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

2 - 1

SECTION 2 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 

 

This section defines the purpose of the proposed action, including a brief history of intermodal 

activity in the Greater Detroit Area (GDA). It then explains the need for the project in terms of 

demand and capacity. 

2.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action 

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

competitiveness of southeastern Michigan and the state by improving freight transportation 

opportunities and efficiencies for business, industry and the military. The goal is to ensure 

Southeast Michigan has a regional facility, or facilities, with sufficient capacity and 

interconnectivity to provide for existing and future intermodal demand and reduce time, monetary 

costs and congestion to support the economic competitiveness of Southeast Michigan. 

2.1.1 Project Background 

The growth of U.S. intermodal traffic (Figures 2-1 and 2-2), the enormous influx of double-stack 

trains, and the entry and rapid growth of rail-truckload initiatives have all raised questions about 

the adequacy of intermodal terminals to handle traffic increases, and to do so efficiently. 

In the 1980s, railroads consolidated their intermodal service networks into fewer, larger hub 

terminals. Railroads saw an opportunity to consolidate enough volume in one location to justify 

lift machines and other costly improvements/equipment, and to eliminate smaller facilities. 

But, the challenge is to not only provide capacity for future intermodal growth; it is to also plan 

for this growth so that rail and highway freight facilities operate as a coordinated system. 

The initial response to the challenge occurred when the Michigan Department of Transportation 

hired Mercer Management Consultants in 1993 to respond to the Michigan Legislature’s initiative 

to address intermodal transportation in the Greater Detroit Area. The results of that, and 

subsequent work recognized that: 

• Detroit is one of the top markets in the nation for intermodal freight (trailer or container 

loads moving by rail). 

• Because of the auto industry, Detroit leads the nation in its use of “RoadRailer” 

technology, i.e., a truck trailer becomes a rail car by placing rail wheels underneath. 

• One-third of Detroit’s intermodal traffic is trucked to and from other cities. This means it 

travels by rail to Chicago, Toledo, or Windsor for example, and then is trucked to Detroit. 

Better intermodal service could result in a diversion of some of this intermodal activity to 

Detroit because of reduced transportation costs. This would eliminate some trucks from 

Michigan’s roads, which could reduce congestion and help ease the need for added 

capacity on the roadway network. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

2 - 2
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

2 - 3

• The improvement of the Detroit-Windsor rail tunnel and the recent construction of a new 

Port Huron-Sarnia rail tunnel enhance intermodal access to/from the Detroit area. 

2.2 Need for the Proposed Action 

The needs of the U.S. economy and national defense are undergoing a significant change. Modern 

supply chain logistics, just-in-time manufacturing and deployment, and leaner organizations have 

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

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

meet the needs of its customers. As highway and rail systems are modernized and integrated, 

supporting the needs of business, industry and the military – particularly in the way they contribute 

to the quality of life, the economy and national defense – continues to be the primary justification 

for public investments in the transportation system. 

Detroit is one of the top intermodal markets in the nation. The Detroit market has characteristics 

that could cause intermodal traffic to grow faster than the national average, including its role as the 

automotive capital of the world and strategic position on the Canadian border. Intermodal traffic 

could grow faster and to greater levels in Detroit, if adequate capacity existed. 

It is the role of government (in this case MDOT) to ensure that the businesses and industries involved 

in the freight transportation segment of the economy continue to have access to the market (i.e., 

customers, workers, shippers, etc.). This, in turn, supports jobs in Michigan and nationally and 

ensures maintenance of the national defense as well as a high quality of life for the region’s citizens. 

MDOT’s role in the DIFT is to improve the connectivity between modes through provision of a 

better interface between the public road system and the private rail system and to facilitate the 

development of significant capacity at the region’s intermodal facilities. 

Figure 2-2 

U.S. Rail Intermodal Traffic
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

2 - 4

2.2.1 Intermodal Terminal Capacity Versus Demand 

The following discussion deals with intermodal terminal activity in the Greater Detroit Area 

(GDA). It is presented without identifying each terminal because of the proprietary nature of the 

information. 

Mercer Management Consulting, under contract with the Michigan Department of Transportation, 

assessed the 1993/1994 conditions of intermodal transportation in the Greater Detroit Area and 

defined a course for the future. The study found that the volume of intermodal traffic, called 

lifts,1

 was 335,000 in 1994, which was an 18 percent increase over the 1992 volume of 283,000 

lifts. In 1998, the volume had grown to approximately 400,000 lifts or another 16 percent over 

1994. The number of lifts then declined, mainly because of the railroads’ decision to truck more 

GDA products to Chicago, the economic conditions of the period, and the increasing attention to 

international security threats (Table 2-1). Nevertheless, the actual number of lifts in 2002 had 

rebounded and was higher than the low end of the Mercer forecast made for 2000 (i.e., 335,000 

lifts). Those Mercer forecasts indicated the intermodal capacity of the GDA would be exceeded 

in 2000. 

Table 2-1 

2002 Lift Summary 

Terminala Lifts 

1 60,000 

2 55,000 

3 83,000 

4 77,000 

5 25,000 

6 48,000 

Total 348,000 a

 Terminals are those that served intermodal activity 

in 2002, exclusive of Mazda, which is not available 

for commercial use. Willow Run was not in 

intermodal service at this time.

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 

through cooperation of CSX, NS, CP and CN. 

Following the Mercer work, MDOT conducted a feasibility study in 2001. It concluded that 

doing nothing did not address the regional intermodal capacity demands on Southeast Michigan. 

It also determined that a build alternative could provide the future capacity needed, help address 

community issues in the vicinity of the Livernois-Junction Yard and form a partnership of 

railroads, community and government to create a sustainable environment. This led to the 

Environmental Impact Study, which began early in 2002. 

