Seems like it makes sense to include "Birmingham" in the name, the more I think about it. It's not as if Birmingham didn't have a desire to be a part of this and it is part of the destination/stop from a rider's point of view. Keeping it in the name is a good branding strategy on many levels. I'm surprised at Doug Tietz's reaction, quite honestly, considering that I've heard he is a marketing guy. If being part of the name encourages/keeps the door open for Birmingham's involvement, why not do so?

The Troy Chamber should be concerned about Troy. If Birmingham was worried about the Birmingham businesses, they needed to pony up the dollars.

Mrs. Hodges, why not call it "The Birmingham Troy Transit Center" since Birmingham is such a great brand?

Troy's paying for it, it should be named troy. Also, the appeal of the birmingham name is daily getting diminished by the echoes of gunshots and the faint whir of police sirens approaching the scene an hour later.

How about the Janice Daniels/David Wisz Heroin Express Transit Center?
Isn't that what he, her "expert," called it.

Birmingham opted out. Troy should have as well. But since Troy went through with this it should be in the city of Troy's name only. Now if Birmingham wants to chip in for the cost of this soon to be crime ridden not used eyesore, then by all means let them sign a contract to help cover costs and they can have their name on the building.

Also since Michelle Hodges doesn't seem to have much faith in the brand of Troy. Perhaps the Troy Chamber of Commerce should have a new President.

The funding for the transit center is Federal. Birmingham residents pay federal taxes too. Isn't Birmingham just the other side of the tracks? It seems to me the purpose of the name is simply to clarify the location for transit riders. Lots of transit stops are a named this sort of way.

How about we name it the Slater/Fleming Transit Center, since they were the ones with enough vision, intelligence and guts to find a way to keep it alive against all odds (and by odds, I mean Daniels, Henderson and Tietz.)

Not the time to be petty. It's not about money, or pride. The name communicates location and access to two communities. Communication is key and a long term asset. Stop being all Jerry Springer and decide based on intelligence.

Chris and Katie make the most sense. I live in Birmingham, and understand why anyone who pays taxes in Troy would not want to have my city name on something they (Troy) paid for it. However, it is about the cities the rail station serves (it is located on the borderline) and not who paid for it. BTW - if you want to be purely technical about the money, the lion's share of funding came from state and federal tax money, which happens to include the citizens of both Troy AND Birmingham. Think of other examples: "Detroit Metropolitan Airport - DTW" is not located in Detroit, but Romulus (and their name is nowhere on that huge facility). Just saying.

I don't necessarily buy that having the Birmingham name in there would increase its marketability. On the other hand, it is right on the border of Troy and Birmingham, so I do see the point of marketing as a stop for both cities. Patrons really don't care what city is responsible for building it. I think we are putting a little too much stock in the name. If people are trying to travel to Birmingham, they can look on a map and see the Troy Transit Center would be the nearest stop.

Of all the issues to get worked up about, this would seem kinda low on the list. I really like the job that Michelle Hodge does for the Troy Chamber and the positivity she tries to bring to Troy, but its really not her call. If the council wants to keep the name as just Troy, then I can't see much of a big deal about that. I just don't see it making much of a difference either way.

Name it Troy only, and it will always be Troy-centric. Seems to me, to be narrow thinking. But, then again, that seems consistent with Troy's behavior as of late. Interesting that folks like Dave Henderson and Doug Tietz would throw out the idea of partnering with the county for things like assessing and police protection, but something like this they get all territorial about. And to think they don't even think the thing is viable to begin with. They mystify me. And don't even remind me of how Wade Fleming is responsible for the "green" aspect of the project being eliminated. These guys couldn't be visionary if it was even just about crawling out the black hole of narrow mindedness they seem to reside in. Thank goodness Michele Hodges is in the mix to try to bring fresh, creative thinking.

Hopeful for thoughtful contemplation regarding the pros and cons, I'd like to share the Chamber's rationale for including Birmingham in the transit center name. I welcome and seek to inspire high quality dialogue as we work together to find the option most likely to benefit Troy (it should be emphasized that providing the greatest benefit for Troy has grounded this thought process). With that said, the reasons for including Birmingham include 1) it reflects the considerable resources (staff as well as dollars) dedicated by Birmingham hitherto, keeping in mind the transit center likely would not exist without the support of B'ham; 2) the station actually loads within B'ham proper; 3) as demonstrated by its active participation in the process, it was B'ham's intent to be a part of the center only to be stymied by a land issue; 4) we believe there is value in good will, especially when it is collaborative, and not to the detriment of Troy; to be continued....

continuation from above.....5) there is a reasonable chance B'ham will eventually physically connect to the center, which must be planned for; 6) we believe Amtrak and other partners would see it as good business; 7) the funding model has not changed in that Troy is not paying a larger share and, in fact, the case could be made that B'ham put money and resources into the project, and will not receive a corresponding benefit; 8) travelers will be better oriented if the name is a more accurate representation of the geography; 9) Birmingham, like Troy, has an outstanding brand that makes sense to associate with; 10) and, lastly, we have reached out to the B'ham business community hoping to bring them to the table financially, but are not far enough along in the discussions to know what might transpire. The elements just stated form the Chamber's basis for including Birmingham in the name, and have enabled the conclusion that doing so constitutes a best practice, and poses no threat to Troy. Again, we look forward to continuing to work with Troy stakeholders to find the best possible solution.