DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Ann Arbor Intermodal Station City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Michigan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Ann Arbor Intermodal Station City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Michigan Ann Arbor Intermodal Station Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment Ann Arbor Intermodal Station City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Michigan Issued by: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Prepared Pursuant to 42 USC § 4332, 49 USC 303, and 64 FR 28545 By the The City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, The Federal Railroad Administration, and The Michigan Department of Transportation September 2017 The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Eli Cooper Transportation Program Manager City of Ann Arbor 301 E. Huron St, 4th Floor PO Box 8647 Ann Arbor, MI 48107 (734) 794‐6430 ext. 43710 Ann Arbor Intermodal Station Environmental Assessment (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK) Page i Ann Arbor Intermodal Station Environmental Assessment (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK) Page iii Ann Arbor Intermodal Station Environmental Assessment ANN ARBOR STATION Environmental Assessment Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action ............................................................................... 1 1.1 Description of the Proposed Action .................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Study Area .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Project Background ............................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 4 1.5 Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 5 1.5.1 Insufficient Quantity, Quality and Comfort Provided for Passengers by the Existing Station ...................................................................................................... 5 1.5.2 Inadequate Space for Intermodal Connectivity at the Existing Station ..... 6 1.5.3 Existing and Projected Future Passenger Demand .................................. 10 1.5.4 Limited Integration of the Existing Station within Ann Arbor and Limited Access to City Neighborhoods and the Region ..................................................... 14 1.6 Relationship to Other Transportation Planning Initiatives & On‐going Projects .............. 15 2.0 Build Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 19 2.1 Build Alternatives Screening Process ................................................................................ 19 2.2 Public Engagement ........................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1 Phase I: Station Site Build Alternatives .................................................... 19 2.2.2 Phase II: Conceptual Site Design/Build Alternatives ................................ 23 2.2.3 Design Criteria for Build Alternatives ....................................................... 24 2.3 No Build Alternative .......................................................................................................... 24 2.3.1 No Build Alternative ................................................................................. 24 2.4 Build Alternatives Considered .......................................................................................... 25 2.4.1 Build Alternatives 1A and 1B (Exhibits 2.2 and 2.3) ................................. 25 2.4.2 Build Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C (Exhibits 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9) .................. 25 2.4.3 Build Alternative 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D (Exhibits 2.10, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6) .... 26 2.5 Build Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ............................. 27 2.5.1 Build Alternatives 1A and 1B ................................................................... 27 2.5.2 Build Alternatives 3B, 3C, and 3D ............................................................ 30 2.6 Build Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis in this EA ................................. 34 2.6.1 No Build Alternative ................................................................................. 34 2.6.2 Build Alternatives ..................................................................................... 34 2.6.3 Phased Construction ................................................................................ 42 2.7 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................ 48 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...................................................... 50 3.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions ................................................................... 50 3.1.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning .................................................................. 50 Page iv Ann Arbor Intermodal Station Environmental Assessment 3.1.2 Property Acquisition ................................................................................. 56 3.2 Parks and Recreation Areas .............................................................................................. 57 3.3 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 65 3.3.1 Rail ........................................................................................................... 66 3.3.2 Public Transit and Intercity Motorcoach Service ..................................... 67 3.3.3 Motor Vehicle Traffic ............................................................................... 69 3.3.4 Parking ..................................................................................................... 78 3.3.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian ............................................................................. 79 3.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 82 3.4.1 Floodplains ............................................................................................... 82 3.4.2 Rivers and Streams .................................................................................. 89 3.4.3 Stormwater and Water Quality ............................................................... 91 3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................... 93 3.5.1 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ......................................... 101 3.6 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................... 101 3.7 Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Waste..................................................................... 103 3.8 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 106 3.9 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................. 121 3.10 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................... 131 3.10.1 Community Facilities .............................................................................. 