Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, handed the microphone around to board members at a May 16 meeting so their commentary could be more easily heard. Board member Anya Dale had just finished speaking. (Photos by the writer.)

The two key documents approved or endorsed by the board were the articles of incorporation for a possible new transit authority, and a four-party agreement establishing a framework for possibly transitioning AATA to that new authority – now with the working name of “The Washtenaw Ride.” The four parties to the agreement are the AATA, Washtenaw County, the city of Ann Arbor and the city of Ypsilanti. [.pdf of articles of incorporation]

Board action came in the context of various unknown factors, including continued federal funding, pending state legislation on a regional transit authority for southeast Michigan, and the number of Washtenaw County municipalities that will participate in a possible countywide authority. Another uncertainty relates to the status of the four-party agreement, which the Ann Arbor city council approved on March 5, 2012, after amending (several times over multiple meetings) the version that the AATA had first presented.

A wrinkle emerged on May 15, 21012, when the Ypsilanti city council approved the four-party agreement, but amended it in a way that requires reconsideration by the Ann Arbor city council. In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, mayor John Hieftje indicated that the four-party agreement would be back on the Ann Arbor council’s agenda for its June 4 meeting. [.pdf of red-lined four-party agreement as amended by Ypsilanti city council]

The Ypsilanti amendment relates to a 1% municipal service charge that the agreement originally allowed the two cities to impose on their millages, before forwarding the millage money to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council struck the municipal service charge from the agreement. At its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had already contemplated – and rejected, on an 8-3 vote against it – an amendment of the language related to the municipal service charge.

Balanced against that set of uncertainties was a generally very optimistic tone during the meeting, with board chair Jesse Bernstein indicating that he felt that no matter what happened on a variety of fronts, the AATA was well-positioned for the future.

Bernstein and the board’s optimism was based in part on positive reports on several fronts. The doubling of frequency on the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Route #4 has resulted in 20-25% ridership gains on that route. The new Ann Arbor-Detroit Metro airport service had double the number of passengers in the last week of April compared to the first week of April, when it was first launched. AATA’s vanpool service is poised for implementation. And results of a survey conducted on board AATA buses late last year indicate a high level of customer satisfaction among AATA riders.

On the budget front, AATA controller Phil Webb also delivered positive news, in the context of an approved budget this year that was expected to absorb additional expenses in order to pay for some of the new service initiatives. Through the first six months of the fiscal year 2012 (which began Oct. 1, 2011) the AATA is under budget by around $500,000. The board had approved a budget on Sept. 15, 2011 that called for tapping fund reserves for $1 million. Now, Webb said, the AATA could finish the year breaking even, depending on how things play out in the second half of the fiscal year.

The board voted to support three other resolutions at the meeting: (1) approval of a contract for vanpool and rideshare matching software; (2) approval of a contract for construction of additional bus shelters; and (3) approval of revisions to the AATA’s procurement manual. The board also got updates on a number of other projects, including the construction of the new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor.

Future Governance

The board considered two key documents related to a possible transition to a new governance structure for countywide transit authority: a four-party agreement, and the articles of incorporation of the new authority. The current working name of the new authority, “The Washtenaw Ride,” replaces a previous working name of “Washtenaw Area Transportation Authority.” [It was discovered that WATA is an acronym already in use by another transit authority.]

The four parties to the agreement are the AATA, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County. One key element of the four-party agreement is that the two cities would pledge their existing transit millages to the new countywide authority, instead of to the AATA. The Ann Arbor city council approved a version of the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012, after amending the version that the AATA had first presented. Amendments were made in several ways, and stretched over multiple meetings.

On May 15, 21012, the Ypsilanti council approved the four-party agreement, but amended it in a way that requires reconsideration by the Ann Arbor city council. [.pdf of red-lined four-party agreement as amended by Ypsilanti city council] The Ypsilanti amendment relates to a 1% municipal service charge that the agreement originally allowed the two cities to impose on their millages, before forwarding the millage money to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council struck the municipal service charge from the agreement.

But at its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had already contemplated – and rejected, on an 8-3 vote against it – an amendment of the language related to the municipal service charge. At that meeting, Ann Arbor councilmembers appeared keen to retain the maximum allowable amount of the municipal service charge.

Possible composition of board membership for a Washtenaw countywide transit authority. (Links to larger image.)

The AATA board’s resolution on May 16 did not try to resolve differences between the versions of the four-party agreement that have now been approved by the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Also considered by the AATA board at their May 16 meeting were the articles of incorporation of the new transit authority. The evening before, the Ypsilanti council unanimously approved, without amendment, the proposed articles of incorporation. The Ann Arbor city council has not yet voted on the articles of incorporation. [.pdf of articles of incorporation]

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners will consider the four-party agreement and the articles of incorporation in the near future. County commissioners have already been briefed more than once on AATA’s countywide initiative, but have not yet formally considered the proposal.

An unincorporated Act 196 board (U196) has been seated and has met since the fall of 2011. Its membership includes the following: Membership in the 11-member U196 board is: Pittsfield District – Mandy Grewal (supervisor, Pittsfield Township); Northeast District – David Phillips (clerk, Superior Township); North Middle District – David Read (trustee, Scio Township) with alternate Jim Carson (councilmember, Village of Dexter); Southeast District – (1) Karen Lovejoy Roe (clerk, Ypsilanti Township) and (2) John McGehee (director of human resources, Lincoln Consolidated Schools); West District – Bob Mester (trustee, Lyndon Township) with alternate Ann Feeney (councilmember, city of Chelsea); Ypsilanti District – Paul Schreiber (mayor of Ypsilanti) with alternate Peter Murdock (councilmember, city of Ypsilanti); South Middle District – Bill Lavery (resident, York Township); Ann Arbor District: (1) Jesse Bernstein (AATA board), (2) Charles Griffith (AATA board) and (3) David Nacht (AATA board).

Governance: Four-Party Agreement

Introducing the voting item on the agenda, board chair Jesse Bernstein told the board that if there are changes to the agreement made by the other partners that affect the AATA, the document would come before the board again. Depending on the change, however, Bernstein indicated that the board might be simply apprised of that as a point of information.

Noting that the city of Ypsilanti had voted on the four-party agreement the previous night, Eli Cooper wondered if the AATA board was already in a situation where it would need to vote again on the issue – after Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor had resolved the changes that had emerged in the document. CEO Michael Ford told Cooper that the focus had been on the allowable municipal service charge that the two cities could deduct from their millages, before transferring the tax levy the new transit authority. So that issue will need to be presented to the Ann Arbor city council. The Ypsilanti council had made another change, Ford said, that was a clarification specific to Ypsilanti.

Cooper asked what would happen if the AATA board voted on the four-party agreement that day, and then subsequently the two cities resolve the difference: Would the AATA board need to ratify that? Bernstein felt that unless a change impacts the AATA, the board would not need to address the issue again. He felt the current situation does not impact the AATA.

[The current transit levy of roughly 2 mills on Ann Arbor taxpayers (decreased from the charter millage of 2.5 mills through the Headlee Amendment) generates roughly $9 million annually. So depending on the imposition of a 1% service charge, the city of Ann Arbor will either retain roughly $90,000 that would not be transferred to the new transit authority, or will transfer that $90,000 to the new authority.]

Bernstein continued by saying the board could bring it back for a vote anyway. David Nacht ventured that if the city council says the board should vote on it, the board would vote on it. Also, if a lawyer says vote on it, the board votes on it. If anyone says the board needs to vote, then the board votes on it, Nacht concluded.

At Roger Kerson’s request, Ford reviewed the basic timetable of approvals. The articles of incorporation still need to be approved by Ann Arbor. The issue in the four-party agreement on the municipal service charge still needs to be resolved by the two cities. Ford said the AATA had asked if the item could be placed on the Ann Arbor city council’s May 21 agenda. [In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, mayor John Hieftje indicated that the four-party agreement would be on the Ann Arbor council's agenda for its June 4 meeting.] Then the Washtenaw County board of commissioners needs to consider and approve its part of the four-party agreement. Bernstein indicated that by early June, he hoped all the documents could be approved.

