[Dave]

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.

This post has been edited by Dave: Oct 16 2009, 11:59 AM

[joe.black]

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.

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.

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.

[lovethiscity]

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.

[Dave]

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?

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.

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?

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 get used to disappointment when it comes to double tracking through a densely populated area.

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?

This post has been edited by Dave: Oct 17 2009, 11:46 AM

[joe.black]

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.

[joe.black]

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.

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).

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.

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.

NICTD may have to get used to disappointment 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.

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.

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.

[lovethiscity]

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?

[joe.black]

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.

[Dave]

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?

[joe.black]

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?

[Dave]

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!

[joe.black]

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.

[Dave]

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).

This post has been edited by Dave: Oct 18 2009, 01:55 PM

[Southsider2k12]

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!

[Dave]

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!

[Southsider2k12]

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.

[joe.black]

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!

[joe.black]

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.

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.

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).

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.

[joe.black]

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.

[Dave]

Just to go back and hit something again:

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.

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.