ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 4(f) STATEMENT

FOR THE CITY OF DEARBORN INTERMODAL RAIL PASSENGER FACILITY

WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Prepared Pursuant to 42 USC § 4332, 49 USC § 303, and 64 FR 28545

by the Michigan Department of Transportation

and

City of Dearborn, Michigan

The following person may be contacted for information on the Environmental Assessment:

Barry Murray, Director

City of Dearborn

Economic & Community Development Department

13615 Michigan Avenue, Suite 9

Dearborn, MI 48126

(313) 943-2195
Contents

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED...........................................................................................................................1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 PROJECT HISTORY .................................................................................................2

1.3 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................2

1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................4

1.5 OTHER TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES..........................................................................5

1.6 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PERMITS.......................................................................6

2.0 ALTERNATIVES...................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................8

2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ................................................9

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD..............................................................................................................11

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................ 15

3.1 AIR QUALITY...................................................................................................................................................15

3.2 WATER QUALITY.............................................................................................................................................18

3.3 NOISE AND VIBRATION..................................................................................................................................19

3.4 WETLANDS ......................................................................................................................................................20

3.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...................................................................................................20

3.6 FLOODPLAINS..................................................................................................................................................21

3.7 ENERGY USE ...................................................................................................................................................21

3.8 VISUAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................................22

3.9 TRANSPORTATION...........................................................................................................................................23

3.10 BARRIERS TO THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED .......................................................................................27

3.11 LAND USE, ZONING, AND PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS...............................................................................28

3.12 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES....................................................................................................................29

3.13 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...........................................................................................................................31

3.14 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY......................................................................................................................32

3.15 CONTAMINATED SITES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE.....................................................................................32

3.16 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS ............................................................................................................33

3.17 CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................................................................................34

3.18 SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES.........................................................................................................................35

3.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS............................................................................................................................36

3.20 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................................36

4.0 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION.................................................................................... 39

4.1 AGENCY COORDINATION................................................................................................................................39

4.2 PUBLIC WORKSHOPS......................................................................................................................................39

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS......................................................................................................................... 42

6.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................... 43

APPENDIX: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
Page 1

1.0 Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

The City of Dearborn, Michigan (City) and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) 

have proposed to construct the Dearborn Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility, an approximately 

23,000 square foot intermodal rail passenger facility, to replace an existing facility and to 

combine two existing rail stops in Dearborn. The project would support the existing Amtrak 

intercity service between Detroit (Pontiac), Michigan and Chicago, Illinois, the planned Midwest 

High Speed Rail service between Detroit and Chicago, and planned regional commuter rail 

service.

As part of a larger transportation system, the Dearborn Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility would 

play a synergistic role in the overall improvement of public transportation in Southeast 

Michigan. The new facility would: be an integral part of the regional, national, and international 

rail system; serve as a component in the regional and national bus systems; and integrate with the 

local, state and interstate highway networks. The Dearborn Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility 

would improve connectivity between passenger rail service, area airports, existing transit 

systems, and traditional modes of transportation. The location of the facility, in the center of 

Dearborn, would also improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to the University of Michigan 

Dearborn, the Henry Ford Museum, and western downtown Dearborn.

As proponents of an action supported by federal funds, MDOT and the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA 

requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on the natural, social, economic 

and cultural environment and to disclose those considerations in a public document. The NEPA 

process is intended to help public officials make decisions based on an understanding of the 

environmental consequences and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment 

(40 CFR § 1500.1). 

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to provide the FRA and the public with a 

full accounting of the environmental impacts of the alternatives developed to meet the project 

purpose and need. The EA serves as the primary document to facilitate review of the proposed 

project by federal, state and local agencies, and the public. 

The EA process concludes with either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a 

determination to proceed in preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A FONSI 

is a document that presents the reasons why the agency has concluded that there are no 

significant environmental impacts projected to occur upon implementation of the action (40 CFR 

§ 1508.13). An EIS provides a full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and 
Page 2

informs decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or 

minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment (40 CFR § 1502.1).

1.2 Project History

In 1998, under a separate study, the City, MDOT, Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village 

(collectively known as the Henry Ford), Ford Motor Company, local businesses and downtown 

development proponents identified potential locations for a proposed Dearborn Intermodal Rail 

Passenger Facility. The City applied for and received funding to evaluate these sites with the 

goal of providing a variety of transportation modes, as well as serving the community in a civic 

function. MDOT provided the funding to study the best site for the new intermodal facility, to 

develop an appropriate and exciting architectural design, and to obtain the required federal 

approval for the facility.

In August 2009, MDOT submitted an application to the FRA to construct the facility under the 

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program. On January 28, 2010, President Obama 

announced the first recipients selected to receive grant funding under the HSIPR Program. 

MDOT was selected as a recipient for the Dearborn Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility. 

1.3 Study Area

The Study Area is located in the City of Dearborn within Wayne County, Michigan, 

approximately 10 miles southwest of downtown Detroit. Dearborn is a city of rich heritage, 

social and business diversity, and is a world famous industrial center. Dearborn is best known as 

the location of the Ford Motor Company World Headquarters. Major tourist attractions include 

the Henry Ford, comprised of Greenfield Village and the Henry Ford Museum, and the Henry 

Ford Estate – Fair Lane.

Three major Southeast Michigan transportation corridors are adjacent to Dearborn: 1) Michigan 

Avenue (US-12), a state trunk line, which bisects the City extending from Detroit to Chicago; 2) 

the Norfolk Southern rail line that runs from Detroit to Lansing and extends into Illinois; and 3) 

the Southfield Freeway, also known as M-39, which links the City with the interstate system. 

The Study Area extends along Michigan Avenue and is bounded by Michigan Avenue to the 

north, the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south, Greenfield Road to the east and Oakwood 

Boulevard to the west (Figure 1). The Study Area extends south of the NS rail line in order to 

establish a new platform and entry for employees and visitors to the Henry Ford.
Page 3

Figure 1: Study Area
Page 4

Dearborn is currently served by SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional 

Transportation), the Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT) bus service and Amtrak train 

service. SMART serves Wayne County with a fixed route service and a “community transit 

service,” i.e. curb-to-curb service to accommodate the special needs of people who are unable to 

access the fixed route service. DDOT serves the Detroit area and has one bus route that provides 

service to Dearborn. 

Two Amtrak stations currently operate in Dearborn. The Dearborn Station is located in east 

Dearborn at 16121 Michigan Avenue, behind the Civic Center. Smith Creek Station is located in 

west Dearborn, providing access to the Henry Ford. Amtrak rail service includes the 

“Wolverine” with travel daily between Pontiac and Chicago.

1.4 Project Purpose and Need

Under NEPA, purpose and need are closely linked. Need is the definition of a problem, while 

the purpose is an intention to address the problem. The purpose explains why the sponsoring 

agency is proposing an action that may have environmental impacts. Further, the purpose 

provides the basis for selecting reasonable and practicable alternatives for consideration, 

comparing the alternatives, and selecting the preferred alternative (40 C.F.R. § 1502.13).

The purpose of the project is to develop an intermodal transportation facility that increases 

connectivity among a variety of transportation modes and serves the community in a civic 

function. As an intermodal facility, it should provide a smooth transfer area between motorized 

and non-motorized transportation modes (i.e., bus, rail, air, automobile, bicycle, van, and 

walking, etc.). As a civic facility, it should serve as a gateway to the many cultural and 

recreational opportunities of the City and Southeast Michigan.

The project need derives from deficient transit linkages in the Study Area. According to the

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments’ (SEMCOG) July 2001 summary, Improving 

Transit in Southeast Michigan: A Framework for Action, “Southeast Michigan needs a reliable 

and efficient public transit system. Such a system is essential for the quality of life and prosperity 

of the region.” In this summary, SEMCOG also stated that it is important to provide affordable 

public transportation to people who do not have access to motor vehicles and a viable 

transportation option to those who usually drive. A good transit system is key to the region as 

the region positions itself to be competitive in attracting business, industry, workers, and tourists.

At the station level, the need for the project arises from three important factors: the size of the 

existing station, connectivity, and pedestrian safety enhancement (by combining the two stops in 

Dearborn). Specifically, the current Dearborn station is the smallest of the Amtrak standard 

models (about 2,500 square feet), providing seating for fewer than 70 people and has cramped 

support facilities. The station’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility 
Page 5

requirements have been accommodated through a series of makeshift improvements over the 

years. Current demands on the station cause regular overcrowding during summer months and 

the need for a larger waiting room. Use beyond current demands will overwhelm the facility. 

In addition, the current station is located on an auto-centric site, which was developed in the 

1970s when the trend in the community was to design for the automobile. As a result, 

connectivity from the station to other transportation systems is minimal, with the exception of 

roads and large surface parking areas. Fixed line bus routes do not service the station and there 

are no non-motorized facilities in the vicinity of the station.

The large tourist population visiting Dearborn annually led to the development of a flag stop at 

the Henry Ford, a venue attracting 1.7 million people annually. Although this stop does provide 

an opportunity to access the Henry Ford’s Smith Creek Station, it requires visitors to step down 

from the train and cross tracks to access the station, creating a pedestrian safety concern. 

Several local and regional transportation initiatives related to the SEMCOG study provide 

opportunities for urban revitilization, economic growth and, at the same time, complement the 

highway arterial systems while increasing the ridership of the existing and proposed rail systems. 

The proposed Dearborn Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility is needed to provide a key link with 

these other transportation initiatives. 

1.5 Other Transportation Initiatives

Ann Arbor – Detroit Regional Rail Project

The concept of an Ann Arbor-Detroit rail passenger service evolved over time, from a commuter 

train to serve General Motors Corporation (GM) employees relocated from Lansing to Detroit, to 

a passenger rail service that could broadly meet the needs of commuter, business, and 

recreational travelers. 

SEMCOG is leading an effort to develop commuter rail along the Ann Arbor-Detroit corridor. 

