Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 13

2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

This chapter identifies the Alternatives considered for the Program and the analysis conducted to define 

the alternatives. The Route Alternatives encompass the physical infrastructure, track, and right of way 

between Chicago and Pontiac, Michigan, whereas Service Alternatives describe the proposed 

enhancements in train frequencies, travel times, equipment, and amenities. All the Route Alternatives 

support maximum operating speeds, trip times, and frequencies considered for the Service Alternatives 

and likewise the variations in service are not affected by the considered Route Alternatives. While market 

analysis has resulted in definition of a single Service Alternative for the Program, a number of Route 

Alternatives are considered and the service characteristics do not restrict the route selection process.

Section 2.1 defines the one Service Alternative that would enhance train frequencies, travel times, 

equipment, and amenities. The section also describes how the reasonable number of train frequencies, 

train speeds, and the number and type of train stops were developed and verified through ridership 

forecasts. Section 2.2 explains the multi-step process developed by FRA, MDOT, INDOT, and IDOT 

(Program Sponsors) and used to evaluate Route Alternatives including a summary of the Preliminary 

Route Alternatives Screening that was completed prior to the development of this Tier 1 EIS. The 

analysis focused primarily on the portion of the corridor between Chicago and Michigan City, Indiana, 

known as the South of the Lake (SOTL) area. Descriptions of the resulting Reasonable Route Alternatives

(also called the Build Alternatives) for the overall Program between Chicago Union Station and Pontiac, 

Michigan, are explained in Section 2.2.3. A preliminary description of station and maintenance facility 

improvements that may be needed to support the full build-out of the Program in 2035 is included in 

Section 2.3. These preliminary station and maintenance facility improvements will be adjusted and 

updated as a greater analysis of the needs is developed for the Tier 1 Final EIS. Section 2.4 describes the 

alternatives evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS, including the No Build Alternative as well as the Build 

Alternatives and their infrastructure improvements, and estimated capital costs and operating and 

maintenance costs.

2.1 Passenger Rail Service Alternative

Intercity passenger rail service from Chicago to Detroit and onto Pontiac, Michigan currently includes 

three daily round trips (DRTs) on the Amtrak Wolverine Service. In 2011, 503,290 passenger-trips were 

made between Chicago and Detroit using Amtrak’s Wolverine line. The maximum train speed on most of 

this corridor is 79 mph, with the exception of the 97-mile Amtrak-owned section between Porter, Indiana 

and Kalamazoo, Michigan, where passenger trains operate at speeds up to 110 mph. Wolverine trains take 

approximately 6 hours 30 minutes to travel the approximately 300 miles between Chicago and Pontiac, an 

average speed of 47 mph. Annual ridership for all of Amtrak’s Michigan Services traveling between 

Michigan and Chicago (Wolverine, Pere Marquette and Blue Water Services) in 2010 was 739,398 

passengers, an increase of 49.8% from the 493,474 passengers carried in 2000. Comparatively, in a time 

period where Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan have seen a decline or a leveling off in annual vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT), passenger rail has experienced a large increase in ridership within the Corridor.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

14 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

As stated in the Program’s Purpose and Need (Chapter 1), the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac passenger rail 

service is designed to provide a mix of improved travel time and schedule to strengthen the performance 

and attractiveness of rail travel in the corridor. The Program Sponsors sought to assure the right level of 

future investment within the corridor by analyzing reasonable service characteristics. To identify a 

reasonable level of future service, an iterative process was used to evaluate future ridership demands and 

compare those to a range of service alternative scenarios. The ultimate goal of this analysis was to 

determine a reasonable number of round trips per day and train speeds, which would make up the 

Preferred Service Alternative that would be applied to the Selected Program Alternative. The following 

section discusses the analysis that was completed. This analysis incorporated previous planning studies, 

existing track and signal infrastructure, proposed train consists,

22 operating cost estimates, and updated 

ridership and revenue forecasts.

2.1.1 Analysis of Reasonable Service Characteristics

2.1.1.1 Service Speeds

A range of service level speeds within the corridor were evaluated. A speed of 110 mph was identified 

based on estimated costs of implementing the service and the need to provide competitive travel times. 

Speeds below 110 mph will not provide travel times that are competitive with other modes of travel while 

implementing speeds above 110 mph would require closure of roads, costly crossing improvements or 

grade separations at all existing at-grade crossings in order to comply with FRA high-speed rail corridor 

guidelines for grade-crossing safety.23

Additionally, between Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan trains are already allowed to operate at 

speeds up to 110 mph and it would be beneficial for the Program Sponsors to take advantage of the 

route’s existing capabilities and provide consistent speeds throughout the corridor. MDOT is already 

implementing railroad improvements between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan as described in the No 

Build Alternative (Section 2.4.1) that will allow for speeds up to 110 mph. The improvements include 

track rehabilitation, replacement of track ties, turnouts, and ballast, curve modifications and installation of 

Incremental Train Control System (ITCS)

24 and Active Warning Systems at all crossings.

2.1.1.2 Service Frequency

Currently, service frequency in the Corridor is limited to three round trips per day because of capacity 

constraints on the existing route and associated environmental issues/impacts to the Indiana Dunes 

 

22 Train consist refers to the set of locomotives and rail cars forming a complete train. 23 Federal Railroad Administration. High-Speed Rail at Grade Crossings – R&D. 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0103, Accessed April 28, 2014. 24 Incremental Train Control System is a communication-based signaling system overlaid on an existing signal 

system. This is one class of Positive Train Control that was designed to prevent train collisions and overspeed 

derailments.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 15

National Lakeshore, historic properties, wetlands, and noise and air quality concerns related to additional 

service frequencies.

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

additional train 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. The ridership forecasting analysis is included in Section 2.1.1.3 and was used to identify the 

Service Alternative that is analyzed in this Tier 1 EIS.

2.1.1.3 Ridership

Forecasted Growth in the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor

Table 2-1 shows the total number trips by travel mode in the base year (2012) and forecasted year (2035)

for the No Build and Build Alternatives along the Corridor. These projections show that in 2035, with the 

Program implemented, passenger train trips will increase by 2,330,000 riders from the 500,000 riders in 

2012. Comparatively, without implementing the full Program, passenger train trips are projected to

increase by 550,000 trips. The increase in passenger rail trips in the No-Build condition is a result of the 

decreased travel time between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan that will be realized once 

improvements enabling increased train speeds are constructed. Those improvements are discussed in the 

description of the No Build in Section 2.4.1.2.

Figure 2-1 shows the travel market share for each travel mode in 2012 and for the No Build and Build 

Alternatives in 2035. The forecast suggests that implementing the Program will increase the passenger 

rail mode’s share in the travel market from 0.48% to 2.09%. The passenger rail market share under the No 

Build scenario is projected to increase to 0.78%.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

16 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 2-1: Total Trips by Mode

Mode of Travel Total Trips

Base Year 2012

Automobile 99,990,000

Air 2,560,000

Bus 660,000

Passenger Rail 500,000

Total 103,710,000

Projected for the No Build Scenario in Year 2035

Automobile 129,820,000

Air 3,610,000

Bus 820,000

Passenger Rail 1,050,000

Total 135,300,000

Projected for the Full Build-out Scenario in Year 2035

Automobile 128,740,000

Air 3,260,000

Bus 630,000

Passenger Rail 2,830,000

Total 135,460,000

Source: Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., June 2014.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 17

Figure 2-1: Intercity Travel Market Share 2012-2035

Existing Conditions (2012)

No Build Scenario (2035) Full Build-out Scenario (2035)

Source: TEMS Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results, June 2014

A travel mode diversion forecast was performed for the Build Alternatives in 2035 and is shown in Figure 

2-2. A large percentage of the growth in the rail trips are due to diversion from auto, bus, and air trips.

With improved intercity passenger rail service, reliability and amenities, it is projected that approximately

half of the passengers will divert from cars, 6.0% from bus service, and 10.6% from air service. The Build 

Alternatives are also expected to induce demand for the service, accounting for 6.2% of all forecasted 

riders.

Figure 2-2: Sources of Rail Trips – Build Alternatives – 2035

Source: TEMS Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results, June 2014
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

18 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

With the aforementioned increase in travel demand, the intercity travel demand in the ChicagoDetroit/Pontiac Corridor is projected to increase by 30 percent in 2035 from nearly 104 million annual 

person trips25 in 2012 to approximately 135 million annual person trips. A more efficient intercity 

transportation system is needed to accommodate the growing intercity travel market. Additional 

information on the ridership forecasts can be found in Appendix E.

Iterative Ridership Scenarios Evaluated

The Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) plan for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail 

Corridor originally intended to increase service from three round trips to six round trips per day operating 

at a speed of up to 110 mph. However, additional analysis has been completed to reassess service needs. 

As indicated in Section 2.1.1.2, to identify the appropriate level of service needed to meet the purpose and 

need and accommodate the anticipated future growth within the corridor, the following range of options 

were evaluated to identify a reasonable service alternative to apply to the Preferred Route Alternative:

• Base Scenario which is meant to reflect current travel market conditions

• Scenario 1 which provides for three daily round trips and improved travel times

• Scenario 2 which provides six daily round trips and improved travel times

• Scenario 3 which provides for ten daily round trips from Chicago to Detroit with seven daily round 

trips from Detroit to Pontiac, Michigan and improved travel times

Table 2-2 provides the underlying assumptions included in the ridership forecasting analysis for the four 

passenger rail service scenarios that were studied. The “Base Scenario” represents the current ChicagoPontiac, Michigan rail service that provides three DRTs and assumes a travel time of six hours and forty 

minutes. In addition, the Base Scenario uses the current fuel price and highway travel time in the 

forecasts. Therefore, it produces the baseline passenger rail demand forecast by assuming that the current 

travel market conditions will continue in the future.

“Scenario 1” provides three DRTs and assumes the travel time from Chicago to Pontiac, Michigan is 

shortened by one hour as funded infrastructure improvements are implemented between Kalamazoo and 

Dearborn, Michigan. “Scenario 2” provides six DRTs and assumes the travel time from Chicago to 

Pontiac, Michigan is the same as that of Scenario 1. “Scenario 3” provides ten DRTs from Chicago to 

Detroit and seven DRTs from Detroit to Pontiac, Michigan and assumes the travel time from Chicago to 

Pontiac, Michigan is five hours and sixteen minutes as all infrastructure improvements described in the 

full build-out are assumed to be constructed. Each of the build scenarios also considers projected 

congestions and increased energy prices.

 

25 A person trip is a trip made by one person in any mode of transportation.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 19

Table 2-2: Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Service Scenarios

Scenario Daily Round Trips 

(DRT)

Average 

Speed 

(miles/hour)

Run Time 

(hr:mm) 

(ChicagoPontiac)

Base Scenario

(Current Travel Market 

Conditions)

3 46 6:40

Scenario 1

(3 DRTs and Improved 

Travel Time)

3 55 5:40

Scenario 2

(6 DRTs and Improved 

Travel Time)

6 55 5:40

Scenario 3

(10 DRTs and Improved 

Travel Time)

10 (Chicago-Detroit)

7 (Detroit-Pontiac) 58 5:16

Ridership Scenario Results

Once all the inputs and data were assembled, the ridership model was reviewed and adjusted as needed to 

match existing conditions. This entailed applying the ridership model to the existing conditions and 

adjusting it so that it accurately forecasts the actual current ridership volumes. Ridership forecasts were 

then developed for years 2025 and 2035 to help identify potential interim and full build-out service needs 

and are based on the service scenarios described in Table 2-2.

