Some folks don’t get it. It being public relations.

-A-

I believe they had done some ridership calculations, but it’s only recently that they changed the system so that U-M affiliates had to swipe their ID (not just flash it). This will allow for a better accounting of how many rides are used. The calculation of “profit” might not be as straightforward as counting rides, however, since as I noted above the AATA qualifies for additional funding with the arrangement, and probably would not without it.

Has anyone actually calculated how many rides UofM has actually purchased and how many are actually used? I believe that AATA makes a profit from this arrangement, but I could be wrong.

I would wager that *none* of those who have been making decisions about the system actually rely on (or even use at all) the services they impact.

I must also say that although I am well-educated and understand the difficulties of administering a public transit system, I remain agitated about the fare increases. On any given bus trip, I watch the fare meter and see that less than 1 in 10 riders pay full fare, with less than 3 in 10 paying *anything at all*. Yes, someone theoretically pays their fare, but *they* don’t.

It makes one feel quite disenfranchised to live somewhere where belonging to a large protected class (U of M students, staff, instructors, WCC students, staff, instructors, employees of most large downtown area businesses, etc.) pay nothing to use the system, while another protected class (seniors, public school students, non-ADA disabled [whatever that means]) pay 1/4 of what “normal” citizens have to.

If part of AATA’s mandate is to encourage individual conversion to public transit, I would say their results are mixed at best.

Re: the rationale for the rate increases,

“(i) comparison to peer organizations showed that AATA’s fares were low”

That’s an observation. For it to be a justification for change it would need to be placed in some broader context. [See (iii) below.]

“(ii) there had not been any fare increase in a long time”

Ditto.

“(iii) without a fare increase, a structural deficit was projected.”

That would be more accurately stated as “at current fares, projected ridership and funding levels, and projected operating expenses, a structural deficit is projected.” Lacking further information, I think the committee may well have jumped to a conclusion, which the board then followed. That’s not to say that fare increases aren’t the best alternative, just that other alternatives need to be explored before that could possibly be determined.

(The approach used for the underground parking structure downtown was of that sort: decide on a “solution” and then focus considerations, including public input, primarily on its scale.)

“For a ‘not poor, but not comfortably middle-class family who relies on transit day-in-and-day out,”’ Nacht said, ‘we’re talking about placing a substantial burden on a lot of families by increasing the fares this much.’ But Nacht continued, ‘We offset this with a large number of reduced fares.’”

The offset would accrue to the system, not to the individuals affected. This isn’t a logical reason to support the standard fare increase.

Finally, the projected impact of the changes include a 5-10% decrease in ridership. While that’s just a projection it’s arguably sufficient reason alone to have rejected the proposal.

I won’t repeat my comments regarding the illogical reduced rate for seniors, made on the previous Chronicle article for which Dave provided the link.

I hope the new director is able to provide better leadership on this sort of thing.