This effort is being coordinated with the assistance of MDOT and Amtrak. Commuter trains 

would run in both directions in the 45-mile Ann Arbor-Detroit corridor with stops at Ann Arbor, 

Ypsilanti, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (Metro Airport), Dearborn, and Detroit. 

Service would be provided to accommodate the morning and afternoon peak periods, and midday and evening services. Ridership forecasts indicate that approximately 411,000 passengers 

would use the proposed rail service in 2010. Over 78,000 of these passengers would either begin 

or end their trip in Dearborn (SEMCOG, 2001).

This commuter rail service is proposed to run on tracks owned by the Norfolk Southern Railway, 

the Canadian National Railway, and Conrail Shared Assets. SEMCOG is currently working with 

the freight railroads to complete a capacity analysis to determine the improvements needed to 
Page 6

operate passenger rail with freight traffic. Amtrak is also conducting a fare and ridership study 

in the corridor. When completed, the information will enable Amtrak to estimate the capital and 

operating costs for such service. SEMCOG is continuing to advance commuter rail service in the 

corridor.

Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) has developed the Midwest Regional Rail 

System (MWRRS) plan (MIPRC, 2004). The primary purpose of the MWRRS is to meet future 

regional travel needs through significant improvements to the level and quality of regional 

passenger rail service. One of the routes identified in the plan is the Chicago to Detroit route. 

This route is designated as the path for high-speed rail with speeds ultimately reaching 110 miles 

per hour (which would reduce the 280-mile trip from Detroit to Chicago by one hour and fifty 

minutes). Rail improvements are underway from Kalamazoo to the west state line, with 

improvements planned from Kalamazoo easterly as funding permits. Daily stops in Dearborn 

are expected to increase from six to 18 when improvements are complete, which is projected to 

be in 2015.

Rouge River Gateway Project

The Rouge River Gateway Partnership provides a forum to implement revitalization of the 

Rouge River. A key focus of the Rouge River Gateway Ecosystem Restoration Project will 

restore the ecosystem in the seven-mile section of the Rouge River from Michigan Avenue in 

Dearborn to the Detroit River (Wayne County Rouge River National Wet Weather 

Demonstration Project, 2003). It will also create a 16-mile greenway link from Ford Road to the 

Detroit River, providing public access and linking the park system along Hines Drive to the 

Detroit River waterfront. A trailhead for this greenway system is in the Study Area.

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

Essential to large scale tourism and visitor attraction are the potential linkages between the 

intermodal facility and the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, located approximately 

12 miles to the west. The connection between the Airport and the proposed commuter rail 

service is not directly related to this project. However, the Airport does serve as a major 

destination for travelers in the region as well as a potential source for substantial visitor traffic. 

1.6 Applicable Regulations and Permits

The following statutes and orders apply to the proposed action and were considered during the 

preparation of the EA:

 Endangered Species Act, as regulated at 50 CFR Part 17

 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 50 CFR Part 600

 Public Law 91-190, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC § 4321 et seq., 

signed January 1, 1970
Page 7

 Public Law 95-217, Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 USC § 1251-1376

 Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 USC § 401

 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 USC § 

470

 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 USC § 303 

 Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA), 33 USC § 1344

 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, 16 USC § 460

 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended, 42 USC § 61

 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 42 FR 26951, signed May 24, 1977

 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, signed May 24, 1977

 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, signed February 11, 1994

 Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency, 65 FR 50121, signed August 11, 2000

 Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 

FR 28545 (May 26, 1999) 

 Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental 

Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, November 29, 1978

 Federal Register, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Final 

Rule, 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229, April 27, 2005

MDOT and/or the City of Dearborn would be required to obtain approvals under the following 

authorities:

 Connections to the public water distribution system and sanitary system, as well as a 

Certificate of Occupancy from the local building department.

 Compliance with Act 451, Part 91, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control.

 Coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm 

Water discharge permit which is administered by the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources and Environment (MDNRE).

 An approved operating soil erosion and sedimentation control program which ensures 

compliance with Part 91, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act 451 as amended is 

on file with the MDNRE. 
Page 8

2.0 Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

MDOT and the City consulted with the Henry Ford, the Ford Motor Company, the University of 

Michigan – Dearborn, local businesses, and downtown development proponents during the 

development of alternatives for the Dearborn Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility. A total of five 

alternatives were considered, as follows: the No-Build alternative; use of the existing station; and 

three build alternative sites – Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3, which are described in Sections 2.2 and 

2.3.

The alternatives were compared based on criteria formed from public and agency input, and 

professional experience, as well as prior studies, and stakeholder input. The process of 

evaluating alternatives consisted of the following tasks: 1) identifying the range of possible 

illustrative alternatives, 2) screening the alternatives for their benefits and impacts, 3) comparing

the reasonable alternatives, and 4) recommending a Preferred Alternative. The following criteria 

were considered in the comparison of the alternative sites:

Planning/Design

• Site size/expansion flexibility

• Visibility

• Pedestrian/bike connections

• Impacts on existing utilities

Transportation/Engineering

• Rail geometrics - straight track (800’) at station

• Traffic disruptions/trains blocking traffic

• Improvements for car/bus access

• Opportunities to improve traffic capacity/congestion

• Station operations - station located to accommodate morning boardings

• Connections to existing/planned bus, van and ferry routes

Environmental

• Minimize station noise and air quality impacts on nearby properties

• Minimize wetland and woodland impacts

• Improve water quality

• Minimize floodplain impacts

• Minimize impacts on historic properties

Tourism/Economic Development

• Easy, attractive connection to the Henry Ford

• Easy, attractive access to Rouge River

• Potential for related development

• Positive impact on existing development
Page 9

The alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet the project purpose and need, to meet the 

above engineering, planning and design criteria, and to avoid or minimize adverse environmental 

impacts. Following this evaluation, the alternatives involving the use of the existing station, and 

Site 2 and Site 3 were dismissed from detailed analysis for the reasons described below. Two 

alternatives, the No-Build Alternative and Site 1, were carried forward for detailed analysis. Site 

1 was identified as the Preferred Alternative. Figure 2 illustrates the project alternatives.

2.2 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Detailed Analysis

Expansion and Renovation of Existing Dearborn Station

Expansion and renovation of the existing Dearborn Station site was considered as an alternative, 

but dismissed from further analysis. The site, located behind the Civic Center and police station 

complex south of Michigan Avenue, provides easy access to both Michigan Avenue and 

Greenfield Avenue. However, after entering the Civic Center property the route to the station is 

circuitous and poor station visibility requires additional directional signage. Recent 

improvements to the community center have severely impacted the available parking for station 

patrons, although spillover into the Civic Center parking lot could support the needed supply of 

parking spaces. The site does not contain any natural features warranting further investigation. 

The current traffic control is adequate, but slight physical modifications may be required to 

accommodate large volumes of vehicle traffic. In addition, the improvements needed for 

expansion of the station and bus transit facilities, and secondary development, could require 

acquiring community recreational property. Due to the poor visibility and vehicular circulation 

associated with the existing station, as well as the potential need to acquire community 

recreational property for expansion, this alternative was dismissed.

New Station Site 2: South of Michigan Avenue East and West of Evergreen Road

Construction of the facility on Site 2 was considered as an alternative, but dismissed from further 

analysis. Site 2 is located east of Site 1 (located in the southeast quadrant of the Michigan 

Avenue/Elm Street intersection) and continues east through the intersection of Michigan Avenue 

and Evergreen Road. Approximately 15 acres in size, the site has good visibility from adjacent 

roads. However, the site is narrow, making it difficult for buses and large vehicles to maneuver 

into and within the site, thus requiring realignment of Michigan Avenue. The site is comprised 

of 95 percent transportation right-of-way and five percent open/natural land. A portion of the 

site is designated as floodplain, and the parcel contains the only wetland in the Study Area. 

These factors would result in environmental impacts that would complicate the project 

development. 

A continuous boulevard along Michigan Avenue provides frontage that would promote safe site 

access at Site 2. However, realignment of Michigan Avenue would require combining the 

operation of the five existing signalized intersections into one intersection at Michigan Avenue 
Page 10

Figure 2: Alternatives
Page 11

and Evergreen Road. This would reduce both the available stopping sight distance and available 

queuing storage at the intersection. The reconfigured intersection and heavy traffic volumes 

would limit the site to only one exit for traffic traveling to the north or west. An additional 

traffic signal would likely be needed at the site entrance, which would need to be interconnected 

and coordinated with the adjacent traffic signals. The site would not allow for future expansion 

and requires major geometrical improvements to access the site. As a result of the evaluation, 

this alternative was dismissed.

New Station Site 3: North of Rouge River, South of Michigan Avenue, and West of Southfield 

Freeway

Construction of the facility on Site 3 was considered as an alternative, but dismissed from further 

analysis. Site 3, approximately 20 acres in size, is located immediately north of the Rouge River, 

south of Michigan Avenue, and west of the Southfield Freeway. The site does not contain any 

natural features warranting further investigation, and is open and void of buildings. The Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessment (NTH, 2002) noted major cut and fill activities from 1957 to 

1964, which would necessitate additional investigation. Development of this site would require 

major investments in transportation improvements just to provide access. These investments 

would include spans across the existing railroad and Rouge River. 

Specifically, Site 3 provides only one access point to Greenfield Village Access Drive. The 

capacity of the single-lane frontage roads may not be adequate for the additional site traffic. The 

entrance to the site is hidden behind a railroad bridge, resulting in sight distance concerns (less 

than 300 feet). Mitigation for the inadequate sight distance would include allowing a right turn 

in/right turn out only movement at the site entrance or installing a traffic signal. Access to the 

facility would require northbound traffic from the Southfield Freeway to drive through two loop 

ramps. Westbound Michigan Avenue traffic would drive through one loop ramp, and eastbound 

Michigan Avenue traffic would exit the Michigan Avenue ramp and turn right into the site. As a 

result of the evaluation, this alternative was dismissed.

