This document has been published by authorization of the Director of the State of Michigan’s Department of Transportation in 

keeping with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and subsequent implementing regulations and policies, 

including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that direct agencies to provide the public and other agencies an opportunity to 

review and comment on proposed projects and alternatives so that potential impacts of the project can be considered and taken 

into account during the decision-making process. This document has been produced by MDOT with the assistance of a team of 

consultants led by The Corradino Group. The cost of publishing 300 copies of this document at approximately $56.14 per copy 

is $16,842, and the document has been printed in accordance with Michigan Executive Directive 1991-6. 

Consultant Disclosure Statement - The Corradino Group states that it has no financial or other interest in the outcome of the 

project, other than its professional reputation. 
FHWA-MI-EIS-03-03-D 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal 

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal (DIFT) 

Wayne and Oakland Counties, Michigan 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

AND DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c) and 49 U.S.C. 303 

By The 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

and 

Michigan Department of Transportation 

For additional information concerning the proposed project, or this document, contact: 

Mr. Abdelmoez Abdalla Ms. Margaret Barondess, Manager 

Environmental Program Manager Environmental Section 

Federal Highway Administration Michigan Department of Transportation 

315 West Allegan Street, Rm. 201 P.O. Box 30050 

Lansing, MI 48933 Lansing, MI 48909 

Phone: (517) 702-1820 Phone: (517) 335-2621 

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation describe the 

social, economic, and natural environmental impacts associated with proposed improvements to 

intermodal freight terminals in Wayne and Oakland counties. This document includes a 

summary of the planning basis and of the impacts associated with the proposed project and the 

process involved in determining the preferred alternative. Proposed mitigation measures are also 

included. The estimated cost of the proposed project ranges from $267 million (see Table 1-2) 

for the Improve/Expand Alternative to $583 million (see Table 4-17) for the Consolidate 

Alternative. Between 0 and 83 residential displacements and between 14 and 64 business 

displacements are anticipated. The estimate of direct wetlands effects is 0 to 0.08 acres. 

Comments on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement are due 60 days after the date of the 

public hearing and should be sent to: Mr. Robert Parsons, Michigan Department of 

Transportation, PO Box 30050, Lansing, Michigan 48909.

Date of Approval FHWA Division Administrator 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

ii

PREFACE

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires that the social, economic, and natural 

environmental impacts of any proposed action of the federal government be analyzed for decision-making 

and public information purposes. There are three classes of action. Class I Actions are those that may 

significantly affect the environment and require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). Class II Actions (categorical exclusions) are those that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the environment and do not require the preparation of an EIS or an Environmental 

Assessment (EA). Class III Actions are those for which the significance of impacts is not clearly 

established. Class III Actions require the preparation of an EA to determine the significance of impacts 

and the appropriate environmental document to be prepared – either an EIS or a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI). 

This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for the 

proposed improvement of intermodal freight terminals in Wayne and Oakland counties in Michigan. It 

describes and analyzes proposed alternatives, and the measures proposed to minimize harm to the project 

area resources. Federal, state, and local agencies will review it and comment. A public hearing on this 

proposal will be held. Public and agency comments will be summarized in a Final EIS and responses will 

be provided. Any necessary changes resulting from the comments will be made. Once these changes and 

additions have been made, the FEIS will be forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

If FHWA concurs in the document’s findings, a Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued. If appropriate, 

the ROD will allow the project to move forward into the design phase. No funding has been identified 

past this environmental/planning phase. 

Because of adverse effects on historic resources and public parks/recreation lands, this document also 

serves as coordination documentation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended, and as the draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, under Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966, which protects these resources. 

This document was prepared by a consultant working with the Michigan Department of Transportation 

(MDOT), in cooperation with FHWA and other members of a Technical Team. The Technical Team 

includes representatives from the following divisions/support areas within MDOT: Design, 

Environmental, Planning, Communications, Intermodal/Multimodal, Real Estate, Traffic and Safety, and 

the Metro Region. Information was also furnished by other federal and state agencies, local units of 

government, public interest groups, a Steering Committee comprised of representatives of MDOT, the 

City of Detroit, railroads, and automakers, and a Local Advisory Council of stakeholders and interested 

local groups, and individual citizens. 

This Draft EIS is available for review at the MDOT’s Lansing office at 425 West Ottawa Street (third 

floor), 48909; the Metro Region office at 18101 W. Nine Mile Road, Southfield, MI 48075; the Detroit 

Transportation Service Center at 1400 Howard Street, Detroit, MI 48216; or, the Oakland Transportation 

Service Center at 2300 Dixie Highway, Waterford, MI 48238. It is also available at the Ferndale Public 

Library, 222 E. Nine Mile, Ferndale, MI 48220; the Henry Ford Centennial Library, 16301 Michigan 

Avenue, Dearborn, MI 48126; the Detroit Public Library, 5201 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48202; 

and the Bowen Branch of the Detroit Public Library, 3648 W. Vernor, Detroit, MI 48216. Technical 

documents referred to in this Environmental Impact Statement are available at the same locations. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

iii

Table of Contents

Page

Preface ..........................................................................................................................................................ii 

SECTION 1 – SUMMARY

 1.1 Description of the Proposed Project ................................................................................1-1 

 1.2 Alternatives......................................................................................................................1-3 

 1.2.1 Characteristics of Proposed Intermodal Terminals.............................................1-9 

 1.2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study.....................................................1-30 

 1.2.3 Proposed Project Status ....................................................................................1-33 

 1.3 Impacts ..........................................................................................................................1-33 

 1.3.1 Traffic and Safety .............................................................................................1-33 

1.3.2 Relocations, Community Cohesion, Environmental Justice, 

 Land Use, and Farmland ..................................................................................1-38 

 1.3.3 Economics.........................................................................................................1-40 

 1.3.4 Air Quality ........................................................................................................1-41

 1.3.5 Noise and Vibrations ........................................................................................1-47 

 1.3.6 Ecological Resources........................................................................................1-49 

 1.3.7 Cultural Resources and Public Recreational Land............................................1-56 

 1.3.8 Visual Conditions .............................................................................................1-56 

 1.3.9 Contaminated Sites ...........................................................................................1-58 

 1.3.10 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts......................................................................1-62 

 1.3.11 Emergency Response Controls .........................................................................1-64 

 1.3.12 Terminal Security .............................................................................................1-65 

 1.3.13 Terminal Lighting.............................................................................................1-65 

 1.3.14 Soils ..................................................................................................................1-65 

 1.3.15 Energy...............................................................................................................1-65 

 1.3.16 Implementation Cost.........................................................................................1-66 

 1.4 Areas of Controversy .....................................................................................................1-66 

 1.5 Permits ..........................................................................................................................1-66 

 1.6 Unresolved Issues ..........................................................................................................1-67 

 1.7 Project Status .................................................................................................................1-67 

SECTION 2 – PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

 2.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action.......................................................................................2-1 

 2.1.1 Project Background.............................................................................................2-1 

 2.2 Need for the Proposed Action..........................................................................................2-3 

2.2.1 Intermodal Terminal Capacity Versus Demand .................................................2-4 

 2.2.2 Intermodal Connectivity Needs ..........................................................................2-6 

 2.3 Government Involvement ................................................................................................2-9 

 2.4 Summary..........................................................................................................................2-9 

SECTION 3 – ALTERNATIVES 

 3.1 Alternatives Development ...............................................................................................3-1

 3.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study....................................................................3-2 

 3.2.1 Other Sites for Intermodal Terminals .................................................................3-2 

 3.2.2 Greenfield Site ....................................................................................................3-3 

 3.2.3 CBRA Alternative...............................................................................................3-4 

 3.3 Project Status ...................................................................................................................3-4 

 3.4 Practical Alternatives.......................................................................................................3-4 

 3.4.1 Characteristics of Proposed Intermodal Terminals.............................................3-4 

 3.4.2 Terminal Areas .................................................................................................3-30 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

iv

SECTION 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

 4.1 Traffic ............................................................................................................................4-1 

 4.2 Social Impacts/Community Cohesion............................................................................4-35 

 4.2.1 Community Facilities........................................................................................4-45 

 4.2.2 Considerations Relating to Pedestrian Access and Bicycle Use.......................4-50 

 4.2.3 Considerations Relating to Mass Transit Service .............................................4-52 

 4.2.4 Maintaining Traffic...........................................................................................4-53 

 4.3 Population Characteristics of Key Groups.....................................................................4-53 

 4.3.1 Title VI..............................................................................................................4-53 

 4.3.2 Environmental Justice.......................................................................................4-70 

 4.4 Relocations.....................................................................................................................4-88 

 4.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action..................................................................................4-88 

 4.4.2 Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals ........................................4-88 

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

 Activity at Livernois-Junction Yard Area.........................................................4-89 

 4.4.4 Alternative 4: The Composite Option..............................................................4-89 

 4.5 Economic Impacts..........................................................................................................4-89 

 4.5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................4-89

 4.5.2 Results...............................................................................................................4-94 

 4.6 Land Use and Zoning.....................................................................................................4-96 

 4.6.1 Livernois-Junction Yard ...................................................................................4-96 

 4.6.2 CP/Expressway Terminal .................................................................................4-97 

 4.6.3 CP/Oak Terminal ..............................................................................................4-97 

 4.6.4 CN/Moterm Terminal....................................................................................4-97 

 4.7 Farmland/Part 361 of Michigan Act 451 Lands/Forest Land ........................................4-99 

 4.8 Air Quality Analysis ......................................................................................................4-99 

 4.8.1 Air Quality Conformity ..................................................................................4-100 

 4.8.2 Pollution Trends – NAAQS Pollutants and Air Toxics ..................................4-101 

 4.8.3 Air Toxics and PM2.5 – Health Effects and 

 Limitations of Current Science .......................................................................4-103 

 4.8.4 Terminal Pollutant Burden Estimates .............................................................4-110 

 4.8.5 Public Roadway Pollutant Burden Estimates .................................................4-118 

 4.8.6 CO Hotspot Analysis ......................................................................................4-127 

 4.9 Noise and Vibrations ...................................................................................................4-128 

 4.9.1 Train Noise .....................................................................................................4-138 

 4.9.2 Roadway Noise...............................................................................................4-145 

 4.9.3 Vibrations .......................................................................................................4-146 

 4.10 Threatened and Endangered Species ...........................................................................4-149 

 4.11 Waterways/Water Quality/Floodplains........................................................................4-149 

 4.11.1 Waterways ......................................................................................................4-149 

 4.11.2 Water Quality..................................................................................................4-149 

 4.11.3 Floodways and Floodplains ............................................................................4-150 

 4.12 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................4-150 

 4.12.1 Alternative 1: No Action................................................................................4-151 

 4.12.2 Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals ......................................4-151 

 4.12.3 Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four Class I Railroads’ Intermodal 

 Activity at Livernois-Junction Yard Area.......................................................4-152 

 4.12.4 Alternative 4: The Composite Option............................................................4-152 

 4.13 Historic and Archaeological Resources .......................................................................4-152
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

v

 4.13.1 Alternative 1: No Action................................................................................4-153 

 4.13.2 Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals ......................................4-154 

 4.13.3 Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four Class I Railroads’ Intermodal 

 Activity at Livernois-Junction Yard Area.......................................................4-158 

 4.13.4 Alternative 4: The Composite Option............................................................4-162 

4.14 Parkland and Public Recreation Land..........................................................................4-162 

 4.14.1 Alternative 1: No Action................................................................................4-162 

 4.14.2 Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals ......................................4-162 

 4.14.3 Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four Class I Railroads’ Intermodal 

 Activity at Livernois-Junction Yard Area.......................................................4-163 

 4.14.4 Alternative 4: The Composite Option............................................................4-163 

 4.15 Visual Conditions ........................................................................................................4-163 

 4.15.1 Alternative 1: No Action................................................................................4-163 

 4.15.2 Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals ......................................4-163 

 4.15.3 Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four Class I Railroads’ Intermodal 

 Activity at Livernois-Junction Yard Area.......................................................4-164 

 4.15.4 Alternative 4: The Composite Option............................................................4-164 

 4.16 Contaminated Sites ......................................................................................................4-164 

 4.17 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4-172 

 4.17.1 Cumulative Effects .........................................................................................4-172 

 4.18 Emergency Response Controls ....................................................................................4-182 

 4.19 Terminal Security ........................................................................................................4-182 

 4.20 Terminal Lighting........................................................................................................4-183 

 4.21 Soils ........................................................................................................................4-184 

 4.22 Construction Permits....................................................................................................4-184 

 4.23 Energy ........................................................................................................................4-184 

 4.24 Implementation Cost ..................................................................................................4-184 

 4.25 The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment 

 and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ..........................4-184 

 4.26 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Would 

 be Involved in the Proposed Action.............................................................................4-184 

SECTION 5 – MITIGATION OF IMPACTS

 5.1 Right-of-Way Acquisition and Relocation Impacts.........................................................5-1 

 5.2 Barrier Walls for Terminal Security ................................................................................5-2 

 5.3 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control..........................................................................5-2 

 5.4 Environmental Permits ....................................................................................................5-3 

 5.5 Existing Vegetation..........................................................................................................5-4 

 5.6 Disposal of Surplus or Unsuitable Material.....................................................................5-4 

 5.7 Groundwater Quality .......................................................................................................5-4 

 5.8 Surface Water Quality .....................................................................................................5-5 

 5.9 Maintaining Traffic During Construction........................................................................5-5 

 5.10 Continuance of Public Utility Service .............................................................................5-5 

 5.11 Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts......................................................................5-6 

 5.12 Control of Air Pollution During Construction .................................................................5-6 

 5.13 Wetland Mitigation..........................................................................................................5-6 

 5.14 Contamination..................................................................................................................5-7 

 5.15 National Geodetic Survey Monuments............................................................................5-7 

 5.16 Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................5-8 

 5.17 Additional Mitigation or Modifications...........................................................................5-8 

 Green Sheet – Project Mitigation Summary ....................................................................5-9 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

vi

SECTION 6 – DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................6-1 

 6.2 Proposed Action and Need for Project.............................................................................6-2 

6.3 Description of Resources .................................................................................................6-3 

 6.3.1 Historic Resources ..............................................................................................6-3 

 6.3.2 Recreational Resources.....................................................................................6-12 

6.4 Impacts on the Section 4(f) Properties ..........................................................................6-13 

6.5 Avoidance Alternatives..................................................................................................6-15 

 6.5.1 Historic Properties ............................................................................................6-15 

 6.5.2 Recreational Properties.....................................................................................6-17 

6.6 Measures to Minimize Harm .........................................................................................6-18 

 6.6.1 Michigan/General Box Company 

 (Spranger/Detroit Wire Wheel Corporation) ....................................................6-18 

