored Amtrak routes. Map data is from The National Map Small-Scale Collection (National Map
2018), the National Transportation Atlas Database (Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2018), and the State Geographic
Information Database (Automated Geographic Reference Center 2018).
State of Existing Amtrak Stations

Salt Lake City
Map 38 gives an overview of the Salt Lake City Amtrak Station’s surroundings. Union Pacific tracks are in yellow with the
blue dot signifying the Amtrak station. UTA FrontRunner commuter rail tracks are in purple with the purple dots signify-
ing the FrontRunner stations. UTA TRAX light rail tracks are in white with the white dots signifying TRAX stations. The cen-
ter of Salt Lake City is denoted by the star, and the two historic train stations are denoted by asterisks. Map 39 further
zooms in on the station.
The existing Salt Lake City Amtrak Station lies on a two-track siding off of a double track main line. The station is com-
prised of an island platform (1,000 feet in length), which features facilities necessary to refuel and rewater the California
Zephyr. It is the only of Utah’s four Amtrak stations that features a staffed station with amenities such as checked bag-
gage. The station is adjacent to UTA’s Salt Lake Central FrontRunner and TRAX station and is six blocks west of Salt Lake
City’s Main Street.
Provo
Map 40 gives an overview of the Provo Amtrak Station’s surroundings. Union Pacific tracks are in yellow with the blue
dot signifying the Amtrak station. UTA FrontRunner commuter rail tracks are in purple with the purple dot signifying the
FrontRunner station. The center of Provo is denoted by the star. Map 41 further zooms in on the station.
The existing Provo Amtrak Station lies on one of the two double track main lines that pass-through Provo. The station
is comprised of a side platform (320 feet in length) with a self-standing shelter featuring a heater. The station is a block
from UTA’s Provo FrontRunner station and six blocks south of Provo’s Center Street.
Helper
Map 42 gives an overview of the Helper Amtrak Station’s surroundings. Union Pacific tracks are in yellow with the blue
dot signifying the Amtrak station. The center of Helper is denoted by the star. Map 43 further zooms in on the station.
The existing Helper Amtrak Station lies on one of the two double track main lines that pass on the west side of the Union
Pacific yard at Helper. The station is comprised of a side platform (50 feet in length) with a waiting area inside the adja-
cent Union Pacific Depot. The station is a block from Helper’s Main Street.
67
Map 38: Salt Lake City
68
Map 39: Salt Lake City Detail
69
Map 40: Provo
70
Map 41: Provo Detail
71
Map 42: Helper
72
Map 43: Helper Detail
73
Green River
Map 44 gives an overview of the Green River Amtrak Station’s surroundings. Union Pacific tracks are in yellow with the
blue dot signifying the Amtrak station. The center of Green River is denoted by the star. Map 45 further zooms in on the
station.
The existing Green River Amtrak Station lies on a long siding extending through the town of Green River off of a single
track main line. The station is comprised of only a side platform (300 feet in length) and is within walking distance of
most of the town.
Grand Junction
Map 46 gives an overview of the Grand Junction Amtrak Station’s surroundings. Union Pacific tracks are in yellow with
the blue dot signifying the Amtrak station. The center of Grand Junction is denoted by the star, and the two historic train
stations are denoted by asterisks. Map 47 further zooms in on the station.
The existing Grand Junction Amtrak Stations lies on a triple-track siding off of a double track main line. The station is
comprised of a long side platform (1,000 feet in length) and a shorter island platform (650 feet in length). The station is
one of three Amtrak stations in Colorado along the route of the California Zephyr that feature a staffed station with ame-
nities such as checked baggage. The station is within walking distance of downtown Grand Junction.
New Stations
It is beyond the scope of this report to suggest exact locations for new stations. It can be assumed that new stations will
need to sited along rail lines. Locating stations as close to city centers and as near to other transit stations as possible
would be prudent.
Logan
Map 48 shows downtown Logan with Union Pacific tracks in yellow. The center of Logan is denoted by the star, and the
historic train station is denoted by the asterisk. Map 49 further zooms in on the historic station and the potential area for
a new station.
Brigham City
Map 50 shows downtown Brigham City with Union Pacific tracks in yellow. The center of Brigham City is denoted by the
star, and the historic train station is denoted by the asterisk. Map 51 further zooms in on the historic station and the
potential area for a new station.
Ogden
Map 52 shows downtown Ogden. Union Pacific tracks are in yellow, and UTA FrontRunner commuter rail tracks are in
purple with the purple dot signifying the FrontRunner station. The center of Ogden is denoted by the star, and the histor-
ic train station is denoted by the asterisk. Map 53 further zooms in on the historic station, the FrontRunner station, and
the potential area for a new station.
Moab
Map 54 shows downtown Moab with the center of Moab denoted by the star. Map 55 further zooms in on the potential
area for an Amtrak bus station.
74
Map 44: Green River
75
Map 45: Green River Detail
76
Map 46: Grand Junction
77
Map 47: Grand Junction Detail
78
Map 48: Logan
79
Map 49: Logan Detail
80
Map 50: Brigham City
81
Map 51: Brigham City Detail
82
Map 52: Ogden
83
Map 53: Ogden Detail
84
Map 54: Moab
85
Map 55: Moab Detail
86
Nephi
Map 56 shows downtown Nephi with Union Pacific tracks in yellow. The center of Nephi is denoted by the star. Map 57
further zooms in on the potential area for a new station.
Delta
Map 58 shows downtown Delta with Union Pacific tracks in yellow. The center of Delta is denoted by the star. Map 59
further zooms in on the potential area for a new station.
Milford
Map 60 shows downtown Milford with Union Pacific tracks in yellow. The center of Milford is denoted by the star, and
the historic train station is denoted by the asterisk. Map 61 further zooms in on the historic station and the potential
area for a new station.
Cedar City
Map 62 shows downtown Cedar City with Union Pacific tracks in yellow. The center of Cedar City is denoted by the star,
and the historic train station is denoted by the asterisk. Map 63 further zooms in on the historic station and the potential
area for a new station.
Saint George
Map 64 shows the eastern portion of downtown Saint George. Map 65 further zooms in on the area. On the northwest
corner of 1000 East and 100 South is the location of the SunTran local bus hub, which would be a logical potential site for
an Amtrak bus station. Also, the campus of Dixie State University lies adjacent to this site.
Necessary Upgrades
Ogden Yard
The possibly most difficult and possibly most expensive necessary upgrade for this proposal will be traversing the Union
Pacific yard in Ogden. Three sets of maps will illustrate three possible scenarios. Each of the three scenarios assume the
new Amtrak station will be located adjacent to the existing Ogden FrontRunner station. In each of the map sets, Union
Pacific tracks are in yellow, UTA FrontRunner commuter rail tracks are in purple, the FrontRunner station is denoted by
the purple dot, Ogden’s historic station is denoted by the asterisk, and new tracks are highlighted in red. Table 32 sum-
maries the advantages and disadvantages of the three scenarios.
Table 32: Summary of the Ogden Yard Alternatives

