Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
I'm torn on this because good riddance to dangerous street running (sorry railfans) and better transit service is always good, but the way they are doing the project is reminiscent of 1960s urban renewal.
I'm not sure why they hate to have homes and businesses around their stations, this is the 21st century for gods sake |
Many answers should be available on the EIS documents. Have you read them?
The 2013 EIS is no longer up on the internet, at least as far as I can find, but the 2017 traffic impact study still is.
http://mplshdrpi.com/doubletracknwim...M_20170818.pdf
Section 2 includes why the preferred alternate was selected.
"Although NICTD and Michigan City shared the same goal of finding a new route, each had different reasons and rationale for supporting the proposed realignment. Michigan City’s priorities were increased economic development opportunities, improved quality of life, and maintenance of access through town while NICTD’s priorities were increased speed of travel, decreased maintenance costs, and increased reliability of service. There were also several shared expectations, including the desire for establishing a modern passenger station, improving overall safety for the community, and enhancing access to and from Chicago. The Central Corridor Alignment was selected as the preferred alternative."
So both the city and the transit agency supported this route selection. Why suggest that was not so?
Additionally I would like to add that this project was not a FTA "New Starts" project, but a "Core Capacity" improvement project as far as Federal funding was concern. A slightly different set of environmental rules and processes.