Interim Alternatives Selection Report: Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives

Chicago-Toledo Corridor

Prepared for: Indiana Department of Transportation

Prepared by: Quandel Consultants, LLC

Version: June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 -1

1.1 Purpose of Interim Alternatives Selection Report ...... 1-1

1.3 Project Study Area ...... 1 -2

2.0 Identification of the Universe of Routes ...... 2 -1 2.1 Logical Termini...... 2 -1

2.1.1 Chicago-Area Network ...... 2-1

2.1.2 Toledo-Area Network ...... 2 -2 2.2 Project Corridor ...... 2 -3 2.4 Identification of the Baseline Route ...... 2 -5 3.0 Development of Route Alternatives and Track segments for Evaluation ...... 3-1 4.0 Evaluation to Identify the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives ...... 4-1 4.1 Evaluation Criterion #1: Route Distance ...... 4-1 4.2 Evaluation Criterion #2: Route Population ...... 4-2 4.3 Evaluation Criterion #3: Physical Constraints ...... 4-3 5.0 Evaluation Summary ...... 5 -1 6.0 Conclusion ...... 6 -1

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page i June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 1.0 – Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Interim Alternatives Selection Report The purpose of the Interim Alternatives Selection Report is to identify the range of project alternatives within the Chicago-Toledo section of the Chicago-Cleveland corridor. These project alternatives are referred to as “potential passenger rail alternatives”. The Interim Alternatives Selection Report will clearly indicate the following:

• why and how the universe of routes was developed,

• how the results of the agency input was used in the alternatives analysis, and

• describe the process used to evaluate and eliminate the alternatives to arrive at the potential passenger rail alternatives

The routes identified as potential passenger rail alternatives can be further analyzed in an Alternatives Selection Report to identify “reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternatives” that, in turn, can be analyzed in a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement to identify a preferred passenger rail alternative in the corridor.

1.2 Background Eight Midwestern States, including Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin have worked cooperatively with the FRA and Amtrak over the past decade to advance the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI), a plan to implement a high speed intercity passenger rail system in the region. The FRA has been an active participant in the funding and in reviewing the planning documents.

In 2004, the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook (the MWRRI Project Notebook) was produced. The Project Notebook was the culmination of a comprehensive ten-year study to assess the feasibility of a regional passenger rail network and produce an associated business plan.

As reported in the MWRRI Project Notebook, the Chicago-Toledo corridor is part of the larger Chicago-Cleveland corridor and was scheduled for implementation in MWRRI Phase 5. Phase 5 also included Chicago-Cincinnati and Iowa City-Des Moines corridors and Michigan branch lines. MWRRI Phases 1-4 included the following corridors:

• Phase 1 included Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Detroit, and Chicago-Milwaukee- Madison.

• Phase 2 included Milwaukee-St. Paul.

• Phase 3 included Chicago-Iowa City.

• Phase 4 included Chicago-Quincy, Chicago-Carbondale, and St. Louis-Kansas City.

The Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Detroit, and Chicago-Milwaukee corridors were authorized for designation as high-speed intercity passenger rail corridors by the

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 1-1 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 1.0 – Introduction

Secretary of Transportation in 1992. On December 11, 1998 Then FRA Administrator Molitoris announced the TEA-21 authorized extension of the Midwest High-Speed Rail Corridor from Milwaukee, WI to Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, in the Federal Register. (Vol. 63, No. 238/ page 68500). By 2001, Chicago-Cleveland, Chicago-Cincinnati, Chicago- Indianapolis-Louisville, and Chicago-St. Louis-Kansas City were all designated high- speed intercity passenger rail corridors. Figure 1-1 depicts the national high-speed intercity passenger rail corridors designated as of December 31, 2010.

Figure 1-1. National High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Corridors

1.3 Project S tu d y Are a The project study area is the Chicago-Toledo corridor. The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) identified the Universe of Route Alternatives that includes all possible rail alternatives within the corridor. Since the project analyzes a tri-state network of corridors, the project study area and Universe of Route Alternatives are limited to the existing, abandoned, and out of service rail lines serving the terminal cities in a reasonably direct manner that the public would consider as possible passenger rail routes.

Figure 1-2 depicts the Project Study Area.

