MICHIGAN

FREIGHT PLAN
Supplement to the 2040 MI Transportation Plan
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Bob Parsons
Todd Wyett, Chairman Tim Ryan
Lynn Afendoulis, Vice Chair Brad Sharlow
Ron Boji, Commissioner Denise Smith
Michael D. Hayes, Commissioner Terry Stepanski
George K. Heartwell, Commissioner Larry Whiteside
Charles F. Moser, Commissioner Brian Whitfield
Dave Wresinski
AERONAUTICS COMMISSION
Russ Kavalhuna, Chair
COMMISSION FOR LOGISTICS AND
J. David VanderVeen, Vice Chair
SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION
Peter Kamarainen, Commissioner Kirk Steudle, Director
Mike Trout, Director Michigan Department of Transportation
Laura Mester, Commissioner Jamie Clover Adams, Director
Capt. Joe Gasper, Commissioner Michigan Department of Agriculture and
Major General Len Isabelle, Commissioner Rural Development
Kevin Jacobs, Commissioner Leslie Brand, Chief Executive Officer
Roger Salo, Commissioner Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.
Rick Fiddler, Commissioner Robert Boehm, Manager
Commodity and Marketing Department,
MDOT EXECUTIVE TEAM Michigan Farm Bureau
Kirk T. Steudle, P.E., Director
Dr. David Closs, Chairperson
Laura J. Mester, CPA, Chief Administrative Officer Department of Supply Chain Management,
Mark A. Van Port Fleet, P.E., Chief Operations Officer Michigan State University

TEAM MEMBERS Roger Huff, Manager

North American Material Logistics,
Elisha DeFrain, Project Manager
Ford Motor Co.
Geralyn Ayers
Dr. Pasi Lautala, Director
Rob Balmes
Rail Transportation Program,
Vince Bevins Michigan Technological University
Pam Boyd
Jeff Mason, Chief Executive Officer
Deb Brown Michigan Economic Development Corp.
Eric Costa
Frederick Schlemmer, Chief Financial Officer
Jason Firman SteelPro
Susan Gorski
Janice Walsh, Senior Manager
Jesse Gwilliams
Supply Chain Management Finance, Trinity Health
Nikkie Johnson
Peggy Johnson TECHNICAL ADVISORS:
Larry Karnes Paul C. LaMarre III, Director, Port of Monroe
Ron Katch Thomas Rayburn, Director
Dennis Kent Environmental and Regulatory Affairs,
Polly Kent Lake Carriers’ Association
Jason Latham Oliver Turner, City Manager, Sault Ste. Marie
Rob Lippert
Marty Lontz
Sara Moore
Craig Newell
MICHIGAN
Patty O’Donnell
FREIGHT PLAN
Supplement to the 2040 MI Transportation
Michigan Freight Plan Plan1
 Dear Michiganders:

As governor, moving Michigan forward and making this state

as prosperous and successful as possible is always my most
important goal.

By creating a job-friendly environment and making smart,

responsible investments in critical areas like transportation,
government and business can work together to make our state
a better place for all Michiganders. This Michigan Freight Plan
is one avenue to help guide those investments and further the
state’s economic reinvention.

“The value and Transportation is vital to economic activity and a well-maintained

transportation infrastructure serves the needs of business and
importance of the industry, just as it serves the needs of travelers. The value and
production and importance of the production and movement of goods in and
around Michigan cannot be disputed. Supporting continued
movement of goods infrastructure investment to ensure the seamless movement
of those goods is essential to Michigan’s ability to attract new
in and around businesses and industries to this great state.
Michigan cannot be Freight is so vital to the economy and Michigan’s future that
disputed.” the 21st Century Infrastructure Commission, created in 2016,
included several freight-related recommendations among
the 110 recommendations it put forward for 21st century
infrastructure systems that are safe, reliable, efficient, and cost-
effective for all Michigan taxpayers. The commission’s vision of
Michigan as a center of international trade requires developing
freight infrastructure that will meet the modern-day demands of
a globalized economy.

The Michigan Freight Plan provides a comprehensive overview of

Michigan’s freight infrastructure assets, needs, and challenges.
It illustrates the importance of the movement of freight to the
continued renewal of the state’s economy. It offers a plan to fuel
the economic momentum Michigan has enjoyed over the past
several years.

I look forward to Michigan’s continued and growing economic

prosperity.

Sincerely,

Rick Snyder
Governor
Dear Michiganders:

It is my pleasure to present to you the Michigan Freight Plan, a

supplement to the 2040 MI Transportation Plan: Moving Michigan
Forward.

This freight plan was created with the hard work and dedication
of an extensive team of staff from the Michigan Department
of Transportation (MDOT). In addition, the Federal Highway
Administration, Michigan Commission for Logistics and Supply
Chain Collaboration, Freight Advisory Committee stakeholders,
and the general public helped shape this document in many ways
throughout the public involvement process. For those of you who
participated along the way, thank you. “Freight transportation
This plan shows Michigan has an extensive transportation is closely tied
infrastructure system that supports more than $862 billion in
economic activity on an annual basis, from ports to rail and
to economic
highways to runways. In addition, it identifies issues that need to be development in
addressed in the state in order for Michigan’s transportation system
to continue to move goods and people in a safe, timely, and reliable
Michigan and is critical
manner. MDOT and the freight industry are also preparing for to the state’s role as a
paradigm-shifting and emerging technologies such as connected
and automated vehicles and their impacts to freight transportation. major domestic and
The Michigan Freight Plan allows the State of Michigan to access
global trade partner.”
National Highway Freight Program funding and plan for long-term
freight infrastructure needs. Freight transportation is closely tied to
economic development in Michigan and is critical to the state’s role as
a major domestic and global trade partner.

The connections between transportation, freight, and economic

activity are impossible to ignore. The Michigan Freight Plan provides
an accurate picture of Michigan’s current transportation assets and
needs, paving the way for future progress to be made in support of
freight activity and investment in the state.

We look forward to continuing the conversation about freight

investment needs in the state of Michigan, and partnering with
those who are interested in growing the state’s economy.

Sincerely,

Kirk T. Steudle
Director
 TABLE OF
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................ 6
1 PLAN OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................................. 8
Freight Defined......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act................................................................................................ 8
State Freight Advisory Committee........................................................................................................................... 9
Plan Development Process...................................................................................................................................... 9
Connection to 2040 MI Transportation Plan, Five-Year Transportation Program,
and State Transportation Improvement Program..................................................................................................... 9
2 STRATEGIC GOALS............................................................................................................................................ 12
National Freight Goals............................................................................................................................................ 12
2040 MI Transportation Plan Goals........................................................................................................................ 12

3 ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF FREIGHT PLANNING....................................................................................... 14

Statewide Freight Movement Snapshot................................................................................................................. 15
Logistics and Supply Chain Strategic Plan............................................................................................................ 16

4 FREIGHT PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONS................................................................................................ 17

Public Funding for Freight-Related Investments ................................................................................................... 17
Statewide Investment Needs................................................................................................................................. 17
Grant and Loan Programs...................................................................................................................................... 18
Freight-Related Institutions.................................................................................................................................... 19
Regional Freight Planning and Border Partnerships.............................................................................................. 20

5 STATE FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ASSETS............................................................................................ 22

Freight Profile......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Freight Infrastructure Assets.................................................................................................................................. 22
Key Freight Industry and Natural Resource Locations........................................................................................... 33

6 SYSTEM CONDITION AND PERFORMANCE.............................................................................................. 38

2040 MI Transportation Plan Performance Measures............................................................................................ 38
Tracking the Performance of Michigan’s Infrastructure......................................................................................... 39

7 20-YEAR FREIGHT FORECAST....................................................................................................................... 41

Highway Freight Forecast...................................................................................................................................... 42
Waterborne Freight Forecast.................................................................................................................................. 47
Rail Freight Forecast.............................................................................................................................................. 51
Air Freight Forecast................................................................................................................................................ 56

8 OVERVIEW OF TRENDS, ISSUES AND STRATEGIES .............................................................................. 60

Freight Trends......................................................................................................................................................... 60
Trends in Connected and Automated Vehicles and Emerging Technology ........................................................... 61
Issues and Performance Barriers........................................................................................................................... 65
Highway Issues and Strategies.............................................................................................................................. 66
Rail Issues and Strategies...................................................................................................................................... 73
Air Issues and Strategies........................................................................................................................................ 75
Marine Issues and Strategies................................................................................................................................. 76
Border Crossing Issues and Strategies.................................................................................................................. 78

9 THE STATE’S DECISION-MAKING PROCESS............................................................................................. 80

Stakeholder Engagement and Public Involvement................................................................................................ 80
Critical Rural and Urban Freight Corridors............................................................................................................. 82

4 Michigan Department of Transportation

10 FREIGHT INVESTMENT PLAN......................................................................................................................... 84
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Linkage Between 2040 MITP Goals and National Highway and Multimodal Freight Goals.................. 13
Figure 2 – Michigan Commodity Movement Totals: Modal Split by Tonnage (2014)............................................. 15
Figure 3 – Michigan Commodity Movement Totals: Modal Split by Value (2014).................................................. 15
Figure 4 – Michigan Major Freight Infrastructure................................................................................................... 23
Figure 5 – Michigan Active Rail (2017)................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 6 – Detroit Area Freight Terminals............................................................................................................... 27
Figure 7 – Michigan Cargo Ports (2014)................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 8 – Scheduled Air Service Airports by Tonnage (2014)............................................................................... 30
Figure 9 – Petroleum Terminals and Refineries in Michigan .................................................................................. 32
Figure 10 – Chrysler, Ford, and GM Production Facilities...................................................................................... 33
Figure 11 – Michigan Logging Locations............................................................................................................... 34
Figure 12 – Crop Concentration and Storage Facilities......................................................................................... 35
Figure 13 – Michigan Natural Resource Operations.............................................................................................. 36
Figure 14 – Warehouse and Trucking Employment................................................................................................ 37
Figure 15 – Michigan Congested Roadways (2015)............................................................................................... 66
Figure 16 – Michigan Highway Freight Bottlenecks............................................................................................... 66
Figure 17 – Truck and Bus Crashes and ATRI Rollover Locations (2015).............................................................. 67
Figure 18 – MDOT Historic Trunkline Pavement Condition.................................................................................... 71
Figure 19 – MDOT Bridge Ratings (2016)............................................................................................................... 72
Figure 20 – Corridors of Highest Significance: National/International and Statewide .......................................... 81
Figure 21 – Population Within 10 Miles of a Corridor of Highest Significance...................................................... 81
Figure 22 – National Highway Freight Network and Eligible CUFC/CRFC............................................................ 83
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Top Commodities Moved by Trucks in Michigan (2014)......................................................................... 22
Table 2 – Michigan Freight Intermodal Connectors............................................................................................... 24
Table 3 – Top Commodities Moved by Rail in Michigan (2014).............................................................................. 27
Table 4 – Top Commodities at Michigan Ports (2014)............................................................................................ 29
Table 5 – Top Air Cargo Airports by Tonnage (2014).............................................................................................. 31
Table 6 - Summary of Freight Forecasts by Mode................................................................................................. 41
Table 7 – Michigan Truck Freight Movements (2014-2040): Overall (Tons) ........................................................... 42
Table 8 – Michigan Truck Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Michigan (Tons)..................................... 43
Table 9 – Michigan Truck Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Other (Tons).......................................... 44
Table 10 – Michigan Truck Freight Movements (2014-2040): Other to Michigan (Tons)........................................ 45
Table 11 – Michigan Truck Freight Movements (2014-2040): Through-Trips (Tons)............................................... 46
Table 12 – Michigan Marine Freight Movements (2014-2040): Overall (Tons)........................................................ 47
Table 13 – Michigan Marine Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Michigan (Tons)................................ 48
Table 14 – Michigan Marine Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Other (Tons)...................................... 49
Table 15 – Michigan Marine Freight Movements (2014-2040): Other to Michigan (Tons) ..................................... 50
Table 16 – Michigan Rail Freight Movements (2014-2040): Overall (Tons)............................................................. 51
Table 17 – Michigan Rail Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Michigan (Tons)..................................... 52
Table 18 – Michigan Rail Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Other (Tons)........................................... 53
Table 19 – Michigan Rail Freight Movements (2014-2040): Other to Michigan (Tons)........................................... 54
Table 20 – Michigan Rail Freight Movements (2014-2040): Through (Tons)........................................................... 55
Table 21 – Michigan Air Freight Movements (2014-2040): Overall (Tons).............................................................. 56
Table 22 – Michigan Air Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Michigan (Tons)....................................... 57
Table 23 – Michigan Air Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Other (Tons)............................................. 58
Table 24 – Michigan Air Freight Movements (2014-2040): Other to Michigan (Tons)............................................. 59
Table 25 – NHFP Appropriations by Fiscal Year for 2016-2020............................................................................. 84
Table 26 – Projects Using NHFP Funds for Fiscal Years 2016-2020..................................................................... 85
Table 27 – Freight Investment Plan........................................................................................................................ 87
Table 28 – Multimodal Projects: Rail...................................................................................................................... 91
Table 29 – Multimodal Projects: Marine................................................................................................................. 91
Table 30 – Multimodal Projects: Highway.............................................................................................................. 91
Table 31 – Multimodal Projects: Aviation............................................................................................................... 91
APPENDIX
Critical Urban and Rural Freight Corridors............................................................................................................A-1

Michigan Freight Plan 5

 INTRODUCTION

T
he Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) THE PLAN IS ORGANIZED INTO
recognizes the importance of freight mobility in THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS:
support of the movement of goods and products
Section 1, Plan Overview, establishes the context for
across Michigan. A safe, efficient, and well-maintained
creation of the Michigan Freight Plan. The most recent
transportation network supports cost-effective freight
federal transportation bill, the Fixing America’s Surface
movement, economic development, and improved quality
Transportation (FAST) Act, requires each state that receives
of life. The freight transportation system of Michigan is an
funding under the National Highway Freight Program to
important element of economic competitiveness, especially
develop a State Freight Plan that provides a comprehensive
as the state continues to expand its role as a major
plan for the immediate and long-range planning activities
domestic and global trade partner.
and investments of the state with respect to freight. The
The purpose of the Michigan Freight Plan is to provide a FAST Act encourages state departments of transportation
comprehensive overview of the state’s freight transportation to create multi-modal freight plans. Many of the required
system, including existing assets, system performance, elements for state freight plans are contained in MDOT’s
and investments required to ensure long-term success. existing state long-range plan, 2040 MITP, and are
The Freight Plan is a multi-modal and intermodal resource, referenced throughout this document. Information required
providing an overall framework for freight system to comply with the FAST Act that was not already contained
improvements and priorities. The Freight Plan serves as within the 2040 MITP is included in this document, which is
an element of the 2040 MI Transportation Plan: Moving to be considered a supplement to the current state long-
Michigan Forward (2040 MITP), and integrates its overall range plan and associated white papers.
vision, goals, objectives, strategies, and decision-making
Section 2, Strategic Goals, includes a description
principles.
of national freight goals as established in the FAST Act. In
addition, 2040 MITP goals are described and linked to the
"The freight transportation national freight goals to demonstrate the alignment of state
system of Michigan is an and federal priorities for the movement of freight, and their
contribution to economic development and improved quality
important element of economic of life.

competitiveness, especially as Section 3, Economic Context of Freight Planning, delves

into the justification for a focus on freight planning in today’s
the state continues to expand economy and includes a brief summary of current freight
its role as a major domestic and movement patterns in Michigan. An introduction is provided
to the state’s Logistics and Supply Chain Strategic Plan,
global trade partner." which continues the focus on building and maintaining a
strong economic foundation for business with transportation
as its backbone.

6 Michigan Department of Transportation

Section 4, Freight Programs and Institutions, includes an
overview of grant and loan programs available to support
freight movement; current fiscal constraints on freight-
related investments; and a listing of educational institutions,
associations, partnerships, and regional freight planning
initiatives present in Michigan.
Section 5, State Freight Transportation Assets,
provides further details on existing transportation assets,
data on freight movement by tonnage and value, and key
freight industry and natural resource locations throughout
Michigan.

Section 6, System Condition and Performance,

describes 2040 MITP performance measures as they
relate to the goals and objectives that guide transportation
investment decisions in Michigan. MDOT maintains a
number of tracking systems that provide a quick snapshot
as to how the department is performing in relation to the
performance measures that have been established through
the state’s long-range planning process, including measures
related to the movement of freight.

Section 7, 20-Year Freight Forecast, presents modal

forecasts through 2040 for highway, rail, aviation and
marine commodity movements using information from the
Transearch database maintained by IHS Global Insight.
Transearch is a planning tool that allows users to analyze
current and future freight flows by origin, destination,
commodity, and transport mode.

Section 8, Overview of Trends, Issues, and Strategies,

includes a summary of the existing trends, issues, and
strategies in Michigan as they relate to the movement of
freight across the state by all modes, including a discussion
of specific freight bottlenecks and highway conditions that
impact efficient freight movement.

Section 9, The State’s Decision-Making Process,

presents the approach Michigan used to identify eligible
critical urban and rural corridors and discusses the corridor-
based analysis conducted during the state’s long-range
planning process. The section also gives an overview of the
public involvement and stakeholder engagement process
conducted throughout the creation of the Michigan Freight
Plan. In addition, a description is provided of the methods
used to create the eligible list of critical and rural freight
corridors in Michigan.

Section 10, Freight Investment Plan (FIP), contains fiscally

constrained freight projects planned over a five-year period.
Supplemental sections of the FIP also include projects on
highways and other modes of transportation, which are not
fiscally constrained, but are critical to the continued efficient
functioning of Michigan’s transportation system as a whole.

Michigan Freight Plan 7

 United States, a source of dedicated funding was created
through the FAST Act, the National Highway Freight Program
(NHFP). Each state that receives funding through the NHFP

1 PLAN must develop a comprehensive freight plan that provides

for the immediate and long-range planning activities and
OVERVIEW investments of the state with respect to freight.

In addition to the NHFP, the FAST Act created a new

discretionary freight-focused grant program, Fostering
Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-
FREIGHT DEFINED Term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE).
Freight is defined as any good, product, or raw material In 2017, this program was replaced with Infrastructure for
carried by a commercial means of transportation - including Rebuilding America (INFRA) grants. This program allows
air, highway, rail, water, and pipeline. The activities involved states, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), local
in the management of how and where freight moves are governments, tribal governments, special purpose districts
defined as logistics. The growing need for freight services and public authorities (including port authorities), and other
resulting from increased consumer demand in Michigan, parties to apply for funding to complete projects that improve
congestion, and the ability of transportation infrastructure safety and hold the greatest promise to eliminate freight
to support such demand is a challenge. In light of existing bottlenecks and improve critical freight movements.
market forces and other factors that will increase the cost of
moving goods, freight planning is an important component The FAST Act also required the United States Department
of the statewide and metropolitan planning process. of Transportation (USDOT) to create a draft National Freight
Strategic Plan to implement the goals of the new National
When trucks carrying goods to market or factory are delayed Multimodal Freight Policy. The draft National Freight
in traffic, the result can be reduced productivity, increased Strategic Plan addressed the conditions and performance
operational costs, and decreased fuel efficiency. In 2015, of the multimodal freight system and identified strategies
delays on Michigan’s National Highway System (NHS) were and best practices to improve intermodal connectivity and
estimated to cost the trucking industry more than $576 performance of the national freight system, and mitigate the
million. In the United States, the industry experienced more impacts of freight movement on communities.
than 996 million hours of delay on the NHS as a result of
traffic congestion. This delay is the equivalent of 362,243 As required by Congress, USDOT has designated a highway-
commercial truck drivers sitting idle for an entire working only Primary Freight Network (PFN) of not more than 27,000
year. These bottlenecks were estimated to add more than centerline miles of existing roadways to help identify key
$63.4 billion in added truck industry operational costs.1 corridors of freight movement. While highways are an
Those costs ripple throughout the economy, affecting the important component of moving freight, USDOT recognized
cost of goods for businesses and consumers alike. that large quantities of materials and products move over
other freight modes, and many of these goods will also move
FIXING AMERICA’S SURFACE over multiple modes before reaching their final destination.
TRANSPORTATION (FAST) ACT The highway-only PFN failed to present a comprehensive
picture of critical freight corridors. Therefore, USDOT also
The Michigan Freight Plan was originally created in 2013 proposed a draft Multimodal Freight Network (MFN) in
in response to recommendations outlined in the previous the National Freight Strategic Plan that encompasses not
federal surface transportation authorization bill, Moving only highways, but also other roads, railways, navigable
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). The waterways, and pipelines, key seaports, airports, and
plan was updated to its current version to reflect additional intermodal facilities necessary for the efficient and safe
requirements in the new bill, the FAST Act, enacted in 2015. movement of freight in our country.

Section 8001 of the FAST Act made important reforms Another strong focus in the FAST Act was performance
to freight provisions from MAP-21. Because freight measures. Freight projects are required to have adequate
transportation is critical to the economic vitality of the funding sources identified, demonstrate improvements

1 American Transportation Research Institute, “Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry: 2017 Update.”
http://atri-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ATRI-Cost-of-Congestion-05-2017.pdf

8 Michigan Department of Transportation

 In general, a “freight project” is defined as Michigan’s Freight Advisory Committee. The 10-member
commission represents private business, transportation,
as any surface transportation project
border operators, local economic development agencies,
eligible for assistance under 23 U.S.C. and higher education. The Commission is supplemented by
that improves the movement of freight. technical advisors representing constituencies required by
Eligible project types include: the FAST Act. The LSC’s mission is to advise state agencies
on initiatives to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness
• Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation,
of supply chain management for business.
and operational improvements directly relating
to improving freight movement;
PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
• Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and
other technology directly relating to improving Since 2009, MDOT has maintained the Freight Coordination
freight movement; Group (FCG), an internal advisory committee comprised of
• Efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of staff involved in freight planning, research, and programming,
freight movement on the primary freight network; with representatives from the central office and seven MDOT
regions. In addition to MDOT staff, representatives from the
• Railway-highway grade separation;
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Michigan Division
• Geometric improvements to interchanges participate as well. MDOT relied on the expertise of FCG and
and ramps; public input as this plan was developed.
• Truck-only lanes;
MDOT also involved members of Michigan’s Freight Advisory
• Climbing and runaway lanes; Committee, the LSC, in the development of the Freight Plan.
• Truck parking facilities eligible for funding To maintain consistency with state long-range planning
under Jason’s Law; requirements, MDOT provided stakeholders and the general
• Real-time traffic, truck parking, roadway public the opportunity to provide comment on the Freight
condition, and multi-modal transportation Plan. See Section 9 for more information on the public
information systems; involvement process for the Freight Plan.
• Improvements to freight intermodal
connectors; and CONNECTION TO 2040 MI
• Improvements to truck bottlenecks. TRANSPORTATION PLAN, FIVE-
YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM,
AND STATE TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
to the efficient movement of freight, and meet national MDOT’s current long-range plan, the 2040 MITP, was
performance targets. The FAST Act continues MAP-21’s adopted in September 2016, as the second update to the
overall performance management approach, within which 2030 MI Transportation Plan (2030 MITP), completed in
states invest resources in projects that collectively will make 2007. The 2030 MITP contains 17 technical and 11 strategic
progress toward national goals for freight movement and reports that include many of the elements required for a state
economic vitality. freight plan as described in the FAST Act. These include
identification of trends, needs, issues, policies, strategies,
STATE FREIGHT and performance measures as they relate to freight and
ADVISORY COMMITTEE the transportation system as a whole. Those technical and
strategic reports will be referred to throughout this document.
In the FAST Act, USDOT recommended that states use a In addition to the technical and strategic reports from the
collaborative process for freight planning that involves all 2030 MITP, the 2040 MITP update includes a series of 23
of the relevant stakeholders acting within or affected by white papers that reflect newly available data and explain
the freight transportation system. To help accomplish this, the variety of changes that took place in Michigan between
USDOT strongly encouraged states to establish, continue, or 2012 and 2016. MDOT has produced additional state-level
expand membership in State Freight Advisory Committees. planning documents that serve as valuable resources for this
The Commission for Logistics and Supply Chain plan. They include the Michigan State Rail Plan (2011) and
Collaboration (LSC), created in Public Act 76 of 2013, serves the Michigan Airport System Plan (2017).

Michigan Freight Plan 9

Projects in the Freight Investment Plan (FIP), located in and respective 13 MPO Transportation Improvement
Section 10 of the plan, were taken from MDOT’s 2018-2022 Program (TIP) documents identify the projects that will
Five-Year Transportation Program using criteria important be implemented and how they are to be financed. The
to the movement of freight. MDOT’s project selection for projects that are selected for the STIP and TIPs are the
trunkline projects to be included in the Five-Year Program result of the needs and policies identified in the MITP, the
begins with the annual Call for Projects process with Five-Year Transportation Program, and each MPO’s long-
the MDOT regions. Since projects in the FIP are partially range plan. These projects are developed in coordination
funded with federal aid provided under the Federal Aid with the MPOs, representing urbanized areas, and with
Transportation Program, they are also included in the 2017- rural task forces (RTFs) and small urban areas, representing
2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the state’s rural areas. The planning process relies on the
participation of state and local government officials, public
will be included in the 2020-2023 STIP.
and private transit providers, organizations representing the
Implementation of the MITP and Five-Year Program customers and providers of transportation in Michigan, and
is accomplished through a four-year STIP. The STIP the general public.

10 Michigan Department of Transportation

 2 STRATEGIC
GOALS

NATIONAL FREIGHT GOALS

The Michigan Freight Plan aligns with Michigan’s state long-range transportation plan goals and with the national freight
goals established in FAST Act. The Michigan Freight Plan was developed to meet national freight goals and support the
overarching goals of the 2040 MITP. The national freight goals are summarized as follows:

• Improve the contribution of the freight transportation system to economic efficiency, productivity,
and competitiveness;
• Reduce congestion on the freight transportation system;
• Improve the safety, security, and resilience of the freight transportation system;
• Improve the state of good repair of the freight transportation system;
• Use advanced technology, performance management, innovation, competition and accountability in
operating and maintaining the freight transportation system;
• Reduce adverse environmental and community impacts of the freight transportation system.
• Improve the flexibility to support multi-state corridor planning and the creation of multi-state organizations to
increase the ability of states to address multimodal freight connectivity; and
• Improve the short- and long-distance movement of goods that travel across rural areas between population
centers, between rural areas and population centers, and from the nation’s ports, airports, and gateways to
the National Multimodal Freight Network.

2040 MI TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS

In September 2016, MDOT redeveloped and adopted its long-range transportation plan, the 2040 MITP, to reflect new data,
describe changes that had taken place throughout the state between 2013 and 2016, and maintain the 20-year planning
horizon required by FHWA. Many of the technical reports are referenced throughout this document.

The mission, goals, objectives, and rationale from the 2035 MITP were reaffirmed in the 2040 MITP. A series of white papers
was developed to catalogue the many changes that took place, including new collaborations, changes in freight volumes,
socioeconomic changes, and other topic areas. Figure 1 on the next page illustrates how the national freight goals are linked
to the 2040 MITP goals.

The following goals, established in the 2030 MITP, were reaffirmed in the 2035 and 2040 MITP:
System Improvement: Modernize and enhance the transportation system to improve mobility and accessibility.
Efficient and Effective Operations: Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transportation system and
transportation services, and expand MDOT’s coordination and collaboration with partners.
Safety and Security: Continue to improve transportation safety and ensure the security of the transportation system.
Stewardship: Preserve transportation system investments, protect the environment, and utilize public resources
in a responsible manner.

12 Michigan Department of Transportation

The 2040 MITP identified the following goals that are specific to the Corridors of Highest Significance (COHS) that were
extensively detailed in the Corridors and International Borders Report, and again reaffirmed in the Corridors and International
Borders White Paper:

Modal Choice: Provide choices for user segments, connectivity between modes, and connectivity between activity
centers for a seamless transition between modes.

