Trails And Greenways High Up In Marquette Plan

Alaric DeArment
The News-Dispatch

Several members of the public, along with government officials, gathered at the Senior Center in Washington Park Thursday night for the first of a series of town hall meetings throughout Northwest Indiana to discuss the second phase of the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission's Marquette Plan.

The purpose of the plan, NIRPC Executive Director John Swanson said, was to establish a long-range vision for protecting and enhancing shoreline areas.

"It looks at the value of the lakefront communities and areas as assets for the region and looks at ways to protect and enhance those assets," Swanson said.

A major part of the plan involves developing trails and greenways in the region.

"I would just like to see the Marquette Plan advance so 20 years down the line we have a bike trail extending from Chicago to the Michigan state line," NIRPC commissioner and Trail Creek Town Councilman Ron Lombard said.

"I think the biggest issue we've heard is the balance between ecology and development," said Gregg Calpino, a member of NIRPC's consulting team and principal at Chicago-based urban planning firm JJR LLC. "How heavily the human hand touches that is always an issue."

Goals of the plan include recapturing 75 percent of shoreline for public access, according to a slideshow presentation that Calpino and fellow JJR consultant Vishal Kundra gave. The presentation emphasized that the goal was not to grab land, displace people or increase taxes.

"This is not to expand the national park and take over every neighborhood in Northwest Indiana," Calpino said in the presentation. "The goal is to find a balance."

The presentation included a short video that showed what visitors to Michigan City might see upon arrival: underdeveloped properties, lack of signs to indicate they had arrived and a power plant dominating the skyline. This, Calpino said, made it look as though Michigan City "doesn't look like a place to visit or live."

"One solution is signage," Kundra said. "Tell people about it."

With that, the meeting opened to members of the community to voice their concerns. The South Shore Line and the location of the station on 11th Street figured prominently in the discussion.

"This is the home of the South Shore railroad and we have the worst station on the line," retired Michigan City resident Dale Engquist said. "That crummy little thing downtown is an abomination. It ought to bring you closer to where people want to go, which is farther north."

Receiving criticism and suggestions from the public, however, were the purpose of the meeting.

"This is more of a public visioning process where we're using members of the public as resources," Swanson said.

Marquette Plan A Matter Of Balance
About 30 attend meeting to discuss future of lakefront.

Deborah Sederberg
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - It's a matter of balance, planners said about Marquette Plan Phase 2 on Wednesday at Michigan City Senior Center.

About 30 people attended the event, fewer than the numbers at Tuesday's meeting in Chesterton.

Several in attendance suggested that, what with the series of North End planning meetings with Andrews University students and professors, perhaps Michigan City residents are feeling planned out.

The plan was conceived by U.S. Rep Pete Visclosky, (D-Merrillville.) It was and is seen as a system of preserving Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline as much as possible, even in the face of heavy industry.

The Chesterton meeting was to discuss the Indiana lakefront from Lake County to the Burns Waterway, while Wednesday's event was to talk about the lakefront from the Burns Waterway to the Michigan state line.

Hosted by the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission, the meetings in Porter and La Porte County were designed to get public comment.

NIRPC Executive Director John Swanson turned most of the meeting over to Gregg Calpino, principal and project firm of JJR Parks and Recreation in Chicago.

There were three visions for the lakefront, one leaning toward conservation issues, one to commercial development and one toward community.

In the end, he said, the plan likely will borrow from all three concerns.

Discussion was wide ranging, with some about transportation issues, especially the South Shore. Others wanted to talk about visitors while almost everyone wanted to talk about clean water issues.

Jane Smith, owner of the Feallock House bed and breakfast, said she had guests during the summer who could not swim in the lake several times because bacteria levels were too high.

Calpino suggested one solution might be for smaller cities and towns to work together on sewage treatment matters.

In meeting with city and town officials and others about the plan, Calpino said the age-old tension between visitors and residents shows no sign of dying.

The beauty of the Marquette Plan, he said, is that there is room for communities that welcome visitors and for those that would rather have their privacy.