 6.6.2 Federal Screw Works Factory...........................................................................6-18 

 6.6.3 Markey House...................................................................................................6-19 

 6.6.4 Tomms House...................................................................................................6-19 

 6.6.5 Michigan Central Railroad Bridge Deck ..........................................................6-19 

 6.6.6 Michigan State Fairgrounds..............................................................................6-19 

6.7 Coordination ..................................................................................................................6-20 

SECTION 7 – EARLY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC MEETINGS

 7.1 Early Coordination...........................................................................................................7-1 

 7.1.1 Federal Agencies.................................................................................................7-1 

 7.1.2 State Agencies.....................................................................................................7-1 

 7.2 Public Meetings ...............................................................................................................7-1 

 7.2.1 Interview Process................................................................................................7-2 

SECTION 8 – LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................8-1 

SECTION 9 – DISTRIBUTION LIST...................................................................................................9-1 

APPENDICES

 Appendix A Scoping Meetings and Correspondence.............................................................A-1 

 Appendix B Relocation Plan - Conceptual Stage................................................................... B-1 

 Appendix C Draft Memorandum of Agreement with SHPO ................................................. C-1 

 Appendix D Right-of-Way Areas Needed by Alternative......................................................D-1 

 Appendix E Air Quality Protocol........................................................................................... E-1 

 Appendix F Memorandum of Understanding Between Railroads and MDOT ......................F-1 

 

 Consultant Disclosure Statement (Inside Front Cover) 

 Technical Reports (Under Separate Cover and Listed Alphabetically) 

• Air Quality Impact Analysis Technical Report

• Commodity Flow Model Report 

• Community Inventory Technical Report 

• Economic Impact Analysis Technical Report 

• Engineering Concepts Report 

• Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Analysis Technical Report 

• Noise and Vibrations Study Report 

• Project Area Contamination Survey 

• Traffic Analysis Report 

l:\projects\2846-a\wp\reports\deis\text1redline-chgsaccepted.doc
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

 Figure 1-1 Future Location of Intermodal Terminals in Southeast Michigan 

 Under Alternatives 1 & 2....................................................................................1-2 

 Figure 1-2 Existing Livernois-Junction Yard Access.........................................................1-10 

 Figure 1-3 Livernois-Junction Yard – Alternative 2 Option A ..........................................1-11 

 Figure 1-4 Livernois-Junction Yard – Alternative 2 Option B...........................................1-13 

 Figure 1-5 Livernois-Junction Yard – Alternative 2 Option C...........................................1-15 

 Figure 1-6 Livernois-Junction Yard – Alternative 3 ..........................................................1-19 

 Figure 1-7 Livernois-Junction Yard – Alternative 4 ..........................................................1-21 

 Figure 1-8 Existing CP/Expressway Terminal Access.......................................................1-23 

 Figure 1-9 CP/Expressway Terminal – Alternative 2.........................................................1-24 

 Figure 1-10 Existing CP/Oak Terminal Access....................................................................1-26 

 Figure 1-11 CP/Oak Terminal – Alternative 2 Option A .....................................................1-27 

 Figure 1-12 CP/Oak Terminal – Alternative 2 Option B .....................................................1-28 

 Figure 1-13 Existing CN/Moterm Terminal Access.............................................................2-29 

 Figure 1-14 CN/Moterm Terminal – Alternative 2 ..............................................................1-31 

 Figure 1-15 I-94/Livernois Interchange ...............................................................................1-39 

 Figure 1-16a Livernois-Junction Terminal Site Map .............................................................1-51 

 Figure 1-16b CP/Expressway Terminal Site Map..................................................................1-53 

 Figure 1-16c CP/Oak Terminal Site Map...............................................................................1-54 

 Figure 1-16d CN/Moterm Terminal Site Map........................................................................1-55 

 Figure 2-1 Highway Flows of Both Domestic and International Freight 

 Moving into/from Michigan ...............................................................................2-2 

 Figure 2-2 U.S. Rail Intermodal Traffic ...............................................................................2-3 

 Figure 2-3 Key Transportation Components of Freight System...........................................2-7 

 Figure 3-1 Future Location of Intermodal Terminals in Southeast Michigan 

 Under Alternatives 1 & 2....................................................................................3-5 

 Figure 3-2 Existing Livernois-Junction Yard Access...........................................................3-7 

 Figure 3-3 Livernois-Junction Yard – Alternative 2 Option A ............................................3-9 

 Figure 3-4 Livernois-Junction Yard – Alternative 2 Option B...........................................3-11 

 Figure 3-5 Livernois-Junction Yard – Alternative 2 Option C...........................................3-13 

 Figure 3-6 Livernois-Junction Yard – Alternative 3 ..........................................................3-15 

 Figure 3-7 Livernois-Junction Yard – Alternative 4 ..........................................................3-19 

 Figure 3-8 Existing CP/Expressway Terminal Access.......................................................3-21 

 Figure 3-9 CP/Expressway Terminal – Alternative 2.........................................................3-22 

 Figure 3-10 Existing CP/Oak Terminal Access....................................................................3-24 

 Figure 3-11 CP/Oak Terminal – Alternative 2 Option A .....................................................3-25 

 Figure 3-12 CP/Oak Terminal – Alternative 2 Option B .....................................................3-26 

 Figure 3-13 Existing CN/Moterm Access ............................................................................3-27 

 Figure 3-14 CN/Moterm Terminal – Alternative 2 ..............................................................3-29 

 Figure 3-15 Major Interlockers in Detroit Area ...................................................................3-31 

 Figure 3-16 Terminal Area – Livernois-Junction & CP/Expressway Terminals .................3-32 

 Figure 3-17 Terminal Area – CP/Oak Terminal...................................................................3-34 

 Figure 3-18 Terminal Area – CN/Moterm Terminal............................................................3-35 

 Figure 4-1 Forecast of Intermodal Activity (Lifts)...............................................................4-3 

 Figure 4-1a I-94/Livernois Interchange Proposed Modification............................................4-8 

 Figure 4-2a Alternative 2A – Livernois-Junction Yard East 

 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios................................................4-9 

 Figure 4-2b Alternative 2A – Livernois-Junction Yard East 

 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ...........................................4-10 

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

viii

Figure 4-3a Alternative 2B – Livernois-Junction Yard East 

 Original Scenario 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ................4-11 

 Figure 4-3b Alternative 2B – Livernois-Junction Yard West 

 Original Scenario 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ................4-12 

 Figure 4-3c Alternative 2B – Livernois-Junction Yard East 

 Original Scenario 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ..............4-13 

 Figure 4-3d Alternative 2B – Livernois-Junction Yard West 

 Original Scenario 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ..............4-14 

 Figure 4-3e Alternative 2B – Livernois-Junction Yard East 

 Revised Scenario 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios.................4-15 

 Figure 4-3f Alternative 2B – Livernois-Junction Yard West 

 Revised Scenario 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios.................4-16 

 Figure 4-3g Alternative 2B – Livernois-Junction Yard East 

 Revised Scenario 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ..............4-17 

 Figure 4-3h Alternative 2B – Livernois-Junction Yard West 

 Revised Scenario 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ..............4-18 

 Figure 4-4a Alternative 2C – Livernois-Junction Yard 

 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios..............................................4-19 

 Figure 4-4b Alternative 2C – Livernois-Junction Yard 

 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ...........................................4-20 

 Figure 4-5a Alternative 2 – CP/Expressway Terminal 

 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios..............................................4-21 

 Figure 4-5b Alternative 2 – CP/Expressway Terminal 

 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ...........................................4-22 

 Figure 4-6a Alternative 2 Options A & B – 

 CP/Oak Terminal 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ................4-23 

 Figure 4-6b Alternative 2 Options A & B – 

 CP/Oak Terminal 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ..............4-24 

 Figure 4-7a Alternatives 2 & 4 – CN/Moterm Terminal 

 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios..............................................4-25 

 Figure 4-7b Alternatives 2 & 4 – CN/Moterm Terminal 

 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ...........................................4-26 

 Figure 4-8a Alternative 3 – Consolidated Terminal 

 Original Scenario 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ................4-27 

 Figure 4-8b Alternative 3 – Consolidated Terminal 

 Original Scenario 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ..............4-28 

 Figure 4-8c Alternative 3 – Consolidated Terminal 

 Revised Scenario 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios.................4-29 

 Figure 4-8d Alternative 3 – Consolidated Terminal 

 Revised Scenario 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ..............4-30 

 Figure 4-9a Alternative 4 – Consolidated Terminal 

 Original Scenario 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ................4-31 

 Figure 4-9b Alternative 4 – Consolidated Terminal 

 Original Scenario 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ..............4-32 

 Figure 4-9c Alternative 4 – Consolidated Terminal 

 Revised Scenario 2025 Morning Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios.................4-33 

 Figure 4-9d Alternative 4 – Consolidated Terminal 

 Revised Scenario 2025 Afternoon Peak Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ..............4-34 

 Figure 4-10a Livernois-Junction Yard Community Facilities................................................4-37 

 Figure 4-10b CP/Expressway Terminal Community Facilities..............................................4-39 

 Figure 4-10c CP/Oak Terminal Community Facilities ..........................................................4-40 

 Figure 4-10d CN/Moterm Terminal Community Facilities....................................................4-41 

 Figure 4-11a Community Facilities by Intermodal Terminal Area........................................4-42 

 Figure 4-11b Community Facilities by Intermodal Terminal Area........................................4-43 

 Figure 4-12 Arab Ancestry Population by Census Tract in Intermodal Terminal Area.......4-57 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

ix

 Figure 4-13 Asian Population by Census Tract in Intermodal Terminal Area.....................4-57 

 Figure 4-14 Black or African American Populations by Census Tract in 

 Intermodal Terminal Area ................................................................................4-58 

 Figure 4-15 English Ancestry Population by Census Tract in Intermodal Terminal Area...4-58 

 Figure 4-16 French Ancestry Population by Census Tract in Intermodal Terminal Area....4-59 

 Figure 4-17 German Ancestry Population by Census Tract in Intermodal Terminal Area..4-59 

 Figure 4-18 Hispanic/Latino Population by Census Tract in 

 Intermodal Terminal Area ................................................................................4-60 

 Figure 4-19 Irish Ancestry Population by Census Tract in Intermodal Terminal Area........4-60 

 Figure 4-20 Italian Ancestry Population by Census Tract in Intermodal Terminal Area.....4-61 

 Figure 4-21 Polish Ancestry Population by Census Tract in Intermodal Terminal Area.....4-61 

 Figure 4-22 Scottish Ancestry Population by Census Tract in Intermodal Terminal Area..4-62 

 Figure 4-23 American Indian/Alaskan Native Population by Census Tract in 

 Intermodal Terminal Area ................................................................................4-62 

 Figure 4-24 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Population by Census Tract in 

 Intermodal Terminal Area ................................................................................4-63 

 Figure 4-25 Households with Income Below Poverty by Census Tract in 

 Intermodal Terminal Area ................................................................................4-71 

 Figure 4-25a Composite Coverage of Populations Addressed by Federal 

 Environmental Justice Executive Order............................................................4-71 

 Figure 4-25b Peak Growth by Community in Southeast Michigan........................................4-73 

 Figure 4-26a Economic Analysis Areas.................................................................................4-91 

 Figure 4-26b Integration of Commodity Flow and REMI Modeling Processes.....................4-92 

 Figure 4-27 Construction Employment Associated with DIFT Project ...............................4-95 

 Figure 4-28a Emission Factor Trends, Passenger Vehicles: 

 NAAQS Pollutants at 10 mph ..........................................................................4-104 

 Figure 4-28b Emission Factor Trends, Passenger Vehicles: 

 NAAQS Pollutants at 30 mph ..........................................................................4-104 

 Figure 4-28c Emission Factor Trends, Passenger Vehicles: 

 Air Toxic Pollutants at 10 mph ........................................................................4-104 

 Figure 4-28d Emission Factor Trends, Passenger Vehicles: 

 Air Toxic Pollutants at 30 mph ........................................................................4-104 

 Figure 4-28e Emission Factor Trends, Trucks: NAAQS Pollutants at 10 mph ..................4-104 

 Figure 4-28f Emission Factor Trends, Trucks: NAAQS Pollutants at 30 mph ..................4-104 

 Figure 4-28g Emission Factor Trends, Trucks: Air Toxic Pollutants at 10 mph.................4-104 

 Figure 4-28h Emission Factor Trends, Trucks: Air Toxic Pollutants at 30 mph.................4-104 

 Figure 4-29 Monitored Pollutant: Carbon Monoxide (CO), Maximum 1-hr Average 

 and Maximum 8-hr Average, Livernois-Junction Yard Terminal Area .........4-105 

 Figure 4-30 Monitored Pollutant: Ozone (O3), 1-hr Average and 8-hr Average 

 Livernois-Junction Yard Terminal Area.........................................................4-105 

 Figure 4-31 Monitored Pollutant: Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Annual Mean 

 Livernois-Junction Yard Terminal Area.........................................................4-106 

 Figure 4-32 Monitored Pollutant: Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 24-hr Average and 

 Annual Mean, Livernois-Junction Yard Terminal Area .................................4-106 

 Figure 4-33 Monitored Pollutant: Particulate Matter (PM10) Levels, 24-hr Average 

 and Annual Mean, Livernois-Junction Yard Terminal Area ..........................4-107 

 Figure 4-34 Monitored Pollutant: Carbon Monoxide (CO), Maximum 1-hr Average 

 and Maximum 8-hr Average 

 CP/Oak and CN/Moterm Terminal Areas.......................................................4-108 

 Figure 4-35 Monitored Pollutant: Ozone (O3), 1-hr Average and 4th Highest 8-hr Values 

 CP/Oak and CN/Moterm Terminal Areas.......................................................4-108 

 Figure 4-36 Monitored Pollutant: Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Levels, 24-hr Average 

 and Annual Mean, CP/Oak and CN/Moterm Terminal Areas ........................4-109 

 Figure 4-37 Livernois-Junction Terminal Air Quality Impact Analysis Study Area .........4-111 

 Figure 4-38 CP/Expressway Terminal Air Quality Impact Analysis Study Area ..............4-112 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

x

 Figure 4-39 CP/Oak Terminal Air Quality Impact Analysis Study Area...........................4-113 

 Figure 4-40 CN/Moterm Terminal Air Quality Impact Analysis Study Area....................4-114 

 Figure 4-41a Public Road Burden Analysis Links for Livernois-Junction Yard .................4-120 

 Figure 4-41b Public Road Burden Analysis Links for CP/Expressway Terminal ...............4-121 

 Figure 4-41c Public Road Burden Analysis Links for CP/Oak Terminal ............................4-122 

 Figure 4-41d Public Road Burden Analysis Links for CN/Moterm Terminal .....................4-123 

