APPENDIX K: PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARIES

APPENDIX K: PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARIES

K-0
TIER 1 Environmental Impact Statement

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT 

DECEMBER 2012 REVISED APRIL 2014 

K-1
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

DRAFT SCOPING REPORT | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

2 MEETING OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................ 1

2.1 Agency Scoping Meetings ............................................................................................................................................ 2

2.2 Public Scoping Meetings .............................................................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Online Scoping Meeting ................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.4 Meeting Invitations ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

2.4.1 Agency Meeting Invitations ............................................................................................................... 4

2.4.2 Public Meeting Notices ...................................................................................................................... 4

2.5 Third Party Communications ....................................................................................................................................... 4

3 COMMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Comments by Source .................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Comments by Topic ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Topics Discussed by Agencies .................................................................................................................................. 11

4 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 14

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Agency Scoping Meeting Locations and Dates ................................................................................................................. 2

Table 2: Public Scoping Meeting Locations and Dates.................................................................................................................... 3

Table 3: Third Party Organizations that Posted Public Meeting Information.................................................................................... 5

Table 4: Number of Comments by Source ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Table 5: Comments by Main Topics ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Table 6: Agency Comments .......................................................................................................................................................... 11

LIST OF APPENDICES 

The following appendices can be found at the Program website here: 

http://greatlakesrail.org/~grtlakes/index.php/site/documents-and-resources

Appendix A: Agency Scoping Meeting Materials

Appendix B: Public Scoping Meeting Materials

Appendix C: Press Releases and News Articles

Appendix D: List of All Comments Received

Appendix E: Letters Received

K-2
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 1

1 INTRODUCTION 

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), in partnership with the Indiana Department of 

Transportation (INDOT) and the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), and in association with the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), completed the scoping phase for the Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

that is being prepared for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program (Program). This Scoping 

Report describes the process and summarizes the comments that were received from government agencies, project 

stakeholders, and the public. 

The scoping process as described by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) was completed to 

support the development of the Tier 1 EIS. Scoping facilitates public and agency participation and sets the 

framework for input throughout the development of the EIS. The scoping process for this Program followed the 

scoping guidelines within the CEQ Regulations, 40 CFR § 1501.7, which state that “there shall be an early and 

open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to 

the proposed action.” Under 64 Federal Register (FR) 28545, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 

Section 13(c)(2), FRA requires the use of a scoping process and references Section 1501.7 of the CEQ regulations. 

The scoping process is intended to identify agency and public concerns; clearly define the environmental issues, 

present the range of alternatives to be examined in the Tier 1 Draft EIS; and identify and address related 

environmental requirements of other federal agencies, as well as state and local agencies. Scoping helps identify the 

key concerns of agencies and the public, thereby prioritizing all potential issues and allowing sufficient study of 

those deemed most important. An effective scoping process can help reduce unnecessary paperwork and time 

delays under NEPA by clearly identifying all relevant procedural requirements that need to be addressed in the Tier 

1 DEIS. 

This report will focus on the scoping process and will not duplicate other background information for the Program 

including the Purpose and Need statement and the Alternatives Evaluation Process and Criteria Technical 

Memorandum. The Scoping Report will be summarized within the Comments and Coordination Chapter of the Tier 

1 EIS. The full Scoping Report will also be included in the Tier 1 EIS as an appendix. 

2 MEETING OVERVIEW 

This section describes the dates, locations and attendance at the agency and public scoping meetings. Also, it 

includes a summary of the meeting invitations, the online scoping meeting and third party communications. 

Appendix A includes agency scoping materials and Appendix B includes public scoping materials including 

meeting notices, handouts and presentations. Appendix C shows the press releases and news articles that were run 

by various media outlets regarding the Program and the public meetings. 

K-3
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 2

2.1 Agency Scoping Meetings 

Three agency scoping meetings were held in September 2012 as shown in Table 1. One meeting was held in each 

Program state near or at the same location as the public session. Meeting attendees included representatives from 

local, regional, state and federal government agencies. The conversations with these agencies were essential to 

identifying issues early on in the process and coordinating efforts and resources that are important to the Program’s 

success. In total, 17 agencies were represented at the meetings. Most agencies participated in person, while some 

agencies participated via teleconference. 

Table 1: Agency Scoping Meeting Locations and Dates 

Date Location Agencies Represented

September 12, 2012 

1 - 3 p.m. 

HNTB Chicago Office 

111 N Canal St, Suite 1250 

Chicago, IL 60606 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Unit 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Federal Highway Administration 

Michigan Dept. of Transportation 

Illinois Dept. of Transportation 

Forest Preserve District of Cook County 

September 13, 2012 

10 a.m. - 12 p.m. 

Northwestern Indiana 

Regional Planning Commission 

6100 Southport Road 

Portage, IN 46369 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

US National Park Service, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

Indiana Dept. of Transportation 

Michigan Dept. of Transportation 

Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources 

Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission 

September 26, 2012 

1 - 3 p.m. 

Double Tree Hotel 

5801 Southfield Expressway 

Dearborn, MI 48228 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Michigan Dept. of Transportation 

Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality 

Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources 

Michigan State Historic Preservation Office 

Wayne County Airport Authority 

At the meetings, a PowerPoint presentation was given that provided an overview of the Program; discussed the 

Program’s purpose and need statement; showed the area of analysis for the preliminary alternatives; described the 

alternatives screening process; and discussed the resource analysis methodologies. After the presentation, a 

roundtable discussion was held to give agencies an opportunity to ask questions and identify their interests and 

issues of concern. Several handouts were provided at the meetings including an agency scoping document, a 

handout that summarized the methodology for analyzing the socioeconomic and environmental resources, and the 

Program’s summer 2012 newsletter. 

K-4
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 3

2.2 Public Scoping Meetings 

Four public scoping meetings were held as shown in Table 2. The meetings were open to the public from 4 to 7 

p.m. A presentation was given at 4:30 p.m. and repeated at 6 p.m. In total, 277 people signed in at the public 

meetings. 

The meeting locations were selected for their proximity to the highway and/or bus and rail routes. All facilities 

were ADA accessible. Spanish and Arabic interpreters were provided at the Dearborn, Mich., meeting and a 

Spanish interpreter was provided at the Kalamazoo, Mich., meeting. Interpreters were chosen for these sites based 

on area demographics and the need for interpreters at previous MDOT meetings in these communities.

Everyone in attendance was encouraged to sign in at the welcome table. Display boards and take-home materials 

were provided that summarized the program and the EIS scoping process. Program staff was on hand to answer 

questions. A question and answer session followed each presentation and attendees were encouraged to share their 

comments and concerns at that time or through the written comment forms. They were informed about program 

materials, additional opportunities to provide comments online or via mail, and ways to stay informed.