Freight Adequacy: Support for Michigan businesses, industry, freight shippers, and haulers to improve
economic competitiveness.

Figure 1 - Linkage between 2040 MITP Goals and

National Highway and Multimodal Freight Goals

2040 MITP Goals ►

Efficient and
System Safety and Freight
Effective Stewardship Modal Choice
National Freight Goals Improvements Security Adequacy
Operations
▼

Enhance economic
efficiency, productivity,
and competitiveness ● ● ● ● ● ●
Reduce congestion
and bottlenecks ● ● ● ● ●
Improve safety, security,
and resiliency ● ● ● ● ● ●
Improve state of good repair
● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ●
Use advanced technology to
improve the safety, efficiency,
productivity and reliability of the
network

Reduce adverse environmental

and community impacts ● ● ● ● ● ●
Improve the short- and long-
distance movement of goods ● ● ● ● ●
Michigan Freight Plan 13
 3 ECONOMIC
CONTEXT
OF FREIGHT
PLANNING
A
n efficient and well-maintained transportation
system provides the backbone for all economic
activity. Efficient transportation systems move
goods and people throughout local, regional, national,
and international economies in a safe, timely, and reliable
manner. Transportation is very closely tied to economic
development and is a vital part of the nation’s and Michigan’s
overall economic competitiveness. Both USDOT and MDOT
identify the link between transportation and the economy as
a top priority.

Statistics indicate that the demand for transportation

grows with economic activity. In Michigan, commercial
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has historically grown at an
even higher rate than the Gross State Product (GSP),
suggesting that economic growth is strongly linked to
transportation in Michigan.

Michigan's three largest industries - manufacturing,

agriculture and tourism - are highly dependent on good
transportation systems. An efficient and dependable
transportation system can lower costs, enhance
competitiveness, and support just-in-time inventory
systems for business.

BORDER CROSSINGS AND

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Michigan’s border crossings are vital links for international
commerce and are critical to the well-being of the local,
state, and national economies. As reported by the Research
and Innovative Technology Administration – Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, the United States and Canada
conduct the world’s largest bilateral trade relationship,
exceeding $1.8 billion per day in 2014, about $660 billion
for the year. After a downturn in cross-border trade in 2009,
imports and exports started increasing again and now are at
an all-time high. Michigan continues to be the leading state
trading with Canada, with more than $74 billion in 2014.

The Ambassador Bridge is the busiest commercial border

crossing in the nation, with almost 2.5 million trucks crossing

14 Michigan Department of Transportation

in 2014, as reported by the Public Border Operators Major commodities moved throughout the state by truck
Association. The Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron is the include nonmetallic metals such as sand and gravel (75.6
second-busiest on the northern border, with nearly 1.6 million tons), agricultural commodities (38.6 million tons), and
million trucks. Transportation equipment is the leading food products (32 million tons).
product crossing Michigan’s border with Canada. Auto
For rail, coal (18.5 million tons), chemical products (14.1
companies have several plants that move products
million tons), and metallic ores (12.4 million tons) were the
between Michigan and Ontario, and in 2014 more than
top commodities moved by tonnage in Michigan in 2014,
$42 billion of transportation equipment passed through the
with coal being all inbound, chemicals mostly through-
border at Detroit.
movements, and metallic ores mostly through outbound
movements from the iron mines in Marquette County.
STATEWIDE FREIGHT
MOVEMENT SNAPSHOT Nonmetallic minerals (21.9 million tons) were the leading
Tonnage originating, terminating, or moving through commodity shipped by water in Michigan in 2014, mostly
Michigan totaled more than 479 million tons in 2014, the outbound from limestone quarries in northern Michigan.
most recent available data for all modes. Trucking accounted
In terms of air freight, the Detroit Wayne County International
for 65 percent of tonnage moved, while rail handled 21
Airport continued to handle the majority of high-value, time-
percent, water handled 14 percent, and aviation carried less
sensitive products typically shipped by air at 206,291 tons
than 1 percent (Figure 2). The value of all freight movements
in 2014. Detroit Willow Run (62,043 tons), Grand Rapids
throughout Michigan in 2014 was worth nearly $862 billion,
(41,041 tons), Lansing (22,948 tons), and Flint (12,030 tons)
with trucks handling 73 percent of the goods moved by
make up the next tier of cargo airports.
value, rail handling 23 percent, airborne handling 3 percent,
and waterborne modes handling 1 percent (Figure 3).

Figure 2 - Michigan Commodity Movement Figure 3 - Michigan Commodity Movement

Totals: Modal Split by Tonnage (2014) Totals: Modal Split by Value (2014)

Truck 65% Truck 73%

Truck Truck
Rail 21% Rail 23%

Water 14% Water 1%

Rail Air <1% Air 3%

Water Air Rail
Air Water
Source: MDOT Statewide and Urban Travel Analysis Source: MDOT Statewide and Urban Travel Analysis

Michigan Freight Plan 15

 3 ECONOMIC
CONTEXT
FOR FREIGHT
PLANNING

LOGISTICS AND SUPPLY CHAIN STRATEGIC PLAN

In addition to the vision and goals set forth in the 2040 MITP, Gov. Rick Snyder and his administration have embraced an
asset-based economic development approach to improving the state’s economy, with a focus on building and maintaining a
strong economic foundation for business. One key component is the presence of a safe, efficient, and low-cost logistics and
supply chain network in Michigan. As a result, MDOT works closely with the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC)
and the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) through a formal partnership intended to help
achieve the economic development goals of the state and accelerate economic success for businesses.

This state agency partnership released the Logistics and Supply Chain Vision 2013-2020 that further refines the mission of
the State of Michigan in regard to creating a positive business environment for economic growth:

"To lower cost, reduce time and remove risk for firms
by developing an efficient logistics and supply chain
ecosystem that leverages our assets and provides
opportunities for collaboration and partnership."
The vision to reinvent Michigan to become a center of international trade requires developing an infrastructure that will meet the
modern day demands of a globalized economy. Michigan has significant transportation assets, which serve intermodal freight
traffic from around the world, including two of the country’s busiest international border crossings in Detroit and Port Huron, four
Class I railroads, a network of interstate highways, the St. Lawrence Seaway, many commercial port facilities, and the major
cargo-carrying airports of Willow Run and Detroit Metro. Michigan’s robust freight infrastructure assets are described in greater
detail in Section 5 of this plan.

16 Michigan Department of Transportation

 4 FREIGHT
PROGRAMS AND
INSTITUTIONS

T
his section provides a summary of the programs and STATEWIDE INVESTMENT NEEDS
institutions that support the mobility and efficient
movement of freight in Michigan. Michigan has a strong transportation network that has
served the general populace and business community well
MDOT’s approach to freight planning is intended to increase for many years. On Jan. 1, 2017, the gasoline tax increased
economic productivity and promote economic growth from 18.7 to 26.3 cents per gallon, and the diesel fuel tax
by recognizing freight needs in the long-range planning increased from 15.0 to 26.3 cents per gallon. The motor
process. The importance of freight to the economic vitality fuel tax was also applied to natural gas (CNG) as well. Fuel
of the state has long been identified in the long-range tax rates will be tied to inflation beginning in 2022 to remedy
transportation planning conducted at MDOT. the decline in purchasing power of the fuel tax. Registration
fees for most cars and trucks were also increased by 20
PUBLIC FUNDING FOR FREIGHT- percent on Jan. 1, 2017. New electric car fees of $100 per
RELATED INVESTMENTS year, and $30 for plug-in hybrid cars, attempt to equalize
road-user fees for vehicles that use little or no taxed
Michigan does not have a separate funding mechanism fuel. The user-fee increases are estimated to generate
specifically for freight projects. Limited funding at the state an additional $600 million per year for the Michigan
level, and limitations on how federal funding can be spent, Transportation Fund. Starting in 2019, income tax revenues
hinder MDOT’s ability to complete needed freight projects. will be appropriated for roads, increasing from $150 million
The state Legislature must annually appropriate any funds for to $600 million over three years, until 2021. The general
fund revenues will be distributed to roads agencies only,
freight transportation projects and funding is rarely provided to
under the usual Act 51 of 1951 formula.
some modes, such as marine transportation. MDOT does not
receive any dedicated funds for freight, except through the Despite the revenue growth, increased funding is
National Highway Freight Program (NHFP). necessary to support freight activity and investment in
the state. When additional funding is made available, a
NHFP funds must be obligated for projects that contribute number of significant infrastructure projects will be able to
to the efficient movement of freight on the National move forward that can continue to improve the movement
Highway Freight Network (NHFN), and are consistent with of freight throughout Michigan.
the planning requirements of sections 134 and 135 of
title 23, United States Code. For each fiscal year, a state
may obligate not more than 10 percent of the total NHFP
apportionment for freight intermodal or freight rail projects.
Projects using NHFP funding must be identified in the freight
investment plan portion of the state freight plan. Federal-
aid funding is limited to roads classified in the Functional
Classification System as a collector or higher. This limits
investments in local roads serving industries directly or
connecting to the higher functioning federal-aid system.

Michigan Freight Plan 17

 4 FREIGHT
PROGRAMS AND
INSTITUTIONS

GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAMS The types of projects eligible for TEDF assistance are:

MDOT maintains a number of grant and loan programs that

Category A - Road projects related to target
provide financial support to projects designed to enhance
industry development and
the movement of freight. redevelopment opportunities.
Transportation Economic Category C - Road improvements in urban counties
Development Fund to reduce traffic congestion.

MDOT’s Office of Economic Development manages the Category D - Road improvements in rural counties
to create an all-season road network.
Transportation Economic Development Fund (TEDF).
Enacted in 1987, the TEDF was created to assist in the Category E - Road improvements essential to the
funding of highway, road, and street projects necessary development of commercial forests in
Michigan.
to support economic growth. Eligible entities include
MDOT, county road commissions, and all city and village Category F - Road improvements that support an
road agencies. Available funding each year from the TEDF all-season road network in the urban
areas of rural counties.
is approximately $40 million, when fully funded for all
categories. The program’s mission is to serve as a catalyst Note: Category B was eliminated in 1993.
for economic growth and enhance the state’s ability to
compete in the global marketplace while improving the Freight Economic Development Program
quality of life for the residents of Michigan. The goal of the
The Freight Economic Development Program helps new
TEDF is to provide funding for transportation projects to:
or expanding businesses connect to the rail system.
The program provides low-interest loans that can cover
• Improve the network of highway services
essential to economic competitiveness; up to 50 percent of rail infrastructure costs at new or
expanded facilities. The loans are designed to be forgiven
• Improve accessibility to target industries as
if contractually obligated shipping commitments are met
a catalyst for economic growth;
over the five-year repayment period. The program has
• Support private initiatives that create or retain approximately $8 million available.
jobs; and
• Encourage economic development and Michigan Rail Loan Assistance Program
redevelopment efforts that improve the health, The Michigan Rail Loan Assistance Program (MiRLAP)
safety, and welfare of Michigan residents.
provides no-interest loans to preserve railroad infrastructure
through track maintenance and rehabilitation projects. Up to
90 percent of the eligible project costs can be covered by
the loans, limited to $1 million per project. Loans have a
10-year repayment period. Eligible projects include any
type of construction or rehabilitation work that is associated
with permanently affixed track materials and related
structures, such as bridges and culverts. The program has
approximately $5 million available annually.

18 Michigan Department of Transportation

State Infrastructure Bank Loans from large Class I carriers to smaller regional carriers and
short-line railroads. MRA members account for more than
State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) loans are available to any
eligible public entity as defined in Title 23 USC, Title 49 USC, 95 percent of all rail freight moved in Michigan.
or Public Act 51 of 1951. This program takes a multi-modal The Michigan Trucking Association (MTA) is a statewide, full-
approach to financing transportation projects; therefore,
service trade association that has promoted the interests of
highway, transit, rail and intermodal projects are eligible.
Michigan motor carriers since 1934. The mission of the MTA
The program is focused on: is to serve the interests of the trucking industry; enhance the
• Accelerating the delivery of projects by providing financial industry’s image, efficiency, productivity and competitiveness;
assistance quickly, especially during emergency situations; promote highway safety; provide educational programs; and
work for a healthy business environment.
• Increasing the financial viability of transportation projects by
reducing borrowing costs; and The Michigan Grain Dealers Association, the forerunner of
• Attracting new public and private investment in the Michigan Agri-Business Association, was formed on
transportation infrastructure. June 25, 1903. The primary interest of the group is to further
the development and prosperity of businesses engaged in
Office of Aeronautics Loan Program agriculture.
The Office of Aeronautics Loan Program allows a publicly
owned airport to borrow up to $100,000 for airport- Educational Institutions
related projects. The interest rate on the loan, established Michigan State University,
annually by the state treasurer, is currently at 3.2 percent Supply Chain Management Program
per annum (September 2016). Repayment is scheduled in The Supply Chain Management Program at Michigan State
yearly installments over a maximum 10-year period. Loans University (MSU) integrates topics from manufacturing
are often used by sponsors for their local match obligation operations, purchasing, transportation, and physical
in capital improvement projects; however, a loan may not distribution into a unified course of study. This is the most
exceed 90 percent of the sponsor’s match of the overall widely recognized program in the United States that offers
project cost. integration among these critical, value-adding components
Michigan Strategic Fund to enhance global competitiveness.

The Michigan Strategic Fund (MSF) was created by P.A. University Research Corridor
270 of 1984 and has broad authority to promote economic The University Research Corridor is an alliance between
development and create jobs. Housed in the Michigan MSU, the University of Michigan, and Wayne State University
Economic Development Corp., the MSF approves grants to transform, strengthen, and diversify the state’s economy.
and loans under several individual programs. While University Research Corridor partners have formed this alliance
not created specifically to address the needs of freight to improve understanding of the vital role the three universities
transportation, the MSF has provided loans to local port have played, and will play, in revitalizing the state’s economy.
authorities for maritime infrastructure construction.
Additional University Research
The following research agencies have completed multiple
FREIGHT-RELATED INSTITUTIONS studies with and for the department, including work on
A number of freight-related institutions are present and freight topics related to traffic reliability, border crossing
active throughout Michigan. The following list is not delay, ITS applications to reduce traffic congestion, and
exhaustive, but represents many of the industry associations commercial vehicle safety.
and educational institutions that focus on freight interests
• Michigan State University Canadian Studies Center
in Michigan. MDOT coordinates with each of the following
groups on a project-by-project basis during times of • Michigan State University Supply Chain
stakeholder engagement for plan studies and long-range Management Program
planning updates. • Michigan Tech Research Institute
• Michigan Tech Transportation Institute
Associations
• University of Michigan Transportation
The Michigan Railroads Association (MRA) is a nonprofit
Research Institute (UMTRI)
trade association that represents the interests of the freight
railroads operating in Michigan. MRA members range in size • Center for Automotive Research (CAR)

Michigan Freight Plan 19

 4 FREIGHT
PROGRAMS AND System (TPIMS), which provides truckers with real-time

INSTITUTIONS information on availability of parking at specific locations.

TPIMS systems help address truck parking demand along
corridors, where some lots may be full and others open,
reducing the time drivers spend searching for parking spots
REGIONAL FREIGHT PLANNING
where they can rest, and increasing safety for truckers and
AND BORDER PARTNERSHIPS other drivers. Additional information on the MAASTO TPIMS
This section provides an overview of the regional freight project can be found on page 70.
planning initiatives and border partnerships that MDOT
participates in, including multi-state freight corridors, multi- Mid-America Freight Coalition
state metropolitan areas, and other regional groups of states The Mid-American Freight Coalition (MAFC) is a regional
and provinces. organization that cooperates in the planning, operation,
preservation, and improvement of transportation
Great Lakes Regional Transportation
infrastructure in the Midwest. This region includes 10
Operations Coalition
states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,
MDOT is a member of the Great Lakes Regional Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin) that share key
Transportation Operations Coalition (GLRTOC), which is made interstate corridors, inland waterways, and the Great Lakes.
up of Michigan’s neighboring state DOTs (Illinois, Indiana, These 10 states signed a Memorandum of Understanding in
Wisconsin, and Minnesota), and toll authorities in Indiana, October 2006 demonstrating their willingness to meet freight
Illinois, and Ontario, Canada. GLRTOC collaborates on demands through regional cooperative efforts. The MAFC is
initiatives that improve cross-regional highway operations in built upon the work of the Upper Midwest Freight Corridor
support of regional economic competitiveness and improved Study (UMFCS).
quality of life. Plans and strategies designed to achieve the
coalition’s goals include efficient freight operations, reliable Northwoods Rail Transit Commission
mobility, traffic incident management, and emergency traffic The Northwoods Rail Transit Commission was created
operations. with the mission to sustain and enhance safe, reliable, and
efficient rail service critical to the businesses, communities,
Next Michigan Development Corporations
and economies in northern Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper
A major economic development effort in Michigan has Peninsula. The Commission is comprised of 13 Wisconsin
been the creation of seven Next Michigan Development counties and nine Michigan counties.
Corporations (NMDCs), as designated by the Michigan
Eastern Border Transportation Coalition
Strategic Fund through Public Act 275 of 2010.
The Eastern Border Transportation Coalition (EBTC) is
NMDCs were created to foster economic opportunities in a nonprofit membership organization created in 1994
Michigan and promote economic growth focused on multi- dedicated to improving the movement of people and goods
modal transportation. NMDCs in Michigan include: between the United States and Canada. EBTC members
• Port Lansing Next Michigan Development Corp. are the state transportation agencies of Michigan, New York,
• West Michigan Economic Partnership Vermont, and Maine; and the Canadian provinces of Ontario,
• I-69 International Trade Corridor Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland,
and Labrador. 
• Superior Trade Zone
• Northern Nexus Transportation Border Working Group
• Detroit Next Michigan Development Corp. The mission of the Transportation Border Working Group
• VantagePort (TBWG) is to promote the safe, secure, efficient, and
environmentally responsible movement of people and
MAASTO Truck Parking Information and
goods across the U.S.-Canada border. It brings together
Management System
transportation and border agencies to coordinate
States in the Mid-America Association of Transportation transportation planning, policy implementation, and the
Officials (MAASTO) region have joined together in developing deployment of technology to enhance infrastructure and
a multi-state Truck Parking Information and Management operations on the northern border. It was established in 2000.
20 Michigan Department of Transportation
Public Border Operators Association
The Public Border Operators Association (PBOA) is a
bi-national membership organization representing the
publicly owned and operated international bridge and tunnel
crossings between the province of Ontario and the states of
Michigan and New York. Current members include the Blue
Water Bridge Authority, Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge
Authority, Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, MDOT, Niagara Falls
Bridge Commission, Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority,
Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Authority, Seaway International
Bridge Corp., and Thousand Islands Bridge Authority.

North American Strategy for Competitiveness

North American Strategy for Competitiveness (NASCO) is a
coalition of North American governments, businesses, and
educational institutions specifically focusing on solutions for
needs and requirements in the areas of transportation, energy,
logistics, infrastructure, security, and the development of a
skilled workforce. NASCO’s ultimate objective is to have a
globally competitive transportation network. 

International Bridge, Tunnel and

Turnpike Association
The International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Association
(IBTTA) was founded in 1932 and is the worldwide
association for owners and operators of toll facilities and
the businesses that serve tolling. Its mission is to advance
toll-financed transportation. MDOT is a member.

Michigan Freight Plan 21

 5 STATE FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION
ASSETS

T
he Michigan freight system is a multi-modal and Highway Network
interconnected network. This section provides a
MDOT manages a road network consisting of interstate
comprehensive inventory of the state’s major freight
highways, U.S. highways, and state-designated M-routes.
transportation infrastructure assets, including an overview
This system consists of 9,669 route miles. A more detailed
of highway, rail, marine, aviation, and pipeline assets;
inventory of highway assets can be found in the Highway/
warehousing and intermodal facilities; and freight gateways
Bridge Technical Report and the updated Highway/Bridge
and corridors that pass through Michigan.
White Paper.

FREIGHT PROFILE In 2014, trucking accounted for 65 percent of the tonnage

The Michigan Freight Profile Technical Report and updated moved in the state and 73 percent of tonnage moved by
Michigan Freight Profile White Paper describe freight value. Nearly every customer product is moved by truck at
movements by all modes, commodities moved, mobility one point en route to the end user. Trucks moved more than
issues, and strategies employed by MDOT to alleviate the 308 million tons of freight in 2014 at an estimated value of
issues identified through extensive study and stakeholder $630 billion, with transportation equipment valued at $139
engagement. The two documents cover several of the billion (Table 1). The trucking industry plays a key role in
items required in the FAST Act in regard to the completion today’s globally integrated economy, handling the essential
of a freight asset inventory and will be referenced heavily “last mile” commodity movements that other modes are
throughout this section. simply not able to accomplish.

The freight-intensive industries that are important to state Table 1 - Top Commodities
and/or national economic priorities include agriculture, Moved by Truck in Michigan (2014)
mining, forestry/timber, warehousing, trucking, and
automobile manufacturing. MDOT manages a regularly
Commodities Tons (M)
updated statewide employer database that provides Nonmetallic minerals 75.63
employment figures, industry categories, and the physical Farm Products 38.64
location of businesses throughout the state.
Food Products 32.08
FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS Primary Metal Products 17.48
The most recent multi-modal freight data shows that, in Waste or Scrap Material 16.61
2014, Michigan’s transportation infrastructure moved more
than 479 million tons of freight, valued at nearly $862 billion. Commodities Value (B)
Trucking accounted for 65 percent of the tonnage moved, Transportation Equipment $139.01
followed by rail at 21 percent, water at 14 percent, and air Machinery $64.01
at less than 1 percent.2 Figure 4 identifies the major freight
Secondary Traffic $63.38
infrastructure assets in Michigan, including international
crossings, cargo port locations, active rail lines, cargo Chemical Products $60.18
airports, and the trunkline system. Food Products $53.11
Source: MDOT Statewide and Urban Travel Analysis
Transearch Database, IHS Global Insight, Inc.

2 Michigan Department of Transportation, State Long-Range Transportation Plan, 2040 MI Transportation Plan, Michigan Freight Profile White Paper.

22 Michigan Department of Transportation

 Figure 4 - Michigan Major Freight Infrastructure

KEWEENAW WATERWAY




MARQUETTE

 

28
 MUNISING


SAULT STE MARIE

 



2  28




2
 
BREVORT


75 PORT DOLOMITE

GLADSTONE
 PORT INLAND ST IGNACE  PORT DRUMMOND
IRON MOUNTAIN  MANISTIQUE MACKINAC ISLAND
ESCANABA
 
ST JAMES
 CHEBOYGAN



PORT CALCITE
41 PETOSKEY

CHARLEVOIX

 
STONEPORT

MENOMINEE GAYLORD ALPENA

 
 131



23

MANISTEE

 CADILLAC



127
LUDINGTON




75
SAGINAW RIVER
LEGEND MIDLAND

Trunkline Freeway 

31 MT PLEASANT 
SAGINAW
Trunkline Other
MUSKEGON 


Rail Line
GRAND HAVEN
96 FLINT


 

69
 Commercial Port  MARYSVILLE

GRAND RAPIDS

 Commercial Airport 94 ST CLAIR

HOLLAND  LANSING 

 MARINE CITY
 International Crossing

131 


96 PONTIAC
ALGONAC
Boundaries
BATTLE CREEK ANN ARBOR 275 

 
Michigan Counties

KALAMAZOO

JACKSON

94
 
DETROIT
City Boundaries  

ST JOSEPH 23



94 


69


 MONROE



31
75

Corridors with the highest commercial volumes have remained consistent over
the past decade. I-75 between Detroit and Toledo remains the busiest corridor
with 15,500 trucks per day; I-94 (Detroit Industrial Freeway) through Romulus
and Taylor has 14,300; I-94 near Battle Creek has 12,400; I-94 between Benton
Harbor and the Indiana state line has 11,400; and I-696 through Warren carries
10,400 trucks per day.

Michigan Freight Plan 23

 5 STATE FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION
ASSETS
Intermodal Connectors
National Highway System (NHS) intermodal connectors link major intermodal facilities not otherwise located on the NHS with
the other four subsystems that make up the NHS. A list of freight intermodal connectors in Michigan is shown below (Table
2). Airport, port, and rail/truck intermodal terminals are key generators of commercial vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and MDOT
included these road segments as part of the prioritization criteria for the list of freight projects statewide located in Section 10.

Table 2 - Michigan Freight Intermodal Connectors

Connector Length
Facility Type Connector Description
(Miles)

Detroit - CP Rail System Oak Yard Truck/Rail Facility Served by an existing route 0

US-12
Detroit - Willow Run Airport Airport 1.9
(entrance to I-94)

Mercier Street (terminal to Wyoming Avenue

Detroit Junction/Livernois
Truck/Rail Facility and Dix Avenue), Wyoming Avenue (Mercier 3.2
Intermodal Terminal
Street to US-12)

Detroit Metro Wayne County Merriman Road

Airport 3.5
Airport (Eureka Road to I-94)
Detroit-Windsor Truck Springwells Court
Port Terminal 0.5
Ferry/Lafarge/McCoig Terminals (terminal to Jefferson Avenue)
Ferndale - CN North America Fern Street (terminal to Fair Street),
Truck/Rail Facility 0.3
Moterm Fair Street (Fern Street to M-102)

Flint - Bishop Airport Airport Served by an existing NHS route 0

Gerald R. Ford International Airport 44th Street (M-37 to Patterson), Patterson

Airport 2.9
(Grand Rapids) Avenue (44th Street to M-11)
Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Portage Road
Airport 0.5
International Airport (entrance to I-94)
Lansing Capital Region Capitol City Boulevard
Airport 0.5
International Airport (entrance to Grand River Boulevard)

Jefferson Avenue
Lower Detroit River Port Port Terminal 0.7
(port to Dragoon Street)

Clark Street
Lower Detroit River Port Port Terminal 0.4
(port to Fort Street)

Marion Industrial Highway

Lower River Rouge - Port #1 Port Terminal 0.6
(port to Jefferson Avenue)
Brennan Avenue
Lower River Rouge - Port #2 Port Terminal 0.2
(port to Jefferson Avenue)

24 Michigan Department of Transportation

 Connector Length
Facility Type Connector Description
(Miles)
US-10
Ludington Ferry Terminal Ferry Terminal 3.6
(terminal to US-31)
Huron Avenue
Mackinaw Ferry Terminal Ferry Terminal 1.7
(terminal to M-108 to I-75)
Hampton Street
Marquette Port Port Terminal 0.1
(terminal to US-41/M-28)

New Boston Auto Ramp Truck/Rail Facility Sibley Road (terminal to I-275) 0.4

Norfolk Southern - Delray Truck/Rail Facility Served by an existing NHS route 0

Hess Street (terminal to

Norfolk Southern - Oakwood Truck/Rail Facility Schaefer Highway), 0.5
Schaefer Highway (Hess Street to I-75)
S. Wabash Street to Dix Avenue to
Norfolk Southern - Triple Crown Truck/Rail Facility Outer Drive to Outer Drive to Schaefer 0.8
Highway to I-75
Oakland County
Airport Served by an existing NHS route 0
International Airport
Marquette Street
Saginaw River - Lower (Port) #1 Port Terminal 0.2
(port to Truman Parkway)
Woodside Drive
Saginaw River - Lower (Port) #2 Port Terminal 1.8
(Pine Street to Trumbull Street)
Westervelt Road (port to Kochville Road),
Saginaw River - Upper (Port) #1 Port Terminal Kochville Road (Westervelt Road to 1.5
Adams Road), Adams Road (Kochville to I-75)

Saginaw River - Upper (Port) #2 Port Terminal Served by an existing NHS route 0

Saginaw/Midland/Bay City
Airport Garfield Road (entrance to M-47) 3.2
International Airport

Sawyer International Airport Airport Served by an existing NHS route 0

St. Ignace Ferry Terminal Ferry Terminal I-75 Business Loop (terminal to US-2) 2

St. Joseph Port Port Terminal Served by an existing NHS route 0

Traverse City, Airport Access Road

Airport 0.5
Cherry Capital Airport (entrance to US-31/M-72)
Forman Avenue to Flora Street to Reisner
Upper River Rouge - Port #1 Port Terminal 0.4
Avenue to Fort Street
Dix Avenue (port to Livernois Avenue),
Oakwood Boulevard (Dix Avenue to Schaefer
Upper River Rouge - Port #2 Port Terminal 0.8
Highway), Schaffer Highway (Oakwood
Boulevard to I-75)
Dix Avenue
Upper River Rouge - Port #2 Port Terminal 3.4
(port to Livernois Avenue)
King Road (terminal to Allen Road),
Woodhaven - APL Truck/Rail Facility 1.4
Allen Road (King Road to West Road)

Michigan Freight Plan 25

 5 STATE FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION
ASSETS
Rail System
Michigan has 26 freight railroads that operate on approximately 3,600 miles of track in the state. The following is a map of active
rail and state-owned rail as of 2017 (Figure 5).

