3.(f) ‘‘4(f)-Protected Properties’’ are any publicly-owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State or local significance…

(g) ‘‘4(f)-Determination’’ is a report which must be prepared prior to the Administrator’s approval of any FRA action which requires the use of any 4(f)-protected properties. This report documents both the supporting analysis and the finding required by section 4(f) of the DOT Act (49 U.S.C. 303(c)), that (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use of such land, and (2) the proposed FRA action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.

[In other words, FRA projects proposed to be located on “4-(f)” properties (which include locally-designated parks like Fuller Park) must meet a higher standard than simply one of “no significant impact.” The report must instead provide proof that there is “NO PRUDENT OR FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE” to using the proposed site, including the option of doing nothing at all. Perhaps this is why the previous environmental assessment referred to the site as the “Fuller Road Parking Lot” instead of “Fuller Park?”]

8.(b) Conflicts of Interest. A Program Office shall exercise care in selecting consultants, and in reviewing their work, to ensure that their analysis is complete and objective. Contractors shall execute a disclosure statement prepared by the Program Office, specifying that they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project.”

[In other words, environmental consultants should not be performing other work on the project, or related sub-projects, that could in any way be construed as being dependent on the outcome of the environmental assessment.]

The word leverage is thrown around quite a bit by city council, such as leveraging federal dollars to build this or that. However, unlike the new Dearborn train station construction which is 100% federally funded due to the one time stimulus money, it is the federal government who is now doing the leveraging. They are leveraging (extracting) a 20% local match for building their own (Amtrak) train station.

This raises another question. If Amtrak owns the current station and the property upon which it sits, why is the City involved in providing a site and financing the construction of the new station?

Amtrak owns the parking lot across the tracks from the station, this is the lot that is accessed from Broadway. There is additional Amtrak property adjacent to this Broadway lot that is not presently used for parking. Amtrak also owns the city metered lot on Depot Street that is directly across from Casey’s Tavern. Amtrak uses this Depot Street lot for free long term rail passenger parking. With the redevelopment of the DTE/Michcon property, perhaps additional parking, if needed, could be provided for use by rail passengers and city park users between the station and the new riverside park.

In order to become compliant with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements, any two, or more, track station will need to have a bridge over the tracks with an elevator at each platform. this will be true wherever the Amtrak station is built. If the present Depot Street depot is rebuilt at the current location, ihis bridge over the tracks will eliminate the need to lug suitcases up and down staircases.

Is it true that when the federal rail improvement project is complete that the Detroit to Chicago route will have two sets of tracks?

Isn’t also true that rail regulations do not allow passengers to cross tracks to get to the train using the far track and that we would need to build a station that has an overhead passenger bridge to traverse the rails?
For an example of that kind of bridge, see the design of the Dearborn Station: [link]

If we had a station at the current location with the pedestrian bridge over the tracks, travel from the station’s current location to the DTE property the City leases for parking would be made easier. We would just need to expand the available parking on that leased DTE site.

As I recall, and I might be mistaken on this, the design for phase 2 of the Fuller Road project included drawings of a train station that included the kind of pedestrian bridge shown in the Dearborn station plans.

Then why is Taylor so afraid of putting this issue to a vote of city residents and instead favors an end run ‘lease’ instead? The giveaway is a direct violation of the spirit of the law.