Tier 1 DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement

SEPTEMBER 2014
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Published September 2014

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. Requests for alternative formats

of this document under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act may be made by calling

517.373.9534 or TDD 800.649.3777.

This document has been produced by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) with the 

assistance of a team of consultants led by HNTB Michigan, Inc. The cost of publishing 100 hard copies of 

this document at approximately $124.00 per copy is $12,400.00. The cost of publishing 200 digital copies 

of the document at approximately $5.50 per Compact Disc is $1,100.00.

The document has been printed in accordance with Michigan Executive Directive 1991-6.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac High Speed Rail Corridor Program 

Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

and 

Michigan Department of Transportation 

In partnership with 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

and 

Indiana Department of Transportation 

In cooperation with the: 

Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. National Park Service 

Pursuant to: 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC §4332 et seq.), and implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), 64 FR 28545, 23 CFR 

§771, 49 USC §303 (formerly Department of Transportation Act of 1996, Section 4(f); National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC §470); Clean 

Air Act as amended (42 USC §7401 et seq, and 40 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93); the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC §1531-1544); the 

Clean Water Act (33 USC §1251-1387); and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended (42 USC §4601). 

FRA will issue a single document that consists of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision pursuant to Pub. L. 112-

141, 126 Stat. 405, Section 1319(b) unless FRA determines that statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude issuance of such a 

combined document. 

55701Date of Approval FRA Administrator 

Date of Approval for Michigan DOT 

Date of Approval for Indiana DOT 

Date of Approval for Illinois DOT 

The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: 

Ms. Andrea Martin 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., Mail Stop 20 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: (202) 493-6201 

Mohammed S. Alghurabi, P.E., Senior Project Manager

Michigan Department of Transportation 

Bureau of Transportation Planning 

State Transportation Building 

425 W. Ottawa St., P.O. Box 30050 

Lansing, MI 48909 

This Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates intercity passenger rail service improvements in the 300-mile Chicago, Illinois to 

Detroit/Pontiac, Michigan corridor through Cook county in Illinois; Lake, Porter and LaPorte counties in Indiana; and Berrien, Van Buren, Cass, 

Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Jackson, Washtenaw, Wayne and Oakland counties in Michigan. Both a No Build and Build Alternatives for passenger 

rail improvements are evaluated. The No Build Alternative includes independently planned improvements for passenger rail service between 

Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan as part of the current Amtrak Wolverine service. The Build Alternatives consist of improvements to tracks 

currently owned and operated predominantly by Michigan DOT, Amtrak, Canadian National, Norfolk Southern, CSX Transportation, Northern 

Indiana Commuter Transportation District, Indiana Harbor Belt, and Conrail. The Build Alternatives would create a competitive transportation 

alternative between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac by reducing passenger rail travel times, improving service reliability, increasing frequency of 

trips, providing an efficient transportation option, improving passenger ride quality and comfort, and providing environmental benefits, including 

reduction of air pollutant emissions. 

Comments on this Draft EIS should be received by December 19, 2014, and should be sent to Mr. Mohammed Alghurabi at the above address. 

The Draft EIS can be accessed by visiting www.GreatLakesRail.org.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-1

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Departments of Transportation for Michigan, Indiana and Illinois (the Program Sponsors), in 

association with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have initiated the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac 

Passenger Rail Corridor Program (Program) to evaluate intercity passenger rail for a corridor between 

Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac, Michigan (the Corridor). The Corridor extends eastward approximately 300 

miles from Union Station in downtown Chicago to a station terminal in Pontiac, Michigan.

Through the Program, the Program Sponsors are evaluating potential rail service along the Corridor. This 

is the current alignment for the Wolverine service provided by Amtrak and includes its existing stations. 

A number of alternatives are under consideration as described in Section ES.5. The area between Chicago 

Union Station and Michigan City, Indiana has a large, complex, array of rail lines and therefore there are 

a large number of route options within that corridor section. Between Michigan City, Indiana and Pontiac,

Michigan the route follows the existing Amtrak route.

ES.1 Background Information and Prior Planning Activities

The Program Sponsors are developing the Program to be consistent with the Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative (MWRRI), a cooperative, multi-agency effort that began in 1996 and originally involved nine 

Midwest states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin), 

as well as FRA and Amtrak.

The MWRRI elements include: use of 3,000 miles of existing rail right of way to connect rural and urban 

areas; operation of a Chicago hub and spoke passenger rail system; introduction of modern, high-speed 

trains operating at speeds up to 110 miles per hour (mph); and multi-modal connections to improve 

system access. The MWRRI envisions developing a passenger rail system that offers business and leisure 

travelers shorter travel times, additional train frequencies, improved reliability and connections between 

urban centers and smaller communities. This Tier 1 EIS evaluates alternatives for the Corridor 

considering the MWRRI objective ‘‘to meet current and future regional travel needs through significant 

improvements to the level and quality of passenger rail service.’’1

ES.2 Purpose and Need

The partnering states developed the following purpose and need statement in coordination with FRA after 

considering input from cooperating agencies, the public, and stakeholders.

The purpose of the Program is to enhance intercity mobility along the Corridor from Chicago to 

Detroit/Pontiac, Michigan by providing an improved passenger rail service that would be a competitive 

transportation alternative to automobile, bus and air service.

 

1 MWRRI Executive Report, September 2004
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-2 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The need for the Program arises from the inadequacies of existing passenger rail service and other modes 

of transportation to meet current and future mobility needs within the corridor including:

• Limited ability to accommodate current or anticipated travel demand in the Corridor results in the 

deterioration of transportation service quality as a result of congestion, longer trip times and decline 

of service reliability 

• Limited intercity travel options restrict both the mobility of the resident populations and localities’ 

potential for economic development

• Inadequate capacity in the Corridor provides uncompetitive trip times, poor reliability, and low levels 

of passenger comfort and convenience for travelers

• Increase the attractiveness of passenger rail travel within the Corridor to capture potential passenger 

rail travelers who may be currently choosing other modes of transportation.

ES.3 Area of Analysis

The Corridor extends eastward approximately 300 miles from Union Station in downtown Chicago to a 

station terminal in Pontiac, Michigan. The Area of Analysis includes portions of Cook County in Illinois; 

Lake, Porter and La Porte counties in Indiana; and Berrien, Van Buren, Cass, Kalamazoo, Calhoun, 

Jackson, Washtenaw, Wayne and Oakland counties in Michigan, see Figure ES- 1.

Figure ES- 1: Area of Analysis

The Program is to evaluate potential rail service on the route shown in Figure ES- 1. This is the current 

alignment for the Wolverine service provided by Amtrak and includes its existing stations. Section ES.5

briefly describes the alternatives considered.

The Area of Analysis is generally a 500-foot wide corridor centered on the existing track. Because of this,

it contains much more land than will be required for implementation of the Program. This allows for 

future flexibility in design and allows designers every opportunity to avoid potential direct impacts by 

moving into adjacent areas without having to reassess the existing conditions and potential impacts.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-3

ES.4 Decisions to Be Made

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process provides public decision-making officials and 

the public with an understanding of the environmental consequences of proposed actions and describes 

actions that can be taken to protect, restore, and enhance the environment. The NEPA implementing 

regulations may be found at 40 CFR Part 1500.

FRA’s guidance on the tiered NEPA approach (FRA, August 14, 2009) allows for a tiered NEPA process 

to satisfy environmental review requirements. The guidance allows for a “Tier 1 EIS” to be prepared that 

evaluates alternatives and their associated impacts on a broad-scale with focus on more qualitative than 

quantitative impacts. A “Tier 1” EIS analyzes the potential impacts along a more general corridor but 

does not identify the exact location of where Program-related actions (such as construction) would occur.

Following completion of the Tier 1 EIS, the area studied will be broken into subareas and Tier 2 

environmental analyses will be conducted that identify the exact locations of where Program-related 

actions will take place. These Tier 2 documents will proceed as Program elements are designed and ready 

for phased implementation. Each Tier 2 action will support the purpose and need of the Program, see 

Section ES.2.

ES.5 Description of Alternatives Considered

ES.5.1 Summary of the Passenger Rail Service Alternative

The Program Sponsors evaluated a range of service level speeds within the corridor. A speed of 110 mph 

was selected based on estimated costs of implementing the service, the need to provide competitive travel 

times, and to be consistent with existing 110 mph capabilities and service provided in some sections of 

the corridor.

To meet the Program’s purpose of providing frequent, reliable, and competitive service by the year 2035, 

additional frequencies must be added to the existing service from Chicago to Detroit and on to Pontiac, 

Michigan. To identify the appropriate level of service needed to meet the purpose and need and 

accommodate the anticipated future growth within the corridor, ridership forecasts were developed for 

three service scenarios to analyze the projected ridership and capacity of each service scenario. The three 

service scenarios that were considered include three, six, or ten Daily Round Trips (DRTs) at speeds up to 

110 mph.

Ridership analysis supports the implementation of ten daily round trips (DRTs) between Chicago and 

Detroit with seven DRTs continuing to Pontiac, Michigan at speeds up to 110 mph as the most reasonable 

alternative to achieve the Program’s purpose and need. As such, Scenario 3, as described in greater detail 

in the Draft EIS, was carried forward as the Full Build-out Service Alternative for full implementation in 

2035 to be analyzed in this Tier 1 EIS.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-4 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The ridership analysis also indicates that six DRTs between Chicago and Pontiac, Michigan can support 

projected ridership in 2025. It is anticipated that any Build improvements would be incrementally funded 

and that construction and operations would be implemented in a phased manner. Implementing the 

Program in phases is not only supported by the ridership forecasts, but is also based on numerous factors 

including preliminary cost estimates, anticipated available funding for implementation, and the Program 

Sponsor’s past experience on other passenger rail projects. Therefore, a phasing strategy would be 

implemented as described in Table ES-1. The Program Sponsors would construct the infrastructure 

needed to accommodate six DRTs between Chicago and Pontiac, Michigan at varying speeds by the year 

2025 and then construct the remaining infrastructure to complete full build-out of the Program by the year 

2035 to support ten DRTs between Chicago and Detroit and seven DRTs between Detroit and Pontiac, 

Michigan at speeds up to 110 mph.

Table ES-1: Proposed Phasing – Daily Round Trips

Existing Amtrak Service Service in 2025 Service in 2035

Chicago-Detroit Detroit-Pontiac Chicago-Detroit Detroit-Pontiac Chicago-Detroit Detroit-Pontiac

3 3 6 6 10 7

ES.5.1.1 Travel Time

Currently, the passenger rail travel time between Chicago and Detroit is 5 hours and 38 minutes, with 

approximately one additional hour of travel time from Detroit to Pontiac, Michigan. A preliminary full 

build-out schedule (Appendix C) was developed based on work that had been previously done in the 

MWRRS Plan and updated for the Program based on the selected Service Alternative. By increasing the 

train speeds, travel time by rail is anticipated to be reduced by nearly two hours between Chicago and 

Detroit. The preliminary schedule indicates that express travel time between Chicago and Detroit would 

be 3 hours and 46 minutes. Travel time between Detroit and Pontiac, Michigan would be as low as 40 

minutes. 

ES.5.1.2 Equipment

In order to meet the Program’s service goal to increase frequency, reliability, and decrease travel times in 

the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor, new equipment will be required. Equipment will be consistent with 

the specifications developed by the Next Generation Corridor Equipment Committee (NGEC), created by 

Section 305 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) to establish a fleet 

of standardized rail corridor equipment. The equipment will be capable of operating at speeds as high as 

125 mph. The passenger cars will come in three configurations to match the full needs and functionality 

of existing and proposed services and expectations of users: coach car, café / lounge car (known also as 

café / business class car), and coach / cab-car. Amenities include food and beverage service, open seating 

and airline-type business class seating, large flexible compartments, power outlets for computers, wireless 

internet access, and audio-visual monitors at seats for news, entertainment, and informational programs.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-5

ES.5.1.3 Amenities

Amenities on future trains are also being evaluated by the Program Sponsors. Such amenities could 

include food and beverage service, open seating and airline-type business class seating, large flexible 

compartments, power outlets for computers, wireless internet access, and audio-visual monitors at seats 

for news, entertainment, and informational programs.

ES.5.2 Summary of Route Alternatives

ES.5.2.1 Route Alternative Screening

Due to the complexity of engineering and environmental issues that exist within the Corridor (primarily in 

the South of the Lake (SOTL) area), three levels of screening were used. Figure ES- 2 illustrates the 

screening and evaluation process.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-6 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure ES- 2: Alternatives Screening and Evaluation Process

Level 1 screening focused on the complex SOTL area and was used to develop a list of Reasonable Route 

Alternatives. These were carried forward and analyzed under the Level 2 Screening that was more 

detailed and covered the entire Corridor from Chicago Union Station to Pontiac, Michigan. This Level 2 

Screening is the analysis of alternatives in the Tier 1 Draft EIS. The Level 3 Screening will be used to 

narrow the alternatives studied in the Tier 1 Draft EIS resulting in the Preferred Alternative which is the 

alternative disclosed in the Tier 1 Final EIS. Finally, the FRA will make a decision on the Selected 

Program Alternative in the Record of Decision (ROD). This alternative will be carried forward to the Tier 

2 NEPA analyses.

ES.5.2.2 Level 1A Coarse and Fine Screenings

The Level 1 screening process consisted of developing and applying screening criteria to find the best 

combination of tracks in the existing, complex rail network. There were two iterations, Level 1A and 
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-7

Level 1B, that considered the opportunities and constraints. Alternatives that did not meet the purpose and 

need of the project were eliminated. Other reasons for eliminating certain routes were because they had 

major engineering or operations challenges, or the anticipated effect on the environment was too great and 

these challenges and impacts could be avoided by choosing a comparable alternate route.

