Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
City by the Lake.org, The Voice of Michigan City, Indiana _ City Talk _ South Shore plans $65 million project
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jun 9 2009, 01:25 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=23822&TM=39824.82
QUOTE
17 crossings may be eliminated
The NICTD preliminary concept for rerouting the South Shore through Michigan City eliminates 17 of the current 34 street crossings. The 17 intersections are marked on the preliminary concept for the South Shore relocation. While the crossing at Washington Street is not Xed out, that is the proposed location for a new train station. Based on the plan, the following crossings would be closed:
Carlon Court and adjacent alley, Donnelly Street and adjacent alley, Claire Street, Kentucky Street, Tennessee Street, Elston Street, Manhattan Street, Buffalo Street, Spring Street, Cedar Street, Lafayette Street, York Street, Oak Street, Maple Street and Phillips Avenue.
More South Shore details released
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Property owners with parcels south of current South Shore tracks on 10th and 11th streets await an uncertain future until plans for realigning the commuter train are adopted.
The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District operates the South Shore and announced last week it intends to significantly re-configure more than two miles of track running through Michigan City. NICTD's preliminary downtown rerouting concept, developed by TranSystems of Chicago, shows the tracks heading south of 10th Street at Sheridan Avenue and proceeding through town to a point just east of Michigan Boulevard, where the regular route resumes.
John Parsons, NICTD spokesperson, said properties north of 11th Street will not be affected. He said the specific houses and properties that would be impacted by the change have not yet been identified. He said the project, estimated at $65 million, has been developed at a "gross level of detail" and changes could be made as the engineering process moves forward.
A map labeled "Preliminary Downtown Reroute Concept" shows a South Shore station and 775-space parking area between Franklin and Wabash streets and from Warren Street north to 11th Street. The map includes station information that lists the current 11th Street parking lot at 42 spaces and the Carroll Avenue station at 155 spaces. Those stations would be replaced with the new downtown station.
The new route is designed to eliminate the curve between 10th and 11th streets near the Amtrak intersection, and also remove the curve at Cedar and Lafayette streets. As now indicated on the map, the tracks run parallel but one row of houses south of the existing 11th street tracks between Kentucky Street and Michigan Boulevard.
At Sheridan Avenue, looking east, the proposed route angles to the right, eventually running well behind the houses on the south side of 10th Street and linking directly with the portion of track that would be just south of 11th Street.
Chicago Street would be rerouted, but it would retain a crossing of the South Shore tracks.
Depending on funding and station design, Parsons said a parking ramp could be constructed, allowing for private developers to create an activity center in the areas surrounding the station.
An environmental impact statement will be required before property can be purchased, Parsons said.
"An environmental impact statement and public hearing are required as part of the process," he said. "The specifics will follow as part of the on-going process to qualify for federal funding."
NICTD has yet to obtain funding for the detailed engineering plan that comes next, Parsons said.
Michigan City Mayor Chuck Oberlie has reviewed the NICTD preliminary downtown route and will present the plan to the City Council for its approval. Parsons expects some issues to be raised by the council at that point.
"We certainly want to develop a plan in concert with Michigan City that meets their needs," Parsons said.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jun 9 2009, 01:35 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=72&ArticleID=23756
QUOTE
The Issue:
The commuter line's board has decided to improve the existing route through Michigan City.
Our Opinion:
A decision is welcome news. This will have a big impact on the city.
South Shore
Railroad selects route
Editorial
For years officials have pondered how best to address a major bottleneck along the South Shore commuter route - the tracks that run along 10th and 11th streets through Michigan City.
Alternatives were proposed, including using the Amtrak right of way across the north end of the city, and using the CSX corridor that crosses the city near Ames Field. In the end, the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District has settled on staying in the 10th and 11th Street corridor, but separating the tracks and the auto traffic.
It is good that a decision finally has been made; now if the City Council approves and the $65 million in funding can be obtained, a major element in the redevelopment of this older part of the city can finalized. It's an opportunity to create a dramatically improved design for the areas affected.
It probably will take several years, but commuters will finally have an improved train station. The NICTD board decision means the end is in sight for Michigan City to be the last major location on the route without a modern depot. This train station is proposed to be at Washington and 11th streets.
Details of the plan aren't finalized, but the South Shore changes are going to have a huge impact on residents and the map of Michigan City. The train station will have parking for some 800 cars, meaning many parcels of property will have to be obtained and cleared. Seventeen of 34 street crossings will be closed to enable the South Shore to pick up greater speed as it runs through the city. Washington Street and other streets will become cul-de-sacs, with no through traffic. Properties will have to be acquired on the south side of 10th and 11th streets, meaning relocation for residents.
South Shore trains have traveled this route through the heart of the city for more than 100 years,. This plan sets a course for the city for many decades to come.
City officials need to move quickly to make sure the public is apprised of all the details of how this will impact their lives.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jun 9 2009, 01:38 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=23725&TM=39652.84
QUOTE
11th Street chosen for South Shore station
Project has been in works for 10 years
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - A $65 million project that would substantially change South Shore passenger service to Michigan City will be presented to Mayor Chuck Oberlie and the City Council for review and approval.
The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District board approved a memorandum of understanding, to be entered into with Michigan City, to improve safety and efficiency on a two-mile stretch of the railroad that runs through the city.
The NICTD decision last Friday moves forward a project that has been discussed for some 10 years, according to Barbara Huston, NICTD board secretary. Huston, La Porte County Commission president, and Mark Yagelski, La Porte County councilman, represent the county on the board.
Oberlie sees the NICTD plan as a positive move for North End redevelopment and he's ready to get it done. He said some federal grants for the project will be available in September. Gerald Hanas, NICTD general manager, said more than one federal grant will be needed to fund the effort, which is expected to take seven to eight years to complete.
Safety was a major factor in the NICTD planning process. New federal regulations require railroads to enhance their safety systems by 2015.
The NICTD plan calls for closing the 11th Street and Carroll Avenue stations and creating a new station with an elevated platform at 11th and Washington streets. The number of street crossings would be reduced from 34 to 17. An 800-vehicle parking lot would serve riders from throughout La Porte County and adjacent areas. Increases in South Shore ridership have created parking problems at the 11th Street and Carroll Avenue stations.
If approved by Michigan City and federal officials, NICTD will spend approximately $15.6 million of the total funding to acquire property along the south side of 10th and 11th streets, creating a fenced off east-west corridor that separates the South Shore from cars.
"Property acquisition will be the big thing," Huston said.
The Michigan City stretch of the South Shore line is the most expensive to maintain and requires "extremely slow speeds," Hanas said. He expects the improvements to shave some six minutes off travel times.
The mayor said the embedded tracks have created additional expenses for the city as well. Streets normally have a 15-to 20-year life span, he said, but 11th Street needs work after eight to 10 years.
The South Shore has operated for 100 years, but the long-standing placement of the tracks is no longer the best option.
"People outside the city are shocked when they see the train coming down the middle of the street," Oberlie said.
Earlier information indicated NICTD was considering moving the South Shore line either south, next to Ames Field, or north on the Amtrak route. In a six-month, privately funded study, consultants in the fields of economic development and urban planning looked at the potential for all three routes to contribute to what they call "transportation-oriented development," meaning areas where people live, work, shop and play within walking distance of a transportation station. They indicated the 11th Street corridor has significant potential, but is farther from the lake and at the southern end of the downtown area.
However, the NICTD officials who attended the public meetings convened by the consultants consistently indicated they preferred to redevelop the 11th Street corridor.
Rich Murphy, 1st Ward city councilman, believes the South Shore study along with several North End redevelopment plans have allowed residents to understand the opportunities.
"NICTD'S commitment to this project is a huge step toward our vision of a vibrant, bustling downtown Michigan City," Murphy said. "We've said all along that to do something great, there would need to be a spirit of cooperation between NICTD and the city."
Hanas said the La Porte County representatives on the NICTD board felt the studies needed to end.
"They felt like the path of studying route alternatives was continuing ad infinitum and needed to be brought to a logical conclusion," Hanas said.
He said NICTD has worked with an engineering firm for the past few months to develop preliminary drawings. Initial plans call for one new track to be installed, with room for a second track in the future.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Project has been in works for 10 years
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - A $65 million project that would substantially change South Shore passenger service to Michigan City will be presented to Mayor Chuck Oberlie and the City Council for review and approval.
The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District board approved a memorandum of understanding, to be entered into with Michigan City, to improve safety and efficiency on a two-mile stretch of the railroad that runs through the city.
The NICTD decision last Friday moves forward a project that has been discussed for some 10 years, according to Barbara Huston, NICTD board secretary. Huston, La Porte County Commission president, and Mark Yagelski, La Porte County councilman, represent the county on the board.
Oberlie sees the NICTD plan as a positive move for North End redevelopment and he's ready to get it done. He said some federal grants for the project will be available in September. Gerald Hanas, NICTD general manager, said more than one federal grant will be needed to fund the effort, which is expected to take seven to eight years to complete.
Safety was a major factor in the NICTD planning process. New federal regulations require railroads to enhance their safety systems by 2015.
The NICTD plan calls for closing the 11th Street and Carroll Avenue stations and creating a new station with an elevated platform at 11th and Washington streets. The number of street crossings would be reduced from 34 to 17. An 800-vehicle parking lot would serve riders from throughout La Porte County and adjacent areas. Increases in South Shore ridership have created parking problems at the 11th Street and Carroll Avenue stations.
If approved by Michigan City and federal officials, NICTD will spend approximately $15.6 million of the total funding to acquire property along the south side of 10th and 11th streets, creating a fenced off east-west corridor that separates the South Shore from cars.
"Property acquisition will be the big thing," Huston said.
The Michigan City stretch of the South Shore line is the most expensive to maintain and requires "extremely slow speeds," Hanas said. He expects the improvements to shave some six minutes off travel times.
The mayor said the embedded tracks have created additional expenses for the city as well. Streets normally have a 15-to 20-year life span, he said, but 11th Street needs work after eight to 10 years.
The South Shore has operated for 100 years, but the long-standing placement of the tracks is no longer the best option.
"People outside the city are shocked when they see the train coming down the middle of the street," Oberlie said.
Earlier information indicated NICTD was considering moving the South Shore line either south, next to Ames Field, or north on the Amtrak route. In a six-month, privately funded study, consultants in the fields of economic development and urban planning looked at the potential for all three routes to contribute to what they call "transportation-oriented development," meaning areas where people live, work, shop and play within walking distance of a transportation station. They indicated the 11th Street corridor has significant potential, but is farther from the lake and at the southern end of the downtown area.
However, the NICTD officials who attended the public meetings convened by the consultants consistently indicated they preferred to redevelop the 11th Street corridor.
Rich Murphy, 1st Ward city councilman, believes the South Shore study along with several North End redevelopment plans have allowed residents to understand the opportunities.
"NICTD'S commitment to this project is a huge step toward our vision of a vibrant, bustling downtown Michigan City," Murphy said. "We've said all along that to do something great, there would need to be a spirit of cooperation between NICTD and the city."
Hanas said the La Porte County representatives on the NICTD board felt the studies needed to end.
"They felt like the path of studying route alternatives was continuing ad infinitum and needed to be brought to a logical conclusion," Hanas said.
He said NICTD has worked with an engineering firm for the past few months to develop preliminary drawings. Initial plans call for one new track to be installed, with room for a second track in the future.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jun 11 2009, 01:34 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=23827&TM=39931.61
QUOTE
Residents react to new plans for South Shore
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Al Henckel has owned and operated Al's Shoe Repair Service, 1115 Franklin St., for 54 years, outlasting his competition.
The 78-year-old isn't concerned about the century old building being knocked down and made into a parking lot for Michigan City's South Shore station because he doesn't plan to be in business in 2015.
That's the federally mandated deadline for removing the South Shore commuter train tracks from the middle of 11th Street. Under a proposed plan to revamp the South Shore's route through Michigan City, a 775-vehicle parking lot would knock out a mix of businesses, privately-owned homes, rental housing and a service organization.
The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District released a map labeled "Preliminary Downtown Reroute Concept" to The News-Dispatch on Monday. It designates a parking area between Wabash Street on the west and Franklin Street on the east, and from Warren Street on the south to just below 11th Street on the north.
Henckel doesn't like the plan, but said, "I don't think it will get off the ground."
"There are going to be a lot who don't want to move," Henckel said. "I really don't think it's going to help anything. They say it will bring a lot of business, but that remains to be seen."
The area slated for removal has a number of rundown and abandoned properties surrounded by well-maintained residences. Two homeowners in the affected area are taking a wait-and-see attitude until they find out more specifics.
David Hullinger, 1208 Washington St., was mowing the lawn of his well-tended yard Tuesday. Next door is an unoccupied, boarded-up building. Hullinger said he doesn't really know what the South Shore plans to do, but he's willing to sell the house he's lived in since 1992.
"We like our house and all that, but the city isn't doing anything about the boarded-up houses," Hullinger said.
Nacho Serrano, 221 Greene St., said he's not happy about the South Shore parking-lot plans, but doesn't mind selling his house "for the right price."
"I'm not going to talk until I know more," he said.
At The Salvation Army at Greene and Franklin streets, Maj. Brian Burkett and DeNita Ton, community services director, seemed stunned to see the map showing The Salvation Army within the parking-lot area.
"I'm shocked," Ton said. "I had no idea we were in jeopardy."
The Salvation Army invested $1.2 million in its facility some six years ago and wants to remain within the city's highest need neighborhood. Ton notes about 750 families are fed from The Salvation Army's food pantry each month.
"There are a lot less fortunate folks all around us," Ton said of the service organization's location.
Ton is nostalgic about the old 11th Street train station and wanted to see it reopened, while Burkett favors change that means progress for the city.
"Certainly, anything that can be done to improve the economic future of the city is a positive," he said. "Anything that can improve our clients' ability to get transportation to Chicago or South Bend is a positive thing."
Bob Weber, who operates Weber Group Realty out of his home, 1316 Wabash St., at the corner of William Street, is further south from the parking area, but close enough to be impacted by added noise and traffic. He sees the potential economic benefits that would come with an updated South Shore operation.
"If Michigan City is going to move forward, transportation is one of the issues, along with wages and the workforce," Weber said. "The South Shore expansion would give an opportunity for people to live here and get to places that have jobs."
As a Realtor, he said, updated South Shore service would have a potential benefit for real-estate sales.
"A house in Chicago one mile from the lake is $500,000 to $2 million," Weber said. "You can live here a mile from the lake for $90,000 to $100,000.
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Al Henckel has owned and operated Al's Shoe Repair Service, 1115 Franklin St., for 54 years, outlasting his competition.
The 78-year-old isn't concerned about the century old building being knocked down and made into a parking lot for Michigan City's South Shore station because he doesn't plan to be in business in 2015.
That's the federally mandated deadline for removing the South Shore commuter train tracks from the middle of 11th Street. Under a proposed plan to revamp the South Shore's route through Michigan City, a 775-vehicle parking lot would knock out a mix of businesses, privately-owned homes, rental housing and a service organization.
The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District released a map labeled "Preliminary Downtown Reroute Concept" to The News-Dispatch on Monday. It designates a parking area between Wabash Street on the west and Franklin Street on the east, and from Warren Street on the south to just below 11th Street on the north.
Henckel doesn't like the plan, but said, "I don't think it will get off the ground."
"There are going to be a lot who don't want to move," Henckel said. "I really don't think it's going to help anything. They say it will bring a lot of business, but that remains to be seen."
The area slated for removal has a number of rundown and abandoned properties surrounded by well-maintained residences. Two homeowners in the affected area are taking a wait-and-see attitude until they find out more specifics.
David Hullinger, 1208 Washington St., was mowing the lawn of his well-tended yard Tuesday. Next door is an unoccupied, boarded-up building. Hullinger said he doesn't really know what the South Shore plans to do, but he's willing to sell the house he's lived in since 1992.
"We like our house and all that, but the city isn't doing anything about the boarded-up houses," Hullinger said.
Nacho Serrano, 221 Greene St., said he's not happy about the South Shore parking-lot plans, but doesn't mind selling his house "for the right price."
"I'm not going to talk until I know more," he said.
At The Salvation Army at Greene and Franklin streets, Maj. Brian Burkett and DeNita Ton, community services director, seemed stunned to see the map showing The Salvation Army within the parking-lot area.
"I'm shocked," Ton said. "I had no idea we were in jeopardy."
The Salvation Army invested $1.2 million in its facility some six years ago and wants to remain within the city's highest need neighborhood. Ton notes about 750 families are fed from The Salvation Army's food pantry each month.
"There are a lot less fortunate folks all around us," Ton said of the service organization's location.
Ton is nostalgic about the old 11th Street train station and wanted to see it reopened, while Burkett favors change that means progress for the city.
"Certainly, anything that can be done to improve the economic future of the city is a positive," he said. "Anything that can improve our clients' ability to get transportation to Chicago or South Bend is a positive thing."
Bob Weber, who operates Weber Group Realty out of his home, 1316 Wabash St., at the corner of William Street, is further south from the parking area, but close enough to be impacted by added noise and traffic. He sees the potential economic benefits that would come with an updated South Shore operation.
"If Michigan City is going to move forward, transportation is one of the issues, along with wages and the workforce," Weber said. "The South Shore expansion would give an opportunity for people to live here and get to places that have jobs."
As a Realtor, he said, updated South Shore service would have a potential benefit for real-estate sales.
"A house in Chicago one mile from the lake is $500,000 to $2 million," Weber said. "You can live here a mile from the lake for $90,000 to $100,000.
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jun 24 2009, 10:16 AM
Many folks showed up last night at the Planning Commission meeting with questions about this project. Unfortunately unless there are re-zoning proposals made, that body won't see anything to do with this.
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=24131
QUOTE
home : local news : local news
6/23/2009 11:00:00 AM Email this article • Print this article
NICTD: Questions will be answered
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District's recently released plan to reroute the South Shore railroad through Michigan City was developed over the last few years in close collaboration with Michigan City Mayor Chuck Oberlie.
That's according to John Parsons, marketing manager for NICTD, who acknowledged Monday the plan is creating some controversy among Michigan City residents because of unanswered questions.
"We are anxious to begin engineering this project to answer these very questions," Parsons said.
NICTD intended to meet with the city council at its June 16 meeting. Oberlie said that meeting was postponed until after the team of consultants issued its final economic impact report on three possible transit routes. First Ward councilman Rich Murphy believes the economic impact assessment will help Michigan City residents make an informed decision about the NICTD proposal.
"It's extremely relevant to this issue," Murphy said. "We have a report pending that will cite in more detail the economic impact of each location."
Both Oberlie and Murphy said the public will have plenty of opportunities to weigh in on the South Shore plans.
"I think the message is the public will be very much involved in this process," Murphy said. "Michigan City needs to look at this and decide how they're going to respond."
Oberlie said alternatives will be evaluated as the plans move forward. As an example, he mentioned train station parking could end up as a two-level parking ramp rather than surface parking, cutting in half the amount of land needed.
"There are many such issues that will be addressed through the engineering phase," Oberlie said.
Parsons said the NICTD plan aims to improve safety, passenger access and train operations.
"While it may be quaint, a modern passenger train or fully-loaded freight train has no business operating down the middle of 10th and 11th Street, mingling with parallel vehicle traffic at 34 grade crossings," Parsons said.
New federal regulations require railroads to adopt "positive train control" by 2015, referring to automated technology used to preventing train-to-train collisions, derailments and train movements through a switch left in the wrong position. Parsons said tracks embedded in the street can't be controlled with the advanced signal systems.
The rerouting will improve the potential for future economic development in downtown Michigan City, Parsons said. An up-to-date, accessible station will replace the two existing stations at 11th Street and Carroll Avenue.
Parsons said the realignment of the South Shore is a long process that will take city, state and federal cooperation to complete.
"Many questions will remain unanswered until we can undertake the appropriate engineering and environmental studies," Parsons said.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jun 24 2009, 10:27 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=72&ArticleID=24038&TM=44815.86
QUOTE
The Issue:
Council calls for workshop, hearings on rail relocation.
Our Opinion:
The South Shore's parent agency should have shared the relocation plan with the public early on.
South Shore
City Council notes many questions
Editorial
More direct communication should have been provided by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District to the dozens of homeowners, renters and businesses that would be displaced under preliminary plans to reroute the South Shore tracks.
The agency that runs the commuter service has penciled a lot of people out of their homes without giving them the courtesy of a visit, call or letter advising them that their property might be acquired and cleared. The NICTD board recently approved seeking an agreement with the City of Michigan City to proceed with this major project, which has an estimated pricetag of $65 million. It was done at a public meeting, but the people affected should have been given a heads up.
This week some members of the Michigan City Common Council called for a workshop with NICTD and public hearings. NICTD says the plan has been in the works for 10 years, but certainly in that period it could have found time to give people a chance to study the details and find out what the future holds.
As Third Ward Councilman Ron Meer said in a news story today, "There's been little or no communication with this body of these recent issues. When and where are the public hearings? What's the land acquisition process? There are a lot of questions we know nothing about."
The proposed relocation of South Shore tracks would wipe out a row of homes along the south side of 11th Street, plus more homes west of that to the city limits. It would cut off 17 of 34 street crossings of the South Shore, reducing north-south traffic routes.
We are hopeful the public will have ample opportunity to review the plans and have their concerns heard before this is finalized, but the way the process began didn't adequately inform the people of Michigan City.
Council calls for workshop, hearings on rail relocation.
Our Opinion:
The South Shore's parent agency should have shared the relocation plan with the public early on.
South Shore
City Council notes many questions
Editorial
More direct communication should have been provided by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District to the dozens of homeowners, renters and businesses that would be displaced under preliminary plans to reroute the South Shore tracks.
The agency that runs the commuter service has penciled a lot of people out of their homes without giving them the courtesy of a visit, call or letter advising them that their property might be acquired and cleared. The NICTD board recently approved seeking an agreement with the City of Michigan City to proceed with this major project, which has an estimated pricetag of $65 million. It was done at a public meeting, but the people affected should have been given a heads up.
This week some members of the Michigan City Common Council called for a workshop with NICTD and public hearings. NICTD says the plan has been in the works for 10 years, but certainly in that period it could have found time to give people a chance to study the details and find out what the future holds.
As Third Ward Councilman Ron Meer said in a news story today, "There's been little or no communication with this body of these recent issues. When and where are the public hearings? What's the land acquisition process? There are a lot of questions we know nothing about."
The proposed relocation of South Shore tracks would wipe out a row of homes along the south side of 11th Street, plus more homes west of that to the city limits. It would cut off 17 of 34 street crossings of the South Shore, reducing north-south traffic routes.
We are hopeful the public will have ample opportunity to review the plans and have their concerns heard before this is finalized, but the way the process began didn't adequately inform the people of Michigan City.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jul 3 2009, 02:11 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=24242&TM=39849.31
QUOTE
Touting another South Shore option
City natives reveal their suggestions
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Some longtime Michigan City residents are railing against the new route proposed for the South Shore commuter line. Instead, they're touting a North End route with an intermodal transportation center.
City natives John Vail, 87, and Fred Miller, 78, are making their case on the Web site www.michigancitysnewnorthend.com and with a video presentation they're taking to service clubs. Their plan would create an elevated north-end route along the Amtrak line, with the South Shore rails running parallel over a 16-foot-high bridge across Franklin Street to an elevated intermodal station at the north end of Wabash Street near the former depot now occupied by Swingbelly's Restaurant.
The tracks would run on a 45-foot-high bridge replacing the swing bridge over Trail Creek. Another 16-foot-high overpass would be built over U.S. 12 to take the South Shore down toward the Carroll Avenue station, which would be phased out. More details are shown on a map posted on the Web site.
"It's a given that this (North End) is where people want to be," Vail said, "with access to the beach, the Lighthouse mall and the casino."
Miller agreed, saying, "It would drop visitors off and pick them up where they want to be."
Miller remembers when hundreds of out-of-town visitors came to Michigan City on the South Shore on the weekend.
"They walked to the beach with their ice chest and beach paraphernalia," he said. "That worked in the 1930s, but people are used to cars now."
The two men believe their route is preferable to the one suggested by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District for several reasons:
• Reduced number of grade crossings within city limits.
• Proximity to attractions such as the outlet mall, Blue Chip, museums, marinas and Washington Park beach and zoo.
• Cleared, shovel-ready land is immediately available for commercial and residential development.
• An intermodal station would interface with city and inter-city buses, Amtrak, proposed water transportation, U.S. 12 and a revitalized Michigan Boulevard.
They said the plan would be advantageous to the railroads as well as to transportation-oriented development of new housing and retail shops.
The critical part is replacing the swing bridge on Trail Creek, Vail said, to improve rail speed as well as remove an obstacle for boaters.
"A bridge at the water level is no good," he said. "The Amtrak would love to get rid of that."
Both men look forward to getting the final report from a team of economic development and urban planning consultants that evaluated the economic impacts of three possible South Shore routes. Based on an earlier report, the northern route was most likely to have the greatest economic impact for Michigan City, but also had the most challenges because of the swing bridge. The 11th Street route has significant potential, they said, but is farther from the lake and at the southern end of downtown.
Vail and Miller cite 10 reasons NICTD shouldn't use the 11th Street route. A considerable amount of property would have to be purchased, they noted, and nearby property values would go down. Some north-south routes through the city would be closed off, dividing the city, and the 15 grade crossings that would remain would pose safety issues. The 11th Street station doesn't have the advantage of linking to main highways, they said.
Vail said their proposal was sent to John Parsons, marketing manager for NICTD, but it didn't seem to make a difference.
"They don't like people upsetting their plans," Vail said.
Vail and Miller believe their proposal can be funded, and they suggest specific funding sources on the Web site. One possibility, they said, was Obama's proposal to spend $9 billion on a high-speed rail system across the nation.
Both men are disappointed by the lack of public comment about the NICTD plan for rerouting the South Shore, and said people seem to be apathetic. And they'd like city officials be more proactive.
"We should be calling the shots a little bit about what happens in Michigan City," Vail said.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
City natives reveal their suggestions
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Some longtime Michigan City residents are railing against the new route proposed for the South Shore commuter line. Instead, they're touting a North End route with an intermodal transportation center.
City natives John Vail, 87, and Fred Miller, 78, are making their case on the Web site www.michigancitysnewnorthend.com and with a video presentation they're taking to service clubs. Their plan would create an elevated north-end route along the Amtrak line, with the South Shore rails running parallel over a 16-foot-high bridge across Franklin Street to an elevated intermodal station at the north end of Wabash Street near the former depot now occupied by Swingbelly's Restaurant.
The tracks would run on a 45-foot-high bridge replacing the swing bridge over Trail Creek. Another 16-foot-high overpass would be built over U.S. 12 to take the South Shore down toward the Carroll Avenue station, which would be phased out. More details are shown on a map posted on the Web site.
"It's a given that this (North End) is where people want to be," Vail said, "with access to the beach, the Lighthouse mall and the casino."
Miller agreed, saying, "It would drop visitors off and pick them up where they want to be."
Miller remembers when hundreds of out-of-town visitors came to Michigan City on the South Shore on the weekend.
"They walked to the beach with their ice chest and beach paraphernalia," he said. "That worked in the 1930s, but people are used to cars now."
The two men believe their route is preferable to the one suggested by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District for several reasons:
• Reduced number of grade crossings within city limits.
• Proximity to attractions such as the outlet mall, Blue Chip, museums, marinas and Washington Park beach and zoo.
• Cleared, shovel-ready land is immediately available for commercial and residential development.
• An intermodal station would interface with city and inter-city buses, Amtrak, proposed water transportation, U.S. 12 and a revitalized Michigan Boulevard.
They said the plan would be advantageous to the railroads as well as to transportation-oriented development of new housing and retail shops.
The critical part is replacing the swing bridge on Trail Creek, Vail said, to improve rail speed as well as remove an obstacle for boaters.
"A bridge at the water level is no good," he said. "The Amtrak would love to get rid of that."
Both men look forward to getting the final report from a team of economic development and urban planning consultants that evaluated the economic impacts of three possible South Shore routes. Based on an earlier report, the northern route was most likely to have the greatest economic impact for Michigan City, but also had the most challenges because of the swing bridge. The 11th Street route has significant potential, they said, but is farther from the lake and at the southern end of downtown.
Vail and Miller cite 10 reasons NICTD shouldn't use the 11th Street route. A considerable amount of property would have to be purchased, they noted, and nearby property values would go down. Some north-south routes through the city would be closed off, dividing the city, and the 15 grade crossings that would remain would pose safety issues. The 11th Street station doesn't have the advantage of linking to main highways, they said.
Vail said their proposal was sent to John Parsons, marketing manager for NICTD, but it didn't seem to make a difference.
"They don't like people upsetting their plans," Vail said.
Vail and Miller believe their proposal can be funded, and they suggest specific funding sources on the Web site. One possibility, they said, was Obama's proposal to spend $9 billion on a high-speed rail system across the nation.
Both men are disappointed by the lack of public comment about the NICTD plan for rerouting the South Shore, and said people seem to be apathetic. And they'd like city officials be more proactive.
"We should be calling the shots a little bit about what happens in Michigan City," Vail said.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: IndyTransplant Jul 3 2009, 02:36 PM
I believe I had read in earlier threads that the North End existing tracks do not belong to NICTD which would require them to lease from Amtrak (?) and alter schedules. Also by locating the tracks that far north you are abandoning the prospects of attracting more businesses to the old town area between 11th and 4th. Not everyone who rides the train to and from MC wants to go just to the beach. I believe the casino runs shuttles from the train stations and hotels now so that is not an issue. I know they run a shuttle from the train station as I have friends who use it often. Maybe MC or local entrepreneurs should look into running shuttles to the beach, park, mall, museums etc.
There are several locally owned businesses in the old town close to 11th now that rely on the train passengers.
I hate to think we are so willing to abandon them.
Anyway that is my opinion at this moment.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jul 16 2009, 01:49 PM
http://www.emichigancity.com/news.htm#SouthShore
QUOTE
City News
Workshop To Be Held On SouthShore Line
1995 Pierce 100 Foot Aerial Fire Truck Refurbished to As-New Condition
CSX And NICTD Railroad Crossing Closures
Report On The Economic Impacts Of The SouthShore Line Station On Downtown
Michigan City Now Available Online
Cooling Centers Open Again
Michigan City Receives $2.8 Million in Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Grant Funds
Do You Have Special Medical Needs? Let The Fire Dept. Know!
Michigan City Community Enrichment Corporation 2009 Grant Cycle Underway
2009 Human Rights Scholarship Essay Contest
New Boat Launch Facility for Michigan City
Michigan City Named Tree City USA By The Arbor Day Foundation
Mayor's State of the City Address Available Online
Are You In Compliance With New City Trash Regulations?
Rental Property Smoke Detector Enforcement
Mayor Oberlie Seeks Volunteers For Boards & Commissions
Michigan City Noted As Top City For Affordability
History of Michigan City Featured Photos
New Senior Center News and Events Monthly
Coffee with Mayor Oberlie
Workshop To Be Held On SouthShore Line
Mayor Chuck Oberlie and 1st Ward Councilman Richard Murphy today announced a community workshop on the SouthShore Line upgrade and transit oriented development opportunity for Michigan City.
Mr. Stu Sirota of TND Planning Group Consultant that recently completed the study on the economic benefits of transit oriented development associated with the SouthShore Line realignment options will serve as the facilitator.
The workshop will provide the first meaningful opportunity for the public dialogue about the SouthShore upgrades and associated transit oriented development opportunities. The workshop will also provide the best available information about proposed changes to the SouthShore Line and explore specific opportunities around a new proposed station.
John Parsons will represent the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) at the workshop. Mr. Parsons noted: “We are looking forward to the workshop on July 29th. It will give us an opportunity to meet with the community and share our thoughts on why we selected the 10th/11st Street corridor, what is prompting our decision to realign the railroad and what we expect to achieve. Equally important, the workshop will begin to lay the foundation for a cooperative planning process that will enhance development opportunities within the corridor.”
And, perhaps most importantly, the workshop will provide a much needed opportunity for residents to discuss their concerns and hopes.
Councilman Richard Murphy added, “The purpose of the workshop is to create a baseline of understanding to build trust among the public and to create a foundation on which to build a continuing transparent process leading to the successful implementation of a final project.”
The workshop will be held on Wednesday, July 29, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Michigan City City Hall.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jul 17 2009, 12:29 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=24648&TM=39802.23
QUOTE
City will host workshop on South Shore upgrade
MICHIGAN CITY - Mayor Chuck Oberlie and 1st Ward Councilman Richard Murphy announced Thursday a community workshop on the proposed South Shore Line upgrade.
The workshop will be held at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, July 29, in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
Stu Sirota of TND Planning Group Consultants, which recently completed the study on the economic benefits of transit-oriented development associated with the South Shore Line realignment options, will serve as the facilitator.
The workshop will provide an opportunity for public dialogue about the South Shore upgrades and associated transit oriented development opportunities, Oberlie and Murphy said in a news release. The workshop also will provide the best available information about proposed changes to the South Shore Line and explore specific opportunities around a new proposed station.
John Parsons will represent the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District at the workshop.
"It will give us an opportunity to meet with the community and share our thoughts on why we selected the 10th/11th Street corridor, what is prompting our decision to realign the railroad and what we expect to achieve," Parsons said. "Equally important, the workshop will begin to lay the foundation for a cooperative planning process that will enhance development opportunities within the corridor."
The workshop will provide an opportunity for residents to discuss their concerns and hopes.
MICHIGAN CITY - Mayor Chuck Oberlie and 1st Ward Councilman Richard Murphy announced Thursday a community workshop on the proposed South Shore Line upgrade.
The workshop will be held at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, July 29, in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
Stu Sirota of TND Planning Group Consultants, which recently completed the study on the economic benefits of transit-oriented development associated with the South Shore Line realignment options, will serve as the facilitator.
The workshop will provide an opportunity for public dialogue about the South Shore upgrades and associated transit oriented development opportunities, Oberlie and Murphy said in a news release. The workshop also will provide the best available information about proposed changes to the South Shore Line and explore specific opportunities around a new proposed station.
John Parsons will represent the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District at the workshop.
"It will give us an opportunity to meet with the community and share our thoughts on why we selected the 10th/11th Street corridor, what is prompting our decision to realign the railroad and what we expect to achieve," Parsons said. "Equally important, the workshop will begin to lay the foundation for a cooperative planning process that will enhance development opportunities within the corridor."
The workshop will provide an opportunity for residents to discuss their concerns and hopes.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jul 27 2009, 02:13 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=24847&TM=40159.62
QUOTE
Alternate route
Residents propose moving railroad north
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - John and Karen Vander Wagen found their home in Michigan City by accident. According to John, they missed the turn for Lighthouse Place Premium Outlets and headed toward Washington Park. They followed Lake Shore Drive and were amazed to find so many attractive lakeside homes.
"A week later, we bought it (the house)," John Vander Wagen said. After years of spending weekends here, the couple now lives here full-time.
Vander Wagen has joined forces with others who strongly believe that people need to see the city's location on Lake Michigan in order to want to visit or live here. On Sunday, Vander Wagen joined Leigh Coburn, Lou Hapke and Fred Miller in a discussion about the advantages of relocating the South Shore commuter rail north, parallel to the Amtrak route, rather than realigning its present route through town.
"I think most of us have a passion for this thing because we think the 11th Street plan would be bad for Michigan City," Miller said.
The "It's (Y)our Government Group" is trying to heighten public awareness of ways the NICTD proposal could impact Michigan City for decades ahead. And they are encouraging others to keep informed and make their opinions known.
When the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District announced its realignment plan on June 9, the group was amazed to learn the NICTD plan had been in the works for 10 years. They hadn't heard anything about it during conversations with John Parsons, NICTD communications director, and Henry Lampe, chief executive of South Shore Freight.
NICTD's plan would remove about 150 residences and buildings on 11th Street from the path of a new South Shore route. Vander Wagen has calculated these properties represent more than $8.6 million in assessed property values and a loss of some $149,500 in property tax revenue, since railroads are exempt from paying property taxes.
NICTD's proposal calls for closing 17 crossings and acquiring four square blocks for station parking. The northern route proponents say this will cut Michigan City into two parts at 11th Street, from Sheridan Avenue on the west to Michigan Boulevard on the east. For safety, the tracks will be fenced off. Leigh Coburn, who photographed rusty fences and accumulated trash along the South Shore tracks in Gary, Ind., in June, does not want to see that happen in Michigan City.
"I can't imagine the devastation that will occur if we have fences such as these running our city's entire length," Coburn said. "There will be lots of promises made concerning aesthetically pleasing fences and maintenance promises, but these pictures show the real history and results of NICTD fences."
Not only do the fences look bad, Coburn said, they also split up existing neighborhoods.
"How many kids on the south side of 11th Street play with kids on the north side of 11th Street?" Coburn asked. "It will cut neighborhoods in half."
Lou Hapke said their designed northern train route would make use of existing tracks once used by the Nickel Plate railroad, which once extended from Michigan City to La Porte and to Indianapolis. The costliest part of their plan would be creating an elevated track along the Amtrak line, with the South Shore rails running parallel over a 16-foot-high bridge across Franklin Street to an elevated intermodal station at the north end of Wabash Street, near the former depot now occupied by Swingbelly's Restaurant. The tracks would run on a 45-foot-high bridge replacing the swing bridge over Trail Creek.
"I think the important thing is to get it (swing bridge) redone to elevate it," Hapke said.
Hapke said not many buildings - residential or commercial - would have to be removed to accommodate the proposed northern route. And an elevated rail would give people "a bird's eye view" of the lakeshore.
"How many people go through our city and don't know we're on the lake?" Coburn asked. "We sincerely hope the mayor and city council will look very closely at what we believe is a seriously faulted proposal."
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Residents propose moving railroad north
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - John and Karen Vander Wagen found their home in Michigan City by accident. According to John, they missed the turn for Lighthouse Place Premium Outlets and headed toward Washington Park. They followed Lake Shore Drive and were amazed to find so many attractive lakeside homes.
"A week later, we bought it (the house)," John Vander Wagen said. After years of spending weekends here, the couple now lives here full-time.
Vander Wagen has joined forces with others who strongly believe that people need to see the city's location on Lake Michigan in order to want to visit or live here. On Sunday, Vander Wagen joined Leigh Coburn, Lou Hapke and Fred Miller in a discussion about the advantages of relocating the South Shore commuter rail north, parallel to the Amtrak route, rather than realigning its present route through town.
"I think most of us have a passion for this thing because we think the 11th Street plan would be bad for Michigan City," Miller said.
The "It's (Y)our Government Group" is trying to heighten public awareness of ways the NICTD proposal could impact Michigan City for decades ahead. And they are encouraging others to keep informed and make their opinions known.
When the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District announced its realignment plan on June 9, the group was amazed to learn the NICTD plan had been in the works for 10 years. They hadn't heard anything about it during conversations with John Parsons, NICTD communications director, and Henry Lampe, chief executive of South Shore Freight.
NICTD's plan would remove about 150 residences and buildings on 11th Street from the path of a new South Shore route. Vander Wagen has calculated these properties represent more than $8.6 million in assessed property values and a loss of some $149,500 in property tax revenue, since railroads are exempt from paying property taxes.
NICTD's proposal calls for closing 17 crossings and acquiring four square blocks for station parking. The northern route proponents say this will cut Michigan City into two parts at 11th Street, from Sheridan Avenue on the west to Michigan Boulevard on the east. For safety, the tracks will be fenced off. Leigh Coburn, who photographed rusty fences and accumulated trash along the South Shore tracks in Gary, Ind., in June, does not want to see that happen in Michigan City.
"I can't imagine the devastation that will occur if we have fences such as these running our city's entire length," Coburn said. "There will be lots of promises made concerning aesthetically pleasing fences and maintenance promises, but these pictures show the real history and results of NICTD fences."
Not only do the fences look bad, Coburn said, they also split up existing neighborhoods.
"How many kids on the south side of 11th Street play with kids on the north side of 11th Street?" Coburn asked. "It will cut neighborhoods in half."
Lou Hapke said their designed northern train route would make use of existing tracks once used by the Nickel Plate railroad, which once extended from Michigan City to La Porte and to Indianapolis. The costliest part of their plan would be creating an elevated track along the Amtrak line, with the South Shore rails running parallel over a 16-foot-high bridge across Franklin Street to an elevated intermodal station at the north end of Wabash Street, near the former depot now occupied by Swingbelly's Restaurant. The tracks would run on a 45-foot-high bridge replacing the swing bridge over Trail Creek.
"I think the important thing is to get it (swing bridge) redone to elevate it," Hapke said.
Hapke said not many buildings - residential or commercial - would have to be removed to accommodate the proposed northern route. And an elevated rail would give people "a bird's eye view" of the lakeshore.
"How many people go through our city and don't know we're on the lake?" Coburn asked. "We sincerely hope the mayor and city council will look very closely at what we believe is a seriously faulted proposal."
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: Dave Jul 27 2009, 04:05 PM
QUOTE
The tracks would run on a 45-foot-high bridge replacing the swing bridge over Trail Creek.
I suspect it will be found that building that bridge is going to make the $65 million look like pocket change.
I do think that the idea of fencing the tracks is rather annoying. Heck, they run down the middle of an active street now, what's the need for fencing?
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jul 28 2009, 12:27 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Jul 16 2009, 02:49 PM) 
http://www.emichigancity.com/news.htm#SouthShore
Don't forget the workshop is tomorrow (Wed) at 6:30pm! This is going to be a huge topic in the near future, so get your voice heard now, before it is too late!!!
Posted by: mcstumper Jul 28 2009, 08:37 PM
Hmmm. I'll be out of town. Is this the first of many such workshops?
I have a thought for the whole 11th St. vs. North End debate. I am very pro-11th St (since the south route was taken off the table), but for those who think that we are missing out on potential tourist traffic by not running the tracks north, why not build a trolley line that runs from the new station to the old depot (Swingbellies). NICTD has said the 11th St. project would provide a right of way wide enough for double-tracking, but that they would not initially want to do so. That means a second track could be laid from the new station west to the Amtrak tracks. It could run along the east side of the Amtrak tracks (without crossing them), and run north to the depot. A stop could also be added for the Lighthouse Mall. I envision this being operated during the summer months (and maybe just to the Lighthouse Mall from Thanksgiving to Christmas) by a private not for profit.
While this may seem far-fetched, remember that there was a group that was organized which wanted to build a trolley from Michigan City to Mount Baldy. Norfolk Southern Railroad gifted that group all of the track that was ripped up when the Nickle Plate line over the Peanut Bridge was abandoned a decade ago. I hear that that rail is still being stored in a warehouse on the city's west side.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jul 28 2009, 10:44 PM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Jul 28 2009, 09:37 PM)
Hmmm. I'll be out of town. Is this the first of many such workshops?
I have a thought for the whole 11th St. vs. North End debate. I am very pro-11th St (since the south route was taken off the table), but for those who think that we are missing out on potential tourist traffic by not running the tracks north, why not build a trolley line that runs from the new station to the old depot (Swingbellies). NICTD has said the 11th St. project would provide a right of way wide enough for double-tracking, but that they would not initially want to do so. That means a second track could be laid from the new station west to the Amtrak tracks. It could run along the east side of the Amtrak tracks (without crossing them), and run north to the depot. A stop could also be added for the Lighthouse Mall. I envision this being operated during the summer months (and maybe just to the Lighthouse Mall from Thanksgiving to Christmas) by a private not for profit.
While this may seem far-fetched, remember that there was a group that was organized which wanted to build a trolley from Michigan City to Mount Baldy. Norfolk Southern Railroad gifted that group all of the track that was ripped up when the Nickle Plate line over the Peanut Bridge was abandoned a decade ago. I hear that that rail is still being stored in a warehouse on the city's west side.
They have not mentioned any more forums, but I imagine it will be up to the public to demand more info. NICTD is going to try to get by with giving out as little controversial info as possible.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jul 30 2009, 09:33 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=24883&TM=39992.15
QUOTE
Breakout groups discuss key elements of South Shore relocation
Deborah Sederberg
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - More than 150 people attended a meeting Wednesday evening to discuss the relocation of South Shore tracks.
While John Parsons, planning and marketing manager of the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, said he and Gerald Hanas, NICTD general manager, were there to hear from the community, no one should expect to hear a lot of answers at the meeting.
"This is just the beginning of the process," he said. Answers will be forthcoming.
Stu Sirota, principal in the TND Planning Group of Baltimore, which has been working with Michigan City on transit issues, facilitated the meeting at which about 30 people were sitting in folding chairs in the vestibule outside City Council chambers because all 112 seats in the meeting room were filled. Another 15 people lined one wall in the meeting room.
Sirota too said he was looking for questions and concerns but the project is a long way from completion.
NICTD's proposal calls for closing the 11th Street and Carroll Avenue stations and building a new station at 11th and Washington streets. The plan would require acquiring property along the south side of 10th and 11th streets.
Sirota said other possibilities discussed over the years include moving tracks north to the AMTRAK tracks or south to the CSX tracks near Ames Field.
Those in attendance adjourned to the city's all-purpose room to discuss in smaller groups a variety of concerns ranging from historic district issues to dividing one part of the community from the rest of the city if 11th Street were to be closed.
Others worried about traffic during rush hour.
Julie Manner, who spoke for one group of people, talked about historic issues and expressed the hope that "you would preserve something of the old (South Shore) station." She also expressed the need for pedestrian-friendly areas near the new station and perhaps historic lighting.
Lou Hapke spoke to the issue of street closings. He has concerns about how well emergency vehicles will be able to negotiate new traffic patterns.
Parsons said the two miles of tracks embedded in the pavement in Michigan City's streets are NICTD's two most expensive miles of track because they are expensive to maintain.
Street maintenance around the tracks is expensive for the city as well.
"We would like to support the 10th and 11th streets corridor," Mayor Chuck Oberlie said. He hopes the City Council will support that plan as well.
"A key element in advancing the project and securing federal funding to support further analysis is the cooperation and support of the city," Parsons said.
Deborah Sederberg
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - More than 150 people attended a meeting Wednesday evening to discuss the relocation of South Shore tracks.
While John Parsons, planning and marketing manager of the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, said he and Gerald Hanas, NICTD general manager, were there to hear from the community, no one should expect to hear a lot of answers at the meeting.
"This is just the beginning of the process," he said. Answers will be forthcoming.
Stu Sirota, principal in the TND Planning Group of Baltimore, which has been working with Michigan City on transit issues, facilitated the meeting at which about 30 people were sitting in folding chairs in the vestibule outside City Council chambers because all 112 seats in the meeting room were filled. Another 15 people lined one wall in the meeting room.
Sirota too said he was looking for questions and concerns but the project is a long way from completion.