 Figure 4-42 Livernois-Junction Yard Alternative 2, Noise Sensitive Areas ......................4-129 

 Figure 4-43 Livernois-Junction Yard Alternative 3, Noise Sensitive Areas ......................4-131 

 Figure 4-44 Livernois-Junction Yard Alternative 4, Noise Sensitive Areas ......................4-133 

 Figure 4-45 CP/Expressway Terminal, Noise Sensitive Areas ..........................................4-135 

 Figure 4-46 CP/Oak Terminal, Noise Sensitive Areas.......................................................4-136 

 Figure 4-47 CN/Moterm Terminal, Noise Sensitive Areas ................................................4-137 

 Figure 4-48a Sensitive Receptors North Side of Kronk, Livernois-Junction Yard..............4-141 

 Figure 4-48b Sensitive Receptors North Side of Kronk, Livernois-Junction Yard .............4-142 

 Figure 4-49 Sensitive Noise Receptors, East Side of State Fairgrounds 

 CN/Moterm Terminal .....................................................................................4-144 

 Figure 4-50 Perceptible Noise Level Reductions ...............................................................4-147 

 Figure 4-51 Vibration Analysis Locations .........................................................................4-148 

 Figure 4-52 CP/Expressway Terminal Eligible Historic Resources...................................4-156 

 Figure 4-53 CN/Moterm Terminal Historic Resources......................................................4-159 

 Figure 4-54 Livernois-Junction Terminal Historic Resources ...........................................4-160 

 Figure 4-55 Areas Around Livernois-Junction Yard with Opportunities for 

 Visual Enhancements......................................................................................4-165 

 Figure 4-56 Triple Crown Terminal in Melvindale, Michigan...........................................4-166 

 Figure 6-1 Michigan/General Box Company .......................................................................6-5 

 Figure 6-2 Federal Screw Works Factory, 3301-3401 Martin Street ...................................6-6 

 Figure 6-3 Markey and Tomms Houses, Martin Street ........................................................6-8 

 Figure 6-4 Michigan Central Railroad Bridge Deck ..........................................................6-10 

 Figure 6-5 CP/Expressway Terminal Alternative 2............................................................6-11 

 Figure 6-6 Michigan State Fairgrounds..............................................................................6-14 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

xi

LIST OF TABLES 

 Table 1-1 Summary of Alternatives ....................................................................................1-5 

 Table 1-2 Summary of Impacts.........................................................................................1-34 

 Table 1-3 Terminal Burdens – Annual Tons.....................................................................1-43 

 Table 1-3a Reduction of Pollutants Due to Truck-to-Rail Division for 

 Each Action Alternative....................................................................................1-43 

 Table 1-4 Public Roadway Pollutant Burden....................................................................1-45 

 Table 1-5 Potential National Register Historical and Archaeological Sites 

 Shown on Figure 1-16.......................................................................................1-57 

 Table 1-6 Potential Contamination Sites Shown on Figure 1-16......................................1-59 

 Table 2-1 2002 Lift Summary.............................................................................................2-4 

 Table 2-2 Demand vs. Capacity, No Action Scenario ........................................................2-5 

 Table 2-3 Demand vs. Capacity, Revised Low-end-of-Range Forecast .............................2-6 

 Table 3-1 Railroad Interlockings Affected by Alternatives ..............................................3-30 

 Table 4-1a 2025 Annual Lifts – No Action Alternative from 

 Commodity Flow Model Results........................................................................4-2 

 Table 4-1b 2025 Annual Lifts – No Action Alternative with Adjustment Downward 

 from Commodity Flow Results...........................................................................4-2 

 Table 4-1c 2025 Truck Traffic (Two-way Trips) Alternative 1: No Action Alternative.....4-2 

 Table 4-1d Relationship of Lifts to Truck Movements.........................................................4-5 

 Table 4-2 2025 Truck Traffic (Two-way Trips) Alternative 2: Improve/Expand..............4-5 

 Table 4-3 2025 Truck Traffic (Two-way Trips) Alternative 3: Consolidate .....................4-5 

 Table 4-4 2025 Annual Lifts and Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

 Alternative 4: The Composition Option ............................................................4-6 

 Table 4-5 2025 Traffic Forecast – Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

 Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals 

 Livernois-Junction Yard .....................................................................................4-6 

 Table 4-6 2025 Traffic Forecast – Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

 Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four RRs 

 Livernois-Junction Area .....................................................................................4-6 

 Table 4-7 2025 Traffic Forecast – Daily Two-way Truck Trips 

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

 Expand CN/Moterm at Fairgrounds....................................................................4-7 

 Table 4-8 Proposed Traffic Operations Improvements at Key Intersections ......................4-7 

 Table 4-9a Community Facilities – Livernois-Junction Yard.............................................4-46 

 Table 4-9b Community Facilities – CP/Expressway Terminal Alternative 2.....................4-48 

 Table 4-9c Community Facilities – CP/Oak Terminal Alternative 2..................................4-48 

 Table 4-9d Community Facilities – CN/Moterm Terminal Alternatives 2 and 4 ...............4-49 

 Table 4-10 Population by Intermodal Terminal Host City..................................................4-53 

 Table 4-11 Population and Total Households by Terminal Area in 2000...........................4-54 

 Table 4-12 Population and Total Households by Terminal Area in 1990...........................4-55 

 Table 4-13a 2000 Labor Force Characteristics .....................................................................4-64 

 Table 4-13b 1990 Labor Force Characteristics .....................................................................4-65 

 Table 4-14 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts..........................................................4-76 

 Table 4-15 Summary of Cumulative Effects.......................................................................4-79 

 Table 4-16 Relocation Information.....................................................................................4-88 

 Table 4-17 Construction Costs by Alternative....................................................................4-93 

 Table 4-18 Jobs Relocated and Net Jobs Gained ................................................................4-94 

 Table 4-19 Terminal Area Property Tax Reduction and Local Revenue Gained ...............4-96 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

xii

 Table 4-20 National Ambient Air Quality Standards........................................................4-100 

 Table 4-21 Terminal Burdens – Annual Tons...................................................................4-117 

 Table 4-21a Reduction of Pollutants Due to Truck-to-Rail Diversion for 

 Each Action Alternative..................................................................................4-117 

 Table 4-21b Terminal Burden by Activity Type – Annual Tons ........................................4-119 

 Table 4-22 Public Roadway Pollutant Burden..................................................................4-125 

 Table 4-23 Worst Case CO Concentrations ......................................................................4-127 

 Table 4-24 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria...................................................................4-139 

 Table 4-25 Trains and Noise Levels in Sensitive Areas ...................................................4-140 

 Table 4-26 Summary of Project Effects on Potential National Register 

 Eligible Cultural Resources ............................................................................4-155 

 Table 4-27 Contamination Summary ................................................................................4-168 

 Table 6-1 Potential National Register Eligible Cultural Resources and 

 Recreational Resources Adverse Effects ............................................................6-1 

 Table 7-1 Summary of Interviews 

 Livernois-Junction/CP Expressway Terminal Area............................................7-4 

 Table 7-2 Summary of Interviews – CP/Oak Terminal Area..............................................7-9 

 Table 7-3 Summary of Interviews – CN/Moterm Terminal Area.....................................7-11 

 Table 7-4 Summary of Interviews – Outside of Terminal Areas ......................................7-13 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

xiii

FOREWORD 

This study addresses alternatives for enhancements in intermodal operations for four Class I railroads 

(those with annual revenues in excess of $250 million) at four terminals known as Livernois-Junction 

Yard owned and operated jointly by CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads; Canadian Pacific 

(CP)/Expressway; CP/Oak; and, Canadian National(CN)/Moterm. These alternatives range from 

Alternative 1: No Action to Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals, listed above; to 

Alternative 3: Consolidate All Four Class I Railroads’ Intermodal Activity at Livernois-Junction Yard 

Area; to Alternative 4: The Composite Option, which is a combination of consolidation of CSX, Norfolk 

Southern (NS) and Canadian Pacific (CP) intermodal operations at the Livernois-Junction Yard area and 

the expansion of the existing CN/Moterm terminal. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

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

1 - 1

SECTION 1 

SUMMARY

1.1 Description of the Proposed Project

A significant volume of freight being moved by railroads today is delivered to the rails by trucks. 

Following the train trip, it is again moved by truck to its final destination. These movements 

between rail and truck are termed intermodal freight transportation. The most common 

movements involve transferring trailers or containers between railroad flatcars and trucks. This 

activity usually takes place at a location called an intermodal terminal. In Southeast Michigan, 

the transfer of trailers is conducted by Norfolk Southern’s (NS) Triple Crown operation. Today, 

that is accomplished at the Melvindale and the recently reopened Willow Run terminals (Figure 

1-1/inset). Canadian Pacific (CP) also transfers trailers in its Expressway operation at the 

terminal behind the Michigan Central Depot. CP also transfers containers at the Oak terminal. 

Finally, both NS and CSX transfer containers at the Livernois-Junction Yard and Canadian 

National Railroad (CN) transfers containers at the Moterm terminal in Ferndale, Michigan. 

The Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study (DIFT) includes the proposed enhancement of 

intermodal operations by four Class I railroads1

 at four intermodal terminals that will continue to 

exist in the future: Livernois-Junction Yard; CP/Expressway; CP/Oak; and, CN/Moterm (Figure 

1-1/main graphic). (Mazda has an intermodal terminal in Flat Rock in Wayne County serviced by 

Canadian National Railroad, but it is solely dedicated to Mazda use.) 

Information gathered for the DIFT indicates there is a current lack of adequate intermodal 

capacity. For example, the Norfolk Southern Railroad has realized a significant recent increase in 

its Triple Crown business to the extent it cannot be accommodated at the Melvindale terminal. 

Norfolk Southern has requested financial assistance of the Michigan Department of 

Transportation (MDOT) so that it can consolidate its intermodal operations at its portion of the 

Livernois-Junction Yard. But, until the DIFT studies are concluded, use of federal monies to 

provide such assistance is not available. So, NS recently reopened (in mid-2004) its terminal in 

Romulus, Michigan, to handle its Triple Crown business growth. If the DIFT were an approved 

project, and, if appropriate improvements were made on a timely basis, NS would shift all its 

intermodal operations in Michigan to the Livernois-Junction Yard. This will leave four 

intermodal Class I railroad terminals serving Southeast Michigan in the future. These four 

terminals are the subject of the DIFT Study. 

 

1

 A Class I Railroad does at least $250 million of business annually. In Michigan there are four Class I 

railroads: CSX, Norfolk Southern, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 2
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 3

1.2 Alternatives

Alternatives were analyzed for this project with public involvement. In addition to the 

alternatives analysis presented in this DEIS, documentation of the alternatives analysis is 

available in technical reports prepared as part of the EIS study process and listed at the end of the 

Table of Contents. The general characteristics of the alternatives are summarized on Table 1-1. 

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. 

“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 and Table 3-1). These will all be accomplished on existing railroad property. All Action 

Alternatives (Alternative 2,3 and 4) 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 (see Figure 1-15). 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 4
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 5
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 6
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 7
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 8
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 9

1.2.1 Characteristics of Proposed Intermodal Terminals 

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

operate under the various alternatives. 

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 1-2). 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 1-3). 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 served by Wyoming Avenue (Figure 1-4). 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 1-5). 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 

section of relocated John Kronk Street to Central Avenue which would pass under the railroad 

tracks (14’9” vertical clearance) (Figures 1-3 through 1-5). 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. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 10

Figure 1-2 

Existing Livernois-Junction Yard Access 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 11
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 12
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 13
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 14
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 15
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 16
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 17

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 1-6). 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 of more than 4,000 total trips per day 

(cars and trucks) to other locations in the terminal area. 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 daily truck trips [two-way] expected at the terminal than the No 

Action Alternative), there will be an offsetting reduction 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-to-major arterial connectors (i.e., I-75/I-94 to 

Wyoming/Livernois2

 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 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. 

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

National Railroad (CN) would remain at an expanded 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 1-7). 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 total trips per day (cars and trucks). 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 to connect with Central Avenue to pass under the railroad tracks. The perimeter 

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

Avenues. 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 Alternative 1 - No Action in 2025 is expected to handle about 

140 daily two-way truck trips using city streets when business resumes. The terminal’s operation 

was temporarily suspended in June 2004 (Figure 1-8). Under Alternative 2 – Improve/Expand, 

the truck trips would grow to 250 also using city streets (Figure 1-9). 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 (DRTP) becomes a reality because there is not enough space to

 

2

 The Livernois Avenue entrance would be configured so trucks must enter from or exit to the north. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 18
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 19
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 20
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 21
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 22
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 23

Figure 1-8 

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

1 - 24
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 25

handle both projects.3 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 intermodal business (trailers) would be 

consolidated at the Livernois-Junction Yard area (refer to Figures 1-6 and 1-7). 

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 1-10). Today’s daily 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 CP/Oak 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 (Figures 1-11 and 1-12). 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 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 intermodal business (containers) would be consolidated at 

the Livernois-Junction Yard area (refer to Figures 1-6 and 1-7). 

CN/Moterm Terminal 

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

29-acre terminal in Ferndale immediately 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 5 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 – No Action, the CN/Moterm terminal would continue on the existing 29-

acre site (Figure 1-13). The number of daily two-way truck trips in 2025 would be 370. 

 

3

 The proposed DTRP project would convert two existing rail tunnels connecting Detroit and Windsor to truck use and 

develop a new rail tunnel to accommodate domestic double-stack rail traffic. The tunnel entrance in the U.S. is just 

east of the CP/Expressway Terminal. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 26

Figure 1-10 

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

1 - 27
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 28
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 29

Figure 1-13 

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

1 - 30

Under Alternatives 2 and 4, the proposed expansion of the CN/Moterm terminal avoids going into 

the dense residential area west of the terminal. Likewise, expansion to the east has been rejected 

to avoid displacing businesses which represent a major portion of Ferndale’s tax base, including 

its largest single tax payer. Expansion is proposed south into the Fairgrounds on approximately 

35 acres. Access would be directly from Eight Mile Road south into the terminal. A survey of 

current 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. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 4, the number of two-way intermodal truck trips 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 1-14). 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 1-6). 

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

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 other means than 

intermodal. That activity will be associated with a 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 the two existing rail tunnels to Canada to truck facilities and to 

build a new rail tunnel. According to public reports of statements made by the 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. 

1.2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study 

Other Sites 

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 in 2003 to/consolidated at the Livernois-Junction Yard. The Oakwood location, and 

others in the region, like at Highland Park, do not lend themselves to productive intermodal 

operations. Nevertheless, existing terminals like Melvindale and even Willow Run may be used 

for some time in 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 intermodal 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. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 31
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 32

The August 1994 Mercer Report4 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. 