Outcome: The AATA unanimously approved the four-party agreement, contingent on Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti coming to an accord on the language that now differs in the two versions that the respective councils have approved.

Governance: Articles of Incorporation

When the AATA board came to the specific agenda item that required a vote on the articles of incorporation, no one appeared initially inclined to speak to the issue before voting. But board member Charles Griffith said he felt like he should say something, given that he’d been part of the group that had gone through the document word-by-word.

AATA board members Charles Griffith and Sue Gott.

Included in the board’s information packet for the meeting was a listing out of the team that had reviewed the articles: Jesse Bernstein (AATA board chair); Michael Ford (CEO of AATA); Charles Griffith (AATA board member); Jerry Lax (AATA legal counsel); Jeff Ammon (AATA legal counsel); Sarah Gryniewicz (AATA community outreach coordinator); Terri Blackmore (executive director, Washtenaw Area Transportation Study); Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city council, Ward 3); Sabra Briere (Ann Arbor city council, Ward 1); Conan Smith (chair, Washtenaw County board of commissioners); Alicia Ping (vice chair, Washtenaw County board of commissioners); Paul Schreiber (mayor, city of Ypsilanti); Peter Murdock (Ypsilanti city council); David Phillips (clerk, Superior Township, U196 board); and David Read (trustee, Scio Township, U196 board).

Griffith described going over Act 196 of 1986 in great detail, describing it as a tortured piece of legislation. That was to make sure the articles of incorporation are consistent with the state legislation, he said. The original document was 2-3 pages, but it increased to around 14 pages and then the group had chopped it back down. The idea was to get solid buy-in from all the players, he said. [.pdf of one red-lined version of Act 196 transit authority articles of incorporation]

Outcome: The AATA unanimously endorsed the articles of incorporation for a new Act 196 transit authority.

Five-Year Program

Also key to any transition of governance from AATA to a new transit authority incorporated under Act 196  is a funding and service plan. The publication of details of the service and funding plan in a newspaper of general circulation is one of two requirements that must be met, before the AATA can submit a request to Washtenaw County to approve, sign and file the articles of incorporation of a new authority with the state of Michigan. The other requirement is that the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti must approve the articles of incorporation.

At the May 16 board meeting, Michael Benham, strategic planner for the AATA, reviewed highlights of the draft five-year plan. [.pdf of draft five-year plan]

The draft five-year service plan includes: (1) countywide demand-responsive services and feeder services; (2) express bus services and local transit hub services; (3) local community connectors and local community circulators; (4) park-and-ride intercept lots; and (5) urban bus network enhancements. For Ann Arbor, the program includes increased bus frequencies on key corridors, increased operating hours, and more services on weekends. The total hours of operation in the Ann Arbor district are expected to increase by 33% on weekdays and over 100% on Saturdays and Sundays.

Benham described to the board how a second round of district advisory committee (DAC) meetings was underway in each of the eight districts making up the representation on the U196 board. The goal is to provide an opportunity for continued feedback on revisions to the service plan. He indicated there was also interest expressed in a third round of meetings. Even after the five-year program document is finished, Benham said, there will be continued feedback into the future provided through the DACs.

The Ann Arbor DAC meeting had been held two days earlier on May 14 at the Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library. During public commentary at the board’s May 16 meeting, Vivienne Armentrout – a member of Ann Arbor’s DAC – criticized the level of detail provided in the five-year plan, as well as the way the DAC meetings are being run. She said she’d read through the plan twice, and felt that more detail on Ann Arbor route schedules was called for – given the relative dollar amounts that Ann Arbor residents would be providing, which she’s calculated at 75%.

Armentrout called the DAC “not particularly functional.” Of the two meetings, she said, the first was simply an introduction, and the second was a well-meaning attempt to combine a committee meeting and a general public forum. She told the board she had walked out in the middle of the second DAC meeting, because she was unhappy with the way it was being run.

Policy Discussion

The most substantive policy discussion undertaken by the board began with a question about placement of new bus stops. The five-year program of the transit master plan calls for nearly 50 new bus stops and improvements to 100 more. It then evolved into a discussion of land use, planning versus implementation, and express commuter services.

Policy Discussion: Washtenaw Corridor – Bus Stops

Board member Anya Dale asked about placement of new bus stops along Washtenaw Avenue. Chris White, AATA manager of service development, told Dale that one proposed new stop that’s in the works is at Washtenaw and Platt, partly in connection with the Arbor Hills Crossing development that is going forward.

White also described how Washtenaw County is working on developing a new parking lot on the north side of Washtenaw Avenue just east of US-23. He’s looking at the plans for that and trying to see if there might be ways to integrate a bus stop. The AATA is waiting for the result a right-of-way study that’s being done with the federal HUD grant that was awarded to the Washtenaw County Sustainable Community last year. [The county was awarded a $3 million grant in late 2011 for a project focusing on the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, spanning Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township.] Part of that study is meant to identify locations for bus stops, as well as for pedestrian and bicyclist improvements in the corridor, White said.

Policy Discussion: Land Use (Park-and-Ride)

Dale wondered about possible park-and-ride lot locations along Washtenaw Avenue. [Included in the five-year program are five additional general sites identified for new park-and-ride lots and two lots identified for improvements. The park-and-ride projects would potentially add 800 parking spaces designed for commuters to park, then take public transportation the rest of the way to their destination.]

Dale noted that the five-year program did not include any park-and-ride lots for Washtenaw Avenue. White responded to Dale by saying that AATA did not have plans for a major park-and-ride lot at Washtenaw Avenue. AATA’s review concluded that people would be accessing Washtenaw Avenue all along the corridor, not necessarily at a single point. Currently there’s a small lot next to the downtown Ypsilanti Transit Center with 11 spaces that AATA hopes to be able to expand, White said. The AATA is also looking for agreements with property owners along the corridor, to expand park-and-ride opportunities. That allows the AATA to avoid putting all its eggs in one basket and gives people options, he said.

[By way of background, the "eggs in one basket" reference was an allusion to the loss of park-and-ride opportunities in the Arborland shopping center. Around three years ago, the owner of the shopping center chose not to renew the agreement with AATA to accommodate a bus stop and park-and-ride spots in the parking lot there.]

Dale suggested that this basic strategy of smaller incremental expansion of park-and-ride opportunities could be included in the five-year program to help generate public support in the Ypsilanti area. She also felt that consideration should be given to locating a stop for AirRide (the AnnArbor-Detroit Metro service) in Ypsilanti. Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, told Dale that to address that issue, he was scheduling a meeting with Tony VanDerworp, a business development specialist for the county. And AATA is meeting with the Eastern Leaders Group, Ford said.

Eli Cooper indicated that he agreed with the incremental steps that AATA is pursuing now. But taking a longer view of that corridor, he encouraged consideration of the implications of the high level of transit service that’s currently in place and that’s expected to become more robust. How that service coordinates with the regional highway system should also be considered. The Washtenaw Avenue and US-23 interchange was an area of emphasis for Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) access management studies, and part of the city of Ann Arbor’s long-range transportation plan.

Cooper – who serves as the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager – noted that a very functional, large park-and-ride lot had been displaced [Arborland]. He encouraged AATA staff to use the current interest and current ridership, as well as benefit, to create an “intermodal opportunity” [i.e., park-and-ride lot] along that corridor. To him, he said, it seems there are a number of considerations that point to the Washtenaw corridor as an opportunity the AATA should capitalize on.

AATA board member Sue Gott, who works for the University of Michigan as its university planner.

