Karen

Mon, Mar 18, 2013 : 12:52 a.m.

There was a poll for this? What poll?

Karen

Mon, Mar 18, 2013 : 12:48 a.m.

Eli Cooper - the man who's only justification was to ram through a train station at Fuller Road (and put as many roundabouts as possible in Ann Arbor). Let's see... 1. must be city-owned or publicly owned land - well you aren't above expropriating land are you? If it's so g*d-dammed important you can get the land (it might be going for a song...see item 5). 2. must be located along the railroad tracks...or you could put new tracks in to where the station is. 3. must be in a location that would be easy and safe for a train to slow and stop...that would be on level ground. 4. must be in a location with enough rail bed width to accommodate trains going in either direction...that would be on level ground where there is about 80 feet width. 5. must be near downtown or other likely destination...no must be near public transit...like the east or west side of town on the bus route. Not near downtown because there is no space downtown. 6. must be easily accessible on foot, by car, by mass transit...like the east side plymouth lot or on the west side at the derelict site that used to have the old motel (near Webers). Hey, there's a location:-) 7. should be able to provide sufficient parking for rail passengers...there's parking at site mentioned in 5 :-) 8. ...Oh you ran out of criteria...how about the west side near Weber's? How are those roundabouts coming? Any major accidents yet? What about the huge traffic backups on M-23 Mr. Cooper? Any fixes for those?

uabchris

Sun, Mar 17, 2013 : 4:58 a.m.

We already have a beautiful station...The Gandy Dancer...

Sam S Smith

Sat, Mar 16, 2013 : 11:41 p.m.

"one of the firms we rescued from bankruptcy was a large regional railroad based in Michigan " Overall I learn a lot from Mr. Ranzini's posts and this is one of them.

Cendra Lynn

Sat, Mar 16, 2013 : 8:55 p.m.

Ryan, isn't it cheating to take out all the votes prior to 10 am on Friday? Did you do that because the votes were 90% against ANY new train station?

Ren Farley

Sat, Mar 16, 2013 : 5:55 p.m.

As the population of Michigan rapidly ages, an increasing share will be unable or reluctant to drive because of their ailments. Some of those living in the greater Detroit area will find it possible to get to the U of M hospital using the commuter and Amtrak rail services. And some of those patients will be the lucrative ones who need to visit the U of M hospital frequently. I worked at as a station host at the Wells Maine depot where the Downeaster train from Portland to Boston stopped. Amtrak had a deal with the Maine cancer group to provide reduced rate fares for cancer patients who needed to reach Boston hospitals. I believe that more than 2000 such trips were taken last year. In deciding where to locate the new Ann Arbor depot, it is reasonable to consider older people who need medical care but are not able to drive.

Vivienne Armentrout

Sat, Mar 16, 2013 : 4:22 p.m.

One of my enduring concerns is that we may in the near future be borrowing money to pay for this station and possibly even a commuter rail system. This link http://localannarbor.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/tmp_vol3_output_aug2011-part-2.pdf to a large document details how AATA proposed to borrow money once a regional authority was established. There are a number of programs for "transportation infrastructure" borrowing and this lists and analyzes them. I am a Democrat and not a tea-party deficit hawk, but I also know that many municipalities around the country have gotten into trouble with excess debt. We don't have to look very far away from home: check out Sylvan Township and especially the City of Detroit to see what happens when a debt burden is taken on without a dependable source of funds to pay it. It is always tempting to borrow as a bet on a better, brighter future. But our ability to predict outcomes has been limited lately. Better to be careful.

Firefly

Sat, Mar 16, 2013 : 1:13 p.m.

I see a lot of similarities here in A2 between what is going on nationally with out of control spending and projects/programs pushed by BO that people don't really want. Aren't you glad that A2 can't print or borrow $.40 on each dollar that is being spent?

aataxpayer

Sat, Mar 16, 2013 : 1:12 a.m.

Buy the Gandy Dancer and re-use it as a station. Bulldoze the existing station for more parking. Simple and green.

Roger Kuhlman

Sat, Mar 16, 2013 : 12:46 a.m.

The question of this story is completely wrong. We should be asking "Why do we need a new Amtrak railroad station?" When all things are considered fairly, this basic question has not been satisfactorily ansered.

Runnerboy

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 11:44 p.m.