Table 2: Public Scoping Meeting Locations and Dates 

Date Location Attendance

September 12, 2012 

4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 

Chicago Union Station

Union Gallery Room 

500 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, IL 60661 

88 

September 13, 2012 

4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 

Michigan City/City Hall

100 East Michigan Boulevard 

Michigan City, IN 46360 

78 

September 26, 2012 

4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 

Double Tree by Hilton Hotel

5801 Southfield Expressway 

Dearborn, MI 48228 

67 

September 27, 2012 

4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 

Radisson Plaza Hotel

100 West Michigan Avenue 

Kalamazoo, MI 49007 

44 

Total All locations 277

2.3 Online Scoping Meeting 

A self-guided scoping meeting was provided on the Program’s website at www.GreatLakesRail.org. The online 

meeting provided the same information that was displayed at the public meetings. An electronic copy of the online 

K-5
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 4

meeting was available for download and printing. As of the October 15, 2012, the deadline for scoping comments, 

the website was viewed 1,375 times and the online meeting page was viewed 283 times. 

2.4 Meeting Invitations 

This section describes the invitations and notices that were used to encourage attendance at the agency and public 

scoping meetings. 

2.4.1 Agency Meeting Invitations 

Invitations to the agency scoping meetings were sent to relevant resource agencies in Michigan, Illinois, and 

Indiana. The first invite was a ‘Save the Date’ email that was sent on August 15, 2012. The invitation announced 

the start of the Program and provided the dates of the upcoming agency scoping meetings. 

A second invitation was sent on September 5, 2012. This invitation included an agency scoping document that 

included information about the Program, its Purpose and Need statement and maps showing the area of analysis 

that would be used to develop preliminary route alternatives for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac corridor (Corridor). 

MDOT also made follow-up phone calls to encourage agency attendance at the meetings. 

2.4.2 Public Meeting Notices 

Various types of meeting notices were used to communicate the dates, times and locations of the public meetings. 

Notices included: 

• Flyers - Meeting flyers were created in three languages – English, Spanish and Arabic. The flyers were posted 

on the program website, displayed at train stations and emailed to agencies and stakeholders. 

• E-blasts - Four separate e-blast notices were sent to the program’s master contact list including: a save the date 

invitation, an official meeting notice, a meeting reminder, and a comment due date reminder. 

• Press releases - Media sources in Illinois, Indiana and Michigan were notified of the meetings. 

• Community calendars - Meeting notices were posted on community calendars in towns and cities where the

meetings were held. 

• Social media – MDOT, INDOT and IDOT posted notices on their Facebook and Twitter accounts. 

2.5 Third Party Communications 

Third party communicators were identified to help distribute information about the public meetings. Third-party 

communicators included groups such as chambers of commerce, municipalities, transit agencies, advocacy

organizations, metropolitan planning organizations, municipal leagues and organizations that represent

environmental justice and Title VI populations. 

K-6
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 5

The meeting flyers in all three languages and text for social media were provided to third party groups. The third 

party communicators subsequently distributed the information to their membership via social media outlets, 

electronic newsletters, and postings on their websites and blogs. 

Based on a survey of public meeting participants, emails from third party communicators proved to be an effective 

way to get the word out about the meetings. Table 3 shows the list of confirmed third party communicators that 

helped distribute meeting information. 

Table 3: Third Party Organizations that Posted Public Meeting Information 

Organizations

Active Transportation Alliance,

Chicago, IL 

Illinois Chamber of Commerce Northwest Indiana Regional Planning 

Commission 

Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Riders for Better Transit, Chicago

Chesterton/Duneland Chamber of 

Commerce 

Indiana High Speed Rail Association South Suburban Mayors and Managers 

Association, IL 

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for 

Planning 

Metropolitan Planning Council, Chicago Southeast Environmental Task Force, 

Chicago 

Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, 

Chicago 

Michigan Association of Counties Southwest Michigan Planning 

Commission 

Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, 

Chicago, IL 

Michigan Association of Rail 

Passengers 

Three Oaks Chamber of Commerce, MI

City of East Chicago, IN Michigan Municipal League Town of Chesterton, IN

City of Gary, IN Michigan's Great Southwest 

Sustainable Business Forum 

Transportation Riders United, MI

City of Hammond, IN Midwest High Speed Rail Association U.S. 12 Heritage Trail, MI

City of Michigan City, IN Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail 

Commission 

Unity Foundation of LaPorte County, IN

Federal Railroad Administration Near South Planning Board, Chicago University of Illinois Chicago

Greater LaPorte Economic 

Development Corporation, IN 

New Buffalo (Harbor County) Chamber 

of Commerce 

Urban League of Northwest Indiana

Hoosier Environmental Council, IN Northern Indiana Commuter 

Transportation District 

World Business Chicago

K-7
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 6

3 COMMENT SUMMARY 

This section summarizes the agency and public comments that were received. The comment period for scoping 

ended October 15, 2012. A total of 705 comments were received. Appendix D includes a list of all agency and 

public scoping comments that were submitted during the scoping period. Appendix E shows all the government 

agency and stakeholder organization letters that were mailed or emailed to MDOT. 

3.1 Comments by Source 

Table 4 shows the source of the 705 comments that were submitted during the scoping process. The online 

comment form that was provided on the Program’s website generated 96 comments. Eighteen individuals submitted 

a written comment form at the public meetings. Many of the participants who attended the public scoping meetings 

also asked questions after the presentation or spoke with Program staff directly at the meetings. Sixteen letters were 

sent via mail or email directly to MDOT. 

The Midwest High Speed Rail Association collected comments from their membership and then forwarded the 

comments to the Program team. They generated 575 comments. The vast majority of the comments utilized a 

standard comment that was suggested by the association. Just over 120 comments submitted by the association 

members were customized. The standard comments and the customized comments were all integrated into the 

database and assigned to appropriate categories. 

Table 4: Number of Comments by Source 

Comment Source Number 

Online comment form 96 

Meeting comment form 18 

Letter by mail or email 16 

Midwest High Speed Rail Assoc. members 575 

Total 705 

3.2 Comments by Topic 

The comments were assembled into a database to document and analyze all public and agency feedback. The 

comments were categorized into main topics to identify common themes. Many of the comments contained 

multiple issues and concerns and each topic was classified individually. Table 5 shows the distribution of comments 

by main topic. 

K-8
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 7

Table 5: Comments by Main Topics 

Main Topics Number of 

times mentioned 

Study Process 14

True High-Speed Rail (150+ mph, electrification) 554

Purpose and Need 535

Travel times (speed/reliability) 46 

Schedules (patterns/frequencies) 13

Trains (types, amenities) 19

Stations (new, upgrade facilities) 23

Potential Impacts 36 

Economic Benefits 21

Environmental Benefits 7

Route Alternatives 12

Connectivity (Canada, East Coast, Midwest, Michigan) 33 

Infrastructure (specific improvement areas, grade crossings) 20

Multimodal connections (other transportation facilities/feeder services) 25

Coordination with other studies and projects 20

Funding 8 

Oppose study/project 2

Employment /contracting opportunities for this study/project 4 

Comments by main topic area are discussed below: 

• Study Process – The most common topic that was discussed about the Program’s process was about providing 

frequent updates to the public and stakeholders. A few comments expressed gratitude for the Program website 

and the interactive public scoping meetings. One comment stated public meeting sites should be more transit 

accessible and another comment said the presentation at the public meetings was not geared to the average 

layperson. 