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,” appear to be available for intermodal 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 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. 

CBRA Alternative 

A group known as Communities for a Better Rail Alternative (CBRA) suggested an alternative 

that focused 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 in the region. There would be no increase in the 

terminals’ sizes to increase 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 similar to the proposal for that terminal under Alternative 2. 

 

4 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 

1 - 33

1.2.3 Proposed 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 60 days after the public hearing, for a total of at least 

90 days. 

1.3 Impacts

The following is a summary of the impacts associated with the analyzed alternatives (Table 1-2). 

A more detailed description of impacts is found in Section 4. Proposed mitigation measures are 

found in Section 5. For simplicity of presentation Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are sometimes referred 

to as the “Action Alternatives.” 

1.3.1 Traffic and Safety 

The only intersection of more than 100 analyzed that is expected to have traffic which exceeds 

capacity is at Dix/Waterman/Vernor at the Livernois-Junction Yard under the No Action 

condition and Alternative 2/Option A. This is due to traffic moving through a gate to the 

Livernois-Junction Yard. This gate and the traffic problem it causes are eliminated under all 

other alternatives. 

The data indicate there is so much capacity available on the roads serving the intermodal terminals, 

that congestion with the addition of intermodal truck traffic is acceptable in almost every condition 

(i.e., traffic volume lower than capacity). Only five intersections of the 100+ examined are expected 

to experience negative traffic effects as a result of improving/expanding intermodal terminals 

(Alternative 2) or consolidating intermodal activity at the Livernois-Junction Yard area (Alternatives 

3 and 4). Proposed adjustments to traffic signal phasing will make the traffic operations at those five 

locations acceptable (i.e., 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. It limits northbound through traffic to one lane. Wyoming at Michigan is forecast to 

have traffic volumes over capacity in the peak periods by 2025. This can be corrected by adding leftturn signal phases. Consideration should be given by MDOT to realign this intersection; but, the 

DIFT does not require this change. 

Lonyo Avenue will be closed at the Livernois-Junction Yard railroad crossing. Its traffic 

(including pedestrian and bicycle traffic) will be channeled to Central Avenue, under Alternative 

2, by rebuilding a section of John Kronk Street (Figures 1-3, 1-4, and 1-5) or by building a new 

perimeter road under Alternative 3 (Figure 1-6) and Alternative 4 (Figure 1-7). The railroad 

crossing at Central Avenue will be grade-separated under the Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2, 

3 and 4), eliminating the risk of train/motor vehicle crashes at this location and the Lonyo Avenue 

location. While pedestrians and bicyclists will have one, rather than two, places they can cross 

the Livernois-Junction Yard, that crossing will be safer, and all pedestrian facilities will be 

constructed consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 34

Table 1-2 

Summary of Impacts 

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

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

Traffic and Safety 

• Normal, non-DIFT 

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

• Acceptable 

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

• Continued 

rail/vehicle conflicts at Central and at Lonyo. 

• Normal, non-DIFT 

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

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions at all intersections. 

• Normal, non-DIFT 

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

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions at all intersections. 

• Grade separation of 

Central will reduce vehicle-rail conflicts and crashes. 

• I-94/Livernois 

interchange improvement will improve safety. 

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions at all intersections but Dix/Waterman/ Vernor under Option A. 

• Intermodal truck 

traffic on Artesian, Southfield Freeway service drive and other local roads reduced/eliminated. 

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions at all intersections. 

• Intermodal truck 

traffic and idling eliminated from Fair and Chesterfield. 

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions at all intersections. 

• Grade separation o

Central will reduce vehicle-rail conflic

and crashes. 

• I-94/Livernois 

interchange improvement will improve safety. 

• Reduced truck traf

on local roads. 

• Acceptable volum

capacity conditionall intersections buwhich can be made acceptable with mofied signal phasing

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 closed. Cen

railroad crossing gseparated. 

• Truck traffic reduc

on neighborhood streets. 

Environmental 

Justice 

• 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 

disproportionate imexpected. 

Land Use 

• Maintains existing 

land use pattern. 

• Maintains existing 

land use pattern. 

• Maintains existing 

land use pattern. 

• Consistent with 

Detroit and Dearborn land use plans. 

• Detroit land use plan 

does not mention terminal. 

• Consistent with 

Detroit and Ferndale land use plans. 

• Consistent with Det

and Dearborn land uplans. 

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-family p

12 apartment units 

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 

Relocations 

Other Affected Properties (Acquisitions) 

N/A N/A N/A • One institutional 

property at CP/Expressway 

N/A • Approx. 35 acres of 

Fairgrounds property

N/A 

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 will be transferred to the Livernois-Junction Yard. Terminals that once served intermod

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 railr

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 a terminal area to outside it due to terminal expansion. Net jobs are those gained in terminal area. Each terminal area is defined as an “impact zone” arounf NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. g Funding will be a combination of government and railroad investment. 

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

1 - 35

Table 1-2 (continued) 

Summary of Impacts 

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

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

Farmland/Part 

361 Lands 

• No active farmland, or 

Part 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, 

or Part 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, 

or Part 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, 

or Part 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, 

or Part 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, 

or Pat 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, 

Part 361 land neede

Economic 

Impacts 

Jobse in terminal area

• Jobs Relocated: 0 • Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 194 • Overall 1,029 

• Jobs Relocated: 0• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 130• Overall 1,029

• Jobs Relocated: 0• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 88• Overall 1,029

• Jobs Relocated: 0• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 786

• Overall 4,950

• Jobs Relocated: 596

• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 187• Overall 4,950

• Jobs Relocated: 0• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 390

• Overall 4,950

• Jobs Relocated: • Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 

• Overall 

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 C

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 

reduced. 

Noise 

Considerations 

• No perceptible 

increase. 

• No perceptible 

increase. 

• No perceptible 

increase. 

• No perceptible 

increase with planned barrier walls. 

• No perceptible 

increase with planned barrier walls. 

• No perceptible 

increase with planned barrier walls. 

• No perceptible inc

with planned barriwalls. 

Surface Water 

Impacts 

• No change • No change • No change • 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. 

• 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 sub

of NPDESf permitt

• Spill prevention pl

will be in place. 

Wetlands 

• None • None • None • 0.01 acres of 

Palustrine Emergent wetland of low quality 

• None • 0.07 acres of 

Palustrine Emergent wetland of low quality 

• 0.01 acres of Palus

Emergent wetland low quality 

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 will be transferred to the Livernois-Junction Yard. Terminals that once served intermod

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 railr

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 a terminal area to outside it due to terminal expansion. Net jobs are those gained in terminal area. Each terminal area is defined as an “impact zone” arounf NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. g Funding will be a combination of government and railroad investment. 

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

1 - 36

Table 1-2 

Summary of Impacts (continued) 

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

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

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

• None • None • None • None • None • None • None 

Historic/Archaeological 

4(f) Resources 

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

bridge deck at Michigan Central Depot. 

• No effect • No effect • Removal of Michig

Box Company buildand Federal Screw Works factory. Potadverse effect on Markey and Tomms Houses. 

Parklands/

Recreational Land 

4(f) Resources 

• No effect • No effect • No effect • No effect • No effect • Approx. 35 acres 

from State Fairgrounds, a 4(f) resource would be leased to CN. 

• No effect 

Visual 

Effects 

• Unsightly properties 

and streetscapes remain. 

• No change • No change • Unsightly properties 

and streetscapes remain, except for improvements along Kronk with barrier walls. 

• Barrier wall along 

north edge of terminal. 

• Barrier wall along 

east edge of terminal.

• Removal of some 

unsightly properties through acquisition. 

• Barrier wall along n

edge of terminal. 

Contaminated 

Sites 

• No sites around 

terminal area expected to change 

• Potential to remediate 

up to 10 acres for nonterminal 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 non-terminal 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 non-terminal intermodal activity 

• 45 sites need additio

testing 

• Potential to remedia

to 120 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

Soils 

• No change • No change • No change • Former clay pits 

would need geotechnical testing prior to any construction of structures. 

• No change • No change • Former clay pits wo

need geotechnical teprior to any construof structures. 

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 will be transferred to the Livernois-Junction Yard. Terminals that once served intermod

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 railr

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 a terminal area to outside it due to terminal expansion. Net jobs are those gained in terminal area. Each terminal area is defined as an “impact zone” arounf NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. g Funding will be a combination of government and railroad investment. 

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

1 - 37

Table 1-2 

Summary of Impacts (continued) 

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

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

Indirect and 

Cumulative 

• Perpetuates current 

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

• Perpetuates current 

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

• Perpetuates current 

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

• No negative 

congestion 

• Some business 

expansion expected. 

• Unwanted mixing of 

land uses must be resisted. 

• No adverse air quality 

effects. 

• Ambient noise levels 

may increase. 

• Existing controls must 

be enforced to avoid adverse cultural resource impacts. 

• Some contaminated 

property reclaimed. 

• Available 

infrastructure will be able to handle stormwater from additional development, but no certainty exists. 

• No negative 

congestion. 

• Some business 

expansion expected. 

• Unwanted mixing of 

land uses must be resisted. 

• No adverse air quality 

effects. 

• Ambient noise levels 

may increase. 

• Existing controls must 

be enforced to avoid adverse cultural resource impacts. 

• Some contaminated 

property reclaimed. 

• Available 

infrastructure will be able to handle stormwater from additional development, but no certainty exists. 

• No negative 

congestion. 

• Some business 

expansion expected. 

• Unwanted mixing of 

land uses must be resisted. 

• No adverse air quality 

effects. 

• Ambient noise levels 

may increase. 

• Existing controls must

be enforced to avoid adverse cultural resource impacts. 

• Some contaminated 

property reclaimed. 

• Available 

infrastructure will be able to handle stormwater from additional development, but no certainty exists. 

• No negative conge• Some business 

expansion expected

• Unwanted mixing o

land uses must be resisted. 

• No adverse air qual

effects. 

• Ambient noise leve

may increase. 

• Existing controls m

be enforced to avoiadverse cultural resimpacts. 

• Some contaminated 

property reclaimed. 

• Available infrastruc

will be able to handstormwater from additional developmbut no certainty exi

Energy 

• Continues past trends. • Continues past trends. • Continues past trends. • Energy used during 

construction. 

• Improved efficiencies 

from conversion of some freight shipments from truck to rail. 

• Energy used during 

construction. 

• Improved efficiencies 

from conversion of some freight shipments from truck to rail. 

• Energy used during 

construction. 

• Improved efficiencies 

from conversion of some freight shipments from truck to rail. 

• Energy used during 

construction. 

• Improved efficienci

from conversion of freight shipments frtruck to rail. 

Land Acquisition and Remediation 

No government investment $97.5g $125.0g 

Construction No government investment $169.7g $457.7g 

Implementation 

Project Cost 

(millions 2004) Total No government investment $267.2g $582.7g 

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 will be transferred to the Livernois-Junction Yard. Terminals that once served intermod

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 railr

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 a terminal area to outside it due to terminal expansion. Net jobs are those gained in terminal area. Each terminal area is defined as an “impact zone” arounf NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. g Funding will be a combination of government and railroad investment. 

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

1 - 38

All three of the Action Alternatives for the DIFT project will have 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 2025 Wayne County annual injury crashes and 

fatalities by 25 and one, respectively, compared to the No Action Alternative. The Action 

Alternatives’ safety effects in the seven-county Southeast Michigan region will reduce annual 

injury crashes and fatalities in 2025 by 97 and four, respectively, compared to the No Action 

Alternative. 

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

The north side of the interchange functions poorly. The proposal is to reconstruct the northern 

part of the interchange to create a full diamond (Figure 1-15). This improvement is to facilitate 

more use of it by intermodal (and other large) trucks traveling to the Livernois-Junction Yard. 

Today, trucks now use a variety of routes, including Central Avenue via the I-94 service drive 

west of Livernois Avenue, to avoid this interchange. This is not a capacity improvement but one 

to improve access to the Livernois-Junction Yard and remove trucks from the surrounding 

neighborhood on the north. 

Detroit Fire Station No. 37 uses Central Avenue to respond to emergencies north of the 

Livernois-Junction Yard. Police Precincts 3 and 4 are consolidating on Fort Street. Police 

functions for the Livernois-Junction Yard terminal area will be provided from that location for all 

Action Alternatives. 

Lonyo and Central Avenues now provide redundant routes for fire and police services. In the 

future, there would be one route only (Central), but it would be less subject to closing, as it would 

pass under train lines. Without the project, Central and Lonyo will be closed to emergency 

vehicles more and more frequently due to passing trains. Grade separation with the project means 

that trains would not block emergency vehicles. 

1.3.2 Relocations, Community Cohesion, Environmental Justice, 

Land Use, and Farmland 

The Improve/Expand Alternative (Alternative 2) is expected to require the relocation of no 

housing units and a total of up to 18 businesses/institutions that provide approximately 700 jobs 

at four intermodal terminals. The Consolidate Alternative (Alternative 3) is expected to require 

the relocation from the area immediately adjacent to the Livernois-Junction Yard of 64 businesses 

that provide about 1,200 jobs and up to 83 dwelling units. The Composite Alternative 

(Alternative 4) is expected to require the relocation of 51 businesses that provide approximately 

1,000 jobs and up to 33 dwelling units. 

Adequate relocation housing and industrial/commercial space is available in the terminal area. 

So, most of these relocated jobs will remain in the terminal area. 

Closing Lonyo Avenue at the railyard and channeling its traffic to Central Avenue, plus providing 

a grade-separation of Central from the railroad tracks, will improve community cohesion. This 

will occur with all Action Alternatives. If no action were taken, increased rail traffic will make it 

more difficult to cross by car or on foot the Livernois-Junction Yard, which is detrimental to 

community cohesion. The new Central Avenue underpass will offer an improved 

pedestrian/bicycle link that will be built to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 39
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 40

Expanding the Livernois-Junction Yard under Alternatives 3 and 4, and placing a barrier wall on the 

north side, and most of the south side of the terminal, will support community cohesion by 

removing unsightly buildings and debris and creating visual and noise barriers between the 

neighborhood and terminal. 

A review of data on low-income and minority populations finds the Action Alternatives will 

neither result in disproportionately high and/or adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority or low-income populations, nor be associated with discrimination as prohibited by Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Each area around an intermodal terminal is composed of 

predominantly low-income and minority populations. On balance, the investment and 

improvement will be beneficial to these areas compared to the No Action condition. 

Land use changes are expected to be accelerated with growth in intermodal transportation and the 

associated and improved economic stimulus. Such growth can be accommodated around the 

terminals because a large amount of unused/undeveloped property exists. Nevertheless, such 

growth could be associated with a mixing of land use types that are unwanted, i.e., 

industrial/commercial with residential. This can be resisted/avoided by applying already-existing 

land use/zoning principles like those in the City of Detroit’s Master Plan of Policies and the 

master plans of Dearborn, Ferndale, Hazel Park and Highland Park. 