The freight railroad industry is almost exclusively privately owned and financed, with railroad companies owning and maintaining
the track infrastructure. Railroad companies invest more than $200 million annually to preserve Michigan’s rail infrastructure.3
The limited exceptions to the private sector funding of rail infrastructure include MDOT’s two loan programs and the 665 miles
of state-owned rail lines operated under lease by five freight railroads.

Figure 5 - Michigan Active Rail (2017)

O R
R I
E
P
U
S
E
K

L
A MICHIGAN'S RAILROAD
SYSTEM

MRI LSI MARQUETTE

IRONWOOD SAULT STE. MARIE

MUNISING
ELS

ELS
ELS

ESCANABA
CN
L
A
RAILROADS OPERATING IN MICHIGAN
PETOSKEY
K

CN Canadian National Railway

E

CSX CSX Transportation

NS Norfolk Southern Railway
H

ALPENA
MENOMINEE GAYLORD
AMTK Amtrak
U

Other Railroads
R
LSRC

O
LSRC

TRAVERSE
CITY
N
N

GLC
A

MANISTEE
LSRC
G

CADILLAC

DETROIT AREA INSET

I

LUDINGTON
H

HE

MQT
C

Pontiac
CSX

Utica
I

MIDLAND BAY CITY

Mt Clemens HE
M

MT. PLEASANT
LSRC
HE
CR

MS
E

ALMA SAGINAW
HE
K

MUSKEGON
LS
GLC

Novi
RC

GLC
A

MS
GL FLINT
CM C PORT HURON
Detroit GRAND RAPIDS
L

PORT HURON
HE LIRR
MS

GRE
CSX

CSX

Plymouth
CS
X
#

Dearborn CP Rail Tunnel

GLC
CS

LANSING
X

O N T A R I O SEE
JAIL

CHS INSET
Ypsilanti
GDLK

ANN ARBOR
KALAMAZOO
CSX

NS 0 5 10 AA
CN

BATTLE CREEK
WMI JACKSON
U N T Y
WA Y N E CO
O U N TY
M O N RO E C
NS

Carleton Miles
KT

IN
AM

AD
AA

X BF
CS L
A
CN MSO K
E
E R I E

Monroe

4
Produced by
Michigan Center for Shared Solutions
AA

L A K E E R I E Department of Technology, Management, and Budget 0 10 20 30 40 50

March 2017
Miles
www.michigan.gov/cgi
517-373-7910
O H I O

3 Maintenance-of-way expenditures reported for 2016 totals $219,295,372. Michigan Department of Treasury, Bureau of Local Governments, Assessment and Certification Division.

26 Michigan Department of Transportation

In 2014, railroads carried almost 101 million tons of freight, approximately 21 percent of
total commodity movements for all modes. Rail is an especially cost-effective alternative
for heavy and bulky commodities, and is commonly the preferred transport method for
hazardous materials.4
Table 3 - Top Commodities Moved by Rail in Michigan (2014)
Commodities Tons (M) Commodities Value (B)
Coal 18.50 Transportation Equipment $82.96
Chemical Products 14.15 Chemical Products $52.65
Metallic Ores 12.35 Misc. Mixed Shipments $24.21
Transportation Equipment 8.83 Primary Metal Products $11.10
Primary Metal Products 6.41 Paper and Pulp Products $4.86
Source: MDOT Statewide and Urban Travel Analysis Transearch Database, IHS Global Insight, Inc.

The Michigan State Rail Plan was

Figure 6 - Detroit Area Freight Terminals completed in 2011 to maintain
compliance with the federal
MACOMB COUNTY Passenger Rail Investment and
OAKLAND COUNTY CN Moterm 


102 Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA)



75 requirements. This Freight Plan


3 was prepared in coordination

10
with the development of an
updated State Rail Plan, to be



94
completed in conjunction with
the next MDOT Long-Range



96
CP Oak Yard  Plan. The Michigan State Rail



96
DETROIT Plan documents the ownership
and operational details of Class I,


24


39 Class II, Class III, and switching/
WAYNE COUNTY 


94
terminal railroads in Michigan.
NS Livernois Yard It also establishes a long-term
 vision for Michigan’s rail system
CSX Livernois Yard 
and outlines a recommended
program of prioritized investments



94 NS Delray  Legend
over the next 20 years. Detailed
County Boundary
Trunkline information on Michigan’s
NS Triple Crown  Rail
physical rail infrastructure assets
 Intermodal Freight



75
MDOT Statewide and Urban Travel Analysis
can be found in the Existing
Conditions Technical Memoranda
of the Rail Plan.
Intermodal rail is growing rapidly within the railroad industry. Container movements between truck and rail offer efficiencies
in long-distance freight movements and overseas trade. Michigan presently has six rail intermodal facilities, all located in
southeast Michigan. The Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal (DIFT) project, a public/private collaboration between MDOT,
other government agencies, and four Class I railroads, will alleviate many current mobility issues with the issues with the
expansion and relocation of terminals, along with improved highway and rail access. Figure 6 above identifies the locations of
existing intermodal terminals in the Detroit area.
4 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report.

Michigan Freight Plan 27

 5 STATE FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION
ASSETS
Marine Transportation The maritime system is a partnership between the public
and private sectors. The federal government generally
Marine transportation is an essential component of Michigan’s
maintains the infrastructure by way of congressionally
freight transportation system. The Great Lakes and
authorized navigation channels, aids-to-navigation, and
St. Lawrence Seaway form a maritime transportation system
other marine services. The private sector typically provides
extending 2,300 miles from the gulf of the St. Lawrence
the marine terminals, cargo vessels, and necessary access
Seaway on the Atlantic Ocean to the western end of
channels to reach the public channels. MDOT maintains
Lake Superior. Michigan’s 3,200 miles of shoreline along four
a listing of all publicly and privately owned marine facilities
of the five Great Lakes contain 33 active cargo ports that
throughout the state and works in partnership with the
ship or receive cargo (Figure 7). The Michigan Freight Profile
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Michigan
Technical Report contains detailed information on Michigan’s
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on issues
maritime assets.
impacting maritime navigation.

Figure 7 - Michigan Cargo Ports (2014)

KEWEENAW WATERWAY

MARQUETTE


SAULT STE MARIE
MUNISING
 
PORT INLAND BREVORT PORT DOLOMITE

GLADSTONE      PORT DRUMMOND

ST IGNACE
 MACKINAC ISLAND

MANISTIQUE

ESCANABA
ST JAMES  CHEBOYGAN
PORT CALCITE

CHARLEVOIX

MENOMINEE   STONEPORT

 ALPENA


MANISTEE

LUDINGTON



SAGINAW RIVER
Total Tons 2014
 0 to 99,999
MUSKEGON

 100,000 to 999,999
GRAND HAVEN 
 MARYSVILLE
 1,000,000 to 3,999,999 HOLLAND
 

ST CLAIR
MARINE CITY
ALGONAC
 4,000,000 to 7,999,999
 8,000,000 to 15,000,000 ST JOSEPH

 DETROIT

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and MDOT

MONROE

28 Michigan Department of Transportation

Ensuring continued investment in the
marine transportation system is essential
to Michigan’s economic well-being.The
United States and Canadian ports and
terminals on the Great Lakes -
St. Lawrence Seaway system move
about 180 million tons of cargo each year.
As a result of maritime activity on the
system, $33.6 billion in business revenue
was received by firms supplying cargo
handling and vessel services, and inland
transportation services in the U.S.5 Ports
provide a vital service, particularly for the
mining industries in the Upper Peninsula
and northern Lower Peninsula. Michigan’s
vast water resources are unique and the
Great Lakes shipping corridor provides a
significant transportation option.

Table 4 - Top Commodities at Michigan Ports (2014)

Commodity Tonnage Rank Tons (Millions)

Nonmetallic Ores 21.95

Metallic Ores 15.63
Coal 15.56

Petroleum or Coal Products 5.48

Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone

3.85
Products

Commodity Value Rank Value (Millions)

Petroleum or Coal Products $5,691.01

Metallic Ores $1,477.31
Crude Petroleum and Natural
$663.23
Gas
Chemical Products $626.87

Coal $588.06

Source: MDOT Statewide and Urban Travel Analysis

5 The Economic Impacts of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway System, 2011.
http://greatlakesseaway.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Econ-Study-Exec-Sum-Final-Oct-18.pdf

Michigan Freight Plan 29

 5 STATE FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION
ASSETS
Airport System
Aviation provides a truly global transportation network. Airports are important economic generators, with air passenger and
air freight activity reflecting major economic benefits to many communities. The Michigan Aviation System Plan 2017 (MASP
2017) documents the planning process that identifies the role of public-use airports in Michigan through the year 2040.

Although it makes up a relatively small percentage of the state’s freight transportation in terms of tonnage moved, air cargo
services are particularly important for high-value and time-sensitive commodities. A significant number of Michigan’s 226
public-use airports are capable of supporting air cargo operations. Michigan has 17 airports with scheduled air carrier service
that also report the handling of air cargo. In addition, air cargo statistics are reported by Detroit Willow Run Airport, which
does not offer scheduled air carrier service. Five airports in the state accommodate air cargo tonnage at high enough levels to
receive federal cargo entitlement funding from the Federal Aviation Administration. These airports include Detroit Willow Run,
Detroit Metro, Grand Rapids, Lansing, and Flint.

Figure 8 - Scheduled Air Service Airports by Tonnage (2014)

30 Michigan Department of Transportation

Additional air cargo capacity exists in the state of Michigan. Three former Air Force bases (AFB) have been transferred to
local agency ownership, including Sawyer AFB in Marquette County, Wurtsmith AFB in Oscoda County, and Kincheloe AFB
in Chippewa County. These former military air bases maintain long runways that are capable of accommodating nearly all
commercial cargo aircraft types. In addition, Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport is currently equipped to handle maintenance, repair,
and overhaul of a variety of large air carrier and freighter aircraft types. The Aviation White Paper provides details on airport
infrastructure, while the Michigan Freight Profile White Paper includes specific mobility issues facing the aviation sector.

Michigan moved 349,368 tons of air cargo in 2014. Households, businesses,

and governments spend about $7 billion annually on aviation and aviation-
related services. Local airports are strong economic engines for local
communities, both as freight ports and as facilitators for entrepreneurs
involved in airport-dependent businesses.

Table 5 - Top Air Cargo Airports by Tonnage (2014)

Airport Total Tons Inbound Tons Outbound Tons

Detroit 206,291 114,726 91,565

Willow Run 62,043 32,915 29,128

Grand Rapids 41,041 18,368 22,673

Lansing 22,948 12,611 10,336

Flint 12,030 6,658 5,371

Traverse City 1,407 814 593

Iron Mountain 465 243 222

Alpena 561 348 212

Saginaw 82 76 6

Pellston 406 283 123

Escanaba 497 354 143

Other Origins 1,595 1,014 581

Total 349,368 188,413 160,955

Source: MDOT Statewide and Urban Travel Analysis Section

Michigan Freight Plan 31

 5 STATE FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION
ASSETS

Pipelines
Although MDOT does not oversee pipeline infrastructure, it maintains a geographic database of petroleum pipeline terminal
locations (Figure 9). These sites are major generators of petroleum movements to consumption areas. Keeping updated
location information benefits the department’s freight modeling efforts by allowing the simulation of origin/destination patterns
on state highway infrastructure. The following map depicts pipeline terminal locations.

Figure 9 - Petroleum Terminals and Refineries in Michigan






Legend  
County 
TrunkLine 

 
PETROLEUM TERMINALS
 Refinery 
 Marine Terminals  
 

 




 Pipeline Terminals  
Source: Internal Revenue Service


32 Michigan Department of Transportation

KEY FREIGHT INDUSTRY AND Auto Manufacturing Industry
NATURAL RESOURCE LOCATIONS Michigan is home to the nation’s auto industry and is
Businesses and industries involved in everything from the headquarters of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.
manufacturing to agricultural production depend on the Transportation equipment is a predominant freight
movement of goods. Easy access to high-quality transportation commodity moving throughout southern Michigan, with
infrastructure is often a fundamental consideration for shipments between suppliers and the major production
businesses in deciding where to locate. MDOT places strong plants occurring in a continuous cycle. The “just-in-time”
emphasis on system preservation and system-wide integration delivery of auto parts and products relies on multiple modes
of all modes to ensure that shippers and carriers are able of transportation across the state, as well as between
to make the most efficient and cost-effective use of the neighboring states and Canada. The following map depicts
transportation assets Michigan has to offer. the assembly plants and major production facilities of the Big
Three auto companies, all of which are located near major
The following section highlights the location of warehousing trunkline facilities and rail infrastructure assets (Figure 10).
terminals and the major industries in Michigan, including
auto manufacturing, mining, agriculture, and logging.

Figure 10 - Chrysler, Ford, and GM Production Facilities

Saginaw






75

Flint



 


69




69


Lansing 

23


 


94


75










127



96




   


Jackson 


275
 Detroit


94




Ann Arbor  
Big Three Production Facilities
Trunkline Freeway

 Trunkline Other


 


23 75 Rail
 Plant Location
 Sources: MDOT Statewide and Urban Travel Analysis;
Ford, GM, Chrysler Web Content

Michigan Freight Plan 33

 5 STATE FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION
ASSETS

Logging Industry Quite often, logging sites are located in rural areas, making
local forest roads essential to support the logging industry
Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula
in Michigan. The following map portrays the location of
are flush with a mix of hardwoods and pines. Michigan is a
logging employment, acres of forest land aggregated to
leading producer of wood products, including furniture and
Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) and the location of state roads
a variety of paper products. MDOT’s employer database
where logs and lumber make up more than 15 percent of all
provides the location of logging employment, sawmills,
commodity weight traveling on the roadway.6
paper mills, and other facilities using timber (Figure 11).

Figure 11 - Michigan Logging Locations





 


    
 
 





 




 




 

 
 
 


  

 

  

   
   
  


 
   
 
  
 
 


   


 
 

  


  


 
 

 
  


 
 



 


     









 
 
  

 




  


 

 
    

 
  
  
  
   
   



 
  
 

  



 
  



  

 
 
  
 

  

 





  
     




 
  



  




 
  



 


  
  
 







  

Trunkline  


 


Logs/Lumber Tonnage >15%  
 

 
TAZ Forest Acres 


   


 
    
8,499 and below   

8,500 to 31,999  

32,000 to 79,999 


 
80,000 and above  




Logging Employment 


 

 


     

  



  

50

25 12.5






 


 
 




Sources: MDOT Statewide and Urban Travel Analysis 

 

 

 
Transearch Database, IHS Global Insight, Inc. 


6 Traffic analysis zones or TAZs, are typically small area neighborhoods or communities that serve as the smallest geographical basis for travel demand model forecasting systems.
http://tmiponline.org/Clearinghouse/Items/Technical_Synthesis_-_Defining_Traffic_Analysis_Zones.aspx

34 Michigan Department of Transportation

Agricultural Production In addition, recent presentations by the Michigan
Agri-Business Association indicate that the movement of
The southern half of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula is home
agricultural activity northward has raised concerns about the
to the majority of productive agricultural land in Michigan,
adequacy of transportation resources in the northern Lower
due in part to the longer growing season. There also are
Peninsula and Upper Peninsula.7 The concerns related to
large orchard and vineyard areas along the Lake Michigan
non-highway modes (rail and water freight) become even
shore of the Lower Peninsula and agricultural activity in the
more critical in light of the fact that road infrastructure may
southern tip of the Upper Peninsula. (Figure 12).
be inadequate compared to the lower third of Michigan.
In line with the national initiative to double exports,
Agricultural products are typically first shipped from rural areas
Gov. Snyder has stated his goal to double Michigan’s
and on local roads, followed by routes along state trunkline
agriculture exports and increase the economic impact of
while en route to production, storage, and market facilities. The
the agriculture industry. The state’s initiatives, coupled
following map shows the major concentration of agriculture
with the trend of agriculture activity moving northward,
production. State roads that handle more than 30 percent of
has placed additional emphasis on the quality of the
overall tonnage in farm products are indicated in red.
transportation infrastructure in the Thumb Area, the
Saginaw Bay region, the northern Lower Peninsula,
and throughout south central Michigan.

Figure 12 - Crop Concentration and Storage Facilities



 
Trunkline 

Agriculture Tonnage > 30%  

 



  
 
TAZ Crop Acres 


   
2,280 and below 
 
   
   


  

 
  



   


 

2,280 to 6,700    



 
  

 

6,700 to 12,200 



     
    
12,200 and above    
       

  

 



 

Storage Facilities - Bushels   
 


 
  

 
  
  



 



 



 

10,000,000 5,000,000 2,500,000


 
  
 
 

Sources: Transearch Database, IHS Global Insight, Inc; 
 
  
US Dept of Agriculture; Grainweb    
 
 
 









7 Michigan Agriculture in the Global Economy, James E. Byrum, March 2013, http://ippsr.msu.edu/policy/presentations/13MIAg.pdf.

Michigan Freight Plan 35

 5 STATE FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION
ASSETS
Mining Industry
Michigan has a vast supply of raw natural resources mined for use by the manufacturing industry (Figure 13).
Metallic and nonmetallic ores move through the state by truck, rail, and water. Michigan also is a leader in the
supply of sand and gravel, much of which moves by truck directly to construction sites within the state. Limestone
and iron ore are prevalent in northern Michigan and move by rail and water. The following map displays the
location of various mining and plant facilities throughout the state as of 2014.

Figure 13 - Michigan Natural Resource Operations

 



 

 
 




 

 
 
  






 
 



 
 
Active Mining Operations 

 Clay/Shale 
  
 Crushed Stone 
   
 Gypsum 
  
Iron/Copper 

 Lime 
   
 Magnesium Compounds   
  
   
 Peat      
  
 Salt  
 
 Sand and Gravel  

 


 Other     
  
 
Production Facilities 
  
    


 
 Cement Plant   
 
      
   


Source: U.S. Geological Survey     
 

36 Michigan Department of Transportation

Warehouse and Trucking Employment Centers
Although not a specific commodity type, an essential ingredient in the supply chain networks of many businesses is the
location of warehousing facilities and the presence of trucking companies. These types of businesses tend to locate outside
of city centers, near freeways, and in close proximity to the intersection of major highways. Ease of access and the presence
of large population centers are dominant factors in determining where to locate warehouse facilities. Major retail distribution
centers are included in this category as they are often key truck freight generators. The following map (Figure 14) depicts
trucking and warehouse employment concentrations, aggregated by TAZ.

Figure 14 - Warehouse and Trucking Employment

Michigan Freight Plan 37

 T
his section provides an overview of the goals used
by MDOT to guide investments that are intended

6 SYSTEM to address the conditions and performance of the

state’s freight transportation system. A detailed analysis of
CONDITION AND the conditions and performance of the state’s infrastructure

PERFORMANCE can be found in the Conditions and Performance Technical

Report. In addition, when freight performance targets are
established by MDOT, they will be incorporated into the
planning process.

2040 MI TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PERFORMANCE MEASURES
MDOT has actively implemented performance-based
program development and asset management since
1997, when the State Transportation Commission (STC)
established state trunkline pavement and bridge goals. The
Corridors of Highest Significance – Performance Metrics
White Paper describes how the 2040 MITP evaluated the
state trunkline system by performance and ranked the
corridors based on level of significance. Section 8, under
Highway Issues and Strategies, contains information on
freight reliability measures in accordance with the FAST
Act performance measure rules. MDOT’s long history with
performance measures has enabled the department to
develop robust measurement capabilities. Performance
measures for Michigan’s transportation infrastructure were
selected using system-wide goals and objectives. The
Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures Report
presents the four system-wide goals, their associated
objectives as they relate to MDOT’s mission - Integration,
Economic Benefit, and Quality of Life - and the selection
criteria used to develop the performance measures. Each of
the four goal areas and associated objectives from the 2040
MITP are summarized as follows:

Goal: Stewardship
Preserve transportation system investments,
protect the environment, and utilize public
resources in a responsible manner.
The Stewardship Goal focuses on MDOT’s role and
responsibilities associated with being good stewards of
Michigan’s resources. This is based on a holistic view of
resources, including funding transportation assets (e.g.,
highways, rail lines, airports, etc.), the physical human
environment, and the Michigan economy.

38 Michigan Department of Transportation

 formalized its approach to improving, measuring, and
Goal: Safety and Security reporting the condition of its transportation networks with
Continue to improve transportation the STC’s 1997 adoption of the pavement condition goals.
safety and ensure the security of the Since then, MDOT has developed performance measures to
transportation system. reflect a broader range of the transportation system.
The Safety and Security Goal continues MDOT’s long-
standing commitment to build, maintain, and operate
Asset Management
the safest transportation system possible. The objectives MDOT follows an asset management approach to maintain
under the Safety and Security Goal emphasize traditional Michigan’s transportation system. Asset management
safety initiatives aimed at reducing fatalities, injuries, provides a solid foundation that allows transportation
and crashes/incidents, as well as efforts to address professionals to monitor the transportation system and
transportation system security needs. optimize the preservation, improvement, and timely
replacement of assets through cost-effective management,
programming, and resource allocation decisions.

Goal: System Improvement Transportation System Condition Report

Modernize and enhance the transportation
MDOT uses the Transportation System Condition Report,
system to improve mobility and accessibility.
which is updated twice a year, to provide a quick snapshot
The System Improvement Goal emphasizes the various of whether or not the department is achieving the state
areas where MDOT can make direct investments or long-range plan goals laid out above. The measures
encourage investments by other entities to improve the are organized around the four major goal areas of the
efficiency and effectiveness of Michigan’s transportation 2040 MITP - Stewardship, Safety and Security, System
system. The objectives focus on improvements to Improvement, and Efficient and Effective Operations. While
modernize, expand, and connect the system to the individual measures reported may change over time, the
support economic growth and better facilitate the close connection to the 2040 MITP goals ensures that the
movement of goods, people, and services. focus and importance of the reporting remains constant. The
measures included in the report are only a representative
sample of the countless measurements and data collections
monitored by MDOT in the course of overseeing the building,
Goal: Efficient and Effective Operations
Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of maintenance, and operation of the state’s transportation
the transportation system and transportation system. It is viewed as a work in progress. The selection of
services, and expand MDOT’s coordination measures may change as the report is refined, as experience
and collaboration with partners. dictates, and as new federal requirements for performance
measurement are put into place.
The Efficient and Effective Operations Goal reflects
MDOT’s desire to achieve the greatest possible Michigan Dashboard
performance from Michigan’s existing transportation Gov. Snyder implemented the Michigan Dashboard
assets and future system improvements. This goal also (Mi Dashboard), which provides a quick assessment of the
addresses the importance of operating a transportation state’s performance in key areas, including economic strength,
system and providing services to ensure citizens and health and education, value-for-money government, quality of
stakeholders have modal choices. The objectives life, and public safety. Mi Dashboard includes an infrastructure
associated with this goal area focus on the application dashboard, which provides a way for the public to track the
of technology, stronger coordination and collaboration progress of many key infrastructure elements important to
with public and private stakeholders, and improved them. This includes those related to freight movements, and
intermodal transfers. draws upon many of the measures MDOT already was using
in its investment and programming decisions.
TRACKING THE PERFORMANCE More information about MDOT’s performance can be
OF MICHIGAN’S INFRASTRUCTURE found on the MDOT website at www.michigan.gov/mdot.

To achieve the goals that have been established, it is

necessary to monitor the performance of the system. MDOT

Michigan Freight Plan 39

40 Michigan Department of Transportation
 7 20-YEAR
FREIGHT
FORECAST

T
his section provides a 20-year forecast of freight transportation demands, broken down by mode of transportation
and Standard Transportation Commodity Code (STCC), including the projected demands for intrastate, inbound,
outbound, and through-interstate transportation of freight. The estimated projections are based on 2014
Transearch data from IHS Global Insight. The tables below summarize the freight forecasts for each mode. Detailed
forecast tables by mode begin on page 42.

Table 6 - Summary of Freight Forecasts by Mode

2014 2040 Growth Percent

Movement Type
(Tons in Millions) (Tons in Millions) (2014 -2040)

Highway Freight Forecast

Overall 308 486 58%

Intrastate (Michigan to Michigan) 111 146 31%

Outbound (Michigan to Other) 82 108 31%

Inbound (Other to Michigan) 85 144 69%

Through-Trips (Origin and Destination Outside Michigan) 30 89 194%

Waterborne Freight Forecast

Overall 65 69 7%

Intrastate (Michigan to Michigan) 10 9 -11%

Outbound (Michigan to Other) 31 40 30%

Inbound (Other to Michigan) 24 20 -16.1%

Rail Freight Forecast

Overall 101 148 49.8%

Intrastate (Michigan to Michigan) 5 6 4.8%

Outbound (Michigan to Other) 21 28 28.2%

Inbound (Other to Michigan) 33 31 -5.6%

Through-Trips (Origin and Destination Outside Michigan) 34 77 124.3%

Air Freight Forecast

Overall 0.266 0.462 73.4%

Intrastate (Michigan to Michigan) 0.002 0.003 85.2%

Outbound (Michigan to Other) 0.143 0.262 82.4%

Inbound (Other to Michigan) 0.121 0.197 62.5%

Michigan Freight Plan 41

HIGHWAY FREIGHT FORECAST
Overall truck freight movements are projected to increase 57.6 percent by 2040, from 308 million tons in 2014 to 486 million
tons in 2040. Intrastate truck freight movements are projected to increase less rapidly at 31.1 percent by 2040, from 111 million
tons in 2014 to 146 million tons by 2040. Outbound truck freight movements are projected to increase similarly at 31.2 percent
by 2040, from 90 million tons in 2014 to 108 million tons in 2040. Inbound truck freight movements are projected to increase
69.2 percent by 2040, from 85 million tons in 2014 to 144 million tons in 2040. Through-truck freight movements, those not
stopping in Michigan, are projected to increase 193.5 percent by 2040, from 30 million tons in 2014 to 89 million tons in 2040.