Figure 2-3 illustrates the increase in ridership across time and as frequency and average speed is 

increased. The ridership forecasts indicate that under the Base Scenario, ridership is expected to increase 

to 0.58 million in 2025 and 0.66 million in 2035. The Base Scenario represents the baseline rail ridership 

forecast if today’s travel market characteristics including fuel price and highway travel time remain 

constant into the future. Therefore, all incremental ridership under the Base Scenario is only based on 

socioeconomic growth.

Under Scenario 1 conditions (three DRTs and improved travel time), ridership is forecasted to increase to 

0.9 million rail trips in 2025 and 1.05 million in 2035. The increase in rail ridership can be attributed to 

improved travel time and inclusion of fuel price and highway congestion in the demand forecast model. 

The Scenario 2 (six DRTs and improved travel time) forecast indicates that ridership is anticipated to 

increase to 1.64 million trips in 2025 and 1.91 million trips in 2035. The increase in incremental rail 

ridership as compared to Scenario 1 can be credited to improved train frequency and a more convenient 

schedule given three additional DRT’s. Scenario 3, which has ten DRTs between Chicago and Detroit and 

seven DRTs from Detroit to Pontiac, Michigan and the quickest travel time, anticipate ridership to 

increase to 2.43 million trips in 2025 and 2.83 million trips in 2035.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

20 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 2-3: Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor Annual Ridership Forecast (Millions of Trips)

Source: TEMS Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results, June 2014

For each of the three scenarios, a rail seat capacity analysis was also completed. Figure 2-4 shows the 

forecasted average annual segment (station stop to station stop) loading factors for each service scenario 

in the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor. Average annual segment loading factors represent the average 

peak train load compared to a train’s total seat capacity. The average annual segment loading factors vary 

between each station stop due to passengers boarding or departing the train and are used within 

transportation planning forecasts to identify when a service reaches capacity and as a result travelers may 

seek other less congested options. The following train equipment was used to develop the total seat 

capacity of a single trainset which was used to develop the average annual segment loading factors.

• 2 P-42 Locomotives

• 4 Bi-level cars – 89 seats/car

• 1 Bi-level cab/baggage car – 74 seats

• 1 Bi-level café/business car – 33 seats

TOTAL – 2 locomotives, 6 cars, 463 seats
Figure 2-4: Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor Average Annual Segment Loading Factors 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

22 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

As indicated in Figure 2-4, passenger rail services with average annual segment loading factors higher 

than 75% cannot guarantee that all passengers can have a seat during peak operation hours if there is no 

reservation system available. The figure also shows that Scenario 3 (ten DRTs from Chicago to Detroit 

with seven DRTs from Detroit to Pontiac, Michigan and improved travel time) is the only service 

scenario in 2035 with average annual segment loading factors less than 75% throughout the entire 

corridor, indicating that it is the only service scenario that can guarantee seating to all forecasted travelers.

Figure 2-5 shows the highest average annual segment loading factor in each service scenario compared to 

the capacity limit of 75%. The figure indicates that the highest average annual segment loading under the 

Base Scenario is 55% in 2025 and 65% in 2035. However, three DRTs do not meet the Program’s 

purpose of increasing frequency to provide greater passenger comfort and convenience.

The highest average annual segment loading under Scenario 1 is 86% in 2025 and 101% in 2035, 

indicating that three DRT’s at higher speeds cannot accommodate forecasted ridership increases in 2025 

and 2035. The decrease in available capacity between the Base Scenario and Scenario 1 can be attributed 

to improved travel time, fuel price projections, and projected increases in highway congestion.

Since unreserved seating is proposed for future train operations within the corridor, it is necessary to 

implement Scenario 2 in 2025 in order to reduce the highest average annual segment loading factor to 

70%. However again in 2035, the highest average annual segment loading factor for Scenario 2 will reach 

82%, 7% higher than the seat capacity limit in peak hours. Therefore, there is a need to increase train 

frequency under Scenario 3 to ten DRTs from Chicago to Detroit with seven DRTs between Detroit and 

Pontiac, Michigan in 2035 to provide satisfactory seat capacity. If Scenario 3 is implemented in 2035, the 

highest average annual segment loading factor in the corridor will be 66%, which is below the seat 

capacity limit of 75%.

Figure 2-5: Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor Highest Average Annual Segment Loading Factors

Source: TEMS Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results, June 2014

55%

86%

70%

57%

64%

101%

82%

66%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Base Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Highest Average Segment Loading 

Factor

2025

2035

Capacity Limit 75%
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 23

The ridership analysis supports the implementation of Scenario 3 which provides ten daily round trips 

between Chicago and Detroit with seven daily round trips continuing to Pontiac, Michigan at speeds up to 

110 mph and is the most reasonable alternative to achieve the Program’s purpose and need. Additional 

details on the ridership analysis completed to support these findings are found in Appendix E.

2.1.2 Identification of Service Alternative

The ridership analysis supports the implementation of Scenario 3 which provides ten DRTs between 

Chicago and Detroit with seven DRTs continuing to Pontiac, Michigan at speeds up to 110 mph and is the 

most reasonable alternative to achieve the Program’s purpose and need. As such, Scenario 3 has been 

selected as the Full Build-out Service Alternative to carry forward for full implementation in 2035 and to 

be analyzed in this Tier 1 EIS.

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 2-3. 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 2-3: 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

Under the full build-out, the Build Alternatives in the SOTL are envisioned to have capacity to 

accommodate up to 56 Midwest corridor trains with service to Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Cincinnati in 

addition to the Michigan services as well as six Amtrak long distance trains. Constructing a dedicated 

double track alignment in the SOTL is a vital infrastructure goal (described in detail in Section 2.2) to 

meet the Program’s purpose and need and to accommodate 56 Midwest corridor trains on a common 

SOTL passenger alignment. The proposed MWRRS Plan indicates that services to Cleveland, 

Indianapolis, and Cincinnati would join the proposed Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac route in northwest

Indiana.26

 

26 Midwest Regional Rail initiative Project Notebook. June 2004.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

24 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The proposed Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac route would serve the Pere Marquette service between Chicago 

Union Station and Kalamazoo, Michigan (with final destination to Grand Rapids/Holland, Michigan) and 

the Blue Water service between Chicago Union Station and Battle Creek, Michigan (with final destination 

to Port Huron, Michigan). Existing Pere Marquette and Blue Water services provide one daily round trip 

to their respective destinations. Under the MWRRS Plan, the frequencies for both lines are anticipated to 

be increased. The Pere Marquette Service would include three daily round trips traveling between 

Chicago and Holland, Michigan and one daily round trip between Kalamazoo, Michigan and Holland, 

Michigan. Frequencies on the Blue Water Service plan to include one daily round trip between Chicago 

and Port Huron, Michigan and three daily round trips between Battle Creek, Michigan and Port Huron, 

Michigan.27 These anticipated improvements to the Michigan branch lines will require their own planning 

study to determine the final route and service alternatives.

2.1.2.1 Travel Time

Currently, the travel time between Chicago and Detroit is 5 hours and 38 minutes, with approximately an 

additional hour of travel 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.

The preliminary schedule in Appendix C indicates that express travel time between Chicago and Detroit 

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

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

Chicago and Detroit.

The train schedule will be updated to reflect the time savings gained from the infrastructure 

improvements in the SOTL once a Preferred Alternative is identified and all of the proposed 

infrastructure improvements for the Corridor are confirmed with additional engineering analysis.

2.1.2.2 Equipment

In order to increase frequency, reliability, and decrease travel times in the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac 

Corridor, new equipment will be required. Amtrak presently uses traditional single level passenger cars 

and P-42 locomotives on trains in the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor. Purchases of equipment for the 

existing and enhanced services in the Corridor are now under development by the Michigan, Missouri, 

and Illinois DOTs and 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.28 The 

 

27 Midwest Regional Rail initiative Project Notebook. June 2004. 28 The precise technical specifications and performance data for the new NGEC locomotives was not available for 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor service planning at the time of the development of this Tier 1 EIS, so it was 

assumed that the locomotives for the proposed service will be similar to the locomotives powering existing 
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 25

equipment – locomotives and conventional, non-tilting bi-level passenger coaches – will be capable of 

operating at the 79 and 110 mph speeds explored for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac service, and 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.

In 2011, a multi-state procurement of 130 of the standardized PRIIA bi-level passenger cars for use on 

existing and projected passenger rail corridors in the Midwest (including Michigan) and on the West 

Coast. As part of the Midwest coalition, Michigan will receive a yet-unconfirmed number of these cars, 

some of which will be used for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor. Additional bi-level equipment 

constructed to identical specifications would be necessary to support possible extensions of the service 

and train frequency increases between Chicago and Detroit, thus requiring a subsequent car order.

The new cars will be manufactured under a “100 percent Buy America” plan and are anticipated for 

delivery in stages during 2016-2023. The accompanying advanced diesel-electric locomotives will be 

capable of maximum speeds of up to 125 mph and will comply with new Federal Tier 4 emissions 

standards. Approximately 35 locomotives will be acquired in a separate agreement.

2.1.2.3 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.

2.2 Route Alternatives

This section describes the iterative and open identification and evaluation of the Route Alternatives that 

included input from the Program Sponsors as well as stakeholders, resources agencies, and the public. 

The purpose of this screening process was to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate the Reasonable

Route Alternatives consistent with CFR Part 1502.14 of the CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA. 

The No Build Alternative and the Reasonable Route Alternatives (Build Alternatives) were developed 

based on the results of the Screening process and carried forward to the Tier 1 NEPA analysis.

2.2.1 Route Alternative Screening

Due to the complexity of engineering and environmental issues that exist within the Corridor, three levels 

of screening are being employed in the evaluation of the Route Alternatives. The three levels of analysis

include a Level 1 screening of the Preliminary Route Alternatives, a Level 2 analysis of the Reasonable 

 

intercity and corridor-service Amtrak trains and commuter trains nationwide. Each trainset will have a locomotive 

on each end.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

26 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Route Alternatives, and a Level 3 screening that will identify the Preferred Alternative. The three levels 

of screening will be used to identify a Selected Program Alternative in the ROD and carried forward to 

the Tier 2 NEPA analysis. Figure 2-6 illustrates the screening and evaluation process.

Figure 2-6: Route Alternatives Screening and Evaluation Process

2.2.1.1 Level 1 Screening

The Route Alternatives evaluation process focused primarily on the portion of the corridor between 

Chicago, Illinois and Michigan City, Indiana, known as the South of the Lake (SOTL) area. For the 

remainder of the corridor, from Michigan City, Indiana to Pontiac, Michigan, the existing passenger rail 

route has been determined to be the only reasonable route. This determination was based on several 

factors, including the fact that the majority of the existing route is already under the ownership of entities 

actively supportive of intercity passenger rail development (Amtrak from Michigan City, Indiana to 
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 27

Kalamazoo, Michigan, and MDOT between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan), the fact that major

investments have been and are continuing to be made on the Michigan City, Indiana to Dearborn, 

Michigan portion of the existing route to accommodate higher speeds and frequencies for passenger 

trains, and the fact that no existing or historical rail routes other than the existing passenger rail route 

directly connect the major population and employment centers of southern Michigan. Based on this 

determination, the existing route between Michigan City, Indiana and Pontiac, Michigan will be analyzed 

in this Tier 1 EIS as a part of each Reasonable Route Alternative, the variations between which will be 

limited to the SOTL area of the corridor.

