PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 1. BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................1 

 1.1 Project History .......................................................................................................1 

 2. DECISION ...................................................................................................................5 

 2.1 Selection of Alternative ........................................................................................5 

 2.1.1 Location of the Selected Alternative ...........................................................6 

 2.1.2 Description of the Selected Alternative .......................................................6 

 2.1.3 Property Acquisition .................................................................................13 

 2.1.4 Governance ...............................................................................................13 

 2.2 Environmental Commitments (Mitigation and Enhancements) ..........................17 

2.2.1 Environmental Commitment Funding .......................................................17 

2.2.2 Environmental Commitment Tracking ......................................................17 

 3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .........................................................................18 

 3.1 Purpose and Need ...............................................................................................18 

 3.2 Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives .....................................................18 

 3.2.1 Preliminary Alternatives ...........................................................................19 

 3.2.2 Alternatives Carried Forward – DEIS ........................................................19 

 3.2.3 Cost Comparison .......................................................................................23 

 3.3 Preferred Alternative – FEIS ...............................................................................23 

 3.3.1 Rationale for Selection ...............................................................................24 

 3.3.2 Potential Reasonably Foreseeable Impacts of Selected Alternative .........25 

 3.3.3 Consistency with Established Statewide 

 and Regional Transportation Planning Goals ...........................................25 

 3.3.4 Environmentally Preferred Alternative .....................................................25 

 3.3.5 Cost Savings Considerations .....................................................................25 

 4. FINAL SECTION 4(f) ...............................................................................................29 

 5. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM .....................................................................31 

 5.1 Section 4(f) (Department of Transportation Act) ................................................31 

5.2 Section 106 (National Historic Preservation Act) ...............................................32 

 5.3 Air Quality Conformity (Clean Air Act) .............................................................32 

5.4 Environmental Justice and Title VI (Civil Rights Act) .......................................34 

5.5 Permitting ............................................................................................................34 

 6. MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT ................................................................35 

 6.1 Environmental Commitments Defined ................................................................35 

 6.2 Enforcement of Environmental Commitments ....................................................35 

 6.3 Environmental Commitment Progress Reporting ...............................................36 

 7. COMMENTS ON THE FINAL 

 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ......................................................37 

 7.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................37 

 7.2 Alternatives ..........................................................................................................38

 7.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................39 

 7.3.1 Community Cohesion/Non-motorized Provisions .....................................39 

 7.3.2 Jobs and the Economy ...............................................................................40 

 7.3.3 Environmental Justice and Title VI ...........................................................40 

 7.3.4 Traffic ........................................................................................................41 

 7.3.5 Air Quality .................................................................................................43 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

 7.3.6 Enhancements ............................................................................................48 

 7.3.7 Process .......................................................................................................48 

 

 APPENDIX A PROJECT MITIGATION SUMMARY GREEN SHEET 

 

 APPENDIX B PRE-DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGREEMENT 

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 Figure 1 Class I Railroad Intermodal Terminals in Southeast Michigan 

 at Beginning of DEIS .........................................................................................2 

 Figure 2 Selected Alternative ...........................................................................................7 

 Figure 3 Major Interlockers in Detroit Area ....................................................................9 

 Figure 4 Grade Separation Underpass with Sidewalk and Bike Lanes 

 on Michigan State University Campus ............................................................11 

 Figure 5 Potential Central Avenue Underpass Cross Section 

 with Sidewalks and Bike Lanes .......................................................................12 

 Figure 6 Livernois-Junction Yard Property Acquisition ................................................15 

 Figure 7 DIFT Plan-Program – Project Agreements and Level of Commitment ..........13 

 Figure 8 Livernois-Junction Yard Alternative Footprints ..............................................21 

LIST OF TABLES 

 Table 1 DEIS Action Alternative Costs ........................................................................23 

 Table 2 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts – 

 No Action and Selected Alternatives – Livernois-Junction Yard ....................26 

c:\temp\dift\2010-04-21 dift final rod .doc
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

1 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Proposed Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal 

Wayne County, Michigan 

FHWA-MI-EIS-03-03-R 

1. BACKGROUND 

This Record of Decision (ROD) sets forth the basis for choosing the Selected Alternative for the 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project (DIFT) in Wayne County, Michigan. The project 

will consolidate intermodal freight terminal activities of three of the four Class I railroads 

(Norfolk Southern [NS], CSX, Canadian National [CN], and Canadian Pacific [CP]) serving 

Michigan through improvements at the Livernois-Junction Yard in southwest Detroit and east 

Dearborn, in Wayne County. Also included are associated external-to-the-terminal road and rail 

improvements. The fourth Class I railroad will participate with the other three in the external rail 

improvements. 

1.1 Project History 

In the 1990s, as railroads consolidated and intermodal growth strengthened, the Michigan 

Department of Transportation (MDOT) recognized the need to address the rapidly growing 

intermodal (rail/truck) mode of transportation (see Figure 1, which shows intermodal terminals 

in place at the beginning of the study). In 1998, the DIFT was listed as a High Priority Project in 

the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 provided $18 million in 

federal funding assistance (TEA-21, Section 1602, High Priority Project 1221). In 2001, MDOT 

and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiated a feasibility study to determine the 

intermodal needs in Southeast Michigan. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) appeared in the Federal Register on March 13, 2002. Scoping meetings 

were held in Detroit on September 19, 2002 and June 4, 2003. 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was signed April 15, 2005, and its Notice of 

Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2005. It included a 

Memorandum of Understanding signed by NS, CN, CP, and MDOT that set forth the 

understanding and intentions of the signing parties related to the project. (CSX did not sign.) 

Public Hearings were held June 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2005, at LASED Youth Center in Detroit, the 

IBEW Local 22 Hall in Detroit, the Holiday Inn in the Grandmont neighborhood of Detroit 

(adjacent to Dearborn), and the Michigan State Fairgrounds on the border of Wayne and Oakland 

counties, respectively. These hearing sites were close to the intermodal terminals being 

considered in the proposed action. The comment period ended August 16, 2005, for a total 96-

day comment period. 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

2 

Because more than three years passed between the signing of the DEIS and the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), a re-evaluation was required per 23 CFR 771.129. 

That re-evaluation was included in Appendix G of the FEIS. It determined that a supplemental 

DEIS was not required. 

In developing the FEIS and identifying the Preferred Alternative, full consideration was given to: 

public and agency comments on the DEIS; all alternatives considered and the respective 

environmental consequences; and, issues related to the proposed action. All four railroads, 

including CSX, memorialized their commitment to the DIFT project by signing a PreDevelopment Plan Agreement (PDPA), included in Appendix F of the FEIS and Appendix B of 

Figure 1 

Class I Railroad Intermodal Terminals in Southeast Michigan at Beginning of DEIS 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

3 

this Record of Decision (ROD). The PDPA outlines how the DIFT project will continue to 

unfold, based on available funding and railroad priorities. 

The FEIS was signed December 1, 2009, and distributed. A Notice of Availability (NOA) was 

published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2009. An Amended Notice was published 

December 18, 2009, extending the wait period from January 11, 2010, to January 29, 2010. The 

Selected Alternative is described in Section 2 of this ROD. The DIFT has independent utility1

from all other projects, including the Detroit River International Crossing and the Ambassador 

Bridge Gateway Project. It takes into account development of High Speed Rail through the 

Livernois-Junction Yard. 

 

1

 Independent utility means the action being taken should be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no 

additional transportation improvements in the area are made, See: 

 http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmtermini.asp 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

4 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

5 

2. DECISION 

The Selected Alternative for the DIFT is to improve the Livernois-Junction Yard (refer to 

Figure 1) together with associated external-to-terminal road and rail improvements. In 

the event of any differences in wording, the ROD takes precedence over the FEIS. 

2.1 Selection of Alternative 

The DEIS evaluated the no-build and three build alternatives, but did not recommend a 

preferred alternative due to on-going discussions with the railroads. Since the publication 

of the DEIS, the positions of the railroads have clarified. 

 

The FEIS identified a preferred alternative. The FEIS describes the purpose and need 

(Section 2), development and evaluation of alternatives (Section 3), the affected 

environment and potential environmental consequences of the proposed project (Section 

4), proposed mitigation (Section 5), the Section 4(f) evaluation (Section 6), and 

coordination with regulatory agencies and comments from agency and public review of 

the DEIS (Section 7). 

In April 2009 the preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition and construction 

phases of the project were added to the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments’ 

(SEMCOG’s) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Section 106 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was finalized and signed in September 2009 

(Appendix C of the FEIS). 

FHWA and MDOT provided opportunities for government agency and public 

involvement in the development of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

documentation. The opportunities and methods that were used to involve the public and 

government agencies in the study can be found in the FEIS, Section 7. The staffing of a 

local project office (during the initial project analysis), a telephone hotline, a website, 

outreach meetings, and other means were used to solicit input. Railroad input was also 

sought at key milestones. 

A Memorandum of Understanding included in Appendix F of the DEIS recorded the 

understandings and intentions of MDOT and the railroads, and laid out a process for 

ongoing railroad and community involvement in the decision-making process. The result 

in the FEIS (Appendix F) was a signed Pre-Development Plan Agreement (PDPA) by all 

railroads that will participate in the DIFT funding program (Appendix B of this ROD). 

Both the DEIS and FEIS were made available for public review. Public hearings were 

held in June 2005 on the DEIS. The comments received on the DEIS were addressed in 

the FEIS. Substantive comments received on the FEIS are summarized and responded to 

in Section 7 of this Record of Decision. 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

6 

2.1.1 Location of the Selected Alternative 

The Selected Alternative for terminal improvements is proposed for the LivernoisJunction Yard within the cities of Detroit and Dearborn, Wayne County, Michigan. The 

yard is between Wyoming Avenue (west), Livernois Avenue (east), I-75 (south) and I-94 

(north) (Figures 1 and 2). 

2.1.2 Description of the Selected Alternative 

The Selected Alternative is fully described in Section 3.5 of the FEIS. The improvements 

at the Livernois-Junction Yard are shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the major 

interlockers (locations where train tracks cross or join together) in the Detroit Area that 

were considered for improvement; those highlighted in yellow in Figure 3 are included in 

the Selected Alternative. 

