Fuller Road Station – A Review
The Fuller Road Station has been one of the dominant stories in Ann Arbor politics for most of the last decade. It blends two major influences: former Mayor John Hieftje’s preoccupation with rail travel, and the University of Michigan’s growth plans and need for parking. And, as a theme not invited by the powerful, Ann Arbor’s love of its parks.
A deadline is approaching. The City of Ann Arbor requests public comments by November 2, 2017 about the Environmental Assessment for the Ann Arbor Station. This is a tough homework assignment for the general public. The EA itself is 221 pages and then the Appendices are 735. But these pages represent over 10 years of wishes, plans, politics, and especially money (from Ann Arbor’s civic pockets, and others). Many studies, much data, probably hundreds of consultant hours, all to solidify the conclusion we knew all along: the City of Ann Arbor wants to build a new Amtrak station on Fuller Park, next to the University of Michigan health sciences campus and hospital.
Fuller Road Station site as located by Google
Rail
As we recounted in our post Ann Arbor’s Fading Dream of Trains and Rail Systems, it all began with John Hieftje’s Mayor’s Model for Mobility (2006). Most elements of that model were included in the expansive transportation plan (the AATPU) passed by Council on May 4, 2009. The plan (which still informs Ann Arbor transportation decisions) calls for signature routes, now the location of a proposed light rail line (the Connector). They run through a nexus at Fuller Road. Note the little blue train station icon. Under “mid-term recommendations” (5-10 years) it lists Construct permanent station at Fuller/Maiden intersection for Ann Arbor to Detroit Commuter Rail/AMTRAK service ($10,000,000) as one of its objectives.
Signature routes from the 2009 AATPU. (Click for larger image.)
Parking
From the beginning, the UM has been engaged with the City of Ann Arbor over the University’s growing population and its need both for increased transit and for parking. As noted in this useful timeline from the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the UM first proposed to build a parking structure on Wall Street. At a meeting held in January 2009, the idea of a multimodal transit center combined with parking for the UM (initially called FIT, or Fuller Intermodal Transit) was first floated by Eli Cooper, the City’s transportation specialist. The Chronicle’s account of this meeting is worth reading for insights on how the City and UM interact. The UM was persuaded to abandon the parking structure on Wall Street and invest its planning and its cash in the Fuller Road location instead.
The background information in the May resolution stresses the interest of the UM. (Emphasis added.)
To emphasize the point, a Letter (August 17, 2009) to City Administrator Roger Fraser from Hank Baier, UM VP for Facilities and Operations contained this information (emphasis added):
“As the conceptual plan for FIT is advancing, city and university staff will continue their efforts to more fully define next steps in anticipation that each of us will approve the conceptual plan in October. That schedule is necessary if we are to reach agreement on a first phase of construction that would accommodate university parking by 2012.”
Also on August 17, 2009, City Council passed a resolution awarding a contract to JJR LLC for Phase I engineering services for FIT, at a cost of $541,717. (Emphasis added.)
“The City owns the land containing the existing southern surface parking lot along Fuller Road and has determined that this area is: uniquely suited as adjacent to the existing Amtrak passenger rail service corridor, which is proposed to accommodate commuter rail service linking Ann Arbor to Metro airport and Detroit and has been designated as a national high-speed corridor between Detroit and Chicago; immediately adjacent to the University Medical center campus with thousands of employees and visitors daily; able to provide direct pedestrian access to jobs and medical services; accessible to bus transport via Fuller and East Medical Center Drive and is along a proposed signature transit corridor identified in the City’s recent Transportation Plan Update.”
To finalize the concept, on November 5, 2009, Council adopted the Memorandum of Understanding with the UM to construct the Fuller Road Station. It also increases the project budget to $111,228. The MOU states that UM will pay 78% of the cost. Phase I will consist in part of a structure with 900 parking spots.
So, in a deft slight of hand, the City has put the Mayor’s vision close to a first realization, while reaching an agreement which will obligate the UM to pay for most of the first phase. But there was a weak spot. The City may have “owned the land”, but that land was a park.
Parks
Shall Section 14.3(b) of the Ann Arbor City Charter be amended to require voter approval for the sale of any land within the City purchased, acquired or used for park land, while retaining the Sections current requirement for voter approval of the sale of any park land that is designated as park land in the City of Ann Arbor Master Plan at the time of the proposed sale?
