Comments on: Planning Group Revisits Huron River Report

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:46:04 +0000

OK, but which side are you on? It’s obvious to you, apparently, but I can’t tell.

By: tim

tim — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:19:36 +0000

Rod,

I’m not mad at anything (it takes a lot to make me mad), I’m disappointed. FWIW I happen to agree completely with your analysis of the issue as an outstanding opportunity that could be lost without the proper level of enthusiasm. That’s why speculation about the safety and location of whitewater improvements in particular disappoints me: it’s conjecture that gets taken as fact and can dampen enthusiasm.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:15:35 +0000

Tim: I’ve read your comment several times, although I get the fact that you’re mad, I can’t figure out who you’re mad *at*. Who are you disagreeing with here?

By: tim

tim — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:01:05 +0000

I really wish that people unfamilar with the construction of proper whitewater and habitat enhancements would cease with anecdotal statements about the location and safety of whitewater features, speak with a consultant familiar with such improvements, and gain a bit more education on the topic. This is something that is occurring across the country as urban rivers are being remediated, to overwhelming success. The improvements, when done right, actually provide for a safer and more controlled environment in which to learn and practice whitewater paddling. Such improvements can also be twofold in that they can provide habitat benefits for local fish.

It is increasingly frustrating to read news like this and see this message not getting out. The anecdotal claims just make matters worse.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 22:21:58 +0000

Rod, one alternative that I suggested to a DTE rep a year or two ago is in situ treatment with fungi, though I don’t know if they looked into it or if it’s really viable for that type of contamination.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 18:35:01 +0000

I agree with Tom (#4 above). This seems like a remarkably obtuse discussion, in fact. Except for Jeff Kahan’s contributions, it feels like there was a concerted effort to not ask complicated questions. Lots of “well, that wasn’t the *specific* focus of our report,” or “we didn’t address that specifically. I realize the question of the relationship of the park system, Argo Pond, the train station, etc. are likely to lead to difficult discussions, but aren’t those discussions desirable? Why is it that the idea of a San Antonio riverwalk-style amenity, or a restaurant on a raised platform, to take two examples, should be able to be taken off the table simply because someone believes that’s not what “people” want?

Ann Arbor hasn’t done well by the river, and hasn’t really made good use of the river, seemingly viewing it more as an obstacle to be bridged than a strength, except for placing some marginal parkland along it (let’s face it, Riverside and Broadway Parks, for all their virtues, are not exactly jewels of the park system). It feels like there’s an opportunity for some real planning here that isn’t going to go anywhere because there’s just no energy for it.

On another note: “MichCon had been advised, for example, that the Beakes and North Main area is not the best place to try to bring trucks through.” Agreed, but what are the alternatives? Depot Street? *shudder* Pontiac Trail? Plymouth? It’s going to be difficult no matter what.

By: Edward Vielmetti

Edward Vielmetti — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:42:19 +0000

The Dexter tornado also crossed those tracks or at least got mighty close.

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:05:18 +0000

Gosh, what a coincidence that the tracks have suddenly deteriorated just after the State expressed an interest in buying them. Maybe we can get a better deal now.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:21:11 +0000

Here is a relevant update on the status of those tracks. [link]

By: Jack Eaton

Jack Eaton — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:32:38 +0000

Mr. Rees, I believe the $70 per rider is the operational cost projected for commuter service. That is the projected cost after all capital and start up costs are covered. This assumes commuter service that is separate and distinct from Amtrak service.

Without spending any local funds, we will enjoy the track improvements on the Detroit to Chicago route. As I understand, the rail improvements will include two rail beds (one for each direction). Because of the transfer of ownership of these rails, passenger trains will no longer be required to cede right of way to freight trains.

Without spending any local money, we will enjoy increased frequency of Amtrak service on that route. Should that increased traffic warrant a new Amtrak station, Amtrak could seek federal funding for a new station.

Commuter service that is separate from Amtrak Detroit to Chicago runs would be better addressed by a regional transit body that encompassed all counties served by the commuter service. The Governor has proposed a regional transit authority, but it will provide Bus Rapid Transit rather than rail – probably because of costs