As an early part of the environmental analysis, an inventory was conducted in 2002 of intermodal 

activity and capacity at each of the six terminals operating at that time. It ratified the earlier 

Mercer forecast and the feasibility study conclusion that the overall regional intermodal demand 

is at terminal capacity (Table 2-2), while three of six terminals lacked adequate capacity. Recent 

information gathered for the DIFT project indicates the Norfolk Southern Railroad has realized a 

significant increase in its Triple Crown business to the extent it cannot be accommodated at the 

Melvindale terminal. NS has requested MDOT’s financial assistance so that it can consolidate its 

 

1

 A lift is the transfer of a trailer or container to or from a rail car. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

2 - 5

Triple Crown intermodal trailer operations at the Livernois-Junction Yard as it has done with 

Oakwood and Delray container operations. But, until the DIFT EIS is finalized and a Record of 

Decision executed, use of federal monies to provide such assistance is not available. So, NS 

reopened in 2004 its terminal at Willow Run in Romulus, Michigan to handle its Triple Crown 

business growth. If the DIFT were approved, and if appropriate improvements are made on a 

timely basis, NS will shift all its intermodal operations at Triple Crown in Michigan to the 

Livernois-Junction Yard. This will leave four intermodal Class I Railroad terminals serving 

Southeast Michigan in the future.2

 

An assessment of the demand/capacity relationships at the four intermodal terminals that will 

serve the region in the future under the No Action scenario is shown on Table 2-2. A range of

demand is provided based on varying growth rate forecasts. Table 2-2 also illustrates the 

maximum possible capacity as provided by the terminal operator. It is the most the terminal can 

handle with the densest use of the existing terminal space, i.e., stacking of containers/parking of 

trailers, and without additional property. These data indicate a lack of capacity at each yard and 

an overall deficit in the region from 80 percent to more than 125 percent by 2025 (Table 2-2). 

Table 2-2 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

Demand vs. Capacity 

No Action Scenario 

2025 Outlook of Lift Activity 

(Demand)c Terminala,b

Low High 

Lift 

Capacity 

Lift Deficiency 

W 352,800 441,600 150,000 202,800 to 291,600 

X 44,500 55,700 25,000d 19,500 to 30,700 

Y 137,200 171,700 95,000 42,200 to 76,700 

Z 85,500 107,000 75,000 10,500 to 32,000 

Total 620,000 776,000 345,000 275,000 to 431,000 

 80% to 125% a

Terminals listed are those four that will serve as intermodal facilities following the assumed NS 

consolidation at the Livernois-Junction Yard. 

b

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

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project, Commodity Flow Model Structure and Preliminary 

Results, January 2004. 

d

Capacity of 40,000 lifts was reduced to 25,000 lifts per year when a lease for land used by the terminal 

was terminated. 

 Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 

It is noteworthy that the growth associated with the No Action Alternative is forecast by use of a 

commodity flow model created specifically for the study of the Detroit Intermodal Freight 

Terminal (refer to Technical Report list at the end of Table of Contents). The model’s results 

were submitted for review to the railroads affected by the DIFT. The intermodal terminal 

operators who responded indicated the high end of the lift range for the alternatives 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. These consultations also indicated that, 

without government assistance, i.e., Alternative 1: No Action, the intermodal growth could be as 

 

2

 A Class I railroad does at least $250 million of business annually. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

2 - 6

low as about 500,000 lifts per year in 2025, compared to the model’s low side forecast of 620,000 

lifts. This is because business would be shifted to terminals outside the region, for example CSX 

to Cleveland, NS to Toledo and CP to Chicago. Nevertheless, even this low forecast of future 

activity under No Action conditions cannot be handled without the railroads expanding existing 

terminals (Table 2-3). 

Table 2-3 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project 

Demand vs. Capacity 

Revised Low-end-of-Range Forecast

Terminala,b 2025 Revised Low-end 

Lift Forecast Lift Capacity Low-end-of-Range 

Lift Deficiency 

W 280,000 150,000 130,000 

X 35,000 25,000 10,000 

Y 110,000 95,000 15,000 

Z 70,000 75,000 -5,000 

Total 495,000 345,000 150,000 

43% a

All Norfolk Southern intermodal activity is consolidated at Livernois-Junction yard, so NS’ four 

terminals become one. 

b

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

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 

2.2.2 Intermodal Connectivity Needs 

Because freight transport is not just about terminal facilities but also about how the system 

operates, there is a need to provide a better interface between the public road system (primarily 

interstate freeways) and the terminals and between the rail lines themselves external to the 

intermodal terminals. There is a need to locate and coordinate services so they can best meet the 

needs of businesses, industries, and the U.S. military in Michigan and nationally. Individual 

private businesses, such as rail companies, are not expected to take sole responsibility for these 

system issues. Government has a role. The types of connections to be considered in addressing 

the need for better connectivity are (Figure 2-3): 

• Rail-to-Highway (I-75, I-96, I-94) 

• Rail-to-Rail (CN, CP, CSX, NS) 

• Rail-to-Cross-Border Connections 

− Bridges (Blue Water, Ambassador and possible new crossing) 

− Tunnels (Port Huron-Sarnia and Detroit-Windsor) 

The rail-to-highway issues, while specific to each alternative, affect connections to I-75/I-96 

and/or I-94. For example, channeling trucks directly to I-96 at the CP/Oak terminal will ease 

traffic on streets such as Artesian, Davison and Schoolcraft. Likewise, better connections at 

Livernois Avenue to I-94 will ease traffic on streets such as Central Avenue and 

Livernois/Dragoon Avenues at the Livernois-Junction Yard. 

As an example of the difficult rail-to-rail connectivity issues in the Detroit area, the June 2003 

Trains magazine reported: “...For railroads, Detroit is the proverbial bowl of spaghetti. Main lines 

entangle and intertwine in seemingly impossible combinations.” 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

2 - 7
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

2 - 8

Capacity is determined through a combination of train speed, length of trains, route conflicts, 

signaling and track switching operations. In Detroit, a number of these issues are causing problems. 