ALSO - Casey's is right across the street! Food and drink for waiting travelers... "Where should we hang out with the kids while waiting for the train, honey - the restaurant, or the park next to the river - or should we just walk downtown for an hour?" I don't see that happening from the hospital location. The space on the other side of the tracks has limited development potential being in the floodway but seems like a natural expansion site for a station and park. The Fuller site is really far from downtown... the current station is surprisingly close to Kerrytown: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.288211,-83.743501&spn=0.003822,0.005681&t=h&z=18

Runnerboy

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 11:29 p.m.

It sure seems silly to not use the current train station location on Depot. I just ran past there - it is only 2 blocks from Main Street and just a handful of blocks in total from downtown Main Street. It has plenty of open space around it and is very close to the other train line, close to the current (and easily expanded) parking next to the bridge, and still close to the hospital. Rather than focusing on currently owned city/public park land (it sounds like this presents Federal funding problems anyway), why not focus on making some deal or getting Michcon to donate the previously polluted land in the floodway that probably can't be used for housing or much else. Create a raised station on Depot that straddles the tracks and provides access to parking and perhaps nice open space in that (hopefully former) Michcon space. Whomever picked the Gandy Dancer location for a station, and the later Amtrak station next door seemed to have done it right! Expand at that location to use the former brownfield, maybe create a small park, and serve downtown AND the hospital rather than focus on the hospital while screwing up the open space next to the river, soccer fields and the pool. And this would seem much more likely to get Fed funding than the other location - especially since the current location seems to be a "viable alternative" that would violate the mentioned rule... My two (or ten) cents.

Sam S Smith

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 11:09 p.m.

If people don't like layovers in airport travel, what makes anyone think that people are going to love the multiple stops? At what 10-15 minutes per stop minimum (much more time more likely) and there's 5 stops between Detroit and Ann Arbor, wow that's really cutting into someone's day! But that's OK, it'll be like a roller coaster for 10 minutes it's 110 mph then it down to zero to make the stop then back up to 110 mph then down to zero within 10 minutes for the next stop and then... And someone can make a profit selling barf bags too!

Sam S Smith

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 10:56 p.m.

Basically, UMMC thinks this is a bad idea because if it wasn't a bad idea I'd think they would offer to pay some of the costs right? I mean it would benefit UMMC in theory right? Why would UMMC spend millions building a parking lot on Maiden Street if its employees are going to use the train? Why wouldn't the UMMC offer to help pay for at least some of it if it benefits UMMC as well especially with the Fuller Road location as a good will gesture? UMMC is looking for more beds at Chelsea Hospital. Then maybe at Howell St. Joe's. Good idea. But what about the train station UMMC, what do you say?

Sam S Smith

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 10:13 p.m.

You forget, UMMC is not the mecca in health care. Nor would this train station to bring in patients help. In fact, it would be a hassle for the sick and employees. With the push to keep people out of hospitals or transfer them as soon as possible to subacute facilities who can provide the care for a lot less money, there will be fewer patients in major hospitals. Think I am kidding? It's going there trust me. Only the very, very sick will be admitted and there are other hospitals that are more convenient without a train station congesting the area that are just as good. Take St. Joe's for example. Do you really think they're going to take a train in for follow up at one of the clinics? An all day exhausting ordeal? And if a patient gets out late because the MD was running late and the train home was missed then what? Is UMMC going to pay for this patient and her/his family hotel? Why? Why is that no one can see that this is a very, very bad idea!

Vivienne Armentrout

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 10:11 p.m.

I wrote an opinion piece over a year ago about this subject and the arguments haven't changed. http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/keep-ann-arbors-train-station-where-it-is-and-drop-the-fuller-road-site/ I'm sad to say that Dietrich Bergman, who is mentioned in this column, passed away suddenly last April. He was a good person and a fine engineer and train buff who provided much useful technical information.

Tanzor

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 8:42 p.m.