Screening criteria employed at the Level 1A Coarse Subsection Screening included physical constraints, 

operational conflicts, termini, orphan subsections, and environmental impacts. 

Of 68 subsections a total of 51 passed on to the next level. The 17 failing subsections were determined to 

be unreasonable based on the screening criteria and therefore eliminated from further analysis. 

Screening criteria employed at the next level of screening, the Level 1A Fine Subsection Screening, 

included whether subsections met the need to connect to Chicago Union Station and whether they 

minimized conflicts between passenger and freight trains. Physical characteristics such as right of way 

width, number of tracks, number of at-grade crossings and other items were criteria used. Other criteria 

such as operational feasibility and environmental constraints were also included as screening criteria at 

this stage.

Of the 51 subsections screened at this level, a total of 38 were carried forward to the next step. Thirteen 

subsections were determined to be unreasonable based on the criteria and were therefore eliminated from 

further analysis.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-8 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure ES- 3: Results of Level 1A Coarse and Fine Subsection Screening

Figure ES- 3 illustrates the results of the Level 1A Coarse and Fine Subsection Screenings and indicates 

the rail lines to be analyzed in the next level of screening.

ES.5.2.3 Level 1B Coarse and Fine Screenings

The alternative screening process continued on to the Level 1B coarse and fine screenings. Level 1 B 

applied a finer level of screening in greater quantitative and qualitative detail than the Level 1A 

screening. The purpose of this level of screening was to identify the “Reasonable Route Alternatives” that 

are further analyzed in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.

The Level 1B coarse screening analyzed the Preliminary Route Alternatives and examined new 

connections that do not currently exist and other locations that resulted from combining subsections into 

routes. The Level 1B Coarse Route Screening evaluated the Preliminary Route Alternatives at specific 

locations based on the criteria of purpose and need, physical characteristics, operational feasibility, and 

environmental constraints. Of the 85 Preliminary Route Alternatives, 75 were dismissed from further 

consideration. Ten of the Preliminary Route Alternatives were selected as reasonable routes to be carried 

forward to the Level 1B Fine Route Screening.

Of the ten Preliminary Route Alternatives considered in the Level 1B Fine Screening, four were 

eliminated from further consideration while the remaining six were carried forward for analysis in the 
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-9

DEIS and explained in ES.5.2.4. The Preliminary Route Alternatives eliminated from further 

consideration included the following:

Route 1 – This route follows the current Amtrak route from Chicago Union Station to Burns Harbor, 

Indiana where it connects to the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) right of 

way and travels north to Michigan City, Indiana. Route 1 did not meet the Program’s purpose and need 

because the implementation of dedicated double track passenger service would increase conflicts with 

existing freight and commuter service, and restrict speeds to less than 110 mph for a substantial distance 

in the SOTL. The speed restrictions decrease the ability to provide a trip time savings that would be 

competitive with other modes of travel. Additionally, Route 1 is very similar to Route 2 but has 

substantially greater potential for impacts to the natural environment in comparison to Route 2 and those 

other Preliminary Route Alternatives that were retained for further analysis in this Tier 1 EIS. 

Implementation of this route would require acquisition of right of way through a large portion of the 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Therefore, Route 1 was dismissed from further consideration.

Route 3 – This route follows the current Amtrak route between Chicago Union Station and Gary, Indiana. 

In Gary, Indiana the route transitions from NS Chicago Line right of way to CSX Barr Subdivision right 

of way and then connects to NICTD right of way and travels through Burns Harbor, Indiana and on to 

Michigan City, Indiana. Route 3 did not meet the purpose and need for the Program because the 

implementation of dedicated double track passenger service would increase conflicts with existing freight 

and commuter service restricting speeds to less than 110 mph for a substantial distance in the SOTL. The 

speed restrictions decrease the ability to provide a trip time savings that would be competitive with other 

modes of travel. Additionally, Route 3 is very similar to Route 4 but has substantially greater potential for 

impacts to the natural environment in comparison to Route 4 and those other Preliminary Route 

Alternatives that were retained for further analysis in this Tier 1 EIS. Implementation of this route would 

require acquisition of right of way through a large portion of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. 

Therefore, Route 3 was dismissed from further consideration.

Route 7 – This route generally follows the current alignment of the NICTD commuter rail service, with 

connectivity to Chicago Union Station provided by the St. Charles Air Line bridge across the South 

Branch of the Chicago River in Chicago. The route leaves Chicago Union Station on Amtrak owned right 

of way and then connects to Canadian National (CN) owned right of way and travels parallel to the 

NICTD route. In southern Chicago the route connects to NICTD right of way and travels to Michigan 

City, Indiana. Route 7 did not meet the purpose and need because adding intercity passenger service along 

this route would increase conflicts with existing freight and commuter service and restrict speeds to less 

than 110 mph for a substantial distance in the SOTL. Unconstrained travel time estimates also indicate 

that the travel time between Chicago and Michigan City, Indiana would be unacceptable and perform 

significantly worse than other Preliminary Route Alternatives when modeled with existing train traffic. 

The poor unconstrained travel time and speed restrictions indicate that the ability to provide a trip time 

savings that would be competitive with other modes of travel would be unlikely. Additionally, this route 

has a substantially greater potential for impacts to the natural environment compared to those Preliminary 

Route Alternatives that were retained for further analysis in this Tier 1 EIS. Implementation of this route 
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-10 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

would require acquisition of right of way through a large portion of the Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore. Therefore, Route 7 was dismissed from further consideration.

Route 8 – This route generally follows the same route as Route 7, however in Burns Harbor, Indiana the 

route transitions from NICTD right of way to NS Chicago Line right of way and the current Amtrak 

route. At Porter, Indiana the route continues on Amtrak trackage to Michigan City, Indiana. Route 8 did 

not meet the purpose and need because adding intercity passenger service along this route would increase 

conflicts with existing freight and commuter service and restrict speeds to less than 110 mph for a 

substantial distance in the SOTL. Unconstrained travel time estimates also indicate that the travel time 

between Chicago and Michigan City, Indiana would be unacceptable and perform significantly worse 

than other Preliminary Route Alternatives when modeled with existing train traffic. The poor 

unconstrained travel time and speed restrictions indicate that the ability to provide a trip time savings that 

would be competitive with other modes of travel would be unlikely. Additionally, this route has a 

substantially greater potential for impacts to the natural environment compared to those Preliminary 

Route Alternatives that were retained for further analysis in this Tier 1 EIS. Implementation of this route 

would require acquisition of right of way through a large portion of the Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore. Therefore, Route 8 was dismissed from further consideration.

Figure ES- 4: Routes Eliminated during the Level 1B Fine Route Screening
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-11

ES.5.2.4 Summary of the Build Alternatives

As explained in Section ES.5.2.3, six Preliminary Route Alternatives were carried forward to be analyzed 

in detail in the Tier 1 EIS. Some of the routes have been combined due to their similarity, resulting in four 

Build Alternatives. They include Route 2, Route 4, Route 5 (Option 1 and Option 2) and Route 9 (Option 

1 and Option 2). Among these four Build Alternatives, the only differences between the route alternatives 

are within the SOTL area between Chicago and Michigan City, Indiana. Between Porter, Indiana and 

Pontiac, Michigan all four alignments are in common and congruent with the existing Amtrak alignment. 

Between Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan, the route runs on Amtrak owned trackage that can 

already accommodate passenger trains operating at speeds up to 110 mph. Between Kalamazoo and 

Dearborn, Michigan, the trackage is owned by the State of Michigan. Between Dearborn and Detroit, the 

route utilizes two main tracks on the CSAO Michigan Line and the North Yard Branch and transitions to 

the CN Shoreline Subdivision to Milwaukee Junction in Detroit. At Milwaukee Junction, the route heads 

north to Pontiac, Michigan on two CN Holly Subdivision main tracks.

The routes within the SOTL are explained below:

Route 2 – This route follows the current Amtrak route between Chicago Union Station and Michigan 

City, Indiana.

Route 4 – This route follows the current Amtrak route between Chicago Union Station and Gary, Indiana. 

In Gary, Indiana the route transitions from NS Chicago Line right of way to CSX Barr Subdivision right 

of way and then connects to NICTD right of way. In Burns Harbor, Indiana the route transitions from 

NICTD right of way to NS Chicago Line right of way and the current Amtrak route. At Porter, Indiana 

the route continues on Amtrak owned trackage to Michigan City, Indiana.

Route 5 Option 1 – This route follows the current Amtrak route between Chicago Union Station and 

Gary, Indiana. In Gary, Indiana the route transitions from NS Chicago Line right of way to the NS Sugar 

Track. From the NS Sugar Track, the route continues east via the abandoned Indiana Harbor Belt 

Railroad’s (IHB) Dune Branch before connecting to the CSX Porter Subdivision right of way. The route 

continues on the CSX Porter Subdivision right of way to Porter, Indiana where the route connects to 

Amtrak owned trackage to Michigan City, Indiana. 

Route 5 Option 2 – This route generally follows the same route as Route 5; however, in Gary, Indiana 

the route makes a direct connection to the CSX Porter Subdivision right of way and does not utilize the 

abandoned IHB Dune Branch.

Route 9 Option 1 – This route leaves Chicago Union Station on Amtrak owned right of way and then 

connects to CN owned right of way via the St. Charles Air Line. The route continues on CN right of way 

until it connects to IHB right of way on the south side of Chicago. The route continues on IHB right of 

way to Gary, Indiana where it connects to the abandoned IHB Dune Branch and then to CSX Porter 

Subdivision right of way. Once on CSX Porter Subdivision right of way, the route continues to Porter, 

Indiana where the route connects to Amtrak owned trackage to Michigan City, Indiana. 
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-12 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Route 9 Option 2 – This route generally follows the same route as Route 9; however, in Gary, Indiana 

the route makes a direct connection to CSX Porter Subdivision right of way and does not utilize the 

abandoned IHB Dune Branch.

Figure ES- 5: Selected Reasonable Route Alternatives

ES.5.3 Summary of Station and Maintenance Facility Opportunities

ES.5.3.1 Station Opportunities

The proposed service will utilize 16 stations along the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor, of which 15 

stations currently exist. One new station location is envisioned to be located in northwest Indiana.

A number of improvements would be needed at the various stations as shown in Table ES-2 and may also 

include access and circulation improvements. Construction of these improvements is subject to additional 

needs analysis and available funding. Final site selection for the new station and detailed impact analysis 

will occur in future Tier 2 NEPA analyses.

Future planning work to be recorded in both the Tier 1 Final EIS and Service Development Plan will 

provide additional detail on stations and station access including refined cost estimates. Anticipated 

completion of the Service Development Plan will take place after publication of the Record of Decision 

on the Tier 1 EIS. A description of the components of a Service Development Plan and how it relates to 

the Tier 1 EIS process is included in Section ES.10.3.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-13

Table ES-2: Proposed Station Improvements Needed for Full Build-out

Station Stop Proposed Improvement

Illinois

Chicago Union Station • Improvements to be identified under the Chicago Union 

Station Master Plan and funded under a separate project.

Indiana

Suburban station in northwest Indiana

• New station building

• Two standard platforms

• Overhead access between platforms

• Parking facilities

Michigan City • Second standard platform

• Overhead access between platforms

Michigan

New Buffalo

• New station building

• One standard platform

• Overhead access between platforms

Niles • Overhead access between existing platforms

Dowagiac • Overhead access between existing platforms

Kalamazoo

• Overhead access between existing platforms

• Replacement of one existing platform with a moveable 

platform

• Expanded parking facilities

Battle Creek

• Replacement of existing platforms with one standard platform 

and one moveable platform

• Overhead access between two new platforms

Albion

• Replacement of existing platforms with one standard platform 

and one moveable platform

• Overhead access between two new platforms

Jackson

• Rehabilitation of existing station building

• Replacement of one existing standard platform with a 

moveable platform

• Overhead access between platforms

• Expanded parking facilities

Ann Arbor

• New station building

• One standard platform and one moveable platform

• Overhead access between platforms

• Parking facilities

Dearborn • New parking structure
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-14 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Station Stop Proposed Improvement

Detroit New Center

• New station building

• Two standard platforms

• Overhead access between platforms

• Parking structure

• Layover tracks

Royal Oak

• New station building

• Extension of existing platform

• One new standard platform

• Overhead access between platforms

• Expanded parking facilities

Troy/Birmingham • One standard platform

• Expanded parking facilities

Pontiac

• One standard platform

• Overhead access between platforms

• Expanded parking facilities

ES.5.3.2 Maintenance Facility Opportunities

A maintenance facility is used to service train equipment and handle heavy maintenance items. The 

Program Sponsors have identified a need for an additional maintenance facility at the east-end of the 

corridor because the facility must be located where – according to the schedule – equipment naturally 

needs to lie overnight. The service development planning work to be completed after the Tier 1 Final EIS 

is published will suggest a site or sites for this maintenance facility. A detailed impact analysis will occur 

in future Tier 2 NEPA analyses for the identified location. Layover tracks that include turnaround 

facilities will also need to be constructed at or near the Detroit New Center Station to store trains that do

not travel on to Pontiac, Michigan.