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 1-2 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 1.0 – Introduction

Figure 1-2. Chicago-Toledo Project Study Area

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 1-3 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 2.0 – Identification of the Universe of Routes

2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE UNIVERSE OF ROUTES 2.1 Logical Termini The limits of the Universe of Routes are identified by determining the logical termini for the corridor. The MWRRI Project Notebook designates that the Chicago Union Station and the Toledo Amtrak Station be the logical termini for the corridor. However, multiple rail routes exist in the terminal areas requiring more detailed investigation in further studies. The designation of these stations as logical termini does not preclude other station sites from being studied and selected as the terminal stations.

Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 discuss the Chicago and Toledo terminal areas.

2.1.1 Chicago-Area Network Chicago Union Station (CUS) is the designated terminal station, at 212 South Canal Street in Chicago. The track leading into CUS is owned by Amtrak and is accessible from by Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, and Metra-operated trains. The station currently serves eleven Amtrak routes:

• California Zephyr – once-daily service from Chicago through Denver to Emeryville, CA

• Capitol Limited – once-daily service from Chicago to Washington, D.C with stops in Toledo and Cleveland

• Cardinal/Hoosier State – twice-daily service from Chicago through Washington, D.C. to New York City

• City of New Orleans – once-daily service from Chicago through Memphis to New Orleans

• Empire Builder - once-daily service from Chicago through Milwaukee to Seattle/Portland

• Hiawatha - seven round trips per day (six on Sundays) between Chicago and Milwaukee

• Illinois Service – once-daily service from Chicago to Carbondale on the Illini and Saluki, once-daily service from Chicago-Quincy on the Carl Sandburg and Illinois Zephyr, and four round trips between Chicago and St. Louis

• Lake Shore Limited – twice-daily service between Chicago and New York City/Boston with stops in Toledo and Cleveland

• Michigan Services – three round trips from Chicago through Detroit to Pontiac, MI on the Wolverine, once-daily service from Chicago to Port Huron, MI on the Bluewater, and once-daily service between Chicago and Grand Rapids, MI on the Pere Marquette

• Southwest Chief – once-daily service from Chicago through Albuquerque to Los Angeles

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 2-1 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 2.0 – Identification of the Universe of Routes

1 • Texas Eagle – once-daily service from Chicago through San Antonio to Los Angeles

Figure 2-1 depicts the location of Chicago Union Station.

Figure 2-1. Chicago Union Station

2.1.2 Toledo-Area Network Toledo Union Station is the designated terminal station, at 415 Emerald Avenue in Toledo. Toledo Union Station serves as the station for the existing Amtrak service. The station is accessible from adjacent Norfolk Southern tracks. The station currently serves two Amtrak lines, the Lake Shore Limited, which provides twice-daily service between Chicago and New York City/Boston, and Capitol Limited, which provides once-daily service from Chicago to Washington, D.C.2

Figure 2-2 depicts the location of the Toledo Union Station.

1 www.amtrak.com 2 www.amtrak.com

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 2-2 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 2.0 – Identification of the Universe of Routes

Figure 2-2. Toledo Union Station

2.2 Project Corridor The corridor between Chicago and Toledo is identified using geographic (GIS) data provided by Indiana DOT. This information was verified using internet searches, Google Maps, Google Earth and available railroad track charts and timetables.

2.3 Stakeholder Input The Indiana DOT representatives on the MWRRI Technical Steering Committee and the consultant have discussed working drafts of the technical memoranda that have been used to develop this Interim Alternatives Selection Report. A final draft was prepared incorporating review comments and submitted to Indiana on February 19, 2010. A conference call was held on February 23, 2010 to obtain additional comments from Indiana DOT. Indiana DOT had no further comments on this corridor.

Figure 2-3 depicts the Universe of Routes.

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 2-3 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 2.0 – Identification of the Universe of Routes

Figure 2-3. Identification of the Universe of Routes

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 2-4 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 2.0 – Identification of the Universe of Routes

2.4 Identification of the Baseline Route Within the Evaluation to Identify the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives, each of the routes is assessed against a baseline route for the purpose of making comparative route evaluations. For this analysis, the baseline route defined in the MWRRI Project Notebook was used. It is defined as:

• Route 7 – Chicago – Wanatah – Warsaw - Ft. Wayne – Defiance - Liberty Center – Delta - Toledo

Route 7 was selected to be the baseline route since it was the route used between Chicago and Toledo to develop the Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS)3. The MWRRS has been under development since 1995, when the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin, in partnership with the Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak, began to evaluate the potential role of high speed rail in the Midwest.