• Train Speeds. Due to the layout and the historical development of the routes in the 

Detroit area, train speeds are restricted at many of the junctions because of the curves in 

the tracks, track conditions, inadequate signaling or railroad operating rules. Trains 

operating at 10 mph occupy track junctions 2.5 times longer than trains operating at 25 

mph. 

 Examples: 

− Milwaukee Junction and Bay City Junction interlockers (refer to Figure 3-15 for 

interlocker locations) have severe curves restricting speeds to just 10 mph. 

− Delray’s interlocker does not have adequate signaling equipment, so trains must 

operate at less than 20 mph. 

Because of speed restrictions, Norfolk Southern trains traveling from Livernois-Junction Yard to 

the River Rouge Bridge are scheduled to take 30 minutes, even though it is approximately three 

miles away. Trains occupying these segments of track for this long – whether they are departing, 

waiting or arriving – reduce the available track time for other trains, which must park and wait. 

• Length of Trains. For many years, the standard rail car was 40 feet long and a train with 

100 cars was about 4,000 feet long. Today, many rail cars are 90 feet long with some 

reaching 250 feet. Train length can easily reach 9,000 feet. There are approximately 80 

trains per day that operate through the Southwest Detroit area. 

 Examples: 

− If a train longer than 4,000 feet is stopped between West Detroit interlocker and 

Delray interlocker it will block tracks at Dix and Waterman, stopping other trains 

trying to get into the Livernois-Junction Yard as well as through the corridor. 

− A train moving to the NS/Oakwood Yard could have tracks blocked affecting 

movement to and from Delray, River Rouge and Ecorse. 

• Route Conflicts. Because of the way some track connections are laid out, trains 

sometimes block other trains. 

 Examples: 

− Amtrak trains currently travel from the Milwaukee Junction interlocker to LivernoisJunction Yard. While making this trip, they stop all movements on three of the four 

tracks causing conflicts at Milwaukee Junction interlocker. The Amtrak trains cause 

conflict again at Beaubien Junction, stopping the movement on three of the four 

tracks. They then have to cross over Vinewood interlocker, stopping movement on 

all but one track. Finally, they cross at West Detroit interlocker, stopping all 

movement on the CN and NS mainline track. 

− Every time a CP train travels through Delray interlocker, all NS and CN trains must 

stop moving until the CP train has cleared the yard. 

• Signaling. In the area around Livernois-Junction Yard, several different signaling 

situations cause major impacts on train operations. 

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

2 - 9

Examples: 

− Delray interlocker is operated by CSX, while the River Rouge Bridge, less than half a 

mile south, is operated by NS. The track in between has signals in only one 

direction. This requires continual coordination among railroads for every train 

movement. 

− Because there are signals in only one direction, trains must operate at restricted 

speeds. 

− Signal spacing governs the speed at which trains can operate. Trains leaving and 

entering areas with signals around the Livernois-Junction Yard generally must 

operate at only 10 mph. 

− In several locations, more than one train operator is needed to make a single 

movement. This happens when one railroad has control over one switch while 

another has control of a second switch, and both are needed for a train to move 

through an area. This occurs at Vinewood, where Conrail has control of one switch 

and CN has control over the other switch. This also occurs at CP Lou, Coolidge and 

Milwaukee Junction interlockers. 

• Switching Operations. At several locations in the area, railroads must use the mainline 

tracks to switch rail cars around while “building” a train. 

 Examples: 

− At the southeast end of Livernois-Junction Yard, rail cars being switched take up 

three of the four available tracks that mainline trains could be using to pass through. 

− This also occurs at the east end of Livernois-Junction Yard, at the Milwaukee 

Junction, and Ecorse interlockers. At all of these locations, switching rail cars 

impacts movement within the yard or on the mainline. 

In all cases cited above, any increase in the number of trains or the amount of switching required 

will make the existing problems worse. Addressing these rail connection problems, however, 

would improve the efficiency of the yards, increase the productivity of the trains, and reduce 

costs, pollution and noise. 

2.3 Government Involvement 

A commitment to study improving intermodal transportation in Southeast Michigan was initiated 

in 1993 by MDOT. In 1998, study of Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal was listed as a High 

Priority Project within the federal transportation bill known as the Transportation Equity Act of 

the 21st Century, or TEA-21. TEA-21 provides $18 million in federal funding assistance for the 

project (TEA-21, Section 1602, High Priority Project 1221). 

2.4 Summary

The Michigan Department of Transportation is engaged in the DIFT studies to ensure that the 

businesses and industries involved in the intermodal freight transportation segment of the 

economy continue to have access to the market (customers, workers, shippers, and the like). 

This, in turn, will support mobility and maintenance of the Michigan and national economies and 

national defense and promote a high quality of life for the region’s citizens including the 

following, if improvements are made to the intermodal system under one of the Action 

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

2 - 10

• Providing the necessary infrastructure to support current and future distribution needs of 

industry, particularly auto manufacturing, the state’s largest industry, and other Southeast 

Michigan businesses. 

• Achieving a competitive advantage both regionally and nationally by focusing federal, 

state, local and private (i.e., railroad and other private entities) investments and resources 

on an “intermodal” strategy. 

• Stimulating economic development and redevelopment throughout Southeast Michigan 

through job creation, and increasing the tax base. 

• Reducing truck “vehicle miles traveled,” which saves lives, reduces pollution and 

conserves highway capacity. 

• Removing intermodal terminal-related truck traffic from the local streets of the nearby 

neighborhoods so that quality of life issues, such as air pollution and safety, are 

addressed. 

• Buffering the intermodal facility from nearby neighborhoods through improvements that 

reduce noise and use trees, vegetation and other enhancements to improve the terminal’s 

exterior appearance. 