Building on remarks by Cooper and Dale, Sue Gott suggested that looking into the future five years and beyond, she would love to see the county transition away from building larger and larger surface commuter parking lots to keep accommodating commuters. At some point, she said, the paradigm should be shifted to use land more efficiently by building parking structures. She said she understood the economic challenges of doing that. But as good stewards of the environment, she wanted to put that idea forward as something that the AATA should strive to achieve. When you look at Washtenaw Avenue, there’s not the land available for the demand that might exist. If the AATA could be innovative, Gott said, “we could set the bar in Michigan.”

Board chair Jesse Bernstein related Gott’s remarks to a concept that he said the AATA talked relatively little about, because the organization could not affect it directly – transit-oriented development. Bernstein described how many of the younger as well as the older generation are looking for more of a dense town center as a place to live. And as corridors are provided for development, that’s where development will occur, he said. Empty spaces or underutilized spaces on Washtenaw Avenue could be more densely populated living-working arrangements, Bernstein added, and the AATA can provide the back-and-forth connectivity. The AATA can aid density in a kind of chicken-and-egg way, he ventured.

Cooper said he appreciated Bernstein’s remarks on transit-oriented development. In the transit industry, he said, there’s also a notion called “development-oriented transit.” Bernstein is right, Cooper said, that as a transit authority, the AATA doesn’t control land-use decisions. However, the AATA does control its investment in transit. With respect to Gott’s point about the efficiency of land use – parking structures versus surface lots – he referred again to the MDOT access management study of the area around US-23 and Washtenaw. He noted that the study depicted a vision of a multi-level parking structure, wrapped with mixed land use, right where the Arborland parking lot is today. There are bigger “wins” out there, he said.

In terms of development-oriented transit, Cooper felt like the AATA should drive toward looking at funding the organization can obtain to guide those investments. In Minneapolis, Cooper said there was a Smart Growth Twin Cities program, which consisted of public investments – federal and regional money – to create parking structures in places like St. Louis Park. Those became the nodes for new growth opportunities in the region. And that is not going to happen unless someone takes the lead, Cooper cautioned. The AATA is well-positioned to begin to move that way, he suggested, using development-oriented transit strategies to encourage the local land-use decision makers to implement transit-oriented design.

Dale felt that in general the AATA has done an excellent job of providing service to everybody, which is the AATA’s primary mission. But there’s also an opportunity to be a leader in land-use development, even though the AATA can’t directly control it. It’s pretty well known that park-and-ride lots tend to incentivize sprawl, she said. So Dale stressed that it’s important to look at the placement of such lots. She weighed in against new flat lots just outside urban areas. She advocated instead for use of underutilized lots within the urban area.

Policy Discussion: Where’s Rail Transit in 5-Year Program?

Roger Kerson ventured that all the references to rail planning had been removed from the five-year program based on the advice of the financial task force – advice that activity should match where funding is available. But knowing the team of AATA staff and the board, he said, this would not be an arena where the AATA would be idle for the next five years. Those projects need outside funding and private partners; but because the AATA staff is as good as they are at “walking and chewing gun” and running the existing system while planning for expansion, Kerson expected some planning work would continue.

Kerson suggested that the AATA needs to think about how that can be communicated to people – that rail transit is not something AATA is going to do right now and it’s not something that a millage or vehicle registration fee would be tied to; however, there’d be activity in that area. That activity is part of the vision, Kerson said. And that’s a vision that attracts a lot of people – it’s one that attracts him, he said, when you say: If there could be a train here, wouldn’t that be great. Even though that’s not something that the AATA can deliver in the near term, he said, the AATA needs to make clear to people that there’s a 30-year vision as well as a five-year program. It would be helpful, he said, if it can be made clear that during the first five years, the AATA will still be looking at things that it will do over the longer term.

Michael Benham, AATA strategic planner, responded to Kerson’s remark about eliminating rail from the five-year program. Benham noted that reference to rail in the program has not been completely removed. Rather, rail has not been prioritized. In the five-year program document, he said, it’s noted there needs to be development work to keep those projects going. From the draft five-year program document:

Because of long lead times and requirements for involving many stakeholders, projects such as commuter rail and high-capacity transit require a level of planning investment and project development that may take place years in advance of the projects’ implementation. Accordingly, it is recommended that the AATA continue to include in its plans funding for such project development work, paid for to the extent feasible by State and Federal grants.

Eli Cooper allowed that perhaps he was the only one in the room who did not believe they’d have to wait five years to see the first next type of rail service arrive in Ann Arbor. He felt that the retreat that day would be a good opportunity to explore the AATA’s interests in defining how it sees its process as engaging in rail development – currently, not five, six or thirty years from now. The financial task force had some recommendations about two projects that have five to ten years of planning work behind them already, he noted: commuter rail and local higher-capacity transit. Cooper’s interest was in exploring as a board what the AATA’s role is with rail – recognizing that the federal and state government is in the process of investing $0.5 billion in improvements in the railroad corridor.

The most recent reports from SEMCOG, which has been the lead agency for commuter rail, is that they’re working with the Federal Transit Authority on an environmental assessment. An environmental assessment is the study that’s needed in order to access federal funds for the commuter rail service. Their timetables are within a matter of a couple of years, Cooper reported – saying that it seems like “it’s always a couple of years out.” He wondered what the AATA can do to keep it moving forward – as an entity that’s connected to and serving a community that will benefit from rail service.

Cooper was not content to say that rail is something out in the future: “The future is now.” He suggested having AATA staff coordinate with SEMCOG and MDOT, and bring forward whatever the community needs to do – AATA and Washtenaw County – to help facilitate implementation of the rail service. As the AATA is implementing express bus services, he felt that rail should remain in the plan “in a timeframe that’s deemed appropriate through a coordinated effort with the professionals.” That timeframe on the rail project can be provided back to the financial task force and the rest of the community, Cooper said.

Charles Griffith supported Cooper’s suggestion. He’s heard a lot of comments from community members expressing disappointment that the commuter rail project is not being emphasized as an option. The financial task force was making a recommendation based on the availability of funding, he said. It doesn’t mean that commuter rail is not a priority any longer. It just means that it’s on a slightly different track. It’s important to clarify within the first five years what the track looks like, he said, and what it would take to keep the studies moving forward.

Griffith also brought up the Ann Arbor Connector (from US-23 and Plymouth through the campus, downtown and south to I-94), which he described as a project that excites him and the community – the idea that Ann Arbor could have something that’s world class. It’s important, he said, to move beyond just buses – not that there’s anything bad about buses.

Griffith said he uses his bus each week to get to work, but buses don’t offer a lot of excitement, he said. New forms of transportation are something that many people in the community think Ann Arbor is ready for and should have. And the AATA is the entity that can make that happen, Griffith said. He wanted to make sure people didn’t think the AATA was de-emphasizing those projects, just because they are on a longer-term track. Michael Ford, the AATA’s CEO, indicated that he was actively pursuing funding for the next stage of the connector study (the alternatives analysis), working with the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor.

[What's already complete is a feasibility study. What's needed now are local matching funds for a $1.2 million federal grant that the AATA obtained last year for the alternatives analysis phase. In November 2011, Ford updated the board on the possible timeline for the alternatives analysis, saying that this phase – in which a preferred technology and route with stop locations would be identified – would take around 16 months if it begins in April 2012. A final report would be expected in August 2013, he said at the time.]

Ford felt he’d have a clearer idea about the status of local match money he’s pursuing from the city of Ann Arbor and UM later in May.

Later in the meeting, board members returned to the idea that the AATA needs to focus on clearly communicating about the difference between implementation and continued planning, guided by a 30-year vision, which includes commuter rail.