No farmland would be needed by the project. No prime or unique farmlands would be taken, nor 

any land enrolled in the Michigan Public Act 451, Part 361 Program. 

1.3.3 Economics 

Permanent Jobs 

About 1,000 jobs that do not now exist are forecast to be produced by 2025 as intermodal growth 

continues under No Action conditions. About 3,900 more jobs than for the No Action condition 

would be generated by 2025 by Alternative 2: Improve/Expand the existing terminals. This latter 

figure includes the fact that expanding the CP/Oak terminal would cause almost 600 jobs to be 

relocated outside the immediate terminal area. But, those jobs would not be lost to the region. 

If intermodal activity of all four railroads were to be consolidated (Alternative 3), the number of 

net new jobs generated (i.e., deducting for jobs in the No Action Alternative) is expected to total 

by 2025 about 8,000 more than No Action. The number of jobs created under Alternative 4 is 

forecast by 2025 at about 7,800 more than No Action. The net job gain by 2025 in Detroit is 

forecast to range from 1,760 to almost 4,000 depending on the Action Alternative. These are 

direct, indirect and induced jobs at an average annual wage of $40,000.5

 

Construction Jobs 

Construction-related employment for Alternative 2 is expected to peak at about 375 fulltime jobs 

in 2007. It will peak in 2009 with Alternatives 3 and 4 at about 550 jobs. Overall, Alternatives 3 

and 4 would create more construction jobs over a longer period than Alternative 2 because of the 

increased investment in Alternatives 3 and 4. 

 

5

 Direct jobs are those directly associated with the facility. Jobs such as suppliers, service providers, and support 

services to the intermodal business are considered indirect jobs. Induced jobs include restaurant workers, teachers, 

retail clerks needed to serve the direct and indirect jobs. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 41

1.3.4 Air Quality 

The DIFT air quality analysis covered, among other items: 

1. An estimate of the pollutant burden that will be generated by the No Action Alternative 

and Action Alternatives for each terminal for the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) pollutants and several key air toxics. “Burden” means the mass of 

a pollutant produced in a given period. Burden does not mean the amount of a pollutant 

concentrated at a specific location. In this analysis, pollutant burden is expressed in 

“tons per year.” 

2. An estimate of the pollutant burden produced by mobile source activities on the local 

public roadway network near each terminal that would experience traffic volume 

changes. This burden analysis included the NAAQS pollutants and several key air 

toxics. 

3. A carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot analysis at key intersections in the terminal areas that 

compared CO concentrations to the one- and eight-hour NAAQS. This was not a 

burden analysis but a concentration analysis which defines the pollutant level at a 

specific location to which people are exposed. 

The analysis found that overall air quality in the region is improving and is expected to continue 

to do so, despite the recent EPA designation of non-attainment of the new 8-hour ozone standard 

and the designation of non-attainment of the PM2.5 standard.6

 This conclusion is based on new 

regulatory requirements that will substantially improve air quality nationwide, including 

Southeast Michigan. EPA predicts that on-road volatile organic compounds (VOCs) will 

decrease 76 percent from 2000 to 2025, and nitrogen oxides (NOx) will drop 87 percent over this 

period. Those are the primary precursors for ozone, so ozone will fall with its precursors. 

Meanwhile, EPA predicts PM2.5 will decrease by 64 percent from on-road traffic. SEMCOG has 

predicted the primary pollutants of concern – VOCs, NOx and PM2.5 – will all decline in the 

region even with increased vehicle miles of travel. Past pollution trends for periods up to 30 

years at monitoring stations near the terminals show most NAAQS pollutants going down over 

time or being well within the standards. The exceptions are ozone and particulates, hence the 

non-attainment designations. 

The terminals fall within the section of Southeast Michigan that was formerly in non-attainment 

for carbon monoxide. As a result, CO “hotspots” were analyzed for a dozen locations near the 

terminals to determine whether there might be any localized violations of the CO standards. All 

are forecast to fall well within standards with all alternatives, both in the design year of 2025 and 

in the intermediate year of 2015, the year by which all alternatives are expected to be fully 

complete. 

 

6

 PM2.5 refers to particulate matter that is 2.5 micrometers or smaller in size. Sources of PM2.5 include fuel combustion 

from automobiles, power plants, wood burning, industrial processes, and diesel-powered vehicles such as buses and 

trucks. These fine particles are also formed in the atmosphere when gases such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and 

volatile organic compounds (all of which are also products of fuel combustion) are transformed in the air by chemical 

reactions. Fine particles are of concern because they are so small they are able to penetrate to the deepest parts of the 

lungs, where the body has difficulty expelling them. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 42

Terminal Area Pollution Burden 

The burden analysis of the terminals for each alternative combined the pollution from: 1) visitor 

and employee traffic; 2) on-site truck traffic; 3) container handling; 4) locomotive activity; 5) 

dust; and, 6) travel within properties and on streets (such as John Kronk) that would be 

incorporated into the terminals. The most notable aspect of the results is that total terminal area 

pollution is expected to decrease in the future, regardless of intermodal development scenario, 

compared to the current condition (Table 1-3). Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are good indicators of the 

overall pollution effects of the alternatives because they are diesel-engine based (cars produce 

little) and the data do not involve other considerations (like the dust with PM data). NOx is 

expected to drop from existing conditions to 2025 No Action conditions, increase under 

Alternative 2, then decrease somewhat under Alternatives 3 and 4. This pattern reflects: 1) the 

future drop in emissions from cleaner engines and fuels; then, 2) the increases related to more 

lifts affected by the efficiencies of operation brought about by the Alternatives 3 and 4. 

Alternative 1: No Action would experience reductions across the range of most pollutants, 

compared to current conditions, except for particulate matter (PM). This overall positive trend is 

forecast to result from lower on-road, non-road, and locomotive emissions factors associated with 

cleaner fuels and cleaner engines, as prescribed by EPA. The PM increase is the exception and 

that is mainly due to increased intermodal activity on the unpaved terminal surfaces under 

Alternative 1. 

For Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals, most pollutants are forecast to be lower 

than existing conditions and to increase over 2025 No Action conditions as the intermodal 

activity (lifts) are forecast to increase by about 80 percent. PM10 would be reduced relative to the 

2025 No Action conditions, as dust would be controlled by paving. PM2.5 would be virtually 

unchanged overall. 

For Alternative 3, which would consolidate all intermodal operations at the Livernois-Junction 

Yard area, terminal pollutant burdens would increase over both No Action and Alternative 2 

conditions because of the significant increase in intermodal activity (80 to 130 percent, 

respectively). 

Alternative 4 is forecast to be associated with pollutant burdens in the Livernois-Junction Yard 

area at virtually the same amounts as No Action and Alternative 2, even though the intermodal 

activity at the Livernois-Junction Yard area is forecast to double. A similar comparison exists for 

the CN/Moterm terminal under Alternative 4. 

Increased intermodal activity will shift freight from trucks to rail. This would reduce truck 

mileage and pollution. The expected reduction for Wayne County and in the seven-county 

SEMCOG region is presented on Table 1-3a. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 43

Table 1-3 

Terminal Burdens – Annual Tons 

 CO HC NOx PM10 PM2.5 VOCs DPM BENZ BUTA 2004 SW Detroit/E Dearborna 41.3 7.0 93.9 177.3 43.5 7.1 6.3 0.13 0.02 CP/Oak 9.5 1.8 25.7 29.2 8.6 1.8 1.9 0.03 0.01 CN/Moterm 6.4 1.1 14.1 4.4 1.8 1.1 1.0 0.02 0.004 Totals 57.2 9.9 133.7 210.9 53.9 10.0 9.2 0.18 0.03 Alt. 1 – 2025 No Action SW Detroit/E Dearborna 18.2 3.9 28.3 227.1 47.3 3.9 1.2 0.07 0.02 CP/Oak 4.1 1.1 7.8 36.9 10.9 1.1 0.3 0.02 0.005 CN/Moterm 1.5 0.5 5.2 5.1 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.01 0.003 Totals 23.8 5.5 41.3 269.1 59.6 5.5 1.7 0.09 0.03 Alt. 2 – 2025 Improve/Expand SW Detroit/E Dearborna 21.4 5.8 37.9 185.8 47.2 5.9 1.6 0.10 0.02 CP/Oak 3.3 1.6 9.6 21.7 5.8 1.6 0.4 0.03 0.01 CN/Moterm 1.9 0.7 6.4 8.8 2.4 0.7 0.2 0.01 0.004 Totals 26.6 8.1 53.9 216.3 55.4 8.2 2.2 0.13 0.03 Alt. 3 - 2025 Consolidate Livernois-Junction 15.2 8.1 46.5 204.8 52.8 8.1 2.1 0.13 0.03 Alt. 4 - 2025 Composite SW Detroit/E Dearborna 13.0 7.2 39.1 160.9 41.6 7.2 1.8 0.12 0.03 CN/Moterm 1.9 0.7 6.4 8.8 2.4 0.7 0.2 0.01 0.004 Totals 14.9 7.9 45.4 169.8 44.0 7.9 2.0 0.13 0.03 

aIncludes the Livernois-Junction Yard, Expressway, Delray, and Triple Crown terminals. 

Note: VOCs are volatile organic compounds, DPM is diesel particulate mater, BENZ is benzene, BUTA is 1,3, butadiene, FORM is formaldehyde, ACET is acetaldehydSource: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 

Table 1-3a 

Reduction of Pollutants Due to Truck-to-Rail Diversion for Each Action Alternative 

 CO HC NOx PM10 PM2.5 VOCs DPM BENZ BUTA 

In Wayne Co. 

Totals 17.8 16.1 33.8 3.0 1.7 15.9 1.7 0.17 0.10 

In Southeast Michigan 

Totals 48.7 37.7 128.9 11.8 6.7 37.2 6.7 0.41 0.24 

Note: VOCs are volatile organic compounds, DPM is diesel particulate mater, BENZ is benzene, BUTA is 1,3, butadiene, FORM is formaldehyde, ACET is acetaldehydSource: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc.
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 44

Roadway Network Pollution Burden 

The pollutant burdens forecast for the local public road network around each intermodal terminal 

for each alternative is shown in Table 1-4 for autos and trucks. All Action Alternatives would 

have pollutant burdens that are less than existing conditions. The auto component of local road 

traffic produces the majority of the pollution, due to the much greater number of cars than trucks 

on the roadway system. This is particularly so for CO and hydrocarbons (HC). Trucks produce 

far more NOx per vehicle. Particulates are also produced more heavily by trucks, despite the fact 

that they are fewer in number. Nevertheless, even for NOx and particulates, no more than 30 

percent is produced on the local road network by trucks. 

Car traffic is also forecast to produce more air toxics than trucks for every pollutant for the 

roadway network around each terminal, with the exception of the Livernois-Junction Yard area, 

under Alternative 2. Under the latter scenario, the total truck contribution of the formaldehyde 

burden is about 55 percent of the total. For all other alternatives, and for all terminals, mobile 

source air toxics (MSATs) for trucks represent no more than 40 percent of all toxic burdens for 

the entire roadway network. 

The roadway network pollution burden of Alternative 1, i.e., No Action in 2025, shows 

substantial decreases in the emission burden on the local roadways compared to current 

conditions, even with an increase in intermodal activity. This results from cleaner engines and 

fuel as mandated by EPA. 

In 2025, the forecast pollutant burdens on the Alternative 2 roadway system display virtually no 

difference, compared to taking no action, even as the intermodal activity would increase. That 

condition exists because both roadway systems carry the same background traffic while DIFT 

truck traffic is a relatively small contributor to total traffic and total pollution burden. The only 

exception to this is when Lonyo is closed and auto and non-DIFT truck traffic is diverted, in part, 

to Central Avenue. Under Alternative 2, there are few business relocations in the area served by 

these streets. As a result, pollution burdens generated by auto/truck traffic are expected to 

increase on Central between John Kronk and St. Stephen Streets in 2025 by about 150 pounds per 

year for NOx compared to the 2025 No Action Alternative; by about 20 pounds per year for 

PM10; and, by about ten pounds per year for PM2.5. The change in the air toxics burden generated 

by auto/truck traffic on Central Avenue between Alternative 2 and the No Action condition in 

2025 is expected to be about ten pounds annually. The section of Central Avenue under the 

terminal would have equipment to vent the air directly above the terminal. These increases in 

pollutants just noted for Central Avenue are forecast to be matched by decreases along Lonyo. 

To gauge the level of these air toxic burdens, it is noted that the natural gas burned in 15 homes to 

run the furnace and hot water heater generates ten pounds of air toxics annually.7

 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would have the greatest number of lifts and the greatest number of trucks 

serving those lifts. Nevertheless, the pollutant burdens on the local roadway systems around the 

terminals would be slightly less than the No Action Alternative. The expansion of the LivernoisJunction Yard would require the relocation of a number of businesses, including several along 

John Kronk. The removal of the auto and truck trips of these businesses, and the more efficient 

 

7

 Derived from data in U.S. EPA’s AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollution Emission factors for natural gas combustion. 