The project is needed to handle the increasing intermodal volumes, which have grown from 

283,000 lifts in 1992 to 348,000 lifts in 2002 (down from a high of about 400,000 in 1998 largely 

due to economic and security risk conditions). The capacity of the existing intermodal terminals 

in the region is about 345,000 annual lifts. The forecast demand for 2025, if normal trends occur, 

would range from about 500,000 to 800,000 annual lifts. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3 - 1

SECTION 3 

ALTERNATIVES 

This section describes how the alternatives were developed. A preferred alternative has not been 

identified and the No Action Alternative remains a choice. A decision on a preferred alternative 

will not be made until after the public hearing and comment period that follows, and 

consideration of all comments in this decision-making process. 

3.1 Alternatives Development

The purpose of an EIS is to present alternatives, disclose impacts related to the alternatives and 

serve as a decision-making document in order to select an alternative that addresses the project’s 

need and best meets the goal of the project, while considering the impacts. The goal of the DIFT 

is to develop a regional facility or facilities with enough capacity to handle current and future 

intermodal freight shipments needed by business, industry and the U.S. military and to provide 

efficient interconnectivity of intermodal operations to reduce time, monetary costs, and 

congestion to support the economic competitiveness of Southeastern Michigan and the nation. 

This report also identifies impacts and benefits of all practical alternatives. Where negative 

impacts are identified, ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate them are examined and applied, if 

appropriate. 

From the passage of TEA-21 in 1998 (Public Law 105-178, Section 1602, High Priority Project 

[HPP] 1221) until the fall of 2002, federal and state efforts on the DIFT project were directed at a 

single intermodal terminal in Southwest Detroit, Wayne County at the Livernois-Junction Yard. 

In March 2002, the federal Notice of Intent was published to advise the public that an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be prepared. It listed one alternative to taking no 

action, i.e., “refinements to Rail Strategy 3,” as identified in the Detroit Intermodal Freight 

Terminal Project Feasibility Study, Technical Report No. 4, i.e., consolidation of regional 

intermodal operations at the Livernois-Junction Yard. In the latter part of 2002, the Federal 

Highway Administration, following a resource agency scoping meeting held on September 19, 

2002, issued the following position: 

“The overall goal of the DIFT is to enhance intermodal 

operations and economic competitiveness of SE Michigan. In 

fulfilling this goal, we (FHWA) believe treating the RRs with 

equity is sound public policy. This policy does not [emphasis 

added] define the starting point, rather it places a condition on 

the outcome, similar, for example, to assuring that air quality 

standards will be met. In our (FHWA) view this policy does not 

pre-limit [emphasis added] the EIS to investigating only a single 

solution. The EIS must consider a range of practical alternatives. 

Ultimately, the EIS process will result in a preferred alternative 

and the EIS must clearly articulate the basis for the preferred 

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

3 - 2

Subsequently, the approach to alternatives was updated. The revised Notice of Intent was issued 

in March 2003. Since then, the project has evolved, with public involvement, to include the 

following: 

Alternative 1 No Action: This alternative assumes the railroads will develop their existing 

intermodal rail yards in Southeast Michigan without federal and state government 

funding assistance and oversight. 

Alternative 2 Improve/Expand: This alternative proposes improvements will be made to four 

existing intermodal rail terminals (at Livernois-Junction Yard, CP/Expressway, 

CP/Oak and CN/Moterm) operated by the four Class I railroads in Southeast 

Michigan with railroad funding, as well as federal and state governments funding 

assistance and oversight. This alternative includes improvements inside and outside 

the existing railroad terminal property. 

Alternative 3 Consolidate: This alternative proposes the intermodal operations of all four 

Class 1 railroads will be consolidated at the Livernois-Junction Yard area. 

Railroad funding, plus federal and state governments funding assistance and 

oversight would be involved in making improvements inside and outside the 

existing yard. The existing terminals from which intermodal business is 

transferred will continue to serve other railroad business. 

Alternative 4 The Composite Option: This alternative proposes the intermodal operations of 

three railroads (CSX, Norfolk Southern and Canadian Pacific) be consolidated at the 

site of the Livernois-Junction Yard in southwest Detroit, while improving/expanding 

the existing CN/Moterm terminal, with federal and state funding assistance and 

oversight for improvements inside and outside the terminals. The railroads will also 

invest in these improvements. The existing terminals from which intermodal 

business is transferred will continue to serve other railroad business. 

It is important to recognize that “external-to-terminal” improvements, such as the rail 

connections/interfaces at Delray, Milwaukee Junction and Vinewood interlockers, are part of 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 (see Figure 3-15). These will all be accomplished on existing railroad 

property. All Action Alternatives also include improving the north side of the I-94/Livernois 

Avenue interchange to facilitate truck movements to the Livernois-Junction Yard and keep them 

out of the neighborhood to the north. 

3.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study

All reasonable and practical alternatives have been carried forward for detailed study in this 

DEIS. Alternatives which clearly do not address the project purpose and need were eliminated 

from future consideration. 

3.2.1 Other Sites for Intermodal Terminals 

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. For 

example, the intermodal activity at the smaller Norfolk Southern terminal at Oakwood was 

shifted/consolidated at the Livernois-Junction Yard in 2003. This location, and others in the region 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3 - 3

like at Highland Park, do not lend themselves to productive intermodal operations. Nevertheless, an 

existing terminal like Norfolk Southern’s terminals at Melvindale and Willow Run may be used for 

some time into the future, if adequate capacity is not available for consolidation on a timely basis at 

the Livernois-Junction Yard. But, even if these Class I railroad terminals stay in use indefinitely, 

their capacity, when added to that of the four intermodal terminals most likely to continue, does not 

address the demand expected in the future. 

The August, 1994 Mercer Report3

 identified the CN/Highland Park terminal as one of two 

alternatives that warranted further investigation for a consolidated terminal (the LivernoisJunction Yard was the other alternative identified at that time). The Mercer Report and 

subsequent research has found the Highland Park site is not a viable intermodal terminal option 

for CN because: 

1. The Highland Park property is cut up by major transportation facilities, so that standards 

for a modern intermodal terminal cannot be met. 