"Portage, Chesterton and Michigan City have emerged as communities embracing tourism," he said. Each has a convenient exit from Interstate 94 and has or is working on getting effective signage directing visitors to attractions.

What is needed, he said, is a visitor management plan for the region. The idea would be to help tourists to find the spots they are seeking while sparing them the confusion of wandering aimlessly through residential areas.

"This plan recognizes individual rights," he noted.

Corasue Nicholas, Ogden Dunes, said she and her husband moved to the area from Chicago seven years ago, primarily because they enjoy hiking in the dunes and watching wildlife, including birds.

She said Portage and Chesterton are growing quickly, "but I don't think they know what they're doing."

She said she would emphasize the conservation aspect the plan.



Contact Deborah Sederberg at dsederberg@thenewsdispatch.com.

With that, the meeting opened to members of the community to voice their concerns. The South Shore Line and the location of the station on 11th Street figured prominently in the discussion.

"This is the home of the South Shore railroad and we have the worst station on the line," retired Michigan City resident Dale Engquist said. "That crummy little thing downtown is an abomination. It ought to bring you closer to where people want to go, which is farther north."

Ugh, these people just don't get it, do they? The South Shore exists to give us access, as commuters, to the Loop, not vice-versa. Chicagoans aren't going to drive to the Loop and pay $28 for parking so that they can get on a train that will take an hour and 45 minutes to get to Michigan City (Paying $13 round trip in the process). If the Loop was like Manhattan, maybe it would make sense. But its not, so it doesn't.

Move it south, or don't move it at all.

Ugh, these people just don't get it, do they? The South Shore exists to give us access, as commuters, to the Loop, not vice-versa. Chicagoans aren't going to drive to the Loop and pay $28 for parking so that they can get on a train that will take an hour and 45 minutes to get to Michigan City (Paying $13 round trip in the process). If the Loop was like Manhattan, maybe it would make sense. But its not, so it doesn't.

Move it south, or don't move it at all.

If you move the station south, you lose proximity to the "Golden Triangle", which is what we've been using to draw tourists into our area. Instead of moving the station, why not just restore the buidling on 11th St.?
Personally, I think having the tracks in the middle of 11th St also add character to the line and to our City.
But that's just my opinion...

Residents have many ideas for Marquette Plan

September 28, 2007
BY CHARLES M. BARTHOLOMEW Post-Tribune correspondent

MICHIGAN CITY -- Regional planning officials are counting as a success this week's pair of public meetings on a unified development plan for the Indiana shore of Lake Michigan.
Almost 100 people attended the Tuesday meeting in Chesterton and the Wednesday meeting in Michigan City to hear consultants for the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission explain "Marquette 2," the phase of U.S. Rep. Peter Visclosky's vision for the lake shore extending from the Port of Indiana to the Michigan state line and including 13 cities and towns in Porter and LaPorte counties.

The plan, due to be completed by the end of this year, will be a set of recommendations for increasing access to the lake for visitors and improving the quality of life for residents, building on the first phase that was completed last year and covers the area from Whiting to Portage. Five meetings on Marquette 2 were held in June.

"The meetings have all been very, very constructive," John Swanson, NIRPC executive director, said.

The majority of the 30 people who came to the Senior Center in Washington Park on Wednesday night were from Michigan City and adjacent towns.

Project manager Greg Calpino of JJR in Chicago said the final product will be a mix of scenarios favoring either conservation, commerce or communities.

Many comments concerned projects that would be part of the commerce scenario, principally relocating the South Shore tracks closer to the lake and building a new Michigan City train station.

"I'm hearing tonight that the train station is an absolutely critical component of this plan," Calpino said, adding that picking a site for it would come later.

Corasue Nichols of Ogden Dunes said turning U.S. 12 into a scenic corridor is "a very positive idea," but she questioned whether widening the road for bike lanes was needed with the Calumet Trail running parallel to it.

Michigan City Councilwoman Patricia Boy was one of several who said however desirable development for residents or visitors was, conservation issues, particularly Lake Michigan's water quality, must be addressed first.