As such, the Level 1 Screening was used to develop and identify, from an expansive group of Preliminary 

Route Alternatives, all reasonable routes within the SOTL area, while screening out routes which were 

determined to be unreasonable based on factors such as physical infeasibility, likely environmental 

impacts, and failure to meet the purpose and need for the Program. These Reasonable Route Alternatives 

have been carried forward for analysis under the Level 2 Analysis.

2.2.1.2 Level 2 Analysis

The Reasonable Route Alternatives identified through Level 1 Screening have been examined in more 

detail as part of the Level 2 Analysis, which evaluates the entire Corridor from Chicago Union Station to 

Pontiac, Michigan, and includes additional planning and engineering of the Reasonable Route 

Alternatives and consideration of public, stakeholder, and resource agency input. This Level 2 Analysis 

has been used to develop this Tier 1 EIS and will be used in development of the Alternatives Analysis 

Report. This Tier 1 EIS evaluates the No Build Alternative along with the Reasonable Route Alternatives 

which are considered the Build Alternatives. The analysis of the No Build Alternative and each Build 

Alternative and input from stakeholders, resource agencies, and the public will be used in coordination 

with the Alternatives Analysis Report and the Level 3 analysis to identify the Preferred Alternative.

2.2.1.3 Level 3 Screening

The Level 3 Screening will be used to narrow the Reasonable Route Alternatives to the Preferred 

Alternative and will be reported in the Tier 1 Final EIS. The screening will reflect stakeholder, agency, 

and public input provided on the Tier 1 Draft EIS and any additional analysis to address comments. The

FRA will make a decision on the Program and Route Alternative in the Record of Decision. The Selected 

Program Alternative will be carried forward for phased implementation including multiple Tier 2 NEPA 

studies as needed for the phased progression to the full build-out.

2.2.2 Level 1 Preliminary Route Alternatives Screening Summary

Preliminary Route Alternatives within the SOTL were developed around existing passenger and freight 

railroad corridors that are primarily based on routes that are currently or have previously been used by 

passenger rail service across northern Indiana and into Chicago. Entirely new construction on a new right 

of way (a greenfield route) was determined to be unreasonable because the impacts to the natural and 

human environments was too great when compared to expanding capacity on existing or vacant railroad
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

28 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

right of way. Additionally, developing a greenfield corridor in the heavily populated SOTL corridor 

would require costly right of way acquisition.

The methodology for screening alternatives consisted of developing screening criteria and performing the 

screening process. The Level 1 Screening was split into two primary iterations – Level 1A and Level 1B 

screenings – to understand the opportunities and constraints of the existing rail network in the SOTL and 

to eliminate alternatives that could not meet the Program’s purpose and need or were burdened by major 

challenges, including engineering feasibility, operational feasibility, extensive property acquisition, or 

impacts to parks, such as the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and Woodland Park in Portage, Indiana. 

Each primary screening level also included a coarse and fine level of investigation. A set of screening 

criteria was developed at each step in the analysis and was used to determine which subsections or routes 

to dismiss from further consideration.

2.2.2.1 Level 1A Subsection Screening

The Level 1A Subsection Screening focused on the reasonableness of route subsections in the “South of 

the Lake Project Area Network,” and included both a coarse-level and fine-level of screening. The coarse 

screening was a qualitative exercise to eliminate from further analysis those subsections that did not meet 

the purpose and need or were burdened with major and clearly identifiable challenges. The fine level 

screening provided new analysis of quantifiable data to help identify additional subsections that would not 

be reasonable to include in a Route Alternative, with the remaining subsections being advanced to the 

Level 1B Screening.

Development of Subsections

The Level 1A Subsection Screening began with the definition of the SOTL Project Area Network, which

was developed from concepts presented by the public and agencies during the scoping period and by 

identifying existing and former passenger routes in the Corridor, of which many are now freight routes 

controlled by various operators that include:

• The Belt Railway Company of Chicago

• BNSF Railway Company

• Canadian National Railway Company

• Chicago Rail Link

• Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad

• CSX Transportation

• Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company

• Norfolk Southern Railway

The existing and former passenger routes presented in Table 2-4 along with all reasonable freight and 

abandoned rail connections were overlaid on a map to define the SOTL Project Area Network. 
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 29

The SOTL Project Area Network was then divided into 68 distinct subsections, with a subsection being 

defined as a portion of the network with termini (referred to as “nodes”) located where two or more of the 

Project Area Network’s existing and former passenger routes intersect. A subsection terminus could also 

be defined at a passenger station. These subsections formed the basis of the Level 1A Subsection 

Screening Analysis.

Figure 2-7 shows a map of the overall SOTL Project Area Network, with additional detail of the Chicago 

terminal area in Figure 2-8. These maps include labeling all of the subsections and nodes that were

defined within the SOTL Project Area Network. Additional information on the SOTL Project Area 

Network can be found in Appendix A.

Table 2-4: Existing and Former Passenger and Freight Rail Routes in the South of the Lake

Passenger and Freight Rail Operator Former/Existing*

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) Existing

Amtrak (New York Central Railroad) Existing (Former)

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Former

Pennsylvania Railroad Former

Wabash Railroad Former

Michigan Central Railroad Former

Grand Trunk Western Former

Note: Many of these routes are currently active freight routes
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

30 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 2-7: South of the Lake Project Area Network
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 31

Figure 2-8: South of the Lake Project Area Network – Chicago Terminal
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

32 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Level 1A Coarse Subsection Screening

Methodology and Criteria

The methodology for screening subsections consisted of developing screening criteria and performing the 

screening process. For each of the 68 subsections identified in the SOTL Project Area Network, a 

description of known physical, operational, and environmental constraints was provided based on the 

criteria presented in Table 2-5. A pass/fail screening approach was applied to all subsections to determine 

the reasonableness of each subsection. Reasonable subsections moved on to the Level 1A Fine Subsection 

Screening.

Table 2-5: Level 1A Coarse Subsection Screening Criteria

Criteria Factors

Physical Constraints

• Right of way width can accommodate the addition of two dedicated 

passenger tracks

• Curvature

• Circuitousness 

• Grades

• Rail abandonments

• Encroachments on non-rail right of way

Operational Conflicts • Volume of freight and passenger traffic

• Freight conflicts such as yards, diamonds29, and dispatch changes30

Termini

• Any terminating subsection should utilize Chicago Union Station or 

have a logical connection to Porter/Michigan City, Indiana consistent 

with the Program’s purpose and need

Orphan Subsection

• Any subsection that precludes a connection between Chicago Union

Station and Porter/Michigan City, Indiana due to the failure of other 

connecting subsections

Environmental Impacts • Substantial statutory restrictions on environmentally protected 

resources that would prevent passenger rail development or use.

Screening Results

Of the 68 subsections that were initially defined, a total of 51 passed on to the Level 1A Fine Subsection 

Screening. The 17 failing subsections were determined to be unreasonable based on the criteria in Table 

2-5 and therefore eliminated from further analysis. Figure 2-9 illustrates the results of the Level 1A 

 

29 A diamond is an at-grade crossing where one railroad crosses another railroad. 30 A dispatch change is the handing off of dispatch responsibilities for a train from one train operator to another. 

Dispatch responsibilities include the facilitation of train movements over an assigned territory.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 33

Coarse Subsection Screening. More detailed rationale for the dismissal of subsections in the Level 1A 

Coarse Subsection Screening can be found in Appendix A.

Level 1A Fine Subsection Screening

Methodology and Criteria

Under the Level 1A Fine Subsection Screening, the 51 subsections that passed the Level 1A Coarse 

Subsection Screening underwent further analysis in order to identify those subsections to be carried 

forward to the Level 1B Route Screening (See Figure 2-6). As was done in the coarse screening, a 

description of known physical, operational, and environmental factors was provided in the Level 1A Fine 

Subsection Screening, however with greater detail based on additional evaluation criteria. The 

environmental criteria developed for the Level 1 Screening process were used to gain a broad 

understanding of the potential for environmental impacts. Table 2-6 lists the Level 1A Fine Subsection 

Screening evaluation criteria.

A pass/fail screening approach was applied to all subsections to determine the reasonableness of each 

subsection. The passing subsections moved on to the Level 1B Route Screening to be assembled into 

routes and analyzed further.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

34 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 2-6: Level 1A Fine Subsection Screening Criteria

Criteria Factors

Purpose and Need • Ability to provide a direct connection to Chicago Union Station

• Ability to minimize conflicts between passenger and freight

Physical Characteristics

• Width of existing right of way

• Number of main tracks within the right of way

• Number of curves greater than 1 degree 30 minutes

• Number of existing at-grade crossings

• Physical obstructions

• Encroachments on non-rail right of way

Operational Feasibility

• Number of diamonds and the corresponding freight traffic

• Number of conflicting train yards

• Volume of freight and passenger traffic

• Number of movable bridges

• Ability to provide two dedicated passenger tracks between Chicago 

Union Station and Porter/Michigan City, Indiana

• Operational Issues

• Ability to implement

Environmental Constraints

• Hazardous waste and contaminated sites

• Threatened and endangered species

• Section 4(f) resources, including all publicly owned public parks, 

recreation areas, and wildlife or waterfowl refuges as well as 

publicly or privately owned historic sites listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

• Water body crossings and floodplains

• Section 6(f) resources which include public recreational facilities that 

have received funds for development from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund.

• Potential direct impacts to adjacent residential/commercial 

properties

Screening Results

Of the 51 subsections, a total of 38 were carried forward to the next step, the Level 1B Coarse Route 

Screening. Thirteen subsections were determined to be unreasonable based on the criteria in Table 2-6

and were therefore eliminated from further analysis. Figure 2-9 illustrates the results of the Level 1A Fine 

Subsection Screening and indicates the rail lines to be analyzed in the Level 1B Route Screening. The 

rationale for the dismissal of subsections in the Level 1A Fine Subsection Screening can be found in

Appendix A.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 35

Figure 2-9: Results of Level 1A Coarse and Fine Subsection Screening
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

36 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2.2.2.2 Level 1B Route Screening

The Level 1B Route Screening process shifted the focus from the analysis of individual subsections 

within the SOTL Project Area Network, to end-to-end routes assembled from the 38 subsections which 

were advanced out of Level 1A Fine Subsection Screening. Similar to the Level 1A Subsection 

Screening, the Level 1B Route Screening consisted of a coarse-level and fine-level screening. The Level 

1B Route Screening was used to identify the Reasonable Route Alternatives that are analyzed further in 

this Tier 1 EIS.

Development of Routes

Based on the 38 subsections that passed the Level 1A Fine Subsection Screening, 85 Preliminary Route 

Alternatives were assembled, representing every possible combination of subsections that provided a 

viable connection between Chicago Union Station and Michigan City, Indiana. These Preliminary Route 

Alternatives were then analyzed in the Level 1B Route Screening.

Level 1B Coarse Route Screening

Methodology and Criteria

The Level 1B Coarse Route Screening focused on analyzing specific locations along the 85 Preliminary 

Route Alternatives (such as where new connections that do not currently exist would be required, or 

where complex physical constraints were likely) to determine the reasonableness of the routes. The Level 

1B Coarse Route Screening evaluated the Preliminary Route Alternatives at these specific locations based 

on the criteria presented in Table 2-7. The analysis at specific locations, based on the criteria, was used to 

develop rationale for dismissing unreasonable routes from further consideration.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 37

Table 2-7: Level 1B Coarse Route Screening Criteria

Criteria Factors

Purpose and Need • Ability to achieve top speed of 110 mph to attain travel times 

competitive with other travel modes

Physical Characteristics

• Curve geometry that limits top speed

• Physical obstructions

• Encroachments on non-rail right of way

Operational Feasibility

• Ability to provide two dedicated passenger tracks between Chicago 

Union Station and Porter/Michigan City, Indiana

• Consistency with other rail improvement projects

• Freight conflicts

Environmental Constraints

• Section 4(f) resources, including all publicly owned public parks, 

recreation areas, and wildlife or waterfowl refuges as well as 

publicly or privately owned historic sites listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places.

