DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft 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. 

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 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 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 over 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 

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

4 - 2

Table 4-1a 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

2025 Annual Lifts 

No Action Alternative 

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 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

2025 Annual Lifts 

No Action Alternative 

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 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

2025 Truck Traffic (Two-way Trips) 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

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 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 3

Figure 4-1 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

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

4 - 4

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. 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 will 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 is 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, creates negative traffic effects at only five intersections, out of more than 100 analyzed 

(Table 4-8). Proposed adjustments to traffic signal phasing will make traffic operations at those five 

locations acceptable (i.e., the volume will not exceed capacity). These signal timing changes will not 

negatively affect traffic-dependent businesses (e.g., gas stations, restaurants, and the like). 

It is also noted that the intersection of Wyoming Avenue and Michigan Avenue does not align with 

Wyoming at I-94, 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. Consideration should be given by MDOT to realign this intersection, but the DIFT does not 

require this change. 

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 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 5

Table 4-1d 

Relationship of Lifts to Truck Movements 

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 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

2025 Truck Traffic (Two-way Trips) 

Alternative 2: Improve/Expand 

 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 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

2025 Truck Traffic (Two-way Trips) 

Alternative 3: Consolidate 

 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 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 6

Table 4-4 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

2025 Traffic Forecast 

Annual Lifts and Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

Alternative 4: The Composite Option 

Annual Lifts Daily Two-way 

Truck Trips Terminala

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 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

2025 Traffic Forecast 

Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

Alternative 2: Expand/Improve Existing Terminals 

 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 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

2025 Traffic Forecast 

 Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four RRs 

 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 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 7

Table 4-7 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

2025 Traffic Forecast 

 Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

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

Expand CN/Moterm at Fairgrounds 

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 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 - 35

In all the Action Alternatives, Lonyo Avenue is expected to be closed 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 is proposed 

to pass under the railroad tracks. Under the Action Alternatives, closing Lonyo will place more 

traffic on Central Avenue. The Central Avenue underpass will be able to serve it. Also, under 

Alternatives 3 and 4, large-truck traffic on Central Avenue north of the railyard will be reduced as 

the major truck center at Central and Kronk (and other businesses, depending on alternative) will 

be relocated. The grade separation of Central from the rail lines and the elimination of the Lonyo 

rail crossing under all three Action Alternatives will eliminate train/auto crashes. The Central 

Avenue rail crossing has experienced fewer than one incident in the last three years, and 11 in the 

last 30 years. But, the Lonyo rail crossing ranks first (tied) in Michigan in fatal incidents (one) 

occurring over the last three years and second (tied) for fatal incidents (three) in last 30 years. 

Additionally, the Lonyo crossing is ranked first (tied) for total incidents in the last three years and 

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

It is noteworthy that closing Lonyo will make access to the residences and businesses located 

there, including Star Academy, more circuitous for some trips. Overall traffic on Lonyo is 

forecast to decrease because the street will not connect to Dix, and some industrial land uses 

served by Lonyo will be relocated, thereby producing less traffic. 

Under Alternative 2, intermodal truck traffic to/from the CP/Oak terminal would be 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, will remove 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) will also be 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 will, therefore, reduce 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 

will be to reduce annual 2025 injury crashes and fatalities by 97 and four, respectively, 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 4-10 and 4-

11. 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. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 36
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

4 - 37
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

4 - 38
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 39
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 40
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 41
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

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

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

4 - 44

Two of the three terminal areas have experienced a continued decline in population, as has the 

City of Detroit itself. 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. 

Nevertheless, 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. 

There will be acquisition of businesses associated with all Action Alternatives but residential 

acquisition is only likely with consolidating intermodal activities for three or four railroads at the 

Livernois-Junction Yard (Alternatives 3 and 4). Additional residential acquisition may 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 barrier 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 are expected with the Action Alternatives at the Livernois-Junction Yard, the 

CP/Oak and CN/Moterm terminals as follows: 

• At the Livernois-Junction Yard, intermodal truck traffic will 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 will be 

relocated. 

• At the Livernois-Junction Yard, Lonyo will be closed at the terminal boundary and 

Central Avenue will pass under the rail lines for all Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 

and 4). This will improve the safe movement of people in the community. 

• The surface of the Livernois-Junction Yard will be paved under all Action Alternatives. 

This will address dust, which is a nuisance and an air quality problem. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 45

• At the Livernois-Junction Yard, several abandoned properties, salvage yards, and 

industrial facilities will 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 will significantly reduce the truck traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods. 

Under Alternatives 3 and 4, truck traffic would also be reduced as the intermodal activity 

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

• At the CN/Moterm terminal, the terminal access will be changed from the north to the 

south side of M-102/Eight Mile Road for Alternatives 2 and 4. This will remove 

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

Alternative 3, truck traffic would also be reduced as the intermodal activity at this 

terminal would be shifted to the Livernois-Junction yard area. 

• Under all Action Alternatives, a barrier wall will be built for security. It will also 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, barrier walls for security would be built at 

CP/Oak and the CN/Moterm terminals. 

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 4-10 and 4-11. Table 4-9 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 will 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 will 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 is forecast to 

decrease because the street will not connect to Dix and some industrial uses served by 

Lonyo will be relocated, thereby producing less truck traffic. 

• St. Stephens School and Catholic Church are north of the existing terminal on Central 

Avenue. The school and church will be affected by changes to the terminal under 

Alternative 2 by grade separating Central Avenue from the railroad tracks. Some traffic 

now using Lonyo Avenue will use Central Avenue as Lonyo will be closed at the rail 

yard. Some students walk to the school from the immediately adjacent neighborhood 

north of John Kronk. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 46

Table 4-9a 

Community Facilities 

Livernois-Junction Yard 

Alt. Terminal 

Figure 

4-10a ID Type Name 

Alts. 1 & 2 

Distancea 

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

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

4 - 47

Table 4-9a (continued) 

Community Facilities 

Livernois-Junction Yard 

Alt. Terminal

Figure 

4-10a ID Type Name 

Alts. 1 & 2 

Distancea 

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

4 - 48

Table 4-9b 

Community Facilities 

CP/Expressway Terminal 

Alternative 2 

Alt. Terminal 

Figure 

4-10b 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 School 1/2 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 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 4-9c 

Community Facilities 

CP/Oak Terminal 

Alternative 2 

Alt. Terminal Figure ID Type Name 

1/2 CP/Oak NA No community facilities 

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

4 - 49

Table 4-9d 

Community Facilities 

CN/Moterm Terminal 

Alternatives 2 and 4 

Alt. Terminal 

Figure 

4-10d 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 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 50

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 be relocated for the 

project. The Detroit Police Department plans to occupy the Michigan Central Depot. If 

this occurs, the offices would be unaffected by the project. A currently vacant lot next to 

the Michigan Central Depot, that was formerly used for intermodal purposes, would be 

acquired for the DIFT. 