Why is city council wasting so much money and time on this fantasy train station before it's been put a vote? "The city's tentative capital projects budget shows a $2.6 million line item for final design in the fiscal year starting July 1, 2014. The city is counting on 80 percent of those funds coming from the federal government, leaving roughly $520,000 tentatively planned to come from the city's general fund" "The actual construction cost of a new train station is now estimated at $44.5 million. For now, the city is assuming $35.6 million in construction funds will come from the Federal Railroad Administration, leaving an $8.9 million placeholder in the city's general fund in 2015-16." This is too much money for something we don't need and cannot afford to build or operate. Try this, every time you see "Federal funding and Federal grant" replace them with "tax payer money" Our national debt is rapidly approaching 17,000,000,000,000 dollars and is expected to top 22,000,000,000,000 in 2017. Current debt per taxpayer is 147,444 dollars. For the last four years our government has spent well over 1,000,000,000,000 dollars per year more than it takes in. Can we afford a train station?

Firefly

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 8:36 p.m.

And you may vote more than once.

cindy1

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 8:25 p.m.

Please note that if you voted in the train station poll before 10:00 am today, they zeroed out the tally and started the poll over. At 10:00 am, it was 70% against any new train station. It is now 40% in favor of the Fuller Park site.

Rita Mitchell

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 8:04 p.m.

Note: Amtrak owns the building and property of the current depot and parking. Should the people of ann Arbor take on the responsibility that is currently managed by Amtrak?

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 7:25 p.m.

@Arno B: In many countries, railroads are a "for profit" activity. People forget that all railroads in the U.S. were built with private risk capital. The Japanese high speed rail system (they started building it in 1962 when "Made In Japan" was a byword for cheap plastic crap) was privatized and that company was sold for $90 billion to private investors. Especially in a great depression, the country should be searching out good infrastructure investments and valuable projects to back with the public purse.

Rita Mitchell

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 7:04 p.m.

The existing train station is in a great location for the citizens of Ann Arbor. With a long history, the geographic area supports the transit oriented development that can happen, without use of our park land. The question posed in the title of the article is premature. I believe that is the first question to be asked: Should the people of Ann Arbor build and maintain a train station? Once that question in answered, then further questions can be asked, about capital funding, and ongoing maintenance, and studies completed to address location, potential upgrades of the current location. Start with the right question, then ask the financial, ownership and maintenance questions.

Ruth Kraut

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 6:54 p.m.

I have two suggestions: 1. Buy out Fingerle Lumber and use that location. 2. Buy out the Gandy Dancer, close the road between high street and Fourth Ave to allow parking and buses to turn around. Based on my experiences on the east coast, train stations do best when they are close to stores and encourage foot traffic. Fuller Road is not close to any stores and in fact there is no opportunity for a commercial district to develop near there because it is all either parkland or UM Health System land.

Merlin

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 6:50 p.m.

I agree with Sabra Briere's profound comment: The train station "must be located along the railroad tracks".

Kensington alum

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 6:41 p.m.

$2.8 million to study alternatives? Seriously? Man, give me that gig.

Arno B

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 6:29 p.m.

One of Mr. Ranzini's comments about "upgraded service to 110 mph which will be profitable and self- sustaining" with the state "making millions after a while" is just preposterous. It took Amtrak years with billions in subsidies just to develop the Acela line from Washington to Boston. That route did't even have grade crossings to contend with; in addition, it served a region with a high population density which is not the case here. No one has commented about the current Amtrak subsidies. Indeed, Amtrak is now demanding more state subsidies for the Chicago-Pontiac line (Wall St. Journal for Jan.23, P. A2). No one talks about where these rail subsidies come from but I suspect that much of it is siphoned out of highway funds. Ask New Jersey Transit about the much ballyhooed wonderful things that the 30 mile Camden to Trenton Light Rail project was supposed to bring about! Lawsuits and ever increasing subsidies were what occured (the line was put into service in 2004). Perhaps Mr. Lanzini could point to one public transit system in the world which is profitable to the extent of which he dreams (i.e., un-subsidized); perhaps he could also find a government cost estimate somewhere which was accurate. Note the extent of Tooth Fairy promises ("Federal Funds") required for these Ann Arbor proposals.

George Gaston

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 5:46 p.m.

The Amtrak Station location on Depot Street better serves the Ann Arbor community. It offers easy access to Downtown, Lowertown, Kerrytown, State Street, public transportation, and the central campus area. There are amenities available at the Depot Street site, such as: FREE parking, The Northside Grill, and Casey's Tavern. It is much closer to the intersection of the two train lines ( an advantage if the WALLY ever comes on line ) and would be a major asset in the redevelopment of the DTE property and the Lowertown project.

