[Marram]

Speaking of polls, here's one dealing with something besides our schools. There has been a lot of talk for many years about this subject. But just lately State Rep. Pelath and our own resident Sox fan had a bit of a conversation about allocating money to move the old South Shore line (somewhere).

[Southsider2k12]

Personally I like the Andrews Plan of incorporating the railroad into the North End rebirth. Plus I am suspicious that they are claiming to be able to cut off 25 minutes on this trip, and who is this actually going to benefit that they are lying about the potential gains.

And I am going to also lay claim to the title of "Resident Sox fan" If you don't buy it, see my moniker.

[Marram]

And I am going to also lay claim to the title of "Resident Sox fan" If you don't buy it, see my moniker.

Actually, I was referring to you and your "Soundoff." But I see that Dave also communicated with Rep. Pelath about this matter.

We need to add Richard Murphy's Viewpoint as well. Here it is:

South Shore Tracks Should Stay On 11th

Richard Murphy

In recent newspaper articles, NICTD has indicated they'd like to move the South Shore tracks that run through Michigan City's downtown.

Some residents have expressed concerns about the South Shore tracks being rerouted out of Michigan City's downtown and the impact this will have on our city's long-term economic growth potential.

In the recent Andrews University charette, urban designers, architects and transportation consultants, many with national reputations, agreed with the following thesis:

Keeping the rails in the North End of Michigan City by improving them where they are or by moving them north will provide a powerful engine of economic growth; whereas very little economic benefits would accrue by moving the rails to the south.

The support for this thesis is that keeping the rails in the heart of our downtown, walking distance from the downtown neighborhoods and the lake, would allow for a powerful growth phenomenon called Transit Oriented Development to occur. This is a concept that NICTD itself promotes.

A transit-oriented development (TOD) is a mixed-use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transport, and often incorporates features to encourage transit ridership. A TOD neighborhood typically has a center with a train station surrounded by relatively high-density development with progressively lower-density development spreading outward from the center. TODs generally are located within a radius of one-quarter to one-half mile from a transit stop, as this is considered to be an appropriate scale for pedestrians.

Transit-oriented development (TOD) embraces the vision for the North End that has been put forth with the Andrews University North End plan, the Lohan Anderson plan, and the Elston Grove Streetscape plan.

TOD growth doesn't just happen. It must be coordinated and targeted toward potential buyers and developers in the North End. Once we confirm where our train station will be located for the long term, we possess a powerful marketing strategy to bring development to the North End.

I have done extensive research on this issue and would like to offer some facts:

1. NICTD has indicated it has a preference for the option of moving the tracks to the south along Ames Field, a move that benefits NICTD from a cost and operational standpoint.

2. With regard to any relocation of the South Shore tracks, NO decision has been made by the administration of Michigan City.

3. With regard to any relocation or improvements of the South Shore tracks, discussions have just begun to take place within the community.

4. Indiana State Rep. Scott Pelath has recently proposed a funding bill for improvements of the South Shore tracks. These funds could be used for relocation of the tracks to the north or to the south or to improve the existing 11th corridor. The language of the bill remains quite general, and open to all possibilities.

5. There has been no analysis to date performed on how a relocation or improvement of the South Shore tracks would impact Michigan City's economy.

I understand that we must allow NICTD to operate as a viable commuter rail and that there are challenges to its current operations through MIchigan City. The South Shore is a tremendous asset to our community. We need to work with NICTD to overcome these challenges.

But it is important that NICTD and Michigan City residents understand that the North End of Michigan has been identified as one of the most exciting redevelopment opportunities in the United States. The reason for this is the large amount of affordable undeveloped land and intact historic housing stock so close to Lake Michigan and in close proximity to Chicago. In essence, Chicago is virtually walking distance from neighborhoods of the North End of Michigan City by virtue of a commuter railroad running through our downtown.

The dramatic changes we foresee in the North End over the long term are changes that can transform Michigan City and bring more jobs, a larger tax base, and a higher quality of life.

Hence, we have two goals, one a viable commuter railroad, the other a tremendous redevelopment opportunity that could bring prosperity to Michigan City. Surely we can find a compromise where both goals can be realized.

Richard Murphy is First Ward councilman in Michigan City.

Maybe we should keep the tracks where they are and move 11th Street.

[Dave]

Rich Murphy's letter was in the News-Dispatch at

link

Which I pasted in the "North End could be 'choice area'" thread.

I like the Andrews U. proposal for making the train station a focal point for the north end along with southsider. Every study ever done with regards to the north end talks about the importance of the train. I effectively live within walking distance of the Chicago Loop, courtesy of the 11th street station.