ES.5.4 Summary of Alternatives Evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS

ES.5.4.1 No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the actions required to implement higher-speed passenger rail service in 

the Corridor would not take place. The No Build Alternative consists of the existing physical rail systems 

(tracks, bridges, signals, stations, maintenance, and layover facilities) as well as the existing passenger 

rail service between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac. It also includes committed improvements to the 

existing intercity passenger rail system and existing and programmed improvements to the intercity 

highway, passenger rail, and aviation services indicated in each State’s transportation plan that serve or 

will serve the same pool of travelers.

The No Build Alternative was retained for detailed analysis to allow equal comparison to the Build 

Alternatives carried forward and to help decision makers and the public understand the consequences of 

not implementing a Build Alternative.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-15

ES.5.4.2 Build Alternatives

The purpose and need of the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program is to provide a 

dedicated passenger corridor that would accommodate two continuous main tracks between Chicago 

Union Station and Porter, Indiana. Beyond Porter, Indiana, existing infrastructure would be upgraded 

where necessary to accommodate higher-speed passenger rail service.

The Build Alternatives generally include construction of new main track, sidings, and connection tracks 

with upgrades to existing track, at-grade roadway crossings, and equipment to enable faster passenger 

train speeds and the desired passenger train service reliability as described in the Program’s purpose and 

need statement in Chapter 1. Implementing higher-speed passenger rail service also requires the 

installation of wayside signaling systems2 to enable Centralized Traffic Control (CTC)3 as the method of 

operation throughout the route, and Positive Train Control (PTC)4 where not already implemented.

The Program Sponsors would construct the infrastructure needed to accommodate the interim phase of six

DRTs by the year 2025 and then construct the remaining infrastructure to complete full build-out of the 

Program by the year 2035.

ES.5.4.3 Estimated Costs for the 2035 Build Alternatives

Capital Costs for the 2035 Build Alternatives

The capital costs for the proposed Program vary between Build Alternatives due to the variation between 

routes in the SOTL. Initial planning-level capital costs for each of the Build Alternatives are provided in

Table ES-3. It is assumed that the capital costs applicable to the stations and track and signal 

infrastructure between Porter, Indiana and Detroit/Pontiac, Michigan are the same among all Build 

Alternatives. The capital cost estimates for each Build Alternative include the cost to construct 

infrastructure improvements along the route, including track and station improvements, as well as the cost 

to procure train equipment.

 

2 A wayside signaling system is a system adjacent to the railroad tracks that helps provide for control of train 

movements with visual indications through lights, mast arms, or electronic signals.

3 CTC is a method of train traffic control in which a dispatcher remotely controls signals and switches. Trains must 

observe the controlled signals (Bryan, May 1, 2006).

4 PTC is defined by FRA as “communication-based/processor-based train control technology that provides a system 

capable of reliably and functionally preventing train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, incursions into 

established work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a main line switch in the improper position” 

(FRA, June 7, 2012).
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-16 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table ES-3: Capital Costs ($2013)

Route 2 Route 4 Route 5 

Option1

Route 5 

Option 2

Route 9 

Option 1

Route 9 

Option 2

Total (Billions) $2.45 $2.65 $2.37 $2.40 $2.98 $2.94

Operating and Maintenance Costs

Annual operating and maintenance costs have been estimated for the first full year of service 

implementation, which is assumed to occur in 2035. Cost categories include maintenance of right of way, 

maintenance of equipment, operations – transportation, fuel, sales and marketing, stations, general and 

administrative, and police, security and environmental safety. Total estimated annual operating and 

maintenance expenses for the Corridor are $159,290,000.

Revenues

The demand analysis conducted for the Build Alternative service between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac 

estimated a total annual ridership in 2035 of 2.83 million passengers. Based on this level of future 

ridership, the total projected annual revenue for the rail service at full build-out is $162,030,000 as 

compared to $40,010,000 for the No Build Alternative.

ES.6 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This section summarizes the potential impacts of the No Build Alternative and implementation of the 

Build Alternatives based on the analysis of the social, economic, and environmental resources 

documented in Chapter 3 of the Tier 1 EIS. The No Build Alternative does not meet the Program’s 

purpose and need, but was retained for detailed analysis to allow equal comparison to the Build 

Alternatives. The potential impacts associated with each resource are listed in Table ES-4.

The potential impacts reported are based on Program implementation activities within the Area of 

Analysis along the Program Corridor. The Area of Analysis contains more lands than will be required to 

allow for future flexibility in design. This allows designers to avoid some potential impacts by moving 

into adjacent areas; but, it also results in an exaggeration of the reported potential impacts. For example, a 

large number of wetlands are present within the whole Area of Analysis, but most of them would not be 

disturbed because the majority of the Area of Analysis will not be subject to disturbance. Specific impacts 

and avoidance measures would be determined during Tier 2 NEPA analyses.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-17

Table ES-4: Summary of Effects

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Transportation

Corridor end-to-end Trips would not be diverted 

from other modes of travel.

Congestion and its 

associated impacts would 

not be relieved.

Freight and Passenger rail 

traffic would not benefit 

from Program 

improvements.

Ridership on existing 

Amtrak service would grow 

at a slower rate.

For all Build Alternatives:

Development of the Program would provide an improved and competitive mode of travel.

Railroad crossings would be improved and construction could potentially result in temporary impacts including changes in travel patterns, 

auto traffic congestion, delay, detours, disrupted access to properties and neighborhood.

Impact to local traffic patterns at station locations as traffic volumes and parking demand increase at the station.

There may be delays to commercial shipping on navigable waterways during construction (south Branch of Chicago River and Trail 

Creek).

Illinois Same as above. For Routes 2, 4, and both Route 5 Options:

Construction of new dedicated passenger track will benefit NS Chicago Line operations.

For both Route 9 Options:

SCAL bridge will increase operating 

efficiency by decreasing congestion.

Construction of new dedicated passenger 

track will limit future freight growth.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-18 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Indiana Same as above. New dedicated 

track will benefit NS 

Chicago Line 

operations.

New track within 

the NS Chicago 

Line right of way 

will limit future 

freight growth.

There may be 

delays to 

commercial 

shipping on the 

Indiana Harbor 

Canal during 

construction.

Same as Route 2, 

except new track 

will be constructed 

within the CSX Barr 

Subdivision and

NICTD rights of 

way between 

Buffington Harbor 

and Burns Harbor, 

Indiana instead of 

the NS Chicago 

Line right of way.

New track will limit 

future freight 

growth on the CSX 

Barr Subdivision.

Passenger trains 

may suffer 

scheduling 

conflicts, requiring 

high level of 

coordination 

between passenger 

services and freight 

operations.

Same as Route 2, 

except new track 

will be constructed 

within the NS 

Sugar Track and 

CSX Porter 

Subdivision rights 

of way between 

Buffington Harbor 

and Porter, Indiana 

instead of the NS

Chicago Line right 

of way.

New track will limit 

future freight 

growth on the NS 

Sugar Track and 

CSX Porter 

Subdivision.

A new flyover at 

Willow Creek 

benefits freight 

operations on the 

CSX Barr and 

Porter 

Subdivisions.

Same as Route 5 

Option 1, except 

Option 2 wouldn’t 

use the abandoned 

IHB Dune Branch. 

Rather, a direct 

connection to the 

active CSX Porter 

Subdivision would 

be made in Gary 

resulting in seven 

additional grade 

crossings.

New dedicated 

passenger track 

within the IHB Main 

Line and CSX 

Porter Subdivision 

rights of way will 

limit future freight 

growth.

New flyovers at 

Hammond 

Diamonds, 

Ivanhoe, and 

Willow Creek would 

provide benefits to 

crossing freight 

operations.

New dedicated 

passenger track will 

reduce passenger 

rail traffic on the NS 

Chicago Line, 

benefiting NS 

freight operations.

Same as Route 9 

Option 1, except 

Option 2 wouldn’t 

use the abandoned 

IHB Dune Branch. 

Rather, a direct 

connection to the 

active CSX Porter 

Subdivision would 

be made in Gary, 

resulting in 10 

additional grade 

crossings.

Michigan Same as above. For all Build Alternatives in Michigan: There may be additional conflicts between passenger and freight rail service.

Land Use

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives:

Direct land use changes are expected only in areas where right of way is acquired. Land would be acquired in strips adjacent to existing 

railroad. Land use changes and development related to station areas may occur.

Illinois Same as above. For all Build Alternatives: No substantial land use changes are expected.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-19

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Indiana Same as above. For Routes 2 and 4, change is expected in 

areas of right of way acquisition in National 

Lakeshore, from parkland to transportation.

For Route 5, Options 1 and 2, new railroad 

facilities, but still in a railroad corridor.

For Route 9, Options 1 and 2, no 

substantial changes in land use.

Michigan Same as above. For all Build Alternatives: No substantial changes in land use.

Agriculture

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives and for all states: Minimal impacts to agriculture.

Socio-economic Resources

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts. But, does not meet 

purpose and need.

For all Build Alternatives and all states:

Generates construction jobs, new employment opportunities, reduced air and noise pollution, and improved train speeds. Temporary 

impacts to businesses and community facilities due to vehicle impedance during construction at crossings. Potential displacement of 

residents and business within areas of right of way acquisitions.

Title VI and Environmental Justice

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts. Long-term socioeconomic benefits would 

not be realized for EJ 

populations

For All Build Alternatives and all states:

Potential displacement of residents and businesses within areas of right of way acquisitions. Temporary impacts by increased traffic in 

neighborhoods due to detours at crossings during construction. Noise and vibration during construction. Frequency of passenger rail 

operations will increase in low income and minority areas with addition of passenger rail service. MDOT will continue to work with low 

income and minority communities to mitigate impacts. Introduces incremental increases of noise (including potentially moderate impacts) 

and vibration (including potentially a significant increase in events) on existing tracks and where right of way is acquired. Further 

outreach would help to identify and verify Program impacts and whether they may disproportionately affect environmental justice 

populations.

During Tier 2 NEPA analysis, affected populations would be further identified in impacted areas and specific approaches will be 

implemented to provide access to services and for additional public involvement.

The Program is expected to provide economic and quality of life benefits through improved mobility and access to alternative modes in 

areas near station stops.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-20 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Public Health and Safety

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related impacts.

No Program benefit of 

improvements to grade 

crossing safety.

For all Build Alternatives and all states:

Safety improvements will be made to at-grade crossings and signals.

Conflicts could increase due to increased train frequency.

Noise

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives:

Noise level changes range from no change in some areas to a 4-decibel increase along one nine-mile section of track in Gary, Indiana.

Sources of noise impacts would be from the train equipment and their movement along the track as well as horn noise at crossings.

Areas that the model identified with “moderate” or “severe” noise impacts or vibration impacts will be further evaluated during the Tier 2 

NEPA analysis.

Illinois Same as above. For Routes 2, 4 and both Route 5 Options:

Moderate impacts between Chicago Union Station and the 21st Street Bridge and from 

South Branch of Chicago River to 43rd St.

For both Route 9 Options:

Moderate impacts between Chicago Union 

Station to the 21st St. Bridge and from 

Clark St. to East Cermak Rd.

Indiana Same as above. Moderate impacts 

between Buffington 

Harbor Drive and 

the Ind./Mich.

Border

Moderate impacts 

between Buffington 

Harbor Dr. and 

Broadway St. and 

from East Dunes 

Hwy. to Ind./Mich.

Border

For both Options of Routes 5 and 9:

Same as Route 4, plus severe impacts between Buffington Harbor Drive and West 9th 

Avenue in Gary. Moderate impacts to residential area between 9th Ave. and the junction 

of Routes 2 and 4.

Michigan Same as above. Moderate noise impacts from Ind. /Mich. border to Kalamazoo, along a section from east of Albion to west of Dexter, and from the 

northwest side of Ann Arbor, to Detroit.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-21

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Vibration

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

Impacts.

For all Build Alternatives:

Vibration levels would range from 70 to 91 VdB. The vibration levels would decrease into the 64 to 85 VdB range at 100 feet away from 

the track. Proposed passenger rail speeds would create a 1 to 2 VdB increase over the majority of the existing freight lines. Groundborne noise levels will be in the same ranges. Significant increases in events would occur in Michigan from the Ind. /Mich. border to 

North 48th Street, west of Springfield, MI and from Main Street in Battle Creek to Central Street in Detroit.