Early signs of trouble for the Fuller Road Station (FRS) included a push-back at the Park Advisory Commission (PAC). After a subsequent visit to PAC by Mayor Hieftje and several efforts at revision of a resolution, a resolution merely calling for “transparency” (to quote the Ann Arbor Chronicle) was passed, but not until hearing a great deal of intense public comment. All this discussion was in consideration of the allowable uses for park land, which is where PAC had some voice. This was addressed by Council simply by changing the rules: on July 6, 2010, City Council changed the zoning codes so that PL (public land) may be used for “transportation uses”; but again, as reported by the Chronicle, not without a great deal of passionate public comment.
Federal Funds
Note that at the time the Fuller Road Station was first proposed, no Federal funding was in hand. It was simply a joint project between the City of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan, and the UM promised to pay the bulk of the initial cost. (Which basically would have been the parking structure.) But things were looking up. President Obama, as part of his stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), proposed the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program (HSIPR). The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) assisted communities, including Ann Arbor, in making application (due date was April 4, 2011). Ann Arbor applied for a grant to design a rail station at Fuller. In May 2011, Eli Cooper was rather giddily announcing that the City had a $2.8 million grant for that purpose. It would be through the auspices of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
Wait, That’s a Park.
An unexpected obstacle materialized just as the cheers rose. The Huron Valley Chapter of the Sierra Club had been following the development of a parking structure and train station in Fuller Park with dismay. They had a tool. Because of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an Environmental Assessment (EA) is required. And the result has to be a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (to the environment). But wait – remember, this site is in a PARK. That means that Section 4(f) comes into play. Here it is, straight from the Federal Register. (Emphasis added.) It unequivocally states that park land has certain protections.
In less than a month after MDOT submitted the City of Ann Arbor’s grant request, the Chair of the HVC-Sierra Club, Nancy Shiffler, sent a letter to the director of the HSPIR project. The letter points out, with some asperity, that the property is a park.
Time Passes
What’s Ahead for Fuller Road Station? It’s Time for the City to Let the Rest of Us in on the Plans.
It is time for the city administration to stop playing shell games, for the city council to force a full
disclosure of what the plans are for the Fuller Park site, and for the city council to follow the mandate of
City Charter Section 14.3(b), which requires a vote of Ann Arbor electors for the sale of any part of City
property acquired for parkland uses, regardless of what any temporary current parkland use may be.
The Sierra Club and a newly formed group, People for Ann Arbor Parks (now Protect A2 Parks) reported the results of a FOIA in which they discovered speculation about also developing the Fuller Road area for commercial purposes.
On February 10, 2012, the UM announced that they were pulling out of the agreement. At the time, Christopher Taylor (then a CM for the Third Ward but already a frequent spokesman for Hiefjte) issued a defiant statement. “The effort to bring a new station to Ann Arbor remains very much alive.” He then revealed that prior money spent could not be credited toward the local match to the grant. In two subsequent meetings during 2012, the Council appropriated money from the City budget for the match. Since then, the months and now years have been spent in preparing the Environmental Assessment, then in submitting it to the FRA for review. A strange period ensued in which these discussions were kept confidential, even after a FOIA by MLive’s reporter Ryan Stanton. (The picture of the redacted emails is memorable.) (MLive archive of articles about the EA status)
For all those months, we didn’t know how the different sites proposed fared. Under the FRA’s guidance, the City was obliged to examine all possible site. The reason? Because this site was in a park. That is where the “prudent and feasible alternative” comes in. They were obligated to show that this was the best, or perhaps the only, choice. So months were spent in analyzing several different possibilities. One of the more intriguing notes was that the FRA required the consultants to consider the possibility of using the old Michigan Central Railroad Depot building (now in use by the Gandy Dancer restaurant). How did that come up? Notice the reference to a historic site in Section 4(f)?
Now we are truly in a rush. The consultants are now being paid on our dime. (The grant ran out: see our post, Ann Arbor and the Rail Station Gamble.)
Comments are due by November 2. Send them to ecooper@a2gov.org.