2.3 Alternatives Carried Forward

No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would consist of routine maintenance, and repairs to the existing road 

and transit system. The existing Dearborn Station would remain in use, solely as an Amtrak 

station. No initiatives would be taken to develop an intermodal facility in the Study Area. The 

No-Build Alternative would not meet the project purpose and need because it is currently 

undersized to meet existing demand let alone future needs, it does not enhance connectivity 

between transportation modes, and it does not enhance pedestrian safety associated with 

operation of the two rail stops in Dearborn. Although the No-Build Alternative does not meet 
Page 12

the purpose and need, it has been carried forward throughout the analysis to provide a baseline 

condition for alternative comparison.

New Station Site 1 (Preferred Alternative)

Site 1 was chosen as the Preferred Alterative because it meets the purpose and need of the study 

and, compared to the other alternatives, it limits impacts to areas with open space and natural 

features, reduces the need for major transportation improvements, and provides the greatest 

potential for transit oriented development (TOD). 

Site 1 is located in the southeast quadrant of the Michigan Avenue/Elm Street intersection and 

contains approximately 7.5 acres (Figure 3). The site is currently used as a surface parking lot 

owned by the Ford Motor Land Services Corporation, and is bordered by Michigan Avenue on 

the north, the Water Works Office Building on the east, the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks on 

the south and Elm Street to the west. The site is within the West Dearborn Business District in 

the City of Dearborn, and is accessed from Michigan Avenue and Elm Street. Michigan Avenue 

is a boulevard at this location, which enhances the safe operation of the intersection. However, 

traffic entering the site from the east may experience delays while waiting for eastbound traffic 

gaps before crossing Michigan Avenue. Likewise, the limited sight distance from the site drive 

would make it difficult for vehicles (particularly larger buses and trucks) to turn right and 

accelerate from a stopped position. If warranted, a traffic signal would reduce these delays, 

provide efficient access to and from the site, and reduce sight distance issues. 

The Preferred Alternative site is located adjacent to the Amtrak rail line along the south property 

line and would be designed to maximize views from Michigan Avenue, making the facility easy 

to find and easy to access, which will also help facilitate transfers between travel modes. The site 

amenities would include an approximately 300-car surface parking lot located adjacent to an 

approximately 16,000 square foot intermodal passenger facility. This surface parking lot would 

be designed to be accessed from either Elm Street (which would become a public street) or along 

Station Drive, a new road that parallels the tracks and loops in front of the station, allowing easy 

pick-up and drop-off options. An additional spur connecting the drop-off area to Michigan 

Avenue is also planned for those not needing to park. The pedestrian overpass would extend to 

the north to pass over Michigan Avenue, providing a connection to the existing greenway/bike 

trail to the University of Michigan – Dearborn Campus, the Henry Ford Community College, and 

the Fairlane Town Center. 

The Preferred Alternative would combine the existing Amtrak Station with the Smith Creek 

Station and would have direct access to westbound trains. The project would include restoration 

of approximately 2,100-feet of double-track through the intermodal facility. Passenger platforms 

for both the westbound and eastbound tracks would be constructed. A pedestrian overpass with 

elevators and stairways would provide passenger access to/from eastbound trains, as well as 
Page 13

visitor access to the Henry Ford located south of the tracks. Additional improvements to 

facilitate visitor access to the Henry Ford include relocation of approximately 100 feet of 

existing Henry Ford rail track, relocation of an existing coal tender and locomotive, and 

construction of a plaza/gathering space associated with the south tower. Grading, drainage, new 

sidewalk, and landscaping will complete the connection to the controlled access at the Henry 

Ford Museum.

A new bus facility at the intermodal station will replace the bus transit pulse point at the Fairlane 

Town Center mall, approximately one-half mile to the north and east. The mall is the current 

westernmost stop for the Detroit DOT and serves an important transfer interface for DDOT and 

SMART, the suburban bus system. Modal connectivity will be dramatically improved with the 

relocation of the pulse point to the intermodal facility since today’s connectivity is only between 

buses. Some buses will continue to service the mall for the large employment base in its 

vicinity. For bus and work van vehicles, a separate entrance at the eastern edge of the site is 

designed to separate the regularly scheduled bus traffic from the automobiles and keep buses on 

the higher capacity section of Michigan Avenue. 

A small park space is planned in front of the passenger drop-off plaza. The park would serve as 

the trailhead for a greenway trail extending east to the Rouge River Greenway, a proposed 

16-mile trail system that links historical, recreational, and environmental resources in the area.

Per the lease agreement, the existing station reverts to the City of Dearborn once it is no longer 

used for Amtrak service. Since the station is located in a multi-purpose civic center complex, it 

would be reprogrammed for another use. The city and the Henry Ford are currently developing a

concept to reuse the former station and parking lot area as a recreational vehicle camping site 

with the station becoming the service building for the facility. Many visitors come to the Henry 

Ford via RVs and this facility would provide them with the opportunity to camp and stay in 

Dearborn with amenities not currently found in the area. It has been a planned addition to the 

Henry Ford for several years, and would fulfill their needs while adding another amenity to the 

community for visitors and tourists.
Page 14

Figure 3: Preferred Alternative

[DOCUMENT TO BE PRINTED AS PDF; PAGE TO BE REPLACED WITH 11x17 UPDATED 

RENDERING OF STATION, OVERPASS AND HENRY FORD ENHANCEMENTS]
Page 15

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

This section describes the existing resources within the Study Area and analyzes the potential 

beneficial and adverse impacts to these resources from the two alternatives retained for detailed 

study. For certain environmental impact considerations the Study Area was expanded to 

adjacent areas, municipal boundaries, or other appropriate limits in order to develop the potential 

impacts. When an expanded area is used it is so identified. Figure 4 shows natural features in 

the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative site.

This EA focuses only on those resources that would be affected by the Preferred Alternative. 

The following resources are not located within the Study Area or would otherwise not be 

affected by the project, and therefore are not affected by the retained alternatives: solid waste 

disposal systems; ecological systems; coastal zones; use of water, mineral, or timber resources; 

wild and scenic/natural rivers; and farmlands. Thus, these resources are not included for further 

analysis within this document.

3.1 Air Quality

Air pollutants are contaminants in the atmosphere. Many man-made pollutants result from the 

incomplete combustion of fuels including coal, oil, natural gas, and gasoline. The principal 

factors affecting air pollution concentrations with respect to transportation projects are traffic, 

emissions, roadway type, terrain, meteorological parameters, and ambient air quality. The Clean 

Air Act (CAA) directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and later amendments reinforced their attainment and 

maintenance. The goal of air quality monitoring and actions is to ensure that the air quality 

levels of various pollutants do not exceed the set standards in order to protect the public health 

and welfare.

To determine compliance with the NAAQS, the Air Quality Division of the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) conducts long-term air-quality monitoring. The 

MDEQ also produces an Annual Air Quality Report, which outlines the attainment status of the 

state. 

According to the 2008 Annual Air Quality Report, Wayne County is in attainment with the 

NAAQS for ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and coarse particulate matter (PM10). Wayne County is designated 

as nonattainment for 1-hour ozone (O3) and fine particles (PM2.5).
Page 16

Figure 4: Study Area Natural Features
Page 17

The MDEQ has developed a strategy for achieving PM2.5 attainment. Since federal money is 

involved with this project, SEMCOG will include this project in their modeling to determine 

whether attainment can be accomplished based on MDEQ’s proposed strategy. 

The No-Build Alternative would not worsen air quality in the near future. Over time, air quality 

could worsen as congestion increases on the roads and highways within the region.

Michigan Avenue is a major state trunk line in the MDOT system. Given the long term and 

dramatic changes to the American auto industry and the direct impacts on Dearborn attributable 

to the Ford Motor Company contraction, current traffic counts on this arterial, approximately 

40,000 vehicles daily, are far below Michigan Avenue’s capacity. The Preferred Alternative is 

located on a site that was previously a 700 car parking lot and does not propose any capacity 

improvements in the surrounding road network. Although it is anticipated that the new station 

will attract users, the overall effect of increased use of alternative transportation will ultimately 

decrease vehicle miles traveled. No new passenger trains are being proposed as part of this 

project. Consequently, no additional diesel train emissions are anticipated.

The Dearborn Intermodal Rail Passenger Rail Facility was included in the regional emissions 

analysis conducted by SEMCOG for the conforming Direction2035, Regional Transportation 

Plan for Southeast Michigan (SEMCOG, 2009). The project’s design concept and scope have 

not changed significantly from what was analyzed in Direction2035. This analysis found that the 

plan and, therefore, the individual projects contained in the plan, are conforming projects, and 

will have air quality impacts consistent with those identified in the state implementation plans 

(SIPs) for achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) determined the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to 

conform to the SIP on October 27, 2010.

The project is also included in the federally-approved State Transportation Improvement 

Program administered by MDOT (TIP ID 2010764). The project’s open to the public year is 

consistent with (within the same regional emission analysis period as) the construction 

completion date identified in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and/or 

RTP. FHWA determined the TIP to conform to the SIP on October 27, 2010.

Of growing concern is the impact of proposed projects on climate change. Greenhouse gases 

(GHG) are those that trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. While there are naturally occurring 

greenhouse gases, there is also a direct link between fuel combustion and greenhouse gas 

emission. The City of Dearborn recently received a Pollution Prevention Grant from the 

MDNRE to develop a Climate Action Plan. As a result, they will be inventorying municipal 

emissions as well as emissions across the entire city. The Climate Action Plan will identify and 

implement strategies to reduce GHG emissions with a target of 15% by 2013. They are currently 
Page 18

working under an Energy Efficiency Block Grant to fund energy efficiency initiatives throughout 

the City. In addition, the City is partnered with the Clean Energy Coalition, Michigan Green 

Fleets Program to improve efficiency of their municipal fleet. Finally, the City is committed to 

pursuing a LEED Silver certification from the U.S. Green Building Council, a step that will 

decrease GHG emissions from the proposed building.

