[Dave]

Oh, would that it were that easy! While I think you've got an excellent, experienced perspective on the Historical Review Board's past actions, I don't think it will matter in a federal environmental impact statement. EISs *must* consider the effect on historical zones, districts, and sites. What would worry me about that, if I were still representing NICTD, is that it could be used as a "hook" by someone who wants to stop the project, or by someone or some group (cough cough...North End...) that wants the line to go elsewhere.

Umm, I have a thought on this. See below at ***

Well, I wouldn't characterize a new separated railroad right of way as a "lake of asphalt", but I see your point.

The "lake of asphalt" I'm talking about is the proposed parking area in the NICTD proposal, which involves two city blocks of street level parking south of 11th street where there are currently residences. Not what I'd call "pretty."

An EIS would be required anywhere the line is built, but it would be much more complicated and, as I said, possibly fatally so, if the line were by design to encroach on a historic zone. That has implications in the federal EIS approval process, and again - that vulnerability could be exploited by someone who wishes to stop the project (even if they have zero interest in preserving the historical assets of the area).

*** My thought from above: How much of an EIS would be required if the rails stay right where they are? I can see where something might be required for the parking structure, but if the rails remain in the middle of 11th street, with the asphalt removed as I suggested in post #69, what would be required for that? Apparently, from what I just read in the Municipal Code, the Historic District runs down the middle of 11th street -- but the South Shore rails were there before the district was set up. I'd think a persuasive argument can be made to "grandfather" in the tracks if they stay right where they are.

I'm sure more parking would be a good thing in a commercial zone, but the traffic study I'm talking about would be a volume study - in other words, how much more vehicular traffic is going to be directed downtown, and what environmental impact will that have on the surrounding neighborhood(s)? Could be a problem if the current street network is assessed as not up to the task, and the historic zone is subjected to a higher level of vehicular traffic and congestion. That might not play very well at all in an EIS.

I freely admit I know nothing about EIS's, but I can tell you this -- every plan the city has had for north end redevelopment has had increased traffic in this area as one of its goals. It's needed to revitalize the north end commercial district.

This post has been edited by Dave: Oct 18 2009, 07:59 PM

[joe.black]

The "lake of asphalt" I'm talking about is the proposed parking area in the NICTD proposal, which involves two city blocks of street level parking south of 11th street where there are currently residences. Not what I'd call "pretty."

Ah, I see now. Yes, that would be a virtual lake, wouldn't it? But the railroad needs many more parking spaces in Michigan City than what is currently provided by the combined 11th Street and Carroll Avenue Stations. Seems to me (and you, apparently!) that a parking deck would be a better way to go.

*** My thought from above: How much of an EIS would be required if the rails stay right where they are? I can see where something might be required for the parking structure, but if the rails remain in the middle of 11th street, with the asphalt removed as I suggested in post #69, what would be required for that? Apparently, from what I just read in the Municipal Code, the Historic District runs down the middle of 11th street -- but the South Shore rails were there before the district was set up. I'd think a persuasive argument can be made to "grandfather" in the tracks if they stay right where they are.

The station and parking structure would both require an EIS (or one EIS covering both, more likely). But if, as I've said before, a medium-term goal for NICTD is double tracking the railroad as the most cost-effective way of increasing reliability and capacity, then there will need to be a second track there someday. Also, remember my concerns about the overhead power system, which is tenuous at best right now. You would need to build substantially heavier structures to support a full overhead catenary system, which would be required for speeds higher than about 30 mph. That would change the streetscape as well, and also require the purchase of more property.

I freely admit I know nothing about EIS's, but I can tell you this -- every plan the city has had for north end redevelopment has had increased traffic in this area as one of its goals. It's needed to revitalize the north end commercial district.

That makes all the sense in the world, I just wonder if the argument that "the neighborhood will be inundated with cars because the streets won't be able to handle the traffic" is one that would be advanced by opponents. Something like that, believe it or not, can delay the EIS process, sometimes substantially.