• The United Community Hospital is north and west of the Expressway terminal and would 

be 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 change little if the Expressway terminal were expanded. The change 

in intermodal train activity of Alternative 2 over No Action conditions will not affect this 

hospital. 

CP/Oak Terminal 

Under Alternative 2 there will be 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 be directly affected by the 

project. The east section of the area of the Fairgrounds is now leased for the parking of 

automotive vehicles. It is also used by those who attend the State Fair during two weeks 

in August each year. It would be 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, apply here. 

Alternative 4: The Composite Option 

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

presented above, apply here. 

4.2.2 Considerations Relating to Pedestrian Access and Bicycle Use 

Alternative 1: No Action 

The No Action Alternative would affect 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 does not affect pedestrian and bicycle paths because it is removed 

from these facilities. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 51

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 will increase under the No Action Alternative. No improvements 

to facilitate pedestrian/bicycle movements are involved in the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals 

Livernois-Junction Yard 

The at-grade railroad crossing at Lonyo Avenue will be closed. The at-grade railroad crossing at 

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

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

at Livernois Avenue would likely be signalized to allow safe movement of pedestrians, bicyclists 

and auto travelers. The gate at Dix/Waterman/Vernor would be eliminated under Options B and 

C in favor of a new gate/entry using either Wyoming Avenue or Livernois Avenue. This would 

reduce pedestrian/bicycle interactions with trucks in this area. 

CP/Expressway Terminal 

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

access or bicycle use. This would remain the same with Alternative 2. 

CP/Oak Terminal 

The proposed expansion area for Alternative 2 at the CP/Oak terminal will lessen 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 currently does not have pedestrian access 

or bicycle use. This would remain the same with Alternative 2. The gate to the terminal will no 

longer be served by Fair Street and Chesterfield Street. This will improve 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, apply here with 

the addition that the perimeter road that will replace John Kronk will be buffered and include 

sidewalks so it will improve 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, apply here. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 52

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. 

Alternative 1: No Action 

The No Action Alternative would not affect 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 will not impact 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 will be 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 will be 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 will not impact 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, apply here. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 53

Alternative 4: The Composite Option 

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

presented above, apply here. 

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 

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). This will take at least two 

years. 

4.3 Population Characteristics of Key Groups 

While the Detroit Urbanized Area 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 4-10). The areas around the CP/Oak and 

CN/Moterm terminals (Tables 4-11 and 4-12) also declined. Only the area of Southwest 

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

an increase (Tables 4-11 and 4-12). Characteristics of the population in each terminal area are 

presented next. 

Table 4-10 

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 4-11). 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 4-11). 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 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 54

Table 4-11 

Population and Total Households by Terminal Area in 2000 

Livernois-Junction/ 

CP/Expressway (Zips 

(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 Numb

Total Population 3,903,682 100.0 2,061,162 100.0 1,194,156 100.0 163,784 100.0 16Black or African American Alone 1,000,953 25.6 862,281 41.8 118,407 9.9 43,211 26.4 13American 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 TOTAL MINORITY 1,232,047 31.5 976,958 47.4 197,480 16.5 85,892 52.5 13Total Households 1,498,537 100.0 768,626 100.0 471,390 100.0 54,963 100.0 5Households w/Income < Poverty Level 156,397 10.4 114,801 14.9 25,607 5.4 15,195 27.6 1AncestrybArab 91,230 2.3 56,109 2.7 19,030 1.6 29,977 18.3 English 290,385 7.4 109,392 5.3 135,579 11.4 3,028 1.8 French (except Basque) 155,626 4.0 63,763 3.1 53,336 4.5 1,719 1.0 German 607,611 15.6 226,518 11.0 225,428 18.9 6,435 3.9 Irish 390,824 10.0 165,053 8.0 150,058 12.6 5,824 3.6 Italian 256,025 6.6 85,037 4.1 71,155 6.0 3,431 2.1 Polish 424,362 10.9 173,119 8.4 116,895 9.8 8,047 4.9 Scottish 85,154 2.2 34,053 1.7 37,626 3.2 794 0.5 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 Counties anbPercent of those who reported ancestry in one or more categories. Not all persons reported ancestry. 

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

4 - 55

Table 4-12 

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 148aThe 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 Counties anbPercent of those who reported ancestry in one or more categories. Not all persons reported ancestry. 

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

4 - 56

The spatial distribution of each group is illustrated on Figures 4-12 to and including Figure 4-24. 

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 4-11).1

 The 

African-American population was about 26 percent of this 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 4-11). 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 4-11 and 4-12). The African-American population 

share of the terminal area declined, while the Hispanic population grew almost five-fold. All 

other groups shown in Tables 4-11 and 4-12, 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 Table 4-13. 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 eastern 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 4-11). 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 4-11 and 4-12 declined in the 1990s. Poverty declined among the 

total population in the period 1990 to 2000.

 

1

 Minority Population is calculated based on the groups protected under FHWA’s Environmental Justice guidelines.
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 57
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 58
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 59
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 60
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 61
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

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

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

4 - 64

Table 4-13a 

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, and waste 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 food services 

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 Counties an

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

4 - 65

Table 4-13b 

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 and food 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 Counties an

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

4 - 66

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

4-13), which is about the same as the decline in population (Tables 4-11 and 4-12). 

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 4-11). 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 4-11 

and 4-12). 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) (Table 4-13). 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 (Table 4-13). 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 TrendsAll Terminal Areas 

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

Area (Table 4-11). 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 Population2

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. 

 

2

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

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

4 - 67

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 Population3,4,5

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.6

 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. 

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, they are triple 

 

3

 David A. Badillo; “Latinos in Michigan.” Michigan State University Press. 2003. 4

 Rudolph Valier Alvarado, Sonya Yvette Alvarado; “Mexicans and Mexican Americans in Michigan.” Michigan State 

University Press. 2003. 

5

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

Community Services. 2003. 

6

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

4 - 68

the 1990 statistics. In the Livernois-Junction/CP Expressway terminal area, the Hispanic 

population grew by over 500 percent between 1990 and 2000. 

Arab Population7

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 ever-increasing 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 4-10 and 4-11). 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.) 

 

7

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

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

4 - 69

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 singledout 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. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 70

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

along Woodward Avenue in both Ferndale and Detroit and revitalizing 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 4-11 and 4-12 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. 