Based on this analysis, the project-related changes in regional emissions would not exceed the 

annual general conformity thresholds in any nonattainment or maintenance area, or measurably 

affect MSAT or GHG emissions. The Preferred Alternative will not have a long-term impact on 

current or future air quality standards including greenhouse gasses.

The Preferred Alternative may result in temporary, construction-related increases in vehicle 

exhaust and emissions, and airborne particulate matter during equipment operation and the 

hauling of material. Construction dust associated with exposed soils would be controlled, if 

necessary, with the application of water and other approved dust palliatives. In addition, any 

hydrocarbons, NO2, SO2 emissions, as well as airborne particulates created by fugitive dust 

plumes would be rapidly dissipated because the location of the site and prevailing winds allows 

for good air circulation. Overall, there could be a short-term, temporary degradation of local air 

quality during construction activities. However, these impacts would be minor and would cease 

immediately after the construction activity is completed.

3.2 Water Quality

The Study Area lies entirely within the Rouge River watershed, a drainage area of approximately 

468 square miles, that discharges to the Detroit River and, specifically, within the Lower Rouge 

River subwatershed. 

The Lower Rouge River subwatershed can be characterized as an urban system influenced by 

human activity. The river has been impounded and channelized to generate electricity for the 

Henry Ford Estate – Fair Lane. Downstream of the dam, the river reverts back to a more natural 

state until it joins the Rouge River proper. In the vicinity of the Study Area, the Rouge River has

been lined and channelized with concrete to facilitate water conveyance and floodwater storage.

Water quality in the Lower Rouge subwatershed suffers from peak flows caused by rapid 

stormwater runoff, sediment loads, stream bank erosion, untreated combined sewer overflows, 

and impaired habitat.

The No-Build Alternative would not have a direct impact on the Rouge River and would not 

have a major impact on surface water quality in the area. The site of the Preferred Alternative 
Page 19

would remain a paved parking lot, and runoff from the area would continue to be captured by 

existing catch basins and conveyed to the storm sewers.

The Preferred Alternative would also not have a direct impact on the Rouge River and would not 

have a major impact on surface water quality in the area. The site of the Preferred Alternative is 

currently a paved parking lot, and construction of the new facility would include storm water 

management techniques such as Low Impact Development (LID) to minimize runoff impacts 

from impervious surfaces. The Preferred Alternative would comply with the Wayne County 

Department of Environment (WCDOE) Stormwater Ordinance. Inclusion of landscaped areas 

and a small park within the site would also lower the amount of paved surfaces, as well as

provide an opportunity for storm water management. Storm water management would be 

finalized during the design of the facility.

A boardwalk on piles is proposed crossing the eastern corner of the existing storm water 

detention pond on the Henry Ford property. The design of this boardwalk will comply with 

Wayne County Storm Water Management Standards as required under the County’s certificate of 

coverage (Permit No. MIG6190040) and the General Permit (Permit No. MIG619000) which 

are administered jointly by the Wayne County Department of Public Services (WCDPS) and the 

WCDOE, as well as the Michigan Natural Resource & Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), 

Act 451 of 1994, as amended , Part 31 - Water Resources Protection, Storm Water Management.

With the Preferred Alternative, surface waters and storm sewer systems would be protected 

during construction through the use and enforcement of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation 

Control, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits. These permits 

employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as silt fence, check dams, and appropriately 

sized sediment basins. Following construction, permanent BMPs would be installed to further 

reduce impacts such as permanent seeding, establishment of no mow zones near and or adjacent 

to water courses, detention basins with restricted outlets, and the use of native vegetation 

incorporated into the final landscape design.

3.3 Noise and Vibration

The Study Area is located within a commercial and industrialized area. There are no residences,

hospitals, schools, or other sensitive areas where noise or vibration could interfere with the 

orderly conduct of day-to-day activities located in the Study Area. Existing passenger and 

freight rail activity at existing crossings, and vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways, account for 

the majority of the existing noise and vibration present in the Study Area.

The No-Build Alternative would not create any change in noise or vibration impacts from the 

existing condition.
Page 20

The Preferred Alternative would serve existing and future rail and bus services. Traffic noise 

associated with new parking and drop-off areas, and rail noise and vibration associated with the 

rail service would increase. However, there would be no permanent noise or vibration impacts 

on sensitive areas because of their distance from the Preferred Alternative. 

There would also be increases in noise and vibration levels during construction activities for the 

Preferred Alternative. These activities would be limited to daytime hours and would be shortterm, occurring only during the period of construction. Given the surrounding land uses, which 

do not include any sensitive areas within an unobstructed distance of 200 feet from the site, the 

temporary construction-related noise and vibration impacts are not anticipated to be severe. 

Additionally, any temporary impacts would cease immediately after the construction activity is 

completed.

3.4 Wetlands

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” requires federal agencies to avoid, to the 

extent practicable, short and long-term impacts associated with the destruction or modification of 

wetlands. More specifically, it directs federal agencies to avoid new construction in wetlands 

unless there is no practical alternative. It further states that where wetlands cannot be avoided, 

the proposed action must include all practical measures to minimize harm to the wetlands. 

The methodology used to identify wetlands within the Project Area was consistent with the 

approach outlined in the MDEQ Wetland Identification Manual (2001). This includes field 

verification of the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. 

Wetlands were classified according to the “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of 

the United States” (Cowardin 1979). The survey of the Study Area surrounding the site 

identified small wetland pockets located in the Michigan Avenue wooded median north of the 

site and along the north side of the rail embankment, approximately 400 feet east of the site. 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact wetlands.

There are no wetlands located at the Preferred Alternative site. The Preferred Alternative would 

therefore not impact wetlands. 

3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, provides protections for those 

species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The Act grants the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prime responsibility in administering the species designations 

and protections granted under the ESA. “Endangered” means that a species is in danger of 
Page 21

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. “Threatened” means that a species 

is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

The USFWS and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Wildlife Division 

were contacted to determine if federal or state-listed threatened or endangered species are known 

to exist in the Study Area. According to the USFWS, there are no known, listed or proposed, 

federal threatened or endangered species in the Study Area. MDNR provided information on 

two state listed threatened species that have historically occurred in the Study Area: the compassplant (Silphium laciniatum) and the cup-plant (Silphium perfoliatum).

As a result of MDNR comments, a botanical and habitat survey was completed in June 2002, and 

reconfirmed in 2007, to determine if the identified species currently exist in the Study Area. The 

results of the survey found a small population of 50 compass-plants located on the north side of 

the Norfolk Southern railroad embankment, approximately 2,000 feet east of the Preferred 

Alternative. No cup-plants were found during the survey.

The No-Build Alternative would not impact federal- or state-listed or proposed threatened or 

endangered species.

The compass plants are located outside of the Preferred Alternative location. As a result of the 

studies completed, MDNR has concluded that the Preferred Alternative would have no impact on 

known special natural features and would not impact federal- or state-listed or proposed 

threatened or endangered species. Copies of correspondence between the City of Dearborn and 

USFWS and MDNR are included in the Appendix. 

3.6 Floodplains

Federal protection of floodplains is afforded by Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain 

Management,” and by implementation of federal regulations under 44 CFR Part 9. These 

regulations direct federal agencies to undertake actions to avoid impacts on floodplain areas by 

structures built in flood-prone areas. 

The Rouge River 100-year floodplain is located within the Study Area north of Michigan 

Avenue. 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact the Rouge River 100-year floodplain.

The Preferred Alternative is located south of Michigan Avenue and therefore would not impact 

the Rouge River 100-year floodplain. 

3.7 Energy Use
Page 22

The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on current energy use. The existing station is a 

functional, but energy inefficient and inadequate facility for modern intermodal passenger needs. 

The existing site of the Preferred Alternative is currently a paved parking lot with lighting. 

Energy is needed to operate the lights. The lights are on continuously from dusk to dawn. 

Energy would be used to construct the Preferred Alternative. In addition, the Preferred 

Alternative would require energy for day-to-day operations and materials for construction. The 

Preferred Alternative will minimize the short- and long-term environmental impacts of 

development and other activities through resource conservation, recycling, waste minimization, 

and the use of energy-efficient and ecologically responsible materials and techniques.

The Preferred Alternative would support the practice of sustainable planning, design, and use 

that includes an emphasis on energy conservation. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative provides 

an opportunity to construct a facility that is reflective of all Dearborn’s sustainability goals and 

aspirations. Fuel savings would be realized in the long-term due to improved efficiencies in the 

movement of passenger rail to and from intermodal facilities. There would also be fuel savings 

consistent with the reduction of vehicle miles traveled shifting from automobile to passenger rail.

Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) certification is an important goal for the 

Preferred Alternative. The intermodal facility represents an opportunity to showcase Dearborn’s 

commitment to sustainability and is a tangible expression of that commitment to residents, 

visitors and tourists arriving at and using the facility. Incorporated in the design would be 

elements of both sustainable building and site design plus representations of the Henry Ford’s 

core mission of fostering innovation, encompassing the mindset that drives the American spirit to 

create, build and improve.

3.8 Visual Resources

The Michigan Avenue corridor is a gateway to west Dearborn for those traveling from the east. 

The north side of the road is dominated by floodplain forest associated with the Rouge River 

floodplain. A median in the road, containing mature trees, also provides visual interest. The site 

of the Preferred Alternative, on the south side of the road, is a paved parking lot surrounded by a 

chain link fence. While it does provide open space, the visual quality of the viewshed is severely 

diminished by the existing use.

The No-Build Alternative would not affect visual resources.

The proposed intermodal facility would be designed as a landmark in the area. Architecturally, it 

would provide strong visual interest and would serve as a gateway to west Dearborn. The 

architectural style of the building, ranging from modern to historic, has been the topic of public 
Page 23

meetings. The preference for the station would be a “transitional” style which incorporates 

contextual design cues from the historical roots of the adjacent Henry Ford industrial/crafts 

building complex, with features such as brick masonry, metal side gable roof forms, 

Romanesque window arches, limestone roof eave bracket elements, limestone water table, and a 

façade clock tower element.