"Once you do that, everything else will follow," she said.

"People come all the way from Texas and can't go in the water. We have no Jetskis, no parasails, no boats for them to go out onto the lake. There's nothing for them to do," Marcia Averitt of Michigan City said.

Swanson said this week's input will be used to develop three sets of recommendations that will be presented at public meetings some time in November.

He said NIRPC will continue to take comments on the Marquette 2 Plan at its Web site www.nirpc.org

mcstumper has a point here. I suspect that there are very few daytrippers to MC via the CSS&SB. Where does he propose the station would be?

NICTD: Send 11th St. Tracks South

Amanda Haverstick
The News-Dispatch

CHESTERTON - Should the time come for the South Shore tracks on 11th Street to move, they likely will head south.

Gerald Hanas, Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District general manager, said a goal is to reduce travel time, and getting through Michigan City quicker helps achieve that.

"One of the big elephants in the room ... is the fact that we're running on the streets of Michigan City," Hanas said. "That's a big impediment to South Shore and Michigan City traffic."

Hanas reiterated to NICTD's board Friday that he believes a substantial amount of time can be cut by rerouting the track off 11th Street.

"It's a relic of the old interurban days where we went through the streets of Gary, through the streets of East Chicago and Hammond and for that matter South Bend," NICTD spokesman John Parsons said. "This is the last remaining piece we have. It's an extremely expensive piece of railroad to maintain, probably the most expensive two miles in our system."

Parsons said the tracks, ties and ballasts are buried under the street.

"Every so often, we have to go through and rip it all out and replace it," Parsons said. "Periodically, we have to go in, even after these massive excavation projects, and do detailed work later on. It really reduces the asphalt life Michigan City experiences with their street."

NICTD and Michigan City studied north and south alternatives to reroute the track.

"The north alternative we looked at was getting on the old Nickel Plate (railroad), which is owned by the SouthShore Freight," Parsons said.

A swing bridge along the route that crosses Trail Creek presents a fatal flaw in trying to use the northern route. One of the big issues, he said, is that the South Shore's maintenance and storage facilities are to the east of the swing bridge.

"If there's any problem with that swing bridge," Parsons said, "we don't have a rush hour in the morning."

Another proposal, he said, has been to build a bridge over Trail Creek.

"Because the freight service will be with us and will require a 2 percent grade, we will have to start our bridge ... going over U.S. 12. We'd probably be going through (downtown) Michigan City at 30 feet in the air, coming down probably at Lincoln Yard," Parsons said. "That was discounted early on in favor of a southern (route)."

Parsons said a southerly alignment would take the South Shore along the CSX tracks and NIPSCO utility corridor.

"We would join the South Shore at the cinder block company on U.S. 12 near the county line," he said.

NICTD and CSX would segregate operations with the South Shore running north of the CSX tracks.

New station facilities, Parsons said, will be located by Franklin Street near Ames Field.

"It would give us the opportunity to develop a pretty attractive station," Parsons said. "We have very limited parking in downtown Michigan City. At 11th Street, there are only 30 spaces and around 200 spaces at Carroll Avenue."

Parsons said a new station could offer 400 spaces.

The move south, Parsons said, would improve operating time and reduce the number of grade crossings from 32 to 17. The cost of such a project would range between $60 and $80 million.

q

Contact Amanda Haverstick at ahaverstick@thenewsdispatch.com.

City Hears Lots Of Plans, But Just Needs To Get Moving
In response to the Marquette Plan, I am amazed why people continue to study the lakes and access to them. The Andrews University team and their charette was to tell the city what we already know and at a cost to whom? Now I read about the Marquette Plan that recently acquired a $1 million grant to hire a consulting firm to discuss access to Lake Michigan. What happened to Ron Meer's resolution? It was submitted and passed through our City Council proposing the same thing.

I have spent a lot of time watching and listening to these plans. Why can't this be done? Access to the old West Beach can be done at little to not cost. Why are the greedy planners and leaders of this town buying up more land on the North Side/West Side? To capitalize on the access? I have spoken with heads of the Economic Development committee and City Council members, both having members buying land.