Table 7 - Michigan Truck Freight Movements (2014-2040): Overall (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2004-2040
Agriculture 1 39,705,258 43,336,613 48,351,087 25.1%
38,636,176
Primary Forest Materials 8 90,825 101,483 110,905 121,489 33.8%
Fresh Fish 9 22,807 26,781 33,108 40,166 76.1%
Metallic Ores 10 99,023 96,252 103,016 108,992 10.1%
Coal 11 73,115 78,661 74,257 74,914 2.5%
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 13 65,576 86,586 137,299 222,605 239.5%
Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 75,626,112 83,336,891 88,613,160 94,088,423 24.4%
Ordnance 19 161,847 185,066 224,122 265,927 64.3%
Food Products 20 32,081,922 34,384,224 40,773,594 48,874,635 52.3%
Tobacco Products 21 59,349 49,738 35,122 24,761 -58.3%
Textile Mill Products 22 492,359 548,866 588,259 686,180 39.4%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 257,396 269,786 282,987 335,896 30.5%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 9,965,062 11,575,978 12,452,559 13,101,642 31.5%
Furniture and Fixtures 25 1,959,998 2,641,395 3,983,855 6,227,912 217.8%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 7,072,591 7,857,353 9,695,232 12,193,646 72.4%
Printed Matter 27 1,449,826 1,264,980 1,362,028 1,533,469 5.8%
Chemical Products 28 13,549,733 17,858,211 23,829,540 31,608,194 133.3%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 11,051,643 10,182,000 10,165,233 10,444,328 -5.5%
Rubber and Plastics 30 6,714,161 8,549,120 10,708,228 13,232,671 97.1%
Leather Products 31 64,772 66,339 72,046 80,099 23.7%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 16,377,880 20,448,710 25,677,260 32,300,592 97.2%
Primary Metal Products 33 17,480,901 19,267,638 23,789,391 29,585,069 69.2%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 6,869,588 7,912,581 9,801,992 11,922,543 73.6%
Machinery 35 4,748,732 6,074,652 8,864,040 13,091,329 175.7%
Electrical Equipment 36 3,499,487 4,750,524 6,702,372 9,467,230 170.5%
Transportation Equipment 37 12,880,896 15,276,874 18,110,045 21,886,815 69.9%
Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 582,085 750,162 1,146,761 1,721,406 195.7%
Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 914,630 1,061,512 1,280,151 1,656,392 81.1%
Waste or Scrap Metal 40 16,616,625 18,826,419 22,171,389 25,475,506 53.3%
Misc. Freight Shipments 41 4,091 5,111 6,580 8,575 109.6%
Misc. Mixed Shipments 46 900,414 1,362,160 2,487,314 4,541,853 404.4%
Secondary Traffic 50 28,126,495 32,600,632 41,187,206 52,973,671 88.3%
TOTAL 308,496,117 347,201,943 407,805,664 486,248,017 57.6%

42 Michigan Department of Transportation

 Table 8 - Michigan Truck Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Michigan (Tons)
Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040

Agriculture 1 14,768,907 14,803,954 15,335,868 15,542,271 5.2%

Primary Forest Materials 8 3,514 4,419 4,724 4,701 33.8%

Fresh Fish 9 6 6 7 8 33.3%

Metallic Ores 10 2,000 2,872 4,007 5,049 152.5%

Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 49,925,581 55,333,569 58,934,948 62,421,495 25.0%

Ordnance 19 62,541 78,236 95,115 109,483 75.1%

Food Products 20 4,509,222 4,487,005 4,953,290 5,383,752 19.4%

Tobacco Products 21 208 278 283 231 11.1%

Textile Mill Products 22 21,580 21,336 14,596 10,709 -50.4%

Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 17,370 16,007 11,553 9,368 -46.1%

Lumber and Wood Products 24 4,369,461 4,936,564 5,256,715 5,286,822 21.0%

Furniture and Fixtures 25 116,314 146,614 167,977 175,711 51.1%

Paper and Pulp Products 26 720,829 746,096 841,809 946,920 31.4%

Printed Matter 27 163,847 134,367 141,124 152,768 -6.8%

Chemical Products 28 1,510,912 1,890,175 1,929,252 1,719,619 13.8%

Petroleum or Coal Products 29 3,085,037 2,296,097 2,379,353 2,571,397 -16.6%

Rubber and Plastics 30 531,839 661,871 722,558 751,266 41.3%

Leather Products 31 1,314 1,322 1,402 1,233 -6.2%

Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 5,994,841 7,282,492 8,799,377 10,406,475 73.6%

Primary Metal Products 33 2,778,150 2,803,401 3,021,857 3,041,716 9.5%

Fabricated Metal Products 34 1,316,135 1,478,303 1,723,742 1,934,906 47.0%

Machinery 35 349,966 409,492 490,108 582,351 66.4%

Electrical Equipment 36 291,722 403,513 524,148 654,532 124.4%

Transportation Equipment 37 1,713,893 2,004,303 2,130,007 2,321,827 35.5%

Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 77,924 95,946 133,855 169,461 117.5%

Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 162,316 179,102 182,283 191,754 18.1%

Waste or Scrap Metal 40 4,350,530 4,970,372 5,721,714 6,402,475 47.2%

Secondary Traffic 50 14,348,604 16,579,564 20,183,013 24,951,047 73.9%

TOTAL 111,194,563 121,767,276 133,704,685 145,749,347 31.1%

Michigan Freight Plan 43

 7 20-YEAR
FREIGHT
FORECAST
Table 9 - Michigan Truck Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Other (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040

Agriculture 1 10,288,465 10,261,008 10,407,354 10,665,499 3.7%

Primary Forest Materials 8 7,029 8,701 9,659 10,559 50.2%
Fresh Fish 9 89 105 136 179 101.1%
Metallic Ores 10 2,708 3,699 5,218 7,133 163.4%
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 13 28,055 34,423 46,735 63,629 126.8%

Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 16,425,424 15,624,194 14,611,789 14,634,589 -10.9%

Ordnance 19 79,559 83,530 86,142 84,484 6.2%

Food Products 20 12,890,411 12,846,765 14,290,965 15,967,547 23.9%
Tobacco Products 21 17 26 34 40 135.3%
Textile Mill Products 22 67,890 85,617 104,194 144,352 112.6%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 25,175 21,950 16,960 18,278 -27.4%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 2,428,629 2,762,545 2,727,985 2,601,590 7.1%
Furniture and Fixtures 25 670,929 810,186 960,445 1,066,150 58.9%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 2,433,708 2,599,341 3,090,013 3,705,950 52.3%
Printed Matter 27 596,226 475,393 499,918 542,059 -9.1%
Chemical Products 28 2,549,477 3,005,211 3,621,379 4,523,721 77.4%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 3,590,316 1,930,773 1,817,292 1,950,635 -45.7%
Rubber and Plastics 30 2,837,203 3,510,358 4,041,141 4,353,610 53.4%
Leather Products 31 3,626 3,727 4,445 5,210 43.7%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone
32 2,047,950 2,353,892 2,827,299 3,440,682 68.0%
Products
Primary Metal Products 33 4,883,287 5,223,400 6,303,130 7,621,847 56.1%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 2,590,374 2,790,556 3,308,965 3,741,585 44.4%
Machinery 35 1,872,222 2,215,039 2,900,469 3,658,045 95.4%
Electrical Equipment 36 867,070 1,150,023 1,512,633 1,921,774 121.6%
Transportation Equipment 37 4,090,705 4,684,610 5,205,242 5,836,239 42.7%
Technical Instruments and
38 216,937 272,499 395,377 521,279 140.3%
Equipment
Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 336,930 344,791 333,802 343,274 1.9%
Waste or Scrap Material 40 4,860,186 5,671,658 6,978,381 8,425,008 73.3%
Misc. Freight Shipments 41 930 1,237 1,767 2,592 178.7%
Secondary Traffic 50 5,298,071 5,880,169 7,914,315 11,744,867 121.7%

TOTAL 81,989,598 84,655,426 94,023,184 107,602,406 31.2%

44 Michigan Department of Transportation

Table 10 - Michigan Truck Freight Movements (2014-2040): Other to Michigan (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040
Agriculture 1 11,088,440 11,397,652 12,614,549 14,330,986 29.2%
Primary Forest Materials 8 61,844 67,424 71,077 75,225 21.6%
Fresh Fish 9 12,132 13,979 16,574 18,795 54.9%
Metallic Ores 10 77,348 71,264 72,155 70,996 -8.2%
Coal 11 39,345 41,490 32,314 27,588 -29.9%
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 13 2,611 3,155 4,094 5,312 103.4%
Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 8,451,402 11,420,517 13,918,097 15,639,727 85.1%
Ordnance 19 12,017 11,919 22,078 33,962 182.6%
Food Products 20 10,088,198 11,277,856 13,211,065 15,322,974 51.9%
Tobacco Products 21 55,971 45,714 31,303 21,058 -62.4%
Textile Mill Products 22 232,302 238,863 206,232 188,017 -19.1%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 162,103 162,716 145,732 131,218 -19.1%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 2,270,026 2,785,904 3,034,049 3,296,364 45.2%
Furniture and Fixtures 25 676,536 949,461 1,482,182 2,414,538 256.9%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 1,971,398 2,083,584 2,284,205 2,505,645 27.1%
Printed Matter 27 515,527 450,812 457,631 497,405 -3.5%
Chemical Products 28 5,378,269 7,358,562 9,174,096 10,276,890 91.1%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 3,390,047 4,763,183 4,487,677 3,952,973 16.6%
Rubber and Plastics 30 2,042,864 2,635,213 3,222,836 3,857,248 88.8%
Leather Products 31 41,173 37,827 32,032 23,613 -42.6%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 7,223,812 9,310,744 11,641,443 14,531,167 101.2%
Primary Metal Products 33 6,147,696 6,637,060 7,893,618 9,380,048 52.6%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 2,154,927 2,598,566 3,210,049 3,893,358 80.7%
Machinery 35 1,089,357 1,466,114 2,159,082 3,232,072 196.7%
Electrical Equipment 36 1,668,083 2,269,982 3,119,260 4,276,907 156.4%
Transportation Equipment 37 4,282,330 5,241,569 6,376,858 7,764,435 81.3%
Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 213,213 266,556 384,585 554,055 159.9%
Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 264,248 324,649 403,558 507,880 92.2%
Waste or Scrap Material 40 6,555,008 7,189,207 8,237,071 9,091,525 38.7%
Misc. Freight Shipments 41 953 1,228 1,494 1,818 90.8%
Misc. Mixed Shipments 46 310,688 470,013 858,248 1,567,166 404.4%
Secondary Traffic 50 8,420,730 10,070,534 12,997,799 16,157,106 91.9%

Total 84,900,598 101,663,317 121,803,043 143,648,071 69.2%

Michigan Freight Plan 45

 7 20-YEAR
FREIGHT
FORECAST
Table 11 - Michigan Truck Freight Movements (2014-2040): Through-Trips (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040

Agriculture 1 2,490,363 3,242,645 4,978,842 7,812,332 213.7%

Primary Forest Materials 8 18,438 20,940 25,445 31,004 68.2%
Fresh Fish 9 10,581 12,691 16,391 21,185 100.2%
Metallic Ores 10 16,967 18,415 21,636 25,815 52.1%
Coal 11 33,770 37,171 41,943 47,327 40.1%
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 13 34,911 49,008 86,470 153,664 340.2%
Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 823,706 958,611 1,148,325 1,392,612 69.1%
Ordnance 19 7,730 11,381 20,787 37,998 391.6%
Food Products 20 4,594,091 5,772,597 8,318,273 12,200,362 165.6%
Tobacco Products 21 3,153 3,721 3,501 3,433 8.9%
Textile Mill Products 22 170,587 203,050 263,237 343,102 101.1%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 52,748 69,113 108,741 177,032 235.6%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 896,947 1,090,965 1,433,810 1,916,867 113.7%
Furniture and Fixtures 25 496,216 735,134 1,373,252 2,571,513 418.2%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 1,946,656 2,428,331 3,479,206 5,035,132 158.7%
Printed Matter 27 174,225 204,409 263,354 341,237 95.9%
Chemical Products 28 4,111,075 5,604,263 9,104,813 15,087,965 267.0%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 986,244 1,191,946 1,480,912 1,969,323 99.7%
Rubber and Plastics 30 1,302,254 1,741,678 2,721,693 4,270,547 227.9%
Leather Products 31 18,659 23,463 34,167 50,043 168.2%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 1,111,277 1,501,582 2,409,141 3,922,269 253.0%
Primary Metal Products 33 3,671,768 4,603,777 6,567,786 9,541,458 159.9%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 808,152 1,045,156 1,559,237 2,352,693 191.1%
Machinery 35 1,437,186 1,984,007 3,314,382 5,618,861 291.0%
Electrical Equipment 36 672,611 927,007 1,546,331 2,614,019 288.6%
Transportation Equipment 37 2,793,968 3,346,393 4,400,939 5,964,314 113.5%
Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 74,011 115,160 232,943 476,612 544.0%
Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 151,136 212,970 360,508 613,484 305.9%
Waste or Scrap Material 40 850,902 995,181 1,234,222 1,556,498 82.9%
Misc. Freight Shipments 41 2,207 2,647 3,319 4,165 88.7%
Misc. Mixed Shipments 46 589,726 892,147 1,629,067 2,974,687 404.4%
Secondary Traffic 50 59,089 70,365 92,079 120,641 104.2%

TOTAL 30,411,354 39,115,924 58,274,752 89,248,194 193.5%

46 Michigan Department of Transportation

WATERBORNE FREIGHT FORECAST
Overall waterborne freight movements are projected to increase by 6.8 percent by 2040, from 65 million tons in 2014 to 69 million
tons in 2040. Intrastate waterborne freight movements, those moving from one Michigan port to another, are projected to decrease
by 11 percent by 2040, from 10 million tons in 2014 to 9 million tons by 2040. Outbound waterborne freight movements are
projected to increase 30.4 percent by 2040, from 31 million tons in 2014 to 40 million tons in 2040. Inbound waterborne freight
movements are projected to decrease 16.1 percent by 2040, from 24 million tons in 2014 to 20 million tons in 2040.

Table 12 - Michigan Marine Freight Movements (2014-2040): Overall (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040

Agriculture 1 12,545 15,849 22,805 32,818 161.6%

Fresh Fish 9 161 193 259 346 114.9%
Metallic Ores 10 15,627,829 11,755,093 11,924,766 12,576,193 -19.5%
Coal 11 15,558,811 11,505,214 9,383,649 8,005,005 -48.6%
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 13 1,199,655 1,716,239 3,118,951 5,668,397 372.5%
Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 21,453,942 22,954,373 24,478,251 26,104,852 21.7%
Food Products 20 505 705 1,214 2,157 327.1%
Textile Mill Products 22 27 32 40 50 85.2%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 5 7 8 10 100.0%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 1,525 2,422 2,684 3,400 123.0%
Furniture and Fixtures 25 36 54 102 196 444.4%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 1,252 1,656 2,593 4,064 224.6%
Printed Matter 27 12 14 17 21 75.0%
Chemical Products 28 380,632 425,065 515,350 620,147 62.9%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 5,480,806 5,603,576 5,624,776 5,696,536 3.9%
Rubber and Plastics 30 167 224 352 554 231.7%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 3,848,991 4,773,532 6,436,322 8,929,483 132.0%
Primary Metal Products 33 831,814 805,992 855,793 927,232 11.5%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 39,265 43,358 53,182 70,031 78.4%
Machinery 35 2,052 2,736 4,429 7,202 251.0%
Electrical Equipment 36 398 497 604 779 95.7%
Transportation Equipment 37 4,819 5,949 7,776 10,599 119.9%
Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 21 34 72 151 619.0%
Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 43 60 109 188 337.2%
Waste or Scrap Material 40 69,306 86,351 120,880 170,205 145.6%
Mail 43 10,611 11,595 13,049 14,599 37.6%
Misc. Mixed Shipments 46 27,380 34,634 47,228 71,399 160.8%

TOTAL 64,552,610 59,745,454 62,615,261 68,916,614 6.8%

Michigan Freight Plan 47

 7 20-YEAR
FREIGHT
FORECAST
Table 13 - Michigan Marine Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Michigan (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040

Metallic Ores 10 3,121,942 2,057,454 1,761,298 1,544,259 -50.5%

Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 13 428 488 526 572 33.6%

Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 5,859,925 6,394,688 6,365,948 6,070,834 3.6%

Lumber and Wood Products 24 271 392 300 240 -11.4%

Chemical Products 28 30,602 25,921 25,588 23,498 -23.2%

Petroleum or Coal Products 29 191,989 204,669 181,274 151,555 -21.1%

Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 622,852 736,713 850,220 945,422 51.8%

Primary Metal Products 33 56,481 48,984 44,877 38,572 -31.7%

Fabricated Metal Products 34 6,072 7,548 9,905 12,916 112.7%

Machinery 35 271 320 458 608 124.4%

Transportation Equipment 37 205 295 402 656 220.0%

Mail 43 4,939 5,396 6,073 6,794 37.6%

Misc. Mixed Shipments 46 12,356 13,711 14,742 17,735 43.5%

Transportation Equipment 37 293 421 327 300 299

Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 7 9 11 15 20

Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 10,751 13,712 15,672 17,699 19,985

Waste or Scrap Material 40 4,919 6,971 7,404 7,851 8,355

Misc. Freight Shipments 41 13,134 15,297 16,621 18,378 20,724

TOTAL 9,908,332 9,496,580 9,261,611 8,813,661 -11.0%

48 Michigan Department of Transportation

Table 14 - Michigan Marine Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Other (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040

Agriculture 1 12,545 15,849 22,805 32,818 161.6%

Fresh Fish 9 161 193 259 346 114.9%

Metallic Ores 10 8,630,250 6,508,599 6,993,279 7,713,558 -10.6%

Coal 11 700,373 760,228 852,424 960,396 37.1%

Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 13 1,199,226 1,715,751 3,118,426 5,667,825 372.6%

Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 13,068,271 14,087,576 22.7%

12,562,782 15,410,889
Food Products 20 505 705 1,214 2,157 327.1%

Textile Mill Products 22 27 32 40 50 85.2%

Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 5 7 8 10 100.0%

Lumber and Wood Products 24 254 362 659 1,208 375.6%

Furniture and Fixtures 25 35 52 98 188 437.1%

Paper and Pulp Products 26 1,252 1,656 2,593 4,064 224.6%

Chemical Products 28 308,023 353,234 438,954 540,516 75.5%

Petroleum or Coal Products 29 4,685,116 4,767,505 4,819,099 4,915,676 4.9%

Rubber and Plastics 30 167 224 352 554 231.7%

Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 2,407,738 2,838,495 3,526,128 4,458,246 85.2%

Primary Metal Products 33 49,085 35,474 32,413 30,975 -36.9%

Fabricated Metal Products 34 4,371 6,058 11,284 22,180 407.4%

Machinery 35 1,762 2,389 3,926 6,517 269.9%

Electrical Equipment 36 398 498 604 779 95.7%

Transportation Equipment 37 4,206 5,117 6,671 9,003 114.1%

Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 21 34 72 151 619.0%

Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 41 58 104 181 341.5%

Waste or Scrap Material 40 69,306 86,351 120,880 170,205 145.6%

Mail 43 2,972 3,247 3,654 4,089 37.6%

Misc. Mixed Shipments 46 2,988 3,341 3,316 3,481 16.5%

TOTAL 30,643,609 30,173,730 34,046,838 39,956,062 30.4%

Michigan Freight Plan 49

 7 20-YEAR
FREIGHT
FORECAST
Table 15 - Michigan Marine Freight Movements (2014-2040): Other to Michigan (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040

Metallic Ores 10 3,875,637 3,189,041 3,170,189 3,318,375 -14.4%

Coal 11 14,858,437 10,744,986 8,531,225 7,044,609 -52.6%

Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 3,031,235 3,491,414 4,024,727 4,623,130 52.5%

Lumber and Wood Products 24 1,000 1,668 1,724 1,951 95.1%

Furniture and Fixtures 25 1 2 4 8 700.0%

Printed Matter 27 12 14 17 21 75.0%

Chemical Products 28 42,008 45,910 50,808 56,133 33.6%

Petroleum or Coal Products 29 603,702 631,402 624,403 629,306 4.2%

Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 818,401 1,198,325 2,059,974 3,525,815 330.8%

Primary Metal Products 33 726,248 721,534 778,503 857,685 18.1%

Fabricated Metal Products 34 28,822 29,752 31,992 34,935 21.2%

Machinery 35 19 27 45 76 300.0%

Transportation Equipment 37 408 538 704 939 130.1%

Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 1 2 4 7 600.0%

Mail 43 2,701 2,951 3,321 3,716 37.6%

Misc. Mixed Shipments 46 12,037 17,582 29,170 50,182 316.9%

Waste or Scrap Material 40 70,628 98,474 103,695 108,935 114,682

Misc. Freight Shipments 41 10,079 11,873 13,410 15,555 18,442

TOTAL 24,000,669 20,075,148 19,306,810 20,146,888 -16.1%

50 Michigan Department of Transportation

RAIL FREIGHT FORECAST
Overall rail freight movements are projected to increase 49.8 percent by 2040, from 101 million tons in 2014 to 148 million tons
in 2040. Intrastate rail freight movements are projected to increase 4.8 percent by 2040, from 5 million tons in 2014 to 6 million
tons by 2040. Outbound rail freight movements are projected to increase 28.2 percent by 2040, from 21 million tons in 2014
to 28 million tons in 2040. Inbound rail freight movements are projected to decrease 5.6 percent by 2040, from 33 million tons
in 2014 to 31 million tons in 2040. Through-rail freight movements, those not stopping in Michigan, are projected to increase
124.3 percent by 2040, from 34 million tons in 2014 to 77 million tons in 2040.

Table 16 - Michigan Rail Freight Movements (2014-2040): Overall (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040
Agriculture 1 4,197,873 4,187,396 4,498,672 4,855,203 15.7%
Fresh Fish 9 2,240 2,642 3,425 4,448 98.6%
Metallic Ores 10 12,346,754 11,200,597 12,315,742 14,759,366 33.9%
Coal 11 18,502,848 13,832,755 12,354,647 10,791,903 -41.7%
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 13 4,451,053 5,840,932 8,620,693 13,351,446 200.0%
Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 4,251,080 5,045,688 5,881,360 6,662,551 56.7%
Ordnance 19 880 1,283 2,377 4,406 400.7%
Food Products 20 3,348,112 3,779,148 4,753,545 6,183,214 84.7%
Tobacco Products 21 240 222 183 151 -37.1%
Textile Mill Products 22 7,120 8,428 10,873 14,056 97.4%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 9,680 9,926 11,177 16,163 67.0%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 3,798,992 4,421,548 5,230,118 6,252,551 64.6%
Furniture and Fixtures 25 19,160 27,597 48,824 88,179 360.2%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 3,743,440 4,147,160 4,763,705 5,579,663 49.1%
Printed Matter 27 8,280 9,777 12,637 16,334 97.3%
Chemical Products 28 14,151,414 17,338,042 23,033,564 31,304,101 121.2%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 5,130,493 5,480,452 5,837,342 6,616,647 29.0%
Rubber and Plastics 30 79,240 108,071 172,815 277,604 250.3%
Leather Products 31 1,120 1,361 1,829 2,457 119.4%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 3,333,708 4,032,730 5,013,197 6,345,304 90.3%
Primary Metal Products 33 6,409,596 6,887,236 8,197,927 9,601,360 49.8%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 26,720 34,390 50,824 77,087 188.5%
Machinery 35 89,316 114,856 178,320 287,908 222.3%
Electrical Equipment 36 75,120 100,363 158,879 254,852 239.3%
Transportation Equipment 37 8,831,963 10,578,972 11,669,773 12,358,938 39.9%
Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 2,880 4,613 9,733 20,537 613.1%
Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 16,680 23,420 39,695 68,279 309.3%
Waste or Scrap Material 40 2,813,548 2,872,359 3,185,161 3,487,514 24.0%
Misc. Freight Shipments 41 194,200 161,301 121,215 101,270 -47.9%
Empty Trucks 42 16,240 19,970 27,655 39,719 144.6%
Freight Forwarder Traffic 44 2,640 3,282 4,633 6,766 156.3%
Misc. Mixed Shipments 46 4,677,640 5,137,286 6,315,849 7,965,676 70.3%
Hazardous Waste 48 405,240 504,443 635,802 793,894 95.9%

TOTAL 100,945,510 105,918,246 123,162,191 148,179,547 49.8%

Michigan Freight Plan 51

 7 20-YEAR
FREIGHT
FORECAST
Table 17 - Michigan Rail Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Michigan (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040
Metallic Ores 10 10,301,991 8,851,029 9,363,215 10,998,759 8.6%
Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 645,104 716,830 703,789 727,429 12.8%
Food Products 20 3,168 3,911 5,381 6,390 101.7%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 318,640 311,368 283,722 249,413 -21.7%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 41,720 47,009 50,458 52,991 27.0%
Chemical Products 28 55,800 59,847 65,730 67,761 21.4%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 10,000 10,567 9,910 8,948 -10.5%
Primary Metal Products 33 47,440 43,994 52,166 59,132 24.6%
Transportation Equipment 37 320,240 325,644 247,070 186,438 -41.8%
Waste or Scrap Material 40 15,320 14,417 15,352 15,602 1.8%
Waste or Scrap Material 40 4,080 6,008 6,616 7,258 8,003
Misc. Freight Shipments 41 5,080 6,238 7,172 7,861 8,491
Shipping Containers 42 504 573 596 598 603

TOTAL 5,498,956 5,065,609 5,169,989 5,763,183 4.8%

52 Michigan Department of Transportation

Table 18 - Michigan Rail Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Other (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040
Agriculture 1 3,494,583 3,381,767 3,456,068 3,465,762 -0.8%
Metallic Ores 10 1,613,609 1,950,447 2,511,415 3,235,924 100.5%

Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 13 18,512 22,204 23,698 23,969 29.5%

Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 1,779,088 2,143,032 2,463,524 2,711,426 52.4%

Food Products 20 493,256 515,122 609,184 738,298 49.7%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 2,920 2,117 1,059 689 -76.4%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 604,400 609,104 554,034 496,985 -17.8%
Furniture and Fixtures 25 3,280 3,990 4,217 3,871 18.0%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 1,289,800 1,382,116 1,444,667 1,507,071 16.8%
Chemical Products 28 1,268,952 1,343,690 1,581,075 1,832,046 44.4%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 460,780 475,407 461,291 436,714 -5.2%
Rubber and Plastics 30 7,200 9,520 15,124 24,626 242.0%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone
32 465,660 548,069 633,961 694,242 49.1%
Products
Primary Metal Products 33 1,499,812 1,474,178 1,662,372 1,664,529 11.0%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 4,400 4,944 6,020 7,180 63.2%
Machinery 35 20,400 20,164 20,717 21,358 4.7%
Electrical Equipment 36 20,000 26,853 43,418 70,535 252.7%
Transportation Equipment 37 5,444,119 6,584,624 7,203,576 7,227,308 32.8%
Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 680 792 971 1,317 93.7%
Waste or Scrap Material 40 1,727,368 1,654,740 1,773,912 1,831,311 6.0%
Misc. Freight Shipments 41 113,160 93,985 70,607 58,969 -47.9%
Shipping Containers 42 2,560 3,164 4,511 6,678 160.9%
Misc. Mixed Shipments 46 1,392,640 1,346,000 1,518,361 1,779,052 27.7%
Hazardous Waste 48 2,880 4,811 5,960 7,331 154.5%

TOTAL 21,730,059 23,600,840 26,069,742 27,847,191 28.2%

Michigan Freight Plan 53

 7 20-YEAR
FREIGHT
FORECAST
Table 19 - Michigan Rail Freight Movements (2014-2040): Other to Michigan (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040
Agriculture 1 88,965 88,855 92,906 93,076 4.6%
Metallic Ores 10 371,070 326,297 347,226 403,644 8.8%
Coal 11 18,502,848 13,832,755 12,354,647 10,791,903 -41.7%

Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 13 3,160 5,278 9,189 15,864 402.0%

Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 469,136 642,088 835,941 1,002,249 113.6%

Food Products 20 629,140 649,169 696,931 734,227 16.7%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 2,760 2,541 1,754 1,619 -41.3%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 1,181,432 1,455,638 1,769,894 2,110,898 78.7%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 676,040 753,618 890,451 1,039,082 53.7%
Chemical Products 28 2,182,984 2,669,633 3,098,083 3,413,866 56.4%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 1,566,193 1,482,354 1,183,397 1,098,185 -29.9%
Rubber and Plastics 30 1,240 1,735 2,818 4,576 269.0%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone
32 928,728 1,129,143 1,304,356 1,494,827 61.0%
Products
Primary Metal Products 33 2,121,348 2,075,268 2,181,308 2,183,109 2.9%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 5,440 7,919 13,787 24,265 346.0%
Machinery 35 10,480 12,450 15,381 18,814 79.5%
Electrical Equipment 36 5,200 5,928 6,216 6,272 20.6%
Transportation Equipment 37 1,553,308 1,858,989 1,943,316 2,077,661 33.8%
Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 720 760 688 654 -9.2%
Waste or Scrap Material 40 196,752 210,086 234,761 255,389 29.8%
Misc. Freight Shipments 41 81,040 67,316 50,608 42,301 -47.8%
Shipping Containers 42 2,040 2,354 2,836 3,518 72.5%
Misc. Mixed Shipments 46 2,437,480 2,739,876 3,325,579 4,054,995 66.4%
Hazardous Waste 48 260,800 324,994 391,252 449,768 72.5%

TOTAL 32,974,851 30,118,184 30,550,707 31,143,775 -5.6%

54 Michigan Department of Transportation

Table 20 - Michigan Rail Freight Movements (2014-2040): Through (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040
Agriculture 1 614,325 716,774 949,698 1,296,365 111.0%
Fresh Fish 9 2,240 2,642 3,425 4,448 98.6%
Metallic Ores 10 60,084 72,824 93,886 121,040 101.5%
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 13 4,429,381 5,813,449 8,587,806 13,311,613 200.5%
Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 1,357,752 1,543,737 1,878,107 2,221,446 63.6%
Ordnance 19 880 1,283 2,377 4,406 400.7%
Food Products 20 2,222,548 2,610,946 3,442,049 4,704,299 111.7%
Tobacco Products 21 240 222 183 151 -37.1%
Textile Mill Products 22 7,120 8,428 10,873 14,056 97.4%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 4,000 5,268 8,363 13,855 246.4%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 1,694,520 2,045,438 2,622,467 3,395,255 100.4%
Furniture and Fixtures 25 15,880 23,606 44,607 84,308 430.9%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 1,735,880 1,964,417 2,378,130 2,980,518 71.7%
Printed Matter 27 8,280 9,777 12,637 16,334 97.3%
Chemical Products 28 10,643,678 13,264,872 18,288,676 25,990,427 144.2%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 3,093,520 3,512,124 4,182,743 5,072,800 64.0%
Rubber and Plastics 30 70,800 96,816 154,873 248,402 250.9%
Leather Products 31 1,120 1,361 1,829 2,457 119.4%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 1,939,320 2,355,518 3,074,880 4,156,234 114.3%
Primary Metal Products 33 2,740,996 3,293,796 4,302,080 5,694,590 107.8%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 16,880 21,527 31,017 45,642 170.4%
Machinery 35 58,436 82,241 142,222 247,735 323.9%
Electrical Equipment 36 49,920 67,583 109,246 178,045 256.7%
Transportation Equipment 37 1,514,296 1,809,715 2,275,812 2,867,531 89.4%
Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 2,880 4,613 9,733 20,536 613.1%
Misc. Manufacturing Products 39 15,280 21,868 38,035 66,308 334.0%
Waste or Scrap Material 40 874,108 993,115 1,161,136 1,385,213 58.5%
Shipping Containers 42 11,640 14,453 20,309 29,523 153.6%
Freight Forwarder Traffic 44 2,640 3,282 4,633 6,766 156.3%
Misc. Mixed Shipments 46 847,520 1,051,410 1,471,908 2,131,629 151.5%
Hazardous Waste 48 141,560 174,638 238,590 336,796 137.9%

TOTAL 34,177,724 41,587,743 55,542,330 76,648,728 124.3%

Michigan Freight Plan 55

AIR FREIGHT FORECAST
Overall air freight movements are projected to increase by 73.4 percent by 2040, from 266,255 tons in 2014 to 461,630 tons
in 2040. Intrastate air freight movements are projected to increase by 85.2 percent by 2040, from 1,599 tons in 2014 to 2,961
tons by 2040. Outbound air freight movements are projected to increase 82.4 percent by 2040, from 143,476 tons in 2014 to
261,705 tons in 2040. Inbound air freight movements are projected to increase 62.5 percent by 2040, from 121,180 tons in
2014 to 196,964 tons in 2040.