In addition to the building, the site would be landscaped to decrease the mass of the surface 

parking lot. A new community park, in the foreground of the station, would provide increased 

green space. 

The improvements in the general service area of the Henry Ford will facilitate pedestrian 

circulation to the controlled access at the Museum. The improvements will include new 

sidewalks and landscaping that will improve the visual characteristics of this area dominated by 

service and maintenance vehicles.

The Preferred Alternative would have a positive effect on visual resources and would improve 

the visual interest of the site from the existing conditions.

3.9 Transportation

The proposed Dearborn Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility would provide a key link with several 

transportation and regional improvement initiatives in Southeast Michigan, generally providing a 

benefit to transportation within the city and region.

3.9.1 Rail 

The City is currently served by Amtrak rail service, which includes the “Wolverine” with travel 

daily between Pontiac, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois. There are two Amtrak stations in 

Dearborn, the existing Dearborn Station and the Smith Creek Station. The Dearborn Station is 

located in east Dearborn at 16121 Michigan Avenue, behind the Civic Center. Smith Creek 

Station is located in west Dearborn and serves only the Henry Ford. Ridership statistics indicate 

that average daily boardings and alightings at the Dearborn station were 190 passengers (HNTB, 

2005). Smith Creek Station at the Henry Ford had significantly lower ridership, averaging only 

four passengers getting on or off at the station each day.

The track and right-of-way within the Study Area are owned by Norfolk Southern Corporation.

On a daily basis, Norfolk Southern operates approximately six freight trains, while Amtrak 

operates six passenger trains on the line. In the past, two main tracks were installed on most of 

the route. In 1986, the two-track mainline was reduced to a single track mainline at CP Mort MP 

9.4, just west of the Smith Creek Station. The north-side track (main #1) was removed, creating 
Page 24

a single track from CP Mort MP 9.4 extending west through the project area to Wayne Junction 

MP 18.1, a distance of approximately 8.7 miles. 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact rail transportation or freight operations. Both the 

Dearborn Station and the Smith Creek Station would continue to operate.

The Preferred Alternative would provide benefits to rail transportation. The proposed intermodal 

facility would combine the need for the existing Smith Creek Station at the Henry Ford and the 

need for the existing Dearborn Station behind the Dearborn Civic Center into a single station 

site, west of the current Smith Creek Station. 

The new station and track configuration of the Preferred Alternative would provide three 

principal benefits to the freight operations. First, the elimination of the Smith Creek Station and 

the pedestrian grade crossing would reduce the passenger train dwell time and allow greater 

access by freight. Second, the additional track extension from CP Mort to Oakwood, and

construction of both north and south side platforms would enable freight trains to pass stopped 

passenger trains. Under the current track configuration, passenger trains running in either 

direction are dispatched to operate on the north side track to reach the north side platforms, 

effectively tying up the track segment to freight operations. Third, safety would be improved on 

the track segment, as no condition would exist which requires pedestrians or passengers to cross 

the track. No adverse impacts to freight operations are anticipated.

The Preferred Alternative would include replacement of the missing north-side track to enable 

eastbound and westbound trains to pass east of the new turnout at Oakwood Boulevard. Trains 

would be expected to operate with most eastbound trains operating on the northernmost track and 

most westbound trains operating on the southern track. Passengers would reach the appropriate 

platform via an overhead walkway with stairways, escalators and elevators providing access to 

the walkway.

Currently, the Smith Creek Station has limited hours of service and very low ridership. 

Combining this station with the new, larger intermodal facility that would operate 24 hours a day 

would provide positive benefits for passengers. 

The Dearborn Station is unable to provide intermodal connections given the limited size of the 

facility. The new intermodal facility would serve commuter, intercity and high speed passenger 

rail. It would provide a connection to SMART and DDOT bus services, and proposed interstate 

bus and van service, which would provide enhanced services and conveniences for passengers. 

The Preferred Alternative, a combined station to the east of the current station, would not 

adversely impact the current Amtrak ridership statistics. 
Page 25

3.9.2 Bus

The City is currently served by a bus service operated by SMART and DDOT. SMART operates 

54 bus routes and has approximately 7,000 bus stops within Macomb, Wayne, and Oakland 

Counties. Nine SMART bus routes serve the City, routes 140, 145, 190, 200, 245, 250, 255, 

265, and 275. DDOT operates one route (Route 22) to Dearborn with stops at Fairlane Office 

Park, Fairlane Town Center, and Ford World Headquarters. 

The No Build Alternative would not impact bus service. DDOT and SMART buses would 

continue to operate on their specified routes and schedules.

The impact of the Preferred Alternative on bus service would be positive, as a new intermodal 

facility would provide better linkages for public transit commuters to destinations locally, 

regionally and outside the state.

The Preferred Alternative would affect existing bus service in the area by creating a need to 

restructure existing services to serve the new train station and by causing a change in travel 

patterns for existing commuters. However, neither of these impacts is considered negative. 

Once the station is completed, SMART would need to reroute some of the fixed route buses to 

serve the new intermodal facility. The bus transfer facility, which is currently located at the 

Fairlane Town Center, would also be relocated to the new intermodal facility. Any changes to 

origin or destinations along the fixed route bus lines would create a change in travel pattern for 

commuters. However, bus service to Fairlane Town Center will be maintained. 

The existing bus transfer facility at Fairlane Town Center and the Preferred Alternative site are 

both reached using motor vehicles. The existing transfer facility is within approximately one 

mile of the new station, therefore relocating the facility, or modifying the facility location as a 

destination stop, would not create any difficulties in user access or a difference in commuting 

time. Access to the buses along the routes would not change from the current system, as the bus 

stop locations would remain the same. 

3.9.3 Motor Vehicle Traffic 

Peak hour traffic conditions were evaluated for the Study Area intersections and roadways of 

Michigan Avenue, Oakwood Boulevard, Elm Street, and the driveway into the existing Ford 

parking lot, which is the proposed site of the facility. The 2007 Annual Average Daily Traffic 

(AADT) volume on Michigan Avenue was approximately 51,000 vehicles per day. Due to the 

dramatic change in economic conditions and contraction of the domestic auto industry 

(specifically Ford Motor Company in Dearborn), AADT dropped to 39,107 in 2008 for the 

Michigan Avenue segment between within the Study Area (MDOT, 2008). The peak hours of 

traffic throughout the day are the morning peak hour, which occurs from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m., the 
Page 26

midday peak hour, which occurs from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., and the evening peak hour, 

which occurs from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. 

The Study Area intersections were analyzed using the procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway 

Capacity Manual (HCM) to identify the level-of-service (LOS) and overall delays for the 

intersections. LOS is a qualitative measure that describes the operational condition of traffic at 

an intersection as perceived by motorists. LOS A represents the most desirable traffic operations 

and LOS F represents the least desirable traffic operations. For suburban areas such as 

Dearborn, LOS D or above is typically considered to be acceptable. 

Currently, during the peak hours, most of the intersections turning movements operate with low 

vehicle delays and acceptable LOS. Some congestion was detected for the westbound left turn 

movement at the Michigan Avenue/Oakwood Boulevard intersection during the midday peak 

hour. At the Michigan Avenue/Ford parking lot driveway intersection, the lack of signal control 

reduces the ability for vehicles to find gaps in the heavy Michigan Avenue traffic when turning 

into or out of the parking site during all peak hour time periods.

The No-Build Alternative would not impact motor vehicle traffic.

Under the Preferred Alternative, additional traffic will be generated within the immediate Rail 

Facility Area and existing traffic patterns will likely shift. The number of vehicle trips entering 

and exiting the site, based on projected patronage, is approximately 85 vehicles during the 

morning peak hour, 45 vehicles during the midday peak hour, and 85 vehicles during the evening 

peak hour. These trips included those generated by rail, the SMART and DDOT bus systems, 

Greyhound buses, and other specialty vans and buses.

As shown on Figure 3, motor vehicle access to the proposed site would be provided at two 

drives. The primary drive is located at the existing Ford parking lot driveway and a secondary 

drive is located at Elm Street. Most of the new trips were allocated to the primary drive, due to 

the large number of drop-off trips expected in front of the intermodal facility.

The Michigan Avenue/Oakwood Boulevard and Michigan Avenue/Ford parking lot driveway 

intersections would see little change over existing conditions. However, the Michigan 

Avenue/Elm Street intersection would likely incur additional delay due to the shift in traffic 

patterns. A traffic signal could be installed at the intersection to mitigate these delays, or a 

traffic signal could be installed at the proposed intermodal facility driveway, which could create 

enough gaps in the Michigan Avenue traffic to allow for more efficient turns at the Michigan 

Avenue/Elm Street intersection. The Preferred Alternative would not result in significant 

adverse impacts to motor vehicle traffic, provided a traffic signal is installed to allow turns into 

the proposed facility.
Page 27

A 2010, 2015, and 2020 traffic study for the intermodal facility intersections was not conducted 

due to the zero growth rate assumption used for this study. Because the study assumes no 

increase in background traffic, the 2015, 2020, and 2025 build forecasts are essentially identical 

to that of the 2010 Preferred Alternative traffic volumes.

3.9.4 Parking

The existing Dearborn Station has 170 allocated spaces for rail passenger traffic. No coordinated 

interface between other transit modes (primarily buses) is designated at the existing station. 

Taxis may stop at the station to pick up or drop off passengers. The Smith Creek Station at The 

Henry Ford has no parking for train users. It is a flag stop that requires entry to The Henry Ford 

attraction. Visitors use the Henry Ford general parking facilities, which are located 1⁄2-mile from 

the station stop. 

The No-Build alternative would not affect parking conditions.

The Preferred Alternative makes use of a former 700 space parking lot previously used by Ford 

Motor Company for a large engineering facility located south of the Norfolk Southern Railway. 

