MICHIGAN CITY/NICTD RAIL REALIGNMENT STUDY. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE Thursday, August 16, :00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. City of Michigan City

Transcription

1 MICHIGAN CITY/NICTD RAIL REALIGNMENT STUDY PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE Thursday, August 16, :00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. City of Michigan City SUMMARY REPORT Submitted by: The McCormick Group

2 2 Michigan City/NICTD Rail Realignment Study Public Open House Comment Response Summary Submitted by: The McCormick Group Date submitted: September 10, 2012 The City of Michigan City and NICTD consultant team provided an update to the Rail Realignment Study evaluation process. This update was provided in an Open House format on August 16, 2012 at the Michigan City, City Hall. Formal presentations were given at 5:00 pm and 6:30 pm followed by a question and answer format and exhibit display with maps, diagrams and individual discussion stations hosted by the consultant team. In this Open House format, two opportunities for public input were provided. Attendees were invited to provide written comments utilizing the Rail Realignment Study Comment Card provided at the registration table and/or to provide verbal comments which were recorded following the formal presentations. Attendees were also reminded that they could provide questions or comments to the project website. In total, 85 responses were received as referenced in this report summary. 27 comment cards 1 two page written statement 41 verbal comments, session 1 ( 5:00 pm) 16 verbal comments, session 2 ( 6:30 pm) A summary of the comment card responses is provided below with a summary of the verbal, recorded comments following. Rail Realignment Study Comment Card Summary Of the 123 persons who signed the attendee list, 27 or 22% responded utilizing the comment card option. One individual delivered a written two-page statement which is provided at the end of the comment card verbatims, for your reference. Typically, when on-site verbal comments are offered, it reduces the number of written responses received. Additionally, when the tonality of the verbal comments may be challenging, those in the perceived minority position, may not provide verbal statements, but will provide their comments in writing. It should be noted that not all comment card respondents answered all questions; subsequently percentages do not total 100. Additionally, in question 1, respondents may have identified themselves in multiple categories, or may have selected multiple factors in question 3. In summary: The majority of respondents were principally homeowners (78%).

3 3 Respondents almost two to 1 had attended the first Open House indicating that this group did have prior introduction to the evaluation process and expected results. Given that the majority of respondents were homeowners; this parallels the prioritization of impact to homeowners (63%) as the most important issue to the respondents. Defining homeowner impact for each of the options with a qualitative discussion would based on this response be an opportunity to increase connectivity with the public. The second most important issue was the potential for economic development (37%). This indicates a receptive opening for rationale that connects decisions moving forward with economic development. Creating connectivity between these two thoughts would be an opportunity to build a value understanding of this project, with the public. As an overall opinion, directionally, comment card respondents did not generally like Option 6 (37%), followed by 22% who did generally like this option. Those who favored Option 6 expressed positive movement forward and expanded economic development as reasons for their positions (22%). The majority of respondents who disliked Option 6 principally preferred the CSX south end option ((50%). Reasons centered on less disruption to homeowners, less congested traffic, easier for commuters, coupled with what they view as the most logical approach to change. Of the respondents that did not favor Option 6, this group also commented that they did not accept that safety is an issue and would prefer that no changes in location be made (33%). Additionally referenced comments cited a request not to change US 12 to 2 lanes (25%). The balance of comments referenced station location, increased freight traffic, obstructing the lake view, elevated track options, impact to homeowners, cost, decision making, other option considerations and associated questions should Option 6 move forward. It appears that these comments were also stated in the verbal comments provided at the conclusion of the formal presentations. Response itemization and verbatims follow. Question 1: Are you a homeowner, landlord, business owner or other? Response: Homeowners 21 78% Landlord 3 11% Business Owner 6 22% Other 4 15%

4 4 Question 2: Did you attend the first public open house? Response: Yes 15 56% No 8 30% Question 3: The factors used to evaluate this study are listed below. What issue(s) are most important to you in this study? Impact to homeowners affected by the realignment Impact to business owners affected by the realignment The potential for a new train station to enhance economic development in the station area Improved safety with the train no longer operating in the street Potential environmental impacts Positive economic impact for Michigan City Other (please specify): Response: Impact to homeowners affected by the realignment 17 63% Impact to business owners affected by the realignment 6 22% The potential to enhance economic development in the station area 10 37% Improved safety with the train no longer operating in the street 6 22% Potential environmental impacts 5 19% Proximity to major Michigan City attractions 5 19% Question 4: When thinking about all of the above factors, what is your overall opinion of the preferred alignment, Option 6? Response: Generally Like 6 22% Neutral/Don t Know 1 4% Generally Dislike 10 37% Qualitative Comments Qualitative verbatims follow.

