Comments on: City Seeks Feedback on Transit Center

By: Matt Hampel

Matt Hampel — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:50:11 +0000

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:10:45 +0000

Mr. Lewis #12,

My point was not to oppose this project, but rather to endorse the idea that there exists a loophole allowing council to re-purpose parkland to non-park uses without voter approval. It is possible for council to, for example, lease Huron Hills golf course to a developer (instead of selling it to a developer, as was trial-ballooned a year or two ago) and get around the prohibition on selling park land without voter approval.

As I said, it is possible to support this intermodal project, and still want to place limits on what can to be done with parkland without voter approval. Ironically, a more open, transparent and responsive local government would perhaps find that it had more freedom of action than the current policy of conducting business behind closed doors. This government has made a series of unwise decisions in recent years, and this, along with its unwritten policy of secrecy, lends itself to a desire for tighter reigns by many citizens.

]]>

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:28:50 +0000

As someone that works right up the hill from the proposed site, I can explain clearly that the university and the Health System works under an *extremely* pro-public transit psoition. For instance, when the new Cardiovascular Center was built (entirely new construction), they projected 4,500 new parking spaces were needed. They built 2200. And they considerably underestimated the 4,500. Traffic flow around the hospitals is confusing and poor, and it’s going to be compunded dramatically when the new hospital is completed (for which NO new parking is being built). In short, and beyond the public resistance to vast number of man hours wasted by commuters/patients taking a car to campus, parking far away (as in the Pfizer lots), and taking a bus in, additional levels of transporation from that location is going to be required anyway. Better to combine multiple methods in one site (FITS) where the busses, trains, Zipcars, mtoorcycles, bikes, and walking paths can all converge. The Fuller locations is really a staggeringly appropriate location for this. I’m a little shocked that government – any government – is considering something so smart, timely, and appropriate.

]]>

By: jcp2

jcp2 — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:17:09 +0000

‘Tis true. The proposed transit center sits right on the footprint of an existing surface lot. Even the pre-existing soccer field is preserved.

]]>

By: David Lewis

David Lewis — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:01:44 +0000

Good lord people. This land has been a parking lot for 40 years. It may somehow be connected to the adjacent park but it is a PARKING lot. No kids have been playing there. It has been leased to the UM for years and years. The city has a couple of thousand acres of parkland, we don’t need any more.

This would be a perfect transit center at what is probably the most often visited place in the region, where 15,000 people work.

Karen and John, as someone said a few days ago about someone else: Can’t you move away from your never ending campaign of opposing anything the city wants to do just once? Not even for something so needed, something that opens a whole new chapter for the city and the region?

This is brilliant! Imagine; commuter trains coming into Ann Arbor again bringing thousands of commuters and patients, a train to the airport, to a Tigers game, less cars on the streets, a new beginning for rail in our city. Imagine….

]]>

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:28:08 +0000

#4 Karen is, as usual, insightful. The charter needs to be amended again, to require parkland to be USED as parkland until released by voter referendum. The intermodal system is the occasion to think about this idea, but the idea of non-park use of city-retained land is much bigger than the intermodal system.

It is possible to support the inter-modal system, and also support strict limits on what the city can do with retained parkland without voter approval.

]]>

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:35:22 +0000

After the flak they took for the Library parking structure, Council has realized that when they spend tens of millions of taxpayer money on unneeded parking they have to call it something else.

]]>

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:00:38 +0000

“The new spots would be full if the structure opened tomorrow”

Why? What is the source of that demand and where does it go now? Why do you think the CFO said that the Pfizer purchase provided enough to meet the current medical campus demand?

]]>

By: anon

anon — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:17:10 +0000

Even Pfizer parking, plus new Wall Street parking, plus FITS parking would not meet demand. It’d take thousands of spaces to meet actual market demand. The parking the University “needs” is just to maintain a reasonable modal split.

The new spots would be full if the structure opened tomorrow, let alone after the new Children’s hospital opens. Plus, not all of the FITS spaces are for University use. The number of incremental spaces for University employees will be _far_ less than 650.

]]>

By: Karen Sidney

Karen Sidney — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:35:48 +0000

Mary,

Do you know the source of operating funds for the east-west and the north-south trains? Is there an approved grant for operations and, if so, from whom, for how much and for how long? Is there a source of long term operating funds?

The March 2009 feasibility study linked in your report says “it is assumed” that the Amtrack depot will incorporated within the parking deck footprint. Has Amtrack made a firm commitment to move or is this still in the discussion stage?

I appreciate the thorough reporting including all the links you provide in your articles.

]]>