Jesse Bernstein said he wanted to speak to where the AATA stands as a board. Zingerman’s [a local deli that has spawned a community of related businesses] talks about the north star – the place we want to go, knowing we might never get there, he said. That’s the 30-year vision of the transit master plan (TMP). The five-year program reflects what the financial task force told the AATA could be achieved with local funding over the next five years. But Bernstein said the AATA should continue to work on everything in the 30-year vision. “We’re looking at what we can do when,” Bernstein said. Planning for rail would continue at the staff level, he ventured.

Kerson agreed with Bernstein, saying it’s a matter of communicating. The potentials for rail should be included in the AATA’s planning scenarios, he said. When the Ann Arbor city council was considering the four-party transit agreement, state Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-53) addressed the council, Kerson said, and told councilmembers said Ann Arbor can’t control what Lansing does, but Ann Arbor can control what Ann Arbor does.

Sue Gott added to Kerson’s remarks on communication. The theme she felt could be highlighted is that there are items that are “in front of us” in terms of implementation. But there are other projects that are “equally in front of us” in terms of planning, but are not yet in an implementation mode. It’s a matter of making sure the AATA is using the right language so that community expectations are managed effectively, she concluded.

Policy Discussion: Express Commuter Service

Sue Gott asked Michael Benham what the methodology was for deciding express bus services. Benham explained that staff had started with a list of options that had been considered some time ago – they’d studied origin-destination pairs. Consultants had analyzed demand for those services and selected those that appeared to have the best cost-benefit ratio.

Charles Griffith allowed that there’s some concern about the extent to which the AATA emphasizes service for those who live outside of Ann Arbor and even outside of Washtenaw County. The board’s performance monitoring and external relations committee, he reported, had a goal of minimizing the cost to citizens. For the commuter services, he continued, the AATA has achieved reductions in the amount of the local millage that’s used for the service – but there’s still a share paid out of the local millage.

Griffith pointed out there are also costs of not using the millage to help fund the commuter service: more cars on roads, more cars in parking structures and the like. Griffith said the board felt comfortable there’s some role for the AATA to play. It’s worth being thoughtful about how to characterize express bus services as the AATA continues to plan additional commuter services, he said. The cost of the express services would potentially be covered, he ventured, and part of the countywide initiative is an attempt to share costs more widely than just Ann Arbor. Griffith said he felt the role the AATA should play is to try to allocate fairly the cost of service to those who get the benefit.

By way of background, revenues for commuter express for the first half of FY 2012 (through March) showed $54,138 in passenger fares (some portion of which University of Michigan paid, for any of its employees who used the service) and $42,313 in state operating assistance – for a total of $96,451. Expenses for commuter express over that period were $138,053, leaving a total of $41,602 that was covered by Ann Arbor taxpayers.

Benham noted that the five-year program’s differential fares, based on geographic zone, are a part of the attempt to allocate costs fairly.

Eli Cooper recalled that when the board initially considered implementing the Chelsea commuter express service, one of the board members at that time had suggested that it needed to be self-funded. Cooper had argued that the fares needed at least to be competitive with the cost of driving and parking. The good news, he said, is that there’s more room in the cost equation for commuter service as potential riders compare costs – because “the cost of dinosaurs” (i.e., gasoline) is 2-3 times higher now than it was then. But Cooper noted a limit as to how high the fares can go on commuter service.

Cooper then highlighted why the conversation in Ann Arbor includes commuter service. The fact is, he said, that 70,000 workers commute to jobs into Ann Arbor every day. He repeated that fact for effect. Of those 70,000 people, 95% arrive in a car, he said. That causes huge expenses – parking spaces at $50-60,000 per parking space. That cost is not borne by commuters, but by the community. On top of that, there’s the congestion and the time lost because of competition for that “fleeting space.”

Locally, it’s not feasible to knock down buildings where employees work, in order to widen roads, Cooper said. And there aren’t significant state and federal funds to widen roads like M-14 or I-94, he said. So, Cooper concluded, it might be for the greater good of the community that ways are found for people to travel in groups of 50-70 people (i.e., on buses), instead of filling up lanes on the freeway and streets and creating a need to construct expensive parking structures. It’s 70,000 commuters today, but the city of Ann Arbor is planning based on tens of thousands of new employees in the next 30 years. Commuter express, he said, is an economic tool.

Gott wanted to know if “cost avoidance” is being factored in by calculating actual dollars. That’s an area the AATA could look at added data, she suggested. Benham indicated that cost-benefit analysis had been done in connection with the transit master plan, but it had been done on a fairly high level. He felt more detail could be achieved.

Outlook: Uncertainty, Optimism

Board chair Jesse Bernstein summarized his view of where things stood – in the context of the wide-ranging policy discussion, as well as a previous presentation from AATA community outreach coordinator Sarah Gryniewicz.

Outlook: Uncertainty

Gryniewicz had noted that the AATA has been working across jurisdictional boundaries. If and when the countywide process moves forward and local funding is approved, the board would need to work on a transition process, she said. That involves transitioning the board, its assets and its various committees, including the local advisory council.

As the district advisory committees give their recommendations and refinements are made and different communities decide whether to participate, adjustments will need to be made.

By way of background, if a municipality that has thus far participated in the process were to withdraw, that would reduce costs, because service would not be extended to that area. But it would also reduce revenues, because the additional funding such an area would otherwise contribute (property millage or vehicle registration fee) would not be collected. For example, on May 8 Northfield Township voted 5-1 to rescind the inter-local agreement under which it had been participating in the northeast district and the U196 board.

Ultimately, Gryniewicz said, the funding question will come to the AATA board and the U196 board. As the two entities get closer to the final five-year program and the AATA gets updates from the legislature, the financial advisory task force can be reconvened as appropriate, she said.

Right now there are two main funding options that might be available. The one that is currently available is a property millage. The five-year program currently would require the equivalent of an 0.05 mill tax countywide, she said. She compared that to the rough equivalent of the recently successful technology bond approved in the May 8, 2012 election by voters in the Ann Arbor Public Schools district.

The second option – a motor vehicle registration fee – would still need state enabling legislation, Gryniewicz said. She said the AATA is working with the governor’s office and the state legislature to make sure that option also works for the AATA. At the Ann Arbor district advisory committee meeting held on May 14 at the Malletts Creek library, Bernstein had identified Republican state Sen. Tom Casperson – who represents Michigan’s 38th district and chairs the senate transportation committee – as a legislator with whom he and AATA CEO Michael Ford were working directly. Bernstein also indicated at the May 14 DAC meeting that they were working closely with Gov. Rick Snyder, who lives in Washtenaw County.

Gryniewicz sketched a legislative update on the federal level, saying that the U.S. Congress is still working on a transportation bill. The main debate, she said, does not seem to be about transit, but rather about the Keystone Pipeline and job creation. But on the transit end, it’s encouraging, she said, and Michigan’s legislators are working hard to ensure that transit funding is maintained and that there’s room for growth.

At the state level, several transit-related policy items are being discussed, she said. One of the main sets of bills involves changes to Act 51, she said. Right now it looks like all local transit authorities – like the AATA – would be able to maintain their current state operating monies. A separate fund would be established for higher-capacity transit, like rolling rapid transit (aka bus rapid transit) or connectors. The AATA will continue to work with the state, she said, on developments that related to the regional transit authority (RTA) bill. The governor’s office and other legislators, she said, have been very supportive of the AATA’s efforts to develop the transit master plan (TMP) and are fully aware of the AATA’s planning efforts.

The RTA legislation would establish the possibility of a four-county area as a regional transit authority: Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland counties. For more detail on the possible RTA legislation, see Chronicle coverage: “Michigan Regional Transit Bills Unveiled.” At the May 14 DAC meeting, Bernstein had talked about the possibility that Washtenaw County could be separated out from the other three counties – a possibility that has not yet been formally introduced in the state legislation. Bernstein felt that if the legislature did not act before the summer recess at the end of June, the issue would not be taken up until the “lame duck” session after the November election.