• True High-Speed Rail - The most common comment was submitted by the Midwest High Speed Rail 

Association and many of its members. The comment stated that they support this project and the short term 

goal of 110 mph service. However, they would like the Program to include the needs of 220 mph trains in the 

K-9
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 8

plans especially for the Chicago to Porter, Ind., section. Provisions for fixed-span bridges over the Calumet and 

Chicago Rivers should be included in the planning. Additionally, the new track should be constructed in such a 

way that it can be electrified later and a plan for eliminating all highway grade-crossings should be included in 

the 20-year plan. Other individuals not connected with the association also mentioned the benefits of true highspeed rail and felt that the Program should not preclude future 220 mph service. Some comments mentioned 

planning for speeds as fast as 350 mph. 

• Purpose and Need – Almost all the comments related to this topic were submitted by the Midwest High Speed 

Rail Association and many of its members. As part of their comment they requested that the purpose and need 

be broadened “to more fully address the full potential for high-speed trains to provide competitive travel 

options in this corridor” especially for the Chicago – Porter, Ind., section. Another comment discussed how the 

purpose and need statement should explicitly discuss that the rail investments are needed to make intercity 

passenger rail more cost effective by shorter trip times, greater reliability, better equipment, more attractive 

transportation service, and increased and more balanced load factors. One comment stated that the word

“improved” in the purpose and need was too vague and that stronger language should be used. 

• Travel Times – Many comments discussed the need to improve travel times along the corridor with faster 

trains and more reliable service. This would help make passenger rail service competitive with air and auto 

modes of transportation. Comments often discussed the need to improve service reliability by decreasing 

conflicts between passenger and freight trains. Some comments stated a dedicated passenger rail was the best 

way to avoid conflicts with freight rail. Many individuals suggested they would take the train more often if rail 

travel times could be reduced. 

• Schedules – Several comments discussed ways to change train schedules to improve service. Some comments 

said additional train frequencies should be added including early morning and late evening departures to allow 

same day travel between Chicago and Detroit. Other comments suggested changing the operation of trains to 

provide early morning trains that originate out of Battle Creek or Kalamazoo to Chicago and Detroit. This 

would allow arrivals in the major cities before 9:00 a.m. A few comments suggested running some trains with 

express service that have fewer stops at stations. 

• Trains – Several comments stated new modern train equipment that provides a smoother and faster ride is 

needed for high-speed service. Some comments stated all rolling stock should be converted to bi-level 

equipment for easy boarding and alighting. Train amenities that were mentioned include quiet cars, business 

and first class cars and internet service. Several comments also stated they would like to see baggage service 

reinstated in Michigan and roll-on bicycle service. A few comment said they were disappointed with the recent 

train equipment purchase for the Wolverine service because it did not appear to be aerodynamic and probably 

would not handle curves. Suggestion for train options would be high-speed trains similar to Europe or Talgo 

trains. 

• Stations – New station stops were requested in Ypsilanti, Mich., and Chesterton, Ind. A few comments 

suggested serving many towns along the corridor and providing express and local service. Some comments

K-10
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 9

discussed the need to improve and modernize existing stations. Specific improvements mentioned included new 

signage, better landscaping, adequate parking facilities, expanded waiting rooms and multimodal facilities. 

Several comments stated stations should be ADA compliant and provide level boarding platforms. A few 

comments suggested exploring moveable platforms similar to airlines to serve multiple types of trains. Other 

comments mentioned improving station access to facilitate local economic development. Also, building in extra 

capacity at stations was discussed. 

• Potential Impacts – Potential environmental impacts to water resources, wildlife habitat, threatened and 

endangered species and historic and archeological resources were primarily discussed by federal and state 

resource agencies. Of particular concern are the sensitive environmental resources in the South of the Lake area 

in Indiana. The general public was typically more concerned with noise and vibration levels from the trains and 

the potential for property acquisition. Also, some comments discussed concern about the safety of railroad 

crossings and the safety of fast trains passing through rural/small town communities. Impacts to existing transit 

services and impacts to local street networks/local community connectivity were also mentioned as concerns. 

• Economic Benefits – Many comments discussed the economic benefits of passenger rail service including 

creating design and construction jobs, improving access to job markets, facilitating business travel, encouraging 

tourism and developing a U.S. based train equipment industry. Some comments also discussed how stations 

could help revitalize downtowns by creating a convenient location for businesses to locate. Creating a

convenient passenger rail option was seen as particularly important given increasing highway congestion and 

declining service for air travel under 600 miles. It should be noted that several comments felt more economic 

benefits could be realized with high-speed rail corridors that are designed for 220 mph. 

• Environmental Benefits – Several comments discussed how train travel will benefit the environment by 

decreasing fuel consumption, improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

• Route alternatives – Some comments discussed that route alternatives should be developed to decrease the 

congestion in the South of the Lake area in Indiana. Some comments stated route alternatives in this area 

should avoid the Coastal Zone of Lake Michigan to reduce potential environmental impacts including the

Norfolk Southern tracks that run through the Indian Dunes National Lakeshore. In the Chicago area, the

Norfolk Southern discussed that their route is not appropriate for high-speed passenger rail service because the 

company restricts speeds to 79 mph on joint use corridors. Plus, it is already a very congested corridor. Norfolk 

Southern prefers a contiguous passenger-exclusive high speed intercity passenger rail route through Indiana 

that connects Chicago Union Station with the rail corridor owned by Amtrak in Michigan. Alternatives should 

also consider impacts to Metra where joint use is proposed and where new passenger trains will cross Metra 

lines. The Midwest High Speed Rail Association felt that preliminary routing alternatives presented at the 

public scoping meetings are missing two sections that would be needed to create a truly attractive alternative: 

1) The St. Charles Airline from the Chicago Union Station to the former Illinois Central mainline along the 

lakefront and 2) the former Michigan Central from Kensington to Calumet Park. 

K-11
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 10

• Connectivity – Several comments discussed the need to connect with other passenger rail corridors including 

connections to Ontario, Canada, the East Coast and various destinations in the Midwest. Some comments also 

mentioned expanding passenger rail service within the state of Michigan. This would help reduce the concern 

that the corridor only benefits Chicago. A few comments that expressed interest in expanding rail to northern 

Michigan felt that access to passenger rail should have priority over speed. A few comments mentioned the 

possibility of using a “sealed train” concept to eliminate border delays with Canada. 

• Infrastructure – Some comments mentioned specific areas that would require infrastructure improvements 

including: bypassing Albion, Mich.; minimizing curves in the Chicago area; restoring track at the Battle Creek 

station to reduce conflicts between passenger and freight rail; and restoring the track connection north of New 

Buffalo to allow Pere Marquette service to access the Corridor. Concerns about railroad crossings were also 

mentioned. Some comments discussed safety concerns with the crossing at M52 in Chelsea, Mich., and the

Central Avenue and Lonyo crossings in Detroit. Some comment discussed the need to implement a railroad

crossing program that would prioritize and separate crossings over time. 