Table 21 - Michigan Air Freight Movements (2014-2040): Overall (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040
Agriculture 1 2,456 2,701 3,196 4,079 66.1%
Primary Forest Materials 8 12 14 17 21 76.5%
Fresh Fish 9 781 533 375 445 -43.1%
Metallic Ores 10 40 46 52 59 48.9%
Coal 11 32 25 22 20 -36.6%
Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 332 385 480 596 79.5%
Ordnance 19 12 18 34 63 418.1%
Food Products 20 5,784 6,562 8,522 11,193 93.5%
Tobacco Products 21 12 12 10 7 -37.4%
Textile Mill Products 22 9,698 10,568 9,499 9,248 -4.6%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 320 452 863 1,640 413.0%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 518 672 952 1,367 163.8%
Furniture and Fixtures 25 5,098 7,343 13,433 25,110 392.5%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 2,231 2,850 4,522 7,303 227.3%
Printed Matter 27 5,004 5,003 5,669 6,435 28.6%
Chemical Products 28 16,090 19,703 27,522 39,623 146.3%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 1,778 1,851 2,076 2,469 38.8%
Rubber and Plastics 30 5,665 7,047 8,883 11,478 102.6%
Leather Products 31 70 76 107 149 113.8%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 2,936 3,716 5,403 8,056 174.4%
Primary Metal Products 33 5,362 6,734 10,059 15,377 186.8%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 6,717 8,138 10,987 14,767 119.8%
Machinery 35 20,898 27,417 40,434 59,871 186.5%
Electrical Equipment 36 20,974 27,065 36,366 48,161 129.6%
Transportation Equipment 37 26,785 31,522 37,097 42,785 59.7%
Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 11,058 13,524 18,681 23,789 115.1%
Misc Manufactoring Products 39 6,139 7,191 8,239 9,785 59.4%
Waste or Scrap Metal 40 77 100 144 209 171.0%
Misc Freight Shipments 41 120 123 127 141 18.2%
Mail 43 6,562 7,170 8,069 9,027 37.6%
Misc Mixed Shipments 46 3,185 2,097 2,603 3,707 16.4%
Small Packaged Freight 47 99,509 89,413 91,381 104,650 5.2%

TOTAL 266,255 290,067 355,823 461,630 73.4%

56 Michigan Department of Transportation

Table 22 - Michigan Air Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Michigan (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040
Agriculture 1 35 33 30 30 -14.2%
Primary Forest Materials 8 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Fresh Fish 9 4 4 6 7 67.4%
Metallic Ores 10 0 0 0 0 -34.3%
Coal 11 1 1 1 0 -53.8%
Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 4 5 5 5 25.6%
Ordnance 19 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Food Products 20 42 41 50 56 32.8%
Tobacco Products 21 0 0 0 0 -57.5%
Textile Mill Products 22 29 26 20 17 -41.7%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 4 4 4 4 -1.5%
Furniture and Fixtures 25 11 13 16 17 57.4%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 8 8 8 8 -3.0%
Printed Matter 27 18 17 19 21 17.2%
Chemical Products 28 75 95 112 129 73.2%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 5 4 5 6 5.6%
Rubber and Plastics 30 41 51 58 64 57.9%
Leather Products 31 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 13 16 21 26 107.8%
Primary Metal Products 33 27 30 40 50 86.1%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 69 83 99 112 62.4%
Machinery 35 177 230 316 421 137.1%
Electrical Equipment 36 117 189 288 402 242.6%
Transportation Equipment 37 52 62 67 77 49.7%
Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 52 69 102 139 166.2%
Misc Manufactoring Products 39 15 19 24 30 100.9%
Waste or Scrap Metal 40 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Misc Freight Shipments 41 2 3 3 4 70.4%
Mail 43 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Misc Mixed Shipments 46 1 1 1 2 102.8%
Small Packaged Freight 47 796 832 1,019 1,332 67.4%

TOTAL 1,599 1,839 2,315 2,961 85.2%

Michigan Freight Plan 57

 Table 23 - Michigan Air Freight Movements (2014-2040): Michigan to Other (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040
Agriculture 1 1,286 1,474 1,930 2,711 110.8%
Primary Forest Materials 8 12 14 17 21 76.9%
Fresh Fish 9 70 81 103 130 85.3%
Metallic Ores 10 27 36 43 51 85.0%
Coal 11 6 3 2 1 -77.9%
Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 259 303 388 496 91.9%
Ordnance 19 12 17 33 61 420.7%
Food Products 20 4,204 4,948 6,660 9,099 116.4%
Tobacco Products 21 4 4 4 3 -21.7%
Textile Mill Products 22 5,559 6,358 5,226 4,399 -20.9%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 286 427 822 1,602 459.7%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 414 540 800 1,199 189.9%
Furniture and Fixtures 25 4,624 6,765 12,773 24,353 426.6%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 1,711 2,324 3,858 6,443 276.5%
Printed Matter 27 2,138 2,412 3,007 3,590 67.9%
Chemical Products 28 9,733 12,308 18,339 28,473 192.5%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 1,714 1,804 2,022 2,412 40.7%
Rubber and Plastics 30 2,510 3,214 4,622 6,823 171.9%
Leather Products 31 51 65 96 143 178.1%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 2,152 2,787 4,322 6,823 217.1%
Primary Metal Products 33 4,093 5,344 8,410 13,450 228.7%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 4,134 5,112 7,406 10,793 161.1%
Machinery 35 13,428 17,234 26,653 42,318 215.1%
Electrical Equipment 36 8,970 12,154 16,716 22,768 153.8%
Transportation Equipment 37 20,160 23,809 28,088 32,133 59.4%
Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 4,650 5,914 8,687 11,449 146.2%
Misc Manufactoring Products 39 1,646 1,665 1,652 1,820 10.6%
Waste or Scrap Metal 40 77 99 144 209 171.3%
Misc Freight Shipments 41 40 31 23 23 -43.4%
Mail 43 2,691 2,940 3,309 3,702 37.6%
Misc Mixed Shipments 46 1,585 606 734 1,458 -8.0%
Small Packaged Freight 47 45,230 27,881 20,431 22,748 -49.7%

TOTAL 143,476 148,675 187,320 261,705 82.4%

58 Michigan Department of Transportation

Table 24 - Michigan Air Freight Movements (2014-2040): Other to Michigan (Tons)

Growth %
Commodity STCC 2014 2020 2030 2040
2014-2040
Agriculture 1 1,134 1,195 1,236 1,338 17.9%
Primary Forest Materials 8 0 0 0 0 24.0%
Fresh Fish 9 708 447 267 308 -56.4%
Metallic Ores 10 12 10 9 8 -32.7%
Coal 11 25 21 19 18 -25.4%
Nonmetallic Ores and Minerals 14 69 77 87 95 36.4%
Ordnance 19 0 0 1 2 341.3%
Food Products 20 1,538 1,573 1,812 2,038 32.5%
Tobacco Products 21 8 7 5 4 -45.0%
Textile Mill Products 22 4,109 4,184 4,254 4,831 17.6%
Apparel or Finished Textiles 23 33 25 41 38 14.1%
Lumber and Wood Products 24 101 127 149 165 62.9%
Furniture and Fixtures 25 463 564 644 740 59.8%
Paper and Pulp Products 26 512 517 655 852 66.6%
Printed Matter 27 2,849 2,573 2,642 2,824 -0.8%
Chemical Products 28 6,282 7,300 9,071 11,021 75.4%
Petroleum or Coal Products 29 59 43 49 51 -13.2%
Rubber and Plastics 30 3,115 3,782 4,202 4,590 47.4%
Leather Products 31 18 11 10 6 -68.0%
Clay, Cement, Glass or Stone Products 32 771 913 1,060 1,207 56.4%
Primary Metal Products 33 1,243 1,360 1,609 1,877 51.0%
Fabricated Metal Products 34 2,514 2,943 3,482 3,862 53.6%
Machinery 35 7,292 9,953 13,465 17,132 134.9%
Electrical Equipment 36 11,887 14,721 19,362 24,991 110.2%
Transportation Equipment 37 6,573 7,651 8,942 10,575 60.9%
Technical Instruments and Equipment 38 6,356 7,541 9,893 12,201 92.0%
Misc Manufactoring Products 39 4,478 5,507 6,563 7,935 77.2%
Waste or Scrap Metal 40 0 0 0 0 21.7%
Misc Freight Shipments 41 77 89 101 114 49.0%
Mail 43 3,871 4,229 4,760 5,325 37.6%
Misc Mixed Shipments 46 1,600 1,489 1,867 2,247 40.5%
Small Packaged Freight 47 53,483 60,700 69,930 80,570 50.6%

TOTAL 121,180 139,554 166,189 196,964 62.5%

Michigan Freight Plan 59

 8 OVERVIEW OF
TRENDS, ISSUES
AND STRATEGIES

A
s specified in Section 70202 of the FAST Act, a state
freight plan must identify significant freight system • Connected and automated vehicles (CAV) and
trends, needs, and issues in the state. MDOT other emerging technologies, including truck
included an extensive multi-modal discussion of freight- platooning, will continue to advance rapidly.
related trends, issues, and strategies, including the use • The private sector will continue to control the
of ITS to improve safety and efficiency, in the Michigan movement of freight using both privately and
Freight Profile White Paper. A recap is included in the publicly owned infrastructure.
following section. • Trucks will continue to move more freight than
any other mode.
FREIGHT TRENDS • Highway congestion will continue in the future.
Truck freight will continue to experience
The trends reported in the updated Michigan Freight Profile
predictable and unpredictable delays.
White Paper include a significant increase in both the value
and tonnage of freight moved throughout Michigan. The mix • Productivity gains are expected to be realized
through the use of more efficient truck
of commodities moving by each mode has stayed relatively
configurations.
the same, with manufacturing production the major driver
of Michigan freight totals. The auto industry continues to • Rail intermodal traffic will continue to grow in
major traffic corridors.
play a crucial role in the overall totals of freight movements
in the state. The value of all freight movements in Michigan • Consistent with a national trend, Michigan’s
in 2014 was nearly $862 billion, approximately a 65 percent rail infrastructure is increasingly owned and
operated by short-line, regional, and switching/
increase from 2009, a recession year that experienced fewer
terminal railroads.
movements of transportation equipment.
• If/when mergers occur between eastern and
Overall, freight movement throughout the state is recovering western U.S. railroads, additional Michigan
and projections indicate that Michigan remains on track intermodal traffic will be shifted to rail.
to benefit from increased economic activity in the years to • Michigan’s ports will continue to handle
come. Looking at national and regional economic forecasts predominantly bulk cargoes.
and using past trends, MDOT can better prepare itself for
• Logistics patterns, particularly for retail goods,
future freight concerns. are expected to change as a result of expanded
e-commerce, truck driver shortages, and
potentially fluctuating fuel costs.
• Increased consumer demand for online
shopping and overnight delivery of purchases
will increase air cargo volumes.

60 Michigan Department of Transportation

TRENDS IN CONNECTED AND
AUTOMATED VEHICLES AND
EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
MDOT continues its tradition of being a cutting-edge
state transportation department and a leader among
transportation agencies around the country. The 2040 MITP
goals of promoting safety and security, and operating an
efficient and effective transportation system are some of the
driving influence behind MDOT’s leadership in connected
and automated vehicle (CAV) technology. This emerging
technology is advancing rapidly, and is being embraced to
improve safety and capacity of the existing transportation
system.

The following section summarizes a few of the

advancements MDOT is incorporating to foster the
integration of new transportation technology in Michigan.
The department is preparing for the paradigm-shifting
technologies of CAV that have the potential to provide
more effective movement of goods throughout the state.
Additionally, several other emerging technologies are being
monitored, such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS),
Internet of things, e-commerce and 3-D printing.

Connected and Automated Vehicles

CAV technology is already being incorporated into many
new vehicles through safety systems that warn the driver
to stay in their lane, or even stop the vehicle, if the driver
is distracted before an incident occurs. These systems
exemplify the early stages of CAV technology increasingly
demanded by consumers. MDOT must be ready for the
changes these technologies will bring to the use and
maintenance of the road network, whether mandated by the
government or demanded by consumers.

The technology currently exists, or will exist soon, to allow

CAVs to become a part of the public vehicle fleet. As a state
transportation agency, MDOT is planning and preparing for
the changes required to support and take advantage of CAV
technology.

What’s the Difference?

Connected vehicles and automated vehicles are two
different technologies that are both developing and will have
fundamental impacts on transportation. A connected vehicle
is a car or truck that is equipped with dedicated short-range
communication devices, primarily a two-way radio frequency
reserved by the federal government for transportation safety
purposes. This allows the car to either communicate with
other vehicles on the roadway or with roadway infrastructure,

Michigan Freight Plan 61

62 Michigan Department of Transportation
such as traffic lights. This communication is often referred to at access points; this data is then used to gauge the number
as vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) or vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), of parking spots available based on an “in-out” analysis.
and is already being incorporated into new vehicles and TSPS then communicates that information to MDOT for
roadway infrastructure. MDOT is focused primarily on V2I rebroadcast through ATMS. MAASTO submitted and
testing and implementation, as this technology is dependent was awarded a TIGER grant in 2015 to expand TPIMS in
on infrastructure outfitted with sensors and communication Michigan and on corridors throughout the Midwest. The goal
devices. is to implement TPIMS on the busiest truck routes on as many
miles as funding will allow. Multiple routes were selected across
Examples of MDOT efforts in this field, which involve eight of the 10 MAASTO states. The intent is for the signs and
infrastructure communicating to the vehicle or operator, technology to have a consistent “look and feel” across states
include: so that commercial drivers can easily identify the information.
• Signal Phase and Timing The project was awarded $25 million in 2016.
• Truck Parking Availability
Implementation and Test Facilities
• International Border Delay through Planet M
Initiatives the department is using to improve operations Planet M represents the collective mobility efforts across
internally include: the state of Michigan around the technologies and services
• Pavement Condition Monitoring that enable the movement of people and goods. The
• Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS) entire state and the auto industry are transforming into
the global center for mobility. Working in partnership with
• Work Zone Management
automobile manufacturers and suppliers, universities, local
Automated vehicles, also known as autonomous vehicles, agencies and a number of others in the public and private
are cars or trucks that sense their surroundings with such sectors, MDOT has started to develop the infrastructure
techniques as radar, light detection and ranging technology, needed for a connected vehicle environment in southeast
global positioning systems (GPS), and computer vision. The Michigan. By 2020, more than 300 miles of freeway and
vehicle uses these technologies to identify its location in the the surrounding arterial network in Metro Detroit will be
environment, thereby determining an appropriate navigation outfitted with the communications equipment needed to
path and keeping itself on the road while avoiding obstacles. support V2I technology. The connected vehicle environment
This potentially can allow the passenger in the car to be is envisioned to encompass the four basic foundations of
just that, a passenger, and not an operator, although this any connected vehicle system: supporting infrastructure,
technology is still in its very beginning phases. equipped vehicles and/or motorists, data and applications,
and the communications network needed to support the
The Mid America Association of State Transportation Officials system. For information, please visit the Planet M website.
(MAASTO) Truck Parking Information Management System
(TPIMS) is an example of CAV implementation. To address Examples of test projects for freight include truck platooning.
the safety issues associated with driver fatigue and illegal The U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development
truck parking, MDOT developed the TPIMS. TPIMS currently and Engineering Center (TARDEC) and MDOT have
assesses truck parking availability along 130 miles of the partnered to test communications technology for Army
I-94 corridor in southwest Michigan, one of the busiest vehicles along I-69. This technology will increase safety,
truck corridors in the state. TPIMS identifies available truck efficiency and the looming shortage of truck drivers. This
parking and shares that information with commercial vehicle also has the potential to increase capacity of the freeways
drivers in real time. The TPIMS segment of the I-94 corridor and reduce fuel consumption, saving money and reducing
contains five public rest areas with maximum truck parking emissions.
capacity of less than 160 spaces, and more than 1,000
New Technology
additional spaces at private truck stops. At the public truck
parking locations, MDOT uses pavement sensors to gauge Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): ITS is a
parking space availability and communicates that information combination of electronics, telecommunications and
to MDOT’s advanced traffic management systems (ATMS). information technology for the transportation system.
At private truck stops, MDOT contracts with a private-sector It is not only for highways, but includes all modes of
firm, Truck Smart Parking Services (TSPS), to interface with transportation. Examples of ITS include systems for
truck stop owners, and install cameras and traffic counters traffic management, public transportation management,

Michigan Freight Plan 63

 8 OVERVIEW OF
TRENDS, ISSUES
AND STRATEGIES
emergency management, traveler information (dynamic Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS): Unmanned Aerial
message signs), advanced vehicle control and safety (red System, or “drones,” are poised to revolutionize the efficient
light warning systems), commercial vehicle operations movement of goods across a multi-modal transportation
(truck parking information system), and railroad grade system. Rapidly advancing technological capabilities, coupled
crossing safety. The ITS infrastructure investments are also with new and refined federal and state policies, ensure not
a precursor to connected vehicles by laying the groundwork only safe integration of UAS into an existing transportation
for communications technology. framework but also attempts to spur further innovation in
the movement of goods and passengers in an autonomous
Advances in Supply Chains and Logistics: The term system. Michigan continues to seek opportunities to support
“logistics” in this context refers to the way firms organize this emerging sector by establishing an Unmanned Aerial
themselves in relation to transportation, warehousing, System Task Force housed within MDOT.
inventories, customer service and information processing.
The development of new technologies has created a Internet of Things (IoT): IoT comprises an expansive
revolution in how businesses communicate and operate, system of connected remote sensors that can communicate
and how consumers shop. Consumers are increasingly real-time information, both to one another and a central
using the Internet for home and business purchases, fueling controller, and perform remote control functions. Essentially,
growth in air and truck logistic networks. New technologies IoT creates a connection between the physical and digital
and business processes are emerging that enable firms to worlds. Examples of an IoT application could be a large
reduce costs by substituting e-commerce and just-in-time office building that can monitor and control the pace of its
(JIT) deliveries for large inventories, multiple warehouses and elevators to optimize departures of cars from an attached
customer service outlets. Logistics management continues parking structure and sync with traffic lights, as well as
to evolve with the adoption of e-business practices and with intelligent vehicles to minimize traffic congestion
various forms of JIT delivery.8 during rush hour. This system, as imagined, offers several
potential benefits - including reduced fuel consumption,
E-commerce: E-commerce and e-business, currently fewer greenhouse gas emissions, less time spent in traffic,
estimated by industry sources to account for 10 percent and possibly even fewer collisions. These technologies will
of retail business, are expected to continue to increase, depend on communications infrastructure that can adapt
which will result in changes to how freight moves and to new demands and the changing nature of technology. 9
impacts the transportation network. The nature of these As potential technological changes are identified, the state
movements may evolve to more single-package deliveries will need to ensure changes are developed deliberately to
to individual residential or business addresses via mail or protect the safety and security of individuals while balancing
package delivery services rather than to retail establishments with concerns about privacy and autonomy.
in larger shipments and vehicles. E-business may affect
transportation demand, as it requires fast, on-time 3-D Printing: 3-D printing is a transformational technology
delivery, typically directly to the consumer. The success of with potential to significantly impact the future of
e-commerce relies on the ability of the transportation system transportation and the global supply chain. In essence, 3-D
to deliver goods quickly and making returns convenient printing is an additive technology used for making three-
and prompt. MDOT will work toward accommodating the dimensional solid objects from a digital file. 3-D printed
growth in e-commerce by supporting an efficient freight objects are created by a highly specialized device that prints
transportation system. successive layers of a material from the bottom upward in
a continuous fashion. The 3-D printing industry is on the
8 FHWA, Overview of Logistics and Industry Re-Organization. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/econ_
methods/microecon_frmwk/sec_2.htm verge of reaching a critical mass for global implementation.
9 Michigan 21st Century Infrastructure Commission Report, November 2016. http://www.infrastructureusa.org/michigan- Worldwide 3-D printing is projected to grow from $3.1 billion
21st-century-infrastructure-commission-report/
in revenue in 2013 to $12.8 billion in 2018. By 2020, the
10 The Implications of 3-D Printing for the Global Logistics Industry, John Manners-Belland and Ken Lyon, Supply chain 24/7,
Jan. 23, 2014, http://www.supplychain247.com/article/the_implications_of_3d_printing_for_the_global_logistics_industry. industry is expected to generate more than $21 billion a year.10
64 Michigan Department of Transportation
3-D printing is regarded as having the potential to emerge
from a niche market to a significant and viable alternative
to manufacturing. 3-D printing will cause a shift (the extent
yet to be determined) in the manufacturing landscape to
more localized production, resulting in more on-demand
production, smaller inventories, and shorter, simpler supply
chains. Zero to minimal inventories could also eliminate the
need for some freight. Overall, 3-D printing has the potential
to significantly impact the logistics and transportation
industry, and alter national and international trade.

For more information, visit the MITP White Paper on

Connected and Automated Vehicles and New Technology.

ISSUES AND PERFORMANCE

BARRIERS
MDOT included an extensive multi-modal discussion of
freight-related issues and strategies to address them in
the Michigan Freight Profile White Paper. The issues
are included in the following section, with more detailed
information about the strategies in place to address them
included in the white paper.

When traffic delay due to congestion is predictable, it is possible

for shippers to adjust to accommodate a different timetable
or a longer delivery time. However, unpredictable delay, often
weather-related or crash-induced, can cause higher costs
in plant operations and supply chains, bringing a stop to
manufacturing activity and damaging the viability of Michigan’s
freight-dependent industries. Construction zones also can tie
up traffic and cause delay, and multiple construction zones
within one statewide corridor add significant time to trips of long
distances that are common for freight shipments.

Prevention and efficient management of incidents

associated with sporadic delays on the highway, aviation,
port, and rail systems are likely to enhance the efficiency of
freight movement in Michigan, removing freight barriers to
Michigan’s optimal economic performance.

Michigan Freight Plan 65

 8 OVERVIEW OF
TRENDS, ISSUES
AND STRATEGIES
HIGHWAY ISSUES AND STRATEGIES
Travel Time/Congestion
Michigan has congested corridors, mainly during peak-hour traffic in urban areas (Figure 15). On an annual basis, MDOT
calculates the level of service (LOS) of highway facilities in order to effectively monitor congested roadways. LOS is
represented using an A-F scale as described in the Highway Capacity Manual (2010 Edition), with “A” representing the best
operating conditions and “F” representing the worst. Figure 15 portrays trunkline congested segments rated “F” for freeways
and “E” or “F” for other highways and arterials. Freeways that are labeled LOS “D” or “E” are considered to be “approaching
congestion,” as are other highways and arterials labeled as LOS “D.”

Figure 15 - Michigan Congested Roadways (2015)

66 Michigan Department of Transportation

Highway Bottlenecks
Highway bottlenecks resulting in user-delay costs are monitored by MDOT. MDOT’s Operations Division is using a tool called
the Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS) to locate bottlenecks and calculate user cost-delay figures.
Originally implemented along the I-94 corridor, the system has been expanded to include all Michigan freeways. Reports are
created on a variety of performance measures, including average peak-period speeds, reliability index, congestion severity,
and user-delay costs for passenger and freight vehicles. The annual Freeway Congestion and Reliability Report produced by
MDOT details the corridors in each MDOT region and ranks them by total user-delay cost.
For this purposes of the Freeway Congestion and Reliability Report, user-delay cost is calculated by multiplying delay x
hourly volume x hourly user cost. Delay is calculated by taking the difference between actual speeds when they fall below
60 mph and the posted speed limit. User-delay cost calculations do not start until speeds are below 60 mph. This is to
eliminate counting the delay caused by slower commercial vehicles, which until recently operated under a 60 mph speed limit
on Michigan’s freeways (now 65 mph). Freight and passenger traffic are not separated out in the Freeway Congestion and
Reliability Report. However, both commercial and passenger traffic counts are used as the hourly user costs vary significantly
for commercial and passenger vehicles. Once speeds drop below a certain level in congested areas, passenger vehicles and
commercial trucks travel at roughly the same speed.
Figure 16 highlights the top 10 corridors in the state with the highest user-delay costs for 2016. Also included in the map are
the three locations in Michigan identified by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) in their top 100 national
freight bottlenecks. The methodology used in the ARTI study is similar to that used by MDOT. They estimate the cost
associated with trucks traveling below free-flow speeds.