Moving the train away from 11th street is not going to reduce the travel times on the South Shore significantly (I've heard people talk about high speed rail -- it is to laugh! Even if the trains could go 200 mph on the South Shore tracks, the last what, 20 miles, are still going to be shared tracks with METRA. Not going to get 30 minutes from here to Chicago until we have Star Trek type transporters), it's going to hurt the north end, and it's going to cost so much money that NICTD will never recoup from increased ridership. Improve the tracks on 11th street? Heck, for the prices they are quoting on moving the train, we could freaking pave 11th street with gold.

[Southsider2k12]

Rich Murphy's letter was in the News-Dispatch at

link

Which I pasted in the "North End could be 'choice area'" thread.

I like the Andrews U. proposal for making the train station a focal point for the north end along with southsider. Every study ever done with regards to the north end talks about the importance of the train. I effectively live within walking distance of the Chicago Loop, courtesy of the 11th street station.

Moving the train away from 11th street is not going to reduce the travel times on the South Shore significantly (I've heard people talk about high speed rail -- it is to laugh! Even if the trains could go 200 mph on the South Shore tracks, the last what, 20 miles, are still going to be shared tracks with METRA. Not going to get 30 minutes from here to Chicago until we have Star Trek type transporters), it's going to hurt the north end, and it's going to cost so much money that NICTD will never recoup from increased ridership. Improve the tracks on 11th street? Heck, for the prices they are quoting on moving the train, we could freaking pave 11th street with gold.

It would be way cheaper to improve what we have and build around it, starting with the 11th street station itself, so it doesn't look like such a scary place to get off of the train. I don't know if it is financially plausible or not, but how cool would a South Shore muesuem be in this locale?

Anyways, really good points here. #1, it is ALWAYS going to take 35 minutes to get out of the mainline Metra tracks system, because of speed restrictions, congestion, and the Kensington Strangler. (where NICTD trains enter and exit the Metra track system accross 6 raillines of traffic) We might be able to cut a few minutes here and there, but nothing that will save the kind of value we are talking about spending on this system. Heck they would be better served at looking to move the system to Deisel trains, or to AC electricity if they really wanted to do something beneficial.

[Southsider2k12]

The SB Trib sites 20 minutes as possible time savings, but also talks about part of that coming from changing routing in SB, which I had not heard before.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs....76/1062/Opinion

Rerouting the South Shore is worth the cost
OUR OPINION

It might seem to some that saving commuters a half hour of train travel time between South Bend and Chicago isn't worth many millions of dollars. We're glad that a majority of the Indiana House of Representatives realizes that it most definitely is.

Let us all hope that the Indiana Senate, which takes up the bill next, also will understand the importance of streamlining the South Shore Line. If it does, the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, which operates the South Shore, will be much further along in making the train a better, safer choice for commuters.

As it is now, the South Shore travels from South Bend to the end of the line at Randolph Street in Chicago in about two hours and 20 minutes. The cost to commuters is about $10, which is a heck of a bargain.

A major negative to the trip is the 2 1/2 miles leaving or approaching the South Bend Regional Airport. It takes up to 20 minutes for the train to wind through the west side of the city, crossing 23 streets. The risk of a car-train encounter means the South Shore is limited to about 10 mph.

The plan the House approved would have the train enter airport grounds from the west instead of the east. Gone would be the 20 minutes and the 23 crossings.

Passage through Michigan City is a problem now, too, as the train creeps through residential neighborhoods, just feet from the yards of some folks. Skirting Michigan City, as the plan proposes, would trim another 10 or so minutes from the trip and also significantly improve safety.

The wisdom of proceeding as quickly as possible with these improvements in evident. The undertaking is worth every bit of the state's investment.

Not that buying land, rerouting tracks and redirecting trains isn't costly. It is. Indiana's share is about $75 million. The money would, under the terms of the legislation the House passed, come from sales tax collected in St. Joseph and LaPorte counties. This investment would leverage an additional $75 million in federal funds.

The South Shore is a survivor of what once was a vast complex of interurban electric trains. After some slow years, good management decisions and infrastructure improvements helped the South Shore to grow into a standing-room-only commuter line with more than 4 million riders.

Now, to be the best commuter choice it can be, the South Shore needs an improved route. This undertaking has been on the drawing board since the summer of 2005. It's time. We sincerely hope that the state Senate will agree.

[Marram]

The SB Trib sites 20 minutes as possible time savings, but also talks about part of that coming from changing routing in SB, which I had not heard before...

The plan the House approved would have the train enter airport grounds from the west instead of the east. Gone would be the 20 minutes and the 23 crossings.