NICTD's proposal calls for closing the 11th Street and Carroll Avenue stations and building a new station at 11th and Washington streets. The plan would require acquiring property along the south side of 10th and 11th streets.
Sirota said other possibilities discussed over the years include moving tracks north to the AMTRAK tracks or south to the CSX tracks near Ames Field.
Those in attendance adjourned to the city's all-purpose room to discuss in smaller groups a variety of concerns ranging from historic district issues to dividing one part of the community from the rest of the city if 11th Street were to be closed.
Others worried about traffic during rush hour.
Julie Manner, who spoke for one group of people, talked about historic issues and expressed the hope that "you would preserve something of the old (South Shore) station." She also expressed the need for pedestrian-friendly areas near the new station and perhaps historic lighting.
Lou Hapke spoke to the issue of street closings. He has concerns about how well emergency vehicles will be able to negotiate new traffic patterns.
Parsons said the two miles of tracks embedded in the pavement in Michigan City's streets are NICTD's two most expensive miles of track because they are expensive to maintain.
Street maintenance around the tracks is expensive for the city as well.
"We would like to support the 10th and 11th streets corridor," Mayor Chuck Oberlie said. He hopes the City Council will support that plan as well.
"A key element in advancing the project and securing federal funding to support further analysis is the cooperation and support of the city," Parsons said.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jul 31 2009, 09:09 AM
For those who are interested, ALCO has the video of the workshop up on their website, thanks to them!
http://www.alco.org/index.php/alco-tv/82-special-event/336-special-south-shore-workshop
Posted by: southsider2k9 Jul 31 2009, 09:37 AM
I actually just caught the end of Part II of the workshop on ALCO 97, and I saw a few familiar faces on there. Dave, Greg, you guys have anything impressions you want to share from the meeting? I'd be curious to hear from the people who were actually there first.
Posted by: Dave Jul 31 2009, 12:55 PM
As for the format of the workshop, all I can say is that I don't operate optimally in that kind of format. I grouped with the people concerned about Historic Preservation, as that's sort of my thing at the moment.
One point that has to be made is that this presentation was NOT presented by NICTD. The workshop was presented by Mr. Sirota on behalf of the city, and the NITCD officials weren't there to answer questions, but rather to listen to what people were saying. More on this anon*.
As for NICTD's proposal, essentially it involves moving the tracks about 50 feet south for most of the length of 11th street. While I can see from the map (which does not appear to be available online, at least I couldn't find it), it would involve demolition of what could easily be the maximum possible number of homes and other buildings, including a church, which strikes me as being unnecessary. If NICTD's concern is getting the tracks out of the asphalt, one would think that by essentially giving them 11th street so they could remove the asphalt, that would solve the problem.
However, as far as I can tell, if they are going to tear out a new right of way fifty feet south of 11th, they no longer need 11th street, so why close it? The issues involved in closing some grade crossings would remain, but if they aren't going to run in 11th, what do they need it for?
NICTD seems to want to remove a couple of curves that reduce train speed through town, which could explain their desire for the new track route. Of course they could be looking at the issue strickly as engineers, who very well might want to run the rails in as straight a line as possible, ignoring the toll it would have on the city. They also proposed sacrificing at least two entire city blocks downtown to street level parking, which I have on some authority would be a deal breaker from the city government's point of view (thank god! It would look the the asphalt lake at East Chicago.)
*After looking at the "preliminary proposal" for a while, and unfortunately after the session was over, I had the thought that the "preliminary proposal" may very well be something somewhat different than what I initially thought it was. This may very well be due to the simple fact that I have grown over the years to be suspicious, but bear with me for my thought process a bit.
When entering into a negotiation (which is what this whole matter really is), different entities have different approaches. If I want A, B, and C, I normally say "I want A, B, and C," make my case, and if the other party doesn't agree, I endeavor to make them see the sweet right of reason (as I always take reasonable positions 
). A different approach taken by some folks who desire A, B, and C, is to say, "I want A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K L, M, and N," figuring they can back off on D through N and still get what they want. One example of this most people can identify with is buying a car -- the dealer's first price isn't generally his bottom line, it's just the point where he starts from.
My perception is that NICTD's "preliminary proposal" is their A though N, their beginning bargaining position. Supposedly their main concern isn't straightening out curves, but meeting federal guidelines for what's referred to as "positive track control," a safety system which entails sending electronic signals though the rails to determine where the trains are exactly at all times, which I have been told is very difficult if not impossible to do with rails buried in asphalt in our climate (snow, salt, rain, etc., causing problems with the signaling.) Essentially giving them 11th street so they could tear up the asphalt encasing the rails presumably would cure the "positive track control" issue, but they may be approaching this negotiation with additional items on their wish list so they can give up the additional items and appear to be bargaining in good faith.
I might be overly suspicious of the motives of NICTD, but these are the same folks who said a couple of years back that the move to Ame's Field was a "done deal," so I don't think that viewing their initial "proposal" skeptically is out of line.
[Dennis Miller] ...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. [/Dennis Miller]
Posted by: joe.black Aug 3 2009, 07:21 PM
If anyone wants a quick once-over of what NICTD management is thinking, feel free to read the interview "stickied" to the first page of this web site.
Posted by: Dave Aug 3 2009, 07:53 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Aug 3 2009, 08:21 PM)
If anyone wants a quick once-over of what NICTD management is thinking, feel free to read the interview "stickied" to the first page of this web site.
And here's a link to that thread:
http://www.citybythelake.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2300
Joe, if the new pathway for the NICTD rails is going to be where it's shown in the proposal, why does anything have to be done with 11th street? It appears to my untrained eye that the tracks would no longer be in the street, so why not leave the street alone (other than removing the tracks)?
Alternatively, if NICTD has the entire width of 11th street to use for a rail bed, why would it be necessary to tear down all those houses, other than to straighten out a couple of curves? It seems to me that the "rails in asphalt" issue would be taken care of.
As for a new station, is there a compelling reason to not use the old station? And as to having adequate parking, is there a compelling reason why a huge street level parking lot is superior to a multi-level structure (such as those seen in the Andrews and other studies)? I understand there may be additional cost, but unless the additional cost is astronomical, I personally don't find that reason compelling.
And one more question, regarding the additional cost of rails in asphalt-- how many years of the extra expense of the rails in asphalt would $65 million pay for?
And on a personal note, are you still affliated with NICTD? I thought I heard you had moved on to another employment situation. If you're still in Michigan City, I owe you a poster...
Posted by: joe.black Aug 4 2009, 11:31 AM
QUOTE(Dave @ Aug 3 2009, 07:53 PM)
And here's a link to that thread:
http://www.citybythelake.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2300
Joe, if the new pathway for the NICTD rails is going to be where it's shown in the proposal, why does anything have to be done with 11th street? It appears to my untrained eye that the tracks would no longer be in the street, so why not leave the street alone (other than removing the tracks)?
Alternatively, if NICTD has the entire width of 11th street to use for a rail bed, why would it be necessary to tear down all those houses, other than to straighten out a couple of curves? It seems to me that the "rails in asphalt" issue would be taken care of.
The plan, as far as it had gotten before I left (which was a painful decision for me, but necessary as the relocation just didn't work out) was to leave a lane of 11th Street open (the north lane). In order to get the necessary real estate (figuratively speaking) to fit 2 trackways plus ancillary infrastructure such as catenary structures, signals and signal huts, and so forth, it was calculated that the south lane, sidewalk, and one lot into 11th Street, on the south side, would be necessary (not the entire lot, but it's impossible to buy some fraction of a lot, if your ultimate goal is to build something else entirely on it, for obvious reasons). If 11th Street were to simply be closed completely, I'm not sure that that would provide enough space or not (I don't have the necessary street dimension data in front of me), but I suspect that it would be. However - the plan, which the city seemed to want, was to keep one lane of 11th Street open. That's what has led us to this place.
QUOTE(Dave @ Aug 3 2009, 07:53 PM)
As for a new station, is there a compelling reason to not use the old station? And as to having adequate parking, is there a compelling reason why a huge street level parking lot is superior to a multi-level structure (such as those seen in the Andrews and other studies)? I understand there may be additional cost, but unless the additional cost is astronomical, I personally don't find that reason compelling.
NICTD no longer owns the old station, which I understand has been virtually gutted on the inside. Also, north of 11th Street is the historic district, making any substantial work there more costly, more involved, and more trouble, plain and simple. It would not be cost effective on a dollar or time basis to try to design and build something with all of the modern amenities that NICTD envisions without making substantial changes, which run right up against something you're familiar with - the historic district.
As for the parking - NICTD would, if the 11th Street corridor is built, close the station at Carroll Avenue. The District would very much like to be able to provide passengers with the parking they need right now, and will likely need in the future. Although demand is off slightly this year mostly due to the economic downturn, the long term trend is solidly up. That's why it was projected that so much land would be needed for parking. I don't think that anything in the NICTD plan, though, necessarily precludes a multi-level parking structure (in fact, the economic development folks thought that would be a good idea). You're right that it would be more costly, but I don't know what the incremental cost of that would be versus a flat parking lot.
QUOTE(Dave @ Aug 3 2009, 07:53 PM)
And one more question, regarding the additional cost of rails in asphalt-- how many years of the extra expense of the rails in asphalt would $65 million pay for?
Unfortunately, I don't have the "broken out" figures in front of me that show mile for mile where the most expensive to maintain segments are, and what the per-mile costs are, but the street running section by far outpaces any other segmentin terms of maintenance cost. In addition - and you had alluded to this in an earlier post - the cost of not implementing Positive Train Control (PTC) by 2015 could be as serious as an embargo of service. The Feds could, conceivably, shut the South Shore down through the FRA if it's not in compliance. I doubt they'd take that drastic step, but everything up to and including complete shutdown is in their arsenal. Since the state of the rails is never good in the asphalt, it's very difficult to install and maintain a working PTC system in street running track of the kind that runs down 11th & 10th Streets.
QUOTE(Dave @ Aug 3 2009, 07:53 PM)
And on a personal note, are you still affliated with NICTD? I thought I heard you had moved on to another employment situation. If you're still in Michigan City, I owe you a poster...
As I've already said, I had to make the very painful decision to leave NICTD and the area, which I had grown to love. There may be a time in the future when my family situation and the economic situation will have changed such that I could return, but that would be at NICTD's pleasure, obviously.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Aug 6 2009, 05:35 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=24934&TM=70457.81
QUOTE
Residents need timeline on South Shore relocation
I attended the South Shore workshop. I am a homeowner of a home to be purchased. I was hoping for information regarding a timeline of purchases of our homes. Will it be months or years or weeks? If it is months or weeks we homeowners need to begin looking for new homes.
While I am willing to sell my home I would like to have time to look for a replacement and would like to know the timeline in case I find a home I'd like to bid on. The meeting answered no questions for us. We did write down our questions and were told they'd be answered at the next meeting. They gave no idea when that will be. We did hear that the plans had to be submitted in 2010, had to be completed by 2015 and it was a five- to six-year project. I have also heard the first federal money will be given in September of this year.
This makes me believe it will be months rather than years.
So come on NITCD, give me a timeline. How long do I have? What kind of offer are you going to make on our homes? Do you have to follow the Federal Uniform Relocation Act guidelines? When will the next meeting be and will it actually give us information? Or will it just be to placate those who have complaints?
I have no problem with the acquisition of my house, just would like to know when you will be making your offer!
Carolyn Pryor
Michigan City
I attended the South Shore workshop. I am a homeowner of a home to be purchased. I was hoping for information regarding a timeline of purchases of our homes. Will it be months or years or weeks? If it is months or weeks we homeowners need to begin looking for new homes.
While I am willing to sell my home I would like to have time to look for a replacement and would like to know the timeline in case I find a home I'd like to bid on. The meeting answered no questions for us. We did write down our questions and were told they'd be answered at the next meeting. They gave no idea when that will be. We did hear that the plans had to be submitted in 2010, had to be completed by 2015 and it was a five- to six-year project. I have also heard the first federal money will be given in September of this year.
This makes me believe it will be months rather than years.
So come on NITCD, give me a timeline. How long do I have? What kind of offer are you going to make on our homes? Do you have to follow the Federal Uniform Relocation Act guidelines? When will the next meeting be and will it actually give us information? Or will it just be to placate those who have complaints?
I have no problem with the acquisition of my house, just would like to know when you will be making your offer!
Carolyn Pryor
Michigan City
Posted by: IndyTransplant Aug 6 2009, 06:32 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Aug 6 2009, 06:35 PM)
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=24934&TM=70457.81
I had heard through the grapevine of at least one person who had already sold their home or at least come to an agreement. I cannot say for sure if if it is true, but thought I would mention it.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Aug 7 2009, 10:22 PM
http://www.emichigancity.com/pdf/Michigan-City-062509.pdf
Posted by: IndyTransplant Aug 7 2009, 10:42 PM
Thanks for posting that Southsider. Gave it a quick read and will go over more carefullly over the weekend. Will admit that there is personal interest in the plans since we will be living closer to downtown very soon.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Aug 13 2009, 11:50 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=25136
QUOTE
NICTD says no to north route idea
Concept proposed by group of concerned citizens.
Dave Hawk and Laurie Wink
Staff Writers
MICHIGAN CITY - The agency that runs the South Shore commuter service is not considering the northerly route proposed by a group of concerned citizens, a spokesman said Wednesday.
The plans for a northerly route call for an elevated station and a new bridge extending over Trail Creek and Franklin Street on a route that would serve both the South Shore and Amtrak. It would be accomplished in conjunction with replacing an existing swing bridge over the creek used by Amtrak.
The costs of such a project would be too high, said John Parsons, Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District planning and marketing manager. He has been quoted as saying the northerly route would cost $200 million, compared with an estimated $65 million for rebuilding the route along the 11th and 10th streets corridor where it now travels.
"What we're talking about (with the northern route) is a bridge and a station to be constructed above grade," Parsons said. "Bridges increase long-term maintenance and capital costs, and so do elevated stations because of the mere fact of requiring elevators and escalators."
Also, working on tracks adjacent to Amtrak would pose "a series of operational issues," Parsons said.
Meanwhile, the concerned citizens group hopes to enlist the help of Indiana's U.S. senators, Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh, and the local congressman, U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly, to see if they can urge Amtrak to work with NICTD so the two passenger services can share the same corridor through the north end of Michigan City.
Group member Fred Miller said while the north route is more costly, its costs should be looked at over the decades that a new track would be used, and that federal economic stimulus money may be available in the near future for upgrading the local Amtrak route to a high-speed rail line, necessitating replacement of the bridge over Trail Creek.
Those advocating the north route say it would generate greater redevelopment of the North End than keeping the South Shore along 11th and 10th streets, and that tearing down some 150 houses and a few businesses as proposed by NICTD would reduce the city's tax base by more than $8 million in assessed valuation, costing the city property tax revenue.
Moreover, they say that closing most cross streets, as the NICTD plan proposes, would divide Michigan City with an ugly chain link fence.
NICTD, however, has furnished pictures showing the new South Shore track, built along the south side of 11th and 10th streets, would look like the landscaped areas along the North Shore Metra line in the north Chicago suburbs.
The proposed South Shore rail realignment on 11th and 10th streets is subject of a pending agreement between the city and NICTD.
Mayor Chuck Oberlie said the memorandum of understanding will not be developed until consultant Stu Sirota, of TND Planning Group in Baltimore, gives a report on issues raised July 29 at a public meeting. The approximately 150 attendees broke into smaller groups to address specific aspects of a proposed relocation of South Shore tracks and submitted group reports.
"The consultants are preparing a report that will address questions that were brought forward," Oberlie said. "Once the report is complete, another public discussion will take place."
Following that, the City Council will address the memorandum of understanding, the mayor said.
City Council President Bob McKee, D-At-large, said Wednesday he does not know when the memorandum will be passed to the council for consideration. At that point, McKee said, the matter may be referred to a council committee for review before coming to the full council as a resolution.
"I don't think this is going to drag out until January or February," McKee said, "but I think some of these questions need to be answered."
A big unanswered question for McKee is what the city's share of the cost would be.
"Is our share going to be $100,000 or $5 million? The costs I've heard are all over the board," McKee said.
"In my mind, we have two routes to chose from. I can see positives and negatives on both sides of this."
Parsons said cooperation from the city is needed to move forward with the project. A memorandum of understanding with the city would help secure federal grant funding for a preliminary engineering design and then an environmental impact study. Public hearings would be held in Michigan City during the environmental impact phase of the project, Parsons said.
"We would like the cooperation of the city," Parsons said. "We certainly hope we will get it."
NICTD needs to remove the track from the center of the roadway on 11th and 10th street to solve operating problems, in the most cost-effective way, Parsons said. With a revitalized South Shore line along 10th and 11th streets, he added, "Michigan City has a unique opportunity to further develop the lakefront with an Amtrak corridor development and with our project."
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Concept proposed by group of concerned citizens.
Dave Hawk and Laurie Wink
Staff Writers
MICHIGAN CITY - The agency that runs the South Shore commuter service is not considering the northerly route proposed by a group of concerned citizens, a spokesman said Wednesday.
The plans for a northerly route call for an elevated station and a new bridge extending over Trail Creek and Franklin Street on a route that would serve both the South Shore and Amtrak. It would be accomplished in conjunction with replacing an existing swing bridge over the creek used by Amtrak.
The costs of such a project would be too high, said John Parsons, Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District planning and marketing manager. He has been quoted as saying the northerly route would cost $200 million, compared with an estimated $65 million for rebuilding the route along the 11th and 10th streets corridor where it now travels.
"What we're talking about (with the northern route) is a bridge and a station to be constructed above grade," Parsons said. "Bridges increase long-term maintenance and capital costs, and so do elevated stations because of the mere fact of requiring elevators and escalators."
Also, working on tracks adjacent to Amtrak would pose "a series of operational issues," Parsons said.
Meanwhile, the concerned citizens group hopes to enlist the help of Indiana's U.S. senators, Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh, and the local congressman, U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly, to see if they can urge Amtrak to work with NICTD so the two passenger services can share the same corridor through the north end of Michigan City.
Group member Fred Miller said while the north route is more costly, its costs should be looked at over the decades that a new track would be used, and that federal economic stimulus money may be available in the near future for upgrading the local Amtrak route to a high-speed rail line, necessitating replacement of the bridge over Trail Creek.
Those advocating the north route say it would generate greater redevelopment of the North End than keeping the South Shore along 11th and 10th streets, and that tearing down some 150 houses and a few businesses as proposed by NICTD would reduce the city's tax base by more than $8 million in assessed valuation, costing the city property tax revenue.
Moreover, they say that closing most cross streets, as the NICTD plan proposes, would divide Michigan City with an ugly chain link fence.
NICTD, however, has furnished pictures showing the new South Shore track, built along the south side of 11th and 10th streets, would look like the landscaped areas along the North Shore Metra line in the north Chicago suburbs.
The proposed South Shore rail realignment on 11th and 10th streets is subject of a pending agreement between the city and NICTD.
Mayor Chuck Oberlie said the memorandum of understanding will not be developed until consultant Stu Sirota, of TND Planning Group in Baltimore, gives a report on issues raised July 29 at a public meeting. The approximately 150 attendees broke into smaller groups to address specific aspects of a proposed relocation of South Shore tracks and submitted group reports.
"The consultants are preparing a report that will address questions that were brought forward," Oberlie said. "Once the report is complete, another public discussion will take place."
Following that, the City Council will address the memorandum of understanding, the mayor said.
City Council President Bob McKee, D-At-large, said Wednesday he does not know when the memorandum will be passed to the council for consideration. At that point, McKee said, the matter may be referred to a council committee for review before coming to the full council as a resolution.
"I don't think this is going to drag out until January or February," McKee said, "but I think some of these questions need to be answered."
A big unanswered question for McKee is what the city's share of the cost would be.
"Is our share going to be $100,000 or $5 million? The costs I've heard are all over the board," McKee said.
"In my mind, we have two routes to chose from. I can see positives and negatives on both sides of this."
Parsons said cooperation from the city is needed to move forward with the project. A memorandum of understanding with the city would help secure federal grant funding for a preliminary engineering design and then an environmental impact study. Public hearings would be held in Michigan City during the environmental impact phase of the project, Parsons said.
"We would like the cooperation of the city," Parsons said. "We certainly hope we will get it."
NICTD needs to remove the track from the center of the roadway on 11th and 10th street to solve operating problems, in the most cost-effective way, Parsons said. With a revitalized South Shore line along 10th and 11th streets, he added, "Michigan City has a unique opportunity to further develop the lakefront with an Amtrak corridor development and with our project."
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Aug 15 2009, 07:57 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=25151&TM=35807.4
QUOTE
Where's outrage over South Shore plan?
It's interesting that NICTD needs to give The News-Dispatch a picture of a train station and fencing belonging to the North Shore Metra Line north of Chicago. The other pictures they show during their presentation are from other U.S. cities and Europe.
NICTD has stations and fencing in several Indiana communities and the results are nothing like what they show during their presentations. The fences throughout Gary, Hammond and East Chicago are in disrepair, rusty, falling down, and full of weeds and trash.
If NICTD doesn't take care of what they are presently responsible for, why should Michigan City expect anything different? During Mr. Parsons' presentation he stated they would be reducing grade crossings throughout Michigan City from the present 34 to 17. The North End route has elevated crossings and the total number of grade crossings would be reduced to two. Where's the outrage from our citizens?
Not only will over 150 residences and businesses be displaced, but neighborhoods will be destroyed. Seven cross streets in a row going from Michigan Boulevard to Pine Street will be closed. Kids that live on the south side of 11th Street won't be able to walk across and play with friends on the north side. Kids on the north side of 11th Street won't be able to walk to Elston Middle School. On the west end of 11th Street many people who walk to St. Mary's Church and School as well as Marquette High School won't be able to get there because of the fences.
How about school buses and emergency vehicles? I could go on and on, but those who live in the neighborhoods know better than I how they will be affected.
If any neighborhood organizations, churches or service groups want to see our power point presentation concerning this subject or need help having their voice heard, please contact me at 879-7997.
Leigh Coburn
Michigan City
It's interesting that NICTD needs to give The News-Dispatch a picture of a train station and fencing belonging to the North Shore Metra Line north of Chicago. The other pictures they show during their presentation are from other U.S. cities and Europe.
NICTD has stations and fencing in several Indiana communities and the results are nothing like what they show during their presentations. The fences throughout Gary, Hammond and East Chicago are in disrepair, rusty, falling down, and full of weeds and trash.
If NICTD doesn't take care of what they are presently responsible for, why should Michigan City expect anything different? During Mr. Parsons' presentation he stated they would be reducing grade crossings throughout Michigan City from the present 34 to 17. The North End route has elevated crossings and the total number of grade crossings would be reduced to two. Where's the outrage from our citizens?
Not only will over 150 residences and businesses be displaced, but neighborhoods will be destroyed. Seven cross streets in a row going from Michigan Boulevard to Pine Street will be closed. Kids that live on the south side of 11th Street won't be able to walk across and play with friends on the north side. Kids on the north side of 11th Street won't be able to walk to Elston Middle School. On the west end of 11th Street many people who walk to St. Mary's Church and School as well as Marquette High School won't be able to get there because of the fences.
How about school buses and emergency vehicles? I could go on and on, but those who live in the neighborhoods know better than I how they will be affected.
If any neighborhood organizations, churches or service groups want to see our power point presentation concerning this subject or need help having their voice heard, please contact me at 879-7997.
Leigh Coburn
Michigan City
Posted by: Dave Aug 15 2009, 04:27 PM
My question for the North End Routers is pretty simple -- where's the $200 million (that's the low estimate, more likely $450 million or more) to pay for the elevated bridge and approaches supposed to come from? Until they have a credible answer to that question, anything they say is just noise.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Aug 17 2009, 10:43 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=25177&TM=2546.382
QUOTE
Northern route would block lake view
So much has been said and written in support of the "benefits" of moving the South Shore to the Amtrak route north of U.S. 12 that I was worried that NICTD might actually succumb to the pressure of people who have never spent any time sitting on the patio on the north side of Swingbelly's and contemplating the effect of a railroad embankment that, at that point, would be at least as high as their roof.
We have already cut downtown Michigan City off from the lake with a library. Do we really want to contemplate a further separation? I would think that we'd want to do things that pull the lake and the city closer rather than adding yet another obstacle.
Thank you, NICTD. Hang in there. Sanity will eventually prevail.
Sam Harnish
Michigan City
q
Editor's note: The group pushing for relocating the South Shore contends it could be built on an attractive elevated structure. Images of that proposal are at www.michigancitysnewnorthend.com
So much has been said and written in support of the "benefits" of moving the South Shore to the Amtrak route north of U.S. 12 that I was worried that NICTD might actually succumb to the pressure of people who have never spent any time sitting on the patio on the north side of Swingbelly's and contemplating the effect of a railroad embankment that, at that point, would be at least as high as their roof.
We have already cut downtown Michigan City off from the lake with a library. Do we really want to contemplate a further separation? I would think that we'd want to do things that pull the lake and the city closer rather than adding yet another obstacle.
Thank you, NICTD. Hang in there. Sanity will eventually prevail.
Sam Harnish
Michigan City
q
Editor's note: The group pushing for relocating the South Shore contends it could be built on an attractive elevated structure. Images of that proposal are at www.michigancitysnewnorthend.com
Posted by: mcstumper Aug 18 2009, 09:17 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Aug 17 2009, 11:43 PM)
Northern route would block lake view
So much has been said and written in support of the "benefits" of moving the South Shore to the Amtrak route north of U.S. 12 that I was worried that NICTD might actually succumb to the pressure of people who have never spent any time sitting on the patio on the north side of Swingbelly's and contemplating the effect of a railroad embankment that, at that point, would be at least as high as their roof.
We have already cut downtown Michigan City off from the lake with a library. Do we really want to contemplate a further separation? I would think that we'd want to do things that pull the lake and the city closer rather than adding yet another obstacle.
Thank you, NICTD. Hang in there. Sanity will eventually prevail.
Sam Harnish
Michigan City
q
Editor's note: The group pushing for relocating the South Shore contends it could be built on an attractive elevated structure. Images of that proposal are at www.michigancitysnewnorthend.com
This guy is right on. A great political cartoon would show Joie Winski's crowd finally tearing down the library then turning around to admire the new view of Washington Park and the lake front; only to see this monstrosity in the way.
Its a commuter line. Sticking the station on the north end puts it farther away for the average MC citizen. And to think that in these peoples' minds, after all the work that has gone into clearing blight along Trail Creek, the best use for the most prime real estate in the city would be commuter parking lots.
As for the dual purpose rail station (South Shore & Amtrak), this ignores the fact that the Amtrak line between Porter, IN and New Buffalo, MI is redundant and represents nothing more that federal government waste. Think about this: Amtrak runs two different daily trains through Michigan City. One on its own line on the north end, and another on the CSX line that runs by Ames Field. These lines intersect in Porter and again in New Buffalo. If Amtrak and CSX would build a connecting track at their intersection in New Buffalo, 23 miles of unnecessary track, countless crossings, overpasses and a floating bridge could be eliminated. Amtrak is plum broke, but insists on paying for the maintenance on this track. Rip it out and rebuild the South Shore freight line across the old Peanut Bridge to connect to Criterion Catalysts for freight. Turn the Amtrak right of way into a 23 mile rail trail. Lets think rationally and economically about these issues and growth will follow.
Posted by: JHeath Aug 18 2009, 10:59 PM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Aug 18 2009, 10:17 PM)
This guy is right on. A great political cartoon would show Joie Winski's crowd finally tearing down the library then turning around to admire the new view of Washington Park and the lake front; only to see this monstrosity in the way.
Its a commuter line. Sticking the station on the north end puts it farther away for the average MC citizen. And to think that in these peoples' minds, after all the work that has gone into clearing blight along Trail Creek, the best use for the most prime real estate in the city would be commuter parking lots.
As for the dual purpose rail station (South Shore & Amtrak), this ignores the fact that the Amtrak line between Porter, IN and New Buffalo, MI is redundant and represents nothing more that federal government waste. Think about this: Amtrak runs two different daily trains through Michigan City. One on its own line on the north end, and another on the CSX line that runs by Ames Field. These lines intersect in Porter and again in New Buffalo. If Amtrak and CSX would build a connecting track at their intersection in New Buffalo, 23 miles of unnecessary track, countless crossings, overpasses and a floating bridge could be eliminated. Amtrak is plum broke, but insists on paying for the maintenance on this track. Rip it out and rebuild the South Shore freight line across the old Peanut Bridge to connect to Criterion Catalysts for freight. Turn the Amtrak right of way into a 23 mile rail trail. Lets think rationally and economically about these issues and growth will follow.
I can tell you that Joie would not support moving the tracks further north, nor would she support what you deem "a monstrosity of a station." But, that's neither here nor there. She's not the one in office.
Posted by: mcstumper Aug 19 2009, 10:25 AM
QUOTE(JHeath @ Aug 18 2009, 11:59 PM)
I can tell you that Joie would not support moving the tracks further north, nor would she support what you deem "a monstrosity of a station." But, that's neither here nor there. She's not the one in office.
Sorry. I didn't mean to lump her in with the North End Relocationists... just as someone active in the movement to relocate the library and open Franklin St.
Posted by: Dave Aug 19 2009, 01:05 PM
Fred Miller (from www.michigancitysnewnorthend.com) is going to give a powerpoint presentation of their plan at the Elston Grove Neighborhood Association meeting tonight at the IBEW Center (old Central School) at 7 p.m.
Non-members are welcome to attend.
I'm going to be there, and I anticipate asking a few questions myself.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Aug 20 2009, 08:07 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=25248
QUOTE
Answers to S. Shore questions expected soon
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Questions about the South Shore realignment posed during a public workshop July 29 are expected to be answered by the end of the month.
Councilman Rich Murphy, D-1st Ward, told City Council members Tuesday a final report will be submitted at the end of August by Stu Sirota, of TND Planning Group. Sirota is categorizing the questions and forwarding them to the appropriate entities for answers, Murphy said, adding that some questions might not have answers right now.
The city and the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District partnered to bring Sirota in as the workshop facilitator. He has worked with the city on planning issues for two years, including the North End plan created by architectural students from Andrews University in 2007.
Some 150 local residents attended the public workshop, breaking into smaller groups to consider topics such as street closures, landscaping, railroad operations and right-of-way issues.
Council President Bob McKee, D-at-Large, presented a list at Tuesday's council meeting of questions he would like answered:
• What is the hard money cost to the city?
• What is the soft money cost (paving streets, working on sewer systems) and who pays it?
• Will the city be compensated for property taxes lost when parcels are purchased by NICTD?
• What type of station is proposed and who will pay for it?
• What landscaping and streetscaping is planned and who will provide it?
• Will there by guarantees on construction and continued maintenance so eyesores don't develop?
• Is a northern route conceivable in terms of NICTD's business plan?
McKee provided the list to Murphy, who said he would forward the questions to Sirota.
In other business, the council voted 9-0 to appoint Shandra Niswander to the Michigan City Animal Control Advisory Committee. Her term begins immediately and expires Jan. 1, 2012.
Representatives of the La Porte County Convention & Visitors Bureau presented a plaque from Superboat International to Mayor Chuck Oberlie in recognition of the city's support for the Aug. 7-9 Great Lakes Grand Prix event. CVB Sports Manager Jason Miller said all the participating drivers had "glowing reviews" of their treatment here.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Questions about the South Shore realignment posed during a public workshop July 29 are expected to be answered by the end of the month.
Councilman Rich Murphy, D-1st Ward, told City Council members Tuesday a final report will be submitted at the end of August by Stu Sirota, of TND Planning Group. Sirota is categorizing the questions and forwarding them to the appropriate entities for answers, Murphy said, adding that some questions might not have answers right now.
The city and the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District partnered to bring Sirota in as the workshop facilitator. He has worked with the city on planning issues for two years, including the North End plan created by architectural students from Andrews University in 2007.
Some 150 local residents attended the public workshop, breaking into smaller groups to consider topics such as street closures, landscaping, railroad operations and right-of-way issues.
Council President Bob McKee, D-at-Large, presented a list at Tuesday's council meeting of questions he would like answered:
• What is the hard money cost to the city?
• What is the soft money cost (paving streets, working on sewer systems) and who pays it?
• Will the city be compensated for property taxes lost when parcels are purchased by NICTD?
• What type of station is proposed and who will pay for it?
• What landscaping and streetscaping is planned and who will provide it?
• Will there by guarantees on construction and continued maintenance so eyesores don't develop?
• Is a northern route conceivable in terms of NICTD's business plan?
McKee provided the list to Murphy, who said he would forward the questions to Sirota.
In other business, the council voted 9-0 to appoint Shandra Niswander to the Michigan City Animal Control Advisory Committee. Her term begins immediately and expires Jan. 1, 2012.
Representatives of the La Porte County Convention & Visitors Bureau presented a plaque from Superboat International to Mayor Chuck Oberlie in recognition of the city's support for the Aug. 7-9 Great Lakes Grand Prix event. CVB Sports Manager Jason Miller said all the participating drivers had "glowing reviews" of their treatment here.
Posted by: joe.black Aug 20 2009, 11:30 AM
Critical questions to be answered by the north end folks include:
How are you going to get the Coast Guard to waive the bridge height requirement?
If they do waive it (allowing an essentially flat crossing of the creek), how does that affect the ability of boats to use that section of Trail Creek?
Is the north end route proposing to place NICTD's trains on Amtrak rails, under the control of Amtrak dispatchers?
If not, have they included the cost of separate tracks and facilities in the projected cost of the north end route? Also - will the new station have separate platforms for eastbound and westbound Amtrak and South Shore trains (in other words, 4 platform tracks)? If not, how do you propose to separate NICTD traffic from Amtrak?
How do they answer the assertion that an elevated railway will be a visual fence across the lakeshore, and diminish rather than enhance the city's connection to the lake?
Where is the extra funding for the north end route coming from? Don't say "stimulus" - that's a buzzword, and meaningless at this point. There's nothing about the north end route that is "shovel ready".
Posted by: Dave Aug 20 2009, 01:24 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Aug 20 2009, 12:30 PM)
Critical questions to be answered by the north end folks include:
From what I gathered at the meeting last night (note: I am not an advocate of the "north end plan"):
QUOTE
How are you going to get the Coast Guard to waive the bridge height requirement?
If they do waive it (allowing an essentially flat crossing of the creek), how does that affect the ability of boats to use that section of Trail Creek?
If they do waive it (allowing an essentially flat crossing of the creek), how does that affect the ability of boats to use that section of Trail Creek?
It was said that current regulations require clearance above water level to be 45 feet, but it could possibly be negotiated down to 25 feet. My thought: so much for sailboats docking in Trail Creek -- most masts aren't going to fit under a 25 foot clearance.
QUOTE
Is the north end route proposing to place NICTD's trains on Amtrak rails, under the control of Amtrak dispatchers?
If not, have they included the cost of separate tracks and facilities in the projected cost of the north end route? Also - will the new station have separate platforms for eastbound and westbound Amtrak and South Shore trains (in other words, 4 platform tracks)? If not, how do you propose to separate NICTD traffic from Amtrak?
If not, have they included the cost of separate tracks and facilities in the projected cost of the north end route? Also - will the new station have separate platforms for eastbound and westbound Amtrak and South Shore trains (in other words, 4 platform tracks)? If not, how do you propose to separate NICTD traffic from Amtrak?
Their plans appeared to me to have a single platform at the station with tracks on either side, the northern set of tracks for Amtrak and the southern set of tracks for the South Shore. From a conversation I had with you, Joe, I understand that running freight trains next to a platform is a problem, but I didn't have the opportunity to ask them about it. Anyway, one set of rails for Amtrak and one set of rails for NICTD on the elevated section.
QUOTE
How do they answer the assertion that an elevated railway will be a visual fence across the lakeshore, and diminish rather than enhance the city's connection to the lake?
They had a pretty picture of their proposed station, with all sorts of pretty design elements. They even had an artist's conception of what the view from the station, which they suggest would be just west of Swingbelly's (the old Amtrak station). The artist's conception shows a view of the Chicago skyline. That view looks to me like what one might see from the beach -- through a telescope. My guess is that a view from the proposed location is going to primarily be the backside of the NIPSCO power plant, which I suspect doesn't fascinate many artists.
QUOTE
Where is the extra funding for the north end route coming from? Don't say "stimulus" - that's a buzzword, and meaningless at this point. There's nothing about the north end route that is "shovel ready".
My questions last night were about cost and funding. Mr. Miller answered that the bridge over Trail Creek was estimated at $200 million, and when I pressed him on that, that was just for the bridge -- with the approaches, the new station, and the rest, the cost would go up to at $250 million or $300 million or more (close to $10,000 per person living in Michigan City.)
The answer to my question as to where the money would come from? What many on the internet would refer to as "hand waving." Federal funds, NITCD, Amtrak, bond issues for $50 million paid for by Blue Chip riverboat money over 10 or 15 years (errr, aren't those funds shrinking due to lower revenues at the casino? Not to mention casino revenue may not be high enough to pay that off -- do we get more than $7 million per year from the riverboat (to cover principal and interest on those bonds)?), bonds paid for with TIF funds (I almost laughed out loud at this -- we at the Elston Grove Neighborhood Association have been waiting a couple of years to get decorative streetlights in the neighborhood which would cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Good luck getting the millions for a bond issue!)
Years ago I remember seeing some grandiose plans proposed during the 1920's for the Chicago lakefront, including airports built on floating islands out in Lake Michigan. My reaction was "Gee, that looks cool! Would cost so much it would never happen, but sure looks cool!" My impression of the north end proponents is that they came up with the idea that "gee, that looks cool!" but didn't get to the "Going to cost so much that's never going to happen" part.
I've previously stated that I think the NICTD proposal is their Christmas list of everything they could conceivably want, but that a lesser version would be something they would accept -- the current proposal is simply where they want to start negotiating from. If Michigan City essentially gives NICTD 11th street and reduces the number of grade crossings, and tell them they have to landscape the corridor and maintain it without putting up fences that aren't there now and we've managed without for a hundred years, NICTD won't be concerned about knocking down 150 or so houses, because they'll get their tracks out of the asphalt.
One of the reasons that I can't take the north enders too seriously is that they were talking about getting politicians on board, and suggested getting Senator Lugar involved. Why they figured the Republican senator from Indiana would be enthusiastic to propose spending upwards of $300 million in federal funds in the most solidly Democratic section of the state instead of , oh, say, Senator Bayh, the Democratic Indiana senator, in my opinion shows how well connected to reality they are.
Posted by: joe.black Aug 21 2009, 08:55 AM
QUOTE(Dave @ Aug 20 2009, 01:24 PM)
Their plans appeared to me to have a single platform at the station with tracks on either side, the northern set of tracks for Amtrak and the southern set of tracks for the South Shore. From a conversation I had with you, Joe, I understand that running freight trains next to a platform is a problem, but I didn't have the opportunity to ask them about it. Anyway, one set of rails for Amtrak and one set of rails for NICTD on the elevated section.
There are definitely issues with running freight trains next to a high level station platform. At NICTD's current high level stations, there are two sets of tracks - a main track that the freights use that allows their greater width to clear the platform edges, and a "gauntlet track", or station track that tucks in closer to allow the passenger cars to snug up to the edge. That would be required (but, then again, it would be required at an 11th Street Station with high-level platforms as well).
My bigger concern is that this pretty much locks NICTD into a single track railroad through Michigan City. If the north end proponents are suggesting a separate track for NICTD and a separate track for Amtrak, what do you think the cost would be at some point in the near future to construct a new extension to the bridge and reconfigure station platforms to accomodate a second NICTD track? It would be fairly costly, to be very understated.
The only other way to do it is to build a second track and allow Amtrak and NICTD to operate over them in opposite directions...which means Amtrak would control it.
QUOTE(Dave @ Aug 20 2009, 01:24 PM)
They had a pretty picture of their proposed station, with all sorts of pretty design elements. They even had an artist's conception of what the view from the station, which they suggest would be just west of Swingbelly's (the old Amtrak station). The artist's conception shows a view of the Chicago skyline. That view looks to me like what one might see from the beach -- through a telescope. My guess is that a view from the proposed location is going to primarily be the backside of the NIPSCO power plant, which I suspect doesn't fascinate many artists.
My questions last night were about cost and funding. Mr. Miller answered that the bridge over Trail Creek was estimated at $200 million, and when I pressed him on that, that was just for the bridge -- with the approaches, the new station, and the rest, the cost would go up to at $250 million or $300 million or more (close to $10,000 per person living in Michigan City.)
My questions last night were about cost and funding. Mr. Miller answered that the bridge over Trail Creek was estimated at $200 million, and when I pressed him on that, that was just for the bridge -- with the approaches, the new station, and the rest, the cost would go up to at $250 million or $300 million or more (close to $10,000 per person living in Michigan City.)
Add in the additional incremental cost of double tracking the NICTD alignment on the north end (with all of the ancillary 'stuff' that a water crossing requires) versus double tracking an 11th Street alignment that is specifically sized to one day allow a second track, and the cost goes up even more...
QUOTE(Dave @ Aug 20 2009, 01:24 PM)
The answer to my question as to where the money would come from? What many on the internet would refer to as "hand waving." Federal funds, NITCD, Amtrak, bond issues for $50 million paid for by Blue Chip riverboat money over 10 or 15 years (errr, aren't those funds shrinking due to lower revenues at the casino? Not to mention casino revenue may not be high enough to pay that off -- do we get more than $7 million per year from the riverboat (to cover principal and interest on those bonds)?), bonds paid for with TIF funds (I almost laughed out loud at this -- we at the Elston Grove Neighborhood Association have been waiting a couple of years to get decorative streetlights in the neighborhood which would cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Good luck getting the millions for a bond issue!)
I've seen this before. "We're here at A, then we go to B, then *something happens*, and we get to D". The "something happens" part is the one that is the hardest to answer. They apparently weren't very convincing.
Thanks for the recap, Dave.
Posted by: Dave Aug 21 2009, 12:33 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Aug 21 2009, 09:55 AM)
QUOTE
The answer to my question as to where the money would come from? What many on the internet would refer to as "hand waving." Federal funds, NITCD, Amtrak, bond issues for $50 million paid for by Blue Chip riverboat money over 10 or 15 years (errr, aren't those funds shrinking due to lower revenues at the casino? Not to mention casino revenue may not be high enough to pay that off -- do we get more than $7 million per year from the riverboat (to cover principal and interest on those bonds)?), bonds paid for with TIF funds (I almost laughed out loud at this -- we at the Elston Grove Neighborhood Association have been waiting a couple of years to get decorative streetlights in the neighborhood which would cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Good luck getting the millions for a bond issue!)
I've seen this before. "We're here at A, then we go to B, then *something happens*, and we get to D". The "something happens" part is the one that is the hardest to answer. They apparently weren't very convincing.
Thanks for the recap, Dave.
Thanks for your views on this stuff, Joe.
And to elaborate for the other folks reading this, when I related above to the funding sources the north enders anticipate getting money from, to my untrained ears it didn't sound so much like a careful and well thought out funding strategy as it sounded simply like wishful thinking.
I'm sure that at least some of the people involved with the north end proposal are very sincere, and I know that some of them have been working on this thing for years. I just don't think that plan is workable, cost effective, or necessarily desirable. As I told one of the gentlemen after the Elston Grove meeting, if I was given $300 million to do something to improve Michigan City, it wouldn't involve moving the South Shore tracks from where they've been for the past 100 years, it would involve the purchase and demolition of the lakefront NIPSCO power plant and its replacement with a bunch of lakefront residences.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Aug 22 2009, 08:43 PM
Good call Dave on NIPSCO.
I also don't see the need to increase the cost of this project by a factor of 4-5 times. In this era of recession, it also isn't realistic.
Posted by: lovethiscity Aug 23 2009, 08:03 AM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Aug 22 2009, 09:43 PM)
Good call Dave on NIPSCO.
I also don't see the need to increase the cost of this project by a factor of 4-5 times. In this era of recession, it also isn't realistic.
I hope they do not considor todays economic times in a decision. No matter which route they take, it will be 8 - 10 years before ground will be broken. I would hope the economy will not still be in a recession.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Aug 23 2009, 10:11 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=25348&TM=42883.01
QUOTE
Houses in jeopardy?
This is the first of two stories on houses that could be demolished if the proposed South Shore relocation occurs.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Preliminary South Shore relocation plans, released in June, call for removing a two-mile swath of houses on the south side of 11th Street as part of a track realignment.
Meanwhile, people like Linda and Gene Rodriguez have been working hard to renovate some properties on 11th Street that could be slated for demolition.
The couple was surprised to find out about the South Shore plan. They had completely renovated a duplex at the corner of 11th and Spring streets, and now live in the upper level. Since then, they have purchased a dilapidated 100-year-old brick house on the opposite corner.
"It broke my heart," Linda said about the South Shore plan. "We've been working ourselves to death on these houses."
She and her husband are investing time and money into the renovations, but Linda said she believes they will recoup their investment.
"We're going to be OK no matter what if we get fair market value," she said.
Still, she's not happy with how some changes could impact the neighborhood. While walking across 11th Street from one of their houses to the other, Linda said, "Can you imagine seeing fences? It's not going to be a neighborhood." Both sides of a new South Shore track would be fenced, according to plans of the public agency that operates the commuter train, Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District.
As for her neighbors, Linda said, "There seems to be a general consensus that they (government) are going to do what they want. They don't think there is anything they can do."
The Rodriguezes moved here two years ago after retiring to be close to their grandchildren. They fell in love with Michigan City.
"We like the fact that we are close to transportation, the beach, restaurants and the marina," Gene said.
Wanting to diversify their investment portfolio, they decided to purchase and renovate rundown properties, converting them into decent rentals. As retirees, they have the time and energy to do much of the work themselves.
"We like improving neighborhoods," Gene said. "The more you do this, you don't get so scared."
The duplex they refurbished had been used by crack addicts and dog fighting rings.
"The yard was a garbage dump," Linda said. "There were dirty diapers, beer cans, crack pipes and spoons. The neighbors told us stories that broke our hearts."
When the Rodriguezes tackled the first property improvement project, they felt the energy change in the neighborhood. The homeowner next door repainted their house. Linda talks about the Elston Middle School student who walked by their house on her way home and did a double take after noticing the transformation.
"These are good, stable, long-term neighbors," Linda said. "This is a pretty mobile neighborhood. People like to take walks and wave at their neighbors."
The Rodriguezes moved into the upper part of their duplex last October, and rented the lower part. Linda pointed to a window where she would look across the street at the house the couple is currently working on.
"I looked at this house and it looked like it had been cared for but nothing was going on," she said. "The potential was amazing. We walked over to check it out and saw vandals had stolen some of the siding."
Gene called vacant, rundown properties "magnets for crime."