Emissions are based on an average home natural gas use rate of 75,000 Btu/hr. for six months of the year. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalua

1 - 45

Table 1-4 

Public Roadway Pollutant Burden 

Auto Truck 

Tons Per Year Tons Per Year 

 CO HC NOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC DPM BENZ BUTA FORM ACET ACRO CO HC NOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC DPM BENZ BUTA FORM ACET 

2004 

Livernois-Junction 523.9 34.5 29.3 0.76 0.37 34.7 0.0 1.25 0.13 0.27 0.12 0.014 8.0 1.7 31.3 1.13 0.97 1.73 0.97 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.01 CP/Expressway 73.3 4.7 4.0 0.11 0.05 4.7 0.0 0.17 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.002 0.9 0.2 3.9 0.14 0.12 0.20 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 CP/Oak 181.1 10.9 9.6 0.25 0.12 10.9 0.0 0.40 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.005 1.4 0.3 6.9 0.25 0.21 0.31 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 CN/Moterm 486.2 28.8 25.7 0.67 0.32 28.9 0.0 1.07 0.11 0.24 0.10 0.012 3.7 0.8 18.2 0.65 0.56 0.79 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.01 Totals 1264.5 78.9 68.6 1.79 0.86 79.2 0.0 2.89 0.30 0.64 0.28 0.033 14.0 3.0 60.6 2.17 1.86 3.03 1.86 0.03 0.09 0.25 0.02 2025 Alt. 1: No Action Livernois-Junction 315.4 10.4 7.7 0.87 0.39 10.4 0.0 0.41 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.004 1.0 0.9 2.5 0.25 0.14 0.94 0.14 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.01 CP/Expressway 43.9 1.4 1.0 0.12 0.05 1.4 0.0 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.001 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.03 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 CP/Oak 107.9 3.2 2.5 0.29 0.13 3.3 0.0 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.001 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.05 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 CN/Moterm 289.2 8.5 6.7 0.77 0.35 8.6 0.0 0.35 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.004 0.4 0.4 1.4 0.14 0.08 0.42 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 Totals 756.4 23.5 17.9 2.05 0.92 23.7 0.0 0.95 0.09 0.19 0.08 0.010 1.7 1.6 4.7 0.47 0.27 1.64 0.27 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.01 2025 Alt. 2: Improve/Expand Livernois-Junction 323.0 10.6 7.9 0.89 0.40 10.7 0.0 0.42 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.004 1.2 1.1 2.9 0.30 0.17 1.12 0.17 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.01 CP/Expressway 43.9 1.4 1.0 0.12 0.05 1.4 0.0 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.001 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 CP/Oak 107.6 3.2 2.5 0.29 0.13 3.2 0.0 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.001 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.05 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 CN/Moterm 289.2 8.5 6.7 0.77 0.35 8.6 0.0 0.35 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.004 0.4 0.4 1.4 0.14 0.08 0.41 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 Totals 763.7 23.7 18.1 2.07 0.94 23.9 0.0 0.96 0.09 0.19 0.07 0.010 1.9 1.8 5.1 0.52 0.30 0.78 0.30 0.01 0.04 0.14 0.01 2025 Alt. 3: Consolidate Livernois-Junction 300.0 9.9 7.3 0.82 0.37 10.0 0.0 0.39 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.004 0.8 0.7 1.9 0.19 0.11 0.74 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.00 CP/Expressway 43.9 1.4 1.0 0.12 0.05 1.4 0.0 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.001 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 CP/Oak 107.9 3.2 2.5 0.29 0.13 3.3 0.0 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.001 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.05 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 CN/Moterm 289.2 8.5 6.7 0.77 0.35 8.6 0.0 0.35 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.004 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.13 0.08 0.39 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 Totals 741.0 23.0 17.5 2.00 0.90 23.3 0.0 0.93 0.09 0.18 0.07 0.010 1.5 1.4 4.0 0.40 0.24 1.38 0.24 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.01 2025 Alt. 4: Composite Livernois-Junction 301.4 10.0 7.4 0.83 0.38 10.0 0.0 0.39 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.004 0.8 0.7 1.9 0.19 0.10 0.72 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.00 CP/Expressway 43.9 1.4 1.0 0.12 0.05 1.4 0.0 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.001 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 CP/Oak 107.9 3.2 2.5 0.29 0.13 3.3 0.0 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.001 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.05 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 CN/Moterm 289.2 8.5 6.7 0.77 0.35 8.6 0.0 0.35 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.004 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.13 0.08 0.39 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 Totals 742.4 23.1 17.6 2.01 0.91 23.3 0.0 0.93 0.09 0.19 0.07 0.010 1.5 1.4 4.0 0.40 0.23 1.36 0.23 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.01 

Note: VOCs are volatile organic compounds, DPM is diesel particulate mater, BENZ is benzene, BUTA is 1,3, butadiene, FORM is formaldehyde, ACET is acetaldehyde, and ACRO is acrolein. Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalua

1 - 46
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 47

movement of intermodal trucks to the terminal via expressway-to-arterial roadway connections, 

would mean less traffic on several neighborhood streets. So, for Alternatives 3 and 4, the roadway 

pollutant burden would be less than today and slightly less than No Action. For the CN/Moterm 

terminal, the roadway pollutant burdens would be virtually the same as No Action. 

Conformity 

The project’s roadway changes must be included in SEMCOG’s cost-feasible Regional 

Transportation Plan (RTP) to advance to design. To be included on the plan, it must be consistent 

with the State Implementation Plan (SIP). When analyzed together with other plan elements, the 

air pollution generated must not exceed “budgets” established for transportation sources under 

state air quality planning. After the public hearing, when a preferred alternative is determined, the 

DIFT project elements that cause changes to the transportation network will be evaluated by 

SEMCOG for air quality conformity. The results of this evaluation will be included in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

1.3.5 Noise and Vibrations 

The environmental analysis examined whether the proposed alternatives might change ambient 

noise levels at several sensitive receptors in a way that warranted consideration of noise abatement 

measures. The FHWA has established a noise guideline of 67 decibels (dBA), measured as an 

“average” of sound over a one-hour period (referred to as Leq(1h)). The noise guideline is not to be 

“approached or exceeded” at the exterior of residences, places of worship, hospitals, parks and 

libraries, i.e., sensitive receptors. Should the guideline noise level at these sensitive receptors be 

approached or exceeded, noise abatement measures must be considered. “Approach” is defined in 

Michigan as 1 dBA, so the effective criterion is 66 dBA for consideration of mitigation. Noise 

mitigation must also be considered if a project results in a substantial increase (10 dBA or more) 

in noise. Barrier walls for security purposes included as a part of the project will be designed in 

areas of noise sensitivity so the noise criteria are met at sensitive receptors and a minimum 5-dBA 

noise reduction is achieved at those receptors (refer to Figures 4-42 through 4-47). 

Predictions of train noise and roadway noise were made for 2025 for all alternatives and compared 

to established criteria. Train volumes were calculated on rail lines bordering the yards, focusing 

on sections where housing is present. Other sensitive receptors are largely absent from the 

terminal fringes. Commercial and industrial uses do not normally desire or require mitigation. 

Noise level changes occur where there are changes in train volumes and/or where on-street traffic 

volumes change. For MDOT projects, noise is evaluated on the basis of the loudest hour, as 

expressed in Leq(1h) , i.e., the equivalent noise level or “average” of sound over that loudest hour. 

Rail noise is often expressed in terms of “Ldn,” the day-night noise equivalent level. It is the 

“average” sound level over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dBA penalty added to noise occurring 

during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The penalty is added because of the greater 

sensitivity to noise during the night. Future train volumes were forecast on the links around each 

of the terminals to determine whether noise levels would increase in the loudest hour and over the 

24-hour period. Auto and truck volumes serving the terminals were projected. 

There are many noise sources around the terminals today associated with truck traffic and the 

activities conducted on the prevailing industrial land uses. A portion of the truck traffic is related 

to intermodal terminal activity today and would be in the future, although in the future the trucks 

would be directed to streets away from residential areas, unlike the condition today at all 

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

1 - 48

For many people, the most intrusive noise associated with train activity is the use of horns at railstreet crossings. Trains serving the CN/Moterm terminal presently use their horns in the area of Nine 

Mile Road and Hilton Road. There, intermodal trains will increase from two today to four 

movements daily in 2025, if the CN/Moterm were expanded (Alternative 2 and 4). Total train 

movements (Amtrak, conventional, freight, etc.) would increase from 11 to 27 per day. It has been 

indicated Amtrak will make up almost 80 percent of the passby traffic there. On the other hand, for 

the Livernois-Junction Yard, at the Lonyo Avenue and Central Avenue crossings, horn use will cease 

as Lonyo Avenue would be closed and Central Avenue reconstructed to pass under the rail yard under 

all Action Alternatives. With the No Action Alternative, horn blowing will increase with increased 

train volumes. 

At the Livernois-Junction Yard, the analysis of train noise found that under all Action Alternatives 

a barrier wall, planned as part of the terminal’s design for security purposes, will eliminate 

exceedances of noise criteria. This includes sensitive areas along John Kronk Street between 

Cabot Street and Trenton Avenue and between Martin Street and Livernois Avenue. Under 

Alternatives 3 and 4, property acquisition would remove a number of the homes in the Cabot 

Street/Trenton Avenue area, and the barrier wall that is part of the terminal’s design along the 

north side of the expanded rail yard will serve to protect the remaining homes to the north from 

rail noise. 

Under Alternative 2, there are no sensitive noise receptors near the CP/Expressway terminal that 

would require mitigation. The United Community Hospital is located inside the curve of I-75. 

Noise mitigation is not feasible at this location because the hospital is multi-story and immediately 

adjacent to I-75 and Michigan Avenue, both of which contribute noise to the hospital site greater 

than the expected rail noise. The change in intermodal train activity of Alternative 2 over No 

Action conditions will not affect this hospital. And, Alternatives 3 and 4 will remove intermodal 

activity at the CP/Expressway terminal. 

Under Alternative 2, no noise impacts are expected to any sensitive receptor from train operations 

at the CP/Oak terminal. Nevertheless, a barrier wall for security purposes would be constructed 

on the northern edge of the terminal, if the terminal were expanded. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 4, the CN/Moterm terminal would expand operations to the south of 

Eight Mile Road at the State Fairgrounds. To the east of the Fairgrounds is a residential 

neighborhood. Analysis indicates the train traffic of Alternatives 2 or 4 would cause the noise 

level criterion for this residential area to be exceeded. But, a barrier wall for security purposes is 

planned as part of the project along the east edge of the railroad right-of-way from a point south of 

Eight Mile Road to the Hunt Playground. It would eliminate noise impacts. A barrier wall is also 

planned between the terminal and the State Fairgrounds. 

Under all Action Alternatives, roadway noise would not increase perceptibly because it takes a 

doubling of traffic to generate a perceptible noise level change (typically 3 dBA or more). The 

Action Alternatives will not double the forecast volume of traffic compared to the No Action 

condition. 

Perceptible noise level reductions are expected at several residential locations, resulting from 

reduced truck traffic, most notably: 

• Livernois-Junction Yard – Livernois Avenue and Dragoon Street south of Dix to I-75 

(Alternatives 3 and 4). 

• CP/Oak terminal (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4) – Artesian Street. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 49

• CN/Moterm terminal (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4) – Fair Street and Chesterfield Street north 

of Eight Mile Road. 

Detectable vibrations are normal where trains and trucks are active. During the feasibility study 

for the DIFT, vibration levels were measured at four locations in the vicinity of the LivernoisJunction Yard: 1) Beard Elementary School at 1551 Beard Street (along the rail line from the east 

Livernois-Junction Yard area to the Springwells/I-75 area); 2) the Bill Ford Family Services and 

Learning Center, 3401 Schaefer Road; 3) a vacant lot on Porath Court near Wyoming Avenue 

(next to the I-94 off-ramp); and, 4) a vacant lot at 3321 Clippert Street at John Kronk, 

approximately three blocks west of Livernois and north of John Kronk. At the first location train 

passbys were measured, at the second trucks, at the third trucks, and at the last trucks and trains. 

Although the measurements detected vibration levels perceptible to humans, the annoyance level 

was reached only at the Beard School. However, vibration at annoyance levels was noted at the 

school in the absence of trains as well as when a locomotive passes by. It is expected there will be 

12 more intermodal train passbys per day, maximum, in 2025 between the No Action Alternative 

and the busiest Action Alternative. Today there are about 15 passby trains during the school day. 

This increase related to intermodal growth would amount to one additional locomotive passby per 

hour during the school day. No mitigation for vibrations is proposed for any Action Alternative. 

At the CP/Expressway, CP/Oak and CN/Moterm terminals, train and truck passbys occur in a 

manner similar to the Livernois-Junction Yard, except that they are less frequent. At all sites there 

are multiple sources of vibration from non-intermodal truck or rail traffic, such as industrial 

processes, heating and air conditioning units, transformers, and a variety of other indoor and 

outdoor sources. The vibrations due to intermodal activity are detectable but not intrusive in these 

environments. 

1.3.6 Ecological Resources 

Approximately 0.08 acres of Palustrine Emergent wetlands would be directly affected by the 

Action Alternatives requiring replacement under a Moment of Opportunity8

 agreement between 

MDOT and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The No Action 

Alternative would have no effect on wetlands. A summary of locations of wetlands, historic sites, 

and potentially contaminated sites, is presented in Figure 1-16. 

There are no surface water bodies in any of the terminal areas. Surface water quality will not be 

affected by any of the alternatives. The railroads, like many other industries, are required to have 

pollution prevention plans to prevent impacts to stormwater, surface water and groundwater. 

These plans include, among other things, provisions requiring spill prevention, response, training 

and reporting. 

No known federal- or state-listed threatened, endangered or otherwise significant species, natural 

plant communities, or natural features will be affected. 

 

8

 A Moment of Opportunity is allowed under the General Permit Category of Part 303 of P.A. 451 (1994, as 

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

1 - 50
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 51
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evalu

1 - 52
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 53
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 54
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 55
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 56

1.3.7 Cultural Resources and Public Recreational Land 

To satisfy Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act, MDOT conducted historic and archaeological surveys to locate 

sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Adverse effects on historic 

resources are avoided when prudent and feasible. When it is not prudent and feasible to avoid 

adverse effects, they are minimized and mitigation measures are developed. A project results in 

an adverse effect on an historic property when it diminishes those characteristics that make it 

historically significant. Activities that may result in an adverse effect include demolition, 

landscape changes, isolation of a property from its setting, and the introduction of visual, audible 

or atmospheric elements out of keeping with the character of the property. 

The project would have adverse effects: a) on the Michigan Box Company building (Spranger 

Wire Wheel Company) under Alternatives 3 and 4 located at 7175 Clayton Street near the 

Livernois-Junction Yard; b) on the Federal Screw Works factory at 3301-3401 Martin Street under 

Alternative 3; c) on the Markey House at 3504 Martin Street under Alternative 3; d) on the 

Tomms House at 3434 Martin Street under Alternative 3; and, e) on the Bridge Deck at the 

Michigan Central Railroad passenger station complex at the CP/Expressway terminal under 

Alternative 2 (Figure 1-16 and Table 1-5). Those sites are considered eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places, requiring a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), if they are part of the preferred alternative. Section 6 of 

this document includes the Draft Section 4(f) evaluation of these resources. Adverse effects on 

these resources are avoided when prudent and feasible. The Draft MOA with the SHPO can be 

found in Appendix C. Both documents are commitments to minimize and mitigate adverse 

effects. Continued consultation with the SHPO is ongoing to determine if there will be an adverse 

effect on other historic properties at the Livernois-Junction Yard area. 

Approximately 35 acres of land at the Michigan State Fairgrounds would be used under 

Alternatives 2 and 4. This is considered use of recreational lands covered by Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Section 6 of this DEIS includes a draft Section 4(f) 

evaluation for this site. No money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (referred to as 

6(f) funds) has been used on the Fairgrounds. The Fairgrounds were reviewed for historic 

resources. Historic resources were identified but the proposed improvements would have no 

adverse effect (Table 1-5). 