Union Pacific Interference FrontRunner Interference Relative Cost
Scenario 1 Yes No $
Scenario 2 No Yes $
Scenario 3 No No $$$
Scenario 1 – Union Pacific tracks with no fly-over: Maps 66, 67, 68, and 69 show a scenario requiring Amtrak trains to
pass through multiple switches and cross multiple yard tracks to reach the new station.
Scenario 2 – Shared FrontRunner fly-over: Maps 70, 71, 72, and 73 show a scenario in which Amtrak trains would share
the bridges over the yard with FrontRunner to reach the new station.
Scenario 3 – New Amtrak-only fly-over: Maps 74, 75, 76, and 77 show a scenario in which new bridges paralleling the
FrontRunner bridges would be built in order to reach the new station.
87
Map 56: Nephi
88
Map 57: Nephi Detail
89
Map 58: Delta
90
Map 59: Delta Detail
91
Map 60: Milford
92
Map 61: Milford Detail
93
Map 62: Cedar City
94
Map 63: Cedar City Detail
95
Map 64: Saint George
96
Map 65: Saint George Detail
97
Map 66: Ogden Yard Alternatives Scenario 1 (Map 1 of 4)
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
Cedar City Spur
In 2014, Union Pacific abandoned the last mile of the spur leading into downtown Cedar City (Surface Transportation
Board 2014). Subsequently, grade crossings were removed along the spur, which will need to be restored in order to
reach downtown Cedar City along with the restoration of the track. Map 78 shows the abandoned spur in yellow and the
removed grade crossings denoted with red Xs.
Probable Upgrades
It is likely that Union Pacific will require funding in order to make upgrades to accommodate the additional passenger
trains. These upgrades will likely consist of upgrades to switches, adding additional passing sidings, and improving tracks
to allow for faster passenger trains. Further study revealing the extent of upgrades required by Union Pacific will require
the involvement of Amtrak.
Possible Upgrades
Price
Despite being in relatively close proximity to Helper, the population of Price (more than 8,000 residents) is significantly
large enough to consider an additional station in Price. Map 79 shows downtown Price with Union Pacific tracks in yel-
low. The center of Price is denoted by the star. Map 80 further zooms in on the potential area for a new station.
Cache Cutoff
Map 81 shows an option, which would greatly shorten the circuitous route between Brigham City and Logan. The yellow
line shows the existing Union Pacific rail line, the yellow star marks the center of Logan, and the yellow asterisk marks
the location of historic rail station. The red line shows an abandoned railroad right of way that crosses the valley and
shortens the distance from 20 miles to 8 miles.
125 MPH
Map 82 shows stretches of railroad that would be ideal for upgrades, which would allow passenger trains to travel at
speeds of up to 125 mph (FRA class 7 trackage). The red line between Delta and Cedar City stretches for 125 miles and
the red line north of Brigham City stretches for 17 miles. Additionally, the aforementioned 8-mile stretch shown on Map
81 could be built to accommodate trains travelling at higher speeds.
110
Map 78: Cedar City Spur
111
Map 79: Price
112
Map 80: Price Detail
113
Map 81: Cache Cutoff
114
Map 82: 125 MPH
115
116
Chapter 5: Next Steps and Conclusion
Further Visioning
In order to maximize safety along the prospective Utah routes, it would be recommended that the trains operate with a
locomotive on each end of the train. This would provide redundancy in the event of mechanical failure. Having a loco-
motive at each end would also allow double-ended operation, which would eliminate the need to physically turn trains
around at the end of their runs. The current suitable locomotive being produced in the U.S. is the Siemens Charger SC-
44, which is capable of moving passenger coaches at speeds up to 125 MPH.
Passenger coaches could consist of a variety of equipment. However, to maximize scenic views, bi-level Superliner or
California Cars (or a hybrid of the two) would be preferred. The number of cars would depend on ridership; however, a
minimum of three coach cars and one business car would be recommended. Coach cars would have two seats on each
side of the isle, while the business car would have larger seats with two seats on one side of the isle and one seat on the
other side. Fares would be higher for the business car. Between the coach cars and the business car, a lounge car would
provide passengers with non-revenue seating (a combination of window-facing seating and table seating) and also dining
options in the lounge car’s cafe.
Due to the close proximity of Logan to Salt Lake City and to increase the number of trips reaching Logan, trains could
be routed Logan to Cedar City and Logan to Grand Junction. This would make Logan the ideal location for maintenance