"Vagrants were coming in and out of here," Gene said. "We got into one closet and found a pillow and comforter."
They also found raccoons and their babies, cats and fleas.
"We're doing a complete renovation," Gene said, listing new drywall, ceiling repairs, new plumbing, electrical work, a new roof and foundation as some of the things to be addressed.
The couple figures they have time to complete the work and rent out the house before having to worry about the South Shore.
"If they say it's going to happen in two to five years, our experience with the federal government is it will take longer than that," Linda said.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
This is the first of two stories on houses that could be demolished if the proposed South Shore relocation occurs.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Preliminary South Shore relocation plans, released in June, call for removing a two-mile swath of houses on the south side of 11th Street as part of a track realignment.
Meanwhile, people like Linda and Gene Rodriguez have been working hard to renovate some properties on 11th Street that could be slated for demolition.
The couple was surprised to find out about the South Shore plan. They had completely renovated a duplex at the corner of 11th and Spring streets, and now live in the upper level. Since then, they have purchased a dilapidated 100-year-old brick house on the opposite corner.
"It broke my heart," Linda said about the South Shore plan. "We've been working ourselves to death on these houses."
She and her husband are investing time and money into the renovations, but Linda said she believes they will recoup their investment.
"We're going to be OK no matter what if we get fair market value," she said.
Still, she's not happy with how some changes could impact the neighborhood. While walking across 11th Street from one of their houses to the other, Linda said, "Can you imagine seeing fences? It's not going to be a neighborhood." Both sides of a new South Shore track would be fenced, according to plans of the public agency that operates the commuter train, Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District.
As for her neighbors, Linda said, "There seems to be a general consensus that they (government) are going to do what they want. They don't think there is anything they can do."
The Rodriguezes moved here two years ago after retiring to be close to their grandchildren. They fell in love with Michigan City.
"We like the fact that we are close to transportation, the beach, restaurants and the marina," Gene said.
Wanting to diversify their investment portfolio, they decided to purchase and renovate rundown properties, converting them into decent rentals. As retirees, they have the time and energy to do much of the work themselves.
"We like improving neighborhoods," Gene said. "The more you do this, you don't get so scared."
The duplex they refurbished had been used by crack addicts and dog fighting rings.
"The yard was a garbage dump," Linda said. "There were dirty diapers, beer cans, crack pipes and spoons. The neighbors told us stories that broke our hearts."
When the Rodriguezes tackled the first property improvement project, they felt the energy change in the neighborhood. The homeowner next door repainted their house. Linda talks about the Elston Middle School student who walked by their house on her way home and did a double take after noticing the transformation.
"These are good, stable, long-term neighbors," Linda said. "This is a pretty mobile neighborhood. People like to take walks and wave at their neighbors."
The Rodriguezes moved into the upper part of their duplex last October, and rented the lower part. Linda pointed to a window where she would look across the street at the house the couple is currently working on.
"I looked at this house and it looked like it had been cared for but nothing was going on," she said. "The potential was amazing. We walked over to check it out and saw vandals had stolen some of the siding."
Gene called vacant, rundown properties "magnets for crime."
"Vagrants were coming in and out of here," Gene said. "We got into one closet and found a pillow and comforter."
They also found raccoons and their babies, cats and fleas.
"We're doing a complete renovation," Gene said, listing new drywall, ceiling repairs, new plumbing, electrical work, a new roof and foundation as some of the things to be addressed.
The couple figures they have time to complete the work and rent out the house before having to worry about the South Shore.
"If they say it's going to happen in two to five years, our experience with the federal government is it will take longer than that," Linda said.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Aug 24 2009, 11:25 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=25371
QUOTE
If South Shore plans proceed, then city resident wants certain homes preserved
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Arlene Dabbert Tarasick is ready to battle anyone - including the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District - whose plans threaten to destroy historically significant homes in Michigan City.
Tarasick, a preservationist and lifelong city resident, is arming herself with archival information to safeguard certain houses in the 1200 and 1300 blocks of Washington Street south of 11th Street in an area that could potentially be cleared to build a new train station for a relocated South Shore commuter rail line.
Tarasick is doing historical research that will document and, she hopes, protect properties that did not fall within the Washington Street Historic District for political reasons, she said.
"The most important houses were north of 11th Street," Tarasick said. "There has always been a kind of dividing line (there)."
But she thinks houses south of the South Shore tracks are worth saving, too.
The first wave of redevelopment in Michigan City wiped out a number of important houses, she said.
"No one in the town was thinking restoration," Tarasick said. "If you said 'restoration' in 1964, people would have said, 'What?'"
Tarasick feels that, as a lifelong Michigan City resident, she is in a good position to understand the important connections here and help document history. She helped establish the Historic Review Board and has been active in the Michigan City Historical Society.
Tarasick isn't against NICTD's plans to revamp the South Shore route, saying she understands it's the most practical, affordable option. But she threatens to "tie myself to a post" if certain houses are targeted for destruction.
She cites Dr. Alexander Mullen's home at 1215 Washington St. as an example of a historical home located outside the historic district.
"He (Mullen) opened a hospital north of 11th Street and established medical offices in his house," Tarasick said. "It shouldn't be destroyed because it's important to the history of this town."
T.C. Mullen, the doctor's son, was a prominent person in the community who played a significant role in developing Washington Park, according to Tarasick. The former Mullen Elementary School, where Tarasick served as principal, was named for T.C. Mullen, she said.
"The South Shore people know none of this," Tarasick said. "They should inquire before they willy-nilly send a bulldozer."
The house at 1203 Washington St. was built by the Ginther family and three generations lived there. They were laborers who started a meat market on Willard Avenue, Tarasick said, and the house is socially significant, even though it wasn't occupied by a wealthy family.
"Not just rich people's houses are important," she said. "The importance of a house is determined by what they (owners) meant to the community."
Three historic homes in the 1300 block of Washington Street are important as well, she said. Although NICTD's initial plans don't threaten that block, Tarasick is concerned that plans could change.
"I just don't want them to overkill," she said.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Arlene Dabbert Tarasick is ready to battle anyone - including the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District - whose plans threaten to destroy historically significant homes in Michigan City.
Tarasick, a preservationist and lifelong city resident, is arming herself with archival information to safeguard certain houses in the 1200 and 1300 blocks of Washington Street south of 11th Street in an area that could potentially be cleared to build a new train station for a relocated South Shore commuter rail line.
Tarasick is doing historical research that will document and, she hopes, protect properties that did not fall within the Washington Street Historic District for political reasons, she said.
"The most important houses were north of 11th Street," Tarasick said. "There has always been a kind of dividing line (there)."
But she thinks houses south of the South Shore tracks are worth saving, too.
The first wave of redevelopment in Michigan City wiped out a number of important houses, she said.
"No one in the town was thinking restoration," Tarasick said. "If you said 'restoration' in 1964, people would have said, 'What?'"
Tarasick feels that, as a lifelong Michigan City resident, she is in a good position to understand the important connections here and help document history. She helped establish the Historic Review Board and has been active in the Michigan City Historical Society.
Tarasick isn't against NICTD's plans to revamp the South Shore route, saying she understands it's the most practical, affordable option. But she threatens to "tie myself to a post" if certain houses are targeted for destruction.
She cites Dr. Alexander Mullen's home at 1215 Washington St. as an example of a historical home located outside the historic district.
"He (Mullen) opened a hospital north of 11th Street and established medical offices in his house," Tarasick said. "It shouldn't be destroyed because it's important to the history of this town."
T.C. Mullen, the doctor's son, was a prominent person in the community who played a significant role in developing Washington Park, according to Tarasick. The former Mullen Elementary School, where Tarasick served as principal, was named for T.C. Mullen, she said.
"The South Shore people know none of this," Tarasick said. "They should inquire before they willy-nilly send a bulldozer."
The house at 1203 Washington St. was built by the Ginther family and three generations lived there. They were laborers who started a meat market on Willard Avenue, Tarasick said, and the house is socially significant, even though it wasn't occupied by a wealthy family.
"Not just rich people's houses are important," she said. "The importance of a house is determined by what they (owners) meant to the community."
Three historic homes in the 1300 block of Washington Street are important as well, she said. Although NICTD's initial plans don't threaten that block, Tarasick is concerned that plans could change.
"I just don't want them to overkill," she said.
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: mcstumper Aug 24 2009, 07:31 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Aug 23 2009, 09:03 AM)
I hope they do not considor todays economic times in a decision. No matter which route they take, it will be 8 - 10 years before ground will be broken. I would hope the economy will not still be in a recession.
8 to 10 years it about the length of the average economic cycle. Think about that the Bush I recession started just before the 1992 election, the Clinton recession was just before the 2000 election and the Bush II recession was just before the 2008 election. We should just be nicely in the middle of the next one.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Aug 27 2009, 12:09 PM
Dave and company, it seems that the north end group didn't get the memo about the quarter billion dollars or so it would take to fix this particular bridge (if I am understanding everyone correctly)
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=25426
QUOTE
High-speed trains may face obstacle here
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm announced Monday that she has requested more than $800 million in stimulus money for her state's portion of the high speed rail corridor between Detroit and Chicago. Michigan's goal is to support 110 mph trains and reduce the time from Detroit to Chicago to four hours from the present six hours.
Aren't they going to be surprised when they reach the Trail Creek swing bridge and need to either slow down or stop and wait for it to be rotated or repaired. The New North End Group has been asking our city leadership and the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District to please investigate a new elevated bridge over Trail Creek that would service both Amtrak and NICTD. This in concert with an elevated station in the area of Swingbelly's would put rail commuters from both Amtrak and NICTD within easy walking distance of our soon to be developed Trail Creek Corridor containing 986 new residences and 55,000 square feet of retail space envisioned by Mayor Oberlie in his 2008 State of the City Address.
In the mayor's 2009 State of the City address he referred to our city's four decades of negative growth since the 1970 census (when we had 39,000 people). Can you imagine the shot in the arm our city would experience by having people working in Chicago and living in Michigan City? This station would also put people within easy walking distance of the beach, marina, outlet mall, casino, zoo and museums.
This would also eliminate the miles of fences through the 11th street corridor recommended by NICTD which are bound to divide our city's neighborhoods. Let's hope our city's leadership sees the stimulus package for high speed rail announced by President Obama as an opportunity to move our wonderful city forward.
Our city leaders have done a wonderful job getting consultants to work with our citizens to develop the vision for our North End. It's been very difficult obtaining the properties needed for this development and they've nearly completed this task. Now it's time to get NICTD and Amtrak at the same table to see what needs to be done to meet the high speed rail requirements in a way that will enhance our city's North End Development.
If anyone wants to know more about our group's North End vision call me at 879-7997.
Leigh Coburn
Michigan City
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm announced Monday that she has requested more than $800 million in stimulus money for her state's portion of the high speed rail corridor between Detroit and Chicago. Michigan's goal is to support 110 mph trains and reduce the time from Detroit to Chicago to four hours from the present six hours.
Aren't they going to be surprised when they reach the Trail Creek swing bridge and need to either slow down or stop and wait for it to be rotated or repaired. The New North End Group has been asking our city leadership and the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District to please investigate a new elevated bridge over Trail Creek that would service both Amtrak and NICTD. This in concert with an elevated station in the area of Swingbelly's would put rail commuters from both Amtrak and NICTD within easy walking distance of our soon to be developed Trail Creek Corridor containing 986 new residences and 55,000 square feet of retail space envisioned by Mayor Oberlie in his 2008 State of the City Address.
In the mayor's 2009 State of the City address he referred to our city's four decades of negative growth since the 1970 census (when we had 39,000 people). Can you imagine the shot in the arm our city would experience by having people working in Chicago and living in Michigan City? This station would also put people within easy walking distance of the beach, marina, outlet mall, casino, zoo and museums.
This would also eliminate the miles of fences through the 11th street corridor recommended by NICTD which are bound to divide our city's neighborhoods. Let's hope our city's leadership sees the stimulus package for high speed rail announced by President Obama as an opportunity to move our wonderful city forward.
Our city leaders have done a wonderful job getting consultants to work with our citizens to develop the vision for our North End. It's been very difficult obtaining the properties needed for this development and they've nearly completed this task. Now it's time to get NICTD and Amtrak at the same table to see what needs to be done to meet the high speed rail requirements in a way that will enhance our city's North End Development.
If anyone wants to know more about our group's North End vision call me at 879-7997.
Leigh Coburn
Michigan City
Posted by: Dave Aug 27 2009, 06:25 PM
One of the questions I'd have for the North Enders would be, even if Amtrak decides to build a high level bridge, how much additional cost would be entailed in "piggybacking" additional rail lines on the bridge for NICTD?
I have to think that if Amtrak is running trains at 110 mph, the last thing they're going to want is going to be doing is sharing those tracks with local commuter rail lines.
As for the miles of fences and other objections to the 11th street plan, once again, the proposed plan is just their first proposal, their "Xmas list." NICTD will settle for a lot less, as long as they can get their rails out of the asphalt.
Posted by: Dave Aug 27 2009, 08:24 PM
This could be relevant...
http://nwitimes.com/news/local/article_d1c88dcb-69d7-556e-9cc6-bbb7a3f86c9c.html
QUOTE
Indiana wants $71.4 million in stimulus for NWI high-speed rail
Illinois asks for $550 million
* Story
* Discussion
Keith Benman - keith.benman@nwi.com, (219) 933-3326 | Posted: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:00 am | (15) Comments
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size
Indiana met a Monday deadline to apply for federal stimulus funds for a Northwest Indiana project that would be a key link in a proposed Chicago-to-Detroit high-speed rail line.
The Indiana Department of Transportation applied for $71.4 million to expand the capacity of Norfolk Southern Corp. tracks running from the Illinois line to the town of Porter, said INDOT spokeswoman Shelley Haney.
The added capacity would be vital to any high-speed rail line coming out of Chicago headed to Michigan or Ohio. Amtrak trains from Detroit often are forced to wait while freight traffic clears those tracks.
The project also may have direct benefits for the region, with an earlier study by the Indiana High Speed Rail Association finding the region could realize up to $1.17 billion in economic benefit from such a line. That benefit is based on previous plans for a high-speed rail station at or near Gary/Chicago International Airport.
States had until Monday to apply for $8 billion in federal funds dedicated to high-speed rail projects, with Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm announcing her state applied for $833 million.
Illinois also hit the deadline for first round funding, applying for $550 million in stimulus bucks for three high-speed rail routes: Chicago to St. Louis, Chicago to Milwaukee and Chicago to Detroit.
"They are working very hard to bring high-speed rail to Illinois," said Paris Ervin, an Illinois Department of Transportation spokeswoman.
The states basically are planning to upgrade and expand existing Amtrak routes so trains can run at consistent speeds of 110 mph, which would cut the trip from Chicago to Detroit to four hours, from its current six hours.
Some states also have long-range plans to build truly high-speed, European-style systems through which trains could run at speeds up to 220 mph.
Indiana put off applying for stimulus funds for its portion of a proposed Chicago-to-Cleveland high-speed rail line and for another running from Chicago to Cincinnati, Haney said. That's because the two projects would not have qualified for 100 percent stimulus funding.
INDOT now hopes to seek the money in a second application round in October, when it believes they would qualify for funding at the 100 percent level.
On July 27, eight Midwest governors and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley signed a pact dedicating them to the development of eight high-speed rail corridors. The announcement followed the inclusion of $8 billion in funding for high-speed rail in President Barack Obama's stimulus bill, which Congress passed in February.
Adding capacity to the Norfolk Southern Corp. tracks running from the Illinois line to the town of Porter is vital to any high speed rail line coming out of Chicago headed to Michigan or Ohio. Amtrak trains from Detroit often are forced to wait while freight traffic clears those tracks.
The project may also have direct benefits for the region, with an earlier study by the Indiana High Speed Rail Association finding the region could realize up to $1.17 billion in economic benefit.
Posted in Local on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:00 am Updated: 5:55 pm. | Tags: Transportation,
Posted by: mcstumper Aug 27 2009, 09:42 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Aug 27 2009, 09:24 PM)
This could be relevant...
High speed rail. What a boondoggle.
If I needed to get to Detroit so fast and I wasn't allowed to drive, I would take the South Shore to the South Bend airport and catch a flight on one of them new fangled high speed aeroplanes.
So really... no one here thinks its lunacy to spend billions of dollars to build a high speed rail line to DETROIT!?!?! Why stop there. Lets get an early start for that much needed extension to Flint.
Oh, and Leigh, do you think the high speed choo-choo could do 220mph around the curve in the track that is just south of NIPSO plant. I think not. It would be creeping around it at 35mph, so who cares if it has to slow down to 25mph to go over the floating bridge.
Posted by: joe.black Aug 28 2009, 05:58 AM
QUOTE(Dave @ Aug 27 2009, 06:25 PM)
One of the questions I'd have for the North Enders would be, even if Amtrak decides to build a high level bridge, how much additional cost would be entailed in "piggybacking" additional rail lines on the bridge for NICTD?
I have to think that if Amtrak is running trains at 110 mph, the last thing they're going to want is going to be doing is sharing those tracks with local commuter rail lines.
As for the miles of fences and other objections to the 11th street plan, once again, the proposed plan is just their first proposal, their "Xmas list." NICTD will settle for a lot less, as long as they can get their rails out of the asphalt.
Dave, you're spot-on with the high speed rail observation. It is extremely difficult to operate high speed rail service in mixed traffic (i.e. with other classes of train - normal Amtrak, South Shore passenger, CSS&SB freight trains, etc.). High speed trains, for obvious reasons, require a longer distance to stop than lower speed trains. For that reason, they cast a longer "stopping distance shadow" in front of themselves that cannot be encroached upon by another train if you expect to be able to sustain high speeds. If you start to fill up the empty space in front of a high speed train with commuter or other lower speed traffic, the train control/signal system will enforce a decreased speed for the hot shot train, in order to ensure that it has adequate safe braking distance in front of it. So, the upshot is that you cannot schedule a lower speed train ahead of a hot shot for some defined time period at least equal to the time it would take the high speed train to catch up to a lower speed train (and usually longer than that, because the lower speed trains are normally locals, stopping at every station). That severely constrains an operations planner's ability to write a schedule that's convenient for the local service's passengers and provides enough trains to handle demand. It practically requires you to "clear the decks" once an hour (or however frequent the high speed service would operate) so the hot shot can operate unimpeded.
Secondly, operation of high speed trains in mixed traffic environments leads to two less than optimal situations: "gapping" and "bunching". "Gapping" refers to the long time and space distance that develops behind a higher speed train in the lead and a following lower speed train. You lose the opportunity to use some of the capacity of the line because you wind up with long headway gaps between different classes of train; you can't simply insert a train in that developing gap, so you lose some of the utility of the line. "Bunching" refers to the groupings of trains you get when lower speed trains are operated ahead of higher speed ones. The high speed trains run up to the rear "signal wake" of the leading lower speed trains, get slowed down by the train control system, and as a result you get "bunches" of trains across the line (with high speed trains being reduced to the speed of the local trains when they bunch). The only way to ensure that these phenomena do not occur is to wholly separate high speed tracks from local tracks, so that you get trains with uniform performance characteristics operating together.
So, that means - high speed rail is no solution to the north enders' cost issues. You would still need an entirely separate NICTD track (or two) across the bridge. And I can't imagine that Amtrak or some high speed rail authority would build extra bridge decks for NICTD out of the goodness of their hearts.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Sep 4 2009, 12:47 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=25596
QUOTE
South Shore relocation means big loss of taxes
The NICTD-South Shore relocation proposal would mean an estimated loss of $150,000 to $250,000 in property tax revenue per year to Michigan City, the schools, the county and other local units of government because of the taking of 150-plus pieces of property.
This is based on an investigation by one of our group [The It's (Y)our Government Group}, John VanderWagen, who found that the valuations for those properties is about $11 million, although some property like churches is exempt. Their present map indicates they would take all homes on the south side of 11th Street, several blocks between Franklin and Wabash streets south to at least Green Street for a station and parking, plus a building and houses from Chicago Street to Sheridan Avenue south of 10th Street.
The Michigan Township assessor, the county auditor's offices in Michigan City and Deputy County Assessor Judy Anderson have confirmed that neither the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District nor the Chicago, South Shore and Southbend Raaild (SouthShore Freight), a private company, pay property taxes to us.
Keilah Heffington, who for the last 10 years has been a utility specialist with the Indiana Department of Finance, has confirmed in e-mails that NICTD is not taxed since it is a public agency, but SouthShore Freight is assessed a yearly state tax, which is deposited into the Indiana Commuter Rail Fund under state law, and it is her understanding that those collected taxes re used for NICTD.
The assessed value of SouthShore Freight property is $4,588,700 and it was billed for $137,293.90 for 2008, with those taxes going into that commuter fund for NICTD.
The proposed north end route would require limited private property to be acquired, lowering the tax losses to our citizens, and it doesn't have all the other negative aspects of NICTD's plan, with fences, closing 17 plus streets and splitting our city off at 11th Street.
Lou Hapke
Michigan City
The NICTD-South Shore relocation proposal would mean an estimated loss of $150,000 to $250,000 in property tax revenue per year to Michigan City, the schools, the county and other local units of government because of the taking of 150-plus pieces of property.
This is based on an investigation by one of our group [The It's (Y)our Government Group}, John VanderWagen, who found that the valuations for those properties is about $11 million, although some property like churches is exempt. Their present map indicates they would take all homes on the south side of 11th Street, several blocks between Franklin and Wabash streets south to at least Green Street for a station and parking, plus a building and houses from Chicago Street to Sheridan Avenue south of 10th Street.
The Michigan Township assessor, the county auditor's offices in Michigan City and Deputy County Assessor Judy Anderson have confirmed that neither the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District nor the Chicago, South Shore and Southbend Raaild (SouthShore Freight), a private company, pay property taxes to us.
Keilah Heffington, who for the last 10 years has been a utility specialist with the Indiana Department of Finance, has confirmed in e-mails that NICTD is not taxed since it is a public agency, but SouthShore Freight is assessed a yearly state tax, which is deposited into the Indiana Commuter Rail Fund under state law, and it is her understanding that those collected taxes re used for NICTD.
The assessed value of SouthShore Freight property is $4,588,700 and it was billed for $137,293.90 for 2008, with those taxes going into that commuter fund for NICTD.
The proposed north end route would require limited private property to be acquired, lowering the tax losses to our citizens, and it doesn't have all the other negative aspects of NICTD's plan, with fences, closing 17 plus streets and splitting our city off at 11th Street.
Lou Hapke
Michigan City
Posted by: CSchwanke Sep 6 2009, 08:10 PM
I have been asked to comment on this by Dave. So here goes. I really do not have an opinion yet. I am sure there is a lot more to come out before anyone can make a firm decision. With what I have seen and that is not a bunch. I think that nobody is able to fight the federal government on this, who can fund that???Lets go back to the Saint Anthony expansion several years ago. They moved many homes in that area to empty lots in close proximity. Can that be done here? Can that be a stipulation? I think we are going to be forced to accept this, so we as a community need to embrace it and try our best to get the results we need. Can we put certain restrictions on NICTD? Lets think about something else. Look how many cars are parked at Dune Park in Porter County. All of those people have to stop for gas, get a doughnut, pick up a paper, get a morning beverage etc. they also do the same thing in the evening. Think about some added bussiness close to the new parking. There are lots of benefits and lots of negatives to this project. As a coumminty we need to figure out where we can benefit the most out of this. If we push to hard what then, expand Beverly Shores and the city is out again. I for one am tired of seeing everything happening in Porter County and nothing here in Michigan City aren't you!!
Posted by: ChickenCityRoller Sep 6 2009, 09:56 PM
I highly doubt that Beverly Shores Station will ever be expanded.
Posted by: CSchwanke Sep 6 2009, 10:24 PM
That was only meant as a figure of speach.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Sep 9 2009, 09:52 AM
http://www.emichigancity.com/pdf/Michigan-City-062509.pdf
This is the economic impact study for the South Shore proposal.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Sep 28 2009, 07:54 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=26023
QUOTE
Chamber not taking stand now on South Shore
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - The Michigan City Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors is holding off on taking a stand on the South Shore relocation pending further information, Chamber President Tim Bietry said.
"The issue is on a lot of people's minds," Bietry said. "Right now, information is key."
Chamber members were asked to provide their Top Three concerns about Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District's proposed South Shore relocation plan by last Wednesday. Only 18 responses were received, and Bietry attributes the low response to a general lack of understanding about the issues involved.
The top concern among those who weighed in was how changes will look.
"There's just an awful lot of concern about doing it in an aesthetically pleasing way," Bietry said, "so it just doesn't look ugly."
The second most common concern was whether the NICTD plan would cut the city in half, hindering cross-city access. A local group has been pushing for a northern route that would run parallel to the Amtrak line.
"I haven't talked to anyone who's 100 percent happy with either route, the north or 11th Street," Bietry said. "There's just so much out there that has to be looked at."
Bietry said while more is known about potential economic benefits, the costs need to be considered.
The Chamber board wants to see answers to questions posed at a public workshop attended by 150 local residents July 29. Stu Sirota of TND Planning Group facilitated the workshop and has been gathering information since then.
"After answers to some of those questions come back, I think the board will be more comfortable," Bietry said.
A draft of the Sirota report is being reviewed by the city and NICTD, according to City Councilman Rich Murphy, D-1st Ward. Murphy has played a key role in working with Sirota and other consultants on a study of economic impacts of three possible South Shore routes.
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - The Michigan City Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors is holding off on taking a stand on the South Shore relocation pending further information, Chamber President Tim Bietry said.
"The issue is on a lot of people's minds," Bietry said. "Right now, information is key."
Chamber members were asked to provide their Top Three concerns about Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District's proposed South Shore relocation plan by last Wednesday. Only 18 responses were received, and Bietry attributes the low response to a general lack of understanding about the issues involved.
The top concern among those who weighed in was how changes will look.
"There's just an awful lot of concern about doing it in an aesthetically pleasing way," Bietry said, "so it just doesn't look ugly."
The second most common concern was whether the NICTD plan would cut the city in half, hindering cross-city access. A local group has been pushing for a northern route that would run parallel to the Amtrak line.
"I haven't talked to anyone who's 100 percent happy with either route, the north or 11th Street," Bietry said. "There's just so much out there that has to be looked at."
Bietry said while more is known about potential economic benefits, the costs need to be considered.
The Chamber board wants to see answers to questions posed at a public workshop attended by 150 local residents July 29. Stu Sirota of TND Planning Group facilitated the workshop and has been gathering information since then.
"After answers to some of those questions come back, I think the board will be more comfortable," Bietry said.
A draft of the Sirota report is being reviewed by the city and NICTD, according to City Councilman Rich Murphy, D-1st Ward. Murphy has played a key role in working with Sirota and other consultants on a study of economic impacts of three possible South Shore routes.
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Sep 28 2009, 07:57 AM
Speaking of bad editing... the NICDT? That's pretty bad.
http://www.post-trib.com/news/1791270,NICDT-926.article
QUOTE
NICDT encourages development along South Shore route
Comments
September 26, 2009
By Charles M. Bartholomew, Post-Tribune correspondent
The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District board on Friday narrowly approved a resolution, tabled for study in July, to encourage private development around its train stations and right of way.
Consultant Bill Sheldrake of Indianapolis-based Policy Analytics, said differences in the resubmitted resolution "to guide transit-oriented development along (NICTD's) commuter rail corridors" from the original were the result of input from the board members.
LaPorte County Councilman Mark Yagelski and Porter County Councilwoman Sylvia Graham had moved to table it in July after voting against its adoption. At that time, St. Joseph County Councilman Mark Catanzarite and Porter County Commissioner John Evans, who had been eager to move the resolution along, voted against tabling it.
This time, Catanzarite and Evans voted to adopt the resolution, while Yagelski, Graham, and the governor's appointee, Richard Vulpitta, voted no.
Even after NICTD General Manager Gerald Hanas named Michigan City as one community that could benefit from adoption of the guidelines, Yagelski said he had "a hard time" with the resolution, fearing that it would favor the urban areas served by the railroad in Lake County.
Hanas described the resolution as a "policy statement" to guide NICTD in seeking and undertaking projects in partnership with the private sector for office and residential development, retail, parking and other amenities that would benefit the South Shore and the communities it serves.
He has specifically mentioned the possibility of doing a feasibility study for a hotel in the Dune Park area
Among the development and financial criteria set forth in the resolution, NICTD:
n Is willing to make requests for grant funding from the Federal Transit Administration or other state and federal entities for suitable development projects.
n Will look only at development proposals that maintain a low carrying cost (debt service plus operating costs) in future years.
n Encourages developers to explore creative financing techniques including federal grants to reduce the capital costs of development and reduce the cost to the commuter.
n Will utilize best practices to minimize environmental impacts that may be associated with its rail and development projects.
The resolution also says "a high quality (transit-oriented development) project should catalyze further development, which clearly adds to the value of the station location."
Comments
September 26, 2009
By Charles M. Bartholomew, Post-Tribune correspondent
The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District board on Friday narrowly approved a resolution, tabled for study in July, to encourage private development around its train stations and right of way.
Consultant Bill Sheldrake of Indianapolis-based Policy Analytics, said differences in the resubmitted resolution "to guide transit-oriented development along (NICTD's) commuter rail corridors" from the original were the result of input from the board members.
LaPorte County Councilman Mark Yagelski and Porter County Councilwoman Sylvia Graham had moved to table it in July after voting against its adoption. At that time, St. Joseph County Councilman Mark Catanzarite and Porter County Commissioner John Evans, who had been eager to move the resolution along, voted against tabling it.
This time, Catanzarite and Evans voted to adopt the resolution, while Yagelski, Graham, and the governor's appointee, Richard Vulpitta, voted no.
Even after NICTD General Manager Gerald Hanas named Michigan City as one community that could benefit from adoption of the guidelines, Yagelski said he had "a hard time" with the resolution, fearing that it would favor the urban areas served by the railroad in Lake County.
Hanas described the resolution as a "policy statement" to guide NICTD in seeking and undertaking projects in partnership with the private sector for office and residential development, retail, parking and other amenities that would benefit the South Shore and the communities it serves.
He has specifically mentioned the possibility of doing a feasibility study for a hotel in the Dune Park area
Among the development and financial criteria set forth in the resolution, NICTD:
n Is willing to make requests for grant funding from the Federal Transit Administration or other state and federal entities for suitable development projects.
n Will look only at development proposals that maintain a low carrying cost (debt service plus operating costs) in future years.
n Encourages developers to explore creative financing techniques including federal grants to reduce the capital costs of development and reduce the cost to the commuter.
n Will utilize best practices to minimize environmental impacts that may be associated with its rail and development projects.
The resolution also says "a high quality (transit-oriented development) project should catalyze further development, which clearly adds to the value of the station location."
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 2 2009, 08:23 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=26107
QUOTE
Consider alternate northern South Shore route
We've seen many comments about new South Shore routes recently. The 11th Street route is criticized as disrupting people's residences, dividing the city, street closures, safety, train traffic going at 60 mph, loss of historic properties and litter in the planned fences.
Some people also have been less supportive of one suggested northern route. Their difficulties are about the raised/elevated tracks, with additional concerns about safety, blocking the lake front views and substantial costs.
A recent economic impact study indicated an intermodal station on the North End would provide the greatest economic benefit to the city. An alternate northern route should be seriously studied because of the many benefits it offers.
This route travels south of Trail Creek, north of Eighth Street, between Michigan Boulevard and the creek, and passes under the U.S. 12 open bridge span. It has virtually none of the negatives of 11th Street or the earlier offered northern route.
This alternative northern route is simple in its concept, doesn't require large investments, gives essentially all the benefits of a northern route, and has but a few limitations. Yet it does require some to make a few compromises. Benefits include:
1. No elevated bridges or station to build/maintain. Route is basically at grade levels.
2. A very minimum of residences and businesses would be affected.
3. Interaction between NICTD [Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, parent of the South Shore commuter line] and Amtrak - no more that at present.
4. Very few street/road closures. Possibly as few as one or two.
5. Station serving all transportation modes.
6. Attract new residents to Michigan City.
7. This route opens the possibility of an intermodal station/parking that could be located on former Pioneer Lumber property.
8. Such a station would be within walking distance of 986 residences and 55,000 sq feet of retail space mentioned in the mayor's 2000 State of the City address.
9. With the Trail Creek Corridor being a greenfield site, integration with rail would be in concert with the Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) principles in the recent economic impact study.
10. This alternate northern route would provide visitors easy access to: buses, autos, shuttles, beach, marina, museums, casino, outlet mall, zoo, conventions, festivals and parks.
11. With the above proximities, an increase in South Shore passenger ridership is certainly suggested.
Yes there are some limited considerations that would need to be addressed. These would include some compromises - re-examination of Trail Creek Corridor plans, impact on some areas used by such a route, and that this route is somewhat longer than current middle of town street route. We should be able to work together to the overall benefit of Michigan City.
It would seem that whatever plan is chosen, benefits for Michigan City and its residents should always come first. Any such plans should be examined with considerable long-term thinking and with a minimum of disadvantages for residents, traffic, total costs, and safety concerns.
Robert J. Murray
Michigan City
We've seen many comments about new South Shore routes recently. The 11th Street route is criticized as disrupting people's residences, dividing the city, street closures, safety, train traffic going at 60 mph, loss of historic properties and litter in the planned fences.
Some people also have been less supportive of one suggested northern route. Their difficulties are about the raised/elevated tracks, with additional concerns about safety, blocking the lake front views and substantial costs.
A recent economic impact study indicated an intermodal station on the North End would provide the greatest economic benefit to the city. An alternate northern route should be seriously studied because of the many benefits it offers.
This route travels south of Trail Creek, north of Eighth Street, between Michigan Boulevard and the creek, and passes under the U.S. 12 open bridge span. It has virtually none of the negatives of 11th Street or the earlier offered northern route.
This alternative northern route is simple in its concept, doesn't require large investments, gives essentially all the benefits of a northern route, and has but a few limitations. Yet it does require some to make a few compromises. Benefits include:
1. No elevated bridges or station to build/maintain. Route is basically at grade levels.
2. A very minimum of residences and businesses would be affected.
3. Interaction between NICTD [Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, parent of the South Shore commuter line] and Amtrak - no more that at present.
4. Very few street/road closures. Possibly as few as one or two.
5. Station serving all transportation modes.
6. Attract new residents to Michigan City.
7. This route opens the possibility of an intermodal station/parking that could be located on former Pioneer Lumber property.
8. Such a station would be within walking distance of 986 residences and 55,000 sq feet of retail space mentioned in the mayor's 2000 State of the City address.
9. With the Trail Creek Corridor being a greenfield site, integration with rail would be in concert with the Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) principles in the recent economic impact study.
10. This alternate northern route would provide visitors easy access to: buses, autos, shuttles, beach, marina, museums, casino, outlet mall, zoo, conventions, festivals and parks.
11. With the above proximities, an increase in South Shore passenger ridership is certainly suggested.
Yes there are some limited considerations that would need to be addressed. These would include some compromises - re-examination of Trail Creek Corridor plans, impact on some areas used by such a route, and that this route is somewhat longer than current middle of town street route. We should be able to work together to the overall benefit of Michigan City.
It would seem that whatever plan is chosen, benefits for Michigan City and its residents should always come first. Any such plans should be examined with considerable long-term thinking and with a minimum of disadvantages for residents, traffic, total costs, and safety concerns.
Robert J. Murray
Michigan City
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 15 2009, 02:38 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=26398
QUOTE
Committee wants test of street-crossing closings
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - What would happen if the city closed 17 street crossings along 11th Street for a week?
Members of the North End Committee want to find out.
"These are the same streets that are to be permanently closed according to the current South Shore relocation proposal," group member Joe Condon said.
The North End Committee has argued in favor of rerouting the South Shore commuter line north to a route 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 at 11th Street.
Condon has asked the Board of Public Works and Safety to consider the closings as a test. He expects to get an answer at the board meeting at 9 a.m. Monday.
Condon proposed the temporary street closings as a way to give the public a taste of what could happen in the future.
"It was a matter of trying to get public awareness and some type of feedback from people," Condon said.
If the board agrees with closing the streets for one week, Condon said, the group will run an advertisement explaining the street closings and inviting them to a public meeting to voice their opinions.
If the proposal is rejected, Condon said, it would at least start a conversation about what the city departments need to consider in evaluating future plans.
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - What would happen if the city closed 17 street crossings along 11th Street for a week?
Members of the North End Committee want to find out.
"These are the same streets that are to be permanently closed according to the current South Shore relocation proposal," group member Joe Condon said.
The North End Committee has argued in favor of rerouting the South Shore commuter line north to a route 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 at 11th Street.
Condon has asked the Board of Public Works and Safety to consider the closings as a test. He expects to get an answer at the board meeting at 9 a.m. Monday.
Condon proposed the temporary street closings as a way to give the public a taste of what could happen in the future.
"It was a matter of trying to get public awareness and some type of feedback from people," Condon said.
If the board agrees with closing the streets for one week, Condon said, the group will run an advertisement explaining the street closings and inviting them to a public meeting to voice their opinions.
If the proposal is rejected, Condon said, it would at least start a conversation about what the city departments need to consider in evaluating future plans.
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 15 2009, 02:49 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=26379
QUOTE
South Shore workshop
MICHIGAN CITY - Mayor Chuck Oberlie and 1st Ward City Councilman Richard Murphy announced Tuesday that a public forum will be held at 6:30 p.m. Monday, Oct. 26, in the City Hall Council Chambers.
On July 29 a public workshop was held to identify issues and questions regarding the proposed improvements. Stu Sirota will present the "Report on the Public Workshop Regarding the Proposed South Shore Line Improvements in Michigan City" that includes answers to the issues identified at that workshop, the mayor's office said.
Oberlie stated, "This report presents a summary of the initial public workshop on the proposed South Shore Line improvements."
The workshop was facilitated by Sirota, principal of TND Planning Group, a national consulting firm specializing in transportation and land use planning. Sirota has been working on transit-oriented development planning issues related to the potential relocation of the South Shore commuter rail line and station in Michigan City since 2007.
After the forum the report will be available on the city's web site at www.emichigancity.com.
MICHIGAN CITY - Mayor Chuck Oberlie and 1st Ward City Councilman Richard Murphy announced Tuesday that a public forum will be held at 6:30 p.m. Monday, Oct. 26, in the City Hall Council Chambers.
On July 29 a public workshop was held to identify issues and questions regarding the proposed improvements. Stu Sirota will present the "Report on the Public Workshop Regarding the Proposed South Shore Line Improvements in Michigan City" that includes answers to the issues identified at that workshop, the mayor's office said.
Oberlie stated, "This report presents a summary of the initial public workshop on the proposed South Shore Line improvements."
The workshop was facilitated by Sirota, principal of TND Planning Group, a national consulting firm specializing in transportation and land use planning. Sirota has been working on transit-oriented development planning issues related to the potential relocation of the South Shore commuter rail line and station in Michigan City since 2007.
After the forum the report will be available on the city's web site at www.emichigancity.com.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 16 2009, 10:22 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=72&ArticleID=26413
QUOTE
Our Opinion:
The Issue:
Opponent of street closings calls for test.
Our Opinion:
City shouldn't dismiss request lightly.
Street closings
South Shore would close crossings
Editorial
A city resident wants the Michigan City Board of Works to close 17 streets that intersect 11th Street as a test. Joe Condon of the North End Committee said the city should close those streets so people can see what cross-town travel would be like if the South Shore tracks are relocated to the south edge of the pavement for the length of 11th Street.
It's a clever proposal, designed to generate interest in the issue - and opposition. But it's also an idea the board shouldn't dismiss lightly.
Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, which operates the South Shore commuter service, says it needs to relocate the tracks out of the middle of 11th and 10th streets and close half the streets in the city that now cross the South Shore.
Opponents say the street closings, along with a fenced-off South Shore corridor, would split the city in two, making travel for motorists and pedestrians more difficult, and it would be ugly, to boot.
While NICTD has been developing this plan for years and is committed to this alternative for a new route, opponents are urging city officials, who would be a partner in the relocation, to reject the 11th Street plan and consider something else, such as a northern corridor adjacent to the Amtrak line. A public forum is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Monday, Oct. 26, at the City Hall Council Chamber on the railroad relocation.
Relocating the South Shore is no simple matter. It would cost $65 million. It would take more than 150 residential and commercial properties from city tax rolls. The tax dollars they generate will be gone forever because NICTD does not pay property taxes as a public entity. And it would split neighborhoods, if not the city.
The Board of Works might not want to close the streets as a test. But if it isn't willing to do that, why would the city be willing to let them be closed permanently?
The Issue:
Opponent of street closings calls for test.
Our Opinion:
City shouldn't dismiss request lightly.
Street closings
South Shore would close crossings
Editorial
A city resident wants the Michigan City Board of Works to close 17 streets that intersect 11th Street as a test. Joe Condon of the North End Committee said the city should close those streets so people can see what cross-town travel would be like if the South Shore tracks are relocated to the south edge of the pavement for the length of 11th Street.
It's a clever proposal, designed to generate interest in the issue - and opposition. But it's also an idea the board shouldn't dismiss lightly.
Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, which operates the South Shore commuter service, says it needs to relocate the tracks out of the middle of 11th and 10th streets and close half the streets in the city that now cross the South Shore.
Opponents say the street closings, along with a fenced-off South Shore corridor, would split the city in two, making travel for motorists and pedestrians more difficult, and it would be ugly, to boot.
While NICTD has been developing this plan for years and is committed to this alternative for a new route, opponents are urging city officials, who would be a partner in the relocation, to reject the 11th Street plan and consider something else, such as a northern corridor adjacent to the Amtrak line. A public forum is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Monday, Oct. 26, at the City Hall Council Chamber on the railroad relocation.
Relocating the South Shore is no simple matter. It would cost $65 million. It would take more than 150 residential and commercial properties from city tax rolls. The tax dollars they generate will be gone forever because NICTD does not pay property taxes as a public entity. And it would split neighborhoods, if not the city.
The Board of Works might not want to close the streets as a test. But if it isn't willing to do that, why would the city be willing to let them be closed permanently?
Posted by: Dave Oct 16 2009, 11:58 AM
I'm going to reiterate what I said before about NICTD's plan.
It's their Christmas list. It's everything they want in one big bundle. It's their starting point in these negotiations, not what they'd happily settle for.
NICTD's concern is "positive track control", meaning basically they need to get the tracks out of the asphalt of 11th street. Anything which acheives that goal for them is going to be a "win" for them. In my humble opinion, they'd be ecstatic if Michigan City lets them have 11th Street so NICTD can remove the asphalt, and reducing the number of grade crossings would be icing on the cake for NICTD.
I have yet to hear a compelling reason for NICTD to move their tracks at all, let alone move them 50 feet south so as to necessitate the destruction of what would probably be a maximum number of structures. The tracks have been where they are for the past century -- claims that they need the additional space to take out a couple of curves doesn't impress me as "compelling."
NICTD is under some time pressure to meet federal guidelines for positive track control. Michigan City's City government is in a position to seriously delay any changes at all if it disagrees with any of NICTD's proposed changes. The city, in this powerful negotiation position, needs to come up with a counter proposal that won't gut the 11th street corridor and actually enhance the north end.
If the city demanded what I'd call a "ribbon park" along the tracks (with the tracks staying where they are with the asphalt removed), with attractive landscaping (and maintainance of the landscaping) and pedestrian and bike paths with no fences, I'd bet NICTD would take it and be happy. They're the ones who are over a barrel at this point, not us.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 16 2009, 08:25 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 16 2009, 11:58 AM)
I'm going to reiterate what I said before about NICTD's plan.
It's their Christmas list. It's everything they want in one big bundle. It's their starting point in these negotiations, not what they'd happily settle for.
NICTD's concern is "positive track control", meaning basically they need to get the tracks out of the asphalt of 11th street. Anything which acheives that goal for them is going to be a "win" for them. In my humble opinion, they'd be ecstatic if Michigan City lets them have 11th Street so NICTD can remove the asphalt, and reducing the number of grade crossings would be icing on the cake for NICTD.
I have yet to hear a compelling reason for NICTD to move their tracks at all, let alone move them 50 feet south so as to necessitate the destruction of what would probably be a maximum number of structures. The tracks have been where they are for the past century -- claims that they need the additional space to take out a couple of curves doesn't impress me as "compelling."
The most compelling reason, as you allude to above, is Positive Train Control (PTC). This is not a bell and whistle addition to the railroad, or a gold-plating. It is mandated by the federal government. It has to be in place, tested, and working by December 2015, by regulation. If it's not, the trains are nailed to the rail - i.e. they don't move, i.e. no more South Shore rail service. I'd call that "compelling". The embedded rail in the street is unable to maintain a good track circuit due to the year-round, round the clock wet conditions under the asphalt and electrolytic action accelerated by road salt. Under the current system of train control, this isn't a big issue - trains encounter red signals, are given permission to operate past them by dispatchers, and they move at about 15 to 20 mph. Maximum speed in the street for trains is 25 mph, so you don't lose much. Under PTC, a red signal means stop and stay. A string of red signals will likely result in a fairly catastrophic delay to trains where today it's a minor annoyance. So, PTC will not work in the street. Without PTC installed and working, the feds will shut the railroad down.
In addition, the 2 1/2 miles of track that run through the city streets are by far the most expensive to maintain, most prone to failure, and most difficult and time-consuming to repair when the inevitable problems occur. Much of it has to do with the trackbed being under the ashphalt. Even a normal tie replacement program (which is accelerated in this area due to the deleterious effects of water and road salt, ever-present under the asphalt's surface) requires closing off the street, excavation, and repaving.
The overhead electrical distribution system, due to the location of the track down the middle of a city street, cannot be constructed to a higher standard. It must remain simple trolley, because the structures required to support a full overhead catenary system cannot be built in the street or sidewalk. The poles that hold the wire up cannot be effectively down-guyed, because the guy wires and assemblies would be in the sidewalk or people's front yards. As a result, the wire has a pronounced sag that has to be adjusted constantly. The poles themselves tend to bend inward toward the street, and because of the lack of down-guying support, cannot be effectively straightened and held in place. It's a constant battle to keep them mostly upright and holding the wire at an acceptable height and position.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 16 2009, 11:58 AM)
NICTD is under some time pressure to meet federal guidelines for positive track control. Michigan City's City government is in a position to seriously delay any changes at all if it disagrees with any of NICTD's proposed changes. The city, in this powerful negotiation position, needs to come up with a counter proposal that won't gut the 11th street corridor and actually enhance the north end.
If the city demanded what I'd call a "ribbon park" along the tracks (with the tracks staying where they are with the asphalt removed), with attractive landscaping (and maintainance of the landscaping) and pedestrian and bike paths with no fences, I'd bet NICTD would take it and be happy. They're the ones who are over a barrel at this point, not us.