5 5 Respondent 1 Keep the central alignment. It gives train access to more in the city and potential for more redevelopment in the city versus in the north. Respondent 2 Why not have a station built south of Mt. Baldy where the freight cars are standing right now? As a resident, I would like to be hospitable to passengers. Work with Amtrak and run the South Shore tracks parallel with the Amtrak tracks (north of Hwy. 12). Put a station next to Swingbelly s Restaurant for Amtrak and South Shore passengers. Leave Hwy. 12 four lanes. It makes no sense to reduce to two lanes and then four years in the future, make it four lanes again. I would be in favor of a raised track because traffic to the lake would be able to go through. Respondent 3 I live at 110 Frey Ct. in Lake Hills and I see no problem with Option #6. I live near the railroad tracks. There is no problem with noise or vibration. Respondent 4 I believe the city is making the right move for the future. Without a vision, the people perish. I believe in conjunction with the development of Krueger Hill as a ski lift area, it would be great. Respondent 5 I am still hoping that the tracks are moved to the south side of 11 th Street even if buildings have to be bought and torn down to do so. Respondent 6 As much as you protest, it is obvious that decisions are being made behind closed doors. You have no desire to listen to the wishes of the general public. I listened to comments from both meetings. Tonight I only heard one person in favor of your preferred option. Respondent 7 The south side of town would be more convenient to commuters. That, along with trolley transportation to the north end would be best. Respondent 8 I have reservations. I would like more details.

6 6 Respondent 9 Do not take any homes and property! Respondent 10 I will never want to be your stockholder. You can t compute! The cost of maintaining the 11 th Street tracks for the next 100 years is a drop in the bucket compared to what you want to spend to relocate. #1 the state needs to re-evaluate its safety decision. There is no safety problem. It s the statistics. Respondent 11 I prefer the CSX route but this will do. Good luck moving forward. Respondent 12 I would like to find a way to keep the train on 11 th Street. I have seen other cities with an interurban such as Seattle and it is a beautiful train. Could the train tracks be separated from the 11 th Street traffic or close 11 th Street to traffic with reduced crossings? Respondent 13 I favor CSX. Respondent 14 Don t reduce US 12 to two lanes. Respondent 15 Option 5 offers the least dislocation and the greatest potential with intermodal stations at the north end of Wabash. Renderings of the station prepared by professionals are available. Respondent 16 Will the Michigan City bus have a bus stop near the train stop? Respondent 17 Amtrak should also be at the station.

7 7 Respondent 18 This new realignment is similar to the bridge to nowhere. Go back to the CSX (Southern) alignment. Traffic will be less congested and the cost is too high ($160M). I don t want to change the existing alignment. Transportation time will be increased to get to the north end. In town there needs to be access to the four lane highway. Respondent 19 The southern alignment is a much better option. Respondent 20 Let s go with the CSX tracks. Respondent 21 Bring on the economic development! Respondent 22 I think that this is a very positive development. Respondent 23 It s going to take time but at least we re heading in the right direction. Respondent 24 No comment. Respondent 25 Stay on the south end. Respondent 26 This routing will have a major affect on equipment during the winter. Lake effect weather, rain, snow, wind will impact people, auto access, railroad wires and the tracks. Automobile traffic access will be heavily congested during rush hours.

8 8 Respondent 27 Unless elevated at least 15 feet above street level, the north end idea is a bad idea. If the concept of a Transportation Hub is still a part of the sales pitch for removal of the tracks from the streets, then the logical move is to parallel the CSX tracks to the south and the construction of a Transportation Hub north of the Michigan City Airport where land is cheap, will require minimal relocation of citizens, will add no new grade crossings and provides access to all major highways and interstates. Respondent Trail Creek Railroad Bridge. Hopefully, a drawing or architect s rendering of the proposed Trail Creek bridge for SSRR trains will be available for viewing by the public. Will it match the elevation of the fairly new US 12 motor vehicle bridge over Trail Creek? If so, how will the relatively shallow grade restrictions for rail traffic (around 2% I have heard in the past? To be accommodated without long, long approaches to the bridge? Where will the approach ramps or structures from the west begin? How high will the elevations be at Pine Street? Franklin? Washington? etc. What will those structures really look like? Same questions for the eastern approaches. Alternatively, if the elevation of the SSRR bridge is restricted to something lower than the existing US 12 roadway bridge, what will be the impact on users of the Trail Creek Marina and other dock facilities upstream (east) of the proposed location? I know for a fact that each winter, there are numerous sailboats stores there with masts up, which means that they must cross the proposed bridge location at least twice per year, perhaps more often for various other reasons. Has anyone actually surveyed the winter storage facilities to ascertain (and report authoritatively not just estimated or guesswork) just how many vessels would be impacted by a lower bridge elevation? When the US 12 bridge was rebuilt (not too long ago in the late 90s or early 2000s as I recall), there must have been some Army Corps of Engineers, Indiana DNR, US Coast Guard and/or other governmental studies to establish the minimum elevation permissible over the Trail Creek surface. I have not looked recently, but my recollection is that it is something in the vicinity of 46 feet! Has anyone researched those documents to evaluate their impact on the current decision process? Is there any reason to believe that those constraints have materially changed in such a short period of time? If not, the higher elevation and its necessary implications for long approaches must be taken into account in the process of reaching a well-informed decision. These are important design considerations for the proposed project and should not be left to future determination at some time after the basic decisions are made. 2. What is really at stake? Perhaps I missed it, but thus far we have not seen in the press a really convincing case for just why this realignment is really necessary. My wife and I have been residents in the north portion of Michigan City for more than 20 years. We regularly drive or walk on or across 11 th Street and have yet to experience a single episode where the presence of a train on the street has caused any significant problem or any threat