facilities for the trains. Further research would be necessary to determine the number of trips to run. However, in order
to provide more options for travelers, three to four round trips on the Logan to Cedar City route and two to three round
trips on the Logan to Grand Junction route would be recommended.
The establishment of state-sponsored Amtrak service in Utah would naturally lend itself to routes connecting to neigh-
boring states. However, Utah needs to be committed to this concept before it can successfully coordinate with neighbor-
ing states, which is why this project has focused on intrastate service (with the exception of Grand Junction).
Next Steps
There are many questions that need to answered in order to implement this proposal. These questions include, but are
not limited to, what the capital costs and operational costs would be, what improvements would be required by Union
Pacific in order to implement service, how travel times and schedules would look, what fares would be, and what rider-
ship projections would be. In order to answer these questions, a much larger study must be undertaken, which would
coordinate the State of Utah, Utah Department of Transportation, Union Pacific, Amtrak, and many other stakeholders
including the communities that would be served by the prospective routes.
Undertaking a larger study would mostly likely require a budget allocation from the Utah Legislature. In order to per-
suade the Utah Legislature to support such a study, a coalition of support would need to be assembled from local leaders
and citizens of the communities that would be served by the routes. The coalition could do double duty both to support
the study and then to promote implementation following the study. Examples from other states have shown that local
support is usually critical for the implementation of state-sponsored Amtrak service.
117
Conclusion
In order to utilize existing Union Pacific tracks in order to provide passenger rail service in Utah, partnering with Amtrak
is the only feasible method as freight railroads are legally obligated to negotiate passenger rail service with Amtrak.
While some intercity passenger transportation exists in Utah, the service that does exist is incoherent and subject to
frequent changes—leaving a dearth of intercity transportation options. Long-distance Amtrak service is inadequate to
provide frequent and reliable passenger rail service on an intercity basis, due to the limitation of once-a-day service and
the possibility of significant delays due to the long distances traveled.
The comparison of Utah’s demographics with state-sponsored Amtrak services in two similar corridors in Illinois reveals
that Utah’s population may not yet be large enough to support such service. However, with the tremendous growth
projected for Utah’s future and also considering the large number of visitors to Utah’s national parks, the concept of
state-sponsored Amtrak service for Utah merits further study. Additionally, examples from other states have shown that
local support is usually critical for the implementation of state-sponsored Amtrak service.
References
Ambrose, Emma Ea. 2017. “What’s next for the Hoosier State Train?” Journal & Courier, February 05, 2017. Accessed July
8, 2017. http://www.jconline.com/story/money/business/2017/02/04/whats-next-hoosier-state-train/97340566/.
Amtrak. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. https://www.amtrak.com/.
Amtrak Status Maps Archive Database. 2018. “Amtrak Status Maps Archive Database.” Accessed January 29, 2018.
https://juckins.net/amtrak_status/archive/html/home.php.
Automated Geographic Reference Center. 2018. “State Geographic Information Database.” Accessed April 4, 2018.
https://gis.utah.gov/.
Basin Transit Authority. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. http://ridebta.com/.
Bing, Alan J; Eric W Beshers; Megan Chavez; David P Simpson; Emmanuel S Horowitz; and Walter E Zullig. 2010. Guide-
book for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors. Transportation Research Board.
978-0-309-15470-3. 10.17226/14376. http://nap.edu/14376.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. “National Transportation Atlas Database.” Accessed March 21, 2018. https://
www.bts.gov/geospatial/national-transportation-atlas-database.
Cache Valley Transit District. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. https://www.cvtdbus.org/.
Cedar City. 2018. “Transportation.” Accessed March 20, 2018. https://www.cedarcity.org/92/Transportation.
Davidson, Lee. 2014. “New bus service coming for southeast, central Utah.” The Salt Lake Tribune, May 16, 2014. Ac-
cessed March 20, 2018. http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=57953209&itype=CMSID.