The Selected Alternative (a variation of Practical Alternative 4) will consolidate 

intermodal operations of CSX, NS, and CP railroads in Southwest Detroit/Dearborn at the 

Livernois-Junction Yard. The CP/Oak terminal (refer to Figure 1) will continue to be 

used for non-intermodal purposes. CP’s Expressway (trailer loading) operation at the 

Michigan Central Depot terminated in 2004. The CN Railroad will not shift its Moterm 

operations (Figure 1) to the Livernois-Junction Yard and not expand its terminal. But, it, 

like the other railroads, will participate in paying its share of external-to-terminal rail 

improvements that are part of the DIFT project. Such improvements by the DIFT project 

will increase the efficiency of operations of all the railroads in Southeast Michigan. The 

agreement on the Selected Alternative is memorialized in the signed Pre-Development 

Plan Agreement in Appendix F of the FEIS. Road improvements will also be made, as 

discussed below. 

In summary, the Selected Alternative will: 

• Expand the NS and CSX intermodal operations at the Livernois-Junction Yard; 

• Provide the opportunity to shift the NS Triple Crown operations from Melvindale 

and Willow Run in Romulus to the Livernois-Junction Yard; and 

• Move the CP Oak intermodal operation to the Livernois-Junction Yard. 

All four Class I railroads will participate, to the extent they benefit, in the following 

external rail improvements (Figure 3 – Selected Alternative shown in yellow): 

• Beaubien

• Coolidge

• Delray

• Dix

• Mill

• Milwaukee Junction

• Oakwood Junction

• Schaefer

• Trenton

• Vinewood

• Waterman

• West Detroit

• New Rotunda

• Track from Delray to Dix

• Track from Oakwood to Schaefer
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

7 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

8 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

9 

 

Figure 3 

Major Interlockers in Detroit Area 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

10 

Modification of the I-94/Livernois Interchange 

Several road improvements will be made to facilitate access to the Livernois-Junction 

Yard: 

• Modifying the I-94/Livernois 

interchange on its north side to 

create direct on- and off-ramps, 

rather than a loop ramp, so that 

trucks will use this interchange 

(one curve is now too tight for 

efficient container truck use) and 

Livernois Avenue, rather than other 

roads that pass through areas that 

are predominantly residential; 

• Closing the Waterman/Dix 

entrance to the Livernois-Junction 

Yard and modifying the Livernois 

entrance (Gate 4 in Figure 2) so that trucks access the yard from I-94 only; 

• Closing Lonyo Avenue and rebuilding Central Avenue under the LivernoisJunction Yard so that railroad operations do not conflict with the movements of 

cars and trucks that now pass across the yard. (Figure 4 shows a grade-separated 

underpass with sidewalks and bike lanes on Michigan State University’s East 

Lansing campus. Although not as wide, it is an example of what the Central 

Avenue underpass could look like. Figure 5 shows what the proposed Central 

Avenue underpass could look like.); 

• Providing two new access points to the yard from the west off Wyoming Avenue 

(Gates 3 and 5 in Figure 2). 

• Improving John Kronk for a new gate at Martin (Gate 2 on Figure 2 - entrance 

from Livernois Avenue) for a new terminal north of, and contiguous to, the 

existing Livernois-Junction Yard. 

• Constructing a north perimeter road to replace John Kronk between a point west 

of Stecker to Central, then along the terminal boundary to Martin. This road is 

laid out with curves east of Central Avenue to discourage use by large trucks and 

high-speed traffic on the edge of the residential area. 

The Selected Alternative was found to be the environmentally preferred option because it 

best meets the project purpose and need by improving intermodal capacity, while 

minimizing the project footprint. It provides for access to/from the Livernois-Junction 

Yard to minimize truck traffic in neighborhood areas; it addresses design constraints; it 

minimizes impacts; and, it protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, social, and 

natural resources. 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

11 

Figure 4 

Grade Separation Underpass with Sidewalk and Bike Lanes on Michigan State University Campus 

Source: Michigan Department of Transportation
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

12 

Figure 5 

Potential Central Avenue Underpass Cross Section with Sidewalks and Bike Lanes 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc.

NOTE: THE DRAWING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE 

BE INCLUDED AND A MAXIMUM OF 4 TRADIMENSIONS MAY CHANGE DURING THE DET
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

13 

2.1.3 Property Acquisition 

The Selected Alternative will require acquisition of approximately 169 acres of land and 

relocate 32 residential dwelling units (28 single-family homes and four apartment units) 

and 29 businesses. A Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan can be found in Appendix B of 

the FEIS and relocations are discussed in Section 4.4 of that document. The property 

acquisition areas are shown in Figure 6. 

2.1.4 Governance 

MDOT will act in cooperation with the other parties that have signed the PreDevelopment Plan Agreement (see Appendix F of the FEIS). The purpose of the PDPA 

is to further refine the understandings and intentions of the parties as first set forth in a 

Memorandum of Understanding dated April 6, 2006. The parties envisioned the steps 

presented graphically on Figure 7. Following execution of this ROD, the next steps are: 

(1) The preparation of a detailed DIFT Development Plan (20-year period) agreed to by 

all the parties; 

(2) Execution of individual DIFT Program Agreements (rolling five-year periods) 

between MDOT and the individual DIFT Rail-Related Participants; and, 

(3) Execution of individual DIFT Project Agreements (providing for specific, thencommitted projects) between MDOT and the individual railroad participants. 

Figure 7 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

14 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

15 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

16 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

17 

According to the PDPA, governance will be guided by certain principles: 

1. A Management Committee will be established to include MDOT, CN, CP, 

CSX, and NS. The Management Committee will also include a non-voting 

representative from the FHWA and from the Southwest Detroit/East Dearborn 

neighborhood. 

2. Among the responsibilities of the Management Committee will be to meet 

regularly to review and approve certain changes to the DIFT Development Plan; 

and, to review and adopt an annual schedule and budget. 

3. A Program Manager will be provided by MDOT, with the advice and consent of 

the Management Committee. 

4. Voting members of the Management Committee will utilize reasonable efforts 

to secure federal funding. 

2.2 Environmental Commitments (Mitigation and Enhancements) 

FHWA, in approving this ROD, directs the implementation of the project and 

environmental commitments. Environmental commitments are those mitigation and 

enhancement measures2 listed on the “Green Sheet: Project Mitigation Summary” 

contained in Appendix A of this ROD. FHWA will support efforts, in cooperation with 

MDOT and applicable resource agencies, to ensure the timely implementation of these 

measures. 

As the project progresses through design and construction, efforts will continue to 

minimize harm and reduce project impacts. When this is possible, without reducing the 

performance of the Selected Alternative or increasing impacts to other sensitive 

resources, resource agencies and the public will be consulted to determine if mitigation 

may be modified. 

2.2.1 Environmental Commitment Funding 

Mitigation measures implemented pursuant to this ROD (including land acquisition) are 

eligible for federal funding and subject to prior approval by FHWA. Enhancement 

measures will be federal-funded if eligible, and state funded if not. 

 

2.2.2 Environmental Commitment Tracking 

Environmental impacts and environmental commitments to address these impacts will be 

tracked and reported to the public and appropriate resource agencies (see Section 6). 

 

2

 Enhancements are activities above and beyond what is required by law, and developed in cooperation 

with the local community. 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

18 

3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

3.1 Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project (DIFT) is to support the 

economic competitiveness of southeastern Michigan and the state by improving freight 

transportation opportunities and efficiencies for business, industry and the military. The 

goal is to ensure Southeast Michigan has a regional facility, or facilities, with sufficient 

capacity and interconnectivity to provide for existing and future intermodal demand and 

reduce time, monetary costs and congestion to support the economic competitiveness of 

Southeast Michigan. 

The Detroit area has a need for greater intermodal capacity and improved connectivity

among the intermodal terminals of the Class I railroads.3 The needs of the U.S. economy 

and national defense are undergoing significant changes. Modern supply chain logistics, 

just-in-time manufacturing and deployment, and leaner organizations have revolutionized 

the way industry and the military transport freight. Concurrently, intermodal freight 

transport also is undergoing change. It is growing, spreading into new markets and 

restructuring to meet the needs of its customers. Supporting the needs of business, 

industry and the military – particularly in the way they contribute to the quality of life, 

the economy and national defense – continues to be the primary justification for public 

investments in the transportation system. 

3.2 Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives 

The alternatives afforded the four Class I railroads operating in southeastern Michigan 

the opportunity to participate. It was recognized that much of the growth in freight 

transportation would come in the form of intermodal container use. So, the participation 

of the railroads is essential to the project. The development of the alternatives tested how 

the public sector could support the private railroads in an equitable way. The railroads 

meanwhile discussed internally their business plans and needs. Some railroads have a 

need for expanded terminal capacity; others, in the end, determined they did not. All 

railroads see advantages to upgrading interlockers (rail line interconnection points). 

The process leading to the Selected Alternative was evolutionary. The information 

gained from the Practical Alternatives and the DEIS was the means for the railroads to 

determine their business interest. The Selected Alternative represents the culmination of 

the process and is codified in the signed Pre-Development Plan Agreement. From the 

public point of view, the process allowed the planning for intermodal growth to be done 

consistent with community needs. Area roadway improvements and paving; security 

walls and streetscaping around the Livernois-Junction Yard; and, poorly working 

viaducts under railroad lines that serve the yard were all addressed in a comprehensive 

planning process that led to the Selected Alternative. 

 

3

 A Class I railroad has a business volume that exceeds $319 million (2007 dollars). There are four Class I railroads in 

southeast Michigan: CSX, Norfolk Southern, Canadian National, and Canadian Pacific. 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

19 

3.2.1 Preliminary Alternatives 

A set of Illustrative Alternatives was developed beginning in 2001 in the feasibility study 

phase. It was assumed the project would center on the Livernois-Junction Yard, with 

consideration given to truck access to the yard from I-75 and I-94. In 2002 the National 

Environmental Policy Act phase began, leading to preparation of a DEIS. It was 

determined during the DEIS process to include an alternative that called for expansion of 

each railroad’s terminal at its then-existing location(s). 

3.2.2 Alternatives Carried Forward - DEIS 

Four alternatives, including the No Action Alternative were analyzed and discussed in the 

DEIS. The DEIS did not identify a Preferred Alternative. 

• Alternative 1: No Action Alternative – assumed expansion of each railroad’s 

business on its existing terminal, without government participation. 

• Alternative 2: Expand Existing Terminals – would have expanded each railroad’s 

terminal at its current location, with government support. This alternative 

responded to public interest to distribute impacts among the existing terminals, 

rather than concentrating them at the Livernois-Junction Yard. Norfolk Southern 

(NS) and CSX were to expand at the Livernois-Junction Yard, including into land 

north and south of the Livernois-Junction Yard to be acquired by the proposed 

action. (CP was to expand its Expressway operations at the Michigan Central 

Depot and its container movement at its Oak Yard. In both cases government was 

to be involved in right-of-way acquisition and related access development. CN 

was to expand its terminal into the State Fairgrounds, as expansion in any other 

direction was neither prudent nor feasible. The DEIS right-of-way and 

construction cost total for this alternative was $267 million. 

