CN Logistics Center - Channahon & US-6

Started by edwaleni, December 29, 2024, 05:09:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

edwaleni

CN railroad wants to build a new logistics intermodal center near Channahon and Minooka Illinois.

But this is causing road planning problems due to the amount of truck traffic on US-6.



The City of Minooka has filed suit against CN in order to stop any construction until he highways issues can be addressed.

https://www.minooka.com/news/posts/minooka-voices-concerns-over-canadian-national-hub-and-heavy-truck-traffic/

@Rick Powell Didn't you say IDOT owns a bunch of land just north of this on I-80 for a future IL-47/Prairie Parkway interchange?


Rick Powell

#1
Quote from: edwaleni on December 29, 2024, 05:09:39 PM@Rick Powell Didn't you say IDOT owns a bunch of land just north of this on I-80 for a future IL-47/Prairie Parkway interchange?

Yes, the state owns over 100 acres north of Minooka Road, near where it crosses I-80 and north of the logistics park site...much of it is covered up by the legend on your map. I checked the Grundy County GIS and confirmed the state still holds the title. It's a ways away from the logistics site but conceivably could be developable land if the state auctioned it as excess property. When I was at IDOT we got together with the county engineer and decided to make the new Minooka Road/I-80 overhead bridge 4-lanes (currently striped for 2) instead of 2-lanes to account for future growth.

I'd also note that Minooka Road and Ridge Road would offer a 4-lane access from the logistics site to I-80 through a mostly industrial area (and could also be served by McLinden Road/Grainger Way which was set up to eventually make the route 4-lanes) where a US 6/Ridge Road access is mostly 2-lane today and also bisects some residential and commercial areas. However, funneling any additional traffic to the I-80/Ridge Road interchange is probably a concern to the village, no matter what route it takes. Using the Brisbin Road interchange to the west would avoid routing truck traffic through the most congested areas of the village, but US 6 is already seeing a lot of traffic between the Brisbin interchange and Minooka.

edwaleni

So Minooka files suit against CSX, CSX can't really do anything about US-6, they would have to work with IDOT, or create a new dedicated route to I-80.

I am trying to understand how they can just say "we are building this here" without any kind (some kind) of road impact analysis from Grundy County or IDOT?

Rick Powell

Quote from: edwaleni on December 30, 2024, 10:35:06 AMSo Minooka files suit against CSX, CSX can't really do anything about US-6, they would have to work with IDOT, or create a new dedicated route to I-80.

I am trying to understand how they can just say "we are building this here" without any kind (some kind) of road impact analysis from Grundy County or IDOT?

The US 6 connection will definitely need a traffic impact study for IDOT's review. McLindon Rd. seems to be under jurisdiction of Minooka and Aux Sable Township, so one or the other would have a say in it also depending on where the connection point is. Addition of through lanes, turn lanes and traffic signals, and deeding additional right of way to IDOT by the developer, under permit is not that uncommon, depending on the results of the impact studies. Where it gets tricky and sticky is if the need is to extend the improvements beyond the immediate area in order to be effective.

mtutiger

#4
Long time lurker, registered for the board specifically to give a couple of comments on this (as someone who lives here):

  • Minooka concerns are both traffic related *and* property tax related. The real estate for the project sits within the Village of Channahon but borders Minooka, which as it stands means that there would be little to no gain for Minooka (at least as it currently stands) despite all of the traffic challenges that the facility would bring.
  • In terms of US 6 and east west traffic, the Brisbin Rd interchange (to the west, between Channahon and Morris) would be the ideal place to funnel traffic to (with need for studying/widening as mentioned above) but for traffic heading toward I-55 (which seems like a lot of it would), it's all two lane from McLindon Rd to the DuPage River / I&M Canal. All adjacent to residential areas. The bridges in particular seem like a real issue.
  • US 6 is the main thoroughfare through Channahon and people have concerns about traffic as it *currently* stands (and specifically with truck traffic related to LyondellBasell and other chemical related industries on the west side of the Village). The possibility of this facility adds to these concerns / anxieties.