Saline_Wins

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 5:28 p.m.

I don't know why this even is a topic as voters will shoot it down. It is a waste of bandwidth.

SonnyDog09

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 5 p.m.

If the only reason to build a new train station at Fuller Road is to serve the UMHS, then let the UM and UMHS pay for it.

Stephen Landes

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 4:48 p.m.

Main Street where the AARR crosses the NSRR just north of Depot. This is the point where any north-south commuter train could intersect with the east-west railroad/commuter train. This area is close to a highway entrance/exit (albeit one that needs reconstruction), on a the major north-south road through town (four lanes wide), accessible by AATA. It is, in short, a location that can become a high transportation density location which is necessary to make mass transit truly functional. In addition, this is North Main St, an area that needs economic development, already has commercial and light industrial property, and has been the general area for rail depots in Ann Arbor for more than 100 years. If we work with AARR to allow a north-south commuter train to run all the way down to the research areas along Ellsworth it would be possible for commuters to take the train to Ann Arbor from Detroit or Jackson and change trains to the north-south line running through town, making stops at Washington, Liberty, William, Madison, and on to all the businesses on the City's south side. We may want to double this line rather than turning part of it into a "greenway" to minimize issues with AARR freight traffic. There are places on Main St that could be used for a parking structure/bus station, so passengers can transfer to their cars, buses, taxis, or other personal transportation close to the depot. If we want to use existing city-owned land we can offer it in trade to private property owners to secure the right parcels to make this a truly workable system.

Lynn Liston

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 4:37 p.m.

I favor the Fuller Road location, but see some other good suggestions here. One issue has been parking- I hope that when/if the new station is built, AATA will offer a parking deal similar to the excellent park and ride service to Metro Airport. For recreational travelers, or those leaving the state for a vacation this would be a good option and would relieve some of the daily business travel parking need. And how about light rail/tram or something similar down the Jackson Rd corridor to connect workers and shoppers from Dexter and Chelsea? The current busing service isn't really amenable to mid-day users.

Usual Suspect

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 3:37 p.m.

Build it at the intersection of the two railroads. Amtrak on the lower level, WALLEE on the upper level. Parking lot, bus transfer, and curb-side drop-off/pick-up on the MichCON site.

Joe

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 3:29 p.m.

Hmmm......let's see.... we could locate the train station right next to the U. of M Health System where 18,000 people are employed and thousands of patients visit everyday. Or....we could locate it somewhere else. That's a tough one.

mich4psa

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 3:21 p.m.

Mr. Ranzini should get his facts straight before proposing boondoggles. UM doctors do not have any private practice. Rather, they are geographic full-time at the university with all clinical practice conducted within the UMHS medical practice plans and in UM locations. His plan to raise millions from the presumed -to-be-wealthy UM doctors is completely off-base. Perhaps he has confused the UMHS with the private St Joe's?

what the...

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 3:19 p.m.

Use the existing property and span the tracks to the MIchCon site. New station should straddle the tracks; gets most of it above the flood plain and alows movement to eiter side of train platform(s). Oh and end the lease to the UofM on Fuller and reclaim our valley parkland. Let them build a structure on their existing land, they have plenty of dough and their hospital employees certainly deserve better.

LXIX

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 2:58 p.m.

How did that railroad every get built? Profiteers saw a need and made an investment. It worked. The profiteers in this case are Norfolk & Southern. They just sold the line to the State. Why? The fact is this is a money-pit now and that throwing money at it will not make it much better. Why? If the train was so popular the five or six cars would be brimming and more would have to be added. There should be some demand. Where are all of the riders going to board the train? Detroit after the Financial Manager rebuilds the city? Chicago because they don't have decent health care? Commuters come from all over the State. Where should they get on the "highs peed" train to work? How many stops? Why not give UM and downtown employees free bus/train passes and see how many would even try to park somewhere and ride for free? Boulder is the Mayor's model city. Boulder is soon going to spend $1.2M to study becoming its own "green" utility. Their profiteer energy provider is furious. Why? Maybe Ann Arbor could hire 76 more police officers and study energy independence and be more like Boulder instead of wasting tax dollars on their train to nowhere.

Sam S Smith

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.