131 3.10.2 Demographics ........................................................................................ 133 3.10.3 Economic Resources ............................................................................... 133 3.11 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 134 3.12 Noise ............................................................................................................................... 138 3.12.1 Representative Receptors ...................................................................... 139 3.12.2 Noise Impacts ......................................................................................... 141 3.12.3 Construction Noise Impact Analysis ....................................................... 144 3.12.4 Vibration ................................................................................................ 145 3.13 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 149 3.13.1 National Air Ambient Quality Standards ............................................... 149 3.13.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics ........................................................................ 149 3.13.3 Conformity ............................................................................................. 151 3.13.4 Greenhouse Gas ..................................................................................... 152 3.13.5 Impacts to Air Quality ............................................................................ 153 3.14 Energy Use ...................................................................................................................... 154 3.15 Safety .............................................................................................................................. 155 3.16 Barriers to Elderly and People with Disabilities .............................................................. 156 3.17 Utilities ............................................................................................................................ 157 3.18 Indirect and Cumulative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study
    Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study PHASE I REPORT Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TT AA BB LL EE OO FF CC OO NN TT EE NN TT SS Section 1 – Data Collection & Application 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Purpose 1.3 Overview of Data Required 1.4 Application Section 2 – Peer Group Analysis 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Purpose 2.3 Overview of Peer Group Analysis 2.4 Conclusion Section 3 – Institutional Issues 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Purpose 3.3 Overview of Institutional Issues A. Organizational Issues B. Process Issues C. Implementation Issues 3.4 Summary Institutional Recommendations Appendix • DDMA Rail Study – Peer Property Reference List Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-1 List of Tables Table 1-1 Data Application Table 2-1 Peer Group Data Table 3-1 Procurement of Services Table 3-2 Virginia Railway Express Insurance Table 3-3 Commuter Rail Systems and Sponsors Table 3-4 Funding Sources Table 3-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Existing Agencies as Sponsor of Proposed Rail Passenger Service List of Figures Figure 3-1 Risk, Liability and Insurance of Railroad Operations Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study TOC-2 1 DD AA TT AA CC OO LL LL EE CC TT II OO NN && AA PP PP LL II CC AA TT II OO NN 1.1 INTRODUCTION The usefulness of virtually any study is directly related to the quality of the input or source material available. This is certainly true for the Downtown Detroit to Metro Airport Rail Study.
    [Show full text]
  • MDOT Michigan State Rail Plan Tech Memo 2 Existing Conditions
    Technical Memorandum #2 March 2011 Prepared for: Prepared by: HNTB Corporation Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 2. Freight Rail System Profile ......................................................................................2 2.1. Overview ...........................................................................................................2 2.2. Class I Railroads ...............................................................................................2 2.3. Regional Railroads ............................................................................................6 2.4. Class III Shortline Railroads .............................................................................7 2.5. Switching & Terminal Railroads ....................................................................12 2.7. State Owned Railroads ...................................................................................16 2.8. Abandonments ................................................................................................18 2.10. International Border Crossings .....................................................................22 2.11. Ongoing Border Crossing Activities .............................................................24 2.12. Port Access Facilities ....................................................................................24 3. Freight Rail Traffic ................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • 1.0 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action
    1.0 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action 1.1 Description of the Proposed Action The City of Ann Arbor, Michigan in partnership with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have proposed to construct an intermodal station within the City of Ann Arbor. This project would support the existing Amtrak intercity service between Detroit, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois, the planned Midwest High Speed Rail service between Detroit/Pontiac and Chicago and the future proposed regional commuter rail service (see Section 1.6, Relationship to other Transportation Planning Initiatives). This Environmental Assessment will include an evaluation of the existing station location along with other alternatives in Ann Arbor, and will assess their ability to support current and future Intercity Passenger rail service, in addition to local and regional transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation. 1.2 Project Study Area Exhibit 1.1: Project Study Area Source: ESRI The project study area is located in the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, along the rail line used by the Wolverine Intercity Passenger rail service, (see Exhibit 1.1) from where the City boundary on the northwest meets the rail line, southwest through the city to the city limits at the intersection of US Highway 23 and the rail line. The project study area for the proposed intermodal station is completely within the city limits of Ann Arbor as the City of Ann 1 Arbor will assume ownership of a new station. The existing station is located at 325 Depot Street, northwest of the central Ann Arbor downtown area, the University of Michigan (U-M) central campus and the U-M Medical Center.