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 affected populations were identified by analyzing 

Census data (Table 4-11), 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 4-13, 4-14, 4-18, 4-23 and 4-24 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 4-25). When all populations covered 

by the Environmental Justice Executive Order are combined (Figure 4-25a), 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. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 71
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 72

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

the opportunity for higher income in industrial jobs (Figure 4-25b). 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. 

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

Executive Order, it is first important to review the alternatives presented in Section 3.2 that are 

eliminated from further study. 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 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. 

Nevertheless, 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. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 73

Figure 4-25b 

Peak Growth by Community in Southeast Michigan 

1900-2000

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

4 - 74

Therefore, the alternatives addressed in this DEIS are 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, is whether the development of Alternatives 

2, 3 and 4 would create 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/archaeologic 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 

The direct and indirect effects are summarized in Table 4-14. The cumulative effects are 

summarized in Table 4-15. While these effects are discussed in detail in other sections of this 

DEIS, a summary review of them is presented here. 

Alternative 1: No Action 

Livernois-Junction Yard/CP-Expressway Terminal Area 

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

4-14 and 4-15, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the Livernois-Junction 

Yard/CP-Expressway terminal area under Alternative 1: 

• Mobility – There will be acceptable levels of traffic congestion throughout the roadway 

network around the terminals except at the Dix/Waterman/Vernor intersection/gate area, 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 75

as presented in Section 4.1. Even still, truck traffic will continue to use neighborhood 

streets, as it does today. There will be no impacts on public transit routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Impacts – No jobs would be relocated due to intermodal terminal expansion. 

Over the next 20 years there would be 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 is 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 is consistent with development patterns that currently exist. 

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

are expected in the areas around the terminals. Compared to today’s conditions, pollution 

is expected to be lower largely because of the use of cleaner engines and fuels, as 

mandated by U.S. EPA. Nevertheless, the railyards will not be paved under Alternative 

1. Regionally, pollutants are 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 is associated with terminal operations, as defined 

in Section 4.4. Continued vehicle conflicts are expected at Lonyo and Central as the rail 

lines at these street crossings will not be separated from the railroad tracks, as defined in 

Section 4.1. And, industrial and commercial uses are 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 is not likely to be associated with aesthetic improvements to enhance/protect 

surrounding neighborhoods. 

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

forecast from current conditions, as defined in Section 4.9. 

• Cultural Resources – No effect is expected on historical or archaeologic 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 are likely to be affected by direct terminal activity, as discussed in Section 4.16. 

Nevertheless, 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 is expected to continue, as future 

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

plans to address spills of hazardous materials will continue 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) is also considered a continuation of 

current trends. 

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 are expected to 

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

this section and summarized in Tables 4-14 and 4-15. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 76

Table 4-14 

Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 

Impact ALT 1 - 2025 NO ACTION ALT 2 - 2025 IMPROVE/EXPAND ALT 3 - 2025 CONSOLIDATE 

Terminal Area LIV-JCT-CP/EXPa CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT-CP/EXPb CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT-CP/EX

Mobility 

Traffic • Acceptable levels 

of traffic congestion throughout network except at Dix/ Waterman/ Vernor intersection. 

• Acceptable 

levels of traffic congestion throughout network. 

• Acceptable 

levels of traffic congestion throughout network. 

• Acceptable levels 

of traffic congestion throughout network except at Dix/Waterman/ Vernor gate area under Option A. 

• Acceptable levels 

of traffic congestion throughout network. 

• Acceptable levels 

of traffic congestion throughout network. 

• Acceptable level

traffic congestion throughout netwo

but five intersect

which can be maacceptable by modified signal phasing. 

Economic 

Impacts 

Jobse in terminal area

• Jobs Relocated from 

Terminal Area: 0 

• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 194 • Overall 1,029 

• Jobs Relocated from 

Terminal Area: 0

• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 130

• Overall 1,029

• Jobs Relocated 

from Terminal Area: 0

• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 88• Overall 1,029

• Jobs Relocated from 

Terminal Area: 0

• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 786• Overall 4,950

• Jobs Relocated from 

Terminal Area: 596

• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 187

• Overall 4,950

• Jobs Relocated from 

Terminal Area: 0

• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 390• Overall 4,950

• Jobs Relocated from 

Terminal Area: 

• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 2,• Overall 9,

Land Use 

Land Use • Maintains existing 

land use pattern. 

• Up to 10 acres of 

available land converted to uses by industrial and commercial businesses supporting intermodal activity. 

• Maintains 

existing land use pattern. 

• Up to 5 acres of 

available land converted to uses by industrial and commercial businesses supporting intermodal activity. 

• Maintains 

existing land use pattern. 

• Up to 5 acres of 

available land converted to uses by industrial and commercial businesses supporting intermodal activity. 

• Consistent with 

Detroit and Dearborn land use plans. 

• Up to 40 net acres 

of available land converted to uses by industrial and commercial businesses supporting intermodal activity. 

• Detroit land use 

plan does not mention terminal. 

• Up to 15 net acres 

of available land converted to uses by industrial and commercial businesses supporting intermodal activity 

• Consistent with 

Detroit and Ferndale land use plans. 

• Up to 20 net acres 

of available land converted to uses by industrial and commercial businesses supporting intermodal activity 

• Consistent with 

Detroit and Dearborn land usplans. 

• Up to 120 net acr

of available land converted to uses industrial and commercial businesses supporting intermodal activi

Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots 

• No violations of 

CO standards at intersections. 

• No violations of 

CO standards at intersections. 

• No violations of

CO standards at intersections. 

• No violations of 

CO standards at intersections. 

• No violations of 

CO standards at intersections. 

• No violations of 

CO standards at intersections. 

• No violations of 

standards at intersections. 

Air Quality 

Pollutant Burden 

• Terminal burdens 

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

• Roadway burdens 

less than existing conditions because of cleaner engines and fuels. 

• Regional burdens are 

reduced. 

• Terminal burdens 

less than existing conditions except for PM10 and 

PM2.5. 

• Roadway burdens 

less than existing conditions because of cleaner engines and fuels. 

• Regional burdens 

are reduced. 

• Terminal burdens 

less than existing conditions except for PM10 and 

PM2.5. 

• Roadway burdens 

less than existing conditions 

because of cleaner 

engines and fuels.

• Regional burdens 

are reduced. 

• Terminal burdens 

increase over No Action due to increased intermodal activity. 

• Roadway burdens 

virtually same as No Action. 

• Regional burdens are 

reduced. 

• Terminal burdens 

increase over No Action due to increased intermodal activity. 