Look, it's obvious that Hieftje and cronies are going to push this Fuller Station down Ann Arbor's throat no matter what until they get what they want.. Watch A2.com delete this comment. But this is the truth. Hieftje and co see as being "progressive" using a transportation system how old and truly outdated for the present and future. Many want progress but with something that will actually work and be sustainable.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.

The Amtrak higher speed railroad project to upgrade service between Detroit, Ann Arbor and Chicago to 110 miles per hour will be a profitable, self-sustaining business once built. The most recent feasibility study (see www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/railmidwest.pdf) on pages 12 and 13 reviews the operating expenses and revenues. The projections are that the line will make an annual profit of $18 million in 10 years and $32 million in 21 years. Once their costs are covered railroads can be very profitable businesses! The projections in the report are based on 10 round trips between Ann Arbor and Chicago per day, ticket prices of $90 round-trip (using 2002 dollars) and travel time of 3 hours and about 15 minutes. This is very comparable to air travel in time and price, since the trip is downtown to downtown and doesn't require driving to an airport, waiting for a plane or dealing with TSA. The most valuable return from building enhanced rail service is to those that own the land adjacent to the stations. Railroads were all built and funded using that same land development mechanism in the history of our country.

Sam S Smith

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 2:44 p.m.

Not a single person I know who works at UMMC told me that they would take the train. If I were a patient, I would not want to take a train. There's always St. Joe's (outstanding hospital). What about noise? How many trains per day will be coming in to accommodate people's schedules? 110 miles an hour? Really? Through a city? How many stops will the train make along the way to pick up all these people? If I am a sick patient and my MD appointment is at 11 am but the nearest train to me leaves at 8 am. I drive to a parking lot, buy my ticket and wait for the train to leave. I get to UMMC after multiple stops, now I have to get to the appointment through a difficult and tiring route. It's 1030 am. Now I'm sicker than I was! If I'm lucky I'll see the MD before 12 noon. But wait it gets better! The train home leaves at 5 pm and by the time I actually get home it's after 7 pm! OK now I'm an employee. For whatever reason I miss the train to or from UMMC. Then what?

Rick Neubig

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 2:41 p.m.

Main street! There is NOTHING near the current Depot St train station so that's the wrong place to put it. A train station should be near places where people want to go. If it is put on Main near where it turns onto Depot, you would probably see businesses fill in the North Main Corridor which desperately needs development.

a2grateful

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 2:27 p.m.

Poll reset? Last time I viewed it before the "reset," there were over 1200 votes, with over 70% voting for "Nowhere." Is this why the poll was reset?

Vince Caruso

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 2:21 p.m.

We should restore and use the old Ann Arbor Station (Gandy Dancer), restore some historic value to a city that is to quick to lose it's historic structures. Would attract attention and visitors like the Michigan Theater and serve as a great place to wait for a train or visitors.

ordmad

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 2:18 p.m.

If one drives by the train station once a day, week or even less one really isn't in a position to comment on whether we need a new one. Try observing the traffic, congestion, lack of parking, etc.... on a daily basis at the current site. Then comment or, at the very least, admit you haven't in your comments. Arm chair opinions aren't what this City needs to make this or any other decision.

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 2:07 p.m.

Just a FYI- The poll on this story has been reset as of 10 a.m., we apologize for any inconvenience.

TheDiagSquirrel

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 2:04 p.m.

It seems that the City Council is attempting to use propaganda to try and convince the public that A2 needs this wonderful train station. Judging from most of the comments, their plan has failed. If this were put to a vote, it would be resoundingly defeated.

Larry Baird

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 1:59 p.m.

The city's draft capital improvements budget for 2014 to 2019 (see link below) proposes: $405 million in alternative transportation project expenditures (which includes the train station among other projects) and $72 million in street and bridge maintenance The city's "Prioritization Model Results" (see link below) ranks the Ann Arbor Station third highest on the list of alternative transportation projects, this ranks the train station above 35 other projects such as: - "Sidewalk Gaps: School Access " - "ADA ramp replacements outside DDA " - "Annual Sidewalk Repair program" -"Sidewalk Gaps: Citizens Requests " http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/systems_planning/capitalimprovements/Documents/FY2014-FY2019/EXECUTIVE_SUMMARYFY14-19(2).pdf http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/systems_planning/capitalimprovements/Documents/FY2014-FY2019/Transportation_Alternative%20Transportation(2).pdf

cindy1

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 1:52 p.m.