• Multimodal Connections – Several comments discussed the need to provide and improve multimodal 

connections with the passenger rail system. Suggestions included making connections to airports and other 

transportation hubs such as Chicago-Gary International Airport, Detroit Metro Airport; Rosa Parks Transit 

Center; Metra, CTA, and O’Hare. Other comments suggested providing feeder rail and thruway bus routes to 

make travel more convenient and to make sure the system is not just Chicago centered. 

• Coordination – Several comments discussed the need to coordinate the Program with other projects and 

studies that are underway along the corridor. The most common comment related to this topic was in regards to 

the realignment of the NICTD corridor in Michigan City, Ind. Several comments expressed a preference for 

NICTD to operate along the Amtrak corridor to avoid two rail corridors, stations and bridge crossings in 

Michigan City. Also, the city of Michigan City is interested in creating a multimodal hub for passenger rail, 

commuter rail and bus transit services. Other studies that were mentioned include the Chicago Union Station 

Master Plan, the Downtown Pontiac Transportation Assessment and the CREATE program. 

• Funding – Very few comments were made regarding funding. A few comments mentioned that state support 

for this Program will help demonstrate the importance of this corridor. One comment stated subsidies should be 

used for rail instead of cars. Another comment mentioned that public transportation systems should avoid 

private investment so they remain public. Another comment felt spending money on rail is not a good use of 

funds because no one will use it; and would make more sense to spend the money on improving the interstate. 

• Program Support – Almost all of the comments that were received were supportive of the Program and the 

possibility of improved intercity passenger rail along the Corridor. The public comments mostly focused on the 

need for improved passenger rail service and the types of benefits that it would bring. The agencies focused on 

NEPA requirements and potential environmental impacts that could be associated with implementation of the 

Corridor. See Section 3.3 for details about agency comments. 

K-12
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 11

Only two comments specifically mentioned they did not support the Program and investment in passenger rail. 

One comment felt improvements to the passenger rail system are not needed because the business community 

relies on truck transportation and tourists prefer to take their cars because they are bringing their family and 

boats. The other comment felt that another study was not necessary because the environmental impact of using 

existing right of way is minimal. 

• Employment/Contracting Opportunities – A few inquiries were made about obtaining employment and/or 

contracting opportunities related to this Program. 

3.3 Topics Discussed by Agencies 

This section was provided to give more detail about government agency comments that were received. A total of 17 

comments were received from various government agencies. A summary of the agency comments are included in 

Table 6. 

Table 6: Agency Comments 

Agency Summary of Key Points Comment 

Source 

Chicago

Metropolitan 

Planning Council 

Support dedicated passenger right of way through Indiana; consider future 220 mph 

service, double track and plan for greatly increased service frequency including hourly 

service. 

Comment form

City of Ann Arbor Supports intercity passenger rail and feels the investment will enhance their community 

and its assets; Encourages modern, well designed and located passenger stations – 

important factors are seamless transfers between local and intercity modes, adequately 

sized stations and parking facilities, traffic mitigation to/from station; multimodal linkages, 

ADA compliance, mobility for aging population;\\Maintain local transportation system 

connectivity – railroad creates physical barrier between city neighborhoods and its 

recreation and environmental assets, maintain at-grade crossings for vehicles and nonmotorized modes. See the city’s Non-motorized Transportation Master Plan. 

Letter

City of Chelsea Safety concerns about high-speed trains in rural communities; Consider grants to assist 

with small downtown decorative fencing; Concerned about safety of M52 crossing - 

would like it to be reviewed. 

Comment form

City of Fort Wayne Supports the program to enhance passenger rail service; Supports route options that 

maximize rail connectivity for other regional communities; Especially support rail system 

upgrades to Chicago-Porter section as all future east-west rail development will depend 

on enhancement through northern Indiana; City currently has no direct passenger rail 

service and sees the Chicago-Detroit program as an opportunity to strengthen federal 

and state support for restoring rail service to Chicago and Detroit and future extensions 

to other major cities including Toledo, Cleveland, and Columbus. 

Letter

K-13
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 12

Agency Summary of Key Points Comment 

Source 

City of Michigan 

City 

Critical to integrate Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac analysis with NICTD/South Shore line study; 

Examine feasibility of one multimodal station in Michigan City. 

Website

City of Ypsilanti Requesting a stop in Ypsilanti; Would like to meet to discuss a station stop. Letter

Forest Preserve 

District of Cook 

County 

Would like a detailed map of proposed routes to assess impact to their properties and 

provide substantive comment. 

Website

Genesee County 

Road Commission 

Would like the alternatives analysis to consider: Varying service design standards 

(speed oriented) and impacts on required additional ROW or whole new alignments and 

their impact on whole social-economic conditions; Look at the potential of improved track 

and service in connecting state routes Pere Marquette and Blue Water; Review cost and 

feasibility of separate track for freight and passenger in corridor or separate corridors. 

Website

Indiana 

Department of 

Natural Resources 

According to the Natural Heritage Program database, the three-county area contains 

numerous rare species and high quality natural areas; A list of nature preserves and 

conservation easements was provided; Staff will provide more specific location data as 

plans develop to help avoid impacts; Provided general recommendations on how to 

avoid and minimize impacts to fish, wildlife and botanical resources and compensate for 

impacts when possible; A mitigation, bank stabilization, revegetation, and/or monitoring 

plan should be development and submitted with any permit applications if required. 

Letter

Metra Address impacts to existing and future Metra service and avoid or appropriately mitigate 

impacts; Consider second double track bridge at 21st Street if Amtrak/NS route from 

Union Station is advanced; Limited ability to accommodate additional trains on the south 

side of Union Station. Union Station Master Plan addresses these issues, which must be 

considered; Metra is managing Englewood Flyover (CREATE-P1) project, which may 

have significant long-term and near-term impacts on proposed routing for ChicagoDetroit corridor; Metra encourages efforts to include all stakeholders including right of 

way owners in the process early and often. 

Letter

Norfolk Southern 

Railway 

NS Chicago line is not appropriate for high-speed passenger service- NS policy restricts 

speeds on joint use tracks to 79 mph; NS supports establishment of a contiguous 

passenger-exclusive route through Northern Indiana; NS supports MDOT’s pursuit of 

high speed rail, but only to the extent it does not negatively impact current and future NS 

freight operations. 

Letter

Omaha Tribe of 

Nebraska 

Interested in project as they believe through historical accounts that some of the project 

extends into their historical lands. 

Website

Southwest 

Michigan Planning 

Commission 

Consider impacts of all jurisdictions; Small and large - the communities of Dowagiac and 

Niles provide opportunities for local people to connect into larger job markets on a daily 

basis. 