• Section 6(f) resources which include public recreational facilities that 

have received funds for development from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund.

• Impacts to human environment (residential, commercial, or 

industrial properties)

Screening Results

Of the 85 Preliminary Route Alternatives, 75 alternatives were dismissed from further consideration. In 

many cases the rationale for dismissal was applicable to multiple Preliminary Route Alternatives;

generally on the basis of the unreasonableness of a connection between two subsections that was a 

necessary component of multiple Preliminary Route Alternatives. Ten of the Preliminary Route 

Alternatives were determined as reasonable routes to be carried forward to the Level 1B Fine Route 

Screening. The rationale for the dismissal of Preliminary Route Alternatives in the Level 1B Coarse 

Route Screening can be found in Appendix A.

Level 1B Fine Route Screening

Methodology and Criteria

The Level 1B Fine Route Screening further analyzed the ten Preliminary Route Alternatives named Route 

1 through Route 10. Each of the ten routes was screened based on the Level 1B Fine Route Screening 

criteria listed in Table 2-8. The Level 1B Fine Route Screening focused on the reasonableness of the 

Preliminary Route Alternatives as reflected in the quantitative measurement of various characteristics of 

the routes, whereas the previous screening steps focused primarily on the physical feasibility of route 

subsections and Preliminary Route Alternatives. The environmental criteria listed in Table 2-8 were 

analyzed to gain a broad understanding of the potential environmental impacts of each Preliminary Route 

Alternative while knowing that more detailed study of the environmental impacts would occur during the 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

38 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Tier 1 EIS and future Tier 2 NEPA analysis. More information on how data was collected for each 

criterion can be found in Appendix A.

Table 2-8: Level 1B Fine Route Screening Criteria

Criteria Explanation of Criteria

Capital Cost Estimate

A comparative preliminary capital cost estimate for each of the ten 

routes was developed using a planning-level unit capital cost estimate 

approach based on take-off quantities31 and assumed infrastructure 

improvements. The capital cost estimate was used as a comparative 

measure of an approximate total route cost between routes. No field 

investigations were completed as part of the development of the early 

preliminary planning cost estimates. The estimates will be substantially 

refined and updated in future conceptual engineering and cost 

estimating work associated with the Build Alternatives described in 

Section 2.4.2.

Unconstrained Travel Time

A high level estimate of travel times from Chicago Union Station to 

Michigan City, Indiana were used as a measure of relative mobility 

benefits. Travel times were generated using the train performance 

calculator (TPC) tool within the Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) © train 

operations simulation model.

Curves > 1 degree 30 minutes

A measure of potential speed restrictions and potential costs associated 

with reducing them. A threshold of 1 degree 30 minutes was selected 

because speeds would be restricted to less than 110 mph while traveling 

along curves tighter than the threshold. Data was gathered by analyzing 

aerial imagery and track chart32 information (see also Purpose and 

Need, above).

Route Miles

A measure of potential unit improvement costs and possible indirection. 

Route mileage was calculated with the use of Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) data and aerial imagery.

At-Grade Crossings

A measure of potential safety issues associated with at-grade crossings 

as well as potential costs associated with addressing them. Data was 

gathered by analyzing aerial imagery and track chart information.

Moveable Bridges

A measure of potential operational conflicts associated with moveable 

bridges33 and areas where environmental and water quality impacts may 

be located. Data was gathered by analyzing aerial imagery and track 

chart information.

 

31 An itemized and quantified list of construction materials needed to complete a project. 32 A track chart is a schematic representation of a railroad that generally includes information on track layout, 

crossings, and curvature.

33 A moveable bridge is one that moves to allow passage for boats or barges.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 39

Criteria Explanation of Criteria

Diamonds

A count of at-grade rail crossings that is a measure of potential 

operational conflicts and the potential need for complex structures. Data 

was gathered by analyzing aerial imagery and track chart information.

Conflicting Yards34

A measure of potential operational conflicts with rail traffic traveling in 

and out of connecting yards. Data was gathered by analyzing aerial 

imagery and track chart information.

Availability of right of way to 

accommodate a dedicated 

intercity double-track35 passenger 

system

A qualitative assessment based on right of way, existing track 

information, and track design standards was used to apply a score that 

indicates the difficulty of implementing a dedicated double track 

passenger system.

Environmental Justice/Title VI 

Populations

A measure of potential impacts to environmental justice /Title VI 

populations within and adjacent to a 500 foot buffer around each route. 

Potential impacts were calculated with the use of GIS and 2010 United 

States Census data and the American Community Survey from the US 

Census Bureau.

Section 4(f) Impacts

A measure of potential impacts to Section 4(f) properties within a 500 

foot buffer around each route. Section 4(f) properties include all publicly 

owned public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or waterfowl refuges 

as well as publicly or privately owned historic sites listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. Potential impacts we calculated with the use 

of GIS and federal, state, and county data.

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Impacts

A measure of potential impacts to potential threatened and endangered 

species within a 500 foot buffer around each route. Potential impacts 

were calculated with the use of GIS and federal and state databases.

Other Environmental Impacts

A measure of potential environmental impacts to other resources 

including Section 6(f) properties, wetlands, agricultural lands, water body 

crossings and floodplains, agriculture, and hazardous waste sites within 

a 500 foot buffer around each route. Potential impacts were calculated 

with the use of GIS and state and county data.

The raw data collected for each Preliminary Route Alternative, presented in Table 2-9, was analyzed to 

determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of each route. As part of this, a standard deviation36

analysis was performed to identify Preliminary Route Alternatives that scored substantially better or 

worse in each criterion compared against all other Preliminary Route Alternatives. The level of 

significance was based on comparing the data collected for each criterion to the respective average. 

 

34 A rail yard is a network of railway tracks and sidings used for storing, sorting, or loading/unloading railroad cars 

and/or locomotives.

35 A dedicated intercity double-track is a set of two railway tracks within the same right of way that typically 

involves running one track in each direction, compared to a single-track railway where trains running in both 

directions share the same track.

36 Standard deviation is a statistic used as a measure of the dispersion or variation in a distribution.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

40 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Preliminary Route Alternatives with values that were found to be one standard deviation or more better 

than the average were determined to be favorable outliers37, whereas Preliminary Route Alternatives with 

values that were found to be one standard deviation or more worse than the mean were determined to be 

unfavorable outliers. Preliminary Route Alternative with values that fell between one standard deviation 

better and one standard deviation worse than the average were considered non-outliers. The results of this 

analysis are included in Appendix A.

Screening Results

The Level 1B Fine Route Screening process resulted in the elimination of four Preliminary Route 

Alternatives 1, 3, 7, and 8 from further consideration (See Figure 2-10) because they were unreasonable 

in comparison to the other route alternatives or did not meet the Program’s purpose and need. In most 

cases, Route Alternatives were dismissed as unreasonable based on the fact that they exhibited few if any 

advantages over other alternatives, while having several major disadvantages. Six Preliminary Route 

Alternatives were carried forward for further analysis in this Tier 1 EIS (See Figure 2-11) and are 

described in Section 2.2.3.2 below.

The following sections summarize the reasons the aforementioned Preliminary Route Alternatives shown 

in Figure 2-10 were dismissed as unreasonable. Additional information on the Level 1B Fine Route 

Screening methodology and maps of each route can be found in Appendix A.

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 was determined to 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, specifically due to the route’s use of NICTD right of way for an 

extensive portion of its length. The speed restrictions would decrease the ability to provide a trip time 

savings that would be competitive with other modes of travel. Additionally, except for its use of NICTD 

right of way on its east end, 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 determined to be unreasonable and 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 determined to be unreasonable and was dismissed from further 

 

37 An outlier is a data point that is significantly different numerically from the other data points in a sample.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 41

consideration generally on the same basis as was Route 1, due shortcomings associated with its use of 

NICTD right of way for an extensive portion of its length.

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, again due to the route’s use of NICTD right of way 

for an extensive portion of its length. Unconstrained travel time estimates also indicate that the travel time 

between Chicago and Michigan City, Indiana would be unacceptable and perform substantially 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 also acquisition of right of way through a large portion of the Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore. Therefore, Route 7 was determined to be unreasonable and 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 the Amtrak line to Michigan City, Indiana. Route 8 

determined to be unreasonable and was dismissed from further consideration generally on the same basis 

as was Route 1, due shortcomings associated with its use of NICTD right of way for an extensive portion 

of its length.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

42 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 2-9: Level 1B Fine Screening Route Alternative Comparison

Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 9 Route 10

Physical Characteristics Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank

Total At-Grade Crossings 28 2 25 1 31 3 28 2 43 4 48 5 48 5 43 4 49 6 54 7

Total Moveable Bridges 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Route Miles 50.22 1 51.05 3 50.41 2 51.24 4 52.84 6 52.66 5 55.83 7 56.66 8 56.95 10 56.77 9

Operational Feasibility Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank

Unconstrained Travel Time (Minutes) 46.69 3 46.99 4 45.96 2 48.07 6 47.35 5 47.35 5 53.52 7 55.29 8 44.47 1 44.47 1

Total Curves > 1 degree 30 minutes 39 3 42 6 42 6 45 7 41 5 41 5 37 2 40 4 20 1 20 1

Total Conflicting Yards 10 5 10 5 9 4 10 5 8 3 8 3 5 1 6 2 6 2 6 2

Total Diamonds 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 7 2 7 2 5 1 5 1 10 3 10 3

Availability of right of way for a 

Dedicated Double Track

4 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 5 4 5 4 1 1 1 1

Environmental Considerations

Human Environment Raw Data Percent Raw Data Percent Raw Data Percent Raw Data Percent Raw Data Percent Raw Data Percent Raw Data Percent Raw Data Percent Raw Data Percent Raw Data Percent

Title VI/Environmental Justice Populations

Total Population 163,638 164,493 158,393 172,291 192,498 191,965 241,928 248,028 264,903 262,692

Minority Population 97,756 59.7% 95,698 58.2% 95,340 60.2% 96,454 56.0% 105,947 55.0% 105,537 55.0% 158,843 65.7% 159,201 64.2% 170,308 64.3% 168,236 64.0%

Population in Poverty 39,707 24.3% 38,583 23.5% 38,233 24.1% 39,104 22.7% 43,703 22.7% 43,445 22.6% 53,283 22.0% 53,633 21.6% 57,655 21.8% 56,787 21.6%

Natural Environment Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 43

Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 Route 9 Route 10

Section 4(f) Impacts (% acreage impact) 83.7% 10 44.1% 7 72.3% 9 33% 6 4.8% 1 4.8% 2 65.3% 8 29.9% 5 11.2% 3 11.2% 4

Section 4(f) Impacts (# of acres) 2,546.88 8 1,363.69 5 2,206.75 6 1,023.56 3 154.11 1 154.11 1 2,208.93 7 1,025.74 4 386.26 2 386.26 2

Threatened & Endangered Species 

Impacts (% acreage impact)

