ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR THE TROY TRANSIT CENTER 

INTERMODAL RAIL PASSENGER FACILITY

OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN

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

Department of Transportation and City of Troy, Michigan

June 2011

The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:

Steven J. Vandette

City of Troy

Engineering Department

500 Big Beaver Road

Troy, MI
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment Executive Summary

July 2011 Page i

Executive Summary

The City of Troy in Oakland County, Michigan is proposing to construct the William J. Huotari 

Troy Transit Center Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility (Intermodal Facility). The Intermodal 

Facility would serve the Cities of Troy and Birmingham, Michigan. The City of Troy may 

utilize federal monies for the construction of this project. Therefore, this planning study and 

associated documentation have been performed and prepared in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) acting as the 

lead federal agency. NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on 

the natural, social, economic and cultural environment, and 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 Intermodal Facility would service the communities of Troy and Birmingham by 

strengthening the existing transit options in the area through a centralized facility that will allow 

users to access intercity rail service, local and regional rail and bus routes and other modes such 

as air and taxi services. The proposed Intermodal Facility is included as a hub in the Detroit 

Regional Mass Transit plan (DRMT). The facility would serve as a catalyst for coordinated 

regional mass transit in Southeastern Michigan.

In 2000, the City of Troy identified potential locations for an Intermodal Facility. The City 

applied for and received funding from the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in 

2006 to evaluate several alternatives for an Intermodal Facility. This funding was used to begin 

this study, the purpose of which is to identify a Preferred Alternative site within the proposed 

project area and to complete preliminary engineering on the Preferred Alternative. Several 

alternatives are considered based on input from the Cities of Troy and Birmingham, as well as 

agency and public comment and other stakeholder input. These include the No Action 

Alternative, use of the existing station in Birmingham, and four build alternative sites located 

along the Canadian National (CN) Rail line that bisects Troy and Birmingham. The alternative 

sites were compared based on criteria formed from public and agency input and professional 

experience. 

From the alternative sites considered, a Preferred Alternative was identified in the City of Troy.

The Preferred Alternative site, located 1,700 feet south of Maple Road on Doyle Drive, was 

selected based on the site’s ability to maximize views and access from both Maple Road and 

Coolidge Highway and to facilitate transfers between travel modes. The proposed Intermodal 

Facility would be located adjacent to the rail along the south property line and would include an 

approximately 2,500 square foot station building, station accommodations for bus and other 

public transit vehicles, pedestrian bridge, and surface parking for approximately 116 passenger 

vehicles.

The site is located on an existing surface parking lot in Troy that is accessed from Doyle Drive, 

either from Maple Road or Coolidge Highway, allowing for easy access to parking and for easy 

pick-up and drop-off. Parking spaces would be provided on site, including barrier-free spaces. 

Barrier-free sidewalks and crosswalks would be provided. 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment Executive Summary

July 2011 Page ii

A new Amtrak platform alongside the eastern rail line would require passenger trains to switch 

to the eastern track of the CN Railroad so that passengers could access trains without crossing 

over the CN tracks. 

The Intermodal Facility would also be pedestrian and bicycle accessible, and would be 

completely compliant with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Design 

elements intended to improve accessibility include pedestrian scale lighting, hand rails, 

horizontal landing areas, and benches. The planned connecting pathways would be designed and 

landscaped to improve aesthetics, reduce soil erosion/runoff, and create a comfortable, attractive 

space for people to enjoy.

Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) is the public bus service 

provider in the metropolitan Detroit area. SMART currently provides service to the Cities of 

Birmingham and Troy, and SMART officials have indicated that the Preferred Alternative would 

be an appropriate hub for the regional bus system. A drop-off area with slips for four buses is 

proposed to provide transit links for rail passengers. 

The Intermodal Facility building and site would be designed using sustainable design concepts 

including, but not limited to, a green roof, rain gardens and geothermal HVAC.

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would have few environmental impacts. The 

existing use of the property, for the most part, is a parking lot. A small grassed area and some 

planted trees may be disturbed. There are no threatened or endangered species in the vicinity. 

There are no residences or businesses to be relocated. The Intermodal Facility would not cause 

substantial changes in air quality, noise or vibration, or hydrology and water quality. There are 

no populations living adjacent to the site, and, therefore, no impacts would occur to community 

cohesion. No community facilities would be impacted. There would be no environmental 

justice issues. The project is consistent with local land use plans and would require utility tieins. Operation of the station would impact transit schedules and routes for some buses, traffic 

surrounding the station would increase, and some commuter traffic would decrease due to the 

connectivity provided through the station. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in minor short-term negative impacts 

related to construction activities, such as a temporary increase in noise levels, exhaust, fumes, 

and fugitive dust. There are no anticipated long-term negative impacts resulting from the 

project. The Preferred Alternative would have numerous positive effects, including economic 

benefits from potential opportunities for transit oriented development, a decrease in reliance on 

the automobile, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and improved access to multiple modes of 

public transit. 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment Table of Contents

July 2011

Contents

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... i

Section 1. Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location and Description..................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Needs................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Project Purpose ................................................................................................................ 4

1.4 Ridership Projections....................................................................................................... 4

Section 2. Alternatives................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Alternatives Considered................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Preferred Alternative...................................................................................................... 12

Section 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts ................................................... 14

3.1 Transportation................................................................................................................ 16

3.1.1 Rail Passenger and Freight Traffic ......................................................................... 16

3.1.2 Transit ..................................................................................................................... 16

3.1.3 Traffic and Parking ................................................................................................. 19

3.2 Physical Environment .................................................................................................... 23

3.2.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 23

3.2.2 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................ 26

3.2.3 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................. 27

3.2.4 Energy Conservation and Use................................................................................. 28

3.3 Ecological Environment................................................................................................. 29

3.3.1 Terrestrial Resources .............................................................................................. 29

3.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................... 29

3.4 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 30

3.4.1 General Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................ 30

3.4.2 Consistency with Local Plans................................................................................. 31

3.4.3 Utilities.................................................................................................................... 31

3.5 Social and Economic Environment................................................................................ 31

3.5.1 Community Facilities.............................................................................................. 31

3.5.2 Demographics......................................................................................................... 32

3.5.3 Economic Resources............................................................................................... 32

3.5.4 Community Cohesion ............................................................................................. 33

3.5.5 Safety and Security ................................................................................................. 34

3.5.6 Possible Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped.................................................. 35

3.6 Environmental Justice.................................................................................................... 35

3.7 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................... 37

3.8 Visual Resources............................................................................................................ 38

3.9 Contaminated Sites and Areas of Environmental Interest ............................................. 38

3.10 Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................................................................... 39

3.11 Construction Impacts..................................................................................................... 41

Section 4. Agency Coordination and Public Participation............................................................ 42

Section 5. Sources Consulted....................................................................................................... 45

Appendix
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment Table of Contents

July 2011
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment Table of Contents

July 2011

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Project Location and Project Area ............................................................................... 3

Figure 2-1: Alternatives Considered............................................................................................... 7

Figure 2-2: Preferred Alternative Preliminary Design.................................................................. 13

Figure 3-1: Study Area Intersections Evaluated ........................................................................... 20

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Alternatives Screening Evaluation ............................................................................. 11

Table 3-1: Resources/Issues Considered and Impacts Identified ................................................. 15

Table 3-2. SMART Bus Routes that Would Serve the Preferred Alternative ............................. 17

Table 3-3: SMART Bus and Taxi /Sedan Service Emissions....................................................... 25

Table 3-4: Construction and Fugitive Emissions Estimate........................................................... 25

Table 3-5: Estimated Emissions from the Preferred Alternative by Year .................................... 26

Table 3-6: Proposed Action Peak Year Comparison for Preferred Alternative............................ 26

Table 3-7: Occupations................................................................................................................. 33

Table 3-8: Unemployment Rates.................................................................................................. 33
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 1

Section 1. Purpose and Need 

The City of Troy in Oakland County, Michigan, is proposing to construct an Intermodal Rail 

Passenger Facility (Intermodal Facility) to serve as a hub for all transportation modes, a gateway 

for the city and the region, and to provide for transfers between motorized and non-motorized 

transportation modes. The proposed Intermodal Facility would contribute to the region’s 

economic health while avoiding impacts to the environment. The project is located in the City of 

Troy, Oakland County, Michigan, approximately 15 miles north of downtown Detroit.

The need for a new transit facility arises from the inadequacy of the existing local Amtrak station

located in the City of Birmingham to serve Amtrak users, a lack of direct access from Troy, and 

no opportunities for intermodal connectivity with buses, taxis or shuttles. Amtrak service 

consists of six trains per day; three southbound trains arriving from Pontiac and departing for 

Detroit, and three northbound trains arriving from Detroit and departing for Pontiac. The 

existing station consists of a platform with a semi-enclosed shelter adjacent to the tracks in 

Birmingham. A pay telephone is located on site. There are only four parking spaces available 

for users at this station, which is not sufficient for current ridership. Presently, vehicles or 

pedestrians from Troy can only access the station from one quarter mile to the northwest at 

Maple Road and Eton Street. 

1.1 Project Location and Description

The City of Troy is a low-density, suburban community, with a mix of low density residential 

subdivisions, large industrial properties, retail shopping malls and strip centers, and sprawling 

office parks. The City is approximately 34 square miles in size and is home to approximately 

81,000 people. More importantly, it is home to many international corporations and about 6,000 

individual businesses, with over 18 million square feet of manufacturing/engineering space, 

17 million square feet of office space, and 6.59 million square feet of retail space. Troy provides 

a significant employment base for all of metropolitan Detroit, with a workforce of 125,000 

people and a daytime population of 136,000 people. Many private employers are included 

among the stakeholders who support improvements to transportation options that will assist the 

regional workforce to gain access to jobs in Troy.

The City of Birmingham is a densely populated city with a strong urban core. It is 

approximately four square miles in size, and is home to just under 20,000 people. The City was 

developed in the early 1900s and was home to many automotive executives as early as the 1920s 

when the Detroit Inter-Urban Streetcars ran out along America’s first highway, which runs 

directly from downtown Detroit, through Birmingham to Pontiac, Michigan to the north. As 

such, the City has a historic downtown core, with a vibrant mix of retail, restaurant and 

entertainment uses on the first floor, office uses on the second and third floors, and residential 

units on the upper floors. It serves as one of only five walkable, urban cores within the Detroit 

metropolitan area, and thus acts as the downtown for many of the surrounding, sprawl-based 

suburbs.

Three major Southeast Michigan transportation corridors are located within the Cities of Troy 

and Birmingham: 1) Woodward Avenue (M-1), a state trunkline, which bisects the City of 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 2

Birmingham and extends from Detroit to Pontiac, 2) Big Beaver Road, also known as 16 Mile 

Road, which links both the Cities of Troy and Birmingham with the interstate system; and 3) the 

CN Rail line that runs from Pontiac through Detroit, Lansing, Kalamazoo and continues into 

Illinois (Figure 1-1). Amtrak provides the “Wolverine” service on this line which travels daily 

between Pontiac and Chicago.

The project area is located on the eastern limits of the City of Birmingham where they abut the 

western limits of the City of Troy, from Maple Road extending south approximately one-half 

mile to the east and west of the CN Railroad line, between Eton Street in Birmingham and 

Coolidge Highway in Troy. 

The proposed Intermodal Facility would provide multi-modal access to intercity rail service and

public transit, and would provide much needed connections between carriers and routes. It 

would act as a hub in the regional transit system, thus greatly enhancing mobility and access to 

jobs within the area. The Intermodal Facility would also provide an opportunity for bus travelers 

to choose rail travel, thus providing a drastic reduction in travel times over buses in mixed traffic 

on public roads. By encouraging the creation of walkable places and improving public transit 

options and connections, congestion on area streets will be reduced, thereby reducing commuting 

time and improving the quality of life for area residents. 

 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 3

Figure 1-1: Project Location and Project Area 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 4

1.2 Project Needs

The need for the project is based on the following factors:

• Absence of transit and other modal connections to existing intercity rail service in 

Birmingham and Troy; 

• Absence of passenger services at the existing Amtrak Station, and the inability to offer

such services given the size constraints of the existing facility; and

• Focus of local policy on transit improvements and connections rather than vehicularcentric roadway improvements as part of a more balanced and sustainable approach to 

future growth; 

• Need for economic development and investment in the Cities of Birmingham and Troy. 

