Replies

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=39824.82

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.

[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

[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.

[Dave]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[joe.black]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave]

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

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

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

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

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