Website 

K-14
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 13

Agency Summary of Key Points Comment 

Source 

U. S. 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Include discussion and reference of other NEPA studies completed within corridor and 

supplement with appropriate studies where HSR may have different impacts; The 

purpose and need should address the possibility that this project may be an incremental 

step toward 200+mph service in the future and identify components such as rail 

alignments, curves, rail bed, signaling or PTC that are intended to accommodate higher 

speeds; Locate and plan new rail right of way and station sites for minimal impact, 

include sufficient detail to assure adequate avoidance and minimization has been 

considered; Give full consideration to alternatives that would move HSR routes away 

from congested SOTL, avoiding the Lake Michigan Coastal Zone would reduce 

environmental impacts; Clarify where routes will be single, double or siding tracked and 

fully disclose ancillary construction such as roadway maintenance, at-grade crossing and 

signaling/communications structures; Consider all environmental impacts to determine 

the need for further analysis: suggestions include: air quality and air toxics; water quality, 

surface waters, and wetlands; environmental justice; noise; historic, cultural and 

archeological resources; threatened and endangered species/migratory birds; indirect 

and cumulative impacts; All potential impacts, specific commitments and anticipated 

mitigation ratios, long-term maintenance and adaptive management should be clearly 

discussed in Tier 1 analysis. 

Letter

U.S. Coast Guard Any new infrastructure or modifications to existing bridges over waterways will have to 

be analyzed to determine Coast Guard involvement or permitting requirements; 

Waterways and existing railroad bridges along the southern shore of Lake Michigan are 

some of the busiest waterways with regularly operating drawbridges that the Coast 

Guard deals with; The goal for all stakeholders is for these drawbridges to be managed 

effectively and safely; The addition of more train traffic at these crossings potentially 

adds to the already existing challenges. 

Letter

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

Will consider existing projects (such as CREATE, Indiana Gateway and KalamazooDearborn purchase) part of the No Action alternative. Major concerns with 9-mile eastern 

portion of 29-mile NS right of way through Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. USFWS 

strongly supports alternatives that avoid the NS tracks through this area. Less use by 

visitors/butterflies along CSX tracks from Willow Creek/Portage westward to Broadway in 

Gary. Western Gary/N Clark Rd has 2 State Nature Preserves that need to be 

addressed when considering station location to serve airport. Lakeshore Railroad Prairie 

– no federally listed species found. Impacts to resources for alternative routes that go 

through Hoosier Prairie State Nature Preserve, Ivanhoe South Dune and Swale 

Preserve, Gibson Woods and Tolleston Ridges need to be addressed in Tier 1 EIS. 

Concern about mortality and injury to all wildlife from collision with trains (not just listed 

and candidate species). Evaluate project for impacts to wildlife from high winds, noise 

and vibration. Schedule construction activities to avoid violation of Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act. Several endangered species identified within range of project in all three states. No 

known suitable habitat for Illinois species within the Area of Analysis, non-known suitable 

habitat for some of identified species within Michigan and Indiana area of analysis. 

Letter

K-15
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 14

Agency Summary of Key Points Comment 

Source 

U.S. National Park 

Service 

If any National Historic Landmarks are identified, will be required to comply with Section 

110(f) of National Historic Preservation Act; Stations should meet/exceed ADA codes; 

plan for bicycles on train. 

Website

4 CONCLUSIONS 

The scoping process for the Tier 1 EIS was held between August 31, 2012 and October 15, 2012. The scoping 

process was successful in introducing the Program, establishing communication and obtaining initial comments 

from agencies, stakeholders and the public. Feedback submitted through both dialogue at agency and public 

meetings and written comments provided valuable input on the scope of the Tier 1 EIS. 

Almost all of the comments were supportive of the Program and the possibility of improved intercity passenger rail 

along the Corridor. The public comments mostly focused on the need for improved passenger rail service and the 

types of benefits that it would bring. A large number of comments expressed a desire for the Program to consider 

plans for future 220 mph service, especially within the Chicago-Porter, Ind. section. The agencies typically focused 

on NEPA requirements and potential environmental impacts that could be associated with implementation of the 

Corridor. Only two comments were submitted that did not support the Program. 

Many comments validated that the draft Purpose and Need accurately addressed the reasons for improvements 

along the corridor – improved service, and benefits to the environment and economy. Others commented that the 

Program needed to place more emphasis on coordination with other projects and plans within the corridor. As a 

result, the Purpose and Need statement in the Tier 1 Draft EIS will be modified to emphasize the Program’s 

commitment as part of the MWRRI to coordinate with other activities along the corridor such as providing a direct 

connection to Chicago’s Union Station, incorporating CREATE projects, coordinating with proposed NICTD

improvements (especially within Michigan City, Ind.), and other initiatives being delivered within all three states 

along the Corridor. 

No new alternatives were identified through the scoping process; thus, the input helped validate the preliminary 

alternatives. Valuable information was learned about environmental concerns for some routes, including resource 

sensitivities within the South of the Lake area, potential impacts to freight railroads on some routes, and challenges 

accessing Chicago Union Station. These comments will shape the evaluation of preliminary alternatives and help 

focus the socioeconomic and environmental analysis for the Draft Tier 1 EIS on the most critical issues and 

resources. 

Ongoing agency and public participation is vital to this Program. The input received during the scoping period will 

continue to be referenced during the development and evaluation of Preliminary and Reasonable Alternatives and 

K-16
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | 15

during the development of the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. All comments provided are made part 

of the permanent administrative record for this Program. 

K-17
APPENDIX A 

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | A

Appendix A: Agency Scoping Meeting Materials 

Contents 

• Meeting invitations 

o Save the date invitation, August 15, 2012 

o Official invitation, September 5, 2012 

• Agency scoping document 

• TIER 1 EIS Social, Economic and Environmental (SEE) Impact Analysis 

• Opportunities and constraints map 

• Agency meeting presentation 

 

The appendix materials can be found at the Program website here: 

http://greatlakesrail.org/~grtlakes/index.php/site/documents-and-resources

K-18
APPENDIX B 

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | B

Appendix B: Public Scoping Meeting Materials 

 Contents 

• Meeting flyers: save the date and official notice (English, Spanish and Arabic) 

• E-blast notifications to master contact list 

o Save the date notification, August 16, 2012 

o Official meeting notification, August 31, 2012 

o First meeting reminder, September 11, 2012 

o Michigan meetings reminder, September 24, 2012 

o Comment due date reminder, October 4, 2012 

• Press release (English, Spanish and Arabic) 

• Meeting attendee survey – how they heard about the meeting 

• Public meeting presentation 

• Welcome handout 

• Summer 2012 newsletter 

• Display boards 

 

The appendix materials can be found at the Program website here: 

http://greatlakesrail.org/~grtlakes/index.php/site/documents-and-resources

K-19
APPENDIX C 

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | C

Appendix C: Press Releases and News Articles 

Contents 

• Press releases (English, Spanish and Arabic) 

• News articles 

The appendix materials can be found at the Program website here: 

http://greatlakesrail.org/~grtlakes/index.php/site/documents-and-resources

K-20
APPENDIX D 

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | D

Appendix D: List of all comments received 

The appendix materials can be found at the Program website here: 

http://greatlakesrail.org/~grtlakes/index.php/site/documents-and-resources

K-21
APPENDIX E 

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT | E

Appendix E: Letters received 

The appendix materials can be found at the Program website here: 

http://greatlakesrail.org/~grtlakes/index.php/site/documents-and-resources

K-22
Level 1 Alternatives Analysis 

OUTREACH SUMMARY 

DECEMBER 2013 

K-23
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

LEVEL 1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OUTREACH SUMMARY | 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