No known National Register eligible archaeologic resources were found at any intermodal 

terminal for any alternative. However, the SHPO has agreed that field investigations at two 

archaeological sites at the Livernois-Junction Yard area should be conducted to determine whether 

archaeological deposits are present prior to any construction. See Section 4.13 for site maps and 

additional discussion on cultural resources. 

1.3.8 Visual Conditions 

Under Alternative 1 – No Action, no changes to visual conditions would occur at the LivernoisJunction Yard. Under Alternative 2: Improve/Expand Existing Terminals, the north edge of the 

Livernois-Junction Yard, and a portion of the south side, would have a barrier wall for security 

purposes. Nevertheless, abandoned properties, scrap yards, and industrial facilities would remain 

mixed with residential uses. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 57

Table 1-5 

Potential National Register Historical and Archaeological Sites Shown on Figure 1-16 

Alt. Terminal 

ID No. on 

Figure 

1-16 

Site Name Location Description Effect 

2 CP/ 

Expressway 

1 Michigan Central Railroad 

Passenger Station and Bridge 

Deck 

West Vernor Highway Railroad station and bridge 

decks, circa 1905-1915 

Proposed/modified tracks on 

bridge deck. Adverse effect. 

2 CP/ 

Expressway 

2 Roosevelt Park Annex Maranette St. and 14th St. Post Office PWA Moderne, 

circa 1935 

No property to be taken. No 

adverse effect. 

2 CP/ 

Expressway 

3 St. Paul’s German Evangelical 

Lutheran Church district 

17th and Rose Street Gothic Revival and Italianate 

church, school, and residence, 

circa 1892 

No property to be taken. No 

adverse effect. 

2/4 CN/ 

Moterm 

4 Exhibition Building Historic 

District 

Michigan State Fairgrounds Dairy Cattle Building, 

Coliseum, Agriculture 

Building, Poultry Building, 

and Whitehall 

No property to be taken. No 

adverse effect. 

2/4 CN/ 

Moterm 

5 Band Shell Michigan State Fairgrounds Outdoor proscenium stage, 

circa 1938 

No property to be taken. No 

adverse effect. 

2/4 CN/ 

Moterm 

6 Grant House Michigan State Fairgrounds Balloon-framed house 

associated with Ulysses S. 

Grant, circa pre-1850 

No property to be taken. No 

adverse effect. 

2/4 CN/ 

Moterm 

7 Garland Stove Michigan State Fairgrounds Large wood carved stove for 

commercial advertising art, 

circa late 1800s 

No property to be taken. No 

adverse effect. 

3/4 Liv-Jct 8 Michigan Box Company/ 

Spranger Wire Wheel 

Company 

7175 Clayton Street Factory originally built to 

make auto parts. Now pallets 

are made at the site. 

Area needed for Alternatives 3 and 

4 would require this property. 

Adverse effect. 

3/4 Liv-Jct 9 Rickenbacker Motor 

Company/Springfield Body 

Corporation 

4815 Cabot Former factory that produced 

automobiles 

Alternative 3 would require a 

portion of the factory that is not 

eligible. Alternative 4 would 

require land south of the buildings 

but no parts of the building. No 

adverse effect. 

3/4 Liv-Jct 10 Frederick Wolf and Sons 

historic homes 

West side of Central near 

St. John St. 

Three 1890s Queen Ann homes 

(one is outside APE) 

No property to be taken. No 

adverse effect. 

3/4 Liv-Jct 11 House 6332 John Kronk Historic home No property to be taken. 

Determination of adverse effect not 

yet made. 

3/4 Liv-Jct 12 Tomms House 3434 Martin Street Historic home No property to be taken. Adverse 

effect under Alternative 3. 

3/4 Liv-Jct 13 Markey House 3504 Martin Street Historic home No property to be taken. Adverse 

effect under Alternative 3. 

3 Liv-Jct 14 Federal Screw Works Factory 3301-3401 Martin Street Former factory that produced 

fasteners for the auto industry. 

Area needed for Alternative 3 

would require this property. 

Adverse effect. 

3/4 Liv-Jct 15 Livernois Avenue Art Deco 

Bridge 

Near Livernois and John 

Kronk 

Bridge No property to be taken. No 

adverse effect. 

3/4 Liv-Jct 16 Southern Avenue Twin 

Warren Truss Bridge 

Southern Avenue west of 

Wyoming Street 

Bridge No property to be taken. No 

adverse effect. 

3/4 Liv-Jct 17 Clippert Brick Company 

office 

10500 Southern Avenue Former office building for 

area brick companies 

Building will not be affected. No 

adverse effect. 

3/4 Liv-Jct 18 Central Avenue Fire 

Station/Engine Company No. 

37 

2820 Central Avenue Fire Station No property to be taken. No 

adverse effect. 

Source: Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 58

Under Alternative 2 – Improve/Expand Existing Terminals, visual conditions would not be 

affected at/around the CP/Expressway terminal. Conditions would improve at the CP/Oak and 

CN/Moterm terminals because of the addition of a barrier wall for security at each to secure/ 

buffer the expanded rail yards. 

 

Under Alternatives 3 and 4, a barrier wall for security would also be built on the north side, and 

part of the south side, of the Livernois-Junction Yard. A new perimeter road, including a 

landscaped buffer, on the north side of the terminal is also part of these two alternatives. These 

elements would shield the view of the terminal and provide a more visually pleasing setting than 

the existing conditions. Several abandoned properties, salvage yards, and industrial facilities 

would be relocated. 

1.3.9 Contaminated Sites 

A Project Area Contamination Survey (PACS) was conducted of all Action Alternatives. It 

included field reconnaissance of more than five dozen commercial/industrial sites, interviews with 

business owners, review of federal and state environmental records, and review of historical land 

use records (Table 1-6). Fifteen sites that would potentially be acquired for Alternative 2; 45 sites 

for Alternative 3; and, 37 sites for Alternative 4 were rated medium/high for contamination 

potential. Most of these sites are located adjacent to the Livernois-Junction Yard and 

predominantly occupied by salvage businesses, truck and automotive repair shops and motor 

freight terminals. The most common environmental issues associated with these land uses are soil 

impacts from oils, metals, and solvents and subsurface soil/groundwater impacts from leaking 

petroleum underground storage tanks. 

The review of historical land use records revealed that several brickyards and clay pits were 

located along John Kronk in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Some historical references suggest 

that industrial wastes were used to backfill the clay pits. Sites located at former clay pits were 

rated medium/high in terms of potential environmental contamination because of the possibility of 

contaminated fill. These sites, and the Central Transport site at 4440 Wyoming, which was 

reportedly used as a landfill, will require more extensive investigations to characterize their 

environmental condition. 

It is expected that many of the impacts identified during the PACS can be managed through use of 

measures such as limited soil removal. The survey did not identify any known contamination 

conditions that would significantly affect or impede any of the Action Alternatives. 

A limited Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) was also conducted as part of the environmental 

review process. The PSI involved soil borings in public rights-of-way because landowners would 

not grant permission to collect samples on their properties. Observations made during the PSI did 

not reveal any visual indications of soil contamination or fill in the public right-of-way adjacent to 

the Livernois-Junction Yard, the CP/Expressway and CP/Oak terminals in Detroit. No borings 

were conducted in Dearborn, or at the CN/Moterm terminal (Ferndale). 

In all cases, additional soil borings will be required before a property is acquired/remediated. 

Impacts will be minimized by disposing contaminated materials properly by protected workers. A 

Risk Assessment Plan will be developed if the DIFT project goes forward, to include a Worker 

Health and Safety Plan. If monitoring wells are present, they will be abandoned properly. All 

contaminated areas will be marked on plans. A Utility Plan will also be prepared to ensure no 

deep utility cuts will impact and/or spread existing contamination. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 59

Table 1-6 

Potential Contamination Sites Shown on Figure 1-16 

Alt. Terminal SID No. Site Name Address or Location City 

CERCLIS (non NPL) 

MI Contam. Sites 

3/4 Liv-Jct 1 MNP Steel Service and Warehouse 3401 Martin Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 2 Vacant Industrial 3601 Parkinson Detroit Xc 

3 Liv-Jct 3 Gal Cro Steel Processing 3631 Parkinson Detroit Xc 

3/4 Liv-Jct 4 Fontana Forest Products 7175 Clayton Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 5 Red's Towing Service 7301 Clayton Detroit 

2/3/4 Liv-Jct 6 Advance Auto Glass and Parts 3600 Central Detroit 2/3/4 Liv-Jct 7 Herman Brothers Pet Products/Trager Research & Manufacturing 3650 Central Detroit 

3/4 Liv-Jct 8 Heavy Ts Auto Parts/Rod Auto Parts 3760 Central Detroit Xd 

3 Liv-Jct 9 American Minority Sys/Luco Cartage/Priority Container Serv/PSA-AMSI 7414 Clayton Detroit 

3/4 Liv-Jct 10 Michigan Wholesale & Repair 3700 Central Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 11 Lacaria Concrete Construction 3720 Central Detroit 

2/3/4 Liv-Jct 12 Crown Enterprises (ANR Freight System) 3685 Central Detroit Xb Xc 

3 Liv-Jct 13 Superior Diesel Repair 3735 Central Detroit 3 Liv-Jct 14 Panacea - Property 1 4175-95 Central Detroit 3 Liv-Jct 15 Panacea - Property 2 3936-40 Lonyo Detroit 3 Liv-Jct 16 Panacea - Property 3 3950 Lonyo Detroit 3 Liv-Jct 17 Stanley Cupp 4111 Central Detroit 

3/4 Liv-Jct 18 Dix Scrap Iron & Metal Co 3890 Lonyo Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 19 Big B's Auto 3800 Lonyo Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 20 Spartan Industrial 3896,3930-34 Lonyo Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 21 Spartan Industrial Warehouse 8350 John Kronk Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 22 Spartan Express 3901 Lonyo Detroit 

3 Liv-Jct 23 Jorgenson Collision Center 3949 Lonyo Detroit 3 Liv-Jct 24 American International 4011 Lonyo Detroit 

a - Other potential contamination site identified by reconnaissance and/or other records. LUST - Leaking underground storage tank; X-C = Closed cab - Delisted CERCLIS NFRAP (No Further Remedial Action Planned) site. UST - Underground storage tank. c - Baseline Environmental Assessment has been conducted. RCRIS - Resource Conservation and Recovery Information Sd - Michigan State Priority List site. CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compe - Ratings are: L = Low, M = Medium, H = High Information System. 

NPL - National Priority Listing. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 60

Table 1-6 (continued) 

Potential Contamination Sites Shown on Figure 1-16 

Alt. Terminal SID No. Site Name Address or Location City 

CERCLIS (non NPL) 

MI CSi

3/4 Liv-Jct 25 Motor City Corporation 3801 Trenton Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 26 S L Cabot, LLC 4157 Cabot Detroit X3/4 Liv-Jct 27 Ferrous Processing Corp 9100 J Kronk Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 28 Williams Detroit-Alison 4000 Stecker Dearborn 3/4 Liv-Jct 29 Jebco Investments LC-Property 1 4200-4300 Stecker Dearborn 3/4 Liv-Jct 30 National Industrial Maintenance 4400 Stecker Dearborn 3/4 Liv-Jct 31 R.E. Leggette Company 9335 St. Stephens Dearborn X3/4 Liv-Jct 32 Truck City, Inc. 4121 Stecker Dearborn 3/4 Liv-Jct 33 MCI Telecommunications Corp. 4401 Stecker Dearborn 3/4 Liv-Jct 34 Jebco Investments LC-Property 2 4401 Stecker Dearborn 3/4 Liv-Jct 35 K & R Express 4601 Stecker Dearborn 3/4 Liv-Jct 36 TIP Trailer Leasing 10000 Southern Dearborn 3/4 Liv-Jct 37 Advance Pool 10400 Southern Dearborn 3/4 Liv-Jct 38 Nour's Investment Company 4210-20 Wyoming Dearborn 3/4 Liv-Jct 39 GLS Leasco, Inc. 4410 Wyoming Dearborn 3/4 Liv-Jct 40 Central Transport, Inc. 4440 Wyoming Dearborn X X 3/4 Liv-Jct 41 Jouney, Inc. Steel Service/Seng Tire 4800 Wyoming Dearborn 3/4 Liv-Jct 42 Action Tire Service Co 3969 Wyoming Dearborn 

2f/3/4 Liv-Jct 43 Ford Motor Vulcan Plant 3900 Wyoming Dearborn 2f/3/4 Liv-Jct 44 Cummins Michigan 3760 Wyoming Dearborn 2f/3/4 Liv-Jct 45 Wyoming Self-service 3740 Wyoming Dearborn 2f/3/4 Liv-Jct 46 Vacant Freight Terminal 10100 Mercier Dearborn 2f/3/4 Liv-Jct 47 Vacant Freight Terminal 9900 Mercier Dearborn 

3/4 Liv-Jct 48 Boulevard & Trumbull Inv., Inc. 7700 Dixg Detroit X 

a - Other potential contamination site identified by reconnaissance and/or other records. LUST - Leaking underground storage tank; X-C b - Delisted CERCLIS NFRAP (No Further Remedial Action Planned) site. UST - Underground storage tank. c - Baseline Environmental Assessment has been conducted. RCRIS - Resource Conservation and Recovery Id - Michigan State Priority List site. CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Respe - Ratings are: L = Low, M = Medium, H = High Information System. f - These properties would be needed under Alternative 2 Option B, but not needed under Alternative 2 Options A and C. NPL - National Priority Listing. g - This site also includes 7800, 7840, 7904 and 7950 Dix. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 61

Table 1-6 (continued) 

Potential Contamination Sites Shown on Figure 1-16 

Alt. Terminal SID No. Site Name Address or Location City 

CERCLIS (non NPL) 

CSi

2/3/4 Liv-Jct 49 Lafayette Recycling 7700,7730,7750 Dix Detroit 

3/4 Liv-Jct 50 M. Dick & S.F. Corbell 2881 Centralh Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 51 Central Avenue Properties LLC 2921, 2951 Central Detroit X 3/4 Liv-Jct 52 Thomas Adams, Jr. 2971,81,91 Central Detroit 

2/3/4 Liv-Jct 53 Chester Herman Warehouse 3005,11 21 Central Detroit 2/3/4 Liv-Jct 54 Central Auto Parts 3022 Central/7276 Dix Detroit 

3/4 Liv-Jct 55 Central Auto Clinic 2910,2930 Central Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 56 S. Corbell Property 2880-96 Central Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 57 Vacant Commercial Lots 2803-2889 Stair Detroit 3/4 Liv-Jct 58 Trimodal 7100,7256,60,7272 Dix Detroit 

2 CP/Oak 59 Milford Fabricating Company 12810 Auburni Detroit 2 CP/Oak 60 Madias Brothers/Grove Recycling/First Evergreen 12850 Evergreen Detroit 2 CP/Oak 61 Gateway Detroit Assoc/Parsec/Roofing Ins/Piston Auto/Technicolor. LLC 12601 Southfield Detroit 2 CP/Oak 62 T&B Properties/Michigan Glove & Safety, Inc. 12801 Auburn Detroit 2 CP/Oak 63 Praxair Distribution 12820 Evergreen Detroit 2 CP/Oak 64 L&M Leasing Associates/Ferrini Contracting Corp. 12735 Auburn Detroit 2 CP/Oak 65 Metaldyne 19001 Glendale Detroit 2 CP/Expressway 66 Department of Public Works 2633 Michigan Detroit 

2/3/4 Liv-Jct 67 Detroit Brake Parcel 5030 Military Detroit 

a - Other potential contamination site identified by reconnaissance and/or other records. LUST - Leaking underground storage tankb - Delisted CERCLIS NFRAP (No Further Remedial Action Planned) site. UST - Underground storage tank. c - Baseline Environmental Assessment has been conducted. RCRIS - Resource Conservation and Recod - Michigan State Priority List site. CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmentae - Ratings are: L = Low, M = Medium, H = High Information System. f - These properties would be needed under Alternative 2 Option B, but not needed under Alternative 2 Options A and C. NPL - National Priority Listing. g - This site also includes 7800, 7840, 7904 and 7950 Dix.h - This site also includes 2881, 2887, 2889 and 2897 Central. i - This site also includes 12820 Auburn, 12620, 12646, 12650, 12660, and 12661 Westwood. 