A “normative statement” is used to assess each route against the baseline route. A normative statement is a value judgment given to data for the purposes of qualitatively assessing that data. A normative statement is given to the evaluation criteria described in section 4.0. Each of the routes is assessed considering the normative statement for the given criteria.

3 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. June 2004. MWRRI Project Notebook.

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 2-5 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 3.0 – Development of Route Alternatives and Track Segments for Evaluation

3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ROUTE ALTERNATIVES AND TRACK SEGMENTS FOR EVALUATION

From the Universe of Routes, the route alternatives and track segments are developed. The route alternatives are developed by first identifying ‘track segments’ within the Universe of Routes. For the purpose of this Interim Report, a ‘track segment’ is a portion of rail defined by logical end points, junctions, or population centers. The track segments include existing track and/or right-of-way currently owned by private freight railroads, or an abandoned rail right-of-way with or without an existing track.

High-speed passenger rail alignment alternatives in the vicinity of Chicago and Northwestern Indiana have previously been studied in the 2004 report ‘Detroit-Chicago High Speed Rail Corridor Study Update “South-of-the-Lake Corridor”. The study investigated route options for high-speed passenger rail service from Chicago to eastern destinations including Detroit and Cleveland. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the routes will utilize the Norfolk Southern Railway track between Chicago Union Station and Clarke Junction, as this was the proposed high-speed rail alignment in the “South-of-the Lake Corridor” study.

Additionally, only one route is considered between Detroit and Toledo for this analysis. If all of the routes between Detroit and Toledo had been considered, an additional ten routes would have been analyzed in the Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives, and possibly as many would have been carried over into future analyses. For efficiency of analysis, the following alignment between Detroit and Toledo is assumed: Toledo-Monroe-Trenton-Wyandotte-Detroit. If the route between Detroit and Toledo (Route 4) is identified as a reasonable and feasible route in a future analysis, the alternative routes between Detroit and Toledo will be analyzed in the final alternatives analysis prior to the identification of the preferred passenger rail alternative for the Cleveland-Toledo corridor.

The track segments are described in Table 3-1 by a track segment identifier, start and end points, and the owner of the route segment. The owners of the route segments are determined by using SPV’s “Comprehensive Railroad Atlas of North America” and verified using Federal Railroad Administration data. The track segments are used to develop the route alternatives for the project study area. The routes alternatives are described in Table 3-2 by route number, the combination of track segments within the route alternative, communities along the route alternative (specific station locations are not yet identified), and the owner(s) of the right-of-way of the route alternative. The track segments and route alternatives are depicted in Figure 3-1.

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 3-1 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 3.0 – Development of Route Alternatives and Track Segments for Evaluation

Table 3-1. Chicago-Toledo Track Segments

Track Start End Owner(s) Segment

A Chicago, IL Clark Junction (Gary), IN Norfolk Southern (NS)

B Clark Junction (Gary), IN Porter, IN NS/CSX

C Clark Junction (Gary), IN Alida, IN CSX

CSX/Chicago, Ft. Wayne, & D Clark Junction (Gary), IN Hobart, IN Eastern Railroad (CFER)

E Porter, IN Detroit, MI Amtrak/NS

F Porter, IN Goshen, IN NS

G Alida, IN Defiance, OH CSX

H Hobart, IN Warsaw, IN CSX/CFER

I Hobart, IN Ft. Wayne, IN NS

J Goshen, IN Warsaw, IN NS

K Goshen, IN Delta, OH NS

L Warsaw, IN Ft. Wayne, IN CSX/CFER

M Ft. Wayne, IN Defiance, OH NS/Maumee & Western (MAW)

N Defiance, OH Liberty Center, OH MAW

O Liberty Center, OH Delta, OH Indiana & Ohio Railway (IORY)

P Liberty Center, OH Toledo, OH NS/Abandoned

Q Delta, OH Toledo, OH NS NS/CSX/Canadian National R Detroit, MI Toledo, OH (CN)

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 3-2 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 3.0 – Development of Route Alternatives and Track Segments for Evaluation