[Dave]

But if, as I've said before, a medium-term goal for NICTD is double tracking the railroad as the most cost-effective way of increasing reliability and capacity, then there will need to be a second track there someday. Also, remember my concerns about the overhead power system, which is tenuous at best right now. You would need to build substantially heavier structures to support a full overhead catenary system, which would be required for speeds higher than about 30 mph. That would change the streetscape as well, and also require the purchase of more property.

What is the minimal width necessary for double tracking? It appears to me, after looking at the 11th street corridor, that the street is something on the order of 40 feet wide from curb to curb for most of its length. Is more than that actually required?

As for going faster than 30 mph, I'm not sure that's really ever going to be in the cards with the train running through the middle of town. Even if there are a lot of grade crossings closed, there are still going to be a bunch of them, and I'd think safety concerns would have to keep the speeds down. Unless you're suggesting that there are going to be barricades and fences the whole length of 11th street, which I can tell you right now would be fought tooth and nail. No way, no how, are people going to let the 11th street corridor end up looking like the area around the Gary Airport stop, with the fences and general blight there. Some of the NICTD/South Shore right of ways (or would that be "rights of way"? Whatever.) should embarrass the heck out of NICTD.

That makes all the sense in the world, I just wonder if the argument that "the neighborhood will be inundated with cars because the streets won't be able to handle the traffic" is one that would be advanced by opponents. Something like that, believe it or not, can delay the EIS process, sometimes substantially.

Well, if NICTD built the parking structure on the block I've been referencing, and put the entrance and exit on the Franklin Street side, I'd think the impact on the neighboring residential areas would be minimized, and the additional traffic on Franklin (a commercial street) would be welcomed.

[joe.black]

What is the minimal width necessary for double tracking? It appears to me, after looking at the 11th street corridor, that the street is something on the order of 40 feet wide from curb to curb for most of its length. Is more than that actually required?

There is no real standard width of a railroad right of way, but 25' to either side (from track center) is a conservative number. Track centers are usually about 12' to 15' apart. So, a double track railroad could take up, on the low side, 65' of horizontal space. Add in some extra space for signal appliances, catenary poles, and other ancillary infrastructure, and you could be looking at a minimum of 75'. That's a very conservative estimate, though. I'd say a more realistic width would be in the 100' range for a right of way encompassing two tracks.

As for going faster than 30 mph, I'm not sure that's really ever going to be in the cards with the train running through the middle of town. Even if there are a lot of grade crossings closed, there are still going to be a bunch of them, and I'd think safety concerns would have to keep the speeds down.

That's a common misconception. The trains don't need to go slower because of "safety concerns", drivers and pedestrians need to heed the grade crossing warnings just as they would a red traffic light, and not drive around gates. Trains have the right of way, legally and practically.

I used to do outreach work to school-age kids on safety around train tracks in one of my former lives as a safety officer for an eastern transportation authority. When some high school students complained that the trains should all just be slowed down rather than force young people to cross at designated crossings and heed warning signals, I asked them if it would be OK if the government lowered the speed limit on the streets they drive to 10 miles per hour for the sake of "safety". They invariably object strongly, and when asked why they reject the idea, they say, "people shouldn't be walking in the street; streets are for cars". I think you can see where I'm going with this, and what my next statement to them was.

I don't see millions being invested in the right of way being improved, brought up to the standards of the rest of the line, and catenary substantially rebuilt, just so trains can poke along at the current speed. Another plank in the long term vision NICTD has for the railroad is increasing average travel speeds and decreasing average trip times. Part of that is operating in a "normal" fashion on private railroad rights of way.

Unless you're suggesting that there are going to be barricades and fences the whole length of 11th street, which I can tell you right now would be fought tooth and nail. No way, no how, are people going to let the 11th street corridor end up looking like the area around the Gary Airport stop, with the fences and general blight there. Some of the NICTD/South Shore right of ways (or would that be "rights of way"? Whatever.) should embarrass the heck out of NICTD.

