CSS&SB News 6-1-09

Justalurker66, I like your suggestion of changing the old Eleventh Street station in Michigan City into a South Shore museum. It didn't seem like that bad of a place when I had to wait there between trains in September 1982. However, I suspect that most of the members of railroad.net don't have enough extra money lying around to invest to turn this building into a museum.

It would appear that the people of Michigan City are just waking up to what is going on with the South Shore. There was an article in the News Dispatch about the replacement this week and had public reaction to it. Seems weird to me that if there were public meetings about it, people would already know what was going on. Man, this just keeps getting better by the day. I'm all for it if it helps the city and the railroad.

What gets me is, people are saying they don't have the info of the entire plan. After NITCD printed up what they wanted to do some people were out raged. They never said they were taking down every home on the line to move the tracks. Besides, its not like they wouldn't be paid for the properties.

Yes I admit, I was one of those that hated the idea of moving the tracks. but something has to be done.

As far as the old station goes, I was recently told that someone from Chicago owns it now. They want over one million for it. Not to mention it needs remediation work done to it once it is bought. As bad as it sounds if it isn't going to be used it should be razed. i love that station and heve fond memories of there. Moving forward, however, if its just going to remain empty isn't like the homes on the same stretch that a vacant or in disrepair? What do you guys think?

jlaroccoii wrote:As far as the old station goes, I was recently told that someone from Chicago owns it now. They want over one million for it. Not to mention it needs remediation work done to it once it is bought. As bad as it sounds if it isn't going to be used it should be razed. i love that station and heve fond memories of there. Moving forward, however, if its just going to remain empty isn't like the homes on the same stretch that a vacant or in disrepair? What do you guys think?

I believe that everything north of 11th Street is part of the Elston Grove Historic Neighborhood, and therefore is tougher to raze. The South Shore work would buy the properties on the south side of 11th Street only.

justalurker66 wrote:What are the other two? The 200E and 300E County Road bridges (going from memory)?

200E, 300E, and Galena Ditch replaced, and Pere Marquette eliminated.

jlaroccoii wrote:It would appear that the people of Michigan City are just waking up to what is going on with the South Shore. There was an article in the News Dispatch about the replacement this week and had public reaction to it. Seems weird to me that if there were public meetings about it, people would already know what was going on. Man, this just keeps getting better by the day. I'm all for it if it helps the city and the railroad.

Phone calls pour in over South Shore (June 18th)
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sec ... M=59072.95

I can understand the local's concerns ... the city seems to have jumped ahead of the public planning normally seen on major projects. (If there were public meetings when were they? Were the meetings advertised? Were they advertised in a manner that would alert people that a plan to expand within the 10th/11th St corridor was a possibility? Where is the record of the meetings?) I can understand more distant "followers" not receiving notice ... but where I live every time a neighbor wants to make a major change (zoning, subdivision, annexation) all properties within a radius have a notice mailed to them and anyone can show up to the public meetings to discuss the decisions before they are made. Those steps are still ahead yet someone from the city signed a deal.

While the "memorandum of understanding" may be the most preliminary document in the process that someone at the city messed up by not being ready with the answers as to what the understanding is and what will be happening next. This is more of a PR mistake (disaster?) than it should be. Whomever signed for the city should get in front of the story. They should have been prepared.

The most annoying part of the article is that the Councilman Rich Murphy seems to want to focus the blame on NICTD. "[T]he council needs to meet with the mayor to talk about the city's response to NICTD." Wasn't the "memorandum of understanding" the city's response to NICTD? They make it sound like this was all NICTD's idea. Who from the city signed the "memorandum of understanding"?

"Council wants more information on changes" ... start with who signed the memorandum for the city.

What gets me is, people are saying they don't have the info of the entire plan. After NITCD printed up what they wanted to do some people were out raged. They never said they were taking down every home on the line to move the tracks. Besides, its not like they wouldn't be paid for the properties.

How much has NICTD released on this? Am I missing a website? Or was it just the June 5th story in the News Dispatch (which was late compared to the June 1st story in the Chesterton paper).