Figure 16 - Michigan Highway Freight Bottlenecks

7
I-94 at I-69


5 I-75 at I-696
2 
4 3
6

8 I-94 at I-75
2016 USER DELAY COSTS 9
1 - I-75 Oakland County $77,465,000 10
2 - I-696 Oakland County $52,509,000
3 - I-94 Detroit TSC $48,460,000
4 - I-75 Detroit TSC $38,832,000
5 - I-96 Oakland County $32,715,000
6 - I-96 plus Local Detroit TSC $28,602,000
7 - US-131 Kent County $26,157,000 Layers
8 - M-39 Detroit TSC $24,230,000 County
9 - I-94 Washtenaw County $22,646,000 Statewide Model Links
10 - I-94 Taylor TSC $20,664,000  ATRI Bottlenecks

Michigan Freight Plan 67

 8 OVERVIEW OF
TRENDS, ISSUES
AND STRATEGIES

Strategy: MDOT will calculate freight reliability measures in accordance with the FAST Act performance measure rules.
A Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index will measure travel time reliability on the interstate system, and the index will
assess freight movement for five time periods. MDOT will set two and four-year targets in May 2018 and will begin assessing
the interstate reliability for trucks with a baseline performance report in October 2018. Dedicating resources toward problem
corridors will help the department reduce congestion, maintain infrastructure conditions, and improve the efficiency of the
system for freight movement. For more information, visit the FHWA Transportation Performance Management website.

Strategy: MDOT continues to repair and reconstruct poor highway pavements and bridges each year. Improvements
to highway infrastructure help create travel-time savings for households and businesses. This investment creates jobs,
provides economic benefits for Michigan, and helps support a transportation system attractive to the freight industry.

Strategy: There are currently three transportation management centers in Michigan: in Detroit, in Grand Rapids, and a
statewide one in Lansing. Each center uses closed-circuit television cameras, detection equipment, and dynamic message
signs to manage traffic on regional and statewide freeways. The centers are focused on incident management activities and
traveler information with the goal of improving the safety and mobility of the traveling public. ITS helps improve commercial
freight movement travel times by warning shippers of problems and providing travel options in congested areas.

Highway Safety
In 2015, the number of crashes involving a truck in Michigan numbered more than 11,890, with 78 being fatal. This is a
reduction from the 12,763 truck crashes and 94 fatalities recorded in 2014. MDOT maintains a crash database of all incidents
reported to MSP. Figure 17 shows the location of truck or bus crashes in 2015. The department updates this information
annually and uses the database to determine high-risk areas for further review. Also included in the map are the top rollover
locations identified by ATRI from crash data between 2001 and 2009.

Strategy: Since implementing a cable median barrier program in 2008, MDOT has installed 333 miles of barrier. The
department will continue to install the barriers in the future as needed. Results from other states that have had the barriers
for a longer period of time than Michigan have shown a 90 percent reduction in cross-median crashes, which are some of
the more severe and fatal highway crashes. MDOT contracted with Wayne State University to conduct a research study
to determine the effectiveness of cable median barrier. The results of the research showed that after the barriers were
installed, crossover crash rates on those highway segments fell by 87 percent, and the barriers successfully contained 97
percent of the vehicles that hit them.

Strategy: The department began installing rumble strips on Michigan’s state trunkline system in 2008. Rumble strips
are a proven and cost-effective countermeasure to lane departure crashes brought on by driver drowsiness, distraction,
and/or inattention. To date, 5,700 miles of centerline and 1,700 miles of shoulder rumble strips have been placed.

68 Michigan Department of Transportation

 Figure 17 - Truck and Bus Crashes and ATRI Rollover Locations (2015)

Strategy: MDOT’s Operations Field Services Division is reviewing the list of top rollover locations in Michigan
provided by ATRI, and inspects the locations to identify possible changes in speed, design, sign placement and
use, sightlines, or other factors in order to improve safety.

Strategy: In 2017, Michigan raised its speed limit on some rural freeways from 70 to 75 mph for light-weight
vehicles and from 60 to 65 mph for trucks on most freeways. Speed limits for all vehicles were raised to 65 mph
on certain rural non-freeway highways. These new speed limits for trucks reduce conflicts with passenger vehicles
by not increasing the differential in limits between the two classes of vehicles.

Michigan Freight Plan 69

 8 OVERVIEW OF
TRENDS, ISSUES
AND STRATEGIES
Truck Size and Weight
Overweight vehicles on state roadways can severely harm pavement quality and reduce the life expectancy of the road. At
the same time, MDOT wants to encourage the efficient movement of heavy commodities that are typical of Michigan’s major
industries. Allowing greater truck weights, supported by more axles, allows trucks to move more goods at reduced costs
while limiting pavement damage.

Strategy: The Commercial Vehicle Strategy Team (CVST) was established in 2005 to systematize the partnership
between MDOT and the Michigan State Police (MSP) Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division. The team’s Infrastructure
Subcommittee has studied new practices and technologies, enabling more efficient enforcement of truck weight and
size laws. The team establishes priorities among projects that improve enforcement, such as weigh-in-motion (WIM)
equipment, wireless WIM monitoring, the Truck Weight Information System (TWIS), and weigh-station upgrades.
MDOT and MSP continuously review weigh-station operations and alternative enforcement strategies, with the goals of
improving enforcement effectiveness and safety while reducing costs for truck operators.

Strategy: Michigan has adjusted its truck size and weight limits to comply with recent changes in federal law, allowing
longer combinations for delivering new vehicles. In advance of amendments to state law, MSP has adjusted enforcement
practices to match federal law and instructed local motor carrier officers and prosecutors to do the same. MDOT and
MSP continue to evaluate proposed amendments to truck size and weight limits for lower logistics cost to assure that
changes can be made safely and in compliance with federal law.

Strategy: MDOT’s process for issuing permits for movements of indivisible oversize or overweight loads includes a
routing system that delivers to the permit holder a precise route taking into consideration all structures, clearances, and
other restrictions. Special restrictions may be applied to permits to cover construction projects and other transient events,
or conditions such as peak traffic periods, holidays, and hours of darkness.

MDOT is also working with the Mid-America Freight Coalition (MAFC) on oversize overweight permitting harmonization
efforts in the MAASTO region to enhance the efficient movement of goods and to reduce congestion and traffic delays.

Truck Parking
MDOT has developed a statewide deployment plan for the Truck Parking Information and Management System (TPIMS). The
deployment plan was developed by working with internal and external stakeholders to identify locations where truck parking
shortages are creating potential safety hazards by truck drivers making unsafe parking decisions. While the deployment of
these technologies will be heavily based upon availability of funding and priorities identified by the statewide ITS Steering
Committee, this technology has proven to be an effective way to provide truckers with relevant real-time truck parking
availability information, allowing them to make well-informed parking decisions.

Strategy: To sustain the currently deployed system, MDOT has developed a number of contracts to support the
system operations and maintenance. All operations and maintenance of the TPIMS system on private truck stops is
handle by a third party vendor. All TPIMS technologies deployed at MDOT rest areas and within MDOT right of way (ROW)
is maintained by MDOT’s statewide ITS maintenance contractor. All operations of TPIMS technologies in MDOT ROW is
managed by MDOT’s Statewide Transportation Operations Center (STOC).

70 Michigan Department of Transportation

Jurisdictional Roadway Issues
Trucks pay user fees for the use of road facilities. However, trucks are not permitted on all roadways due to local ordinances.
A lack of consistency in access to trade centers with special regulations on trucks creates a barrier for the movement of
goods to markets utilizing these goods.

Strategy: MDOT has established procedures for ensuring compliance with federal law regarding truck access off
the national network to shippers, destinations, and services. When necessary, MDOT resolves complaints regarding
reasonable access over roads under local jurisdiction and issues decisions regarding weight and size restrictions.

Pavement Condition The graph below represents historic state trunkline system
condition based on RSL. In 2007, MDOT surpassed its
MDOT uses remaining service life (RSL) data to monitor the
goal of 90 percent of pavement in good or fair condition,
performance of pavement on the trunkline system and to
and maintained this condition through 2010. As the graph
make program development and project selection decisions.
demonstrates, the deterioration rate since 2011 has been
RSL measures a pavement’s overall condition and is defined
about 1 percent per year. However, this is forecasted to
as the estimated remaining time in years until a pavement’s
accelerate considerably in the coming years. Additional
most cost-effective treatment requires either reconstruction
revenue from increases to the state gas tax and vehicle
or major repair. When pavements reach an RSL of two years
registration fees, alongside general fund transfers, will help to
or less, they are considered to be “poor,” meaning they
slow pavement deterioration, but projections indicate these
require these more expensive fixes. MDOT employs an asset
funds are not enough to meet pavement goals in future years
management approach that implements short, medium, and
or to even sustain current conditions. As required by Act 51
long-term improvements to maintain overall pavement health,
of 1951, this new revenue must be distributed to more than
and strives to employ an appropriate mix of fixes to keep
600 transportation agencies in Michigan. While this will help
its pavement infrastructure in the best condition possible.
to slow the decline of infrastructure throughout the state,
However, without adequate funding, more sections of
critical trunkline routes will not receive enough funding to
pavement are expected to slip into poor condition, requiring
improve overall pavement conditions.
higher costs to repair them in the long run.

Figure 18 - MDOT Historic Trunkline Pavement Condition

Michigan Freight Plan 71

 8 OVERVIEW OF
TRENDS, ISSUES
AND STRATEGIES
Bridge Condition fair condition in fall 2016. MDOT made significant progress in
order to meet its freeway bridge goal; however, projections
MDOT’s Bridge Management System (BMS) is an important indicate that, without additional funding, Michigan will
part of the overall asset management process. BMS is a be unable to sustain the freeway bridge condition and
strategic approach to linking data, strategies, programs, and conditions are projected to decline.
projects into a systematic process to ensure achievement
of desired results. An important BMS tool used by MDOT Bridge condition is very important to the reliable movement
to develop preservation policies is the Bridge Condition of truck freight on the system. The most recently updated
Forecasting System (BCFS). Working from the current bridge statistics in May 2017 show that 229 bridges were
condition, bridge deterioration rate, project cost, expected determined to be structurally deficient out of the 4,478
inflation, and fix strategies, BCFS estimates the future bridges under MDOT’s jurisdiction. The following map
condition of the state trunkline bridge system. Michigan met depicts the condition of all bridges in Michigan in 2016
its freeway bridge condition goal of 95 percent in good or (Figure 19).

Figure 19 - MDOT Bridge Ratings (2017)

 
 





 

    


 




   
     

 

  

   

   
   
 
 
    

      
  
     
   

        

         
          
 
 

 
   

 

  
 
    
  
  
         
   

        
    
  
   
 

  

 
      

 
  
 
    
 
        
  
 
 
 
   

      
       
  

  
 
   
   


        
  
 
  
  
 
    
        
     


         
    
 
      
     
   

          


   
   
 

     
 
 
 
   
          

                 
  
 




      
     
           
        
  
     
 

 
  
 
   

   

  
    
      

   
   

  

 
  
 
   


      



    
    
  
     
   
   

     
   
 
      


 
   
    

         
   
      
   
  
  
     
  
    
   
       
 

   




 
       
    

      
        

  
   
      
  
  
  
    
   

 
     
     
  
 
 


 

        

   
 
    
 
 
   
     
    
  

   
   
 
  
      
 

     



          
           
          


       
           


     
    
    

 

  
  
         
 
 
    
              
               
    


 
 
    
 
          
 
                    
    

        

  
       
 
       


     
 
 
    



    
 


    
        
 

        
    
          
  
 
 





    



 
       

 


 

 
 
  

     
  
 
  
 
 
      
    
 
                

  

    
  
    
      
   
 

 

   

   
     
   
  

              
 
         
 
 
 


 
 

 


 



     

  




 
 








  
  


    
           
    
  
  
 
 
  
  
   

     
   
            
  

 
   
 


 


 
      
    
   
 
   
    
 
 
    
 
   
      
  



 
  
 


 
   

 
 
 
 
   
         
 


    

     

       
                 

 
  
  

  
 
 
    



       
 
 
  

    

 
 
 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 

     
        
        
    
 
                       
      


 
                 
       
      
   
 
                    
 

   
  
 
 
      
  


    

      


     
    
  
    
  
   
     







     
    
 
    
      
  
 
 

 

 
  
    
  
   
   
          
 
     
       

  
    
          
 
  
            
 
   
 

 

 


 

         
   
  
    
  
  
  

 

   
  
  
 
 


      
 



 
    
       
   

 



            
  



      

    

 





  
    
   
  
  



 

 





  

   











 

  


 

  




 
 






   


 



  









 
 
 
    


  
   
 















 


  
 
            
  
    
 
  
          
 
                   
Michigan Bridge Locations 
















 

























 

 


   






































 
   
 













 

 

 









  










 























 








 

  
 
 
 












 








 
 
  

  
 
  









































 
 






































   
                             
      
     





  
 
       
 
   
 


 
 
            
     
 Bridges Rated "Good/Fair" 


 
    





 
 

  




 

  
 





 

 
 



 




 

 






 
 

 

 
 

 
 


 

 

 
 











 



 






































 



 
 




                           

 

 



 




 
      
  
 

  

   


  


  
 


 
 





 

  
 Bridges Rated "Poor" 









 
 
 
  










   
 








 


 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
  
 



 





 


 
 
 










































































































 

 

                 









 

 
 


 





 

 
   
 
        
   
 
    
 

 


  

         





        
 
 




 















 
  
TrunkLine 

   


 
 








 
  
  




 







  


 







  






 









 

 
 
 
 
 










 

 
 
 








 
 
 














 








 


  
 






 
 







 



































 

  

    

    
    
        


 

   

           
    





 
               
 


   
 

 








 
 



   


            
     
 

 

 
 
   
 







             


  
    

 

     
  
      
    
Source: FHWA National Bridge Inventory 



  

 



 


 
 

 






 
 
    





 


 

    
  





 


 
 



















 

 

  



 








   

     
 

 
 
    
  
      
 




 
  
      
     
  



        


 

  
   
    
   
       



   
 
  
   
        
 
 


   
 
 
   
  
  

 
 
  

   
 

  

   


   


     
   
    

      

72 Michigan Department of Transportation

RAIL ISSUES AND STRATEGIES
The Michigan State Rail Plan, adopted in 2011, provides a complete assessment of system issues in Michigan and
recommendations for improvements. Below is a brief summary of some of the most important rail issues in the state.

Track and Bridge Condition

Track is generally kept in a condition appropriate for its current use. Unlike the highway system that assigns speeds by the
classification of the route, railway speeds are assigned by condition of the track. As warranted, railroads can quickly make
modest track improvements to maintain or raise train speeds. However, on low-volume lines, poor track condition can
become difficult to address when revenue generated by that segment of track isn’t sufficient to cover investments that are
needed to continue the level of service.

Bridge condition is critically important due to the lack of alternative routing. There are currently 24 functionally deficient bridges
out of the 215 bridges on the MDOT-owned rail system.

Strategy: MDOT’s Michigan Rail Loan Assistance Program (MiRLAP) provides competitive loans to preserve and
improve the existing rail network.

Strategy: Railroads are federally required to inspect bridges at least annually. As funding is available, MDOT makes
strategic investments in the bridges on the MDOT-owned rail system.

Rail Capacity
Unit train capacity is of wide concern. Agricultural products are one of the largest commodities moved by rail. The use of
unit trains – entire trains carrying a single commodity – are particularly important for Michigan’s agricultural industry to remain
economically competitive. Current configurations constrain capacity at rail yards and limit the ability to handle unit trains.

Volume capacity on the rail system currently is only an isolated issue in Michigan. The ability to accommodate increased
capacity is of concern, particularly in the Metro Detroit area, with federal freight forecasting models predicting approximately
50 percent growth in tonnage by 2040. Also, the existing Detroit River Rail Tunnel cannot accommodate certain double-stack
containers and taller Automax railcars. Growth in demand from the auto industry and other existing and potential customers is
hampered by this inefficiency.

Strategy: MDOT continues to partner with Class I railroads to develop the Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal
(DIFT). This project will expand throughput capacity by consolidating multiple terminals and providing equipment and
infrastructure upgrades needed in this competitive industry.

Strategy: MDOT has long supported the construction of a replacement rail tunnel between Detroit and Windsor.
Numerous meetings have been held with the owners of the existing tunnel to address technical issues and potential
funding sources.

Michigan Freight Plan 73

 8 OVERVIEW OF
TRENDS, ISSUES
AND STRATEGIES
Rail Congestion/Travel Times
Bottlenecks in the rail system have hindered movements, mainly in the urbanized communities in the Detroit region.
Freight trains often wait at locations for other trains to pass before being able to continue.

Strategy: As part of the DIFT project, connections will be improved to alleviate long delays at several junctions in
Metro Detroit. Multiple train movements will be enabled at junctions where trains are frequently delayed for hours while
waiting for other trains to pass. Also, improved highway access to the DIFT will provide a more efficient flow of trucks into
and out of the facility, improving rail intermodal operations. A project to create an efficient connection of the east-west
track owned by Conrail and the north-south track owned by Grand Trunk Western Railroad (CN) was completed in 2015.

Public Safety
Michigan has approximately 4,600 public at-grade crossings. Approximately 50 percent of the state’s public crossings have
active-warning devices. While there has been an approximate 20 percent reduction in the average number of car-train crashes
over the past five years, crashes still occur at both active and passive crossings.

Strategy: MDOT has the regulatory responsibility to assess the physical condition and safety needs for all public
crossings in the state. MDOT works to review each public crossing every two years. In addition, MDOT funds safety
enhancements and surface improvements on roads under local jurisdiction and on state trunklines.

Positive Train Control

Positive Train Control (PTC) is a federally mandated safety system that is designed to automatically stop a train before a
train-train collision, derailment due to speed, movement because of a misaligned track switch, or unauthorized entrance
into a work zone. It is required to be fully implemented by 2020. It applies to larger Class I railroads’ mainlines that move
hazardous materials and on any railroad mainlines with regularly scheduled intercity or commuter passenger rail. Shortline
railroads also may be impacted when they interchange with and/or have trackage rights over PTC-equipped track. The
federal safety mandate requires significant investment by the railroad industry to develop, implement and maintain PTC. In
particular, many shortlines lack sufficient funding to implement and maintain PTC if/when impacted. New shippers served
on a PTC-equipped track may also find the up-front costs of a mainline turnout cost-prohibitive.

Strategy: Seek funding opportunities available through the Federal Railroad Administration.

Strategy: While it does not directly cover the cost of a mainline turnout, MDOT’s Freight Economic Development
Program offers assistance to new or expanding businesses with other costs to access the rail network.

Railcar Shortage
Some shippers, particularly in the forestry industry and occasionally in the agricultural industry, have experienced difficulties
obtaining sufficient numbers of railcars to transport their products. This is often a result of seasonal demands, competing
demands from other shippers, or the aging of some specialized types of railcars.

Strategy: MDOT continues to work with shippers and railroads to study the extent of railcar shortages and to
find a resolution.

74 Michigan Department of Transportation

Rail Accessibility
Many of the rail lines in the northern Lower Peninsula carry small volumes of freight traffic and serve as “feeder” lines with
connections only to the south. Maintaining rail access in rural portions of the state is essential for the state’s economy. Many
rail lines in this region were abandoned or sold by the major rail carriers as they become economically unviable.

Strategy: MDOT has purchased some of these rail lines to continue to make rail accessible to businesses and has
upgraded rail infrastructure to accommodate continued service. MDOT currently owns 665 miles of active track and
contracts with five private rail operators to provide service on those lines.

Strategy: MDOT provides a competitive rail loan program: the Freight Economic Development Program provides loans
to assist new or expanding businesses with access to the rail network. The Legislature increased the 2018 state budget
for the Freight Economic Development Program. Both programs are intended to ensure the rail network remains a viable
option for rail-dependent businesses.

Rail Track Limitations

Railcars capable of carrying 286,000 pounds are becoming the nationwide standard for certain commodities, particularly
agricultural products. Some are now even moving up to 315,000 pounds. This allows for more efficient handling of products
for shippers but requires upgraded infrastructure. The requirement for upgraded infrastructure is more likely to be a problem
for lines owned or operated by short-line or regional carriers. Without infrastructure improvements, shippers cannot capitalize
on the efficiencies (and cost savings) that the larger cars offer.

Strategy: MDOT’s MiRLAP program is available for the improvement of existing railroad infrastructure, including
upgrading track to accommodate heavier railcars.

AIR ISSUES AND STRATEGIES

Willow Run Airport Limitations
Detroit Willow Run Airport is a major air freight facility in the state. Due to the relatively short length of its runways, fully loaded
wide-body aircraft must take off from Willow Run with only enough fuel to get them to Detroit Metro Airport, 10 miles away,
where the plane can obtain a full tank of fuel and use the longer runways to continue flying to their various long-distance
destinations. Though a costly procedure, the latest Master Plan has shown that lengthening runways at Willow Run is not
currently feasible due to lack of land availability and other financial and political obstacles.

Strategy: Though currently not feasible, MDOT will continue to monitor the ability to extend runways in support of
existing and future air cargo operations. Should the opportunity arise, MDOT will support extension of the primary runway to
approximately 9,000 feet in total overall length, provided it is justified by determination of a particular critical aircraft model.

Retaining Cargo Services

The economic downturn and cost of fuel have negatively impacted air cargo services at many airports. Retaining and
recruiting air services continues to be a challenge for the industry.

Strategy: MDOT has allocated funding for the Air Service Program for fiscal year 2017. This is a state and local
program that aims to retain cargo services by giving grants to airports that enable them to market their cargo facilities and
for capital improvements to enhance facilities. The program also increases airport marketability for the recruitment of new
business to the air cargo industry.

Michigan Freight Plan 75

 8 OVERVIEW OF
TRENDS, ISSUES
AND STRATEGIES
All-Weather Airports
Airports that are not available in bad weather hamper the movement of freight, as seasonal changes can reduce certain
freight movements.

Strategy: MDOT has continued an initiative to make more Michigan airports all-weather accessible by employing
Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument approach systems and Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS)
units. GPS systems alleviate the need for expensive ground navigation aids while the AWOS provides readily available
weather information to aircraft. MDOT continues to work with airport communities to assist those in need of accessibility.
Approximately 83 percent of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 airports defined in the Michigan Aviation System Plan (MASP 2017) are
now all-weather accessible.

MARINE ISSUES AND STRATEGIES

Dredging Backlog
While the Michigan Freight Plan primarily identifies capital needs, maintenance of the commercial navigation channels in
Michigan’s ports is the most significant issue facing marine transportation in Michigan. Sedimentation from coastal and
land processes is continually deposited into the navigation channels and must be removed by annual or periodic dredging.
Most of the commercial ports are federal navigation projects for which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible
for maintenance dredging. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which is funded by the Harbor Maintenance Tax imposed
on commercial cargoes, was established to provide funding for maintenance dredging. Unfortunately, only about half the
tax revenues collected to date have been spent as authorized by Congress, leaving many of Michigan’s commercial ports
inadequately maintained. Approximately $9 billion paid into the HMTF remains unspent on harbor maintenance, having been
used by Congress to pay down the national debt. Fortunately, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014,
as amended by the Water Resources Development Act of 2016, set a target of 100 percent distribution by 2025 of all new
harbor maintenance taxes collected. A backlog of dredging will still remain an issue.

Strategy: Michigan will continue to work with Congress, regional agencies, other states, and the shipping industry
to encourage the federal government to use the funds in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for their intended purpose.

Soo Locks
Congress has authorized construction of a new large lock that will replace two functionally obsolete locks constructed during
World War I that are now closed. This new lock will be similar in size to the existing and aging Poe Lock, the only lock capable
of accommodating 1,000-foot-long vessels and other slightly smaller vessels that collectively handle 85 percent of the
tonnage passing through the St. Mary’s Falls Canal. This will create much-needed redundancy for the waterway, as any failure
of or problem with the nearly 50-year-old Poe Lock would create delays that would be lengthy and financially devastating to
the many industries that rely on cargoes that pass through the locks.

Strategy: MDOT was heavily involved in the planning phases for a new lock. Preliminary construction has begun, but
a lack of funding has stalled the project. The department will continue to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Great Lakes community, and Congress to promote the advancement of the project. The Corps is expected to complete
a major economic reevaluation report in late 2017, which hopefully will provide justification to obtain the remaining federal
funding required.

76 Michigan Department of Transportation

Regulatory Harmonization
Most waterborne commerce moving on the Great Lakes consists of interstate or international movements. In addition, various
ports in several states may compete to handle much of the overseas traffic entering or leaving the lakes. As a result of these
realities, harmonization of government regulations at both the national and state levels is important to ensure a “level playing
field” for shippers, carriers, and ports. Two examples of the lack of regulatory harmonization that negatively impact Michigan’s
ports are customs inspection policies and ballast water regulations. Federal customs inspection rules are interpreted
differently among U.S. Customs and Border Protection offices in various Great Lakes states. Because of a restrictive
interpretation by the office in Michigan, clearance of international containerized or palletized cargoes are not permitted at
Michigan’s ports but is allowed at ports in neighboring states. For ballast water, regulation varies among the states and
Michigan’s more restrictive requirements have limited the ability of Michigan’s ports to handle overseas cargoes. It is important
that protective state, federal, and international standards are applied consistently and implemented in a timely manner to the
shipping industry so as not to place states or regions at a competitive disadvantage

Strategy: MDOT and other Michigan officials will continue to monitor these issues and work with local, state, and
federal agencies and legislators in an effort to harmonize maritime regulations that serve to hinder development of
both domestic and international shipping. It is critical for Great Lakes ports to be subject to the same standards and
interpretation of government regulations.

Local Port Infrastructure Improvements/Services

Local port improvement projects, including new or expanded marine terminals, improvements to navigation channels, or
new marine services, are periodically proposed or undertaken by local governments, development organizations, or the
private sector. These improvements will allow the ports to increase or at least maintain their volumes of waterborne commerce
and provide Michigan’s businesses and industries with modal transportation alternatives. Local governments should also be
cognizant of the importance of port facilities to their local and regional economies. Ordinances or policies that restrict truck
access to marine terminals or limit the types of commodities handled can have significant economic impacts.

Strategy: MDOT will continue to work with local and private interests to improve port infrastructure and services by
providing technical assistance and help in identifying public funding opportunities when available.

Strategy: MDOT will also work with local communities to ensure they recognize the economic importance of
commercial port facilities and encourage them not to implement ordinances or policies that negatively affect the
movement of goods by marine transportation.

Michigan Freight Plan 77

 8 OVERVIEW OF
TRENDS, ISSUES
AND STRATEGIES
BORDER CROSSING ISSUES AND STRATEGIES
Border Delay/Congestion
Michigan has four highway border crossings with Canada. The Ambassador Bridge in Detroit and the Blue Water Bridge in
Port Huron are ranked first and second, respectively, in the number of truck crossings each year on the U.S.-Canada border.
Other crossings include the International Bridge in Sault Ste. Marie and the Detroit-Windsor tunnel. In addition, there are two
ferry services across the St. Clair River at Marine City and Algonac that accommodate trucks. Additional rail crossings are
located in Sault Ste. Marie and Detroit. Heightened security risks due to world events have led the Department of Homeland
Security to impose stricter inspections of trucks, resulting in longer wait times and higher costs for shippers. Trucks crossing
the border can experience up to several hours of delay waiting in long queues leading to the bridges to clear customs
inspection. This delay costs companies that do business in the United States and Canada tremendously.

Strategy: The Gordie Howe International Bridge, a planned second bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, will
provide additional border-crossing capacity for passengers and freight. The new bridge will also create a redundancy in the
system to alleviate the risk of potential closures of the Ambassador Bridge. Moving international freight will improve as a
result of this project. An Environmental Impact Statement was completed and a Record of Decision was granted by FHWA.
In addition, The U.S. Coast Guard issued a bridge permit and the U.S. Department of State issued a Presidential Permit
to the State of Michigan to construct, operate, and maintain the bridge. A procurement process is underway to select a
private-sector partner to design, construct, finance, operate, and maintain the bridge. Right-of-way acquisition, demolition
of existing structures, and survey activities are underway and construction is expected to begin in 2018.