The goal for the project is to develop an intermodal transportation facility to provide for a variety 

of transportation modes and to act as a transportation hub for both Cities, and for the region. In 

addition, the City would like the facility to serve as a demonstration project for sustainability. 

As an intermodal facility, the facility would provide a smooth transfer area between motorized 

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

etc.). As a demonstration project for sustainability, the Intermodal Facility would utilize energy 

efficient geothermal heating and cooling systems, LED lighting, greywater recycling, a green 

roof, natural daylighting and recyclable building materials. The facility would also provide 

multiple electric vehicle charging stations. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) certification would be sought for the facility through the U.S. Green Building Council.

1.3 Project Purpose

The purpose of the Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility is to:

• Provide multimodal transit connections to Amtrak platform that provides intercity rail 

service between Pontiac, Detroit and Chicago;

• Provide basic services to intercity rail travelers, including ticketing services, restrooms, 

climate controlled waiting and connection facilities, and much needed parking; 

• Improve public transit service linkage and provide greater mobility options;

• Improve linkages to major activity centers; and

• Support the City’s economic development goals.

The Intermodal Facility would provide multiple transit services, as well as multi-modal transit 

connections, increased parking for rail and transit riders, increased safety and convenience, and 

room for expansion in the future. The Intermodal Facility would anchor the community’s new 

Intermodal Facility District to the east and serve as a critical hub in the region's advanced mass 

transit plan.

1.4 Ridership Projections 

The existing Amtrak service to the Birmingham Station consists of six trains daily, with three 

southbound (arriving from Pontiac & departing for Detroit) and three northbound (arriving from 

Detroit & departing for Pontiac) trains. According to Amtrak data, the annual ridership for the 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 5

existing Birmingham Station was 19,404 passengers in fiscal year 2007 and 19,714 passengers in 

fiscal year 2008.

In February 2008, a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for the new Intermodal Facility 

(prepared by Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. for the City of Troy). Rail ridership projections were 

conducted for the years 2012 and 2027. In the year 2012, the study projected that the new 

Intermodal Facility would be served by the existing Amtrak service (three daily northbound and 

three daily southbound) with average daily boardings and alightings of 124 passengers (annual 

ridership of 24,765 passengers). In 2027, projected ridership average daily boardings and 

alightings would increase to 257 passengers daily (annual ridership of 51,485 passengers). This 

is an anticipated 25.6% growth in daily passengers between 2008 and 2012 and a projected 

growth between 2012 and 2027 of 108%.

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) is also preparing to commence 

commuter rail service between Detroit and Ann Arbor as a demonstration project. Should this 

line be successful in terms of ridership, consideration will be given to extending this commuter 

service north from Detroit to Pontiac, with a stop at the new Intermodal Facility. Projections for 

ridership on this portion of the commuter line have not been established, as the majority of users 

of the current Amtrak service are long-distance trips, not daily commutes. According to 

SEMCOG traffic data, approximately 50,000 vehicles daily travel on I-75 from northern suburbs 

towards downtown Detroit. Many of those automobile commuters would benefit from a 

commuter rail service and would likely use it if available. The new Intermodal Facility would 

provide a centralized location for future commuter rail users in addition to existing intercity rail 

users. 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 6

Section 2. Alternatives

This chapter summarizes the alternatives analysis that lead to the identification of the Locally 

Preferred Alternative (LPA). The chapter describes the reasonable alternatives, including the No 

Build Alternative and the Preferred Alternative, which are evaluated in this environmental 

assessment. In total, six different alternatives were evaluated:

• Alternative 1: Expand and Renovate the Existing Train Station in Birmingham;

• Alternative 2: Maple Road, Birmingham;

• Alternative 3A: End of Holland Street, Birmingham;

• Alternative 3B: Doyle Drive, Troy;

• Alternative 4: East end of Lincoln Street, Birmingham; and

• Alternative 5: No Build Alternative.

An initial screening process was used to limit those alternatives that would be studied further. 

The criteria used in the screening process involved the ability of the proposed alternatives to 

meet the project’s purpose and need, including providing multi-modal connections to the station, 

sufficiency of land to accommodate an expandable intermodal facility, providing passenger 

services and ample public parking, the ability to provide greater mobility options and linkages to 

major activity centers in both Birmingham and Troy, and the opportunity to stimulate transitoriented development (TOD) in both Birmingham and Troy. 

2.1 Alternatives Considered 

The following provides a brief description of alternatives considered, as listed above and shown 

in Figure 2-1. Each of the alternative sites is described, as are the benefits and issues/concerns 

associated with locating the Intermodal Facility on the site. A summary of the evaluation criteria 

used is illustrated in Table 2-1 that follows the alternatives’ descriptions. The alternatives were 

rated using a point system of 0 to 5 points, with 5 being given to the alternatives that best met the 

criteria, and 0 points given to the alternatives that did not meet the criteria. Of a total of 35 

possible points, a rating above 30 was initially considered acceptable.
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 7

Figure 2-1: Alternatives Considered 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 8

Alternative 1: Expand and Renovate the Existing Birmingham Train Station

The existing site, located in Birmingham at the end of Villa Street, provides easy access to Eton 

Street. The existing station has poor visibility from the main streets and there is a severe 

shortage of parking. The existing station provides only four off-street parking spaces for users. 

The area surrounding the existing station has recently been redeveloped with four-story, mixed 

use buildings constructed within three feet of the existing station right-of-way. The development 

is fully occupied.

Expansion and renovation would require the taking of this recently developed property to 

provide for adequate parking and construction of an intermodal facility building. The current 

traffic control is adequate, but significant physical modifications would be required to 

accommodate large volumes of vehicle traffic and to provide multi-modal connections. 

Additional directional signage would be needed to identify the station’s location. The site 

received a low rating (22 of 35 possible points) using the initial Screening Evaluation (see 

Table 2-1). As a result, this alternative was dismissed.

Alternative 2: Maple Road, Birmingham

This site is located in Birmingham northwest of the existing Amtrak station, adjacent to and east 

of the CN Rail overpass, south of Maple Road. Approximately two acres in size, the site has 

frontage and good visibility from Maple Road. This parcel has been developed since its initial 

identification as an alternative location with an office building and a large surface parking lot. 

An existing cell tower and associated equipment is located immediately adjacent to the CN Rail 

right-of-way on this site in Birmingham. 

The site is located on a steep slope from the roadbed under the railroad overpass, sloping up to 

the railroad tracks. Given the slope and proximity to the overpass, driver sight distance at the 

existing driveway is very poor. The existing intersection would have to be completely 

reconfigured to provide appropriate sight distance and queuing storage for the large vehicles that 

need to access the site. The site would not allow for future expansion and requires major 

geometric improvements to access. Maple Road would need to be widened to accommodate 

buses in the vicinity of the rail overpass, and the community has already demonstrated intense 

opposition to the widening of Maple Road between Coolidge and Woodward Avenue. The 

newly constructed office building would require removal and its tenants relocated. In addition, a 

National Register Historic District, the Birmingham Grand Trunk Western Railroad Depot 

Historic District, is located on the west side of the CN Rail line, and the expansion of a platform 

with a covered canopy would have a significant visual impact on the Historic District. The site 

received a rating of 28 out of 35 points in the initial Screening Evaluation (see Table 2-1). As a 

result, this alternative was dismissed.

Alternative 3A: End of Holland Street, Birmingham 

This site is located in Birmingham approximately 1,200 feet south of the existing Amtrak stop, 

along the CN Rail line. The site is long and narrow and is approximately 2.5 acres in size. The 

site is not visible from Maple Road or Eton Road. The parcel is currently not occupied with a 

building, but there is significant outdoor storage of landscaping materials and equipment on the 

site. Access to the site is across a 12-foot wide easement on an adjacent lot owned by an 

automobile towing company. 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 9

Development of this site would require major investments in transportation improvements to 

provide appropriate access, including construction of new roads that would accommodate a 

significant increase in traffic volume as well as large buses. This location would provide only 

one access point to Eton Road. All traffic, including buses, would be routed through the multifamily mixed use development to the north (Eton Street Station) to gain access to Eton Road and 

Maple Road, severely affecting the community. The capacity of this single-lane frontage road 

may not be adequate for the additional site traffic. The existing intersection at Eton and Hazel 

and/or Villa Street would need to be reconstructed and signalized to accommodate the increased 

traffic into the Intermodal Facility. There is insufficient room to accommodate access roads, bus 

slips and queuing, as well as an Intermodal Facility with sufficient parking. The site received a 

rating of 23 points out of a possible 35 in the initial Screening Evaluation (see Table 2-1). As a 

result of the evaluation, this alternative was dismissed. 

Alternative 3B: Doyle Drive, Troy (Preferred Alternative)

This site is located in the City of Troy, approximately 1,200 feet south of the existing Amtrak 

stop in Birmingham and on the east side of the CN Railroad line. The 2.73-acre site is part of a 

77-acre Brownfield redevelopment area owned by Grand Sakwa and is currently partially 

developed with a large surface parking lot. 

The site has been set aside in a Consent Agreement between the City of Troy and Grand Sakwa 

to be donated to the City of Troy for use to construct an Intermodal Facility. Thus, the land is 

essentially a private donation to the project and there would be no cost is associated with its 

transfer to the City of Troy. The site has adequate egress and ingress from Doyle Drive, which 

directly accesses Maple Road to the north at a signalized intersection and Coolidge Highway to 

the east. Sufficient room exists along Doyle Drive for bus stops and queuing, as well as the 

Intermodal Facility building. The parking facility would provide 116 spaces for users of the 

Intermodal Facility. The platform would be relocated from Birmingham to Troy, on the eastern 

side of the CN Railroad tracks, and CN would install appropriate track switch signals to provide 

access to the platform from the western track. A pedestrian bridge would be constructed over the 

tracks, connecting the station to the west side in Birmingham. Access to the pedestrian bridge 

would be provided by stairs and elevators on both sides of the tracks.

All of the desired elements of the Intermodal Facility can be accommodated to meet the project’s 

purposes. Figure 2-2 in Section 2.2 shows the proposed development of this site. In the initial 

Screening Evaluation (see Table 2-1). This site is identified as the Preferred Alternative by the 

City of Troy and MDOT and is carried forward for further evaluation.

Alternative 4: East End of Lincoln Street, Birmingham

This site is located in Birmingham approximately 3,000 feet south of the existing Amtrak station

along the CN Rail line. The site is approximately six acres in size, and is not visible from Maple 

Road or Eton Street. The parcel is currently unoccupied, open and void of buildings. Access to 

the site is currently at the east end of East Lincoln Avenue.

Although all of the desired elements of the Intermodal Facility can be accommodated to meet the 

project’s purposes on this site, development of the site would require major investments in 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 10

transportation improvements to provide a secondary access point to the site, provide circulation, 

queuing and bus stops, and provide on-site parking for patrons. These investments would 

include the reconstruction of existing roads and construction of new roads and parking facilities 

that would accommodate a significant increase in traffic volume from existing levels, as well as 

queuing for large buses. The capacity of the single-lane frontage road, Eton Street, may not be 

adequate for the additional site traffic. The existing intersection at Eton Street and East Lincoln 

Avenue would need to be reconstructed and signalized to accommodate the increased traffic 

volumes and large vehicles accessing the Intermodal Facility. This site received the second 

highest rating, 27 of 35 points, in the initial Screening Evaluation (see Table 2-1). Although this 

site scored an acceptable rating, the comparative complexity of access infrastructure needed

between this alternative and Alternative 3B led to its dismissal.

Alternative 5: No Build Alternative 

The No Action Alternative, hereafter referred to as the No Build Alternative, consists of routine 

maintenance and repairs to the existing road, rail and transit system. The existing station’s 

amenities were described previously under Alternative 1. No initiatives would be taken to 

develop intermodal-type facilities in the Project Area. The existing rail station would remain in 

use solely as an Amtrak station. The No Build Alternative would not improve the level and 

quality of passenger rail service in Birmingham and Troy; would not provide intermodal 

connections to rail passengers; would not provide additional parking for rail passengers, and 

would not contribute to economic growth within the region. 