9 9 to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. As a matter of fact, we feel that the presence from time to time of these commuter trains moving cautiously in the middle of 11 th Street is..rather quaint! We like it! It is part of the Michigan City atmosphere! Improving the commuter train times transiting Michigan City by 5 minutes or so does not see to merit incurring the large cost in dollars or the negative impacts on the community that seem likely to occur if this project is completed. That seems especially true in view of the fact that other factors that might improve the train times (e.g., no express trains to Chicago, too many stops?) do not seem to be addressed by SSRR. At the risk of appearing cynical, I also suggest that SSRR may have something more in mind. Such as, for example, increasing freight traffic through the City which would probably be an increasing revenue source to SSRR, but most unwelcome in this particular location. Why else would they be seeking the increase to two tracks from the existing single track? If that is really the case, it should probably occur at some other location. What assurances can be obtained from the SSRR that such an increase in freight traffic will not occur in the Michigan City north end along the proposed US 12 re-routing? Please do not misunderstand. We occasionally use SSRR and are very pleased to have the commuter service available. I am sure that regular commuters from here, South Bend, Chesterton, Valparaiso and probably other Indiana neighborhoods would enthusiastically endorse that view, and we hope the commuter volume will increase. If the commuter time to Chicago had been shorter on some express trains, I would have gladly used it for many years before I retired. Thanks for your attention to these thoughts. Recorded Comment Summary As previously indicated, meeting attendees were given the opportunity to provide written comments utilizing the Comment Cards provided or to make verbal, recorded comments during, or at the conclusion of the formal presentations. The qualitative comments transcribed from the recorded files follow. In summary: 41 questions/comments were received in the 5:00 pm session; 16 questions/comments were received in the second, 6:30 pm session. Of the 57 total responses received, 2 or 4% stated positive references to Option 6. The majority of respondents, 54 or 95% stated comments independent of a preference for Option 6. These included concern regarding the decision making process, station locations, noise, environmental, parking, alignment with prior studies, proof of safety attributed to embedded tracks, impact to homeowners, cost and consideration of other options. Given the broad narrative format, responses were not statistically clustered in any specific area of interest. What was directionally clear was the respondents need to be heard.

10 10 Neighborhood leaders it appears utilized this platform to provide detailed perspectives regarding their prioritization of the importance of neighborhood inclusion. Homeowners equally utilized this format to express their concern regarding eminent domain and the potential acquisition of their respective properties. The request for continued consideration of other alternatives versus a final decision on Option 6 was a recurring theme. Given the extensive breath of the comments shared, it would appear, that an opportunity exists to define Phase I and Phase II of the NEPA process and to define options moving forward for the Rail Realignment Study. Equally it will be important to define the value of the deliberative process to date, providing answers to the impact to homeowners, safety and economic development areas of interest stated by these respondents. Transcribed Verbal Comments Meeting 1 Michigan City Meeting #1 Respondent 1 Question: The railroad crosses Highway 12 over at the west end of this project and now it s running at the south side of Highway 12 and then when you get over toward City Hall, you re flipping over and you re crossing 12 again so that you end up on the north side of Highway 12 and then you re coming over by Blue Chip then you re crossing 12 again. This calls for three crossings of Highway 12 and I m just wondering from a planning aspect, how can that be good? Response: Well the only alternative would be grade separation. That would be considered. We re not going to be able to close Highway 12. Respondent 2 Question: What is grade separation? Response: To create a highway overpass or underpass. Respondent 3 Question: What about staying on the north side of Highway 12 through NIPSCO and Lincoln Yard and then crossing Highway 12 one time to get on the south side to avoid weaving?

11 11 Response: Because it would then be between the NIPSCO freight operation and the fence. The operation would then be split to serve the power plant. Respondent 4 Question: Not recorded at the microphone Response: This is just a conceptual rendering. Respondent 5 Question: How may trains would pass through? Up to 50? Response: No. The same number. Respondent 6 Question: Will there be an increase in speed? Response: Not recorded at the microphone Respondent 7 Question: After the station is built, would the city take it over? Response: That has yet to be determined. Respondent 8 Question: What about environmental impacts? Has there been a study to determine how the vibrations will impact existing structures like Marina Park? Response: That will be determined in the NEPA study which will include: Noise, vibrations and streams. Respondent 9 Question: My name is Joie Winski. Where will the four story parking structure be located? Will that impact Franklin Street? Response: The plans presented are conceptual. Nothing has been determined. Respondent 10 Question: Where will the parking be? Response: It would be to the north of the station house.