Illinois Same as above. For Routes 2, 4 and both Route 5 Options: No significant increase in vibration events. For both Route 9 Options:

Significant increase in events from West 

116th Street to the Ill. /Ind. border.

Indiana Same as above. Significant 

increases in events 

between Buffington 

Harbor Dr. to 

Broadway St. in 

Gary and from 

Porter to Ind./Mich. 

border

Significant 

increases in events 

between Buffington 

Harbor Dr. to 

Broadway St. in 

Gary and from the 

East Dunes Hwy to 

Ind./Mich. border

For both Route 5 Options:

Significant increases in events from 

Buffington Harbor Dr. to the Ind. /Mich. 

border.

For both Route 9 Options:

Significant increases in events from Ill. 

/Ind. border to the railroad junction 

southeast of the Gary/Chicago Airport 

where Route 9 merges with Route 5. 

Route 9 is the same as Route 5 from the 

junction east to the Ind. /Mich. border.

Air Quality

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts. Increase in 

pollutant emissions over 

time due to potential 

increases in vehicle 

congestion.

For all Build Alternatives and for all states:

There will be a reduction in all types of emissions with the exception of NOx emissions, which would increase slightly due to additional 

diesel fuel burned by increased passenger train traffic. Additional regional analysis may be conducted as part of Tier 2 NEPA analysis or 

as part of the Regional Transportation Planning process. Construction-related emissions will be addressed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-22 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives and for all states:

A number of hazardous materials have been located within the study corridor, such as would be associated with existing rail operations, 

or nearby facilities such as manufacturing or gas stations, etc. 

Specific site limits, contamination boundaries and impacts would be performed as part of the Tier 2 NEPA analyses. Impacts would most 

likely occur only in areas of additional right of way acquisition or where any demolition of existing structures or buildings may be required 

to construct Program improvements.

Cultural Resources and Section 106

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives and for all states:

A number of recorded historic structures, archaeological sites and districts are located within the study corridors. Impacts to cultural 

resources would most likely occur only where new right of way and construction occur. This will be investigated further during Tier 2 

studies to determine specific impacts to cultural resources.

Section 4(f) Resources

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

Most of the 

potentially affected 

Section 4(f) 

resources are 

adjacent to the 

tracks and could 

reasonably be 

expected to be 

impacted in places 

where additional 

right of way will be 

acquired for the 

Program.

Within the Area of 

Analysis of Route 4 

there are 82 park 

and recreation 

areas, 14 wildlife 

refuges and 54 

historic sites that 

may potentially be 

affected.

Within the Area of Analysis of Route 5 

Option 1 and 2 there are 87 park and 

recreation areas, 16 wildlife refuges and 54 

historic sites that may potentially be 

affected.

Within the Area of Analysis of Route 9 

Option 1 and 2 there are 89 park and 

recreation areas, 19 wildlife refuges and 65 

historic sites that may potentially be 

affected.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-23

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Illinois Same as above. There are 8 park 

and recreation 

areas, no wildlife 

and waterfowl 

refuges and 12 

historic sites that 

may potentially be 

affected.

There are 8 park 

and recreation 

areas, no wildlife 

refuges, and 24 

historic sites that 

may potentially be 

affected.

There are 9 park and recreation areas, no 

wildlife refuges, and 24 historic sites that 

may potentially be affected.

There are 17 park and recreation areas, 4 

wildlife refuges and 33 historic sites that 

may potentially be affected.

Indiana Same as above. There are 12 park 

and recreation 

areas, 5 wildlife 

and waterfowl 

refuges and 5 

historic sites that 

may potentially be 

affected.

There are 13 park 

and recreation 

areas, 5wildlife 

refuges and 5 

historic sites that 

may potentially be 

affected.

Route 4 has the 

greatest impact on 

the Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore

For both Route 5 Options, there are 17 

park and recreation areas, 7 wildlife 

refuges and 5 historic sites that may 

potentially be affected.

For both Route 9 Options, there are 11 

park and recreation areas, 6 wildlife 

refuges and 7 historic sites that may 

potentially be affected.

Option 9 is the only alternative that avoids 

the need to acquire lands from the Indiana 

Dunes National Lakeshore.

Michigan Same as above. All alternatives are the same in Michigan where there are 81 park and recreation areas, 14 wildlife and waterfowl refuges and 54 historic 

properties that may potentially be affected.

Section 6(f) Properties

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives:

The analysis identified 7 LWCF funded parks in the Area of Analysis.

Illinois Same as above. There are no Section 6(f) properties identified in Illinois within the Area of Analysis.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-24 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Indiana Same as above. This route cuts 

through five miles 

of Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore 

property. 

Additionally, it 

directly abuts about 

3.5 miles of 

National Lakeshore 

lands.

Any right of way 

acquisition from the 

National Lakeshore 

would constitute a 

Section 6(f) impact 

and require the 

necessary 

approvals and 

mitigation.

This route cuts 

through about 3.75 

miles of Indiana 

Dunes National 

Lakeshore 

property. 

Additionally, it 

abuts about 

another 3.75 miles.

Any right of way 

acquisition from the 

National Lakeshore 

would constitute a 

Section 6(f) impact 

and require the 

necessary 

approvals and 

mitigation.

For both Route 5 Options and both Route 9 Options:

The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore lies just north of the Route 5 and 9 options for 

about two miles. The National Lakeshore property is within the 500-foot corridor, but not 

directly adjacent to the tracks. In addition, a buffer is created by US 20, a two lane US 

Highway that runs parallel to and between the tracks and the Indiana Dunes’ property line. 

It is expected that no right of way acquisition from the National Lakeshore would be 

required.

The wooded southeast corner of Woodland Park in Porter County, Indiana touches the 

route tracks at the Willow Creek Road crossing. Any necessary crossing improvements at 

this location could possibly require acquisition of right of way. This would need to be 

further analyzed in final design.

Michigan Same as above. For all Build Alternatives:

Parks funded with LWCF funds include River Oaks County Park, Fort Custer State Park, Parker Mill County Park, Frog Island Park and 

the Border to Border Trail/Gallup Park Pathway including Gallup Park, Parker Mill County Park, and Mitchell Field.

It is anticipated that the Program would not require acquisition of right of way in these locations, however if right of way would be 

required, additional coordination would be necessary to determine the impacts and mitigation measures.

Visual and Aesthetic Quality

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives:

In general, new tracks and train traffic will be adjacent to or within existing track corridors and would not create a noticeable visual 

change except in areas with new structures, such as flyovers or any new buildings associated with station areas and a maintenance 

facility.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-25

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Illinois Same as above. For Routes 2, 4 and both Route 5 Options:

The proposed reconstruction of the bridge at the Calumet River may create various visual 

changes depending on design.

For both Route 9 Options:

There will be some passenger train traffic 

where currently there is none.

There will be a new structure at 

Kensington Junction that would alter views.

Indiana Same as above. For Routes 2 and 4:

Views to and from the train in this area will 

not change, with the addition of new track 

in some places and a minor increase in 

frequency of passenger train traffic.

A new suburban station will be constructed 

in northwest Indiana. It is expected that the 

building would be consistent with 

surrounding urban landscape.

The addition of flyover or bridge structures 

will create a visual change.

This route goes through the National 

Lakeshore property.

For both Route 5 Options:

Impacts will be similar to Route 2. It does 

not go through the Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore property, but instead travels by 

3 nature preserves. This route travels 

through more residential areas.

For both Route 9 Options:

Impacts will be similar to Route 2, with the 

construction of new track and structures.

Michigan Same as above. For all Build Alternatives: The majority of the work that could include visual changes is anticipated to be in the Dearborn to Pontiac 

section of the Corridor and possibly minor changes at the proposed station locations. It is expected that most of this work will be within 

the existing right of way and along current train routes, thus little to no visual changes would be seen along this section. The view from 

the train along the Corridor in Michigan will follow the existing route and therefore views from the train will be the same as they are 

currently.

The views of the railroad facilities will be similar to existing because most work is anticipated to be within the existing right of way.

Water Body Crossings and Floodplains

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives:

Waterways may be impacted by construction activities including placement of fill material for additional track and siding, culvert 

replacement or extensions, and bridge replacement or additions.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-26 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Illinois Same as above. For Routes 2, 4 and both Route 5 Options:

Crossings include the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Calumet River.

There are 8.3 acres of 100-year floodplain within the Area of Analysis.

For both Route 9 Options:

Crossings include South Branch of the 

Chicago River and the Little Calumet 

River.

There are 3.2 acres of lakes and ponds 

and 9.70 acres of floodplain within the 

Area of Analysis.

Indiana Same as above. Crossings include 

Grand Calumet 

River, Indiana 

Harbor Canal, 

Portage Burns 

Waterway, East 

Fork of the Little 

Calumet River, and 

Trail Creek. There 

are a total of 15.16 

acres of lakes and 

ponds and 99.9 

acres of 100-year 

floodplains within 

Area of Analysis

Crossings include 

Grand Calumet 

River, Indiana 

Harbor Canal, 

Portage Burns 

Waterway, East 

Fork of the Little 

Calumet River, and 

Trail Creek. There 

are a total of 10.18 

acres of lakes and 

ponds and 99.7 

acres of 100-year 

floodplains within 

Area of Analysis

For both Route 5 Options: Crossings 

include Grand Calumet River, Indiana 

Harbor Canal, Portage-Burns Waterway, 

Salt Creek and Willow Creek, East Fork of 

the Little Calumet River, and Trail Creek. 

There are a total of 18.61 acres of lakes 

and ponds 167.7 acres of 100-year 

floodplains within Area of Analysis.

Crossings include 

Portage Burns 

Waterway, Salt 

Creek, Willow 

Creek, East Fork of 

the Little Calumet 

River, and Trail 

Creek. There are a 

total of 7.99 acres 

of lakes and ponds 

and 146.2 acres of 

100-year 

floodplains within 

the Area of 

Analysis.

Same as Route 9 

Option 1 except 

there are a total of 

8.95 acres of lakes 

and ponds within 

the Area of 

Analysis.

Michigan Same as above. For all Build Alternatives:

Proposed improvements are not anticipated to impact streams, rivers, or wetlands beyond the temporary impacts during construction. 

The proposed work is not anticipated to result in an impact to natural and beneficial floodplain values, specifically, flood attenuation and 

storage, water quality, groundwater recharge, biological productivity of fish and wildlife, and agricultural and forestry resources. The 

Program would not increase the risk of flooding and would not result in impacts to human safety, health, and welfare.

Water Quality Resources

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives:

Impacts may be seen from soil erosion from stormwater runoff; fill material placed in water resources; and construction of bridges and 

culverts or culvert extensions at locations noted below for each state and alternative.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-27

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Illinois Same as above. For Routes 2, 4 and both Route 5 Options:

South Branch of the Chicago River and the Calumet River

For both Route 9 Options:

South Branch of the Chicago River and the 

Little Calumet River

Indiana Same as above. For Routes 2 and 4:

Grand Calumet River, Indiana Harbor 

Canal, Portage Burns Waterway, East Fork 

of the Little Calumet River, and Trail Creek

For both Route 5 Options:

Grand Calumet River, Indiana Harbor 

Canal, Portage Burns Waterway, East Fork 

of the Little Calumet River, and Trail 

Creek, Salt Creek and Willow Creek

For both Route 9 Options:

Portage Burns Waterway, Salt Creek, 

Willow Creek, East Fork of the Little 

Calumet River, and Trail Creek

Michigan Same as above. For all Build Alternatives:

Proposed improvements are anticipated to impact any streams, rivers, or wetlands that may be altered during construction. These effects 

are expected to be minimal.

Wetlands

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives:

Wetland impacts may occur during construction as a result of soil disturbance and potential pollutant loading of stormwater runoff from 

construction sites. Impacts may occur from any placement of fill material for additional track and siding, culvert replacement or 

extensions and bridge replacements in additions in wetland areas. This will most likely occur only where additional right of way is 

acquired.

Illinois Same as above. For Routes 2, 4 and both Route 5 Options:

There are 7.1 acres of two wetlands associated with the South Branch of the Chicago 

River and the Calumet River

For both Route 9 Options:

There are a total of 62.4 acres of wetlands, 

mostly associated with the Little Calumet 

River and the Beaubien Woods Forest 

Preserve.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-28 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Indiana Same as above. This alternative 

contains more 

wetlands than the 

other alternatives 

with 224 acres. 

There are 

extensive wetland 

areas in the Indiana 

Dunes National 

Lakeshore where 

additional right of 

way is expected to 

be required.

There are a total of 

200 acres of 

wetlands. Route 4 

also travels through 

the wetlands of 

Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore 

where additional 

right of way is 

anticipated to be 

required.

For both Route 5 Options:

There are a total of 164 acres of wetlands. 

However, it is not anticipated that right of 

way acquisition will occur in these areas. 