• Roadway burdens 

virtually same as No Action. 

• Regional burdens are 

reduced. 

• Terminal burdens 

increase over No Action due to increased intermodal activity. 

• Roadway burdens 

virtually same as No Action. 

• Regional burdens are 

reduced 

• Terminal burdens 

increase over No Action due to increintermodal activity

• Roadway burdens 

slightly less than NAction. 

• Regional burdens a

reduced. 

a Includes the Livernois-Junction Yard, CP/Expressway, and NS/Delray and Triple Crown terminals. b Includes the existing Livernois-Junction Yard and CP/Expressway terminals. The intermodal operations of NS at Delray and Triple Crown will be transferred to the Livernois-Junction Yard. Th

railroad business.

c Includes the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway, CP/Oak and CN/Moterm. These latter three terminals would serve non-intermodal 

d Includes the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway and CP/Oak. These latter two terminals would serve non-intermodal railroad busine Jobs relocated are those moved from within terminal area due to terminal expansion. Net jobs are those gained in terminal area. Each terminal area is defined as an “impact zone” around each exf NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 

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

4 - 77

Table 4-14 (continued) 

Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 

Impact ALT 1 - 2025 NO ACTION ALT 2 - 2025 IMPROVE/EXPAND ALT 3 - 20

CONSOLID

Terminal Area LIV-JCT-CP/EXPa CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT-CP/EXPb CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT

CP/EXP

No. of Residential Units Affected (Acquisitions) 

0 0 0 • Option A=0 

• Option B = 0 

• Option C = 0

• Option A=0 

• Option B = 0 

0 • 71 single-f

plus 12 apartment 

No. of Business Units Affected (Acquisitions) 

0 0 0 • Option A = 8 

• Option B = 11 

• Option C = 8 

• Option A = 5 

• Option B = 6 

0 • 64 

Other Affected Properties (Acquisitions) 

N/A N/A N/A • One institutional 

property at CP/Expressway 

N/A • 30 to 35 acres of 

Fairgrounds property leased. 

N/A 

Effects on Community Cohesion 

• Industrial/ 

commercial uses will continue to be mixed with residential uses. 

• Continued 

rail/vehicle conflicts at Central/Lonyo. 

• Industrial/ 

commercial uses will continue to be mixed with residential uses.

• Industrial/ 

commercial uses will continue to be mixed with residential uses.

• Lonyo closed. 

Central railroad crossing grade separated. 

• Truck traffic 

reduced on neighborhood streets. 

• Truck traffic 

reduced on neighborhood streets. 

• Truck traffic 

reduced on neighborhood streets. 

• Lonyo clos

Central raicrossing grseparated. 

• Truck traff

reduced on neighborhostreets. 

Potential Environmental Justice Issues 

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact expected 

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact expected

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact expected

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact expected 

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact expected 

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact expected 

• No adverse 

disproportiimpact exp

Community 

Change in Aesthetics 

• Intermodal 

terminals/activity will continue to grow without aesthetic improvements and protection of surrounding neighborhoods. 

• Intermodal 

terminals/activity will continue to grow without aesthetic improvements and protection of surrounding neighborhoods.

• Intermodal 

terminals/activity will continue to grow without aesthetic improvements and protection of surrounding neighborhoods.

• Walls on north 

and part of south side of terminal will buffer its activity. Terminal will be paved reducing dust. 

• Wall on north 

edge of terminal will buffer its activity. 

• Wall on east side 

of terminal south of Eight Mile Road will buffer its activity. Gravel area at Fairgrounds will be paved reducing dust. 

• Walls on n

and part of sides of LivernoisJunction Ywill buffer activity. Nnorth side perimeter rwill also enhance arTerminal wpaved redudust. 

a Includes the Livernois-Junction Yard, CP/Expressway, and NS/Delray and Triple Crown terminals. b Includes the existing Livernois-Junction Yard and CP/Expressway terminals. The intermodal operations of NS at Delray and Triple Crown will be transferred to the Livernois-Junction Yard The

railroad business.

c Includes the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway, CP/Oak and CN/Moterm. These latter three terminals would serve non-intermodal 

d Includes the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway and CP/Oak. These latter two terminals would serve non-intermodal railroad busine Jobs relocated are those moved from within terminal area due to terminal expansion. Net jobs are those gained in terminal area. Each terminal area is defined as an “impact zone” around each exf NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 

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

4 - 78

Table 4-14 (continued) 

Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts

Impacts ALT 1 - 2025 NO ACTION ALT 2 - 2025 IMPROVE/EXPAND ALT 3 

CONSO

Terminal Area LIV-JCT-CP/EXPa CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT-CP/EXPb CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV

CP/

Noise 

Noise Considerations • No perceptible 

increase. 

• No perceptible 

increase. 

• No perceptible 

increase. 

• No perceptible 

increase with planned barrier wall. 

• No perceptible 

increase with planned barrier wall. 

• No 

perceptible increase with planned barrier wall.

• No pe

increaplannewall. 

Effects on Historic/Archaeological Resources 

• No Effect • No Effect • No Effect • Adverse effect on 

bridge deck at Michigan Central Depot 

• No Effect • No Effect • Remo

MichiCompbuildiFederaWorks Potentadverson MaTomm

Cultural 4(f) Resources Effects on Parklands/ Recreational Land • No Effect • No Effect • No Effect • No Effect • No Effect • 30 to 35 acres from 

State Fairgrounds

• No Ef

Contaminated Sites 

• No sites around 

terminal area expected to change 

• Potential to remediate 

up to 10 acres for non-terminal intermodal activity 

• No sites around 

terminal area expected to change

• Potential to 

remediate up to 5 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity

• No sites around 

terminal area expected to change 

• Potential to 

remediate up to 5 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

• 9 sites around 

terminal area need additional testing 

• Potential to 

remediate up to 40 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

• 6 sites around 

terminal area need additional testing 

• Potential to 

remediate up to 15 acres for non-terminal intermodal activity 

• No sites 

involved 

• Potential to 

remediate up to 20 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

• 45 sites 

additio

• Potenti

remedi120 acrnon-terintermoactivity 

Water Quantity/Quality • No Change 

• Spill prevention 

plans will be in place. 

• No Change 

• Spill prevention 

plans will be in place. 

• No Change 

• Spill prevention 

plans will be in place. 

• Yard paving will 

improve drainage. 

• Storm drainage 

subject of NPDESf

permitting. 

• Spill prevention 

plans will be in place. 

• Yard paving 

will improve drainage. 

• Storm drainage 

subject of NPDESf 

permitting. 

• Spill 

prevention plans will be in place. 