Yes, we're early in the process and it seems that everyone wants to take a breath before dealing with the bombshell dropped on Michigan City. But 2015 is only six years away ... practically tomorrow in planning time. The South Bend rail relocation had it's public meetings back in 2006. The US31 South Bend to Plymouth project filed it's notice of intent in March 2002 and didn't turn a spade of dirt until 2008. There is a lot to be done in six short years.

justalurker66 wrote:I can understand the local's concerns ... the city seems to have jumped ahead of the public planning normally seen on major projects. (If there were public meetings when were they? Were the meetings advertised? Were they advertised in a manner that would alert people that a plan to expand within the 10th/11th St corridor was a possibility? Where is the record of the meetings?) I can understand more distant "followers" not receiving notice ... but where I live every time a neighbor wants to make a major change (zoning, subdivision, annexation) all properties within a radius have a notice mailed to them and anyone can show up to the public meetings to discuss the decisions before they are made. Those steps are still ahead yet someone from the city signed a deal.

There will be plenty of time for public meetings, as part of the EIS and PE efforts. The only "deal" to be signed is a memorandum of understanding between the city and the District that the 11th Street corridor is the preferred alternative. That will allow money to flow to begin environmental impact studies (which include public involvement) and preliminary engineering (which also includes public involvement). The meetings that were held were two, very well attended by people in the Elston Grove neighborhood largely affected by the proposed realignment. They were held by Councilman Rich Murphy and concerned the recent economic development study that a group chaired by him commissioned.

justalurker66 wrote:While the "memorandum of understanding" may be the most preliminary document in the process that someone at the city messed up by not being ready with the answers as to what the understanding is and what will be happening next. This is more of a PR mistake (disaster?) than it should be. Whomever signed for the city should get in front of the story. They should have been prepared.

The Council overreacted to this. There will be more than enough time for public involvement and public input, workshops and the like. This is not something that happens overnight, but it has to start somewhere and the memorandum is it. This has been discussed for the last 30+ years, and this is the first true progress.

justalurker66 wrote:The most annoying part of the article is that the Councilman Rich Murphy seems to want to focus the blame on NICTD. "[T]he council needs to meet with the mayor to talk about the city's response to NICTD." Wasn't the "memorandum of understanding" the city's response to NICTD? They make it sound like this was all NICTD's idea. Who from the city signed the "memorandum of understanding"?

Rich Murphy spearheaded the campaign to have the South Shore stay in the 11th Street corridor. He's not shifting blame to NICTD, he's trying to move the process along. The sooner there is a city response to NICTD in the form of a signed memorandum, the sooner the process can begin in earnest. There's really nothing to have a public meeting about unless there is a general understanding that the preferred alternative is 11th Street. Then, the discussion can begin.

There is no doubt that the 11th Street alternative is the least expensive alternative, and offers the most economic development bang for the taxpayer's buck. It's also the shortest route between the Shops and CP 35.2, *and* it doesn't require turning dispatching control of the railroad over to another property, or building a huge railroad bridge across the northern skyline.

jb9152 wrote:The sooner there is a city response to NICTD in the form of a signed memorandum, the sooner the process can begin in earnest. There's really nothing to have a public meeting about unless there is a general understanding that the preferred alternative is 11th Street. Then, the discussion can begin.

So the city has not signed the memorandum? I suppose someone has to sign first ... NICTD just acted faster than the city.

The first public meeting should present ALL alternatives ... including the dreaded but required "no build" alternative. Even if one alternative is the only one that is feasable and/or preferred that decision needs to be handled in daylight. I've watched several projects go from a presentation that presented the best solution to a problem expand to multiple options including those that made no sense at all only to return to the best solution. With each of the preliminary alternatives that were dismissed clearly spelled out with the reason why they were dismissed.

I expect that by the time we reach the end of this project we'll see in print official reasons why the south side of 11th St is the chosen corridor and not the north side. Why options such as building a new corridor even a block or two south would be a worse idea. As well as the previously mentioned plans to use existing rail corridors to the north or south (for example, what prevents building a curve to feed cars from Shops to the CSX mainline without reversing if a far south alignment was chosen - other than the unintentional wyeing of trains that run Shops to South Bend to Chicago and back to Shops).

What percentage of passengers does the choice of alignment actually affect? Obviously the through passengers from South Bend would be slowed down by a south or even the current street running compared to a faster route. Michigan City passengers would have to adjust to a new station location but wouldn't most passengers remain unaffected?

I suppose the worst part of public planning is the public. The private studies have come up with the "right" answers. Time to do it again in daylight and hope that it all goes well.

justalurker66 wrote:So the city has not signed the memorandum? I suppose someone has to sign first ... NICTD just acted faster than the city.