Outlook: Optimism

At the board’s May 16 retreat, Bernstein said the most important thing is funding. If through “some horrendous outcome” the federal programs supporting transportation don’t continue, then the AATA would be in a very different position than it is now. The AATA board has a policy that the AATA won’t do anything that is not funded, he said.

AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein.

Bernstein felt that the AATA is well-positioned, no matter what. The AATA could remain an Act 55 transit authority and continue to deliver services. But there’s a well-thought-out plan to change to an Act 196 authority, he said, adding that he saw the AATA moving ahead without any reservations.

If there is another option of having a regional transit authority, and another funding option based on vehicle registration fees, the AATA is in position to take advantage of that, he said. Whichever way the wind blows, the AATA is positioned to go any direction that situation leads them, he said. The reality, Bernstein allowed, is that without more revenue, AATA will remain an Act 55. But the AATA won’t give up on its 30-year vision – the AATA would accomplish the vision the best it can. Bernstein concluded his remarks with a lot of praise for the AATA staff.

New Service Initiatives: Vanpools

The board was briefed on the status of a number of initiatives the AATA has been working on. One of them is the entrance of AATA into the vanpool market. Vanpools are essentially a group of people who are provided a vehicle, and charged a price for the use of that vehicle so they can drive to work together.

AATA’s planned entrance into the vanpool services market comes in the context of the discontinuation of the Michigan Dept. of Transportation’s MichiVan program. AATA’s strategy is essentially to step in and provide an alternative to MichiVan – as the vehicles currently being used reach the end of their useful life. So AATA intends to add those already existing vanpools to its operations. The University of Michigan has around 90 such vanpools. On Sept. 15, 2011, the AATA board authorized a contract with VPSI to provide vanpool services, and on Jan. 19, 2012, the board authorized the purchase of up to 25 vans to provide the vanpool service.

During an update on board initiatives that started last year, community relations manager Mary Stasiak laid out the sharing of responsibility between VPSI and AATA for the vanpool service. VPSI handles maintenance, insurance, vehicle prep, driver training, background checks, billing, and reporting. The AATA handles contract oversight, vehicle purchase and ownership, promotion, customer service, and vanpool group formation.

The fleet is currently seven and they’re currently having decals put on. Right now, the purchased vehicles are being stored at the dealership at no cost. Stasiak expected those vehicles to be put into service quickly. The rates charged to riders, she said, are expected to cover costs. The rates are different depending on whether the trip origin and end are both in Washtenaw County. For start and end in Washtenaw County, the minimum number of riders in a pool of four plus the driver is charged at $99 per rider. For 5-6 riders plus a driver, that per-rider cost drops to $79 per rider. Outside of Washtenaw County, the respective rates for different numbers in the vanpool are $139 and $119. In all cases, the vanpool driver’s cost is zero.

Vanpools: Software

The board considered a five-year contract totaling not more than $125,000 with Ecology & Environment Inc. for rideshare and vanpool matching software. The software will be paid for using existing and anticipated federal funds, provided to the AATA through the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) program.

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, a requirement of the software is that it must be accessible through standard Internet appliances, and provide instant, accurate online ride‐matches through detailed map information presented to the end‐user. It must also integrate with social networking services such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Google+.

Vanpools: Software – Public Comment

During his first turn at public comment, Thomas Partridge mentioned the vanpool software contract. He told the board he was there as an advocate for residents of Washtenaw County who need and deserve public transportation. He said he was a long-time and constant advocate for conversion of AATA to a countywide system. He was there to advance that cause on behalf of those people whose interests don’t appear on the agenda. There are multi-year contracts that favor people with jobs, he said, alluding to the vanpool software item. The beneficiaries of that are well-paid UM health system employees, he contended, and there were no corresponding improvements in senior and handicapped services.

Vanpools: Software – Board Deliberations

Anya Dale sought clarification about ownership of the software. Staff indicated that it was a licensing arrangement, not a purchase. Board chair Jesse Bernstein said he wanted to hear somebody say that the cost includes all updates and upgrades. Community relations manager Mary Stasiak told Bernstein that was the case – unless the AATA makes requests for custom functionality.

Eli Cooper indicated he’d vote in support of it. He noted that 20 years ago, when he’d worked in the field, vanpools and transit were seen as competitors. With that background, he said, he supported the AATA’s entry into the vanpool market as movement in a positive and progressive direction.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the vanpool and ride-matching software.

New Service Initiatives: Airport Service

AATA deputy director Dawn Gabay gave the board an update on the recently launched AirRide service, which provides service between Ann Arbor and the Detroit Metro Airport. Gabay described how the AATA had negotiated with Michigan Flyer on the public-private contract,  which provides 12 daily roundtrips between Ann Arbor and the airport. [Key to the economics of the service is the fact that the Detroit Metro Airport is not assessing an entrance fee to the AirRide service – because the Michigan Flyer buses are operating under the auspices of the AATA. Public transit is not charged an entrance fee, but private operators must pay an entrance fee.]

The promotional fares will end on July 30, Gabay said. She  described various discounts for seniors and children. She also described the other partners with whom the AATA is working on the service, including the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The DDA has arranged for passengers on AirRide to park at the  Fourth and William parking structure for $2 for up to 2 weeks. The Kensington Court hotel, a stop on the AirRide service, is providing parking at a rate of $2/day for up to three weeks. Detroit Metro Airport has allowed wayfinding signs (that indicate public transit) and has assigned AirRide a designated bus stop. The  Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau, Michigan Flyer and the University of Michigan have also helped promote the service, Gabay said. She provided the first four weeks of ridership statistics.

AATA ridership on the Detroit Metro Airport to Ann Arbor service: Weeks 1-4 (Image links to higher resolution file.)

During subsequent board discussion, Roger Kerson related an anecdote about his own experience with the service. He said it was terrific – the pickup from the Kensington stop was on time. On his return trip, he changed his plans and did not get on the bus he’d reserved – and he received a call saying, “You didn’t meet the bus at your spot, so when can we pick you up instead?” Kerson concluded that the level of service that’s being provided is really excellent.

The fact that the ridership has doubled over four weeks shows that this is a service that can work, he ventured. What causes him concern, he said, is that he doesn’t see “AATA” or “The Ride” anywhere in the signs at the airport. It says “public transit.” So as the AATA looks to expand the service generally, he wanted to have the AATA brand on it somewhere. Given that the name of the AATA might be different very soon, that might not be easy to change, but he felt that on the AirRide website at least, it should be clear that it’s the AATA that’s getting you to the airport.

New Service Initiatives: Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Work

A desire for an increase in frequency of service was a highlight of a recent on-board survey that included 2,824 riders. [.pdf of survey report] Increased frequency is being implemented as part of a workforce transportation initiative on Route #4 between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.

Route #4 performance since implementation of increased frequency of service.

Chris White, AATA manager of service development, gave the board an update on the impact on ridership of the Route #4 service, since the frequency was doubled in February, to run every 5-10 minutes during peak times and every 10-20 minutes midday. Part of the implementation was to develop two variations on the route. Unchanged on Route #4 is the section  between the downtown Ypsilanti Transit Center westward to Geddes and Washtenaw. But now, half the buses go to the University of Michigan and the others go to the central campus. White explained that this route variation cuts eight minutes off the round trip of every bus, without reducing service levels at the UM hospital.

So the strategy has spread the ridership load. The impact has been beyond what the AATA expected, White said, even though the location of the route hasn’t changed. Ridership systemwide was already up about 5-7%, but since implementation of the increased frequency on Route #4, he said, the increase in ridership on that route has been 20-25%. White said he’s anxious to see how ridership continues to change on the route.

On-time performance on Route #4 since implementation of increased frequency of service.

On-time performance has also improved significantly on that route, partly due to the fact that the buses are not as crowded. White explained some amount of increased ridership was expected – because that’s typically what happens. But typically, the impact is not seen the next day, because it takes a certain period for riders to adjust and become aware of the availability of increased frequency. The increased ridership the AATA has seen on the route, he said, reflects that there’s a lot of latent demand in that corridor.