• Fairgrounds 

is now gravel. Yard paving will improve drainage. 

• Storm 

drainage subject to NPDESf

permitting. 

• Spill 

prevention plans will be in place. 

• Yard p

will imdraina

• Storm 

subjecNPDE

permit

• Spill p

plans place. 

Water 

Quantity/Quality of Wetlands Affected • None • None • None • 0.01 acres of Palustrine 

Emergent wetlands of low quality 

• None • 0.07 acres of 

Palustrine Emergent wetlands of low quality 

• 0.01 a

PalustEmergwetlanquality 

a Includes the Livernois-Junction Yard, CP/Expressway, and NS/Delray and Triple Crown terminals. b Includes the existing Livernois-Junction Yard and CP/Expressway terminals. The intermodal operations of NS at Delray and Triple Crown will be transferred to the Livernois-Junction Yard These latter two 

c Includes the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway, CP/Oak and CN/Moterm. These latter three terminals would serve non-intermodal railroad bus

d Includes the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway and CP/Oak. These latter two terminals would serve non-intermodal railroad business. e Jobs relocated are those moved from within terminal area due to terminal expansion. Net jobs are those gained in terminal area. Each terminal area is defined as an “impact zone” around each existing intermf NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 

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

4 - 79

Table 4-15 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

Summary of Cumulative Effects 

All Action Alternatives 

Alternative 2: Improve-Expand 

Alternative 3: Consolidate 

Alternative 4: Composite of Alts. 2 and 3 

Terminal/ All Terminals Livernois-Junction CP/Oak CN/Moterm 

Alternative 

Effects No Action Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Alternative 2 Alternatives 2 and 4 

Mobility • Normal, non-DIFT traffic 

increases. Truck traffic 

continues to use 

neighborhood streets. 

• No negative effect of 

congestion on major arteries or 

local streets unless Jobs Tunnel 

follows intermodal relocation. 

• No negative effect of congestion on 

major arteries or local streets. 

• No negative effect of congestion on 

major arteries or local streets. 

Economic Impacts • Virtually no change in 

job/economic trends. 

• Local business expansion in 

several sectors is expected. 

• Increase in local jobs is 

expected with greater income 

levels and buying power. 

• Growth in tax base is expected. 

• Local business expansion in several 

sectors is expected. 

• Increase in local jobs is expected 

with greater income levels and 

buying power. 

• Growth in tax base is expected. 

• Local business expansion in several 

sectors is expected. 

• Increase in local jobs is expected 

with greater income levels and 

buying power. 

• Growth in tax base is expected. 

Land Use • Maintains existing land use 

patterns. 

• Land use changes due to 

improved economic stimulus. 

• Unwanted mixing of land uses 

must be resisted by applying 

Detroit Master Plan of Policies. 

• Land use changes due to improved 

economic stimulus. 

• Unwanted mixing of land uses must 

be resisted by applying Detroit 

Master Plan of Policies. 

• Land use changes due to improved 

economic stimulus. 

• Unwanted mixing of land uses 

must be resisted by applying 

Detroit Master Plan of Policies. 

Air Quality • Pollution reduced by 

cleaner engines and fuel. 

• Increase in development will 

possibly increase local pollution 

but emissions will decrease 

faster than travel increases with 

no adverse effect expected. 

• Increase in development will 

possibly increase local pollution but 

emissions will decrease faster than 

travel increases with no adverse 

effect expected. 

• Increase in development will 

possibly increase local pollution 

but emissions will decrease faster 

than travel increases with no 

adverse effect expected. 

Community Effects • Industrial/commercial uses 

will continue to be mixed 

with residential uses. 

• Continued rail/vehicle 

conflicts at Central and 

Lonyo. 

• Ripple-wave development may 

create opportunities for use of 

underused residential parcels. 

• New local development may 

lead to unwanted mixing of 

uses unless already-existing 

provisions in Detroit Master 

Plan of Policies and Dearborn 

Land Use Plan are strictly 

applied. 

• Ripple-wave development may 

create opportunities for use of 

underused residential parcels. 

• New local development may lead to 

unwanted mixing of uses unless 

already-existing provisions in 

Detroit Master Plan of Policies are 

strictly applied. 

• Ripple-wave development may 

create opportunities for use of 

underused residential parcels. 

• New local development may lead 

to unwanted mixing of uses unless 

already-existing provisions in 

Detroit Master Plan of Policies and 

Ferndale, Highland Park and Hazel 

Park Land Use Plans are strictly 

applied. 

Noise • No perceptible increase due 

to intermodal terminal 

activity. 

• Traffic volumes will increase. 

Ambient noise levels may 

increase as economic conditions 

improve. Proper location of 

growth away from sensitive 

areas will avoid adverse noise 

impacts. 

• Traffic volumes will increase. 

Ambient noise levels may increase 

as economic conditions improve. 

Proper location of growth away 

from sensitive areas will avoid 

adverse noise impacts. 

• Traffic volumes will increase. 

Ambient noise levels may increase 

as economic conditions improve. 

Property location of growth away 

from sensitive areas will avoid 

adverse noise impacts. 

Cultural Resources • No effects expected. • Historic districts/properties may 

experience effects that may be 

adverse if local controls are not 

applied. 

• Historic districts/properties may 

experience effects that may be 

adverse if local controls are not 

applied. 

• Historic districts/properties may 

experience effects that may be 

adverse if local controls are not 

applied. 

Contaminated Sites • Reclaiming properties now 

affected by hazardous 

materials is expected to 

have a positive effect. 

• Reclaiming properties now 

affected by hazardous materials 

is expected to have a positive 

effect. 

• Reclaiming properties now affected 

by hazardous materials is expected 

to have a positive effect. 

• Reclaiming properties now affected 

by hazardous materials is expected 

to have a positive effect. 

Water Quality • Maintains status quo. • Increased development could 

lead to more impervious surface 

runoff and pollutant load. It is 

expected available 

infrastructure will handle but no 

certainty exists. 

• Increased development could lead to 

more impervious surface runoff and 

pollutant load. It is expected 

available infrastructure will handle 

but no certainty exists. 

• Increased development could lead 

to more impervious surface runoff 

and pollutant load. It is expected 

infrastructure will handle but no 

certainty exists. 

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

4 - 80

CP/Oak Terminal Area 

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

4-14 and 4-15, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the CP/Oak terminal area 

under Alternative 1: 

• Mobility – There will be 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 will be no impacts on 

public transit routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Impacts – No jobs will be relocated due to intermodal terminal expansion. 

Over the next 20 years, there would be 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 is 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 is consistent with development patterns that currently exist. 