Although the No Build Alternative does not meet the project’s purpose and need, this alternative 

is carried forward for detailed study to serve as a baseline for evaluation under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 11

Table 2-1: Alternatives Screening Evaluation

Screen 1 Evaluation Criteria

Alternative 1

Expand & 

Renovate 

Existing 

Birmingham 

Train Station

Alternative 2

Maple Road, 

Birmingham

Alternative 

3A

End of 

Holland 

Street, 

Birmingham

Alternative 

3B

Doyle Drive, 

Troy

Alternative 4

East end of 

Lincoln 

Street, 

Birmingham

Alternative 5

No Build

Screen 1 Criteria

Proximity to Employment Opportunities 5 5 5 5 5 0

Ability to Provide Multi-Modal 

Connections to Existing Transit Routes in 

Birmingham & Troy 2 4 3 3 3 0

Underutilized Land to Construct/Expand 

Transit Center with Passenger Services 

Adjacent to Rail 1 2 4 5 5 0

Available Land for Parking 2 2 2 5 5 0

Proximity to Retail and Other Major Trip

Generators (within 1/2 mile)

3 5 3 5 3 0

Proximity to Major Roadways 4 5 4 4 3 0

Proximity to Existing Transit Routes 4 5 3 5 3 2

Total Rating 21 28 24 32 27 2

Recommendation Dismiss Dismiss Dismiss Retain Dismiss Retain*

Scoring Definition:

 0 = Did Not Meet Criteria

 5 = Best Met Criteria

*The No-Build Alternative is retained as a baseline for comparison of alternatives.
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 12

2.2 Preferred Alternative

Alternative 3B was chosen as the Preferred Alternative as it best meets the purpose and need of 

the study. Additionally, when compared to the other alternatives, it requires fewer major 

roadway improvements, does not require a large parking facility, provides land at no cost to the 

city, and provides the greatest potential for TOD in Troy.

The Preferred Alternative (Figure 2-2) would be designed to maximize views from both Maple 

Road and Coolidge Highway making it easy to find, easy to access, and easy to facilitate 

transfers between travel modes. A large parking facility currently exists on site. The site would 

provide easy access for buses, including bus stop areas that would accommodate four full size 

buses, queuing space for four additional buses, and a hub connector service stop that 

accommodates a 20-foot long bus. The site would provide for drop off and pick up of passengers

and a taxi queuing area. An approximately 2,500 square foot facility building would be 

constructed on the site to provide ticket sales, a large waiting room, public restrooms, and kiosk 

space for lease. A large plaza area and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant 

walkway would provide access from Troy down to a new boarding platform for access to the 

eastern rail line on which Amtrak will operate. The new Amtrak platform would be equipped 

with a wheelchair lift and is otherwise ADA compliant.

The current Amtrak train service, three trains daily in each direction between Pontiac and 

Detroit, would continue at the new Troy location, and the existing station in Birmingham would 

close. No additional passenger rail service is anticipated at this time. SMART bus service 

would use the Intermodal Facility in Alternative 3B as a transit hub. Alternative 3B will 

improve existing connectivity by providing a new multi-modal center that will serve as a transfer 

point and coordination center for Amtrak intercity rail travel, regional SMART bus services, the 

new direct Hub Connector service, access to ground transportation to Detroit Metro Airport and 

Troy Oakland County Airport, and local transportation programs.

The No Build Alternative is carried forward for further evaluation as well, to serve as a basis for 

comparison. Both the No Build Alternative and Alternative 3B were further evaluated for 

environmental benefits and impacts, socioeconomic factors, social equity and environmental 

justice factors, community goals and objectives, conceptual engineering issues, transportation 

benefits and impacts. Public perception was also considered. The results of this evaluation are 

provided in Section 3 of this EA.
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 13

Figure 2-2: Preferred Alternative Preliminary Design

Insert 11x17 pdf of new design, with ramp directly to platform
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 14

Section 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts

This section describes the existing conditions and potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative

on the natural and built environment. This EA focuses only on those resources that would be 

affected by the Preferred Alternative, shown on Figure 2-2. The EA focuses on the following 

resource categories: transportation (including passenger and freight, by all modes, including 

automobile, mass transit, pedestrian and bicycle); air quality; noise and vibration; water quality; 

energy resources; ecological systems; threatened and endangered species; land use; 

socioeconomic environment; public health; commerce; potential barriers to the elderly or 

handicapped; environmental justice populations; cultural resources; aesthetics and design 

quality; public safety, including impacts of hazardous materials; and construction period impacts. 

This section also considers indirect and cumulative effects. There would be some unavoidable, 

short-term adverse impacts associated with the construction of the Intermodal Facility. 

However, these will be mitigated as set forth herein and the project would have numerous 

positive impacts on a number of the aforementioned categories. The project would comply with 

all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

The following resources are not located within the Study Area and therefore are not affected by 

the Preferred Alternative: solid waste disposal; wetland areas; flood hazards or floodplains; 

coastal zones; wildlife; other natural resources such as water, minerals, or timber; recreational 

opportunities; or Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) protected properties. Thus, effects on these 

resources are not evaluated in this document. Table 3-1 summarizes all of the potential 

environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative, based on the analysis provided in the 

sections following. 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 15

Table 3-1: Resources/Issues Considered and Impacts Identified

Resource/Issue Evaluated for 

Impacts Impact Comment/ Mitigation

Air quality Yes No

Water quality Yes No Impacts minimized through use of green technologies

Noise & Vibration Yes No

Solid waste disposal Not present N/A

Ecological systems Not present N/A

Wetland areas Not present N/A

Endangered species or wildlife Not present N/A

Floodplains Not present N/A

Coastal zone management Not present N/A

Use of energy resources Yes No Minimized through resource conservation

Use of other natural resources, such as water, minerals or timber Not present N/A

Aesthetics and design quality Yes No Visual improvement over existing

Impacts on transportation (all modes) in local, regional, national & 

international perspectives; including traffic congestion:

Encourages transit ridership by providing linkages to existing transit

Provides modal choices

Provides transit access to services and attractions 

Improves motor vehicle, pedestrian & bicycle safety

Roadway congestion & intersection operations

Yes No

Moderate positive impact

Moderate positive impact

Moderate positive impact

Minor positive impact

Minor impact on surrounding roads and intersections

Possible barriers to the elderly and handicapped Yes No ADA-compliant facility

Land use (existing & planned) Yes No Consistent with zoning and with Cities’ master plans

Socioeconomic environment Yes No Likely to stimulate economic development 

Environmental justice Yes No Minor positive impact

Public health Yes No

Public safety, including impacts due to hazmats Yes No

Recreational opportunities Not present N/A

Locations of historic, archeological, architectural or cultural significance, 

including if applicable, consultation with the appropriate SHPO Yes No No effect on historic resources

Use of Section 4(f) protected properties Not present N/A

Indirect and Cumulative Effects Yes No Likely to promote TOD; encourages future transit 

development

Construction period impacts (temporary) Yes Yes Minimized through adherence to regulations for noise and 

air quality
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 16

3.1 Transportation

3.1.1 Rail Passenger and Freight Traffic

Existing Conditions

The existing Amtrak service to the Birmingham Station consists of six trains daily, with three 

southbound (arriving from Pontiac & departing for Detroit) and three northbound (arriving from 

Detroit & departing for Pontiac) trains. Amtrak passenger service operates on the western track 

of the CN rail line mixed with freight trains on the same track. 

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not impact existing rail passenger or freight service.

The Preferred Alternative site is located adjacent to the eastern rail track. CN Railroad has 

agreed (refer to the June 28, 2011 letter in the Appendix) to provide infrastructure improvements 

such as signaling relocation and upgrades, crossovers and turnouts as required to serve the new 

Troy station. In addition, although CN has plans to remove the eastern track, they would 

preserve a portion of sufficient length to serve as the station track for the transit center. Ongoing 

maintenance would be subject to future negotiation in a future operating agreement to be 

developed between MDOT and CN. As there are no plans to increase existing passenger service, 

passenger and freight rail would continue to operate on the existing western track, and 

installation of switching signals would allow for seamless service to the Troy station without 

affecting freight movement through the area.

3.1.2 Transit

Existing Conditions

The Cities of Troy and Birmingham are currently served by a public transportation system 

consisting of bus service operated by SMART, Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT), 

and Amtrak rail service. SMART operates both fixed route and community transit service, which 

is curb to curb advanced reservation service designed to meet the special needs of people who 

cannot access SMART’s regular fixed route service. SMART operates 54 bus routes that serve

Macomb, Wayne, and Oakland Counties. Average weekday ridership on the system overall is 

37,000 passengers, and average weekly ridership including weekends brings that total to 200,000 

passengers. Based on information provided by SMART, nearly 13 million people of all ages and 

incomes ride SMART buses annually. Almost 70 percent of SMART riders use the service to 

get to or from work and an additional 20 percent to commute to educational facilities. Nearly 40 

percent of SMART riders do not have a car and over 41 percent of SMART riders have been a

rider for five years or more (SMART, 2007).

SMART Bus currently operates 18 fixed bus routes, nine each in Troy and Birmingham. Six of 

the nine Troy routes currently terminate or pass through the area near the proposed Intermodal 

Facility. These existing routes generate 209 trips daily in the vicinity of the proposed Intermodal 

Facility. Table 3-2 details the six routes that currently terminate or run through the area near the 

Preferred Alternative and the areas served: 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 17

Table 3-2. SMART Bus Routes that Would Serve the Preferred Alternative

Route Communities Served Trips/Day

415 Berkley, Beverly Hills, Birmingham, Detroit, Oak Park, Royal Oak, 

Royal Oak Township, Southfield, Troy 42

420 Berkley, Beverly Hills, Birmingham, Detroit, Oak Park, Royal Oak, 

Royal Oak Township, Southfield, Troy 42

460 Berkley, Birmingham, Detroit, Ferndale, Huntington Woods, 

Pleasant Ridge, Royal Oak, Troy 65

465

Auburn Hills, Berkley, Birmingham, Bloomfield Township, Detroit, 

Ferndale, Huntington Woods, Pleasant Ridge, Pontiac, Royal Oak, 

Troy

12

475 Berkley, Birmingham, Detroit, Ferndale, Huntington Woods, 

Pleasant Ridge, Royal Oak, Troy 8

780

Birmingham, Bloomfield Township, Clawson, Clinton Township, 

Fraser, Roseville, St. Clair Shores, Sterling Heights, Troy, West 

Bloomfield Township

40

In addition, there are numerous taxi companies in Troy and Birmingham which provide services 

to the public, as well as Black Sedan service, and auto rental companies. However, the existing 

Amtrak Station does not have sufficient space to accommodate bus, taxi, or Black Sedan service 

at the facility.

Future Planned and Proposed Services

SMART has agreed to coordinate all nine Birmingham and Troy bus routes through the 

Intermodal Facility in the Preferred Alternative to provide enhanced local and regional 

connections. 

The City of Troy has also been working with Detroit Regional Mass Transit (DRMT), a regional 

effort between Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties and the City of Detroit to develop a 

regional mass transit plan for the entire Detroit metropolitan area. The Intermodal Facility is 

included in the regional transit plan as one of ten regional transit hubs. This designation is 

important as all existing and all future transit services would provide connections to the 

Intermodal Facility, increasing the ease and convenience of travel for local residents and 

employees. In addition, designation as a regional hub would provide a brand new, direct Hub 

Connector Service between this Intermodal Facility and regional transit hubs in the cities of 

Sterling Heights, Roseville, Harper Woods, Detroit, Dearborn, Southfield, Taylor, State Fair 

Grounds (on the Wayne/Oakland County border), Plymouth and Flint, Michigan. The addition 

of a Hub Connector Service would add yet another travel option for users of the Intermodal 

Facility, as it would include direct routes to each of the above cities with service proposed every 

15 minutes. The Hub Connector Service is anticipated to reduce the average travel time by 54 

minutes when compared to existing bus routes for the trip between regional hubs. This 

represents a 50.8 percent improvement for hub to hub travel within the region.