Another initiative related to workforce transportation is the expansion of the geographic area served by the AATA’s NightRide service. NightRide is a demand-response service that’s offered when the regular fixed-route bus service stops running, and on holidays. Passengers have a similar experience to ordering a taxi; the standard fare is $5. The cost is high enough so that it does not really attract a lot of casual riders, White explained. Work transportation is the predominant use.

Increased ridership on the NightRide service since geographic expansion of its service area.

White explained that the service was limited to the city of Ann Arbor when it was first offered in 1983. In April of 2011, the geographic are was expanded as far east as Golfside Road.

That had not resulted in a significant ridership increase, White reported. But in January 2012, the service area was expanded to Ypsilanti, and that had a significant effect.

The expanded NightRide service is being funded by a federal Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) grant. Board member David Nacht asked when the JARC grant ran out. White explained that it’s a continuing funding source. However, White said, it would be his preference to find a different way to fund the roughly $23,000 cost long-term, and to use JARC to fund new initiatives.

New Service Initiatives: E. Medical Center

A status update on another new initiative was the extension of the AATA’s A-Ride service to a location outside Ann Arbor – to the University of Michigan’s East Ann Arbor Health Center (EAAHC), starting last year on July 1, 2011.  The university and the AATA share the cost of trips from Ann Arbor, White said. UM pays the entire cost of trips from outside Ann Arbor.

Usage of the A-Ride service is about what the AATA predicted, White said. About 17% of the rides are for passengers who use wheelchairs.

Other Initiatives: Bus Shelters

The board was briefed in moderate detail on a number of other initiatives that are not covered in this report. They include the reconstruction of the downtown Ann Arbor Blake Transit Center, the bus garage expansion on South Industrial Highway at the AATA headquarters, development of the new AATA website, and bus stop improvements.

One news item from the presentation on bus stop improvements related to the technical problem of transmitting real-time arrival information to the lighted signs at the University of Michigan central campus transit center. That looks to have been solved, and might be implemented sometime over the summer.

One voting item that related to the general program of bus stop improvements was a contract with Duo-Gard Industries to provide shelters at stops. The $390,000 contract is to manufacture and install around 60 bus shelters and 126 benches over a three-year period. There’s an option to extend the contract twice, for a year at a time. The AATA expects to use existing and future federal and state grant funds to pay for the shelters.

During the brief board deliberations on the item, Eli Cooper said he recalled when the AATA approved its first contract with Duo-Gard, it was a local vendor that made exciting new shelters. “We’ve seen them, we love them, we’re going to get more of them,” he said. Cooper also noted that Duo-Gard was the low bidder.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the contract with Duo-Gard.

Budget Update

The budget approved on Sept. 15, 2011 by the AATA board expected to tap the fund reserve for around $1 million in a $30.4 million expense budget. The board characterized it as a calculated risk to fund some of the service initiatives on which the board was briefed at the May 16, 2012 retreat.

At the retreat, AATA controller Phil Webb briefed the board on the status of the budget. Through March (midway through the AATA fiscal year) the AATA is about $573,000 under budget. Factors contributing to that, Webb said, included the fact that the budget provided for an earlier launch of the AirRide service. The educational expenses associated with the transit master plan (TMP) have been less than anticipated. And finally, some staff positions have been vacant for part of the year.

Webb said he felt that depending on revenues, it might be possible to break even for the year, or have a small surplus. The variable, Webb said, is the cost of the education effort associated with the TMP.

Public Commentary

AATA board meetings provide two chances for public participation – one near the beginning and another at the end, each time limited to two minutes. The first session is meant to be restricted to agenda items. Commentary not otherwise included above is reported here.

Thomas Partridge said he was there as a declared candidate for the state of Michigan’s house of representatives 53rd District (a spot currently held by Democrat Jeff Irwin). His platform includes countywide, regionwide and statewide interconnected public transportation. He advocated that the board adopt the concept of integrated services – in terms of those people needing services the most, in terms of access to affordable housing,

Partridge told the board he was there to speak frankly. Many candidates for public office like to go before the public with smiling faces and gloss over serious problems. The AATA board needs to address the issue of connecting with the public, he said. He complained about the length of that day’s session, which prevented people from staying through the whole session. Partridge also objected to the fact that the meeting was being held in a venue where it was not videotaped for broadcast on Community Television Network (CTN).

Present: AATA board members Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Eli Cooper, Sue Gott, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to get on board with The Chronicle, too!

The board’s resolution did not try to resolve differences between the versions of the four-party agreement that have now been approved by the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. Instead, the board gave the four-party agreement its approval, contingent on resolution of the technical difference that has emerged between the Ypsilanti version and the Ann Arbor version – a difference that concerns a municipal service charge. The AATA board may need to vote again on the agreement, depending on how Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti change the document.

The four parties to the four-party agreement are the AATA, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County. One key element of the four-party agreement is that the two cities would pledge their existing transit millages to the new countywide authority, instead of to the AATA. The Ann Arbor city council approved a version of the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012, after amending the version that the AATA had first presented. Amendments were made in several ways, and stretched over multiple meetings.

On May 15, 21012, the Ypsilanti council approved the four-party agreement, but amended it in a way that may require reconsideration by the Ann Arbor city council – in the opinion of Ypsilanti city attorney John M. Barr. [.pdf of red-lined four-party agreement as amended by Ypsilanti city council] The Ypsilanti amendment relates to a 1% municipal service charge that the agreement originally allowed the two cities to impose on their millages, before forwarding the millage money to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council struck the municipal service charge from the agreement. But at its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had already contemplated – and rejected, on an 8-3 vote against it – an amendment of the language related to the municipal service charge.

Also approved at the AATA board’s May 16 meeting were the articles of incorporation of the new transit authority. The evening before, the Ypsilanti council unanimously approved, without amendment, the proposed articles of incorporation. The Ann Arbor city council has not yet voted on the articles of incorporation. [.pdf of articles of incorporation]

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners will consider the four-party agreement and the articles of incorporation in the near future. County commissioners have already been briefed more than once on AATA’s countywide initiative, but have not yet formally considered the proposal.

This brief was filed from the Holiday Inn Express, 600 Briarwood Circle, where the AATA board held its monthly board meeting, which it combined with a retreat. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

The four parties to the agreement are the AATA, the city of Ypsilanti, the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County.

The Ann Arbor city council approved a version of the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012, after amending the version that the AATA had first presented. Amendments were made in several ways, and stretched over multiple meetings.

However, on May 15 the Ypsilanti council amended and approved the agreement in a way that may require reconsideration by the Ann Arbor city council – in the opinion of Ypsilanti city attorney John M. Barr. [.pdf of red-lined four-party agreement as amended by Ypsilanti city council]

The Ypsilanti council also unanimously approved, without change, the proposed articles of incorporation for the new transit authority. The Ann Arbor city council has not yet voted on the articles of incorporation. [.pdf of articles of incorporation]

The amendment to the four-party agreement, proposed by Ypsilanti councilmember Peter Murdock, had two components. Murdock’s amendment involved the transit millages currently levied by the cities of Ann Arbor (a perpetual millage authorized in the charter at 2.5 mills) and Ypsilanti (a .9879 mill tax authorized by voters in 2010).

First, Murdock’s amendment  eliminated a “municipal service charge of 1% of the annual millage,” in all sections where it appears – for Ypsilanti and for Ann Arbor. In the original four-party agreement (approved by the Ann Arbor city council), the two cities would be able to withhold the 1% municipal service charge from the millage dollars they transfered to the new countywide transit authority. The rationale, Murdock said, is that “the money should go to the new authority, not to the two cities, and that Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor should both do that.”