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

1 - 62

1.3.10 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 

Indirect and cumulative impacts for the Action Alternatives are summarized below. For the No 

Action condition, these impacts are a continuation of past trends. 

• Mobility: While there will be an increase in traffic due to both the growth in 

intermodal activity and the stimulated additional development, there are no negative 

congestion/mobility effects expected either on major arteries or local neighborhood 

streets, unless the proposed Jobs Tunnel project were to be implemented where the 

CP/Expressway terminal is located. That project proposes to convert two existing 

rail tunnels to truck use and build a third, more modern tunnel for rail. The proposal 

is in the discussion phase. Public information on details is limited. 

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 other means than intermodal. That activity will be associated 

with a smaller volume of truck traffic than if the terminals were to continue to serve 

intermodal. 

• Economic Impacts: It is expected that local businesses will develop or expand in 

several sectors related to the growth in intermodal transportation. Likewise, such 

change will be associated with an increase in local jobs with greater income levels 

and buying power. This should then help grow the tax base. These expected 

conditions apply to each of the three terminal areas. But, they will be greater under 

Alternatives 3 and 4 (i.e., some form of intermodal consolidation) than Alternative 2 

(no consolidation) and Alternative 1 (No Action). 

• Land Use Changes: Land use changes are expected to be accelerated with growth in 

intermodal transportation and the associated and improved economic stimulus. Such 

growth could be associated with the mixing of land use types that are unwanted, i.e., 

industrial/commercial with residential. This can be avoided by local units of 

government applying already-existing land use/zoning principles, like those in the 

City of Detroit’s Master Plan of Policies and the master plans of Dearborn, Ferndale, 

Hazel Park and Highland Park. 

• Air Quality: Increased development will likely increase vehicular activity. But, 

results of the analysis of direct/indirect air quality impacts indicate that such 

increases will not cause standards to be violated if the development is properly 

located. This will happen if government actions are consistent with the planning 

policies in effect in each jurisdiction. 

• Cultural Resources: Historic districts/properties may experience adverse effects from 

new private sector development associated with the growth in intermodal activity that 

could occur adjacent to their boundaries if already-existing local governmental 

controls are not applied. 

• Community Cohesion: Development stimulated by intermodal activity/investment 

may create opportunities for use of abandoned residential parcels (the City of Detroit 

owns thousands of such parcels as a result of tax delinquencies). This development 

could lead to unwanted mixing of land uses if controls in the master plans of various 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 63

cities are not implemented. For example, tracts large enough to hold logistics 

businesses to support intermodal activity could locate along or near the LivernoisJunction Yard, such as the Ward Bakery at Toledo Avenue and West Grand 

Boulevard. This parcel is tucked in a residential area and, should it be allowed to 

develop, the increased truck activity will have a negative effect on the community. 

• Noise: Traffic volumes and ambient noise levels will increase as economic 

conditions improve. Negative effects are not expected and can be avoided with care 

by the developer and local government agencies in locating this increased 

development away from sensitive uses. 

• Water Quality: Increased development could lead to more impervious surface runoff 

and pollutant load. This could be offset by reclaiming properties now affected by 

contaminated materials for increased economic activity. Thousands of such 

properties exist, are abandoned, and have not been remediated. Use of some of these 

properties by DIFT-related activities will cause remediation which will improve the 

quality of the runoff into surface and subsurface drainage infrastructure, compared to 

the No Action Alternative. 

The effects summarized above are those expected in each of the areas around the intermodal 

terminals. Broader regional effects are virtually impossible to quantify or locate geographically. 

But the possibility exists, with or without the DIFT, that the four Class I railroads will make other 

improvements on their own (like at interlockers discussed in Section 3.4.1) in the Southeast 

Michigan region. To the extent any of these require environmental clearances, they will be 

pursued. 

It is also important to recognize what effects may occur in one key regional area: wealth 

distribution/redistribution, which occurs with shifts in population, employment and tax base. 

Shifts in tax base occur as land is developed for new housing and businesses. Shifts also occur 

within existing built-up areas as residents and businesses move. Both processes usually result in 

less taxable property in older communities that have little undeveloped land and room to grow. 

That is typically the case in southern Oakland County communities, such as Hazel Park and 

Ferndale and such Wayne County communities as Dearborn. 

Market-driven actions and supporting public policy decisions underlie the dynamics of the wealth 

distribution pattern in the Detroit-centered region. All of these dynamics operate separately from 

the Action Alternatives. These dynamics include, as cited by SEMCOG in its report entitled 

Land Use Changes in Southeast Michigan, Causes and Consequences, “...residential segregation 

by race and income, federal tax subsidies for home mortgage interest and property taxes, school 

funding and quality, crime and public safety, societal ideals of lifestyle and urban design, 

constitutional protections of private property rights, infrastructure financing policies, and extent 

of personal vehicle ownership and use.” 

The DIFT has the ability to respond to this pattern in a positive way. By building on the 

transportation and industrial strength of the areas in which intermodal terminals function; by 

making improvements to move terminal traffic out of residential areas; by creating barrier walls 

that provide terminal security and reduce noise; by paving surfaces that are unpaved; by creating 

jobs which can be directed to the local areas around the terminals; and, by helping residents be 

prepared to take those jobs, the DIFT can have greater positive than negative impacts – direct, 

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

1 - 64

The DIFT can also be measured as a positive proposal by using a number of principles of 

Governor Granholm’s Land Use Leadership Council, which promote use of existing 

infrastructure in communities to create public-private investments to address economic and other 

quality-of-life issues. These principles are: 

• Supporting efforts to make Michigan cities more livable by expediting the reuse of 

abandoned properties, controlling blight, encouraging private investment, encouraging 

mixed-use development, improving transportation options, supporting a full range of 

housing options, and attracting and retaining residents who can contribute to the viability 

of our urban core areas. 

• Making better use of existing public infrastructure by encouraging public and private 

investment in already developed areas. 

• Creating incentives to encourage interagency and intergovernmental cooperation in 

addressing land use issues and public investments of more than local concern. 

• Encouraging private investment in already developed areas by removing governmental 

barriers and creating incentives. 

• Identifying “commerce centers” where infrastructure is already serving relatively dense 

populations to guide the future investment of state resources to support private 

investment and development. 

1.3.11 Emergency Response Controls 

Each of the Class I railroads operating intermodal freight terminals in Southeast Michigan has 

Emergency Response Plans in place to address transportation incidents involving U.S. DOTregulated materials (hazardous materials, hazardous substances and hazardous wastes) and oils. 

These plans prescribe procedures to respond to spill incidents from derailments, leaks, fuel spills, 

etc. 

Regulations governing Emergency Response Plans include OSHA’s (the U.S. Occupational 

Health and Safety Administration) Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response 

(HAZWOPER) requirements, U.S. DOT’s 49 CFR 130, the Oil Pollution Prevention and 

Response regulations (40 CFR Part 112) and other programs of the Clean Water Act. 

Components of Emergency Response Plans include pre-emergency planning coordination with 

local agencies; assignment of personnel, their roles and responsibilities; hazard recognition; 

specialized personnel training; site security and control; emergency notification procedures; spill 

response equipment; and, emergency medical treatment provisions. 

Spill prevention and response at fixed facilities (including railroad terminals) that store quantities 

of oil and hazardous materials above threshold amounts are addressed with Spill Prevention 

Control and Countermeasures Plans (SPCC) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans that have 

been prepared by the railroads. These plans focus on prevention of releases to streams and other 

water bodies. 

These procedures are part of the No Action Alternative and all Action Alternatives, as well. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 65

1.3.12 Terminal Security 

For all Action Alternatives, barrier walls, fencing, other physical barriers, and electronic systems 

(e.g., sensors, alarms) are part of each Action Alternative to protect areas within an intermodal 

terminal from unauthorized access. Access controls at points for personnel and vehicles to move 

through the terminal boundary lines (such as gates, doors, guard stations, and electronically 

controlled or monitored portals) are also included in each Action Alternative’s design. Measures 

that will enhance these boundaries/access points include: 

• Clear areas on both sides of perimeter fencing to facilitate surveillance and maintenance 

to deny cover to vandals and trespassers. 

• Lighting on both sides of gates and selected areas of fencing. 

• Closed-circuit television (CCTV) monitoring, particularly of low-traffic gates and 

maintenance access points that are removed from principal activity areas. 

• Signage on certain security boundaries and access points. 

VACIS (Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Station) is an X-ray-type device that is able to see into 

containers/trailers to detect any unusual cargo. VACIS systems are now being installed by each 

of Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railroads to screen trains on the Canadian side of the 

international border before they enter the U.S. Consideration by all DIFT project participants 

(public and private) will be given to installing a VACIS system at the Livernois-Junction Yard 

under Alternatives 2, 3 or 4, if an Action Alternative is chosen for implementation. The 

allocation of cost will be determined at that time. 

1.3.13 Terminal Lighting 

The CP/Expressway and the CP/Oak terminals are surrounded by railroad tracks, major 

roadways, industrial properties, and commercial properties. Because of this, no sensitive areas 

such as residential neighborhoods will be affected by lighting at those terminals. Directional 

lighting will be used at the CN/Moterm terminal, in areas near the residential neighborhood east 

of the proposed expansion area in Alternatives 2 and 4, and at the Livernois-Junction Yard near 

residential areas such as along Cabot, Lawndale, and Trenton Avenues, and the area south of Dix 

Avenue at the central/east ends of the terminal. Nevertheless, it is noted that lighting will 

increase at each terminal under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. 

1.3.14 Soils 

There are former clay pits near the Livernois-Junction Yard. Areas where structures (e.g., 

bridges, retaining walls) are built in association with Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 will need to be tested 

to determine what type of soils/materials were used to backfill the former clay pits. The potential 

for the existence of contaminated materials causes this need, as defined in Section 4.16. 

1.3.15 Energy 

Energy will be used to construct an Action Alternative. Fuel savings should be realized in the 

long term due to improved efficiencies in the movement of freight on rail and reductions of truck 

traffic on area roadways. 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 66

1.3.16 Implementation Cost 

Estimated construction costs (in 2004 dollars) are $170 million for Alternative 2, $458 million for 

Alternative 3, and $436 million for Alternative 4. Right-of-way/property-related costs are 

estimated to be $98 million for Alternative 2, $125 million for Alternative 3, and $115 million for 

Alternative 4. Total estimated project implementation costs are $267 million for Alternative 2, 

$583 million for Alternative 3, and $551 million for Alternative 4. These costs will be borne by 

both government and the railroads. 

1.4 Areas of Controversy 

The principal areas of controversy, in addition to issues arising out of right-of-way needs, are 

impacts to the tax and employment base, impacts to the sustainability of the areas near the 

terminals, and air quality impacts. 

1.5 Permits 

For each Action Alternative, construction activities will involve obtaining permits in several areas 

to ensure appropriate steps are taken to protect existing/remaining resources. Impacts on 

wetlands will require permits under federal and state law: 

Federal 

• Executive Order 11990 (Wetland Protection) 

• Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended: Section 401, State Water Quality Certification; 

Section 402(p), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, stormwater permit; 

and, Section 404, related to dredge and fill. 

Federal Executive Order 11990 (Wetland Protection) states that when federal funds are used on a 

project, impacting any wetland (regardless of size) requires that there be no practicable alternative 

to impacts on that wetland. 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, requires certification from the state’s 

water quality agency (MDEQ) to ensure that the discharge of dredged or fill material complies 

with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act and subsequent regulation under 40 CFR 122.26 requires a 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water permit for construction projects 

that involve land clearing of one acre or greater. The intent of these requirements is to reduce 

impacts on water quality during and after construction. 

State 

Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended: 

• Part 55, Air Pollution Control 

• Part 303, 1979 Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act 

All bituminous and Portland Cement concrete proportioning plants and crushers must meet the 

requirements of the rules of Part 55 of Act 451. For any portable bituminous or concrete plant or 
DIFT Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

1 - 67

crusher, the contractor must apply for a permit-to-install or general permit. This permit should be 

applied for a minimum of 45 calendar days before plant installation with an active MDEQ permit 

(or 75 calendar days for plants not previously permitted in Michigan). 

A Part 303 wetland permit is required for any wetland disturbance, permanent, as well as 

temporary. At the Livernois Yard, MDOT, through an agreement with the MDEQ, would 

provide wetland mitigation using a “Moment-of-Opportunity” site allowed under the General 

Permit Category for Part 303. The Part 303 permit is issued with the Part 301 permit. 

Final mitigation measures proposed in areas requiring the above permits will be developed in 

consultation with the appropriate agencies, and will be included in the design plans and permit 

application for implementing the project. 

1.6 Unresolved Issues 

Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is ongoing to determine if there 

will be an adverse effect on the house at 6332 John Kronk (refer to Table 1-5 and Figure 1-16 for 

identification/location) under Alternative 3 at the Livernois-Junction Yard and to develop 

mitigation measures for any adverse effects. 

1.7 Project Status 

The environmental clearance for this project is tentatively scheduled for completion in 2006. 

After the environmental clearance is completed, final design and right-of-way acquisition could 

begin, if an Action Alternative were chosen. The EIS and early preliminary engineering portions 

of the Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Study are included in the SEMCOG 2030 Regional 

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

1 - 68