1 LEVEL 1A OUTREACH........................................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Self-Guided Presentation .............................................................................................................................................. 2

1.1.1 Online Meeting Notices ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Group Stakeholder Meeting .......................................................................................................................................... 3

2 LEVEL 1B OUTREACH........................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Public Meetings ............................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.1.1 Public Meeting Notices ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Third Party Communications ............................................................................................................. 5

2.1.3 Online Meeting Materials .................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Stakeholder Meetings ................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Stakeholder Meeting Notices ............................................................................................................. 7

3 PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 Comments by Source .................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Comments by Topic ...................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2.1 Level 1A Comment Summary ........................................................................................................... 8

3.2.2 Level 1B Comment Summary ............................................................................................................ 9

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Level 1A Stakeholder Meeting ....................................................................................................................... 3

Table 2: Public Meeting Locations, Dates and Attendance .......................................................................................... 4

Table 3: Third Parties that Distributed Public Meeting Information ............................................................................ 6

Table 4: Level 1B Stakeholder Meetings...................................................................................................................... 7

Table 5: Level 1 – Number of Comments by Source ................................................................................................... 8

LIST OF APPENDICES 

The following appendices can be found at the Program website here: 

http://greatlakesrail.org/~grtlakes/index.php/site/documents-and-resources

Appendix A: Level 1A Meeting Materials

Appendix B: Level 1B Meeting Materials

Appendix C: Level 1A List of Comments Received

Appendix D: Level 1B List of Comments Received 

K-24
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

LEVEL 1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OUTREACH SUMMARY | 2

INTRODUCTION 

This report summarizes the outreach that was conducted for the Level 1 alternatives analysis phase for the ChicagoDetroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program (Program). Public involvement during this phase focused on route 

alternatives for the Chicago to Porter, Ind., segment of the corridor, including the area known as the South of the 

Lake (SOTL). This area is one of the busiest freight rail corridors in the country and contains many possible route 

alternatives. 

The purpose of this outreach phase was to gather input that would help narrow the range of alternatives between 

Chicago and Porter and identify the alternatives that would be evaluated in the Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). 

Outreach for the Level 1alternatives analysis included two main touch points with the public to present the results 

of the Level 1A and Level 1B screening analyses. Section 2 of this report describes the outreach that was conducted 

for the Level 1A analysis that involved an online self-guided presentation and a stakeholder group meeting. Section 

3 describes the outreach that was conducted for the Level 1B analysis that included four public meetings and a 

series of stakeholder meetings. The final section, Section 4, summarizes all public, stakeholder and agency 

feedback that was received as a result of Level 1 outreach activities. 

1 LEVEL 1A OUTREACH 

This section summarizes the outreach that was conducted for the Level 1A analysis. The Level 1A analysis 

included identifying current and former railroad routes used by passenger and freight trains to assemble a “SOTL 

project area network” and dividing the network into 68 subsections that were screened by the Program’s criteria. 

(See Chapter 2of the EIS for more information about alternatives.) An online self-guided presentation and a 

stakeholder webinar were utilized to present information and receive feedback. Appendix A contains all the 

materials and notices that were created for the Level 1A outreach. 

1.1 Self-Guided Presentation 

An online self-guided presentation was created and posted on the Program website for the Level 1A screening 

analysis. The purpose of the presentation was to keep the public informed about the progress of the alternatives 

analysis and to present the results of the Level 1A screening analysis. 

The public was originally notified about the presentation’s availability on the Program website on April 24, 2013. 

The public comment period ran through May 29, 2013 and was extended to June 12, 2013. 

K-25
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

LEVEL 1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OUTREACH SUMMARY | 3

1.1.1 Online Meeting Notices 

The following forms of communication were used to advertise the availability of the self-guided presentation to the 

public, stakeholders and government agencies: 

• Flyer – A flyer was created with information about how to access the presentation and how to submit 

comments. It was posted on the Program website and provided to third party communicators. 

• E-blasts – Two e-blast notices were sent to the Program’s master contact list including the original notification 

(4/11/2013) and a comment due date reminder (4/30/2013). Each e-blast contained a link to the self-guided 

presentation and had information for how to comment. 

• Third party outreach – Third party communicators were sent an Advance Notice of the self-guided 

presentation (4/30/13) and asked to send the notice to their contact lists informing them about the self-guided 

presentation and the comment due date. 

1.2 Group Stakeholder Meeting 

A group stakeholder meeting was conducted on April 29, 2013 as shown in Table 1. The purpose of the meeting 

was to present the results of the Level 1A analysis and seek feedback from key stakeholders such as railroad 

companies and rail advocacy groups listed in Table 1 below. 

Table 1: Level 1A Stakeholder Meeting 

Date/Time Location Stakeholders Represented

April 29, 2013 

10 a.m. to 12 p.m. 

MDOT – Horatio S. 

Earle Learning Center 

Lake Michigan 

Meeting Room 

7575 Crowner Dr. 

Dimondale, MI 48821 

Or 

Webinar 

Battle Creek Unlimited – Battle Creek, Mich.

Council of State Governments Midwest

CSX Railroad

DeCook Government Policy and Strategies (GPS) – Lansing, Mich.

Environmental Law and Policy Center –Chicago, Ill.

Michigan Environmental Council

Michigan Assoc. of Railroad Passengers

Midwest High Speed Rail Association – Chicago, Ill.

National Association of Railroad Passengers

Norfolk Southern Railway 

Right Place – Grand Rapids, Mich.

Participants at the group stakeholder meeting were able to attend in-person or via webinar. In total, 35 people 

participated in the meeting. At the meeting, the Program team presented the self-guided presentation and provided 

K-26
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

LEVEL 1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OUTREACH SUMMARY | 4

an opportunity for participant questions. Invitations were sent as an outlook appointment by the Michigan 

Department of Transportation. The invitation and invitee list can be found in Appendix A. 

2 LEVEL 1B OUTREACH 

This section summarizes the outreach that was conducted for the Level 1B analysis. The Level 1B analysis 

identified complete SOTL route segments between Chicago and Porter, Ind., and screened the routes with Program 

criteria. (See Chapter 2of the EIS for more information about alternatives.) Four public meetings and a series of 

stakeholder meetings were utilized to present information and receive feedback. Appendix B contains all the 

materials and notices that were created for the Level 1B outreach. 

2.1 Public Meetings 

Four public meetings were held for the Level 1B analysis as shown in Table 2. The meetings were open to the 

public from 4 to 7 p.m. A presentation was given at 4:30 p.m. In total, 164 people signed in at the public meetings. 

Table 2: Public Meeting Locations, Dates and Attendance 

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

facilities were ADA accessible. Spanish and Arabic interpreters were provided at the Dearborn, Mich., meeting. 