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

are expected in the terminal area. Compared to today’s conditions, pollution is expected 

to be lower largely because of the use of cleaner engines and fuels, as mandated by EPA. 

Regionally, pollutants are 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 is associated with terminal expansion as there will 

be 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 is not likely to be associated with aesthetics 

improvements. 

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

forecast from current conditions, as defined in Section 4.9. 

• Cultural Resources – No effect is expected on historical or archaeologic 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 likely to be affected, as discussed in Section 4.16. Nevertheless, the 

increased intermodal activity could cause, 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 is 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) of potentially reclaimed 

properties (e.g., brownfields) is also considered a continuation of current trends. 

The results of the conditions presented above indicate there will be 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, is less positive 

overall than the Action Alternatives, discussed later in this section and summarized in Tables 

4-14 and 4-15. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 81

CN/Moterm Terminal Area 

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

4-14 and 4-15, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the CN/Moterm terminal area 

under Alternative 1: 

• Mobility – There will be acceptable levels of traffic congestion throughout the roadway 

network around the CN/Moterm terminal. There will be no impacts on public transit 

routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Impacts – No jobs would be relocated due to intermodal terminal expansion. 

Over the next 20 years, there would be 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 is 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 is 

consistent with development patterns that currently exist. 

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

are expected in the area around the terminal. Compared to today’s conditions, pollution 

is expected to be lower, largely because of the use of cleaner engines and fuels, as 

mandated by EPA. Regionally, pollutants are 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 is associated with terminal expansion as there will 

be 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 is not likely to be associated with aesthetic 

improvements. 

• Noise – No perceptible noise increase is forecast at sensitive receptors due to terminal 

activity from current conditions, as defined in Section 4.9. 

• Cultural Resources – No effect is expected on historical and archaeologic 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 are 

likely to be affected by direct terminal activity, as discussed in Section 4.16. The 

increased intermodal activity could cause, 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 is 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) of potentially reclaimed 

properties (brownfields) is also considered a continuation of current trends. 

The results of the conditions presented above indicate there will be 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, is less positive overall 

than the Action Alternatives, discussed next. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 82

Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals 

Livernois-Junction Yard/CP-Expressway Terminal Area 

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

4-14 and 4-15, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the Livernois-Junction/CPExpressway terminal area under Alternative 2.: 

• Mobility – There will be 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 will be reduced on 

neighborhood streets. And, Lonyo will be closed while the Central Avenue crossing of 

the railroad tracks will become 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 reduce truck traffic on neighborhood streets. There 

will be no impacts on public transit routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Impacts – No jobs are expected to be lost to the terminal area but some will 

be relocated within it as between eight and 11 business operations would be moved. 

Over the next 20 years, there would be about 800 jobs created in the terminal area due to 

intermodal activity, as defined in Section 4.5. Growth in the local tax base is forecast as 

is local business expansion. 

• Land Use – The expected investment by the railroads and government is 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 is 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 

are expected in the areas around the terminals. Compared to the No Action condition in 

2025, terminal pollutant burdens are expected to increase due to the forecast increase in 

intermodal activity. The Livernois-Junction Yard will be paved. The 2025 pollution 

burdens of the roadways around the terminals are forecast to be virtually the same as 

today. The regional mobile source pollutant burdens are 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 are 

expected to be relocated due to expansion of the terminals, but none are 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 be relocated for CP/Expressway terminal 

expansion. Lonyo would be closed and Central Avenue rebuilt to pass under the railroad 

lines, improving the safe flow of vehicles. Truck traffic on neighborhood streets would 

be reduced. Barrier walls for security on the north side of the terminal, and part of the 

south, will buffer its activity, improving the aesthetics of the area. The terminal will be 

paved, reducing the effects of dust on the nearby population. 

• Noise – No perceptible increase in noise in sensitive areas is expected with planned 

barrier walls for security purposes, as defined in Section 4.9. Traffic volumes in the 

terminal area will increase as economic conditions improve. Ambient noise levels may 

also increase. 

• Cultural Resources – An adverse effect is expected by removal of the bridge deck at 

Michigan Central Depot, as defined in Section 4.13. No effects are forecast on 

parks/recreational lands, as presented in Section 4.14. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 83

• Contaminated Sites – Nine sites in the immediate area around the terminals, suspected 

of having contamination, need additional testing, if these terminals were expanded. This 

information is presented in Section 4.16. The increased intermodal activity could cause, 

over the next 20 years, up to 40 acres of contaminated land (e.g., brownfields) to be 

reclaimed by private sector development. This could lead to increased, but less polluted, 

water runoff. 

• Water Quality – As discussed in Section 4.11, it is expected that paving the LivernoisJunction Yard will improve drainage as the runoff today clogs sewer inlets which causes 

standing water. The storm drainage system of the improved terminals will be subject to 

NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permitting. Where the 

project increases stormwater amounts by paving terminals surfaces that now absorb 

water, storage will be engineered into the system (oversized pipes or retention areas) so 

that the flow rate of stormwater does not increase. Because of the combined sewer 

system, all water will be treated before it outfalls to the Detroit River. Prevention plans 

to address accidental spills of hazardous materials will continue to be maintained by the 

railroads as required by the federal government. Reclaiming up to 40 acres of potentially 

contaminated property (brownfields) is possible. 

The results of the conditions presented above indicate an adverse effect due to an increase in 

terminal air pollution burdens. This is associated with increased intermodal activity compared to 

the No Action Alternative. Likewise, a negative effect on an historical feature of the Michigan 

Central Depot is expected. Positive developments are forecast in the areas of mobility, economic 

impacts, land use, community effects, reclaiming contaminated sites, and water quality. On 

balance, there will be 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. Nevertheless, it is recognized an adverse effect(s) may occur 

and, if so, it (they) will be mitigated and/or minimized in the design, right-of-way and 

construction phases of project implementation, if Alternative 2 were selected as the preferred 

alternative. 

CP/Oak Terminal Area 

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

4-14 and 4-15, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the CP/Oak terminal area 

under Alternative 2: 

• Mobility – There will be acceptable levels of traffic congestion throughout the roadway 

network around the terminal, as presented in Section 4.1. There will be no impacts on 

public transit routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Impacts – Almost 600 jobs are expected to be relocated from the terminal 

area, as discussed in Section 4.5. Over the next 20 years, those 600 jobs would be 

regained and another 200 created in the terminal area. As a result, local business 

expansion is also expected as well as growth in the tax base. 