2. Storage and support tracks would have to be located offsite causing additional switching 

inefficiencies for the rail operators and the possible need for additional property 

acquisition. 

It is also not a viable option for CSX, NS and CP or for consolidation of the intermodal activity of 

all four railroads for the above-stated reasons, plus: 

1. Extensive trackage rights would be required for any of these railroads to use the site. 

2. The cost and time for these carriers to access the site make it an unacceptable option. 

3.2.2 Greenfield Site 

Each of the railroads reaches Detroit over a network of individually-owned rail lines. There are 

locations along those lines where tracts of land that are largely undeveloped and otherwise known 

as “greenfields,” might appear to be available for development. But the rail infrastructure is not 

available for multiple railroads’ access. The same can be said of abandoned properties known as 

“brownfield” sites. 

Another issue with those undeveloped properties is they tend to be removed from the shippers 

that they will be serving. This fragmentation 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. Finally, “greenfield” 

developments may also contribute to urban sprawl and require new highway, utility and other 

infrastructure. Conversely, for the most part, the existing intermodal facilities, and the proposed 

consolidated terminal at the Livernois-Junction Yard, are able to use the established infrastructure 

that is already in place. 

The earlier 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. Nevertheless, because of the Triple Crown business growth, NS 

 

3 Greater Detroit Area Intermodal Study, Phase II – Intermodal Transportation Center Concept, Mercer Management 

Consulting, August 1994. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3 - 4

has had to reopen the Willow Run terminal or lose the business. It has, at the same time, asked 

MDOT for financial assistance so that it can consolidate all its intermodal operations on an 

accelerated pace at the Livernois-Junction Yard. None can be provided unless and until the DIFT 

environmental review is complete. 

Overall, 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. 

3.2.3 CBRA Alternative 

An alternative proposed by a group known as Communities for a Better Rail Alternative (CBRA) 

focuses only on the Livernois-Junction Yard. It involves several elements including building a 

new interchange at I-94/Rotunda Drive to connect with the rail line plus a second interchange 

connecting the rail line with I-75 north of the Ambassador Bridge. These interchange concepts 

are not possible according to American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) design standards because of constraints on spacing of interchanges, and 

elevations/grades. In addition, the CBRA alternative would not meet the forecasted future 

demand for lift capacity. There would be no increase in the terminals’ size for increased lift 

capacity resulting in a lift deficiency ranging from 155,000 to 431,000 lifts per year in 2025. 

Nevertheless, the basic CBRA concept of improving, without expanding the boundaries of the 

Livernois-Junction Yard and improving its physical relation with the surrounding community is 

closely, but not completely, aligned with the proposal for that terminal under Alternative 2. 

3.3 Project Status 

A preferred alternative has not been identified, and the No Action Alternative remains a choice. 

A decision on a preferred alternative will not be made until after the public hearing and 

consideration of comments received from the public and agencies. The comment period will start 

30 days prior to the public hearing and last at least 60 days after the public hearing for a total of at 

least 90 days. 

3.4 Practical Alternatives 

The Practical Alternatives analyzed for this project are those defined at the outset of this section 

and identified as follows: 

• Alternative 1 – No Action 

• Alternative 2 – Improve/Expand Existing Terminals 

• Alternative 3 – Consolidate All Four Class I Railroads’ Intermodal Activity at the 

Livernois-Junction yard Area 

• Alternative 4 – The Composite Option, or a combination of Alternatives 2 and 3. 

3.4.1 Characteristics of Proposed Intermodal Terminals 

The following information is provided to understand how the terminals shown on Figure 3-1 will 

operate. Their general characteristics are summarized on Table 1-1. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3 - 5
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3 - 6

Livernois-Junction Yard 

CSX and Norfolk Southern have jointly controlled the 300-acre Livernois-Junction Yard since 

1999 following acquisition of Conrail’s assets. The yard is now being improved through a project 

of independent utility with a $10 million public (MDOT)/private (CSX/NS) investment. 

Meanwhile, NS’s Triple Crown business has outgrown its Melvindale terminal. So, NS reopened 

its Willow Run terminal in 2004. NS has indicated it prefers to consolidate all its intermodal 

business at the Livernois-Junction Yard, provided adequate facilities can be developed. NS has 

asked MDOT for financial assistance in accomplishing that objective. None can be provided 

unless and until the environmental review of the proposed DIFT is complete. 

Under Alternative 1 – No Action, the Livernois-Junction Yard will continue to operate with two 

gates – one at Livernois Avenue, between John Kronk Street and Toledo Avenue, and a second 

near the intersection of Dix/Waterman/Vernor (Figure 3-2). Trucks use a variety of paths to 

reach these gates, including streets like Dragoon, Livernois and Vernor. Other local streets, such 

as Waterman, Dix and Springwells may be impacted by intermodal trucks. Additionally, a host 

of industrial activities, (e.g., the trucking center at the northwest corner of John Kronk Street and 

Central Avenue), will likely continue to operate/grow causing streets like Central Avenue to 

experience an increase in large-truck traffic. 

Under Alternative 2 – Improve/Expand Existing Terminals, the Livernois-Junction Yard will still 

be served by the Livernois Avenue entrance. Under Option A, the Dix/Waterman/Vernor gate 

will remain (Figure 3-3). There would be no displacements of residential properties but eight 

business relocations on 10 to 11 acres. Under Option B, the Dix/Waterman/Vernor gate will be 

eliminated by developing a western gate (Figure 3-4) served by Wyoming Avenue. There would 

be 11 businesses relocated but no involvement of residential properties. Acquisition would be 

29.5 acres. Under Option C, the Dix/Waterman/Vernor gate will be eliminated by focusing all 

traffic at the Livernois Avenue gate, with a tunnel (14’-9” clearance) within the yard to allow 

trucks to move under the rail lines to access both sides of the terminal without crossing the rail 

lines at grade (Figure 3-5). Eight businesses would be relocated but no residential units would be 

acquired. Acquisition would be 10 to 11 acres. Under DIFT Alternative 2, for all options, Lonyo 

Avenue would be closed at the railyard boundary. Traffic would be channeled by way of a 

relocated John Kronk Street to Central Avenue (see Figure 3-3). Central would pass under the 

railroad tracks (Figures 3-3 through 3-5). Businesses supporting the terminal’s intermodal 

growth would likely be drawn to the area near the terminal. There are hundreds of acres of 

brownfield and otherwise vacant/abandoned properties in the terminal area to accommodate such 

development. Under this alternative, the Livernois-Junction Yard would be paved and a barrier 

wall for terminal security would be provided along the entire north side of the terminal and on the 

south side east of Central Avenue. These latter two elements are integral parts of the proposed 

project. 