Date Location Attendance

September 13, 2013 

4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 

Chicago Union Station

Union Gallery Room 

500 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, IL 60661 

92 

September 18, 2013 

4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 

Genesis Convention Center

Lake Room 

One Genesis Center Plaza, 

Gary, IN 46402 

19 

September 19, 2013 

4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 

Porter Town Hall

Main Floor Meeting Room 

303 Franklin Street 

Porter, IN 46304 

23 

September 24, 2013 

4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 

Double Tree by Hilton Hotel

5801 Southfield Expressway 

Dearborn, MI 48228 

30 

Total All locations 164

Figure 1: Public Meeting at Chicago 

Union Station September 17, 2013

K-27
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

LEVEL 1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OUTREACH SUMMARY | 5

Interpreters were chosen based on area demographics and the need for interpreters at previous MDOT meetings in 

this community. 

Everyone in attendance was encouraged to sign in at the welcome table. Display boards summarized the program 

and the results of the Level 1A and Level 1B alternatives analysis process. Participants were able to view the route 

alternatives overlaid on a large aerial image and leave comments by applying post-it notes. A take home handout 

was provided to participants that explained the purpose of the meeting and how to provide comments. 

Program staff was on hand to answer questions. A question and answer session followed the presentation and 

attendees were encouraged to share their comments and concerns at that time or through the written comment 

forms. Participants were informed about program materials, additional opportunities to provide comments online or 

via mail, and other ways to stay informed. The public comment period ran from the start of the original meeting 

notice that was sent on September 4, 2013 through October 28, 2013. 

2.1.1 Public Meeting Notices 

Various types of meeting notices were used to communicate the dates, times and locations of the public meetings. 

Notices included: 

• Flyers – A meeting flyer was prepared and posted on the Program website and utilized for third party outreach. 

• E-blasts - Three separate e-blast notices were sent to the program’s master contact list including: an original 

meeting notice (9/4/2013), a meeting reminder (9/16/2013) and a comment due date reminder (10/17/2013). 

• Press releases - Media sources in Illinois, Indiana and Michigan were notified of the meetings. Press releases 

were provided in three languages - English, Spanish and Arabic. 

• Social media – MDOT, INDOT and IDOT posted notices on their Facebook and Twitter accounts. 

• Third party outreach – Third party communicators were contacted and asked to send a notice to their contact 

lists informing them about the public meetings and the comment period. 

2.1.2 Third Party Communications 

Third party communicators were identified and contacted to help distribute information about the public meetings. 

Third-party communicators included groups such as chambers of commerce, municipalities, transit agencies, 

advocacy organizations, metropolitan planning organizations, municipal leagues and organizations that represent 

environmental justice and Title VI populations. 

The meeting flyers and text for social media were provided to third party groups. Several of the third party 

communicators that were contacted subsequently distributed the information to their membership via email, social 

media outlets, electronic newsletters, or postings on their websites and blogs. Table 3 shows the list of confirmed 

third party communicators that helped distribute meeting information. 

K-28
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

LEVEL 1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OUTREACH SUMMARY | 6

Table 3: Third Parties that Distributed Public Meeting Information

Illinois Indiana Michigan

Midwest High Speed Rail Association Indiana High Speed Rail Association Michigan By Rail

Active Transportation Alliance Chesterton Chamber of Commerce MI Environmental Council

Environmental Law & Policy Center City of Michigan City WaterStory

Crain’s Chicago Business Town of Porter Metromode

City of Gary Mode Shift

NW IN Regional Planning 

Commission 

Save the Dunes

2.1.3 Online Meeting Materials 

The Program website was utilized to post public meeting materials online. This allowed meeting participants to 

review materials after the meetings and it allowed those who were unable to attend a meeting to participate in the 

process. All the exhibits that were on display at the meetings were posted to the Program website along with the 

PowerPoint presentation and meeting summaries. Also, a voice-recorded presentation was posted to the website to 

assist visually impaired individuals and to allow individuals who were not able to attend the meeting to learn about 

the alternatives analysis process. 

2.2 Stakeholder Meetings 

Three stakeholder meetings were conducted as part of the Level 1B public outreach efforts as shown in Table 4. 

The first stakeholder meeting was held on September 19, 2013 with attendance from railroads and rail advocacy 

groups. Participants were able to attend the meeting in-person or via webinar. At the meeting, the Program team 

made a presentation and provided an opportunity for participant questions.

On November 8, 2013 the Program team conducted two stakeholder meetings with the city of Gary, Ind. The first 

meeting was held with the Honorable Karen Freeman-Wilson, Mayor of Gary. The purpose of the meeting was to 

increase understanding within the City of Gary leadership of the Program’s activities and to understand more about 

the City of Gary and how economic development opportunities planned for the Gary area could be recognized and 

potentially incorporated into future decision making. 

After the meeting with the mayor, the Program team met with neighborhood and civic leaders from Gary to develop 

a grass roots foundation for outreach to the larger Gary community. The discussion helped to build an 

understanding of the Program’s purpose and development to date and allowed the Program Team to obtain input 

regarding priorities and considerations of importance to Gary neighborhoods. Participants took a bus tour of the 

local area to get a better understanding of the economic development projects currently underway in Gary.

K-29
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

LEVEL 1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OUTREACH SUMMARY | 7

Table 4: Level 1B Stakeholder Meetings 

Date/Time Location Stakeholders Represented

September 19, 2013 Porter, IN 

and webinar 

CSX Railroad

Environmental Law and Policy Center – Chicago

Midwest High Speed Rail Association – Chicago

November 8, 2013 

9:00 – 10:30 a.m. 

City of Gary

401 Broadway, Suite 203 

Gary, IN, 46402 

Karen Freeman-Wilson, Mayor of Gary, Ind. 

November 8, 2013 

10:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. 

City of Gary

401 Broadway, Suite 203 

Gary, IN 46402 

City of Gary neighborhood/civic leaders 

2.2.1 Stakeholder Meeting Notices 

Invitations for the railroad advocacy meeting were sent by the Michigan Department of Transportation. Both 

meetings in the city of Gary were arranged through phone calls and emails sent by Matti McCormick, Indiana 

Public Involvement coordinator for the Program. The invitation and invitee list can be found in Appendix A. 

3 PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY 

This section summarizes the comments that were received by the public, stakeholders and government agencies 

during the Level 1A and Level 1B screening analyses. Appendix C includes a list of all the comments that were 

received. Appendix D includes all the government agency and stakeholder organization letters that were mailed or 

emailed to the Program team. Letters or emails that were sent by members of the general public were incorporated 

into the list of public comments in Appendix C. 

3.1 Comments by Source 

As shown on Table 5, a total of 1,357 comments were received. The public submitted 109 comments through the 

online comment form, 7 comments were received at public meetings and 22 letters and emails were sent directly to 

the Program team. The Midwest High Speed Rail Association collected comments from their membership and then 

forwarded the comments to the Program team. They generated 600 comments during the Level 1A comment period 

and they generated 612 comments during the Level 1B comment period for a total of 1,212 comments. The vast 

majority of the comments utilized a standard comment that was suggested by the association. 

K-30
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

LEVEL 1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OUTREACH SUMMARY | 8

Table 5: Level 1 – Number of Comments by Source 

Source Level 1A 

Comments 

Level 1B 

Comments 

Online comment form 49 60

Public meeting comment form N/A 7

1-800 phone line 3 4

Letter or email 14 8

Midwest High Speed Rail Association 600 612

Total 666 691

Grand Total – Level 1A-B 1,357

3.2 Comments by Topic 

All the comments that were received for Level 1A and Level 1B outreach phases were assembled into a database 

and analyzed. The following subsections summarize the comments for each phase. 