• Land Use – The expected investment by the railroads and government is 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 is 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. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 84

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

are expected in the areas around the CP/Oak terminal. Compared to the No Action 

condition in 2025, terminal pollutant burdens are expected to increase due to the forecast 

increase in intermodal activity. The 2025 pollutant burdens of the roadways around the 

terminal are forecast to be virtually the same as today. The regional mobile source 

pollutant burdens are 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 are expected to be relocated due to terminal 

expansion. Most of these are likely to move outside the terminal area, as defined in 

Sections 4.4 and 4.5. Truck traffic on neighborhood streets would be reduced. Barrier 

walls for security on the north side of the terminal will buffer its activity, improving the 

aesthetics of the area. 

• Noise – No perceptible increase in noise in sensitive areas is expected with planned 

barrier walls for security purposes, as defined in Section 4.9. Traffic volumes in the 

terminal area will increase with improved economic conditions. Ambient noise levels 

may also increase. 

• Cultural Resources – No effect is expected on historic, archaeologic 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, need additional testing, if the terminal were 

expanded. This information is presented in Section 4.16. The increased intermodal 

activity could cause, over the next 20 years, up to 15 acres of contaminated land (e.g., 

brownfields) to be reclaimed by private sector development. This could lead to 

increased, but less polluted, water runoff. 

• Water Quality – As described in Section 4.11, it is expected that paving of the CP/Oak 

Yard will improve water quality. The storm drainage system of the terminals will be 

subject to NPDES permitting. Where the project increases stormwater amounts by 

paving surfaces at terminals that now absorb water, storage will be engineered into the 

system (oversized pipes or retention areas) so that the flow rate of stormwater does not 

increase. Because of the combined sewer system, all water will be treated before it 

outfalls to the Detroit River. Prevention plans to address accidental spills of hazardous 

materials will continue to be maintained by the railroads as required by the federal 

government. Reclaiming up to 15 acres of potentially contaminated properties (e.g., 

brownfields) is possible. 

The results of the conditions presented above indicate an adverse effect due to an increase in 

terminal pollutant burdens in the areas around the terminal. This is associated with increased 

intermodal activity, compared to the No Action Alternative. Positive developments are forecast 

in almost all other evaluation areas. On balance, there will be 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. Nevertheless, it is recognized an adverse effect(s) 

may occur and, if so, it (they) will be mitigated and/or minimized in the design, right-of-way and 

construction phases of project implementation, if Alternative 2 were selected as the preferred 

alternative. 

CN/Moterm Terminal Area 

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

4-14 and 4-15, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the CN/Moterm terminal area 

under Alternative 2: 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 85

• Mobility – Acceptable levels of traffic congestion are expected throughout the roadway 

network around the terminal, as described in Section 4.1. There will be no impacts on 

public transit routes (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Effects – No jobs would be lost in the terminal area due to intermodal 

terminal expansion. Over the next 20 years, there would be almost 400 jobs created in 

the terminal area due to intermodal terminal activity, as defined in Section 4.5. Growth 

in local businesses and tax base are expected. 

• Land Use – The expected investment by the railroads and government is 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 is 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 indicate no violations of CO standards 

are expected in the areas around the terminals. Compared to the No Action condition in 

2025, terminal pollutant burdens are expected to increase due to the forecast increase in 

intermodal activity. The 2025 pollution burden of the roadways around the terminal are 

projected to be virtually the same as today. The regional mobile source pollutant burdens 

are 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 will be 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 be leased for terminal activity. Truck traffic on neighborhood streets would be 

reduced. Barrier walls for security on the east side of the terminal, south of Eight Mile 

Road, would buffer its activity. The gravel area at the Fairgrounds would be paved, 

reducing the effects of dust on nearby areas. 

• Noise – No perceptible increase in noise in sensitive areas is expected with planned 

barrier walls for security purposes, as defined in Section 4.9. Traffic volumes in the area 

will increase with improved economic conditions. Ambient noise levels may also 

increase. 

• Cultural Resources – While no effect on historic and archaeologic resources is 

expected, up to 35 acres of State Fairgrounds property would be 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 is presented in 

Sections 4.13 and 4.14, respectively. 

• Contaminated Sites – No sites suspected of having contaminants would be affected by 

expanding the terminal, as discussed in Section 4.16. The increased intermodal activity 

could cause, over the next 20 years, up to 20 acres of contaminated land (e.g., 

brownfields) to be reclaimed by private sector development. This could lead to 

increased, but less polluted, runoff. 

• Water Quality – As described in Section 4.11, it is expected that paving the gravel area 

of the Fairgrounds to be used for intermodal terminal development will improve water 

quality. The storm drainage system of the expanded terminal will be subject to NPDES 

permitting. Where the project increases stormwater amounts by paving surfaces at 

terminals that now absorb water, storage will be engineered into the system (oversized 

pipes or retention areas) so that the flow rate does not increase. Because of the combined 

sewer system, all water will be treated before it outfalls to the Detroit River. Prevention 

plans to address accidental spills of hazardous materials will continue to be maintained as 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 86

required by the federal government. Reclaiming up to 20 acres of potentially 

contaminated properties (e.g., brownfields) is possible. 

The results of the conditions presented above indicate an adverse effect due to an increase in 

terminal air pollutant burdens. This is associated with increased intermodal activity compared to 

the No Action Alternative. Also, there would be an adverse effect as up to 35 acres of protected 

4(f) recreational land would be used for intermodal terminal expansion. Positive developments 

are forecast in almost all other evaluation areas. On balance, there will be 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. Nevertheless, it is recognized an 

adverse effect(s) may occur and, it so, it (they) will be mitigated and/or minimized in the design, 

right-of-way and construction phases of project implementation, if Alternative 2 were 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 

4-14 and 4-15, indicate the following impacts on EJ populations for the Livernois-Junction 

Yard/CP-Expressway terminal area under Alternative 3: 

• Mobility – There will be acceptable levels of traffic congestion throughout the roadway 

network around the terminal, except at five intersections. Modifying signal timings at 

these intersections will address this problem, as presented in Section 4.1. Truck traffic 

will be reduced on neighborhood streets. 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 (Section 4.2.3). 

• Economic Impacts – Almost 290 jobs are expected to be relocated out of the terminal 

area due to terminal expansion. These will be 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 are 

anticipated. 

• Land Use – The expected investment by the railroads and government is 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 is consistent with the land use plans of Detroit and 

Dearborn. Unwanted mixing of land uses should be resisted by applying already-existing 

provisions in the Detroit Master Plan of Policies and the Dearborn Master Plan. 