Am I wrong in observing the regularity with which Ryan Stanton features city councilor Brier? I have not done the research, but it seems her photos and quotations outnumber by a sizeable margin those of her council colleagues.

cindy1

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 1:49 p.m.

"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play." -anon. Notice how regularly "our new station" stories appear in annarbor.com. Notice the phrases chosen which imply it's a done deal: Ann Arbor's Next Train Station, "where a new Amtrak train station should be built in the city," etc. Luckily, this sentence is included, albiet, near the end: No matter which site is selected, the project must go to a public vote before construction can occur, according to a resolution approved by the City Council last fall.

drewk

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 1:47 p.m.

Straying off topic a bit but, where are the next train stops at so working commuters could feasibly use the train to go to work?

Scott Patton

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 1:44 p.m.

It needs to be closer to the Highways so that commuters from A2 to Detroit or Chitown have better access.

Dog Guy

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 1:39 p.m.

There was a time when reading "the city of Ann Arbor" in a newspaper stirred my civic pride because I was part of it. Having been demoted from citizen to taxpayer to sucker during the past decade, I have only revulsion when the machinations of a cabal are titled "the city of Ann Arbor."

a2grateful

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 1:10 p.m.

Hey, Ryan. I large part of this discussion is entirely overlooked: If Ann Arbor cannot effectively construct and maintain simple bike lanes, why should we believe they know anything about siting, constructing and effectively financing train stations? Does anyone here contend that Ann Arbor has constructed and maintained effective, simple bike lanes? So, Ryan, how about this? Ask Hieftje and Cooper to go on a bike ride with you, to review Ann Arbor's bike lanes. Take a photographer with you. Survey the bike lanes with those responsible. Make a public invitation for other bike riders to join you. Report your ride and survey results in an article here. Just make sure you ride a mountain bike with adequate suspension. My confidence in our city civic leaders is very low. If they cannot take care of simple, basic responsibilities, it is doubtful they are able to tend more complex issues. Just because someone knows how to spend money doesn't mean they spend it well. Here is my answer for the best location for Ann Arbor's "new" train station: the HO-scale hobby table in a certain leader's basement in Burns Park. . .

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 1 p.m.

@Craig Lounsbury wrote: "What is the break down of those 30,000? How many are employees versus patients versus visitors versus students?". If you built the medical office building above the train station I propose, more patients and medical staff will be able to take the train to work. Staff working in the new building and patients visiting from out of town will have easier access to get to and from this site also, as they won't have to fight the increasingly bad rush hour traffic on the freeways to and from Ann Arbor. As noted in another story yesterday, the county will grow 50,000 residents in the next 27 years at the current pace of population growth. See my first comment on the article: http://annarbor.com/news/washtenaw-county-sees-modest-population-gains-as-southeast-michigan-recovers/?cmpid=NL_DH_topheadlines Almost all this growth will occur outside of the freeway ring around Ann Arbor and will put considerable traffic pressure on the freeway ring and all routes into and out of the city. Expanding these freeways to three lanes will literally cost billions of dollars. But when you exit the freeway what will you do but fight the traffic again, since the mayor is busy reducing all the principal arterial access roads to two or three lanes!

Arboriginal

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 12:52 p.m.

Directly across the tracks from the Depot Street location.

Gerry

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 12:44 p.m.

Proximity to employment should be a primary concern. Given this, the potential to pay for the site by developing office space above it, superior access to roads and buses, and the fact that it is presently a parking lot detached from the rest of the park, I vote for the Fuller Road location.

G. Orwell

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 12:43 p.m.

$44.5 MILLION for a new train station! No wonder this country is broke. Which our children and their children will have to pay for. This country and our politicians have gone insane. Spend $2 to $3 million (even up to $5 million) to expand and renovate the existing station and let's call it a day. I believe everyone, except a few people at city hall, U of M, and contractors, will be very satisfied.

LXIX

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 12:42 p.m.

Briere said. "If anyone had a better solution, I'm confident I'd have heard of it by now." Probably a thousand here and one more on election day.

motorcycleminer

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 12:35 p.m.

To hell and I don't mean the community west of Pinckney....

Craig Lounsbury

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 12:16 p.m.