I personally am trying to be open minded about the project, but find myself pretty concerned as well, even if there could be some economic benefits

edwaleni

Quote from: mtutiger on January 06, 2025, 12:07:03 PMLong time lurker, registered for the board specifically to give a couple of comments on this (as someone who lives here):

  • Minooka concerns are both traffic related *and* property tax related. The real estate for the project sits within the Village of Channahon but borders Minooka, which as it stands means that there would be little to no gain for Minooka (at least as it currently stands) despite all of the traffic challenges that the facility would bring.
  • In terms of US 6 and east west traffic, the Brisbin Rd interchange (to the west, between Channahon and Morris) would be the ideal place to funnel traffic to (with need for studying/widening as mentioned above) but for traffic heading toward I-55 (which seems like a lot of it would), it's all two lane from McLindon Rd to the DuPage River / I&M Canal. All adjacent to residential areas. The bridges in particular seem like a real issue.
  • US 6 is the main thoroughfare through Channahon and people have concerns about traffic as it *currently* stands (and specifically with truck traffic related to LyondellBasell and other chemical related industries on the west side of the Village). The possibility of this facility adds to these concerns / anxieties.

I personally am trying to be open minded about the project, but find myself pretty concerned as well, even if there could be some economic benefits

First off, thanks for taking the time to join and comment. Much appreciated

This is kind of why I reached out to @Rick Powell first on this because (IMHO) it has a potential impact to several local and regional transportation issues. The warehousing industry around Channahon is growing very quickly and some of it is tied to the UP Global IV and BNSF Logistics Park intermodal centers south of Joliet. A container pick up/drop off is going to be coming down either US-6 or I-80. CN clearly wants to get in on the business, which is also obvious as they have a major west coast shipping terminal at Prince Rupert BC.

It gets them closer to the facilities as opposed to trucking over from Kirk or Markham.

Seems like a longer term regional solution is needed as opposed to the Houbolt Road Toll Bridge. It merely dumps everyone onto I-80.

Rick Powell

Quote from: edwaleni on January 06, 2025, 03:26:24 PMSeems like a longer term regional solution is needed as opposed to the Houbolt Road Toll Bridge. It merely dumps everyone onto I-80.

Along with the I-80 improvements currently underway (which will help regional east-west freight travel immensely), next week IDOT will be selecting a consultant to start Phase I studies for the I-55 corridor from IL 113 to I-80, including the oft-under repair Des Plaines river bridge. Will County will continue to spend a generous portion of its transportation funding on addressing freight issues, and they have done a lot of public outreach in trying to come up with solutions that will move the freight while respecting the residential and natural areas of the county.

edwaleni

Quote from: Rick Powell on January 09, 2025, 12:53:55 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 06, 2025, 03:26:24 PMSeems like a longer term regional solution is needed as opposed to the Houbolt Road Toll Bridge. It merely dumps everyone onto I-80.

Along with the I-80 improvements currently underway (which will help regional east-west freight travel immensely), next week IDOT will be selecting a consultant to start Phase I studies for the I-55 corridor from IL 113 to I-80, including the oft-under repair Des Plaines river bridge. Will County will continue to spend a generous portion of its transportation funding on addressing freight issues, and they have done a lot of public outreach in trying to come up with solutions that will move the freight while respecting the residential and natural areas of the county.

I look forward to seeing what comes from the study. Intermodal to truck freight is growing quickly in the greater Joliet area.

With CSX dropping intermodal pickups in Chicago for deliveries in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, its forcing a lot of shippers to dray their containers via I-80 East. I-65 was spared somewhat because the Indiana Railroad still take containers to Senate Yard in Indianapolis. And that yard is exploding now with traffic.

paulthemapguy

Quote from: edwaleni on January 06, 2025, 03:26:24 PMSeems like a longer term regional solution is needed as opposed to the Houbolt Road Toll Bridge. It merely dumps everyone onto I-80.