3.2.1 Level 1A Comment Summary 

Federal Agencies - The Program team received comments from two government agencies for the 1A screening. 

The Ninth Coast Guard District commented that routes running closer to the Lake Michigan Shoreline will be more 

frequently interrupted by large commercial vessel traffic and drawbridge opening. They also requested that analysis 

of the impacts on vessel navigation be included in the study. The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) commented on 

the nearness of the routes to the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and the need to protect wildlife, such as a 

species of endangered butterflies. In addition, they discuss the importance of quiet crossings for local communities 

and wildlife, and that more information will be needed to determine if any national historic landmarks would 

affected. 

Stakeholder groups/Local officials - Stakeholder groups requested to stay informed on the progress of the study. 

The Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail Association commented that the Gary Airport should be considered as a 

station. A comment from the Cook County Farm Bureau regarding the South of the Lake corridor said impacts to 

the natural environments and local communities should be minimized, and the existing rail corridors should be 

utilized if possible. The Ogden Dunes Town Counsel requested to be a part of the study further and offered to assist 

in the planning and implementation of this project. 

Railroads - Comments were received from Metra, CSX and the Norfolk Southern Corporation. Metra emphasized 

the impacts that the enhanced service will have on existing service, including Metra lines that have little to no extra 

capacity for additional rail service and other planned passenger rail routes. Norfolk Southern (NS) said they fully 

K-31
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

LEVEL 1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OUTREACH SUMMARY | 9

support the program’s goals to improve reliability, reduce congestion, and improve the quality of existing intercity 

passenger rail. However, they stated the NS Chicago Line is not suitable for high speed passenger service because 

NS policies restricts joint freight and passenger operations to a maximum speed of 79 mph and it is one of the 

heaviest used freight rail routes in the county. Also, sufficient right of way is not available for a dedicated 

passenger track in this corridor because the existing right of way is limited and needed to meet increasing freight 

capacity. CSX indicated their concerns regarding safety, capacity, compensation and liability. They require that 

trains going over 90 miles per hour operate on separate track; CSX does not have capacity to add a passenger 

service to their rail without effecting freight. CSX recommends reexamining the abandoned corridors to minimize 

the disruption to freight. 

General public comments - The general public comments cover a variety of topics. Overall, there was positive 

support for the program. In discussion of route alternatives, a former railroad employee recommended that instead 

of creating two passenger mains along the south side of the NS mainline from Buffington to Porter, that the NS 

Pine Yard be eliminated. Another commenter favored the line from Chicago to New Buffalo, Mich., south out of 

Gary, Ind., through Chesterton, Ind., Hobart, Ind., Portage, Ind., and onto Michigan City, Ind. Also mentioned was 

routing the segment through South Bend, Ind., and Niles, Ill., instead of using the Amtrak alignment via New 

Buffalo because it could add ridership via the college population of South Bend and Notre Dame. Also mentioned 

was the benefit of having a route that serviced airports, like the Gary, Chicago, and Detroit. 

Other comments discussed true high speed rail, multi-modal connections and funding. Many comments emphasized 

the need to include the infrastructure necessary to upgrade to true high speed rail. Multi-modal comments noted that 

it would be beneficial if riders could load bikes onto trains. In regards to funding, the comments were both positive 

and negative. One comment stated the study is a waste of money, while others in support of the project

recommended additional funding for implementation. 

3.2.2 Level 1B Comment Summary 

Federal Agencies - Comments were received regarding the 1B screening from the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The USFWS was not supportive of the use of right 

of way through the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. They also emphasized the importance of protection of the 

dunes, wildlife, and wetlands. The EPA requested additional information on the stations, routes, and facilities from 

Porter, Ind., to Detroit, Mich. They also requested further information regarding the methodology that was used to 

eliminate routes. 

Stakeholder groups/Local officials – Several comments discussed the need for true high speed rail, the 

elimination of at-grade crossings and the elimination of drawbridges. Other comments mentioned congestion and 

the need to improve the areas where bottlenecks are present. One stakeholder recommended using funding available 

to improve the NS corridor or implementing the project incrementally as funding becomes available. 

K-32
Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program 

LEVEL 1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OUTREACH SUMMARY | 10

MWHSRA - MWHSRA members utilized a standard comment provided by the association. In summary, the 

standard comment stated the South of the Lake corridor between Chicago and Michigan City, Ind., should be 

designed with long-term needs in mind including the potential for future electrification of the corridor and future 

traffic demands from the Chicago-Detroit corridor and expanding service to Grand Rapids, Mich., Lansing, Mich., 

Port Huron, Mich., and other cities in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. 

Railroads - Metra, Norfolk Southern (NS), and CSX all commented on the 1B screening. Metra noted that they 

support the decision to eliminate the use of the Rock Island District and they do not have additional capacity on the 

Metra Electric District. Norfolk Southern requested that the NS Chicago line east of Englewood not be considered 

as part of the DEIS process. They also noted that some of their lines are not appropriate for high speed passenger 

service due to speed restrictions. CSX touched on the importance of safety surrounding freight and passenger trains 

sharing infrastructure with the passenger trains travelling at 110 miles per hour. CSX emphasized the importance of 

freight for the economy and the need to keep freight traffic separate from passenger traffic. 

General public comments- The general public comments covered a wide variety including improving travel times 

with faster and more reliable service. One comment mentioned how trains are rarely on time making the passenger 

rail undependable. Another comment mentioned the need to upgrade the equipment and technology to improve 

service. In regards to stations, one comment said stations should be more pedestrian friendly and have better 

lighting to improve safety. Others were in favor of the program for the environmental benefits such as the 

improvement in air quality and the decrease in fuel consumption. Multi-modal connections were discussed to better 

integrate bicycles and rail transit. 

The two most discussed topics were true high speed rail and route alternatives. In terms of true high speed rail, 

there was support for the possibility to increase projected speeds from 110 miles per hour to 220. Many 

commenters mentioned the importance of being able to electrify the line. The discussion on route alternatives 

discussed which alternative would be best suited for the project and the possibility of adding stops. One commenter 

recommended that the present route not change. A former rail traffic controller commented that the alternative from 

Buffington Harbor Drive to Tolleston in Gary, Ind. had a lot of at-grade crossings which would make faster speeds 

more difficult. Another comment favored using the NICTD alternative because there would be a reduction in public 

and private crossings. Also, some comments recommended the analysis of the IHB Dune Park branch on the east 

side of Gary, which could be used to go from the NS Chicago Line inland. New station stop requests included 

Mount Pleasant, Mich., Lansing, Mich., Windsor, Ont., Flint, Mich., and Chicago O’Hare Airport. 

There were also comments made that were not supportive of the study. One commenter questioned why there is a 

study being done for rail service to Detroit. Another felt that it was a waste of funding and tax money. One 

comment was not in support of trains travelling at 110 miles per hour through their neighborhood. 

K-33