The City has also worked with Detroit Metro Airport and the Troy Oakland Airport to provide 

transit connections to both destinations. The Preferred Alternative is located approximately onequarter mile west of the Troy Oakland Airport. Currently this airport handles small charter 

airplanes for private and corporate users and a flying school. The airport is capable of handling 

light jet service (air taxi) to other airports, including Detroit Metro Airport. The Preferred 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 18

Alternative would provide an essential transit connection between the Troy Oakland Airport and 

other modes of transit, including bus and rail services, Black Sedan (car for hire), and taxi 

connections to Detroit Metro Airport. 

Other transit services in Troy that are operated or sponsored by SMART, such as Dial-A-Ride, 

Job Express, Oakland Mall Job Shuttle and Troy Medi-Go Plus, could also be benefited by 

providing service to the Intermodal Facility. The transit hub would provide a convenient 

location for these services to pick up/deliver passengers. SMART also provides ADA Paratransit 

services for persons with disabilities who are unable to use SMART’s regular fixed route bus 

service. Every Community Transit/Connector vehicle is wheelchair lift-equipped. This service 

provides curb-to-curb transportation and covers the same areas, times, and transfers as SMART 

fixed route services, which will include the routes that would terminate or pass through the 

Intermodal Facility. 

The Preferred Alternative building and site would provide opportunities for shared or rental 

bicycle services. All SMART fixed route buses are being equipped with an industry standard 

bike rack that is reliable, easy to use, and quickly secures up to two bicycles. These racks would 

allow passengers to switch transportation modes quickly and easily. The Intermodal Facility

would also provide secure storage areas for bicycles, and a bicycle rental/share program is 

proposed. There are several bike paths and trails available in the City of Troy that would provide 

bicycle connections from the Preferred Alternative to the surrounding area. A pedestrian bridge 

would be provided to provide access from the station to the Birmingham (west) side of the CN 

tracks.

In addition, the Preferred Alternative would significantly enhance user mobility through the 

creation of more convenient transportation options for travelers, including the following: 

• Providing services and amenities, including extensive parking, to rail travelers between 

Pontiac, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois via Detroit on existing Amtrak routes;

• Providing access for the entire region to rail travel options through new connections with 

local and regional bus routes that would run through the Intermodal Facility, with rail 

connections to destinations across the state and country;

• Providing a brand new, direct, Hub Connector Service between this Intermodal Facility

and Sterling Heights, Roseville, Harper Woods, Rosa Parks Intermodal Facility in 

Detroit, Dearborn, Southfield, Taylor, State Fair Grounds (Wayne/Oakland County 

border), Plymouth and Flint, Michigan;

• Providing new connections to eastbound Amtrak trains out of Toledo, Ohio;

• Providing new connections to Detroit Metro Airport and Oakland County Airport through 

a taxi and Black Sedan service hub on site; and

• Providing car and bike rental options for short distance travel.

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not impact existing transit. The existing Amtrak Station does 

not currently provide for the inclusion of bus, taxi, or Black Sedan and is unable to accommodate 

it given the limited size and functionality of this facility. Under the No Build Alternative, 

transportation options and regional connectivity would not be enhanced.
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 19

The Preferred Alternative would affect existing bus transit in the area by rerouting existing 

services to serve the Intermodal Facility, resulting in a small change in travel patterns for bus 

passengers. The parking lot in Troy would be reconfigured to accommodate a driveway to allow 

the addition of bus slips along Doyle Drive. Once the station is completed, SMART would begin

to reroute some of the fixed route buses to serve the new Intermodal Facility. Changes to the 

fixed route bus lines to serve the Intermodal Facility have not been determined, but would likely 

create a negligible change in travel pattern for the commuter. SMART does not plan to develop 

new routes, only adapt existing routes to serve the Intermodal Facility while likely keeping 

existing bus stop locations the same. 

The Preferred Alternative would provide a year-round, 24-hour facility that would link 

commuter and high speed rail transit with bus, taxi and Black Sedan service. The Preferred 

Alternative would provide a new intermodal facility that would be open 24 hours a day and 

would provide positive benefits for commuters. The Intermodal Facility would support a TOD 

district for Troy; future residents and businesses would utilize the connection to rail, bus and van 

service. The Preferred Alternative would positively impact the current Amtrak ridership 

statistics, as the new facility would provide enhanced services and conveniences and facilitate 

improved ridership.

The impact of the Preferred Alternative on transit would be positive, as the new Intermodal 

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

regionally, and outside the state on existing and new transit alternatives.

3.1.3 Traffic and Parking

Traffic

The impacts of the Preferred Alternative on the surrounding roadway network were evaluated for 

years 2007, 2012, 2017, 2022, and 2027. The site is located along Doyle Drive, approximately 

1,500 feet south of the intersection of Doyle Drive and Maple Road and approximately 1,300 

feet west of the intersection of Doyle Drive and Coolidge Road. The site would feature two-way 

internal circulation for bus service adjacent to the Intermodal Facility on Doyle Drive and pick 

up/drop off activity at the Intermodal Facility. 

Existing Conditions

Existing year 2007 peak hour traffic conditions were evaluated for the Study Area intersections 

and roadways of Maple Road, Coolidge Highway, Adams Road and 14 Mile Road. The Average 

Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes vary from a low of 13,571 vehicles per day (vpd) on Adams Road

to a high of 32,435 vpd on Coolidge Highway. Weekday traffic peak hours occur from 7:00 AM 

to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. 

The Study Area includes five existing intersections, shown in Figure 3-1:

• Maple Road at Adams Road – signalized

• Maple Road at Doyle Drive – signalized

• Maple Road at Coolidge Highway – signalized

• Doyle Drive at Coolidge Highway – unsignalized

• 14 Mile Road at Coolidge Highway – signalized
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 20

Figure 3-1: Study Area Intersections Evaluated
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 21

The studied 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 Study 

Area intersections. LOS is a term used to denote different operating conditions which occur at a 

given intersection under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure of the effect of 

a number of factors including intersection geometrics, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver 

and safety. LOS provides an index to the operational qualities of an intersection as perceived by 

motorists. LOS A represents the best operating conditions while LOS F represents the worst. 

Generally, LOS D or better is considered acceptable.

Under existing conditions the following three signalized Study Area intersections operate at an 

overall failing LOS (E or F) during the AM or PM peak hour:

• Maple Road at Adams Road (PM peak hour)

• Maple Road at Coolidge Highway (AM and PM peak hour), and

• 14 Mile Road at Coolidge Highway (PM peak hour);

and the signalized intersection at Maple Road and Doyle Drive operates at LOS A during the 

AM peak and at LOS B during PM peak hours.

Under existing conditions, each of the four signalized intersections have some critical 

movements that will operate at a failing LOS. The critical movement at the unsignalized 

intersection of Coolidge Highway and Doyle Drive operates at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or 

better).

The signalized intersections in the Study Area operate poorly under current conditions largely 

because peak hour volumes exceed the existing capacity. This problem is exacerbated by the 

number of conflicting movements. These intersections are located on roadways which are 

classified as arterials and function as major east-west or north-south connectors in this area. The 

intersection of two major roadways results in conflicting movements and high demand for green 

time, leading to delays.

Impacts

The No Build Alternative considers traffic growth that would occur over time for the future 

conditions in 2012, 2017, 2022 and 2027. Forecasted traffic volume data was obtained from 

SEMCOG. Traffic volumes on Study Area roadways are anticipated to remain stagnant over the 

next 20 years. For a more conservative analysis, the existing peak hour traffic volumes were 

increased by 1.25 percent annually to reflect background traffic growth on the roadways.

Results of the No-Build analyses indicate the following three Study Area intersections would

continue to operate at an overall failing LOS during the AM and/or PM peak hour in all future 

analysis years:

• Maple Road at Adams Road (PM peak hour),

• Maple Road at Coolidge Highway (AM and PM peak hour), and

• 14 Mile Road at Coolidge Highway (AM and PM peak hour).

All four signalized intersections, including Maple Road at Doyle Drive, have critical movements 

that are projected to continue to operate poorly. The critical movement at the unsignalized 

intersection of Coolidge Highway and Doyle Drive is projected to operate at acceptable levels 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 22

during the 2012 and 2017 conditions but would operate at an overall failing LOS in 2022 and 

2027 conditions.

For the Preferred Alternative, results of the traffic analyses indicate that with the proposed

Intermodal Facility, traffic operations at the Study Area intersections are anticipated to be similar 

to operations under the No-Build conditions. The Preferred Alternative is projected to generate 

the following weekday peak hour trips during the AM and PM peak hours based on the estimated 

number of rail and bus passengers that would arrive by vehicle and the number of buses that 

would access the site (SMART and MDOT projections):

• 2012 – 91 vehicles per hour (vph),

• 2017 – 122 vph,

• 2022 – 159 vph, and

• 2027 – 201 vph.

Under the Preferred Alternative, the same three Study Area intersections are projected to operate 

at an overall failing LOS during the AM and/or PM peak hour. Also, all Study Area 

intersections would have the same critical movements operate poorly under the Preferred 

Alternative with the sole proposed addition of the westbound left turn movement (Maple Road 

westbound to Adams Road southbound) at the intersection of Maple Road and Adams Road 

during the AM peak hour (LOS E). Traffic operations at the site access points are expected to be 

adequate during both peak hours.

Thus, operational inefficiencies at the Study Area intersections would not result from the 

proposed Intermodal Facility traffic, but as a result of existing traffic growth that naturally 

occurs over a period of time. The Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to increase congestion 

or decrease the LOS at Study Area intersections. 

Mitigation

Though improvements are not warranted to address traffic impacts that would result from 

completion of the Preferred Alternative, mitigation measures were identified and evaluated to 

determine what improvements would address the operational inefficiencies that result from the 

existing and future projected travel demand. The improvements identified include signal timing 

modifications, addition of a traffic signal at the unsignalized intersection, and construction of 

exclusive left turn lanes at select locations. Mitigation measures would be implemented based 

on actual traffic growth in the future. Modifications to traffic signal timings can be made in realtime due to the adaptive signal system in place. Physical improvements (i.e. new traffic signal 

and turn lanes) would be implemented if operational inefficiencies are realized in the future.

Parking

Existing Conditions

The existing parking lot on the Preferred Alternative site adjacent to Doyle Drive provides 125

regular spaces and five ADA compliant handicap spaces. This parking lot was constructed in 

anticipation of the Intermodal Facility when the Midtown Shopping Plaza was constructed in 

2000 and is not currently used. However, these parking spaces are not currently accessible to

the existing Amtrak station, as no crossing is available in this vicinity to connect the parking area 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 23

and the existing Birmingham station. There are four parking spaces at the existing Birmingham 

Station.

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not impact parking. The existing parking lot would continue to 

be unused.

The Preferred Alternative would include a total of 116 parking spaces reserved for the 

Intermodal Facility users. Seven new handicap spaces and two new spaces for electric car 

charging are proposed north of the Intermodal Facility building. Based on traffic and ridership 

projections, there would be ample parking for intercity rail passengers with additional spaces for 

future rail passenger expansion. Projected parking forecasts for future build years indicate a 

need for spaces for 42 cars daily in 2012 up to 94 cars daily by 2027. The existing parking lot 

area on the site would also allow for consideration of a parking deck in the future if needed. 

3.2 Physical Environment

3.2.1 Air Quality

Air pollutants are contaminants in the atmosphere from both anthropogenic and natural sources. 

Anthropogenic sources of air pollutants include both mobile and stationary sources often from 

combustion of fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, diesel, or gasoline. The principal factors 

affecting air pollutant concentrations with respect to transportation projects are the amount of 

traffic, the type of vehicle and fuel used, and vehicle emission rates. 

In accordance with the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants considered 

harmful to public health and the environment. These are carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone (O3) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Areas 

that do not meet the standards for these pollutants are designated as nonattainment and states 

must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to improve the air quality in these areas and 

bring them into attainment by specific deadlines set by the EPA.