The second component of the amendment was specific to Ypsilanti. The following language was inserted: “… and in Ypsilanti specifically authorize the continued collection and transfer of the full Charter Transportation millage to the new Act 196 TA.”

By way of background, Ypsilanti voters approved, in 2010, a “Charter Transportation” amendment to the city charter that provides for .9879 mill of the city’s revenue to be used to pay for a purchase-of-service agreement with AATA. That part of Murdock’s amendment is intended to remove any uncertainty about that provision in the future.

The Ypsilanti council voted after hearing a presentation by AATA CEO Michael Ford, who focused on the improvements that the countywide system could bring to Ypsilanti. Ford said that AATA would consider the four-party agreement on May 16 (at its combined board meeting and retreat), and that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners would consider it in the near future.

AATA strategic planner Michael Benham sets a stack of draft reports on the table at the AATA's April 26 special board meeting, held at its headquarters on South Industrial Highway. (Photos by the writer.)

The draft plan is to be reviewed by the public for a 30-day period. Eventually, a final plan will be adopted by the AATA after incorporating public feedback and consultation with an as-yet unincorporated board of a countywide authority.

Like the task force recommendations, the AATA’s April 26 draft service and funding plan stops short of recommending a new tax to fund additional services. However, the draft plan does identify 0.5 mills as the countywide tax rate that would be needed to cover the $32 million gap between revenues and costs for expanded service. One mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value. The draft plan also provides a program of overall fare increases as well as differentiated ticketing for specific services – like service on express routes, or discounted fares for families.

The draft five-year service plan includes: (1) countywide demand-responsive services and feeder services; (2) express bus services and local transit hub services; (3) local community connectors and local community circulators; (4) park-and-ride intercept lots; and (5) urban bus network enhancements. For Ann Arbor, the program includes increased bus frequencies on key corridors, increased operating hours, and more services on weekends. The total hours of operation in the Ann Arbor district are expected to increase by 33% on weekdays and over 100% on Saturdays and Sundays.

Publication of a final funding and service plan is a required step in a framework that could lead to the formation of a new transit authority, tentatively being called the Washtenaw Area Transportation Authority. The new authority would have broader representation, funding and coverage area than the AATA. The “four-party agreement” framework under which the transition could take place has been ratified by only one of the four parties – Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor city council voted 7-4 at its March 5, 2012 meeting to ratify the agreement.

As a party to the agreement and the initiator of the process, the AATA board is expected to ratify it in the near future. The Ypsilanti city council is expected to take up the issue after the May 8 election, when Ypsilanti voters will make a decision on a city income tax and a bond issuance to cover debts associated with the Water Street property. Washtenaw County is the fourth party to the agreement.

In another action item on the short April 26 agenda, the board authorized the purchase of a six-foot strip of land from the city of Ann Arbor, adjacent to the Blake Transit Center. The acquisition of the land will allow the AATA to reconfigure the new Blake Transit Center (now expected to start construction in the fall of 2012) with a transit center on the southeastern corner of the parcel, on Fifth Avenue. The Ann Arbor city council had authorized the $90,000 sale last year at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

In an item added late to the agenda, the board also authorized a change order to a painting contract for the expanded part of the AATA bus storage area that’s being constructed. To the original $66,187 contract, the board added another $68,000 to include the cost of painting the pre-existing portion of the structure, as well as the cleaning and surface preparation of the pre-existing area.

5-Year Service/Funding Plan Draft

AATA strategic planner Michael Benham summarized for the board the table of contents of the draft report. He noted that the report had been distributed to board members.

The five sets of services – which Benham characterized as the “heart of the plan” – are as follows: (1) countywide demand-responsive services and feeder services; (2) express bus services and local transit hub services; (3) local community connectors and local community circulators; (4) park-and-ride intercept lots; and (5) urban bus network enhancements.

Subsequent chapters, Benham said, describe fares and ticketing, and an analysis by district of the different types of services each area would get. Also addressed in a subsequent chapter are other ongoing planning issues that continue to merit the AATA’s attention – even in the first five years of the plan. Implementation issues are also addressed in a subsequent chapter, Benham said.

The appendices, Benham explained, include “a ton of details” from schedules for various services, in many cases the routes, and detailed district-by-district descriptions of the program. He called the board’s attention to the fact that the maps included in the initial draft would be improved on – in terms of their image resolution.

The draft plan will now go out to the district advisory committees, which have scheduled meetings so far as follows:

• Tuesday, May 1, 7–9 p.m. South Central District (Saline Senior Center, 7190 N. Maple Road, Saline)
• Wednesday, May 9, 6–8 p.m. West District (Washington Street Education Center, 500 Washington St., Chelsea)
• Thursday, May 10, 6:30–8:30 p.m. Southeast District (Lincoln High School, 7525 Willis Road, Ypsilanti)
• Monday, May 14, 7–9 p.m., Ann Arbor District (Mallets Creek branch library, 3090 E. Eisenhower Parkway, Ann Arbor)
• Tuesday, May 15, 5:30–7:30 p.m. Northeast District (Superior Township Hall, 3040 N. Prospect, Ypsilanti)
• Wednesday, May 16, 7–9 p.m. North Central District (Scio Township Hall, 827 N. Zeeb Road, Scio Township)
• Thursday, May 17, 7–9 p.m. Pittsfield District (Pittsfield Senior Center, 701 W. Ellsworth Road, Pittsfield Township)
• TBD Ypsilanti District

5-Year Plan Draft: Public Comment

5-Year Plan Draft: Board Deliberations

Other than the board’s congratulatory remarks and expressions of appreciation, deliberations focused on: (1) clarification of the significance of the draft report release; (2) funding for continued planning of high-capacity transit projects that cannot be constructed without additional state or federal funds; and (3) questions about implications for fares.

5-Year Plan Draft: Board Deliberations – What Does it Mean?

Board member David Nacht led off the board discussion by asking about the legal significance of the board passing this resolution: What does that actually mean? Michael Ford, AATA’s CEO, explained that the board was simply releasing the document to the public for a 30-day review period. Nacht confirmed that the board was saying this is the draft version of the plan for how the AATA wants to expand the system in the first five years. He wanted to know if that plan was based on an additional 0.5 mill tax countywide.

Michael Benham responded to Nacht’s question by explaining that the plan’s budget is consistent with the revenue levels that would be generated from a 0.5 mill countywide tax level. However, Benham continued, like the financial task force’s recommendation, the draft plan that the board was voting to release stops short of recommending a millage as a funding source.

Nacht noted that when the board was considering the 30-year plan initially (as opposed to just the first five years of the plan), the board had contemplated 1 mill. Given that this report has services that would be funded through just 0.5 mill, he ventured that it “cuts out” some projects.

5-Year Plan Draft: Board Deliberations – Other Non-Local Projects?

At that point, board chair Jesse Bernstein interjected that the plan does not cut out anything, but rather separates out projects that would require state and federal money that the AATA does not yet know if it’s going to get. So, continued Bernstein, what the AATA is saying to the public is: This is what we can assure you we can do, if we get this amount of money. The 30-year transit master plan has not changed, Bernstein stressed, and when the funding becomes evident, then the AATA will be able to implement the rest of the program.

AATA board chair Jesse Bernstein.

Nacht asked if the five-year plan includes the items for which funds are not yet identified as a kind of “wish list.” Yes, Bernstein said, that’s Chapter 10 in the report.

Eli Cooper said that as a professional transportation planner, he understood that the plan for services is funded. But planning also costs money, he said. Although he often says that planning is cheap, that’s only relative to delivering a capital project, Cooper said. Even though it’s cheap compared to building a capital project, it still costs real money, he cautioned.

It’s his understanding, Cooper said, that the Federal Transit Administration has provided some funding for a specific alternatives analysis project. [Subsequent remarks indicated that Cooper meant the Ann Arbor connector study – which is looking at a high-capacity connector in a boomerang-shaped corridor between Plymouth Road and US-23 southward down through the University of Michigan campuses and central Ann Arbor to State Street and I-94. The board got at update on that project at its Jan. 20, 2011 meeting.]