If the city demanded what I'd call a "ribbon park" along the tracks (with the tracks staying where they are with the asphalt removed), with attractive landscaping (and maintainance of the landscaping) and pedestrian and bike paths with no fences, I'd bet NICTD would take it and be happy. They're the ones who are over a barrel at this point, not us.
Actually, it's the region that's over a barrel, along with the city and the railroad. No PTC, no rail service, period. I doubt that the city wants to risk that. So, I think you overestimate the city's bargaining position.
That said, I suggested the idea of a "transit mall", with the tracks down the center of the street, out of the asphalt, and using center-located catenary structures, some time ago. But even that, which approximates your idea of a "ribbon park", is too wide to fit in the street, if we assume that NICTD wants to double track (which it does).
Unfortunately, the only viable solution is to use half of 11th Street, and one lot in for the NICTD tracks. Or go the northern route, which has its own set of undesirable outcomes.
Posted by: lovethiscity Oct 16 2009, 09:33 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 16 2009, 09:25 PM)
The most compelling reason, as you allude to above, is Positive Train Control (PTC). This is not a bell and whistle addition to the railroad, or a gold-plating. It is mandated by the federal government. It has to be in place, tested, and working by December 2015, by regulation. In addition, the 2 1/2 miles of track that run through the city streets are by far the most expensive to maintain, most prone to failure, and most difficult and time-consuming to repair when the inevitable problems occur. Much of it has to do with the trackbed being under the ashphalt. Even a normal tie replacement program (which is accelerated in this area due to the deleterious effects of water and road salt, ever-present under the asphalt's surface) requires closing off the street, excavation, and repaving.
The overhead electrical distribution system, due to the location of the track down the middle of a city street, cannot be constructed to a higher standard. It must remain simple trolley,
Unfortunately, the only viable solution is to use half of 11th Street, and one lot in for the NICTD tracks. Or go the northern route, which has its own set of undesirable outcomes.
Just what type of PTC system is going to be used. It seems that a combanation of computers, GPS and radio signals are the leading technology, which would not care where the tracks are.
PTC is a predictive collision avoidance technology
that can stop a train before an accident occurs.
PTC is designed to keep a train under its maximum
speed limit and within the limits of its authorization
to be on a track. To accomplish this, sophisticated
technology and braking algorithms will automatically
bring both passenger and heavy freight trains to a
safe stop. This will help prevent train-to-train collisions,
over-speed derailments and casualties or injuries to
the public and railway workers.
Because of its complex design and requirements,
PTC is not an off-the-shelf system or software that
can be implemented overnight. PTC has been in
development by the railroad industry for decades,
and recent advancements in GPS and other data
transmitting technology have advanced progress.
Posted by: Dave Oct 17 2009, 11:46 AM
Joe, I really appreciate your input on NICTD related issues. You bring an insight which requires specialized knowledge which few people have.
And after saying that, allow me to ask some follow up questions:
I know you aren't still affiliated with NICTD (but no doubt don't want to burn any bridges either), but isn't this plan essentially their "Christmas list"? Everything they've wanted to do in Michigan City since, well, forever?
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 16 2009, 09:25 PM)
The most compelling reason, as you allude to above, is Positive Train Control (PTC).
Are you aware of any engineering reason why allowing NICTD to remove the asphalt on 11th street won't achieve the goal of PTC? All the info about the overhead wiring system is interesting, but once again, it seems to have been working for the past 100 years.
QUOTE
Actually, it's the region that's over a barrel, along with the city and the railroad. No PTC, no rail service, period. I doubt that the city wants to risk that. So, I think you overestimate the city's bargaining position.
While NICTD is of great benefit to Michigan City, Michigan City probably won't die without it. I'm not too sure the reverse is true, especially if NICTD trains would be "nailed to the rails." If the city wanted to really play hardball, they could keep the whole process tied up in litigation well past that 2015 deadline -- so who's got the better bargaining position again?
QUOTE
That said, I suggested the idea of a "transit mall", with the tracks down the center of the street, out of the asphalt, and using center-located catenary structures, some time ago. But even that, which approximates your idea of a "ribbon park", is too wide to fit in the street, if we assume that NICTD wants to double track (which it does).
NICTD may have to http://www.entertonement.com/clips/yjqtkzghsz--Get-used-to-disappointmentWestley-Cary-Elwes-The-Princess-Bride-Mandy-Patinkin- when it comes to double tracking through a densely populated area.
QUOTE
Unfortunately, the only viable solution is to use half of 11th Street, and one lot in for the NICTD tracks. Or go the northern route, which has its own set of undesirable outcomes.
I have to say I still question whether this is the only viable solution -- it seems to me that NICTD may find it highly desirable, but that doesn't make it the only solution.
As for the "undesirable" part of the northern route -- well, I imagine most folks would find increasing that $65 million project budget by a factor of 10 isn't just "undesirable," it's impossible. And I suspect that building a new bridge over Trail Creek could easily run more than $650 million. How many years do you figure it would take NICTD to recoup a $650 million investment?
Posted by: joe.black Oct 17 2009, 04:51 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Oct 16 2009, 09:33 PM)
Just what type of PTC system is going to be used. It seems that a combanation of computers, GPS and radio signals are the leading technology, which would not care where the tracks are.
PTC is not a signal system on its own. It is an overlay to an existing signal/train control system that enforces speed limits and "positive stops" (which means it will stop a train *before* it blows past a red signal). There still has to be an effective signal system in place for PTC to enforce. In the case of the South Shore, that would be the existing signal system.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 17 2009, 05:13 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 17 2009, 11:46 AM)
Joe, I really appreciate your input on NICTD related issues. You bring an insight which requires specialized knowledge which few people have.
And after saying that, allow me to ask some follow up questions:
I know you aren't still affiliated with NICTD (but no doubt don't want to burn any bridges either), but isn't this plan essentially their "Christmas list"? Everything they've wanted to do in Michigan City since, well, forever?
No - in fact, the 11th Street route is by far the least expensive and most cost-effective way to go. And you have to remember that NICTD doesn't truly have a "Christmas list", unless you count a desire to provide better, faster, more efficient service as "Christmas list". The 11th Street plan actually seems the most bare-bones to me. The other two included project elements that increased the price without increasing the value.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 17 2009, 11:46 AM)
Are you aware of any engineering reason why allowing NICTD to remove the asphalt on 11th street won't achieve the goal of PTC?
Installing PTC (which is an overlay system to the existing signal/train control system - it doesn't exist on its own, but enforces the directions given by the in place signal system; right now, many railroads, including the South Shore, have no enforcement to ensure that engineers comply with signals. They comply because it's in the rules) would be a monumental mistake in the street-running territory. The existing signal system, which PTC will enforce, routinely experiences red signals due to the inability of the tracks to hold a good, solid track circuit in the street. Under an unenforced system as NICTD currently has (and which many railroads have), the train is required by the rules to stop at the signal, request permission to pass it, and be given permission by the train dispatcher. Alternatively, at "automatic" signals, they can stop and simply proceed at a speed that allows them to stop within 1/2 the range of the engineer's vision.
Under PTC, red signals are strictly enforced. You cannot physically move the train without an intentionally measured, time-consuming procedure to "unlock" the system to allow the train to go. Big, cascading delays would likely result every time this occurred (which is sporadic in the summer and almost every other day in the winter).
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 17 2009, 11:46 AM)
All the info about the overhead wiring system is interesting, but once again, it seems to have been working for the past 100 years.
Granted, it's all been "working for the past 100 years", but it gets more difficult and more expensive to maintain every year. And it's not just the wiring; it's the combination of all of the infrastructure - track, wire, overhead suspension system, signals, grade crossing protection circuits; it's all unreliable and difficult and very expensive to maintain.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 17 2009, 11:46 AM)
While NICTD is of great benefit to Michigan City, Michigan City probably won't die without it. I'm not too sure the reverse is true, especially if NICTD trains would be "nailed to the rails." If the city wanted to really play hardball, they could keep the whole process tied up in litigation well past that 2015 deadline -- so who's got the better bargaining position again?
Of course, the city could go it alone, and bear responsibility for stopping rail service to all of the other cities, towns, and counties that are served by NICTD. Do you truly think that would be advisable, politically or otherwise? Also, while it does seem to be some folks' desires to isolate MC from the rest of the region economically and otherwise, is that really what's good for the city? I don't think so, but maybe I have a slightly inflated view of the railroad's importance to the city and region.
It may be possible to apply for waivers from the feds as well, but that doesn't look likely in the current climate. Maybe as the "drop dead" date approaches, the feds will see many projects still undone and will relent a bit.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 17 2009, 11:46 AM)
NICTD may have to http://www.entertonement.com/clips/yjqtkzghsz--Get-used-to-disappointmentWestley-Cary-Elwes-The-Princess-Bride-Mandy-Patinkin- when it comes to double tracking through a densely populated area.
I don't think so. Double-tracking is necessary if any more service is ever to be squeezed from the system. Again, we could just keep it like it was for the last 100 years, or we could continue to improve it so that it can fully reach its potential as a valuable regional asset. It's a core part of the vision for the railroad's future. Double track increases capacity and reliability more than any other single improvement.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 17 2009, 11:46 AM)
I have to say I still question whether this is the only viable solution -- it seems to me that NICTD may find it highly desirable, but that doesn't make it the only solution.
I don't think it's the only solution, either. I think it's the most cost effective one, which is usually how these things are measured when you're going for federal money. But I don't doubt that there are other ways to do it. Maybe a good compromise can be reached soon, but it has to happen soon.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 17 2009, 11:46 AM)
As for the "undesirable" part of the northern route -- well, I imagine most folks would find increasing that $65 million project budget by a factor of 10 isn't just "undesirable," it's impossible. And I suspect that building a new bridge over Trail Creek could easily run more than $650 million. How many years do you figure it would take NICTD to recoup a $650 million investment?
I couldn't give you an exact number, but with an annual operating budget in the neighborhood of $30 million, it would take a very long time. And in today's political climate, I think you're right - it simply wouldn't be possible.
Posted by: lovethiscity Oct 17 2009, 06:46 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 17 2009, 05:51 PM)
PTC is not a signal system on its own. It is an overlay to an existing signal/train control system that enforces speed limits and "positive stops" (which means it will stop a train *before* it blows past a red signal). There still has to be an effective signal system in place for PTC to enforce. In the case of the South Shore, that would be the existing signal system.
I understand the concept. What nobody is saying is will it be the leading technology that uses a combanation of GPS, Radio signals and computer software such as this?
PTC is a predictive collision avoidance technology
that can stop a train before an accident occurs.
PTC is designed to keep a train under its maximum
speed limit and within the limits of its authorization
to be on a track. To accomplish this, sophisticated
technology and braking algorithms will automatically
bring both passenger and heavy freight trains to a
safe stop. This will help prevent train-to-train collisions,
over-speed derailments and casualties or injuries to
the public and railway workers.
Because of its complex design and requirements,
PTC is not an off-the-shelf system or software that
can be implemented overnight. PTC has been in
development by the railroad industry for decades,
and recent advancements in GPS and other data
transmitting technology have advanced progress.
This technology does not care about the placement of the track, above below, imbeded in pavement does not matter. What is the system being used here? Just claiming PTC says very little. Of all the systems in use now, have any gone beyond the testing phase?
Posted by: joe.black Oct 17 2009, 08:36 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Oct 17 2009, 06:46 PM)
I understand the concept. What nobody is saying is will it be the leading technology that uses a combanation of GPS, Radio signals and computer software such as this?
This technology does not care about the placement of the track, above below, imbeded in pavement does not matter. What is the system being used here? Just claiming PTC says very little. Of all the systems in use now, have any gone beyond the testing phase?
You don't understand the concept. PTC as currently understood is *not* a signal system in and of itself. It is an overlay to an existing or future traditional signal system, such as an automatic block signal system or, as NICTD has, a centralized traffic control (CTC) system.
The PTC system uses GPS and radio to enforce two things - first, compliance with maximum authorized speeds or speed limits in place; and second, red signals. It is predictive in that it knows when a signal is red (because every signal location is equipped with transponders that continuously broadcast the state of the signal), and it can stop a train before it gets past that red signal.
There are very experimental systems being looked at which no longer rely on the standard, tried and true track circuit, but they are way off in the future; they will not be ready for prime time before December, 2015, when the feds mandate that every passenger railroad, freight railroad over which passenger trains operate, and freight railroads that carry TIH (toxic inhalation hazard) loads have PTC installed, tested, and in service.
There is currently no PTC system installed on NICTD, and very few in actual use around the country. NICTD must install a PTC system that meets with federal guidelines no later than December 2015. The less than optimal condition of the track and substructure embedded in the asphalt precludes the effective and reliable use of PTC there because PTC as constituted today uses the existing signal system, which it uses to enforce positive stops prior to a train passing a red signal.
So, to summarize - at this point you still need a traditional signal system to enforce train separation. PTC is an adjunct to that signal system which enhances its capability to stop a non-compliant train that would otherwise barrel through a red signal and potentially into the path of another train.
Is that a little clearer? I hope I'm not using too much jargon.
Posted by: Dave Oct 18 2009, 02:53 AM
Joe. I believe what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Allow me to ask the question this way--
If Michigan City ceded 11th street to NICTD (but not the additional 50 feet or whatever south of 11th street), and NICTD tore up the asphalt currently on 11th street from curb to curb, and graded the tracks in their current location the way they appear for most of their run, i.e. rails on ties on gravel, would PTC be possible then?
Posted by: joe.black Oct 18 2009, 07:23 AM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 18 2009, 02:53 AM)
Joe. I believe what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Allow me to ask the question this way--
If Michigan City ceded 11th street to NICTD (but not the additional 50 feet or whatever south of 11th street), and NICTD tore up the asphalt currently on 11th street from curb to curb, and graded the tracks in their current location the way they appear for most of their run, i.e. rails on ties on gravel, would PTC be possible then?
Oh, sorry. The failure was not in communicating, but in my listening (or reading!). Yes, PTC would be possible under those conditions. The only question of ROW then in my mind would be where is the station and parking lot/parking deck (if that's what's decided) going to be?
Posted by: Dave Oct 18 2009, 11:39 AM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 18 2009, 08:23 AM)
Oh, sorry. The failure was not in communicating, but in my listening (or reading!). Yes, PTC would be possible under those conditions. The only question of ROW then in my mind would be where is the station and parking lot/parking deck (if that's what's decided) going to be?
I could answer that question for you as well, Joe.
NICTD has a parking lot currently at Pine and 11th. The former South Shore Station is on that block. NICTD seems to be a bit leery of doing anything there (and arguably rightfully so) because it is in the Historic District.
As shown in the Andrews University study, that block could be used -- NICTD could purchase and fix up the old station (which would tickle the historic preservationist types silly, I imagine), and use the rest of that block for a multi-level parking structure (tastefully done, of course -- I'm thinking not preformed concrete) with street level retail space they could rent out (per the Andrews study) -- that whole Transit Oriented Development thing. I'd be surprised if many tears were shed over the loss of the convenience store and tattoo parlor currently on that block, and if either of the two residences on that block have any historic value (and an argument can be made that any building has historic significance to somebody, if only to those people who have lived or worked there), there are two vacant lots not far away from there which could be available for relocation of those structures.
If anyone from NICTD happens to be reading this thread, feel free to steal this idea. I won't complain!
Posted by: joe.black Oct 18 2009, 12:15 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 18 2009, 11:39 AM)
I could answer that question for you as well, Joe.
NICTD has a parking lot currently at Pine and 11th. The former South Shore Station is on that block. NICTD seems to be a bit leery of doing anything there (and arguably rightfully so) because it is in the Historic District.
As shown in the Andrews University study, that block could be used -- NICTD could purchase and fix up the old station (which would tickle the historic preservationist types silly, I imagine), and use the rest of that block for a multi-level parking structure (tastefully done, of course -- I'm thinking not preformed concrete) with street level retail space they could rent out (per the Andrews study) -- that whole Transit Oriented Development thing. I'd be surprised if many tears were shed over the loss of the convenience store and tattoo parlor currently on that block, and if either of the two residences on that block have any historic value (and an argument can be made that any building has historic significance to somebody, if only to those people who have lived or worked there), there are two vacant lots not far away from there which could be available for relocation of those structures.
If anyone from NICTD happens to be reading this thread, feel free to steal this idea. I won't complain!
All attractive and seemingly straightforward (and I personally like the idea), BUT just the fact that the properties are located in a historic district would complicate the process about fourfold, whether or not they're considered truly "historic properties". I'd only sign off on this as a senior NICTD manager if I could get a guarantee that the environmental assessment process (necessary if you want to avail yourself of federal capital funds) would be expedited, and knowing NEPA as I do and judging from the current administration's fetish with at least the appearance of "green" at all costs, I don't think that would likely be forthcoming. Neither NICTD nor the region have the luxury of time at this point, which is really a shame.
I'd also like, of course, an engineering assessment done of the proposed parking site and station to ensure that it could accomodate the number of cars that are envisioned in the railroad's long range planning. A traffic impact study wouldn't hurt either (and that could be one of the major rubs - an increase in vehicular traffic into a historic district would be a tall hurdle, and such a traffic impact study would certainly be included in any environmental impact statement).
Of course, whereever the new station is built, an environmental assessment will have to be performed in order to qualify for federal funding. My point (and NICTD's and the city's position, as far as I know) is that building in the Historic District unnecessarily and possibly fatally complicates the environmental process.
Posted by: Dave Oct 18 2009, 01:42 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 18 2009, 01:15 PM)
My point (and NICTD's and the city's position, as far as I know) is that building in the Historic District unnecessarily and possibly fatally complicates the environmental process.
Considering some of the nonsensical crap that the City's Historic Review Board has allowed to happen (use Google maps to take a look at the metal garage at 234 w. 7th, or the vinyl siding relatively recently installed on one of our local pubs, for examples), I really doubt the Historic District should be considered an obstacle for just about anything. Until litigation prevented it, the Historic Review board was ready to allow what would have essentially have been a Motel 6 to be built in the Historic District in an area zoned for single family homes.
I would think that NICTD could go in front of the Historic Review Board with architectural drawings and get pre-approval long before shovels went to work. Just make it look good -- not poured concrete for a facade, at least try to make it look something like a commercial Victorian structure -- and I'd be surprised if it didn't sail right through.
Heck, most of that block is currently street level parking. It would be something of a challenge to come up with something less aesthetically pleasing than that! Though NICTD's current proposal to knock down 2 full city blocks to convert them to a lake of asphalt does manage to more than achieve that dubious honor.
And as for environmental impact statements, as you said, they are going to be required no matter where NICTD builds. I think they could even get some "green" credit for rejuvenating the old station. Ever been to the Quincy Station on the CTA elevated line in Chicago? Pretty it up like that and NICTD would get lots of free publicity and tons of goodwill.
As for traffic, while this is a historic district, it's in a commercial historic district. Franklin Street at the west side of the block and Pine Street on the east are pretty much main drags now. I think NICTD would find a lot of local support for something like this (the parking structure specifically -- some people are going to complain about closing 11th street no matter what), especially from businesses in the downtown area (well, possible exceptions from the tattoo parlor and the convenience store, but NICTD could probably even make them happy with some kind of incentives like reduced rents in the new structure).
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 18 2009, 01:57 PM
I just want to say how great of an informational thread this is. I might steal some of this material for a topic on the radio show in the very near future if no one minds!
Posted by: Dave Oct 18 2009, 02:08 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Oct 18 2009, 02:57 PM)
I just want to say how great of an informational thread this is. I might steal some of this material for a topic on the radio show in the very near future if no one minds!
No objections from me, as long as you let us know in advance so I can listen in!
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 18 2009, 02:12 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 18 2009, 03:08 PM)
No objections from me, as long as you let us know in advance so I can listen in!
It won't be this week, but in the next week or two for sure on Sunday night at 5pm. If you are really interested, I would even be willing to have you sit in with me. I know you have read into this pretty well. I'd really love to have Joe as well, but obviously he can't be here. Maybe we could work a phone call out, if he is interested.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 18 2009, 04:53 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Oct 18 2009, 01:57 PM)
I just want to say how great of an informational thread this is. I might steal some of this material for a topic on the radio show in the very near future if no one minds!
No objections here either!
Posted by: joe.black Oct 18 2009, 05:02 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 18 2009, 01:42 PM)
Considering some of the nonsensical crap that the City's Historic Review Board has allowed to happen (use Google maps to take a look at the metal garage at 234 w. 7th, or the vinyl siding relatively recently installed on one of our local pubs, for examples), I really doubt the Historic District should be considered an obstacle for just about anything. Until litigation prevented it, the Historic Review board was ready to allow what would have essentially have been a Motel 6 to be built in the Historic District in an area zoned for single family homes.
I would think that NICTD could go in front of the Historic Review Board with architectural drawings and get pre-approval long before shovels went to work. Just make it look good -- not poured concrete for a facade, at least try to make it look something like a commercial Victorian structure -- and I'd be surprised if it didn't sail right through.
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.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 18 2009, 01:42 PM)
Heck, most of that block is currently street level parking. It would be something of a challenge to come up with something less aesthetically pleasing than that! Though NICTD's current proposal to knock down 2 full city blocks to convert them to a lake of asphalt does manage to more than achieve that dubious honor.
Well, I wouldn't characterize a new separated railroad right of way as a "lake of asphalt", but I see your point.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 18 2009, 01:42 PM)
And as for environmental impact statements, as you said, they are going to be required no matter where NICTD builds. I think they could even get some "green" credit for rejuvenating the old station. Ever been to the Quincy Station on the CTA elevated line in Chicago? Pretty it up like that and NICTD would get lots of free publicity and tons of goodwill.
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).
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 18 2009, 01:42 PM)
As for traffic, while this is a historic district, it's in a commercial historic district. Franklin Street at the west side of the block and Pine Street on the east are pretty much main drags now. I think NICTD would find a lot of local support for something like this (the parking structure specifically -- some people are going to complain about closing 11th street no matter what), especially from businesses in the downtown area (well, possible exceptions from the tattoo parlor and the convenience store, but NICTD could probably even make them happy with some kind of incentives like reduced rents in the new structure).
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.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 18 2009, 05:05 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Oct 18 2009, 02:12 PM)
It won't be this week, but in the next week or two for sure on Sunday night at 5pm. If you are really interested, I would even be willing to have you sit in with me. I know you have read into this pretty well. I'd really love to have Joe as well, but obviously he can't be here. Maybe we could work a phone call out, if he is interested.
I would certainly be willing to join the discussion by phone, but of course I no longer represent NICTD, NICTD's views, or NICTD's interests, though I still have a great love for the railroad and for Michigan City.
Posted by: Dave Oct 18 2009, 05:27 PM
Just to go back and hit something again:
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 17 2009, 12:46 PM)
As for the "undesirable" part of the northern route -- well, I imagine most folks would find increasing that $65 million project budget by a factor of 10 isn't just "undesirable," it's impossible. And I suspect that building a new bridge over Trail Creek could easily run more than $650 million. How many years do you figure it would take NICTD to recoup a $650 million investment?
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 17 2009, 06:13 PM)
I couldn't give you an exact number, but with an annual operating budget in the neighborhood of $30 million, it would take a very long time. And in today's political climate, I think you're right - it simply wouldn't be possible.
When I looked at NICTD's website, it appeared to me that their annual operating budget was in the neighborhood of $30 million. And that isn't annual profit, it's their whole budget.
I suspect from the numbers I've seen that the northern route couldn't be done for less than half a billion (that's BILLION with a "B", folks), but even if it could be done for less -- the lower figures I've seen are in the $300 million range -- having NICTD do that kind of project would be worse than someone with an annual income of $50,000 buying a half a million dollar house with a zero dollar down mortgage. Not a great idea.
I really wish the folks advocating the northern route would see the economic realities involved and give it up. Maybe then they could focus on something more realistic, like getting the 11th street corridor plan done in a manner that enhances Michigan City rather than gutting our downtown.
Posted by: Dave Oct 18 2009, 07:51 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 18 2009, 06:02 PM)
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 ***
QUOTE
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."
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 18 2009, 08:44 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 18 2009, 07:51 PM)
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.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 18 2009, 07:51 PM)
*** 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.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 18 2009, 07:51 PM)
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.
Posted by: Dave Oct 19 2009, 12:11 AM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 18 2009, 09:44 PM)
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.
QUOTE
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.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 19 2009, 01:10 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 19 2009, 12:11 AM)
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.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 19 2009, 12:11 AM)
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.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 19 2009, 12:11 AM)
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.
Posted by: southyards Oct 19 2009, 01:48 PM
"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)
Posted by: Dave Oct 19 2009, 02:28 PM
To reply out of order:
QUOTE
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?
QUOTE
...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 http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=700+Pine+St,+Trail+Creek,+LaPorte,+Indiana+46360&ll=41.692762,-86.94163&spn=0.000454,0.000862&t=h&z=20 - 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.
Posted by: Dave Oct 19 2009, 02:39 PM
QUOTE(southyards @ Oct 19 2009, 02:48 PM)
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Units_of_mass 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.
Posted by: southyards Oct 19 2009, 03:20 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 19 2009, 02:39 PM)
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Units_of_mass 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.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 20 2009, 12:05 PM
QUOTE(southyards @ Oct 19 2009, 01:48 PM)
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).
Posted by: joe.black Oct 20 2009, 12:16 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 19 2009, 02:28 PM)
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.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 19 2009, 02:28 PM)
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).
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 19 2009, 02:28 PM)
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.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 19 2009, 02:28 PM)
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 http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=700+Pine+St,+Trail+Creek,+LaPorte,+Indiana+46360&ll=41.692762,-86.94163&spn=0.000454,0.000862&t=h&z=20 - 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).
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 19 2009, 02:28 PM)
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.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 20 2009, 12:20 PM
QUOTE(southyards @ Oct 19 2009, 03:20 PM)
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.
Posted by: southyards Oct 20 2009, 02:45 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 20 2009, 12:20 PM)
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.
Posted by: Dave Oct 20 2009, 04:09 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 20 2009, 01:16 PM)
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.
QUOTE
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.
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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 20 2009, 01:20 PM)
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?
Posted by: mcstumper Oct 20 2009, 06:14 PM
QUOTE
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.
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.
QUOTE
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.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 21 2009, 04:32 AM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 20 2009, 04:09 PM)
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.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 20 2009, 04:09 PM)
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.
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!
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 20 2009, 04:09 PM)
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.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 20 2009, 04:09 PM)
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.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 20 2009, 04:09 PM)
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.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 20 2009, 04:09 PM)
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?
Posted by: mcstumper Oct 21 2009, 11:46 AM
QUOTE
Maybe this is an argument for the northern route!
I hope you were kidding...
Posted by: Dave Oct 21 2009, 12:04 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 21 2009, 05:32 AM)
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?
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.
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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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?
QUOTE
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.
Posted by: IndyTransplant Oct 21 2009, 12:23 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 01:04 PM)
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.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 21 2009, 08:13 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=26495
QUOTE
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.
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.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 21 2009, 08:14 PM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Oct 21 2009, 11:46 AM)
I hope you were kidding...
Maybe.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 21 2009, 08:31 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 12:04 PM)
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?
I think you've convinced me on the "hero" part, but I don't think NICTD cleaning up its ROW will convince anyone in the areas we're talking about to clean anything up. It's a nice thought, but that's as far as it goes - a nice thought.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 12:04 PM)
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.
I was being facetious. I agree with you - and the Bridge Fairy is about as real as the Easter Bunny.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 12:04 PM)
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.
Yes, if you were going to close the entire street. But - you'd have to close the entire street (which I think I heard you propose). And it's less and less likely that NICTD will continue to use that older construction method. They are in the process as we speak of installing a more modern constant tension system between Gary and Michigan City.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 12:04 PM)
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.
Very quickly - high level platforms on a line with mixed traffic requires some way for the freight cars (which are wider than passenger cars) to avoid the platform edge, while passenger trains "snug up" to it. The way NICTD does it at the west end stations is with "gauntlet tracks". The plan for the new MC station was to provide a siding, which one day would be extended into double track.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 12:04 PM)
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 that hamstringing the railroad into permanent single track would be considered a "win" at NICTD.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 12:04 PM)
So the only job requirement for being a consultant is having a big mouth?
Yes, and an almost total lack of self-respect.
Actually, being a consultant is both rewarding and frustrating, just like most jobs. QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 12:04 PM)
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.
No, actually the places that I'm thinking about have passenger trains operating at 60 to 70 mph through residential neighborhoods, near schools, etc. It's that way all over the country. There is a line like this about a mile from my home. I was just in Los Angeles for a project kick-off with the commuter rail authority there. 79 mph maximum speed, no 12 foot fences. Northern New Jersey is criss-crossed with commuter rail lines, most with minor fencing simply to mark out the private property.
Posted by: Dave Oct 21 2009, 10:50 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 21 2009, 09:31 PM)
I think you've convinced me on the "hero" part, but I don't think NICTD cleaning up its ROW will convince anyone in the areas we're talking about to clean anything up. It's a nice thought, but that's as far as it goes - a nice thought.
You may have a point, but I have to say that if I was living across the street from what looked like either a junkyard or an abandoned lot full of shoulder high weeds and garbage, I might lose some of my motivation to mow my lawn. On the other hand, if the property across the street is neatly landscaped, I might have more motivation to keep my place looking good.
QUOTE
I don't know that hamstringing the railroad into permanent single track would be considered a "win" at NICTD.
Permanent? Maybe just for the next 100 years. Seems to have worked for the past 100.
I was looking at the minutes from some of the NICTD Board meeting, which is where I came across the approximate $30 million annual budget number. While NICTD no doubt gets some money from freight moved over their lines, it looked to me that they only recoup close to 51% of their operating expenses though the farebox. They also get a lot of money from government subsidies.
Which says to me that NICTD is a hybrid. It isn't just a transportation animal, it's a political animal as well. Which means they are subject on some level to the whims of elected officials. Elected officials who know how nicely throwing hundreds of registered voters out of their homes to modify something that's been working for the past 100 years is going to play in the media.
If bulldozing all those homes becomes a media event, there may be more than a few elected officials who start to ask about the utility of NICTD altogether, if it can't pay for itself. I'm a big supporter of commuter rail service, but before NICTD starts bulldozing entire neighborhoods they may want to consider whether getting double track might be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory.
You know, I'm beginning to wonder if this whole thing is a bait and switch. Does NICTD really want the southern route on the CSX tracks by Ames Field? Because I'd rather see that than see their version of the 11th street corridor come to pass. On the other hand, if it came to light that this whole thing was a bait and switch, I'd be pounding on some politicians' doors to get the whole bunch of scalawags behind the idea fired and audited by the IRS.
QUOTE
No, actually the places that I'm thinking about have passenger trains operating at 60 to 70 mph through residential neighborhoods, near schools, etc. It's that way all over the country. There is a line like this about a mile from my home. I was just in Los Angeles for a project kick-off with the commuter rail authority there. 79 mph maximum speed, no 12 foot fences. Northern New Jersey is criss-crossed with commuter rail lines, most with minor fencing simply to mark out the private property.
And I've seen trolleys and streetcars in San Francisco running though streets with car and pedestrian traffic that get going up to something like 40 mph. No fences at all there. Kind of the way things are here now. Granted NICTD doesn't go that fast here now, and South Shore trains are probably 10 times bigger than trolley cars, but I have to imagine they could go a bit faster if they have the street all to themselves with fewer crossings and crossing gates.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 23 2009, 04:44 AM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 10:50 PM)
Permanent? Maybe just for the next 100 years. Seems to have worked for the past 100.
The horse and buggy were quite popular for a long time as well.
The point is that the railroad is not doing things as it has done for the past 100 years anymore. In order for the railroad to make the full transition from interurban trolley to a modern commuter rail line (and true regional transportation asset), double track across the entire line must happen at some point in the medium to long term but certainly not another 100 years.The railroad was forced to change its weekend operating plan from the convenient 2-hour "memory schedule" operated on weekends mainly due to the lack of double track coupled with huge ridership increases. It's pretty simple - you can only run one train in one direction on single track. That cuts down severely on your ability to grow service to meet demand, and it cuts down on your on time performance and reliability because late trains in one direction inevitably cause late trains in the other.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 10:50 PM)
I was looking at the minutes from some of the NICTD Board meeting, which is where I came across the approximate $30 million annual budget number. While NICTD no doubt gets some money from freight moved over their lines, it looked to me that they only recoup close to 51% of their operating expenses though the farebox. They also get a lot of money from government subsidies.
...as does every passenger rail operation in North America...
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 10:50 PM)
Which says to me that NICTD is a hybrid. It isn't just a transportation animal, it's a political animal as well. Which means they are subject on some level to the whims of elected officials. Elected officials who know how nicely throwing hundreds of registered voters out of their homes to modify something that's been working for the past 100 years is going to play in the media.
Refer to my horse and buggy analogy above. The unstated part of your argument is an implicit belief that "it's good enough". Well, that was true perhaps 5 to 10 years ago. While ridership has fallen off a bit due to the bad economy, it will no doubt begin climbing again. It's been on a steady upward climb for a while. It finally reached a critical point on weekends two summers ago. Weekend trains operate only 53% on time, mainly due to the effect of that increased ridership on the reliability of the schedule, which features the fatal flaw of scheduling every train to meet at a small passing siding just west of Michigan City. The railroad was forced to rewrite the weekend schedule from scratch (eliminating what many saw as a very convenient 2-hour memory schedule) to eliminate the "meet" in single track territory.
There is no doubt in my mind, or in the minds of anyone who has looked at the ridership trend and where NICTD is positioned to meet it, that single track is "good enough" going forward. It simply is not. It's a good problem to have, as I always say, but it's a challenge nonetheless.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 10:50 PM)
If bulldozing all those homes becomes a media event, there may be more than a few elected officials who start to ask about the utility of NICTD altogether, if it can't pay for itself. I'm a big supporter of commuter rail service, but before NICTD starts bulldozing entire neighborhoods they may want to consider whether getting double track might be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory.
There is no rail service in North America, or actually in the world, that truly pays for itself. Your arguments are getting a bit emotional - "bulldozing entire neighborhoods". That's a little hyperbolic.
All that aside, I think you're making a good political and social point. In point of fact, I detest eminent domain while acknowledging its purpose and utility. I don't know how that whole part of the project - assuming that it goes forward - will be handled, but I would hope very sensitively and intelligently.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 10:50 PM)
You know, I'm beginning to wonder if this whole thing is a bait and switch. Does NICTD really want the southern route on the CSX tracks by Ames Field?
Unequivocally, no.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 21 2009, 10:50 PM)
And I've seen trolleys and streetcars in San Francisco running though streets with car and pedestrian traffic that get going up to something like 40 mph. No fences at all there. Kind of the way things are here now. Granted NICTD doesn't go that fast here now, and South Shore trains are probably 10 times bigger than trolley cars, but I have to imagine they could go a bit faster if they have the street all to themselves with fewer crossings and crossing gates.
Streetcar operation in mixed traffic does not operate at 40 mph in San Fran.
Posted by: Dave Oct 23 2009, 02:41 PM
We may have to agree to disagree about some of that, Joe.
But let me share something else I just saw.
From the http://www.nictd.com/minutes/May292009.pdf of the NITCD board for May 29, 2009, regarding the 11th street realignment plan:
QUOTE
Mr. Evans questions whether the realignment work could go on while trains were
operating. Mr. Parsons replied affirmatively. The project could be spread over several years
interims of phasing and costs. There should be no service disruptions while laying the new
track.
Moving the tracks 50 feet south makes a lot more sense to me now. NICTD can continue running trains where they currently are while they are doing demolition and construction of the new line, with little to no interruption of service. Also interesting to note that the project would take years to complete. All that lovely construction equipment in our downtown for years -- that'll draw in the tourists!
Additionally, the plan as shown in the diagram (sorry, can't link to it as I can't find it online anywhere -- can anyone else?) does not have double tracking. If double tracking is so durn important, why isn't NICTD doing it in this project? Strikes me as odd, seeing as they'd have all the equipment and whatnot there, why not do it all at once?
Posted by: joe.black Oct 24 2009, 05:45 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 23 2009, 02:41 PM)
We may have to agree to disagree about some of that, Joe.
Fair enough. I respect your opinion very much. And I have to defer to you now on some things because I'm no longer a resident of the neighborhood.
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 23 2009, 02:41 PM)
But let me share something else I just saw.
From the http://www.nictd.com/minutes/May292009.pdf of the NITCD board for May 29, 2009, regarding the 11th street realignment plan:
Moving the tracks 50 feet south makes a lot more sense to me now. NICTD can continue running trains where they currently are while they are doing demolition and construction of the new line, with little to no interruption of service. Also interesting to note that the project would take years to complete. All that lovely construction equipment in our downtown for years -- that'll draw in the tourists!
And the alternative is?
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 23 2009, 02:41 PM)
Additionally, the plan as shown in the diagram (sorry, can't link to it as I can't find it online anywhere -- can anyone else?) does not have double tracking. If double tracking is so durn important, why isn't NICTD doing it in this project? Strikes me as odd, seeing as they'd have all the equipment and whatnot there, why not do it all at once?
There will be space left in the ROW for double tracking. There will be double track in the area of the new station, wherever that winds up being, both for the purpose of allowing freight trains to bypass the high level platform, and for possibly staging passenger equipment.
It wouldn't be done *right* now because it's insanely expensive, and the railroad has other funding priorities that come first in the strategic plan. One of the main ones is accomplishing PTC across the entire railroad - a millions of dollars expense, and yet another unfunded mandate from the Feds, that was not planned for and now will have to be done, by law. There's still the matter of the South Bend Airport relocation, plus phase III of the catenary renewal project, and the extension of modern CTC signaling from Michigan City to South Bend.
Double track will be needed when the time comes to grow the service beyond what is provided now, but as I've been saying it's a medium to long range goal. What is most important to the railroad at this point is to not do anything that would *preclude* the installation of a second track, or price it beyond reach (to me, that's one of the fatal flaws of the northern alignment).
Posted by: Dave Oct 24 2009, 08:49 PM
Joe, I hope you get a chance to call into the radio show tomorrow. I'd hate to think of southsider and I sitting there just talking to each other for an hour about this stuff (http://www.wimsradio.com/ tomorrow from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. our time).
Joe, here's the thing that has me a bit confused -- how would what I'm proposing preclude NICTD from double tracking at some time in the future? They seem to have a lot of stuff on their plate right now, so why not do the version I've suggested and, if the need becomes acute at some time in the future, do the double tracking (and whatever demolition that would require) then?
I'm just not seeing the "preclusion."
Posted by: joe.black Oct 25 2009, 07:48 AM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 24 2009, 08:49 PM)
Joe, I hope you get a chance to call into the radio show tomorrow. I'd hate to think of southsider and I sitting there just talking to each other for an hour about this stuff (http://www.wimsradio.com/ tomorrow from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. our time).
Joe, here's the thing that has me a bit confused -- how would what I'm proposing preclude NICTD from double tracking at some time in the future? They seem to have a lot of stuff on their plate right now, so why not do the version I've suggested and, if the need becomes acute at some time in the future, do the double tracking (and whatever demolition that would require) then?
I'm just not seeing the "preclusion."
I think because it doesn't reserve the needed ROW ahead of time. That's one of the strong negatives for the north end route - it's too expensive even to reserve a second trackway because that would entail building onto whatever bridge gets constructed over the creek.
With the 11th Street option, ROW could be bought and reserved for future double-tracking.
One detail I didn't catch the first go-round with your idea is construction staging. We briefly alluded to it when you brought up the Board comments on the realignment, but it didn't hit me at the time that keeping the tracks right where they are could wind up costing a lot more and taking a lot longer due to construction staging issues. First off, you simply can't cut off the Carroll Ave. facility from the railroad to the west, because that's the South Shore's storage yard, running repair facility, and heavy maintenance shop. Trains *need* to be able to start and end their runs there; if you can't do that, you don't have a railroad. If you tear up the single trackway down the middle of 11th Street, there will be no place to run trains. You'd almost have to extend the project several more years, and do the work at night and on select weekends. That would be very inefficient because you'd have to alot time in the nightly schedule to get the railroad all patched up again. It could literally take years longer to do it that way, and NICTD doesn't have years to comply with the PTC mandate. It would also be much more expensive.
Hope that makes sense. I didn't know about the radio show today - no one contacted me, so I'll have to see if I'll be available. That'd be 6 pm to 7 pm my time.
Posted by: Dave Oct 25 2009, 12:35 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 25 2009, 08:48 AM)
I didn't know about the radio show today - no one contacted me, so I'll have to see if I'll be available. That'd be 6 pm to 7 pm my time.
Southsider, email him or something!
Joe, the call in number is (219) 861-1632. Please call in if you can!
Posted by: Dave Oct 25 2009, 12:46 PM
Something significant which doesn't seem to have been reported in the News Dispatch, or much of anywhere else---
http://emichigancity.com/news.htm#southshore
QUOTE
SouthShore Line Public Forum
Mayor Chuck Oberlie and 1st Ward City Councilman Richard Murphy announced a public forum will be held on Monday, October 26, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
On July 29, 2009, a public workshop was held to identify issues and questions regarding the proposed improvements. Stu Sirota will present the “Report on the Public Workshop Regarding the Proposed South Shore Line Improvements in Michigan City” that includes answers to the issues identified at that workshop”.
Mayor Oberlie stated, “This report presents a summary of the initial public workshop on the proposed South Shore Line Improvements. The workshop was facilitated by Stuart Sirota, AICP, Principal of TND Planning Group, a national consulting firm specializing in transportation and land use planning. Mr. Sirota has been working on Transit Oriented Development (TOD) planning issues related to the potential relocation of the South Shore Commuter Rail line and station in Michigan City since 2007.”
After the forum the report will be available on the city’s web site at www.emichigancity.com.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 25 2009, 03:02 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 25 2009, 12:35 PM)
Southsider, email him or something!
Joe, the call in number is (219) 861-1632. Please call in if you can!
I should be available. What time would be best? At the top of the hour?
Posted by: Dave Oct 25 2009, 03:08 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 25 2009, 04:02 PM)
I should be available. What time would be best? At the top of the hour?
I understand the first ten minutes or so are network news and such, so ten minutes past the hour might be best. You should be able to get it live on the internet through the WIMS website.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 25 2009, 03:49 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 25 2009, 03:08 PM)
I understand the first ten minutes or so are network news and such, so ten minutes past the hour might be best. You should be able to get it live on the internet through the WIMS website.
Yes sorry I just saw this, but anytime after 5:15 or so CST. WIMSradio.com is where you can pick up the stream.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 25 2009, 04:00 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Oct 25 2009, 03:49 PM)
Yes sorry I just saw this, but anytime after 5:15 or so CST. WIMSradio.com is where you can pick up the stream.
OK. I'll tell my wife to hold off on dinner!
Posted by: Dave Oct 25 2009, 05:44 PM
Thanks for calling in, Joe!
Posted by: Dave Oct 25 2009, 06:04 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 25 2009, 08:48 AM)
I think because it doesn't reserve the needed ROW ahead of time. That's one of the strong negatives for the north end route - it's too expensive even to reserve a second trackway because that would entail building onto whatever bridge gets constructed over the creek.
With the 11th Street option, ROW could be bought and reserved for future double-tracking.
One detail I didn't catch the first go-round with your idea is construction staging. We briefly alluded to it when you brought up the Board comments on the realignment, but it didn't hit me at the time that keeping the tracks right where they are could wind up costing a lot more and taking a lot longer due to construction staging issues. First off, you simply can't cut off the Carroll Ave. facility from the railroad to the west, because that's the South Shore's storage yard, running repair facility, and heavy maintenance shop. Trains *need* to be able to start and end their runs there; if you can't do that, you don't have a railroad. If you tear up the single trackway down the middle of 11th Street, there will be no place to run trains. You'd almost have to extend the project several more years, and do the work at night and on select weekends. That would be very inefficient because you'd have to alot time in the nightly schedule to get the railroad all patched up again. It could literally take years longer to do it that way, and NICTD doesn't have years to comply with the PTC mandate. It would also be much more expensive.
Joe, I have a technical question.
In the current configuration, the tracks are on ties which are on -- what? The ties are on gravel or crushed stone, as opposed to sitting on asphalt, aren't they?
The reason I ask is probably obvious. If what is needed for PTC is better drainage of the tracks, simply removing the asphalt could acheive that. And while I am not an engineer, it seems to me that the asphalt of 11th street could be removed without an effect on the tracks, and minimal interruption of service.
Posted by: joe.black Oct 25 2009, 08:25 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 25 2009, 06:04 PM)
Joe, I have a technical question.
In the current configuration, the tracks are on ties which are on -- what? The ties are on gravel or crushed stone, as opposed to sitting on asphalt, aren't they?
The reason I ask is probably obvious. If what is needed for PTC is better drainage of the tracks, simply removing the asphalt could acheive that. And while I am not an engineer, it seems to me that the asphalt of 11th street could be removed without an effect on the tracks, and minimal interruption of service.
The gravel is known as "ballast", and in fact there is ballast under the asphalt, although it's not built up to the extent that it is in open parts of the railroad - it would have to be built up. But you might be onto something. It would certainly be something that a track engineer would have to look at, and the systems engineers would have to get their mitts on it as well.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 26 2009, 07:54 AM
QUOTE(Dave @ Oct 24 2009, 09:49 PM)
Joe, I hope you get a chance to call into the radio show tomorrow. I'd hate to think of southsider and I sitting there just talking to each other for an hour about this stuff (http://www.wimsradio.com/ tomorrow from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. our time).
Joe, here's the thing that has me a bit confused -- how would what I'm proposing preclude NICTD from double tracking at some time in the future? They seem to have a lot of stuff on their plate right now, so why not do the version I've suggested and, if the need becomes acute at some time in the future, do the double tracking (and whatever demolition that would require) then?
I'm just not seeing the "preclusion."
Two things.
#1, I imagine they want to do all of the property seizures in one action. It is going to be a legal nightmare to fight eminent domain lawsuits for NICTD once, why do it twice, when people will most likely be angrier and more likely to fight?
#2, I also imagine they are looking at the rock fall in property values and thinking they want to buy out people ASAP with the economy the way that it is. If they wait 5-10 years, or whatever time frame they wait to start adding the second track, they could be facing a significant appreciation in housing values during that time, which would factor into the cost of that particular project.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 26 2009, 03:33 PM
Reminder that tonight is the night!
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...ArticleID=26379
QUOTE
South Shore workshop
MICHIGAN CITY - Mayor Chuck Oberlie and 1st Ward City Councilman Richard Murphy announced Tuesday that a public forum will be held at 6:30 p.m. Monday, Oct. 26, in the City Hall Council Chambers.
