Ken, I have a vague recollection that this question was dealt a glancing consideration at some meeting I’ve attended recently, but cannot recall and I’m not turning up anything in my notes. That vague recollection is that the conclusion could be summarized as: No, UM is a creature of the state. Thinking about how the RTA would theoretically exercise “control” I think it boils down to the fact that UM is not a transportation provider in the sense of the RTA legislation. So the RTA would not be able to issue directives to UM about making its routes coordinate to serve the interests of regional connectivity etc. UM doesn’t receive state operating assistance through Act 51, so whatever leverage is given to the RTA by the legislation (5% withholding) wouldn’t apply anyway.

As far as the M-Ride program — which allows UM affiliates to board any AATA bus by swiping their M-Card (fares paid by an arrangement with AATA) — I can’t see how the RTA could affect that program directly. That is, I can’t see how that any of the powers of the RTA has could be construed to allow the RTA to say: Alright, AATA, we don’t care for this financial arrangement you have with the M-Ride program, so stop doing that. Totally theoretically, imagine the RTA issues some coordination directive to the AATA so that the regional connector service between Detroit and Ann Arbor is met with more buses when it arrives at Blake. And to comply with that directive, the AATA tweaks the timing of the stops for Route X, which has the undesired impact that UM students who previously took Route X to class are now five minutes late to class … or some such. That seems to me like a sort of tiny ripple that already exists within any transit system any time any kind of change is contemplated.

The two missing bills have still not been passed.

To the extent that Section 6(3)(b)(i) of the RTA act restricts AATA’s ability “to acquire, construct, operate, or maintain any form of rail passenger service within a public transit region”, it would also restrict any newly formed transit entity within the four county area.

Section 2(m) of the act defines a transportation provider as “an authority or agency existing on or created after the effective date of this act.” The new RTA has the same authority over existing and newly created transportation providers.

I agree that it would only take a majority vote of the new RTA Board to create a new transit entity under Section 7 of the act. After that entity was formed, the new entity would be subject to the oversight and planning control of the RTA Board. Under Section 8 (2), the new entity could not apply for any federal funding (rail or otherwise) without the permission of the RTA. And under Section 7, it could not initiate any rail planning or service without the unanimous support of all members of the RTA Board.

The new RTA will have significant negative impact on local control of our transit system. The AATA will be subordinate to the RTA and will be a tiny portion of the overall regional transit system. The single favorable impact of this new law is that it will restrain the AATA, the City and any new transit entity in the pursuit of unaffordable rail service.