Federal agencies responsible for an action occurring in nonattainment areas are required to 

determine if the action conforms to the applicable SIP. The General Conformity regulations 

under 40 CFR Part 93 consist of the following two parts and detail the requirements for 

determining whether or not a proposed action conforms to a SIP:

• Transportation Conformity - Transportation projects developed or approved under the 

Federal Aid Highway Program or Federal Transit Act [40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A]; and

• General Conformity - Other proposed actions not developed or approved under the 

Federal Aid Highway Program or Federal Transit Act [40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B].

The proposed alternative covered by this EA does not fall under Transportation Conformity 

requirements. No funding assistance or approval is being provided through the Federal Aid 

Highway program or the Federal mass transit program for the proposed action; only the General 

Conformity requirements must be considered when evaluating the proposed action.
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 24

General Conformity

General Conformity was established under section 176(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act. The purpose 

of the General Conformity Rule was to provide states a tool to help improve air quality in areas 

that do not meet the NAAQS. Under the General Conformity Rule, federal actions that occur in a 

nonattainment or maintenance area must conform to the air quality plans established in the 

applicable SIP. The Conformity rule ensures:

• Federal activities do not cause or contribute to new violation of NAAQS;

• Actions do not cause additional or worsen existing violations of or contribute to new 

violations the NAAQS; and 

• Attainment of the NAAQSs is not delayed.

Existing Air Quality of the Project Area 

The Proposed Action is planned to occur in the cities of Birmingham and Troy which are both 

located in Oakland County. Oakland County is in attainment for NO2, SO2, CO, lead and coarse 

particulate matter (PM10). The County is in maintenance for ozone and nonattainment for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5).

In 2005, Oakland County was designated part of a seven-county nonattainment area for the 

annual and 24-hour daily PM2.5 standards. In 2008, MDNRE submitted a SIP to EPA detailing 

its strategy for attaining the annual standard. The plan has been implemented and monitoring 

data indicates that the entire seven-county area is in compliance with the annual PM2.5 standard 

and 24-hour daily PM2.5 standard. MDNRE has requested the counties be redesignated as in 

attainment for PM2.5. However, since the County has not been redesignated as attainment, 

Oakland County is still considered in nonattainment for PM2.5. 

No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the only actions that would occur at the existing station would 

be routine maintenance and repair of the facility. Since these routine actions would not increase 

existing air emissions, the No-Build Alternative would not impact regional or local air quality.

Preferred Alternative

Under the Preferred Alternative, the existing Birmingham train station will be closed and a new

platform and parking lot will be built approximately 1,200 feet to the south. The new facility 

will provide both better service for train riders as well as various transit services that were not 

available at the existing station. The new station will include new bus slips as well as a place for 

taxis/sedan service. To ensure that constructions activities and the increase in transit traffic in the 

area do not affect the surrounding air quality, an emission analysis was conducted for the 

Preferred Alternative. The four sources of air quality emissions analyzed as part of this EA 

include SMART bus operations, taxi/sedan services, construction activities, and fugitive 

emissions.

SMART bus and taxi/sedan emissions were analyzed based on information provided from the 

City of Troy regarding the additional vehicle miles traveled and number of SMART bus and 

taxi/sedan service trips to the proposed station. The increase in transit vehicles at the new Troy
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 25

station would cause only a minor increase in air quality emissions because of the relatively small 

increase in additional miles traveled by buses and taxi/sedans to the new station (see Table 3-3). 

Table 3-3: SMART Bus and Taxi /Sedan Service Emissions

Pollutant Emissions (tons/yr)

SMART Bus Taxi/Sedan Service Totals

CO 0.06 0.03 0.09

NOx 0.08 0.003 0.08

PM10 0.002 2.65E-05 0.002

PM2.5 0.002 2.12E-05 0.002

VOC 0.003 0.002 0.006

Emissions from the proposed DRMT hub could not be estimated since the DRMT hub is still in 

the initial planning phase and does not yet exist. In addition, emissions could not be estimated 

for the curb to curb transportation services because there are no fixed routes with these buses.

Emissions from construction activities, including equipment operation and the hauling of 

material, will result in a temporary increase of emissions and are accounted for in this analysis 

(see Table 3-4). Construction emissions were estimated based on an assumed mix of 

construction equipment operating during facility construction for a specific length of time. Since 

the construction plan is not complete, broad assumptions were made in determining the type and 

amount of equipment as well as the estimated length of construction. For details of the 

construction emission analysis, refer to Appendix A. 

Table 3-4: Construction and Fugitive Emissions Estimate

Pollutant Emissions (tons/yr)

Construction Fugitive Totals

CO 4.10 N/A 4.10

NOx 7.58 N/A 7.58

PM10 0.68 7.71 8.39

PM2.5 0.60 0.77 1.37

SO2 0.27 N/A 0.27

VOC 0.70 N/A 0.70

PM10 emissions from construction equipment that will travel on unpaved roads and surfaces 

during construction were estimated based on the acreage of disturbed land and months of 

activity. PM2.5 emissions were calculated by using a multiplier to infer PM2.5 emissions from 

PM10 emissions. Emissions that do result from construction dust associated with exposed soils 

would be controlled, if necessary, with the application of water or other approved dust 

palliatives. 

Total Emissions by Year

To determine whether or not a General Conformity determination was required, the results of the 

emissions estimates for the various portions of the proposed action were compiled on a yearly 

basis and compared to the General Conformity de minimis thresholds (see Table 3-5). The 

assumption was made all construction would occur in Year 1 with the balance of emissions for 

the year comprised of emissions from the bus and taxi/sedan vehicles. The out years (e.g., 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 26

Year 2 and beyond) would consist only of emissions from the bus and taxi/sedan vehicles; no 

attempt was made to scale these emissions to account for the change in ridership or alternative 

bus/taxi/sedan schedules.

Table 3-5: Estimated Emissions from the Preferred Alternative by Year

Year Emissions (tons)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Year 1 4.13 7.60 8.39 1.37 0.27 0.7

Year 2 and beyond 0.09 0.08 0.002 0.002 - 0.006

Table 3-6 provides a comparison of estimated emissions for Year 1 (the year during which the 

greatest emissions are expected to occur) to the de minimis thresholds. The comparison shows 

that the Preferred Alternative would not require a formal conformity determination because 

projected emission levels would be below the applicable de minimis thresholds. It is expected, 

therefore, any impacts on air quality would not be significant.

Table 3-6: Proposed Action Peak Year Comparison for Preferred Alternative 

Pollutant Year 1 Emissions

(tons/year)

de minimis Threshold

(tons/year)

NOx 7.60 100

VOC 0.71 100

PM2.5 1.37 100

Note: Year 1 represents the year with the greatest potential to produce the most emissions from the 

Proposed Action.

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

The Proposed Alternative would have no significant impact on current or future air quality 

standard based on the analysis performed as part of this EA. The analysis shows the increase in 

emissions from increased bus and taxi/sedan service is relatively low and the emissions from 

construction activities are of short duration. In addition, the proposed alternative does not have 

the potential to cause the area to exceed the NAAQS, lead to the establishment of a new 

nonattainment area, or delay achievement of standard attainment.

3.2.2 Noise and Vibration

Existing Conditions

Noise and vibration impacts were assessed in accordance with the Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA) guidelines set forth in Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 

(May 1996), which FRA relies upon for assessing impacts from passenger rail projects of this 

nature. Traffic noise is unwanted sound that is a function of the volume and speed of traffic. An 

important consideration in noise analysis is the proximity of noise-sensitive receptors to the 

source of the noise. These receptors are stationary far-field positions at which noise or vibration 

levels are specified. They are important because the receptors predict whether or not the 

specified noise limits will be exceeded. Should these limits be exceeded, mitigation measures 

and a demonstration of the expected noise reductions resulting from these measures would be 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 27

included in construction plans. Vibration refers to the ground-borne noise and perceptible 

motion. For people living near a transit route, the rumbling sound and vibration from passing 

trains may permeate an entire building and may be extremely annoying for occupants.

A screening was completed to identify potential noise and/or vibration sensitive land uses within 

the Study Area. Land uses in the Study Area are mostly commercial and business, and are not 

noise or vibration sensitive. Some residential develop abuts the Study Area in Troy (Midtown 

Square); however, this area is beyond the range of influence for noise and vibration impacts

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not cause noise or vibration impacts to sensitive receptors in the 

Study Area. 

Equipment operation and the hauling of material could result in temporarily increased noise and 

vibration during construction activities. These activities would be limited to daytime hours

between 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM Monday through Friday as permitted by City ordinances. 

Increased noise and vibration levels would be short term, occurring only during construction 

periods. After construction is completed, the Preferred Alternative would not have adverse 

effects on noise or vibration levels in the Study Area. 

3.2.3 Hydrology and Water Quality

Existing Conditions

The Preferred Alternative lies entirely within the Twelve Towns Drain Area, a subwatershed of 

the Clinton River drainage basin. There are no streams or wetlands located within the Preferred 

Alternative site or affected directly by the construction of the Intermodal Facility. 

The Twelve Towns Drain Area is a combined sewer system. Normal dry weather flow 

discharges to the Dequindre Interceptor, from where it is routed to the Detroit Water and 

Sewerage Department (DWSD) for treatment. When certain wet weather conditions occur, flows

are routed to the George W Kuhn Drainage District CSO Retention Treatment Basin (completed 

in 2007) where it is retained until it can be rerouted to the DWSD. In instances where flows 

exceed the retention treatment basin’s capacity, flows are treated and discharged to the Red Run 

Drain. The Red Run Drain is a 12.7 mile long tributary to the Clinton River. From the 

confluence of the Red Run Drain, the Clinton River runs approximately 16.7 miles east and 

discharges to Lake St. Clair. 

The Preferred Alternative lies within the Midtown Square Shopping Center site. Separate storm 

sewers and a storm water detention basin were constructed for the shopping center in 2000; the 

design included provisions for future development of the Intermodal Facility and is adequate for 

the future facility. The area drains to the Twelve Towns Drain on Coolidge Highway. The 

existing impervious area for the site is currently developed to 46 percent of its design capacity.

Impacts 

The No Build Alternative would not impact the existing sewer and stormwater drainage systems, 

and the directly-measured overall impervious surface area of the site would not increase.
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 28

The Preferred Alternative would not have a direct impact on the Twelve Towns Drainage system 

nor the George W Kuhn Drainage District CSO Retention Treatment Basin as these systems 

were designed to accept flows from the project area and the Midtown Square Shopping Center’s 

storm water detention basin. Following construction of the Preferred Alternative, the directlymeasured overall impervious surface area of the site would increase from 46 percent to 71

percent of its design capacity. Any water quality impacts that may result from this increase 

should be minimal and can be adequately mitigated with stormwater management best 

management practices (BMPs) that would be included during final design. 

Mitigation

To mitigate the increase in impervious surface area resulting from construction of the Preferred 

Alternative, a number of measures would be employed throughout the project area for both the 

facility building and parking areas. These measures will effectively reduce the imperviousness 

by decreasing the peak runoff rate and volume from the site and improving surface water quality 

as compared to existing conditions. These include the use of a green roof system on the facility 

building, rain gardens, underdrains, and rainwater recycling.

During construction, specific environmental control methods would be employed to minimize 

water quality impacts. Soil erosion would be minimized by wetting down construction areas, 

installing soil erosion control measures, seeding disturbed land areas, and covering haul trucks in 

accordance with City ordinances and Michigan laws. Sediment and erosion control measures 

would be used to minimize any water quality impacts during construction in accordance with the 

Troy Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance requirements. 

3.2.4 Energy Conservation and Use

Existing Conditions

The Preferred Alternative location currently has a paved parking lot with lighting on the 

northwest end of the property. Energy is needed to operate the lights that are on continuously 

from dusk to dawn. There are no buildings or other facilities on the site that use energy 

resources.

Impacts 

The No Build Alternative would not impact energy conservation or use.

The Preferred Alternative would 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, systems and techniques.