Table 3-2. Chicago-Toledo Route Alternatives

Route Track Segments Communities Served Owner(s) Route Moniker Number Chicago, IL Gary, IN Porter, IN South Bend, IN Elkhart, IN Goshen, IN NS/CSX/CFER/MAW/ 1 A-B-F-J-L-M-N-O-Q Porter-Warsaw-Delta Warsaw, IN IORY Ft. Wayne, IN Defiance, OH Liberty Center, OH Delta, OH Toledo, OH Chicago, IL Gary, IN Porter, IN South Bend, IN Elkhart, IN NS/CSX/CFER/MAW/ Porter-Warsaw-Liberty 2 A-B-F-J-L-M-N-P Goshen, IN Abandoned Center Warsaw, IN Ft. Wayne, IN Defiance, OH Liberty Center, OH Toledo, OH Chicago, IL Gary, IN Porter, IN South Bend, IN 3 A-B-F-K-Q NS/CSX Existing Amtrak Elkhart, IN Goshen, IN Delta, OH Toledo, OH Chicago, IL Gary, IN Porter, IN New Buffalo, MI 4 A-B-E-R Battle Creek, MI NS/CSX/Amtrak/CN Porter-Detroit Ann Arbor, MI West Detroit, MI Trenton, MI Toledo, OH Chicago, IL Gary, IN Alida, IN 5 A-C-G-N-O-Q Defiance, OH NS/CSX/MAW/IORY Alida-Defiance-Delta Liberty Center, OH Delta, OH Toledo, OH Chicago, IL Gary, IN Alida, IN NS/CSX/MAW/ Alida-Defiance-Liberty 6 A-C-G-N-P Defiance, OH Abandoned Center Liberty Center, OH Toledo, OH Chicago, IL NS/CSX/CFER/MAW/ 7 A-D-H-L-M-N-O-Q MWRRI-Ft. Wayne-Delta Gary, IN IORY

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 3-3 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 3.0 – Development of Route Alternatives and Track Segments for Evaluation

Wanatah, IN Warsaw, IN Ft. Wayne, IN Defiance, OH Liberty Center, OH Delta, OH Toledo, OH Chicago, IL Gary, IN Wanatah, IN Warsaw, IN NS/CSX/CFER/MAW/ MWRRI-Ft. Wayne- 8 A-D-H-L-M-N-P Ft. Wayne, IN Abandoned Liberty Center Defiance, OH Liberty Center, OH Toledo, OH Chicago, IL Gary, IN South Wanatah, IN Ft. Wayne, IN NS/CSX/CFERMAW/ 9 A-D-I-M-N-O-Q Ft. Wayne-Delta Defiance, OH IORY Liberty Center, OH Delta, OH Toledo, OH Chicago, IL Gary, IN South Wanatah, IN NS/CSX/CFER/MAW/ 10 A-D-I-M-N-P Ft. Wayne, IN Ft. Wayne-Liberty Center Abandoned Defiance, OH Liberty Center, OH Toledo, OH The description of each route alternative is as follows (station locations have not yet been determined):

• Route 1 – Chicago – Porter - South Bend – Elkhart – Goshen – Warsaw - Ft. Wayne – Defiance - Liberty Center – Delta - Toledo

• Route 2 – Chicago – Porter - South Bend – Elkhart – Goshen – Warsaw - Ft. Wayne – Defiance - Liberty Center - Toledo

• Route 3 – Chicago – Porter - South Bend – Elkhart – Goshen – Delta - Toledo

• Route 4 – Chicago – Porter - New Buffalo - Battle Creek - Ann Arbor - West Detroit - Milwaukee Jct - West Detroit – Trenton - Toledo

• Route 5 – Chicago – Alida – Defiance - Liberty Center – Delta - Toledo

• Route 6 – Chicago – Alida – Defiance - Liberty Center - Toledo

• Route 7 – Chicago – Wanatah – Warsaw - Ft. Wayne – Defiance - Liberty Center – Delta - Toledo

• Route 8 – Chicago – Wanatah – Warsaw - Ft. Wayne – Defiance - Liberty Center - Toledo

• Route 9 – Chicago - S. Wanatah - Ft. Wayne – Defiance - Liberty Center – Delta - Toledo

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 3-4 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 3.0 – Development of Route Alternatives and Track Segments for Evaluation

• Route 10 – Chicago - S. Wanatah - Ft. Wayne – Defiance - Liberty Center - Toledo

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 3-5 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 3.0 – Development of Route Alternatives and Track Segments for Evaluation

Figure 3-1. Chicago-Toledo Cities Route Alternatives and Track Segments

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 3-6 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 4.0 – Evaluation to Identify the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives

4.0 EVALUATION TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL PASSENGER RAIL ALTERNATIVE S

Evaluation criteria and associated measures have been developed to compare the differences between the alternatives and the baseline. These criteria address the basic feasibility of the alternatives. The evaluation criteria and measure that have been established are described in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Evaluation Criteria & Measures

Evaluation Criteria Measure

Provide a quantifiable means to measure and compare route Route Distances length from end point to end point

Provide a quantifiable means to measure and compare Route Populations ridership potential Provide locations where physical constraints are within Physical Constraints abandoned rights-of-way

In order to evaluate the alternatives, a percentage difference between each route and the baseline (each alternative rail route is compared against the baseline, Route 7 – Chicago – Wanatah – Warsaw - Ft. Wayne – Defiance - Liberty Center – Delta - Toledo) is calculated for evaluation criteria #1 and #2. For evaluation criterion #3 (Physical Constraints), the presence of physical constraints along a route eliminates a route from further analysis.

As stated in section 2.4, a normative statement is given to each evaluation criterion to assess routes against that criterion and the baseline route. The recommendation of whether an alternative should be eliminated from further analysis or retained as a potential passenger rail alternative for further analysis is based on how the data for each criterion compares against the normative statement and the baseline route.

4.1 Evaluation Criterion #1: Route Distance Comparing the distances between alternative rail routes is a quantitative and simple way of differentiating among all alternatives. Rail route distance can be used as a relative indicator of travel times and operating and maintenance costs. More direct routes can be expected to offer more favorable values.

Route distances between the suggested corridor end points are calculated using GIS data provided by Indiana DOT.

Normative Statement: Routes with a greater negative difference in route distance compared to the baseline route are better than routes with a greater difference in route distance compared to the baseline route.

Table 4-2 summarizes the distances for each of the route alternatives. The shortest routes, Routes 3, 5, and 6, are the most direct routes from Chicago to Toledo, with

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 4-1 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 4.0 – Evaluation to Identify the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives

distances under 240 miles. The longest route, Routes 4, has a route distance of 340 miles. Each alternative rail route is compared against the baseline, Route 7 – Chicago – Wanatah – Warsaw - Ft. Wayne – Defiance - Liberty Center – Delta - Toledo.

Table 4-2. Route Distances

Route Difference vs. Route Difference vs. Distance Baseline Number Baseline (%) (Miles) (Miles)

Baseline (Route 247.5 - - 7) Route 1 - Porter- 273.8 26.3 11% Warsaw-Delta Route 2 - Porter- Warsaw-Liberty 268.7 21.2 9% Center Route 3 - 233.8 (13.7) (6%) Existing Amtrak Route 4 - Porter- 340.2 92.7 37% Detroit Route 5 - Alida- 239.8 (7.7) (3%) Defiance-Delta Route 6 - Alida- Defiance-Liberty 234.8 (12.7) (5%) Center Route 7 - MWRRI-Ft. 247.5 - - Wayne-Delta Route 8 - MWRRI-Ft. 242.4 (5.1) (2%) Wayne-Liberty Center Route 9 - Ft. 249.4 1.9 1% Wayne-Delta Route 10 - Ft. Wayne-Liberty 244.3 (3.2) (1%) Center

Assessment: After reviewing the route distance data, the differences in route distance to the baseline are not significant enough to eliminate any routes as this level of analysis. Therefore, this criterion is not used to eliminate any alternative routes from further analysis.

4.2 Evaluation Criterion #2: Route Population In order to determine which alternatives best serve the larger population centers between Chicago and Toledo, the populations are calculated for each alternative using GIS software and US census data from the year 2000. The population for each alternative route includes census tract populations found within a 20-mile band of the track, and within a 20-mile radius of each of the terminal stations.

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 4-2 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 4.0 – Evaluation to Identify the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives

Normative Statement: Routes with a greater positive difference in population compared to the baseline route are better than routes with a lesser difference in population.

The route populations for each alternative are shown in Table 4-3. Each alternative rail route is compared against the baseline, Route 7 – Chicago – Wanatah – Warsaw - Ft. Wayne – Defiance - Liberty Center – Delta – Toledo.