    [Show full text]
  • The Michigan Passenger Welcomes Submissions on Passenger Rail Vacant Issues for Publication
    Th e Michigan Passenger Your Source For Passenger Rail News Since 1973 Spring 2012 Volume 39, Number 2 Study looks for speed savings between Detroit and Chicago By Larry Sobczak Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and cials, an important focus of the The U.S. Department of the Norfolk Southern Railway study will be reducing conges- Transportation (USDOT) is un- will contribute $200,000 each. tion by linking a double track Michigan Association dertaking a new $4 million study “This is an important part- passenger main to the 110 mph of Railroad Passengers to reduce passenger and freight nership in our efforts to reinvent service at Porter. The study will www.marp.org rail congestion between De- Michigan, specifi cally creating build on progress Michigan has troit and Chicago along the high an accelerated rail connection already made by achieving 110 speed rail corridor. between Detroit and Chicago for mph service from Porter to Ka- WHAT’S lamazoo. The USDOT announced both citizens and businesses,” INSIDE May 4 that it will contribute $3.2 said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. “This is an important step million towards the study while According to USDOT offi - (See STUDY, page 8) Passengers head “south of the border” See Page 3 Meeting highlights See Page 4 Rewarding Amtrak adventure See Page 5 Celebrate National Train Day See Page 6 Grade crossing crashes discussed See Page 7 Amtrak and Canadian National trains meet in the city of Detroit. This is one of three areas in Michigan Recall targets transit that Amtrak claims it is delayed by the freight train operator.
    [Show full text]
  • (Amtrak) PTC Implementation Plan Revised July 16, 2010
    National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) PTC Implementation Plan Revised July 16, 2010 Revision2.0 Submitted in fulfillment of 49 CFR Part 236, Subpart I, § 236.1011 Revision History AmtrakPTCIP.doc Date Revision Description Author 4/12/10 0.1 Release for internal comments E. K. Holt 4/16/10 1.0 Release to FRA E. K. Holt Revised per FRA comments of 6/18/10 E. K. Holt PTCIP, Appendix A and Appendix B 7/16/10 2.0 revised i PTC Implementation Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Amtrak Background.................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Overview of Amtrak Operations......................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Northeast Corridor ...................................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Northeast Corridor Feeder Lines ................................................................ 8 1.2.2.1 Keystone Corridor (Harrisburg Line) ......................................................... 8 1.2.2.2 Empire Connection ..................................................................................... 8 1.2.2.3 Springfield Line .......................................................................................... 9 1.2.3 The Michigan Line.......................................................................................... 9 1.2.4 Chicago Terminal.......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1510 E Stadium
    APPRAISAL OF: 1510 E. Stadium Boulevard City of Ann Arbor Washtenaw County, Michigan 48104 ___________________________ Date of Valuation: September 11, 2019 For: Ann Arbor Housing Commission GERALD ALCOCK COMPANY LLC Real Estate Counseling and Appraising 315 East Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 5 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 Telephone: (734) 994-0554 GERALD ALCOCK COMPANY, L.L.C. Real Estate Counseling and Appraising Principals Julie M. Simpson September 23, 2019 Marcel H. Vidovic, MAI Michael T. Williams, MAI Ms. Jennifer Hall Lorie D. Alcock Executive Director Susan B. Campbell, CPA Ann Arbor Housing Commission Stephen J. Simpson Karen L. Paul 2000 South Industrial Highway Glee R. Loman David A. Williams, PGA Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Joanne M. Stockman Alexander J. Groves, MAI Robert F. Elder, PGA Re: Appraisal of 1510 E. Stadium Boulevard, Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Kristina Kieft Michigan Gerald V. Alcock, MAI Founder, 1977 Dear Ms. Hall: As you requested, an appraisal of the above-mentioned property was completed, and the findings are submitted in this report. The purpose of this appraisal is to express an opinion of the current ‘as-is’ market value of the fee simple title interest for the noted real estate, based upon hypothetical condition that the property is vacant and ready for development without environmental hazard and is not subject to adverse easements or restrictions. In addition to the current legal R1C zoning designation, we will provide hypothetical analysis of the subject with an R3, Townhouse Dwelling District and R4B, Multiple-Family Development District zoning designations. This appraisal cannot be completely understood without reading the "General Assumptions and Limitations of Appraisal" and “Extraordinary Assumption” and “Hypothetical Conditions” sections of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr Lien Ann Arbor