On July 29 a public workshop was held to identify issues and questions regarding the proposed improvements. Stu Sirota will present the "Report on the Public Workshop Regarding the Proposed South Shore Line Improvements in Michigan City" that includes answers to the issues identified at that workshop, the mayor's office said.
Oberlie stated, "This report presents a summary of the initial public workshop on the proposed South Shore Line improvements."
The workshop was facilitated by Sirota, principal of TND Planning Group, a national consulting firm specializing in transportation and land use planning. Sirota has been working on transit-oriented development planning issues related to the potential relocation of the South Shore commuter rail line and station in Michigan City since 2007.
After the forum the report will be available on the city's web site at www.emichigancity.com.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 28 2009, 08:33 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=72&ArticleID=26654
QUOTE
South Shore
Consultant calls for summit
Editorial
A report for the city on the proposed relocation of the South Shore commuter line acknowledges that the public still has many concerns over the project. Perhaps the most entrenched foes are those who favor a northern route, rather that the 10th and 11th Street corridor favored by the public agency that operates the South Shore, the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District.
As a result, the report by consultant Stu Sirota of the TND Planning Group calls for a "summit" meeting among everyone concerned. Failure to reach a consensus could hurt the project's chances, the consultant's report says. To fully engage the public, a robust public process should continue, it says. It also calls for a Citizens Advisory Council as the planning and engineering process moves forward, which also is a good idea.
Certainly it is important to reach a consensus, as well as answer the lingering questions that residents have about this proposed rail relocation, which will change Michigan City for generations, if not permanently.
"These opposing viewpoints have kept a broad-based consensus on South Shore Line relocation options at bay. Many Michigan City residents and leaders seem unsure of which is the right option. It would be 'healthier' to the process if consensus could be reached, rather than have ongoing disputes about two fundamentally different approaches that could potentially 'derail' the process," the consultant recommends.
"A facilitated 'Northern Route Summit' should be considered to be held in the near future, bringing together officials from NICTD, the city, and Northern Route advocates, in order to have a comprehensive dialogue about the issues," it goes on. "This would provide an opportunity to discuss all viewpoints directly among the parties, and potentially reach consensus."
Finding consensus through a summit or through any series of meetings is a tall order, but it's necessary.
Consultant calls for summit
Editorial
A report for the city on the proposed relocation of the South Shore commuter line acknowledges that the public still has many concerns over the project. Perhaps the most entrenched foes are those who favor a northern route, rather that the 10th and 11th Street corridor favored by the public agency that operates the South Shore, the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District.
As a result, the report by consultant Stu Sirota of the TND Planning Group calls for a "summit" meeting among everyone concerned. Failure to reach a consensus could hurt the project's chances, the consultant's report says. To fully engage the public, a robust public process should continue, it says. It also calls for a Citizens Advisory Council as the planning and engineering process moves forward, which also is a good idea.
Certainly it is important to reach a consensus, as well as answer the lingering questions that residents have about this proposed rail relocation, which will change Michigan City for generations, if not permanently.
"These opposing viewpoints have kept a broad-based consensus on South Shore Line relocation options at bay. Many Michigan City residents and leaders seem unsure of which is the right option. It would be 'healthier' to the process if consensus could be reached, rather than have ongoing disputes about two fundamentally different approaches that could potentially 'derail' the process," the consultant recommends.
"A facilitated 'Northern Route Summit' should be considered to be held in the near future, bringing together officials from NICTD, the city, and Northern Route advocates, in order to have a comprehensive dialogue about the issues," it goes on. "This would provide an opportunity to discuss all viewpoints directly among the parties, and potentially reach consensus."
Finding consensus through a summit or through any series of meetings is a tall order, but it's necessary.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 28 2009, 08:35 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=26643
QUOTE
Questions aplenty fill South Shore meeting
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - More questions were asked than answered Monday night during a public forum in the City Council chambers on the proposed South Shore railroad improvement plan in Michigan City.
The meeting was called to provide responses to questions and issues raised by local residents at a July 29 public workshop. Consultant Stu Sirota of TND Planning Group was charged with seeking out information related to the questions, distilling the answers and reporting back to the community.
Sirota's written report was given to audience members, and he highlighted key sections. Many audience members at Monday's meeting were not at the July meeting and were hearing information for the first time. People were invited to make comments at the recorded gathering.
Although Sirota said at the outset some questions couldn't be answered right now, individual speakers pressed for answers. Most concerns had to do with people losing their homes because of track realignment, paying higher property taxes to make up for lost homes and the use of eminent domain. A common sentiment was that the information was focused on what's good for the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, not on what's good for Michigan City.
Bob Pollock, 100 Lake Shore Drive, demanded a list of specific properties targeted for acquisition and called for immediate assessments of the properties to provide a base-line value.
"We want to know which ones you're looking at," Pollock said, referring to Page 12 of Sirota's report. "We're asking for that because property owners are concerned about property values."
Sirota said specific parcels hadn't been identified as part of the initial plan, and details will come in the engineering study, which is the next step in the planning process. NICTD doesn't have funding for the engineering study at this point, and additional funding will be needed to put plans into effect.
"NICTD would like to be well into construction before 2015," Sirota said in the written report, referring to new federal regulations requiring railroads to adopt automated safety technology by 2015.
Fred Miller, a member of a group pushing for a northern South Shore route next to Amtrak, said he agreed with a suggested next step of a "Northern Route Summit" included in Sirota's report.
"Since 2004, we've been recommending a summit, so I heartily endorse the arrival of consensus at a summit meeting," Miller said, adding it should involve all interested parties, including Amtrak, Greyhound, Blue Chip Casino, Lighthouse Place Premium Outlets, city government representatives and private property owners.
"I think we've probably beat the issue of property acquisition to death tonight," Miller said. "The point is the northern route will include few, if any, property acquisitions and will prevent a scar from running through the middle of Michigan City."
Sirota responded to a question about the worst-case scenario by assuring those present engineering studies always consider the "no build" option - doing nothing, in other words.
The public forum was hosted by Mayor Chuck Oberlie and 1st Ward Councilman Rich Murphy. Murphy said he understood the South Shore realignment is "a tough issue" and one that involves emotions.
"This is the public process we're trying to cultivate," Murphy said. "This is how we get to what's best for Michigan City. The human factor has not been lost here."
Oberlie said the difficult part of the process is at the beginning, when not many answers are available.
"It's difficult to come up with specific answers when you don't know the specific plan," he said.
He congratulated those in attendance on doing "a good job of raising the issues."
The Sirota report handed out at Monday's meeting is available on the city's Web site at www.emichigancity.com.
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - More questions were asked than answered Monday night during a public forum in the City Council chambers on the proposed South Shore railroad improvement plan in Michigan City.
The meeting was called to provide responses to questions and issues raised by local residents at a July 29 public workshop. Consultant Stu Sirota of TND Planning Group was charged with seeking out information related to the questions, distilling the answers and reporting back to the community.
Sirota's written report was given to audience members, and he highlighted key sections. Many audience members at Monday's meeting were not at the July meeting and were hearing information for the first time. People were invited to make comments at the recorded gathering.
Although Sirota said at the outset some questions couldn't be answered right now, individual speakers pressed for answers. Most concerns had to do with people losing their homes because of track realignment, paying higher property taxes to make up for lost homes and the use of eminent domain. A common sentiment was that the information was focused on what's good for the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, not on what's good for Michigan City.
Bob Pollock, 100 Lake Shore Drive, demanded a list of specific properties targeted for acquisition and called for immediate assessments of the properties to provide a base-line value.
"We want to know which ones you're looking at," Pollock said, referring to Page 12 of Sirota's report. "We're asking for that because property owners are concerned about property values."
Sirota said specific parcels hadn't been identified as part of the initial plan, and details will come in the engineering study, which is the next step in the planning process. NICTD doesn't have funding for the engineering study at this point, and additional funding will be needed to put plans into effect.
"NICTD would like to be well into construction before 2015," Sirota said in the written report, referring to new federal regulations requiring railroads to adopt automated safety technology by 2015.
Fred Miller, a member of a group pushing for a northern South Shore route next to Amtrak, said he agreed with a suggested next step of a "Northern Route Summit" included in Sirota's report.
"Since 2004, we've been recommending a summit, so I heartily endorse the arrival of consensus at a summit meeting," Miller said, adding it should involve all interested parties, including Amtrak, Greyhound, Blue Chip Casino, Lighthouse Place Premium Outlets, city government representatives and private property owners.
"I think we've probably beat the issue of property acquisition to death tonight," Miller said. "The point is the northern route will include few, if any, property acquisitions and will prevent a scar from running through the middle of Michigan City."
Sirota responded to a question about the worst-case scenario by assuring those present engineering studies always consider the "no build" option - doing nothing, in other words.
The public forum was hosted by Mayor Chuck Oberlie and 1st Ward Councilman Rich Murphy. Murphy said he understood the South Shore realignment is "a tough issue" and one that involves emotions.
"This is the public process we're trying to cultivate," Murphy said. "This is how we get to what's best for Michigan City. The human factor has not been lost here."
Oberlie said the difficult part of the process is at the beginning, when not many answers are available.
"It's difficult to come up with specific answers when you don't know the specific plan," he said.
He congratulated those in attendance on doing "a good job of raising the issues."
The Sirota report handed out at Monday's meeting is available on the city's Web site at www.emichigancity.com.
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 28 2009, 08:49 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=26658&TM=82115.08
QUOTE
South Shore plan makes no sense
The News-Dispatch editorial Oct. 16 has a spot-on paragraph: "Relocating the South Shore is no simple matter. It would cost $65 million. It would take more than 150 residential and commercial properties from city tax rolls. The tax dollars they generate will be gone forever because NICTD does not pay property taxes as a public entity. And it would split neighborhoods, if not the city."
Have I missed something? I haven't read anything as to WHY Michigan City would even want to consider this South Shore plan. There is nothing beneficial about it, not even for the South Shore. It's going to cost them a boat-load of dough. They'll let every one of their customers help pay for it with increased train fare rates, right? They're taking tax money away from city, and is the return on that money going to be that much for them? It'll take years for a payback - for them. And Michigan City gets stiffed all during that period.
The referendum to build a new vocational school was shot down as being too costly. I was sorry to see that happen, but I understand the thought process behind that voting outcome.
But the future that includes a lot less in tax dollars and a literally divided city makes absolutely no sense at all.
Bill Cavalier
Michigan City
The News-Dispatch editorial Oct. 16 has a spot-on paragraph: "Relocating the South Shore is no simple matter. It would cost $65 million. It would take more than 150 residential and commercial properties from city tax rolls. The tax dollars they generate will be gone forever because NICTD does not pay property taxes as a public entity. And it would split neighborhoods, if not the city."
Have I missed something? I haven't read anything as to WHY Michigan City would even want to consider this South Shore plan. There is nothing beneficial about it, not even for the South Shore. It's going to cost them a boat-load of dough. They'll let every one of their customers help pay for it with increased train fare rates, right? They're taking tax money away from city, and is the return on that money going to be that much for them? It'll take years for a payback - for them. And Michigan City gets stiffed all during that period.
The referendum to build a new vocational school was shot down as being too costly. I was sorry to see that happen, but I understand the thought process behind that voting outcome.
But the future that includes a lot less in tax dollars and a literally divided city makes absolutely no sense at all.
Bill Cavalier
Michigan City
Posted by: joe.black Oct 29 2009, 04:28 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Oct 28 2009, 08:49 PM)
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=26658&TM=82115.08
This just goes to show that there's still a lot of ignorance out there to be overcome, even on the basic issues at hand...
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 29 2009, 09:23 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Oct 29 2009, 05:28 PM)
This just goes to show that there's still a lot of ignorance out there to be overcome, even on the basic issues at hand...
It really makes me wonder how well NICTD is doing at getting their word out. That has been a big issue with commuters for years, but when you are talking about a project of this scope, it is a completely different thing. They really need to fix their PR problem.
Two thing really stand out. No one should be talking about the northern route with its obvious problems, and everyone should know the term "Positive Train Control" ASAP.
Posted by: Michelle Oct 30 2009, 10:08 AM
These are hard issues to summarize in a short form like a newspaper story. We have had the benefit of in-depth discussion on this forum. I don't know how you replicate that in a way that reaches more people. Maybe a multi-day series in the News-Dispatch? Position papers would work, except most people wouldn't read them. They're already doing public meetings.
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Oct 29 2009, 10:23 PM)
Two thing really stand out. No one should be talking about the northern route with its obvious problems, and everyone should know the term "Positive Train Control" ASAP.
True on both points.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 30 2009, 03:17 PM
http://www.emichigancity.com/pdf/South-Shore-Reroute-Map.pdf
Be sure to click this link. It shows every single house, storefront, church, etc, that is scheduled to be purchased and demolished under this proposal.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Oct 30 2009, 03:19 PM
http://www.emichigancity.com/pdf/South-Shore-Report-1009.pdf
Posted by: Beachguy Nov 3 2009, 07:47 AM
IF the issue is about PTC, is the NICTD using the old hard wired control devices? If so I,ve been told that there are new GPS and other up to date control methods. I agree with another posting that we (I) must first understand exactly what the reguirements are for future South Shore service, learn about up to date PTC devices and then decide on track location change (if nessary).
I was at the first town hall meeting and it seemed to me that NICTD's plan was a done deal,they had drawings of their plans and we could add detail (fencing, shrubs etc.). I hope that I am wrong with this assumption,there is a lot at stake here ! Sorry to say I missed the last meeting.
Posted by: IndyTransplant Nov 3 2009, 08:29 AM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Nov 3 2009, 08:47 AM)
IF the issue is about PTC, is the NICTD using the old hard wired control devices? If so I,ve been told that there are new GPS and other up to date control methods. I agree with another posting that we (I) must first understand exactly what the reguirements are for future South Shore service, learn about up to date PTC devices and then decide on track location change (if nessary).
I was at the first town hall meeting and it seemed to me that NICTD's plan was a done deal,they had drawings of their plans and we could add detail (fencing, shrubs etc.). I hope that I am wrong with this assumption,there is a lot at stake here ! Sorry to say I missed the last meeting.
I was at the first town hall meeting and it seemed to me that NICTD's plan was a done deal,they had drawings of their plans and we could add detail (fencing, shrubs etc.). I hope that I am wrong with this assumption,there is a lot at stake here ! Sorry to say I missed the last meeting.
I have been informed that postive train control is a requirement put in place by our federal government with a "must be completed by" 2015. I checked sources online and in the government and all seems to verify that.
I am a newer resident, but in reading back through this site and old newspapers and council meeting notes, it appears some Michigan City residents fight everything that comes down the pass. I truly believe that the South Shore is vital to the economic survival of Michigan City (both as a commuter train and as a tourist conveyance/attraction). Michigan City has had this asset for so long that I am afraid you take it for granted. Indianapolis residents and the surrounding metro central Indiana counties cannot get this type of thing off the ground and they have been asking for it for years. It would be a huge asset there also.
Here is my concern: I am concerned that Michigan City residents will fight over where to locate it and how to do it to the point of killing it off all together. If that happens, I believe no one will be happy.
I appreciate Dave's input (and Joe Black's responses) with new ideas on their current plan and location. I think some compromises between the city and NICTD would be possible fairly quickly if we could get off the side issues and truly work together to try to accomplish the most good at the lowest price.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 3 2009, 08:20 PM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Nov 3 2009, 08:47 AM)
IF the issue is about PTC, is the NICTD using the old hard wired control devices? If so I,ve been told that there are new GPS and other up to date control methods. I agree with another posting that we (I) must first understand exactly what the reguirements are for future South Shore service, learn about up to date PTC devices and then decide on track location change (if nessary).
I was at the first town hall meeting and it seemed to me that NICTD's plan was a done deal,they had drawings of their plans and we could add detail (fencing, shrubs etc.). I hope that I am wrong with this assumption,there is a lot at stake here ! Sorry to say I missed the last meeting.
It's a critical point to understand that PTC as it is currently envisioned is *not* a stand-alone train control system. It works with existing signal systems to enforce a positive stop prior to a train going through a red signal. It also enforces speed limits, and protects against switches left in the wrong position. Some of the more high-price versions will also include protection for on-track work parties.
The PTC systems currently under study by railroads like NICTD do incorporate GPS, wheel counters, gyroscopes and data radio communications. BUT, without an existing signal system to inform PTC of where to enforce a stop, it's useless.
So, your information is incomplete, which leads to misunderstanding.
Posted by: lovethiscity Nov 3 2009, 10:43 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 3 2009, 09:20 PM)
It's a critical point to understand that PTC as it is currently envisioned is *not* a stand-alone train control system. It works with existing signal systems to enforce a positive stop prior to a train going through a red signal. It also enforces speed limits, and protects against switches left in the wrong position. Some of the more high-price versions will also include protection for on-track work parties.
The PTC systems currently under study by railroads like NICTD do incorporate GPS, wheel counters, gyroscopes and data radio communications. BUT, without an existing signal system to inform PTC of where to enforce a stop, it's useless.
So, your information is incomplete, which leads to misunderstanding.
What I understand is the overlay of the new PTC systems onto the existing signal systems. Many are being done by Transponders that will take the place of the hard wired track sensors. Communication to existing signals will be done via radio waves. Communication from the signal to the train will be done the same. (this is very much the same as the overlay of IZOOM or IPASS on an existing hard wired tollway) It is the computer programing tying the transponders, gps, signals and the actual controling of the railcars that is still in the development stages. There are currently 11 different PTC projects in varying stages development and implementation, involving 9 different railroads in at least 16 different States, and consisting of over 4,000 track miles. These pilot projects are not only allowing railroads to continue to advance the various technologies used to implement PTC systems, but are providing the railroads valuable experience on installation and test procedures required to meet the 2015 deployment completion date. Do you know which system NICTD is planing on using? Are they coming up with one of their own? If the hard wired track sensor is no longer needed, then would track relocation be needed? Would it be more responsable to implement a modern transponder instead of the hard to maintain track sensor?
Posted by: mime257 Nov 4 2009, 05:37 AM
QUOTE(IndyTransplant @ Nov 3 2009, 08:29 AM)
I have been informed that postive train control is a requirement put in place by our federal government with a "must be completed by" 2015. I checked sources online and in the government and all seems to verify that.
I am a newer resident, but in reading back through this site and old newspapers and council meeting notes, it appears some Michigan City residents fight everything that comes down the pass. I truly believe that the South Shore is vital to the economic survival of Michigan City (both as a commuter train and as a tourist conveyance/attraction). Michigan City has had this asset for so long that I am afraid you take it for granted. Indianapolis residents and the surrounding metro central Indiana counties cannot get this type of thing off the ground and they have been asking for it for years. It would be a huge asset there also.
Here is my concern: I am concerned that Michigan City residents will fight over where to locate it and how to do it to the point of killing it off all together. If that happens, I believe no one will be happy.
I appreciate Dave's input (and Joe Black's responses) with new ideas on their current plan and location. I think some compromises between the city and NICTD would be possible fairly quickly if we could get off the side issues and truly work together to try to accomplish the most good at the lowest price.
Hi, new poster here but long time reader. Sorry about my following rant, I’m just venting and talking some random thoughts…
There appeared to be some hostility on the part of the residents in the last meeting. Watch the meetings at the ALCO website here: http://www.alco.org/index.php/alco-tv/82-special-event/336-special-south-shore-workshop. I noticed how everyone acted very civil in the first meeting compared to the second.
Seriously, this is a huge project, and I agree with IndyTransplant regarding the attitude locally. I remember when they were trying to build the Olive Garden and people were trying to put down nails on the construction site to flatten the workers tires. This city has tremendous potential. We have Lake Michigan, Commuter train access directly to Chicago, and 3 major interstates running between Michigan City and La Porte. This city really is sitting on massive potential. But I would seriously like to see a change in attitude and people should stop trying to block change. My view is that the city either moves forward or backwards. I understand people don’t like change so they want to stay the same, but staying the same is not an option here.
The South Shore Railroad issue in my opinion is crucial. I’m sure I am not the only one who does not like a train track running down the center of a city street. I specifically try to avoid 11th Street because of that issue. I believe that it is important to get that track off of the center of the street for safety issues. I don’t know which route would be the best but I have always felt that they should move those tracks. I like the idea of a Franklin Street station near 11th Street. Imagine the tremendous potential for the future if they moved the library, ran Franklin all the way north to Washington Park and had a Franklin Street station near 11th Street. People could come in by train from Chicago or South Bend and walk up the Franklin Street downtown business district and go right up to Lake Michigan.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Nov 4 2009, 08:29 AM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 3 2009, 10:43 PM)
What I understand is the overlay of the new PTC systems onto the existing signal systems. Many are being done by Transponders that will take the place of the hard wired track sensors. Communication to existing signals will be done via radio waves. Communication from the signal to the train will be done the same. (this is very much the same as the overlay of IZOOM or IPASS on an existing hard wired tollway) It is the computer programing tying the transponders, gps, signals and the actual controling of the railcars that is still in the development stages. There are currently 11 different PTC projects in varying stages development and implementation, involving 9 different railroads in at least 16 different States, and consisting of over 4,000 track miles. These pilot projects are not only allowing railroads to continue to advance the various technologies used to implement PTC systems, but are providing the railroads valuable experience on installation and test procedures required to meet the 2015 deployment completion date. Do you know which system NICTD is planing on using? Are they coming up with one of their own? If the hard wired track sensor is no longer needed, then would track relocation be needed? Would it be more responsable to implement a modern transponder instead of the hard to maintain track sensor?
The problem is how long to we wait to see what is now experimental technology? The process that it will take if it doesn't work is going to be years long, and delay could literally kill the South Shore. That would be my biggest fear.
I am not a big fan of the human cost here, but I am not convinced of anything else being better, that is realistic, as of yet.
Posted by: Johnny Rush Nov 4 2009, 11:03 AM
We will have Councilman Richard Murphy live and in studio today at 4:30 where we can take calls about how the city plans to act towards the South Shore line. Seems like he is considering the northern route now after saying at the council meeting last night that we can't have our heads in the sand and have to consider every possible move. It seemed like everyone was really pushing hard for 11th street before...maybe the public forum had some influence?
Posted by: southsider2k9 Nov 4 2009, 11:40 AM
I think if people understood a little better exactly what the "Northern Route" meant for their lives in the first ward, they would change their minds pretty quick. Especially when the issue of who would pay for it came up.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 4 2009, 09:18 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 3 2009, 11:43 PM)
What I understand is the overlay of the new PTC systems onto the existing signal systems. Many are being done by Transponders that will take the place of the hard wired track sensors........If the hard wired track sensor is no longer needed, then would track relocation be needed? Would it be more responsable to implement a modern transponder instead of the hard to maintain track sensor?
This is where the basic misunderstanding comes in. Unless you go with Communication Based Train Control (CBTC), a technology completely untested on mainline railroads (and barely tested in rapid transit), you still need track circuits in the rails - that's what detects trains and changes the signals to the rear.
There is no such thing as a mainline railroad "transponder only" system. It does not exist, and likely will not in the foreseeable future; certainly not before the deadline of 12/2015.
So, the answer is that the "hard wired track sensor" you're talking about, which is called a track circuit in the industry, will not be replaced under PTC. PTC merely overlays the existing track circuit-based train detection/train protection system, and enforces what it displays.
I hope that's not too "jargon-ed up".
Posted by: lovethiscity Nov 4 2009, 09:36 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 4 2009, 09:18 PM)
This is where the basic misunderstanding comes in. Unless you go with Communication Based Train Control (CBTC), a technology completely untested on mainline railroads (and barely tested in rapid transit), you still need track circuits in the rails - that's what detects trains and changes the signals to the rear.
There is no such thing as a mainline railroad "transponder only" system. It does not exist, and likely will not in the foreseeable future; certainly not before the deadline of 12/2015.
So, the answer is that the "hard wired track sensor" you're talking about, which is called a track circuit in the industry, will not be replaced under PTC. PTC merely overlays the existing track circuit-based train detection/train protection system, and enforces what it displays.
I hope that's not too "jargon-ed up".
This is one of the 11 systems in use now, no track circuits. As all systems are experimental this one does replace the track circuit and has passed all testing to date. Does NICTD have any idea on which system they will be using? Or as I asked before, are they going to design and begin testing their own? The ITCS system is likely to meet the 2015 deadline. BTW the technology is available and in use to replace the track circuit, I hope that's not too "jargon-ed up".
ITCS
FRA joined with Amtrak and the State of Michigan to install an Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) on Amtrak’s Michigan line between Chicago and Detroit. Currently installed on over 60 miles of track in the territory between Niles and Kalamazoo, Michigan, this project includes using advanced high-speed highway-rail grade crossing warning system activation using radio communication rather than track circuits. ITCS monitors highway-rail grade crossing warning (HGCW) system health through communications between the locomotives and the crossings. Depending on the condition of the HWGC system, ITCS imposes and enforces appropriate speed restrictions. In revenue service for Amtrak since January 2002, the maximum train speed for passenger train operations in ITCS territory is currently 95 mph. ITCS has completed the necessary system upgrades to support operations up to 110 mph after final review and approval of the system validation and verification. Consideration is being given to expand the project to cover an additional 60 miles of track.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 5 2009, 02:54 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 4 2009, 10:36 PM)
This is one of the 11 systems in use now, no track circuits. As all systems are experimental this one does replace the track circuit and has passed all testing to date. Does NICTD have any idea on which system they will be using? Or as I asked before, are they going to design and begin testing their own? The ITCS system is likely to meet the 2015 deadline. BTW the technology is available and in use to replace the track circuit, I hope that's not too "jargon-ed up".
ITCS has not replaced the track circuit. I don't know which press release you're getting your information from, but that's totally false. Like ALL currently envisioned/experimental/in service PTC systems in North America, it is an overlay to the existing signal system that provides a way to enforce existing stop signals before a train violates one. Here's a link:
http://www.arema.org/eseries/scriptcontent/custom/e_arema/library/2007_Conference_Proceedings/Incremental_Train_Control_System_2007.pdf
I have 20+ years in the passenger railroad industry. My statement about "jargon-ed up" was not meant in ill will. I sometimes have a tendency to speak in industry terms that makes it tougher to understand my point. No need to be a wise-@ss.
So, I'll try to sum this up as best I can. There is NO American PTC system out there working today or even planned today for a mainline railroad that does not use the traditional track circuit (improved, certainly, but still basically the same as it has always been) to provide detection of trains, broken rails, etc. PTC, including ITCS, is NOT stand-alone. By the way, ITCS has been around since 1995, and they still haven't gotten it exactly right.
Posted by: Beachguy Nov 5 2009, 04:44 PM
Parking for 800 cars... wow! Let's see first we we close half the streets than we park 800 cars in the middle of town,hmmm. Sure seems as if we could have a problem here. Now add snow and perhaps a few emergency vehicles, 5:00 rush hour traffic and possibly the train blocking more intersections. I hope that it isn't my family in peril!
Why not move the station out of town with a stop in town or bus service from the outlying station into down town or both? I would assume that most of the passengers would be commuting for work purposes not for visiting our fair city. Does anyone know how many people that visit the boat or shopping mall venture into town as a side trip? When I go to visit an attraction I normally see what I came to see and leave. Remember this project will be in place for a long time (Franklin Sq.).
Posted by: lovethiscity Nov 5 2009, 06:57 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 5 2009, 02:54 PM)
ITCS has not replaced the track circuit. I don't know which press release you're getting your information from, but that's totally false. Like ALL currently envisioned/experimental/in service PTC systems in North America, it is an overlay to the existing signal system that provides a way to enforce existing stop signals before a train violates one. Here's a link:
http://www.arema.org/eseries/scriptcontent/custom/e_arema/library/2007_Conference_Proceedings/Incremental_Train_Control_System_2007.pdf
I have 20+ years in the passenger railroad industry. My statement about "jargon-ed up" was not meant in ill will. I sometimes have a tendency to speak in industry terms that makes it tougher to understand my point. No need to be a wise-@ss.
So, I'll try to sum this up as best I can. There is NO American PTC system out there working today or even planned today for a mainline railroad that does not use the traditional track circuit (improved, certainly, but still basically the same as it has always been) to provide detection of trains, broken rails, etc. PTC, including ITCS, is NOT stand-alone. By the way, ITCS has been around since 1995, and they still haven't gotten it exactly right.
Okay, lets say the information from The Federal Railroad Administration about no track circuit is wrong. What about the question I have asked 5 or 6 times about NICTD's plan? What system are they going to impliment here? Or will they be starting from scratch in designing their own? I was not attempting to be a smart-ass nor a wise one. I just seem to be getting a run around concerning what is happening here. The positive train control used here might just be a powdery like subtance that is sprinkled on the train cars causing them to stop when entering danger zones. (sorry that is being a w-a) It just bugs me that all this money is to be spent because of PTC, yet PTC seems to be a pretty good secret other than its intended purpose.
Posted by: lovethiscity Nov 5 2009, 07:13 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 5 2009, 06:57 PM)
Okay, lets say the information from The Federal Railroad Administration about no track circuit is wrong. What about the question I have asked 5 or 6 times about NICTD's plan? What system are they going to impliment here? Or will they be starting from scratch in designing their own? I was not attempting to be a smart-ass nor a wise one. I just seem to be getting a run around concerning what is happening here. The positive train control used here might just be a powdery like subtance that is sprinkled on the train cars causing them to stop when entering danger zones. (sorry that is being a w-a) It just bugs me that all this money is to be spent because of PTC, yet PTC seems to be a pretty good secret other than its intended purpose.
If The Federal Railroad Administration's press release about no track circuit is wrong. What about GE using it in other countrys?
ITCS: a new approach to increasing capacity: GE Transportation's Incremental Train Control System offers a new approach to increasing line capacity without costly infrastructure work
International Railway Journal, Oct, 2005 by Jeff Baker, John Clennan
DEMAND for innovative rail solutions that improve safety, capacity, and cost efficiency is increasing around the world. It is not growing just in the traditionally hi-tech European, Japanese, and North American markets, but in areas as diverse as India, Africa, and China.
Many systems are limited by traditional methods of train control, and in markets where train control systems do not exist, a solution is needed that does not require costly infrastructure. General Electric's GE Transportation Rail (GE) division is currently deploying its Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) as a stand-alone signalling system on more than 1000km of track in western China to run more trains closer together, and to dramatically reduce the need for maintenance of wayside equipment. Although the needs are different around the world, the flexibility of GE's ITCS technology is providing a cost effective solution.
ITCS is a transmission-based train control system for all rail markets, and uses satellite positioning and wireless networking as its basis. It can be overlaid on existing track circuits or installed on a standalone basis where no track circuits are present. The primary functions of ITCS include speed limit enforcement, management of train location, level crossings and other wayside control systems, and communication of up-to-date instructions and messages. The technology allows customers safely to space trains more closely, increasing capacity. ITCS increases both freight and passenger-carrying capacity making rail more economical to use and maintain and getting the most use out of existing track.
ITCS is modular both in the features implemented, and the amount of territory equipped. Railways install systems like ITCS only where it is needed, and purchase the operational level of technology their budget can support. Trains not fitted with ITCS can travel on ITCS-enabled track and vice-versa, provided the original control system is still operational.
More info:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_10_45/ai_n15756666/
Posted by: joe.black Nov 5 2009, 08:33 PM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Nov 5 2009, 05:44 PM)
Parking for 800 cars... wow! Let's see first we we close half the streets than we park 800 cars in the middle of town,hmmm. Sure seems as if we could have a problem here. Now add snow and perhaps a few emergency vehicles, 5:00 rush hour traffic and possibly the train blocking more intersections. I hope that it isn't my family in peril!
Why not move the station out of town with a stop in town or bus service from the outlying station into down town or both? I would assume that most of the passengers would be commuting for work purposes not for visiting our fair city. Does anyone know how many people that visit the boat or shopping mall venture into town as a side trip? When I go to visit an attraction I normally see what I came to see and leave. Remember this project will be in place for a long time (Franklin Sq.).
Well, since one of the stated purposes of the move, at least from the city's point of view, is redevelopment of the north end (the "downtown"), it would seem a bit pointless to move the station outside of town.
I stated my preference that a traffic study be done of the area about the proposed station. I think it's prudent to have an engineer study the effects of adding that many vehicles to the streets in the north end...but again, for the city this is about bringing more activity and more people into the downtown area.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 5 2009, 08:39 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 5 2009, 07:57 PM)
Okay, lets say the information from The Federal Railroad Administration about no track circuit is wrong. What about the question I have asked 5 or 6 times about NICTD's plan? What system are they going to impliment here? Or will they be starting from scratch in designing their own? I was not attempting to be a smart-ass nor a wise one. I just seem to be getting a run around concerning what is happening here. The positive train control used here might just be a powdery like subtance that is sprinkled on the train cars causing them to stop when entering danger zones. (sorry that is being a w-a) It just bugs me that all this money is to be spent because of PTC, yet PTC seems to be a pretty good secret other than its intended purpose.
What is secret about PTC? There are plenty of information resources on the Internet. PTC may have several different implementations, but in the end the only true difference is how they accomplish the positive stop enforcement. They still rely on an existing signal system; they use GPS, tachometers and gyroscopes; data radio is the preferred form of connection between individual trains and the wayside equipment or control center. But they all do the same basic thing. So I'm not sure why you need to know exactly which system NICTD is going to select. If I could provide you with that information, for all the good it would do you, I certainly would. But I don't see that it's relevant whatsoever.
I can tell you that it won't be "starting from scratch". That would be ludicrous when there are several systems, including ITCS, ACSES, ETMS, and VTMS, that are already being developed and are relatively mature at this point as compared to a system just starting development right now.
By the way, I see nothing in what you posted, or from any other FRA information source, that says that the track circuit is made obsolete by PTC. Mind posting a link?
Posted by: joe.black Nov 5 2009, 08:46 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 5 2009, 08:13 PM)
If The Federal Railroad Administration's press release about no track circuit is wrong. What about GE using it in other countrys?
ITCS: a new approach to increasing capacity: GE Transportation's Incremental Train Control System offers a new approach to increasing line capacity without costly infrastructure work
International Railway Journal, Oct, 2005 by Jeff Baker, John Clennan
DEMAND for innovative rail solutions that improve safety, capacity, and cost efficiency is increasing around the world. It is not growing just in the traditionally hi-tech European, Japanese, and North American markets, but in areas as diverse as India, Africa, and China.
Many systems are limited by traditional methods of train control, and in markets where train control systems do not exist, a solution is needed that does not require costly infrastructure. General Electric's GE Transportation Rail (GE) division is currently deploying its Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) as a stand-alone signalling system on more than 1000km of track in western China to run more trains closer together, and to dramatically reduce the need for maintenance of wayside equipment. Although the needs are different around the world, the flexibility of GE's ITCS technology is providing a cost effective solution.
ITCS is a transmission-based train control system for all rail markets, and uses satellite positioning and wireless networking as its basis. It can be overlaid on existing track circuits or installed on a standalone basis where no track circuits are present. The primary functions of ITCS include speed limit enforcement, management of train location, level crossings and other wayside control systems, and communication of up-to-date instructions and messages. The technology allows customers safely to space trains more closely, increasing capacity. ITCS increases both freight and passenger-carrying capacity making rail more economical to use and maintain and getting the most use out of existing track.
ITCS is modular both in the features implemented, and the amount of territory equipped. Railways install systems like ITCS only where it is needed, and purchase the operational level of technology their budget can support. Trains not fitted with ITCS can travel on ITCS-enabled track and vice-versa, provided the original control system is still operational.
More info:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_10_45/ai_n15756666/
The press release is misleading, in that it seems to suggest that ITCS would *replace* an existing track circuit-based signal system. That's not true. ITCS would simply overlay whatever manual "dark territory" (i.e. not track circuited) track occupancy/movement authority system is in place. Again, it's an overlay to an existing system. That system might be Track Warrant (a method for dispatching trains over territory that lacks CTC signals), DCS, manual block, or some other. But in NICTD's case, the tracks are already signaled and track circuited to detect trains, detect broken rails, detect improperly lined switches, and so forth.
NICTD will *not* be taking the track circuit system, which is the most reliable way to detect a train, out of service and replacing it with less safe technology. Ever notice how many times you get GPS drop out when you're in a valley or forested area? Or even for no reason at all? North American railroads are not going to trust GPS alone to protect trains and passengers. There has to be a failsafe method to detect track occupancy. When you don't have failsafe track occupancy detection, you wind up with the Washington DC Metro crash from a few months back.
And by the way - you're reading a press release from the company that makes ITCS. You know, the one that still hasn't gotten it working in Michigan after 18+ years?
Posted by: lovethiscity Nov 5 2009, 09:45 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 5 2009, 08:46 PM)
The press release is misleading, in that it seems to suggest that ITCS would *replace* an existing track circuit-based signal system. That's not true. ITCS would simply overlay whatever manual "dark territory" (i.e. not track circuited) track occupancy/movement authority system is in place. Again, it's an overlay to an existing system. That system might be Track Warrant (a method for dispatching trains over territory that lacks CTC signals), DCS, manual block, or some other. But in NICTD's case, the tracks are already signaled and track circuited to detect trains, detect broken rails, detect improperly lined switches, and so forth.
NICTD will *not* be taking the track circuit system, which is the most reliable way to detect a train, out of service and replacing it with less safe technology. Ever notice how many times you get GPS drop out when you're in a valley or forested area? Or even for no reason at all? North American railroads are not going to trust GPS alone to protect trains and passengers. There has to be a failsafe method to detect track occupancy. When you don't have failsafe track occupancy detection, you wind up with the Washington DC Metro crash from a few months back.
And by the way - you're reading a press release from the company that makes ITCS. You know, the one that still hasn't gotten it working in Michigan after 18+ years?
I do not know what the 18 year claim is all about. 8 years is in line with all PTC sytems in development and in use right now. No system is working 100% yet. But everything seems to dispute your claim about the track circuit. On the Michigan line the system was designed 2001 and installed in 2002 and up graded to the point it is years ahead of NICTD. As for "GE" they clearly state the sytem can be installed without the need for track circuits. The transponders using radio signals taking the place of track circuits would have no dead zones due to trees or clouds. I do not believe this system uses GPS at all.
The trackside equipment consists of Wayside Interface Units (WIUs), which transmit signal aspect and switch indication to all trains. GE's existing signal products can plug seamlessly into the ITCS network. Additionally, low cost signal and switch monitoring equipment can be used to upgrade existing control systems without disrupting the current operation. The system can be implemented with or without physical wayside signals and track circuits. For operations not needing broken rail detection or physical signals, ITCS can be installed at a fraction of the cost of traditional signalling systems.
GE's ITCS is a "vehicle-centric" train control system. This means that the onboard computer (OBC) has the primary responsibility for determining and enforcing speed limits.
Traditionally, signal systems have been deployed to space trains correctly, and keep trains from colliding. They have relied on the train driver beginning to slow the train at a yellow signal, prior to a red signal. The spacing of these signals has typically been determined by the worst-case braking distance of the heaviest and longest train.
Posted by: IndyTransplant Nov 6 2009, 06:52 AM
Not trying to change the subject, but would like to add an additional piece of info that may or may not be relevant to your viewpoints here. On February 10th of this year there was a major satellite collision in space involving a dead Russian satellite and another satellite. They say this will become more common as there are too many satellites and space junk orbiting the earth. As these occur, the possibilities of temporarily losing access to technologies like tv, internet, cell phone service and GPS are likely to occur more frequently and in some cases there could be very long term disruptions to some services. I would hope that our train service would have mechanical/manual backups to any possible satellite controlled PTC systems.
Carry on.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 7 2009, 12:03 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 5 2009, 10:45 PM)
I do not know what the 18 year claim is all about. 8 years is in line with all PTC sytems in development and in use right now. No system is working 100% yet. But everything seems to dispute your claim about the track circuit. On the Michigan line the system was designed 2001 and installed in 2002 and up graded to the point it is years ahead of NICTD. As for "GE" they clearly state the sytem can be installed without the need for track circuits. The transponders using radio signals taking the place of track circuits would have no dead zones due to trees or clouds. I do not believe this system uses GPS at all.
The ITCS system in use on the Amtrak Michigan Line was conceived in 1995 and is still not working as intended. That time is now projected to be about 2013, which is where the 18 years comes from. The system was not designed in 2001 - the design and development phase goes back much longer. It also relies on the use of track circuits to detect trains. Please go back and read the presentation at the link that I sent you. The transponders help fix the location of the train for the purpose of calculating target brake profiles, but they do nothing to actually detect the train in a failsafe manner, which is what track circuits do.
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 5 2009, 10:45 PM)
The trackside equipment consists of Wayside Interface Units (WIUs), which transmit signal aspect and switch indication to all trains. GE's existing signal products can plug seamlessly into the ITCS network. Additionally, low cost signal and switch monitoring equipment can be used to upgrade existing control systems without disrupting the current operation. The system can be implemented with or without physical wayside signals and track circuits. For operations not needing broken rail detection or physical signals, ITCS can be installed at a fraction of the cost of traditional signalling systems.
Exactly. "For operations not needing broken rail detection or physical signals..." NICTD has and needs both, as does any passenger railroad. Also read the first sentence, about WIUs - they "...transmit signal aspect and switch indication..." There has to be a signal system - i.e. a system based on track circuits - for the WIU to have something to transmit. Without signals, the WIU would have nothing to transmit. And the signals are not part of PTC - they're already there, and they use track circuits.
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 5 2009, 10:45 PM)
GE's ITCS is a "vehicle-centric" train control system. This means that the onboard computer (OBC) has the primary responsibility for determining and enforcing speed limits.
Again, exactly. The train's CPU calculates the train's needed braking profile to comply with the speed limits. Where do the speed limits come from? The vehicle-borne computer has no way of knowing what is *ahead* of it - i.e. a stopped / stalled train, a broken rail, a switch improperly lined. It needs a system, such as track circuits, to tell it what is ahead so that it can then adjust its performance to comply with the speed limits imposed by those conditions (or a positive stop before it plows into another train, derails on a broken piece of track, or derails on an improperly lined switch). All the statement you've posted means is that the determination of the train's performance (the actual calculation, in other words) happens on board, rather than at a central control center (which would then transmit the performance command to the train). The train (or the central control center, wherever the performance level is calculated) still needs to know what the conditions are ahead in order to perform that calculation. The fact that the calculation happens on board rather than remotely is completely irrelevant.
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 5 2009, 10:45 PM)
Traditionally, signal systems have been deployed to space trains correctly, and keep trains from colliding. They have relied on the train driver beginning to slow the train at a yellow signal, prior to a red signal. The spacing of these signals has typically been determined by the worst-case braking distance of the heaviest and longest train.
Yes, this is the primary benefit of "communication based train control" (CBTC). There is less reliance upon the traditional block system. However, there are no PTC implementations currently being advanced that discard the traditional block system. CBTC has been deployed in a limited way on a few rapid transit properties (i.e. subway systems) where the vehicle performance is uniform, speeds are relatively low, and there is little variation in routings. The mainline railroad PTC systems under development, such as EMTS, VTMS, ITCS, and ACSES, still rely upon track circuits and traditional block signal systems.
There is nothing that you've posted so far that refutes that. NICTD is not, with a 2015 deadline fast approaching, going to either invest in a proprietary, untested system or go with a system that has no track record with mainline railroads. It would be an unnecessary, gratuitous risk.
Just to be as clear as I possibly can - I believe that the key piece of information you don't include in your analysis is that the PTC system is not responsible for detecting trains and conditions ahead that would affect the performance of a following train. PTC ENFORCES the appropriate performance of the train's engineer. Without some way of detecting conditions ahead (which determine how fast a train can continue to operate, or whether it needs to begin slowing down in advance of some blockage - another train, a broken rail, etc.), PTC has nothing to enforce and is therefore blind and useless.
Again, I don't speak as someone who works for NICTD any longer, so I don't want anyone to get the impression that I am speaking in any way for the District. But I have extensive experience in the industry, and I did work for the District during the time that the mandate came down for PTC from the FRA, and I was involved from the word "go" in planning NICTD's response.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 7 2009, 02:45 PM
QUOTE(IndyTransplant @ Nov 6 2009, 07:52 AM)
Not trying to change the subject, but would like to add an additional piece of info that may or may not be relevant to your viewpoints here. On February 10th of this year there was a major satellite collision in space involving a dead Russian satellite and another satellite. They say this will become more common as there are too many satellites and space junk orbiting the earth. As these occur, the possibilities of temporarily losing access to technologies like tv, internet, cell phone service and GPS are likely to occur more frequently and in some cases there could be very long term disruptions to some services. I would hope that our train service would have mechanical/manual backups to any possible satellite controlled PTC systems.
Carry on.
This is still being discussed vis a vis PTC because, even absent a catastrophic loss of the GPS system due to a satellite collision, all systems are prone to breakdown. Train protection systems such as block signal systems are designed to "fail safely" - in other words, when something inevitably goes on the fritz every now and then, the system reverts to its most restrictive state, forcing trains in the area to stop and/or operate at a speed that will allow them to stop short of a visible train or other problem/obstruction ahead.
PTC will be no different. There are various techniques and methods under discussion about how to handle a PTC outage safely and efficiently; nothing has been determined yet, but the discussion is proceeding at this point.
Posted by: Beachguy Nov 10 2009, 05:50 AM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 5 2009, 08:33 PM)
Well, since one of the stated purposes of the move, at least from the city's point of view, is redevelopment of the north end (the "downtown"), it would seem a bit pointless to move the station outside of town.
I stated my preference that a traffic study be done of the area about the proposed station. I think it's prudent to have an engineer study the effects of adding that many vehicles to the streets in the north end...but again, for the city this is about bringing more activity and more people into the downtown area.
I agree that a study should done for any potential traffic problems that might arise, I also wonder if patrons of the South Shore see our town as a destination or merely as a departure point. I would love to see our city as a whole prosper from this reconfiguration but a congested downtown parking lot isn't much of a draw. What do we offer and what will it take to become a destination and not merely a parking lot for commuters?
Posted by: edgeywood Nov 10 2009, 08:11 AM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Nov 10 2009, 05:50 AM)
I agree that a study should done for any potential traffic problems that might arise, I also wonder if patrons of the South Shore see our town as a destination or merely as a departure point. I would love to see our city as a whole prosper from this reconfiguration but a congested downtown parking lot isn't much of a draw. What do we offer and what will it take to become a destination and not merely a parking lot for commuters?
I agree. Where's the marketing?
Seems like there are a bunch of folks that live in Chicago that would love to have a day trip that didn't involve sitting on the expressway for hours. We have a big, beautiful, beach that is a little over 90 minutes from downtown, why don't those folks know about us? We also have an outlet mall that is walking distance from the 11th St. train station...no signs directing anyone there, no shuttle bus.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Nov 10 2009, 08:43 AM
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 10 2009, 08:11 AM)
I agree. Where's the marketing?