Strategy: MDOT has planned an expansion of the Blue Water Bridge plaza to improve traffic flow in Port Huron.
The proposed expansion will provide a new customs processing and inspection area for commercial vehicles, including
12 new primary inspection lanes. It also includes 15 commercial vehicle loading/unloading docks that will allow Customs
and Border Patrol (CBP) officers to unload and inspect the contents of a commercial vehicle. This should drastically
reduce delays at this crossing. MDOT continues to seek funding for the project through federal grant programs.

Strategy: The Free and Secure Trade (FAST) program is a joint program between the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. The FAST program allows quicker processing for commercial carriers who have completed background checks
and fulfilled certain eligibility requirements. Benefits include dedicated lanes for greater speed and efficiency in processing
trans-border shipments; reduced number of inspections resulting in reduced delays at the border; and priority, front-
of-the-line processing CBP inspections. Also, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) program continues to be
expanded by the CBP. ACE modernizes and enhances trade processing with features that will consolidate and automate
border processing, and will provide a centralized online access point to connect CBP and the trade community. While
both are federal programs, MDOT promotes their benefits in order to reduce border delays.

Strategy: Implementing a border wait time measurement system is a shared U.S.-Canada vision for perimeter security
and economic competitiveness. Having a system to measure border wait times will allow accurate information to be
shared with the traveling public, as well as improve the predictability of wait times for shippers. The United States and
Canada have been working cooperatively to implement border wait time systems at the top 20 high-priority U.S.-Canada
land border crossings. All four of Michigan’s highway border crossings are included on this list. Technology is currently in
place at the Blue Water Bridge and is underway at the other Michigan-Ontario crossings.

78 Michigan Department of Transportation

 E-blasts were sent to key stakeholder groups, including
state legislators, airports, chambers of commerce, shipping
9 THE STATE’S firms, economic development agencies, trade associations,
and other state and federal entities interested in advancing
DECISION-MAKING freight transportation in Michigan. Michigan’s Freight Advisory

PROCESS Committee, the Commission for Logistics and Supply Chain,

was provided with a notice to share the draft plan with their
constituents. MDOT notified the 12 federally recognized
sovereign tribal governments whose lands are located within
the state. In addition, the public also was invited to enter

T
comments through MDOT’s website.
his section includes information on how the state
conducted outreach to stakeholders and the public,
and project prioritization methodology. INVESTMENT DECISION GUIDANCE:
A CORRIDOR-BASED APPROACH
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Freight must travel seamlessly along geographic corridors,
AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT with a choice of transportation modes between locations or
activity centers within and outside Michigan. To support this,
Plan development relied extensively on the freight-
MDOT chose to focus on a corridor-based strategy linking
related goals, language, and data included in the 2040
economic activity centers throughout Michigan. The corridor
MITP. Completed in 2016, the updated long-range plan
approach has allowed MDOT to gain a better understanding
implemented an engagement strategy that included face-
of economic conditions and needs statewide.
to-face meetings, Webinars, Internet postings, social media,
e-mail communications, and other activities designed to The corridor-based analysis conducted during development
engage the public early and continuously. The technical of the 2040 MITP found that specific corridors serve
reports, which highlighted Michigan’s freight assets, needs, and support specific economic sectors. By improving
and issues, helped lay the necessary groundwork for the specific corridors, the shippers, businesses, and industries
Michigan Freight Plan. dependent on those corridors can be strengthened, further
supporting Michigan’s economic competitiveness.
In December 2016, MDOT developed a strategy for ensuring
compliance with the guidelines outlined in the FAST Act for the Corridors of Highest Significance - National/
creation of a state freight plan. This included identifying data International and Statewide Corridors
elements that the current 2040 MITP was lacking that needed
to be compiled for the Freight Plan. In January 2017, a timeline A significant portion of the 2030 MITP was focused on
was developed for the completion of the Freight Plan, which the development of the COHS (Figure 20). Corridors were
included periodic progress reports to department leadership, the designated and named based on the primary travel origin
Commission for Logistics and Supply Chain Collaboration (LSC), and destination they serve: national/international, statewide,
and the State Transportation Commission (STC), and the Freight regional, or local. COHS include national/international and
Coordination Group. In February 2017, MDOT developed a statewide designated trunkline corridors and are defined as:
Public And Stakeholder Involvement Plan and received approval An integrated, multi-modal system of transport infrastructure
from FHWA Michigan Division. along geographic corridors that provides a high level of
Upon completion of the draft plan, MDOT implemented support for the international, national, and state economies.
a public involvement strategy for notifying and soliciting These corridors connect activity centers within and outside
comments from key stakeholders and the general public Michigan and serve the movements of people, services, and
during a 30-day review and comment period. MDOT issued goods vital to the economic prosperity of the state.
a news release on Aug. 28 announcing the availability of Regionally and Locally Significant Corridors
the document at MDOT region and Transportation Service
Center (TSC) offices, and promoted a Sept. 12 Webinar Michigan’s economy includes many local and regional
for discussing it in more detail. The department posted economic activity centers throughout the state in addition
the document to its Freight Plan website and shared it to the corridors that support the international, national,
through the social networking sites Twitter and Facebook. and state economies. In identifying the COHS, it became

80 Michigan Department of Transportation

clear that certain corridors support regional
economies and are vital components of Figure 20 - Corridors of Highest Significance:
National/International and Statewide
the transportation network and the state’s
economic health. These corridors were
identified as regionally and locally significant
corridors and are defined as: 

An integrated, multi-modal system of  



transportation infrastructure along geographic

corridors that provides a high level of support  

for a specific sub-state region of Michigan's 

economy. These corridors connect to and 

augment the COHS and serve the movements  


of people and goods within or between activity 

centers.

Because the corridors are multi-modal and not

limited to highways, service areas were defined 
  
to include population and employment within LEGEND
Corridors of Highest Significance   
a 20-mile geographic area around the corridor, National / International  
called the 20-mile band, which covers 10 miles
Statewide
    

Regional Significance

on each side of the trunkline (Figure 21). COHS Regional

 
Local 
  
are not ranked; instead, they are based on the Other Layers
 
 Michigan Activity Centers      
type of travel they carry. Even though the COHS  International Borders 

do not include the entire state transportation Michigan Counties    
Source: MDOT Statewide and Urban Travel Analysis
network, they serve a very large segment of
the travel needs of Michigan’s businesses and
encompass nearly 93 percent of the state’s Figure 21 - Population Within 10 Miles of a
population. Corridor of Highest Significance

  
  
 



For more information on these corridors,

 




 
 


 

please see the Corridors and International


 

   
 
 
 


 


 

 

Borders Technical Report, the Corridors and



  
 

  
  
 






International Borders White Paper, and the

 
     





 



  
    
     
   
    

          


  
 

    


 
    
   
  
   
   
 

 

MI Corridors of Significance Profile Summary

  
 
 
   
  

 
  
 
 
  



  
 
    
 

on the Web at www.michigan.gov/slrp.

  

 
      

 
  



 
 


       
      
   
   
     
    
   




  
      
   
    
 

     
   
  
  
       
     

 
 
 
 
   


 
  

   
    
   
 
  
  
     
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 

   
  
  
  
  
    
   
  
 



  


   
     
   
   
  
   
      
  
 
  

   
      
  
   
   
     
 
     



  
  





 
 
    
        
  

 

 
 
      
   
    
  
  
      
     
 
  
  
  
  
      
  
     
 

   
 
    
 
    
 

   
   

     
   
      
      
  
    
  
   
 
   
     
    


     
       
 
   
   
  
   
      
     
   
 
       
     
          
       
 
  
     
        

 
       
     
  

   
      
 
   
  
   
      

 


      

 

     
 
   



  
  
      

 
  


   
     

   
   
       
       


  

            
  
  
       

   
  
     
  
             
           
    

      
       

 
 

 
 

 

       
       
           
       
 
  
  
   
        
    

 
       
    
      
   






    
   
   



    
 
     
           
           
  

 
  
  
 

 




 
    
 
      
 


 
 
  
     
 
             
    
      
              
         

    
          
       
       
    


     
      
    



  
 
                   






     
      
    
 
 




 
     
   
      
             
      
 

                   
           
    
    
            
               
   
     
 




    

           
    
  




 
 
           
 


       
     


  
                      
   
     
         
       
     

           
            

        
   
                        
         
 
    
        
               

Legend
                   

 
             
   


   

            


 
 
    
         


        
  

       


















   
 

       

     

 
            




 
            

      






    
     





 



 
 



           





    

 




     
           


    


     






 
         

  

  




     




     
   
    



     





                      

  
             
            

County 
  

                 
     
                    
   


  

               
      
        
   
 
 

 


          
 
 
            
      
   

          
    
         
       
          
                         
 
       
                     
  
 
  
         
   
            

10-Mile Bands  

   
   
   
             
       
     
 







             
  
 


 



                       
                 
 
 
   
                 
         




             
  

 
   
     
  
 

 

 
 
      
   
   
  
     
 
   
 


 
  

          
  

 
  
 


 
  


   
 
            
           
   
  




 
      
    
 
        
       
  

 

    

 
  
       


National & Statewide Corridors

    
                   
    
  

  
 
   

  
  
       

     
     
   
 
  

   
 
       

    
 
   


    
   
 
         
    
  
 
      
  


        

           
   






  



 
               
       
      
            
 
  
  


   

 
          
    
   
  
   

      
          

   



   














 
  

























   

       
  
 
   


 
 


 

 


 

 




           


 
 
   


 









              
     
     

One Dot = 500 People

                    
    
  
  
 
  
        

 
 

 


   

 





             
  
   


 
    


 





 



 








    
             

 

 
 

 



































 



 























                 
    
 
    
 
 

 
  


  







 


 

 




          
  
 

 














 

 












 




































 


 





  
 
  
 
 







 



 



 








 

               
 
      
 
  
   

 


















 


 






 
 



















  
        

















 
 































 

               


  

 
 
























 












 









            
     
  

  
 

  



 

 





 












































 


















































             
 
       
   

       
  



 
 






 















 















 










 

    
   
        
 
 
     
 
 
 


  


 
 

 
              


   
        



  


  




 














  

 
 














  




              
 
  
      
   

  

      

           





   
     
  




 









 
  
          
          




 

    




  
Source: MDOT Statewide & Urban Travel Analysis     
   



  

  
   

 
  



















 












 






 






  
    


























   

 
 
  








    











 



 









 






























   
  


   
   
   
  










































































































































 
     
                




     

                




               
 

  
               
  
  
        
     
          



 
    

           
 



            

    
          
    
           
     
                   
      
 
        
 

         
      
         
                     
          
  


   
       

  

  
   
      
                 
    


   
 




      
 






 


   
      
            
     
                  
    
 
         
 


        

 
     
 

     
     
               
 
                
     
  

      
  

Michigan Freight Plan 81

 9 THE STATE’S
DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS
CRITICAL RURAL AND URBAN Critical Rural Freight Corridors:
FREIGHT CORRIDORS 1. A rural principal arterial roadway that has a minimum
of 25 percent of the annual average daily traffic of the
Overview road measured in passenger vehicle equivalent units
from trucks.
The National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) consists of
four subsystems: 2. Provides access to energy exploration, development,
installation, or production areas.
• Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS)
3. Connects the PHFS or the Interstate System to
• Portions of the Interstate System not part facilities that handle more than 50,000 20-foot
of the PHFS equivalent units per year (containers) or 500,000 tons
• Critical Rural Freight Corridors (CRFCs) per year of bulk commodities.

• Critical Urban Freight Corridors (CUFCs) 4. Provides access to a grain elevator, an agricultural
facility, a mining facility, a forestry facility, or an
The FAST Act introduced CRFCs and CUFCs, which intermodal facility.
are meant to be important freight corridors that provide 5. Connects to an international port of entry.
connectivity to the NHFN. By designating CRFCs and 6. Provides access to significant air, rail, water, or other
CUFCs, states will make them eligible for use of National freight facilities in the state.
Highway Freight Program (NHFP) formula funds and
7. Is determined by the state to be vital to improving the
Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant efficient movement of freight and is of importance to
Program funds. the economy of the state.

There is a mileage limit in Michigan of 150 rural miles and Critical Urban Freight Corridors:
75 urban miles.
1. Connects an intermodal facility to the PHFS, the
Interstate System or an intermodal freight facility.
Designation Authority
2. Is located within a corridor of a route on the PHFS and
States take the lead on designating all CRFCs, as well as provides an alternative highway option important to
CUFCs in metropolitan areas with a population less than goods movement
500,000, in consultation with the MPOs. 3. Serves a major freight generator, logistic center, or
manufacturing and warehouse industrial land.
MPOs with a population greater than 500,000 – the
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) 4. Is important to the movement of freight within the
region, as determined by the MPO or the state.
and the Grand Valley Metro Council (GVMC) – take the
lead in designating CUFCs within their metropolitan area, in Michigan’s Approach to Designation
consultation with the state.
Given the limited mileage, Michigan identified qualifying
Route Designation Criteria routes in the state, based on the FHWA criteria above.
Figure 22 shows eligible routes that meet the required
FHWA developed the following criteria for selecting CUFCs
criteria. Please see Appendix A for a detailed list of the
and CRFCs. Proposed routes must meet at least one of the
eligible routes.
required elements to be eligible for designation.

82 Michigan Department of Transportation

 Figure 22 - National Highway Freight Network and Eligible CUFC/CRFC




75




75

NHFN with eligible CUFC and CRFC

MPO Boundaries
Adj Census Urban Boundaries



75

Primary Highway Freight System

Remainder of Interstate



96



69
Intermodal Connectors 

31

Critical Urban Freight Corridor 


23



94




75

Critical Rural Freight Corridor 


 96



131



696




196 
 127




94



275




94




69


23



31 


75

As projects are proposed on these routes that need freight formula funds or will request an Infrastructure for Rebuilding
America (INFRA) grant, formal designation of the route will need to occur, and concurrence by FHWA requested. The
designated CRFCs/CUFCs will be a rolling set of routes. A formal process for revisiting the designations will be necessary
when the mileage limit is reached.

There is no deadline for designation of CFCRs or CUCRs. Using this approach, Michigan defined a set of qualifying CUFCs
and CRFCs without regard to mileage, and will seek formal designation of those routes as necessary based on funding
needs. This approach helped Michigan arrive at statewide agreement as to which routes should be designated, since the
mileage limits posed a challenge. MDOT worked in close coordination with the MPOs and other transportation partners on
developing the approach and eligible route list.

Michigan Freight Plan 83

 FREIGHT INVESTMENT PLAN

10 FREIGHT Michigan’s FAST Act Freight Investment

Plan for FY 2018-2022
INVESTMENT The passage of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
PLAN (FAST) Act on Dec. 4, 2015, offered state departments of
transportation the opportunity to obtain dedicated freight
funding if the state developed a comprehensive Freight Plan
and a Freight Investment Plan (FIP). The FIP must include
fiscally constrained projects over a five-year period.

FAST Act freight appropriations are formula-based funding

available to states. Table 25 shows the FAST Act freight
appropriations to MDOT. Projects that are included in the
fiscally constrained portion of the FIP are eligible for
freight funding.

Table 25 - NHFP Appropriations by Fiscal Year for 2016-2020*

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

$30,000,386 $28,510,851 $31,154,701 $35,217,845 $39,130,938

*Appropriations after 2 percent State Planning and Research (SPR)

set-aside.

MDOTs FIP includes fiscally constrained freight projects from

the Five-Year Transportation Program (FY 2018-2022) that have
the greatest impact on the movement of freight. These projects
have been identified as critical to the movement of freight
throughout Michigan and are essential for the state’s economic
vitality and competitiveness in the global marketplace. Projects
in the FIP are in various stages of development and NHFP
funding may be used for development phase activities, such
as preliminary engineering or construction activities.

MDOT established base criteria in order to develop the FIP.

All projects eligible to use freight formula funds are located
on the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN).

Projects were weighed relative to their importance to the

movement of freight. Four criteria were used to prioritize the
freight projects on the NHFN:

1. Commercial Traffic: Commercial Annual Average Daily

Traffic (CAADT) on the NHFN was used to determine
which projects on the NHFN carried the most commercial
traffic. Projects were included that had an average
CAADT higher than 3,000. This criteria was chosen to
keep the highest traveled routes in good condition and
provide congestion relief when possible.
2. Project Cost: To ensure support for larger projects that
have the greatest impact and scales of economy, any
project that had a construction cost greater than $10
million was included.
84 Michigan Department of Transportation
3. Network Connectivity: These are roads that provide STRATEGY FOR USING FAST ACT
access between major intermodal facilities and the other
four subsystems making up the National Highway Freight
FREIGHT FUNDS
Network. Projects that provided additional connectivity to The costs of projects included in the five-year FIP far exceed
the NHFN, international border crossings, or were within
FAST Act freight funding available to Michigan. Below are the
30 miles of an intermodal connector were included.
projects for which MDOT has used, or plans to use, NHFP
4. Commodity Value: To highlight routes that move the apportionments. Projects are identified through the period
freight with the highest value, projects with an average
that funding is authorized through the FAST Act (FY 2020).
commodity value in excess of $114 billion were included.
The $114 billion threshold captures projects in the top 10
49 U.S.C. 70201 states that FIPs can be updated more
percent of Michigan’s transportation network in terms of
value. frequently than the five-year requirement for the entire State
Freight Plan. Michigan’s FIP will be updated on an annual basis.
All projects included in the FIP, shown on table 27, met one During the annual amendment of the FIP, MDOT may revise
or more of the criteria effectively and are eligible for FAST Act NHFP-funded projects as construction schedules are adjusted
freight appropriations. or as opportunities arise to use up to 10 percent of NHFP funds
for intermodal projects.

TABLE 26 – PROJECTS USING NHFP FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2016-2020

Estimated Total Non- NHFP

FY Region County Route Location Description
Total Funding Federal Federal Funds

Over the Grand

2016 Grand Kent I-196 Deep Overlay $2,700,925 $2,430,832 $270,093 $1,547,108
River

Over the Rouge

2016 Metro Wayne I-75 Deck Replacement $88,340,619 $79,506,559 $8,834,061 $20,535,422
River

Over Goddard
2016 Metro Wayne I-75 Road and Sexton Bridge Replacement $58,905,780 $53,015,199 $5,890,578 $7,917,856
Kilfoil Drain

Over Goddard
2017 Metro Wayne I-75 Road and Sexton Bridge Replacement $58,905,780 $53,015,199 $5,890,578 $28,510,851
Kilfoil Drain

From north of Reconstruction,

2018 Metro Oakland I-75 13 Mile Road to Modernization, and $351,000,000 $287,293,501 $63,706,499 $31,154,701
Coolidge Highway Capacity

I-75 from Ohio

Concrete
2019 University Monroe I-75 state line to $73,516,000 $66,164,400 $7,351,600 $35,217,845
Reconstruction
Erie Road

Hess Road to
2020 Bay Saginaw I-75 south I-675 Reconstruction $39,182,155 $35,263,940 $3,918,215 $35,263,940
interchange

Two bridges in
2020 Bay Saginaw I-75 Bridge Replacement $14,675,779 $13,208,201 $1,467,578 $3,866,998
Saginaw County

Michigan Freight Plan 85

TABLE 27 - FREIGHT INVESTMENT PLAN
Est Total Non-
FY Region County Route Location Description Federal
Funding Federal

Cass Avenue, French Road,

2018 Metro Wayne I-94 Brush Street, and Second Bridge Replacements $59,400,000 $52,590,000 $6,810,000
Street bridges

2018 University Jackson I-94 M-60 to Sargent Road Reconstruction $41,053,689 $36,948,320 $4,105,369

Substructure Patching and

2018 Metro Wayne I-75 N Six bridges over I-75 $1,930,686 $1,737,618 $193,070
Slope Repair

2018 Bay Genesee I-475 Carpenter Road to Clio Road Reconstruction $39,215,665 $35,294,098 $3,921,567

Connected Vehicle
2018 Metro Wayne I-75 Junction with 12 Mile Road $400,000 $400,000 -
Infrastructure and Integration
West River Drive to the
2018 Grand Kent EB I-96 Asphalt Reconstruction $4,181,000 $3,762,900 $418,100
Grand River

2018 Southwest Berrien I-196 Under M-63 Bridge Replacement $4,595,223 $4,135,701 $459,522

I-94 over Conrail and the

2018 University Jackson I-94 Bridge Replacement $20,176,820 $18,159,138 $2,017,682
Grand River
10 Mile Road north to 14
2018 Grand Kent US-131 Concrete Reconstruction $38,400,000 $31,430,400 $6,969,600
Mile Road
From North of 13 Mile Road Reconstruction,
2018 Metro Oakland I-75 $351,000,000 $287,293,501 $63,706,499
to Coolidge Highway Modernization, and Capacity
From 8 Mile Road to North of Reconstruction,
2018 Metro Oakland I-75 $ 575,000,001 $470,637,502 $104,362,499
13 Mile Road Modernization, and Capacity

2018 Grand Kent EB I-96 Under westbound I-196 Bridge Replacement $12,438,801 $11,194,921 $1,243,880

Rehabilitation and
2018 Southwest Berrien NB I-196 I-94 to north of M-63 $16,500,000 $14,850,000 $1,650,000
Reconstruction
Two-Course Asphalt
2018 Southwest Berrien I-94 Indiana state line to M-239 $7,256,480 $6,530,832 $725,648
Resurfacing
Connected Vehicle
2018 Bay St. Clair I-69 Port Huron to county line $345,000 $345,000 -
Infrastructure and Integration
Eureka Road, Northline Road,
2018 Metro Wayne NB I-75 Deck Replacement $20,134,568 $18,121,112 $2,013,456
and US-24 connector
Wayne, ITS Infrastructure and Device
2018 Metro I-75 From I-275 to M-39 $4,870,000 $3,986,095 $883,905
Monroe Installation
Fuller Avenue to Fuller Avenue On Ramp
2018 Grand Kent I-196 $775,000 $634,338 $140,662
eastbound I-196 Extension
Northbound and southbound
2018 University Jackson I-94 Bridge Replacement $14,077,201 $12,669,481 $1,407,720
M-106 over I-94

2018 Metro Macomb I-696 Mound Road to Neiman Road Concrete Pavement Inlay $64,600,000 $52,875,100 $11,724,900

Michigan Freight Plan 87

 10 FREIGHT
INVESTMENT
PLAN

TABLE 27 - FREIGHT INVESTMENT PLAN CONTINUED

Est Total Non-

FY Region County Route Location Description Federal
Funding Federal

2019 Metro Wayne WB I-94 From I-96 to Conner Street Dynamic Lane Use $10,000,000 $8,185,000 $1,815,000

At Conrail Railroad
2019 Metro Wayne EB I-94 Railroad Bridge Replacement $33,100,000 $27,092,350 $6,007,650
(X01 of 82025)
At Conrail Railroad
2019 Metro Wayne EB I-94 Railroad Bridge Replacement $32,600,000 $26,683,100 $5,916,900
(X02 of 82024)
Nine bridges on I-75 in
2019 University Monroe NB I-75 Bridge Replacements $30,087,000 $27,078,300 $3,008,700
Monroe County

2019 Metro Wayne EB I-94 E. Grand Boulevard over I-94 Bridge Replacement $32,100,000 $26,273,850 $5,826,150

At Fortenac Street
2019 Metro Wayne EB I-94 Bridge Replacement $10,200,000 $8,348,700 $1,851,300
(S08 of 82024)
At Burns Street (S12 of
2019 Metro Wayne EB I-94 Bridge Replacement $9,500,000 $7,775,750 $1,724,250
82024)
At Grand River Avenue
2019 Metro Wayne EB I-94 Bridge Replacement $31,900,000 $26,110,150 $5,789,850
(S17 of 82024)
At Milwaukee Avenue
2019 Metro Wayne NB I-75 Bridge Replacement $10,000,000 $8,185,000 $1,815,000
(S17 of 82251)

2019 Grand Kent I-196 Fuller Avenue To I-96 Reconstruction $19,799,000 $17,819,100 $1,979,900

2019 Bay Bay I-75 Three bridges in Bay County Deck Replacement $7,748,788 $6,973,910 $774,878

2019 University Monroe I-75 Over Raisin River Overlay - Epoxy $9,652,118 $8,686,906 $965,212

South of M-59 to Connected Vehicle

2019 Metro Oakland I-75 $317,500 $317,500 -
Genesee County line Infrastructure and Integration

2019 Grand Ionia I-96 I-96 under Cutler Road Bridge Replacement $4,080,060 $3,672,055 $408,005

I-75 from Ohio state line

2019 University Monroe I-75 Concrete Reconstruction $73,516,000 $66,164,400 $7,351,600
to Erie Road
M-13 connector to
2019 Bay Bay I-75 Unbonded Concrete Overlay $21,843,698 $19,411,828 $2,431,870
Beaver Road
ITS Infrastructure and
2019 Metro Oakland I-96 From I-275 to county line $7,000,000 $5,729,500 $1,270,500
Device Installation

88 Michigan Department of Transportation

TABLE 27 - FREIGHT INVESTMENT PLAN CONTINUED

Est Total Non-

FY Region County Route Location Description Federal
Funding Federal

2020 University Eaton I-496 From I-96 to Lansing Road Concrete Reconstruction $30,000,000 $27,000,000 $3,000,000

2020 University Eaton I-69 Calhoun County line to M-50 Major Rehabilitation $28,416,667 $25,575,001 $2,841,666

East of Lovers Lane to east of Road Reconstruction and

2020 Southwest Kalamazoo I-94 $32,497,837 $26,599,481 $5,898,358
Portage Road Widen
From Portage Road to Road and Bridge
2020 Southwest Kalamazoo I-94 $34,060,074 $27,878,171 $6,181,903
Sprinkle Road Reconstruction
West of 32nd Avenue to
2020 Grand Ottawa EB I-196 Reconstruction $14,100,000 $12,690,000 $1,410,000
Kent County line
Hess Road to south I-675
2020 Bay Saginaw I-75 Reconstruction $39,182,155 $35,263,940 $3,918,215
interchange
Two bridges in
2020 Bay Saginaw I-75 Bridge Replacement $14,675,779 $13,208,201 $1,467,578
Saginaw County
South of M-153 to Milling and Asphalt
2020 Metro Wayne I-275 $34,600,000 $28,320,100 $6,279,900
5 Mile Road Resurfacing
ITS Infrastructure and
2021 Metro Wayne I-96 I-96 $1,010,316 $826,943 $183,373
Device Installation
Milling and Asphalt
2021 Metro Wayne I-275 Northline Road to M-153 $49,520,000 $40,532,120 $8,987,880
Resurfacing
Interchange Redesign and
2021 Grand Kent EB I-96 At M-21 $2,015,000 $1,649,278 $365,722
Upgrading

2021 University Clinton I-69 I-96 to Airport Road Reconstruction $41,754,900 $37,579,410 $4,175,490

Four bridges on I-75 in

2021 University Monroe NB I-75 Bridge Replacement $17,020,000 $15,318,000 $1,702,000
Monroe County
Beaver Road to Cottage
2021 Bay Bay I-75 Unbonded Concrete Overlay $16,243,838 $14,619,454 $1,624,384
Grove Road

2021 University Jackson I-94 I-94 at Elm Road Reconstruction $17,723,968 $15,951,571 $1,772,397

2021 University Livingston I-96 Chilson Road to Dorr Road Concrete Pavement Inlay $15,680,000 $14,112,000 $1,568,000

Levering Road to south of

2021 North Cheboygan NB I-75 Unbonded Concrete Overlay $21,235,200 $17,381,011 $3,854,189
Hebron Town Hall Road

Michigan Freight Plan 89

TABLE 27 - FREIGHT INVESTMENT PLAN CONTINUED

Est Total Non-

FY Region County Route Location Description Federal
Funding Federal

2021 Bay St. Clair EB I-69 Riley Center Road to M-19 Major Rehabilitation $24,220,449 $21,798,404 $2,422,045

2021 Grand Kent I-196 Over the Grand River Deck Replacement $5,381,255 $4,843,130 $538,125

2021 Metro Wayne WB I-94 Conner Avenue to Chene Street Reconstruction $200,000,000 $180,000,000 $20,000,000

2021 Southwest Berrien EB I-94 Britain Avenue to I-196 Reconstruction $73,812,750 $66,431,475 $7,381,275

2021 University Monroe I-75 Under Laplaisance Road Bridge Replacement $10,200,000 $9,180,000 $1,020,000

Thornapple River Drive to

2021 Grand Kent I-96 Concrete Pavement Inlay $10,500,000 $9,450,000 $1,050,000
Whitneyville Avenue
Erie Road to
2021 University Monroe I-75 Concrete Reconstruction $72,000,000 $64,800,000 $7,200,000
Otter Creek Road
N Drive north to
2022 Southwest Calhoun I-69 Reconstruction $31,200,000 $28,080,000 $3,120,000
Eaton County line
South of I-75/I-375 interchange
2022 Metro Wayne I-375 Concrete Reconstruction $165,000,000 $148,500,000 $16,500,000
to Jefferson Avenue
St. Joseph River to Britain
2022 Southwest Berrien I-94 Reconstruction $46,250,000 $41,625,000 $4,625,000
Avenue
South of Hebron Town Hall Road Unbonded Concrete
2022 North Cheboygan SB I-75 $20,000,000 $16,370,000 $3,630,000
to US-31 Overlay
Interchange Redesign
2022 Southwest Berrien I-94 Pipestone Road (Exit 29) $1,800,000 $1,473,300 $326,700
and Upgrading

2022 Bay Genesee I-69 Fenton Road to M-54 Reconstruction $54,236,062 $48,812,456 $5,423,606

Under Hubbell Avenue and

2022 Metro Wayne I-96 Deck Replacement $6,046,950 $5,442,256 $604,694
Fullerton Avenue

2022 Grand Ionia EB I-94 Bliss Road east to M-66 Reconstruction $18,300,000 $16,470,000 $1,830,000

From Old M-108 to Mackinac Milling and Asphalt

2022 North Emmett I-75 $5,119,500 $4,190,311 $929,189
Bridge Resurfacing

Multimodal Freight Projects as a Supplement to the FIP

The Michigan Freight Plan is a multimodal document, but there are limitations of FIP project eligibility as defined by Title 23
for highway funding. Because of this, MDOT also included other significant highway and multimodal freight projects that are
not programmed in MDOT’s Five-Year Transportation Program in the FIP. The cost estimates for these projects should be
considered preliminary and are not necessarily the responsibility of the state or other public sector jurisdictions.