 

• Alternative 3: Consolidate – would have consolidated all railroads at the 

Livernois-Junction Yard. This alternative represented the concept of maximizing 

railroad efficiencies by locating them all at one location. This option had the 

maximum footprint of any of the alternatives considered in the DEIS. The DEIS 

right-of-way and construction cost total for this alternative was $583 million. 

• Alternative 4: Composite – would have consolidated CSX, NS, and CP terminals 

at the Livernois-Junction Yard with CN expanding at Moterm. This alternative 

responded to CN’s unwillingness to move its operations to the Livernois-Junction 

Yard. It is a composite of Alternatives 2 and 3. The DEIS right-of-way and 

construction cost total for this alternative was $551 million. 

Figure 8 depicts the area at the Livernois-Junction Yard that each DEIS build alternative 

would have occupied. No Preferred Alternative was identified in the DEIS, as MDOT 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

20 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

21 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

22 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

23 

wanted to hear public comments and continue interaction with the railroads. The 

comments on the DEIS indicated substantial opposition to expanding the CN terminal 

onto the Michigan State Fairgrounds, and to minimize impacts for expansion of the 

Livernois-Junction Yard. Further, there was sentiment to reduce truck traffic in 

neighborhood areas. Presently all trucks enter the terminal off of Livernois Avenue and 

via the Dix/Waterman/Vernor gate, which has been noted at meetings and in comments to 

be unpopular. 

Later, for the FEIS, a community enhancement program was developed with the Selected 

Alternative (see Green Sheet in Appendix A of this ROD), which provides for gates into 

the intermodal terminal both west (Wyoming Avenue) and east (Livernois Avenue), and 

the closing of the existing gate at Dix/Waterman/Vernor. 

3.2.3 Cost Comparison 

Estimated right-of-way and construction costs for the alternatives considered in the DEIS 

that involved use of government funds (in 2004 dollars) are shown in Section 4.24 of the 

DEIS and summarized in Table 1. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, has involved 

approximately $7 million (2008 dollars) spent on DIFT studies, a cost common to all 

alternatives. It involves no expenditure of government funds, but acknowledges that the 

railroads could have taken action with their own funds. 

Table 1 

DEIS Action Alternative Costs 

(2004 dollars shared by Government and the Railroads – in millions) 

Alternative Construction Right-of-Way/Property Total 

Alternative 2 $170 $98 $267 

Alternative 3 $458 $125 $583 

Alternative 4 $436 $115 $551 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. and Alfred Benesch, Inc. 

The only cost difference was that the greater the consolidation, the greater the land need 

and construction cost. Costs were updated to 2008 for the Selected Alternative. See the 

cost verification in Section 3.3.5 of this ROD. 

3.3 Preferred Alternative - FEIS 

The identification of the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS resulted from public and 

agency input and consultation with the railroads. The criteria for selection were public 

and railroad acceptance and meeting the project’s purpose and need. The Preferred 

Alternative meets the needs of the railroads and reduced impacts compared to other 

construction alternatives. It reduced impacts and public concerns by routing truck traffic 

away from residential areas and including air quality measures among the community 

enhancement in the Green Sheet in Appendix A of this ROD. 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

24 

3.3.1 Rationale for Selection 

The Preferred Alternative is a modification of Alternative 4. Its selection was based on: 

1) comments received on the DEIS and through community, Local Advisory Council, and 

other meetings: 2) reorienting the access pattern to the Livernois-Junction Yard by 

planning for the elimination of the Dix/Waterman/Vernor gate and addition of gates on 

Wyoming: 3) minimizing right-of-way needs through discussions with the railroads and 

gaining their concurrence through the Pre-development Plan Agreement; and 4) the 

development of enhancements that were included on the Green Sheet in Appendix A of 

this ROD. 

CN chose not to expand its operation in Ferndale south across 8 Mile Road into the 

Michigan State Fairgrounds. At the Livernois-Junction Yard, the changes are on the 

north side of the yard, where a revised yard layout reduced the right-of-way acquisition 

need and the related impacts. 

CSX and NS intermodal rail operations will expand at the Livernois-Junction Yard. 

Some or all of the Triple Crown operation of NS is expected to move from the 

Melvindale and Willow Run terminals to the Livernois-Junction Yard. And, CP will 

move its intermodal operations from the Oak Terminal to the Livernois-Junction Yard. 

CN has elected not to shift its Moterm operation to the Livernois-Junction Yard and not 

to expand its terminal. But, it will participate in paying its share of the external-toterminal rail improvements that are part of the DIFT project. Meanwhile, the CP/

Expressway intermodal operation closed permanently in June 2004 and is no longer part 

of the project. 

The railroads were instrumental in the selection of a Preferred Alternative, as there would 

be no project without the railroads. After CSX declined to sign the Memorandum of 

Understanding included in the DEIS, MDOT and FHWA determined to proceed with the 

project, even if CSX did not participate. Conclusions related to each of the alternatives 

included in the DEIS follow. 

• No Action Alternative – The No Action Alternative does not use government 

funds to expand the operational footprint of any railroad. The No Action 

Alternative cannot be the Selected Alternative, because it does not meet the 

project purpose and need. 

• Alternative 2 – Alternative 2 would have had each railroad expand at its current 

location. Alternative 2 cannot be the Selected Alternative. CSX, NS, and CP 

desire to be at the Livernois-Junction Yard, therefore, Alternative 2 is not 

consistent with the desires of CP. 

• Alternative 3 – Alternative 3 would have consolidated all railroads at the 

Livernois-Junction Yard. It cannot be the Selected Alternative because CN 

desires to remain at its Moterm Terminal, 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

25 

• Alternative 4 – Alternative 4 was designed to bring CSX, NS, and CP together at 

the Livernois-Junction Yard and have CN expand at Moterm. It cannot be the 

Selected Alternative, because expansion of Moterm was not desired by CN and, if 

expansion had occurred, it would have been into the Michigan State Fairgrounds. 

But, the Preferred Alternative evolved from Alternative 4. 

3.3.2 Potential Reasonably Foreseeable Impacts of Selected Alternative 

The impacts of the Selected Alternative are those of the Preferred Alternative that are 

summarized in FEIS Table 1-1, which is included here as Table 2. The impacts are 

analyzed in FEIS Section 4. 

3.3.3 Consistency with Established Statewide and Regional Transportation 

Planning Goals 

The project is consistent with MDOT’s Long-Range Plan and is noted in MDOT’s 2009-

2013 Five-Year Transportation Program. The project is also consistent with regional 

planning goals and it is included in the metropolitan planning organization (SEMCOG) 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and long-range plan, Direction 2035. 

3.3.4 Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

As noted in Section 2.1.2 above, the Selected Alternative is considered the 

environmentally preferred alternative, because it minimized the footprint of the project 

without compromising the needs of the railroads or the community. It incorporates the 

best physical features of the Practical Alternatives considered in the DEIS, with the least 

harm and offsets community impacts with community enhancements (see the Green 

Sheet in Appendix A of this ROD). It requires less land and fewer relocations than the 

Practical Alternatives considered in the DEIS. 

3.3.5 Cost Savings Considerations 

A Cost Estimate Review was conducted May 5-8, 2009, involving specialists from 

FHWA, MDOT, and MDOT’s consultants. The review is mandated for federal projects 

with a cost greater than $500 million to assure the reasonableness and accuracy of the 

cost estimating. During this review, the Preferred Alternative cost estimates were 

updated using the FHWA level-of-confidence approach. Cost savings (opportunities) and 

increases (risks) were thoroughly reviewed in establishing the project cost estimates. Its 

conclusion was that “the pre-review year of expenditure (YOE) cost estimate of $654 

million was not changed significantly during the review.” At the 70 percent confidence 

level, the cost estimate for the Selected Alternative is calculated to be approximately 

$650 million. 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

26 

Table 2 

Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts – No Action and Selected Alternatives – Livernois-Jun

Livernois-Junction Yard Areaa

Traffic and Safety Community Cohesion Environmental Justice Land Use 

No. of Residential U

Affected (Acquisitio

No Action Selected No Action Selected No Action Selected No Action Selected 

No 

Action Selecte

• Normal, nonDIFT traffic of 

all kinds increases. Truck traffic continues to use neighborhood streets. 

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions at all intersections, except at the Dix/Waterman/Vernor intersection. 

• Continued 

rail/vehicle conflicts at Central and at Lonyo. 

• Grade separation 

of Central will reduce vehiclerail conflicts and crashes. 

• I-94/Livernois 

interchange improvement will improve safety. 

• Truck traffic will 

be reduced on local roads. 

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions will be experienced at all intersections. 

• Industrial/

commercial uses will continue to be mixed with residential uses. 

• Continued rail/

vehicle conflicts at Central/Lonyo. 

• Lonyo will be 

closed. Central Avenue railroad crossing will be grade separated. 

• Truck traffic will 

be reduced on neighborhood streets. 

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact expected. 

• There is a history 

of impacts to minority and lowincome populations associated with past industrialization and transportation projects. There will be adverse disproportionate impacts from this project. 

• Maintains 

existing land use pattern. 

• Consistent with 

Detroit and Dearborn land use plans. 

0 • 28 sing

family homes 

• Four 

apartme

Farmland and Open Space/ 

Part 361 Lands Economic Impacts Air Quality 

Hot Spots Pollutant Burden 

No Action Selected No Action Selected No Action Selected No Action Selected 

• No active 

farmland, or Part 361 open space land needed. 

• No active 

farmland, or Part 361 land needed. 

• Jobs Relocated: 0 • Net Jobs Gained:  Terminal Area 194 

 Statewide 1,029 

• Jobs Relocated: 231 

• Net Jobs Gained: 

 Terminal Area 1,542  Statewide 4,514 

• No violations 

of CO standards at intersections. 

• No violations 

of CO standards at intersections. 

• Qualitative 

analysis of PM2.5 or PM10

hotspots indicates there will be no standards violated. 

• Terminal burdens 

less than existing conditions except for PM10 and PM2.5. 

• Roadway burdens 

less than existing conditions because of cleaner engines and fuels. 

• Regional burdens 

are reduced.

• Terminal burde

about same as NAction even witincreased intermodal activ

• Roadway burde

similar to No Action. 