I don't agree that it should embarrass NICTD, since the trash and blight is not the railroad's doing. It *should* embarrass the people who live near those tracks. The railroad's fences are just an unfortunately convenient wind trap for all of the detrius that people throw on the streets.

[southyards]

"I used to do outreach work to school-age kids on safety around train tracks in one of my former lives as a safety officer for an eastern transportation authority. When some high school students complained that the trains should all just be slowed down rather than force young people to cross at designated crossings and heed warning signals, I asked them if it would be OK if the government lowered the speed limit on the streets they drive to 10 miles per hour for the sake of "safety". They invariably object strongly, and when asked why they reject the idea, they say, "people shouldn't be walking in the street; streets are for cars". I think you can see where I'm going with this, and what my next statement to them was."


Unfortunately, things that don’t belong somewhere invariably get there for one reason or another. So, when comparing stopping distances at a given speed, which is able to stop in a shorter distance if the need arises, automobile or train? (Within city limits)

[Dave]

To reply out of order:

I don't agree that it should embarrass NICTD, since the trash and blight is not the railroad's doing. It *should* embarrass the people who live near those tracks. The railroad's fences are just an unfortunately convenient wind trap for all of the detrius that people throw on the streets.

Sorry, wrong. If there's trash in my front yard, I clean it up. If there's trash on NICTD property, as a good neighbor to the people who have to live near their tracks they have an obligation to keep it clean. At this task they appear to fail. For goodness sake, doesn't NICTD have any groundskeepers to keep their rights of way tidy?

...the rest of what you said...

Given that the width of 11th street appears to be inadequate for double tracking (by the way, those numbers seem on the high side to me -- 100 feet? If track centers can be 15 feet apart, I would think that 15 feet either side of the tracks would be adequate, so 15 + 15 + 15 = 45 feet would seem to me to be an absolute minimum. But I defer to your superior knowledge on this subject), I think NICTD may have to get used to the idea of single tracking through Michigan City.

Considering that their plan involving knocking down on the order of 150 buildings, which no doubt would involve using eminent domain proceedings and just compensation for the displaced landowners which would probably cost upwards of $15 million for the properties alone, and additionally considering NITCD's $30 million annual budget, perhaps they may conclude that the costs involved (financial and public goodwill costs) exceed the utility of double tracking these 2 1/2 miles of their what, 84 miles of track. 'Tis a pity they didn't think of double tracking 100 years ago when they initially laid the tracks, but economically and politically I don't see cutting a 100 foot wide swath through a residential area happening now or at any point in the foreseeable future.

As for the overhead wiring, on Google maps I saw some overhead apparatus for the single track near where it crosses Central Avenue (here's a link - hope that works) which appears to be a solid structure, not wooden poles, which is less than 40 feet wide (per the "ruler" function on Google Earth, 38 feet and change). It seems to me those could fit in the street. Heck, to my untrained eye it looks like one could run an additional set of tracks under that thing, but I guess NITCD didn't plan in advance for double tracking there either.

You mentioned a traffic study earlier. God knows we LOVE studies here in Michigan City. Here's a study/plan I'd like to see: what would be the pricetag for NICTD to follow my modest proposal, tearing the asphalt out of 11th street and building a parking structure/renovated station at the 11th and Pine location. I bet that could be done for substantially less than the $65 million this project is budgeted for. And it would have the added benefit of NOT gutting the downtown, but actually enhancing it.

[Dave]

Unfortunately, things that don’t belong somewhere invariably get there for one reason or another. So, when comparing stopping distances at a given speed, which is able to stop in a shorter distance if the need arises, automobile or train? (Within city limits)

Even at relatively low speeds, trains need a lot of room to stop. That's kind of the nature of the beast -- steel wheels on steel tracks don't provide a lot of friction for stopping, because the goal is to have as little friction as possible to make rolling easier. Add to that the simple mass of the train -- even a shortish passenger train is going to have probably on the order of 100 tonnes of mass -- that just isn't going to stop quickly.

My concern about running trains at high speed through a densly populated area isn't about the train being able to stop -- it's about people being able to get the heck out of the way.