That's my understanding.

justalurker66 wrote:The first public meeting should present ALL alternatives ... including the dreaded but required "no build" alternative. Even if one alternative is the only one that is feasable and/or preferred that decision needs to be handled in daylight. I've watched several projects go from a presentation that presented the best solution to a problem expand to multiple options including those that made no sense at all only to return to the best solution. With each of the preliminary alternatives that were dismissed clearly spelled out with the reason why they were dismissed.

As I believe I've said, there will be public involvement throughout the process - "daylight". The presentation of alternatives will be a part of that, I'm certain.

justalurker66 wrote:I expect that by the time we reach the end of this project we'll see in print official reasons why the south side of 11th St is the chosen corridor and not the north side.

Again, as I think I've said here several times - the area to the north of 11th Street is a historic district, and therefore much harder to purchase/raze.

justalurker66 wrote:Why options such as building a new corridor even a block or two south would be a worse idea. As well as the previously mentioned plans to use existing rail corridors to the north or south (for example, what prevents building a curve to feed cars from Shops to the CSX mainline without reversing if a far south alignment was chosen - other than the unintentional wyeing of trains that run Shops to South Bend to Chicago and back to Shops).

Inability to double track in the future, cost, and operational issues, such as turning over dispatching control to another railroad.

justalurker66 wrote:What percentage of passengers does the choice of alignment actually affect? Obviously the through passengers from South Bend would be slowed down by a south or even the current street running compared to a faster route. Michigan City passengers would have to adjust to a new station location but wouldn't most passengers remain unaffected?

Yes, but the quickest growing segment of the South Shore's ridership for the past five years is South Bend. Plus, the primary purpose of the realignment is not necessarily to speed up the ride - it's to eliminate 2 miles of the most expensive territory to maintain (reduction in operating costs), and to better comply with the requirements of PTC.

I guess one of the questions that comes to mind is: Who owns the street? Is it a railroad-owned right of way that's been paved over, does MC own it and leases part of it to the railroad, or does the railroad own a narrow ROW with the city owning the street on either side of a 10 or 15 foot wide swath down the middle?

And as far as ideas about rehabbing the existing station, and/or moving old equipment to restore as displays, etc., you have to figure the costs not only of rehabilitation, but remediation -- removing asbestos and lead paint, which have to be in abundance in both potential projects.

ohioriverrailway wrote:I guess one of the questions that comes to mind is: Who owns the street? Is it a railroad-owned right of way that's been paved over, does MC own it and leases part of it to the railroad, or does the railroad own a narrow ROW with the city owning the street on either side of a 10 or 15 foot wide swath down the middle?

From the GIS maps it looks like the city owns the street ROW (just like any other street in town). Compared to the Amtrak ROW which is owned by the railroad even at at parts where it crosses streets. (Where the South Shore leaves the roadway, such as the corner properties where the line crosses over from 11th St to 10th St, they own the lots - but not the streets.)

As far as width ... don't forget the trackside facilities ... signaling etc. The classic 1906 66ft wide ROW would be a better thought. Perhaps more?

Not being a native of Michigan City or even the midwest, my opinions should be treated with a grain of salt, but I have one concern with this plan. That is, that the phrase "Eminent Domain" is a four-letter word these days. That alone may, in the end, make the North or the South route the only practical one.

Fear, distrust, and dislike of "eminent domain" is to some degree seeded deeply in the American psyche. I theorize that it stems from a basic, overriding mistrust of government that you don't find in most other first-world countries. Not sure what the origin of that is, but it is certainly due to a multitude of factors.

But lately, I seem to recall there was an Eminent Domain case somewhere in Connecticut a couple years back, where the supreme court upheld the town's right to wrest property from its owners, only to give it to a developer. This was all over the national news, and basically what amounted to "mobs" forced city councils all over the country to pass "resolutions" essentially limiting their own powers of condemnation.

Even if the SS hopes to not use eminent domain, it may have to; even if it doesn't, the threat of condemnation is likely the only thing that will bring some property owners to the table. Regardless of whether these people actually even get paid well above fair market value for their properties, the press and the public still enjoy drama and sensationalism and will not hesitate to paint this like "the big mean South Shore is trying to stick it to the little guy." In an environment like that, there may very well be some folks who refuse to sell.

This is a legitimate, undeniably public use of the power of (or threat of) condemnation: transportation. But by and large, the public doesn't care; it still looks like the Big Bad Government up to its Evil Ways again, trying to screw over all the regular Joe Schmoes who are just trying to get by... in the worst way possible, by stealing their Home!!