Ford also had over 1,200 additional parking spaces located adjacent to the engineering facility in 

surface parking lots on the south side of the Norfolk Southern Railway. The engineering facility 

is now closed, leaving these parking lots available for other uses including the intermodal station 

parking, accommodation of multi-modal requirements (buses, shuttles, limousines, taxis, 

bicycles and pedestrians), and future attraction development by The Henry Ford. Ample parking 

is therefore available for all anticipated intermodal activities in West Dearborn. In addition, 

approximately 300 surface parking spaces are proposed as part of the project. The Preferred 

Alternative would not result in adverse impacts to parking.

3.9.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian

The Rouge River Gateway project has a trailhead in the Study Area for a proposed 16 mile nonmotorized trail. The No-Build Alternative would maintain this trailhead but do nothing to 

enhance access or use.

The Preferred Alternative would encourage use of the non-motorized trail system by providing 

greater visibility through an increased volume of potential users and by providing access to the 

existing greenway trail north of Michigan Avenue. In addition, non-motorized trail users would 

realize new opportunities for access to a range of transit modalities.

3.10 Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped

As noted previously, ADA accessibility at the existing station has been accommodated through a 

series of makeshift improvements over the years. 
Page 28

The No-Build Alternative would not affect mobility for elderly or handicapped persons.

The Preferred Alternative site is located on flat, level terrain that would not create barriers to 

access for the elderly or handicapped. The new Rail Facility would be built in compliance with 

ADA requirements including accessible entrances, elevator access to the overhead walkway to 

the south platform, accommodations for a wheelchair lift located on each platform, and an 

overhead walkway that would eliminate pedestrian/bicycle/vehicle conflicts for those accessing 

the station from north of Michigan Avenue. 

3.11 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

Land use within and near the Study Area is mixed with business, commercial, forested areas, 

recreational, and single-family residential. The Rouge River 100-year floodplain is north of 

Michigan Avenue and is dominated by floodplain forest. Within this forested region, but outside 

the floodplain and floodway boundaries, there are large-lot single-family residences. Car 

dealerships, with expansive surface parking lots, form the western border of the Study Area. The 

Ford Engineering building and accompanying surface parking lot is situated adjacent to the 

Study Area on the southwest corner. The Henry Ford complex is situated south and southeast of 

the Study Area. 

There are several nearby land uses worth noting because of the large number of people they 

attract to Dearborn on a daily basis. These include the University of Michigan Dearborn 

Campus, Henry Ford Community College, Ford Proving Grounds, Ford World Headquarters, 

Ford Rouge Complex manufacturing facility, Fairlane Town Center shopping mall, and the Ford 

Community and Performing Arts Center.

A new intermodal facility would take prominence in the West Dearborn Business District and 

provide a necessary link to many tourist, employment and other types of attractions in the Study 

Area, including the Henry Ford Museum, the University of Michigan Dearborn, Henry Ford 

Community College, the Rouge River, Ford World Headquarters, Fairlane Town Center, hotels, 

the Dearborn Civic Center, City Hall and the many commercial entities located in the west and 

east downtowns. The Henry Ford and the Henry Ford Estate – Fair Lane annually draw over 1.7 

million visitors from all over the world. These sites are known as one of America’s premier 

museums and Southeast Michigan’s largest tourist attraction.

The No-Build Alternative would not impact land use, be inconsistent with zoning, or require 

acquisition of property.

The Preferred Alternative is located on a site currently used as a surface parking lot owned by 

the Ford Motor Land Development Corporation. The alternative would require lease or 
Page 29

acquisition of the proposed 7.5 acre site and would be consistent with surrounding land use and 

local zoning. The Preferred Alternative is consistent with all local plans within the City. There 

would be no displacements of residences or businesses. The touch-down area for the walkway, 

north of Michigan Avenue, would be on MDOT right-of-way.

The entire Preferred Alternative site is zoned General Business District (B-C). Transit facilities 

are a permitted use under current zoning (Dearborn, 1993). Immediately adjacent to the project 

site, zoning designations are Flood Plain District (F-P) to the north, Community Business 

District (B-B) to the west, Medium Industrial District (I-B) to the southwest, and MultipleFamily Residential District (R-C) to the southeast.

According to the Master Plan for the City of Dearborn (1997), as amended (Master Plan), the 

generalized future land use recommends that the site be developed as commercial. The Master 

Plan also describes recommended land use changes for 44 sub-areas within the City. This site is 

not included within the boundaries of any of these sub-areas, but is near sub-areas 1 and 3. Subarea 1 is located approximately 1⁄2-mile west of the site along Michigan Avenue in the West 

Dearborn Business District and encompasses approximately 115 acres. A rail transit station is 

recommended for sub-area 1. Sub-area 3 is south and adjacent to Sub-area 1 and encompasses 

approximately 40 acres. The area is currently a mix of commercial, low- and medium-density 

residential and industrial uses. Future land use recommendations encourage the area to become 

entirely medium-density residential to support businesses in the West Dearborn Business District 

(Sub-area 1) and a future transit station.

The Preferred Alternative would also involve the closure of the existing Dearborn Amtrak 

station. The City is currently exploring other reuse plans for the Dearborn Station and its 

surrounding property.

The City of Dearborn is examining the Study Area and its proximity to the west downtown as a 

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) district. Similarly, as the Master Plan update is moving 

forward, the City’s zoning ordinance will be updated to match the requirements of form based 

design and TOD in this and several other special development areas within Dearborn.

The Preferred Alternative would facilitate managed growth in accordance with these local 

initiatives.

3.12 Socioeconomic Resources

3.12.1 Community Facilities

A number of community facilities and services are found adjacent to the Study Area including 

police, fire, schools, and religious institutions.
Page 30

The Dearborn Police Department maintains a force of over 200 officers with headquarters 

located at 16099 Michigan Avenue, one-half mile east of the site. The City of Dearborn Fire 

Station 2 is closest to the Study Area and is within the two-mile service radius. No government 

offices or public schools are located within or adjacent to the Study Area. 

The University of Michigan Dearborn campus and Henry Ford Community College are located 

north of the Preferred Alternative along the east side of the Rouge River. No religious 

institutions are located within or adjacent to the Study Area. 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact community facilities.

The Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect any community facilities in the Dearborn 

area. Emergency response time would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative. 

3.12.2 Demographics

Demographics include a description of population and housing characteristics in the Study Area. 

There is no residential population within the Study Area. The project site is within an area zoned 

for general business (see Section 3-11). The closest residences are single family homes located 

north of the Rouge River and Michigan Avenue.

The No-Build Alternative would not affect population or housing.

Similarly, the Preferred Alternative would not affect population or housing. 

3.12.3 Economic Resources

The Study Area contains a mixture of commercial, industrial, and municipal uses. City of 

Dearborn employment data indicates approximately 200 municipal employees are employed in 

the Study Area, primarily associated with the community center located in the vicinity of the 

existing Amtrak station. Approximately 800 employees are privately employed in the Study 

Area in commercial and industrial positions.

The No-Build Alternative would not affect economic resources.

The Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect economic resources in the Study Area. 

Currently, the site is a vacant parking lot and does not accommodate any public use. It is 

anticipated that construction of the Preferred Alternative would stimulate investment in new 
Page 31

commercial ventures adjacent to the intermodal facility. This would improve the Dearborn 

economy by providing additional tax base and employment opportunities.

3.13 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations”, requires federal agencies to incorporate 

consideration of environmental justice into their planning processes. The executive order 

prohibits federal financial assistance for programs and activities that use criteria and methods or 

practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin. Its goal is to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 

effects, including social and economic effects, on minority and low-income populations.

Executive Order 12898 defines minorities as individuals of American Indian or Alaskan Native; 

Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic racial heritage. Minority 

populations are defined as those where either (a) the minority population of the affected area 

exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully 

greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate 

unit of geographic analysis. An analysis of the U.S. Census data from the 2000 Census indicates 

that at the Census block level, minority populations are present; however, there are no minority 

populations greater than six percent, which is the same as the minority population percentage of 

the surrounding area of the City.

Economic data from the 2000 Census indicated that there is a small percentage of the population, 

ranging from zero to eight percent, below the poverty level within the area surrounding the Study 

Area. However, this percentage of the population is below the average for Wayne County and 

the City, which are both sixteen percent. There are no residential populations within the Study 

Area. 

The No-Build Alternative would not have disproportionate adverse impacts on minority or lowincome populations. However, the No-Build Alternative would not encourage or provide 

increased public transportation connectivity that may be of value to low-income residents who 

may not be able to afford reliable personal transportation to travel to employment opportunities.

The Preferred Alternative would not result in disproportionate adverse impacts to minority or 

low-income residents or populations. The Preferred Alternative would benefit all residents by 

providing additional public transportation connectivity between communities, employment and 

shopping centers, and recreational amenities within the region.
Page 32

3.14 Public Health and Safety

With the Preferred Alternative, passenger safety would be enhanced because the two track 

pedestrian crossing at the Smith Creek Station would be closed. This would eliminate the 

current potential pedestrian/train conflict. In addition, the south track boarding operation at the 

existing Dearborn Station would also be eliminated. No train passengers would be required to 

cross or occupy the tracks to board or depart from a train. Wheelchair access to the trains 

compliant with the ADA would be provided by portable platform or train-mounted lifts. 

Currently, an automatic crossing gate and flashers provide warning of a train approaching the 

Elm Street crossing. Electronic track circuits activate the warning system in the presence of a 

train. Additional warning devices include signage and pavement markings. The signage and 

warning systems are anticipated to remain in place. The remainder of the rail corridor is fenced 

in this area to prevent pedestrian access.

Safe and secure operations are essential for all mass transportation facilities, and elements to 

ensure this would be incorporated into the design of the proposed intermodal facility. The 

proposed station platform and track would be designed to provide convenient passenger access 

and a high level of passenger safety. Passengers would access the platform via an overhead 

pedestrian bridge. The pedestrian bridge would also provide access to The Henry Ford. Fencing 

would prohibit access at grade level from Elm Street, approximately 300 feet west of the 

platform.