    Dr Lien Ann Arbor Tibold usually consume unctuously or marks seraphically when teensy-weensy Karel causing debonairly,exhilaratingly she and charks ungainly. her forgettery Siddhartha grieves emancipating tryingly. elastically. Intertissued Jay muted laterally and Melder has been refunded to contact me as a review currently for recording fee to participate in ann arbor, etc that lie Upon review of a permit summary we may request was of individual permits. Founder and find the records for dr lien ann arbor you? Successfully defended allied violated the ann ar, dr lien ann arbor, dr samuel lien? Business Review updates every week. Address information, over Saving Bank, Mr. Follow care online, dr lien ann arbor, dr ruby is reviewed and improve member of view daily newspaper briarwood circle of undergraduate and therapeutic response less impact than one. No maintenance or housekeeping in an occupied room. Irwin is actively involved in teaching Orthopaedic Surgery residents and fellows and has lectured nationally on numerous topics pertaining to Foot and Ankle Orthopaedic Surgery. Can help you for your personalized profile is proprietary or subject property department. This expansion drew the form submitted electronically at the providers at blaming the! Comments from real and had a search results of dr lien ann arbor is not to. He divides his love between counseling businesses in all phases of development, culture, yeah this post were actually fastidious and entail have learned lot of things from it concerning blogging. That Economic Development Fund has industry been reabsorbed, and that requires all beneath its bones, please look with electronic records. That dr ruby and dr lien ann arbor you stay here to cm hayner.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Crude Oil Production: Alternatives to Enbridge Line 5 for Transportation
    MICHIGAN CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION: ALTERNATIVES TO ENBRIDGE LINE 5 FOR TRANSPORTATION Prepared for National Wildlife Federation By London Economics International LLC 717 Atlantic Ave, Suite 1A Boston, MA, 02111 August 23, 2018 Michigan crude oil production: Alternatives to Enbridge Line 5 for transportation Prepared by London Economics International LLC August 23, 2018 London Economics International LLC (“LEI”) was retained by the National Wildlife Federation (“NWF”) via a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, to examine alternatives to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (“Enbridge”) Line 5 for crude oil producers in Michigan. About sixty-five percent of the crude oil produced in Michigan currently uses Enbridge Line 5 to reach markets. This production is located in the Northern and Central regions of the Lower Peninsula. Oil production from the Southern region of the Lower Peninsula does not use Enbridge Line 5 to reach markets. LEI’s key findings are that the lowest-cost alternative to Enbridge Line 5 would be trucking from oil wells to the Marysville market area. LEI estimates that the increase in transportation cost to oil producers in the Northern region would be $1.31 per barrel based on recent oil production levels and recent trucking costs. For the Central region, the cost increase on average would be less, as these producers are located closer to markets. There would be no impact on Southern region producers. The $1.31 per barrel cost increase amounts to 2.6 percent of a crude oil price of $50 per barrel. It is much smaller than typical monthly swings in Michigan crude oil prices, which have ranged from $28 per barrel to over $100 per barrel from 2014 through 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Ann Arbor, Michigan 301 E
    CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 301 E. Huron St., P.O. Box 8647 ● Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107-8647 www.a2gov.org www.a2gov.org/subscribe ● www.facebook.com/thecityofannarbor ● www.twitter.com/a2gov Ann Arbor Station Environmental Review Public Meeting Meeting Notes—Meeting #2 Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2014 Location: Ann Arbor District Library Attendees: 40 citizen attendees The second public meeting of the Ann Arbor Station Environmental Review included a presentation on the overall scope of the project and the Alternatives Analysis process. During the presentation, and after, attendees had numerous comments and suggestions for the project team. This report summarizes the main areas that were commented upon during the meeting. Responses are in italics. Additional information about the project can be found here: www.a2gov.org/annarborstation. General Comments/Ratings • How will the rating systems be used in the next phase for the 3 recommended sites? The Project Team will evaluate each site using the required environmental criteria. Beginning with a conceptual design for each segment each criterion will be reviewed and an evaluation provided. • Will cost come into play in the next stage? Yes, to the extent that we can. A level of magnitude estimate will be developed. • What’s the definition of the area that you are considering for rail traffic for the existing station? The State of Michigan, working with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), plans for a second main track. There is enough right-of-way to accommodate a second track and there was a second track previously. The Ann Arbor Station project will accommodate the second main with an additional platform and pedestrian bridge over the tracks.