Seems like there are a bunch of folks that live in Chicago that would love to have a day trip that didn't involve sitting on the expressway for hours. We have a big, beautiful, beach that is a little over 90 minutes from downtown, why don't those folks know about us? We also have an outlet mall that is walking distance from the 11th St. train station...no signs directing anyone there, no shuttle bus.
I will say that we don't really see the marketing done for City in Chicago. Working down there for over 10 years, I know I see stuff for Lighthouse Place, Blue Chip, and LaPorte County pretty often.
Posted by: edgeywood Nov 10 2009, 12:28 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Nov 10 2009, 08:43 AM)
I will say that we don't really see the marketing done for City in Chicago. Working down there for over 10 years, I know I see stuff for Lighthouse Place, Blue Chip, and LaPorte County pretty often.
I saw nothing in the Randolph Street station in terms of marketing for City between 2004 - 2008 when I worked downtown. I did see a huge banner at the station and a poster on the train when Chesterton marketed their art fair. They ran shuttles from Dune Park to the fair.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Nov 10 2009, 01:01 PM
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 10 2009, 12:28 PM)
I saw nothing in the Randolph Street station in terms of marketing for City between 2004 - 2008 when I worked downtown. I did see a huge banner at the station and a poster on the train when Chesterton marketed their art fair. They ran shuttles from Dune Park to the fair.
There are a lot of radio ads, especially on AM 780.
Posted by: edgeywood Nov 10 2009, 04:23 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Nov 10 2009, 01:01 PM)
There are a lot of radio ads, especially on AM 780.
Tying into the South Shore? Blue Chip and Lighthouse Place really don't promote the rest of the community. They try to get people to stay in their little enclaves.
Posted by: mcstumper Nov 10 2009, 06:10 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Nov 10 2009, 08:43 AM)
I will say that we don't really see the marketing done for City in Chicago. Working down there for over 10 years, I know I see stuff for Lighthouse Place, Blue Chip, and LaPorte County pretty often.
Does it even make sense to market Michigan City this way? The Loop, where these stations are located, is almost entirely commercial. Who is it that lives near Randolf or Van Buren that would be looking to day trip? Yes, there are a few people living in that area, but not many. I think the South Shore needs to be clearly defined as "A commuter rail line that takes people from Indiana to work in Chicago. That's it, nuttin' else." No one in their right mind would take a Metra or the EL and transfer to the South Shore for a day trip here. These people will all get in their cars and drive here because the expressways and our parking availability make it easy. If we are going to spend money advertising, buy some billboard space along I-294 or the Kennedy. Or maybe put ads in the Metra or El trains telling people how easy it is to drive here.
Posted by: IndyTransplant Nov 11 2009, 06:32 AM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Nov 10 2009, 06:10 PM)
Does it even make sense to market Michigan City this way? The Loop, where these stations are located, is almost entirely commercial. Who is it that lives near Randolf or Van Buren that would be looking to day trip? Yes, there are a few people living in that area, but not many. I think the South Shore needs to be clearly defined as "A commuter rail line that takes people from Indiana to work in Chicago. That's it, nuttin' else." No one in their right mind would take a Metra or the EL and transfer to the South Shore for a day trip here. These people will all get in their cars and drive here because the expressways and our parking availability make it easy. If we are going to spend money advertising, buy some billboard space along I-294 or the Kennedy. Or maybe put ads in the Metra or El trains telling people how easy it is to drive here.
There are a lot of people in Chicago who do not own cars. I know this is a radical idea in car dependent Indiana and Michigan, but living in a large city like Chicago and New York many people choose not to own a car. We have friends in several large cities who do not own a car and on the rare occasion they may need one, they rent one. These people who are used to taking subways and trains, will take the train for a weekend or entertainment purpose.
Posted by: edgeywood Nov 11 2009, 08:28 AM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Nov 10 2009, 06:10 PM)
Does it even make sense to market Michigan City this way? The Loop, where these stations are located, is almost entirely commercial. Who is it that lives near Randolf or Van Buren that would be looking to day trip? Yes, there are a few people living in that area, but not many. I think the South Shore needs to be clearly defined as "A commuter rail line that takes people from Indiana to work in Chicago. That's it, nuttin' else." No one in their right mind would take a Metra or the EL and transfer to the South Shore for a day trip here. These people will all get in their cars and drive here because the expressways and our parking availability make it easy. If we are going to spend money advertising, buy some billboard space along I-294 or the Kennedy. Or maybe put ads in the Metra or El trains telling people how easy it is to drive here.
The Loop is not entirely commercial. There are many condo developments and high rise apartments within walking distance of Randolph St., not to mention all the folks that work downtown.
I beg to differ about taking the El to the South Shore. Many people living in the city do not own cars or are loath to spend their weekend fighting traffic. Also, speaking from the standpoint of a former northsider (10 years) and southsider (20+ years), it is not "easy" to drive here even with the recent lane expansion near the state line.
My point is why not try marketing it? We've certainly spent tons of money on studies, etc... that have gotten us nowhere. Sometimes it seems like we only interested in expensive solutions, why not pick some of the low hanging fruit as a start?
Posted by: lovethiscity Nov 12 2009, 06:52 PM
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 11 2009, 08:28 AM)
The Loop is not entirely commercial. There are many condo developments and high rise apartments within walking distance of Randolph St., not to mention all the folks that work downtown.
I beg to differ about taking the El to the South Shore. Many people living in the city do not own cars or are loath to spend their weekend fighting traffic. Also, speaking from the standpoint of a former northsider (10 years) and southsider (20+ years), it is not "easy" to drive here even with the recent lane expansion near the state line.
My point is why not try marketing it? We've certainly spent tons of money on studies, etc... that have gotten us nowhere. Sometimes it seems like we only interested in expensive solutions, why not pick some of the low hanging fruit as a start?
30 plus years in Chicago? WOW, I thought you were about 24 hanging around with an old sugar daddy. Tell Larry I said hello.
Posted by: Beachguy Nov 15 2009, 09:49 AM
I'm all for investing and rebuilding the north end of town, I just can't see how a commuter parking lot will do this. I would guess that most people that park at a train station depart on that train, do whatever they do, catch the train back and then go home. What is going to draw the people into the downtown area? The city wants this to vitalize the downtown so what is the plan other than a commuter parking lot? Yes we do have the Blue Chip and the shopping mall but these are not what I consider to be in the "downtown" area. I guess what I'm saying is that commuters commute they don't shop and "hang" out. Why not save ourselves the trouble of traffic congestion, pollution etc. and build a commuter parking lot outside of downtown with a train station in town for anyone wishing to visit our city.
When the South Shore built the Dunes Park station they had to add on to their parking shortly after opening their new station. Where is the expansion room in our city? Yes we need growth for a bright future, but is being an urban parking lot what we want?
Posted by: joe.black Nov 15 2009, 10:20 AM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Nov 15 2009, 10:49 AM)
I'm all for investing and rebuilding the north end of town, I just can't see how a commuter parking lot will do this. I would guess that most people that park at a train station depart on that train, do whatever they do, catch the train back and then go home. What is going to draw the people into the downtown area? The city wants this to vitalize the downtown so what is the plan other than a commuter parking lot? Yes we do have the Blue Chip and the shopping mall but these are not what I consider to be in the "downtown" area. I guess what I'm saying is that commuters commute they don't shop and "hang" out. Why not save ourselves the trouble of traffic congestion, pollution etc. and build a commuter parking lot outside of downtown with a train station in town for anyone wishing to visit our city.
When the South Shore built the Dunes Park station they had to add on to their parking shortly after opening their new station. Where is the expansion room in our city? Yes we need growth for a bright future, but is being an urban parking lot what we want?
I think that the answer you'd get from the Transit Oriented Development folks is that the revitalization of the north end would be accomplished through new mixed uses coming in, in the area around the new station. Attractive, upscale multi-family dwellings, live/work loft spaces, and new commercial spaces would fill in around the station. The Andrews study does it much more justice than I'm giving it - it's not really my area of expertise. But there are places in the Chicago area and across the country where this has taken place. If you do a Google search of "Transit Oriented Development", I think you'll get a good bit of information on how this whole thing might look.
My sense is that you need a driver, something to spur this kind of development; it rarely happens on its own. The new station, which could one day be a multi-modal hub for South Shore, regional bus, local bus, and even Amtrak, would be the catalyst to drive the new development.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Nov 15 2009, 02:15 PM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Nov 15 2009, 09:49 AM)
I'm all for investing and rebuilding the north end of town, I just can't see how a commuter parking lot will do this. I would guess that most people that park at a train station depart on that train, do whatever they do, catch the train back and then go home. What is going to draw the people into the downtown area? The city wants this to vitalize the downtown so what is the plan other than a commuter parking lot? Yes we do have the Blue Chip and the shopping mall but these are not what I consider to be in the "downtown" area. I guess what I'm saying is that commuters commute they don't shop and "hang" out. Why not save ourselves the trouble of traffic congestion, pollution etc. and build a commuter parking lot outside of downtown with a train station in town for anyone wishing to visit our city.
When the South Shore built the Dunes Park station they had to add on to their parking shortly after opening their new station. Where is the expansion room in our city? Yes we need growth for a bright future, but is being an urban parking lot what we want?
To a large extent, you have to make yourself inviting for people to show up. Especially when you are looking to tap into an urban base of people, many of which do not have cars, this is the biggest thing Michigan City can do to offer an easy access to our greatest tourism assets. Especially if we can find a way to finance a Trail Creek project in the next decade, this would be a perfect compliment to that.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Nov 16 2009, 10:25 PM
I wanted to throw this site out there as something new
http://www.michigancitysnewnorthend.com/
Posted by: Dave Nov 17 2009, 03:55 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Nov 16 2009, 10:25 PM)
I wanted to throw this site out there as something new
http://www.michigancitysnewnorthend.com/
Yep, seen that site.
No hard numbers as to what the northern route with bridge would cost to build, and no real answer as to where the money would come from.
There is a page on that website titled "http://www.michigancitysnewnorthend.com/funding.htm." I hope this is within fair use for me to quote it here:
QUOTE
Funding and Implementation
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Bonds Economic Redevelopment Commission
Private/Government Leaseback (Station and Commercial Amenities)
County Major Bridge Fund?
Municipal Bond
State and Federal Grants
NICTD, AMTRAK, Greyhound, National Lakeshore
Tax forbearance incentives
Government Agency Approvals: Corps of Engineers, EPA, IDEM, Coast Guard, etc.
Laporte County Convention and Visitors Bureau: PUBLICITY, Promulgation of Plan to
the public and prospective developers, with Broadened Marketing Policy outlook.
Potential Corporate Contributors:
NIPSCO
Boyd Gaming
Outlet Mall
Beachwalk
Pioneer Lumber
Implementation
Consesus of parties
Engineering, Cost Analysis Study
Professional Lobbyist
Focus Marketer
Government Representatives and Congressmen
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Bonds Economic Redevelopment Commission
Private/Government Leaseback (Station and Commercial Amenities)
County Major Bridge Fund?
Municipal Bond
State and Federal Grants
NICTD, AMTRAK, Greyhound, National Lakeshore
Tax forbearance incentives
Government Agency Approvals: Corps of Engineers, EPA, IDEM, Coast Guard, etc.
Laporte County Convention and Visitors Bureau: PUBLICITY, Promulgation of Plan to
the public and prospective developers, with Broadened Marketing Policy outlook.
Potential Corporate Contributors:
NIPSCO
Boyd Gaming
Outlet Mall
Beachwalk
Pioneer Lumber
Implementation
Consesus of parties
Engineering, Cost Analysis Study
Professional Lobbyist
Focus Marketer
Government Representatives and Congressmen
First, to make a snarky remark -- guys, spellchecker is your friend. Consesus?
Second, knowing how much along the line of funding is going to be necessary might be a good idea. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars here, and suggesting that TIF funding and donations from Pioneer Lumber are going to put you over the top is magical thinking.
I haven't commented in this thread since the public meeting on October 26, and there is a reason for my silence -- I think we're screwed.
As for the atmosphere at the public meeting, if I could make a suggestion to Stuart Sirota, it would be to work on his "people skills". It is my understanding that he was being paid for his participation in this endeavor by Michigan City, and by extension, the citizens thereof. At the presentation he came across like he was a paid shill of NICTD, and the hostility in that room by the end of the meeting was palpable.
What I took away from that meeting was that NICTD doesn't really care what happens to Michigan City, and that they plan on doing whatever they durn well please. And seeing as they have the authority to use eminent domain to take whatever property they want, they can pretty much do it whether the city objects to their plan or not.
The only thing I can see the city doing at this point to increase their leverage with regards to NICTD's plan is, well, I think it's brilliant -- expand the historic districts further south. Apparently one of the reasons NICTD chose this route was to skirt the historic districts because doing anything in a historic district requires additional documentation to the EPA, and making the whole affected area part of the historic district may be one thing the city could do to increase the city's leverage in any negotiations with NICTD.
"It would be a shame if the historic residential and commercial properties along Michigan City's historic interurban line were not protected, as they have a great significance regarding Michigan City's heritage." -- possible City Council press release.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 17 2009, 05:46 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Nov 17 2009, 04:55 PM)
What I took away from that meeting was that NICTD doesn't really care what happens to Michigan City, and that they plan on doing whatever they durn well please. And seeing as they have the authority to use eminent domain to take whatever property they want, they can pretty much do it whether the city objects to their plan or not.
Here's a little secret - this was the city's idea, pretty much. The general idea was NICTD's, but much of the ensuing detail has been as a result of comments made by the city.
QUOTE(Dave @ Nov 17 2009, 04:55 PM)
The only thing I can see the city doing at this point to increase their leverage with regards to NICTD's plan is, well, I think it's brilliant -- expand the historic districts further south. Apparently one of the reasons NICTD chose this route was to skirt the historic districts because doing anything in a historic district requires additional documentation to the EPA, and making the whole affected area part of the historic district may be one thing the city could do to increase the city's leverage in any negotiations with NICTD.
Yes, it's true that building in an historic district is much more problematic from a Fed standpoint, with an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. That is the precise reason why the northern side of the street is not being touched, you're right.
QUOTE(Dave @ Nov 17 2009, 04:55 PM)
"It would be a shame if the historic residential and commercial properties along Michigan City's historic interurban line were not protected, as they have a great significance regarding Michigan City's heritage." -- possible City Council press release.
Could happen that way, sure. But, again, I would say that the railroad's bargaining position is made much stronger by the fact that whatever Michigan City might try to do to derail this (pun completely intended), it affects the entire region - other towns, other counties, etc. I don't know that it would be wise for anyone to stir that pot, railroad or city. That said, I think your characterization that NICTD is simply going to do what it wants is hyperbolic, much like your earlier description of the "bulldozing of entire neighborhoods". Good for a bullhorn and barricades, but not much use in a rational discussion.
Finally, Stu Sirota, no matter what you might think about his "people skills", has not received a dime from NICTD that I know of. This entire study process has been funded by MCNEAT, again - as far as I know. I happen to think Stu is a very knowledgable, thoughtful guy. I wasn't at the meeting, of course, but I can't imagine that he would suddenly decide to become a "shill of NICTD". Frankly, I think that's a little insulting.
Dave, if I might ask, and please let me know if I'm being out of line here - what is your horse in this race? I know you're a neighborhood resident, as I was not long ago, but I'm not entirely sure what your motivation is. If that question is out of line, please feel free to ignore. I'm just interested in what motivates you on this issue.
Posted by: edgeywood Nov 17 2009, 06:21 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 17 2009, 05:46 PM)
.... That said, I think your characterization that NICTD is simply going to do what it wants is hyperbolic, much like your earlier description of the "bulldozing of entire neighborhoods". Good for a bullhorn and barricades, but not much use in a rational discussion.
I'd like to interject that NICTD has made very little investment in the aesthetics its Michigan City holdings over the past 20 years. 11th St. is the hands down winner of the worst station on the line.
Why? Perhaps the powers that be let them get away with it. And it's about to happen once again.
Posted by: Dave Nov 17 2009, 06:43 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 17 2009, 05:46 PM)
Dave, if I might ask, and please let me know if I'm being out of line here - what is your horse in this race? I know you're a neighborhood resident, as I was not long ago, but I'm not entirely sure what your motivation is. If that question is out of line, please feel free to ignore. I'm just interested in what motivates you on this issue.
My motivation, such as it was, was the best interests of Michigan City, and in particular, the north side, seeing as that's where I live.
Note how I used the past tense there. At this point, I stand by the "we're screwed" part of my analysis, and I don't see how anything I can do is going to change that.
Having this dialogue on the NICTD has been somewhat informative, but at this point I think raking the leaves would be a better use of my time than attending another public forum on this matter. If you think otherwise, make your case for it, but I think the whole matter is done and over -- NICTD is going to bulldoze a new pathway clear across town and put in two city blocks of street level parking and downtown Michigan City is going to look like the East Chicago station. You might think that's a good thing. I don't. However, at this point, I don't think anything I say or do is going to change anything, so why bother?
Posted by: joe.black Nov 17 2009, 08:20 PM
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 17 2009, 07:21 PM)
I'd like to interject that NICTD has made very little investment in the aesthetics its Michigan City holdings over the past 20 years. 11th St. is the hands down winner of the worst station on the line.
Why? Perhaps the powers that be let them get away with it. And it's about to happen once again.
Actually, 11th Street is one of the newer stations, and while it lacks some amenities, it's hardly an eyesore. Carroll Avenue, were it not for the realignment now being more seriously discussed, was in line after Dune Park (which has higher ridership) for a brand new high-level platform and a host of other improvements, including expanded parking.
So, I understand that this is your opinion and you're of course entitled to it. But I don't think the facts back it up.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 17 2009, 08:28 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Nov 17 2009, 07:43 PM)
My motivation, such as it was, was the best interests of Michigan City, and in particular, the north side, seeing as that's where I live.
Note how I used the past tense there. At this point, I stand by the "we're screwed" part of my analysis, and I don't see how anything I can do is going to change that.
Having this dialogue on the NICTD has been somewhat informative, but at this point I think raking the leaves would be a better use of my time than attending another public forum on this matter. If you think otherwise, make your case for it, but I think the whole matter is done and over -- NICTD is going to bulldoze a new pathway clear across town and put in two city blocks of street level parking and downtown Michigan City is going to look like the East Chicago station. You might think that's a good thing. I don't. However, at this point, I don't think anything I say or do is going to change anything, so why bother?
Well, I actually don't believe that anything is set in stone. There is an entire environmental review, application for Federal money, a formal environmental assessment, and design phase yet to happen. There will be plenty of opportunity for public input during that whole time.
That said, I guess I understand why you're feeling somewhat fatalistic. The railroad is in a bad spot right now too, as are just about all passenger railroads around the country. While the PTC mandate has been a boon to consultants and engineers (my company alone is working on three projects right now, and proposing on at least one more), it's a nightmare for the railroads themselves - yet another unfunded mandate from a government that is so focused on DOING SOMETHING right now, no matter how huge the scope and gargantuan the financial burden.
I'm actually really sorry you feel this way; while we don't always agree on the way forward, I truly appreciate your engagement (or former engagement), and I hope you reconsider.
Posted by: lovethiscity Nov 17 2009, 10:15 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 17 2009, 08:20 PM)
Actually, 11th Street is one of the newer stations, and while it lacks some amenities, it's hardly an eyesore. Carroll Avenue, were it not for the realignment now being more seriously discussed, was in line after Dune Park (which has higher ridership) for a brand new high-level platform and a host of other improvements, including expanded parking.
So, I understand that this is your opinion and you're of course entitled to it. But I don't think the facts back it up.
Well I would like to invite you to see a NICTD fence line right here in Michigan City. In fact the whole city should have a chance to see in advance, the way NICTD maintains a fence line. Stu Sirota, keeps showing a neat fence line from Illinois maintained by another railroad, why? Because NICTD has no idea of how to take care of one. They do not cut or trim the weeds. They spray God knows what, it kills everything green. This leaves nothing to hold the dirt on a birm, the result is washouts. As a result of the washouts the entire southshore yard drains into a residential neighborhood. Drop me a note and I will give you a tour.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 18 2009, 07:37 AM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 17 2009, 11:15 PM)
Well I would like to invite you to see a NICTD fence line right here in Michigan City. In fact the whole city should have a chance to see in advance, the way NICTD maintains a fence line. Stu Sirota, keeps showing a neat fence line from Illinois maintained by another railroad, why? Because NICTD has no idea of how to take care of one. They do not cut or trim the weeds. They spray God knows what, it kills everything green. This leaves nothing to hold the dirt on a birm, the result is washouts. As a result of the washouts the entire southshore yard drains into a residential neighborhood. Drop me a note and I will give you a tour.
Well, since I no longer live in NWI, that tour is unfortunately going to be hard to accomplish.
Dave and I spoke about this earlier in the thread, but just to restate my position - the railroad is not in the business of keeping areas outside its property clean. It does have a responsibility to maintain its own property in a way that does not negatively impact the surrounding area. And Dave has convinced me that there is also an element of being a good neighbor that should motivate NICTD to do its best to keep "near" areas clean as well.
All that said, "fence line" issues are a problem for any property owner, especially in certain areas. If the area the property traverses is not well maintained, there seems to be less inhibition for people to simply chuck their garbage on the street. The wind will then inevitably transport all of that detrius to the nearest fence, which collects said trash very efficiently. My argument to Dave is that there has to be some responsibility taken by neighbors to keep a neighborhood clean; if you throw trash on the street, or put up with trash being thrown on your street, I'll bet dollars to donuts that there's an ugly, trashy fence line somewhere in your community.
The "neat fence" you refer to in Illinois is not maintained by Metra, by the way. It's maintained by the town, which takes some pride in the cleanliness and general attractiveness of the area about the station; it also makes financial sense, because an attractive town center is more likely to attract businesses and new residents. I believe that Michigan City would feel the same way about a brand new station, especially if it wants to use that station as a driver for transit-oriented development.
On the yard runoff issue - I can honestly say that during my time at the District in a high management position that I was never advised of any complaint or problem with the storage yard (which has been there, in its current footprint for some 70 to 80 years), regarding runoff or otherwise. If there were truly a huge problem, I am more than certain that the city would have come to NICTD about it, and I'm doubly certain that the District would have done something about it.
Posted by: edgeywood Nov 18 2009, 09:03 AM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 17 2009, 10:15 PM)
Well I would like to invite you to see a NICTD fence line right here in Michigan City. In fact the whole city should have a chance to see in advance, the way NICTD maintains a fence line. Stu Sirota, keeps showing a neat fence line from Illinois maintained by another railroad, why? Because NICTD has no idea of how to take care of one. They do not cut or trim the weeds. They spray God knows what, it kills everything green. This leaves nothing to hold the dirt on a birm, the result is washouts. As a result of the washouts the entire southshore yard drains into a residential neighborhood. Drop me a note and I will give you a tour.
Yeah...and you can stop by the 11th St. showplace after that tour.
It was only a couple of years ago that I had to complain at the NICTD board meeting and their rate hike public hearing in order to get the glass swept out of the parking area, the lot re-striped, and the garbage that had accumulated against the wall cleaned up. And then there was the lack of lighting....Did I mention that I first sent email through the web site about these issues? No action. Eventually contacted one of the board members and eventually saw some movement.
I'm not there on a daily basis anymore, but I drive by a couple of times a week. It looks seedy.
I stand by my earlier statement...NICTD doesn't give a damn about Michigan City and our leaders accept it.
Posted by: CaddyRich Nov 18 2009, 09:55 AM
"My argument to Dave is that there has to be some responsibility taken by neighbors to keep a neighborhood clean; if you throw trash on the street, or put up with trash being thrown on your street, I'll bet dollars to donuts that there's an ugly, trashy fence line somewhere in your community."
Joe...Joe...Joe...there you go with that "personal responsibility" stuff again...never a strong point in Our Fair Touristdom.
Posted by: IndyTransplant Nov 18 2009, 10:10 AM
QUOTE(CaddyRich @ Nov 18 2009, 09:55 AM)
"My argument to Dave is that there has to be some responsibility taken by neighbors to keep a neighborhood clean; if you throw trash on the street, or put up with trash being thrown on your street, I'll bet dollars to donuts that there's an ugly, trashy fence line somewhere in your community."
Joe...Joe...Joe...there you go with that "personal responsibility" stuff again...never a strong point in Our Fair Touristdom.
Joe...Joe...Joe...there you go with that "personal responsibility" stuff again...never a strong point in Our Fair Touristdom.
I have to say as far as trash on fences etc, I have to side with Joe. I am not crazy about paying higher fares to have the NICTD hire someone on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis to clean up trash that is not on the railroad property. We live on a street on the near north side where the neighbors work to keep our own yards, fences and street clean. Due to our proximity to Franklin where people constantly litter from car windows and the children that walk by twice daily on their trek to and from school, this is a daily chore. I wish I could blame the tourists but the car plates are usually LaPorte or Porter county and the children are local residents. Sorry Caddy, but I am a fan of personal responsibility.
NICTD should however keep their own property clean.
Does the parking lot at 11th St station belong to NICTD? Also who currently owns the old train station building? I also would love for that to be restored, but I was told by someone that the owners were not interested.
Joe, Would there by any chance be a compromise possible by building a parking garage - high rise, so that so much land would not have to be purchased and torn down for a flat one level parking lot?
Posted by: CaddyRich Nov 18 2009, 11:18 AM
"Sorry Caddy, but I am a fan of personal responsibility."
And I as well Indy...I guess my sarcasm dripping with cynicism did not show...lol.
Posted by: IndyTransplant Nov 18 2009, 11:44 AM
QUOTE(CaddyRich @ Nov 18 2009, 11:18 AM)
"Sorry Caddy, but I am a fan of personal responsibility."
And I as well Indy...I guess my sarcasm dripping with cynicism did not show...lol.
And I as well Indy...I guess my sarcasm dripping with cynicism did not show...lol.
LOL. I was trying not to assume you were as cynical and sarcastic as I.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 18 2009, 12:27 PM
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 18 2009, 10:03 AM)
Yeah...and you can stop by the 11th St. showplace after that tour.
It was only a couple of years ago that I had to complain at the NICTD board meeting and their rate hike public hearing in order to get the glass swept out of the parking area, the lot re-striped, and the garbage that had accumulated against the wall cleaned up. And then there was the lack of lighting....Did I mention that I first sent email through the web site about these issues? No action. Eventually contacted one of the board members and eventually saw some movement.
I'm not there on a daily basis anymore, but I drive by a couple of times a week. It looks seedy.
I stand by my earlier statement...NICTD doesn't give a damn about Michigan City and our leaders accept it.
I'm not going to defend the lighting - I think that's a railroad responsibility for sure. And there should have been some cleaning, absolutely. But I'll ask - is it the station facility itself or the poor treatment of said facility? I lived around the corner from that station for over a year, and I was the COO for longer than that. Seedy? Maybe the area, but the station itself I found to be very well maintained, given some of the neighbors' treatment of it. And believe me, had I noticed something seriously wrong, it would have been fixed that day.
So, I guess my overall point to this is - the money was spent not very long ago to upgrade the station, put in new security cameras, provide the new variable message signs and PA system, make safety alterations to the traffic lights, build a new shelter, and provide heat. If people break glass in the parking lot, throw trash that accumulates against the walls, or break lights, is that because NICTD "doesn't care about Michigan City"? Or does it say something about Michigan City? Just, you know...askin'.
Finally - there is nothing ambiguous about what NICTD plans to do for the city with the new station. It is planned to be a high-level platform station, with enclosed waiting area, ticket office, vendor space (think perhaps a coffee shop or some other amenities), and enough parking to accomodate demand going into the future. It will be a keystone location, a multi-modal transportation hub, and a spur for redevelopment of the north end of the city. We might differ on the actual execution of the plan, but that doesn't sound much to me like NICTD "doesn't care about Michigan City".
Posted by: joe.black Nov 18 2009, 12:32 PM
QUOTE(IndyTransplant @ Nov 18 2009, 11:10 AM)
NICTD should however keep their own property clean.
Agreed!
QUOTE(IndyTransplant @ Nov 18 2009, 11:10 AM)
Does the parking lot at 11th St station belong to NICTD? Also who currently owns the old train station building? I also would love for that to be restored, but I was told by someone that the owners were not interested.
The parking lot is NICTD's, but the old station building (which I've been told is gutted) does not belong to the railroad.
QUOTE(IndyTransplant @ Nov 18 2009, 11:10 AM)
Joe, Would there by any chance be a compromise possible by building a parking garage - high rise, so that so much land would not have to be purchased and torn down for a flat one level parking lot?
Dave and I were talking about that. I think it's most certainly a possibility; it would add to the total project cost (and the cost of maintenance and upkeep for the railroad), but I think that aesthetically it makes more sense with the TOD concept to do an attractive multi-level structure rather than a flat parking lot.
Posted by: edgeywood Nov 18 2009, 01:42 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 18 2009, 12:27 PM)
I'm not going to defend the lighting - I think that's a railroad responsibility for sure. And there should have been some cleaning, absolutely. But I'll ask - is it the station facility itself or the poor treatment of said facility? I lived around the corner from that station for over a year, and I was the COO for longer than that. Seedy? Maybe the area, but the station itself I found to be very well maintained, given some of the neighbors' treatment of it. And believe me, had I noticed something seriously wrong, it would have been fixed that day.
If someone drops trash in front of my house, I pick it up. If I owned a business, I would make sure the parking lot was clean and striped properly. It's all part of being a good neighbor and a good citizen.
Posted by: IndyTransplant Nov 18 2009, 02:07 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 18 2009, 12:27 PM)
But I'll ask - is it the station facility itself or the poor treatment of said facility? I lived around the corner from that station for over a year, and I was the COO for longer than that. Seedy? Maybe the area,.... but the station itself I found to be very well maintained, given some of the neighbors' treatment of it.
So, I guess my overall point to this is - the money was spent not very long ago to upgrade the station, put in new security cameras, provide the new variable message signs and PA system, make safety alterations to the traffic lights, build a new shelter, and provide heat. If people break glass in the parking lot, throw trash that accumulates against the walls, or break lights, is that because NICTD "doesn't care about Michigan City"? Or does it say something about Michigan City? Just, you know...askin'.
Them's fighting words Joe!
I live just a few blocks from the station and do not find the area (my neighborhood and neighbors) to be seedy. In fact, in general, I find them to be hardworking people who care about the area and do the best they can to keep this area clean and try to shop, eat and do other things locally as much as possible because they care about Michigan City.
Yes, there are always going to be people (adults and children) who litter, play around - break glass, etc.
However I agree with Edgeywood...."If someone drops trash in front of my house, I pick it up. If I owned a business, I would make sure the parking lot was clean and striped properly. It's all part of being a good neighbor and a good citizen."
Citizens and Businesses alike need to keep their areas clean and businesses in particular should pay close attention to parking lots and building exteriors. This serve as an example to others and it is part of being a good neighbor and good citizen.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 18 2009, 02:12 PM
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 18 2009, 02:42 PM)
If someone drops trash in front of my house, I pick it up. If I owned a business, I would make sure the parking lot was clean and striped properly. It's all part of being a good neighbor and a good citizen.
I agree. But, I don't see how you do this any more efficiently on a 75-mile railroad (90 if you include Metra) than is currently done. If you own a business, presumably you're there on site and can clean up pretty quickly when there's a mess. On the railroad, though, there are going to be times when people trash the station, and the cleaning crew has already made their last rounds - I've seen it myself. If it's really bad, train crews, assuming there is a train at that time, will report it to the Dispatcher and generally the District is more than willing and able to muster up a Buildings and Bridges crew to come and fix the issue same day, and normally quickly. But if it's something not immediately visible to the crew, it may go until the next cleaning crew sweep.
The only way to make sure the station is NEVER dirty, at any time, would be to hire people to sit at every station, 24/7, and immediately clean up when someone throws a McDonalds bag, breaks a bottle, or urinates in the shelter. I don't think that's reasonable.
Of course, another part of being a good neighbor and a good citizen is NOT throwing McDonalds bags, breaking bottles in public parking lots, and peeing in public. Again, I don't think that says so much about how NICTD "doesn't care about Michigan City" as much as it says that there are people in Michigan City who think it's either fun or just normal behavior to throw trash, break glass, etc. And that's not a problem that NICTD is going to solve, nor should it have to.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 18 2009, 02:17 PM
QUOTE(IndyTransplant @ Nov 18 2009, 03:07 PM)
Them's fighting words Joe!
I live just a few blocks from the station and do not find the area (my neighborhood and neighbors) to be seedy. In fact, in general, I find them to be hardworking people who care about the area and do the best they can to keep this area clean and try to shop, eat and do other things locally as much as possible because they care about Michigan City.
I lived in that very neighborhood and also found the same thing. I loved the area, as a matter of fact. But there's no denying that there are people who don't really care about keeping the place clean. And that's a shame.
QUOTE(IndyTransplant @ Nov 18 2009, 03:07 PM)
Yes, there are always going to be people (adults and children) who litter, play around - break glass, etc.
I agree. See my post in reply to Edgeywood. Not to create some kind of flame war here about Michigan City, but you don't have similar problems at all stations. I'll leave it at that - just a statement of fact. No judgement behind it, it just is what it is.
QUOTE(IndyTransplant @ Nov 18 2009, 03:07 PM)
However I agree with Edgeywood...."If someone drops trash in front of my house, I pick it up. If I owned a business, I would make sure the parking lot was clean and striped properly. It's all part of being a good neighbor and a good citizen."
Citizens and Businesses alike need to keep their areas clean and businesses in particular should pay close attention to parking lots and building exteriors. This serve as an example to others and it is part of being a good neighbor and good citizen.
Citizens and Businesses alike need to keep their areas clean and businesses in particular should pay close attention to parking lots and building exteriors. This serve as an example to others and it is part of being a good neighbor and good citizen.
...which I truly believe that NICTD does, as reasonably as it can. Again, refer to my reply to Edgywood.
Look, I don't mind engaging on this topic for as long as anyone would like, but I think we're getting a little off the original thread. Maybe we could continue to discuss, if there's any interest, in a new thread or offline (i.e. PM or email)? Or we could continue here. But I think this is really a side issue.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Nov 18 2009, 03:39 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Nov 17 2009, 03:55 PM)
Yep, seen that site.
No hard numbers as to what the northern route with bridge would cost to build, and no real answer as to where the money would come from.
There is a page on that website titled "http://www.michigancitysnewnorthend.com/funding.htm." I hope this is within fair use for me to quote it here:
First, to make a snarky remark -- guys, spellchecker is your friend. Consesus?
Second, knowing how much along the line of funding is going to be necessary might be a good idea. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars here, and suggesting that TIF funding and donations from Pioneer Lumber are going to put you over the top is magical thinking.
I haven't commented in this thread since the public meeting on October 26, and there is a reason for my silence -- I think we're screwed.
As for the atmosphere at the public meeting, if I could make a suggestion to Stuart Sirota, it would be to work on his "people skills". It is my understanding that he was being paid for his participation in this endeavor by Michigan City, and by extension, the citizens thereof. At the presentation he came across like he was a paid shill of NICTD, and the hostility in that room by the end of the meeting was palpable.
What I took away from that meeting was that NICTD doesn't really care what happens to Michigan City, and that they plan on doing whatever they durn well please. And seeing as they have the authority to use eminent domain to take whatever property they want, they can pretty much do it whether the city objects to their plan or not.
The only thing I can see the city doing at this point to increase their leverage with regards to NICTD's plan is, well, I think it's brilliant -- expand the historic districts further south. Apparently one of the reasons NICTD chose this route was to skirt the historic districts because doing anything in a historic district requires additional documentation to the EPA, and making the whole affected area part of the historic district may be one thing the city could do to increase the city's leverage in any negotiations with NICTD.
"It would be a shame if the historic residential and commercial properties along Michigan City's historic interurban line were not protected, as they have a great significance regarding Michigan City's heritage." -- possible City Council press release.
I'm glad I am not the only one who was wondering about this plan's costs.
At the end of the day, the 11st plan isn't the nicest plan in the books, but I don't see the northern route as having any chance at all of happening. You are talking about it costing more by a factor of at least 5. If you are talking about an elevated route, you might be pushing a billion dollars to make that happen. Think about this for a second. If we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars for a northern route, and then you take a look at the Chicago transit system that needs tons of work, where do you think a federal transportation agency is going to invest their dollars? I really am struck by the route the destruction of homes will take, but the only route I actually see as being cheap enough to happen, besides 11th st, is actually the southern route. Between the needed bridge work and the scaling of Trail Creek, it is just not going to be fiscally prudent for the federal government to fund.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 18 2009, 06:31 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Nov 18 2009, 04:39 PM)
I'm glad I am not the only one who was wondering about this plan's costs.
At the end of the day, the 11st plan isn't the nicest plan in the books, but I don't see the northern route as having any chance at all of happening. You are talking about it costing more by a factor of at least 5. If you are talking about an elevated route, you might be pushing a billion dollars to make that happen. Think about this for a second. If we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars for a northern route, and then you take a look at the Chicago transit system that needs tons of work, where do you think a federal transportation agency is going to invest their dollars? I really am struck by the route the destruction of homes will take, but the only route I actually see as being cheap enough to happen, besides 11th st, is actually the southern route. Between the needed bridge work and the scaling of Trail Creek, it is just not going to be fiscally prudent for the federal government to fund.
The odd thing is that the southern route actually costs potentially more than the 11th Street corridor. AND it precludes NICTD ever having double track through the city. AND it requires operationally difficult movements to get to and from the storage yard. AND it has the least bang for the buck, redevelopment-wise.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Nov 18 2009, 07:40 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 18 2009, 06:31 PM)
The odd thing is that the southern route actually costs potentially more than the 11th Street corridor. AND it precludes NICTD ever having double track through the city. AND it requires operationally difficult movements to get to and from the storage yard. AND it has the least bang for the buck, redevelopment-wise.
It looks to me to have the necessary space to make double tracking through most of the City. I know there are spots where it doesn't, such as around Franklin Street, but there is a very wide berth around most of it.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 18 2009, 08:22 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Nov 18 2009, 08:40 PM)
It looks to me to have the necessary space to make double tracking through most of the City. I know there are spots where it doesn't, such as around Franklin Street, but there is a very wide berth around most of it.
Not possible unless you acquire property along the rights of way there, just like 11th Street. CSX owns a narrow easement through which their single track railroad passes. CSX will not allow NICTD to run trains on its track, so in order for NICTD to double track, you would need in effect TRIPLE track through town.
Posted by: lovethiscity Nov 18 2009, 11:05 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 18 2009, 07:37 AM)
Well, since I no longer live in NWI, that tour is unfortunately going to be hard to accomplish.
Dave and I spoke about this earlier in the thread, but just to restate my position - the railroad is not in the business of keeping areas outside its property clean. It does have a responsibility to maintain its own property in a way that does not negatively impact the surrounding area. And Dave has convinced me that there is also an element of being a good neighbor that should motivate NICTD to do its best to keep "near" areas clean as well.
All that said, "fence line" issues are a problem for any property owner, especially in certain areas. If the area the property traverses is not well maintained, there seems to be less inhibition for people to simply chuck their garbage on the street. The wind will then inevitably transport all of that detrius to the nearest fence, which collects said trash very efficiently. My argument to Dave is that there has to be some responsibility taken by neighbors to keep a neighborhood clean; if you throw trash on the street, or put up with trash being thrown on your street, I'll bet dollars to donuts that there's an ugly, trashy fence line somewhere in your community.
The "neat fence" you refer to in Illinois is not maintained by Metra, by the way. It's maintained by the town, which takes some pride in the cleanliness and general attractiveness of the area about the station; it also makes financial sense, because an attractive town center is more likely to attract businesses and new residents. I believe that Michigan City would feel the same way about a brand new station, especially if it wants to use that station as a driver for transit-oriented development.
On the yard runoff issue - I can honestly say that during my time at the District in a high management position that I was never advised of any complaint or problem with the storage yard (which has been there, in its current footprint for some 70 to 80 years), regarding runoff or otherwise. If there were truly a huge problem, I am more than certain that the city would have come to NICTD about it, and I'm doubly certain that the District would have done something about it.
I would like to point out trash was never mentioned in my post nor have I refered it as a problem. NICTD maintaining their fence line, both sides of it is my issue. Yes, there have been complaints to NICTD about it, including the old mosquito breeders they used to used to hold the tarps on the salt piles. The poisin they spray kills everything, washes everything out and then floods my neighborhood. Michigan City using prison labor spends months trying to get anything to grow again. They had to resort to lining the inside of the NICTD fence with bales of hay to try and keep the new dirt brought in a chance to grow something before the new dirt gets washed away. Weeds eventualy return and when they get tall, guess what NICTD does? Yep they spray again. Right now the dirt is gone again and the city is getting the hay bales ready. Insanity? Letting them put another fence in this town is insanity.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 19 2009, 09:53 AM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 19 2009, 12:05 AM)
I would like to point out trash was never mentioned in my post nor have I refered it as a problem.
Duly noted. Trash has been mentioned before in this thread, not long ago, as one of the drawbacks of an enclosed railroad ROW.
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 19 2009, 12:05 AM)
NICTD maintaining their fence line, both sides of it is my issue. Yes, there have been complaints to NICTD about it, including the old mosquito breeders they used to used to hold the tarps on the salt piles. The poisin they spray kills everything, washes everything out and then floods my neighborhood. Michigan City using prison labor spends months trying to get anything to grow again. They had to resort to lining the inside of the NICTD fence with bales of hay to try and keep the new dirt brought in a chance to grow something before the new dirt gets washed away. Weeds eventualy return and when they get tall, guess what NICTD does? Yep they spray again. Right now the dirt is gone again and the city is getting the hay bales ready. Insanity? Letting them put another fence in this town is insanity.
I'll reiterate once again - this was *never* on my radar, and not because I ignored it. I honestly never heard about it. That doesn't mean that it isn't a problem, or that it wasn't reported, but it does suggest to me that it might not have been extensively reported or complained about. You may have been one of only a few folks who complained, and I would think that something or some practice that "floods a neighborhood" would be a very high profile issue.
Are you sure that the fences even belong to the railroad? In many cases, fences are put up either by private citizens to demarcate their own property from the railroad's, or by a municipality.
I don't want to give anyone the impression that: I speak in any way for NICTD; I am no longer the COO, or that I'm minimizing this. I'm just having a basic "disconnect" moment - I was a very engaged manager, to the point of routinely getting out to ride trains, inspect stations, meet with community groups, and so forth; we had a weekly operations meeting with all of the managers of all the departments that I chaired, and this issue, honestly, NEVER came up.
Just as a more general comment on weed-spraying - this is a common practice amongst *all* railroads. It's not done for beautification, or because railroads don't want to spend time and money keeping things trimmed. It's to keep weeds and various other flora from growing up through the track ballast (the stone that supports the ties and acts as a drain so that trackways don't get flooded). When you get a lot of growth in the ballast, it's called "fouled ballast". Its ability to efficiently drain the trackway and its ability to support the ties and rails is negatively impacted. The only way to effectively keep that from happening is to kill the roots - simple cutting won't accomplish that.
Posted by: edgeywood Nov 19 2009, 02:30 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 18 2009, 02:17 PM)
Look, I don't mind engaging on this topic for as long as anyone would like, but I think we're getting a little off the original thread. Maybe we could continue to discuss, if there's any interest, in a new thread or offline (i.e. PM or email)? Or we could continue here. But I think this is really a side issue.
It's absolutely relevant. NICTD proposed a project that will have a significant effect on a Michigan City neighborhood. So far, I've heard that they will put a fence down 11th St. and build an 800 car parking lot. That doesn't sound very attractive, it sounds like the cheapest way to accomplish their end goal.
11th St station is an example of the effort that NICTD puts into its properties in Michigan City. I've attached a pic of how NICTD handled the installation of the new PA system and sign. The gravel and plywood are particularly nice touches.
I understand that there are engineering issues. However, this project impacts the viability of the entire north end. NICTD is capable of building something aesthetically pleasing. They've done it in Ogden Dunes and Dune Park. For some reason, Michigan City doesn't rate the same type of treatment.
Attached thumbnail(s)
Posted by: southsider2k9 Nov 19 2009, 02:54 PM
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 19 2009, 02:30 PM)
It's absolutely relevant. NICTD proposed a project that will have a significant effect on a Michigan City neighborhood. So far, I've heard that they will put a fence down 11th St. and build an 800 car parking lot. That doesn't sound very attractive, it sounds like the cheapest way to accomplish their end goal.
11th St station is an example of the effort that NICTD puts into its properties in Michigan City. I've attached a pic of how NICTD handled the installation of the new PA system and sign. The gravel and plywood are particularly nice touches.
I understand that there are engineering issues. However, this project impacts the viability of the entire north end. NICTD is capable of building something aesthetically pleasing. They've done it in Ogden Dunes and Dune Park. For some reason, Michigan City doesn't rate the same type of treatment.
Is there an artists rendering of what the Michigan City Station will look like? Ogden Dunes is a very small station, but I know that Dune Park has to be at least a 500 car station, if not more. It is a very busy station.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 19 2009, 03:50 PM
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 19 2009, 03:30 PM)
It's absolutely relevant. NICTD proposed a project that will have a significant effect on a Michigan City neighborhood. So far, I've heard that they will put a fence down 11th St. and build an 800 car parking lot. That doesn't sound very attractive, it sounds like the cheapest way to accomplish their end goal.
Well, since organizations like NICTD that receive taxpayer funds for operation, maintenance, and capital construction are under what I think is very well-founded guidance to spend it wisely, normally the lowest priced option that produces the maximum user benefit is the one that must be chosen. That's how federal funding works - you can't select a $750 million project over a $250 million one if they both result in the same user benefits - i.e. decreased travel time, increased passenger amenities, etc.
Being frugal is not a negative thing when spending public money. In fact, I consider it a necessity.
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 19 2009, 03:30 PM)
11th St station is an example of the effort that NICTD puts into its properties in Michigan City. I've attached a pic of how NICTD handled the installation of the new PA system and sign. The gravel and plywood are particularly nice touches.
That's the worst thing you can say about 11th Street? This defines "seedy" for you? I'd say you're moving the goal posts. At one point, your complaints were lack of lot striping, broken glass, and accumulated trash. Now you complain about building materials? Gravel? My God! What will they do next?
Here's the truth of the matter - 11th Street Station is one of the lowest ridership stations on the line, most likely due to lack of adequate parking. Despite the fact that it's located squarely in a residential neighborhood, there is very weak walk-up traffic. The stations that received the most extensive make-overs in the last 10 years or so all have very high ridership relative to that of 11th Street.
Nonetheless, the District made substantial improvements to the station, including the lighting, shelter, heat, PA system, variable message signs, and security cameras that you conveniently ignore in your haste to point out that there was some plywood used. Again, horrors!!!