[southyards]

Even at relatively low speeds, trains need a lot of room to stop. That's kind of the nature of the beast -- steel wheels on steel tracks don't provide a lot of friction for stopping, because the goal is to have as little friction as possible to make rolling easier. Add to that the simple mass of the train -- even a shortish passenger train is going to have probably on the order of 100 tonnes of mass -- that just isn't going to stop quickly.

My concern about running trains at high speed through a densly populated area isn't about the train being able to stop -- it's about people being able to get the heck out of the way.

On the stopping distance, you can’t compare trains to cars, which was my point. There’s no doubt many opinions and numbers out there as to the time & distance it takes to stop a train. Depends on speed, mass, and if track is wet or dry. One post by a railroad engineer on the Internet (website not really important for an informal discussion) is that at 30 mph a passenger train takes a quarter mile and maybe 30 seconds to stop and at 60 mph, about half a mile and 45 seconds. The person that posted these numbers didn't specify the number of cars in his example.
As far as people and/or vehicles getting out of the way, especially in town, there always has been and always will be issues there. Just seems common sense that lower speeds should lower the number of incidents.

[joe.black]

Unfortunately, things that don’t belong somewhere invariably get there for one reason or another. So, when comparing stopping distances at a given speed, which is able to stop in a shorter distance if the need arises, automobile or train? (Within city limits)

Automobile, for certain. Adhesion of rubber tire on asphalt is much higher than that of steel wheel on steel rail (whose primary attraction is lower adhesion, and lower range of adhesions under various conditions).

[joe.black]

To reply out of order:
Sorry, wrong. If there's trash in my front yard, I clean it up. If there's trash on NICTD property, as a good neighbor to the people who have to live near their tracks they have an obligation to keep it clean. At this task they appear to fail. For goodness sake, doesn't NICTD have any groundskeepers to keep their rights of way tidy?

NICTD does employ some facilities people who are responsible for that type of maintenance, but that's in addition to other tasks. I don't agree that it's NICTD's responsibility in all cases, sorry. If your neighbor throws his trash in the street and the wind blows it onto your property, I think you'd probably be more likely to lay the responsibility for that at your neighbor's feet, and probably confront him/her about it. I will admit, though, that to follow this analogy out, you'd probably clean your neighbor's junk up the first few times.

Given that the width of 11th street appears to be inadequate for double tracking (by the way, those numbers seem on the high side to me -- 100 feet? If track centers can be 15 feet apart, I would think that 15 feet either side of the tracks would be adequate, so 15 + 15 + 15 = 45 feet would seem to me to be an absolute minimum. But I defer to your superior knowledge on this subject), I think NICTD may have to get used to the idea of single tracking through Michigan City.

Perhaps, but I'll tell you now that full double track is a medium to long range goal of the railroad, and the intention is to set aside enough ROW to accomplish a full double track at some point in the future (or at least to not do something that would preclude it).

Considering that their plan involving knocking down on the order of 150 buildings, which no doubt would involve using eminent domain proceedings and just compensation for the displaced landowners which would probably cost upwards of $15 million for the properties alone, and additionally considering NITCD's $30 million annual budget, perhaps they may conclude that the costs involved (financial and public goodwill costs) exceed the utility of double tracking these 2 1/2 miles of their what, 84 miles of track. 'Tis a pity they didn't think of double tracking 100 years ago when they initially laid the tracks, but economically and politically I don't see cutting a 100 foot wide swath through a residential area happening now or at any point in the foreseeable future.

You might not see it, but I'm telling you that that is the goal, in either the medium or long term. As I've said, double tracking is the single most cost-effective and dramatic means to increase capacity and reliability.

As for the overhead wiring, on Google maps I saw some overhead apparatus for the single track near where it crosses Central Avenue (here's a link - hope that works) which appears to be a solid structure, not wooden poles, which is less than 40 feet wide (per the "ruler" function on Google Earth, 38 feet and change). It seems to me those could fit in the street. Heck, to my untrained eye it looks like one could run an additional set of tracks under that thing, but I guess NITCD didn't plan in advance for double tracking there either.

