Ann Arbor's proposed Fuller Road transit station topic of public meeting on June 2
Ann Arbor officials announced today they're planning to host a public information meeting regarding the new Fuller Road transit station project from 7-9 p.m. June 2.
Eli Cooper, the city's transportation program manager, presents plans for the Fuller Road transit station at a recent AATA meeting.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The meeting will take place inside the council chambers at city hall, 100 N. Fifth Ave. This is the fourth public meeting on the project, which will be completed in two phases in the coming years.
At the upcoming meeting, attendees will have the opportunity to view further developed sketches and plans of the design, continue discussions from past meetings with the design team and express support, concerns or feedback on the proposed project.
The first phase of the project, which will include facilities for buses and bicycles, is estimated to cost $43 million. A new Amtrak train station is planned to be built in a second phase, which would cost another $30 million to $40 million.
One of the major elements of the first phase is parking for 1,000 vehicles — a net increase of about 750 spaces on the site. The University of Michigan is paying for 78 percent of the total project costs, as it would use the majority of the parking spaces near the U-M hospital.
The project site is located in the vicinity of an existing surface parking lot south of Fuller Road, and east of the Maiden Lane and East Medical Center Drive intersection.
Originally planned for a May submission to the Planning and Development Services Unit, city officials say the collaborative project between the city and U-M is now scheduled for submittal in June.
For more information about the project, contact Dave Dykman at (734) 794-6410 ext. 43685 or ddykman@a2gov.org.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
logicnreasoning
Mon, May 24, 2010 : 1:29 p.m.
But you are forgetting about the bus station. If AATA puts a new hub at this site, there will be MANY more people who could take the bus to work at the medical school and hospital. Currently, most bus lines go downtown and you have to change buses. This inconvenience causes many to not consider taking the bus. So it is not just a garage and is a transportation center even if the train part of the project is delayed a few years.. If there is an increase in bus ridership where many more cars are taken off the road, the environment benefits and there will be less traffic congestion around town for those who must drive. That is a good tradeoff for a piece of land that is currently a paved parking lot on a strip of land that is of no other use.
blahblahblah
Fri, May 21, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.
Blue Eyes: I don't care for the location either, but it could be worse- sending the university looking for an alternative location and they decide to buy up more private land rather than building on an existing public parking lot. As I mentioned earlier, if the city has something the university wants, then here's an opportunity to get something in return. As for the future train station phase, with no federal dollars to fund the Detroit/Ann Arbor commuter line, there will be no future need to move the Amtrak station. So let's just call this project what it is - Fuller Garage, not Fuller Station (unless of course they are going to add a gas station).
Blue Eyes
Fri, May 21, 2010 : 8:54 a.m.
Rather than a land swap, have UM build the parking structure for their employees on their land that already is not on the tax rolls. The UM has been extremely reluctant to contribute their fair share for City services so why are we falling all over ourselves to build a parking structure for them?! As far as building a new Amtrack station - if Amtrack wants a new station, let them build it themselves on their own property with their own money. Why should the City continue to get involved in things that are not mandated. Didn't anyone learn anything from the latest budget crisis - go with the necessities, shelve the fluff until you're flush enough to be able to afford it! Also, they want to do all of this on parkland! That would be the parkland that the citizens value so much that it very nearly outranks safety on the citizens valued wish list!
blahblahblah
Fri, May 21, 2010 : 7:46 a.m.
Mr. Bean, I like the land swap idea, however adding more parkland won't offset the extra costs of 750 more daily commuters to this area. The majority of these new parkers will travel across numerous city streets to get to this central location, therefore adding to the deterioration of those streets and increasing our street maintenance costs. In my opinion, here's what the city should be asking for: 1.) Instead of more land, the university should financially contribute to the completion of the border-to-border trail along the Huron River which would encourage non-motorized commuting and provide better access to this great asset. 2.) (Keep this one in your back pocket) but if the federal funding for the Stadium Bridge does not come through, than swap some of the University golf course for routing Stadium south around the clubhouse to the State and Stimson intersection for an "at-grade" crossing and save the city millions in the cost of constructing two new bridges.
Steve Hendel
Fri, May 21, 2010 : 5:24 a.m.
It IS ironic that the first step in this transit station project is the construction of a large parking structure. The rest of the project is 100% up in the air-the first priority seems to be to help the U build more parking for it's employees.
Steve Bean
Thu, May 20, 2010 : 3:20 p.m.
Ryan, the earlier article you provided the link to refers to comments from Cooper stating "hope" and "intent", which I think are more accurate than saying that it "will be completed". Similarly, a more conscious choice between "will" and "would" might help readers understand whether certain aspects have already been approved or are still part of the "proposed project". On the question of the use of city parkland for this purpose, which has been raised elsewhere, a friend suggested to me yesterday that a land swap between the city and the university might be more appropriate than a lease agreement. Prior to the public meeting, people might want to think about whether any university owned sites exist that might be appropriate (in size, value, etc.) possibilities for use as parkland of some sort in exchange for the university getting this site (primarily) for a parking structure.