• Regional burden

will be reduced freight shift to r

 a Only the Livernois-Junction Yard is involved in the Selected Alternative. There are no project impacts at other terminals. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 
Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

27 

Table 2 (continued) 

Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts – No Action and Selected Alternatives – Livernois-Jun

 

Livernois-Junction Yard Areaa

Surface Water Impacts Wetlands Threatened and Endangered Species Historic/ Archaeological 4(f) Resources Parklands/ Recreational Land 4(f) Resources 

No Action Selected No Action Selected No Action Selected No Action Selected No Action Selected 

• No 

change 

• Yard paving will 

improve drainage. 

• Storm drainage 

subject of NPDES permitting. 

• Spill prevention 

plans will be in place. 

• Particulate matter 

that clogs sewers will be reduced. 

• None • 0.01 acres of 

Palustrine Emergent wetland of low quality will be affected. 

• None • None • No effect • Adverse effect with 

removal of Michigan Box Company building. 

• SHPO review of 

security wall across from 6332 Kronk for compatibility. 

• No effect • No direct effects, 

indirect or cumulative negative effects. 

• U

prstr

Contaminated Sites Soils Indirect and Cumulative Energy 

No Action Selected No Action Selected No Action Selected No Action Selected 

• No sites 

around terminal area expected to change 

• Potential to 

remediate up to 10 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

• 27 sites 

need additional testing 

• Up to 100 

acres for nonterminal intermodal activity will be remediated. 

• No 

change 

• Former clay 

pits will need geotechnical testing prior to construction of any structures. 

• Perpetuates 

current conditions/trends in traffic, economics, land use, community effects, noise, cultural resources, contaminated sites and water quality. Pollution reduced by cleaner engines/fuel. 

• No negative 

traffic congestion effects. 

• Some 

business expansion expected. 

• Unwanted 

mixing of land uses must be resisted through local land use controls. 

• No adverse 

air quality effects are expected. 

• Ambient 

noise levels may increase in commercial areas with no negative effect. 

• Existing land 

use controls must be enforced to avoid adverse cultural resource impacts. 

• Some 

contaminated property reclaimed. 

• Available 

infrastructure is expected to handle stormwater from the buildout of the expanded LivernoisJunction Yard. 

• DRICb project 

will reduce I-75 access to Livernois/Dragoon 

• Continues 

past trends. 

• Energy will 

be used during construction. 

• Improved 

efficiencies from conversion of some freight shipments from truck to rail are expected. 

a Only the Livernois-Junction Yard is involved in the Preferred Alternative. There are no project impacts at other terminals.b DRIC is the Detroit River International Crossing project, proposing a new international bridge to Canada. The DIFT has independent utility from all other projects, including the 

Detroit River International Crossing and the Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project. It takes into account development of High Speed Rail through the Livernois-Junction Yard. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

28 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

29 

4. FINAL SECTION 4(f) 

As previously indicated in the FEIS (FEIS Section 6, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation), FHWA 

finds, in accordance with 23 CFR 774, that: 

• The preliminary FEIS findings made in accordance with 23 CFR 774.3(a) for the overall 

DIFT project remain valid; and, 

 

• Because there is no prudent and feasible alternative to use of Section 4(f) resources 

(Michigan/General Box Company [Spranger/Detroit Wire Wheel Corporation]), in 

accordance with 23 CFR 774.3(c), that the Preferred Alternative (now the Selected 

Alternative in this ROD) (1) causes the least overall harm in light of the preservation 

purpose of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966; and (2) the 

Preferred Alternative (now the Selected Alternative in this ROD) includes all possible 

planning, as defined in 23 CFR 774.17, to minimize harm to Section 4(f) property. 

The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in Appendix C of the FEIS also provides for the 

unlikely discovery of any archaeological sites eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) during construction. 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

30 

 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

31 

5. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM 

All practicable measures to minimize environmental harm have been incorporated into the 

decision. Major regulatory requirements applicable to this project include the following: 

• Evaluation of the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites under Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act; 

• Consultation regarding historic and archaeological resources under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act; 

• Certification of conformity under the Clean Air Act; 

• Compliance with Environmental Justice guidelines and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 in identifying impacts to minority and low-income population groups in the study 

area; 

• Permitting activities. 

Actions committed to or taken to comply with these requirements are summarized below. The 

Project Mitigation Summary “Green Sheet,” which identifies proposed mitigation, is included as 

Appendix A of this ROD. A list of community enhancements above and beyond the required 

mitigation measures was developed in cooperation with the local community. This list of 

enhancements is included at the end of the Green Sheet. Measures to minimize harm are outlined 

below. 

Monitoring of the environmental commitments within this project will be accomplished in part 

by MDOT tracking environmental commitments with regular reporting to FHWA and the public 

as the project progresses. 

5.1 Section 4(f) (Department of Transportation Act) 

The criteria of 23 CFR 771.135(a) have been met for the DIFT project and FHWA has 

determined that the DIFT will use identified resources protected under this regulation. 

Public/Private Historic Sites - The known historic resource affected by the Selected Alternative 

is the Michigan/General Box Company (Spranger/Detroit Wire Wheel Corporation), which 

would be removed by the project. This property is also covered by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. The mitigation measures related to this Section 4(f) resource are 

documented in the signed Memorandum of Agreement contained in Appendix C of the FEIS. 

Mitigation measures include complete documentation of the structures prior to any demolition or 

construction activities. 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

32 

5.2 Section 106 (National Historic Preservation Act) 

The Selected Alternative will affect one historic property covered by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the Michigan/General Box Company (Spranger/Detroit Wire Wheel 

Corporation), by removing it. 

The mitigation measures related to Section 106 resources, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b)(1), are 

documented in the signed Memorandum of Agreement (Appendix C of the FEIS). 

5.3 Air Quality Conformity (Clean Air Act) 

The project is consistent with MDOT’s Long-Range Plan and is listed on MDOT’s 2009-2013 

Five-Year Transportation Program. The metropolitan planning organization, the Southeast 

Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), included the project in its long-range plan,

Direction 2035, and the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction phases of the Project 

into its 2008-2011 Transportation Improvement Program. The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) found it to conform to the 8-hour Ozone, CO, and PM2.5 regional 

conformity requirements based on a 2015 construction timeline. The regional conformity 

demonstration reflects the implementation timeline (completion of construction by year 2015). 

FHWA’s conformity finding for SEMCOG’s long-range plan will be issued in February 2010. 

A Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) Impact Analysis was done consistent with FHWA Interim 

Guidance. Local “hot spots” were analyzed. The analysis concluded that carbon monoxide (CO) 

and particulate matter (PM) air quality standards will not be violated.

No violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are projected for this 

project. Even though no air quality mitigation measures are required, FHWA and MDOT are 

committed to the following measures to minimize impacts on ambient air quality in or around the 

project vicinity. This includes measures to reduce pollution, minimize truck idling and to remove 

trucks from neighborhoods. Specifically: 

 

• The Selected Alternative design includes improved access to Livernois Avenue from I-94 

which discourages trucks cutting through residential streets in the neighborhood south of 

I-94 and along Central Avenue. 

• Buffering is included in the form of a security wall around the portions of the yard 

adjacent to residential areas. 

• Landscaping along the replacement road for John Kronk on the north edge of the project 

will aid in improving air quality. MDOT will work with the cities of Detroit and 

Dearborn in an effort to secure Transportation Enhancement Funds to beautify roadways 

and greenways near the DIFT. 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

33 

• The Livernois-Junction Yard will be paved, substantially reducing the amount of 

windblown particulate matter that accumulates on homes, on vehicles and in the streets, 

which in turn causes drainage issues. Reduction of windblown particulate matter will 

reduce re-entrained particulates on area roads. 

• The modern design of the terminals will reduce gate idle time by trucks hauling 

containers to and from the terminals. 

• Anti-idling - Trucks dropping/picking up containers do not dwell in the terminal, and 

locomotives do not wait for new intermodal trains to be made up after dropping an 

intermodal load - they are put in service elsewhere. NS, CSX, and CP all have anti-idling 

policies. Auxiliary power units for trains - Railroads are introducing these units for fuel 

savings merit. On-road fuels for equipment - Ultra-low sulfur diesel applies to nonroad 

vehicles effective June 2010 and locomotives June 2012; so, on road fuels will be used. 

Retrofit technology - Over the ten-year implementation period, new equipment will be 

introduced. Hybrid locomotives - Intermodal trains use long-haul locomotives, not 

switch locomotives. 

• Construction operations will follow best operational practices (i.e. engine shut down to 

reduce idling, locating operations away from sensitive receptors) and Best Available 

Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT) to reduce any impact of diesel emissions on 

the community. 

• MDOT will work with contractors on an operational agreement to control air pollution 

during construction. A construction emissions plan may include actions such as: 

retrofitting off-road construction equipment; limiting the age of off-road vehicles used in 

construction projects; minimizing engine operations; restricting construction activities 

around certain more sensitive receptors; using diesel particulate traps and oxidation 

catalysts; and, using existing power sources or clean fuel generators, rather than 

temporary power generators. The Contractor will institute fugitive dust control plans as 

per MDOT Standard Construction Specifications under Section 107.15A and 107.19. 

• MDOT will work with SEMCOG, MDNRE, the private sector and the community to 

create an action plan that includes short-term and long-term objectives aimed at reducing 

fugitive dust, diesel truck idling, fuel consumption, or diesel emissions to limit PM2.5

emissions in the study area defined by the map shown in FEIS Figure 3-16. The action 

plan will identify priorities for future federal aid eligible transportation projects through 

programs such as Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and the Midwest 

Clean Diesel Initiative. The action plan will be implemented during design and 

construction phases, and sustained through the maintenance and operations of the 

facilities. 

• Outreach activities could include informing commercial operations and residents on air 

pollution control strategies. The actual projects will be generated from the community 

and its partners who will develop project proposals. 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

34 

5.4 Environmental Justice and Title VI (Civil Rights Act) 

The Selected Alternative will have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and 

low-income population groups in the study area. The FEIS complied with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Environmental Justice guidelines, and Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, and did not exclude participation or deny benefits of any program or activity 

while conducting the NEPA process. 

To ensure compliance with Environmental Justice guidelines and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 

of 19644

 and related statutes: 

1. An intensive community involvement effort was employed as part of the environmental 

justice analysis and cumulative impact analysis; and 

2. A cumulative analysis was done to determine the cumulative impacts of the DIFT project 

and others in the area on the community. 