Actually, I think double track did exist there at one time. Look at all of that open space to the north of the railway. Double track catenary, especially the newer, hardier type that NICTD is installing (called "constant tension catenary), usually takes up a bit more space than the simple pole construction that is the norm east of Gary (but which won't be after the Phase II catenary work is finished).

You mentioned a traffic study earlier. God knows we LOVE studies here in Michigan City. Here's a study/plan I'd like to see: what would be the pricetag for NICTD to follow my modest proposal, tearing the asphalt out of 11th street and building a parking structure/renovated station at the 11th and Pine location. I bet that could be done for substantially less than the $65 million this project is budgeted for. And it would have the added benefit of NOT gutting the downtown, but actually enhancing it.

That would be a good subject for a study, I think.

[joe.black]

As far as people and/or vehicles getting out of the way, especially in town, there always has been and always will be issues there. Just seems common sense that lower speeds should lower the number of incidents.

My point is that there shouldn't be a need for people to "get out of the way". Railroad ROW is private property, and the grade crossing warning systems are there for a serious reason. It is illegal to drive around lowered crossing gates or ignore flashing warning lights, just as it's illegal to drive your private auto recklessly.

To me, the fact that it takes a greater distance for a train to stop is not an argument for lower train speeds, it's an argument for better warning systems, and for people not breaking the law.

[southyards]

My point is that there shouldn't be a need for people to "get out of the way". Railroad ROW is private property, and the grade crossing warning systems are there for a serious reason. It is illegal to drive around lowered crossing gates or ignore flashing warning lights, just as it's illegal to drive your private auto recklessly.

To me, the fact that it takes a greater distance for a train to stop is not an argument for lower train speeds, it's an argument for better warning systems, and for people not breaking the law.

Crossing gates and flashing lights certainly are serious warning devices, not to be ignored. Just as stoplights, traffic signs, and blinking lights are serious warning devices for automobiles. And, it’s illegal to ignore them also. However, if motorists could be trusted to obey those devices, municipalities wouldn’t need to lower their speed limits quite as low as they do. Point being that within city limits, whether it be train or car, warning systems or not, lower speed limits just plain make sense. One doesn’t have to look too long or far to realize that while Railroad ROW is private property, many folks choose to ignore that fact. Just like there are some that insist on running red traffic lights and stop signs.

[Dave]

NICTD does employ some facilities people who are responsible for that type of maintenance, but that's in addition to other tasks. I don't agree that it's NICTD's responsibility in all cases, sorry. If your neighbor throws his trash in the street and the wind blows it onto your property, I think you'd probably be more likely to lay the responsibility for that at your neighbor's feet, and probably confront him/her about it. I will admit, though, that to follow this analogy out, you'd probably clean your neighbor's junk up the first few times.

Most of the trash in my neighborhood isn't due to the people who live here, it's due to transients going through. Hard to confront someone who just threw a McDonald's bag out of their window as they drive away at 40 mph. My experience. gathered through 50 summers, has been that most people don't litter in their own yards. There are notable exceptions to this, of course.

Perhaps, but I'll tell you now that full double track is a medium to long range goal of the railroad, and the intention is to set aside enough ROW to accomplish a full double track at some point in the future (or at least to not do something that would preclude it).

You might not see it, but I'm telling you that that is the goal, in either the medium or long term. As I've said, double tracking is the single most cost-effective and dramatic means to increase capacity and reliability.

I'll concede that double tracking is "the single most cost-effective and dramatic means to increase capacity and reliability." The real issue, however, is the cost. In dollars, and in the effect doing so would have on Michigan City. NICTD may have their point of view due to their concerns regarding efficiency, etc., but this is where we live. Our viewpoint is somewhat different.

As a total aside, sometimes I think this issue comes down to engineering versus sociology. I read somewhere, sorry no cite for this, that if engineers ran the world the whole planet would be bulldozed flat so as to make transportation easier and more efficient. Needless to say, doing so would have certain costs which most non-engineers would not be willing to pay.