45.8% 9 36.5% 6 46% 10 36.7% 7 24.1% 4 23.9% 3 37.1% 8 28.9% 5 18.2% 2 18.0% 1

Threatened & Endangered Species 

Impacts (# of acres) 1,393.51 9 1,128.27 6 1,404.25 10 1,139.01 7 770.04 4 762.29 3 1,256.14 8 990.90 5 627.60 2 619.85 1

Hazardous Waste and Contaminated 

Sites

0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na

Section 6(f) Impacts (# of acres) 1,762.34 8 869.92 5 1,522.25 7 629.83 4 31.73 1 31.73 1 1,476.9 6 584.48 3 34 2 34 2

Water Body Crossings and Floodplains

(# of acres)

93.58 3 162.65 9 59.27 1 128.34 4 152.28 6 152.28 7 74.44 2 143.51 5 162.51 8 162.51 8

Wetlands (# of acres) 200.69 7 212.15 8 178.86 4 190.32 6 134.96 1 134.96 1 145.83 2 157.29 3 187.12 5 187.12 5

Agriculture 2,182.26 5 2,233.30 7 2,193.28 6 2,244.32 8 2,341.22 10 2,330.73 9 2,102.25 1 2,153.29 3 2,160.02 4 2,149.53 2

Cost Considerations Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank Raw Data Rank

Capital Cost Estimate (Billions) $1.55 3 $1.56 4 $1.60 5 $1.76 6 $1.48 1 $1.51 2 $1.91 7 $2.07 9 $2.09 10 $2.05 8

Note: Environmental acreage impacts are based on the number of resource acres within a 500 foot wide buffer around each Preliminary Route Alternative. The actual number of resource acres impacted by the Build Alternative is anticipated to be much less than the 

acreage impacts reported in this table.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

44 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 2-10: Routes Eliminated during the Level 1B Fine Route Screening
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 45

Figure 2-11: Selected Reasonable Route Alternatives

(Route 6)

(Route 10)
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

46 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2.2.3 Description of Build Alternatives

2.2.3.1 Description of Build Alternatives for the Overall Program Corridor

This Tier 1 EIS analyzes four Build Alternatives between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac. Among the four 

Build Alternatives, the only differences between the route alternatives are within the SOTL area between 

Chicago and Michigan City, Indiana. The four primary routes (two of which have a choice of two 

alignment options over the same short section) identified as Reasonable Route Alternatives represent 

those Preliminary Route Alternatives which were advanced out of the Level 1B Fine Route Analysis. A 

more detailed description of each of the four Build Alternatives within the SOTL is provided in Section 

2.2.3.2.

Each of the four routes within the SOTL connects to a common alignment that is congruent with the 

existing Amtrak alignment between Porter, Indiana and Pontiac, Michigan. From Porter, Indiana the route 

runs on the Amtrak owned trackage to Kalamazoo, Michigan. The existing track can already 

accommodate passenger trains operating at speeds up to 110 mph.

The route continues east from Kalamazoo, Michigan to Dearborn, Michigan on trackage owned by the 

State of Michigan (previously owned by NS and known as the Michigan Line), except for approximately 

1.5 miles in Battle Creek, Michigan where track is owned by CN. As referenced in the description of the 

No Build Alternative, MDOT has received environmental clearance (a FONSI was issued by the FRA in 

2011) for improvements on the Corridor between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan that enable the 

existing passenger rail service to operate up to 110 mph. These improvements include upgrades to the 

track infrastructure, signaling system and train control technology to accommodate higher-speed 

passenger rail operations. From Dearborn, Michigan, 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.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 47

Figure 2-12: Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor

2.2.3.2 Description of Build Alternatives within the South of the Lake

Due to the complexity of the rail network in the SOTL area, specific points have been placed on each 

route’s corresponding location map to help the reader understand the description of each route. Each 

specific point is referred to as a “node” and has been marked with a letter that is referenced in the 

descriptions below. Nodes are named after railroad features such as crossings, junctions or other 

established place names. The node naming convention corresponds with the nodes used in the Level 1 

Screening summaries in Appendix A. Sometimes at these node locations, non-railroad right of way may 

need to be acquired to accommodate new track infrastructure.

Route 2

Route 2, which coincides with the current Amtrak route between Chicago Union Station and Michigan 

City, Indiana and is depicted in Figure 2-13, follows the two existing Amtrak-owned tracks from Chicago 

Union Station (Map Node: A) to 21st Street Bridge (Map Node: L) and then operates on NS right of way 

until just east of the Englewood Flyover38 (Map Node: S) in Chicago.

 

38 A flyover is a grade-separated rail crossing where one railroad crosses above another railroad.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

48 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

East of the Englewood Flyover to Buffington Harbor (Map Node: Ab) in Gary, Indiana, the route would 

take one of several potential alignments along property owned by Commonwealth Edison Utility 

Company (ComEd) (formerly occupied by the tracks of the New York Central Railroad) and/or CSX that 

are located in close proximity to one another. The ComEd right of way is currently used as an overhead 

utility corridor that also has the ability to accommodate rail operations. Existing utility poles within the 

right of way would have to be protected with barrier and/or altered to avoid conflicts with the passenger 

rail system. Detailed engineering on how to accommodate the existing utility poles would be completed in 

Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

Between the Englewood Flyover and Buffington Harbor, the Amtrak owned Calumet River Bridge and an 

inactive drawbridge across the Indiana Harbor Canal would be reconstructed and a new flyover would be 

constructed just east of the Indiana Harbor Canal to avoid conflicts with heavy freight traffic crossing the 

Corridor on IHB trackage. In the Buffington Harbor area, a new connection would link the route back to 

the NS Chicago Line right of way and continue east to Porter, Indiana (Map Node: An).

At Porter, the existing single track connection from the NS Chicago Line to the Amtrak owned rail line 

would be upgraded to a double track connection to provide a continuous double track corridor. The Route 

continues on to Detroit and Pontiac, Michigan as described in Section 2.2.3.1.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 49

Figure 2-13: Route 2 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

50 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Route 4

Route 4, as seen in Figure 2-14, follows the same path and requires the same improvements as Route 2 

between Chicago Union Station (Map Node: A) and Buffington Harbor (Map Node: Ab) in Gary, Indiana.

East of Buffington Harbor, a connection would be made to the CSX Barr Subdivision right of way and 

continue east to Miller (Map Node: Aj), a location where the NICTD operation crosses over the CSX Barr 

Subdivision in Gary, Indiana. At Miller, another connection would be made to the NICTD commuter rail 

line. The proposed intercity passenger rail operations would comingle with commuter and freight traffic 

along the NICTD line until the route transitions onto the NS Chicago Line in Burns Harbor, Indiana (Map 

Node: Am) where a new flyover would be needed over US 12 and STH 149. Continuous acquisition of 

the right of way to accommodate a third track is anticipated in this 7-mile segment of the NICTD 

alignment between Miller and Burns Harbor, Indiana.

Route 4 continues on NS right of way to Porter, Indiana (Map Node: An) where the existing single track 

connection from the NS Chicago Line to the Amtrak owned rail line would be upgraded to a double track

connection to provide a continuous double track corridor. The route continues on to Detroit and Pontiac, 

Michigan as described in Section 2.2.3.1.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 51

Figure 2-14: Route 4
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

52 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Route 5

Two of the ten Preliminary Route Alternatives (Routes 5 and 6) analyzed in the Level 1B Fine Route 

Screening have been grouped together as Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 (See Figure 2-15) because they 

are very similar, with the exception of a 1.7-mile long alignment alternative in Gary, Indiana.

Option 1 – Route 5 Option 1 follows the same path and requires the same improvements as Route 2 and 4 

between Chicago Union Station (Map Node: A) and Buffington Harbor (Map Node: Ab) in Gary, Indiana.

At Buffington Harbor, a connection would be made to the right of way also occupied by the NS “Sugar 

Track” (a remnant of the former Wabash Railroad), a lightly used freight line that serves a few industries 

in Gary, Indiana. The connection would require a flyover across the NS Chicago Line, CSX Barr 

Subdivision and Canadian National Railway/Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway (CN/EJ&E) lines to the 

north of Gary/Chicago International Airport.

The route continues southeast towards Tolleston (Map Node: Ad), a location where the NS Sugar Track, 

CSX Fort Wayne Line, the abandoned IHB Dune Branch, and CSX Porter Subdivision converge in Gary, 

Indiana. At Tolleston, a connection would be made to the abandoned IHB Dune Branch and continues 

east for approximately 1.7 miles. The IHB Dune Branch is completely grade separated with a total of six 

existing grade separations along the 1.7 mile corridor, with many of the structures designed to 

accommodate two tracks. A connection would then be made to the CSX Porter Subdivision right of way 

at a “Gary Greenfield Connection” (Map Node: Ag) in Gary, Indiana.

Once on the CSX Porter Subdivision right of way, the route continues through Willow Creek in Portage, 

Indiana and onto Porter, Indiana (Map Node: An) where a new connection would be needed to connect to 

Amtrak owned right of way. A flyover would be constructed at Willow Creek over the CSX Barr 

Subdivision and at Porter, Indiana over the NS Chicago Line. The Route continues on to Detroit and 

Pontiac, Michigan as described in Section 2.2.3.1.

Option 2 – Route 5 Option 2 follows the same path as Route 5 Option 1 with the exception of 

approximately 1.7 miles in Gary, Indiana. Instead of connecting to the abandoned IHB Dune Branch at 

Tolleston (Map Node: Ad), Option 2 connects to the CSX Porter Subdivision right of way at Tolleston 

and continues east, bypassing the IHB Dune Branch and the Gary Greenfield Connection (Map Node: 

Ag). This alignment alternative has no grade separated crossings and six at-grade crossings within the 

1.7-mile stretch between Tolleston and the Gary Greenfield Connection, while Route 5 Option 1 has six 

grade separated crossings and no at-grade crossings.

As in Route 5 Option 1, Route 5 Options 2 continues on the CSX Porter Subdivision to Porter, Indiana 

(Map Node: An) where it connects to the existing Amtrak line towards Michigan City, Indiana and on to 

Detroit and Pontiac, Michigan as described in Section 2.2.3.1. A flyover would also be constructed at 

Willow Creek in Portage, Indiana over the CSX Barr Subdivision and at Porter, Indiana over the NS 

Chicago Line.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 53

Figure 2-15: Route 5 Option 1 & 2
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

54 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Route 9

Two of the ten Preliminary Route Alternatives (Routes 9 and 10) analyzed in the Level 1B Fine Route 

Screening have been grouped together as Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 (See Figure 2-16) because they 

are very similar to each other, with the exception of a 4.8-mile long alignment alternative in Gary, 

Indiana.

Option 1 – Route 9 Option 1 follows existing Amtrak owned right of way from Chicago Union Station

(Map Node: A) to a new St. Charles Air Line (Map Node: G) connection. The new St. Charles Air Line 

(SCAL) connection will provide a direct connection in and out of Chicago Union Station eliminating a 

backing move39 currently required to access the station. The route would follow a new SCAL bridge to be 

constructed across the South Branch of the Chicago River. The new SCAL structure would continue to 

the east where it would fly over the Metra Rock Island District track and then connect to the CN Chicago 

Subdivision right of way where it continues south to Kensington Junction (Map Node: Y). At Kensington 

Junction, a new flyover connection would be constructed to cross the existing NICTD line and connect to 

IHB right of way that leads to IHB Main Line right of way.

The route would continue east on IHB Main Line right of way past Gibson Yard to Ivanhoe (Map 

Node: As), a location where the IHB Main Line and CN/EJ&E cross at-grade. Three new flyovers would 

need to be constructed along the IHB to avoid congested diamond crossings. The three flyovers would be 

located at Hammond Diamonds and Gibson Junction in Hammond, Indiana, and Ivanhoe in Gary, 

Indiana.