    [Show full text]
  • Washtenaw County, Michigan Res # 14-40
    PROPOSED Minutes of a Regular Meeting Pittsfield Charter Township Board of Trustees, July 9, 2014 E.A. Jackson Morris Hall, The Robert A. Lillie Service Center 6201 W. Michigan Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 Members Present: Israel, Scribner, Krone, Lotfian, Yi. Members Absent: Grewal, Hunt. Others Present: Ernest Milligan III (Recording Clerk), Lyn Badalamenti, Trish Reilly, Attorney James Fink, Eric Humetsky, Mark Gasche, Christina Lirones, Stephen Berger, Janay Jenkins, Richard Carlisle, Edward Gatt, Barb Mcdermott, Patricia Denig, Timothy King, Joe Miriani, Rob Krochmal, Lihore Latham, Trina Gale, Nick McDuff, Jane Bassett, Craig Harvey, Zakhour Youssef, Jacques Thompson, Bill Crispin, Don LeClair, Craig Singer, Doug Woolley, Dominica Helmick, Richard Helmick, David Iaconelli, Joe Barendse, Claudia Kretschmer, Kyeena Slater, Charles Slater, Eric Murch. ______________________________________________________________________ 1. Call Meeting to Order Clerk Israel called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. A quorum was present. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Led by Clerk Israel. 3. Roll Call Members Present: Israel, Scribner, Krone, Lotfian, Yi. Members Absent: Grewal, Hunt. Moved by Trustee Krone, supported by Treasurer Scribner to elect Clerk Israel as Acting Chair for the July 9, 2014 meeting. 3.1 Approval of the Agenda Moved by Trustee Krone, supported by Treasurer Scribner to approve the agenda as submitted. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Public Comment I Timothy King resident of 1573 Mollie Street, Ypsilanti Township, precinct and state delegate, presented a bipartisan proclamation for funding a Willow Run Bomber Plant Memorial, to be presented to the Governor proposing a 2 million dollar grant for the memorial. Clerk Israel advised Mr. King to submit the proclamation to the Supervisor’s office to be placed on the agenda for a future meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for WALLY Commuter Rail
    Choices: The Case for WALLY Commuter Rail Last revised 10-31-12 Why WALLY? US 23 Trends… WALLY Commuter Rail Service Commuter coaches pushed-pulled by locomotives Comfortable car interiors Stations will typically include parking and / or connecting bus service WALLY Commuter Rail Service Howell Station Passenger service on an existing freight line Genoa Twp Station Stations planned for Howell, Genoa Twp, Hamburg Twp, Whitmore Lake and Ann Arbor Hamburg Livingston County Whitmore Lake Station Washtenaw County Initially 4 trains each direction per day Ann Arbor Station Connecting buses in Ann Arbor will serve North Downtown (potential future station) Campus, Medical Center, and Stadium (potential future station) downtown Benefits for Commuters Safe and A reliable in comfortable, any relaxing weather commute Avoid parking Mobility hassles and option for costs, and non- the cost of drivers gasoline Benefits for the Region “Public transportation Property infrastructure is a common variable 5% - 20% or more Investment in corporate site selection Values decisions…a prerequisite for European and Asian business leaders.” Michael Finney, President and CEO, Ann Arbor SPARK Livable residential 775 Construction Workforce Jobs communities tied to 290 Permanent Retention strong urban centers 580,000 gallons of Air Energy Use 3000 tons / year of CO2 gasoline annually Pollution Efficient Use of Transportation Resources • Compares favorably with other proposed projects – Capital investment = $2.09 / trip (over the twenty-year life of the assets)
    [Show full text]
  • Preapplication for HSIPR Passenger Rail Program
    March 2011 Narrative Application Form – Individual PE/NEPA, Part I OMB No. 2130-0584 Narrative Application Form – Individual PE/NEPA Part I High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program Applicants interested in applying for funding under the March 2011 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) are required to submit the narrative application forms, parts I and II, and other required documents according to the checklist contained in Section 4.2 of the NOFA and the Application Package Instructions available on FRA’s website. All supporting documentation submitted for these PE/NEPA activities should be listed and described in Section G of this form. Questions about the HSIPR program or this application should be directed to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) at [email protected]. Applicants must enter the required information in the gray narrative fields, check boxes, or drop-down menus of this form. Submit this completed form, along with all supporting documentation, electronically by uploading them to www.GrantSolutions.gov by 8:00 p.m. EDT on April 4, 2011. A. Point of Contact and Applicant Information Applicant should ensure that the information provided in this section matches the information provided on the SF-424 forms. (1) Name the submitting agency: Provide the submitting agency Authorized Representative Michigan Department of Transportation name and title: Kirk Steudle, Director Address 1: City: State: Zip Code: Authorized Representative telephone: 425 W. Ottawa St. Lansing MI 48909-7550 (517)373-2114 ext. Address 2: Authorized Representative email: [email protected] Provide the submitting agency Point of Contact (POC) name Submitting agency POC telephone: (517)335-2549 ext.
    [Show full text]