12 12 Respondent 11 Question: Have you thought about the winds with the lake being to the north or is that in the environmental study? Response: All parking for the South Shore is surface parking. We have 1200 spots. Respondent 12 Question: Is that parking near the lake as it is here? I think that needs to be addressed. That can be a concern because sometimes the winds and the snow are really bad to get to your car. Response: A covered walkway could be considered. Respondent 13 Statement: The study that the Council voted on was in support of the study. It was understood that the vote was in support of this plan. Respondent 14 Question: Are you saying that the other options are off the table such as the CSX option? Response: This is the one [option] that needs full endorsement by the council and NICTD which remains to be done. Respondent 15 Question: Could you explain more about the bridge over Trail Creek? Response: The proposed bridge would be a fixed, low level bridge that would be 15 feet above the high water level of the creek. Respondent 16 Question: First of all, good presentation. The bottom of the US 12 bridge is approximately 46 feet above the high water level. That will have an impact on boating traffic upstream to the east. There must be a study that fixed a minimum elevation. Is there any reason to think that the criteria for minimum height has changed over the past ten years and should not be revisited? Response: This has been discussed with the U.S. Coast Guard and the Harbor Master regarding setting the bridge at a low level.

13 13 Respondent 17 Question: How will this impact the boat traffic? Past studies should be examined. Response: We have taken that into consideration. Respondent 18 Question: Is there a report about that? Response: The Harbor Master should have that. Respondent 19 Statement: Many years ago in the 1930 s and 40 s this was quite a port. The head of navigation established by the Corps of Engineers or the Coast Guard was the E Street Bridge. I don t know if that has been rescinded or not. If it has not been rescinded, then you have to take that into consideration as to whether or not you use a fixed span, one span up or two span up bridge like the Franklin Street bridge. Those people will make the determination. That s part of your answer. It has to be a navigable stream. The Corp of Engineers is partly responsible for its dredging plus the Port Authority. There are a lot of things that go into this before you can say that you re going to put a fixed span down. (The following is the text of the correspondence submitted by this respondent and verbally shared). 1. Trail Creek Railroad Bridge. Hopefully, a drawing or architect s rendering of the proposed Trail Creek Bridge for SSRR trains will be available for viewing by the public. Will it match the elevation of the fairly new US 12 motor vehicle bridge over Trail Creek? If so, how will the relatively shallow grade restrictions for rail traffic (around 2% I have heard in the past? To be accommodated without long, long approaches to the bridge? Where will the approach ramps or structures from the west begin? How high will the elevations be at Pine Street? Franklin? Washington? etc. What will those structures really look like? Same questions for the eastern approaches. Alternatively, if the elevation of the SSRR Bridge is restricted to something lower than the existing US 12 roadway bridge, what will be the impact on users of the Trail Creek Marina and other dock facilities upstream (east) of the proposed location? I know for a fact that each winter, there are numerous sailboats stores there with masts up, which means that they must cross the proposed bridge location at least twice per year, perhaps more often for various other reasons. Has anyone actually surveyed the winter storage facilities to ascertain (and report authoritatively not just estimated or guesswork) just how many vessels would be impacted by a lower bridge elevation? When the US 12 bridge was rebuilt (not too long ago in the late 90s or early 2000s as I recall), there must have been some Army Corps of Engineers, Indiana DNR, US Coast Guard and/or other governmental studies to establish the minimum elevation permissible over the Trail Creek surface. I have not looked recently, but my recollection is that it is something in the vicinity of 46 feet! Has anyone researched those documents to evaluate

14 14 their impact on the current decision process? Is there any reason to believe that those constraints have materially changed in such a short period of time? If not, the higher elevation and its necessary implications for long approaches must be taken into account in the process of reaching a well-informed decision. These are important design considerations for the proposed project and should not be left to future determination at some time after the basic decisions are made. 2. What is really at stake? Perhaps I missed it, but thus far we have not seen in the press a really convincing case for just why this realignment is really necessary. My wife and I have been residents in the north portion of Michigan City for more than 20 years. We regularly drive or walk on or across 11 th Street and have yet to experience a single episode where the presence of a train on the street has caused any significant problem or any threat to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. As a matter of fact, we feel that the presence from time to time of these commuter trains moving cautiously in the middle of 11 th Street is..rather quaint! We like it! It is part of the Michigan City atmosphere! Improving the commuter train times transiting Michigan City by 5 minutes or so does not see to merit incurring the large cost in dollars or the negative impacts on the community that seem likely to occur if this project is completed. That seems especially true in view of the fact that other factors that might improve the train times (e.g., no express trains to Chicago, too many stops?) do not seem to be addressed by SSRR. At the risk of appearing cynical, I also suggest that SSRR may have something more in mind. Such as, for example, increasing freight traffic through the City which would probably be an increasing revenue source to SSRR, but most unwelcome in this particular location. Why else would they be seeking the increase to two tracks from the existing single track? If that is really the case, it should probably occur at some other location. What assurances can be obtained from the SSRR that such an increase in freight traffic will not occur in the Michigan City north end along the proposed US 12 re-routing? Please do not misunderstand. We occasionally use SSRR and are very pleased to have the commuter service available. I am sure that regular commuters from here, South Bend, Chesterton, Valparaiso and probably other Indiana neighborhoods would enthusiastically endorse that view, and we hope the commuter volume will increase. If the commuter time to Chicago had been shorter on some express trains, I would have gladly used it for many years before I retired. Thanks for your attention to these thoughts. Response: And everything that you have said has been verified with the Corps of Engineers. Respondent 20 Question: Are you aware that this alignment crosses Trail Creek twice? Response: Yes, just north of the US 12 bridge and at the Peanut bridge.