Under Alternative 3 – Consolidation, the Livernois-Junction Yard would accommodate all Class I 

railroads’ intermodal operations in Southeast Michigan. The terminal would be served by five 

gates (Figure 3-6). Alternative 3, like Alternative 2, would see Lonyo Avenue closed and Central 

Avenue passing under the railroad tracks. Because this alternative would remove John Kronk as 

a city street, a perimeter road on the terminal’s north side would be constructed to include a 

landscaped buffer. It would allow travel between Livernois and Wyoming Avenues. Alternative 

3 would require acquisition of approximately 384 acres and relocation of 64 businesses and 83 

residential units. This acquisition would cause relocation to other locations in the terminal area of 

more than 4,000 trips per day. So, while the expanded intermodal activity under Alternative 3 

will generate about 5,000 daily truck trips (two-way) in 2025 (which is approximately 3,500 more 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3 - 7

Figure 3-2 

Existing Livernois-Junction Yard Access 

2846A\graphics\sec-cumm\fig5-2.jpg 

Figure 3-2 

Existing Livernois-Junction Yard Access

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

3 - 8
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

3-9
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-10
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-11
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

3-12
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

3-13
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

3-14
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

3-15
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

3-16
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-17

daily truck trips (two-way) expected at the terminal than the No Action Alternative), there will be 

an offsetting relocation of trips from the area immediately surrounding the terminal to the broader 

terminal area. Furthermore, access to the terminal’s gates will be a combination of interstate-tomajor arterial connectors (i.e., I-75/I-94 to Wyoming/Livernois4

 Avenues) directing intermodal 

trucks away from the neighborhoods. Businesses supporting the terminal’s intermodal growth 

would likely be drawn to the area near the terminal. Under this alternative, the LivernoisJunction Yard would be paved and a barrier wall for terminal security would be provided along 

the entire north side of the terminal and on the south side east of Central Avenue. These latter 

two elements are integral parts of the proposed project. 

Alternative 4 – Composite of Alternatives 2 and 3 is similar to Alternative 3 except Canadian 

National Railroad would remain at an expanded/improved Moterm facility and not consolidate its 

intermodal business at the area of the Livernois-Junction Yard. This would reduce the number of 

gates there to four, compared to five for Alternative 3 (Figure 3-7). The potential acquisition of 

265 acres at the Livernois-Junction Yard area (119 fewer than Alternative 3) would involve 

acquisition of 51 businesses and 33 residential units. This acquisition would cause the relocation 

of more than 3,600 trips per day. The number of daily, two-way intermodal truck trips in 2025 

would be close to 4,600. The access routes to these gates via the interstate highway system, in 

combination with Wyoming and Livernois Avenues, would be the same as Alternative 3. Lonyo 

Avenue would be closed at the terminal boundary. Its traffic would be channeled via a new 

perimeter road to connect with Central Avenue to pass under the railroad tracks. The perimeter 

road and buffer would be built on the north side of the terminal to connect Livernois and 

Wyoming Avenue. Businesses supporting the terminal’s intermodal growth would likely be 

drawn to the area near the terminal. Under this alternative, the Livernois-Junction Yard would be 

paved and a barrier wall for terminal security would be provided along the entire north side of the 

terminal and on the south side, east of Central Avenue. A barrier wall would also be placed on 

the east side of the CN/Moterm terminal. These elements are integral parts of each terminal’s 

plan. 

CP/Expressway Terminal 

The CP/Expressway terminal under the Alternative 1 - No Action in 2025 is expected to handle 

about 140 daily two-way truck trips using city streets when business resumes (Figure 3-8). The 

terminal’s operation was temporarily suspended in June 2004. Under Alternative 2 -

Improve/Expand, the truck trips would grow to 250 also using city streets (Figure 3-9). 

Expanding the terminal would require the acquisition of 12 acres, including one institutional 

property and no residences. Noteworthy is that expansion of this terminal will be precluded if the 

Jobs Tunnel proposal by the Detroit River Tunnel Partnership (DTRP) becomes a reality because 

there is not enough space to handle both projects.5

 Businesses supporting the terminal’s 

intermodal growth would likely be drawn to the area near the terminal. 

Under Alternatives 3 and 4, CP/Expressway’s business (trailers) would be consolidated at the 

Livernois-Junction Yard area (refer to Figures 3-6 and 3-7). 

 

4

 The Livernois Avenue entrance would be configured so trucks must enter from or exit to the north. 5

 The proposed DRTP project proposes to convert two existing rail tunnels connecting Detroit and Windsor to truck use 

and build a third, more modern, tunnel for rail. Project is in discussion phase. Public information on details is limited. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-18
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

3-19
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

3-20
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-21

Figure 3-8 

Existing CP/Expressway Terminal Access 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-22
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-23

CP/Oak Terminal 

Under Alternative 1 – No Action, Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) would continue to operate on 

approximately 24 acres leased from CSX to conduct its intermodal container business at the 

CP/Oak terminal (Figure 3-10). Today’s truck traffic is about 280 (two-way trips), which will 

grow to almost 400 (two-way trips) by 2025 under No Action, Alternative 1. 