Now, there is certainly a "chicken or egg" argument to be made here - i.e. if the station were nicer and had more parking, a lot more people would use it. Or, stated another way - because the station lacks some of the amenities that others have, it doesn't attract much ridership. That's fair enough (I tend to think it's more lack of parking), but the NICTD realignment plan recognizes that and proposes to replace both Carroll Avenue and 11th Street with a modern new high-level boarding platform station with enclosed waiting area, a ticket office, ticket machines, vendor space (coffee shop, news stand or something of that nature), more than adequate parking, and a generally much more aesthetically pleasing structure and space.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, you'll have to wait a bit and see the plans. I've seen the preliminary site plans, and the new station is beautiful. It fits much more easily into the streetscape, and it works well with the "transit oriented development" theme that's been developing around the project.
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 19 2009, 03:30 PM)
I understand that there are engineering issues. However, this project impacts the viability of the entire north end. NICTD is capable of building something aesthetically pleasing. They've done it in Ogden Dunes and Dune Park. For some reason, Michigan City doesn't rate the same type of treatment.
Revisit my remarks on ridership. Dune Park and Ogden Dunes both host MANY more daily riders than 11th Street. The new Michigan City Station, on whatever alignment is finally chosen, will be a much busier, more attractive, and more useful place.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 19 2009, 03:58 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Nov 19 2009, 03:54 PM)
Is there an artists rendering of what the Michigan City Station will look like? Ogden Dunes is a very small station, but I know that Dune Park has to be at least a 500 car station, if not more. It is a very busy station.
I don't think it's been released for the general public yet. I saw some preliminary designs and drawings, and they looked great.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Nov 19 2009, 04:27 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 19 2009, 03:58 PM)
I don't think it's been released for the general public yet. I saw some preliminary designs and drawings, and they looked great.
Does it compare to an existing stop along the line?
Also comparatively, which stations along the SS line have 800 car lots?
Posted by: edgeywood Nov 19 2009, 04:38 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 19 2009, 03:50 PM)
Being frugal is not a negative thing when spending public money. In fact, I consider it a necessity.
That's the worst thing you can say about 11th Street? This defines "seedy" for you? I'd say you're moving the goal posts. At one point, your complaints were lack of lot striping, broken glass, and accumulated trash. Now you complain about building materials? Gravel? My God! What will they do next?
Revisit my original post. My point was the effort that it took on my part to get the lot re-striped, trash picked up, and the lighting addressed.
So you think they did a good job on the wiring, etc... for the PA system? I could post a pic of the one at Dune Park.
I understand that it's my money, tax money that will be spent. My money was spent on the castle over at Dune Park and at every other station on the line. I live in Michigan City. I want something nice. NICTD is capable of building something nice. Why shouldn't Michigan City have something that will be an asset instead of a detriment?
Posted by: joe.black Nov 19 2009, 04:41 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Nov 19 2009, 05:27 PM)
Does it compare to an existing stop along the line?
If I had to choose, I'd say it approximates Hammond or Hegewisch, with the nice heated and air conditioned waiting area, ticket agent, coffee shop, high level platforms, etc.
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Nov 19 2009, 05:27 PM)
Also comparatively, which stations along the SS line have 800 car lots?
That's a good question, and one I can't answer off the top of my head. East Chicago, I believe, has the most, but I'm not sure how many spaces it has.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Nov 19 2009, 04:53 PM
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 19 2009, 04:38 PM)
I understand that it's my money, tax money that will be spent. My money was spent on the castle over at Dune Park and at every other station on the line. I live in Michigan City. I want something nice. NICTD is capable of building something nice. Why shouldn't Michigan City have something that will be an asset instead of a detriment?
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 19 2009, 04:41 PM)
If I had to choose, I'd say it approximates Hammond or Hegewisch, with the nice heated and air conditioned waiting area, ticket agent, coffee shop, high level platforms, etc.
That's a good question, and one I can't answer off the top of my head. East Chicago, I believe, has the most, but I'm not sure how many spaces it has.
I can tell you from experience if it is anything like the new Hammond or Hegewisch stations, it will be damned nice. I know Dune Park looks nice, but it isn't much of a station. There is no ticket agent, not much room inside, and there is nothing really of use to a commuter. Ogden Dunes is nothing but the same type of coverage that 11th St has in a nicer setting. The difference is that people take better care of OD.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 19 2009, 06:43 PM
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 19 2009, 05:38 PM)
Revisit my original post. My point was the effort that it took on my part to get the lot re-striped, trash picked up, and the lighting addressed.
Yes, it was about the effort, but it was also a general complaint about the poor conditions you noted at the station, which you called "seedy". It's still moving the goal posts.
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 19 2009, 05:38 PM)
So you think they did a good job on the wiring, etc... for the PA system? I could post a pic of the one at Dune Park.
No need, I know what that one looks like. But I'll bet I could also find some plywood and gravel at Dune Park.
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 19 2009, 05:38 PM)
I understand that it's my money, tax money that will be spent. My money was spent on the castle over at Dune Park and at every other station on the line. I live in Michigan City. I want something nice. NICTD is capable of building something nice. Why shouldn't Michigan City have something that will be an asset instead of a detriment?
Your money, and the money of all of the taxpayers of Indiana, even those that don't live in the area, plus taxpayers across the country, paid for the improvements to the other stations *and* to the chroncially low-ridership 11th Street. You once again conveniently ignore the improvements that have been made there, presumably because of..what? Gravel.
But this is a specious argument - there is a limited amount of capital funds which changes each year, and it's the railroad's job to spend that money on projects that offer the most bang for the buck, that benefit the most riders, and that improve the overall system in the most effective way. Building a "castle", as you call it, on 11th Street would have been foolish to the extreme.
All that being the case, the new station proposed for Michigan City will be "something nice". I wish I had the plan view to post here so you could see it.
Posted by: edgeywood Nov 20 2009, 04:54 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 19 2009, 06:43 PM)
Yes, it was about the effort, but it was also a general complaint about the poor conditions you noted at the station. It's still moving the goal posts.
No need, I know what that one looks like. But I'll bet I could also find some plywood and gravel at Dune Park.
Your money, and the money of all of the taxpayers of Indiana, even those that don't live in the area, plus taxpayers across the country, paid for the improvements to the other stations *and* to the chroncially low-ridership 11th Street. You once again conveniently ignore the improvements that have been made there, and complain about gravel.
But this is a specious argument - there is a limited amount of capital funds which changes each year, and it's the railroad's job to spend that money on projects that offer the most bang for the buck, that benefit the most riders, and that improve the overall system in the most effective way. Building a "castle", as you call it, on 11th Street would have been foolish to the extreme.
All that being the case, the new station proposed for Michigan City will be "something nice". I wish I had the plan view to post here so you could see it.
As far as "improvements" go, the pic speaks for itself.
At the time Dune Park was built, it was not a 500 car station. It was a combination of the Dune Acres, Port Chester, and Tremont stops. At that time, it certainly didn't require a station with housing for a caretaker, meeting rooms, and the various other amenities. Hopefully, the Michigan City station is being planned with that same foresight. Obviously, through your relationship with NICTD, you have information on the new station not available to the general public.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but with respect to my dealings with NICTD, I come by my skepticism honestly.
Posted by: Beachguy Nov 21 2009, 08:07 AM
I'm sure the South Shore has the best of intentions for what is necessary to run "their" railroad. I do believe that they will do their best to make their line safe with the new track controls, etc. I have seen artists' drawings of what we could expect the "new" north end to look like and how this would promote growth for the area; I'm all for that. I for one have never seen a track that I would want in my back yard. I have never gotten excited over large parking lots and have never have cared for traffic congestion, added noise/light and air pollution etc.
"Build it and they will come"; train stations and parking lots are for commuters and they will come. Watch Dune Park or any other transit parking lot and tell me what you see, a mad rush to get to their cars and to get home. The parking lots are never large enough and the streets never wide enough. Where is the room for expansion? Traffic jams, increased pollution levels, upkeep of R.R. and surrounding properties are just a few potential problems.
Build a commuter lot and platform outside of "downtown" for commuters. Build a station in town for people who wish to make our city a point of destination.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 21 2009, 05:22 PM
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 20 2009, 05:54 PM)
As far as "improvements" go, the pic speaks for itself.
I'm not sure which picture you're looking at, but when I think of 11th Street (I lived right around the corner and spent much time there) I see a modern shelter with heat and lighting, a PA system for customer service, train lateness, and other announcements, a bulletin board to post train schedule and other service announcements, trash receptacles, a variable message sign to also play customer service and other messages, improvements to the surrounding traffic signals to protect passengers walking into the street, and a clean, striped lot.
Do you even remember what the station was like before those improvements were made? It was before my time, but I've seen plenty of pictures and heard plenty of horror stories, and the current station is a Taj Mahal compared to what had been there. For the level of ridership that it generates, and the fact that it's located on a public street and not a private right of way, I don't think the level of investment in the station was at all inappropriate. ESPECIALLY given the fact that the railroad has been trying to get this realignment plan off the ground for over a decade. It would make no sense whatsoever to build a "castle", as you like to call it, just to tear it down to build a new "castle".
You're entitled to your opinion, but I'll say again that I think it's a reach. You started out complaining about trash, broken glass, and so forth (yes, yes, I know...the "effort" argument - but you called it "seedy"), and now you complain about...gravel. In essence, I think that nothing NICTD has done here will satisfy you - you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge the vast improvement the station has seen, even when your "seedy" picture illustrates it in living color.
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 20 2009, 05:54 PM)
At the time Dune Park was built, it was not a 500 car station. It was a combination of the Dune Acres, Port Chester, and Tremont stops. At that time, it certainly didn't require a station with housing for a caretaker, meeting rooms, and the various other amenities.
The Dune Park station was designed to be the administrative headquarters of the Commuter District, which it still is today. Board meetings are held there, the various administrative and general management offices of the railroad are located there, and...you said it yourself...this ONE station replaced three. This new station, since it was opened, has always had much higher average ridership than 11th Street.
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 20 2009, 05:54 PM)
Hopefully, the Michigan City station is being planned with that same foresight. Obviously, through your relationship with NICTD, you have information on the new station not available to the general public.
...because it isn't designed yet. There are conceptual drawings, which are very nice, and a conceptual plan for what the station will be like. As I said, for comparison purposes, it will be much like Hammond or Hegewisch. It will replace both the Carroll Avenue station and the 11th Street station.
I have described over and over in this thread the features and amenities of the new station. I'm not really sure what else I could do to convince you that the planning for this new station is being done with "some forethought".
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 20 2009, 05:54 PM)
Forgive me for being skeptical, but with respect to my dealings with NICTD, I come by my skepticism honestly.
No forgiveness needed - as I said, you're thoroughly entitled to your opinion. But I do think that you criticize somewhat unfairly. It seems to me that you have an axe to grind. And I'm sure it's pretty obvious to folks who read my postings that I'm bullish on the railroad. I come by that honestly as well.
Posted by: edgeywood Nov 24 2009, 06:58 AM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 21 2009, 05:22 PM)
No forgiveness needed - as I said, you're thoroughly entitled to your opinion. But I do think that you criticize somewhat unfairly. It seems to me that you have an axe to grind. And I'm sure it's pretty obvious to folks who read my postings that I'm bullish on the railroad. I come by that honestly as well.
Funny....I have an "axe to grind" but you are "bullish on the railroad". I would say that I'm interested in what's best for Michigan City. oo
Posted by: joe.black Nov 24 2009, 11:24 AM
QUOTE(edgeywood @ Nov 24 2009, 07:58 AM)
Funny....I have an "axe to grind" but you are "bullish on the railroad". I would say that I'm interested in what's best for Michigan City. oo
Your picture, contrary to proving your assertion that 11th Street is "seedy", demonstrates that it's a modern station, equipped with heat, new communications technology, and actually pretty clean even though the station as a whole is often not treated very well by those who use it.
You ignore the improvements that have been made to the station, moving the goalposts from trash, broken glass, badly striped parking lot, and "seediness", to complaints now about building materials (of course, ignoring the durable metal and glass passenger structure, high-technology sturdily built information systems, and general cleanliness of the facility). What else am I to think except that you have some axe to grind?
I, too, am interested in what's best for Michigan City. I believe the new station facility will be overwhelmingly positive for the city, no matter what route is finally selected and built. You hint yourself that even with the improvements that have been made to 11th Street, it's not the station that Michigan City deserves. I agree, and so does the railroad.
Posted by: edgeywood Nov 24 2009, 02:01 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 24 2009, 11:24 AM)
Your picture, contrary to proving your assertion that 11th Street is "seedy", demonstrates that it's a modern station, equipped with heat, new communications technology, and actually pretty clean even though the station as a whole is often not treated very well by those who use it.
You ignore the improvements that have been made to the station, moving the goalposts from trash, broken glass, badly striped parking lot, and "seediness", to complaints now about building materials (of course, ignoring the durable metal and glass passenger structure, high-technology sturdily built information systems, and general cleanliness of the facility). What else am I to think except that you have some axe to grind?
I, too, am interested in what's best for Michigan City. I believe the new station facility will be overwhelmingly positive for the city, no matter what route is finally selected and built. You hint yourself that even with the improvements that have been made to 11th Street, it's not the station that Michigan City deserves. I agree, and so does the railroad.
Well, I did more than hint. And I stand by my assessment of the pic.
Posted by: lovethiscity Nov 25 2009, 09:35 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Nov 24 2009, 11:24 AM)
Your picture, contrary to proving your assertion that 11th Street is "seedy", demonstrates that it's a modern station, equipped with heat, new communications technology, and actually pretty clean even though the station as a whole is often not treated very well by those who use it.
You ignore the improvements that have been made to the station, moving the goalposts from trash, broken glass, badly striped parking lot, and "seediness", to complaints now about building materials (of course, ignoring the durable metal and glass passenger structure, high-technology sturdily built information systems, and general cleanliness of the facility). What else am I to think except that you have some axe to grind?
I, too, am interested in what's best for Michigan City. I believe the new station facility will be overwhelmingly positive for the city, no matter what route is finally selected and built. You hint yourself that even with the improvements that have been made to 11th Street, it's not the station that Michigan City deserves. I agree, and so does the railroad.
Kind of looks like a shack with glass. Not much of a station though.
Posted by: joe.black Nov 26 2009, 02:36 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Nov 25 2009, 10:35 PM)
Kind of looks like a shack with glass. Not much of a station though.
It's appropriate to the level of ridership and to the fact that it's located on a public street, and it's a quantum improvement over what was there. And the new station will be a quantum improvement over this one.
Ogden Dunes has much the same setup, except with platforms.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 2 2009, 04:08 PM
Reading between the lines, they can't afford the northern route, kiss it good bye. I really wish that they hadn't even made it into an option by acting like it had a chance of happening. No one is going to give NICTD the funding for this project when the same basic objectives can be done for about 1/5th the price. Plus since the residents of NWI have pretty clearly stated they don't want to pay for anything (by voting down every tax referendum), and NICTD can't, it has zero chance of happening.
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=27377
QUOTE
Mayor, NICTD to seek funds for South Shore study
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Michigan City Mayor Chuck Oberlie said he will join the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District in seeking federal funds for a preliminary engineering study of the South Shore Line relocation that analyzes a northern corridor near the Amtrak line.
The City Council voted 6-3 in favor of a resolution co-sponsored by Rich Murphy, D-1st Ward, and Bob McKee, D-at-Large at the Tuesday council meeting. Council members Angie Nelson, D-at-Large, Ron Meer, D-3rd Ward, and Willie Milsap, D-5th Ward, voted against the resolution.
Murphy said the resolution addresses "significant community concerns" about NICTD's plan that were raised at several public forums. Among the concerns were the possible closing of 17 of 34 street crossings along the 10th and 11th street corridor, demolition of more than 100 houses and businesses, upkeep of the corridor and impact on the quality of life of area residents.
"It (the resolution) allows the project to move forward and puts Michigan City on record regarding the type of project we want here," Murphy said.
McKee supports the resolutions because, "it gives equal footing to the 11th street corridor and the northern route."
"It's important to do the research," McKee said. "That's what's missing so far."
John Vale, part of a group actively advocating the northern route, told the council he has more than 800 signatures from concerned local residents.
"Your constituents have expressed vehement concern with the present plan prepared by NICTD to bisect the city," Vale said. "Your constituents are in favor of the North End."
Meer held up a copy of an October 2009 report in which NICTD consistently said it was against the northern route. NICTD will make a decision based on business reasons, he said.
Mark Yagelski, county councilman and member of the NICTD board, offered to clarify NICTD's perspective.
"NICTD has no problem with it (North End) if it can get the funding for it," Yagelski said. "As earmarks are getting less and less, we're looking for a process to finance this. We're going to have to make some sound decisions and not keep talking."
Yagelski cautioned that federally mandated changes have to be made by 2015, which is not far away.
John Parsons, NICTD planning and marketing manager, said a study of the northern route can be included in an environmental impact assessment that's required in the preliminary design stage.
"As part of the environmental analysis, the alternate route will need to be looked at," he said. "A lot more needs to be done on the preliminary engineering on 10th and 11th streets as well."
Parsons said the important thing is to get on with the preliminary engineering study. NICTD made a proposal to the city in June and it has taken six months to get a formal response.
"We're most interested in doing what's needed to advance the project," he said. "The key is funding."
The federal funding for 2010 already has been allocated, Parsons said, so the next few months will be critical in applying for funding available in 2011.
Parsons noted that NICTD's own analysis of realigning the existing corridor or moving to the northern route showed that the cost of the northern route was three times higher because it requires a 9,000-foot elevation estimated to cost about $300 million.
"The key on what happens with regards to the final project will be based a lot on the cost-effectiveness of the project," Parsons said.
NICTD intends to improve its service by pulling out the embedded tracks in 11th Street and realigning the route along 10th and 11th streets. The changes are needed, in part, to meet federal requirements for what is called "positive train control" by 2015. The NICTD proposal calls for closing the two existing stations and building a new one located between the historic downtown and Lighthouse Place Premium Outlets.
Oberlie believes NICTD will be open to looking at both routes.
"My sense is NICTD is willing to look at routes that will not increase operating times, that reduce costs, that provide opportunities to increase ridership and that improve the safety of its riders and the general public," he said.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Michigan City Mayor Chuck Oberlie said he will join the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District in seeking federal funds for a preliminary engineering study of the South Shore Line relocation that analyzes a northern corridor near the Amtrak line.
The City Council voted 6-3 in favor of a resolution co-sponsored by Rich Murphy, D-1st Ward, and Bob McKee, D-at-Large at the Tuesday council meeting. Council members Angie Nelson, D-at-Large, Ron Meer, D-3rd Ward, and Willie Milsap, D-5th Ward, voted against the resolution.
Murphy said the resolution addresses "significant community concerns" about NICTD's plan that were raised at several public forums. Among the concerns were the possible closing of 17 of 34 street crossings along the 10th and 11th street corridor, demolition of more than 100 houses and businesses, upkeep of the corridor and impact on the quality of life of area residents.
"It (the resolution) allows the project to move forward and puts Michigan City on record regarding the type of project we want here," Murphy said.
McKee supports the resolutions because, "it gives equal footing to the 11th street corridor and the northern route."
"It's important to do the research," McKee said. "That's what's missing so far."
John Vale, part of a group actively advocating the northern route, told the council he has more than 800 signatures from concerned local residents.
"Your constituents have expressed vehement concern with the present plan prepared by NICTD to bisect the city," Vale said. "Your constituents are in favor of the North End."
Meer held up a copy of an October 2009 report in which NICTD consistently said it was against the northern route. NICTD will make a decision based on business reasons, he said.
Mark Yagelski, county councilman and member of the NICTD board, offered to clarify NICTD's perspective.
"NICTD has no problem with it (North End) if it can get the funding for it," Yagelski said. "As earmarks are getting less and less, we're looking for a process to finance this. We're going to have to make some sound decisions and not keep talking."
Yagelski cautioned that federally mandated changes have to be made by 2015, which is not far away.
John Parsons, NICTD planning and marketing manager, said a study of the northern route can be included in an environmental impact assessment that's required in the preliminary design stage.
"As part of the environmental analysis, the alternate route will need to be looked at," he said. "A lot more needs to be done on the preliminary engineering on 10th and 11th streets as well."
Parsons said the important thing is to get on with the preliminary engineering study. NICTD made a proposal to the city in June and it has taken six months to get a formal response.
"We're most interested in doing what's needed to advance the project," he said. "The key is funding."
The federal funding for 2010 already has been allocated, Parsons said, so the next few months will be critical in applying for funding available in 2011.
Parsons noted that NICTD's own analysis of realigning the existing corridor or moving to the northern route showed that the cost of the northern route was three times higher because it requires a 9,000-foot elevation estimated to cost about $300 million.
"The key on what happens with regards to the final project will be based a lot on the cost-effectiveness of the project," Parsons said.
NICTD intends to improve its service by pulling out the embedded tracks in 11th Street and realigning the route along 10th and 11th streets. The changes are needed, in part, to meet federal requirements for what is called "positive train control" by 2015. The NICTD proposal calls for closing the two existing stations and building a new one located between the historic downtown and Lighthouse Place Premium Outlets.
Oberlie believes NICTD will be open to looking at both routes.
"My sense is NICTD is willing to look at routes that will not increase operating times, that reduce costs, that provide opportunities to increase ridership and that improve the safety of its riders and the general public," he said.
Posted by: Dave Dec 2 2009, 04:24 PM
I was about to post a link to that very article. Beat me to it!
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 2 2009, 09:50 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Dec 2 2009, 04:24 PM)
I was about to post a link to that very article. Beat me to it!
Watching the Council meeting last night, the message was very clear. They want to get this done, and get it done quickly. They are done talking.
Posted by: Beachguy Dec 7 2009, 08:19 PM
Last Friday (12/4) I was coming home from work between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. and what a mad house of people/traffic it was exiting Dunes Park station. Dunes Park station sits along US 12 on an open section of highway and it was still a mess! Can't wait till we have the same situation in the middle of town it should prove to be interesting....
Also I was looking at the drawing of the proposed track realignment,was that two sets of tracks running thru some of the downtown area? If so what's up with that?
Posted by: joe.black Dec 8 2009, 12:54 PM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Dec 7 2009, 09:19 PM)
Last Friday (12/4) I was coming home from work between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. and what a mad house of people/traffic it was exiting Dunes Park station. Dunes Park station sits along US 12 on an open section of highway and it was still a mess! Can't wait till we have the same situation in the middle of town it should prove to be interesting....
Which is why I advocate a traffic impact study be done as part of the environmental assessment, so that appropriate mitigation steps can be identified. But, what exactly are we saying here? Is the goal really to attract less people to the downtown, or to keep the status quo (which has worked so well)?
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Dec 7 2009, 09:19 PM)
Also I was looking at the drawing of the proposed track realignment,was that two sets of tracks running thru some of the downtown area? If so what's up with that?
Unless something's changed, a passing siding was planned for the area of the station, since a bypass has to be provided for freight trains (which can be accomplished by providing just such a passing siding, or by building "gauntlet tracks", which is what NICTD has at East Chicago, Hammond, and Hegewisch). This is also a step toward the medium- to long-term goal of the District to double track the entire line.
Posted by: Beachguy Dec 8 2009, 08:02 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Dec 8 2009, 12:54 PM)
Which is why I advocate a traffic impact study be done as part of the environmental assessment, so that appropriate mitigation steps can be identified. But, what exactly are we saying here? Is the goal really to attract less people to the downtown, or to keep the status quo (which has worked so well)?
Unless something's changed, a passing siding was planned for the area of the station, since a bypass has to be provided for freight trains (which can be accomplished by providing just such a passing siding, or by building "gauntlet tracks", which is what NICTD has at East Chicago, Hammond, and Hegewisch). This is also a step toward the medium- to long-term goal of the District to double track the entire line.
I would think that goal of the city would be to attract people into a clean, safe pedestrain friendly atmosphere. I have a hard time trying to visualize the people who would live, shop or eat in the northend using or needing a commutor parking lot. To make it a little more crazy the parking will be on the south side of the tracks so that now you must cross over the tracks to reach the northend. From what I see the people who use train parking lots tend to board the train for other destinations to eat or shop. This parking lot will be for people leaving town seeking a destination which is what the South Shore R/R is really all about.
Posted by: lovethiscity Dec 9 2009, 06:31 AM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Dec 8 2009, 08:02 PM)
I would think that goal of the city would be to attract people into a clean, safe pedestrain friendly atmosphere. I have a hard time trying to visualize the people who would live, shop or eat in the northend using or needing a commutor parking lot. To make it a little more crazy the parking will be on the south side of the tracks so that now you must cross over the tracks to reach the northend. From what I see the people who use train parking lots tend to board the train for other destinations to eat or shop. This parking lot will be for people leaving town seeking a destination which is what the South Shore R/R is really all about.
Carrol Ave already set up for commutor parking as well as the easiest to raise the platform. It is set to be closed with the new plan. NICTD aquired the former Royal Metal property and is using it for overflow parking. What will become of these two huge parking areas if the station closes?
If Michigan City would like to segregate the North side from the rest of the City, closing streets a building fences would be a great start. The process to move poor people South has already begun, will the North end become a suburb of or a City within the City? Will anybody South of 11th st have to pay to use Washington Park?
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 9 2009, 09:24 AM
Getting past the ridiculous hyperbole in there, I have yet to find anyone who could tell me how the NICTD could pay for a plan that is going to cost upwards of half of a billion dollars. I'd really like to hear that part explained before I can view anything on the northern end as anything more realistic than say the Cubs winning a World Series.
Posted by: Beachguy Dec 9 2009, 12:19 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Dec 9 2009, 09:24 AM)
Getting past the ridiculous hyperbole in there, I have yet to find anyone who could tell me how the NICTD could pay for a plan that is going to cost upwards of half of a billion dollars. I'd really like to hear that part explained before I can view anything on the northern end as anything more realistic than say the Cubs winning a World Series.
Utilizing the Carrol Ave. facility makes a lot more sence than dividing the city in two with double tracks and a huge parking lot and I would guess cheaper to boot. As for the northern route why not run the tracks down Michigan Blvd. and tie into the rail system in place on the far north end. This route would disrupt less homes and places of business plus keep them on the tax roles. What could nicer for a visitor than arriving in our city with a view of the lake and passing by River Walk park (if this is still on the books). The city/R.R. could use the old train depot for visitors and Carrol Ave for commutors. There appears to be plenty of land near the old Pioneer Lumber site plus you would have access to major east/west and south bound roads. This project could be accomplished in stages as money/ideas present themselves. As for the Cubs everyone loves a loser.
Posted by: joe.black Dec 9 2009, 01:22 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Dec 9 2009, 07:31 AM)
Carrol Ave already set up for commutor parking as well as the easiest to raise the platform. It is set to be closed with the new plan. NICTD aquired the former Royal Metal property and is using it for overflow parking. What will become of these two huge parking areas if the station closes?
The Royal Metal property, in the medium-term, was viewed as an auxiliary railcar storage yard. Its use as an overflow parking lot in the near term is because of the shortcomings of Carroll Avenue as a high-volume passenger station. The lot there may be "set up for commutor (sic) parking", but it's woefully inadequate to handle commuters plus the often huge summer crowds.
There are other issues with Carroll Avenue that have to do with the position of the "add track" switch that would make construction of high-level platforms there challenging (though by no means impossible).
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Dec 9 2009, 07:31 AM)
If Michigan City would like to segregate the North side from the rest of the City, closing streets a building fences would be a great start. The process to move poor people South has already begun, will the North end become a suburb of or a City within the City? Will anybody South of 11th st have to pay to use Washington Park?
If you're actually looking for an answer, I'd direct you to "Transit Oriented Development" as the overarching vision for the new station and the area about the new station. The MCNEAT study, posted on the city's web site, is a good start.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 9 2009, 02:27 PM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Dec 9 2009, 12:19 PM)
Utilizing the Carrol Ave. facility makes a lot more sence than dividing the city in two with double tracks and a huge parking lot and I would guess cheaper to boot. As for the northern route why not run the tracks down Michigan Blvd. and tie into the rail system in place on the far north end. This route would disrupt less homes and places of business plus keep them on the tax roles. What could nicer for a visitor than arriving in our city with a view of the lake and passing by River Walk park (if this is still on the books). The city/R.R. could use the old train depot for visitors and Carrol Ave for commutors. There appears to be plenty of land near the old Pioneer Lumber site plus you would have access to major east/west and south bound roads. This project could be accomplished in stages as money/ideas present themselves. As for the Cubs everyone loves a loser.
I don't know this, but I don't think Michigan is wide enough to accommodate what is needed in width. As I understand it, they need at least 60 feet. Without taking a tape measure to it, I would be pretty sure this isn't the case. Plus, there are tons of people living on the Boulevard. What the heck are they going to do?
And I am not sure where exactly the route would run to get from where it is now, to this route, without demolishing stuff at some point. What exact point would the tracks deviate from their current route, and where exactly would they be going?
Posted by: Beachguy Dec 9 2009, 08:17 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Dec 9 2009, 02:27 PM)
I don't know this, but I don't think Michigan is wide enough to accommodate what is needed in width. As I understand it, they need at least 60 feet. Without taking a tape measure to it, I would be pretty sure this isn't the case. Plus, there are tons of people living on the Boulevard. What the heck are they going to do?
And I am not sure where exactly the route would run to get from where it is now, to this route, without demolishing stuff at some point. What exact point would the tracks deviate from their current route, and where exactly would they be going?
What heck are they going to do? I would guess the same thing that the tons of people are going to do who are living in the way of the proposed route thru town. As far as what width is reguired it appears that either way demolition is going to be called for. It appears that the track could head north from the point where the present tracks cross Michigan Blvd. and then head west north of Hwy. 12 without any of the elevated sections of the other proposed northern route. It's only a thought and it would take engineering, I would just hate to see the city split in two with a massive parking lot smack in the middle of it!
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 9 2009, 08:33 PM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Dec 9 2009, 08:17 PM)
What heck are they going to do? I would guess the same thing that the tons of people are going to do who are living in the way of the proposed route thru town. As far as what width is reguired it appears that either way demolition is going to be called for. It appears that the track could head north from the point where the present tracks cross Michigan Blvd. and then head west north of Hwy. 12 without any of the elevated sections of the other proposed northern route. It's only a thought and it would take engineering, I would just hate to see the city split in two with a massive parking lot smack in the middle of it!
If I am envisioning the route you are talking about, I think you would be taking out at least the Chamber of Commerce and probably City Hall, not to mention quite a few commercial properties and houses/condos up there.
And this whole "split the city in two" mantra... the "better" solution is a 6000 to 9000 foot long bridge in front of the main beach entrance in town? After hearing about how we need to open up the access to the beach, that just doesn't make much sense. We would essentially wall off the beach for as much as a mile in either direction of Trail Creek. If having a library in the way makes things to complicated, how in the heck are people supposed to get into Washington Park then?
Not to mention, again, where is the money going to come from for this project? The bridge alone is being estimated to cost $250,000,000 to $300,000,000. That doesn't include all of the new land acquisitions, technology for positive train control, and figuring out how to lay a new set of tracks somewhere to be able to get train cars back from this new line, through the Krueger neighborhood, and into the shops at Carroll Ave. The NICTD's annual income is about 5% of that total. Their total budget is 10% of it. They sure as heck are going to be able to get a bond issue for a northern route. Plus the taxpayers around here have spoken pretty loudly as to how they feel about paying any more money to the NICTD than they already do. I don't see any chance the federal government ponies up that kind of cash, because they have an alternative that is going to cost somewhere between 1/5th and 1/10 of the northern track. Which one do people think the feds are going to decide to pay for... The half a billion dollar plan, or the $65 million dollar one that achieves the exact same objective in their eyes?
I hate the idea of tearing down the swath down 11th Street. The human cost is going to be bad. I just have yet to see a plan for the northern route that was rooted in any kind of reality what-so-ever. I don't see why people are so attached to a plan that has no way of being paid for.
If people can realistically answer some of these questions, then I can respect the support the northern route sentiment. If not, you guys are setting yourselves up for disappointment and anger, in my opinion.
Posted by: joe.black Dec 10 2009, 09:34 AM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Dec 9 2009, 09:33 PM)
I hate the idea of tearing down the swath down 11th Street. The human cost is going to be bad. I just have yet to see a plan for the northern route that was rooted in any kind of reality what-so-ever. I don't see why people are so attached to a plan that has no way of being paid for.
If people can realistically answer some of these questions, then I can respect the support the northern route sentiment. If not, you guys are setting yourselves up for disappointment and anger, in my opinion.
If people can realistically answer some of these questions, then I can respect the support the northern route sentiment. If not, you guys are setting yourselves up for disappointment and anger, in my opinion.
Perhaps, as part of the EIS and engineering studies that will be conducted, a viable northern alternative will be identified that will not substantially increase the cost of the project, nor require construction of a huge bridge. I'm not seeing a way that can happen right now, but we don't yet have all of the information that an engineering consulting firm will.
Posted by: Beachguy Dec 10 2009, 05:05 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Dec 9 2009, 08:33 PM)
If I am envisioning the route you are talking about, I think you would be taking out at least the Chamber of Commerce and probably City Hall, not to mention quite a few commercial properties and houses/condos up there.
And this whole "split the city in two" mantra... the "better" solution is a 6000 to 9000 foot long bridge in front of the main beach entrance in town? After hearing about how we need to open up the access to the beach, that just doesn't make much sense. We would essentially wall off the beach for as much as a mile in either direction of Trail Creek. If having a library in the way makes things to complicated, how in the heck are people supposed to get into Washington Park then?
Not to mention, again, where is the money going to come from for this project? The bridge alone is being estimated to cost $250,000,000 to $300,000,000. That doesn't include all of the new land acquisitions, technology for positive train control, and figuring out how to lay a new set of tracks somewhere to be able to get train cars back from this new line, through the Krueger neighborhood, and into the shops at Carroll Ave. The NICTD's annual income is about 5% of that total. Their total budget is 10% of it. They sure as heck are going to be able to get a bond issue for a northern route. Plus the taxpayers around here have spoken pretty loudly as to how they feel about paying any more money to the NICTD than they already do. I don't see any chance the federal government ponies up that kind of cash, because they have an alternative that is going to cost somewhere between 1/5th and 1/10 of the northern track. Which one do people think the feds are going to decide to pay for... The half a billion dollar plan, or the $65 million dollar one that achieves the exact same objective in their eyes?
I hate the idea of tearing down the swath down 11th Street. The human cost is going to be bad. I just have yet to see a plan for the northern route that was rooted in any kind of reality what-so-ever. I don't see why people are so attached to a plan that has no way of being paid for.
If people can realistically answer some of these questions, then I can respect the support the northern route sentiment. If not, you guys are setting yourselves up for disappointment and anger, in my opinion.
Posted by: Beachguy Dec 10 2009, 05:50 PM
I'm not sure where or why you would want to put a 6000' to 9000' long bridge costing 250,000,000 or more in front of the park entrance or even if the Chamber of Comm. and City Hall etc. would need to be demolished. Yes some commercial properties will need to be purchased but that is a given with either route. It also appears that less human suffering would come into play with this route. I would like to see at least a crude engineering study done with a rough cost analysis , I'm sure that there are others that would be interested in this also. I've said before whatever route is taken will be in place for a long time, looking into alternatives is only being prudent. Anger never, disappointment yes if we can't work together for the best of all concerned.
Posted by: mcstumper Dec 10 2009, 07:18 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Dec 10 2009, 09:34 AM)
Perhaps, as part of the EIS and engineering studies that will be conducted, a viable northern alternative will be identified that will not substantially increase the cost of the project, nor require construction of a huge bridge. I'm not seeing a way that can happen right now, but we don't yet have all of the information that an engineering consulting firm will.
I think I know what you are getting at. Bascially, instead of the SS going over Trail Creek, it would bend south just before it and folllow the creek's west bank until eventually it would meet up with the existing South Shore track near the intersection of 8th and Dickson St. If you drive over by Bridges Restaurant, you can see the rail still embedded in the pavement where the old Nickle Plate Railroad followed this exact same route. The City now owns or is in discussions to purchase almost all of the property along this path.
A couple of observations about this possibility:
1. As with the other Northern Route proposal, does nothing to encourage downtown redevelopment
2. You would still have the horribly unsightly overhead wires and cantenary cutting a scar through some of our most valuable real estate
3. Means Michigan City would have to give up any hope of a riverwalk
4. Would mean the least disruption to neighborhoods
5. If Amtrak could be forced to abandon its Porter to New Buffalo line, it would mean no bridge over Trail Creek whatsoever.
6. Might be the easiest and cheapest alternative to implement since the City owns the land and nothing much more than Blocksom and the Marina stand in the way.
Posted by: Dave Dec 10 2009, 07:35 PM
I was intrigued with the possiblity of the Trail Creek route for a few minutes -- run the SS tracks along the west bank of Trail Creek, under the US 12 bridge, then head west.
The problem is NICTD wants to be able to double track, and that means a right of way of what, 75 feet. And seeing as they want to be able to run their trains at 60 MPH, they are going to want to limit access to their tracks, which probably means fencing.
What initially looks like low impact turns into no development possible on Trail Creek because NICTD is going to want pretty much everything between Michigan Boulvard and the creek bank, and no pedestrian access. No additional boat slips, and seeing as the creek bank would be inaccessible from land, the boat slips currently there would probably be lost.
If we consider a new bridge, the length of the bridge and its approaches, let's do the math -- NICTD runs freight trains in addition to passenger trains, and they can only climb a grade on the order of 1% -- which means 100 feet horizontally for each foot higher or lower. Seeing as the bridge goes over a navigable waterway, that means it is going to be required to be at least 35 feet (IIRC) above the water (which is why the US 12 bridge is as high as it is). That means 3500 feet at 1% grade either side of Trail Creek. This has been addressed elsewhere. Some folks think it could be made pretty -- I suspect it would look like a railroad trestle, and cut off what view MC has left of the lake. As for travellers seeing the lake from a new station roughly where Swingbelly's is -- that's wishful thinking, because the dominant object in view at that point isn't the lake, it's the back end of the NIPSCO plant.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 10 2009, 08:16 PM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Dec 10 2009, 05:50 PM)
I'm not sure where or why you would want to put a 6000' to 9000' long bridge costing 250,000,000 or more in front of the park entrance or even if the Chamber of Comm. and City Hall etc. would need to be demolished. Yes some commercial properties will need to be purchased but that is a given with either route. It also appears that less human suffering would come into play with this route. I would like to see at least a crude engineering study done with a rough cost analysis , I'm sure that there are others that would be interested in this also. I've said before whatever route is taken will be in place for a long time, looking into alternatives is only being prudent. Anger never, disappointment yes if we can't work together for the best of all concerned.
I don't want that to happen, but that is the engineering necessary to do the proposed northern route over Trail Creek.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 10 2009, 08:17 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Dec 10 2009, 07:35 PM)
I was intrigued with the possiblity of the Trail Creek route for a few minutes -- run the SS tracks along the west bank of Trail Creek, under the US 12 bridge, then head west.
The problem is NICTD wants to be able to double track, and that means a right of way of what, 75 feet. And seeing as they want to be able to run their trains at 60 MPH, they are going to want to limit access to their tracks, which probably means fencing.
What initially looks like low impact turns into no development possible on Trail Creek because NICTD is going to want pretty much everything between Michigan Boulvard and the creek bank, and no pedestrian access. No additional boat slips, and seeing as the creek bank would be inaccessible from land, the boat slips currently there would probably be lost.
If we consider a new bridge, the length of the bridge and its approaches, let's do the math -- NICTD runs freight trains in addition to passenger trains, and they can only climb a grade on the order of 1% -- which means 100 feet horizontally for each foot higher or lower. Seeing as the bridge goes over a navigable waterway, that means it is going to be required to be at least 35 feet (IIRC) above the water (which is why the US 12 bridge is as high as it is). That means 3500 feet at 1% grade either side of Trail Creek. This has been addressed elsewhere. Some folks think it could be made pretty -- I suspect it would look like a railroad trestle, and cut off what view MC has left of the lake. As for travellers seeing the lake from a new station roughly where Swingbelly's is -- that's wishful thinking, because the dominant object in view at that point isn't the lake, it's the back end of the NIPSCO plant.
I think Joe actually said it would take a 45 foot clearance, which means a 9000 feet long bridge, 4500 to each side of the creek.
Posted by: lovethiscity Dec 10 2009, 10:45 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Dec 10 2009, 08:17 PM)
I think Joe actually said it would take a 45 foot clearance, which means a 9000 feet long bridge, 4500 to each side of the creek.
WOW, The Franklin Street bridge ( I know no trains use it ) is no where close to the 45' range and the Amtrack bridge that crosses the same federal waterway has about 10' of clearance, length wise it is short of the 9000' by about 8900'
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 10 2009, 10:48 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Dec 10 2009, 10:45 PM)
WOW, The Franklin Street bridge ( I know no trains use it ) is no where close to the 45' range and the Amtrack bridge that crosses the same federal waterway has about 10' of clearance, length wise it is short of the 9000' by about 8900'
It also opens to allow watercraft to go under it.
Posted by: joe.black Dec 11 2009, 06:55 AM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Dec 10 2009, 11:45 PM)
WOW, The Franklin Street bridge ( I know no trains use it ) is no where close to the 45' range and the Amtrack bridge that crosses the same federal waterway has about 10' of clearance, length wise it is short of the 9000' by about 8900'
The new bridge would not be a draw or swing bridge - it would be a solid structure, high enough to allow water traffic under high tide conditions, consistent with Coast Guard regs. The current Amtrak bridge is a swing bridge, and the Franklin Street bridge is a draw.
Posted by: joe.black Dec 11 2009, 06:57 AM
QUOTE(Dave @ Dec 10 2009, 08:35 PM)
...Some folks think it could be made pretty -- I suspect it would look like a railroad trestle, and cut off what view MC has left of the lake. As for travellers seeing the lake from a new station roughly where Swingbelly's is -- that's wishful thinking, because the dominant object in view at that point isn't the lake, it's the back end of the NIPSCO plant.
I suspect that it would look substantially like a railroad trestle as well. Unfortunately for the northern route supporters (who have beautiful drawings on their web site which are far removed from reality), the bridge would have to support the operation of very heavy freight trains. That means it would have to be a fairly substantial structure, and I don't see how you could "pretty it up" very much.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 11 2009, 08:09 AM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Dec 11 2009, 06:55 AM)
The new bridge would not be a draw or swing bridge - it would be a solid structure, high enough to allow water traffic under high tide conditions, consistent with Coast Guard regs. The current Amtrak bridge is a swing bridge, and the Franklin Street bridge is a draw.
The fun part is that if it could be done, it would have to go either under, over, or through the train bridge which would be right in front of it.
Posted by: Beachguy Dec 11 2009, 04:29 PM
QUOTE(southsider2k9 @ Dec 11 2009, 08:09 AM)
The fun part is that if it could be done, it would have to go either under, over, or through the train bridge which would be right in front of it.
If you run down the east side of Michigan Blvd. where is it that you have to cross Trail Creek? Unless I am missing something here I see no need for a bridge what so ever. You would have to cross Hwy. 12 than turn towards Franklin St. and cross south of the draw bridge. Forget the bridge and forget the grade inc., keep it simple.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 11 2009, 05:36 PM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Dec 11 2009, 04:29 PM)
If you run down the east side of Michigan Blvd. where is it that you have to cross Trail Creek? Unless I am missing something here I see no need for a bridge what so ever. You would have to cross Hwy. 12 than turn towards Franklin St. and cross south of the draw bridge. Forget the bridge and forget the grade inc., keep it simple.
The east side of Michigan Blvd is not even close to the 60 feet wide that is needed.
Posted by: Dave Dec 11 2009, 05:38 PM
QUOTE(Beachguy @ Dec 11 2009, 04:29 PM)
If you run down the east side of Michigan Blvd. where is it that you have to cross Trail Creek? Unless I am missing something here I see no need for a bridge what so ever. You would have to cross Hwy. 12 than turn towards Franklin St. and cross south of the draw bridge. Forget the bridge and forget the grade inc., keep it simple.
And as I said in post #221, forget Trail Creek redevelopment as well.
Posted by: lovethiscity Dec 11 2009, 06:41 PM
QUOTE(Dave @ Dec 11 2009, 05:38 PM)
And as I said in post #221, forget Trail Creek redevelopment as well.
This is Michigan City folks! Town of study after study yet nothing happens, why get worked up over this one? In twenty years talk will be of another study to relocate the tracks that are still running down the center of 11th street.
Posted by: joe.black Dec 11 2009, 07:33 PM
QUOTE(lovethiscity @ Dec 11 2009, 07:41 PM)
This is Michigan City folks! Town of study after study yet nothing happens, why get worked up over this one? In twenty years talk will be of another study to relocate the tracks that are still running down the center of 11th street.
Don't count on it. With a federal mandate to have Positive Train Control installed, tested, and in revenue service by December, 2015, the railroad has little choice but to get the tracks out of the asphalt one way or another.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 17 2009, 12:21 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=72&ArticleID=27685
QUOTE
Our Opinion:
The Issue:
School board tables resolution on street closings.
Our Opinion:
Everyone, from the school board to Amtrak, must participate in this major decision.
South Shore
School board defers taking stand
Editorial
The board of Michigan City Area Schools tabled a stand on the South Shore commuter rail realignment proposal Tuesday.
But the issues school board member Beryle Burgwald raises are ones that the Michigan City community must face. Earlier this month, concerns about closing 17 of 34 street crossings along the 10th and 11th street corridor to move the train tracks to the south side of those streets prompted the City Council to ask that the relocation study give serious consideration to a northern route.
A northern route would parallel the Amtrak rail line across the North End rather than keep South Shore trains on the 10th and 11th street corridor.
Practically bisecting the city with a new fenced-off South Shore track poses problems for school bus routes and for children walking to school, and it also poses problems for many others as well, whether they walk or drive around the South Shore corridor, or are trying to get from one place to another in that part of the city.
While the engineering study that will analyze both routes remains to be conducted, those who favor the northern route are afraid it won't get serious consideration because of its much higher cost of the northern route, a perceived unwillingness on the part of the South Shore's operator to use the north route, and a concern that Amtrak won't work with the South Shore on sharing a corridor.
The relocation of the South Shore is a decision that could remain in effect 100 years. Engineering is a big component of the decision, as is cost. But the cost must be looked at over 50 or 100 years.
Further, it may take the offices of Indiana's U.S. senators to push Amtrak, but it would be nonsensical to think that Amtrak and the South Shore can't work together.
Everyone in Michigan City - certainly including school board members, bus drivers, students who walk to school and their parents - needs to offer input into this monumental decision.