15 15 Respondent 21 Question: You mentioned that there were no parks involved. Are you aware of Winding Cove Park on the northeast side of town? Response: Yes. This alignment would be going through there. Respondent 22 Question: There are plans for the Trail Creek Development Plan. Response: In the NEPA study every one of those issues will be scoped out. Respondent 23 Question: Did this project meet the Open House Policy in Indiana? Response: I m not aware of that policy. Respondent 24 Comment: My name is Patrick Donoghue. Most of the people out there know me; I live at 1020 North Riske. I can walk to the South Shore. The railroad has its point of view on what they re needing to do here, what they re saying they have to do move from 11 th Street to the north, they can t stay there so they re looking to the north. But the city, I think, and I m asking if the railroad agrees with this, but the city has the obligation to look toward economic development and toward parking and toward our access to Washington Park and the access of our visitors. I m speaking from the point of view of 40 years of practicing law in this city. During that time, I worked for the Park District, the Park Department, Economic Development Commission and many, many departments of the city but I m speaking from the point of view of a citizen. It all kinda comes together right here so I m concerned about the kind of input that our city has had up to this point because things that are conceptual tend to become fairly rigid in terms of what becomes actuality. I saw the list that you have there and I m concerned about the different factors that go into this concept and whether or not, for instance, the parks department looked at the trains as they go by or the freights and how long of a period of time they re going to be there when you ve got people trying to get across the railroad tracks there. That s of concern. My thought was, in getting interested in this, I called my good friend John Vail because I know that he has had some input in this. He has talked about elevating, if you have to move to the north, elevating the rail traffic so that our automobiles can get back and forth, I was wondering whether or not you ve given that elevation idea a thought or what your position was on that, in other words, getting the trains up so that we can drive underneath when we want to get to the park? Response: Those are all good points. Option 5 in the criteria was an elevated option that was looked at and you can see that in the matrix and see the pros and cons in the exhibit hall.

16 16 Respondent 25 Question: Has the city council taken a position in terms of the various economic development features such as the Trail Creek Corridor? Now, we ve been working on that as a planning item for many, many years and have spent a great deal of money along the Trail Creek area. I m speaking of the west side of Trail Creek and I m asking if the City Council has made a statement about your various concepts here that will protect that level of economic development? Response: Yes, option 3 and 3A came down through the west side of Trail Creek and that was a direct conflict with the city s plans for developing Trail Creek and that was the reason that option was discarded. Respondent 26 Comment: I think that s the point I wanted to make but it s a very serious situation for our city and for the future economic development and the way we live, our way of life here. I ve lived here all of my life and I used to know every foot of the ground that you re talking about east of Franklin St. because I grew up two blocks from the Sanitary Department, had a lot of fun playing there by the way. It s very important that the right things happen at this juncture because we ve got a big, huge potential here. The studies have all mentioned it and a lot of us have done a lot of work to bring ourselves to a position where we can move forward into the kind of community that you can see up in Michigan and they don t have to worry about the South Shore. One other thing, as a lawyer, I ve had experience with maritime law. My recollection, I haven t done a lot in this area for a long time, but my recollection is that marine traffic has precedence over all traffic including automobiles and rail traffic. The Coast Guard station here doesn t have the authority to give you any approval. I hope you realize that and neither does the Harbor Master. This is a question for the Department of the Interior and for the Department of Treasury relating to the Coast Guard. So this is something before you get too far into it on that bridge, you d better be sure that you re following the federal law in terms of navigable waters, because you realize that the navigable waters goes up to the E Street bridge and one of the reasons that the bridge over Highway 12 was built the way it was because of marine traffic underneath it. Respondent 27 Comment: I d like to address a concern of a population that you probably never considered. And that population is a worldwide population of railtheons. Did you know that people come from all over the world to Michigan City to see one of the last surviving electric interurbans that actually runs down the center of the street and that could actually be considered a national historic location? It could be put on the national register of historic locations and what a wonderful museum the old station at Franklin Street and 11 th Street would make. When you do something new, you also lose something and you d be losing one of the tourist attractions that bring people to Michigan City and I m talking about from Japan, China, India, Europe and England. You have a lot of railtheons that come from England to Michigan City to see that train and it will all be gone. Have you considered that?