A caution: there are a lot of things in this bulk of material to argue about. Do we think Fuller or Depot is better for our downtown? Can we afford it? When do we think a commuter rail will actually materialize? But actually these are all immaterial to the Environmental Assessment. Here are the questions:
- Does the plan cause damage to the park asset? Not just to the current temporary parking lot but to the entirety of Fuller Park? How well will a major Ann Arbor park co-exist with a busy parking garage and train station? In other words, do we agree with a Finding of No Significant Impact?
- Even if we agree that some damage will occur, is Fuller still the only choice? In other words, is there really No Prudent and Feasible Alternative?
Note: Ryan Stanton of MLive has done considerable valuable reporting on this subject. His work has contributed to our community’s understanding of this complex and important topic.
Note: Much information is to be found at the website of Protect A2 Parks, All Aboard on Depot Street. Disclosure: I am a member of this group.
ADDENDUM: Comments are due on November 2, 2017. They should be sent to Eli Cooper, ecooper@a2gov.org. Here is the official comment from the Sierra Club.
UPDATE: Yes, I finally got my letter in. Here it is: EA comments.
October 24, 2017 at 10:14 am
Vivienne, thanks for your fine research and dedication to our hometown.
I find it interesting that the cost for the new train station was put at $10,000,000 just a few years ago. Now the price is at 86,000,000. How much faith can we put in this number. If the final price only doubles, rather than the eight times increase from just eight years ago, that makes the price near $200,000,000. With rail ridership flat or decreasing, this makes our city leadership dreamers (actually hallucinators) with no thoughts of affordability for the middle class of Ann Arbor.
October 24, 2017 at 11:26 am
Yes, I deliberately left off discussing the finances in this piece. I hope to get into that in another post.
October 24, 2017 at 10:46 am
Thanks for your reporting on this Vivienne. I find the history of this issue very interesting. No one has said what Amtrak or Greyhounds investment will be in the new station (if it happens). Also, I thought DTE was open to discussions of improving the current site with their land included? It seems the saga continues.
October 24, 2017 at 11:28 am
Your point about DTE is important. I feel that we are ignoring a major advantage to the city in bypassing the Depot site. I hope to address that in a future post. Amtrak has no money to invest in a new station but is on record saying that they will be happy to use a new one if we build it for them.
October 24, 2017 at 11:11 am
It has seemed all along that the fix was in, from the sewer upgrades forward – now it should be known that UM Hospitals have closed the stairs going down to this site and renovations of some sort have been underway for a few weeks now.
October 24, 2017 at 11:32 am
I didn’t make a point of this here but there have been whispers that the UM is really wanting a new parking structure at this site (still). Of course we know that they have also announced a plan to build a new structure on Wall Street.
October 25, 2017 at 2:52 pm
The disgusting precedent has been set with the constant renewal of that surface lot lease, and with Julie Grand heading up the division of for-profit parkland it’s just a matter of time, I fear.
One of many terrible aspects of all this area’s development is that there is no clear requirement for site plans to aggregate parking data. I asked as much at the last Planning Commission meeting, and no one answered.
The site plan for Lowertown was not required to include any other traffic but it’s own, and even then the results degraded the major adjacent intersections to D,E, F status. Now comes the Wall Street structure, which will not have to include Lowertown etc. etc. The shell game is wearing thin, and I believe that to approach our traffic planning without requiring aggregate studies is not just ignorant (possibly willfully ignorant) but negligent in the extreme.
October 24, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Personally, I still don’t see a need for a new train station. With autonomous cars on the near horizon, l see patience as a virtue. No sign of increased train ridership.
U of M has daily bus rides to Midtown Detroit along the Q-line trolly on Woodward so this gives access from Washtenaw County to all the main areas of Detroit. Wayne State, the Cultural Center, the Medical Center, the New Center (the Fisher Building) and downtown Detroit.
They didn’t have enough ridership to get even close to filling the buses, so they are OFFERING RIDERSHIP TO EVERYONE, not just UM people. I believe $6 pp per trip, very reasonable price. Way cheaper than the train, without the tons of millions for train stations.
November 2, 2017 at 12:17 pm
[…] and has been covered impeccably by Ryan Stanton of the Ann Arbor News as well as by fellow blogger Vivienne Armentrout at Local in Ann Arbor (who may be the most informed person in town on this issue). There’s also a great take by […]