5.5 Permitting 

Environmental permits required during final design will be obtained by MDOT in accordance 

with its Program/Project Management System. Environmental permits required include: 

• Permits under Michigan Public Act 451 required from the Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE – formerly Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality): 

o Part 55 (Air Pollution Control), and 

o Part 303 (Wetlands Protection). 

• Executive Order 11990 (Wetland Protection). 

• Permits under the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, as administered through 

MDNRE: 

o Section 401, State Water Quality Certification; and, 

o Section 402(b), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, storm water 

permit. 

• Any additional required local permits will be obtained. The specific permits required will 

be determined during the design phase. 

 

4 The intent of Title VI is to ensure that no person shall on the grounds of race, religion (where the primary objective 

of the program, activity or service is to provide employment per 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3), color, national origin, sex, 

age, retaliation or disability be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to 

discrimination under any Department programs or activities. 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

35 

6. MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT 

NEPA legislation and implementing regulations require monitoring of mitigation measures to 

reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts associated with a planned action. Per 23 

CFR 771.109, "It shall be the responsibility of the applicant [MDOT], in cooperation with the 

Administration [FHWA] to implement those mitigation measures stated as commitments in the 

environmental documents prepared pursuant to this regulation." (For additional statutory 

guidance, see: 42 USC 4371 et seq., Presidential Order 11514, 23 CFR 771.109(6), and 40 CFR 

1505.2(C) and 1505.3). 

6.1 Environmental Commitments Defined 

Environmental commitments are composed of both environmental mitigation and community 

enhancements (see Project Mitigation Summary Green Sheet in Appendix A of this ROD). 

• Project mitigation includes measures required by law to address any damage to the social 

and natural environments caused by the project. Mitigation measures include avoidance, 

replacement, restoration, compensation or any other means. 

• Community enhancements are activities above and beyond what is required by law, and 

developed in cooperation with the local community. 

6.2 Enforcement of Environmental Commitments 

MDOT will track and enforce the implementation of the environmental commitments listed on 

the Green Sheet. The Project Mitigation Summary Green Sheet included in Appendix A of this 

ROD details the DIFT project mitigation and enhancement commitments. 

• MDOT’s Project Planning Division will coordinate with MDOT’s Lansing and Region 

Design and Construction staff to review the mitigation and enhancement commitments 

included in the FEIS and ROD. 

• MDOT’s Senior Project Manager for the DIFT project will be responsible for 

incorporating mitigation and enhancement commitments listed in the FEIS and ROD into 

the project design plans and proposal. 

• MDOT Lansing and Metro Region staff will assist the Senior Project Manager in 

completing and coordinating the various mitigation and enhancement commitments such 

as property contamination surveys, historic property documentation, and landscaping. 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

36 

• MDOT staff will also coordinate with other federal, state, and local agencies on items 

such as local road improvements, lighting, job training, economic development and air 

quality improvements. 

• The MDOT Project Manager for the Construction phase will be responsible for making 

sure the Contractor follows the maintenance of traffic plan and the construction staging 

plan. 

• The MDOT Project Manager for the Construction phase will be responsible for making 

sure the Contractor completes the mitigation and enhancement commitments shown on 

the design plans and project proposal. 

6.3 Environmental Commitment Progress Reporting 

Good environmental stewardship and trust among the agencies and public can occur if MDOT 

assures, demonstrates, and communicates project environmental commitment implementation. 

The progress or status of the environmental mitigation and enhancement commitments made 

during the environmental clearance process and included in this ROD will be reported: 

• Annually to FHWA in the DIFT Financial Plan. 

• Annually to the Federal and State Resource Agencies at the fall MDOT/FHWA update 

meetings held to discuss existing and upcoming major projects. 

• Quarterly on the DIFT Project Website. 

• Periodically to the community 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

37 

7. COMMENTS ON THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

The FEIS was signed December 1, 2009, made available for agency and public review and sent 

to the U.S. EPA for filing the Notice of Availability, which appeared in the Federal Register on 

Friday, December 11, 2009. That Notice ended the wait period on January 11, 2010. 

Subsequently an amended Notice was published on Friday, December 18, 2009, extending the 

wait period to January 29, 2010. 

All comments received, including those received after the wait period (for example several city 

of Detroit Department comments), and their responses can be found in the DIFT project website, 

located at www.michigan.gov/mdot, click "Programs and Projects” and then click "Studies" then 

click "DIFT". The file is titled "DIFT FEIS Comments and Responses". They are also available 

from: DIFT Project Manager, MDOT, 425 W. Ottawa Street, Lansing, Michigan 48909.

Only the substantive comments and their responses are included in the development of this ROD, 

they are summarized by topic and discussed below. They are organized by section of the FEIS: 

purpose and need; alternatives; environmental consequences, Section 4(f) evaluation, mitigation, 

and public involvement. 

FHWA has reviewed all of the comments received and found that the proposed project was 

examined and the potential impacts are identified and addressed.

7.1 Purpose and Need 

Comment: The DIFT FEIS describes the DRIC as having "independent utility" but fails to 

provide any justification for coming to such a conclusion. There is no 

independent utility from the DRIC project 

Response: These two projects have independent utility5

 under NEPA as neither is dependent 

upon the other. So, each must be considered individually in terms of its 

environmental impacts. NEPA requires that the cumulative effects of these 

projects be considered, and this has been done (Section 4.17 of the FEIS). 

Comment: MDOT . . . notes . . . economic conditions have softened . . . However, it does not 

discuss what economic conditions, how deep of a reduction in demand or for what 

amount of time. . . . [It] merely includes a short conclusory note that Global 

Insight . . . see[s] the freight demand increasing significantly as the economy 

 

5 Independent utility means the action being taken should be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no 

additional transportation improvements in the area are made, See: 

 http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmtermini.asp 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

38 

rebounds in 2010 and beyond. . . . [I]n sum, the Final EIS fails entirely to show 

that it took into account the state of the economy in determining the project need. 

. . . A supplemental EIS is required . . . 

Response: While intermodal freight volumes in 2009 were down, "analysts look for overall 

intermodal growth in 2010 of 1.5-2.5 percent." (Journal of Commerce, February 

19, 2010). U.S. DOT forecasts an almost 90 percent increase in freight rail 

demand nationwide between 2007 and 2035. FHWA determined in December 

2008 that a Supplemental EIS was not required (FEIS Appendix H). 

Comment: The projections ignore recent trends in intermodal freight demand. . . .

Response: Recent trends in intermodal freight demand were included in the projections (see 

the end of section 4.1 of the FEIS). While volumes in 2009 were down, 

"analysts look for overall intermodal growth in 2010 of 1.5-2.5 percent." (Journal 

of Commerce, February 19, 2010). U.S. DOT forecasts an almost 90 percent 

increase in freight rail demand nationwide between 2007 and 2035. 

7.2 Alternatives 

Comment: Dearborn is actively working to strengthen commercial districts. . . . One . . . is 

known as the Dix-Vernor Business District. . . . Dearborn is proposing that a new 

truck road should be developed that either uses DIFT infrastructure or parallels it 

to have the truck traffic exit the Levy site at the north end and merge with the 

DIFT traffic patterns on Wyoming. 

Response: A concept for a new truck route has been identified by the city of Dearborn. This 

concept was recently submitted to MDOT on January 29, 2010. 

Comment: MDOT is proposing a new gate on John Kronk at Martin, with no public 

discussion. MDOT should either acquire these homes and create an additional 

buffer . . . or relocate the proposed gate. 

Response: The Preferred Alternative with Gate 2 using John Kronk off Livernois was 

discussed at the public meetings held November 10, 12, and 13 in 2008, 

December 7, 2009 (a stakeholder meeting hosted by Rep. Tlaib), and January 27, 

2010 (Detroit River International Crossing Local Advisory Council meeting). 

Gate 2 facilitates a better balance of traffic between Wyoming and Livernois 

Avenues than most other alternatives. This supports the elimination of the existing 

gate at Dix/Waterman/Vernor. The latter gate, and access to it, are much closer to 

homes than Gate 2. Therefore Gate 2 is included in the Preferred Alternative. 

There is no need to acquire homes along Kronk or provide buffering in addition to 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

39 

the planned security wall to be built along the edge of the Livernois-Junction 

Yard at this point. 

Comment: The Detroit City Planning Commission requests that road improvements for 

Livernois Avenue between the rail yard and I-94 be added to the mitigation 

measure (not part of the community enhancement proposals). . . . Traffic calming 

measures need to be considered. 

Response: MDOT will discuss with project stakeholders, including the cities of Detroit and 

Dearborn the disposition of the $11 million in enhancement funds to be devoted 

to local roads upon project implementation. The discussions may include traffic 

calming. 

Comment: [T]he viaduct should be well lit, day and night . . . Ventilation should be provided 

. . . Separate bike, auto and pedestrian facilities should be provided. The viaduct 

should be maintained by the railyard, not the city. 

Response: There are a 20-foot viaduct and a 100-foot viaduct today on Central, with no 

sidewalks across the terminal and numerous at-grade track crossings. Although 

previously stated that the underpass is estimated to be approximately 800 feet 

long, current preliminary designs show the total length of the underpass to be 

approximately 1300 feet long. The underpass will be ADA compliant with 

separate sidewalks, bike lanes and vehicular lanes. Central Avenue will be well 

lit and designed to be safe. A recent train accident at Lonyo, and many before it, 

demonstrate a need for a safer way to cross the yard. Responsibilities for the 

maintenance of the Central Avenue underpass have not yet been determined. 

7.3 Environmental Consequences 

7.3.1 Community Cohesion/Non-motorized Provisions 

Comment: [T]he proposed viaducting of Michigan Avenue and closure of Lonyo will further 

severely impact the ability of the vulnerable populations without access to cars. . . 

This will have an extremely detrimental effect on the mobility of many residents of 

Detroit. 

Response: The underpass will be ADA compliant with separate sidewalks, bike lanes and 

vehicular lanes. Central Avenue will be well lit and designed to be safe. The 

Central Avenue underpass will improve the mobility of motorized and nonmotorized users who wish to cross the Livernois-Junction Yard by providing a 

secure crossing of the railroad tracks. Although previously stated that the 

underpass is estimated to be approximately 800 feet long, current preliminary 

designs show the total length of the underpass to be approximately 1300 feet long. 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

40 

 

7.3.2 Jobs and the Economy 

Comment: More substantive language for commitments from MDOT and the railroads . . . to 

place area . . . residents in any newly created jobs for construction . . . and future 

operations[s] . . . How many neighborhood people are going to get jobs once this 

is constructed? Not construction jobs, but people employed at the terminal? 