Let's get these plans and studies that don't move forward off the chalk board and in motion before the land grabbers buy it all. We the people of Michigan City want access to the West Beach area. This could be the greatest financial boom in Michigan City to target small businesses and residents alike, not just the big money like the riverboat and Lighthouse Place. Come on, people, speak up before we don't have anything left. Feel free to contact me.

West Side businessman and homeowner,

Tony Childers

Michigan City

tonysoutboard@adsnet.com or 874-4086

West Side Needs Access To The Lake
Tony Childers is correct on many points ["City hears lots of plans, just needs to get moving," Saturday]. His strongest point is that we keep repeating the same studies, and essentially we're being told the same thing at additional cost and time.

Another important point he makes isthe need for access to Lake Michigan from the West Side of Michigan City. This can be successfully accomplished if the city, NIPSCO and the railroads involved expedite access in a secured manner for all parties.

The West Side of Michigan City and all Michigan City residents can no longer afford to be restricted from the primary asset of our area. Having access to Lake Michigan is what brings value to the area and potentially improves the quality of life.

It's time to implement what we know will help improve our community.

Ron Meer, Councilman

Third Ward

Michigan City

The move south, Parsons said, would improve operating time and reduce the number of grade crossings from 32 to 17. The cost of such a project would range between $60 and $80 million.

I suppose that's part of why it's supposed to cost so much. If they move the station to Ame's Field, they have to get the trains back to the Carroll St. facility. From what I can see on Google Earth mapping, they would have to lay about a mile of track east of the Beverly Shores station to get to an existing rail line, which would take them past Ame's Field, and then there would have to be some kind of addition near the Carroll St. facility to get them back to the yards.

I still think my idea would work better and be cheaper. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Sixty mill would go FAR in urban renewal along the tracks. Someone wants to move the tracks, and we need to find out who and what interest that person or people have along the right of way.

I suppose that's part of why it's supposed to cost so much. If they move the station to Ame's Field, they have to get the trains back to the Carroll St. facility. From what I can see on Google Earth mapping, they would have to lay about a mile of track east of the Beverly Shores station to get to an existing rail line, which would take them past Ame's Field, and then there would have to be some kind of addition near the Carroll St. facility to get them back to the yards.

I still think my idea would work better and be cheaper. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

The South Shore has an existing interchange with CSX east of Michigan City that could be used. However they would have to back the trains into and out of the shops and then onto the main line. I imagine that they would try to acquire the property on the southwest corner of the current crossing and build a spur there for interchange.

I saw that, the interchange is east of the Carroll St. yards, so I assume they wouldn't want to do a switchback with every train. What would a switchback do to all that time they are claiming they will save by moving from 11th street?

Of course, maybe they would just close the Carroll street passenger facility altogether. Someone I know speculates that the whole motivation for moving the train line is to get it out of the North End "Ghetto" (where I happen to live, thankyouverymuch) to where the folks on the south end of town would feel more comfortable using it. I'd like to see the News Dispatch do a little investigative reporting, to see if anyone involved in the decision making process has been purchasing real estate on or near the proposed new route.

All in all, it seems that the best plan would be to keep the CSS&SB on 11th, and make the station on 11th a real station. That could be a nice anchor to the downtown Franklin St area.

Except:
a) no parking
slower trains
c) no place to build a boarding platform (which I am surprised isn't required under the ADA).

Except:
a) no parking
B) slower trains
c) no place to build a boarding platform (which I am surprised isn't required under the ADA).

c) All that would be required for a boarding platform at the 11th street station would be closing 11th street for westbound traffic between Franklin and Pine, and building the platform where the westbound lane currently is.

Are the existing lots full? What about all the space on the SW block at the intersection of Franklin and 11th?

Are the existing lots full? What about all the space on the SW block at the intersection of Franklin and 11th?

There seems to be a misconception that if we don't move the South Shore south, we would save taxpayers $60 million.

To that I say, "HA!"