Past Ivanhoe, Route 9 Option 1 continues on IHB Main Line right of way until it transitions into the 

abandoned IHB Dune Branch just west of Chase Street in Gary, Indiana. The route continues east on the 

IHB Dune Branch through Tolleston (Map Node: Ad) and connects to the CSX Porter Subdivision right 

of way at the Gary Greenfield Connection (Map Node: Ag). Route 9 Option 1 takes advantage of eight 

grade-separated crossings while only having three at-grade crossings within the 4.8-mile stretch.

Once on the CSX Porter Subdivision right of way, the route continues through Willow Creek in Portage, 

Indiana onto Porter, Indiana (Map Node: An) where a new connection would be needed to connect to 

Amtrak owned right of way. Flyovers would be constructed at Willow Creek over the CSX Barr 

Subdivision and at Porter, Indiana over the NS Chicago Line. The Route continues on to Detroit and 

Pontiac, Michigan as described in Section 2.2.3.1.

Option 2 – Route 9 Option 2 follows the same path as Route 9 Option 1 with the exception of the 

approximately 4.8-mile long alignment alternative in Gary, Indiana discussed above under Route 9 

Option 1. Instead of continuing on the IHB Main Line right of way from Ivanhoe (Map Node: As) and 

transitioning to the abandoned IHB Dune Branch, Route 9 Option 2 makes a connection to the CSX

 

39 A backing move into a station refers to pulling into the station with the rear of the train first instead of the front.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 55

Porter Subdivision right of way directly at Ivanhoe. Within the 4.8-mile stretch between Ivanhoe and the 

Gary Greenfield Connection, Route 9 Option 2 has no grade-separated crossings and 12 at-grade 

crossings.

As in Route 9 Option1, the Route 9 Option 2 route continues on the CSX Porter Subdivision to Porter, 

Indiana (Map Node: An) where it connects to the existing Amtrak line towards Michigan City, Indiana 

and on to Detroit and Pontiac, Michigan as described in Section 2.2.3.1. Flyovers would also be 

constructed at Willow Creek in Portage, Indiana over the CSX Barr Subdivision and at Porter, Indiana 

over the NS Chicago Line.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

56 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 2-16: Route 9 Option 1 & 2
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 57

2.3 Station and Maintenance Facility Opportunities

2.3.1 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. This 

new station will provide a suburban station option for Illinois and northwest Indiana riders that would be 

convenient to the interstate transportation network. The analysis of the four Build Alternatives indicates 

that each route provides the opportunity for a station in northwest Indiana with access to other modes of 

travel such as the Interstate System, including interstates I-65, I-80, I-90, and I-94.

Operations under the Build Alternative will ultimately include a combination of standard-stop and 

express-stop service. Express-stop service between Chicago and Detroit include station stops in Chicago, 

Illinois and Kalamazoo, Battle Creek Ann Arbor, Dearborn, and Detroit, Michigan. Standard-stop service 

will include the express-stop locations as well as stops at a new station in northwest Indiana and existing 

stations in Michigan City, Indiana; and New Buffalo, Niles, Dowagiac, Albion, and Jackson, Michigan. 

All seven round trips that continue on to Pontiac, Michigan with stops in Royal Oak, Birmingham, and 

Pontiac, Michigan. Developing the Build Alternative with a mixture of express and standard service 

provides a passenger rail operation that best serves “end-to-end” travelers and the local communities it 

travels through by providing mobility and economic development opportunities.

A master plan effort of Chicago Union Station is being developed by the City of Chicago’s Department of 

Transportation with participation from Amtrak and Metra. This Master Plan will identify specific capacity 

improvements at Chicago Union Station to accommodate an increased number of intercity passenger 

trains. The Program Sponsors are coordinating closely with this effort and the final recommendations of 

that study will be referenced into the Tier 1 Final EIS and a future Record of Decision for the Program.

Table 2-10 provides a list of the proposed program improvements that would be needed at stations to 

support the proposed 2035 full build-out service of 10 round trips between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac 

up to 110 mph. The improvements listed in Table 2-10 are included in the cost estimate in Section 2.4.3, 

however construction of these improvements are subject to an additional needs analysis and available 

funding. Final site selections for new stations and detailed impact analysis will occur in future Tier 2 

NEPA analysis.

Stations may need to be upgraded by 2035 to accommodate increased ridership as the full build-out 

service is implemented as well as future track infrastructure improvements. Station upgrades may also 

include access and circulation improvements.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

58 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 2-10: 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
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 59

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

2.3.2 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.

2.4 Alternatives Evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS

2.4.1 No Build Alternative

CEQ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations Section 1502.14(d) requires the inclusion 

of an alternative of “no action” along with the evaluation of all reasonable alternatives. In this Tier 1 EIS, 

the environmental effects of taking no action (the No Build Alternative) will be compared to the effects of 

the various Build Alternatives.

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 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

60 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

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.

2.4.1.1 Existing Passenger Rail Service

The existing intercity passenger rail service between Chicago and Detroit and on to Pontiac, Michigan is 

provided by Amtrak’s Wolverine Service, which currently includes three daily round trips. Wolverine 

trains take approximately 6 hours 30 minutes to travel approximately 300 miles between Chicago and 

Pontiac, at an average speed of 47 mph. The average speed does not support the Program’s purpose and 

need to reach speeds up to 110 mph the entire length of the Corridor, as discussed in Chapter 1 (Purpose 

and Need) and Section 2.1. Additionally the existing service does not provide the desired frequencies 

along the length of the Corridor to make intercity passenger rail service a preferred mode of choice for 

many living and working within the Corridor. 

2.4.1.2 Committed Passenger Rail, Highway and Aviation Improvements that are Considered 

in the No Build

Near-term service improvements intended to improve the intercity rail passenger’s experience will be 

implemented along the Corridor under the No Build condition. This section describes those improvements 

that are committed by the Program Partners and are in various phases of delivery. The improvements that 

are funded are considered to be a part of the No Build Alternative. Non-funded projects (i.e., projects that 

do not have full construction funding in place) are not included in the No Build Alternative. Operations 

modeling completed for the Program assume that these improvements are implemented. These projects 

will occur independently, with or without implementation of the Build Alternatives. Additionally, 

highway and aviation expansion projects funded for construction are also considered in the No Build 

Alternative.

Illinois Projects

The No Build Alternative in Illinois consists of the continuation of the existing passenger rail service on 

the existing trackage40. Some operational benefits may be gained from the implementation of the rail 

projects described in this section.

The Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) is a partnership 

between U.S. DOT, the State of Illinois, City of Chicago, Metra, Amtrak, Association of American 

Railroads, Belt Railway of Chicago, BNSF Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, Canadian National 

 

40 Trackage is the whole quantity of railway track within a given right of way.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 61

Railway, CSX Transportation, Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad, Norfolk Southern Corporation, and Union 

Pacific Railroad that is focused on investing in critically needed improvements to increase the efficiency 

of the region’s passenger and freight rail infrastructure in the Chicago area. The committed CREATE 

projects include:

• CREATE P1: Englewood Flyover

• CREATE WA-1: Ogden Junction

• CREATE WA-2 : Signalization – Ogden Junction to 75th Street

• CREATE WA-3 : Signalization – Ogden Junction to CP 518

• CREATE WA -4 : BNSF Connection – Western Avenue to Ash Street (BNSF Horseshoe)

• CREATE WA-7: Brighton Park Connection

• CREATE WA-10: Blue Island Junction

• CREATE WA-11: Dolton Interlocking Upgrade

• CREATE EW-3: Pullman Junction

• CREATE B-12: Third Mainline – 123rd Street to Cal Sag Channel

• CREATE B-15 : Signalization – Blue Island Yard Running Tracks

• CREATE B-16 : Thornton Junction

• CREATE EW-4: BRC and NS Signalization (CP 509)

Improvements to support the Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail service are also currently underway. 

As a result of that project’s 2004 Record of Decision (ROD), the Chicago to St. Louis corridor was 

selected by the FRA for $1.1-billion of corridor improvements between Dwight, Illinois and St. Louis. 

These improvements include upgraded track built and maintained to 110 miles per hour standards, siding 

and crossovers, grade crossing surfaces, signals and warning system, stations, and new higher-speed 

passenger trains. A Tier 1 EIS for the full build-out and routing between Chicago and Dwight, Illinois 

was completed, and the ROD was signed in December 2012.41

In March 2013, FRA recommended that the State of Illinois lead a multi-state procurement of 35 new 

next-generation locomotives and 130 bi-level rail cars to be funded by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. Procurement of Midwest Train Equipment Fleet will modernize train equipment within 

Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, California, and Washington and enable passenger rail service to operate 

higher speeds.

The only major committed roadway project that will add new capacity in Illinois that is funded for

construction and will affect the movement of freight and, to a lesser degree, the movement of passengers 

 

41 http://www.idothsr.org , Accessed September 1, 2013.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

62 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac is the addition of a new interchange connecting Interstates 294 and 

57 on the Tri-State Tollway in the south suburbs near Harvey, Illinois.

Similarly, under the No Build Alternative, other forms of long-distance and regional transportation, such 

as commercial airline and bus service, are assumed to continue operating in the same manner as current 

operations.

Indiana Projects

There are a number of planned and programmed rail improvements included in the No Build within 

Indiana and they are listed individually in Appendix B. Most of these improvements are included in the 

Indiana Gateway Project, which began construction in 2013. As part of FRA’s High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail Program (HSIPR), Indiana was the recipient of a $71.4-million grant for the construction 

of eight separate improvements along the congested railroad segment from Porter, Indiana west to the 

Illinois state line. Seven of the improvements will be on track owned by NS and the eighth will be on 

Amtrak’s Michigan line at Porter, Indiana. The work includes crossover tracks and related signal 

improvements, and additional sidings.

There are currently no major roadway projects that will add new capacity to the transportation system

within the LaPorte INDOT District that are expected to substantially affect travel between Chicago and 

Detroit/Pontiac. No airport expansion projects funded for construction were identified.

Michigan Projects

Under the No Build scenario, Amtrak’s Wolverine Service will continue to operate on the existing 

Amtrak route within Michigan. From the Michigan/Indiana state line to Kalamazoo, Michigan, passenger 

trains currently run at speeds up to 110 mph, and will continue to do so in this section of the Corridor. 

Between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan, MDOT has purchased the 135-mile section of track 

previously owned by NS, and has secured funding for rail improvements in this section of the Corridor 

that would allow speeds up to 110 mph. The rail improvements between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, 

Michigan include track rehabilitation, replacement of track ties, turnouts, and ballast, curve modifications 

and installation of ITCS (Defined in Footnote #24) and Active Warning Systems at all crossings.

In Detroit, a new connection track between Conrail Shared Assets Operations (CSAO) Michigan Line and 

CN Shoreline Subdivision trackage at West Detroit Junction has been funded. Improvements will separate 

freight and passenger service in this area, therefore reducing conflicts and improving intercity passenger 

service reliability.