17 17 Respondent 28 Comment: I ve only been studying this problem since the other study in the 70 s and the study was turned down so I ve been at this matter for some time, the main objection, I m going to talk for Option 5 which in some ways, and don t get me wrong, is the perfect way to go because we won t tear down any buildings we have grade separations if we can start ramping up and get over US 12 out by east body and then carry in the air, we eliminate the crossing at US 12, Wabash Street, Franklin Street, Center Street, Lake Avenue which is not there yet and eliminate the other crossing at US 12. I told a friend of mine what the plans were. He immediately drew back and said we re going to have a bridge over Franklin Street? And most people that I talk to including Mayor Oberlie say oh we can t have a bridge over Franklin Street because it will cut off the view of the lake. Well, we know that it does not cut off the view of the lake. There is no view of the lake in the first place if you re coming up Pine Street you re going to see that bridge for about 4 seconds and here s the thing folks, that doesn t have to be a plate and girder bridge. We can put a mural up there. We can talk about attractions. It could be a very good billboard for us. The critical problem, and I just discovered it tonight is we know that NICTD has to cross AMTRAK at some point and with that big curve west of Swingbelly s and that s a big curve, at some point I m asking Bill you could cross at ACE Body Shop over at US 12 because the curve has not started yet and you could do it at the other end opposite Swingbelly s because the track is now flat again and that is the main problem to get NICTD across AMTRAK without it crossing at an angle now I can answer a few questions but I ll sit down. The main sticking point is the Franklin Street bridge and it does not need to be a negative. Respondent 29 Comment: Bill Franks, I live in Michigan City. I m only 82 years old. I hope that we haven t been pushed into where we have to go to the north end. The reason I think they want to go to the north end is for Lighthouse Place, the beach and Blue Chip and I can t imagine anybody going to any of those three places without going there in their own cars. Why they would want to take the South Shore, from Chicago or anywhere come down there, walk down there from the beach all sandy, get back on a train get the CTA back to their house, I can t imagine that. Talk about development on the north end just like the burbs, just like the Memorial hospital area, the south shore is not going to help with development up there. I agree with John, it s not going to block a view of the lakefront unless they get on top of the court building. I ve heard people talk about the freight trains; I believe they only run at night, the coal trains. The last meeting we had, I asked John Parsons the feasibility of going through the east end of town to go up on the CS out there. He said that it was feasible. They could do it. I can t imagine all these cars to go all through the city to get up on the north end. I think we re already congested there. I think that we could keep out of there. They were talking about a 300 car garage then 600. Now they re talking about a parking garage for 900 cars which means they re trying to have space for the Summer Festival people. I don t think this project should be for the Summer Festival people. It should be for the South Shore and commuters going to Chicago. John says 95% of the people on the South Shore are not necessarily commuters but go to Chicago and they bring their cars. I don t think it has to be in the city. Chesterton station is not in the city. East Chicago station is not in the city. They talk about development around the station. How long has the station been at Carroll Avenue? Does anybody know of one business that started up because of South Shore at Carroll Avenue? The presentations they have are real nice, but I think it s a lot of blow humph. You go over to Chesterton station. How many businesses are up around that station? None, none whatsoever and how it s going to disrupt our north end which they re trying to fix up a little bit. I think they should really consider the CSX way. At the last meeting they

18 18 talked about building a station out at 212 and the south shore, not downtown. There are four highways from all directions coming into that area. Not through our city. I know my boy lives in Hobart. He drives to Gary and he doesn t mind that little drive. I don t think any of the people would mind that little drive out there if they had a good station out there. There s land out there. The South Shore has already planned to put another development out there and some shops out there. They re going to move them out there anyway and this would be right adjacent to that. I think that we should think about the CSX thing awfully strong and not just be tied into doing it. When they go to build that stuff up on the north end, we could probably get some money to put the railroad tracks in but who s going to put that pretty fountain in they showed us a picture of? It s not going to be the federal government, or south shore or anybody else. Who s going to put up that parking garage? It s not going to be federal money. We re gonna have to do it ourselves. The city is saying we re broke anyway. $700,000 to tear down some buildings. $50,000 to put in a railroad crossing at Franklin Street when the CSX should do that themselves. They re spending our money! They re showing us so many pictures of things that we re gonna have to pay for. Not the South Shore, not the CSX, not the State, that we re gonna have to pay for or we re not going to get it. I mean the pictures are pretty and you ll never see that again. I think we need to step back. And say, what is this? We have to move it John says we have to move it One over Trail Creek, Nickel Plate, one over the old Michigan Rd., and that would be a lot less costly what we re actually doing all that structure up there, I don t know. I think people ought to think about what we re actually doing. You people ought to voice your opinion. The people that live here. They say this committee is going to make the decisions? Tell your mayor. Tell your councilman. We ve got four people from Michigan City in on it. Paul Niedhamer, Michigan City Respondent 30 Question: How close does the South Shore come to the 212? Response: Not recorded at the microphone Respondent 31 Comment: I think a lot of this route location was selected due to tunnel vision of having a station in Michigan City. How many people, when they drive to commute, want to drive or meander all the way through the city to get to the commuting station? I think people would rather have something on the east side of Michigan City. They were talking about having a new exit from the interstate out there anyway. I sort of like the west side out by the airport because we sort of have a transportation hub of planes, buses and trains. I love the South Bend Airport because the South Shore drops you right off in the airport. The parking, I hate to see the north end turn into a parking lot. I hate asphalt sprawl and the South Shore said that they don t have parking structures. Well, the City of Gary Transportation Center has a parking structure but it s not the South Shore and over by the airport, that s high so you could actually build underground parking and elevated parking in a garage so I approve the CSX route. Respondent 32 Comment: I m speaking for some constituents that called me, specifically Mrs. Edmonds. My name is Pat Boy. Her comments basically mirrored a lot that I got from other people and her main one was the CSX tracks