Under Alternative 2 – Improve/Expand Existing Terminals, expanding the CN/Moterm terminal 

would grow the two-way, daily truck volume to about 700. Today, trucks access that yard 

through one gate and exit at two locations. These trucks use the Southfield Freeway service drive 

plus local streets like Glendale, Davison, and Artesian to travel to/from this facility. There are 

two options for this terminal under Alternative 2 (Figure 3-11 and 3-12). These Options, called A 

and B, differ only in the connection between the improved interchange at I-96/Evergreen Road 

and the expanded terminal. By virtue of the improved access, intermodal truck traffic affecting 

the surrounding neighborhood, including numerous residential properties located along the 

Southfield Freeway service drive, will be virtually eliminated and the now-existing gates closed. 

Expanding the terminal would require acquisition of five businesses for Option A and six for 

Option B. The truck traffic associated with these businesses will also be relocated. No 

residential property will be acquired. The expanded terminal will then be about 60 acres larger 

than today. Businesses supporting the terminal’s intermodal growth would likely be drawn to the 

area near the terminal. Under this alternative, a barrier wall for terminal security would be 

provided on the north side of the terminal as an integral part of this proposed project. 

Under Alternatives 3 and 4, CP/Oak’s business (containers) would be consolidated at the 

Livernois-Junction Yard area (refer to Figures 3-6 and 3-7). 

CN/Moterm Terminal 

Grand Trunk Western Railroad, now Canadian National (CN), has for many years operated the 

29-acre terminal in Ferndale north of Eight Mile Road. Trucks access/egress the terminal by way 

of Fair and Chesterfield Streets north of Eight Mile Road. Late in the 1990s, the intermodal 

business was roughly double what it is today. At that time, CN leased five to 10 acres of State 

Fairgrounds property for container storage (south of Eight Mile Road). When a major shipping 

contract ended, CN ceased its use of the Fairgrounds property. 

Under Alternative 1, the CN/Moterm terminal would continue on the existing 29-acre site (Figure 

3-13). The number of daily two-way truck trips in 2025 would be 370. 

In developing the proposal for Alternatives 2 and 4 to re-enter the Fairgrounds for expansion of 

the CN/Moterm terminal, options to the east and west of the terminal, and north of Eight Mile 

Road, were examined, but were not considered reasonable. Going west would require penetration 

of a dense residential area. Sixty single-family houses would be acquired, as well as seven 

businesses. Fair Park would also be taken by expansion of the terminal to the west. Expanding 

the terminal to the east, north of Eight Mile Road, would cause displacement of 10 businesses 

that, combined, are responsible for a major portion of the tax base of the City of Ferndale. 

Because of the limited amount of industrial redevelopment property in the city, these businesses 

would likely be lost to other areas. Additionally, Gage Products Company would be displaced by 

expanding the CN/Moterm terminal to the east. This company is a permitted storer of up to one 

million gallons of hazardous material. It is Ferndale’s largest tax payer. It will not be possible to 

relocate in Ferndale because of its handling of hazardous material. Expanding the terminal to the 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-24

Figure 3-10 

Existing CP/Oak Terminal Access 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-25
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-26
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-27

Figure 3-13 

Existing CN/Moterm Terminal Access 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-28

east, south of Eight Mile Road, would cause the displacement of 90 single-family residences and 

seven businesses. Hunt Playground (about six acres) would also be removed. 

So, the proposed expansion of the Moterm terminal avoids going east or west of the terminal, 

north of Eight Mile Road. It avoids going east of the existing tracks south of Eight Mile Road. 

Expansion is proposed due south into the State Fairgrounds on approximately 35 acres (Figure 3-

13 and refer to Figure 4-10d). Access would be directly from Eight Mile Road south into the 

terminal. A recent survey of the terminal’s intermodal activity indicates that virtually all 

intermodal trucks use I-75 and M-102 (Eight Mile Road) to access the terminal. That is expected 

to be the pattern of the future. Under this alternative, a barrier wall for terminal security would be 

provided on the east side of the terminal as an integral part of the proposed project. 

It is noted that use of the Fairgrounds as depicted on Figure 3-13 will cause no residential or 

business relocations. It will create a 4(f) recreational resource impact and wetland impact, 

discussed in more detail in Section 4.14 and 5.13, respectively. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 4, the number of intermodal trucks serving the terminal on an average 

day in 2025 is expected to be 650 compared to 370 under Alternative 1 – No Action. Businesses 

supporting the terminal’s intermodal growth would likely be drawn to the area near the terminal 

(Figure 3-14). Under this alternative, a barrier wall for terminal security would be provided on 

the east side of the terminal as an integral part of the proposed project. 

Under Alternative 3, Canadian National’s intermodal operation would be shifted to the LivernoisJunction Yard area (refer to Figure 3-6). 

Continued Use of CP/Oak, CN/Moterm and CP/Expressway 

It should be noted that under Alternatives 3 and 4, where intermodal operations of either three or 

four railroads are consolidated at the Livernois-Junction Yard, the terminals at CP/Oak and 

CN/Moterm will continue to be used by the railroads for shipping freight by means other than 

intermodal. That activity will be associated with a much smaller volume of truck traffic than if 

the terminal were to continue to serve intermodal. Shifting intermodal activity from the 

CP/Expressway terminal to the Livernois-Junction Yard area under Alternatives 3 and 4 will 

allow the Expressway terminal area to be transitioned to other uses. There is now a proposal by a 

private sector venture to convert two existing rail tunnels to Canada to truck facilities and to build 

a new rail tunnel. According to public reports of statements made by proponents of this proposed 

project (the Detroit River Tunnel Partnership), daily truck activity associated with tunnel 

conversion is likely to be 5,000 to 10,000 (two-way) in 2025 compared to 250 (two-way), if the 

intermodal terminal were expanded as proposed in Alternative 2. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-29

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

3-30

Rail Network Improvements 

The rail network in the Greater Detroit Area has a number of correctable shortcomings that would 

increase the efficiency of train movements. These are switches, interlockers,6

 and track 

modifications that will positively affect intermodal train speed and lessen route conflicts and, as a 

result, enhance the region’s rail system’s interconnectivity, which is consistent with the project 

purpose as stated in Section 2.1. None would involve any right-of-way acquisition. All would 

occur on existing railroad-owned property. No environmental impacts are anticipated with these 

improvements. Figure 3-15 shows the major interlockings in the Detroit area. Those affected by 

the alternatives are listed in Table 3-1. 