Areas where the Route would most likely 

impact wetlands is between Buffington 

Harbor and the Tolleston connection where 

there are a number of wetlands located in 

the Clark & Pine Nature Preserve, Clark 

Junction West Site, the Clark and Pine 

General Refractories Site, and the Pine 

Station Nature Preserve.

For both Route 9 Options:

There are a total of 109 acres of wetlands. 

However it is not anticipated that right of 

way acquisition will occur in these areas.

Wetland impacts would be adjacent to the 

Gibson Woods Nature Preserve and within 

the Tolleston Ridge Nature Preserves 

and/or the Ivanhoe South natural area 

between Gibson Junction and Ivanhoe.

Michigan Same as above. For all Build Alternatives:

No wetland impacts from Program improvements are expected in Michigan.

Coastal Zone Management Areas

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives:

Coastal zones could be impacted by construction activities including tree and brush clearing, placement of fill material for additional track 

and siding, culvert replacement or extensions, and bridge replacement or additions. Such impacts may be expected in locations where 

right of way will be needed to perform the work. Areas within Coastal Zones are described below by state and alternative.

Illinois Same as above. For Routes 2, 4 and both Route 5 Options:

There are 207 acres of coastal zone within the Area of Analysis.

For both Route 9 Options:

There are 472 acres of coastal zone within 

the Area of Analysis

Indiana Same as above. For all Build Alternatives:

The entire Area of Analysis in Indiana is within a Coastal Zone.

Michigan Same as above. For all Build Alternatives:

In Michigan, the Corridor passes through the coastal zone management area along the Lake Michigan shoreline from the Indiana Border 

into New Buffalo, Michigan.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-29

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Natural Habitat and Wildlife

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives:

Construction activities, including tree and brush clearing, placement of fill material for additional track and sidings, stream relocations, 

culvert replacement or extensions, and bridge replacement or additions could have the potential to impact terrestrial and aquatic natural 

habitats of wildlife species present in the Area of Analysis.

Since proposed areas where additional right of way would be acquired abut existing right of way, impacts would be relatively minimal and 

linear, and would not further fragment remaining large parcels of natural habitat areas.

Species that are present along the rail corridor have historically been continually exposed to train traffic in varying degrees and changes 

would be marginal.

An increase in train frequency and speed may increase the potential for collisions with mobile animal species.

Impacts to habitat, such as waterways, wetlands, and woodlands may impact species.

Illinois Same as above. For Routes 2, 4 and both Route 5 Options:

80 acres of the Area of Analysis is within Englewood Conservation Area including stream 

habitat, and 7 acres of wetland habitat.

For both Route 9 Options:

Natural habitats include Burnham Prairie 

Nature Preserve, Beaubien Woods Forest 

Preserve, with a total of 59 acres within the 

Area of Analysis. Area includes stream 

habitat, 62 acres of wetland less than an 

acre of lakes and 3 acres of 

swamps/marshes within the Area of 

Analysis.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-30 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Indiana Same as above. 416 acres are 

within the Area of 

Analysis. 38 acres 

are within natural 

areas of the 

Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore 

where some right of 

way may be 

acquired The 

Clarke Junction 

West Site may also 

be impacted.

There are 327

acres with 47 acres 

within the National 

Lakeshore. The 

Clark and Pine 

Nature Preserve 

and Clarke 

Junction West Site 

may also be 

impacted.

For both Route 5 Options:

Does not travel through the National 

Lakeshore’s natural areas. The Clark and 

Pine Nature Preserve, Clarke Junction 

West Site and Clarke and Pine General 

Refractories Addition Site for a total of 29

acres that may be impacted.

54 acres are within 

the Area of 

Analysis. None of 

the route travels 

through the highquality natural 

areas of the 

National 

Lakeshore. The 

Tolleston Nature 

Preserve and the 

Brunswick Center 

Savanna Site cover 

20 acres within the 

Area of Analysis.

Same as Route 9 

Option 1, except 

Route 9 Option 2 

has only 1 acre of 

the Brunswick 

Center Savanna 

Site within the Area 

of Analysis.

Michigan Same as above. For all Build Alternatives:

The Corridor passes through some ecologically sensitive areas in Michigan. Any improvements in these areas could potentially impact 

habitat during construction. Program improvements are expected to keep within the existing right of way in Michigan.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Corridor end-to-end Impacts would not occur 

beyond those that could 

occur due to other projects 

and maintenance activities.

For all Build Alternatives:

The construction activities of the Build Alternatives including tree and brush clearing, placement of fill material for additional track and 

sidings, stream relocations, culvert replacement or extensions, and bridge replacement or additions—could have the potential to impact 

terrestrial and aquatic natural habitats of state and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species, if present in the Area of 

Analysis. There are potential effects on wildlife and federally-listed species that may be present in the Area of Analysis from the increase 

in noise and vibration. The presence of listed species would be determined during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

Illinois Same as above. Same as above.

Indiana Same as above. Same as above.

Michigan Same as above. For all Build Alternatives:

It is not anticipated that any federally listed animal species will be impacted by the Program improvements if avoidance strategies are 

implemented where species exist adjacent to the railway. The proposed work in Michigan is anticipated to stay within the existing right of 

way, where currently there is not suitable habitat for the species listed.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-31

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Energy Use and Climate Change

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

Passenger train service 

would not be as readily 

available, resulting in the 

continued reliance on 

automobiles, buses, and 

planes.

For all Build Alternatives and all states:

Energy use under each of the Build Alternatives would be essentially identical as there is only a two percent difference in length between 

the shortest route (Route 2 at 305 miles) and the longest route (Route 9 at 310 miles).

The Build Alternatives would provide a competitive transportation alternative compared to automobiles, planes, and buses.

Energy would be consumed during construction of the Build Alternatives, but reduced energy consumption for transportation would be 

realized over the long-term. Based on a preliminary passenger rail forecast and an analysis of energy efficiency by mode, the Build 

Alternatives would provide a net reduction in energy consumption through diverted trips from automobiles, buses, and planes to new 

passenger rail service.

In spite of increased fuel consumption in locomotives (approximately 12.7 million gallons/year), the Build Alternatives are expected to 

result in reduced fuel consumption of approximately 16.4 million gallons for an annual reduction in fuel use within the Corridor of 

approximately 3.7 million gallons.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Corridor end-to-end New commitments of 

resources would not occur 

beyond those that could 

occur related to other 

projects in the Corridor.

Energy resources would 

continue to be consumed 

by automobile travelers at a 

slightly higher rate than with 

the Build Alternatives.

For all Build Alternatives and for all states:

Construction of the Build Alternatives would result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of land where additional right of way is 

needed.

Construction materials would be largely irretrievable when used.

Several energy resources would be committed to the Program, including petroleum, natural gas, electrical, and manpower expenditures 

for construction, operation, and maintenance.

Federal and state financial resources would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed to the Program for planning and public review, 

development of Tier 2 documentation, design, construction, operation, and maintenance.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-32 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Short-term Use vs. Long-term Productivity of the Environment

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

Traffic congestion could 

increase, and energy 

resources may continue to 

be consumed by other 

modes of transportation 

between Chicago and 

Detroit/Pontiac, at a slightly 

higher rate than with the 

Build Alternatives. This, in 

turn, could result in 

increased pollutant 

emissions and decreased 

air quality.

For all Build Alternatives and all states:

There will be short-term construction impacts. Short-term employment and use of materials during construction would contribute to shortterm increase in local economy.

Long-term effect is expected to be minimal, but could see a reduction in farmland, increases in noise and vibration impacts.

Implementation of the Build Alternatives would result in the short-term impacts and use of resources while increasing the long-term 

benefits and productivity of passenger rail transportation, land use, and economic systems.

Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Corridor end-to-end No new direct, indirect 

impacts or cumulative 

effects beyond those that 

could occur due to other 

projects and maintenance.

There would not be the

improved level and quality 

of passenger rail service 

between Chicago and 

Detroit/Pontiac.

A negative contribution to 

cumulative effects of 

continuing preference of 

personal automobiles on 

highways.

For all Build Alternatives and all states:

Direct impacts of noise, vibration, visual effects, and air emissions would potentially result in indirect impacts on wildlife and reduced use 

of nearby parks, recreation areas, and natural areas. Induced passenger rail ridership may indirectly impact the viability of air and bus 

service in the future. Traffic flow at modified grade crossings could change resulting in additional traffic routed through residential 

neighborhoods. Land use and economic development could result indirectly from the construction and use of the suburban station in 

northwest Indiana as well as other potential improvements to existing stations. Passenger rail infrastructure improvements including 

crossing and signal improvements, track upgrades and construction of a dedicated double track railroad in the SOTL may indirectly 

benefit existing freight service.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-33

Resource No Build Route 2 Route 4 Route 5

Option 1

Route 5

Option 2

Route 9

Option 1

Route 9

Option 2

Construction Impacts

Corridor end-to-end No Program-related 

impacts.

For all Build Alternatives and all states:

Heavy construction equipment may generate noise.

Short-term air emissions from on-site heavy equipment as well as fugitive dust and particle debris from demolition and excavation 

activities.

Waste material may be generated from any construction and demolition activities.

Construction debris and potential spills may occur that would have the potential to impact water quality from stormwater runoff from the 

construction site.

During construction, access to adjacent properties may be impacted on a temporary basis.

Construction activities for corridor improvements would affect rail traffic by reducing operating train speeds through the construction 

zones, adding to rail travel time and, in turn, cost.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-34 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ES.7 Permits Required

Construction of the Build Alternatives would likely require the following federal, state, and local permits 

and approvals:

• Section 404 Permit – USACE (Waters of the U.S. impacts)

• Section 401 Water Quality Certification – Illinois EPA and DNR, Indiana IDEM, Michigan DEQ

• Section 9 Bridge Permit – USCG

• Section 7 Endangered Species Permit (if applicable) – USFWS

• Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act Permit – USACE

• Floodplain encroachment permits for construction in floodplains – Illinois DNR/OWR, Indiana 

DNR/DOW, Michigan DEQ/USACE

• Section 402 NPDES Permit – Illinois EPA, Indiana DEM, Michigan DEQ

• Air Pollution Control Permits – Illinois EPA, Indiana DEM, Michigan DEQ

ES.8 Summary of Potential Mitigation

Table ES-5 lists the potential mitigation measures that were identified to address impacts to resources that 

may result from implementation of the Program. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will 

be identified and discussed in Tier 2 NEPA analyses after design details are known. They will be recorded 

in Tier 2 NEPA analysis documents and will be implemented prior to related construction activities.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-35

Table ES-5: Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures

Topic Potential Mitigation Measures

Transportation 1. Construct flyovers and other grade crossing improvements to improve safety for rail 

and roadway users and to improve freight and passenger operations.

2. Make signal upgrades and infrastructure improvements to decrease passenger and 

freight conflicts.

3. Prepare and implement a construction stage traffic control and safety plan.

4. Coordinate with freight and passenger rail operators.

5. Perform construction activities at off-peak times.

6. Obtain appropriate permits from USACE and USCG for construction in wetlands and 

waterways.

Land Use 1. Review future design plans to determine whether direct and indirect changes in land 

use are compatible with locally adopted comprehensive plans and zoning policies.

2. Minimize the footprint of the selected Preferred Alternative’s improvements to existing 

right of way, maintenance facility, and station areas.

3. When the acquisition of adjacent land cannot be avoided and/or the need for 

relocations proves to be unavoidable, follow the provisions of the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended to ensure 

fairness in the acquisition and relocation process.

Agriculture 1. Coordinate with NRCS to avoid or minimize adjacent farmland impacts and complete 

the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating process for each affected County.

2. Abide by the requirements of the Illinois Farmland Preservation Act (IFPA) in Illinois, 

the requirements of the Indiana Coastal Zone Management Plan in Indiana, and the 

requirements of the Michigan a Public Act 116 (PA 116) in Michigan.

3. Identify urban agricultural operations and community gardens and avoid or minimize 

direct impacts.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-36 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Topic Potential Mitigation Measures

Socioeconomic 

Impacts

1. Specific infrastructure features and locations will be further defined and delineated in 

Tier 2 NEPA analysis, and potential impacts on socioeconomic conditions will be 

identified along with strategies to avoid or mitigate these impacts.

2. Public involvement and agency coordination activities may result in identification of 

potential mitigation needs at a local level. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent 

required, will be identified and discussed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis after design 

details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, 

and implemented.

3. When the acquisition of adjacent land cannot be avoided, the provisions of the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will be followed.

4. Grade-crossing upgrades will require working very closely with each community to 

ensure impacts are minimized when the work is being done.

5. Access to properties will be maintained to the extent possible. Working with the local 

communities and stakeholders, the duration of grade-crossing upgrades could be 

minimized using accelerated work force crews, and scheduled at non-peak time to 

minimize rail, motorized vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle movement conflicts.