Table 4-3. Route Populations

Route Route Difference Difference vs. Number Population vs. Baseline Baseline (%)

Baseline (Route 7) 6,166,925

Route 1 - Porter- 6,615,511 448,586 7% Warsaw-Delta Route 2 - Porter- Warsaw-Liberty 6,607,133 440,208 7% Center Route 3 - Existing 6,283,043 116,118 2% Amtrak Route 4 - Porter- 8,967,570 2,800,645 45% Detroit Route 5 - Alida- 5,931,467 (235,458) (4%) Defiance-Delta Route 6 - Alida- Defiance-Liberty 5,917,555 (249,370) (4%) Center Route 7 - MWRRI- 6,166,925 - - Ft. Wayne-Delta Route 8 - MWRRI- Ft. Wayne-Liberty 6,157,851 (9,074) 0% Center Route 9 - Ft. 6,163,373 (3,552) 0% Wayne-Delta Route 10 - Ft. Wayne-Liberty 6,145,968 (20,957) 0% Center Assessment: After reviewing the route population data, the differences in route population to the baseline are not significant enough to eliminate any route at this level of analysis. Therefore, this criterion is not used to eliminate any alternative routes from further analysis.

4.3 Evaluation Criterion #3: Phys ical Cons traints Site conditions that make the construction and operation of a passenger rail line particularly costly or difficult may be considered physical constraints. When these conditions effectively prohibit rail line construction or operation and cannot be mitigated, the route is considered untenable and is eliminated from further evaluation.

Some physical constraints may be identified that can be mitigated by purchasing the site

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 4-3 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 4.0 – Evaluation to Identify the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives

feature or planning to build around it. When physical constraints of this type occur in series along a particular corridor, they may not be as readily mitigated as single occurrences. In these cases, the section will be removed from consideration due to the aggregate impact of the separate occurrences.

Normative Statement: Routes with physical constraints should be considered for elimination while routes with no physical constraints should not be considered for elimination.

The following paragraphs examine abandoned and out of use segments of track along routes within the Chicago-Toledo corridor. A description of each physical constraint is given, if any, along with a licensed Google Earth image depicting the defect.

Routes 2, 6, 8, and 10

The 2002 TEMS report ‘Northern Indiana/Northwestern Ohio Routing Study’ studied two high-speed passenger rail routes through northern Indiana from Chicago to Toledo, OH. In the report a section of abandoned right-of-way between Liberty Center, OH and Maumee, OH was eliminated from consideration. The section has been partially converted to a bicycle / pedestrian path with additional short-term plans calling for the continued pathway conversion of the remaining portions of the abandoned right-of-way. With input from local citizens and community groups on the study steering committee, the option of reverting the corridor from a pathway back to a rail line for passenger use was recognized as highly unlikely and environmentally difficult. Additionally, there are several commercial buildings on the rights-of-way in Whitehouse, OH. These physical constraints make the segment untenable, and the segment is eliminated from further analysis, which eliminates Routes 2, 6, 8, and 10 from further consideration. Figure 4-1 shows the physical constraints in Whitehouse, OH.

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 4-4 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 4.0 – Evaluation to Identify the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives

Figure 4-1. Physical Constraints in Whitehouse, OH

Route Description City Segment Numbers Bike path and commercial buildings Whitehouse, 2, 6, 8, and 10 Q within the abandoned right-of-way OH

Table 4-4 summarizes the physical constraints on each route including the name of the town the physical constraint is located in, the location within the town, and the type of physical constraint that exists.

Quandel Consultants, LLC © Page 4-5 June 17, 2011

Interim Alternatives Selection Report 4.0 – Evaluation to Identify the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives

Table 4-4. Physical Constraints

Segment of Track in Route Which Physical Physical Constraint Number Cosntraint is Located

1 None Identified None Identified Abandoned track right-of-way between Liberty Center, OH and 2 Q Maumee, OH (20 miles) – Includes commercial buildings on the right-of-way in Whitehouse, OH 3 None Identified None identified 4 None Identified None Identified 5 None Identified None Identified Abandoned track right-of-way between Liberty Center, OH and 6 Q Maumee, OH (20 miles) – Includes commercial buildings on the right-of-way in Whitehouse, OH 7 None Identified None Identified Abandoned track right-of-way between Liberty Center, OH and 8 Q Maumee, OH (20 miles) – Includes commercial buildings on the right-of-way in Whitehouse, OH 9 None Identified None Identified Abandoned track right-of-way between Liberty Center, OH and 10 Q Maumee, OH (20 miles) – Includes commercial buildings on the right-of-way in Whitehouse, OH

Assessment: Routes 2, 6, 8, and 10 have a very severe physical constraint that makes the routes untenable. Routes 2, 6, 8, and 10 are eliminated from further analysis.