Delta. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. https://www.delta.com/.
Elevated Transit. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. http://www.elevatedtransit.com/.
Friesen, Mark. 2008. “Westside Express Deal Cost TriMet Millions.” OregonLive.com, December 14, 2008. Accessed July
8, 2017. http://www.oregonlive.com/special/index.ssf/2008/12/trimet.html.
Fuller, Ryan. 2018. Email Communication. March 15, 2018.
Governor’s Office of Management & Budget. 2018. “Sub-County Population Projections.” Accessed March 21, 2018.
https://gomb.utah.gov/budget-policy/demographic-economic-analysis/.
Grand County. 2018. “Canyonlands Field Airport.” Accessed March 20, 2018. http://moabairport.com/.
119
Greyhound. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. https://www.greyhound.com/.
Herndon, Rudy. 2014. “Elevated Transit plans to begin bus service this week.” Times-Independent, August 13, 2014.
Accessed March 20, 2018. http://moabtimes.com/view/full_story/25609925/article-Elevated-Transit-plans-to-begin-bus-
service-this-week.
Keeslar, Vern. 2018. Email Communication. February 7, 2018.
McGowan, Dan. 2017. “Amtrak Set For Hoosier State Transition.” Inside INdiana Business, February 27, 2017. Accessed
July 8, 2017. http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/34618265/amtrak-set-for-hoosier-state-transition.
National Association of Railroad Passengers. 2017. “Hoosier State Experiment Ends, Some New Amenities Should Re-
main.” NARP News, March 2017. Accessed July 8, 2017. https://www.narprail.org/.
National Map. 2018. “The National Map Small-Scale Collection.” Accessed March 20, 2018. https://nationalmap.gov/
small_scale/.
National Park Service. 2018. “IRMA Portal.” Accessed April 3, 2018. https://irma.nps.gov/.
Park City. 2018. “Park City Transit.” Accessed March 20, 2018. http://www.parkcity.org/about-us/transit-bus.
Rail Passengers Association. 2018. “Amtrak Ridership Statistics.” Accessed March 21, 2018. https://www.railpassengers.
org/all-aboard/tools-info/ridership-statistics/.
Roustan, Wayne K. 2017. “South Florida Gets First Peek at Brightline Express Train.” Sun-Sentinel.com, January 17, 2017.
Accessed July 8, 2017. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/fl-brightline-train-arrives-20170111-story.html.
Salt Lake Express. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. https://saltlakeexpress.com/.
Schmidt, Brad. 2009. “Railroad Company Opposes TriMet’s Request to Quiet WES Horns.” OregonLive.com, November 03,
2009. Accessed July 8, 2017. http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2009/11/railroad_company_op-
poses_trime.html.
Sigo, Shelly. 2017. “Private Activity Bonds May Be out as Florida Train Builder Inquires about Federal Loan.” Bond
Buyer, June 28, 2017. Accessed July 12, 2017. https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/florida-passenger-train-develop-
er-may-switch-tracks-on-federal-financing.
St. George Shuttle. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. https://www.stgshuttle.com/.
St. George. 2018. “SunTran.” Accessed March 20, 2018. https://www.sgcity.org/transportationandengineering/suntran.
Student Engineering Associates. 2015. Salt Lake City to Las Vegas High Speed Rail Corridor Preliminary Design Report.
University of Utah. Accessed April 12, 2018. http://www.civil.utah.edu/~bartlett/CVEEN4910/student%20work%20prod-
ucts/Preliminary_engineering_report.pdf.
Surface Transportation Board. 2014. “AB_33_283_X: Union Pacific Railroad Company-Abandonment Exemption-In Iron
County, Utah.” Accessed April 4, 2018. https://www.stb.gov/home.nsf/case?openform&case-ID=30934&caseDock-
et=AB_33_283_X.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. “2010 Census Data.” Accessed March 21, 2018. https://www.census.gov/2010census/data/.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2016. Amtrak: Better Reporting, Planning, and Improved Financial Information
Could Enhance Decision Making. Accessed July 8, 2017. http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674520.pdf.
120
United. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. https://www.united.com/.
Utah Department of Transportation. 1996. 1996 Utah State Rail Plan. Fifth Edition. October 1996.
Utah Department of Transportation. 2015. Utah State Rail Plan 2015. Sixth Edition. April 2015. Accessed April 12, 2018.
http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=22029103377080492.
Utah Transit Authority. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. http://www.rideuta.com/.
Veciana-Suarez, Ana. 2017. “The Future of Travel: Brightline Express Train Debuts in West Palm Beach.” Miami Her-
ald, January 11, 2017. Accessed July 8, 2017. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/arti-
cle125929989.html.
121