Response: What is known is that 1,542 permanent jobs are forecast to be created by the 

DIFT over 20 years in the area around the Livernois-Junction Yard (FEIS Section 

4.5). MDOT will coordinate with the cities of Detroit and Dearborn, and others, 

to explore job training opportunities, English as a Second Language (ESL) and 

other training options in the project areas (Green Sheet). Committing that certain 

groups will get jobs is not permissible. 

7.3.3 Environmental Justice and Title VI 

Comment: A primary principle of environmental justice is to engage and inform residents. . . 

MDOT's lack of outreach and education regarding the project over the last year 

led to failure to adequately engage residents. 

Response: In November 2008 three public meetings were held to present the Preferred Alternative 

for the DIFT. Nine thousand mail notifications were sent and hundreds more were 

distributed locally. The Preferred Alternative has not changed since November 2008. 

An additional stakeholder meeting was attended on December 7, 2009, hosted by Rep. 

Tlaib to provide an overview of the DIFT and answer questions. The presentation given 

at the November 2008 public meetings was made again at the January 2010 DRIC Local 

Advisory Council meeting held at Southwestern High School in southwest Detroit. More 

than 100 persons attended. Flyers were passed out door-to-door in the DIFT 

neighborhood in advance of that meeting, and English, Spanish and Arabic language 

flyers were hand delivered to a number of community organizations in the DIFT project 

area. The wait period prior to signing the Record of Decision was set at 49 days to allow 

more than the required 30 days to review the FEIS. Section 7 of the DEIS and Section 7 

of the FEIS document the extensive outreach efforts directed at low-income and minority 

persons throughout the DIFT project. 

Comment: There was no outreach to Arabic or Spanish speaking people in the affected 

neighborhood. 

Response: Throughout the project, MDOT has reached out to Spanish and Arabic speaking 

people in the affected neighborhoods. A Local Advisory Council (LAC) was 

established, which included representatives of the local Spanish and Arabic 

communities. The LAC acted as a way for organizations to participate, and 

MDOT reached out to incorporate on the LAC representatives of local Arabic and 

Spanish speaking groups, so these groups could be continuously represented. 

Spanish and Arabic translators were present at the many public meetings listed in 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

41 

FEIS Section 7.2, and at the Public Hearings listed in FEIS Section 7.4. Likewise 

the November 2008 meetings had translators available. The DEIS and FEIS 

summaries were translated into Spanish and Arabic. Materials have been 

delivered to organizations representing these groups. 

Comment: MDOT continues to fall far short with regards to air quality disproportionate 

impacts . . . MDOT again fails to confirm that there will be disproportionate air 

quality impacts on the communities. 

Response: The FEIS recognizes disproportionate impacts to environmental justice 

community members and addresses community benefits to offset them. See FEIS 

sections 4.3.2 and 5.17 and the Project Mitigation Summary Green Sheet, which 

is now included in Appendix A of this Record of Decision, and which includes a 

number of measures to improve air quality. 

7.3.4 Traffic 

Comment: The Detroit City Planning Commission requests improved mitigation measures to 

ensure that trucks do not travel south on Livernois Avenue toward the I-75 

Expressway.. 

Response: The Livernois Avenue entrance to the Livernois-Junction Yard will be designed 

to prevent truck movement to/from the south. The DRIC project will close the 

interchange of I-75 with Livernois/Dragoon. The Detroit Traffic Department has 

proposed making Livernois and Dragoon two-way streets south of Vernor, which 

would further discourage truck traffic. 

Comment: Livernois, Wyoming and Central will be virtually converted into a highway for 

increased truck traffic. Although they claim new interchanges will increase safety, 

there are no buffer zones for families that live at the immediate boundaries of the 

new throughways. 

Response: Livernois and Wyoming avenues already carry heavy truck traffic. On Central 

Avenue north of Kronk, where there is residential development, truck traffic with 

the project is estimated to decrease by over 200 daily (FEIS Figure 1-3). DIFT 

truck traffic has been balanced between Wyoming and Livernois avenues. 

Wyoming has no residential development except the Porath area south of 

Michigan Avenue. The city of Dearborn has been buying properties there over 

the years to convert the land use from residential. Livernois Avenue will be 

among the local roads considered for improvement under the community 

enhancements noted on the Green Sheet in this ROD. 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

42 

Comment: MDOT also repeatedly claims that net truck volumes in the community will 

decrease when the preferred alternative is built . . . 

Response: The FEIS states there will be a net increase of 700 trucks upon completion of the 

DIFT (FEIS page 1-16). A decrease in truck traffic is anticipated for a number of 

local streets with predominantly residential use. 

Comment: Although there may be a net reduction in trucks in the footprint of the yard, it is 

not valid to claim that there will be an overall reduction in truck volumes in the 

community . . . [because] . . . the FEIS also states that an attempt will be made to 

relocate these businesses in the . . . community and that the DIFT will generate 

additional business development . . . these statements contradict each other.

Response: The FEIS does not state that there will be an overall reduction in truck volumes in 

the community. The FEIS states there will be a net increase of 700 trucks upon 

completion of the DIFT (FEIS page 1-16). It is likely business relocations would 

occur beyond the immediate project area. East of Lonyo Avenue, the area is built 

out with residential use, both north and south of the terminal. Relocations could 

occur along Wyoming, away from residential areas, but most available land is 

further removed from the project. 

Comment: Although the project removes traffic from some residential areas, it redirects it to 

other residential areas. A comprehensive truck route study for the DIFT, other 

transportation projects, and local industrial truck traffic is required. 

Response: The community sentiment, voiced at community meetings, LAC meetings, and in 

comments received on the DEIS and FEIS, was to reduce trucks moving to and 

from the south of the Livernois-Junction Yard on Livernois and Dragoon 

Avenues. Likewise, the desire was to reduce traffic on Central Avenue north of 

Kronk. The roads that can and do carry trucks are Wyoming and Livernois north 

to I-94. Truck traffic has been directed to those roads and not to other residential 

areas. 

Comment: The plan does not clearly indicate the capacity of the proposed Central Ave. 

underpass at the railroad tracks. . . . Will Central Ave. be widened to 

accommodate the increased flow and will the proposed underpass be 

appropriately designed for the increased traffic? 

Response: The conceptual design for the Central underpass calls for at least two, and as 

many as four, traffic lanes, which will accommodate anticipated traffic. 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

43 

Comment: The report did not indicate if there will be an adequate acceleration lane at the 

westbound I-94 entrance ramp from Livernois Ave. The current acceleration lane 

is inadequate. . . . My concern is that due to the increased truck traffic there will 

be congestion and safety problems at the westbound I-94 . . . entrance ramp. Will 

there be an adequate deceleration lane from westbound I-94 to Livernois Ave. 

Will the current railroad bridge . . . be demolished . . . ? 

Response: The conceptual design for the westbound I-94 entrance ramp from Livernois 

Avenue shows it to be 800 feet long. It will be designed to meet current MDOT 

standards. Acceleration ramp distance will be gained as the sharp reverse curve in 

the existing ramp will be eliminated. This will improve operations and safety by 

minimizing speed differentials within the freeway section on the mainline. 

Congestion will remain on I-94, which will be over capacity in this section. 

Conceptual design shows the deceleration lane from westbound I-94 to Livernois 

Avenue to be approximately 600 feet long. This off-ramp will be designed to 

meet current MDOT standards. The existing railroad bridge is a constraint which 

will be avoided and is expected to remain in place. 

Comment: Wyoming at Michigan is forecast to be over capacity. . . . The FEIS states this can 

be corrected by adding left-turn signal phases and realigning this intersection. I 

strongly disagree. 

Response: The analysis for the DIFT found it would operate at near capacity but adequately 

with signal timing adjustments. MDOT will monitor the intersection as it does all 

its state trunkline roads to determine whether additional changes are needed. 

7.3.5 Air Quality 

Comment: NEPA additionally requires assessment of any health impacts that might occur 

below these standards, consideration of alternatives..., and mitigation to prevent 

any harms from air pollution... 

Response: FHWA has determined that, presently, there is not adequate science to reliably 

include exposure modeling or risk assessment in the air quality analysis. This is 

stated in Section 3.6.1 of the DEIS and FEIS. The purpose of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, as stated in the Clean Air Act, is to protect public 

health with an adequate margin of safety. 

Comment: . . .during this period prior to the effective date of the conformity requirement for 

the revised NAAQS, NEPA requires that the impact of emissions from the project 

be analyzed against the 2006 revised and remanded NAAQS, as well as the 

standard that is likely to take its place in the near future. U.S. EPA is in the midst 

of significantly tightening the current NAAQS for PM2.5, ozone, and SO2 . . . The 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

44 

changes in the NAAQS are reasonably foreseeable future actions. MDOT 

therefore must include a quantitative discussion of whether the air pollution from 

DIFT, in combination with that from all other past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable actions, may violate any of these tightened NAAQS. 

Response: NEPA does not require application of a standard until the final regulations take 

effect. Qualitative analyses were used to support the decisions where quantitative 

methods were not yet in effect. For example, in the Federal Register/Vol.71, 

No.47/Friday, March 10, 2006 page 12499EPA explains the limitations of the 

MOBILE6.2 model in performing micro-scale level analyses that would be 

required for PM2.5 and PM10 quantitative hot spot analyses. EPA and FHWA 

jointly developed qualitative PM2.5 and PM10 hot spot analysis guidelines to be 

used until EPA releases modeling guidance on PM quantitative hot spot analysis 

and announces in the Federal Register that these requirements are in effect. The 

qualitative analyses performed for the DIFT project are consistent with the 

EPA/FHWA Guidance. 

Comment: After reviewing the FEIS, we retain our comments on the need for localized 

PM2.5 analysis. . . . Although quantitative hot spot analysis for PM2.5 and diesel 

particulate matter is not required, it can be done. 

Response: In the Federal Register/Vol.71, No.47/Friday, March 10, 2006, page 12499, EPA 

explains the limitations of the MOBILE6.2 model in performing micro-scale level 

analyses that would be required for PM2.5 and PM10 quantitative hot spot 

analyses. EPA and FHWA jointly developed qualitative PM2.5 and PM10 hot 

spot analysis guidelines to be used until EPA releases modeling guidance on PM 

quantitative hot spot analysis and announces in the Federal Register that these 

requirements are in effect. The qualitative analyses performed for the DIFT 

project are consistent with the EPA/FHWA Guidance. 