" For a handful of years now, city officials have had their sights set on..... Fuller Road — right in front of the U-M Hospital, where an estimated 30,000-plus people go each day." here is where I get skeptical. What is the break down of those 30,000? How many are employees versus patients versus visitors versus students? The only people who would take a train to the hospital would be people who live reasonably close to the tracks. If you live 30 minutes by car from Ann Arbor but 15-20 minutes from the track and a 20 minute train ride how many people will see that as a good trade off? How many sick people are going to take the train to get treated? How many people visiting sick loved ones are going to take a train to visit them? What percentage of Ann Arbor train users are going to and from Chicago for a little R&R?

Steve

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 12:14 p.m.

I always find it hilarious how so many people offer comments on the authors leaving things out of an article, or saying "you should omit...". If you are really that interested in displaying your thought on the content of the articles or wording, and you are that keen on these subjects, I'm sure AnnArbor.com would love to have you on staff, making the awesome $30K salaries these guys pull in. Give them a break, it's a small market. Also, there is always such negitivity for any type of change or upgrade to the city on these discussion boards. We get it, you don't want anything to change, but you are in the minority of people in Ann Arbor. Most of the city consists of progressives, thats what makes us unique and a fun town to live in.

My2bits

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 11:59 a.m.

If we build a new train station, the fact that the chosen site is designated parkland should not keep us from building it there, if that is the best place for it. As a long time user of Fuller Park, the paved parking lot across multiple lanes of busy Fuller Road and the barely usable (but we try) scrub field next to it are not a viable part of Fuller Park. I appreciate that folks who were concerned about the city's treatment of Huron Hills Golf Course were good watch dogs of how the city dealt with parkland, BUT please don't let that tail wag the dog here. It just is not the same. If you are concerned about the city's use of parkland in this manner, how about a land swap for better quality parkland and take this parcel out of the parkland designation, or some other solution.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 11:34 a.m.

@deb: by 2014 the trains from Chicago to Ann Arbor and Detroit will be going 110 miles an hour, sharply raising ridership. Also, this service will then be very profitable and self sustainable long term. The city should do it because it can make a profit if it follows my advice of building a tall office building above the train station (please read my earlier post that explains this idea in detail) and by doing that, can provide a lot of money to the general fund and increased future taxes to fund the top priorities of fire, police and roads. Finally, by doing this at a cost that is free, the city ends up with better infrastructure for the future.

Kishauwau

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 11:30 a.m.

All the sites are along the Huron? Maybe we could use barges instead of trains….Turn Ann Arbor into a water park!

deb

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 11:26 a.m.

Maybe they should figure out if the city actually NEEDS the train station first. Ridership numbers for Ann Arbor, although reported as increasing to the highest rate ever, are still very near the same numbers when ridership last peaked in the late 90's. We didn't need a train station then, why now? I still have not seen a persuasive argument on why the city needs to do this

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 11:09 a.m.

@a2grateful suggested someone re-post former Mayor Lou Belcher's comment the other day. Here it is: "It is time the city government started using "Management by Objective" as our City Councils practiced during my four terms as mayor. Priorities, set by importance, is the only way to operate anything, whether it is a government, a business, a family. For any city, the government's first priority MUST be the health and safety of it's citizens, just ask them. For example, we set the following top objectives: a police car in front of any address in two minutes, a fire truck in four minutes, waste pick up every week with a sanitary disposal methodology, clean water, etc. We built the sixth and last fire station to meet the four minute response goal and it is, in my opinion, very bad policy to dismantle the very infrastructure, that supports, what should be a number one priority. When the money runs out you stop on the last priority and, if you have money left, give it back to those who gave it to you. Look, you can help lead the effort for the arts without spending priority tax dollars. We helped create the Summer festival, the Michigan Theater, and the Hands on Museum with very little public money and the citizen volunteers took them over and saw to their funding (doing a heck of a lot better job than the city council could) and we asked the business community to help fund public art (which many did). Let's get back to the important things that government was formed to do, those things that individuals can not do alone." Absolutely, I agree that is what is needed. Our fire and police service and roads are not what they need to be. Our current Mayor has lost sight of the basics and is not providing the leadership required. However, please read my post about paying for the train station & generating new money for the general fund by building a tall building above the train station.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 10:59 a.m.