Recent investments have been made at four different station locations in Michigan. Improvements at the 

Battle Creek Station included renovation of the station’s interior lobby, bathrooms, ticketing areas and 

offices, lighting, signage, and bringing the facility into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA). The interior improvements along with the refurbishment to the exterior façade and 

installation of new exterior lighting were completed in June 2012. Pontiac, Michigan also constructed a 
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 63

new 4,500 square foot intermodal station that officially opened in August 2011.42 Construction of a new 

16,000 square foot Dearborn Intermodal Passenger Rail Station has also been funded and is expected to 

be completed in early 2014,43 while construction of the new Troy Multi-Modal Transit Center is 

anticipated to provide a new 2,000 square foot intermodal station for the City of Troy, Michigan.44

There are no major roadway projects that would add substantial capacity to the transportation network 

programmed within or near the Corridor in Berrien, Van Buren, Cass, Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Jackson, 

Washtenaw, Wayne or Oakland counties.

Commercial airline service on the east end of the Michigan Corridor is provided by Detroit Metropolitan 

Airport (DTW). Near the west end of the Corridor in Michigan, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International 

Airport and Gerald R. Ford International Airport in Grand Rapids provide commercial airline service. 

There are currently no major improvements programmed and operations are expected to continue at 

current levels.

2.4.2 Build Alternatives

The infrastructure improvements described in this section are preliminary and are based on preliminary 

conceptual engineering and previous studies. All infrastructure improvements will be verified as further 

conceptual engineering and Rail Traffic Controller® analysis is completed for the Tier 1 Final EIS.

2.4.2.1 Interim Phase for Six Daily Round Trips in 2025

The Infrastructure improvements that will be needed in the SOTL to support the interim phase of six 

round trips in 2025 vary among each of the Build Alternatives. Qualitative analysis of the SOTL rail 

network indicates that each of the Build Alternatives provide opportunities to phase infrastructure and 

operational improvements. Further conceptual engineering analysis will be done for the Service 

Development Plan to understand the phasing opportunities and associated infrastructure requirements to 

support six round trips for each Build Alternative. A description of the components of a Service 

Development Plan and how it relates to the Tier 1 EIS process is included in Section 5.3.

Preliminary conceptual engineering indicates that a crossover at Battle Creek, Michigan across CN 

trackage will be needed to access the station at Battle Creek, Michigan. An additional third track at 

Wayne Yards outside of Dearborn, Michigan will also need to be constructed to provide NS an assembly 

track for its freight service. Lastly, MDOT will need to provide incremental maintenance for one of the 

 

42 Amtrak, Great American Stations. Pontiac, MI (PNT). http://www.greatamericanstations.com/Stations/PNT. 

Accessed October 22, 2013.

43 City of Dearborn. Quick facts about Dearborn’s Intermodal Passenger Rail Station. 

http://www.cityofdearborn.org/city-departments/economic-and-community-development/trainstation (Fact 

Sheet link). Accessed October 22, 2013. 44 City of Troy. Troy Multi-Modal Transit Facility. http://www.troymi.gov/TransitCenter.aspx. Accessed October 22, 

2013.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

64 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

main tracks from Milwaukee Junction in Detroit to Pontiac, Michigan between now and the foreseeable 

future.

2.4.2.2 Full Build-out for 10 Daily Round Trips in 2035

To achieve the purpose and need of the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program, a 

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

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

upgraded where necessary to accommodate higher-speed passenger rail service.

A Build Alternative would 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 systems45 to enable Centralized Traffic Control (CTC)46 as the 

method of operation throughout the route, and Positive Train Control (PTC)47 where not already 

implemented. The remainder of this section (2.4.2) describes the infrastructure needs of the full build-out 

for 10 round trip service in greater detail within logical sections of track.

Infrastructure Improvements between Chicago Union Station and Porter, Indiana

The development of infrastructure improvements through the SOTL is based on the assumption that the 

selected Build Alternative will support all Midwest corridor passenger rail service traveling to and from 

the east of Chicago. As proposed in the MWRRS, service traveling to the east includes routes to 

Detroit/Pontiac, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Port Huron, Michigan, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Cleveland 

and would consist of 56 total trains per day. Of those 56 trains, 28 would serve the ChicagoDetroit/Pontiac service and the Michigan branch lines to Grand Rapids and Port Huron, Michigan, 12 

trains would serve the route to Indianapolis and Cincinnati, and 16 trains would serve Cleveland.

During high-level analysis of the route alternatives within SOTL, construction of the following major 

structures have been identified and are only applicable to specific routes as indicated in Table 2-11. More 

detailed engineering of these structures would be done in Tier 2 NEPA analysis to gain a better 

understanding of the impacts and associated capital costs. 

 

45 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.

46 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). 47 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).
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 65

• Calumet River Bridge - Reconstruction of the Amtrak owned Calumet River Bridge in Chicago. 

This is an existing inactive moveable bridge just north of the NS Chicago Line that will be 

reconstructed to carry two dedicated passenger tracks across the Calumet River.

• Hick Bridge - Reconstruction of an inactive bridge across the Indiana Harbor Canal in East Chicago, 

Indiana. This is a moveable bridge located just north of the NS Chicago Line that will be 

reconstructed to carry two dedicated passenger tracks across the Indiana Harbor Canal.

• IHB Flyover - Construction of a flyover across IHB in East Chicago, Indiana. This proposed flyover 

would carry two dedicated passenger tracks over the IHB tracks that lead in and out of Inland Steel.

• Burns Harbor Flyover - Construction of a flyover across US 12 and STH 149 in Burns Harbor, 

Indiana. The flyover would provide a new connection for two dedicated passenger tracks from the 

NICTD line to the NS Chicago Line right of way.

• Buffington Harbor Flyover - Construction of a flyover across the NS Chicago Line, CSX Barr 

Subdivision, and CN/EJ&E line at Buffington Harbor in Gary, Indiana. The flyover would provide a 

new connection for two dedicated passenger tracks between the ComEd Utility right of way and the 

NS Sugar Track right of way.

• St. Charles Air Line - Reconstruction of the SCAL in Chicago. A new lift bridge across the South 

Branch of the Chicago River would accommodate a direct connection in and out of Chicago Union 

Station. The new SCAL structure would continue to the east where it would fly over the Metra Rock 

Island District tracks and then connect to the CN Chicago Subdivision right of way. 

• Kensington Junction Flyover - Construction of a flyover across the NICTD line at Kensington 

Junction in Chicago. The flyover would provide a new connection for two dedicated passenger tracks 

from the CN Chicago Subdivision right of way to IHB right of way.

• Hammond Flyover - Construction of a flyover across NS tracks in Hammond, Indiana. The flyover 

would carry the two existing IHB Main Line tracks, two dedicated passenger tracks, and space for 

one additional future freight track across NS, eliminating the existing at-grade rail crossing. The 

flyover would also require flying over Hohman Avenue, which is currently grade separated above the 

IHB tracks. 

• Gibson Junction Flyover - Construction of a flyover across IHB tracks at Gibson Junction in 

Hammond, Indiana. The flyover would carry two dedicated passenger tracks across two Gibson Yard 

lead tracks.

• Ivanhoe Flyover - Construction of a flyover across CN/EJ&E tracks at Ivanhoe in Gary, Indiana. The 

flyover would carry the existing IHB track, two dedicated passenger tracks, and space for one 

additional future freight track across two CN/EJ&E tracks, eliminating the existing at-grade rail 

crossing.

• Willow Creek Flyover - Construction of a flyover across the CSX Barr Subdivision in Portage, 

Indiana. The flyover would carry the existing CSX Porter Subdivision track, two dedicated passenger 

tracks, and space for one future freight track over the CSX Barr Subdivision, eliminating the existing 

at-grade rail crossing known as Willow Creek.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

66 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• Porter Flyover - Construction of a flyover across the NS Chicago Line in Porter, Indiana. The 

flyover would carry two dedicated passenger tracks over the NS Chicago Line. No crossing of any 

kind currently exists.

Table 2-11: Proposed Major Infrastructure Improvements by Reasonable Route Alternative

Route Proposed Improvement

Route 2

• Calumet River Bridge

• Hick Bridge

• IHB Flyover

Route 4

• Calumet River Bridge

• Hick Bridge

• IHB Flyover

• Burns Harbor Flyover

Route 5 Option 1

• Calumet River Bridge

• Hick Bridge

• IHB Flyover

• Buffington Harbor Flyover

• Willow Creek Flyover

• Porter Flyover

Route 5 Option 2 Same as Route 5 Option 1

Route 9 Option 1

• St. Charles Air Line

• Kensington Junction Flyover

• Hammond Flyover

• Gibson Junction Flyover

• Ivanhoe Flyover

• Willow Creek Flyover

• Porter Flyover

Route 9 Option 2 Same as Route 9 Option 1

Beyond the major structures that have been identified, additional infrastructure improvements would be 

needed between Chicago Union Station and Porter, Indiana to provide a dedicated double track for 

passenger rail service through the SOTL. The improvements that are needed vary depending upon the 

specific Build Alternative within the SOTL. 

Route 2 – Improvements are needed along existing Amtrak and NS owned tracks from Chicago Union 

Station (Figure 2-13, Map Node: A) to the Englewood Flyover (Figure 2-13, Map Node: S). In that area, 

two mainline tracks would be refurbished from Chicago Union Station to the Englewood Flyover to 

accommodate higher-speed passenger rail. A third mainline track also exists between Chicago Union 

Station and the existing SCAL and would need to be improved in a similar manner. Amtrak’s 21st Street 

Bridge (Figure 2-13, Map Node: L) over the South Branch of the Chicago River would need to be 

refurbished to allow greater passenger equipment speeds. Improvements to the existing clearance above 

the South Branch of the Chicago River will be considered in future conceptual engineering in attempt to 
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 67

minimize bridge openings. A new passenger track would also need to be constructed across the Dan Ryan 

Expressway and CTA Red Line just west of the Englewood Flyover and on the north side of the NS 

Chicago Line to continually provide two tracks for passenger operations between Chicago Union Station 

and the Englewood Flyover.

Two new tracks, dedicated for passenger rail operations would need to be constructed along Route 2 

between the Englewood Flyover and Porter, Indiana (Figure 2-13, Map Node: An). The ComEd right of 

way from the Englewood Flyover to the Buffington Harbor (Figure 2-13, Map Node: Ab) would need to 

continue to accommodate the existing electric utility poles after construction of two new tracks. More

detailed engineering on how to construct the two tracks while accommodating the utility poles would be 

completed in Tier 2 NEPA analysis. Beyond Buffington Harbor to Porter, Indiana, two new tracks would 

be constructed within the NS Chicago Line right of way. A new double track connection would need to be 

configured at Porter, Indiana to connect onto existing Amtrak trackage that travels on to Michigan City, 

Indiana.

Route 4 – Improvements along Route 4 are the same as the improvements that are discussed in Route 2 

between Chicago Union Station (Figure 2-14, Map Node: A) and Buffington Harbor (Figure 2-14, Map 

Node: Ab). Between Buffington Harbor and Miller (Figure 2-14, Map Node: Aj), two new tracks would 

be constructed within CSX Barr Subdivision right of way. From Miller to Burns Harbor, Indiana (Figure 

2-14, Map Node: Am) one new track would be constructed adjacent to the existing NICTD trackage, 

however it is anticipated that new right of way would need to be acquired along the entire stretch of 

existing track in this area to construct a new track. It has also been assumed that NICTD and Amtrak 

trains would share track between Miller and Burns Harbor, Indiana. Beyond Burns Harbor, Indiana to 

Porter, Indiana, two new tracks would be constructed within the NS Chicago Line right of way. A new 

double track connection would need to be configured at Porter, Indiana to connect onto existing Amtrak 

trackage that travels on to Michigan City, Indiana.