The No-Build Alternative would not impact public health and safety. The safety of vehicular, 

bicycle and pedestrian traffic would not be enhanced as the facilities would not be enhanced.

The Preferred Alternative would not have an adverse effect on public health and safety. The 

Preferred Alternative would improve public health and safety by upgrading out-of-date facilities 

and reducing the potential for pedestrian/train conflict, as well as providing pedestrians a safe 

Michigan Avenue crossing.

3.15 Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Waste

The No-Build Alternative would not impact known contaminated sites or hazardous waste.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed for the Preferred Alternative to 

determine the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products on the 

property. The ESA process included:

 Visual survey of the property to identify areas of potential environmental concerns.

 Visual survey of neighboring properties to assess any potential for an adverse impact on 

the property.

 Development of a 60-year land use history of the property.
Page 33

 Review of published information on general geology, hydrogeology, and topographic 

setting for the property.

 Inquiries to local government agency personnel to determine their knowledge of reported 

environmental incidents at or in the immediate vicinity of the property.

 Regulatory agency file search to identify federal and state-listed sites known to be 

contaminated or to have potential environmental concerns.

The records reviewed indicated one site within a one-eighth-mile radius from the proposed site 

of the Preferred Alternative. This site includes a registered underground storage tank (UST) site 

with the tanks listed as removed and as a closed leaking UST (LUST) site. Closed LUST sites 

are those that had contamination associated with leaking USTs, but were later remediated in 

accordance with regulatory guidelines. The former USTs at the site were used to store virgin 

motor oil and used oil. After removal of the USTs and remediation, analysis indicated that no 

residual contamination remained in the soil. As a result, the site is not anticipated to have an 

adverse environmental impact on the property proposed for the intermodal facility (NTH 2002). 

The remaining identified sites from the records review are more than one-eighth mile from the 

proposed site of the Preferred Alternative and are not anticipated to impact the property, given 

the distance and prevailing subsurface conditions of clay soils and lack of a shallow aquifer in 

the Project Area. In addition, no spills or other incidents of concerns have been recorded for the 

property, and no known landfill sites are within one-half of a mile of the property (NTH 2002).

Based on the results of the ESA, the Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to have an impact on 

known contaminated sites or hazardous waste. If unanticipated contaminated soil is encountered 

during construction, the City would remove and dispose of contaminants in accordance with the 

Hazardous Waste Program under the MDNR.

3.16 Parks and Recreational Areas

The City maintains over 400 acres of parkland distributed over 43 parks and four recreational 

facilities. None of these facilities are within or adjacent to the Study Area.

The project is compatible with the Southeast Michigan Greenways project, which has established 

a vision for creating a regional greenway network in Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. 

Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. The vision includes developing greenways along the 

Rouge River. 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact parks or recreation areas.

The Preferred Alternative would not adversely impact parks or recreation areas. Construction of 

the Preferred Alternative would benefit the Rouge River greenway system by providing a small 
Page 34

park space in front of the passenger drop-off plaza, which would serve as a trailhead and provide 

signage to promote recreational use of a greenway trail extending east to the Rouge River 

Greenway. The Michigan Avenue overpass would provide a direct connection to the 

greenway/bike path to the University of Michigan – Dearborn, Henry Ford Community College 

campuses, and the Fairlane Town Center.

3.17 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, requires 

that federal undertakings be reviewed for their effect on historic properties, which includes both 

architectural and archeological resources. Historic properties are either listed on or eligible for 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Cultural resources literature review and a field reconnaissance survey were completed in July 

2002 to investigate the presence of archaeological and architectural resources within the area of 

potential effects (APE). The review and survey determined that there was a low potential for 

archaeological recovery on the proposed site, which has been used as a paved parking lot since 

the late 1950s. No further investigation for archeological resources was conducted.

Two architectural properties that were greater than 50 years of age and not previously evaluated 

were identified and evaluated for the NRHP in August 2008 (36 CFR Part 800.4): the Henry 

Ford Filtration and Pumping Station (built 1913-14 with later additions), also known as the 

Water Works Building, and the Ford Motor Company Engineering Laboratory and Power Plant

(built 1923-25 with later additions). After detailed evaluation, the Water Works Building was 

determined not to be eligible due to extensive alterations that have compromised the historic 

integrity of the building, while the Ford Motor Company Engineering Laboratory and Power 

Plant was recommended eligible for the NRHP (CCRG 2008). In addition to the NRHP eligible 

laboratory and power plant, there are two additional historic properties located within the APE, 

the Greenfield Village and the Henry Ford Museum (established late 1920s-30s) and Fair Lane 

(built 1914-15), which are National Historic Landmark (NHL) historic districts. 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact known cultural resources.

The Preferred Alternative would directly affect the Greenfield Village and the Henry Ford 

Museum NHL by improving a portion of the northern section of the historic district. 

Improvements would construct a visitor access to the museum complex. Some of the district 

contributors, including the Henry Ford Museum building, would be located adjacent to the 

walkway associated with visitor access. However, the improvements would follow the path of 

an existing walkway, improve the walkway, and add landscaping and an associated 

plaza/gathering space that would be accessed from the overhead walkway from the new 

Intermodal Facility building. In addition, the alterations made to the property shall be consistent 
Page 35

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR Part 68) and applicable rehabilitation guidelines. 

Greenfield Village and the Henry Ford Museum NHL district contributors, Fair Lane, and the 

Ford Motor Company Engineering Laboratory and Power Plant would be located within the 

indirect APE adjacent to the rail line. In addition to the improvements mentioned above, an 

overpass would be located to the north of the proposed Dearborn Station that would connect it to 

a greenway/bike path; and additional minor work to be done along the railroad tracks. However, 

the view of the proposed undertaking from the nearest district contributors, and the eligible 

laboratory and power plant would be camoflauged by existing trees as well as vegetation 

associated with the proposed walkway. Fair Lane’s large and dense wooded area would screen 

views of the undertaking from the interior of that NHL. In addition, given the presence of 

Michigan Avenue and the existing rail line, no new atmospheric or audible elements would be 

introduced. Therefore, the undertaking would not introduce new visual, atmospheric, or audible 

elements to historic properties. 

A finding that this undertaking would have No Adverse Effect on historic properties was 

presented to the MI SHPO on April 29, 2011 (36 CFR Part 800.5(b)) (see Appendix). The MI 

SHPO concurred in their June 7, 2011, correspondence. Because of the existence of two NHLs 

within the APE, correspondence was also sent to the Secretary of the Interior on April 29, 2011 

(36 CFR Part 800.10(c)), with a response received on May 26, 2011, concurring with the finding 

of No Adverse Effect (see Appendix). Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not impact 

known cultural resources. 

3.18 Section 4(f) Resources

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 (as codified in 49 

U.S.C. 303) states that publicly-owned parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuge 

areas, or historic sites of national, state, or local significance may not be used for USDOTfunded projects unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and 

such projects include all possible planning to minimize harm to these lands.

The No-Build Alternative would not result in a use of Section 4(f) properties.

The Greenfield Village and the Henry Ford Museum NHL is the only Section 4(f) resource 

located within the study area which would be affected by the Preferred Alternative. The Fair 

Lane NHL, and the NRHP eligible Ford Motor Company Engineering Laboratory and Power 

Plant are also Section 4(f) resources, but would not be directly affected by the project.

In accordance with 23 CFR 774.5(b), prior to making a de minimis determination, FRA must 

receive written concurrence from the MI SHPO for a finding of No Adverse Effect in accordance 
Page 36

with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. As discussed in Section 3.17 above, 

FRA received this concurrence from the MI SHPO and NPS. Therefore, FRA intends to make a 

de minimis determination for the Greenfield Village and the Henry Ford Museum historic site

concurrently with the final NEPA decision. 

3.19 Construction Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not create construction impacts.

Impacts from construction of the Preferred Alternative will be temporary, and occur during and 

following construction. The temporary impacts of construction activities will cease immediately 

after the project is completed. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would not have permanent impacts on resources. The 

Preferred Alternative would create temporary construction impacts to air, water, and noise during 

construction. MDOT will ensure that the construction contract specifications require that the 

contractor adhere to all federal, state, and local noise abatement and control requirements. Noise 

will be controlled by measures such as, but not limited to, ensuring construction equipment is in 

good repair and fitted with manufacture recommended mufflers. 

MDOT will also encourage measures that reduce engine activity or reduce emissions per unit of 

operating time. Construction equipment will be kept clean, well-maintained, and in good 

operating condition. MDOT’s Standard Construction Specification Sections 107.15(A) and 

107.19 would apply to control fugitive dust during construction and cleaning of haul roads. All 

MDOT vehicles and equipment must follow MDOT Guidance #10179 (2/15/2009) Vehicle and 

Equipment Engine Idling.

Additionally, sediment and erosion control measures would be used to minimize any water 

quality impacts during construction. 

Proper implementation and maintenance of control measures would minimize the temporary 

impacts. These minor temporary impacts would cease upon completion of construction.

3.20 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

Secondary Impacts

Secondary impacts are defined as reasonably foreseeable future consequences to the environment 

that are caused by the proposed action, but that would occur either in the future (later in time) or 

in the vicinity of, but not at the exact same location, as direct impacts associated with 

implementation of a build alternative. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 

define secondary impacts as those that are “...caused by the action and are later in time or farther 
Page 37

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth 

inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, 

including ecosystems (40 CFR § 1508.8b).”

Secondary impacts can be associated with the consequences of land-use development that would 

be indirectly supported by changes in local access or mobility. Secondary impacts differ from 

those directly associated with the construction and operation of a facility itself, and are often 

caused by what is commonly referred to as “induced development.” Induced development would 

include a variety of alterations such as changes in land use, economic vitality, property value, 

and population density. The potential for secondary impacts to occur is determined in part by 

local land-use and development-planning objectives, and the physical location of a proposed 

action.

The No-Build Alternative would not result in secondary impacts and would not promote growth 

or changes in land use.