6. The following mitigation measures could be implemented to address temporary 

construction stage impacts:

• minimizing disruption of traffic in the construction area by coordinating with local 

agencies and the community

• placing signs in all of the construction areas notifying motorists and pedestrians

• require construction equipment to have mufflers in good working order and 

portable compressors that meet federal noise-level standards for equipment

• require that contractors will be responsible for applying adequate dust-control 

measures during construction

Title VI and 

Environmental Justice

1. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed 

during Tier 2 NEPA analysis after design details of the selected Preferred Alternative 

are known and recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, and 

implemented.

2. Further outreach to environmental justice populations will be completed during Tier 2 

studies to identify specific needs of affected populations and to work with 

neighborhoods and individuals to avoid or minimize impacts or relocations.

3. When the acquisition of adjacent land cannot be avoided, the provisions of the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be followed.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-37

Topic Potential Mitigation Measures

Public Health and 

Safety

1. Install sophisticated traffic control/warning devices at crossings, meeting at a minimum 

FRA safety standards set forth under the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 236).

2. During design, consider the construction of additional grade separations, road 

closures, and railroad crossing upgrades to further minimize the potential for 

collisions.

3. Consolidate public and private grade crossings where practical. Eliminate redundant 

and/or unsafe crossings.

4. For private crossings that serve industrial developments and cannot be closed, 

consider providing a locking device for when the crossing is not in use.

5. Maintain existing Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) and install Incremental Train 

Control System (ITCS) infrastructure throughout the Corridor.

6. Install active warning systems for pedestrians where rail lines cross existing 

sidewalks, trails, and bikeways.

Noise and Vibration 1. Consistent with FRA criteria, develop and apply noise mitigation for areas exposed to 

a moderate or severe impact.

2. Apply vibration mitigation to minimize adverse effects that the ground-borne vibration 

may have on sensitive land uses.

3. As recommended in the FRA manual, measure existing rail operations throughout the 

Preferred Alternative route to refine existing vibration levels, which might also lead to a 

refinement in the projections and impact determination in the vibration assessment.

Air Quality 1. General air quality conformity analysis modeling may be required during Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis to verify that the Program would not have an adverse impact on air quality. 

Investigate and consider mitigation to reduce NOX emissions.

Hazardous Waste 1. Establish requirements for safety procedures and protection of human health and the 

environment to help ensure no further contamination of adjacent sites and to provide a 

safe working environment during construction.

2. Recycle or properly dispose of solid waste materials generated during construction in 

accordance with the provisions of each state’s solid waste management statutes and 

regulations, and local regulations. 

3. Handle, collect, and dispose of hazardous waste materials according to federal, state, 

and local regulations.

4. Take recyclable construction materials to recycling facilities that are in compliance 

with federal, state, and local regulations.

5. Dispose of construction debris that cannot be recycled in permitted landfills following 

proper disposal procedures and in compliance with federal, state, and local 

regulations.

6. Apply appropriate permanent best management practices (BMPs) to avoid or minimize 

impacts to water quality for potential hazardous material incident during refueling, 

maintenance operations, or from a spill during operation of the trains.

7. Handle, collect, and dispose of waste materials found in existing structures or 

buildings to be demolished according to federal, state, and local regulations, including 

any waste materials generated by maintenance and layover facilities.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-38 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Topic Potential Mitigation Measures

Cultural Resources 1. Consult with the SHPOs, THPOs and local agencies to identify any additional parties 

who meet the regulatory criteria of being consulting parties pursuant 36CFR800.2. 

2. If necessary, develop mitigation measures in accordance with the terms of a 

programmatic agreement (PA) between FRA and consulting parties including the 

ACHP and SHPOs and/or THPOs

3. For all ground-disturbing construction activity, follow an inadvertent discoveries plan 

developed in consultation with the Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan SHPOs to ensure 

proper treatment of archaeological materials encountered during construction.

Section 4(f) 1. Where the use of Section 4(f) property cannot be avoided, conduct all possible 

planning to minimize harm. Ways to minimize use of Section 4(f) properties include 

designing improvements in a way to avoid the acquisition of right of way from Section 

4(f) properties. Minimization of harm could also include design that lessens the impact 

or agreeing on ways to compensate for impacts.

2. Identify specific mitigation measures in consultation with the officials with jurisdiction 

over the resources. Implement mitigation measures prior to construction.

Section 6(f) 1. Coordinate with the Section 6(f) property agencies to verify if potentially impacted 

lands were improved using LWCF funding.

2. Avoid Section 6(f) lands to the extent practicable. For LWCF lands that cannot be 

avoided, provide replacement property that is of at least equal fair market value and of 

reasonably equivalent usefulness for recreation purposes as the land proposed to be 

taken.

Visual and Aesthetic

Impacts

1. Continue public involvement to identify residents’ concerns about the potential views 

of the railroad facilities. 

2. Consider potential measures such as appropriate re-vegetation of disturbed areas of 

the scenic resources, visual screening of railroad facilities from adjacent residential 

areas, and appropriate design of structures with aesthetic features and landscaping 

that would complement and blend with the context of the surrounding visual 

environment.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-39

Topic Potential Mitigation Measures

Water Body 

Crossings and 

Floodplain 

1. Determine where it is possible and practical to avoid or minimize impacts and identify 

specific mitigation measures, to the extent required. Mitigation measures could include 

actions such as mitigation banking, in-lieu fees, and on-site or off-site Section 404 

permittee responsible mitigation.

2. During the design process, coordinate with the USACE and the appropriate state 

resource agencies to develop avoidance and mitigation strategies to be implemented 

prior to construction.

3. Assess impacts on the 100-year floodplains and regulatory floodways of the Preferred 

Alternative. Include avoidance and minimization measures for impacts on the natural 

and beneficial floodplain values, substantial changes in flooding risks or damage, and 

the potential for incompatible floodplain development.

4. Coordinate with the state emergency management agencies, the DNRs of each state, 

and local floodplain administrators to discuss floodplain development permitting and 

potential mitigation measures if floodplains cannot be avoided. Mitigation could include 

restoring natural and beneficial floodplain values by seeding with native vegetation, 

and proper design of bridges and culverts so as to not restrict flood flows.

5. Implement specific floodplain mitigation measures prior to construction.

Water Quality 1. Address potential water quality impacts that may occur during construction activities. 

Measures typically include the development and implementation of Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and the use of temporary and permanent 

stormwater BMPs to avoid or minimize sediment pollution and water quality impacts 

through reductions in stormwater runoff from the site. BMPs that could be used during 

construction to control water pollution include the use of temporary measures such as 

berms, slope drains, sediment basins, straw bales, silt fences, seeding, and mulching. 

In addition, disturbance to stream banks and riparian zones could be minimized and 

limited to only that which is necessary to construct the Program improvements.

2. Avoid or minimize disturbance to stream banks and riparian zones.

3. Identify specific mitigation measures for the selected Preferred Alternative. The Tier 2 

documents would further address mitigation measures and control of pollutants and 

sediments in regard to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permitting, SWPPPs, and BMPs. In addition, obtain each state’s required Section 401 

Water Quality Certifications.

4. Identify the need for mitigation of impacts on mapped or unmapped water wells, 

including proper abandonment of the wells (such as plugging and sealing) to prevent 

groundwater pollution from construction and from future operations and maintenance. 

Implement specific mitigation measures prior to construction.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-40 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Topic Potential Mitigation Measures

Wetlands 1. Determine where it is possible and practical to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands.

2. Develop detailed mitigation options for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands 

during the Tier 2 NEPA analysis and in conjunction with a Section 404 Permit. Typical 

mitigation measures include mitigation banking, in-lieu fees, and on-site or off-site 

permittee-responsible mitigation. Mitigation strategies identified and ultimately 

selected would take into account that not all mitigation options are available to all 

states and USACE Districts.

3. During the design process, coordinate with the appropriate USACE Districts and 

appropriate resource agencies to develop appropriate mitigation strategies for the 

location of impacts.

4. Implement mitigation measures prior to construction.

Coastal Zone 

Management

1. Develop and implement Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and use 

temporary and permanent BMPs to avoid, minimize, or mitigate sediment pollution 

could 

2. During construction control water pollution through the use of temporary measures, 

such as berms, slope drains, sediment basins, straw bales, silt fences, seeding, and 

mulching.

Natural Habitat and 

Wildlife

1. Obtain data specific to the selected Preferred Alternative through coordination with 

USFWS, Illinois DNR, Indiana DNR, and Michigan DNR.

2. Conduct field surveys of the impacted areas of the Preferred Alternative to determine 

the existence of high quality natural communities and migratory bird habitat.

3. Assess ways to avoid and minimize impacts to habitat in coordination with the USFWS

and the state resource agencies. If habitat cannot be avoided, develop and apply 

mitigation measures to protect species and offset impacts. These measures typically 

include restrictions on construction activities in specific areas during the 

breeding/nesting seasons and application of best management practices to minimize 

run-off and erosion from construction sites.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-41

Topic Potential Mitigation Measures

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

1. Conduct necessary Section 7 consultation with USFWS to determine potential impacts 

to the federal listed species and its habitat. If it is determined that the Preferred 

Alternative could have the potential to affect a federally listed species, prepare a 

biological assessment to determine the Preferred Alternative’s potential effect on one 

or more species, pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. If a potential impact to a federally 

listed species is identified, formal consultation is required with USFWS, and USFWS 

would prepare a biological opinion on whether the proposed activity would adversely 

affect (jeopardize the continued existence of) a listed species. Modifications to avoid 

or minimize impacts, or mitigation measures for unavoidable adverse impacts would 

be determined as part of the formal consultation. 

2. Coordinate with the Illinois DNR, Indiana DNR, and Michigan DNR, as appropriate to 

identify potential impacts on state-listed threatened and endangered species.

3. Use database information regarding species locations and habitat requirements as a 

basis for conducting field surveys to determine existence of state-listed species in the 

Area of Analysis. Assess avoidance or minimization of impacts, and to determine 

potential mitigation measures to be implemented prior to construction. Typical 

mitigation measures include restoration or management of existing special 

communities adjacent to the railway section.

4. Show areas requiring protection on design and construction plans with instructions for 

the installation of protective fencing. This fencing would prohibit all work within these 

areas to avoid impacts to the species. If work restrictions cannot be used effectively 

during the design process to eliminate impacts to a species, then employ minimization 

strategies to reduce impacts to the species and their habitats. This may require design 

changes or different construction techniques that minimize the overall impact to the 

species.

Energy Use and 

Climate Change

1. Mitigation is not expected to be required for energy use and climate change due to the 

expected reductions in fuel use and CO2 emissions resulting from diverted trips from 

other modes of transportation within the Corridor.

Short-term Use vs. 

Long-term 

Productivity

1. Mitigation measures are discussed in the previous section for each respective 

resource.

Indirect and 

Cumulative Impacts

1. After design details are prepared for the Preferred Alternative, and required 

construction activities are known, specific indirect impacts and cumulative effects can 

be identified. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will be identified and 

discussed in Tier 2 NEPA analysis documents.

Permits 1. Specific mitigation measures would be implemented as appropriate per each 

individual permit and approval. For example, Section 404 Permits may require 

mitigation measures for both temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands, streams, 

rivers, and other waters of the United States. Specific mitigation measures, to the 

extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 analyses after design 

details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, 

and implemented.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-42 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Topic Potential Mitigation Measures

Construction Impacts Coordination with Existing Rail Operations

1. Coordinate with railroad owners to gain permission to work within railroad right of way

2. Adjust schedules for operations and limited temporary shutdowns

3. Stage construction in a way that limits conflicts

Noise and Vibration

4. Equip and maintain muffling equipment for trucks and other construction machinery to 

minimize noise emissions

5. Limit times and duration of construction activities adjacent to sensitive land uses

6. Employ limits and controls on drilling and blasting activities

Air Quality

7. Adhere to construction permit conditions and all state and local regulations in regard 

to emissions and exhaust, fugitive dust, and burning of debris

Waste Disposal

8. Recycle construction debris, if possible, at facilities that are incompliance with federal, 

state, and local regulations

9. Test hazardous waste that may be encountered 

10. Handle, collect, and dispose of waste materials in accordance with federal, state, and 

local regulations

Water Quality

11. Manage stormwater runoff through NPDES and all other federal, state, and local 

permitting processes

12. Implement BMPs for control of soil erosion and other pollutants

13. Properly store hazardous materials away from water bodies and wetlands in a selfcontained upland location

Access

14. Develop a construction traffic mitigation plan to maintain reasonable access to 

properties, including special provisions to accommodate emergency vehicles, as well 

as adjacent populations of elderly and disabled persons.

Traffic and Safety

15. Coordinate with IDOT, INDOT, and MDOT as well as local jurisdictions to develop and 

implement a traffic control and safety plan.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-43

ES.9 Agency and Public Coordination

The development of this Tier 1 EIS included coordination with agencies, tribes and the general public. A 

public involvement plan guided the Program’s outreach efforts throughout the duration of the Program. 

The plan sought to combine traditional outreach activities such as public information meetings with Webbased applications to reach the greatest number of interested persons and agencies. 

