Troy Reverses Decision on New Station

The back-and-forth fight over a new intermodal transit center in Troy MI has turned up interesting information about the federal stimulus grant program (formally known as ARRA, the American Recovery and Relief Act).  It also contains lessons on how to combat Luddites who oppose public transportation.

In 2009, the Congress passed the ARRA act, calling for major infrastructure improvements which would lead to high speed rail in the U.S. Shortly after enactment, the Federal Railroad Administration held a series of public conferences to explain the program and what it would do, and what it wouldn’t do. The FRA conference for the Midwest was held in Kansas City, MO. Key points were:

1. States which applied for funds had to show a continuing commitment to passenger train service.
2. Applications would be graded on an objective basis to eliminate charges of political influence.

MARP warned several Michigan legislators that the practice of partial-year funding,  with supplemental funding when the first tranche was exhausted. This was done for several  years for the Blue Water and Pere Marquette and would not be acceptable to FRA. They went ahead with partial year funding anyway, and were stunned to find that FRA had denied all Michigan applications. The following year, the legislature passed a full-year appropriation, and Michigan was awarded money for new stations for Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Birmingham-Troy, plus funds to renovate and expand the Battle Creek station.

In November, 2011 Troy citizens elected a mayor and two council members who were elected on a pledge to stop all wasteful spending. Even though no City money would be involved in the construction of the Troy station, they voted to kill the project on the grounds that it was “wasteful” government spending. The grant for Troy has a stipulation that the project must be completed by October1, 2013. The council voted down the grant on December 19, 2011, the last apparent date for which approval would have allowed for completion by the 2013 deadline.

Artist sketch of new Troy Intermodal Center

On January 17, 2012, the council reversed itself and approved the center. What happened is a lesson for public transportation advocates everywhere.

The “antis” thought of themselves as Tea Party conservatives standing up against waste despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. NARP made a presentation to the council at the December meeting in which council members were given contact information for the mayors and Chambers of Commerce for every Amtrak city in Michigan, and were asked to contact those cities and find out if any of them regretted their decision. NARP also worked with Michelle Hodges, President of the Troy Chamber, who was a tireless worker to unite support from the business community behind the project.

The city was surprised by the national attention it got (all negative) about their vote, and major employers advised publicly they had advised their corporate boards not to make further investment in such a backward-looking city.

If there’s one group Republicans listen to, it’s the business community. The Troy chamber had made a strong enough case that the swing vote said he would change his vote in the cost could be reduced, and the $30,000 annual maintenance budget were not to be borne by the city. After a series of sessions, the architectural firm reduced the project cost by $2.3 million; the Troy chamber made a commitment that it would find funding for the annual maintenance cost.  It was also pointed out that the FRA would be friendly to a short extension of the completion deadline. With that, a special meeting was called, and the project was approved.

Lessons learned:

• The business community knows transit is essential for getting employees to work and is willing to fight for transit
• The business community also recognizes that bringing large numbers of people into an area makes that property a more attractive place to live, work and invest, which in turn leads to higher property tax revenues.
• Advocates need to have a firm grasp of the requirements set out in legislation. For example, most of the “anti’s” believed that money was appropriated to Troy and would go back to the federal treasury.
• The funds were appropriated to FRA- not to individual state projects. The FRA was directed to find worthy projects for the money.
• Since the money has already been appropriated, Congress treats it as money already spent. They COULD rescind the unspent money, BUT remember, the Senate and the President would have to approve legislation that did so- not very likely.
• If a project were disapproved locally, the funds would not go back to the treasury, but to another city.
• Every advocacy organization needs to have contact information for the mayor, the local economic development corporation, Chamber of Commerce and Visitors and Convention Bureaus in their city. These are allies who can really shake the gratings of either party, and virtually all of them understand the value of public transportation.