The following list includes highway, marine, aviation and rail projects that do not have fiscal constraint or are non-highway
modes, but play a significant role in Michigan’s freight network. Projects have been previously identified in the 2040 MITP, the
Michigan State Rail Plan, the Michigan Aviation System Plan, and other major planning documents.

The rail projects include only proposed or planned capital projects and studies identified by the industry. This project list is not
fiscally constrained, therefore most projects do not have a dedicated funding source. Projects shown were prioritized by the
industry, and do not necessarily represent MDOT’s prioritization of rail projects in Michigan.

90 Michigan Department of Transportation

TABLE 28 - MULTIMODAL PROJECTS: RAIL
Project Region County Description Estimated Cost

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal --

Metro Wayne Construct/expand intermodal terminals $257,000,000
Terminals
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal --
Metro Wayne Re-construct rail interlockers (junctions) $86,700,000
Rail Interlockers*
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal --
Metro Wayne Re-construct highway access $79,000,000
Highway Access

New Detroit-Windsor Rail Tunnel Metro Wayne Construct new rail tunnel $400,000,000

Reconnect A&B RR lines with Toledo,

Adrian & Blissfield Rail Road
University Lenawee switching terminal to elminate crossings and $7,500,000
Reconnection
re-route hazmat outside of Adrian.
DIFT line of track upgrades, including new
Norfolk Southern Track Upgrades Metro Wayne powered crossovers, additional main line $50,000,000
tracks, signalization, etc.
West Michigan Railroad Freight Proposed new freight connections in west
Southwest West Michigan $10,000,000
Connections Michigan.
Bay, Arenac,
Lake State Railway Company Ogemaw, Replace 73 miles of joined 105-pound rail
Bay/North $33,000,000
Mackinaw Subdivision Relay Roscommon, with 115-pound continuous welded rail.
Crawford

Ann Arbor Railroad CTC Signal University Monroe Replace CTC signal system. $1,342,000

*Includes CSX Delray Interlocker Modernization for $4 million

TABLE 29 - MULTIMODAL PROJECTS: MARINE
Project Region County Description Estimated Cost

New Soo Lock Superior Chippewa Construct new lock $580,000,000

Soo Locks Asset Renewal Superior Chippewa Upgrade Poe and McArthur locks $10,700,000

TABLE 30 - MULTIMODAL PROJECTS: HIGHWAY

Project Region County Description Estimated Cost
Gordie Howe International Bridge Metro Wayne Construct new border crossing N/A*
Blue Water Bridge Bay St. Clair Plaza expansion $274,600,000
I-94 Metro Wayne Reconstruct I-94 $2,752,600,000
I-75 Metro Wayne Reconstruct I-75 $1,331,400,000

*The Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) is a not-for-profit Canadian Crown corporation created in 2012 that will
manage the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Gordie Howe International Bridge through a public-
private partnership. Costs will be recovered through user tolls.

TABLE 31 - MULTIMODAL PROJECTS: AVIATION

Project Region County Description Estimated Cost

Detroit Willow Run Airport Metro Wayne Runway/taxiway construction, etc. $36,850,000
Detroit Metropolitan
Metro Wayne Runway/taxiway construction, etc. $269,030,000
Wayne County Airport
Flint Bishop International Airport Bay Genesee Taxiway/road/apron design and construction $5,350,000
Grand Rapids Gerald R. Ford
Grand Kent Apron/terminal construction, equipment, etc $48,024,200
International Airport
Lansing Capital Region
University Clinton Runway/taxiway rehabilitation, etc. $22,172,500
International Airport

Michigan Freight Plan 91

 APPENDIX A
CRITICAL
URBAN AND
RURAL FREIGHT
CORRIDORS

COLUMN DESCRIPTION

MDOT REGION MDOT region where corridor is located

COUNTY Michigan county where corridor is located

The MPO area in which the corridor is located and

MPO AREA
the party consulted with

DESIGNATING PARTY Specifies MPO or MDOT designation

CUFC Critical Urban Freight Corridor designated

START Starting point of the CUFC

END Ending point of the CUFC

PHFN CONNECTIVITY Connects an intermodal facility to the Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS) (YES or NO)

INTERSTATE
Connects an intermodal facility to the Interstate System (YES or NO)
CONNECTIVITY
INTERMODAL
Connects an intermodal facility to another intermodal freight facility (YES or NO)
CONNECTIVITY
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE Is located within a corridor of a route on the PHFS and provides an alternative highway
OPTION option important to goods movement (YES or NO)

Serves a major freight generator, logistic center, or manufacturing and warehouse

FREIGHT GENERATOR
industrial land (YES or NO)

SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT
Is important to the movement of freight within the region (YES or NO)
CORRIDOR

COHS MDOT Statewide and National Corridor of High Significance (COHS) (YES or NO)

MILES Length of the corridor in miles

A-1 Michigan Department of Transportation

ELIGIBLE CRITICAL URBAN FREIGHT CORRIDORS

ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION

INTERMODAL CONNECTIVITY
INTERSTATE CONNECTIVITY

SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT
FREIGHT GENERATOR
PHFN CONNECTIVITY
DESIGNATING PARTY
MDOT Region

CORRIDOR
MPO AREA
COUNTY

START

MILES
COHS
CUFC

END
Kalamazoo Area
US-131 Southwest Kalamazoo Transportation MDOT South Street US-131 BR x x x 13.6
Study

Grand Valley Grand Valley

US-131 Kent Kent Metropolitan Metropolitan 100th Street 17 Mile Road x x x 32.3
Council Council

M-39 Metro Wayne SEMCOG SEMCOG I-94 M-10 x x x x x 13.8

Southwest
US-31 Southwest Berrien Michigan Planning MDOT Yore Road I-94 x x x 1.1
Comission

Macatawa Area
US-31 Grand Ottawa Coordinating MDOT I-196 Barry Street x x x 11
Council

West Michigan
Shoreline Regional
US-31 Grand Ottawa MDOT Lincoln Street US-31 BR x x x 11.5
Development
Commission

Grand Valley Grand Valley

Ottawa/Kent
M-6 Grand Ottawa Metropolitan Metropolitan I-196 x x x 2.6
County Line
Council Council

Grand Valley Grand Valley

Ottawa/Kent
M-6 Grand Kent Metropolitan Metropolitan I-96 x x x 16.9
County Line
Council Council

US-23 University Washtenaw SEMCOG SEMCOG Judd Road M-14 x x x 12.8

Livingston
US-23 University Washtenaw SEMCOG SEMCOG 5 Mile Road x x x 2.7
County Line

Washtenaw
US-23 University Livingston SEMCOG SEMCOG Crouse Road x x x 16.3
County Line

Shiawassee
US-23 University Livingston SEMCOG SEMCOG Foley Road x x x 2
Avenue

Genesee County
Metropolitan Shiawassee
US-23 Bay Genesee MDOT I-75 x x x 12.5
Planning Avenue
Comission

M-14 University Washtenaw SEMCOG SEMCOG I-94 M-153 x x x 10.5

Michigan Freight Plan A-2

ELIGIBLE CRITICAL URBAN FREIGHT CORRIDORS CONTINUED

ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION

INTERMODAL CONNECTIVITY
INTERSTATE CONNECTIVITY

SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT
FREIGHT GENERATOR
PHFN CONNECTIVITY
DESIGNATING PARTY
MDOT Region

CORRIDOR
MPO AREA
COUNTY

START

MILES
COHS
CUFC

END
M-14 Metro Wayne SEMCOG SEMCOG Washtenaw County Line I-96/I-275 x x x 6.4

Region 2 Planning
US-127 University Jackson MDOT Henry Road I-94 x x x 5.4
Commission

Region 2 Planning
US-127 University Jackson MDOT I-94 Hart Road x x x 7
Commission

Region 2 Planning
US-127 BR University Jackson MDOT I-94 US-127 x x 6.3
Commission

5 Mile Road Metro Wayne SEMCOG SEMCOG Napier Road Beck Road x x 2

Beck Road Metro Wayne SEMCOG SEMCOG M-14 5 Mile Road x x 1

Macomb County
26 Mile Road Metro Macomb SEMCOG SEMCOG I-94 x x x 1.2
Line

King Road Bay St. Clair SEMCOG SEMCOG Marine City Highway West Boulevard x x x 0.5

West Boulevard Bay St. Clair SEMCOG SEMCOG King Road M-29 x x x 0.5

M-29 Bay St. Clair SEMCOG SEMCOG West Boulevard Water Street x x x 0.6

Water Street Bay St. Clair SEMCOG SEMCOG M-29 Ferry Dock x x x 0.3

Macomb/
23 Mile Road Metro SEMCOG SEMCOG Gratiot Avenue I-94 x x x x 0.6
Wayne

Macomb/
Gratiot Avenue Metro SEMCOG SEMCOG I-94 23 Mile Road x x x x 22.2
Wayne

E. Front Street University Monroe SEMCOG SEMCOG I-75 East end of road x x x x 1.3

Telegraph Road University Monroe SEMCOG SEMCOG 3rd Street I-275 x x 13.8

Carleton Rockwood Wayne County

Telegraph Road University Monroe SEMCOG SEMCOG x x 2.2
Road Line

Telegraph Road Metro Wayne SEMCOG SEMCOG Wayne County Line Dix Toledo Road x x 3.5

Dix Toledo
Metro Wayne SEMCOG SEMCOG Telegraph Road I-75 x x 2.4
Road

US-31 BR
(Seaway Drive/
Grand Muskegon WestPlan MDOT I-96 US-31 x x x x 9.5
Shoreline
Drive)
Kalamazoo Area
Sprinkle Road Southwest Kalamazoo Transportation MDOT I-94 M-43 x x x 4.1
Study

Kalamazoo Area
I-94 BL Southwest Kalamazoo Transportation MDOT I-94 Kilgore Road x x x 1
Study

W. Grand River
University Clinton TCRPC MDOT I-96 Waverly Road x x 3.2
Avenue

A-3 Michigan Department of Transportation

ELIGIBLE CRITICAL URBAN FREIGHT CORRIDORS CONTINUED

ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION

INTERMODAL CONNECTIVITY
INTERSTATE CONNECTIVITY

SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT
FREIGHT GENERATOR
PHFN CONNECTIVITY
DESIGNATING PARTY
MDOT Region

CORRIDOR
MPO AREA
COUNTY

START

MILES
COHS
CUFC

END
N. Grand River Capitol City
University Ingham TCRPC MDOT Waverly Road x x 0.8
Avenue Boulevard

Capitol City Clinton County

University Ingham TCRPC MDOT N. Grand River Avenue x x 0.2
Boulevard Line

Capitol City
University Clinton TCRPC MDOT Ingham County Line W. Circle Drive x x 0.2
Boulevard

Winstanley
M-100 University Eaton TCRPC MDOT W. Eaton Highway x 0.3
Boulevard

Winstanley
University Eaton TCRPC MDOT M-100 Lowes Distribution x 0.3
Boulevard

Lansing Road University Eaton TCRPC MDOT I-69 Waverly Road x 3.7

Davis Highway University Eaton TCRPC MDOT Guinea Road N. Canal Road x 1

Millet Highway University Eaton TCRPC MDOT Guinea Road Creyts Road x 2

W. Mt. Hope
N. Canal Road University Eaton TCRPC MDOT Davis Highway x 2
Highway

Creyts Road University Eaton TCRPC MDOT Lansing Road I-496 x 2.4

W. Mt. Hope
University Eaton TCRPC MDOT N Canal Road Lansing Road x 2.7
Highway

S. Waverly Eaton/
University TCRPC MDOT Lansing Road I-496 x 0.4
Road Ingham

Cedar Street University Ingham TCRPC MDOT US-127 W. Howell Road x 0.4

W. Howell
University Ingham TCRPC MDOT Cedar Street US-127 x 0.2
Road

Hogsback
University Ingham TCRPC MDOT W. Howell Road Josephine Lane x 0.6
Road

Holt Road University Ingham TCRPC MDOT Depot Street US-127 x 1.3

Genesee County
Metropolitan
Bristol Road Bay Genesee MDOT I-69 Van Slyke Road x x 2.8
Planning
Comission

Oakwood
S. Dix Street Metro Wayne SEMCOG SEMCOG S. Wabash Road x x 0.6
Boulevard

Oakwood
Metro Wayne SEMCOG SEMCOG S. Dix Street Schaefer Highway x 0.3
Boulevard

Livernois Ave Metro Wayne SEMCOG SEMCOG I-94 I-75 x x 2.3

Michigan Freight Plan A-4

ELIGIBLE CRITICAL URBAN FREIGHT CORRIDORS CONTINUED

ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION

INTERMODAL CONNECTIVITY
INTERSTATE CONNECTIVITY

SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT
FREIGHT GENERATOR
PHFN CONNECTIVITY
DESIGNATING PARTY
MDOT Region

CORRIDOR
MPO AREA
COUNTY

START

MILES
COHS
CUFC

END
Ingham County
US-127 University Clinton TCRPC MDOT I-69 x x 3.4
Line

Clinton County
US-127 University Ingham TCRPC MDOT I-496 x x 3.2
Line

US-127 University Ingham TCRPC MDOT I-96 Holt Road x x 3.1

US-127 University Ingham TCRPC MDOT Howell Road Barnes Road x x 5.3

Macatawa Area
M-40 Southwest Allegan MDOT US-31 52nd Street x 3.4
Coordinating Council

Macatawa Area
I-196 BL Grand Ottawa MDOT I-196 Main Street x 0.5
Coordinating Council

Macatawa Area
Main Street Grand Ottawa MDOT I-196 BL M-121 x 0.1
Coordinating Council

Macatawa Area
M-121 Grand Ottawa MDOT Main Street Felch Street x 0.6
Coordinating Council

Grand Valley
M-11 Grand Valley
Grand Kent Metropolitan US-131 Madison Avenue x x 1.1
(28th Street) Metropolitan Council
Council
Grand Valley
Walker Grand Valley
Grand Kent Metropolitan 3 Mile Road 4 Mile Road x 1.1
Avenue Metropolitan Council
Council
Grand Valley
Grand Valley Fruit Ridge
3 Mile Road Grand Kent Metropolitan Walker Avenue x 2
Metropolitan Council Avenue
Council

Grand Valley
Fruit Ridge Grand Valley
Grand Kent Metropolitan 3 Mile Road 4 Mile Road x 1
Avenue Metropolitan Council
Council

Grand Valley
Grand Valley
M-21 Grand Kent Metropolitan I-96 Pettis Avenue x 5.2
Metropolitan Council
Council
Grand Valley
Grand Valley
36th Street Grand Kent Metropolitan US-131 Eastern Avenue x 1.6
Metropolitan Council
Council
Grand Valley
Eastern Grand Valley
Grand Kent Metropolitan 36th Street 44th Street x 1
Avenue Metropolitan Council
Council

Grand Valley
Grand Valley
44th Street Grand Kent Metropolitan US-131 Eastern Avenue x 1.8
Metropolitan Council
Council

Grand Valley
Grand Valley Terminus South of
Clay Avenue Grand Kent Metropolitan 36th Street x 3.1
Metropolitan Council 54th Street
Council
Grand Valley
Grand Valley Clyde Park
54th Street Grand Kent Metropolitan Clay Avenue x 0.4
Metropolitan Council Avenue
Council
Grand Valley
Clyde Park Grand Valley
Grand Kent Metropolitan 54th Street 58th Street x 0.6
Avenue Metropolitan Council
Council

Grand Valley
Grand Valley Clyde Park
68th Street Grand Kent Metropolitan US-131 x 0.3
Metropolitan Council Avenue
Council

A-5 Michigan Department of Transportation

ELIGIBLE CRITICAL URBAN FREIGHT CORRIDORS CONTINUED

ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTION

INTERMODAL CONNECTIVITY
INTERSTATE CONNECTIVITY

SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT
FREIGHT GENERATOR
PHFN CONNECTIVITY
DESIGNATING PARTY
MDOT Region

CORRIDOR
MPO AREA
COUNTY

START

MILES
COHS
CUFC

END
Clyde Park Grand Valley Grand Valley
Grand Kent 68th Street 84th Street x 2
Avenue Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council

Grand Valley Grand Valley Clyde Park

84th Street Grand Kent US-131 x 0.7
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council Avenue

Grand Valley Grand Valley Clyde Park

76th Street Grand Kent US-131 x 0.6
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council Avenue

Madison
Avenue/
Grand Valley Grand Valley M-11
Roger Grand Kent 44th Street x 2.1
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council (28th Street)
Chaffee
Boulevard

Grand Valley Grand Valley

Hall Street Grand Kent Freeman Street US-131 x 1
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council

Freeman Grand Valley Grand Valley

Grand Kent Railroad Tracks Hall Street x 0.2
Street Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council

M-11 Grand Valley Grand Valley

Grand Kent I-196 Chicago Drive x 0.8
(28th Street) Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council

Chicago Grand Valley Grand Valley

Grand Kent Godfrey Avenue x 3.5
Drive Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council

Godfrey Grand Valley Grand Valley

Grand Kent Hall Street x 0.6
Avenue Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council

Patterson Grand Valley Grand Valley

Grand Kent 36th Street M-37 x 2.6
Avenue Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council

Grand Valley Grand Valley

52nd Street Grand Kent M-37 Kraft Avenue x 1.3
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council

Grand Valley Grand Valley Patterson

44th Street Grand Kent M-37 x 0.9
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council Avenue

Grand Valley Grand Valley

36th Street Grand Kent M-37 I-96 ramps x 2.8
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council

Grand Valley Grand Valley

M-37 Grand Kent 36th Street M-6 x 3.7
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council

Grand Valley Grand Valley

Turner Street Grand Kent West River Drive Ann Street x 0.9
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council

Grand Valley Grand Valley

100th Street Grand Kent S. Kent Drive Division Avenue x 0.4
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council

Total Eligible Miles 341.6

Michigan Freight Plan A-6

 APPENDIX A
CRITICAL
URBAN AND
RURAL FREIGHT
CORRIDORS
COLUMN DESCRIPTION

MDOT REGION MDOT region where corridor is located

COUNTY Michigan county where corridor is located

MPO AREA The MPO area in which the corridor is located (if applicable) and the party consulted with

DESIGNATING PARTY Specifies MPO or MDOT designation

CUFC Critical CRFC Freight Corridor designated

START Starting point of the CRFC

END Ending point of the CRFC

Rural principal arterial roadwaya minimum of 25 percent of the annual average daily
AADT traffic of the road measured in passenger vehicle equivalent (PVE) units from trucks (YES
or NO)
Provides access to energy exploration, development, installation, or production areas (YES
ENERGY PRODUCTION
or NO)

UNIT SIZE/CARGO Connects PHFS or Interstate System to facilities that handle more than 50,000 20-foot
TONS equivalent units per year or 500,000 tons per year of bulk commodities (YES or NO)

AGRICULTURAL Provides access to a grain elevator, an agricultural facility, a mining facility, a forestry
CONNECTION facility or an intermodal facility (YES or NO)

PORT OF ENTRY
Connects to an international port of entry (YES or NO)
CONNECTION
FREIGHT FACILITY
Provides access to significant air, rail, water, or other freight facilities (YES or NO)
ACCESS
SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT Is important to the to improving the efficient movement of freight within the state
CORRIDOR (YES or NO)

COHS MDOT Statewide and National Corridor of High Significance (COHS) (YES or NO)

MILES Length of the corridor in miles

A-7 Michigan Department of Transportation

ELIGIBLE CRITICAL RURAL FREIGHT CORRIDORS

PORT OF ENTRY CONNECTION

AGRICULTURAL CONNECTION

FREIGHT FACILITY ACCESS

UNIT SIZE/CARGO TONS
ENERGY PRODUCTION

SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT
DESIGNATING PARTY
MDOT REGION

CORRIDOR
MPO AREA
COUNTY

START

MILES
COHS
CRFC

AADT
END
Michigan and Kalamazoo
US-131 Southwest St. Joseph N/A MDOT x x x x 22.3
Indiana Border County Line

Kalamazoo Area Kalamazoo

US-131 Southwest Kalamazoo MDOT South Street x x x 2.8
Transportation Study County Line

Kalamazoo Area Allegan County

US-131 Southwest Kalamazoo MDOT US-131 BR x x x x 6.3
Transportation Study Line

Allegan County
US-131 Southwest Kent N/A MDOT Kent County Line x x x 24.2
Line

Grand Valley Metro

US-131 Grand Kent MDOT Kent County Line 100th Street x x x 1
Council

Grand Valley Metro Montcalm County

US-131 Grand Kent MDOT 17 Mile Road x x x 5.7
Council Line

Montcalm County
US-131 Grand Montcalm N/A MDOT Edgar Road x x x 9.9
Line

Southwest Michigan Michigan and 1 Mile North of

US-31 Southwest Berrien MDOT x x x 9.8
Planning Comission Indiana Border Matthew Road

1 Mile North of
US-31 Southwest Berrien N/A MDOT St. Joseph River x x x 7.2
Matthew Road

Southwest Michigan
US-31 Southwest Berrien MDOT St. Joseph River Napier Road x x x 4.2
Planning Comission

Napier Southwest Michigan

Southwest Berrien MDOT US-31 Yore Road x x x 0.7
Road Planning Comission

Macatawa Area
US-31 Grand Ottawa MDOT Barry Street Fillmore Street x x x 6.1
Coordinating Council

West Michigan Shoreline

US-31 Grand Ottawa Regional Development MDOT Fillmore Street Lincoln Street x x x 4.5
Commission

Michigan Freight Plan A-8

ELIGIBLE CRITICAL RURAL FREIGHT CORRIDORS CONTINUED

PORT OF ENTRY CONNECTION

AGRICULTURAL CONNECTION

FREIGHT FACILITY ACCESS

UNIT SIZE/CARGO TONS
ENERGY PRODUCTION

SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT
DESIGNATING PARTY
MDOT REGION

CORRIDOR
MPO AREA
COUNTY

START

MILES
COHS
CRFC

AADT
END
Michigan and Washtenaw
US-23 University Monroe SEMCOG MDOT x x x x 25.5
Ohio Border County Line

Washtenaw
US-23 University Washtenaw SEMCOG MDOT Judd Road x x x x 4.1
County Line

US-23 University Washtenaw SEMCOG MDOT M-14 5 Mile Road x x x x 5.1

US-23 University Livingston SEMCOG MDOT Crouse Road Foley Road x x x x 7

Wayne County
M-14 University Washtenaw SEMCOG MDOT M-153 x x x 5.3
Line

Region 2 Planning
US-127 University Jackson MDOT Baseline Road Henry Road x x 5
Commission

Region 2 Planning
US-127 University Jackson MDOT Hart Road Vicary Road x x 7.2
Commission

Marine City Macomb

Bay St. Clair SEMCOG MDOT King Road x x 11.2
Highway County Line

Telegraph Michigan and

University Monroe SEMCOG MDOT 3rd Street x 9
Road Ohio Border

Telegraph Carleton
University Monroe SEMCOG MDOT I-275 x 3.7
Road Rockwood Road

US-127 BR University Clinton TCRPC MDOT US-127 W. Walker Road x 1.5

Tolles Drive University Clinton TCRPC MDOT US-127 BR Technical Drive X 0.4

Technical Drive
Technical Drive University Clinton TCRPC MDOT Tolles Drive X 0.1
Termini

W. Walker
University Clinton TCRPC MDOT US-127 BR Zeeb Drive X
Road
W. Eaton
M-100 University Clinton TCRPC MDOT I-96 x 2.1
Highway
S. Cochran
University Eaton TCRPC MDOT I-69 M-50 X 2.6
Road
W Shepherd
University Eaton TCRPC MDOT M-50 Reynolds Road X 0.9
Street

W. Shepherd Reynolds Road

Reynolds Road University Eaton TCRPC MDOT X 0.5
Street Termini

A-9 Michigan Department of Transportation

ELIGIBLE CRITICAL RURAL FREIGHT CORRIDORS CONTINUED

PORT OF ENTRY CONNECTION

AGRICULTURAL CONNECTION

FREIGHT FACILITY ACCESS

UNIT SIZE/CARGO TONS
ENERGY PRODUCTION

SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT
DESIGNATING PARTY
MDOT REGION

CORRIDOR
MPO AREA
COUNTY

START

MILES
COHS
CRFC

AADT
END
Lansing
University Eaton TCRPC MDOT I-69 Packard Highway X 0.8
Road

Packard
University Eaton TCRPC MDOT M-50 Lansing Road X 1.4
Highway

E. Grand River
M-52 University Ingham TCRPC MDOT I-96 x X 0.7
Avenue

US-127 University Clinton TCRPC MDOT US-127 BR I-69 x x 17

US-127 University Ingham TCRPC MDOT Holt Road Howell Road x x 3.1

Barnes Jackson County

US-127 University Ingham TCRPC MDOT x x 7.1
Road Line

Macatawa Area
M-40 Southwest Ottawa MDOT 52nd Steet 136th Steet x x 4
Coordinating Council

Total Eligible Miles 230.2

Michigan Freight Plan A-10

MICHIGAN
FREIGHT PLAN
Supplement to the 2040 MI Transportation Plan