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

are expected in the areas around the terminal. Compared to the No Action condition in 

2025, terminal pollutant burdens are expected to increase with the increase in intermodal 

activity. The roadway burdens are 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 are 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 are expected to be relocated due to the expansion of the terminal. Almost 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 87

290 jobs would be 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 be closed and Central Avenue grade separated from the 

railroad lines, improving safe flow of vehicles. Truck traffic on neighborhood streets 

would be reduced. Barrier walls for security on the north side of the terminal, and part of 

the south, will buffer its activity, improving the aesthetics of the area. The terminal will 

be paved, reducing the effects of dust on the nearby population. 

• Noise – No perceptible increase in noise on sensitive areas is expected with planned 

barrier walls for security purposes, as defined in Section 4.9. Traffic volumes in the 

terminal area will increase as economic conditions improve. Ambient noise levels may 

also increase. 

• Cultural Resources – An adverse effect is expected by removal of the Michigan Box 

Company building and the Federal Screw Works Factory. Also potential adverse effects 

to the Markey and Tomms Houses, as defined in Section 4.13. No effects are 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, need additional testing, if this terminal were 

expanded. This information is presented in Section 4.16. The increased intermodal 

activity could cause, over the next 20 years, up to 120 acres of contaminated land (e.g., 

brownfields) to be reclaimed by the private sector. This could lead to increased, but less 

polluted, water runoff. 

• Water Quality – As discussed in Section 4.11, it is expected that paving the LivernoisJunction Yard will improve drainage as the runoff today clogs sewer inlets which causes 

standing water. The storm drainage system of the improved terminal will be subject to 

NPDES permitting. Where the project increases stormwater amounts by paving terminals 

surfaces that now absorb water, storage will be engineered in the system (oversized pipes 

or retention areas) so that the flow rate of stormwater does not increase. Because the 

combined sewer system, all water will be treated before it outfalls to the Detroit River. 

Prevention plans to address accidental spills of hazardous materials will continue to be 

maintained by the railroads. Reclaiming up to 120 acres of potential contaminated 

properties (e.g., brownfields) is possible. 

The results of the conditions presented above indicate minimal adverse effects and the potential 

for an overall positive effect on populations covered by the EJ regulations. Therefore, there will 

not be a disproportionate adverse effect on these groups. 

Alternative 4: The Composite Option 

The impacts on the Livernois-Junction Yard and the CN/Moterm terminal, both of which would 

be expanded under this alternative, are summarized on Tables 4-14 and 4-15. 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 will be minimal 

adverse effects and no disproportionate negative effect on population groups covered by the EJ 

Executive Order. 

Summary 

Alternative 3 could be viewed as having the most positive effect overall on EJ populations as it 

would generate the most jobs. The pollutant burden for all terminals combined is less than today, 

as is the roadway burden. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 88

4.4 Relocations 

To construct any of the Action Alternatives, proposed permanent fee right-of-way and grading 

permits will be required.8 New right-of-way that MDOT will likely need to acquire is identified 

in the Engineering Concepts Report9

 and in Appendix D. Information is summarized in Table 4-

16. If an Action Alternative is chosen, then acquisition of these 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 

based on a review of real estate available in the study area. 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 4-16 

Relocation Information 

Alternative 2 - Improve/Expand Alternative 3 - 

Consolidate 

Alternative 4 - 

Composite 

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 

Single Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 29 0 

Multiple Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 

Businesses/Institutions 0 8 11 8 1 5 6 0 64 51 0 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 

4.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative no relocations of residences or businesses are expected. 

4.4.2 Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals

Livernois-Junction Yard 

Under this alternative, there would be no residential property impacts. Depending on the 

access/gate locations, between eight and 11 businesses would potentially be acquired at the 

Livernois-Junction Yard terminal under Alternative 2. It is estimated that these businesses 

employ 30 to 80 people, respectively. This acquisition is for creating a Central Avenue underpass 

of the rail yard and/or creation of a west gate to Wyoming. Interviews indicate businesses that 

may be relocated would likely choose to remain in the terminal area. 

CP/Expressway 

A City of Detroit Public Works facility and one vacant industrial parcel would be acquired if the 

Expressway terminal were expanded. It is estimated that the DPW facility is associated with 30 

jobs which are likely to be relocated in the terminal area. 

 

8 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.

9 Engineering Concepts Report, DIFT, The Corradino Group and Alfred Benesch & Company, October 2004. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 89

CP/Oak 

Between five to six businesses would be affected depending on the terminal access configuration 

chosen to serve an expanded Oak terminal. It is estimated that these businesses employ 

approximately 600 people. They are 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 automobiles would be used for an expanded Moterm terminal under Alternatives 2 and 

4. It is estimated that this operation affects the employment of approximately ten people. Their 

jobs are likely to be relocated in the terminal area. 

4.4.3 Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four Class I Railroads’ Intermodal Activity at 

Livernois-Junction Yard Area 

Eighty-three residential units would potentially be relocated if the Livernois-Junction Yard were 

expanded to accommodate consolidating the intermodal activity of all four Class I railroads. 

Alternative 3 would potentially involve acquisition of 64 businesses. It is estimated that these 

businesses employ today almost 1,200 people. Interviews indicate most businesses that may be 

relocated would choose to remain in the terminal area. 

4.4.4 Alternative 4: The Composite Option 

Acquisition of 51 businesses around the Livernois-Junction Yard would be involved in 

developing Alternative 4. It is estimated that these 51 businesses employ almost 1,000 people. 

The majority are likely to be relocated in the terminal area. Thirty-three occupied dwelling units 

would also be required in developing Alternative 4. 

Housing is available in each terminal area to accommodate potential residential relocations. 

Businesses potentially affected are primarily industrial. They are 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 

development will allow 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. 

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 forecasts how the local and regional economies are expected to perform based 

on historical trends and compares this control forecast with forecasts that reflect 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 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

4 - 90

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 uses 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 include population and demographic information, labor and wage 

rate information, taxation and government revenue data, business and economic activity data. 

The model encompasses six study zones10 (Figure 4-26a): 

• 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 codes11; 

• “Wayne County Plus”: all zip codes in Wayne County plus two adjacent zip codes12; and, 

• Michigan: all zip codes in Michigan. 

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, historical data were input to the model and calibrated, then the control forecast 

was calculated through 2025. This forecast was 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 4-26b) 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; 

 

10 The Policy InsightTM model uses the mutually exclusive intermediary zones “Rest of Detroit,” “Rest of Wayne,” 

“Rest of Oakland,” and “Rest of State” in order to avoid double counting. 11 “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. 

12 “Wayne County Plus” also includes the Ferndale and Hazel Park zip codes (48220 and 48030), which are in Oakland 

County.