The Preferred Alternative would also encourage mode-shift to transit options through increased 

connectivity and non-motorized transportation opportunities provided through various pathways 

and links as well as storage and rental of bicycles, rollerblades, skateboards, and new emerging

types of personal transportation, which would potentially reduce energy consumption.
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 29

3.3 Ecological Environment

3.3.1 Terrestrial Resources

Existing Conditions

The Preferred Alternative parcel includes an open mowed grass area adjacent to Doyle Drive and 

an existing parking lot to the north. The parcel is surrounded by a mixed-use development with 

large retail stores and a nearby condominium community. Trees throughout the site are the result 

of the shopping center development landscaping that took place in 2000. There is also an area of 

unimproved right-of-way that is scrub/shrub and grass-type vegetation. 

Field observations to ascertain the presence of high-quality habitat were conducted in early 

spring 2010; no species of significance were observed. It is important to note that there have 

been numerous coyote sightings along the rail corridor. 

Impacts 

The No Build Alternative would not affect terrestrial resources. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would impact terrestrial resources in the Study Area

because it would involve only the removal of an open mowed area. This impact would be minor 

given the previously disturbed character of the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative. 

3.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

Existing Conditions

A review of the readily available and accessible data from Michigan Natural Features Inventory 

(MNFI) data was performed. The following is a summary of the results from the MNFI for the 

Project Area:

Watershed Name: Clinton

HUC ID: 04090003010150

Scientific Name Common Name State Status Global Rank State Rank

Angelica venenosa Hairy angelica SC G5 S3

Arabis missouriensis var. deamii Missouri rock-cress SC G5 S2

Asclepias sullivantii Sullivant's milkweed T G5 S2

Carex lupuliformis False hop sedge T G4 S2

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle T G5 S2

Galearis spectabilis Showy orchis T G5 S2

Scirpus clintonii Clinton's bulrush SC G4 S3

T= Threatened

SC= Special Concern

G4= Apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range

G5 = Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range

S2 = Imperiled in state because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because 

of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state

S3= Rare or uncommon in state (on the order of 21 to 100 occurrences).
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 30

During the field observations conducted in early spring 2010, no listed species or other species of 

significance were observed. The Preferred Alternative is located on a parking lot and an area of 

mowed turf. The likelihood of any occurrence of the plant species listed above is very small. In 

addition, it is unlikely that any amphibians would be utilizing the mowed turf and/or paved 

parking lot for habitat. 

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not impact the listed species.

As a result of observations and analysis, it is concluded that the Preferred Alternative would have 

no impact on known species of concern at the locations specified. Consequently, construction of 

the Preferred Alternative would have no impact on threatened and endangered species in the 

Study Area.

3.4 Land Use 

3.4.1 General Land Use and Zoning

Existing Conditions

Land Use

The existing land use of Preferred Alternative site is paved parking with a small open mowed 

grass area. The area that surrounds the Preferred Alternative site contains a mix of uses with 

large retail stores and a condominium community; the CN railway right-of way adjoins the 

western boundary. There are two sets of CN tracks within the right-of-way. The Troy Oakland 

Airport and industrial facilities are to the east of the retail development. The existing Amtrak 

station is located in Birmingham, on the west side of the tracks, approximately 1,200 feet north 

of the Preferred Alternative site. The station consists of a concrete platform with a simple bus 

type shelter. 

Zoning

The City of Troy adopted its new Zoning Ordinance on April 28, 2011. Under the new 

ordinance, the 2.7-acre Preferred Alternative site is zoned IB, Integrated Industrial Business 

District, with a transit facility such as the Intermodal Facility listed as a permitted use. The CN 

Railway right-of-way serves as the western boundary of the site as well as the boundary between 

the Cities of Troy and Birmingham. The adjacent surrounding zoning designation is IB, with IB, 

MR Maple Road – multi-family residential using form-based codes, and MR – mutli-family 

residential to the north and east. 

Impacts 

The No Build Alternative would not affect land use or zoning.

The Preferred Alternative would not impact land use or zoning. Construction of the centralized 

intermodal facility would support surrounding land uses. The proposed facility would benefit the 

area by providing a transportation hub that would centralize Amtrak service, local bus service, 

and taxi services. 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 31

3.4.2 Consistency with Local Plans

Existing Conditions

The City of Troy Master Plan, adopted in October 2008, identifies the Troy Intermodal Rail 

Passenger Facility as the Troy-Birmingham Transit Center. According to the Master Plan, the 

surrounding area is described as mixed use made up of a complementary combination of 

residential, commercial, and service-oriented land uses. 

The Red Run Watershed Management Plan (WMP; 2006) goals include 1) Protect, restore and 

enhance water quality of the Red Run watershed; and 2) Reduce runoff impacts through 

sustainable storm water management. 

Impacts 

The No Build Alternative is not inconsistent with local plans.

The Preferred Alternative is consistent with local plans. In addition to meeting the goals of the 

City of Troy Master Plan in supporting growth and development in the surrounding area, the new 

Intermodal Facility would also support the goals of the WMP through the implementation of 

BMPs and sustainable station design.

3.4.3 Utilities

Existing Conditions

The utilities within the project area include natural gas, International Transmission Company

electric transmission lines overhead, and underground telecommunication lines within the 

Canadian National Railroad right-of-way. Overhead electric lines, telecommunication lines, 

underground electric service lines, sanitary, storm sewer and water lines are located on the site. 

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not impact any utilities.

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require relocation of an underground 

telecommunication line in the CN right-of-way, relocation of overhead electric and 

telecommunication lines, and taps to existing sanitary, storm sewer and water within the

Midtown Square shopping center in Troy. No major impacts to utilities or utility corridors are 

anticipated. Utility customers will be informed of the scheduled work times, and, although no 

outages are anticipated, emergency measures will be developed in case of interruption of service. 

3.5 Social and Economic Environment

3.5.1 Community Facilities 

Existing Conditions

A number of community facilities and services are found within the Project Area; however, there 

are no community facilities, including parks and other Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) properties,

located within the Study Area or that would be affected by the construction of the Intermodal 

Facility.
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 32

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not affect community facilities.

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would not affect any community facilities. Emergency 

response time would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative.

3.5.2 Demographics

Existing Conditions

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

The Preferred Alternative lies within an area zoned for business, light industrial, commercial, 

and residential uses in Troy (see Section 3.4.1). Nearby residences include the Village at 

Midtown Square townhomes in the southeast quadrant of Maple Road and Doyle Drive in Troy. 

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not impact population or housing.

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would not displace any businesses or residences and 

would not adversely affect the demographics of the Study Area. Businesses in the area would 

benefit from the more efficient transportation of people as a result of the Intermodal Facility. 

Population trends would continue with or without the proposed Intermodal Facility. 

3.5.3 Economic Resources

Existing Conditions

The following section provides a description of economic indicators within the Study Area.

Per Capita Income

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, per capita income in Troy in 2000 was $35,936. Per capita 

income for Oakland County was $32,534 and for the State of Michigan was $22,168.

Employment

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the majority of workers in Troy (54.8%) were in 

management, professional and related occupations (Table 3-7). The proportions of persons in 

similar occupations were less in both Oakland County (44.6%) and the State of Michigan 

(31.5%). Major employers in Troy include Flagstar Bank, William Beaumont Hospital, Delphi 

Automotive Systems, Troy School District and Kelly Services, Inc. (Oakland County Planning 

and Economic Development Services, 2009).
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 33

Table 3-7: Occupations

Occupation State of 

Michigan

Oakland 

County

City of 

Troy

Management, professional and related 

occupations 31.5% 44.6% 54.8%

Service occupations 14.8% 10.7% 8.4%

Sales and office occupations 25.6% 26.8% 25.3%

Farming, fishing and forestry occupations 0.5% 0.1% 0.0%

Construction, extraction, and maintenance 

occupations 9.2% 6.9% 4.3%

Production, transportation, and material 

moving occupations 18.5% 10.9% 7.2%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000.

The unemployment rate in Troy in 2000 was 2.3%. As a comparison, unemployment in Oakland 

County was 2.5% and in the State of Michigan was 3.7%. Beginning in 2008, unemployment 

rates have dramatically increased in the local area and the State of Michigan in light of the 

national recession. Table 3-8 illustrates the 2000 and existing levels of unemployment in the 

area. Current predictions have indicated that unemployment rates have stabilized and are 

expected to decrease slowly over the next several years.

Table 3-8: Unemployment Rates

Year State of Michigan Oakland County City of Troy

2000 3.7% 2.5% 2.3%

2010 15.8%1 10.6%1 13.2%2

Sources: 1. Michigan Department of Labor (2010)

2. www.city-data.com (2010)

3. www.bestplaces.net (2010)

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would have no impact on economic resources.

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

No businesses or government services would be displaced or otherwise adversely affected. It is 

anticipated that construction of the Preferred Alternative would provide new jobs during 

construction and during operation of the facility and would stimulate investment in new 

commercial ventures adjacent to the Intermodal Facility. This would improve the Troy economy 

by providing additional tax base and employment opportunities.

3.5.4 Community Cohesion

Existing Conditions 

The location of the Preferred Alternative for the proposed Intermodal Facility site is on parcels

of underutilized land. At present, it serves no community function and does not provide any 

special benefit to the local businesses or residents. 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 34

In Troy, the Village at Midtown Square is a condominium complex of 295 residential units 

located north of the Preferred Alternative site, west of Coolidge Highway and south of Maple 

Road. This residential complex is a part of the Brownfields redevelopment site. 

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not change existing community cohesion patterns. The 

No Build Alternative would not result in increased opportunities for community cohesion 

through increased connectivity.

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would not affect the existing community in the Village 

at Midtown Square. The residential area of Midtown Square would be within a walkable 

distance of the Intermodal Facility, providing residents easy access to all modes of 

transportation. The location of the Preferred Alternative would provide walkable access to the 

commercial areas of Midtown Square. There would be no adverse effects to community 

cohesion. 

3.5.5 Safety and Security 

Existing Conditions

The existing Amtrak station is located in Birmingham, on the west side of the tracks, north of the 

Preferred Alternative. The station consists of a concrete platform with a simple bus type shelter; 

it offers no rail passenger services and does not connect to any other public transportation 

systems. There are disembarking platforms between the tracks that may be used for passenger 

trains operating on the eastern track; Amtrak uses the westerly track, adjacent to the platform, to 

serve the station. The easterly track is used for freight traffic. There have been no train-related 

crashes within the vicinity of the existing station or the Preferred Alternative (SEMCOG).

Impacts 

The No Build Alternative would not alter safety conditions associated with the existing 

Birmingham Amtrak station. In the event that passengers are discharged to the platform in 

between the tracks, they would have to cross the tracks to reach the station, which is a safety 

issue. 

Safety elements and ADA compliance would be incorporated into the design of the Preferred 

Alternative. A new Amtrak platform would be constructed on the east side of the CN Railroad, 

and passenger service would be provided on the easterly track using either track switches or a 

turnout. CN would provide the appropriate switching service so that passenger trains can safely 

stop at the Intermodal Facility for alighting and boarding passengers. It is anticipated that freight 

trains would be routed onto the westerly track during scheduled passenger dwell times. 

Access to the platform would be provided by barrier-free ramps and stairs. Design elements 

intended to improve safety and accessibility include pedestrian scale lighting, hand rails, 

horizontal landing areas, benches, and radiant heat under ramps to melt ice and snow during 

winter months. Security cameras would be installed throughout the facility, parking areas, and 

on the platform. The passenger platform would be enhanced by the addition of a large canopy, 

shielded on four sides, to protect users from the elements and to provide a sense of security. 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 35

New 8-foot high fencing would be installed to prevent pedestrian access to the railroad tracks, 

except in the designated platform area. 

Doyle Drive would be restriped to provide a bike lane on one side to provide a safe path for 

bicyclists traveling to and from the Intermodal Facility. The bike lane would provide a linkage 

between existing bicycle routes, and the Intermodal Facility would provide bicycle racks for 

commuters using this form of transportation. 

Security would also be provided by regular ongoing police patrol. Emergency phones are 

planned within the Intermodal Facility building. Pedestrian scale lighting is planned for the 

inside and outside of the Intermodal Facility building, throughout the parking area, and around 

the passenger platform area. The increased police presence, cameras, lighting and phones would

ensure that the Intermodal Facility is safe and secure for all of its users. 