Comment: MDOT relies on its calculations of road PM and paving to respond to U.S. EPA, 

even though . . . these calculations are flawed from the outset and fail to follow 

U.S. EPA's recommended procedure. . . . AP-42 strongly recommends collecting 

of site-specific silt data to use in estimating emissions . . . the unsupported silt 

content of 10 percent for unpaved roads ... is far higher that the vast majority of 

silt figures provided by AP-42 for unpaved roads at all types of industrial sites. 

Response: As noted on page 33 in the Air Quality Impact Technical Report, the silt values 

used in the analysis were from AP-42. These were selected by using an air 

quality subconsultant's field test results for similar urban roadway surfaces. The 

mean silt value of all listed industrial categories in the referenced AP-42 table is 

9.4 percent, which is comparable to the 10 percent value used in this analysis. A 5 

percent silt factor was used for the unpaved travel surface at the LivernoisJunction Yard. (Unpaved road analysis uses percent silt factors per AP-42.) A 1 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

45 

gm/m2 silt factor was used for paved roads at Livernois. (Paved road analysis uses 

gm/m2

 factors.) Both values are consistent with the AP-42 range of values and 

testing results for surface conditions. Under the build scenarios, all unpaved travel 

surfaces on the terminal will be paved. Dust prevention and mitigation measures 

will be implemented within the terminal. As a result, the silt content is logically 

forecast to be to be lower than an industrial road that continues to be surrounded 

by unpaved areas. 

Comment: While MDOT claims paving accounts for the reduction in PM emissions, it does 

not explain a feature of the Preferred Alternative that eliminates over 111 tons 

per year of PM10 and nearly 28 tons per year of PM2.5 relative to existing 

conditions and No Action. . . . It is our understanding these emissions represent 

traffic along John Kronk Road, which will be eliminated from that road when it is 

incorporated into the terminal footprint. However, this traffic will not be 

eliminated entirely, but displaced elsewhere in the surrounding area. . . . MDOT 

must include a full discussion of the air pollution that will be displaced and 

relocated as a result of incorporation from John Kronk. 

Response: Several local roads (Kronk) with high levels of mud from unpaved junk yards and 

other businesses will be incorporated into the terminal. So, the existing reentrained dust will be eliminated. Businesses that contribute to this deposition 

will be relocated by the project. The area within the confines of the roadway 

network analyzed for air quality impacts (Figure 4-11 of the FEIS), that is 

proximate to residential use, is largely built out. Travel related to businesses to be 

relocated could become more efficient or less so, depending on each individual 

business's decision that drives its future location. To forecast a change to the 

presented roadway burden would be speculative. (See response to DEIS comment 

found in FEIS page 7-34.) The effects of today's mud deposition extend to other 

area roads that will be "cleaner" in the future. No claim of air quality benefit was 

made for this improvement. 

Comment: MDOT must explain apparent inconsistencies in its pollutant burden forecasts . . . 

On page 4-123 . . . Table 4-22a reports . . . PM2.5 emissions in 2025 at the "SW 

Detroit/E Dearborn" terminal of 47.3 tons and 41.6 tons for the No Action and 

Alternative 4 alternatives. . . . Table 4-26a reports . . . 26.0 tons and 30.9 tons in 

2015 and 2030, respectively for the No Action . . . [and] 8.8 and 14.9 tons in 2015 

and 2030, respectively [for the Preferred Alternative]. . . . In other words for very 

similar build alternatives and locations, the two tables report vastly different 

burden estimates for 2025 and 2030: 41.6 tons for Alternative 4 in 2025 versus 

14.9 tons for the Preferred Alternative in 2030. 

Response: Subsequent to the analysis in the DEIS, as the footnote to FEIS Table 4-26a 

points out, EPA discovered an error in their PM2.5 emission factors (EF) in 

MOBILE6.2. The 2025 EF used in the DEIS was 0.0377 grams/mi versus the 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

46 

corrected 2030 factor of 0.0256 g/mi (part of the reduction is from another five 

years of fleet turnover to cleaner vehicles). Also, a factor is the lower lift 

estimate. But, the major factor is a smaller yard on the north side of main eastwest railroad tracks (see Figure 1-1c of the FEIS). 

Comment: Under Section 93.123, MDOT cannot rely solely on qualitative methods for 

assessing hot spot concerns to meet the obligation imposed by Section 93.116. . . 

The directive in Section 93.116, however, requires the use of the methods 

prescribed by Section 93.123(c), including quantitative analytical steps. . . While 

MDOT may attempt to argue that 93.123(b)(2) grants an overall license to 

replace quantitative analysis with qualitative factors to meet Section 93.116, this 

argument is without ground. Section 93.123(b)(2) states that qualitative 

consideration is allowed "[w]here quantitative analysis methods are not 

available" (emphasis added). The bar for avoiding all quantitative analysis of 

local hot spots, including that required under 93.123(c), therefore is significantly 

higher than the bar for avoiding modeling required under 93.123(b)(1). To meet 

the former, MDOT must show that quantitative methods are not "available," 

period. . . . MDOT has made no attempt to make the required showing. 

Response: 40 CFR 93.123(b)(4) states "the requirement for quantitative 

analysis contained in this paragraph (b) will not take effect until EPA releases 

modeling guidance on this subject and announces in the Federal Register that 

these requirements are in effect." Such guidance has not yet been issued. 

40 CFR 93.116 requires that an analysis be done. The analysis in the FEIS on 

page 4-143, Table 4-29 meets the requirement of 93.116. 

Comment: . . . still fails to adequately assess toxics . . . Notably the Final EIS states that the 

methodologies for doing such assessment have changed since the Draft EIS . . . 

Response: The analysis did change with the publication of the Interim Guidance on Air 

Toxics in NEPA Documents (FHWA, February 3, 2006), and the analysis is 

consistent with that document. 

Comment: We are pleased that . . . FHWA adopted . . . [a] reconfiguration of traffic flow . . . 

[and] willingness to develop an operational agreement with contractors to reduce 

air pollution during construction [and] work with the Southeast Michigan 

Council of Governments, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 

and the private sector to develop a PM2.5 emissions reduction action plan. 

However, none of the operational mitigation measures that EPA recommended in 

our DEIS comments were addressed . . .. 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

47 

Response: Referring to the EPA letter on FEIS page A-5, each listed point is addressed: 

Corridors - Truck traffic has been routed away from residential areas. 

Anti-idling - Trucks dropping/picking up containers do not dwell in the 

terminal; locomotives do not wait for new intermodal trains to be made up after 

dropping an intermodal load - they are put in service elsewhere. NS, CSX, and 

CP all have anti-idling policies. Auxiliary power units for trains - Railroads are 

introducing these units for fuel savings merit. On-road fuels for equipment - 

Ultra-low sulfur diesel applies to nonroad vehicles effective June 2010 and 

locomotives June 2012; so, on road fuels will be used. Retrofit technology - 

Over the ten-year implementation period, new equipment will be introduced. 

Hybrid locomotives - Intermodal trains use long-haul locomotives, not switch 

locomotives. 

Construction emissions plan - MDOT will work with contractors as, noted on 

the Green Sheet 

Comment: We recommend [for PM2.5] construction: use particle traps and other technical 

or operation methods; ensure diesel-powered equipment is properly tuned and 

maintained, and shut off when not in direct use; prohibit engine tampering to 

increase horsepower; locate diesel equipment as far as possible from residential 

areas and sensitive receptors; require low sulfur diesel fuel if available; reduce 

construction-related trips; lease or buy newer, cleaner equipment at the Tier 2 

level or higher, using a minimum of 75 percent of the equipment's total 

horsepower; use alternative fueled engines, if feasible; use construction 

equipment retrofitted with diesel oxidation catalysts or diesel particulate filters 

from the EPA or California Air Research Board Verified List; install retrofit 

emission control devices on all non-road equipment with higher than EPA's Tier 2 

Standards. 

Response: As stated in the Green Sheet (Appendix A of this ROD), MDOT will work with 

contractors on an operational agreement to control air pollution during 

construction. A construction emissions plan may include actions such as: 

retrofitting off-road construction equipment; limiting the age of off-road vehicles 

used in construction projects; minimizing engine operations; restricting 

construction activities around certain more-sensitive receptors, like Southwestern 

High School; using diesel particulate traps and oxidation catalysts; and, using 

existing power sources or clean fuel generators, rather than temporary power 

generators. The Contractor will institute fugitive dust control plans per MDOT 

2003 Standard Construction Specifications under Section 107.15A and 107.19. 

Comment: We note that the Final EIS does not even contain the anticipated mitigation 

measures described in the March 2005 Air Quality Impact Analysis Technical 

Report. This report lists specific measures . . . Then states "[i]t is anticipated that 

the Final EIS will contain agreements that mandate specific air quality mitigation 

measures, which will be defined as the project advance" We were not able to 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

48 

identify any such agreements in the Final EIS or explanation for why none were 

included. 

Response: The air quality analyses that were conducted following the DEIS involved new 

procedures to respond to changing EPA regulations. Those analyses indicate no 

negative impacts that require mitigation measures. 

Comment: Because the displaced traffic alone is associated with over 100 tpy of PM10, it is 

highly likely that the DIFT triggers general conformity. 

Response: Displaced traffic, if it could be assigned to roads, would not be associated with 

over 100 tpy of PM10, because the sediment loading on Kronk and Central today 

is not characteristic of other roads in the terminal area. Meanwhile, that traffic 

exists today and simply shifts to some nearby, but unknown area. As it is not 

new, it cannot be associated with general conformity or this would be double 

counting. 

7.3.6 Enhancements 

Comment: MDOT needs to commit to improvements on these areas of road [I-94 to Yard] to 

minimize impacts of additional trucks, improve appearance and increase 

pedestrian safety. 

Response: The Green Sheet notes that enhancements will be made to local roads. 

Enhancements to the Livernois corridor have been included in the cost of the 

project. The type of enhancements need to be determined with input from the 

project stakeholders, including the cities of Detroit and Dearborn. 

7.3.7 Process 

Comment: As expressly noted in NEPA regulations, MDOT is required to follow MEPA's 

[Michigan Environmental Policy Act] mandate and to satisfy the requirements on 

MEPA in reviewing the DIFT. Mere compliance with the basic requirements of 

the Clean Air Act and NEPA is not sufficient to satisfy MEPA. This means that to 

the extent that the Clean Air Act and NEPA fail to adequately protect air, water, 

climate, and other natural resources, or MDOT interprets these acts in a way that 

fails to do so, MEPA requires the Agency to select less damaging alternatives and 

to apply more stringent standards. 