Actually, I think double track did exist there at one time. Look at all of that open space to the north of the railway. Double track catenary, especially the newer, hardier type that NICTD is installing (called "constant tension catenary), usually takes up a bit more space than the simple pole construction that is the norm east of Gary (but which won't be after the Phase II catenary work is finished).

Let me see if I'm getting this right -- you think two tracks may have run under that 38 foot wide structure at one time? Gee. that would fit in the 40 foot wide streets. And if I'm reading what you're saying correctly. NICTD is going to be replacing a bunch of those between Gary and South Bend? It's a shame they're so superannuated, otherwise NITCD could just recycle them to run them, and double track, along the existing 11th street without having to do much outside the area between the curbs.

Just a thought. I could be wrong.

That would be a good subject for a study, I think.

Here's another bonus for my version -- if NICTD doesn't knock down all those houses (on the south side of 11th and the area for the two city block parking lot), they're still going to part of LaPorte County's tax base, and one of the obstacles I've seen people throwing up in front of NICTD's plan is the reduction in real estate taxes due to removal of all that property from the tax base.

Additional note to any NICTD people reading this thread: still feel free to steal my ideas. Or you could hire me as a consultant. Resumé available upon request.

My point is that there shouldn't be a need for people to "get out of the way". Railroad ROW is private property, and the grade crossing warning systems are there for a serious reason. It is illegal to drive around lowered crossing gates or ignore flashing warning lights, just as it's illegal to drive your private auto recklessly.

To me, the fact that it takes a greater distance for a train to stop is not an argument for lower train speeds, it's an argument for better warning systems, and for people not breaking the law.

This is a residential area with children present, especially in the area west of Franklin. Do I need to elaborate on that?

[mcstumper]

My point is that there shouldn't be a need for people to "get out of the way". Railroad ROW is private property, and the grade crossing warning systems are there for a serious reason. It is illegal to drive around lowered crossing gates or ignore flashing warning lights, just as it's illegal to drive your private auto recklessly.

To me, the fact that it takes a greater distance for a train to stop is not an argument for lower train speeds, it's an argument for better warning systems, and for people not breaking the law.

This is a residential area with children present, especially in the area west of Franklin. Do I need to elaborate on that?

I was going to make a crass Darwin Theory joke, but I think its better to zip it.

[joe.black]

Most of the trash in my neighborhood isn't due to the people who live here, it's due to transients going through. Hard to confront someone who just threw a McDonald's bag out of their window as they drive away at 40 mph. My experience. gathered through 50 summers, has been that most people don't litter in their own yards. There are notable exceptions to this, of course.

And in the area that we're talking about, I think that applies - the "notable exceptions". One only has to look at the condition of the rest of the area to get a sense of how much priority is placed on keeping the area reasonably clean. You don't see it in many of the other places that the South Shore runs through.

I will say, though, that I can't shake the feeling that you're right about this on some level. I guess I focus more on the practical aspects of running a railroad, but your "good neighbor" argument is very persuasive.

I'll concede that double tracking is "the single most cost-effective and dramatic means to increase capacity and reliability." The real issue, however, is the cost. In dollars, and in the effect doing so would have on Michigan City. NICTD may have their point of view due to their concerns regarding efficiency, etc., but this is where we live. Our viewpoint is somewhat different.

As a total aside, sometimes I think this issue comes down to engineering versus sociology. I read somewhere, sorry no cite for this, that if engineers ran the world the whole planet would be bulldozed flat so as to make transportation easier and more efficient. Needless to say, doing so would have certain costs which most non-engineers would not be willing to pay.

Well, that's certainly a bit of hyperbole (although, it's pretty funny). I think you also have to put into your equation what double-tracking would do for the system as a whole; there are system benefits to it as well that go beyond "efficiency". But, I understand why people who live in the city would have some concerns. Maybe this is an argument for the northern route!

Let me see if I'm getting this right -- you think two tracks may have run under that 38 foot wide structure at one time?

No.