Dumping those trucks onto I-80 is part of the solution, as you want to provide an easy connection to the highest-grade highway around, without burdening the local roads with the huge slew of truck traffic.  But, as I think you're alluding to, bolstering I-80 is also a requisite part of the solution here.  I was about to say that this new prospective CN intermodal facility will also be best served with a direct connection to I-80.  But in a similar vein, IDOT will have to pony up and bring I-80 up to a new standard that allows sufficient serviceability to the new CN truck traffic.
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com Now featuring all of Ohio!
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: Every US Route and (fully built) Interstate has a photo now! Just Alaska and Hawaii left!

Rick Powell

Quote from: paulthemapguyquote author=paulthemapguy link=msg=2962680 date=1736570440]
But in a similar vein, IDOT will have to pony up and bring I-80 up to a new standard that allows sufficient serviceability to the new CN truck traffic.
And the section of I-80 from Brisbin Road to the currently under construction section from Minooka to the east was set up tor future conversion to 6-lanes back in the early 2000s; all it needs is shoulders added and re-striping.

edwaleni

Quote from: Rick Powell on January 11, 2025, 08:04:45 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguyquote author=paulthemapguy link=msg=2962680 date=1736570440]
But in a similar vein, IDOT will have to pony up and bring I-80 up to a new standard that allows sufficient serviceability to the new CN truck traffic.
And the section of I-80 from Brisbin Road to the currently under construction section from Minooka to the east was set up tor future conversion to 6-lanes back in the early 2000s; all it needs is shoulders added and re-striping.

I checked that out (the third lane as a shoulder) design and it appears the bridges for Brown and Wabena Roads weren't upgraded, so the lane/shoulder is right up against the outside pylon.  This isn't a complaint, I am surprised they didn't replace the bridges when you put the "shoulder as a future lane" into the plan. Brisbin and Ridge did get updated it appears. Then again, budget could have been an issue.

Rick Powell

#11
Brown, Wabena and the CN Wisconsin Central Railroad bridge just west of Wabena are programmed for replacement in the current IDOT program. Not all bridges were replaced in the c. 2002 pavement replacement project but all of them, including new bridges like the Brisbin Road overhead and planned bridge replacements like Brown, Wabena and CN, as well as new or reconstructed bridges as far west as I-39), will accommodate the future lanes.

mtutiger

#12
Quote from: edwaleni on January 06, 2025, 03:26:24 PM
Quote from: mtutiger on January 06, 2025, 12:07:03 PMLong time lurker, registered for the board specifically to give a couple of comments on this (as someone who lives here):

  • Minooka concerns are both traffic related *and* property tax related. The real estate for the project sits within the Village of Channahon but borders Minooka, which as it stands means that there would be little to no gain for Minooka (at least as it currently stands) despite all of the traffic challenges that the facility would bring.
  • In terms of US 6 and east west traffic, the Brisbin Rd interchange (to the west, between Channahon and Morris) would be the ideal place to funnel traffic to (with need for studying/widening as mentioned above) but for traffic heading toward I-55 (which seems like a lot of it would), it's all two lane from McLindon Rd to the DuPage River / I&M Canal. All adjacent to residential areas. The bridges in particular seem like a real issue.
  • US 6 is the main thoroughfare through Channahon and people have concerns about traffic as it *currently* stands (and specifically with truck traffic related to LyondellBasell and other chemical related industries on the west side of the Village). The possibility of this facility adds to these concerns / anxieties.

I personally am trying to be open minded about the project, but find myself pretty concerned as well, even if there could be some economic benefits

First off, thanks for taking the time to join and comment. Much appreciated

This is kind of why I reached out to @Rick Powell first on this because (IMHO) it has a potential impact to several local and regional transportation issues. The warehousing industry around Channahon is growing very quickly and some of it is tied to the UP Global IV and BNSF Logistics Park intermodal centers south of Joliet. A container pick up/drop off is going to be coming down either US-6 or I-80. CN clearly wants to get in on the business, which is also obvious as they have a major west coast shipping terminal at Prince Rupert BC.