Response: MDOT has adhered to all Michigan State environmental law. Throughout the 

process, MDOT has coordinated appropriately with the Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources and Environment (formerly the Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality). 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

49 

The Michigan Environmental Protection Act was incorporated into the Natural 

Resource Act in 1994. Rule 901 "prohibits the emission of an air contaminant 

which causes injurious effects to human health or safety, animal life, plant life of 

significant economic value, or property; or which causes unreasonable 

interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property. This rule has 

primarily been used to address a variety of situations including odors and 

particulate deposition." (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality staff 

report, August 19, 2009.) 

Comment: The Detroit City Council urges MDOT to host at least one public meeting in the 

affected community. 

Response: A public meeting will be held after the ROD is issued by FHWA. 

Comment: We have not been adequately and appropriately informed about the progress of 

this project before it has reached this stage. 

Response: In November 2008 three public meetings were held to present the Preferred 

Alternative for the DIFT. Nine thousand mail notifications were sent and 

hundreds more were distributed locally. The Preferred Alternative has not 

changed since November 2008. An additional stakeholder meeting was attended 

on December 7, 2009, hosted by Rep. Tlaib to provide an overview of the DIFT 

and answer questions. The presentation given at the November 2008 public 

meetings was made again at the January 2010 DRIC Local Advisory Council 

meeting held at Southwestern High School in southwest Detroit. More than 100 

persons attended. Flyers were passed out door-to-door in the DIFT neighborhood 

in advance of that meeting and hand delivered to a number of community 

organizations in the DIFT project area. The wait period prior to signing the 

Record of Decision was set at 49 days to allow more than the required 30 days to 

review the FEIS. 

 
 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study Record of Decision 

50 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Project Mitigation Summary Green Sheet 

Appendix A
 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Green Sheet: Project Mitigation Summary 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal (DIFT) 

Record of Decision 

For the Selected Alternative *

This Project Mitigation Summary Green Sheet contains the project specific mitigation measures being considered at 

this time. A list of Community Enhancements that are above and beyond what is required mitigation for this project 

is included at the end of this Green Sheet. These mitigation items may be modified during the final design, right-ofway acquisition, or construction phases of the project. 

General Green Sheet Items 

Impact Category Mitigation Measures

I. Social and Economic Environment 

a. Central Avenue Viaduct 

The construction of a railroad bridge at Central Avenue will allow vehicles to safely pass under 

the terminal, eliminating the possibility of train/car crashes on Central Avenue. Rerouting Lonyo 

Avenue traffic to Central Avenue will eliminate any future car/train crashes at Lonyo also.

b. Visual Effects Security walls are planned at the Livernois-Junction Yard along the north side and part of the 

south side. A new perimeter road along the north side will include a landscaped buffer. Security 

wall construction and construction materials will be discussed with the affected residents in the 

vicinity of potential construction and local officials during Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) 

workshops to be held during the design phase. Directional lighting shall be used adjacent to 

residential areas. 

c. Relocations Adequate replacement housing and industrial/commercial space is available in southwest Detroit 

area for those residents and businesses who wish to remain in the area. This project would 

relocate 32 residential dwelling units (28 single-family homes and four apartment units) and 29 

businesses. The DIFT Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan can be found in Appendix B of the FEIS.

d. Environmental 

Justice/Title VI 

Population Groups 

Mitigation and enhancement measures such as landscaping, security walls, relocation assistance, 

provisions for pedestrian and non-motorized transportation, air quality improvements, economic 

development, job training, and local road improvements will benefit minority and low income 

population groups and Title VI population groups who will be impacted by this project.

e. Noise Project noise levels exceed FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria at several locations adjacent to 

terminals. Walls at the perimeter of the Livernois-Junction Yard are planned as part of the project 

for security and aesthetic purposes. In noise sensitive areas, these security walls will be designed 

to also provide noise abatement.**

II. Natural Environment 

a. Wetlands A maximum of 0.01 acres of impacted wetlands will be replaced under the “General Permit 

Category” where the mitigation will be rolled into another mitigation project elsewhere in the 

state. A permit will be obtained from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and 

Environment (MDNRE) for using this wetland.

b. Tree Removal/ 

Clearing/Landscaping 

Mature trees will be preserved where possible. Remaining property owners will be notified before 

any trees in front of their residences are removed and will be offered replacement trees. 

Landscaping will be provided along the north perimeter road that will become the connection to 

John Kronk Street. Landscaping will emphasize native species and not include invasive species. 

c. Water Quality For runoff, stormwater management facilities will include detention in oversized pipes. 

Stormwater at all terminals flows to combined sanitary/storm sewers presently. Stormwater 

management will be incorporated into the project’s final design and is subject to National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting. Options for pretreated stormwater 

runoff could include piping stormwater direct to the Rouge River through newly built pipes so that 

there is no reliance on the Detroit Water and Sewer Department’s combined sewer system.

d. Invasive Species Xerolenta obvia (an invasive land snail) eradication efforts continue in the Livernois-Junction 

Yard area by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Plant Protection and Quarantine of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (APHIS-PPQ) in coordination with the railroads. When 

construction efforts are undertaken by either MDOT or the railroads the local APHIS-PPQ office 

in Romulus, Michigan will be contacted (734.942.9005) to coordinate with these ongoing 

eradication efforts.

*

 Elements that are part of the Livernois-Junction terminal design (paving, lighting, walls for security, Central Avenue underpass) are covered in a PreDevelopment Plan Agreement (PDPA) among MDOT and the participating railroads. The PDPA can be found in Appendix B of this ROD. **In those areas around the terminals where Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria are exceeded due to terminal activity, the security walls 

will be designed to reduce terminal noise a minimum of 5 dBA. The principal wall anticipated would be 1,700 feet long and 12 feet high along John Kronk 

Street, between Martin Street and Livernois Avenue.

March 2010 
 

III. Hazardous / Contaminated Materials 

a. Contaminated Sites A Project Area Contamination Survey has been completed. Up to 27 sites will need 

Preliminary Site Investigations prior to right-of-way acquisition. Contamination areas will 

be marked on all construction plans. Proper disposal of any hazardous/contaminated 

material will occur. All monitoring wells will be properly abandoned. A Utility Plan will 

also be prepared to ensure no deep utility cuts will impact and/or spread existing 

contamination. A Risk Assessment Plan will be developed which will include a Worker 

Health and Safety Plan. 

IV. Cultural Environment 

a. Historic The Michigan Box Company building is eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places and will be demolished by this project. Coordination with the SHPO will 

continue in order to develop appropriate mitigation measures. The SHPO will also review 

plans for the security wall in the vicinity of 6332 Kronk for compatibility. See signed 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in Appendix C of the FEIS. 

b. Archaeology Ground-disturbing activities will not take place in the vicinity of the Michigan Central 

Stockyards Hotel site as a part of the DIFT Project. Construction plans will specify that 

excavation beneath existing disturbance is prohibited in this environmentally sensitive area, 

and a map depicting the environmentally sensitive area will also accompany the plans. See 

signed MOA in Appendix C of the FEIS.

V. Construction 

a. Vibration Basement surveys will be offered in areas where vibration effects could occur by MDOT 

construction. These areas will be identified during the design phase, where pavement and 

bridge removal will occur, or where piling and/or steel sheeting is planned. Impacts are not 

anticipated at this time.

b. Maintenance of Traffic Modification of the I-94 ramps in the northwest and northeast quadrants of the interchange at 

Livernois will require temporary detours. The construction of the Central Avenue underpass 

will require a detour to Lonyo Avenue. Lonyo will not be closed until the Central Avenue 

underpass is complete.
 

 Community Enhancements 

Impact Category Enhancement Measures

a. Local Roads In the vicinity of the DIFT Project area, adjacent local roads will be evaluated to determine 

what improvements are needed to the roadways - including paving, sidewalks, streetscaping, 

and lighting. MDOT will coordinate with the Cities of Detroit and Dearborn to determine 

the scope of work, cost (not to exceed $11 million), and schedule for the local road 

improvements. Environmental clearance for the local road improvements will be addressed 

in future separate clearances. 

b. Transportation 

Enhancement Funds 

MDOT will work together with the Cities of Detroit and Dearborn in an effort to secure 

Transportation Enhancement Funds to further beautify roadways and greenways in the 

vicinity of the DIFT. 

c. Truck Traffic The DIFT will also address the important issue of reducing truck traffic on neighborhood 

streets by channeling truck movements to/from I-94 along Livernois Avenue, through the use 

of directional curbing at the Livernois gate and by eliminating the Waterman/Dix entrance to 

the terminal. 

d. Livernois-Junction 

Yard Access 

New gates will be constructed at the west end of the yard, providing direct access to I-94 via 

Wyoming Avenue. 

e. Security Walls Construction of security walls at various locations along the perimeter of the terminal will 

minimize visual and noise impacts. 

f. Economic MDOT will participate with other stakeholders in funding a study of economic development 

opportunities that will support small business development in the DIFT study area. MDOT 

will continue to coordinate with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, the 

Detroit Economic Growth Corporation, the Dearborn Department of Economic 

Development, various public-private partnerships and the local community. 

g. Air Quality MDOT will work with contractors on an operational agreement to control air pollution 

during construction. A construction emissions plan may include actions such as: retrofitting 

off-road construction equipment; limiting the age of off-road vehicles used in construction 

projects; minimizing engine operations; restricting construction activities around certain 

more-sensitive receptors, like Southwestern High School (when it is in session); using diesel 

particulate traps and oxidation catalysts; and, using existing power sources or clean fuel 

generators, rather than temporary power generators. The Contractor will institute fugitive 

dust control plans per MDOT 2003 Standard Construction Specifications under Section 

107.15A and 107.19. 

MDOT will work with SEMCOG, MDNRE, and the private sector to create an action plan 

that includes short-term and long-term objectives aimed at reducing fugitive dust, diesel 

truck idling, fuel consumption, or diesel emissions to limit PM2.5 emissions in the study area 

defined by the map shown in Figure 3-16 of the FEIS. The action plan will identify priorities 

for future federal aid eligible transportation projects through programs such as Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and the Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative. The action 

plan will be implemented during design and construction phases, and sustained through the 

maintenance and operations of the facilities. Activities could also include outreach activities 

to inform commercial operations and residents on air pollution control strategies. The actual 

projects will be generated from the community and its partners who will develop project 

proposals. 

h. Job Training MDOT will coordinate with the Cities of Detroit and Dearborn and the Michigan Department 

of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth to explore job training opportunities, English as a 

Second Language (ESL), and other training options in the project area. 
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Pre-Development Plan Agreement 

Appendix B
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK