DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 1

SECTION 4 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES

This section identifies the social, economic, and environmental resources that exist in the project 

area and reviews the potential impacts. Those resources with a reasonable possibility for indirect 

or cumulative significant impacts were analyzed further. The results of this analysis are 

discussed below. 

In this traditionally-formatted FEIS, the discussion of impacts under each topic pertains to the 

Practical Alternatives that were under review up to the public hearing. After the public 

hearing, the Preferred Alternative was identified. The impacts of the Preferred Alternative are 

presented at the end of each of the following sections and shown in bold/italics text in a green 

box. 

4.1 Traffic 

A commodity flow model was developed for the DIFT Project (refer to Technical Reports listed at 

end of Table of Contents). It was updated in April 2008 to extend the forecasts to 2030. The 

commodity flow model provides a tool for forecasting future-year commodity flows. The model 

is sensitive in a number of ways including: 

• Mode choice (truck, intermodal rail and carload rail) is sensitive to highway travel time and 

future highway congestion. Mode choice is also sensitive to intermodal/rail travel time. 

• Mode choice is sensitive to costs. Thus, if the cost of shipping by a given mode changes 

(highway/truck, intermodal rail and carload rail), there will be a shift in the other modes. 

• Allocation of intermodal goods to each major intermodal terminal in Southeast Michigan, 

Ohio, Indiana and Chicago is sensitive to the costs and times of shipping through each 

terminal, and the costs and times for shipping by the carload and truck modes. 

Key components of the forecast process include: 

 1. A zonal system: 83 Michigan counties, the other U.S. states, the Canadian provinces and 

Mexico. 

 2. Roadway and rail networks. 

 3. Year 2025 commodity flow forecasts by 19 different groups. 

 4. Trip distribution and mode split models. 

The commodity flow model was applied to a set of possible changes in each freight mode’s 

characteristics to determine the range in the number of intermodal truck-rail transfers (called lifts) in 

Southeast Michigan. These forecasts are also sensitive to a myriad of factors including growth in 

population and employment as well as economic productivity. 

The forecasts of intermodal activity by alternative were submitted for review to the affected 

railroads. The intermodal terminal operators who responded indicated that the high end of each 

2025 forecasted lift range for the alternatives (e.g., 885,000 for Alternative 2 and 1,148,000 for 

Alternative 3 as shown on Figure 4-1) involving government investment (i.e., Alternatives 2, 3 

and 4) are optimistic, but reasonably so, in light of the horizon being 20 years in the future, i.e., 

2025. Consultation also indicated that, without government assistance, i.e., Alternative 1, the 

intermodal growth could be as low as 500,000 lifts per year in 2025 compared to the model’s 

forecast of 620,000 annual lifts at the low end of the range (Table 4-1). This is because business
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 2

Figure 4-1 

Forecast of Intermodal Activity (Lifts) – DEIS 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 3

Table 4-1a 

2025 Annual Lifts 

No Action Alternative – DEIS 

From Commodity Flow Model Results 

 Annual Lifts 

Terminala Low High 

W 352,800 441,600 

X 44,500 55,700 

Y 137,200 171,700 

Z 85,500 107,000 

Total 620,000 776,000 a

Terminal’s owner/operator is not identified at the railroads’ request in 

light of proprietary interests. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 

Table 4-1b 

2025 Annual Lifts 

No Action Alternative – DEIS 

With Adjustment Downward 

From Commodity Flow Model Results

Terminala Annual Lifts 

W 280,000 

X 35,000 

Y 110,000 

Z 70,000 

Total 495,000 a

Terminal’s owner/operator is not identified at 

the railroads’ request in light of proprietary 

interests. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, 

Inc. 

Table 4-1c 

2025 Truck Traffic (Two-way Trips) 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative – DEIS 

Terminala Annual Lifts Daily Two-way 

Truck Trips 

W 280,000 1,260 

X 35,000 140 

Y 110,000 390 

Z 70,000 370 

Total 495,000 2,060 a

Terminal’s owner/operator is not identified at the railroads’ request in 

light of proprietary interests. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 4

would be shifted to terminals outside the region, for example CSX to Cleveland, NS to Toledo 

and CP to Chicago. Therefore, to account for both the direct and indirect effects of the terminals, 

the high end on the forecast ranges for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 were compared to a volume under 

the No Action scenario of about 500,000 lifts per year (Figure 4-1). This information was 

updated for the Preferred Alternative when the CP Expressway operation closed. See the 

Preferred Alternative section below. 

To convert intermodal lifts to trucks, truck counts were conducted at each intermodal terminal in 

August 2002. That information, when combined with a confidential survey of almost 80 intermodal 

terminals in North America as a reasonableness check, allowed the conversion of lifts to truck trips 

(Table 4-1d). The results, in terms of annual lifts and daily truck trips (two-way) at each terminal, 

for each alternative are shown in Tables 4-2 through 4-4 (see table revisions for the Preferred 

Alternative at the end of this section). It is noted that intermodal lift and truck activities have not 

been identified with a specific railroad at the railroad’s request in light of proprietary interests. 

In developing complete analyses of traffic impacts, it is possible that CSX and NS could rearrange 

their individual terminals at the Livernois-Junction Yard. Based on an examination of such 

scenarios (and accommodation of Conrail inside the Livernois-Junction Yard south of John Kronk), 

a terminal layout is possible that would shift gate locations and truck traffic from Livernois Avenue 

to Wyoming Avenue. The truck trips resulting from such a shift are depicted on Tables 4-5, 4-6 and 

4-7 as “Revised.” This would cause 800 to 900 truck trips per day (two-way) in 2025 to move from 

a Livernois Avenue access route to Wyoming Avenue. To completely account for this possibility, 

two alternative traffic analyses scenarios (labeled “Original” and “Revised”) were developed for the 

Livernois-Junction Yard for Alternatives 2B, 3 and 4. 

Under No Action conditions, the only intersection of more than 100 analyzed that would be expected 

to have unacceptable traffic conditions (i.e., volume greater than capacity) is at 

Dix/Waterman/Vernor at the Livernois-Junction Yard. That condition is repeated for Alternative 

2/Option A. This is due to traffic moving through a gate to the Livernois-Junction Yard at this 

location. This gate and the traffic problem it causes are eliminated under all other alternatives. 

The data on Figures 4-2 through 4-9 indicate there is so much capacity available on the roads serving 

the intermodal terminals, that congestion, with the addition of traffic associated with the Action 

Alternatives, would have created negative traffic effects at only five intersections, out of more than 

100 analyzed (Table 4-8). Proposed adjustments to traffic signal phasing would make traffic 

operations at those five locations acceptable (i.e., the volume will not exceed capacity). These signal 

timing changes would not negatively traffic-dependent businesses (e.g., gas stations, restaurants, and 

the like). 

It is also noted that the approaches of Wyoming Avenue at Michigan Avenue do not align with one 

another, thereby forcing vehicles in the right lane of northbound Wyoming to turn right onto 

Michigan. This limits northbound through traffic to one lane. Wyoming at Michigan is forecast to be 

over capacity in the peak periods by 2025. This can be corrected by adding left-turn signal phases 

and realigning this intersection. 

In all Action Alternatives, the interchange of I-94 with Livernois would be improved. The 

westbound off- and on-ramps would be repositioned (Figure 4-1a). This is not a capacity 

improvement but one to cause better use of this interchange and Livernois Avenue to reach the 

Livernois-Junction Yard. The westbound off-ramp is so tight that intermodal trucks (and other large 

trucks) often avoid using it and Livernois Avenue. Instead, many of the trucks use the service drive 

along the north side of I-94 west of Livernois Avenue to get to Central Avenue and then cut through 

the neighborhood to reach John Kronk Street. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 5

Table 4-1d 

Relationship of Lifts to Truck Movements – DEIS 

Terminala Lifts in 2002 

Truck Trips 

in 2002 Ratio 

1 60,000 147,500 2.46 

2 55,000 77,750 1.41 

3 83,000 97,050 1.17 

4 77,000 100,750 1.31 

5 25,000 35,500 1.42 

6 48,000 94,000 1.96 

Total 348,000 552,550 1.59 a

Terminal’s owner/operator is not identified at the railroads’ request in light of 

proprietary interests. 

Source: AVT and The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 

Table 4-2 

2025 Truck Traffic (Two-way Trips) 

Alternative 2: Improve/Expand – DEIS 

 Annual Lifts Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

Terminala Low High Low High 

W 402,300 503,700 1,800 2,250 

X 50,700 63,500 200 250 

Y 156,500 195,800 560 700 

Z 97,500 122,000 520 650 

Total 707,000 885,000 3,080 3,850 a

Terminal’s owner/operator is not identified at the railroads’ request in light of proprietary interests. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc.

Table 4-3 

2025 Truck Traffic (Two-way Trips) 

Alternative 3: Consolidate – DEIS 

 Annual Lifts Daily Two-way 

Truck Trips Terminal 

Terminala Low High Low High Gate/Entrance 

A 103,600 158,300 560 850 1 

B 220,400 336,500 810 1,230 2 

C 129,700 197,900 870 1,330 5 

D1 179,400 273,900 570 880 3 

D2 118,900 181,400 460 700 4 

Total 752,000 1,148,000 3,270 4,990 a

Terminal’s owner/operator is not identified at the railroads’ request in light of proprietary interests. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc.
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 6

Table 4-4 

2025 Traffic Forecast 

Annual Lifts and Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

Alternative 4: The Composite Option – DEIS 

Annual Lifts Daily Two-way 

Terminala Truck Trips 

Low High Low High 

Terminal Gate/Entrance 

A 97,500 122,000 520 650 Eight Mile Road @ Fairgrounds 

B 206,200 324,000 760 1,190 2 

C 121,300 190,600 810 1,270 5 

D1 168,000 264,000 530 830 3 

D2 111,000 174,400 430 680 4 

Total 704,000 1,075,000 3,050 4,620 

a

Terminal’s owner/operator is not identified at the railroads’ request in light of proprietary interests. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc.

 

Table 4-5 

2025 Traffic Forecast 

Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

Alternative 2: Expand/Improve Existing Terminals – DEIS 

 Livernois-Junction Yard 

Summary 

Option A Option B Option C Principal Access Original Revised Original Revised Original Revised 

Wyoming NA NA 680 1,710 0 NA 

Livernois 1,220 NA 1,570 540 2,250 NA 

Waterman/Dix/Vernor 1,030 NA NA NA NA NA 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc.

Table 4-6 

2025 Traffic Forecast 

 Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four RRs– DEIS 

 Livernois-Junction Area 

Daily Two-way Truck 

Terminal Trips Principal Access a

Low High 

Terminal 

Gate/Entrance Original Revised 

A 560 850 1 Wyoming Wyoming 

B 810 1,230 2 Wyoming Wyoming 

C 870 1,330 5 Wyoming Wyoming 

D1 570 880 3 Livernois Wyoming 

D2 460 700 4 Livernois Livernois 

Total 3,270 4,990 

a

Terminal’s owner/operator is not identified at the railroads’ request in light of proprietary interests.

Summary

Principal Access Original Revised 

Wyoming 3,410 4,290 

Livernois 1,580 700 

 Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc.
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 7

Table 4-7 

2025 Traffic Forecast 

Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

Alternative 4: Consolidate Three RRs at Livernois-Junction Area and 

Expand CN/Moterm at Fairgrounds– DEIS 

Annual Lifts Daily Two-Way 

Truck Trips Principal Access Terminala

Low High Low High 

Terminal 

Gate/Entrance Original Revised 

A 97,500 122,000 520 650 Eight Mile Road Eight Mile Road Eight Mile Road 

B 206,200 324,000 760 1,190 2 Wyoming Wyoming 

C 121,300 190,600 810 1,270 5 Wyoming Wyoming 

D1 168,000 264,000 530 830 3 Livernois Wyoming 

D2 111,000 174,400 430 680 4 Livernois Livernois 

Total 704,000 1,075,000 3,050 4,620 a

Terminal’s owner/operator is not identified at the railroads’ request in light of proprietary interests.

Summary 

Principal Access Original Revised 

Wyoming 2,460 3,290 

Livernois 1,510 680 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc.

Table 4-8 

Proposed Traffic Operations Improvements at Key Intersectionsa 

Terminal Location Alternative Proposed Action 

Livernois-Junction 

Yard 

Michigan and Livernois 

Michigan and Wyoming 

I-94 EB Off-ramp at Wyoming 

2A, 2B, 2C, 3, 4 

2B, 3, 4 

3, 4 

Add left-turn signal 

phase to all approaches 

to intersection 

CP/Expressway Rosa Parks and Michigan 2 Add left-turn signal 

phase to all approaches 

to intersection 

CP/Oak Schoolcraft and Evergreen 2 Add left-turn signal 

phase to all approaches 

to intersection a

Other intersections in the project area may experience problems with capacity or poor service, but those conditions are not 

caused by DIFT traffic. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 8
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 9
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 10
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 11
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 12
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 13
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 14
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 15
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 16
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 17
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 18
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 19
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 20
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 21
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 22
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 23
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 24
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 25
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 26
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 27
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 28
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 29
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 30
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 31
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 32
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 33
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 34
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 35
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 36

In all the Action Alternatives, the proposal was to close Lonyo Avenue at the Livernois-Junction 

Yard boundary and connected to Central by either a rebuilt section of John Kronk Street 

(Alternative 2) or a proposed perimeter road (Alternatives 3 and 4). Central Avenue was 

proposed to pass under the railroad tracks. Under the Action Alternatives, closing Lonyo would 

have placed more traffic on Central Avenue. The Central Avenue underpass would have been 

able to serve it. Also, under Alternatives 3 and 4, large-truck traffic on Central Avenue north of 

the railyard would have been reduced as the major truck center at Central and Kronk (and other 

businesses, depending on alternative) were relocated. The grade separation of Central from the 

rail lines and the elimination of the Lonyo rail crossing under all three Action Alternatives would 

have eliminated train/auto crashes. At the time of the writing of the DEIS, the Central Avenue 

rail crossing had 11 incidents in the last 30 years. And, the Lonyo rail crossing ranked first (tied) 

in Michigan in fatal incidents with one in the last three years and second (tied) for fatal incidents 

with three in the last 30 years. Additionally, the Lonyo crossing was ranked first (tied) for total 

incidents in the last three years and ranked sixth statewide with 14 incidents in the last 30 years. 

The proposal to close Lonyo would make access to the residences and businesses located there, 

including Star Academy, more circuitous for some trips. Overall traffic on Lonyo would have 

decreased because the street would not connect to Dix, and some industrial land uses served by 

Lonyo would have been relocated, thereby producing less traffic. 

Under Alternative 2, intermodal truck traffic to/from the CP/Oak terminal would have been 

channeled along I-96 to an improved interchange at Evergreen Road, thereby virtually eliminating 

intermodal truck traffic from streets in the surrounding neighborhood. Likewise, expanding the 

CN/Moterm terminal south into the Fairgrounds, as proposed under Alternatives 2 and 4, would have 

removed intermodal trucks from Fair and Chesterfield Streets in Ferndale by providing access 

directly south from Eight-Mile Road into the terminal. 

All three Action Alternatives (Alternative 2, 3 and 4) would have been associated with a regional 

safety benefit due to the reduction of truck traffic when some freight shipments are transferred 

from trucks to trains. The Action Alternatives would, therefore, have reduced in Wayne County 

annual 2025 injury crashes and fatalities by 25 and one, respectively, compared to the No Action 

condition. The Action Alternatives’ safety effects in the seven-county Southeast Michigan region 

would have been to reduce annual 2025 injury crashes and fatalities by 97 and four, respectively, 

compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Preferred Alternative 

The forecast of traffic for the Preferred Alternative was adjusted when it became clear that the 

CP’s Expressway operation, which was doing business in Southeast Michigan at the Michigan 

Central Depot, and which was suspended in June 2004, would not resume. In this light, the 

CP forecasts were adjusted with the assumption that 25 percent of the CP/Expressway business 

would go to a competitor and the rest to shipment by truck. Canadian Pacific also noted since 

the DEIS was produced that the outlook for its container business is for growth at two percent 

to 2.5 percent per year over the near-term future. The combination of these effects is shown on 

Figure 4-10 and Table 4-9. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 37

Figure 4-10 

Forecast of Intermodal Activity (Lifts) – Without CP/Expressway 

Table 4-9 - FEIS 

2030 Annual Lifts and Truck Traffic 

No Action Alternative 

 From Commodity Flow Model 

Terminala Low High 

Adjusted 

Downward 

Daily Two-Way 

Truck Trips 

Principal Access 

W 425,800 533,000 309,800 1,520 Livernois 

Y 160,500 200,900 117,900 460 Evergreen 

Z 81,900 87,800 75,000 430 Eight Mile 

Total 668,000 821,700 503,000 2,410 

Preferred Alternative 

 From Commodity Flow Model 

Terminala Low High 

Daily Two-Way 

Truck Trips 

Terminal 

Gate 

Principal 

Access 

A 101,000 135,000 720 NA 8 Mile Rd. 

B 127,000 157,000 570 2 Livernois 

C 132,000 188,500 1,270 3 Wyoming 

D1 227,000 357,000 1,140 5 Wyoming 

D2 135,000 212,500 820 4 Livernois 

Total 722,000 1,050,000 4,520 

a

 Terminal’s owner/operator is not identified at the railroads’ request in light of proprietary interests. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 38

To convert intermodal lifts to trucks, truck counts were conducted at each intermodal terminal 

in August 2002. That information, when combined with a confidential survey of almost 80 

intermodal terminals in North America as a reasonableness check, allowed the conversion of 

lifts to truck trips. The results, in terms of annual lifts and daily truck trips (two-way) at each 

terminal, for the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 4-9. It is noted that intermodal lift 

and truck activities have not been identified with a specific railroad, to the extent possible, at 

the railroad’s request. 

To account in the DEIS for both the direct and indirect effects of intermodal activity, the high 

end of the forecast ranges for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 were compared to the lowest volume 

under the No Action scenario (Table 4-9). Consultation with the railroads indicated that, 

without government assistance, the intermodal growth of the No Action condition (Alternative 

1) could be as low as 503,000 lifts per year in 2030, compared to the forecast of 495,000 annual 

lifts at the low end of the 2025 range used in the DEIS (Figure 4-1 and Table 4-1). This is 

because some business growth would be shifted to terminals outside the region, for example, 

CSX to Cleveland, NS to Toledo or Columbus, and CP to Chicago or Windsor, Canada. 

 

The same logic applies to the Preferred Alternative – the high end on the forecast range 

(1,050,000 lifts per year in 2030) for the Preferred Alternative is compared to the lowest volume 

under the No Action scenario (503,000 lifts per year in 2030). 

Figure 4-11 illustrates how the daily two-way truck volumes translate to traffic for key links in 

the roadway network around the Livernois-Junction Yard. Background traffic was assumed to 

grow at one percent a year. So, the No Action Alternative volumes increase over time. With 

the Preferred Alternative, new gates at the west end of the yard connecting to Wyoming Avenue 

would split NS intermodal truck traffic with Livernois Avenue (Table 4-9). The CSX gate at 

Dix/Waterman, near a residential area, would close. Truck volumes on Central Avenue, a 

residential area for most of its length north of Kronk Street, would decline. 

The daily 2030 two-way intermodal truck total will be 4,520 (3,800 at the Livernois-Junction 

Yard and 720 at the CN/Moterm terminal), compared to 2,410 with the No Action Alternative 

(1,500 at the Livernois-Junction Yard). The net increase in intermodal truck trips at the 

Livernois-Junction Yard would be 2,300. But, acquisition of land for the Preferred Alternative 

will eliminate 1,600 two-way truck trips. The net result is an increase of 700 trucks per day. 

Traffic will shift from Livernois Avenue to Wyoming Avenue, with 80 percent of the Wyoming 

Avenue traffic expected to use I-94. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 39

Figure 4-11 

Daily Two-way Truck Traffic on Key links 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 40

The truck (and auto) traffic adjustments from the Preferred Alternative would not result in any 

intersections being at Level of Service D, or, worse in the peak hour in 2015 or 2030 

(Figure 4-9e). 

The Preferred Alternative will close Lonyo Avenue at the rail terminal and divert its traffic via 

the new Perimeter Road to Central Avenue. Safety will be improved with the closing of the 

rail/highway crossing. The regional shift from truck to rail will reduce regional vehicle miles 

of travel so that Wayne County’s annual 2030 injury crashes and fatalities will be reduced by 

25 and one, respectively, and the reduction in these statistics for the seven-county Southeast 

Michigan region will be 97 and 4, compared to the No Action Alternative. 

4.2 Social Impacts/Community Cohesion 

The host of community facilities located in each terminal area are shown on Figures 4-12 and 

4-13. Interviews with more than half the 110+ community organizations/individuals contacted 

indicate the most important of these are schools and places of worship. There is a strong desire 

for a quiet/peaceful neighborhood free of trucks and their environmental effects. 

The CP/Oak and CN Moterm terminal areas have experienced a continued decline in 

population, as has the City of Detroit itself (compare data in Tables 4-12 and 4-13). Recent 

data indicate the City of Detroit lost an additional 40,000 people between 2000 and 2003 putting 

its population at 911,000, the number of people in Detroit around the time of World War I. 

The strongest characteristics of the terminal area communities are their resiliency, ethnic 

diversity, local shopping districts, and residential neighborhoods. However, each community is 

not without its share of challenges. The infrastructure is in need of repair, and new strategies are 

needed to retrofit land uses, while preventing deterioration of neighborhoods. The housing stock 

dates back to the early 1900s. Despite this aging housing stock, a revitalization of older housing 

is underway in Southwest Detroit. 

The residents of each terminal area are neighbors with industry and heavy freight traffic. The 

history of each terminal area community has always involved industry. But, many buildings that 

once provided economic security to area residents are now vacant or have been removed leaving 

vacant parcels, including those in the area of residential housing that would be required for the 

project. These conditions have created a situation in which many of the owners of housing 

proposed for acquisition to accommodate terminal expansion are not opposed to a move, as 

determined by interviews. 

Nonetheless, southwest Detroit and the Livernois-Junction Yard terminal area have experienced a 

resurgence. This has resulted in many new locally-owned businesses. They range from familyowned bakeries to manufacturing operations. The renovated storefront businesses and “new” 

commercial development along West Vernor Highway make it clear that the community is 

revitalized. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluatio

4 - 41
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluatio

4 - 42
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 43
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 44
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 45
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 46
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 47
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 48

There would have been acquisition of businesses associated with all Action Alternatives but 

residential acquisition was only likely with consolidating intermodal activities for three or four 

railroads at the Livernois-Junction Yard (Alternatives 3 and 4). Additional residential acquisition 

might occur with the indirect/spin-off development associated with intermodal terminal 

development but need not be, based on the amount of available industrial property. Further, the 

proposed design of the terminals, with walls at the terminal’s boundaries, is expected to support a 

stronger community around each terminal by stopping the “creep” of incompatible development 

that has historically occurred. 

Other impacts were expected with the proposed Action Alternatives at the Livernois-Junction 

Yard, the CP/Oak and CN/Moterm terminals as follows: 

• At the Livernois-Junction Yard: 

- Intermodal truck traffic was to be moved to the freeways to connect to arterial 

roads that directly serve the terminal gates. Additionally, under Alternatives 3 

and 4, a number of major generators of neighborhood truck traffic were to be 

relocated. 

- Lonyo was to be closed at the terminal boundary and Central Avenue was to pass 

under the rail lines for all Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4). This 

would have improved the safe movement of people in the community. 

- The terminal surface was to be paved under all Action Alternatives to address 

dust, which is a nuisance and an air quality problem. 

- Several abandoned properties, salvage yards, and industrial facilities were to be 

removed (Alternatives 3 and 4) for intermodal terminal development. 

• At the CP/Oak terminal under Alternative 2: 

- Improvement to the I-96/Evergreen Avenue interchange was to significantly 

reduce the truck traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods. Under Alternatives 3 

and 4, truck traffic was also to be reduced as the intermodal activity at this 

terminal was to be shifted to the Livernois-Junction Yard area. 

• At the CN/Moterm terminal: 

- The terminal access was to be changed from the north to the south side of M102/Eight Mile Road for Alternatives 2 and 4. This was to remove intermodal 

truck movements from Fair Street and Chesterfield Street in Ferndale. Under 

Alternative 3, truck traffic was to also be reduced as the intermodal activity at 

this terminal was to be shifted to the Livernois-Junction Yard area. 

• Under all Action Alternatives: 

- A security wall was to be built. It was to create a visual screen and a noise buffer 

on the north side and a portion of the south side of the Livernois-Junction Yard. 

Under Alternative 2, walls for security were to be built at CP/Oak and the 

CN/Moterm terminals. 

Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative will shift intermodal traffic to north Livernois Avenue and Wyoming 

Avenue so it is routed more directly to the Livernois-Junction Yard and away from residential 

areas. Lonyo will be closed and a safer Central Avenue (Americans with Disabilities Actcompliant) will pass under the rail yard. The yard will be paved, reducing dust and sediment 

runoff. Some houses will be acquired for the project and the properties they are on will be 

incorporated into the rail yard. Finally, security walls and landscaped areas along the 

perimeter of the yard will make it a better neighbor. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 49

4.2.1 Community Facilities 

A number of schools, places of worship and other community facilities are present in the study 

area. These are shown on Figures 4-12 and 4-13. Table 4-10 shows the distances of community 

facilities from the terminals to provide a sense of proximity and, therefore, possible impact. 

Alternative 1: No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative there were to be no changes to community facilities due to the 

project. 

Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals

Livernois-Junction Yard 

• Star International Academy/St. Lawrence School is north of the existing terminal on 

Lonyo Avenue. The school will not be directly affected by changes to the terminal. 

Closing Lonyo Avenue would make travel to it more circuitous (more lengthy) for 

some trips. Students walking to the school were monitored on several days. No 

students were observed using Lonyo from south of Kronk. Overall traffic on Lonyo 

would decrease because the street would not connect to Dix and some industrial uses 

served by Lonyo would have been relocated, thereby producing less truck traffic. 

• St. Stephen’s School and Catholic Church are north of the existing terminal on 

Central Avenue. The school and church would have been affected by changes to the 

terminal under Alternative 2 by grade separating Central Avenue from the railroad 

tracks. Some traffic now using Lonyo Avenue would have used Central Avenue as 

Lonyo would have been closed at the rail yard. Some students walk to the school 

from the immediately adjacent neighborhood north of John Kronk. It is noteworthy 

that St. Stephen’s School has closed since the DEIS public hearing. 

CP/Expressway Terminal 

• The Detroit Public Works Western Yard is located north of the expansion area 

between 18th and 20th Street to the south of Michigan Avenue. It would have been 

relocated for Alternative 2. A currently vacant lot next to the Michigan Central 

Depot, that was formerly used for intermodal purposes, would have been acquired for 

the DIFT. 

• The United Community Hospital (now closed) is north and west of the Expressway 

terminal and would have been adjacent to the terminal, if the terminal were expanded 

under Alternative 2. It is surrounded by industrial uses and freeways (I-75 and I-96) 

and the conditions affecting the hospital would have changed little if the Expressway 

terminal had been expanded. The change in intermodal train activity of Alternative 2 

over No Action conditions would not have affected this hospital. It is noteworthy 

that the hospital has closed since the DEIS public hearing. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 50 

Table 4-10a 

Community Facilities 

Livernois-Junction Yard 

Alt. Terminal 

Figure 

4-12a ID Type Name 

Alts. 1 & 2 

Distancea

Alt. 3 

Distance

1/2/3/4/

P Liv-Jct 1 School Harms School 1,410 1,0

1/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 2 School Neinas School 1,130 1,11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 3 School Logan School 1,690 1,01/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 4 School St. Stephens School (closed 2006) 1,980 91/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 5 School Star International Academy/St. Lawrence School 2,630 1,21/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 6 School Holmes School 2,880 1,41/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 7 School St. Matthews School 3,410 2,01/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 8 School Roberto Clemente Elementary School 2,170 2,01/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 9 School Cesar Chavez Elementary School 2,880 2,21/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 10 School Cesar Chavez High School 1,180 1,11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 11 School New/Old Salina School 4,100 3,71/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 12 School Beard School Annex 3,810 3,71/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 13 School Phoenix Academy 2,920 2,81/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 14 School Voyageur Academy 3,120 2,81/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 15 School Our Lady Queen of Angels School 1,990 1,41/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 16 School Academy of the Americas 1,960 1,81/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 17 School Vistas Nuevas Head Start 3,390 2,51/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 18 Government Office Neighborhood City Hall 1,970 1,61/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 19 Government Office Social Security Office 2,670 2,61/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 20 Clinic American Indian Health and Social Services 2,970 1,51/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 21 Police Station 4th Precinct Police Station 4,620 4,51/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 22 Fire Station Engine 33 Fire Station 6,140 6,01/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 23 Fire Station Engine 37 Fire Station 640 11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 24 Place of Worship Open Door Baptist Church 920 91/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 25 Place of Worship Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 1,480 71/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 26 Place of Worship St. Johns Ukrainian Catholic Church 2,090 1,31/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 27 Place of Worship Deeper Life Christian Church 1,180 61/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 28 Place of Worship First Spanish Baptist Church 1,110 1,11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 29 Place of Worship Templo Pentecostal El Olivar 420 41/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 30 Place of Worship Grace Assembly of God Church 1,120 1,11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 31 Place of Worship St. Stephen Catholic Parish 2,150 1,01/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 32 Place of Worship Pilgrim Missionary Baptist Church 2,430 1,0

aDistance in feet from the border of the terminal. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc.
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 51 

Table 4-10a (continued) 

Community Facilities 

Livernois-Junction Yard 

Alt. Terminal

Figure 

4-12a ID Type Name 

Alts. 1 & 2 

Distancea

Alt. 3 

Distance

1/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 33 Place of Worship The House of Truth Nondenominational Church 1,280 81/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 34 Place of Worship St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church 3,430 2,01/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 35 Place of Worship La Roca Eternal 3,260 2,41/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 36 Place of Worship St. Hedwig Church 2,240 2,11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 37 Place of Worship St. Gabriel 2,870 2,21/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 38 Place of Worship El Buen Samaintario Church 2,820 2,81/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 39 Place of Worship Betel-Romanian Pentecostal Church 3,990 3,81/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 40 Place of Worship Our Lady Queen of Angels Church 2,240 1,61/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 41 Place of Worship Explosion Deliverance Ministries 2,790 2,11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 42 Place of Worship Christian Center Church 2,790 2,21/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 43 Place of Worship Iglesia de Dios 2,830 2,11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 44 Place of Worship American Muslim Society 4,600 4,61/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 45 Park Dearborn City Park 2,070 51/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 46 Park Wilson Playground 1,480 21/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 47 Park Loverix Park 710 41/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 48 Park Memorial Park/St. Hedwig Playfield 1,840 1,71/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 49 Park Boyer Playground 1,350 1,31/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 50 Park Patton Memorial Park 1,080 11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 51 Bank Comerica 3,150 2,01/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 52 Bank Comerica 2,770 2,11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 53 Bank Charter One 3,130 2,01/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 54 Bank Bank One 2,630 2,11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 55 Laundromat Village Tub 2,660 1,81/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 56 Laundromat Patton Park Laundromat 4,160 3,41/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 57 Recreation/Community Center Patton Park Recreation Center 3,760 3,11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 58 Recreation/Community Center St. Hedwig Recreation Center 2,240 2,11/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 59 Recreation/Community Center LA SED Recreation/Senior Center 840 71/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 60 Recreation/Community Center Boys & Girls Club 2,230 2,01/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 61 Senior City Home Pablo Davis Senior Citizen Home 4,290 3,71/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 62 Senior City Home Central Towers Senior Home 1,340 91/2/3/4/P Liv-Jct 63 Homeless Shelter Covenant House 1,550 4

aDistance in feet from the border of the terminal.Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 52 

Table 4-10b 

Community Facilities 

CP/Expressway Terminal 

Alternative 2 

Alt. Terminal 

Figure 

4-12b ID Type Name 

1/2 CP/Expressway 1 School St. Vincent Middle School 1/2 CP/Expressway 2 School Former St. Paul's German Evangelical Lutheran Church Schoo1/2 CP/Expressway 3 Recreation/Community Center B.U.O.Y. #3 1/2 CP/Expressway 4 Police Station 3rd Precinct Police Station 1/2 CP/Expressway 5 Government Detroit Public Works Western Yard 1/2 CP/Expressway 6 Hospital (closed 2006) United Community Hospital 1/2 CP/Expressway 7 Place of Worship Grace to Grace Christian Church 1/2 CP/Expressway 8 Park Roosevelt Park 1/2 CP/Expressway 9 Park Macomb Park 

aDistance in feet from the border of the terminal.Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 

Table 4-10c 

Community Facilities 

CP/Oak Terminal 

Alternative 2 

Alt. Terminal Figure ID Type Name 

1/2 CP/Oak NA No nearby community facilities 

aDistance in feet from the border of the terminal.Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 53 

Table 4-10d 

Community Facilities 

CN/Moterm Terminal 

Alternatives 2 and 4 

Alt. Terminal 

Figure 

4-12d ID Type Name 

1/2/4 CN/Moterm 1 School Wilson School 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 2 School Grayling School 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 3 School Webster School 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 4 Fire Station City of Ferndale Fire Station #2 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 5 Bank Credit Union One 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 6 Government State Fairgrounds 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 7 Place of Worship Warner Memorial Church of God 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 8 Place of Worship Bethel Missionary Baptist Church 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 9 Place of Worship India Gospel Assembly 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 10 Place of Worship Greater Mt. Olive Baptist Church 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 11 Place of Worship Oak Park Missionary Baptist Church 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 12 Place of Worship Christian Community Church 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 13 Place of Worship Greater Mt. Everett Church 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 14 Place of Worship Greater Christ Temple Church 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 15 Park Hunt Playground 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 16 Park Wilson Park 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 17 Park Fair Park 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 18 Park Wanda Park 1/2/4 CN/Moterm 19 Park Saratoga Park 

aDistance in feet from the border of the terminal.Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 54

CP/Oak Terminal 

Under Alternative 2 there would have been no changes to community facilities at the CP/Oak 

terminal. 

CN/Moterm Terminal 

• The State Fairgrounds is south of the existing terminal area and adjacent to the west 

side of the railroad tracks south of Eight Mile Road. It would have been directly 

affected by the project. The east section of the area of the Fairgrounds is now leased 

for the parking of newly manufactured vehicles. It is also used by those who attend 

the State Fair during two weeks in August each year. It would have been needed for 

the expansion of the Moterm terminal. No buildings that are used for the State Fair 

are in this area. 

Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four Class I Railroads’ Intermodal Activity at LivernoisJunction Yard Area 

The conditions of Alternative 2 for the Livernois-Junction Yard, presented above, applied here. 

Alternative 4: The Composite Option 

The conditions of Alternative 2 for the Livernois-Junction Yard and CN/Moterm terminal, 

presented above, applied here. 

Preferred Alternative 

The conditions of Alternative 2 for the Livernois-Junction Yard apply to the Preferred 

Alternative (see Table 4-10a). This means making some student travel to Star Academy more 

circuitous (though overall vehicular traffic by the school would decrease) and changing traffic 

patterns near St. Stephens Catholic Church. Auto traffic there could increase as it diverts from 

Lonyo, but there would be fewer trucks. 

4.2.2 Considerations Relating to Pedestrian Access and Bicycle Use 

Alternative 1: No Action 

The No Action Alternative would not have affected pedestrian access and bicycle use because the 

pathways along the edges of the Livernois-Junction Yard are in disrepair and have been for some 

time. It is not expected that they will be repaired. The gate at Dix/Waterman/Vernor is expected 

to continue in service in an area of significant local vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 

The CP/Expressway terminal (when open) did not affect pedestrian and bicycle paths because it is 

removed from these facilities. 

The CP/Oak terminal is accessed by streets, which are largely lined by residential uses including 

the service drives on the Southfield Freeway. Truck traffic will increase on these streets. 

The CN/Moterm terminal is accessed by Fair Street and Chesterfield Street, which also serve 

residential areas. Truck traffic would increase under the No Action Alternative. No 

improvements to facilitate pedestrian/bicycle movements were involved in the No Action 

Alternative. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 55

Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals 

Livernois-Junction Yard 

The at-grade railroad crossing at Lonyo Avenue was to be closed. The at-grade railroad crossing at 

Central Avenue was to become grade-separated with sidewalks and lighting. All improvements 

were to be in compliance with provisions of the 1992 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The 

gate at Dix/Waterman/Vernor was to be eliminated under Options B and C in favor of a new 

gate/entry using either Wyoming Avenue or Livernois Avenue. This would have reduced 

pedestrian/bicycle interactions with trucks in this area. 

CP/Expressway Terminal 

The proposed expansion area at the Expressway terminal does not have pedestrian access or 

bicycle use. This would have remained the same with Alternative 2. 

CP/Oak Terminal 

The proposed expansion area for Alternative 2 at the CP/Oak terminal would have lessened truck 

traffic on a number of local streets, improving the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists. 

CN/Moterm Terminal 

The proposed expansion area at the State Fairgrounds does not have pedestrian access or bicycle 

use. This would have remained the same with Alternative 2. The gate to the terminal would no 

longer have been served by Fair Street and Chesterfield Street. This would have improved the 

pedestrian movements along/across Fair Street in Ferndale. 

Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four Class I Railroads’ Intermodal Activity at LivernoisJunction Yard Area 

The conditions of Alternative 2 for the Livernois-Junction Yard, presented above, would have 

applied here with the addition that the perimeter road that was to replace John Kronk would be 

buffered and include sidewalks so it would have improved pedestrian and bicycle movements 

compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 4: The Composite Option 

The conditions of Alternative 2 and 3 for the Livernois-Junction Yard and the CN/Moterm 

terminal, presented above, applied here. 

Preferred Alternative 

The conditions of Alternatives 2 and 3 and, therefore, Alternative 4 for the Livernois-Junction 

Yard apply to the Preferred Alternative. With Lonyo closed, pedestrian and bicycle access 

across the Livernois-Junction Yard will be via a new ADA-compliant Central Avenue viaduct. 

4.2.3 Considerations Relating to Mass Transit Service 

There are two transit systems operating in the terminal areas. They are the Detroit Department of 

Transportation (DDOT), providing bus service within the City of Detroit and the Suburban 

Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) providing bus service in the suburbs as 

well as service to and from downtown Detroit. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 56

Alternative 1: No Action 

The No Action Alternative would not have affected mass transit service. 

Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals 

Livernois-Junction Yard 

DDOT operates eight routes near the Livernois-Junction Yard area. These are routes 11, 19, 20, 

27, 30, 37 49, and 54 with service on Wyoming, Michigan, Livernois, Dix, and Vernor. SMART 

routes in the area include 110, 125, 150, 200, 255, 305, 810, 820, and 830. Of these, Route 200 is 

along Michigan. Other routes are on the freeways or Fort Street. Improving/expanding the 

existing terminal would not have impacted any of these routes. 

CP/Expressway Terminal 

DDOT routes 18, 19, 37 and 49 provide service on Michigan and Vernor. SMART routes in the 

area include 110, 125, 150, 200, 255, 305, 810, 820, and 830. Again, these routes focus on the 

freeway system, except for a route on Michigan. None of these routes would have been impacted 

by terminal improvements or expansion. 

CP/Oak Terminal 

DDOT routes in the CP/Oak terminal area include Route 43 on Schoolcraft and 46 on the 

Southfield Freeway. SMART routes are limited to I-96 – Routes 810 and 820. None of these 

routes would have been impacted by terminal improvements or expansion. 

CN/Moterm Terminal 

Near the Moterm terminal, numerous DDOT routes terminate or connect to other routes at a 

major transfer point on Woodward Avenue at the State Fairgrounds, just south of Eight Mile 

Road. These include Routes 12, 23, 30, 53, and 54. Routes operating on Eight Mile Road are 17, 

30, and 54. There are also numerous SMART routes in the area, including on Woodward Avenue 

routes 440, 445, 450, 460, 465, and 475, and on Eight Mile Road 410 and 494. Improving or 

expanding the Moterm terminal would not have impacted these routes. 

Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four Class I Railroads’ Intermodal Activity at LivernoisJunction Yard Area 

The conditions of Alternative 2 for the Livernois-Junction Yard, presented above, applied here. 

Alternative 4: The Composite Option 

The conditions of Alternative 2 for the Livernois-Junction Yard and the CN/Moterm terminal, 

presented above, applied here. 

Preferred Alternative 

The conditions of Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 for the Livernois-Junction Yard apply to the Preferred 

Alternative with no effect on any transit route. 

4.2.4 Maintaining Traffic 

The project will require limited road construction that will result in detours. New Livernois 

Avenue/I-94 ramps will be added in the northwest and northeast quadrants of the I-94 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 57

interchange. This will likely be done in one construction season, or March through November. 

Lonyo Avenue will not be closed until the grade separation at Central Avenue is complete. 

Central may be fully or partially closed during the grade separation construction affecting 

vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles (no buses use Lonyo or Central) for at least two years. 

Preferred Alternative 

These provisions regarding maintenance of traffic apply to the Preferred Alternative. Central 

Avenue will be reconstructed before Lonyo is closed. 

4.3 Population Characteristics of Key Groups 

While the Detroit Urbanized Area (Figure 4-13c) gained population in the 1990s, four of the five 

cities that host an intermodal terminal (Detroit, Ferndale, Hazel Park and Highland Park) 

experienced a decline; only Dearborn experienced an increase (Table 4-11). The areas around the 

CP/Oak and CN/Moterm terminals (Tables 4-12 and 4-13) also declined. Only the area of 

Southwest Detroit/East Dearborn of the Livernois-Junction Yard/CP Expressway terminal area 

experienced an increase (Tables 4-12 and 4-13). Characteristics of the population in each 

terminal area are presented next. 

Table 4-11 

Population by Intermodal Terminal Host City 

City 1990 2000 

Detroit City 1,027,974 951,270 

Dearborn City 89,286 92,775 

Highland Park City 20,121 16,746 

Hazel Park 20,051 18,963 

Ferndale City 25,084 22,105 

 Source: SEMCOG Historical Population 1990-2000 and U.S. Census 

4.3.1 Title VI 

To be considered for further studies and implementation, the DIFT alternatives must be in 

compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; i.e., “that discrimination shall not occur 

on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in connection with programs and activities 

receiving federal financial assistance.” African-Americans, along with Germans, are the largest 

ethnic groups of the Detroit Urbanized Area (Table 4-12). But, the African-American, Hispanic 

and Arab populations represent at least two-thirds of the people in the three terminal areas. 

Hispanics represent three percent of the urbanized area population; the Arab population, two 

percent. So, to properly account for Title VI issues, all groups which comprise at least two 

percent of the urbanized area’s population were defined for analysis of their special facilities, 

services and cultural institutions (Table 4-12). These groups are: 

• Arab y French y Italian 

• Asian y German y Polish 

• Black or African American y Hispanic/Latino y Scottish 

• English y Irish 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 58 

Figure 4-

Detroit Urbani
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 59 

Table 4-12 

Population and Total Households by Terminal Area in 2000

aThe Detroit Urbanized Area contains the City of Detroit and the densely populated areas surrounding it. It includes most but not all of Wayne and Oakland CountibPercent of those who reported ancestry in one or more categories. Not all persons reported ancestry. 

Source: U.S. 2000 Census 

cLimited English Proficiency calculated as a sum of Speak English "not well" and Speak English "not at all" responses from item P19, Summary File 3, Cens

Livernois-Junction/ C

CP/Expressway (Zips 2

(Zips 120, 126, 208, 

Population Category Detroit Urbanized Areaa Wayne County Oakland County 209, 210, 216, 217) 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Numbe

Total Population 3,903,682 100.0 2,061,162 100.0 1,194,156 100.0 163,784 100.0 164Black or African American Alone 1,000,953 25.6 862,281 41.8 118,407 9.9 43,211 26.4 134American Indian & Alaskan Native Alone 13,636 0.3 7,435 0.4 2,789 0.2 1,291 0.8 Asian Alone 99,805 2.6 34,916 1.7 48,231 4.0 1,608 1.0 Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander 883 0.0 407 0.0 236 0.0 142 0.1 Hispanic/Latino 116,770 3.0 71,919 3.5 27,817 2.3 39,640 24.2 3TOTAL MINORITY 1,232,047 31.5 976,958 47.4 197,480 16.5 85,892 52.5 138Total Households 1,498,537 100.0 768,626 100.0 471,390 100.0 54,963 100.0 57Households w/Income < Poverty Level 156,397 10.4 114,801 14.9 25,607 5.4 15,195 27.6 12AncestrybArab 91,230 2.3 56,109 2.7 19,030 1.6 29,977 18.3 3English 290,385 7.4 109,392 5.3 135,579 11.4 3,028 1.8 1French (except Basque) 155,626 4.0 63,763 3.1 53,336 4.5 1,719 1.0 1German 607,611 15.6 226,518 11.0 225,428 18.9 6,435 3.9 3Irish 390,824 10.0 165,053 8.0 150,058 12.6 5,824 3.6 2Italian 256,025 6.6 85,037 4.1 71,155 6.0 3,431 2.1 1Polish 424,362 10.9 173,119 8.4 116,895 9.8 8,047 4.9 4Scottish 85,154 2.2 34,053 1.7 37,626 3.2 794 0.5 

Population 5 years and over 3,630,337 100.0 1,909,251 100.0 1,114,228 100.0 148,257 100.0 150Limited English Proficiencyc 73,819 2.0 40,501 2.1 20,264 1.8 18,931 12.8 1
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 60 

Table 4-13 

Population and Total Households by Terminal Area in 1990 

Livernois-Junction/ CP/O

CP/Expressway (Zips 223, 

(Zips 120, 126, 208, 

Population Category Detroit Urbanized Areaa Wayne County Oakland County 209, 210, 216, 217) 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number 

Total Population 3,697,424 100 2,111,687 100.0 1,083,592 100.0 159,817 100 182,3Black or African American Alone 931,331 25.2 845,974 40.1 76,939 7.1 99,028 30.7 132,79American Indian & Alaskan Native Alone 14,768 0.4 7,609 0.4 4,304 0.4 1,432 0.9 4Asian Alone 53,068 1.4 20,711 1.0 24,082 2.2 987 0.6 89Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander 385 0 243 0.0 100 0.0 17 0 2Hispanic/Latino 39,609 1.1 25,073 1.2 11,088 1.0 7,805 4.9 96TOTAL MINORITY 1,039,161 28.1 899,610 42.6 116,513 10.8 59,269 37.1 135,17Total Households 1,382,499 100 780,493 100.0 410,977 100.0 59,979 100 59,97Households w/Income < Poverty Level 186,375 13.5 150,287 19.3 25,201 6.1 19,336 32.2 19,33AncestrybArab 58,348 1.6 31,274 1.5 15,495 1.4 15,098 9.4 88English 389,295 10.5 168,455 8.0 179,322 16.5 6,725 4.2 5,32French (except Basque) 210,380 5.7 98,766 4.7 71,193 6.6 3,923 2.5 3,47German 799,491 21.6 342,837 16.2 300,630 27.7 14,625 9.2 11,1Irish 484,768 13.1 234,050 11.1 177,573 16.4 13,600 8.5 8,90Italian 247,267 6.7 93,825 4.4 62,707 5.8 6,453 4 3,3Polish 468,863 12.7 220,025 10.4 119,945 11.1 16,328 10.2 12,06Scottish 95,477 2.6 41,804 2.0 43,688 4.0 1707 1.1 148

aThe Detroit Urbanized Area contains the City of Detroit and the densely populated areas surrounding it. It includes most but not all of Wayne and Oakland CountibPercent of those who reported ancestry in one or more categories. Not all persons reported ancestry. 

Source: U.S. 1990 Census
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 61

The spatial distribution of each group is illustrated on Figures 4-14 to and including Figure 4-26. 

Because of the presence of Arab and Spanish speaking people near the Livernois-Junction 

Yard, Spanish and Arabic translators were made available at all public meetings. Census 

data for 2000 for the CP/Oak and CN/Moterm terminal areas involved in this study for 

those reporting they speak English “not well” or “not at all” is less than two percent (Table 

4-12). It is almost one of every seven people in the Livernois-Junction Yard area of the 

Preferred Alternative.

Livernois-Junction Yard/CP Expressway Terminal Area 

In 2000, the area that encompasses the Livernois-Junction Yard 

and the CP/Expressway terminal area included about 164,000 

people of whom 52.5 percent are minority (Table 4-12).20 The 

African-American population was about 26 percent of the total. 

The Hispanic population was 24 percent. The other significant 

group in this area is Arab, which represented about 18 percent of 

the terminal area’s total population (Table 4-12). More than 

one-quarter of the people in this area live below the poverty level per the 2000 Census. Those 

data reflect that the terminal area’s population increased in the 1990s (Tables 4-12 and 4-13). 

The African-American population share of the terminal area declined, while the Hispanic 

population grew almost five-fold. All other groups shown in Tables 4-12 and 4-13, except the 

Arab population, declined between 1990 and 2000 in this terminal area. Poverty also declined in 

the 1990s. 

Labor force trends for 1990 and 2000 by terminal area are shown on Tables 4-14 and 4-15. 

Overall, about 120,000 people were in the labor force in each of the three terminal areas in 2000, 

which was a decrease since 1990. Unemployment in 2000 (12.6 percent) was down from 1990 

(18.7 percent) when the economy was, at best, considered sluggish. In the Livernois-Junction 

Yard/CP Expressway terminal area, manufacturing was the leading sector for providing jobs, 

followed by retail trade in 2000. Together, those sectors provided one third of all jobs to the 

people in this terminal area. This is down from about 41 percent in 1990. Much of the change 

was picked up in the professional service and entertainment/food service areas. Over 95 percent 

of all businesses in this terminal area employ fewer than 100 people. 

Job forecasts by terminal area are not available. The pattern of job growth forecast by SEMCOG 

indicates the City of Detroit, in which the Livernois-Junction Yard/CP Expressway terminal area 

is located, is expected to experience continued job losses until 2020, when the situation is forecast 

to become stable. Dearborn, on the western side of this terminal area, is expected to be stable, 

i.e., no change in the number of jobs held by the city’s population by 2020. 

CP/Oak Terminal Area 

The CP/Oak terminal area had a population of about 164,000 people according to the 2000 

Census (Table 4-12). The minority population of the area was approximately 84 percent with 

about two percent of the residents being Hispanic and 82 percent African-American. 

Approximately 21 percent of the area residents live below the poverty level. These 

characteristics reflect that, while the area’s total population declined, there were increases in the 

area’s African-American and Hispanic groups. The Arab population also increased while all 

other groups shown on Tables 4-12 and 4-13 declined in the 1990s. Poverty declined among the 

total population in the period 1990 to 2000.

 

20 Minority Population is calculated based on the groups protected under FHWA’s Environmental Justice guidelines. 

Poverty 

The U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services poverty 

level is a sliding scale, with 

$18,850 for a family of four, as an 

example, for the 2000 U.S. 

Census. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 62
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 63
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 64
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 65
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 66
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 67
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 68
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 69 

Table 4-14 

2000 Labor Force Characteristics 

(Population 16 years and older) 

Livernois-Junction/ 

CP/Expressway (Zi

Detroit Urbanized (Zips 120, 126, 208, 

Areaa Wayne County Oakland County 209, 210, 216, 217) 

Population Category Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Nu

Total Population 16 and Over 2,979,454 100.0 1,541,459 100.0 926,468 100.0 117,215 100.0 In Armed Forces 1,385 0.0 421 0.0 124 0.0 4 0.0 In Civilian Labor Force 1,900,002 63.8 930,219 60.3 637,813 68.8 59,074 50.4  Employed 1,783,325 93.9 851,110 55.2 614,377 66.3 51,619 87.4  Unemployed 116,677 6.1 79,109 5.1 23,436 2.5 7,455 12.6 Not in Labor Force 1,078,067 36.2 610,819 39.6 288,531 31.1 58,137 49.6 Civilian Employment by Industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 1,947 0.1 1,044 0.1 919 0.1 193 0.4 Construction 92,077 5.2 39,296 4.6 32,622 5.3 4,184 8.1 Manufacturing 403,699 22.6 185,856 21.8 134,003 21.8 11,141 21.6 Wholesale trade 62,868 3.5 26,904 3.2 24,045 3.9 1,487 2.9 Retail trade 204,353 11.5 90,905 10.7 72,807 11.9 6,733 13.0 Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 79,170 4.4 54,387 6.4 16,460 2.7 2,508 4.9 Information 44,707 2.5 21,231 2.5 16,635 2.7 1,090 2.1 Finance, insurance, real estate and rental and leasing 112,018 6.3 50,591 5.9 43,838 7.1 2,000 3.9 Professional, scientific, management, administrative, andwaste management services 

191,336 10.7 77,890 9.2 81,511 13.3 4,966 9.6 

Educational, health and social services 320,181 18.0 158,342 18.6 112,790 18.4 7,495 14.5 Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and foodservices 

129,545 7.3 68,026 8.0 38,212 6.2 5,512 10.7 

Other services (except public administration) 81,834 4.6 42,366 5.0 25,165 4.1 2,873 5.6 Public administration 59,590 3.3 34,272 4.0 15,370 2.5 1,437 2.8 

aThe Detroit Urbanized Area contains the City of Detroit and the densely populated areas surrounding it. It includes most but not all of Wayne and Oakland Counti

Source: U.S. 2000 Census
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 70 

Table 4-15 

1990 Labor Force Characteristics 

(Population 16 years and older) 

Livernois-Junction/ C

CP/Expressway (Zips 2

(Zips 120, 126, 208, 

Detroit Urbanized Areaa Wayne County Oakland County 209, 210, 216, 217) 

Population Category Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Numb

Total Population 16 and Over 2,851,655 100.0 1,605,161 100.0 844,127 100.0 120,075 100.0 124In Armed Forces 3,543 0.1 1,540 0.1 453 0.1 79 0.1 In Civilian Labor Force 1,814,901 63.6 963,105 60.0 588,119 69.7 59,765 49.8 77 Employed 1,648,189 90.8 843,731 52.6 557,134 66.0 48,589 81.3 64 Unemployed 166,712 9.2 119,374 7.4 30,985 3.7 11,176 18.7 13Not in Labor Force 1,033,211 36.2 640,516 39.9 255,555 30.3 60,231 50.2 46Civilian Employment by Industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 11,123 0.7 5,508 0.7 5,156 0.9 275 0.6 Construction 70,593 4.3 31,401 3.7 27,769 5.0 1,773 3.6 1Manufacturing 397,126 24.1 200,359 23.7 126,207 22.7 11,538 23.7 13Wholesale trade 74,473 4.5 33,558 4.0 29,649 5.3 1,951 4.0 2Retail trade 289,167 17.5 145,359 17.2 94,257 16.9 9,135 18.8 10Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 99,760 6.1 64,343 7.6 25,348 4.5 3,448 7.1 5Information - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 Finance, insurance, real estate and rental and leasing 108,863 6.6 52,390 6.2 40,834 7.3 2,494 5.1 Professional, scientific, management, administrative,and waste management services 

201,823 12.2 94,098 11.2 79,802 14.3 6,320 13.0 11

Educational, health and social services 269,794 16.4 142,560 16.9 93,691 16.8 7,187 14.8 11Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation andfood services 

21,061 1.3 10,021 1.2 8,225 1.5 653 1.3 

Other services (except public administration) 43,098 2.6 24,645 2.9 12,948 2.3 1,704 3.5 2Public administration 61,308 3.7 39,489 4.7 13,248 2.4 2,111 4.3 4

aThe Detroit Urbanized Area contains the City of Detroit and the densely populated areas surrounding it. It includes most but not all of Wayne and Oakland Counti

Source: U.S. 1990 Census
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 71

The labor force in this terminal area declined about eight percent between 1990 and 2000 (Tables 

4-14 and 4-15), which is about the same as the decline in population (Tables 4-12 and 4-13). 

Unemployment was lower in 2000 (11.9 percent) than 1990 (17.0 percent). The 

educational/health/social services sector provided the largest number of jobs held by CP/Oak 

terminal area residents in 2000. It was followed by the manufacturing and retail trade sectors. 

But, of these, only the services sector realized an increase in the 1990s in the CP/Oak area. 

Ninety-nine percent of the businesses located in this area have fewer than 100 employees. 

CN/Moterm Terminal Area 

The CN/Moterm terminal area had a population of about 141,000 people in 2000 as indicated by 

the U.S. Census (Table 4-12). The minority population in the area was approximately 67 percent 

of the total with the Hispanic population being about one percent and the African-American 

population at 65 percent of the area’s total. This is a decline since 1990 in the Hispanic 

population’s share of the area’s total and an increase in the African-American share (Tables 4-12 

and 4-13). All other populations declined in the 1990 to 2000 period as did the total population. 

Approximately 19 percent of the population in the area lived below the poverty level according to 

the 2000 Census, down from more than 23 percent in 1990. 

The labor force in the CN/Moterm terminal area declined 12 percent from 1990 to 2000 which 

was a decline comparable to that in the area’s population. Unemployment in 2000 was at 10.3 

percent which is lower than in 1990 (15.7 percent) (Tables 4-14 and 4-15). Most of those in the 

terminal area in 2000 were employed in the manufacturing and retail trade sectors. But, both 

sectors’ share of the total labor force declined from 1990 (Tables 4-14 and 4-15). Most of the 

increase in labor force shares was in the services areas, particularly entertainment/food services. 

Ninety-eight percent of the businesses there employ fewer than 100 people. 

Historical Trends All Terminal Areas 

African Americans, along with Germans, form the largest ethnic groups of the Detroit Urbanized 

Area (Table 4-12). However, the African American, Hispanic and Arab populations represent at 

least two-thirds of the people in the three terminal areas. A brief summary of the historical trends 

of these groups follows. 

African American Population21

By the middle of the nineteenth century, African Americans had established several 

small enclaves in Michigan, most notably in Detroit. Some black immigrants had 

come by the Underground Railroad, but most were freed slaves. 

Population movement patterns changed in the 1900s as lumbering and mining 

industries declined, and manufacturing, especially the automobile industry, grew. 

When Henry Ford increased wages from $2.30 to $5.00 per day, double the going 

factory rate, other manufacturers soon followed. Workers flocked to Detroit from all 

over the world. African Americans, in large numbers, found work in Detroit’s 

factories. Between 1910 and 1920, Michigan’s African American population rose from 

about 17,000 to over 60,000. By 1930 it was about 170,000, with 120,000 residing in 

Detroit. Two General Motors companies, Buick and Chevrolet, were among those 

industrial magnets that heavily recruited African Americans. 

 

21 Lewis Walker, Benjamin C. Wilson, Linwood H. Cousins; “African Americans in Michigan.” Michigan State 

University Press. 2001. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 72

The African American population in the Detroit Urbanized Area is about 26 percent 

of the area’s total according to the 2000 Census. That is up slightly from the share of 

the 1990 population. African Americans are the majority in the CP/Oak and 

CN/Moterm terminal areas, with greater shares of these areas in 2000 compared to 

1990. On the other hand, African Americans declined in absolute numbers and as a 

share of the 2000 population in the Livernois-Junction Yard terminal area. 

Hispanic Population22,23,24

As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanics are those people who classified 

themselves in one of the following categories listed on the Census 2000 questionnaire – 

“Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano,” “Puerto Rican,” or “Cuban” as well as those 

who indicate that they are from countries of Central or South America, the Dominican 

Republic, or people identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish American, 

Hispanic, Hispano, and Latino. 

The Mexican community has been a part of Michigan’s history since 1910 when only 

27 Mexicans lived in the City of Detroit.25 Today there are more than 33,000 

Mexicans living within Detroit’s borders. The first wave of migration was influenced 

by the railroad industry during the early twentieth century. Mexicans also worked in 

the agricultural and mining industries. The second wave of migration occurred 

during World War II when a labor shortage led to the Bracero program which 

allowed American businesses to bring Mexican laborers into the U.S. During the late 

1950s, the number of Mexican laborers peaked in the U.S. at over 400,000. The third 

and current wave of migration is largely due to changes in immigration laws, the 

organized nature of the Mexican-American community throughout the United States, 

and the political relationship between the United States and Mexico. Today, the 

Mexican community is not only the largest group within the Hispanic community 

nationally, but it is also the largest in the state of Michigan, and in the Detroit 

Urbanized Area. 

Puerto Ricans are the second largest Hispanic group living in the Detroit Urbanized 

Area. Between 1910 and 1920, their numbers in Detroit grew from 11 to 121. The 

Puerto Rican population during the 1950s totaled about 1,000 within the City of 

Detroit. The mid-1960s to mid-1970s experienced a large growth in the Puerto Rican 

community. By 2000 the Puerto Rican populations had grown to 14,100 in the 

Detroit Urbanized Area.

The Cuban community is the Detroit area’s third largest Hispanic population at about 

2,600 people. Its formation is largely associated with the Mariel boatlift of the early 

1980s. 

Detroit’s Hispanic population grew by over 100 percent in numbers and in share of 

the urbanized area’s population from 1990 to 2000. It is now at 116,770 people or 

three percent of the Detroit Urbanized Area total population, according to the 2000 

Census. And, while the numbers of Hispanics (no larger than 3,000) and shares (less 

than 2%) of total population are small in the CP/Oak and CN/Moterm terminal areas, 

 

22 David A. Badillo; “Latinos in Michigan.” Michigan State University Press. 2003. 23 Rudolph Valier Alvarado, Sonya Yvette Alvarado; “Mexicans and Mexican Americans in Michigan.” Michigan 

State University Press. 2003. 

24 Harvey Santana, “Hispanic Study of Metropolitan Detroit, Journey Towards a Vibrant Community.” United Way 

Community Services. 2003. 

25 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Fourteenth Census, vol. 3, Population by State, table 12, pp. 492-495. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 73

they are triple the 1990 statistics. In the Livernois-Junction/CP Expressway terminal 

area, the Hispanic population grew by over 500 percent between 1990 and 2000. 

Arab Population26

The U.S. Census defines Arabs as those people who classify themselves as: 

Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese, Moroccan, Palestinian, Syrian, Arab/Arabic, 

and Other Arab. 

Immigration from the Middle East to the United States extends back over 100 years, 

with the first arrivals coming in the mid- to late-nineteenth century. Many of these 

immigrants settled in metropolitan Detroit, where the growing automotive industry 

provided a great incentive. Gradually, metropolitan Detroit became home to an everincreasing number of people whose roots lie in the Middle East. 

Although economics were the primary motivation for the early immigrants, later 

immigrants had different reasons to leave their homes. Repeated periods of civil 

strife and military activity, starting in the early 1930s and continuing to today, forced 

refugees to find safety elsewhere. Detroit was a promising destination for many, 

given its need for an industrial workforce and because the existing Middle Eastern 

community served as a magnet for new arrivals. 

The two sub-communities that experienced the largest growth during later immigration 

periods are the Yemenis and the Chaldeans. The Yemeni community can be found in 

two primary locations: in the south end of Dearborn (i.e., the Livernois-Junction 

terminal area) and in Hamtramck. The Chaldeans are found in great numbers in the 

CN/Moterm terminal area, particularly in the area bounded by Woodward Avenue, 

John R., Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads. 

The Arab population in the Detroit Urbanized Area has now grown from about 

58,000 to over 91,000 between 1990 and 2000 as defined by the U.S. Census. This is 

an increase in share of the total population from 1.6 percent to 2.3 percent. The 

growth in the Arab population is most pronounced in the Livernois-Junction/CP 

Expressway terminal area, which includes a portion of the City of Dearborn. There, 

the Arab population doubled between 1990 and 2000. The trend in Arab population 

growth is also up in the community around the CP/Oak terminal but down in the 

CN/Moterm terminal area. 

Interviews 

With this background, and using GIS databases, various facilities that define the social/cultural 

conditions, as well as the economic fabric of the areas, were mapped (Figures 4-12 and 4-13). These 

facilities include places of worship, schools, parks, shopping centers, community/recreational 

centers, libraries, hospitals, fire stations, police stations, groceries, laundromats, and banks. They 

were field verified, to the extent possible. Then, community organizations/individuals with an 

understanding of the cultural/historical significance of each terminal and/or the key populations of 

the area were contacted. More than 50 interviews were conducted. The following summarizes the 

results of those discussions. (Refer to Section 7 for more complete documentation of the interviews.) 

 

26 Gary David; “The Mosaic of Middle Eastern Communities in Metropolitan Detroit.” Information and Research 

Services, United Way Community Services. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 74

Livernois-Junction/CP Expressway Terminal Area

Over two dozen groups/individuals in the Livernois-Junction/CP Expressway 

terminal area were interviewed. The most-frequently cited community facilities are 

schools and places of worship. Important organizations mentioned include the Arab 

Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS), Community 

Health and Social Services (CHASS), Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation 

(DHDC), LA SED, Latino Family Services, and Mexicantown Community 

Development Corporation. Social groups mentioned are the Puerto Rican Club, the 

Yemen Social Club and Kemeny Recreation Center. 

Issues of interest include the need for education (including English as a second 

language), jobs and job training, and personal security. A number of groups cited 

health care, housing and sustaining the area’s revitalization (both housing and 

commercial development, including small business development) as key concerns. 

The continued importance of West Vernor Avenue as a neighborhood commercial 

corridor was mentioned as a matter of importance. Replicating that success on 

Michigan Avenue was cited. 

Projects in the area that are emerging include the Riverfront Revitalization and Reuse of 

Tiger Stadium, the Mercado/Welcome Center at the Ambassador Bridge Gateway, the 

housing revitalization near Roberts Avenue in East Dearborn and many smaller housing 

and commercial projects. 

Traffic, especially, heavy-duty truck traffic in the area, was often mentioned as a 

concern. So are the related environmental issues, particularly pollution and its 

relationship to asthma. The latter is of concern because many people in the terminal 

area have little or no means to pay for health care/medications. 

CP/Oak Terminal Area 

Four groups/individuals were interviewed to discuss community facilities and 

services in the CP/Oak terminal area. Here, too, places of worship were cited as key 

institutions/facilities. Others noted include the North Rosedale Community House 

and O’Shea Recreation Center. Key service programs are Head Start as well as the 

Police Athletic League. 

Issues of significance include stabilizing housing in the area, addressing crime and 

trash. Traffic was also cited as an issue. The rail yard and related activities were not 

singled-out as a particular concern. It was noted the railroads have the potential of 

being a good neighbor in the community. 

CN/Moterm Terminal Area

Eight groups/individuals were interviewed in the CN/Moterm terminal area. Again, the 

places of worship and schools (including the several schools in Ferndale) were 

frequently cited as important community facilities. Additional facilities of community 

importance are the Kulick and Tindal Centers in Ferndale, the State Fairgrounds, and 

housing centers (like the Hilton Apartments) that serve the elderly and those of lower 

income. Frequently mentioned in the interviews was the Chaldean community in terms 

of its facilities and services as well as the energy offered in revitalizing the housing and 

business facilities in the area around Seven and Eight Mile Roads, Woodward and 

John R. 

Issues of importance in this terminal area are sustaining and enhancing the 

development along Woodward Avenue in both Ferndale and Detroit and revitalizing 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 75

Eight Mile Road. Concerns about railroad terminal operations, including possible 

expansion of the CN/Moterm rail yard, include: the blocking by trains of traffic 

movements including school buses and emergency equipment; noise; air pollution; 

increased truck traffic; depreciation of housing values; and, the threat to desired 

developments at the State Fairgrounds (i.e., a metro park) and at the southeast corner 

of the intersection of Woodward Avenue and Eight Mile Road. The potential of the 

expanded intermodal terminal thwarting those desired projects was stressed as a 

concern. 

Other Organizations

A dozen groups/individuals not specifically focused on a terminal area were also 

interviewed to provide an overview of social/cultural issues of key populations in 

general. When addressing the German, Irish and Polish communities, the clear 

indication is the decline of concentration of these ethnic groups and the 

services/facilities/organizations, including places of worship, to support them. A 

review of Tables 4-12 and 4-13 echoes that trend as all non-minority ethnic groups, 

except the Arab community, declined in the Detroit Urbanized Area in the 1990s. 

Most significant among these are the Irish, German and Polish. This trend is 

repeated, but with less significant declines, in each terminal area. 

Views by non-terminal area-based groups that are focused on African-American 

issues, indicate concern about jobs, job training, crime, and health care/substance 

abuse. Those non-terminal groups that are focused on Hispanic issues also view 

employment, education, crime and health care as key concerns. 

Preferred Alternative – Title VI 

The Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on Title VI populations. Table 4-12 

shows that the Livernois-Junction Yard area is 18 percent Arab together with 26 percent 

African-American and 24 percent Hispanic, plus other ancestry groups. Special efforts were 

made to contact these groups and encourage them to attend community meetings. Arab and 

Spanish translators were available at public meetings to assist those who attended. The special 

outreach efforts extended to the interview process noted above. 

The Arab community was principally concerned with additional truck traffic and loss of the 

through connection across the rail yard provided by Lonyo, which will be closed by the project. 

There would also be residential and business relocations. The planned buffers around the 

Livernois-Junction Yard, the planning for routing of truck traffic and the grade separation of 

Central Avenue will help mitigate these impacts. Likewise, paving some local roads, planned 

improvements to area viaducts, and park improvements will increase the quality of life for 

residents. 

4.3.2 Environmental Justice 

Presidential Executive Order 12898 sets out objectives and procedures to identify, address, and 

avoid disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 

populations and low-income populations. The methodology that was used to conduct the 

Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis followed MDOT and FHWA guidelines (U.S. DOT 

Order 5610.2). The methodology has several steps that need to be followed along with a 

series of questions that need to be asked and answered in order to determine if there will be 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority population groups or low-income 

population groups in the study area. The EJ methodology can be found in Appendix H of 

this FEIS. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 76

Consistent with EJ methodology, the first step is to determine if a minority or low-income 

population group is present in the study area. The affected populations were identified by 

analyzing Census data (Table 4-12), consulting with local citizens/organizations and agencies, 

and field review. The population data presented include the minority groups addressed in 

Executive Order 12898: African-American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and Hispanic/Latino. Figures 4-15, 4-16, 4-20, 4-25 and 4-26 

depict the geographic extents of the terminal areas as well as a definition of those groups covered 

by the federal Environmental Justice (EJ) Executive Order. Shaded areas indicate census tracts in 

which the EJ demographics exceed the rate of that characteristic for the Detroit Urbanized Area. 

In addition, low-income households, which are covered by the Environmental Justice Executive 

Order, and include people of all ethnicities, are also presented (Figure 4-27). When all 

populations covered by the Environmental Justice Executive Order are combined (Figure 4-28a), 

it can be seen each terminal area is dominated by these special groups. The area on the west side 

of the CP/Oak terminal is not an EJ-affected location because of the presence of the River Rouge 

Park. 

At the beginning of the 20th century, cities attracted farmers and international immigrants with 

the opportunity for higher income in industrial jobs (Figure 4-28b). Cities like Detroit 

experienced their highest growth from 1900 to 1930. After a lull during the Depression and 

World War II (the period 1930 to 1950), growth resumed as a result of increased prosperity, 

family size, and mobility. Suburbanization continued during the 1965-to-2000 period at places 

farther from the traditional core cities. The “rubber-tire revolution” began in the early 1920s. 

Prior to that time, rail systems and associated industry played a dominant role in the location of 

most households and businesses. The motor vehicle and region-wide paved roads began 

changing this pattern. By the 21st century, many of the industrial jobs first brought by the 

railroads had left. The more mobile elements of the population also left. An increasing 

proportion of the population was minority or poor as described in the previous section. 

Step two of the EJ analysis determines whether project impacts associated with the 

identified low-income and minority populations are disproportionately high and adverse. In 

studying the effects on those populations covered by the federal Environmental Justice Executive 

Order, it is important to review all of the alternatives, including the alternatives that are 

eliminated from further study. Section 3.2 discusses the alternatives that were considered, 

and then eventually dismissed as not meeting the purpose and need of this project (Section 2 

Purpose and Need for Action). This is helpful to understand whether there are any reasonable 

and practical options to avoid areas affected by the EJ Executive Order. 

First is the option of using other sites than the four terminals covered in Alternative 2. This 

option of fragmenting the intermodal network is not a reasonable or practical option based on the 

DIFT Statement of Purpose. Specifically, since the 1980s, railroads have consolidated their 

intermodal service networks into fewer, larger hub terminals as they saw an opportunity to 

consolidate enough volume in one location to justify lift machines and other expensive 

equipment/facilities. Small facilities have been eliminated because they do not lend themselves 

to productive intermodal operations. And, while an existing terminal like Melvindale, and even 

Willow Run, could be used for some time into the future, each is in an area affected by EJ issues 

by virtue of the way the rail network and then the community have evolved over the last 100 

years. 

Another option is to develop a “greenfield” site at a relatively undeveloped property for an 

intermodal terminal. These sites tend to be removed from the shippers that they will be serving. 

This results in increased distance/time to haul goods (drayage) and contributes to highway 

congestion creating a less efficient intermodal transportation system, which is counter to the 

purpose of this project. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 77

 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 78

Figure 4-28b 

Peak Growth by Community in Southeast Michigan 

1900-2000

 Source: SEMCOG 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 79

DIFT studies in 1993/1994 conducted for MDOT by Mercer Consulting examined possible 

“greenfield” sites. One, Willow Run, while having several attributes, was served by only a single 

railroad at the time, Conrail. Since the sale of the Conrail assets, Norfolk Southern now controls 

access to the location. Additionally, Willow Run has been proposed for high-speed passenger 

service. The earlier MDOT studies found that the Willow Run site was far from its market with 

high pickup and delivery costs. But, because of Triple Crown business growth, NS has had to 

temporarily reopen the Willow Run terminal or lose business. But, even the Willow Run site 

does not avoid the concern about EJ issues. Analysis of U.S. Census data indicate those concerns 

exist for every protected population group. 

Nonetheless, a “greenfield” site does not meet the purpose of the project because it results in 

increased distance/time to haul goods (drayage) and contributes to highway congestion creating a 

less efficient intermodal transportation system. Again, this approach is counter to the DIFT 

Statement of Purpose. 

Therefore, the alternatives addressed in the DEIS were those that are considered reasonable and 

practical. They affect areas with significant population groups covered by the EJ Executive Order. 

The issue then, consistent with the Executive Order and step two of the methodology, is 

whether the development of Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would have created disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income 

populations. To make that determination, the following impacts were assessed for those key EJ 

populations: 

• Mobility 

9 Traffic changes associated with creating the DIFT 

• Economic Impacts 

9 Jobs (those relocated inside the terminal area and new jobs gained in the terminal 

area) 

• Land Use 

9 Conversion of land uses 

• Air Quality 

9 Localized air emissions burden 

9 Regional air quality effect 

• Community Effects 

9 Number of residential units and business properties potentially affected 

9 Effects on community cohesion 

9 Potential environmental justice issues 

9 Change in aesthetics 

• Noise 

9 Noise exposure of sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, places of worship, residential 

properties) 

• Cultural Resources 

9 Change in historic/archaeological resources 

9 Change in parklands 

• Contaminated Sites 

9 Number needing additional testing 

• Water 

9 Water quantity and quality as affected by changes in drainage 

9 Quantity and quality of wetlands affected 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 80

Alternative 1: No Action 

Livernois-Junction Yard/CP-Expressway Terminal Area – Alternative 1 

The analyses presented throughout this document are based on impacts noted in Section 4 of 

this FEIS and summaries in Tables 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, and 4-38. Analysis indicates the 

following impacts on EJ populations for the Livernois-Junction Yard/CP-Expressway terminal 

area would have occurred under Alternative 1: 

• Mobility – There would have been acceptable levels of traffic congestion throughout 

the roadway network around the terminals except at the Dix/Waterman/Vernor 

intersection/gate area, as presented in Section 4.1. Even still, truck traffic would 

continue to use neighborhood streets, as it does today. There would have been no 

impacts on public transit routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Impacts – No jobs would have been relocated due to intermodal terminal 

expansion. Over the next 20 years there would have been almost 200 jobs created in 

the terminal area due to continuing growth of intermodal activity, as defined in 

Section 4.5. 

• Land Use – The expected investment of the railroads in intermodal activity would 

have been likely to stimulate, over the next 20 years, private sector 

industrial/commercial use of up to 10 acres of available land in the terminal area, as 

defined in Section 4.5. This expected use of land was consistent with development 

patterns that currently exist. 

• Air Quality – Analyses presented in Section 4.8 indicate no violations of CO 

standards were expected in the areas around the terminals. Compared to today’s 

conditions, pollution would have been expected to be lower largely because of the 

use of cleaner engines and fuels, as mandated by U.S. EPA. Nonetheless, the 

railyards were not paved under Alternative 1. Regionally, pollutants were forecast to 

be lower due to the diversion of freight shipments from truck to rail and the use of 

cleaner fuels and engines. 

• Community Effects – No acquisition was associated with terminal operations, as 

defined in Section 4.4. Continued vehicle conflicts were expected at Lonyo and 

Central as the rail lines at these street crossings were not to be separated from the 

railroad tracks, as defined in Section 4.1. And, industrial and commercial uses were 

expected to continue to be mixed with residential uses in the terminal area, as they 

are today, and defined in Section 4.6. This pattern was not likely to be associated 

with aesthetic improvements to enhance/protect surrounding neighborhoods. 

• Noise – No perceptible noise increases at sensitive receptors due to terminal activity 

were forecast from current conditions, as defined in Section 4.9. 

• Cultural Resources – No effect was expected on historical or archaeological 

resources, nor parks/recreational lands, as presented in Sections 4.13 and 4.14, 

respectively. 

• Contaminated Sites – No potentially contaminated sites immediately around the 

terminals were likely to be affected by direct terminal activity, as discussed in 

Section 4.16. Nonetheless, the increased intermodal activity could cause, over the 

next 20 years, up to 10 acres of contaminated land (e.g., brownfields) to be reclaimed 

by private sector development. 

• Water Quality – The status quo in water quality was expected to continue, as future 

conditions would be a continuation of past trends, as discussed in Section 4.11. 

Prevention plans to address spills of hazardous materials would have continued to be 

maintained by the railroads as required by the federal government. The small amount 

(up to 10 acres) of potentially reclaimed properties (e.g., brownfields) was also 

considered a continuation of current trends. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 81

The results of the conditions presented above indicate the base condition with no disproportionate 

adverse effects on the populations covered by the EJ Executive Order in the LivernoisJunction/CP-Expressway terminal area. Trends of the last 30 to 50 years were expected to 

continue. This condition, though, was less positive than the Action Alternatives, discussed later 

in this section and summarized in Tables 4-35 to 4-38. 

CP/Oak Terminal Area – Alternative 1 

The analyses presented throughout this document, the results of which are summarized in Tables 

4-35 to 4-38, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the CP/Oak terminal area 

would have occurred under Alternative 1: 

• Mobility – There would have been acceptable levels of traffic congestion throughout 

the roadway network around the CP/Oak terminal. Even still, truck traffic will 

continue to use neighborhood streets, as today, as presented in Section 4.1. There 

would have been no impacts on public transit routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Impacts – No jobs would have been relocated due to intermodal terminal 

expansion. Over the next 20 years, there would have been about 130 jobs created in 

the terminal area due to continuing growth of intermodal activity, as defined in 

Section 4.5. 

• Land Use – The expected investment of the railroads in intermodal activity would 

have been likely to stimulate, over the next 20 years, private sector 

industrial/commercial use of up to five acres of available land in the terminal area to 

support intermodal activity, as defined in Section 4.5. This use of land would have 

been consistent with development patterns that currently exist. 

• Air Quality – Analyses presented in Section 4.8 indicate no violations of CO 

standards would have been expected in the terminal area. Compared to today’s 

conditions, pollution would be expected to be lower largely because of the use of 

cleaner engines and fuels, as mandated by EPA. Regionally, pollutants would have 

been forecast to be reduced due to the diversion of freight shipments from truck to 

rail and the use of cleaner fuels and engines. 

• Community Effects – No acquisition would have been associated with terminal 

expansion as there would have been none, as defined in Section 4.4. Industrial and 

commercial uses are expected to continue to be mixed with residential uses in the 

terminal area, as they are today, and as defined in Section 4.6. This pattern would 

not have been likely to be associated with aesthetics improvements. 

• Noise – No perceptible noise increase at sensitive receptors due to terminal activity 

would have been forecast from current conditions, as defined in Section 4.9. 

• Cultural Resources – No effect was expected on historical or archaeological 

resources, nor parks/recreational lands, as presented in Sections 4.13 and 4.14, 

respectively. 

• Contaminated Sites – No potentially contaminated sites immediately around the 

terminal area were likely to be affected, as discussed in Section 4.16. Nonetheless, 

the increased intermodal activity could have caused, over the next 20 years, up to five 

acres of contaminated land in brownfields to be reclaimed by private sector 

development. 

• Water Quality – The status quo in water quality was expected to continue, as future 

conditions will be a continuation of past trends, as discussed in Section 4.11. 

Prevention plans to address spills are and will continue to be maintained by the 

railroads as required by the federal government. The small amount (up to five acres) 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 82

of potentially reclaimed properties (e.g., brownfields) would have been considered a 

continuation of current trends. 

The results of the conditions presented above indicate there would have been no disproportionate 

adverse effects on the populations covered by the EJ Executive Order in the CP/Oak terminal 

area. Trends of the last 30 to 50 years are expected to continue. This condition, though, would 

have been less positive overall than the Action Alternatives, discussed later in this section and 

summarized in Tables 4-35 to 4-38. 

CN/Moterm Terminal Area – Alternative 1 

The analyses presented throughout this document, the results of which are summarized in Tables 

4-35 to 4-38, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the CN/Moterm terminal area 

would have occurred under Alternative 1: 

• Mobility – There would have been acceptable levels of traffic congestion throughout 

the roadway network around the CN/Moterm terminal. There would have been no 

impacts on public transit routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Impacts – No jobs would have been relocated due to intermodal terminal 

expansion. Over the next 20 years, there would have been about 90 jobs created in 

the terminal area due to continuing growth in intermodal activity, as defined in 

Section 4.5. 

• Land Use – The expected investment of the railroads in intermodal activity would 

have been likely to stimulate, over the next 20 years, industrial/commercial use of up 

to five acres of available land in the terminal area, as defined in Section 4.5. This use 

of land would have been consistent with development patterns that currently exist. 

• Air Quality – Analyses presented in Section 4.8 indicate no violations of CO 

standards would have been expected in the area around the terminal. Compared to 

today’s conditions, pollution would have been expected to be lower, largely because 

of the use of cleaner engines and fuels, as mandated by EPA. Regionally, pollutants 

were forecast to be lower due to the diversion of freight shipments from truck to rail 

and the use of cleaner fuels and engines. 

• Community Effects – No acquisition would have been associated with terminal 

expansion as there would have been none, as defined in Section 4.4. Industrial and 

commercial uses are expected to continue to be mixed with residential uses in the 

terminal area, as they are today, and as defined in Section 4.6. This pattern would 

have been likely to be associated with aesthetic improvements. 

• Noise – No perceptible noise increase was forecast at sensitive receptors due to 

terminal activity from current conditions, as defined in Section 4.9. 

• Cultural Resources – No effect was expected on historical and archaeological 

resources, nor parks/recreational lands, as presented in Sections 4.13 and 4.15, 

respectively. 

• Contaminated Sites – No potentially contaminated sites around the terminal area 

were likely to be affected by direct terminal activity, as discussed in Section 4.16. 

The increased intermodal activity could have caused, over the next 20 years, up to 

five acres of contaminated land (e.g., brownfields) to be reclaimed by private sector 

development. 

• Water Quality – The status quo in water quality was expected to continue, as future 

conditions will be a continuation of past trends, as discussed in Section 4.11. 

Prevention plans to address spills are and will continue to be maintained by the 

railroads as required by the federal government. The small amount (up to five acres) 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 83

of potentially reclaimed properties (brownfields) would have been considered a 

continuation of current trends. 

The results of the conditions presented above indicate there would have been no disproportionate 

adverse effects on the populations covered by EJ regulations in the CN/Moterm terminal area. 

Trends of the last 30 to 50 years are expected to continue. This condition, though, would have 

been less positive overall than the Action Alternatives, discussed next. 

Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals 

Livernois-Junction Yard/CP-Expressway Terminal Area – Alternative 2 

The analyses presented throughout this document, the results of which are summarized in Tables 

4-35 to 4-38, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the Livernois-Junction/CPExpressway terminal area would have occurred under Alternative 2: 

• Mobility – There would have been acceptable levels of traffic congestion throughout 

the roadway network around the terminals, except at the Dix/Waterman/Vernor 

intersection/gate area under Option A, as presented in Section 4.1. Truck traffic 

would have been reduced on neighborhood streets. And, Lonyo will be closed while 

the Central Avenue crossing of the railroad tracks would have become grade 

separated, thereby improving the safe movement of traffic around the terminal area. 

Finally, improving the I-94/Livernois interchange would have improved safe truck 

movements and reduced truck traffic on neighborhood streets. There would have 

been no impacts on public transit routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Impacts – No jobs would have been expected to be lost to the terminal 

area but some would have been relocated within it as between eight and 11 business 

operations would have been moved. Over the next 20 years, there would have been 

about 800 jobs created in the terminal area due to intermodal activity, as defined in 

Section 4.5. Growth in the local tax base was forecast as was local business 

expansion. 

• Land Use – The expected investment by the railroads and government would have 

been likely to stimulate, over the next 20 years, industrial/commercial use of up to 40 

acres of available land in the terminal area to support intermodal activity, as defined 

in Section 4.5. This intermodal development activity would have been consistent 

with the land use plans of Detroit and Dearborn. Unwanted mixing of land uses must 

be resisted by applying already-existing provisions of the Detroit Master Plan and 

Policies and Dearborn Master Plan. 

• Air Quality – Analyses presented in Section 4.8 indicate no violations of CO 

standards would have been expected in the areas around the terminals. Compared to 

the No Action condition in 2025, terminal pollutant burdens were expected to 

increase due to the forecast increase in intermodal activity. The Livernois-Junction 

Yard would have been paved. The 2025 pollution burdens of the roadways around 

the terminals were forecast to be virtually the same as today. The regional mobile 

source pollutant burdens were expected to be reduced due to diversion of freight 

shipments from truck to rail and the use of cleaner fuels and engines. 

• Community Effects – Between eight and 11 businesses but no residential units were 

expected to be relocated due to expansion of the terminals, but none were likely to 

relocate outside the terminal area as defined in Sections 4.4 and 4.5. One 

institutional property (a City of Detroit Public Works facility) would have been 

relocated for CP/Expressway terminal expansion. Lonyo would have been closed 

and Central Avenue rebuilt to pass under the railroad lines, improving the safe flow 

of vehicles. Truck traffic on neighborhood streets would have been reduced. Walls 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 84

for security on the north side of the terminal, and part of the south, would have 

buffered its activity, improving the aesthetics of the area. The terminal would have 

been paved, reducing the effects of dust on the nearby population. 

• Noise – No perceptible increase in noise in sensitive areas was expected with planned 

walls for security purposes, as defined in Section 4.9. Traffic volumes in the terminal 

area would have increased as economic conditions improve. Ambient noise levels 

may also have increased. 

• Cultural Resources – An adverse effect was expected by removal of the bridge deck 

at Michigan Central Depot, as defined in Section 4.13. No effects were forecast on 

parks/recreational lands, as presented in Section 4.14. 

• Contaminated Sites – Nine sites in the immediate area around the terminals, 

suspected of having contamination, need additional testing, if these terminals had 

been expanded. This information is presented in Section 4.16. The increased 

intermodal activity could have caused, over the next 20 years, up to 40 acres of 

contaminated land (e.g., brownfields) to be reclaimed by private sector development. 

This could have led to reduced exposure to contamination and improved the quality 

of stormwater runoff. 

• Water Quality – As discussed in Section 4.11, it was expected that paving the 

Livernois-Junction Yard would have improved drainage as the runoff today clogs 

sewer inlets which causes standing water. The storm drainage system of the 

improved terminals would have been subject to NPDES (National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System) permitting. Where the project increased stormwater 

amounts by paving terminals surfaces that now absorb water, storage would have 

been engineered into the system (oversized pipes or retention areas) so that the flow 

rate of stormwater did not increase. Because of the combined sewer system, all water 

would have been treated before it flowed to the Detroit River. Prevention plans to 

address accidental spills of hazardous materials would have continued to be 

maintained by the railroads as required by the federal government. Reclaiming up to 

40 acres of potentially contaminated property (brownfields) might have occurred. 

The results of the conditions presented above indicated an adverse effect due to an increase in 

terminal air pollution burdens. This was associated with increased intermodal activity compared 

to the No Action Alternative. Likewise, a negative effect on an historical feature of the Michigan 

Central Depot was expected. Positive developments were forecast in the areas of mobility, 

economic impacts, land use, community effects, reclaiming contaminated sites, and water quality. 

On balance, there would have been no disproportionate adverse effect on populations covered by 

the EJ Executive Order in the Livernois-Junction/CP-Expressway terminal area as a result of 

Alternative 2’s proposed terminal expansion. Nonetheless, it was recognized an adverse effect(s) 

might have occurred and, if so, it (they) would have been mitigated and/or minimized in the 

design, right-of-way and construction phases of project implementation, if Alternative 2 had been 

selected as the preferred alternative. 

CP/Oak Terminal Area – Alternative 2 

The analyses presented throughout this document, the results of which are summarized in Tables 

4-35 to 4-38, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the CP/Oak terminal area 

would have occurred under Alternative 2: 

• Mobility – There would have been acceptable levels of traffic congestion throughout 

the roadway network around the terminal, as presented in Section 4.1. There would 

have been no impacts on public transit routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Impacts – Almost 600 jobs would have been expected to be relocated 

from the terminal area, as discussed in Section 4.5. Over the next 20 years, those 600 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 85

jobs would have been regained and another 200 created in the terminal area. As a 

result, local business expansion was also expected as well as growth in the tax base. 

• Land Use – The expected investment by the railroads and government would have 

been likely to stimulate, over the next 20 years, industrial/commercial use of up to 15 

acres of available land in the terminal area to support intermodal activity, as defined 

in Section 4.5. This intermodal development activity would have been consistent 

with the land use plan of Detroit. Unwanted mixing of land uses should be resisted 

by applying already-existing provisions of the Detroit Master Plan of Policies. 

• Air Quality – Analyses presented in Section 4.8 indicated no violations of CO 

standards were expected in the areas around the CP/Oak terminal. Compared to the 

No Action condition in 2025, terminal pollutant burdens were expected to increase 

due to the forecast increase in intermodal activity. The 2025 pollutant burdens of the 

roadways around the terminal were forecast to be virtually the same as today. The 

regional mobile source pollutant burdens were expected to be reduced due to the 

diversion of freight shipments to rail and the use of cleaner fuels and engines. 

• Community Effects – Up to six businesses were expected to be relocated due to 

terminal expansion. Most of these were likely to move outside the terminal area, as 

defined in Sections 4.4 and 4.5. Truck traffic on neighborhood streets would have 

been reduced. Security walls on the north side of the terminal would have buffered 

its activity, improving the aesthetics of the area. 

• Noise – No perceptible increase in noise in sensitive areas was expected with planned 

walls for security purposes, as defined in Section 4.9. Traffic volumes in the terminal 

area would have increased with improved economic conditions. Ambient noise 

levels may also have increased. 

• Cultural Resources – No effect was expected on historic, archaeological or 

parks/recreational land resources, as presented in Sections 4.13 and 4.14, 

respectively. 

• Contaminated Sites – Six sites in the immediate area around the CP/Oak terminal, 

suspected of having contamination, needed additional testing, if the terminal had 

been expanded. This information is presented in Section 4.16. The increased 

intermodal activity could have caused, over the next 20 years, up to 15 acres of 

contaminated land (e.g., brownfields) to be reclaimed by private sector development. 

This could have led to reduced exposure to contamination and improved the quality 

of stormwater runoff. 

• Water Quality – As described in Section 4.11, it was expected that paving of the 

CP/Oak Yard would have improved water quality. The storm drainage system of the 

terminals would have been subject to NPDES permitting. Where the project 

increases stormwater amounts by paving surfaces at terminals that now absorb water, 

storage would have been engineered into the system (oversized pipes or retention 

areas) so that the flow rate of stormwater did not increase. Because of the combined 

sewer system, all water would have been treated before it flowed to the Detroit River. 

Prevention plans to address accidental spills of hazardous materials would have 

continued to be maintained by the railroads as required by the federal government. 

Reclaiming up to 15 acres of potentially contaminated properties (e.g., brownfields) 

was possible. 

The results of the conditions presented above indicated an adverse effect due to an increase in 

terminal pollutant burdens in the areas around the terminal. This was associated with increased 

intermodal activity, compared to the No Action Alternative. Positive developments were forecast 

in almost all other evaluation areas. On balance, there would have been no disproportionate 

adverse effect on populations covered by the EJ Executive Order in the CP/Oak terminal area as a 

result of Alternative 2’s proposed terminal expansion. Nonetheless, it was recognized an adverse 

effect(s) may occur and, if so, it (they) would have been mitigated and/or minimized in the 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 86

design, right-of-way and construction phases of project implementation, if Alternative 2 had been 

selected as the preferred alternative. 

CN/Moterm Terminal Area – Alternative 2 

The analyses presented throughout this document, the results of which are summarized in Tables 

4-35 to 4-38, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the CN/Moterm terminal area 

would have occurred under Alternative 2: 

• Mobility – Acceptable levels of traffic congestion were expected throughout the 

roadway network around the terminal, as described in Section 4.1. There would have 

been no impacts on public transit routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Effects – No jobs would have been lost in the terminal area due to 

intermodal terminal expansion. Over the next 20 years, there would have been 

almost 400 jobs created in the terminal area due to intermodal terminal activity, as 

defined in Section 4.5. Growth in local businesses and the tax base were expected. 

• Land Use – The expected investment by the railroads and government was likely to 

stimulate, over the next 20 years, industrial/commercial use of up to 20 acres of 

available land in the terminal area to support intermodal activity, as defined in 

Section 4.5. This expected intermodal development was consistent with the land use 

plan of Detroit. Unwanted mixing of land uses should be resisted by applying 

already-existing provisions in the Detroit Master Plan of Policies and the Ferndale, 

Highland Park and Hazel Park land use plans. 

• Air Quality – Analyses presented in Section 4.8 indicated no violations of CO 

standards were expected in the areas around the terminals. Compared to the No 

Action condition in 2025, terminal pollutant burdens were expected to increase due to 

the forecast increase in intermodal activity. The 2025 pollution burden of the 

roadways around the terminal were projected to be virtually the same as today. The 

regional mobile source pollutant burdens were expected to be reduced due to 

diversion of freight shipments from truck to rail and the use of cleaner fuels and 

engines. 

• Community Effects – There would have been no businesses relocated for this 

terminal’s expansion, as defined in Sections 4.4 and 4.5. Up to 35 acres of 

Fairgrounds property would have been leased for terminal activity. Truck traffic on 

neighborhood streets would have been reduced. Walls for security on the east side of 

the terminal, south of Eight Mile Road, would have buffered its activity. The gravel 

area at the Fairgrounds would have been paved, reducing the effects of dust on 

nearby areas. 

• Noise – No perceptible increase in noise in sensitive areas was expected with planned 

walls for security purposes, as defined in Section 4.9. Traffic volumes in the area 

would have increased with improved economic conditions. Ambient noise levels 

may also have increased. 

• Cultural Resources – While no effect on historic and archaeological resources was 

expected, up to 35 acres of State Fairgrounds property would have been leased for 

intermodal terminal activity. In the past, about 10 acres of Fairgrounds property was 

used for this purpose by Canadian National Railroad. Information on this issue was 

presented in Sections 4.13 and 4.14, respectively. 

• Contaminated Sites – No sites suspected of having contaminants would have been 

affected by expanding the terminal, as discussed in Section 4.16. The increased 

intermodal activity would have caused, over the next 20 years, up to 20 acres of 

contaminated land (e.g., brownfields) to be reclaimed by private sector development. 

This could have led to reduced exposure to contamination and improved the quality 

of stormwater runoff. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 87

• Water Quality – As described in Section 4.11, it was expected that paving the gravel 

area of the Fairgrounds to be used for intermodal terminal development would have 

improved water quality. The storm drainage system of the expanded terminal would 

have been subject to NPDES permitting. Where the project increased stormwater 

amounts by paving surfaces at terminals that now absorb water, storage would have 

been engineered into the system (oversized pipes or retention areas) so that the flow 

rate did not increase. Because of the combined sewer system, all water would have 

been treated before it flowed to the Detroit River. Prevention plans to address 

accidental spills of hazardous materials would have continued to be maintained as 

required by the federal government. Reclaiming up to 20 acres of potentially 

contaminated properties (e.g., brownfields) was possible. 

The results of the conditions presented above indicated an adverse effect due to an increase in 

terminal air pollutant burdens. This was associated with increased intermodal activity compared 

to the No Action Alternative. Also, there would have been an adverse effect as up to 35 acres of 

protected 4(f) recreational land would have been used for intermodal terminal expansion. 

Positive developments were forecast in almost all other evaluation areas. On balance, there 

would have been no disproportionate adverse effect on populations covered by the EJ Executive 

Order in the CN/Moterm terminal area as a result of Alternative 2’s proposed terminal expansion. 

Nonetheless, it was recognized an adverse effect(s) might occur and, if so, it (they) would have 

been mitigated and/or minimized in the design, right-of-way and construction phases of project 

implementation, if Alternative 2 had been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four Class I Railroads’ Intermodal Activity at LivernoisJunction Yard Area 

The analysis presented throughout this document, the results of which are summarized in Tables 

4-35 to 4-38, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the Livernois-Junction 

Yard/CP-Expressway terminal area would have occurred under Alternative 3: 

• Mobility – There would have been acceptable levels of traffic congestion throughout 

the roadway network around the terminal, except at five intersections. Modifying 

signal timings at these intersections would have addressed this problem, as presented 

in Section 4.1. Truck traffic will be reduced on neighborhood streets. Lonyo would 

have been closed while the Central Avenue crossing of the railroad tracks would have 

been grade separated, thereby improving the safe movement of traffic around the 

terminal area. Finally, improving the I-94/Livernois interchange would have 

improved safe truck movements and also helped reduce truck traffic on neighborhood 

streets. There would have been no impacts on public transit routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Impacts – Almost 290 jobs were expected to be relocated out of the 

terminal area due to terminal expansion. These would have been replaced by more 

than 2,200 new jobs associated with the investment in intermodal development, over 

the next 20 years, as defined in Section 4.5. Local business expansion and growth in 

the local tax base were anticipated. 

• Land Use – The expected investment by the railroads and government was likely to 

stimulate, over the next 20 years, industrial/commercial development of up to 120 

acres of available land to support intermodal activity, as defined in Section 4.5. This 

intermodal development activity was consistent with the land use plans of Detroit and 

Dearborn. Unwanted mixing of land uses should be resisted by applying alreadyexisting provisions in the Detroit Master Plan of Policies and the Dearborn Master 

Plan. 

• Air Quality – Analyses presented in Section 4.8 indicated no violations of CO 

standards would have been expected in the areas around the terminal. Compared to 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 88

the No Action condition in 2025, terminal pollutant burdens were expected to 

increase with the increase in intermodal activity. The roadway burdens were 

expected to be slightly less than the No Action Alternative because of the removal of 

traffic through acquisition/relocation from the area around the terminal (64 

businesses, 71 single-family residences and 12 apartment units). The regional mobile 

source pollutant burdens were expected to be reduced due to diversion of freight 

shipments from truck to rail and the use of cleaner fuels and engines. 

• Community Effects – Sixty-four businesses, 71 single-family residences and 12 

apartment units were expected to be relocated due to the expansion of the terminal. 

Almost 290 jobs would have been relocated out of the terminal area, compensated by 

an increase of more than 2,200 new jobs stimulated by intermodal investment, 

consistent with data presented in Section 4.5. Lonyo would have been closed and 

Central Avenue grade separated from the railroad lines, improving safe flow of 

vehicles. Truck traffic on neighborhood streets would have been reduced. Walls for 

security on the north side of the terminal, and part of the south, would have buffered 

its activity, improving the aesthetics of the area. The terminal would have been 

paved, reducing the effects of dust on the nearby population. 

• Noise – No perceptible increase in noise on sensitive areas was expected with 

planned walls for security purposes, as defined in Section 4.9. Traffic volumes in the 

terminal area would have increased as economic conditions improved. Ambient 

noise levels may also have increased. 

• Cultural Resources – An adverse effect was expected by removal of the Michigan 

Box Company building and the Federal Screw Works Factory. Also potential 

adverse effects applied to the Markey and Tomms Houses, as defined in Section 4.13. 

No effects were forecast on parks/recreational lands, as presented in Section 4.14. 

• Contaminated Sites – Forty-five sites in the immediate area around the terminal, 

suspected of having contamination, needed additional testing, if this terminal were 

expanded. This information is presented in Section 4.16. The increased intermodal 

activity could have caused, over the next 20 years, up to 120 acres of contaminated 

land (e.g., brownfields) to be reclaimed by the private sector. This could have led to 

reduced exposure to contamination and improved the quality of stormwater runoff. 

• Water Quality – As discussed in Section 4.11, it was expected that paving the 

Livernois-Junction Yard would have improved drainage as the runoff today clogs 

sewer inlets, which causes standing water. The storm drainage system of the 

improved terminal would have been subject to NPDES permitting. Where the project 

increases stormwater amounts by paving terminals surfaces that now absorb water, 

storage would have been engineered in the system (oversized pipes or retention 

areas) so that the flow rate of stormwater did not increase. Because the combined 

sewer system, all water would have been treated before it flowed to the Detroit River. 

Prevention plans to address accidental spills of hazardous materials would have 

continued to be maintained by the railroads. Reclaiming up to 120 acres of potential 

contaminated properties (e.g., brownfields) was possible. 

The results of the conditions presented above indicated minimal adverse effects and the potential 

for an overall positive effect on populations covered by the EJ regulations. Therefore, there 

would not have been a disproportionate adverse effect on these groups. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 89

Alternative 4: The Composite Option 

The impacts on the Livernois-Junction Yard and the CN/Moterm terminal, both of which would 

have been expanded under Alternative 4, are summarized on Tables 4-35 to 4-38. They are very 

much like those effects reported on for Alternative 3 for the Livernois-Junction Yard and for 

Alternative 2 for the CN/Moterm terminal. The conclusion again is that there would have been 

minimal adverse effects and no disproportionate negative effect on population groups covered by 

the EJ Executive Order. 

Summary of Practical Alternatives 

Alternative 3 was viewed as having the most positive effect overall on EJ populations as it 

generated the most jobs. The pollutant burden for all terminals combined was less than today, as 

was the roadway burden. 

Preferred Alternative – Livernois-Junction Yard – Environmental Justice 

There will be disproportionately adverse 

housing, employment and cultural 

resource effects on minority or lowincome populations as defined in 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice In 

Minority Populations And Low-Income 

Populations,” or discrimination 

prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 (Table 4-16). 

The Preferred Alternative would expand 

the existing Livernois-Junction Yard in 

order to consolidate intermodal operations 

of the CSX, NS and CP Railroads in 

Southwest Detroit. The expansion is 

consistent with the city of Detroit’s Master 

Plan. The expansion would take place on 

industrial property. However, ten acres of 

the 169 acres of the expansion area is 

residential and would require the ten 

acres to be rezoned. 

• The Preferred Alternative 

will impact EJ population 

groups in the study area. 

The fabric of the Livernois-Junction Terminal Area is fragile. This area began 

to rebound in the 1990s largely with the introduction of Hispanic and Arab 

residents. Nonetheless, these populations are in households that are significantly 

below the poverty level compared to the Detroit Urbanized Area as a whole (see 

Table 4-12). The relocation of 32 housing units and 29 businesses which 

includes the loss of 275 jobs, without assurance of continued employment by 

those affected, tears at the fabric of the community. These impacts along with 

the other impacts discussed in Table 4-16 and below will have a disproportionate 

and adverse effect on these population groups. 

Primary Residential Acquisition Area 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 90 

Table 4-16 

Preferred Alternative Impacts, Mitigation and Community Enhancements to EJ Populatio

Affected 

Areas Relocations Economic Impacts Accessibility and Mobility Noise Air Pollutio

Impacts to EJ Population 

• 32 households 

relocated. 

• 29 businesses 

with 275 jobs relocated. 

• Some jobs are held by 

minorities and lowincome people. 

• Existing traffic patterns 

disrupted. Lonyo travel rerouted to Central Avenue. 

• Net increase in truck 

traffic with project buildout. 

• Intermodal 

trains would contribute to the increased number of trains using the LivernoisJunction Yard. 

• Air pollution – Re

vs. today’s levels awith truck to rail movement converRelative to No Busome pollution fropopulous Livernois/DragooCentral Avenue nLivernois/ JunctioWyoming area. 

• Temporary air po

may occur during construction. 

Mitigation Measures 

• Adequate 

replacement housing is available in Southwest Detroit to relocate households. 

• Adequate 

industrial/ commercial space is available in Southwest Detroit to relocate businesses. 

• MDOT will 

coordinate with local and state agencies to explore job training opportunities. English-as-a-SecondLanguage (ESL) classes and other training options in the study area. 

• MDOT will 

coordinate with other stakeholders in funding a study of economic development opportunities that will support small business development in the DIFT study area. 

• 1,540 new jobs 

expected with terminal area development over 20 years. 

• Lonyo at-grade crossing 

of railroad tracks closed (with its poor safety record) 

• Grade separated, ADA 

compliant, crossing of Livernois/Junction provided. 

• Livernois/Junction Yard 

gates changed to reduce truck traffic in unwanted locations. Dix-Waterman gate closed. Livernois gate oriented to north. New west gates off Wyoming. 

• I-94 interchange made 

safer. 

• Truck traffic reduced on 

Livernois/Dragoon oneway pair south of Livernois/Junction Yard. 

• $11 million of 

improvements to local Federal-aid roads and other local infrastructure. 

• Residents along 

Kronk near Livernois, in the Cabot/Trenton Street area, and in the area east of Central Avenue on the south side of the yard will benefit from security walls placed around the yard perimeter (see Figure 4-52) that will reduce noise levels at a set of sensitive receptors by 5 dBA. 

• Noise levels 

perceptibly lower on Livernois and Dragoon south of Dix. 

• Paving Livernois/ 

Yard will reduce particulates. 

• MDOT will work 

construction contan operational agcontrol air polluticonstruction. 

• MDOT will work 

SEMCOG, MDEQprivate sector, ancommunity to creaction plan that inlong term goals of fugitive dust, diesidling, fuel consumdiesel emissions in terminal area shoFigure 3-16. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc.
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 91

• Relocations/Community Effects 

– Twenty-nine business 

properties, 28 single-family 

residences, and four apartment 

units are expected to be 

acquired for the expansion of 

the terminal. 

• Economic Impacts – 

Approximately 275 jobs are 

expected to relocate out of the 

terminal area due to terminal 

expansion. These will be 

replaced in the terminal area by 

more than 1,540 new jobs 

associated with the investment in 

intermodal development, over 

the next 20 years, as defined in 

Section 4.5 of this FEIS. The 

new job total is expected to be 

approximately 4,500 statewide. 

In the Detroit area, the net new 

jobs total is forecast at about 

2,300. Local business expansion 

and growth in the local tax base 

are anticipated. 

• Mobility – There will be 

acceptable levels of traffic 

congestion throughout the roadway network around the terminal, as presented in 

Section 4.1 of this FEIS. There will be a net increase of approximately 700 

trucks a day in 2030 in the terminal area compared to the No Action Alternative. 

The planned road and gate improvements will split truck traffic between 

Livernois and Wyoming Avenues, with Wyoming serving an industrial area. 

Truck traffic will be reduced on neighborhood streets (Central north of Kronk, 

Livernois south of the terminal entrance gate, and Dragoon south of Dix). 

Lonyo will be closed, while the Central Avenue crossing of the railroad tracks 

will be grade separated, thereby improving the safe movement of traffic around 

the terminal area. Finally, improving the I-94/Livernois interchange will 

improve safe truck movements and also help reduce truck traffic on 

neighborhood streets. There will be no impacts on public transit routes. 

• Noise – Increased numbers of intermodal trains, but no perceptible increase in 

noise on sensitive areas is expected with planned security walls, as defined in 

Section 4.9 of this FEIS. Redirecting truck traffic on Livernois away from the area 

south of the entry gate and closing the existing gate, at Dix/Waterman, will cut 

truck traffic on Livernois and Dragoon south of Dix to a noticeable extent, so that 

noise levels will be perceptibly lower. 

• Air Quality – Analyses presented in Section 4.8 of this FEIS indicate no 

violations of CO standards are expected in the area around the Preferred 

Alternative. Likewise, no violations of PM2.5 or PM10 daily or annual standards 

are anticipated, based on qualitative hot-spot analyses of these two pollutants. 

Compared to the No Action condition in 2030, terminal pollutant burdens are 

Michigan Box Company — North Wall, View to East. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 92

expected to change. Carbon monoxide and particulate matter are expected to 

decrease, while the other pollutants are expected to increase with the increase in 

intermodal activity. The roadway burdens are expected to be about the same as 

the No Action Alternative because of the removal of traffic through 

acquisition/relocation from the area around the terminal (29 businesses). The 

regional mobile source pollutant burdens will be reduced due to diversion of 

freight shipments from truck to rail and the use of cleaner fuels and engines. 

• Cultural Resources – An adverse effect will occur by removal of the Michigan 

Box Company building, as defined in Section 4.13.27 No effects are forecast on 

parks/recreational lands, as presented in Section 4.14 of this FEIS. 

• Table 4-36 lists the project’s indirect impacts and Table 4-38 lists cumulative 

effects. 

After determining the potential impacts to EJ populations, the next step is to determine if 

the impacts would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and lowincome populations in the study area. Based on census data and field collected data, which 

indicates a greater number of minority and low-income population groups live in the study 

area and will be directly impacted by the DIFT, it is determined that the project’s impacts 

will be disproportionately high and adverse to minority and low-income population groups. 

The impacts such as displacements (residential and commercial), loss of jobs and cultural 

resources will be predominately borne by minority and low-income population groups, and 

the impacts are appreciably more severe than the impacts that would be experienced by 

non-minority population groups in the study area. The Michigan Box Company historic 

property has been part of the fabric of the community for years. Its removal tears at the 

fabric of the Terminal Area, even more so than the removal of other sound structures. 

Consistent with step three of the methodology, in order to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income population 

groups, and to provide offsetting benefits and opportunities to enhance the community, 

neighborhoods and individuals affected by the proposed project, a mitigation and 

community enhancement plan was developed. Several meetings with the community and 

local officials helped identify mitigation and community enhancements. It is recognized 

that, over time, undesirable environmental features have accumulated from 

industrialization and related transportation projects. Some have existed for many years. 

Public resources to address many of these conditions are lacking. The DIFT project is 

envisioned as a way for public and private sector investments to bring some measure of 

improvement to existing rail activity and the affected population, knowing that activity will 

expand in the future with or without the project. On balance, the investment and 

improvements of Action Alternatives is seen to be beneficial to these areas compared to the 

No Action Alternative. 

The mitigation and community enhancements to address disproportionate impacts include 

the following: 

• Coordinate with local and state agencies to explore job training opportunities, English 

as a Second Language (ESL) classes, and other training options in the study area. 

• Coordinate with other stakeholders in funding a study of economic development 

opportunities that will support small business development in the DIFT study area. 

 

27 The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will review the security wall across from the house at 6332 Kronk. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 93

• Reconstruct Central Avenue as a grade-separated crossing of the Livernois-Junction 

Yard. 

• Reorient truck traffic away from neighborhoods by closing the Dix Waterman gate, 

reorienting the Livernois gate to the north (and improving the Livernois/I-94 

interchange to support this), and providing new gates to the yard off Wyoming. 

• Provide $11 million for improvements to local Federal-aid roads and other local 

infrastructure. 

• Providing security walls at the yard perimeter near residential areas that will reduce 

noise levels there. 

• Clean up some contaminated sites and reuse them. 

• Pave the Livernois-Junction Yard to reduce particulates. 

• Work with construction contractors on an operational agreement to control air 

pollution during construction. 

• Work with SEMCOG, MDEQ, the private sector and the local community to create an 

action plan to improve air quality. 

The final step is to document the mitigation measures and community enhancements. The 

proposed mitigation measures and the Project Mitigation Summary “Green Sheet,” which 

identifies proposed mitigation and community enhancements, is discussed in Section 5. 

4.4 Relocations 

To construct any Action Alternative, proposed permanent fee right-of-way and grading permits 

will be required.28 New right-of-way that MDOT will likely need to acquire is identified in the 

Engineering Concepts Report29 and in Appendix D. Information is summarized in Table 4-17. 

Acquisition of parcels will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance 

and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. A “Relocation Plan – 

Conceptual Stage” (Appendix B) was developed for the DEIS based on a review of real estate 

available in the study area. It has been updated for this FEIS. It was determined that there is an 

adequate number of suitable residences for sale and commercial space for lease or vacant 

commercial land available for development that will allow relocation without hardship. 

Table 4-17 

Relocation Information 

Alternative 2 – Improve/Expand 

Alternative 3 

– Consolidate 

Alternative 4 – 

Composite 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Liv-Jct CP/Oak Potential Acquisition 

Alt. 1 – 

No 

Action 2A 2B 2C 

CP/ 

Expressway 2A 2B 

CN/

Moterm Liv-Jct Liv-Jct 

CN/

Moterm Liv-Jct 

Single Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 29 0 28 

Multiple Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 4 

Businesses/Institutions 0 8 11 8 1 5 6 0 64 51 0 29 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 

 

28 Grading permits give MDOT the right to temporarily enter private property to make minor grading changes - those 

that will not alter the permanent nature of the ground significantly or negatively. Basically, MDOT would pay a fee for 

"renting" the property for a short period of time to make these minor changes. If a large grade change is made, 

mitigation may be necessary, i.e. timber retaining walls, vegetation, etc. Decisions on grading permits are made during 

the design phase.

29 Engineering Concepts Report, DIFT, The Corradino Group and Alfred Benesch & Company, October 2004 and 

updated November 2008.
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 94

4.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative no relocations of residences or businesses were expected. 

4.4.2 Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals

Livernois-Junction Yard 

Under this alternative, there would have been no residential property impacts. Depending on the 

access/gate locations, between 0 and 11 businesses would have potentially been acquired at the 

Livernois-Junction Yard terminal under Alternative 2. It was estimated that these businesses 

employ up to 80 people. This acquisition was for creating a Central Avenue underpass of the rail 

yard and/or creation of a west gate to Wyoming. Interviews indicated businesses to be relocated 

would likely have chosen to remain in the terminal area. 

CP/Expressway 

A City of Detroit Public Works facility and one vacant industrial parcel would have been 

acquired if the Expressway terminal had been expanded. It is estimated that the DPW facility 

was associated with 30 jobs which were likely to be relocated in the terminal area. 

CP/Oak 

Five or six businesses would have been affected depending on the terminal access configuration 

chosen to serve an expanded Oak terminal. It was estimated that these businesses employ 

approximately 600 people. They were likely to be relocated in the region but outside the terminal 

area. 

CN/Moterm 

Approximately 35 acres of property from the Michigan State Fairgrounds that is leased for the 

storage of vehicles would have been used for an expanded Moterm terminal under Alternatives 2 

and 4. It is estimated that this operation would not have affected any employment on site. 

4.4.3 Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four Class I Railroads’ Intermodal Activity at 

Livernois-Junction Yard Area 

Eighty-three residential units would have potentially been relocated if the Livernois-Junction 

Yard were expanded to accommodate consolidating the intermodal activity of all four Class I 

railroads. Alternative 3 would have potentially involved acquisition of 64 businesses. It was 

estimated that these businesses employ today approximately 286 people. Interviews indicated 

most businesses that might have been relocated would have chosen to remain in the terminal area. 

4.4.4 Alternative 4: The Composite Option 

Acquisition of 51 businesses around the Livernois-Junction Yard would have been involved in 

developing Alternative 4. It was estimated that these 51 businesses employ approximately 275 

people. The majority were likely to be relocated in the terminal area. Thirty-three occupied 

dwelling units would also have been required in developing Alternative 4. 

Housing was available in each terminal area to accommodate potential residential relocations. 

Businesses potentially affected were primarily industrial. They were likely to relocate in or near 

the terminal area in which they are now located, minimizing job loss in the terminal area. 

Industrial/commercial space for lease and vacant industrial/commercial land available for 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 95

development would have allowed relocation without hardship. A considerable number of lots 

zoned industrial/commercial are for sale and industrial/commercial space is available for lease at 

a number of locations. 

Preferred Alternative 

Conclusions reached in the DEIS related to the availability of suitable residences and 

commercial space have not changed. The relocation totals for the Preferred Alternative have 

been added to Table 4-17. 

4.5 Economic Impacts 

4.5.1 Introduction 

The Policy InsightTM model, created by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI), used for this 

analysis was configured to account for the regional economic environment. Additionally, the model 

was adjusted to gauge the economic conditions in local areas surrounding the intermodal terminals. 

The model as applied forecast how the local and regional economies are expected to perform based 

on historic trends and compares this control forecast with forecasts that reflected the new 

investment and operation of each alternative intermodal rail development strategy. It is noted that 

the Policy InsightTM model is designed for application at the regional level. Therefore, applying the 

model to smaller areas than the region provides general insight, but is inherently less accurate than 

forecasts developed for regional applications. 

To establish the control forecast, the model used as input historical time-series data published by 

federal and state agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Michigan Department of the Treasury, 

among other sources. The data included population and demographic information, labor and wage 

rate information, taxation and government revenue data, business and economic activity data. 

The model encompasses six study zones30 (Figure 4-29a): 

• Livernois-Junction – CP/Expressway terminal area: zip codes 48120, 48126, 48208, 

48209, 48210, 48216, and 48217; 

• CP/Oak terminal area: zip codes 48223, 48227, and 48228; 

• CN/Moterm terminal area: zip codes 48030, 48203, 48220, and 48221; 

• “Detroit Plus”: all zip codes in Detroit plus four adjacent zip codes31; 

• “Wayne County Plus”: all zip codes in Wayne County plus two adjacent zip codes32; 

and, 

• Michigan: all zip codes in Michigan. 

 

30 The Policy InsightTM model used the mutually exclusive intermediary zones “Rest of Detroit,” “Rest of Wayne,” 

“Rest of Oakland,” and “Rest of State” in order to avoid double counting. 31 “Detroit Plus” includes additional area outside its jurisdiction to accommodate two zip codes in Dearborn adjacent to 

the Livernois-Junction Terminal (48120 and 48126) and two zip codes in Ferndale and Hazel Park adjacent to the 

CN/Moterm Terminal (48220 and 48030), as well as the cities of Highland Park and Hamtramck, which are entirely 

encapsulated by the City of Detroit. 

32 “Wayne County Plus” also includes the Ferndale and Hazel Park zip codes (48220 and 48030), which are in Oakland 

County. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 96
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 97

These zones are “cumulative,” i.e., Detroit includes all three terminal areas; Wayne County 

includes all three terminal areas and all of Detroit. Terminal area boundaries were drawn to 

incorporate affected adjacent neighborhoods consistent with the boundaries of local zip codes and 

were established in consultation with the various groups engaged in the DIFT study process as 

mentioned in Section 4.3. 

For each analysis zone, historic data were input to the model and calibrated, then the control forecast 

was calculated through 2025. Later the model was rerun for 2030 for this FEIS. These forecasts 

were based on the continuation of historical trends and interrelationships inherent in federal and state 

statistics, and calibrated with local revenue and spending data to verify accuracy. No other 

assumptions were incorporated into the control forecast. 

The model, integrated with the forecasts of commodity flow (Figure 4-29b) develops forecasts of 

economic measures based on the following attributes: 

• Construction costs, including terminal, external rail infrastructure, and roads; 

• Land acquisition costs, including the cost of purchase, business and residential 

relocation, and environmental remediation; 

• The extent of residential and business relocation, including the destination zone 

where jobs and households are expected to relocate; 

• Property taxes lost due to public acquisition of property; 

• Equipment costs; 

• Operations and maintenance costs; and, 

• Additional railroad terminal revenues related to increased intermodal business. 

 

The sources of the input data are summarized as follows: 

• The total investments to implement, equip, operate and maintain each Action 

Alternative range from $326.4 million for Alternative 2 to $697.7 million for 

Alternative 3 (Table 4-18). These costs were developed in consultation with railroad 

operators and project engineers. 

• Revenue generated by intermodal business was calculated based on the number of 

additional lifts forecast in each alternative. The revenue reflects the competitiveness 

of the alternatives, i.e., Alternatives 3 and 4 have a greater geographical reach than 

Alternative 2 and that improved position is reflected in the revenue. 

• Businesses subjected to relocation were interviewed, to the extent possible, and 

available land within the various study zones was inventoried to establish the likely 

destination of relocated businesses and their associated jobs. The interviews established 

that no businesses would cease operations or relocate outside the Southeast Michigan 

region, and that most businesses would relocate as close as possible to their current 

location. Therefore, while some jobs would be relocated, no jobs would be lost to the 

region in any alternative. 

• An inventory indicated that sufficient for-sale and available rental housing stock 

existed in the zone in which residential property would be acquired, ensuring that 

displaced households had ample opportunity to relocate within the area. 

• Property tax records were used to determine the amount of property tax revenue that 

would be lost due to public acquisition of property. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 98

Figure 4-29b 

Integration of Commodity Flow and REMI Modeling Processes – FEIS 2030
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 99

Table 4-18 

Construction Costs by Alternativea

(millions of 2004 dollars) 

Category Alt. 1 

Total 

Alt. 2 

Total 

Alt. 3 

Total 

Alt. 4 

Total 

Preferred 

Alt. 

(2008 $)

 

 Construction Costs $10.5 $169.7 $457.7 $436.0 $395 

 Land Acquisition/ 

Relocation/Remediation Costs $0.0 $97.5 $125.0 $114.9 $123 

 Equipment Investment $0.0 $50.0 $100.0 $100.0 $0 

 Operations & Maintenance Costs $0.0 $9.2 $15.0 $17.1 $0 

 Community Benefits Program NA NA NA NA $11 

 All Costs $10.5 $326.4 $697.7 $668.0 $529 

 a Represents railroad or government contribution to total cost at application of REMI Model at June 1, 2004. 

 Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. and Analytic Planning Services 

4.5.2 Results 

Jobs 

Table 4-19 compares the number of jobs relocated from each local terminal area with the number 

of net jobs resulting from each alternative (including the Preferred Alternative) in the year 2025. 

“Net Jobs Gained” reflects the actual number of additional jobs gained, while accounting for the 

jobs removed as a result of business relocations. While some jobs are relocated from their 

original local terminal area to a different area, no jobs are lost to the region as a result of 

relocation. 

Table 4-19 

Jobs Relocateda

 and Net Jobs Gainedb 

ALT 1 – 2025 ALT 2 – 2025 ALT 3 – 2025 ALT 4 – 2025 Preferred 

Analysis Area 

Jobs 

Relocated 

from Areaa

Net Jobs 

Gainedb

Jobs 

Relocated 

from Areaa

Net Jobs 

Gainedb

Jobs 

Relocated 

from Areaa

Net Jobs

Gainedb

Jobs 

Relocated 

from Areaa

Net Jobs 

Gainedb

Jobs 

Relocated

from 

Areaa

Net Jobs

Gainedb

Liv Jct/CP Exp 0 194 0 786 286 2,245 275 1,956 231 1,542

CP/Oak 0 130 596 187 0 513 0 496 0 305

CN/Moterm 0 88 0 390 0 495 0 695 0 96

Detroit Plus 0 459 411 1,764 196 3,780 190 3,658 190 2,359

Wayne Plus 0 564 224 2,521 104 4,844 100 4,705 100 2,847

Michigan 0 1,029 0 4,950 0 9,050 0 8,819 0 4,514

 aIncludes jobs relocated to outside their original local terminal area. bNet jobs gained in study area, deducting for jobs relocated to outside their original local terminal area. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. and Analytic Planning Services

The jobs presented on Table 4-19 include direct, indirect, and induced jobs. Direct jobs are those 

directly associated with the intermodal facility. Jobs such as suppliers, service providers, and 

support services to the intermodal business are considered “indirect” jobs. Induced jobs are those 

created as a result of the presence of direct and indirect wage earners requiring services in the 

local economy. Induced jobs include restaurant workers, teachers, and retail clerks needed to 

serve the direct and indirect jobs. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 100

Table 4-19 reveals job creation for each alternative. Alternative 1: No Action was, in 2025, 

associated with over 1,000 additional jobs in the local and regional economies compared to 

today’s conditions. Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals was associated with 

about 5,000 new jobs, or about 4,000 more than forecast for the No Action Alternative. 

Alternatives 3 and 4, which in 2025 were associated with the largest increases in intermodal 

activity and investment, stimulated the greatest amount of total job growth, creating 

approximately 9,000 new jobs, which was about 8,000 more jobs than under the No Action 

Alternative. For the City of Detroit, the net jobs gain ranged from about 1,760 to almost 3,800 

depending on Action Alternative. New jobs occurred in all sectors of the economy and 

represented a diverse range of skill and wage levels. The average wage for all new jobs created 

was forecast to be about $40,000 per year. 

In addition to permanent jobs, employment opportunities would also have been created during the 

construction period of each alternative (Figure 4-30). Overall, Alternatives 3 and 4 would have 

created more construction jobs over a longer period than Alternative 2 because of the increased 

investment. No major construction, beyond maintenance, was expected under Alternative 1. 

Government Revenues 

While state and local government revenues are predominantly comprised of taxes, they also 

include all fees, charges, and other sources of income that all government entities at the local and 

state levels collect. The Policy InsightTM model is calibrated to reflect the most recent 

government revenue data at the state and local levels and creates a control forecast that can be 

compared to the effects of each DIFT alternative. 

Alternatives 2 through 4 involved at least some acquisition that removes properties from the tax 

rolls as the acquired property was to be owned by the state (MDOT), which does not pay taxes. 

Figure 4-30 

Construction Employment - FEIS 

(person years) 

 Source: REMI model results