I can see where you'd think that, but no. Those are single-track structures. There was double track there at one time, but it's long gone, along with the structures that would have supported it.

Here's another bonus for my version -- if NICTD doesn't knock down all those houses (on the south side of 11th and the area for the two city block parking lot), they're still going to part of LaPorte County's tax base, and one of the obstacles I've seen people throwing up in front of NICTD's plan is the reduction in real estate taxes due to removal of all that property from the tax base.

The counter-argument to which is that a vastly improved station, consolidation of the to MC stations into one, provision of more and better parking, and improvement of the service (i.e. travel time, etc.) will lead to the TOD (transit-oreiented development) that the MCNEAT study hung on, growing the tax base beyond what it is now.

Additional note to any NICTD people reading this thread: still feel free to steal my ideas. Or you could hire me as a consultant. Resumé available upon request.

I don't know about NICTD, but I could get you a job here in the northeast if you reeeeeeeeaaly want to be a consultant.

This is a residential area with children present, especially in the area west of Franklin. Do I need to elaborate on that?

Of course not, but there are railroad rights of way that run through areas with a lot of children today, all over the world, with 70 mph freight trains and 100+ mph passenger trains. Is Michigan City so much different than the rest of the world?

[mcstumper]

Maybe this is an argument for the northern route!

I hope you were kidding...

[Dave]

And in the area that we're talking about, I think that applies - the "notable exceptions". One only has to look at the condition of the rest of the area to get a sense of how much priority is placed on keeping the area reasonably clean. You don't see it in many of the other places that the South Shore runs through.

I will say, though, that I can't shake the feeling that you're right about this on some level. I guess I focus more on the practical aspects of running a railroad, but your "good neighbor" argument is very persuasive.

This may sound like rambling, but it gets to the point eventually --->

I eat at cheap restaurants a lot. Well, when I eat out, that is. Spending twenty bucks for lunch seems extravagant, so I prefer more economical places (local references: Memo's, Mary's Country Kitchen, Sophia's).

So when I get my bill, it's often something like eight bucks. So I have to decide on a tip. I've always thought leaving change is a bit annoying to the waitstaff -- not that they'd prefer not getting it, but carrying around a pocket full of change isn't fun when you're running around as much as they do -- so I leave paper money as my tip.

So, how much do I leave as a tip on an eight dollar bill? One buck is 12.5 percent, which might be acceptable in some places. But if I leave two bucks, one additional buck, what does the waitstaff think of me them?

Which leads to the saying my sweetie and I often use: "The difference between being a hero and a schmuck is a buck. Why not be a hero?"

The point being, sometimes a small investment can have larger results. If NICTD would spend more money -- and it probably wouldn't be a huge amount -- keeping their ROW's (figured that out after a while, Right Of Way) looking good, maybe the people across the street would clean up some themselves. Maybe not, but either way, NICTD would come off looking good. Why not be a hero?

Well, that's certainly a bit of hyperbole (although, it's pretty funny). I think you also have to put into your equation what double-tracking would do for the system as a whole; there are system benefits to it as well that go beyond "efficiency". But, I understand why people who live in the city would have some concerns. Maybe this is an argument for the northern route!

As far as I can tell, the only way the northern route happens is if the Bridge Fairy comes in the middle of the night, waves her magic wand, and the bridge is suddenly there. Doesn't seem to be a likely scenario.

No.

I can see where you'd think that, but no. Those are single-track structures. There was double track there at one time, but it's long gone, along with the structures that would have supported it.

Damn. But couldn't those be used between the curbs for single tracking on 11th? It seems they'd be better than the wooden poles there now. And they'd fit between the curbs.

The counter-argument to which is that a vastly improved station, consolidation of the to MC stations into one, provision of more and better parking, and improvement of the service (i.e. travel time, etc.) will lead to the TOD (transit-oreiented development) that the MCNEAT study hung on, growing the tax base beyond what it is now.