The Issue:
School board tables resolution on street closings.
Our Opinion:
Everyone, from the school board to Amtrak, must participate in this major decision.
South Shore
School board defers taking stand
Editorial
The board of Michigan City Area Schools tabled a stand on the South Shore commuter rail realignment proposal Tuesday.
But the issues school board member Beryle Burgwald raises are ones that the Michigan City community must face. Earlier this month, concerns about closing 17 of 34 street crossings along the 10th and 11th street corridor to move the train tracks to the south side of those streets prompted the City Council to ask that the relocation study give serious consideration to a northern route.
A northern route would parallel the Amtrak rail line across the North End rather than keep South Shore trains on the 10th and 11th street corridor.
Practically bisecting the city with a new fenced-off South Shore track poses problems for school bus routes and for children walking to school, and it also poses problems for many others as well, whether they walk or drive around the South Shore corridor, or are trying to get from one place to another in that part of the city.
While the engineering study that will analyze both routes remains to be conducted, those who favor the northern route are afraid it won't get serious consideration because of its much higher cost of the northern route, a perceived unwillingness on the part of the South Shore's operator to use the north route, and a concern that Amtrak won't work with the South Shore on sharing a corridor.
The relocation of the South Shore is a decision that could remain in effect 100 years. Engineering is a big component of the decision, as is cost. But the cost must be looked at over 50 or 100 years.
Further, it may take the offices of Indiana's U.S. senators to push Amtrak, but it would be nonsensical to think that Amtrak and the South Shore can't work together.
Everyone in Michigan City - certainly including school board members, bus drivers, students who walk to school and their parents - needs to offer input into this monumental decision.
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 21 2009, 11:32 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=27751
QUOTE
What's next in the South Shore issue
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Whether the 11th Street corridor or northern Amtrak route is the best for the South Shore commuter train continues to be a contentious issue heading into the new year.
It comes down to who's defining "best" and who will fund additional engineering studies and, ultimately, the South Shore realignment.
The City Council passed a resolution Dec. 1 supporting the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District's desire to move ahead with engineering studies. Both possible rail routes for the South Shore will be examined.
"I expect to call NICTD (this week) to discuss the next steps," Mayor Chuck Oberlie said. "While the city did not sign an agreement, the council has stated the desire for the study and its intended support for implementation."
NICTD was looking for an agreement with the city in April when it proposed a track realignment within the existing corridor on 10th and 11th streets. A series of public forums, facilitated by consultant Stu Sirota, slowed the city's response but, Oberlie said, having public meetings was the right thing to do.
At this point, funding is the key to advancing the project, according to John Parsons, NICTD planning and marketing manager
"Now that the city has passed the resolution," he said, "we need to find funding for the preliminary engineering study."
NICTD is looking for the most cost-effective alignment, Parsons said, and a lot more engineering analysis will be necessary.
"When it gets right down to it," Parsons said "it's going to be an issue of cost and available funding."
Fred Miller, a member of a vocal cadre of concerned residents known as the North End group, said they're more interested in what's best for the city. And, he said, "We aren't going away."
"Everything NICTD's proposing and the reason they're so fixed on 11th Street, is it's the shortest, least expensive commuter route available," Miller said. "None of that takes into consideration what's good for the city."
The North End group strongly believes in and is pushing for a South Shore route running parallel to the existing Amtrak line. The group cites problems with the South Shore proposal, including possibly closing 17 of 34 street crossings along the rail corridor, demolishing some 100 houses and businesses and reducing the quality of life of area residents. The group has more than 900 signatures opposing the South Shore changes, according to Miller.
The North End group points out a consultants' study of three possible South Shore routes found the northern route to be the most economically advantageous for Michigan City. But the study found significant economic benefits to the existing South Shore corridor, and mentioned the serious drawback in the north of replacing an aging swing bridge with a higher, more expensive bridge over Trail Creek.
The North End group believes federal funding can solve the bridge problem. They're banking on President Barack Obama's interest in high-speed rail, backed by an initial $8 billion in stimulus funds, to ultimately support the local improvements as part of a proposed Detroit to Chicago high-speed rail line.
Miller said the group plans to approach U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., about making a case for federal funding of the project. Bud Ruby, a supporter of the northern route, is a friend of Lugar's and can help make the introduction, Miller said.
"We're asking him (Lugar) to get the transportation authority to bring Amtrak's top people to the table with NICTD's top people," Miller said. "It would be better for the two to work together on a dual track system that would provide a much better alternative route than 11th Street."
County Councilman Mark Yagelski, who is a NICTD board member, said NICTD has no problem using the northern route if enough funds are available. And, he said, the South Shore would need an agreement that its schedule wouldn't be tied to Amtrak's.
"Going into Chicago, there's only one track," he said. "If you miss the time by five minutes, you have to sit on the tracks and wait to come in (to Chicago). We can't be held up because of Amtrak."
The federal government is requiring commuter rail lines to achieve positive train control by 2015. Positive train control uses the latest global positioning technology to detect when two trains are heading for a possible collision and can override decisions of engineers to prevent collisions.
Yagelski said he's met with U.S. Congressman Joe Donnelly, D-Granger, to discuss funding for the South Shore project, and the congressman has asked if all parties are on the same track.
"He says if we have a common plan, he'll support it," Yagelski said. "The mayor needs to help direct the situation. We have to have common ground. It's going to take leadership."
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Whether the 11th Street corridor or northern Amtrak route is the best for the South Shore commuter train continues to be a contentious issue heading into the new year.
It comes down to who's defining "best" and who will fund additional engineering studies and, ultimately, the South Shore realignment.
The City Council passed a resolution Dec. 1 supporting the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District's desire to move ahead with engineering studies. Both possible rail routes for the South Shore will be examined.
"I expect to call NICTD (this week) to discuss the next steps," Mayor Chuck Oberlie said. "While the city did not sign an agreement, the council has stated the desire for the study and its intended support for implementation."
NICTD was looking for an agreement with the city in April when it proposed a track realignment within the existing corridor on 10th and 11th streets. A series of public forums, facilitated by consultant Stu Sirota, slowed the city's response but, Oberlie said, having public meetings was the right thing to do.
At this point, funding is the key to advancing the project, according to John Parsons, NICTD planning and marketing manager
"Now that the city has passed the resolution," he said, "we need to find funding for the preliminary engineering study."
NICTD is looking for the most cost-effective alignment, Parsons said, and a lot more engineering analysis will be necessary.
"When it gets right down to it," Parsons said "it's going to be an issue of cost and available funding."
Fred Miller, a member of a vocal cadre of concerned residents known as the North End group, said they're more interested in what's best for the city. And, he said, "We aren't going away."
"Everything NICTD's proposing and the reason they're so fixed on 11th Street, is it's the shortest, least expensive commuter route available," Miller said. "None of that takes into consideration what's good for the city."
The North End group strongly believes in and is pushing for a South Shore route running parallel to the existing Amtrak line. The group cites problems with the South Shore proposal, including possibly closing 17 of 34 street crossings along the rail corridor, demolishing some 100 houses and businesses and reducing the quality of life of area residents. The group has more than 900 signatures opposing the South Shore changes, according to Miller.
The North End group points out a consultants' study of three possible South Shore routes found the northern route to be the most economically advantageous for Michigan City. But the study found significant economic benefits to the existing South Shore corridor, and mentioned the serious drawback in the north of replacing an aging swing bridge with a higher, more expensive bridge over Trail Creek.
The North End group believes federal funding can solve the bridge problem. They're banking on President Barack Obama's interest in high-speed rail, backed by an initial $8 billion in stimulus funds, to ultimately support the local improvements as part of a proposed Detroit to Chicago high-speed rail line.
Miller said the group plans to approach U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., about making a case for federal funding of the project. Bud Ruby, a supporter of the northern route, is a friend of Lugar's and can help make the introduction, Miller said.
"We're asking him (Lugar) to get the transportation authority to bring Amtrak's top people to the table with NICTD's top people," Miller said. "It would be better for the two to work together on a dual track system that would provide a much better alternative route than 11th Street."
County Councilman Mark Yagelski, who is a NICTD board member, said NICTD has no problem using the northern route if enough funds are available. And, he said, the South Shore would need an agreement that its schedule wouldn't be tied to Amtrak's.
"Going into Chicago, there's only one track," he said. "If you miss the time by five minutes, you have to sit on the tracks and wait to come in (to Chicago). We can't be held up because of Amtrak."
The federal government is requiring commuter rail lines to achieve positive train control by 2015. Positive train control uses the latest global positioning technology to detect when two trains are heading for a possible collision and can override decisions of engineers to prevent collisions.
Yagelski said he's met with U.S. Congressman Joe Donnelly, D-Granger, to discuss funding for the South Shore project, and the congressman has asked if all parties are on the same track.
"He says if we have a common plan, he'll support it," Yagelski said. "The mayor needs to help direct the situation. We have to have common ground. It's going to take leadership."
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: Dave Dec 22 2009, 02:15 AM
Considering the huge expense of the North End plan, I have to say I can't imagine it ever happening.
Just think about it. Under NICTD's 11th street plan, something like 150 buildings have to be removed. They could pay each and every one of those property owners a million bucks each, and it would STILL cost only a third of the price of the bridge over Trail Creek.
But hey, if they can somehow get the Feds to pony up the cash, more power to 'em.
Posted by: joe.black Dec 22 2009, 07:05 AM
Ugh, where to start? The $8 billion that the North End group keeps throwing out there is *total* for the country, not just for the Chicago - Detroit corridor. As far as I know (and I've seen some of the proposals), the HSR line, if it ever gets built, will not be going via the current Amtrak route. Sorry if I sound a bit peevish, but I'm getting tired of people, when you ask how things are going to be paid for, screaming "stimulus!!!", and expecting that to end the discussion.
As I've said before, mixing high speed trains with conventional Amtrak trains and local commuter trains simply doesn't work, and it would not be done, for operational reasons.
Even if the current Amtrak route WERE chosen for HSR, the only way the South Shore could be re-routed up there would be for the HSR authority, out of the goodness of their hearts, to simply decide to build the South Shore an extra bridge deck and track, with no benefit whatsoever to the high speed trains. I don't see that happening.
Again, though - I don't have all of the engineering data, etc. No one does at this point. That's why the engineering study is being done: to define the alternatives at a more detailed level, develop cost information, and check constructability. Perhaps a third alternative might be developed that's a hybrid of the other two, or an entirely new third alternative...
Posted by: southsider2k9 Dec 26 2009, 01:53 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=27751&TM=53443.5
QUOTE
What's next in the South Shore issue
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Whether the 11th Street corridor or northern Amtrak route is the best for the South Shore commuter train continues to be a contentious issue heading into the new year.
It comes down to who's defining "best" and who will fund additional engineering studies and, ultimately, the South Shore realignment.
The City Council passed a resolution Dec. 1 supporting the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District's desire to move ahead with engineering studies. Both possible rail routes for the South Shore will be examined.
"I expect to call NICTD (this week) to discuss the next steps," Mayor Chuck Oberlie said. "While the city did not sign an agreement, the council has stated the desire for the study and its intended support for implementation."
NICTD was looking for an agreement with the city in April when it proposed a track realignment within the existing corridor on 10th and 11th streets. A series of public forums, facilitated by consultant Stu Sirota, slowed the city's response but, Oberlie said, having public meetings was the right thing to do.
At this point, funding is the key to advancing the project, according to John Parsons, NICTD planning and marketing manager
"Now that the city has passed the resolution," he said, "we need to find funding for the preliminary engineering study."
NICTD is looking for the most cost-effective alignment, Parsons said, and a lot more engineering analysis will be necessary.
"When it gets right down to it," Parsons said "it's going to be an issue of cost and available funding."
Fred Miller, a member of a vocal cadre of concerned residents known as the North End group, said they're more interested in what's best for the city. And, he said, "We aren't going away."
"Everything NICTD's proposing and the reason they're so fixed on 11th Street, is it's the shortest, least expensive commuter route available," Miller said. "None of that takes into consideration what's good for the city."
The North End group strongly believes in and is pushing for a South Shore route running parallel to the existing Amtrak line. The group cites problems with the South Shore proposal, including possibly closing 17 of 34 street crossings along the rail corridor, demolishing some 100 houses and businesses and reducing the quality of life of area residents. The group has more than 900 signatures opposing the South Shore changes, according to Miller.
The North End group points out a consultants' study of three possible South Shore routes found the northern route to be the most economically advantageous for Michigan City. But the study found significant economic benefits to the existing South Shore corridor, and mentioned the serious drawback in the north of replacing an aging swing bridge with a higher, more expensive bridge over Trail Creek.
The North End group believes federal funding can solve the bridge problem. They're banking on President Barack Obama's interest in high-speed rail, backed by an initial $8 billion in stimulus funds, to ultimately support the local improvements as part of a proposed Detroit to Chicago high-speed rail line.
Miller said the group plans to approach U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., about making a case for federal funding of the project. Bud Ruby, a supporter of the northern route, is a friend of Lugar's and can help make the introduction, Miller said.
"We're asking him (Lugar) to get the transportation authority to bring Amtrak's top people to the table with NICTD's top people," Miller said. "It would be better for the two to work together on a dual track system that would provide a much better alternative route than 11th Street."
County Councilman Mark Yagelski, who is a NICTD board member, said NICTD has no problem using the northern route if enough funds are available. And, he said, the South Shore would need an agreement that its schedule wouldn't be tied to Amtrak's.
"Going into Chicago, there's only one track," he said. "If you miss the time by five minutes, you have to sit on the tracks and wait to come in (to Chicago). We can't be held up because of Amtrak."
The federal government is requiring commuter rail lines to achieve positive train control by 2015. Positive train control uses the latest global positioning technology to detect when two trains are heading for a possible collision and can override decisions of engineers to prevent collisions.
Yagelski said he's met with U.S. Congressman Joe Donnelly, D-Granger, to discuss funding for the South Shore project, and the congressman has asked if all parties are on the same track.
"He says if we have a common plan, he'll support it," Yagelski said. "The mayor needs to help direct the situation. We have to have common ground. It's going to take leadership."
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - Whether the 11th Street corridor or northern Amtrak route is the best for the South Shore commuter train continues to be a contentious issue heading into the new year.
It comes down to who's defining "best" and who will fund additional engineering studies and, ultimately, the South Shore realignment.
The City Council passed a resolution Dec. 1 supporting the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District's desire to move ahead with engineering studies. Both possible rail routes for the South Shore will be examined.
"I expect to call NICTD (this week) to discuss the next steps," Mayor Chuck Oberlie said. "While the city did not sign an agreement, the council has stated the desire for the study and its intended support for implementation."
NICTD was looking for an agreement with the city in April when it proposed a track realignment within the existing corridor on 10th and 11th streets. A series of public forums, facilitated by consultant Stu Sirota, slowed the city's response but, Oberlie said, having public meetings was the right thing to do.
At this point, funding is the key to advancing the project, according to John Parsons, NICTD planning and marketing manager
"Now that the city has passed the resolution," he said, "we need to find funding for the preliminary engineering study."
NICTD is looking for the most cost-effective alignment, Parsons said, and a lot more engineering analysis will be necessary.
"When it gets right down to it," Parsons said "it's going to be an issue of cost and available funding."
Fred Miller, a member of a vocal cadre of concerned residents known as the North End group, said they're more interested in what's best for the city. And, he said, "We aren't going away."
"Everything NICTD's proposing and the reason they're so fixed on 11th Street, is it's the shortest, least expensive commuter route available," Miller said. "None of that takes into consideration what's good for the city."
The North End group strongly believes in and is pushing for a South Shore route running parallel to the existing Amtrak line. The group cites problems with the South Shore proposal, including possibly closing 17 of 34 street crossings along the rail corridor, demolishing some 100 houses and businesses and reducing the quality of life of area residents. The group has more than 900 signatures opposing the South Shore changes, according to Miller.
The North End group points out a consultants' study of three possible South Shore routes found the northern route to be the most economically advantageous for Michigan City. But the study found significant economic benefits to the existing South Shore corridor, and mentioned the serious drawback in the north of replacing an aging swing bridge with a higher, more expensive bridge over Trail Creek.
The North End group believes federal funding can solve the bridge problem. They're banking on President Barack Obama's interest in high-speed rail, backed by an initial $8 billion in stimulus funds, to ultimately support the local improvements as part of a proposed Detroit to Chicago high-speed rail line.
Miller said the group plans to approach U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., about making a case for federal funding of the project. Bud Ruby, a supporter of the northern route, is a friend of Lugar's and can help make the introduction, Miller said.
"We're asking him (Lugar) to get the transportation authority to bring Amtrak's top people to the table with NICTD's top people," Miller said. "It would be better for the two to work together on a dual track system that would provide a much better alternative route than 11th Street."
County Councilman Mark Yagelski, who is a NICTD board member, said NICTD has no problem using the northern route if enough funds are available. And, he said, the South Shore would need an agreement that its schedule wouldn't be tied to Amtrak's.
"Going into Chicago, there's only one track," he said. "If you miss the time by five minutes, you have to sit on the tracks and wait to come in (to Chicago). We can't be held up because of Amtrak."
The federal government is requiring commuter rail lines to achieve positive train control by 2015. Positive train control uses the latest global positioning technology to detect when two trains are heading for a possible collision and can override decisions of engineers to prevent collisions.
Yagelski said he's met with U.S. Congressman Joe Donnelly, D-Granger, to discuss funding for the South Shore project, and the congressman has asked if all parties are on the same track.
"He says if we have a common plan, he'll support it," Yagelski said. "The mayor needs to help direct the situation. We have to have common ground. It's going to take leadership."
q
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: southsiderMMX Jan 26 2010, 12:26 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2010/01/26/news/opinion/anvil_chorus/doc4b5e15a25c5a9580335686.txt
QUOTE
Moving Amtrak opens possibilities
Published: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 4:17 AM CST
Michigan City is riding this economic typhoon fairly well, it seems. However, the decisions made by people higher up the government food chain could hinder or encourage development in Michigan City. I have heard rumors that high-speed rail between Chicago and Detroit will not use the current alignment.
If that’s true, does that mean Amtrak plans to abandon its line segment between New Buffalo and Porter? What development opportunities in Michigan City would abandonment stimulate? What impact would abandonment have on the opinions of citizens who oppose NICTD’s “Great Wall” project on 11th Street? In my opinion, picking up the Amtrak rails makes good sense. Turning that roadbed into a trail that connects New Buffalo to the Prairie Duneland Trail in Chesterton is the green thing to do.
Without tracks blocking access, marina/housing developments would become more attractive to investors, thus stimulating that making money-spending money thing. Whatever decision is made, I am pleased the powers that be are not making hasty decisions.
Phil Grams
Michigan City
Published: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 4:17 AM CST
Michigan City is riding this economic typhoon fairly well, it seems. However, the decisions made by people higher up the government food chain could hinder or encourage development in Michigan City. I have heard rumors that high-speed rail between Chicago and Detroit will not use the current alignment.
If that’s true, does that mean Amtrak plans to abandon its line segment between New Buffalo and Porter? What development opportunities in Michigan City would abandonment stimulate? What impact would abandonment have on the opinions of citizens who oppose NICTD’s “Great Wall” project on 11th Street? In my opinion, picking up the Amtrak rails makes good sense. Turning that roadbed into a trail that connects New Buffalo to the Prairie Duneland Trail in Chesterton is the green thing to do.
Without tracks blocking access, marina/housing developments would become more attractive to investors, thus stimulating that making money-spending money thing. Whatever decision is made, I am pleased the powers that be are not making hasty decisions.
Phil Grams
Michigan City
Posted by: joe.black Jan 28 2010, 01:44 PM
Stay tuned. The final rule on PTC is out from the FRA, and it appears from my very preliminary reading of this dense, 400+ page document that there may be a way for NICTD to exempt the 11th St. tracks from the PTC requirement. Still reading- I'll let you know what I think once I know what I think.
Posted by: southsiderMMX Jan 28 2010, 02:03 PM
Very interesting! If it is something we can get ahold of, that would be awesome. If not, I look forward to your analysis.
Posted by: southsiderMMX Jan 28 2010, 02:06 PM
Especially because if I understand this correctly, the dream of the northern route may now be dead.
http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20100128/News01/100129420/-1/googleNews
QUOTE
High-speed rail plan bypasses Michiana
White House announcement spells out $8 billion investment in projects across nation
Tribune Staff Report
Story was first posted at 11:30 a.m. Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010.
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will today announce the U.S. Department of Transportation is awarding $8 billion to states across the country to develop America's first nationwide high-speed intercity passenger rail service.
But according to a report released this morning, the plan apparently bypasses any Indiana cities.
Cities across northern Indiana had been lobbying for some time to be on a high-speed rail line.
Quantcast
The news release this morning says: "Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, these dollars represent an historic investment in the country's transportation infrastructure, which will help create jobs and transform travel in America. The announcement is one of a number of job initiatives the President will lay out in the coming weeks that follow up on the continued commitment to job creation he discussed in Wednesday night's State of the Union Address.
A full list of the awards can be viewed by clicking here.
Today's awards will serve as a down-payment on developing or laying the groundwork for 13 new, large-scale high-speed rail corridors across the country, the release said.
The major corridors are part of a total of 31 states receiving investments, including smaller projects and planning work that will help lay the groundwork for future high-speed intercity rail service.
White House announcement spells out $8 billion investment in projects across nation
Tribune Staff Report
Story was first posted at 11:30 a.m. Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010.
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will today announce the U.S. Department of Transportation is awarding $8 billion to states across the country to develop America's first nationwide high-speed intercity passenger rail service.
But according to a report released this morning, the plan apparently bypasses any Indiana cities.
Cities across northern Indiana had been lobbying for some time to be on a high-speed rail line.
Quantcast
The news release this morning says: "Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, these dollars represent an historic investment in the country's transportation infrastructure, which will help create jobs and transform travel in America. The announcement is one of a number of job initiatives the President will lay out in the coming weeks that follow up on the continued commitment to job creation he discussed in Wednesday night's State of the Union Address.
A full list of the awards can be viewed by clicking here.
Today's awards will serve as a down-payment on developing or laying the groundwork for 13 new, large-scale high-speed rail corridors across the country, the release said.
The major corridors are part of a total of 31 states receiving investments, including smaller projects and planning work that will help lay the groundwork for future high-speed intercity rail service.
Posted by: mcstumper Jan 28 2010, 04:53 PM
QUOTE(southsiderMMX @ Jan 28 2010, 02:06 PM)
Especially because if I understand this correctly, the dream of the northern route may now be dead.
Dream or nightmare?
Posted by: dusk Jan 28 2010, 05:27 PM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Jan 28 2010, 04:53 PM)
Dream or nightmare?
I was kind of wondering, how would a "large-scale high-speed rail corridor" fit through the "northern route" in MC?
Posted by: joe.black Jan 28 2010, 06:04 PM
QUOTE(dusk @ Jan 28 2010, 06:27 PM)
I was kind of wondering, how would a "large-scale high-speed rail corridor" fit through the "northern route" in MC?
It wouldn't, even if Indiana got $8 trillion in HSR funds. That right of way is sub-optimal for high speed rail; the plans that I saw (now moot, I guess, at least for now) ran the HSR trackage on all-new, high speed train-exclusive rights of way through NWI.
Posted by: joe.black Jan 28 2010, 06:09 PM
QUOTE(southsiderMMX @ Jan 28 2010, 03:03 PM)
Very interesting! If it is something we can get ahold of, that would be awesome. If not, I look forward to your analysis.
The full document should be available on the FRA web site. I actually got it from a colleague who already had an electronic copy.
www.fra.gov
Posted by: southsiderMMX Jan 28 2010, 07:50 PM
QUOTE(dusk @ Jan 28 2010, 05:27 PM)
I was kind of wondering, how would a "large-scale high-speed rail corridor" fit through the "northern route" in MC?
The hope of the northenders was to somehow piggyback onto the high speed corridor to pay for the Trail Creek bridge in their plans. Most likely, this would effectively kill that idea.
Posted by: southsiderMMX Jan 29 2010, 08:04 AM
QUOTE(southsiderMMX @ Jan 28 2010, 02:06 PM)
Especially because if I understand this correctly, the dream of the northern route may now be dead.
http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20100128/News01/100129420/-1/googleNews
The NDs version of the story
http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2010/01/29/news/local/doc4b626aa064a39451665046.txt
QUOTE
High-speed rail quickly gaining ground
Chris Schable/For The News-Dispatch A westbound Amtrak train travels through Michigan City on track that crosses the city’s North End, which could become part of a Chicago-Detroit high-speed rail line.
State given $71.4 million for its part of project
From Staff and Wire Reports
Published: Friday, January 29, 2010 4:17 AM CST
MICHIGAN CITY — Indiana officials Thursday received about $71.4 million in federal stimulus money for its part of a planned high-speed rail project that would run from Chicago to suburban Detroit.
About 30 miles of that route passes through Northwest Indiana, and it may use Amtrak routes that pass through Michigan City.
No money appears to be earmarked for track improvements in Michigan City at this time, but instead the money will be used for a major investment on the most congested and delay-prone corridor in the country, which is west of here, between Porter, Ind., and Chicago, according to the White House.
U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, described the project as upgrades to consisting of eight independent improvements along that congested segment. Seven of the investments will be on the Norfolk Souther railroad line and one on the Amtrak Michigan Line at Porter.
President Obama, following up on his remarks about high-speed rail in his State of the Union address Wednesday night, announced Thursday in Tampa, Fla., $8 billion in grants for various rail improvements around the country. That includes $244 million for the Chicago to Detroit corridor. The grants are from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
In Indiana, the project includes the relocation, reconfiguration and addition of high-speed crossovers and related signal system improvements, rail line additions at two locations, and the creation of a new passing tracks, the White House announced. “The project will greatly increase service reliability for passengers travelling from communities in Michigan and Indiana to Chicago, reducing train delay times by 24 percent and increasing average speeds by nearly 7 percent through this segment,” the White House statement said.
In Michigan, existing stations will be renovated in Troy and Battle Creek, and a new station will be constructed in downtown Dearborn adjacent to the Henry Ford Museum. Michigan gets $40 million of the funds.
In Illinois, bridges, embankment and retaining walls will be built to complement additional investments and support the construction of three new tracks to reduce congestion and allow for increased speeds of 40 percent through this area. Illinois gets $1.1 billion for this and improvements on other routes.
Thirteen passenger rail corridors in 31 states will receive grants. Some Democrats tout the high-speed rail project as a national rail-building program that could rival the interstate highways begun in the Eisenhower era.
Though the administration bills the program as “high-speed rail,” most U.S. projects won’t reach the speeds seen in Europe and Asia. California’s trains would be by far the fastest, exceeding the 200 mph achieved by some trains overseas.
Some of the money will go toward trains with top speeds of 110 mph, while other funds — such as the $400 million allotted to Ohio to connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati — will be for trains traveling no faster than 79 mph.
The White House said rail projects will create or save thousands of jobs in areas including track laying, manufacturing, planning, engineering and rail maintenance and operations.
Chris Schable/For The News-Dispatch A westbound Amtrak train travels through Michigan City on track that crosses the city’s North End, which could become part of a Chicago-Detroit high-speed rail line.
State given $71.4 million for its part of project
From Staff and Wire Reports
Published: Friday, January 29, 2010 4:17 AM CST
MICHIGAN CITY — Indiana officials Thursday received about $71.4 million in federal stimulus money for its part of a planned high-speed rail project that would run from Chicago to suburban Detroit.
About 30 miles of that route passes through Northwest Indiana, and it may use Amtrak routes that pass through Michigan City.
No money appears to be earmarked for track improvements in Michigan City at this time, but instead the money will be used for a major investment on the most congested and delay-prone corridor in the country, which is west of here, between Porter, Ind., and Chicago, according to the White House.
U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, described the project as upgrades to consisting of eight independent improvements along that congested segment. Seven of the investments will be on the Norfolk Souther railroad line and one on the Amtrak Michigan Line at Porter.
President Obama, following up on his remarks about high-speed rail in his State of the Union address Wednesday night, announced Thursday in Tampa, Fla., $8 billion in grants for various rail improvements around the country. That includes $244 million for the Chicago to Detroit corridor. The grants are from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
In Indiana, the project includes the relocation, reconfiguration and addition of high-speed crossovers and related signal system improvements, rail line additions at two locations, and the creation of a new passing tracks, the White House announced. “The project will greatly increase service reliability for passengers travelling from communities in Michigan and Indiana to Chicago, reducing train delay times by 24 percent and increasing average speeds by nearly 7 percent through this segment,” the White House statement said.
In Michigan, existing stations will be renovated in Troy and Battle Creek, and a new station will be constructed in downtown Dearborn adjacent to the Henry Ford Museum. Michigan gets $40 million of the funds.
In Illinois, bridges, embankment and retaining walls will be built to complement additional investments and support the construction of three new tracks to reduce congestion and allow for increased speeds of 40 percent through this area. Illinois gets $1.1 billion for this and improvements on other routes.
Thirteen passenger rail corridors in 31 states will receive grants. Some Democrats tout the high-speed rail project as a national rail-building program that could rival the interstate highways begun in the Eisenhower era.
Though the administration bills the program as “high-speed rail,” most U.S. projects won’t reach the speeds seen in Europe and Asia. California’s trains would be by far the fastest, exceeding the 200 mph achieved by some trains overseas.
Some of the money will go toward trains with top speeds of 110 mph, while other funds — such as the $400 million allotted to Ohio to connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati — will be for trains traveling no faster than 79 mph.
The White House said rail projects will create or save thousands of jobs in areas including track laying, manufacturing, planning, engineering and rail maintenance and operations.
Posted by: southsiderMMX Jan 29 2010, 08:15 AM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Jan 28 2010, 06:09 PM)
The full document should be available on the FRA web site. I actually got it from a colleague who already had an electronic copy.
www.fra.gov
Here is the report. 475 pages.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Safety/PTC_Final_Rule_20100112_%28FedReg%29_%28final%29.pdf
Posted by: lighter Jan 29 2010, 04:55 PM
isn't the nd version of the story wrong? or at least, not right. it makes it seeem like its coming though the area, but clerely it isnt. just a reason to get a big photo with a big headlin on the page? Seems like the plan is closer to derailed then it is on the fast track. seems like they speculate based on nothing they no.
Posted by: joe.black Jan 30 2010, 12:56 PM
OK, finished a very VERY preliminary review, and I think that while an MTEA may be possible for NICTD (exempting the street running from the PTC mandate), it will be very difficult.
To be granted an MTEA, a passenger railroad can apply to have some of its trackage classified as "not main line" (and therefore be exempted from the PTC mandate), under the following conditions:
1. Tracks are used exclusively as yard or terminal tracks (the street running could possibly fit this bill, although it does not currently - the yard limits territory would need to be extended all the way through the street-running portion of the line),
2. Maximum authorized speed is 20 mph or less, and that speed is enforced by the PTC on-board system (current maximum speed is 25 mph; this would have to be reduced to 20 mph - not a tragedy, but also not something that NICTD will find very attractive, as it's a step backward in terms of the strategic vision of reducing travel times across the line),
3. Interlocking rules are in effect that prohibit reverse movements other than on signal indications without dispatcher permission (under NICTD's rules, this is the case or could be made the case), and
4. Either no freight movements are made (which is obviously an impossibility - the SouthShore Freight operates out of the Shops at Carroll Avenue and uses the street running territory to get to the west) - OR - Freight operations are permitted, but there will be no passengers aboard passenger trains within the defined limits (another impossibility, for obvious reasons).
So, under those guidelines an MTEA cannot be approved, mainly because of provision 4.
There are a second set of conditions under which an MTEA could be approved:
1. All trains are limited to restricted speed (which is 20 mph - current maximum speed is 25 mph, which would have to be lowered, as in the previous set of conditions; not attractive to the railroad),
2. Temporal separation of trains is maintained (freight and passenger trains do not operate on any shared segment of track during the same time period; I need to dig into this a bit more, since this is on its face impossible unless you prohibit SouthShore Freight to operate during times when NICTD does not - not going to happen) - OR - Passenger service is operated under a risk mitigation plan submitted by all railroads operating in the territory - NICTD and SouthShore Freight - and approved by the FRA.
An MTEA under the second set of conditions might be possible, but the key is the risk mitigation plan, which must under the final PTC rule "...be supported by a risk assessment establishing that the proposed mitigations will achieve a level of safety not less than the level of safety that would obtain if the operations were conducted under paragraph ©(1) or ©(2) of this section...", which means that NICTD and SouthShore Freight would have to absolutely convince the FRA that the street running operation is at least as safe as temporally separating the types of trains (i.e. having the freights operate at different time periods than the passenger trains). That might be a very hard sell.
So, this will be a challenge, to say the least.
Posted by: mcstumper Jan 31 2010, 10:03 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Jan 30 2010, 12:56 PM)
4. Either no freight movements are made (which is obviously an impossibility - the SouthShore Freight operates out of the Shops at Carroll Avenue and uses the street running territory to get to the west) - OR - Freight operations are permitted, but there will be no passengers aboard passenger trains within the defined limits (another impossibility, for obvious reasons).
...
2. Temporal separation of trains is maintained (freight and passenger trains do not operate on any shared segment of track during the same time period; I need to dig into this a bit more, since this is on its face impossible unless you prohibit SouthShore Freight to operate during times when NICTD does not - not going to happen) - OR - Passenger service is operated under a risk mitigation plan submitted by all railroads operating in the territory - NICTD and SouthShore Freight - and approved by the FRA.
Joe, why doesn't the SS Freight & NICTD pay to rehab the Peanut Bridge and reopen the U.S. 12 grade crossing so that they can interchange with the Amtrak line? They could move just freight that way and keep the 11th St. tracks where they are.
Posted by: joe.black Feb 1 2010, 06:29 AM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Jan 31 2010, 11:03 PM)
Joe, why doesn't the SS Freight & NICTD pay to rehab the Peanut Bridge and reopen the U.S. 12 grade crossing so that they can interchange with the Amtrak line? They could move just freight that way and keep the 11th St. tracks where they are.
That might be an option. BUT - there are tons of good reasons beyond PTC to get the tracks out of the asphalt, which have been discussed in other threads on this board. I could recap, if desired.
Posted by: southsiderMMX Feb 1 2010, 09:21 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2010/01/30/news/local/doc4b63becc23880799472478.txt
QUOTE
Oberlie: High-speed rail ‘exciting’
By Deborah Sederberg
Staff Writer
Published: Saturday, January 30, 2010 4:16 AM CST
MICHIGAN CITY — Existing maps are not clear about the precise route high-speed Amtrak trains might take through Michigan City, but it looks as if the Chicago-to-Detroit train would run along the lake shore, where Amtrak now runs or near to that route. That means it likely will cross Trail Creek on the aging turning bridge.
Mayor Chuck Oberlie, who says it would be exciting to have the fast train traveling through the city, does not believe the bridge will pose a problem.
“It’s my understanding that some minor repairs will be necessary, but I don’t believe anyone has any intention of replacing it,” the mayor said.
On the heels of his State of the Union address Wednesday, President Obama announced $8 billion in grants for various rail improvements around the country. That sum includes $244 million for the Chicago to Detroit corridor. The grants come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
In the language of modern railroading, Oberlie said, “there are high-speed trains and higher speed trains.”
“My understanding is that it will be a higher speed train that runs through Michigan City,” he said.
According to the Federal Railroad Administration’s Web site, some trains run up to 220 miles per hour. Amtrak already offers 150 mph service in the Northeast Corridor, from Boston to New York City to Washington, D.C. Plans show a 110 mph segment on the Chicago-Detroit route.
“The true potential of a fully integrated high-speed intercity passenger rail network will not be achieved or realized overnight,” the FRA home page notes. The interstate highway system took 50 years to build, it reminds the public.
Some local North End redevelopment advocates think the South Shore line should be rerouted to the Amtrak corridor, which crosses Franklin Street just south of the entrance to Washington Park.
Oberlie said he stands with the city council on the matter of where to locate the route. Last month, the council passed a resolution asking that all options be studied.
“This is a significant decision and a person cannot make it without exploring all environmental and engineering options,” he said. NICTD, which operates the South Shore, will apply for a $3 million grant for an environmental study and a study of engineering options. The studies will look at the route near Amtrak and a widened route along 11th Street.
Yes, Oberlie said, he would love to have one of those high-speed trains stopping in Michigan City to pick up and drop off passengers. “Every community along the route would like to have the train stop.”
But, the mayor noted, “it’s supposed to be high-speed transportation.” He knows stopping, by its very nature, does not contribute to speed.
By Deborah Sederberg
Staff Writer
Published: Saturday, January 30, 2010 4:16 AM CST
MICHIGAN CITY — Existing maps are not clear about the precise route high-speed Amtrak trains might take through Michigan City, but it looks as if the Chicago-to-Detroit train would run along the lake shore, where Amtrak now runs or near to that route. That means it likely will cross Trail Creek on the aging turning bridge.
Mayor Chuck Oberlie, who says it would be exciting to have the fast train traveling through the city, does not believe the bridge will pose a problem.
“It’s my understanding that some minor repairs will be necessary, but I don’t believe anyone has any intention of replacing it,” the mayor said.
On the heels of his State of the Union address Wednesday, President Obama announced $8 billion in grants for various rail improvements around the country. That sum includes $244 million for the Chicago to Detroit corridor. The grants come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
In the language of modern railroading, Oberlie said, “there are high-speed trains and higher speed trains.”
“My understanding is that it will be a higher speed train that runs through Michigan City,” he said.
According to the Federal Railroad Administration’s Web site, some trains run up to 220 miles per hour. Amtrak already offers 150 mph service in the Northeast Corridor, from Boston to New York City to Washington, D.C. Plans show a 110 mph segment on the Chicago-Detroit route.
“The true potential of a fully integrated high-speed intercity passenger rail network will not be achieved or realized overnight,” the FRA home page notes. The interstate highway system took 50 years to build, it reminds the public.
Some local North End redevelopment advocates think the South Shore line should be rerouted to the Amtrak corridor, which crosses Franklin Street just south of the entrance to Washington Park.
Oberlie said he stands with the city council on the matter of where to locate the route. Last month, the council passed a resolution asking that all options be studied.
“This is a significant decision and a person cannot make it without exploring all environmental and engineering options,” he said. NICTD, which operates the South Shore, will apply for a $3 million grant for an environmental study and a study of engineering options. The studies will look at the route near Amtrak and a widened route along 11th Street.
Yes, Oberlie said, he would love to have one of those high-speed trains stopping in Michigan City to pick up and drop off passengers. “Every community along the route would like to have the train stop.”
But, the mayor noted, “it’s supposed to be high-speed transportation.” He knows stopping, by its very nature, does not contribute to speed.
Posted by: southsiderMMX Feb 1 2010, 09:23 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2010/01/29/news/local/doc4b626aa064a39451665046.txt
QUOTE
High-speed rail quickly gaining ground
Chris Schable/For The News-Dispatch A westbound Amtrak train travels through Michigan City on track that crosses the city’s North End, which could become part of a Chicago-Detroit high-speed rail line.
State given $71.4 million for its part of project
From Staff and Wire Reports
Published: Friday, January 29, 2010 4:17 AM CST
MICHIGAN CITY — Indiana officials Thursday received about $71.4 million in federal stimulus money for its part of a planned high-speed rail project that would run from Chicago to suburban Detroit.
About 30 miles of that route passes through Northwest Indiana, and it may use Amtrak routes that pass through Michigan City.
No money appears to be earmarked for track improvements in Michigan City at this time, but instead the money will be used for a major investment on the most congested and delay-prone corridor in the country, which is west of here, between Porter, Ind., and Chicago, according to the White House.
U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, described the project as upgrades to consisting of eight independent improvements along that congested segment. Seven of the investments will be on the Norfolk Souther railroad line and one on the Amtrak Michigan Line at Porter.
President Obama, following up on his remarks about high-speed rail in his State of the Union address Wednesday night, announced Thursday in Tampa, Fla., $8 billion in grants for various rail improvements around the country. That includes $244 million for the Chicago to Detroit corridor. The grants are from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
In Indiana, the project includes the relocation, reconfiguration and addition of high-speed crossovers and related signal system improvements, rail line additions at two locations, and the creation of a new passing tracks, the White House announced. “The project will greatly increase service reliability for passengers travelling from communities in Michigan and Indiana to Chicago, reducing train delay times by 24 percent and increasing average speeds by nearly 7 percent through this segment,” the White House statement said.
In Michigan, existing stations will be renovated in Troy and Battle Creek, and a new station will be constructed in downtown Dearborn adjacent to the Henry Ford Museum. Michigan gets $40 million of the funds.
In Illinois, bridges, embankment and retaining walls will be built to complement additional investments and support the construction of three new tracks to reduce congestion and allow for increased speeds of 40 percent through this area. Illinois gets $1.1 billion for this and improvements on other routes.
Thirteen passenger rail corridors in 31 states will receive grants. Some Democrats tout the high-speed rail project as a national rail-building program that could rival the interstate highways begun in the Eisenhower era.
Though the administration bills the program as “high-speed rail,” most U.S. projects won’t reach the speeds seen in Europe and Asia. California’s trains would be by far the fastest, exceeding the 200 mph achieved by some trains overseas.
Some of the money will go toward trains with top speeds of 110 mph, while other funds — such as the $400 million allotted to Ohio to connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati — will be for trains traveling no faster than 79 mph.
The White House said rail projects will create or save thousands of jobs in areas including track laying, manufacturing, planning, engineering and rail maintenance and operations.
Chris Schable/For The News-Dispatch A westbound Amtrak train travels through Michigan City on track that crosses the city’s North End, which could become part of a Chicago-Detroit high-speed rail line.
State given $71.4 million for its part of project
From Staff and Wire Reports
Published: Friday, January 29, 2010 4:17 AM CST
MICHIGAN CITY — Indiana officials Thursday received about $71.4 million in federal stimulus money for its part of a planned high-speed rail project that would run from Chicago to suburban Detroit.
About 30 miles of that route passes through Northwest Indiana, and it may use Amtrak routes that pass through Michigan City.
No money appears to be earmarked for track improvements in Michigan City at this time, but instead the money will be used for a major investment on the most congested and delay-prone corridor in the country, which is west of here, between Porter, Ind., and Chicago, according to the White House.
U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, described the project as upgrades to consisting of eight independent improvements along that congested segment. Seven of the investments will be on the Norfolk Souther railroad line and one on the Amtrak Michigan Line at Porter.
President Obama, following up on his remarks about high-speed rail in his State of the Union address Wednesday night, announced Thursday in Tampa, Fla., $8 billion in grants for various rail improvements around the country. That includes $244 million for the Chicago to Detroit corridor. The grants are from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
In Indiana, the project includes the relocation, reconfiguration and addition of high-speed crossovers and related signal system improvements, rail line additions at two locations, and the creation of a new passing tracks, the White House announced. “The project will greatly increase service reliability for passengers travelling from communities in Michigan and Indiana to Chicago, reducing train delay times by 24 percent and increasing average speeds by nearly 7 percent through this segment,” the White House statement said.
In Michigan, existing stations will be renovated in Troy and Battle Creek, and a new station will be constructed in downtown Dearborn adjacent to the Henry Ford Museum. Michigan gets $40 million of the funds.
In Illinois, bridges, embankment and retaining walls will be built to complement additional investments and support the construction of three new tracks to reduce congestion and allow for increased speeds of 40 percent through this area. Illinois gets $1.1 billion for this and improvements on other routes.
Thirteen passenger rail corridors in 31 states will receive grants. Some Democrats tout the high-speed rail project as a national rail-building program that could rival the interstate highways begun in the Eisenhower era.
Though the administration bills the program as “high-speed rail,” most U.S. projects won’t reach the speeds seen in Europe and Asia. California’s trains would be by far the fastest, exceeding the 200 mph achieved by some trains overseas.
Some of the money will go toward trains with top speeds of 110 mph, while other funds — such as the $400 million allotted to Ohio to connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati — will be for trains traveling no faster than 79 mph.
The White House said rail projects will create or save thousands of jobs in areas including track laying, manufacturing, planning, engineering and rail maintenance and operations.
Posted by: southsiderMMX Feb 1 2010, 09:31 AM
Hey Joe, my question for you is do you see the part about the Peanut Bridge not needing to be replaced in order to support high speed rail? Everything I had ever heard was that for pretty much any improvements that needed to be done over there would include the replacement of that outdated bridge.
Posted by: joe.black Feb 1 2010, 11:08 AM
QUOTE(southsiderMMX @ Feb 1 2010, 10:31 AM)
Hey Joe, my question for you is do you see the part about the Peanut Bridge not needing to be replaced in order to support high speed rail? Everything I had ever heard was that for pretty much any improvements that needed to be done over there would include the replacement of that outdated bridge.
I don't see how they're going to do HSR with that bridge. It's not in terrible shape, but you need very high quality, well-maintained structures to support true HSR. The 110 mph trains are not truly HSR - they're a sub-category that currently is going by the (IMHO) misnomer "higher speed rail" (meaning higher than conventional speed, but people sometimes confuse this as being some kind of super-HSR with 300 mph+ speeds).
Posted by: mcstumper Feb 1 2010, 05:33 PM
QUOTE(joe.black @ Feb 1 2010, 11:08 AM)
I don't see how they're going to do HSR with that bridge. It's not in terrible shape, but you need very high quality, well-maintained structures to support true HSR. The 110 mph trains are not truly HSR - they're a sub-category that currently is going by the (IMHO) misnomer "higher speed rail" (meaning higher than conventional speed, but people sometimes confuse this as being some kind of super-HSR with 300 mph+ speeds).
I want to make sure we are on the same page, because I think we are talking about two different bridges. There is the Trail Creek swing bridge, which I think is the one SS'er is referencing as the report indicating would not need to be replaced for HSR. The Peanut Bridge is currently part of a walking trail bridge over Trail Creek just northeast of the City's waste water treatment plant on 8th St. It used to be part of a line that went from the South Shore shops up to the Amtrak line just west of where Pioneer lumber is now...
Posted by: joe.black Feb 3 2010, 06:49 AM
QUOTE(mcstumper @ Feb 1 2010, 06:33 PM)
I want to make sure we are on the same page, because I think we are talking about two different bridges. There is the Trail Creek swing bridge, which I think is the one SS'er is referencing as the report indicating would not need to be replaced for HSR. The Peanut Bridge is currently part of a walking trail bridge over Trail Creek just northeast of the City's waste water treatment plant on 8th St. It used to be part of a line that went from the South Shore shops up to the Amtrak line just west of where Pioneer lumber is now...
Ahh, didn't catch that. The bridge that would need some rehab to support what is being called in the industry "higher speed rail" (up to 110 mph) is the Trail Creek swing bridge, not the Peanut Bridge.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)