19 19 would be more essential for the city and she doesn t understand why the north end is the only part that needs redevelopment. She also thinks that the other one is too expensive. She just wanted to make sure that you understood that s how an 87 year old woman feels about it. Respondent 33 Comment: I realize that this forum is for the public but I would like to answer Mr. Donoghue s question. The Common Council has not come to a consensus as to which route we will support. We have relied on information from the Management Oversight Group which many of us feel has been insufficient to-date. At the last workshop that was for the council only, I requested copies of all of the minutes for the meetings that the Management Oversight Group had. When we get those minutes, they will be distributed to the councilmen, then we will have the knowledge that we can answer questions. There has been some really good input tonight and we encourage the questions. Respondent 34 Question: Does this 6A or 6B conform to the hundreds and thousands of dollars worth of planning that has been done by Lohan Anderson and Anderson University and on and on and on for all of the plans that the city has hired to have done for the north end of Michigan City which those of us that live here and work here have relied upon and does this railroad going through the north end comply with our comprehensive zoning again which we have relied upon? Response: Option 6 was one of the options that did not impact the Trail Creek Corridor. As you remember, as I was present for the entire Anderson University charrette in which the topic was dominated by this South Shore issue and two options were discussed, the enhancement of the existing 11 th Street station. Zoning itself would be in the essential business districts. Respondent 35 Comment: I was a member of the original redevelopment commission for 60 years I totally agree with the last speaker. Of all the studies and there have been studies since the 60 s and 70 s, Lohan Anderson which was very professionally done and the students of Anderson University, not one of them even came close to recommending that the South Shore be moved to the north end of Michigan City. There is no reason whatsoever that I can see that it has to offer the city. The present redevelopment commission has spent hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars acquiring old buildings; tearing them down and made them ready for what reason than high quality residential. The South Shore will inhibit it, not enhance it so I think the council and the mayor should act as one voice totally against the whole idea. Respondent 36 Comment: My name is Rick Blank. We have owned property and have operated a business on the north end of Michigan City for nearly a hundred years and I m really concerned that the close proximity of the Amtrak to the proposed Option 6 line is so close that you re creating an East-West Corridor that is a recipe for disaster and that s disaster with regard to developing new residential housing, new retail I m concerned about and you even said that the buildings, the garages are all up and open for discussion going to be put somewhere and I can t help but to think that you re going to be blocking traffic to the lakefront. That

20 20 coupled with the fact that the Michigan City/Franklin Street Bridge opens as well, so really you have three considerable impediments. So I guess the question is have you done any in depth studies as far as what the impact would be when you put a railroad running right through a city, what the impact would be as far as new residential development? Does anybody want to live next to that track? Respondent 37 Comment: My name is Dee Scott Alexander and I live in the area of Krieger that s going to be affected. I am a homeowner, or I should say a home buyer and I like the area that I live in. I took a lot of time to select the home I live in. I don t want to live next to a train. I have done that. I was a young woman. My aunt owned two homes between 10 th and 11 th on Spring St. So I m very aware of what it s like living next to a train. The former home that I had was probably two blocks from the South Shore and I know what it s like to live two blocks from the South Shore. When I picked this one, I picked that area because it s nice and quiet, it s very residential, it s kept up very well and we all get along, so has there been any consideration about me? About me as a citizen of Michigan City? As a taxpayer who pays some good taxes? If you go through that area you will notice there are some very, nice homes in there and people work hard to keep them up. We ve made significant investments in there so now you re going to put a train on the north end? Question, have you thought about me? The second question is, Let s say I m going to retire in about 4 or 5 years, I don t need quite as big of a house as I have and I want to put it up, so now what you re saying is that this may not happen for many years but everybody knows that you re going to put a train there and it s going to come within a block or two of my house, so has there been any consideration for me and I put it up and I can t get what I want for it because everybody knows there s going to be a train. If you put it in anyway, third question, I don t want to stay there, are you going to buy it and give me enough to move somewhere else where I can live like I m living now? Respondent 38 Question: My name is Dave Albers. I ve lived in Michigan City in the area all my life. I ve got a few questions. One is wherever the train goes, at any of these locations will it require the overhead lines or will they run on battery? Response: It will be an overhead propelled system. So through the north end of downtown we will have overhead electric wires like we do on 11 th Street now? Response: Yes sir. Respondent 39 Comment: In your feasibility study, I know that you said the clearance on the bridge would be 15 feet. I have a boat in that channel. The rise and fall is two feet depending on the weather fronts coming through. I know the AMTRAK bridge clearance is probably close to 10 feet and when that bridge is closed, traffic does not go through and the elevation may not be significant or high enough and what is that going to do to the Trail Creek Marina whether you re sail or power? There are approximately eight AMTRAKS that go through a day. Passenger wise, how many South Shore and freight go through a day? I heard two

21 21 different numbers. South Shore through the north end, we would have? (27) and how many freight? (5 or 6). LaPorte built a high bridge to keep the traffic flowing smoothly. I really worry about the impact of the traffic flow. It s a congested area during the high season which we re in right now. My last comment I would love to see a development where we say on the west side of Michigan City we develop a commuter station that is bar none, great, hit Randolph Street in 55 minutes. We then become a mecca for growth out of the Chicago metro area. That s growth, that s development, then if you want to have a station at the Ames Field area you could have a trolley system during the high season routing people through Lighthouse, Blue Chip and the waterfront if they want to do that. To me, the economic growth would be to make Michigan City not only a destination point to go to the stores but to live here and eventually relocate businesses. To me, that s what the goal should be. 55 minutes or less between here and Randolph and I think that we would be doing great things for the community. Respondent 40 Comment: My name is Bob Pollock and I may be on the opposite side of this argument so let s start with this. This is a $160M plus investment in Michigan City. Probably the top five in my lifetime of 72 years as a resident of Michigan City. This is something that the town absolutely needs. Now, we can argue about specifics and yes, we need to solve those and one of those we need to solve is the interface between the South Shore, NICTD AND AMTRAK and how that is going to work. But that ought to be solvable. These are individuals that we paid significant dollars for and they should be able to take these problems along with their engineers and solve these problems. Now, I live on the north end of Michigan City and I want to see the train located there so for those of you who don t want to see the train located on your end, I don t have a problem with that put it in mine. I m on the north end of Michigan City; I think it will be a real positive for the city. I think that if we get this, you will see commuters coming in using Michigan City on the north end and you will see housing developments and all you have to do is look at the suburban areas of Chicago and know that the closer you are to the train stations, the more valuable your property. Respondent 41 Comment: My name is Bob Bailey. I ve lived in Michigan City for over 50 years. We got to vote on Blue Chip, let s put it on the ballot and vote on it. It s such a major decision the city is making. Let s let the people vote on it like we did on Blue Chip. Transcribed Verbal Comments Meeting 2 Michigan City Meeting #2 Respondent 1 Question: On the plan where we have the diamond over AMTRAK, has anyone considered a joint facility with AMTRAK? They run, I believe, three sets of roundtrips a day and their timetable doesn t really interfere much with our timetable and it wouldn t be a competition between the two carriers if they had a joint station on the north end and then when we cross over the Trail Creek Bridge at 12 foot grade, they could Y back over to their main grade.

22 22 Response: We ve had talks with AMTRAK and they re a separate entity. They have their own agendas, their own plans for Chicago service. I can t speak for them but we have had conversations with them. Respondent 2 Comment: My name is Greg Tuel and I m with the Krieger Neighborhood Association which is on the northeast side of town and when I spoke earlier, I sort of abided by the rules in terms of just asking questions and it turned into more of an interrogation. You seem like a nice man so I don t want to interrogate you so I want to make comments which most people did before and I hope that you can show a little bit of patience for me. Inherent to these comments are a lot of questions that we have on the northeast side. Being in the Krieger neighborhood, we are stakeholders in this cause you re talking about running it through on the Nickel Plate and the Peanut Bridge which is right through the middle of our neighborhood so this is a very important matter for us in terms of the quality of life of our neighborhood. The first question that a lot of people are asking with $160M of the taxpayer money, I think that it s disingenuous for people to say that it s not going to be our money it s going to come from the federal government when all of pay federal taxes anyway, and when you talk about asking for a chunk of money or a piece of the pie this big, you can pretty much bet you ll probably not get another piece of the pie so, you ve got to think long and hard about asking for this kind of money. We look at this type of project and we say to ourselves, this harkens back to some of the mistakes that were made on the north side of town, in terms of putting the library there, in terms of accessibility, shutting down roads, in terms of having a power plant shadow over our beach. There are a lot of problems that we see on the north side and this seems to be exacerbating that and on top of that, we re going to spend $160M to do that. In addition, people have to think about the fact, how long is this going to take? How long are we gonna tear up the north side to get this done? I suspect it s going to be quite awhile. We re very concerned about how the decision has played out. You ve done a fine job on your presentation here and we really appreciate that. We ve seen on the emichigancity.com website that it says that the city and NICTD have come to an agreement, yet for us it seems like this agreement has been reached behind closed doors. There have been presentations like this and feedback was collected like you re going to do here. But the hard debate and the decision making process, the give and take that happens, really happened behind closed doors and the taxpayers, the homeowners were in the dark about it. We ve seen the options, we ve seen the arguments for the most part, but we have not seen the decision making process like I think the Indiana Open Door Policy requires us to see. I don t know if you broke the letter of the law here but it seems to me you broke the spirit of the law and I guess the way you get around it is by saying that it s just a recommendation but the problem is that it s only a one option take it or leave it recommendation. It s not a situation where you say, here s our top three options. What we see is 7 out of 9 of the options that you started out with were the north side and it looks like to us like the deck was loaded to begin with. So, it s a question about the Open Door Policy too. Heck, I guess most of the decision making was hidden from our elected representatives. I don t think our City Council members were privy to a lot of the nuts and bolts of how this decision came about and if there were eight people that came to this conclusion is one option and only three of them are elected representatives, NICTD, the mayor, Councilman Murphy here, I think Councilman Ygelski, a city councilman and I think the City Engineer who is an appointed representative. So out of those eight, we had three elected officials who were involved in that decision making process. If you want to see how this thing is going to play out on Broadway, or what the city of Michigan City really feels about it, I think you ought to get your butts out to the neighborhoods and go talk to the people there and you need to paint a vivid picture for us to see. Let s start with some photographs because most