Passage through Michigan City is a problem now, too, as the train creeps through residential neighborhoods, just feet from the yards of some folks. Skirting Michigan City, as the plan proposes, would trim another 10 or so minutes from the trip and also significantly improve safety...
http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs....76/1062/Opinion

What do they mean by "skirting MC" and is a new route actually in the legislation? I thought the legislation was more vague than that.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=58523.05

North Is Right For South Shore
Rich Murphy wrote a Viewpoint column stating that "South Shore Tracks should stay on 11th" [Saturday]. I agree wholeheartedly.

The success and future of Michigan City is in the North End.

Blue Chip Casino is not constructing the tallest building in Northwest Indiana (on the North End) because they are losing money in Michigan City. Lighthouse Place has been phenomenally successful (on the North End). The Lake Michigan shoreline (again, on the North End) is the envy of all other cities in Indiana, bar none.

To move a major transportation hub (the South Shore Line) farther south is absolutely ludicrous.

The South Shore Line itself, as it is, is wildly successful: the train cars are so full on a daily basis that they have recently ordered brand new cars (even double-deckers) to handle the load. Why do they think they need a new route to increase ridership?

Although Mr. Murphy has the foresight to understand "the big picture," I hope that our other local representatives (city officials as well as our state representatives and senators) share his vision.

Major elections are coming up. We need to carefully scrutinize who we are bringing into (and back into) office.

Jim Schwartz

Michigan City

[Dave]

Hey, if they want to reroute the train in SB, I have no problem with that. Same stops = no change to riders. Moving the stations in MC is pretty significant, however, and will have a major negative impact on the north end, as would possibly reducing stops in MC from two to one (if they're going to no longer stop at Carroll Ave., that is -- I still haven't figured out how they're going to save time if they have to do some kind of switchback over there.)

[ChickenCityRoller]

I like the idea of keeping it where it is. Hell, I think we're the ONLY city that has an interurban. Yakima WA had one but I think it dried up. I love it when I have guests from out of town come visit and they see the South Shore coming down the middle of the street. lol. I think keeping it where it is makes sense for finacial reasons too.

[Ang]

I like the idea of keeping it where it is. Hell, I think we're the ONLY city that has an interurban. Yakima WA had one but I think it dried up. I love it when I have guests from out of town come visit and they see the South Shore coming down the middle of the street. lol. I think keeping it where it is makes sense for finacial reasons too.

I totally agree. I think it's exciting that MC has a passenger train go right down the middle of the road. When I tell people that, they are amazed.

I say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Leave the South Shore where it is!"

[Dave]

I know there are Interurban fans out there, I had one for a roommate in college. Wouldn't the old station be a great location for some kind of interurban/railroading museum?

[lovethiscity]

Hey, if they want to reroute the train in SB, I have no problem with that. Same stops = no change to riders. Moving the stations in MC is pretty significant, however, and will have a major negative impact on the north end, as would possibly reducing stops in MC from two to one (if they're going to no longer stop at Carroll Ave., that is -- I still haven't figured out how they're going to save time if they have to do some kind of switchback over there.)

Well by-passing the yards where the trains are repaired and maintained sounds like something a certain Michigan City Mayor would come up with as progress.

[mcstumper]

I definitely lean toward moving the tracks south. First off, if would make the train more accessible to more residents of greater Michigan City. Somehow we seem to be losing sight of the fact that the SS is for all of us, not just Elston Grove residents. Moving the tracks south means more available parking and an elevated boarding platform that would make it easier for the handicapped and elderly to board. This is something that would be impossible to do at the 11th Street station. Secondly, fewer grade crossings means a reduction in the probability of traffic accidents on the line. Finally, we are all looking at the upfront cost of this move without looking at the overall return on investment. This would include the net present value of the savings on future maintenance expenses along with a monetary benefit assigned to every minute saved by every commuter every day that they ride. I don't know about you, but I value my time.

[Dave]

I definitely lean toward moving the tracks south. First off, if would make the train more accessible to more residents of greater Michigan City. Somehow we seem to be losing sight of the fact that the SS is for all of us, not just Elston Grove residents. Moving the tracks south means more available parking and an elevated boarding platform that would make it easier for the handicapped and elderly to board. This is something that would be impossible to do at the 11th Street station. Secondly, fewer grade crossings means a reduction in the probability of traffic accidents on the line. Finally, we are all looking at the upfront cost of this move without looking at the overall return on investment. This would include the net present value of the savings on future maintenance expenses along with a monetary benefit assigned to every minute saved by every commuter every day that they ride. I don't know about you, but I value my time.

You really think the improvements you're talking about couldn't be done at the 11th street location for less than the sixty some million dollars they are talking about spending on moving the station south? And you also think the return on investment would be greater than paying the interest and principle on a $60 million investment?

I stand by my comments on moving the station from the "Marquette plan discussed" thread.