@KJM Clark: There is no need for two train stations. A train on the North-South Ann Arbor Railroad Line can switch to the East-West Amtrak line by stopping and then backing up for about 200-300 yards using a spur that crosses N. Main St. if that spur line were renovated and electronic train and car safety signals installed. A central train station for both lines is far superior and would drive greater ridership. In addition, many of those North-South riders are travelling to the area's largest employer, U-M Health System. A walking bridge from the Fuller Road site paid for by a 10-14 story medical office building above the train station (please read my earlier post for the details of that) would make their final walk to work easy.

Goober

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 10:53 a.m.

Yes! Spend money we do not have on a project that is not voter approved by a majority of registered voters. Sounds a lot like our group in power in DC. Politicians doing what they want with total disregard for the financial impact of their decisions. Go figure!

tdw

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 10:51 a.m.

I'm not from Ann Arbor so I don't have a horse in the race..BUT...considering the city's expatiation's of said station I'd say Fantasy Land

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 10:48 a.m.

The city needs to put this to a vote sooner rather than later. The city' could actually make a profit on building a new train station at the fuller Road U-M Health System site by building a tall medical office building 10-14 stories above the train station in a public-private sector joint venture. A 100,000 ft2 office building could generate a one-time profit of perhaps $30 to $60 million & more than pay the city's share of the cost of the train station. The rest of the money could go into the general fund to pay for more fire and police or better roads. Connected by a walking bridge directly to U-M's main hospital, this would be the preferred location for medical doctors practicing at the U-M to have their private practice offices. Time is money for doctors and having their private practice office within quick walking distance rather than a 10-15 minute drive would mean that they would be willing to pay a premium price for office space in this nearby location. Since the city already owns the land under the building, cost of building on this site would be lower. Demand for office space on the north side of Ann Arbor is strong, vacancy rates are low & the last large remaining vacancy is at the U-M owned North Campus Research Center which has only about 375,000 ft2 left to occupy but at the rate they are going, even that space will be full by the time a new building & train station is built. The city could put out an RFP to private developers to build the tall building & co-invest city pension funds on the same basis as the private developers to raise the price realized on the land sale. To ensure this property remains on the tax rolls after a sale, the city can put a deed restriction on the property that would require any non-profit that buys it in the future to pay the city annual payments in lieu of property taxes (PILOT) or a one time lump sum equal to the expected future net present value of those property taxes.

KJMClark

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 10:36 a.m.

They considered this question over a hundred years ago, when development patterns didn't limit their choices. They came up with a main Detroit/Chicago line station on Depot and a smaller Toledo/mid-Michigan line on Ashley and William. Why do we think we understand rail so much better now? If it's unusual to get money to build parking in a floodway, try building anything else there. And the fact that we don't 'usually' get federal money for that doesn't really mean anything. Just about any location will have challenges; the Depot location has most of the history and existing development on its side. The best alternative is greenfield development in a park. Finally, if you think elevated platforms are a problem, go to Chicago for a day. They figured that out pretty well, again, over a hundred years ago.

a2grateful

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 10:30 a.m.

How about letting Amtrak select their own site, and pay for their own train station? How about mayor, council, and city service employees taking care of true city business on behalf of residents? Will someone please post Mayor Belcher's recent post regarding city focus/priority philosophy? It offers great contrast to our current city hall foolosofee. . . PS How about Hieftje and Copper riding all of the city bike lanes on their bikes, surveying their handiwork first person?

Vivienne Armentrout

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 10:23 a.m.

"The city is counting on..." "The city is assuming..." Has there ever been a realistic evaluation of the likelihood of Federal funding for a new train station? Without such an evaluation, how can we be planning to spend our city's general fund on this project? Please do not include increases in Amtrak ridership or repair of the recently purchased Norfolk Southern track in your answer. The State of Michigan is now responsible for the Wolverine line. The track repair is from the HSIPR grant (see below). Old news. You should also omit the recent grant from the HSIPR program http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0554 that has funded the design grant. This was part of the stimulus program and has expired! No new funds! Please also do not include in your answer the expected growth in UM employment. That is not related to the question. Bonus points for knowing when Congress will end the sequester and bring current transportation funding up to MAP-21 (bill passed last year) levels.

Chip Reed

Fri, Mar 15, 2013 : 10:13 a.m.

How about the Gandy Dancer?