NICTD is essentially a government entity with deep roots in Lake and Porter Counties. Therefore, if the $60 million doesn't get spent here, it will get spent there. Why don't we sit here and brainstorm some more ways to meet all of our needs with the existing route, so that Valparaiso or Munster can have another $59 million to spend on a fancy new station when the extension is built.

Not to sound cynical, but come on. We're talking Lake County, people!

New South Shore Route Possible
The city can have the South Shore on the North End, if they work together. It does not have to cross Trail Creek. It will just take cooperation.

The city is trying to get the property along the north side of Eighth Street and along Michigan Boulevard, so, from the rails that end at East Eighth Street, the South Shore could follow the old right of way of the LE&W (Nickel Plate) that went to the old freight station on East Sixth Street. By going in back of the sewage plant, then curving along side of East Eighth Street, the tracks could go along the east side of Michigan Boulevard to just about the corner of Fourth Street, curving under the west end of the U.S. 12 bridge at Taylor Street. From there they would follow the old CI&L (Monon) tracks that went through Pioneer Lumber Co., then follow the old right of way, crossing Franklin Street south of Matey's, crossing the Amtrak line where the old Monon crossover was, and connecting to the old South Shore-Monon interchange, and picking up their own right of way to the west.

A loading platform and ticket office could be between Washington Street and Wabash Street, accessible from both streets. Parking could be on the northwest corner of Michigan and Wabash. The old gas station there is for sale now. If more parking is needed, maybe a deal can be worked with the outlet mall.

The city can have its river walk, and the area in between the walk and the railroad right of way could be used for other things.

Money and time have been wasted on high-priced studies and nothing has been done.

It would be necessary for the city, state highway and South Shore towork things out.

I doubt I will be around to see the tracks removed from 10th and 11th streets, which they have been talking about for the last 60-plus years.

Roger T. Storey

Michigan City

Study Tells Benefits Of Planning For Growth
Chambers told study should help governments develop financial policies.

Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch

LA PORTE - Land use decisions made within the county directly impact how much money the county must spend for basic services, according to recent study.

The results of that study were presented Tuesday at a joint membership luncheon of the La Porte and Michigan City chambers of commerce.

Dan Botich, a member of the economic development consulting firm Cender & Co., highlighted the "Costs of Community Services Study" prepared for the La Porte County Soil and Water Conservation District.

Botich said the intent of the study is to give county, city and town planning groups a financial basis for developing strategies and policies.

"It may be one more study, but it's important information for land use planners and economic developers to use for more efficient development for taxpayers," Botich said.

It was completed with support from county commissioners

La Porte County is the only county in Indiana to prepare this type of study, Botich said. It complements the La Porte County Land Use Development Plan - now in its final stages of development - by looking at the financial implications of land use development decisions.

The La Porte County COCS study should be updated every five years, the consultant said, to account for revised tax policies.

Originally developed by the nonprofit American Farmland Trust, the planning tool was intended to be used to conserve or preserve farmland in Pennsylvania. Based on studies of more than 70 communities, the Pennsylvania COCS showed for every $1 of tax revenue received for residential property, another $1.15 is used in services such as schools, libraries and protection services.

On the other hand, commercial and industrial land requires only 29 cents in services and farmland - even with homesteads - only requires 37 cents in services.

Botich noted that each year, about 100,000 acres of Indiana farmland is converted to non-agricultural uses. From 1997 to 2002, Indiana ranked 11th on the list of states losing the most farmland, based on information from the American Farmland Trust.

La Porte Mayor Leigh Morris, who attended the luncheon, said he hears from people who think the city should become a bedroom community for nearby cities. From the study, he said, "It would be a pretty bad outcome."

Botich said the study was not anti-residential development but makes a case for being aware of the potential financial impact of permitting large residential developments.

The COCS study collected data on total tax revenues received by each city, town, township, school system, public library and the county in fiscal year 2005, as well as how the revenue was spent.

Botich said the study was not intended to make judgments about land use or taxing structures, nor predict the impacts of future land use development decisions. What the study does best, he said, is to help strike a balance between negative fiscal impacts of residential units and positive impact of other land uses.



Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.