An Intrastate Passenger Rail System For Utah Operated by Amtrak Using Existing Union Pacific Tracks

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

An Intrastate Passenger Rail System For Utah Operated by Amtrak Using Existing Union Pacific Tracks

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

An Intrastate Passenger Rail System for Utah

Operated by Amtrak Using Existing Union Pacific Tracks

Department of City and Metropolitan Planning

Advisor: Keith Bartholomew, JD

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

1 Chapter 1: Why State-Sponsored Amtrak Service?

7 Chapter 2: Survey of Local and Intercity Transit in Utah

19 Chapter 3: Case Study

67 Chapter 4: Stations and Improvements

117 Chapter 5: Next Steps and Conclusion

Purpose and Need

Utah State Rail Plans

California Zephyr Schedule and On-Time Performance

Source: Utah Department of Transportation 2015

Table 1: California Zephyr Schedule and On-Time Performance

2017 Greatest Delay (hh:mm)

2017 Mean Delay (hh:mm)

2017 Latest Departure

Utah Transit Authority

Park City Transit

Cache Valley Transit

Cedar Area Transportation

Basin Transit Authority

Existing Intercity Transit

Salt Lake City

Saint George Shuttle

Comparison of Locations Served

Table 3: Comparison of Locations Served

United/SkyWest at Canyonlands Field Airport

Map 10: Amtrak’s Three Lines of Business

Map 12: Amtrak’s Long-Distance Service

Prospective Utah Routes

Hiawatha — Chicago to Milwaukee

Table 4: Hiawatha Demographics

Table 5: Hiawatha Schedule

Table 6: Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg Demographics

Table 7: Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg Schedule

Table 8: Lincoln Service Demographics

Table 9: Lincoln Service Schedule

Table 10: Missouri River Runner Demographics

Table 11: Missouri River Runner Schedule

Table 12: Illini/Saluki Demographics

Table 13: Illini/Saluki Schedule

Table 14: Hoosier State Demographics

Table 15: Hoosier State Schedule

Table 18: Blue Water Demographics

Table 19: Blue Water Schedule

Table 20: Pere Marquette Demographics

Table 21: Pere Marquette Schedule

Summary of Prospective Utah Routes

Table 23: Salt Lake City to Logan Demographics

Salt Lake City to Saint George

Table 24: Salt Lake City to Saint George Demographics

Table 25: Salt Lake City to Grand Junction Demographics

Comparison with Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg and Illini/Saluki

Table 29: Calculation of Grand County 2060 Projected Population Change

State of Existing Amtrak Stations

Table 32: Summary of the Ogden Yard Alternatives

Amtrak. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. https://www.amtrak.com/.

Basin Transit Authority. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. http://ridebta.com/.

Cedar City. 2018. “Transportation.” Accessed March 20, 2018. https://www.cedarcity.org/92/Transportation.

Delta. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. https://www.delta.com/.

Elevated Transit. 2018. Accessed March 20, 2018. http://www.elevatedtransit.com/.