It gets them closer to the facilities as opposed to trucking over from Kirk or Markham.

Seems like a longer term regional solution is needed as opposed to the Houbolt Road Toll Bridge. It merely dumps everyone onto I-80.

From a strategic standpoint (and as someone who works in the rail space), I totally get what CN is trying to do. It's an ideal spot from which to have an intermodal facility, particularly as it is set off on the old EJ&E rail spur that terminates down by Dresden. Mostly industrial and set way off the main line (ie. easy to set up and stage trains to head out relative to most intermodal yards in the Chicagoland area)

But man, all that truck traffic heading down to the two lane section of US 6 that crosses the DuPage/I&M is pretty concerning; Channahon as a community is basically divided in half by the River/Canal, and US6 is the only connection at scale between the two. It'll create a pretty big choke point between the east and west sides of Channahon if traffic isn't diverted away from I-55.

CN is holding a town hall tomorrow night at the local high school.... will be interested to learn more and see what they have in mind (as well as how they are recieved, I'm guessing it won't be well recieved)

mtutiger

Quote from: paulthemapguy on January 10, 2025, 11:40:40 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 06, 2025, 03:26:24 PMSeems like a longer term regional solution is needed as opposed to the Houbolt Road Toll Bridge. It merely dumps everyone onto I-80.

Dumping those trucks onto I-80 is part of the solution, as you want to provide an easy connection to the highest-grade highway around, without burdening the local roads with the huge slew of truck traffic.  But, as I think you're alluding to, bolstering I-80 is also a requisite part of the solution here.  I was about to say that this new prospective CN intermodal facility will also be best served with a direct connection to I-80.  But in a similar vein, IDOT will have to pony up and bring I-80 up to a new standard that allows sufficient serviceability to the new CN truck traffic.

There's also the issue that the only direct path from the facility to I-80 is through Minooka, which stands to gain little benefit from the development as it stands currently. Would imagine that any resolution that involves more direct access to I-80 would involve their input.

edwaleni

Quote from: mtutiger on January 13, 2025, 12:56:58 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 06, 2025, 03:26:24 PM
Quote from: mtutiger on January 06, 2025, 12:07:03 PMLong time lurker, registered for the board specifically to give a couple of comments on this (as someone who lives here):

  • Minooka concerns are both traffic related *and* property tax related. The real estate for the project sits within the Village of Channahon but borders Minooka, which as it stands means that there would be little to no gain for Minooka (at least as it currently stands) despite all of the traffic challenges that the facility would bring.
  • In terms of US 6 and east west traffic, the Brisbin Rd interchange (to the west, between Channahon and Morris) would be the ideal place to funnel traffic to (with need for studying/widening as mentioned above) but for traffic heading toward I-55 (which seems like a lot of it would), it's all two lane from McLindon Rd to the DuPage River / I&M Canal. All adjacent to residential areas. The bridges in particular seem like a real issue.
  • US 6 is the main thoroughfare through Channahon and people have concerns about traffic as it *currently* stands (and specifically with truck traffic related to LyondellBasell and other chemical related industries on the west side of the Village). The possibility of this facility adds to these concerns / anxieties.

I personally am trying to be open minded about the project, but find myself pretty concerned as well, even if there could be some economic benefits

First off, thanks for taking the time to join and comment. Much appreciated

This is kind of why I reached out to @Rick Powell first on this because (IMHO) it has a potential impact to several local and regional transportation issues. The warehousing industry around Channahon is growing very quickly and some of it is tied to the UP Global IV and BNSF Logistics Park intermodal centers south of Joliet. A container pick up/drop off is going to be coming down either US-6 or I-80. CN clearly wants to get in on the business, which is also obvious as they have a major west coast shipping terminal at Prince Rupert BC.