Table 3-1 

Railroad Interlockings Affected by Alternatives 

Alternative Railroad Interlocking 2 3 4 

2. Beaubien 9 9 9

4. Delray 9 9 9

5. Dix 9 9 9

7. Lou 9 9 9

9. Milwaukee Junction NC 9 NC 

12. P Company 9 9 9

14. Townline 9 9 9

17. Vinewood 9 9 9

18. Waterman 9 9 9

19. West Detroit 9 9 9

 NC – No Change 

 Source: Alfred Benesch & Company 

3.4.2 Terminal Areas 

Each intermodal terminal has a “zone of influence” known as a terminal area. The definition of 

each terminal area reflects the neighborhood/community relationships to the terminal and the 

transportation facilities serving them. In defining each terminal area associated with 

transportation/land use interaction, aerial photography since the mid-1930s was examined to assess 

the extent to which transportation and land developments have occurred over the last 70 years. The 

definition of each terminal area was also established by examining community facilities and services. 

Livernois-Junction Yard and CP/Expressway Terminal Area 

The terminal area that encompasses the Livernois-Junction Yard and the CP/Expressway terminal 

is shown on Figure 3-16. It lies in the cities of Detroit and Dearborn. Railroad facilities and 

activities have been dominant in this area since 1850. 

 

6

 Interlockers are locations where trains must stop for one another. Interlockers are controlled by signals. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-31
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-32
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-33

Presently about 80 train movements occur daily at some point within the area, with fewer than 

half being continuous through movements. International border crossings at the Ambassador 

Bridge, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, and the Detroit-Canada Rail Tunnel serve the area. A 

portion of the geographical area known as the Port of Detroit is within the project area. And, 

Greater Detroit’s airports are directly connected to the project area by the freeway system. 

The Fisher Freeway (I-75) cuts through the terminal area. It is a major north-south interstate 

highway that connects Miami, Florida, to the south and Sault Ste. Marie to the north in 

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. I-75 is a major economic corridor that is critical to Michigan’s and 

the nation’s economy. 

The Edsel Ford Freeway (I-94) also traverses the terminal area. It is a primary east-west 

connector linking Canada through Port Huron, Michigan, to Chicago and points west. I-94 also 

links four regional airports in Southeast Michigan. I-96 (Jeffries Freeway) originates at the 

Ambassador Bridge where it intersects with I-75 and I-94. It runs west through Lansing, 

Michigan, and Grand Rapids before terminating near Muskegon, Michigan. 

The Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) operates a number of bus routes on Michigan, 

Dix, Livernois and Wyoming. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transit (SMART) 

operates a route on Michigan Avenue. 

CP/Oak Terminal Area 

CP/Oak is located entirely in the City of Detroit (Figure 3-17). A rail line has occupied the 

current location of CP/Oak since 1871 when the Detroit, Lansing and Lake Michigan Railroad 

completed its east-west routing through the site. Existing rail activity in the proposed terminal 

area includes intermodal and conventional rail freight operations of Canadian Pacific Railway. 

Land uses in the study area are a blend of industrial, commercial, and residential. 

CP/Oak’s primary north/south highway route is the Southfield Freeway (M-39) connecting with 

I-75, I-94, Michigan Avenue (U.S. 12), I-96, and the Lodge Freeway (M-10). Primary exits along 

the Southfield Freeway that serve the area include I-96 (exit 11), Joy Road (exit 9), and Grand 

River Avenue (exit 13). The main east/west route is I-96, which originates at the Ambassador 

Bridge where it intersects with I-75 and I-94. It runs west through Lansing and Grand Rapids 

before terminating at U.S. 31 near Muskegon on the western side of Michigan. Primary exits 

along I-96 that serve the area include Evergreen Road (exit 182) and the Southfield Freeway (exit 

183). SMART and DDOT both provide bus service in the area. SMART serves the area with 

park-and-ride-routes connecting Livonia and Farmington to downtown Detroit and routes along 

Plymouth and Schoolcraft. DDOT provides service to the area through its Plymouth, Schoolcraft, 

Evergreen and Southfield routes. 

CN/Moterm Terminal Area 

The terminal area around CN/Moterm is bounded by I-696 on the north, Seven Mile Road on the 

south, Dequindre Avenue on the east, and Schaefer Road on the west (Figure 3-18). 

Approximately two-thirds of the area is in Wayne County with the balance in Oakland County. 

Land uses in the study area are a blend of industrial, commercial, and residential. The Michigan 

State Fairgrounds is located to the south of the terminal. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-34
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-35
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

3-36

The CN/Moterm area has direct access to two interstates, I-696 running east/west and I-75 

running north/south. Primary exits along I-696 that serve the area include Woodward Avenue 

(exit 16), Schaefer Highway (exit 14), and I-75 (exit 18). Primary exits along I-75 that serve the 

area include Nine Mile Road (exit 60), Eight Mile Road (exit 59), and Six Mile Road (exit 57). 

The area is also served by State Highway 1 (Woodward Avenue), linking downtown Detroit with 

Pontiac and by State Highway 102 (Eight Mile Road). 

Several public transportation routes also serve the area. SMART provides bus service to the area 

with its Woodward and John R routes as well as east/west routes along Eight Mile and Nine Mile 

Roads. DDOT maintains routes along Woodward, Eight Mile Road, and Seven Mile Road.