I think what I'm suggesting achieves all of those goals. Station and parking in the parking structure, check. TOD. check. Improvement of service, well I think getting the rails out of the asphalt to allow PTC, reducing the number of crossings would add a check here. You and I have discussed the issue of high level platforms before (and you might want to explain to the folks reading what those are vis-a-vis passenger and freight trains on the same line), but I have to think even a high level platform could be fit in there one way or another.

My version would be an improvement over their current situation, they'd get PTC, and they can do it in such a way as to be heroes. I'd call that a win.

I don't know about NICTD, but I could get you a job here in the northeast if you reeeeeeeeaaly want to be a consultant.

So the only job requirement for being a consultant is having a big mouth?

Of course not, but there are railroad rights of way that run through areas with a lot of children today, all over the world, with 70 mph freight trains and 100+ mph passenger trains. Is Michigan City so much different than the rest of the world?

I bet those places have highly controlled access. Unless you're suggesting 12 foot high fences with razor wire on top (which simply ain't going to happen) and pedestrian proof crossing gates (something I've never seen) where the remaining crossings will be, I'm thinking reasonably low speeds for this 2 1/2 miles are probably the way to go. NICTD trains, at least the passenger trains, are going to have to slow down going into the station, and accelerate going out of the station anyway.

[IndyTransplant]

I bet those places have highly controlled access. Unless you're suggesting 12 foot high fences with razor wire on top (which simply ain't going to happen) and pedestrian proof crossing gates (something I've never seen) where the remaining crossings will be, I'm thinking reasonably low speeds for this 2 1/2 miles are probably the way to go. NICTD trains, at least the passenger trains, are going to have to slow down going into the station, and accelerate going out of the station anyway.

Tim, If you are reading all of this, I would love to hear an observance opinion from an eye witness. I am aware of the high speed bullet trains running through Japan. We had a japanese exchange student and we spoke about them. (I realize much of them are somewhat off the beaten track, but they enter and leave large cities.) What is the access around all of their track systems?



I can tell you as a little girl I lived in a trailer at the edge of a railroad track and since we were in the country and there were very few crossings, the trains flew down the tracks at quite high speeds. The tracks were not fenced off and we as children used to walk down the tracks, play on the tracks and put our ears on the tracks to hear them coming from miles away. Should our parents have kept us off of them? Absolutely. But that is our parents responsibility and our own personal responsibility, not the railroad company. We knew we were on private property not belonging to us and we knew we should not be there.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...ArticleID=26495

City to consider test of street closings

Alicia Ebaugh
Staff Writer

MICHIGAN CITY - A request for a test to close 17 streets in the middle of the city was sent to the city's planning and engineering departments for more input Monday.

The Board of Public Works and Safety decided to get more input on the temporary closures because of the preparation that would be needed to do them, Mayor Chuck Oberlie said. Members of the North End Committee requested the closures so residents could better understand how the South Shore commuter line's relocation plan would affect them.

"I thought they moved forward in the right direction," said John Pavy, a North End Committee member pushing for the week-long temporary closure. "It will bring public awareness to what might happen if NICTD is allowed to shut down half the cross streets along 11th Street. It's a big deal. Anyone who traverses the city will be affected."

The North End Committee requested the closures occur at the end of the month, but if they are approved, it will not be before the board meets again Nov. 2.

Michigan City Police Sgt. Jeff Loniewski, who deals with many of the city's traffic issues, said at the meeting he would not support the temporary closures.

"It wouldn't provide an accurate perspective of what the intersections would look like in the future," Loniewski said. "There would be modifications made to help guide traffic with that plan that won't be in place here."

The North End Committee has argued in favor of rerouting the South Shore commuter line north to a rouwte adjacent to the present Amtrak route. It opposes the realignment plan made by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District. That plan would meet federally mandated safety standards by creating a new station with an elevated platform at 11th and Washington streets, and would close half of the current cross streets to through traffic along that route, nearly all along 11th Street.

If the board agrees to close the streets for one week, North End Committee member Joe Condon said, the group will run an advertisement explaining the street closings and inviting them to a public meeting to voice their opinions.

　

[joe.black]

I hope you were kidding...

Maybe.