ES.9.1 Public Involvement Opportunities

The Program is focused on providing information and obtaining feedback from the public, stakeholders 

and agencies at Program milestones. The key outreach strategies are summarized in Table ES-6. Public 

outreach activities were provided at each Program “milestone” including during the development of the 

purpose and need statement, alternatives to be analyzed, and recommendations for route alternatives to be 

studied further. Three public comment periods held during these milestones provided opportunities for 

agencies, tribes and Native American groups, stakeholders and the general public to review the Program 

and give feedback and comments. The comments were reviewed and used to prepare and issue this Tier 1 

Draft EIS.

Public meetings were held during the Tier 1 EIS scoping process and during the alternative analysis. 

Public hearings will be held after the Tier 1 Draft EIS is released for public review and comment. 

Meeting locations were selected for their proximity to the proposed route alternatives being evaluated. All 

facilities were readily accessible to individuals with disabilities. Interpreters were provided and chosen 

based on area demographics and the need for interpreters at previous MDOT meetings in the particular

community.

To announce online and in-person meetings, press releases were issued to various media outlets statewide 

in Illinois, Indiana and Michigan. In addition, emails were sent to the Program contact list made up of 

agencies, stakeholders and members of the general public.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-44 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table ES-6: Key Outreach Strategies

Topic Summary of strategy

Website The Program’s website www.GreatLakesRail.org is a convenient location 

to learn about the Program, submit comments, review documents and tour 

self-guided online public meetings

Communications An email distribution list is used to send Program updates and meeting 

notices. People can sign up on the website. A toll free number is also 

available (877-351-0853).

Information materials Newsletters and factsheets that explain the Program are posted on the 

website

Meetings and hearings Public meetings were held during the Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement scoping process and during the alternative analysis. Public 

hearings will be held after the Tier 1 Draft EIS is released for public review 

and comment. Self-guided online meetings are also available on the 

website.

Attendance options included meeting in-person or, for stakeholder 

meetings, by dialing in on a telephone conference line and viewing the 

presentation over the internet.

Comments and 

questions

Comments and questions can be submitted via the website or by calling 

the toll free number. Comment periods are also open during each project 

milestone (scoping, alternatives analysis and Tier 1 Draft EIS publication)

Special accommodations With an advance notice of 7 days, MDOT makes accommodations for 

persons with disabilities and/or limited English-speaking ability, and 

persons needing auxiliary aids or services of interpreters, signers, readers, 

or large print.

ES.9.2 Cooperating Agency Coordination

On January 10, 2013, FRA invited 14 federal agencies to become “cooperating agencies”. According to 

CEQ Regulations Section 1508.5, a "cooperating agency" means any Federal agency other than the lead 

agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved 

in the Program, or in the Build Alternatives. States and Native American Tribes may also become 

cooperating agencies.

Cooperating agencies are able to help develop information and do analyses for the Tier 1 EIS concerning 

items under their special expertise. A cooperating agency may also adopt this Tier 1 EIS without 

recirculating it.

Agencies that have agreed to become cooperating agencies for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger 

Rail Corridor Tier 1 EIS include the following:

• Federal Aviation Administration

• Federal Highways Administration
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-45

• Federal Transit Administration

• US Army Corps of Engineers

• US Environmental Protection Agency

• US Fish & Wildlife Service

• US Coast Guard

• National Park Service

The Tier 1 Draft EIS has been issued to all resource and cooperating agencies as well as stakeholders and 

the general public. Comments received from cooperating agencies will be responded to and considered 

during the preparation of the Tier 1 Final EIS.

ES.9.3 Outreach to Native American Tribes

The Michigan DOT worked together with the FRA and the Illinois and Indiana DOTs to compile a list of 

tribes and Native American groups whose tribal ranges include portions of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan. 

A scoping packet was mailed to representatives of each of 42 tribes and Native American groups on 

January 14, 2013. 

ES.9.4 General Public Outreach

A series of public outreach events were held in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan and through online media

at project milestones to inform the public of the project’s progress. Four public scoping meetings were 

held in Fall 2012. In total, 277 people signed in at the meetings. Meeting materials and a self-guided 

presentation were also made available on the Program website and 705 public comments were received in 

total.

Following the Level 1A alternatives analysis, an online self-guided presentation was created and posted 

on the Program website in Spring 2013. A total of 666 comments were received during the public 

comment period. Four public information meetings were held following the Level 1B alternatives analysis 

in Fall 2013. Meeting materials, including a narrated version of the presentation, were posted to the 

Program website. In total, 164 people signed in at the meetings and 691 comments received during the 

public comment period.

ES.9.5 Stakeholder Outreach

The Program identified two stakeholder groups. The first, referred to as third-party communicators, were 

organizations identified in each state that could help spread the word about the Program’s outreach 

opportunities. Third party communicators were personally contacted and asked to distribute Program 

updates and meeting notices to their already established membership lists and networks. Third party 

communicators posted Program information on their social media sites (Facebook and Twitter), in 
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-46 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

newsletters, on their websites and blogs, and in other electronic communications to direct the public to the 

Program website.

The second group, referred to as the Key Stakeholders, brought railroads, railroad advocacy membership 

organizations, and environmental groups together for the purpose of presenting public materials and 

obtaining feedback on the issues unique to these groups. Meetings took place during the scoping process 

milestone in Fall 2012 and during the alternatives analysis milestone in Spring and Fall 2013. A record of 

those groups that attended can be found in Chapter 4.

ES.9.6 Comments Received

Participants were able to comment at the in-person scoping meetings at the initiation of the Program, and 

both on-line and at in-person meetings during the evaluation of route alternatives. The public was also 

able to provide feedback at all times by submitting an online comment form at www.GreatLakesRail.org, 

calling the Program’s toll free number at 877-351-0853, mailing a letter to the MDOT Public Involvement 

& Hearings Officer, or contacting the MDOT project manager directly.

The majority of comments expressed supported for the Program and cited a variety of reasons including 

the need to improve travel times and provide more reliable service. Others felt that the Program would 

improve the environment by reducing automobile use and others felt that improved transportation 

connections would provide economic benefits for the region. Some comments stated concerns regarding 

potential impacts on the natural and physical environment centered on the Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore. There were a vast majority that utilized a standard comment requesting speeds up to 220 mph 

and electrification be considered.

A few people submitted comments that were not in favor of the Program. Some felt that rail investment 

was not a good use of public funding and that the money would be better spent on improving highways. 

Also, some people said they did not support the Program because they were concerned about potential 

neighborhood impacts from trains traveling at 110 miles per hour. Railroad owners expressed concern 

about the impact of increased passenger service to freight operations within shared corridors.

There is a 45-day public comment period for the Tier 1 Draft EIS. Thirty days following the release of the 

Tier 1 Draft EIS, public hearings will be held in all three Program states. Formal notification of the 

release, comment period and public hearings were made by way of legal ads and press releases sent 

through various media outlets. Electronic notices were also sent directly to all contacts in the Program’s 

contact list.

ES.9.7 Future Opportunities to Comment

Federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, stakeholders and the general public are encouraged to comment 

on the Tier 1 Draft EIS. Comments received during the 45 day public comment period and public 

hearings will be collected, reviewed and responded to. 
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-47

Summary reports for public involvement activities held during the scoping and alternatives analysis 

phases of this Tier 1 Draft EIS can be found in Appendix K of the Tier 1 Draft EIS. Reports include a 

general summary of comments received. Detailed lists of all comments received are available on the 

Program’s website at http://greatlakesrail.org/~grtlakes/index.php/site/documents-and-resources. After the 

public comment period closes, a detailed list of the public comments on the Tier 1 Draft EIS and the 

responses to them will be added to the Program’s website.

The public will be notified when the Tier 1 Final EIS is available and when the Record of Decision is 

published. Formal notices will be made by way of legal ads and press releases sent through various media 

outlets. Electronic notices will also be sent directly to all contacts in the Program contact list. Following 

the public hearings, a summary report of the public comments will be added to the Tier 1 Final EIS.
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ES-48 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ES.10 Next Steps

ES.10.1 Tier 1 EIS Actions

After the public hearing phase of the Tier 1 Draft EIS is complete, the Program Sponsors will proceed 

with preparing a Tier 1 Final EIS, which will identify a Preferred Alternative. If appropriate, the Federal 

Railroad Administration will issue Record of Decision (ROD) on the Selected Program Alternative and 

associated programmatic-level mitigation. Additional service development planning details will be 

included in the Tier 1 Final EIS for the Preferred Alternative and in the ROD for the Selected Alternative. 

The Project Sponsors will also prepare a Service Development Plan (SDP) (see Section ES.10.3) for the 

Selected Program Alternative. It is anticipated that once a ROD has been issued, the Program Sponsors

will identify future sections of the Corridor that have independent utility.

ES.10.2 Tier 2 Actions

A high-level discussion will be included in the ROD that will identify Tier 2 actions on a state-by-state 

basis for the Selected Program Alternative. At the conclusion of the Tier 2 Program, the partnering state 

DOTs and the FRA will have several Tier 2 NEPA clearance documents that include an analysis of 

environmental impacts, an analysis of independent utility for each Tier 2 action, alternatives, 30 percent 

preliminary designs (PE) and refined cost estimates for major infrastructure improvements such as 

bridges and other structures, substantial track and signal improvements outside of the existing right of 

way, as well as stations and maintenance facilities for the Selected Program Alternative.

ES.10.3 Service Development Plan (SDP)

The SDP is a critical document, prepared independent from the Tier 1 EIS, which provides a complete 

and concise transportation service plan addressing the economic, operating, and engineering elements of 

the Program. The SDP is the business plan that will enable the FRA and the Program Sponsors to advance 

the Program toward implementation of enhanced Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac higher-speed rail service. The 

SDP will be prepared for the Selected Program Alternative and will provide the details of the passenger 

transportation service including the following items:

• Station stops

• Operating plan and schedule

• Conceptual engineering and costs associated with required infrastructure improvements

• Train equipment

• Ridership and revenue forecasts

• Operating and maintenance activities and costs

• Station and maintenance facility improvements and costs

• Benefit-cost analysis 
Executive Summary

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ES-49

• Financial plan with a pro-forma statement of revenues and operating costs

• Multi-year capital program and implementation plan

• Phasing plan, which details incremental improvements in service reliability, operating speeds, travel 

times, and service frequencies.

* * *
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................ES-1

Abbreviations and Acronyms ..................................................................................................................vii

1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background Information and Prior Planning Activities .................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose............................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Need.................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Program Area of Analysis................................................................................................................ 11

1.5 Decisions to Be Made....................................................................................................................... 11

1.6 Connected Actions............................................................................................................................ 11

2 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Passenger Rail Service Alternative .................................................................................................. 13

2.2 Route Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 25

2.3 Station and Maintenance Facility Opportunities ............................................................................. 57

2.4 Alternatives Evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS .......................................................................................... 59

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences............................................................ 74

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 74

3.2 Transportation.................................................................................................................................. 79

3.3 Land Use......................................................................................................................................... 100

3.4 Agriculture...................................................................................................................................... 105

3.5 Socioeconomic Resources .............................................................................................................. 109

3.6 Title VI and Environmental Justice ................................................................................................ 119

3.7 Public Health and Safety ................................................................................................................ 126

3.8 Noise and Vibration........................................................................................................................ 131

3.9 Air Quality...................................................................................................................................... 144

3.10 Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal........................................................................................... 151

3.11 Cultural Resources and Section 106 Coordination........................................................................ 159

3.12 Section 4(f) Resources.................................................................................................................... 171

3.13 Section 6(f) Properties.................................................................................................................... 184

3.14 Visual and Aesthetic Quality .......................................................................................................... 188

3.15 Water Body Crossings and Floodplains......................................................................................... 195
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

ii | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.16 Water Quality Resources................................................................................................................ 202

3.17 Wetlands......................................................................................................................................... 210

3.18 Coastal Zone Management Areas................................................................................................... 216

3.19 Natural Habitats and Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 222

3.20 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................................. 232

3.21 Energy Use and Climate Change ................................................................................................... 242

3.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ............................................................ 245

3.23 Short-term Use vs. Long-term Productivity of the Environment .................................................... 247

3.24 Indirect and Cumulative Effects..................................................................................................... 249

3.25 Permits............................................................................................................................................ 257

3.26 Construction Impacts...................................................................................................................... 263

4 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination............................................................................. 269

4.1 Outreach Overview......................................................................................................................... 269

4.2 Public Involvement Resources and Communication Tools ............................................................ 270

4.3 Outreach for Public and Agency Scoping Process......................................................................... 274

4.4 Outreach for Level 1 Alternatives Analysis.................................................................................... 279

4.5 Outreach for the Release of the Tier 1 Draft EIS ........................................................................... 285

4.6 Outreach for the Release of the Tier 1 Final EIS ........................................................................... 285

4.7 Outreach for the Publication of the Record of Decision ................................................................ 286

5 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................... 287

5.1. Tier 1 EIS Actions........................................................................................................................... 287

5.2. Tier 2 Actions ................................................................................................................................. 287

5.3. Service Development Plan (SDP)................................................................................................... 287

