The federal money is used to offset UM’s cash contribution covering fares for its affiliates. In other words, the AAATA gets $1 a ride from UM for UM affiliates. The federal grant is one source of funds UM uses to cover that $1 per ride. This actually makes the AAATA’s accounting a little tricky to follow. That’s because the federal grant revenue associated with the MRide program is not recorded under fares but rather as a grant. So if in a particular year the amount of the federal grant goes up, then accounting-wise that pushes fare revenue down, even though that doesn’t reflect anything more than the accounting practice. This is the point to which I was alluding when I wrote: “I’m going to gloss over one wrinkle involving the federal grant received by UM for operation of its own blue bus system, which the university uses to defray its cash costs to cover the $1 fares for its affiliates.”

Finally, although UM enrollment has been growing over the time period covered, it is not clear to me that we should expect that trend to continue.

Also of interest was today’s A2News “Go-Pass” article which included an AAATA survey revealing that only a third of current go pass users would be willing to pay for a bus pass if the go pass service did not exist.

This third of current riders willing to pay without the subsidy also includes those without cars, so apparently less than one-third of current go pass riders with cars would be willing to pay if no subsidy existed.

I find this very surprising. As current users on the bus system, one would think they would miss taking the bus, especially since the “out-of-pocket” cost would still be less than parking downtown??

This also reflects poorly on the perceived value of the service with less than one third of the existing clientele (with cars) willing to pay for the service!

I employ 15 people in my firm at Main and Huron. Some use transit; some walk; some drive. My employees commute from south Lyon, Brighton, canton, Ypsilanti as well as from the City. We currently have a good system for the City and a poor one for the region. I can move my firm outside downtown and even outside the City and get free parking and be right off the highway…. Easier for employees and clients. But I Want to be downtown…but we are the downtown of a region, not just a city…. I am a really small employer….. Think about what it takes to maintain a vibrant downtown, because that affects not only the pleasure of living/working in Ann arbor but most importantly provides the private sector tax base to spare residents who own homes in the City from singlehandedly shouldering the municipal tax burdens. I know Ann Arbor is not Ypsilanti, Detroit, flint, Benton harbor, Jackson….we have um…..but UM doesn’t pay taxes, so homeowners need a private sector to share that burden. Regional transit will over time inure to the benefit of city taxpayers.

The AAATA’s five year plan will add a significant amount of new service. That new service will come with a significant price – we will pay 1/3 higher transit millage (the City’s current $9 million will increase to $12 million). You get what you pay for, so each voter should be able to decide whether they are willing to pay more to get more.

On the other hand, the five year plan is just one component of all the transit plans in the pipeline. The University, AAATA and City are working on the Connector Plan, the cost of which is not included in the five year plan. The Connector will be expensive and will serve mostly the UM community. Nonetheless, the City and AAATA will likely contribute to its cost.

AAATA continues to plan both east-west and WALLY commuter rail service. Commuter rail is wildly expensive (approximately $10 million per year to subsidize the east-west commuter rail service) and is not included in the five year plan.

Washtenaw County is one of four counties included in the Regional Transit Authority (RTA). The RTA will need a local source of funding, which may be an increase in vehicle registration fees.

The 1/3 increase in our local transit millage is just the beginning of the various taxing plans that we will face to finance all of our transit planning. It would be nice to know the full price before we proceed with any one part of these plans.

For sure. I didn’t mean to imply that the question was answered by the report to which I linked – rather that Denver’s case study in the report includes a technique for adjusting to cost of living that could be applied to Ann Arbor and its peer group (if one had the resources to undertake such an analysis).