It gets them closer to the facilities as opposed to trucking over from Kirk or Markham.

Seems like a longer term regional solution is needed as opposed to the Houbolt Road Toll Bridge. It merely dumps everyone onto I-80.

From a strategic standpoint (and as someone who works in the rail space), I totally get what CN is trying to do. It's an ideal spot from which to have an intermodal facility, particularly as it is set off on the old EJ&E rail spur that terminates down by Dresden. Mostly industrial and set way off the main line (ie. easy to set up and stage trains to head out relative to most intermodal yards in the Chicagoland area)

But man, all that truck traffic heading down to the two lane section of US 6 that crosses the DuPage/I&M is pretty concerning; Channahon as a community is basically divided in half by the River/Canal, and US6 is the only connection at scale between the two. It'll create a pretty big choke point between the east and west sides of Channahon if traffic isn't diverted away from I-55.

CN is holding a town hall tomorrow night at the local high school.... will be interested to learn more and see what they have in mind (as well as how they are recieved, I'm guessing it won't be well recieved)

Please report back here after that meeting. I cannot attend, but would like to hear how CN handles the feedback, especially about the roads. If @Rick Powell is there to listen in, tell him thanks for his posts.

mtutiger

#15
I attended last night, overall pretty decent turnout; understandably a pretty skeptical crowd (particularly among Minooka residents). A few takeaways:

  • CN and their engineering consultant didn't seem particularly well prepared for the reception they got. There's a lot of politics that come with the piece of property they own being in Channahon but immediately bordering Minooka, which is the most direct access to I-80, they are even in litigation with Minooka as we speak, but it still seemed like they were caught off guard.
  • I have attached the money exhibit they included below; from their traffic study, they project 25% heading up Grainger Way toward I-80, 60% heading out toward Brisbin Rd, 15% heading east on 6 and 0% up Ridge Rd (which, to put it mildly, seems unlikely in practice). Ridge Rd is the biggest hot potato in all of this because from the south egress, it is the easiest / shortest way to get to I-80 via US 6 for those heading east/toward Chicago, but it's also the most important road in all of Minooka as it houses much of it's commercial businesses as well as accesses most of the residential areas in the community
  • I did not see anyone from IDOT there, granted I wouldn't necessarily have known who to look for regardless; in discussing with the engineering consultant and with the railroad (in separate conversations), I was left with the impression that there hadn't been a ton of contact or coordination with IDOT on this facility (maybe wrong on this, but just seemed like a lot of hemming and hawing when asking questions related to US 6)
  • Some fellow attendees asked, as was mentioned in this thread, if creating a more direct connection to I-80 via Minooka Rd was an option; it's probably the platonic ideal at least for the north egress, although it's unlikely to happen any time soon
  • Ridge Rd dominated the conversation among most attendees for obvious reasons, but there are real questions around US 6 that are going to need to be figured out IMO; some are CN based questions, like how you can force as much traffic as possible using the south exist to go west toward Brisbin Rd (ie. AGS configuration questions), but also, with the traffic at 7.5k to 10k trucks per day, is US 6 as a two lane equipped to handle that (I'm guessing it wouldn't be ideal, at best), how does it fit within IDOT's long range planning (currently resurfacing and bridge replacement over Aux Sable Creek included in FY 2025-2030 planning, no other plans that I see), etc.



It was an interesting experience (this was my first time at one of these where I was part of the general public)... overall don't know that a lot of my questions were answered, but we'll see where it goes from here.

Rick Powell

Quote from: edwaleni on January 13, 2025, 04:13:40 PM[Please report back here after that meeting. I cannot attend, but would like to hear how CN handles the feedback, especially about the roads. If @Rick Powell is there to listen in, tell him thanks for his posts.

Unfortunately I've been out of state the last several days and just got back today. I anticipate I will be attending similar meetings from time to time in my new role at IDOT, where I report for work tomorrow.