The Preferred Alternative would likely result in beneficial secondary impacts. The Preferred 

Alternative may accelerate land use changes that are recommended in the Master Plan or plans of 

adjacent communities. The land use surrounding the new intermodal facility may shift to land 

use compatible with these new transit opportunities, such as TOD mixed-use residential or 

commercial development designed to maximize access to public transport and often incorporate 

features to encourage transit ridership. As the surrounding area changes, it is expected that the 

new land use would support the intermodal facility, and would encourage ridership and use. 

There is the potential for the Preferred Alternative to spur growth of residential development 

(new or reuse), providing greater housing opportunities and improved access to jobs. The 

increased density may spur further development and redevelopment of residential and 

commercial properties. The improved access to transit alternatives could provide more 

opportunity for minorities and persons at lower income brackets to access Dearborn to live 

and/or work, therefore, increasing socioeconomic diversity. 

Additionally, the Preferred Alternative could result in an increased tax base due to an increase in 

commercial, industrial, and residential development. It is anticipated that there would be an 

increase in employment opportunities and worker productivity due to improved transit and 

access to a skilled labor pool residing outside the Dearborn community. Increased pedestrian 

activity could result in greater patronage of local businesses, and the likelihood of visitors 

accessing local, civic and recreational resources.

Cumulative Impacts
Page 38

The consideration of cumulative effects consists of an assessment of the total effect on a 

resource, ecosystem, or community from past, present and future actions that have altered the 

quantity, quality or context of those resources within a broad geographic scope. The CEQ

regulations define cumulative effects as “...the impact on the environment which results from 

the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes 

such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR § 1508.7).” The cumulative 

effects analysis considers the aggregate effects of direct and indirect impacts from federal, nonfederal, public, and private actions on the quality or quantity of a resource. 

The intent of the cumulative-effects analysis is to determine the magnitude and significance of 

cumulative effects, both beneficial and adverse, and to determine the contribution of the 

proposed action to those aggregate effects. 

The No-Build Alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts. 

The Preferred Alternative would have beneficial contributions to cumulative impacts. 

Cumulative effects expected to occur as a result of construction of the Preferred Alternative 

include reduced automobile traffic, resulting in less congestion, and air and noise pollution. This 

would also increase safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, and would to lead to improved 

community livability and cohesion. There is also a potential to decrease dependence on the 

automobile and increase non-motorized transit alternatives including development of bikeway 

improvements. The Preferred Alternative is also consistent with the City’s Master Plan and their 

vision for growth in this area.
Page 39

4.0 Coordination and Consultation

Early coordination activities were designed to inform residents, public officials, businesses, 

property owners, stakeholders, and regulatory agencies about the issues involved in studying the 

feasibility of creating an intermodal transportation facility within the City. In addition, public 

participation efforts sought community input regarding the alternatives being considered, 

potential environmental impacts, and other study concerns. As part of this process, a series of 

public workshops were held.

4.1 Agency Coordination 

Several meetings were held between MDOT and the City, to discuss the project and details 

associated with the Dearborn Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility. Early in the project, letters 

were sent to the MDEQ and the USFWS to gather information regarding rare and unique natural 

features, and threatened and endangered species within the Study Area. Additional coordination 

with the MDEQ resulted in the location of a state threatened species. Coordination with the MI 

SHPO was also undertaken to determine the presence of potential architectural or archeological 

resources listed or eligible for the NRHP, and to obtain concurrence on the No Adverse Effect 

determination. The Department of the Interior was notified of the project and involvement with 

the Greenfield Village and Henry Ford Museum and Fair Lane NHLs. Agency coordination is 

detailed in the Appendix. 

4.2 Public Workshops

Public participation was initiated during Fall 2002. Participants at the workshops included local 

MDOT representatives, homeowners representing individual properties and residential 

subdivisions, business representatives, and special interest groups. These sessions enabled the 

study team to gain a greater understanding of local concerns and priorities, and receive 

suggestions regarding potential alternatives. Workshops were held at the Dearborn Civic Center, 

Studio A, located on Michigan Avenue. 

Workshop 1 – May 8, 2002 

The purpose of the first workshop was designed to inform and engage the public by explaining 

the purpose and need of the rail passenger intermodal facility, where it could be located in 

Dearborn, and how a preferred site would be selected. The two main goals of the first workshop 

were: 1) to facilitate discussion on the creation of a rail passenger intermodal facility; and, 2) to 

elicit community input on proposed sites and evaluation criteria.

The workshop was conducted as an informal open house. Five information displays, explaining 

components of the overall project, were exhibited throughout the meeting room. The 
Page 40

information stations covered the following aspects of the study: overall schedule, goals and 

objectives for the study, connection opportunities that illustrate transportation initiatives 

potentially associated with this project, and the three proposed sites for the intermodal facility. 

Participants had the opportunity to comment on the various sites and the site selection criteria.

Study team members were available to answer questions and record comments. A total of 49 

visitors signed in at the workshop. The vast majority had heard of the workshop from local 

newspapers. Many students from the University of Michigan Dearborn attended, as did train 

enthusiasts from various local clubs. 

Workshop 2 – June 19, 2002 

The second workshop presented concepts for accommodating the intermodal facility on each of 

the three proposed site alternatives. The concepts reflected input from the participants at the first 

workshop on matters of site preference, criteria evaluation, and general comments. The 

information presented included: examples of intermodal facilities from other cities, feedback 

from Workshop 1, assumptions on users of an intermodal facility, illustration of concept 

elements of a generic 2025 station, and the ranking of the four potential sites. 

The workshop was conducted as an informal open house. There were five information displays 

distributed throughout the meeting facility. The community was encouraged to provide input on 

the evaluation process and the programming of the surrounding site, and for the intermodal 

facility itself. Study team members were available to answer questions and record comments. A 

total of 42 visitors signed in at the workshop.

Workshop 3 – September 18, 2002 

The third workshop explained how a preferred site was chosen for the intermodal facility, which 

included input received at Workshops 1 and 2. The workshop was conducted as an informal 

open house with four information stations distributed throughout the meeting facility to solicit 

public input on the results from Workshop 2, environmental impacts associated with the 

intermodal facility, the preferred site plan, amenities of the intermodal facility, and architectural 

preferences. Of the five stations, two were interactive stations where visitors were asked to 

participate in the development of the architecture for the Dearborn Intermodal Rail Passenger 

Facility through a series of experiences and questions. A total of five visitors signed in at the 

workshop. 

Workshop 4 – November 20, 2002

The fourth workshop was also held as an informal open house. There were four information 

stations distributed throughout the meeting facility. This workshop was held to recap the 

previous three workshops, present architectural options, allow participant voting on architectural 

options, obtain input on the architectural character of the intermodal facility building, and allow 
Page 41

participants to give direction on the preferred architectural concept. Study team members were 

available to answer questions and record comments. A total of 29 visitors signed in at the 

workshop.
Page 42

5.0 List of Preparers

Michigan Department of Transportation

Al Johnson, Supervisor, Michigan Department of Transportation Office of High Speed Rail and 

Innovative Project Advancement

City of Dearborn

Barry Murray, Director, Economic and Community Development Department

Frank Katarzis, Economic and Community Development Department

JJR, LLC

Neal Billetdeaux, Environmental Specialist/Landscape Architect

Paul Fontaine, Certified Planner

Amy Eckland, Environmental Specialist

Terry Heatlie, Aquatic Biologist

Joseph B. Wywrot, Civil Engineer
Page 43

6.0 References

40 CFR 1500.1.

40 CFR 1508.7.

40 CFR 1508.8b.

City of Dearborn. Master Plan (amended), 1997. 

City of Dearborn. Zoning. 1993. 

Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group (CCRG). A Cultural Resource Literature Review 

and Field Reconnaissance of the Dearborn Rail Passenger Intermodal Station Project 

Area, City of Dearborn, Michigan, 2002.

Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group. (CCRG). National Register of Historic Places 

Evaluation of the Henry Ford Filtration and Pumping Station and Power Plan, Dearborn, 

Wayne County, Michigan, August. 2008.

Council on Environmental Quality Annual FOIA 2007 Report.

Cowardin, L. M., et. al. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, 

1979. 

Dearborn Housing Commission. Personal Communication, 2003. 

Environmental Protection Agency Executive Order No. 11990: Protection of Wetlands, 1977.

Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low Income Populations, 1994.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance 

Manual, 1995. 

FEMA Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management, 1977.

HNTB, City of Dearborn, Rail Passenger Intermodal Station, w005 Building Program Summary, 

2005.
Page 44

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Wetland Identification Manual: A 

Technical Manual for Identifying Wetlands in Michigan, March 2001.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Air Quality Division, Annual Air 

Quality Report, 2008.

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Guidance #10179 (2/15/2009).

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), Personal Communication, 2008.

Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC). Economic Data. www.themedc.org, 

2007. 

Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA). Directory of Subsidized Housing, 

http://www.michigan.gov/mshda/, 2007.

Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission (MIPRC), Midwest Rail System, 2004.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 106, as amended.

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, P.A. 451, Part 301 and Part 303, Inland 

Lakes and Streams; and Part 31, Flood Plain Regulatory Authority.

NTH Consultants, Ltd. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Amtrak Site 1, 

Dearborn, Michigan, 2002.

NTH Consultants, Ltd. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Amtrak Site 2, 

Dearborn, Michigan, 2002.

NTH Consultants, Ltd. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Amtrak Site 3, 

Dearborn, Michigan, 2002.

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966.

SMART. www.Smartbus.org/Smart.News+And+Info/Smart+Facts/, 2007.

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). Community Profiles, 

www.SEMCOG.org, 2007.
Page 45

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). Improving Transit in Southeast 

Michigan: A Framework for Action, 2001.

U. S. Census Bureau. United States Census, www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. 2000.

U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Division (USFWS). Endangered Species Act 

of 1973.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.

Wayne County Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project, Rouge River 

Gateway Ecosystem Restoration Project, Wayne County, Michigan, 2003.
Appendix

Agency Correspondence