3.5.6 Possible Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped

Existing Conditions

The existing Amtrak station in Birmingham consists of a concrete platform with a simple bus 

type shelter. The existing station offers no services and does not connect to any other public 

transportation systems. Access to the platform is provided by stairs and a handicapped 

accessible ramp.

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not alter conditions associated with the existing Birmingham 

Amtrak station, and thus would not provide any additional improvements for or eliminate 

existing barriers to access and use by the elderly and the handicapped. 

The Preferred Alternative would improve accessibility for both the elderly and the handicapped. 

Designated ADA compliant parking spaces would be provided to assure the availability of 

parking and decrease the distance for elderly and disabled passengers to travel to the train 

platform. Access to the platform would be provided by both barrier-free ramps and stairs, and 

lifts will be provided from the platform to board the trains. The pedestrian bridge would 

beaccessible by elevators on both sides of the tracks. Additional design elements in the Preferred 

Alternative intended to improve safety and accessibility for all users, particularly the elderly and 

handicapped, include pedestrian scale lighting, hand rails, horizontal landing areas for rest along 

barrier-free ramps, benches, and radiant heat under the ramp to melt ice and snow during winter 

months to reduce slip and fall incidents. The Intermodal Facility would be designed to facilitate 

use by the elderly and the handicapped.

3.6 Environmental Justice 

The policy on nondiscrimination in all federally funded activities formally began with Title VI of 

the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Section 601 of Title VI requires that “No person in the United States 

shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be 

denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving 

Federal Financial assistance.” 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 36

Further guidance was provided in 1994 with Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The intent of the 

Executive Order is to identify and avoid disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

Existing Conditions

Data from the 2000 Census was used to determine the presence of minority and low-income 

populations within the Project Area. According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 

minorities are defined as the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native, 

Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic (1997).

Analysis of the data indicates that, at the block level, there are no minority populations greater 

than 14.4 percent within the Project Area, which is roughly equivalent to the percent minority of 

the surrounding area of the City of Troy (13.2 percent) but slightly higher than that of Oakland 

County (10.1 percent). 

Economic data from the 2000 Census indicated that there is a small percentage (3.2 percent) of 

the population below the poverty level within the Project Area. However, this percentage is 

below that of Oakland County (3.8 percent) and higher than for the City of Troy (2.7 percent). 

Additionally, a review of the Michigan State Housing Development Authority directory of 

subsidized housing indicates there is no such housing in the Study Area.

Public Involvement

The planning and development of the Intermodal Facility began as a collaborative effort between 

the Cities of Troy and Birmingham and the Troy and Birmingham-Bloomfield Chambers of 

Commerce. The two planning bodies have held numerous joint public meetings on the proposed

Intermodal Facility and the Intermodal Facility District that was jointly established. All of these 

meetings were open to the public. Public participation was encouraged by advertising through 

social media and websites, direct mailings to local residents, traditional media coverage and 

press releases. The meetings have been accessible by public bus (existing bus routes on East

Maple and Lincoln Roads) and bike routes with ADA accessible sidewalks to all meeting 

locations. In all cases, members of the public were present and participated in the discussion.

A two-day charrette, open to the public, was held on June 15-16, 2009 in Birmingham and Troy. 

Admission to the charrette was free, and light food and beverages were also provided to 

attendees throughout, free of charge. This public input process was designed to inform the 

public about the planning efforts for the Intermodal Facility and the Intermodal Facility District 

and to solicit public input on the proposed Intermodal Facility location and on the future 

development of the area surrounding the proposed location. The charrette was held adjacent to 

the existing Amtrak station, and was publicized through the same means as the meetings 

described above. The charrette was held in an ADA accessible building which was within 500 

feet of an existing bus route, with sidewalk access. 

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not have an impact on EJ populations.
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 37

The Preferred Alternative would not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on either 

minority or low-income populations. The Preferred Alternative is expected to have a net positive

impact on minority and low-income populations by increasing mobility between underserved 

areas with high unemployment and areas where job opportunities exist in greater numbers and by 

increasing affordable transportation options for local residents.

3.7 Cultural Resources 

Existing Conditions

A cultural resources field review was completed to investigate the presence of archaeological or 

architectural resources in the Project Area. With respect to archaeological resources, the 

Intermodal Facility project would involve ground disturbing activity, utility installation and 

removal of a small number of trees (although they would be transplanted and reused on the site). 

The study determined, and the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) concurred, that there was 

a low potential for recovery of archaeological remains and no further investigation was 

warranted. 

The Preferred Alternative location was studied under the Draft Service NEPA Environmental 

Assessment for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Rail Corridor Improvements from Chicago, Illinois 

to Pontiac, Michigan, completed by MI DOT and submitted to FRA in October 2009. The State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted regarding the then-proposed 

Troy/Birmingham transit station as part of the document investigations. A list of known and 

identified National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible, listed, or potentially eligible 

above-ground historic resources was reviewed, and it was determined that no above-ground 

cultural and historic resources in the area would be affected by the proposed transit station. A 

copy of the SHPO letter of September 22, 2009, expressing concurrence with the determination 

of No Adverse Effect, is included in the Appendix.

The only nearby historic resource is the Birmingham Grand Trunk & Western Railroad Depot, 

which opened on August 1, 1931. The Depot is located lies at the northern edge of the Project

Area, west of the CN tracks. The property was listed on the National Register of Historic Places 

on September 12, 1985. The building was closed as a railroad depot in 1978 and was later 

restored and converted into a restaurant. 

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would have no adverse effect on the Birmingham Grand Trunk & 

Western Railroad Depot.

The Preferred Alternative would have no adverse effect on the Birmingham Grand Trunk & 

Western Railroad Depot due to distance (approximately 1,500 feet) from the proposed facility 

and intervening structures. There are no other historic buildings or structures located on or 

adjacent to the Preferred Alternative site that would be affected by the project. 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 38

3.8 Visual Resources

Existing Conditions

The Intermodal Facility site is located on the east side of the CN Rail corridor, south of Maple 

Avenue. The site is at the back of a retail complex to the north and east; a public storage 

complex is north of the site, east of the railroad. Across the CN Railroad from the site, the 

Birmingham School District bus yard lies adjacent to the tracks surrounded by open storage of 

landscaping materials; a towing company lies to the south. There is little visual quality 

surrounding the site. 

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not affect the visual quality of the site or surrounding area.

The new Intermodal Facility would be designed as a gateway in the area. The building would 

provide visual interest and the facility complex would be a visual asset to the area. The 

architectural style of the building, which has not yet been determined, has been the topic of many 

public meetings and the June 2009 charrette, where much input was received regarding 

community preference. 

In order to meet the required track clearance requirements, the roof of the pedestrian bridge 

would be approximately 35 feet high, and would be 22 feet above the roofline of the station 

building. The bridge would be visible from nearby apartments and businesses. However, the 

bridge would not modify the visual context of the community given the existing urban 

characteristics of the study area.

3.9 Contaminated Sites and Areas of Environmental Interest

Existing Conditions 

The Preferred Alternative parcel is a 2.73-acre portion of a 77-acre Brownfield redevelopment 

project. Historic operations resulted in releases of hazardous substances at 34 areas of concern 

(AOCs) across the 77-acre property. Nine former AOCs are on or within the boundary of the

proposed Intermodal Facility site. In accordance with the Michigan Natural Resources and 

Environmental Protection Act (Act 451), which was implemented by the Michigan Department 

of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), environmental cleanup actions have occurred at the 

Brownfield property. Documentation required under Act 451 includes the Remedial Action 

Completion Report that details the cleanup actions. A review of available soil verification data 

indicates that the MDEQ Generic Criteria developed for Commercial Land Use are met 

throughout the site. All appropriate permits required by both the City of Troy and the State of 

Michigan were obtained for both the remediation of the site and all site construction before 

completion of the current structures, parking lots and open areas. 

Impacts

The No Build Alternative would not impact, or be impacted, by hazardous materials on the 

preferred site. 

The Preferred Alternative would not impact or be impacted by hazardous materials on the site. 

Remediation has been completed and contaminated soils removed.
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 39

3.10 Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Indirect Impacts

Indirect 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 indirect (secondary) impacts as those that are “...caused by the action and are later in time 

or farther 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).

Indirect impacts can be associated with the consequences of land-use development that would be 

indirectly supported by changes in local access or mobility. Indirect 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, population 

density. The potential for indirect impacts to occur is determined in part by local land-use and 

development-planning objectives and the physical location of a proposed action. Specific 

resources may be affected by indirect development, but resource-specific indirect impacts cannot 

be reasonably foreseen.

The Troy/Birmingham Transit Center Strategic & Implementation Plan, 2007, a study completed 

by the University of Michigan for the Urban Land Institute, identifies the market potential for 

future development, transportation options and complementary land uses near the proposed 

Intermodal Facility. The study indicates there is a sufficient demand for as many as 300 attached 

residential rental units within the Intermodal Facility District in the next five years. 

The City of Troy Master Plan calls for a transformation of the area surrounding the Intermodal 

Facility, and the April 2011 Zoning Ordinance is the tool that will implement the Master Plan. 

Under the new Zoning Ordinance, the Intermodal Facility area and District is designated IB -

Integrated Industrial Business District, with permitted and allowed uses that include those found 

in mixed-use and TOD areas. Permitted and allowed uses include multi-family residential uses,

complementary commercial, retail, and service oriented land uses, transit centers (the 

Oakland/Troy Airport and the planned Intermodal Facility), public schools, recreational facilities 

and parks. The combination of air, rail, bus and non-motorized transportation in one compact 

area, supported by a high-density residential development and regional commercial uses, is 

anticipated to create a vibrant gateway to the southwest corner of Troy. 

The City of Birmingham’s Master Plan for the area also calls for further mixed use development 

in the area, including residential, commercial and light industrial uses, higher densities, and 

walkable urban form. This type of development in the area in Birmingham west of the Preferred 

Alternative has already started to develop in this manner.
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 40

The No Build Alternative would not result in indirect impacts and would not promote growth or 

changes in land use.

The Preferred Alternative would likely result in beneficial indirect impacts. The Preferred 

Alternative may accelerate land use changes that are recommended in the Master Plans of both 

Birmingham and Troy. The land use surrounding the new Intermodal Facility may shift to land 

uses compatible with these new transit opportunities, such as higher density TOD mixed-use 

residential and commercial development designed to maximize access to public transport and 

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 redevelopment), 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 Birmingham and Troy 

to live, work and play, therefore, increasing socioeconomic diversity. 

As these future development possibilities unfold, there may be indirect impacts associated with 

natural resources and the existing built environment, including historic resources. Indirect 

impacts are generally addressed only for those resources that are directly impacted. 

Environmental regulations and guidelines, such as Section 106 and Section 4(f) among others, as 

well as the master planning documents and zoning regulations, would assure the consideration 

and avoidance or minimization of impacts to protected resources and provide for the mitigation 

of unavoidable impacts. 

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 labor pool residing outside of Birmingham and Troy. Increased pedestrian activity 

could result in greater patronage of local businesses and the likelihood of visitors accessing local, 

civic, and recreational resources in both Birmingham and Troy and the local area.

Cumulative Impacts

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. 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 41

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 bicycle and 

pedestrian improvements. The Preferred Alternative is also consistent with the master plans of 

both Birmingham and Troy, and both communities’ visions for growth in this area.

3.11 Construction Impacts

Construction of the Preferred Alternative may result in short-term water, air quality and noise 

impacts that have been addressed within each resource discussion (Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.1, and 

3.2.2 respectively. Construction documents would identify specific environmental control 

methods to minimize air and water quality impacts. These air and water quality impacts, such as 

fugitive dust and exhaust from construction equipment and soil erosion would be minimized by 

wetting down construction areas, installing soil erosion control measures, seeding disturbed land 

areas, and covering haul trucks in accordance with City ordinances and Michigan laws. 

Sediment and erosion control measures would be used to minimize any water quality impacts 

during construction in accordance with Troy’s Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control 

Ordinance requirements. 