Brandon

Quote from: mtutiger on January 15, 2025, 11:54:10 PMI attended last night, overall pretty decent turnout; understandably a pretty skeptical crowd (particularly among Minooka residents). A few takeaways:

  • I did not see anyone from IDOT there, granted I wouldn't necessarily have known who to look for regardless; in discussing with the engineering consultant and with the railroad (in separate conversations), I was left with the impression that there hadn't been a ton of contact or coordination with IDOT on this facility (maybe wrong on this, but just seemed like a lot of hemming and hawing when asking questions related to US 6)

Given IDOT's past history locally, they'll show up 15-20 years after its built and ask if there's a problem.  See I-80 Joliet for more.   :ded:
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton, "Game of Thrones"

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg, "Monty Python's Life of Brian"

edwaleni

Excellent write up @mtutiger . Thank you for attending and getting the information.

At least it had the appearance that CN actually looked at traffic loads.

As for the surprise of how many attended, sometimes working in a fishbowl can do that.

To them a business park at the hind end of a little used branch line is probably no big deal.

mtutiger

Quote from: edwaleni on January 17, 2025, 12:19:52 AMExcellent write up @mtutiger . Thank you for attending and getting the information.

At least it had the appearance that CN actually looked at traffic loads.

As for the surprise of how many attended, sometimes working in a fishbowl can do that.

To them a business park at the hind end of a little used branch line is probably no big deal.

The fact that Minooka sued them probably elevated it on their radar a little bit, but they still weren't very prepared. When called out on the tax implications in particular, they seemed to either not understand or play coy on the fact that while most of the taxing bodies that the property will contribute to overlap with Minooka, they would not be paying toward the Village proper and the Village is responsible for maintaining most of the roads accessing the site at the north end. Not to mention enforcement of weight limits on McLindon Road in areas where they have an 8 ton limit or Ridge Rd's 40 ton limit. They just didn't have much of an answer there, and some of that is probably under wraps because of litigation.

In their defense, I've been on the one standing in front of the boards / scroll plots on a few occasions in my career and their has often been a healthy level of skepticism (although hadn't seen any this much before professionally).

edwaleni

Quote from: mtutiger on January 17, 2025, 11:44:31 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on January 17, 2025, 12:19:52 AMExcellent write up @mtutiger . Thank you for attending and getting the information.

At least it had the appearance that CN actually looked at traffic loads.

As for the surprise of how many attended, sometimes working in a fishbowl can do that.

To them a business park at the hind end of a little used branch line is probably no big deal.

The fact that Minooka sued them probably elevated it on their radar a little bit, but they still weren't very prepared. When called out on the tax implications in particular, they seemed to either not understand or play coy on the fact that while most of the taxing bodies that the property will contribute to overlap with Minooka, they would not be paying toward the Village proper and the Village is responsible for maintaining most of the roads accessing the site at the north end. Not to mention enforcement of weight limits on McLindon Road in areas where they have an 8 ton limit or Ridge Rd's 40 ton limit. They just didn't have much of an answer there, and some of that is probably under wraps because of litigation.

In their defense, I've been on the one standing in front of the boards / scroll plots on a few occasions in my career and their has often been a healthy level of skepticism (although hadn't seen any this much before professionally).

Some municipalities have codified a transportation impact fee for commercial and residential developments.  This is usually priced by a sub-committee before development is approved by the local authorities (city/county boards). The point of the fee is for the local authority to cover the cost of roads, transit, sidewalks, etc that may be required by the developer.

I also wonder if this is a "build it and they will come" type of development owned/managed by CN or designate or will it be a build to suit based on some predetermined customers CN has lined up to participate.

The fact that CN seems to be somewhat unprepared could signify they are doing this out of their local field office and they don't have a large level of experience in commercial property development.

There are companies like Hillwood, that all they do is manage and solicit commercial parks like CN is proposing. They are pros at the presentations, analysis, impact studies etc that goes into these things.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.