[Southsider2k12]

I definitely lean toward moving the tracks south. First off, if would make the train more accessible to more residents of greater Michigan City. Somehow we seem to be losing sight of the fact that the SS is for all of us, not just Elston Grove residents. Moving the tracks south means more available parking and an elevated boarding platform that would make it easier for the handicapped and elderly to board. This is something that would be impossible to do at the 11th Street station. Secondly, fewer grade crossings means a reduction in the probability of traffic accidents on the line. Finally, we are all looking at the upfront cost of this move without looking at the overall return on investment. This would include the net present value of the savings on future maintenance expenses along with a monetary benefit assigned to every minute saved by every commuter every day that they ride. I don't know about you, but I value my time.

If parking was your main concern, and they really wanted to invest the kind of money they are talking about in the system, it wouldn't take too much of it to use emminent domain and buy the few houses behind the parking lot. Then you build a parking garage. Parking problem solved. Public usage, and public benefit are clear.

The time issue is moot for me, as I demonstrated earlier, because there isn't that much time to be saved. I have never took the ride all of the way to South Bend, but there just isn't going to be nearly as much time as they are talking about saved by a re-route in MC, unless it was to completely south of I-94, and all crossings were limited access. As long as you are going to go through the City of Michigan City somewhere, you are going to cross a bunch of streets and neighborhoods, which means noise restrictions, which means speed restrictions, just like they have on 11th St. So instead of going 25 mph on 11th st, they are going 30 mph elsewhere. Big deal. They spend 8-9 figures worth of money to save 5 minutes. Yeah, that is not worth it to me, and I ride the train 5 days a week. I value my time, but I also value my tax dollars.

[mcstumper]

I value my time, but I also value my tax dollars.

The pols are going to spend that money whether it is here or in Valpo. As for the emminent domain, if we use the Weber's math it will only cost us $3 trillion dollars to acquire the Moose Lodge...

[Dave]

The pols are going to spend that money whether it is here or in Valpo. As for the emminent domain, if we use the Weber's math it will only cost us $3 trillion dollars to acquire the Moose Lodge...

You know, maybe you're right. It's worth $60 million federal tax dollars in order to save me 5 minutes a day.

Realistically, moving the station isn't going to save appreciable time, is going to take away something that makes MC unique, would hurt the north end, and is going to cost megabucks. The only reason I can imagine anyone pushing this idea is either that they own a piece of the real estate involved (or is NICTD allowed to use eminent domain and take people's property for $1?), or owns or works for one of the contracting companies which would work on this boondoggle (or gets a kickback from one of the contractors).

If the alternative is spending the money in Valpo, they can spend it there and be damned, for all I care.

[Southsider2k12]

The pols are going to spend that money whether it is here or in Valpo. As for the emminent domain, if we use the Weber's math it will only cost us $3 trillion dollars to acquire the Moose Lodge...

Don't get me and my economics background started on the inefficiencies of government... you don't want to be here all day

[Marram]

I definitely lean toward moving the tracks south. First off, if would make the train more accessible to more residents of greater Michigan City. Somehow we seem to be losing sight of the fact that the SS is for all of us, not just Elston Grove residents. Moving the tracks south means more available parking and an elevated boarding platform that would make it easier for the handicapped and elderly to board. This is something that would be impossible to do at the 11th Street station. Secondly, fewer grade crossings means a reduction in the probability of traffic accidents on the line. Finally, we are all looking at the upfront cost of this move without looking at the overall return on investment. This would include the net present value of the savings on future maintenance expenses along with a monetary benefit assigned to every minute saved by every commuter every day that they ride. I don't know about you, but I value my time.

I don't agree with you, but I admire the fact that you have the nerve to speak out and be counted. I was talking to a friend recently who said he felt very strongly about this issue (he wants it left on the north side). I told him I was glad that he felt strongly because it shows that he cares. At the same time, sometimes feeling too strongly can show a refusal to admit to the complexity of an issue. The truth is that there are problems with the current route that NICTD takes through our town. It runs right on the border of my neighborhood, creates pollution and noise, and we do not benefit from having a stop within walking distance. If it is moved farther north, there is a chance it may run right through the heart of my neighborhood, become a serious danger for our children, and lower my property value. The current route down the middle of 11th Street does not seem to me to be the ideal route.

I'll admit to being the "dreamer" who voted for putting it underground, and I did that just to stir the pot. Something like that is a pipe dream. Still, remember that 100 years ago so was the thought of running electricity to every house in Michigan City. What we want is for our leaders to be bold as they plan for our future; and I believe that there are options which will eliminate some of the ugliness and danger associated with the train; but still give us a safe, reliable, and inexpensive mass transit vehicle to Chicago. This is just the type of large-scale infrastructure project that is worth an investment of our imagination, our time and the Casino money to get it right for the longterm.