There would be an increase in noise and vibration levels during construction activities. These 

activities may be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM Monday through 

Friday as permitted by City ordinances. Increased noise and vibration levels would be short 

term, occurring only during the period of construction. 

Emissions from construction activities, including equipment operation and the hauling of 

material, will result in a temporary increase of emissions; estimated amounts are shown 

previously in Table 3-4. Construction emissions are estimated based on an assumed mix of 

construction equipment operating during facility construction for a specific length of time. 

Emissions that would result from construction dust associated with exposed soils would be 

controlled, if necessary, with the application of water or other approved dust palliatives. 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 42

Section 4. Agency Coordination and Public Participation

It should be noted that the City of Birmingham withdrew from the joint cities effort in the spring 

of 2011, as this EA document was being prepared for FRA acceptance. The past efforts of the 

City of Birmingham have contributed much to the planning process associated with the proposed 

Intermodal Facility, as the City of Troy and MDOT continue forward.

In order to ensure long term success and high levels of transit utilization subsequent to the 

construction of the Intermodal Facility, education and engagement relative to the benefits of 

transit was an important component of the planning strategy. To that end, the Cities of 

Birmingham and Troy, in tandem with the respective Chambers of Commerce, formed a transit 

team comprised of tacticians capable of making the Intermodal Facility a reality and advancing 

the need for a region wide transit system.

The team established a regular bi-weekly meeting schedule over a roughly two year period (and 

continues to meet presently). The bi-weekly meetings have been a critical component in 

effectively coordinating the myriad agencies necessary for the decision making process to flow 

and in actively engaging the public. A sampling of agency coordination and public involvement 

related initiatives follows. Early coordination activities were designed to inform residents, 

public officials, business owners, property owners, other stakeholders, and regulatory agencies 

about the issues involved in studying the feasibility of creating an intermodal transportation 

facility for the Cities of Troy and Birmingham. 

Agency Coordination

Several meetings were held between the Federal Transportation Administration, the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, MDOT, and the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic 

Growth to discuss the project and details associated with the Intermodal Facility. Letters were 

also sent to the MDEQ, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Wildlife Division), the 

Michigan Historical Center (Archaeology Division), and the U.S. Department of the Interior 

(Fish and Wildlife Services) to gather information regarding rare and unique natural features, 

historical resources, and threatened and endangered species within the Project Area. 

Coordination with the SHPO and Tribal Affairs was also undertaken to determine the presence of 

potential architectural or archeological resources listed or eligible for the NRHP. All comments 

received as a result of the agency coordination process are provided in Appendix C.

Relationship Management with Other Agencies/Stakeholders

The transit team has also proactively engaged multiple agencies and stakeholders for the primary 

purpose of supporting and evaluating the proposed Intermodal Facility and to advance the need 

for regional transit with intermodal connections. Included in this outreach are SEMCOG, 

SMART, CN, Amtrak, Detroit Regional Mass Transit, Transportation Riders United, The Center 

for Michigan, Midwest High Speed Rail Association, Aerotropolis and Regional Transit 

Authority advocates, Connect and Prosper, the Detroit Regional Chamber, House Transportation 

Committee, neighboring property owners, homeowner associations, complementary 

committees/groups (e.g. Chamber of Commerce affiliated economic development groups, etc.), 

County Commissioners, County Executive, foundations, Oakland County City Managers 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 43

Association, Destination District representatives, and others. Resolutions and/or letters of 

support were procured where appropriate.

Public Participation

In addition, public participation efforts sought community input regarding the alternatives being

considered, potential environmental impacts, and other study concerns. As part of the project, a 

series of public presentations and workshops were held. Participants at the public presentations 

and workshops included local MDOT representatives, homeowners representing individual 

properties as well as neighborhood associations, business representatives, elected and appointed 

officials, property owners in the Project Area, and special interest groups. These sessions 

enabled the study team to gain a greater understanding of local concerns and priorities and to 

receive suggestions regarding potential alternatives and impacts. Workshops were held in Troy 

and in Birmingham. 

University of Michigan/Urban Land Institute Real Estate Forum – November 2007, Troy MI

The Forum was the culmination of a year-long planning process that focused on the Project Area. 

The planning process was led by Brookings Fellow and University of Michigan professor, 

Christopher Leinberger, supported by a graduate level student team and local representatives. It 

was an important opportunity to conduct detailed research, galvanize a team of decision makers, 

educate the public, identify resources, initiate the planning process and evaluate alternatives. 

The year-long study included a market study, economic impact analysis, traffic analysis, site 

analysis and design recommendations. Results of the study were presented and public comments 

were recorded.

SEMCOG University Walkable Communities Workshop - April 2009, Birmingham MI

Peter Lagerwey convened this workshop in order to provide a common vocabulary, 

understanding and appreciation for building healthy, sustainable, livable, and walkable, 

communities with active transportation options. The workshop served to bring together a diverse 

group of stakeholders to work collaboratively toward an evaluation of the Project Area and the 

necessary pedestrian and vehicular improvements to ensure full access to the Intermodal Facility. 

Public comments were recorded.

Joint Planning Board Meetings – 2008, 2009, 2010

The planning bodies of Birmingham (Birmingham Planning Board) and Troy (Troy Planning 

Commission) have convened nine joint public meetings since 2008 for the sole purpose of 

advancing quality planning relative to the location and design of the Intermodal Facility and

future transit oriented development in the surrounding area. Both the Birmingham-Bloomfield 

Chamber and the Troy Chamber of Commerce have attended and supported the planning groups 

at each of these meetings. These official meetings continue today and have alternated in location 

between Birmingham and Troy. All of the meetings were open to the public and were conducted 

in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. Members of the public were in attendance at each of 

the meetings, and public comments were recorded. 

Transit Oriented Development Charrette – June 15th and 16th 2009, Birmingham MI

A two-day charrette was held on June 15-16, 2009 in Birmingham and Troy. This public input 

process was conducted by both the Cities of Troy and Birmingham, the Troy Chamber of 
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 44

Commerce and the Birmingham-Bloomfield Chamber. The charrette was designed to (1) inform 

the public about the planning efforts for the Intermodal Facility itself and the Intermodal Facility

District that was established in the surrounding area, and (2) to solicit public input on the 

proposed Intermodal Facility location and on the future development of the area surrounding the 

proposed location. Activities included walking tours, stakeholder interviews, and visioning 

sessions. Topics covered included planning for multi-modal transportation options in the 

District, creating a pedestrian-oriented, mixed use, walkable destination around the Intermodal 

Facility, and the nature and form of development that was envisioned.

The charrette was organized to ensure that key stakeholder groups were represented throughout 

the process. Participants in the charrette included business owners and residents of the Project 

Area; developers and representatives of the Cities of Birmingham and Troy; and architects, urban 

designers and students from local colleges and universities. Over 200 people attended the twoday charrette, and over 100 letters of support for the Intermodal Facility were obtained. Walking 

tours of the surrounding area in both Birmingham and Troy were conducted to familiarize the 

public with the proposed sites and to provide an opportunity for alternative evaluation. The 

outcome was the presentation of design concepts and preliminary recommendations based on 

stakeholder input. The website www.15miletransit.org keeps the public informed on the status 

of the project.

Encouraging Full Public Participation

Throughout the planning process, a concerted effort has been made to apprise the elected bodies 

(Birmingham City Commission and Troy City Council) of the status of the Intermodal Facility. 

These updates have occurred on an ongoing basis and, because the meetings are televised and 

open to all, they serve to update and educate the public regarding all aspects of the location, 

design and operation of the Intermodal Facility and provide important opportunities for 

community dialogue.

Recognizing the need for public education and advocacy support, the transit team also placed 

some emphasis on engaging media outlets in the attempt to build grass roots support. Multiple 

reports were conveyed in traditional outlets such as CNN, The Detroit News, The Detroit Free 

Press, Crain’s Detroit Business, local print publications like the Observer & Eccentric 

Newspapers, Oakland Press, The Paper, Troy Today (and myriad others), and niche outlets such 

as National Public Radio, Metromode, and others.

The Chambers and the Cities continue to work together to facilitate and monitor the development 

of the Intermodal Facility and the corresponding Intermodal Facility District. In an effort to keep 

the communities and the region updated on the Intermodal Facility progress, the Cities and 

Chambers established the website www.15miletransit.org, a LinkedIn Group (15 Mile Transit), a 

Facebook account, and a Twitter account (also known as 15 Mile Transit).
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 45

Section 5. Sources Consulted 

Amtrak Stations, Birmingham, Michigan, 

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2Station/Station_Page&code=

BMM 

Architects & Engineers PC – June 2009

Birmingham Historical Museum, Historic Property Archives, Grand Trunk Western Railroad 

Birmingham Depot, Birmingham, Michigan

Birmingham Remembered, Jervis B. McMechan, in The Birmingham Eccentric, Birmingham, 

Michigan

Center for Transportation Excellence website: http://www.cfte.org/trends/benefits.asp

City of Birmingham Eton Road Corridor Plan (1998)

City of Birmingham, Community Development, Planning and Development Department, 

Planning Division, Designated Historic Property Files, Grand Trunk Western Railroad 

Birmingham Depot, Birmingham Michigan

City of Birmingham Zoning Ordinance, May 2005 

City of Troy Brownfield Redevelopment Authority 

http://67.38.83.10/BrownfieldRedevelopmentAuthority/BrownfieldPlans.aspx

City of Troy Zoning Ordinance, October 2008

City of Troy Master Plan (2009)

Clinton River Watershed Management Plan for Improving Water Quality in the Red Run Drain, 

Clinton River, Lake St. Clair, and the Great Lakes; The Red Run Subwatershed of Macomb and 

Oakland Counties, 2006, prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Department of Environmental Quality

http://www.deq.state.mi.us/SiteRegistry/

Federal Highway Administration http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/facts/index.htm

Grand Trunk Western Railroad Birmingham Depot, 

http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/hso/sites/22488.htm

Haley & Aldrich Consultants, Environmental Site Assessment Report, Proposed Intermodal 

Facility
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 46

McMechan/Clohset/Klein, “The Book of Birmingham,” Averill Press, Birmingham, Michigan, 

1976

Michigan Natural Features Inventory, www.msue.msu.edu/mnfi

Michigan State Housing Development Authority

http://www.mshda.info/housing_locator/index.jsp?Keyword=birmingham&searchtype=SearchK

eyword&submit=Search&home=home&display=home§ion=&subsection= 

Michigan State Housing Development Authority 

http://www.mshda.info/housing_locator/index.jsp?Keyword=troy&searchtype=SearchKeyword

&submit=Search&home=home&display=home§ion=&subsection=

Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA)

Michigan State Housing Development Authority, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

National Park Service, U. S. Department of Interior, National Register of Historic Places, Grand 

Trunk Western Railroad Birmingham Depot, 

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregsearchresult.do?fullresult=true&recordid=0

New Restaurant on Tap, in The Birmingham Eccentric, Birmingham, Michigan, April 17, 1997

New Train Station Preserves Tradition, in The Birmingham Eccentric, Birmingham, Michigan, 

June 20, 2004

Reusing Railroad Stations, Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc., New York, New York, 1974

Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner, George W. Kuhn Drainage District Operation 

Plan

Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner, Twelve Towns Drain Project Plan

SMART website: http://www.smartbus.org/smart/Home

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) website, Data and Maps–Traffic Crash 

Data, http://www.semcog.org/Data/Apps/crash.cfm?mcd=8999

Traffic Impact Study – Troy Intermodal Intermodal Facility, prepared by Fitzgerald & Halliday, 

Inc., February 2008

Train Station Recycling Rolling, in The Birmingham Eccentric, Birmingham, Michigan

Trainweb, Birmingham, Michigan, http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/birminghammi.htm
Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment

July 2011 Page 47

Troy-Birmingham Intermodal Facility - Schematic Design Report, prepared by Wendel 

Duchscherer University of Michigan for the Urban Land Institute, Intermodal Facility Strategic 

& Implementation Plan (2007)

U.S. Census Bureau Website 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=data

sets_1&_lang=en

Wikipedia, Birmingham, Michigan (Amtrak Station), 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham,_Michigan_(Amtrak_Station)
APPENDIX