Another interesting phenomenon is that road widenings require similar property takings and happen all the time, and though they receive some press and some opposition, inexplicably there always seems to be more push back against transit projects than road widenings. I guess perhaps that's because everybody drives, and understands the need for road widenings, but NOT everybody takes the train. This is why basically every transit projects that has been built over the past few decades has been built in freeway, road, or railroad rights of way. There is a very strong negative public perception of forcible private property takings for the sake of transit. Very few politicians are ever willing to go on record in favor of such plans, for fear of retaliation at the next election.

I think this plan is at a "happens, like it or not" stage. It's a matter of finding time and money. The north and south routes have been almost completely ruled out at this point.

We have to look on the advantageous side of this plan. Downtown is the weakest part of town now. What are the ramifications of this statement? Property will be cheap and opposition will be lowest. Also, it's an opportunity to revitalize downtown. Look at western Chicago suburbs - the downtown is built around the train station and it's the most prosperous part of town. Towns like LaGrange are great examples. Hopefully a few restaurants or condos get built here.

I would say the only questions up in the air anymore are the amount of grade crossings eliminated (could we be so lucky as to get rid of most?)

I concur with Tadman.. this is in the "its happening whether you like it or not" stage.

The attitude of "It's happening, like it or not" has sunk many a project. It may in fact wind up sinking the California HSR project, for one.

As I understand it, this has not even gone through the EIS / EIR process yet. There are a plethora of ways under the NEPA to halt a project.

You could be right that since this is going through a run-down area, and given that poorer areas don't organize as quickly or efficiently as rich ones, perhaps nobody has the time, money, know-how, or will to stop it. Or, maybe nobody even cares. Michigan City is not Palo Alto, after all.

But to cultivate an image of "The decision has already been made" especially with so much red tape ahead and with so many property acquisitions pending is, in my opinion, unwise. It plays right into the hands of NIMBYs.


I do agree that actually this seems like the best alternative to me, given that the swing bridge apparently can't be reused. But don't count your chickens before they hatch: NICTD and Michigan City need to get the public behind this decision, and NOW, before this starts to snowball. You may say "But the public already said they preferred for the line to stay in the 11th street corridor!" This is true, but chances are, most people then didn't do the research to figure out just what would be involved in such a plan, and from what I'm reading, it really wasn't spelled out until now.

superbad wrote:I concur with Tadman.. this is in the "its happening whether you like it or not" stage.

That would be my sincerest wish. It is NOT a done deal, as corrected a few posts ago the city still has to approve the plan and of course all of the usual public planning discussion must still occur. It is the best option and the one most likely to get done. The federal "positive train control" deadline is helping to bring a very long delayed project to the forefront.

For the railroad, as jb has noted, the 11th St corridor is the quickest path from Shops to Sheridan Rd and the cheapest. He's covered all the points on why it is best for the railroad.

For railfans we get to keep the alignment and even though we may lament the loss of the last segment of street running generations to come will still be able to easily find and follow the path of the original 1906 railway. (Following the path of the East Chicago street running requires a little research and a portion of it angles across city blocks where one must follow streets that don't follow the path. The majority of the old EC alignment is pretty boring - in Michigan City you'll be right next to an active rail line. Following the path in South Bend makes me wonder how they got a train trough on that path and is partially a one way street - start downtown).

The grade crossing elimination (34 down to 17 along the two mile route) is a major benefit. I've been updating my notes on the line and wondered just how far west of Sheridan Rd one would have to travel to cross 17 grade crossings. Not counting closed/private/foot crossings you could go 24 miles. (34 crossings will get you to Illinois.) There is a lot of cross traffic. Eliminating half of the crossings in town is good but the plan also eliminates about 1/6th of all crossings on the line.

The other routes will be looked at but this one is the best. The best thing that can happen now is to start working with property owners so there are less to haggle over when they get to the end of the process. Make some friends who will relocate willingly and not face the dreaded eminent domain. It doesn't have to be a hostile takeover. I am concerned that the "public meetings" on this may have been with NIMBYs on the north side than with those facing a move.


I do have a question about the timeline ... what happens if a railroad doesn't meet the 2015 deadline for positive train control? Is there a large fine? Will non-compliant rail roads be shut down? Or is 2015 more of a goal than a requirement?