6 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................. 289

7 References ....................................................................................................................................... 293

8 Distribution of the Tier 1 Draft EIS.............................................................................................. 298

Index ....................................................................................................................................... 301

TABLES

Table 2-1: Total Trips by Mode.................................................................................................................. 16

Table 2-2: Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Service Scenarios...................................................... 19

Table 2-3: Proposed Phasing – Daily Round Trips..................................................................................... 23
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | iii

Table 2-4: Existing and Former Passenger and Freight Rail Routes in the South of the Lake................... 29

Table 2-5: Level 1A Coarse Subsection Screening Criteria ....................................................................... 32

Table 2-6: Level 1A Fine Subsection Screening Criteria ........................................................................... 34

Table 2-7: Level 1B Coarse Route Screening Criteria................................................................................ 37

Table 2-8: Level 1B Fine Route Screening Criteria.................................................................................... 38

Table 2-9: Level 1B Fine Screening Route Alternative Comparison ......................................................... 42

Table 2-10: Proposed Station Improvements Needed for Full Build-out ................................................... 58

Table 2-11: Proposed Major Infrastructure Improvements by Reasonable Route Alternative................... 66

Table 2-12: Capital Costs ($2013).............................................................................................................. 69

Table 2-13: Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs for the No Build and Build Alternative (2035) ...... 71

Table 2-14: Reasonable Service Alternative Operating Statistics 

for the No Build and Build Alternative (2035).................................................................... 72

Table 3-1: List of Social, Economic and Environmental Resources Addressed in this Document ............ 74

Table 3-2: Total Trips by Mode for the Base Forecasting Model Year 2012............................................. 80

Table 3-3: Typical Gate-to-Gate Flight times............................................................................................. 82

Table 3-4: Total Trips by Mode Projected to the Year 2035 for the No Build Alternative ........................ 89

Table 3-5: Total Trips by Mode Projected to the Year 2035 for all Build Alternatives............................. 92

Table 3-6: County Population Counts and Projections............................................................................. 111

Table 3-7: Industry Types and Percentages by State and County............................................................. 114

Table 3-8: Employment Statistics............................................................................................................. 115

Table 3-9: Economic Rent Analysis by MWRRI State ............................................................................ 118

Table 3-10: Summary of Minority, Poverty, and LEP Populations at the County Level ......................... 122

Table 3-11: Total Existing At-Grade and Grade Separated Roadway Crossings by State ....................... 128

Table 3-12: Total Existing Railway Crossings by State ........................................................................... 128

Table 3-13: Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria for General Assessment ...................... 141

Table 3-14: Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas within the Area of Analysis.................................... 147

Table 3-15: Summary of General Conformity Determination 

for the Build Alternatives in 2035 - Illinois ...................................................................... 149

Table 3-16: Summary of General Conformity Determination 

for the Build Alternatives in 2035 – Indiana ..................................................................... 149

Table 3-17: Summary of General Conformity Determination 

for the Build Alternatives in 2035 - Michigan .................................................................. 150

Table 3-18: Build Alternatives – 2035 Estimated Changes in Corridor Air Pollutants 

from Diversion of Passenger Vehicle, Bus, and Plane Trips (Tons per Year) .................. 151
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

iv | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-19: Environmental Databases by Site Type................................................................................. 152

Table 3-20: Number of Hazardous Material and Waste Sites within Area of Analysis ........................... 155

Table 3-21: Count of National Register Listed and Eligible Historic Resources 

within the APE by Alternative .......................................................................................... 162

Table 3-22: National Register Listed and Eligible Historic Resources within the APE........................... 162

Table 3-23: Summary of Numbers of Potential Section 4(f) Properties within the Area of Analysis...... 173

Table 3-24: Public Parks and Recreation Areas within the Area of Analysis........................................... 173

Table 3-25: Wildlife Refuges and Nature Preserves within the Area of Analysis.................................... 178

Table 3-26: Section 6(f) Properties within the Area of Analysis.............................................................. 185

Table 3-27: Summary of Sensitive Visual Receptor Sites........................................................................ 191

Table 3-28: Summary of Waterbodies and Floodplains in the Area of Analysis ..................................... 198

Table 3-29: Major Streams Listed as Impaired within the Area of Analysis............................................ 204

Table 3-30: Summary of Impaired Stream Crossings by County and Alternative ................................... 205

Table 3-31: Types and Acreage of Wetlands within the Area of Analysis............................................... 212

Table 3-32: Major Perennial Rivers within the Area of Analysis............................................................. 213

Table 3-33: Protected Natural Areas and their Habitat Types by County, State and Route ..................... 224

Table 3-34: Summary of Natural Areas within the Area of Analysis by State and Alternative ............... 228

Table 3-35: Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List................................................................. 234

Table 3-36: Build Alternatives – 2035 Estimated Annual Fuel Savings 

from Diversion of Passenger Vehicle, Bus, and Plan Trips (Gallons per Year)................ 244

Table 3-37: Build Alternatives – 2035 Estimated Changes in CO2 Emissions 

from Diversion of Passenger Vehicle, Bus, and Plane Trips (Tons per Year) .................. 245

Table 3-38: Other Railroad Projects within the Area of Analysis............................................................ 252

Table 4-1: Public Scoping Meeting Locations and Dates......................................................................... 275

Table 4-2: Agency Scoping Meeting Locations and Dates....................................................................... 277

Table 4-3: Stakeholder Group Meetings................................................................................................... 278

Table 4-4: Number of Comments by Source ............................................................................................ 279

Table 4-5: Level 1A Stakeholder Meeting................................................................................................ 281

Table 4-6: Level 1B Public Information Meeting Locations and Dates................................................... 282

Table 4-7: Level 1B Alternatives Analysis Stakeholder Meetings........................................................... 283

Table 4-8: Level 1 – Number of Comments by Source ............................................................................ 284
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | v

FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Chicago – Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor................................................................... 2

Figure 1-2: Proposed Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Full System Map................................................... 3

Figure 2-1: Intercity Travel Market Share 2012-2035................................................................................ 17

Figure 2-2: Sources of Rail Trips – Build Alternatives – 2035 .................................................................. 17

Figure 2-3: Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor Annual Ridership Forecast (Millions of Trips) ................. 20

Figure 2-4: Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor Average Annual Segment Loading Factors....................... 21

Figure 2-5: Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor Highest Average Annual Segment Loading Factors ......... 22

Figure 2-6: Route Alternatives Screening and Evaluation Process............................................................. 26

Figure 2-7: South of the Lake Project Area Network ................................................................................. 30

Figure 2-8: South of the Lake Project Area Network – Chicago Terminal ................................................ 31

Figure 2-9: Results of Level 1A Coarse and Fine Subsection Screening ................................................... 35

Figure 2-10: Routes Eliminated during the Level 1B Fine Route Screening.............................................. 44

Figure 2-11: Selected Reasonable Route Alternatives................................................................................ 45

Figure 2-12: Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor ................................................................. 47

Figure 2-13: Route 2 ................................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 2-14: Route 4 ................................................................................................................................... 51

Figure 2-15: Route 5 Option 1 & 2............................................................................................................. 53

Figure 2-16: Route 9 Option 1 & 2............................................................................................................. 56

Figure 2-17: Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor Annual Revenue Forecast (Million $2013) ..................... 73

Figure 3-1: Typical Build Cross-Section within a 100-Foot Right of Way................................................ 76

Figure 3-2: Travel Market Share by Mode for the Base Forecasting Model Year 2012 ............................ 80

Figure 3-3: Existing Amtrak Service in the Midwest ................................................................................. 85

Figure 3-4: Intercity Travel Market Share: Base Year 2012 and No Build in 2035 ................................... 89

Figure 3-5: Intercity Travel Market Share: Base Year 2012 and Full Build-out in 2035 ........................... 92

Figure 3-6: Sources of Rail Trips – Build Alternative – 2035.................................................................... 92

Figure 3-7: FRA Noise Impact Criteria for Higher-Speed Rail Projects.................................................. 134

Figure 3-8: Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed by Criteria (Land Use Cat. 1 & 2) .............. 135

Figure 3-9: Coastal Zone Boundaries within the Area of Analysis.......................................................... 218
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

vi | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

APPENDICES

Appendix A Level 1 Alternatives Screening Summaries

Appendix B No Build List

Appendix C Preliminary Full Build-Out Train Schedule

Appendix D Map Book

Appendix E Ridership & Revenue Forecasts and Operating & Maintenance Costs

Appendix F Demographic Information

Appendix G Emissions Calculations and Fuel Consumption Information

Appendix H Hazardous Materials Report

Appendix I Water Resources Data

Appendix J Threatened and Endangered Species List

Appendix K Public Meeting Summaries
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACHP: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACS: American Community Survey

ADA: American’s with Disabilities Act

APE: Area of Potential Effects

BDE: Bureau of Design and Environment (Illinois)

BGEPA: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940

BMP: Best Management Practices

BNSF: Burlington Northern-Santa Fe

BRC: Belt Railway Company of Chicago

BTU: British Thermal Unit

CAA: Clean Air Act

CEC: Commission for Environmental Cooperation

CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980

CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information 

System

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CN/IC: Canadian National/Illinois Central

CN: Canadian National

CO: Carbon Monoxide

COG: Council of Governments

ComEd: Commonwealth Edison

CP: Canadian Pacific

CP: Control Point

CR: Conrail

CREATE: Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program

CRL: Chicago Rail Link

CSAO: Conrail Shared Assets Organization

CSL: Chicago Short Line

CSS: Chicago, South Shore & South Bend

CTA: Chicago Transit Authority

CTC: Centralized Traffic Control

CUS: Chicago Union Station

CZMA: Coastal Zone Management Act

dB: Decibel

DEM: Department of Environmental Management (Indiana)

DEQ: Department of Environmental Quality (Michigan)

DIFT: Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

viii | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

DNR: Department of Natural Resources (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan)

DOW: Division of Water (Indiana)

DRTs Daily Round Trips

DTW: Detroit Metropolitan Airport

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

EJ: Environmental Justice

EJE: Elgin, Joliet & Eastern

EO: Executive Order

EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

ESA: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (United States)

ESRI: Environmental Systems Research Institute

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration

FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency

FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact

FPPA: Farmland Protection Policy Act

FRA: Federal Rail Administration

FRSA: Federal Railroad Safety Act

FTA: Federal Transit Administration

FWCA: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (United States)

GIS: Geographic Information Systems

HC: Hydrocarbon

HSIPR: High-Speed Intercity Rail Program

HSR: High Speed Rail

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development (United States)

ICMP: Illinois Coastal Management Program

IDOT: Illinois Department of Transportation

IFPA: Illinois Farmland Preservation Act

IHB: Indiana Harbor Belt

INAI: Illinois Natural Areas Inventory

INDOT: Indiana Department of Transportation

INPC: Illinois Nature Preserves Commission

INRGDC: Illinois Natural Resource Geospatial Data Clearinghouse

ISGS: Illinois State Geological Survey 

ITCS: Incremental Train Control System

LWCF: Land and Water Conservation Fund

LEP: Limited English Proficiency

LESA: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment

LMCP: Lake Michigan Coastal Programs
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | ix

LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank

MBTA: Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

MDOT: Michigan Department of Transportation

MEP: Maximum Extent Practicable

MJ: Manufacturers Junction

MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization

MSA: Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSAT: Mobile Source Air Toxics

MWRRI: Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

MWRRS: Midwest Regional Rail System

NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act

NHD: National Hydrography Dataset

NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act

NICTD: Northern Indiana Commuter Rail Transportation District

NO2: Nitrogen Dioxide

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI: Notice of Intent

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL: National Priorities List 

NPS: National Park Service

NRCS: National Resource Conservation Service

NRHP: National Register of Historic Places

NRI: National Rivers Inventory

NS: Norfolk Southern

NWI: National Wetlands Inventory

O&M: Operations and Maintenance

O3: Ozone

OCRM: Ocean of Coastal Resource Management

OGL: Office of Great Lakes

OHWM: Ordinary High Water Mark 

OWR: Office of Water Resources

PA: Programmatic Agreement

Pb: Lead

PM: Particulate Matter

PTC: Positive Train Control

PWEDA: Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROD: Record of Decision
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

x | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

RTC: Rail Traffic Controller

SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SCAL: St. Charles Air Line

SDP: Service Development Plan

SESC: Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control

SEE: Social, Economic and Environmental

SEMA: State Emergency Management Agencies

SEMCOG: Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments

SHAARD: State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Database

SHPO: State Historic Preservation Office

SIP: State Implementation Plan

SO2: Sulfur Dioxide

SOTL: South of the Lake

SWPPP: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

TCP: Tribal Cultural Properties

THPO: Tribal Historic Preservation Office

TPC: Train Performance Calculator

TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act

UP: Union Pacific

USACE: United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCG: United States Coast Guard

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture

USDOT: United States Department of Transportation

USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS: United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS: United States Geological Survey

VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled

WA: Wilderness Act

WALLY: Washtenaw and Livingston Line

WC: Wisconsin Central