Route 5 Option1 – Improvements along Route 5 Option 1 are the same as the improvements that are 

discussed in Route 2 between Chicago Union Station (Figure 2-15, Map Node: A) and Buffington Harbor 

(Figure 2-15, Map Node: Ab). At Buffington Harbor the route would connect to the NS Sugar Track via a 

flyover where two additional tracks would be constructed within the NS Sugar Track right of way to 

Tolleston (Figure 2-15, Map Node: Ad). Construction of two new tracks would continue within existing 

rail right of way to Porter, Indiana. At Porter, Indiana a flyover connection would be made to existing 

Amtrak trackage that travels on to Michigan City, Indiana.

Route 5 Option 2 – Improvements along Route 5 Option 2 are the same as the improvements that are 

discussed in Route 5 Option 1.

Route 9 Option 1 – A new SCAL will be constructed to connect Chicago Union Station (Figure 2-16, 

Map Node: A) to the CN Chicago Subdivision right of way. Configuration of the structure and track 

design beneath McCormick Place just east of the SCAL would be engineered during Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis. Two new tracks would be built from the SCAL and CN Chicago Subdivision connection in 

Chicago to Porter, Indiana.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

68 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Route 9 Option 2 – Improvements along Route 9 Option 2 are the same as the improvements that are 

discussed in Route 9 Option 1.

Infrastructure Improvements between Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan

East of Porter, Indiana, all Build Alternatives share the same corridor and therefore share the same 

proposed improvements. The Corridor between Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan already has 

improvements in place that accommodate speeds up to 110 mph on one main track. However, to improve 

reliability and efficiency, the Build Alternatives propose to upgrade and connect the existing passing 

sidings between Niles, Michigan near James Street and Glenwood Road just east of Dowagiac, Michigan 

Connecting the passing sidings would essentially double-track the railroad in this 16-mile section and 

allow it to accommodate additional frequencies at speeds up to 110 mph.

Infrastructure Improvements between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan

The Build Alternative would include additional maintenance upgrades for the Corridor east of

Kalamazoo, Michigan to Dearborn, Michigan, now owned by MDOT. Other improvements needed for 

the full build-out in 2035 between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan include constructing a flyover 

across CN trackage at Battle Creek, Michigan to eliminate the existing shared-track crossing, and an 

additional third track at Wayne Yards outside of Dearborn to provide NS an assembly track for its freight 

service. Construction of the third track at Wayne Yards must be completed before additional passenger 

service is allowed per the purchase agreement between NS and MDOT that transferred ownership of the 

NS Michigan Line between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan to MDOT. Additionally, new siding 

tracks are needed between the existing Ann Arbor Station and Control Point (CP) Ypsi to accommodate 

full build-out service.

Infrastructure Improvements between Dearborn and Pontiac, Michigan

To improve operations of passenger service from Dearborn, Michigan to Detroit and on to Pontiac, 

Michigan a number of improvements will be constructed under the Build Alternative to support increased 

passenger frequencies. These improvements will also result in increased speeds between Dearborn and 

Milwaukee Junction in Detroit, however geometric constraints due to the urban landscape will limit 

speeds below 79 mph. Speeds will be maintained at 79 mph between Milwaukee Junction and Pontiac, 

Michigan. 

Accommodating full build-out service of 10 round trips to Detroit in 2035 will require a second 

connection track that will be constructed at West Detroit Junction in Detroit. This second connection track 

between CSAO Michigan Line and the CN Shoreline Subdivision will improve capacity for passenger 

service. Two other operationally important improvements include reconfiguration of the Beaubien 

Interlocker near Beaubien Street and the Milwaukee Junction Interlocker just east of Interstate 75 

(Chrysler Freeway) in Detroit. These two connected improvements will remove conflicting movements 

between traffic on CSAO Michigan Line and the CN Shoreline Subdivision therefore improving capacity 

and operable speeds. The improvements will require the removal of existing track and the construction of 
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 69

new track. Additionally, layover tracks will need to be constructed at the Detroit New Center Station to 

store trains that do not travel on to Pontiac, Michigan.

Between Milwaukee Junction in Detroit and Pontiac, Michigan, the route travels on the CN Holly 

Subdivision. In this subdivision, the Build Alternative will require ITCS (Defined in Footnote #24) 

signaling, upgrading the track, and constructing new crossovers to accommodate speeds up to 79 mph. 

MDOT will also need to provide incremental maintenance for one of the main tracks between now and 

the foreseeable future, as CN has indicated that it no longer requires the second main track in order to 

meet its own needs.

2.4.3 Estimated Costs for the No Build and 2035 Build Alternatives

Program operation and maintenance costs and capital costs for the proposed full build-out service in 2035

will continue to be refined throughout the Tier 1 environmental process and as the design of the passenger 

rail system is refined. The planning-level capital cost estimates will be refined with on-going conceptual 

engineering and operations modeling work, as well as to reflect public and stakeholder input received on 

the Tier 1 Draft EIS. These refinements will be reflected in the Tier 1 Final EIS for the Preferred 

Alternative.

2.4.3.1 Capital Costs for the 2035 Build Alternatives

The capital costs for the proposed Program varies 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 2-12. It has been assumed that the capital costs applicable to the stations and the track 

and signal infrastructure between Porter, Indiana and 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.

Table 2-12: 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

2.4.3.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs

Annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs have been estimated for the No Build and the Build 

Alternatives for one full year of service implementation in 2035. Unit costs for major expense categories 

were developed using O&M costs for the Wolverine service and other Midwest state-supported Amtrak 

routes. These cost estimates were developed by Amtrak’s Performance Tracking (APT) system in 

compliance with the PRIIA Section 209 Cost Methodology Policy. Each cost category is driven by the 

operating data (shown in Table 2-14) that is most appropriate for that type of expense. For example, the 

costs for train crews and on-board service labor are driven by total train hours, the cost for fuel is driven 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

70 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

by total train miles and the costs for track maintenance are driven by total track miles. The total estimated

annual O&M costs for the No Build and Build Alternatives are shown in Table 2-13. All costs are 

calculated in 2013 dollars. Additional detail about the development of the O&M costs can be found in 

Appendix E.

A description of the components of each of these expense categories is provided below.

• Maintenance of Way - Substantial sections of dedicated passenger rail mains are included with each 

build alternative to accommodate the high speed rail service in the Corridor. The majority of the 

Corridor will be owned and maintained by passenger rail entities including the Porter, Indiana to 

Kalamazoo, Michigan section (Amtrak) and the Kalamazoo, Michigan to Dearborn, Michigan section 

(State of Michigan). The cost of maintaining a mile of track to FRA Class VI standards48 is estimated 

to be $50,000 per year49. It is assumed that 75 percent of the Corridor will be double tracked. 

Ultimately this cost will be shared by other passenger and freight users of the Corridor, but for the 

purposes of this estimate all track maintenance costs have been included in this O&M cost estimate.

• Maintenance of Equipment - The operating plan for each Build Alternative assumes that new high 

speed rail locomotives and passenger cars will be purchased for exclusive use on this Corridor. The 

annual costs for equipment, labor and facilities related to the maintenance of the locomotives and 

passenger cars is included in this expense category.

• Operations and Transportation - This cost category includes both the train and engine crew labor 

and the on-board service labor required to operate the rail service. Also included in this category are 

materials and supplies and overhead and management expenses.

• Fuel - Fuel is typically included in the Operations and Transportation Expense category, but it is 

separated in this analysis because it is a substantial cost factor. Fuel costs are based on 2013 prices for 

diesel fuel and it is assumed that each train will be powered by two high horsepower diesel-electric 

locomotives specifically designed for high speed operations and that meet all current federal 

emissions standards.

• Sales and Marketing - This category includes the cost of marketing and advertising the rail service 

in order to attract passengers. Also included in this category is the Corridor’s share of the cost of the 

national information and reservations network.

• Stations - The proposed schedule for each Build Alternative includes stops at 16 stations in Illinois, 

Indiana and Michigan. This includes 15 existing stations and one new suburban station in a location 

to be determined in or around Gary, Indiana. Some of these stations, including Chicago Union 

Station, are served by multiple intercity and/or commuter routes, and only a portion of the operating 

and maintenance costs would be assigned to the Chicago – Detroit/Pontiac High Speed service based 

 

48 FRA has established categories of track that specify the maximum allowable speed. FRA Class VI track allows for 

speeds up to 110 mph. 49 Chicago – St. Louis Tier I DEIS. Illinois Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration, 2012. 

Maintenance costs assumed to be $48,000 per year in 2011 dollars. Inflated to $50,000 to represent 2013 costs.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 71

on the volume of passengers from this route using the station. Other stations, such as Ann Arbor and 

Dearborn would only be used by the Chicago – Detroit/Pontiac service and therefore full O&M costs 

would be assigned to this route. Some stations (Battle Creek, for example) are shared between rail 

and bus services, and the O&M costs are allocated between the modes based on usage. The level of 

O&M costs at each station varies by the frequency of service stops, the volume of passengers and 

whether the station is manned or unmanned.

• General and Administrative - This category includes the Corridor’s share of national corporate 

administration, centralized services and liability insurance. Also included is the cost of “passenger 

inconvenience,” which includes payments for replacement tickets and alternative transportation 

necessitated by service delays.

• Capital Equipment Overhaul - This category includes cost of major capital overhaul of all vehicles 

used for the Build Alternative service.

• Police, Security and Environmental Safety - This category includes the cost of keeping the rail 

operations safe and secure, including the provision of railroad police, security services and the 

prevention and remediation of environmental impacts.

Table 2-13: Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs for the No Build and Build Alternative (2035)

Cost Category No Build Alternative Build Alternative

Maintenance of Way $21,000,000 $23,200,000

Maintenance of Equipment $7,800,000 $25,700,000

Operations - Transportation $9,000,000 $30,100,000

Fuel $6,300,000 $20,900,000

Sales and Marketing $4,900,000 $13,100,000

Stations $8,300,000 $8,300,000

General and Administrative $6,500,000 $20,600,000

Capital Equipment Overhaul $3,300,000 $10,900,000

Police, Security & Environmental Safety $800,000 $2,600,000

Total Operating & Maintenance Expenses $67,900,000 $155,400,000

Projected Revenues $63,880,000 $162,030,000

Note: Annual operating costs apply to all Build Alternatives. All costs are calculated in 2013 Dollars.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

72 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 2-14 provides a summary of the reasonable service alternative operating statistics used to develop 

the O&M costs for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Program.

Table 2-14: Reasonable Service Alternative Operating Statistics for the No Build and Build 

Alternative (2035)

Cost Category No Build Alternative Build Alternative

Ridership 1,050,000 2,830,000

Passenger Revenue $63,880,000 $162,030,000

Service Frequencies 3 Round Trips/Day 10 Round Trips/Day (Chi-Det)

7 Round Trips/Day (Det-Pon)

Corridor Length in Miles 305 305

Track Miles 387 406

Train Miles 668,826 2,212,849

Train Hours 12,398 35,058

Unit Trips 15,330 70,080

Number of Stations 16 16

Passenger Miles 225,770,000 541,520,000

2.4.3.3 Revenues

A preliminary analysis of potential future revenue for each service scenario analyzed in Section 2.1 has 

been completed for the Tier 1 EIS. The passenger rail revenue forecast is shown in Figure 2-17, and 

shows that revenues increase strongly as both travel speed and frequency increase.

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. Further financial analysis will be completed once a Preferred 

Alternative has been identified. Additional details on the ridership analysis completed to support these 

findings are found in Appendix E.
Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 73

Figure 2-17: Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor Annual Revenue Forecast (Million $2013)

Source: TEMS Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results, June 2014