Cooper wanted to know where in the draft report he could find a recommended local matching share so that the AATA could continue to receive the federal funds to continue that planning study.

Benham indicated that the draft report doesn’t contain a specific discussion of local versus federal funding, but in Chapter 10 it talks about high-capacity transit lines and the need to continue to plan those. But the plan does not say that a certain amount of money is allocated to match federal funding. Bernstein indicated that this would be a topic of discussion at the board’s retreat on May 16 – which will combine a regular meeting with longer-term planning. That’s where Cooper would get a guarantee that the local match would be there, Bernstein said. Cooper indicated that he was not looking for a guarantee, rather just trying to understand what’s in the report.

Charles Griffith indicated that the issue identified by Cooper is part of the normal budget process. While the local matching share for those studies can amount to a substantial amount of money, it’s not on the scale that would be laid out in the draft plan they were voting to release. Michael Ford indicated that there would need to be a discussion about what the AATA’s portion of the local match would be. Benham indicated that in connection with the five-year plan, there’d be an annual element that will be very specific in its detail, which would then become synonymous with the budget.

The concern expressed by Cooper to continue to fund the planning for future high-capacity projects was reflected also in the April 10 minutes of the AATA board’s planning and development committee:

Eli Cooper was assured by Michael Benham [AATA strategic planner] that the FTF is an advisory task force, with the board having ultimate authority to accept, decline, or modify their recommendations. Eli expressed concern with only using local money for local projects for the first 5 years. If this was to occur, then the Board may not be in alignment with their overall priorities (for expansion of services).

5-Year Plan Draft: Board Deliberations – Fares

Griffith asked for a quick summary of the fares discussed in the report. Benham began by distinguishing between fares and ticketing. Fare levels were recommended by the financial task force to increase in overall level – cash fare would increase over the five-year period from $1.50 to $2.00. The AATA could accept that recommendation or not, Benham said. The report contains an analysis of the revenue impacts as well as the ridership impacts. The board would need to have a policy discussion about the level of fares and desirability of raising the level.

Also described in the report are a variety of new, different ticketing types, Benham said. For example, evening tickets would be priced in a way that’s attractive to people who don’t use the system on a regular basis. Also proposed is a family fare ticket. The rationale behind the family ticket is that when you add riders to transit, typically each additional person costs more to ride. Adding additional passengers to a car doesn’t cost more for each person. So the idea is to make the price for a group trip affordable for families on the weekends. Also proposed is a weekly fare, Benham said.

5-Year Plan Draft: Board Deliberations – Support, Thanks

Cooper indicated he’d support the resolution and took the opportunity to congratulate the staff and the project team for developing an excellent document. He encouraged the public to take time to go through the details. There’s a lot of dense information in the report and the appendices. The purpose of moving it forward is for public review and questions. There’s a connection between the services, the fare structure and other costs, which are all woven together in the fabric of the report.

Left to right: AATA board members David Nacht, Charles Griffith and Eli Cooper.

As the AATA shares the document with the public, he said, the reaction in one area or another might “pull on the tapestry” a little bit, where the AATA might have to make changes. That’s the purpose of the report – it’s not the final statement. He complimented the team that had produced the report, because the document really does weave together the elements to make the type of system people have discussed for years. Releasing the report, Cooper said, is for the purpose of continuing the dialogue under the same transparent process it had already evolved. He looked forward to the work the board would get back from the community in the coming month.

Bernstein agreed with Cooper and extended his appreciation to the staff. The fact that the board scheduled a special meeting to release the report reflects that the AATA wanted to take the time to make sure the report is as good as it can be, he said. There will be ongoing input and changes as the process goes forward, he said. Bernstein noted he’d served on the board almost four years, and he’s still learning about transit. He imagined it would be overwhelming for the public to digest a report like this. He hoped that the AATA could continue educating people and that people would also reach out to find out what’s going on.

Nacht also expressed appreciation to the staff. He noted he’d looked at an earlier draft of the report and made suggestions. His suggestions were not incorporated verbatim – but he could see the impact (on some commuter express services) so that he could tell that serious thinking was done in response to his comments. That’s all a lay board member can ask, he ventured – that board members’ ideas are taken seriously and the professionals look at those ideas. “I’m blown away by the level of detail,” he said. Rather than being overwhelmed, he said, if he were a member of the public or a local township official, he’d pull out the schedules and the maps for his district and say, “Hey! Does this make sense?” And he’d make sure that people went to the district meetings. He concluded that he was very impressed.

Griffith noted that the AATA has been out in the community for almost two years. He’s now excited to hear what people think about the draft plan. He assumed some small changes would need to be made, but hopefully not big changes. He reiterated that he’s really excited to hear how people respond. He hoped it will prove out that the AATA has done its work right and that people will be excited to see what the AATA has come up with.

Bernstein hoped the public remembers that this draft five-year plan is part of a 30-year plan. Transit can’t be implemented overnight. Successful transit systems across the county have taken decades to implement, he said. Some things will be implemented if the AATA has the money, but he said that public input would be ongoing. The district advisory groups would be in place forever. He hoped that those groups would establish a culture of filling the AATA in on what it needs to do to make the system better.

CEO Michael Ford reciprocated the thanks that the board had expressed to the staff by saying he appreciated all the board members’ help.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the release of the draft five-year service and funding plan.

Land Purchase

The board also considered a resolution authorizing the purchase of a six-foot-wide strip of land from the city of Ann Arbor, which will allow the AATA to reconfigure the new Blake Transit Center with a transit center on the southeastern corner of the parcel, on Fifth Avenue. The Ann Arbor city council had authorized the $90,000 sale last year at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting. The $90,000 sale price of the 792-square-feet of land was determined to be the fair market value by an independent appraisal.

This AATA-owned parcel, where Blake Transit Center is located, sits in the middle of the block bounded by Fourth and Fifth avenues on the west and east, and by Liberty and William streets on the north and south. (Image links to higher resolution view.)

At the council’s meeting, one concern expressed was whether the sale of the strip might have a negative impact on the value of the larger parcel, at Fifth & William, the former location of the YMCA building. The city owns the property and would eventually like to see the parcel developed with a different use from its current one – a surface parking lot. The city council was advised that the sale of the strip was not thought to have a negative impact on the value of the larger parcel.

At a public participation meeting on the new BTC, held at the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library later in the evening on April 26, the expected construction start of the new center was described as the fall 0f 2012, with completion of the project by June of 2013. The project will next be reviewed by the city planning commission, possibly at its May 15 meeting. The plan has already undergone a review by the city’s design review board (DRB). Some DRB members wanted the AATA to consider maintaining the current placement of the building on the site, on the northwest corner. Other feedback from the DRB included a suggestion for better articulation of entrances to the building and more attention to the pedestrian experience through the site. [.pdf of DRB report]

During public commentary at the AATA’s April 26 meeting, Edward Vielmetti congratulated the AATA on coming to an agreement with the city of Ann Arbor on the transfer of real property, without causing tremendous amounts of drama. The ability to move a six-foot-wide strip of land through an appraisal process is something to take some pride in, he said.

At the AATA’s April 26 meeting, CEO Michael Ford indicated that ordinarily he could authorized the land purchase under his own authority [for contracts up to $100,000].

But because it involves the purchase of land, it needs to be approved by the board, he said. To move forward with the Blake Transit Center reconstruction, the six-foot strip of land was needed, Ford said.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the land purchase, with abstention by Eli Cooper. Cooper is employed by the city as its transportation program manager.

Land Purchase: Abstention

Eli Cooper abstained from the vote on the land purchase because he’s an employee of the city of Ann Arbor, the entity from which the land is being purchased. There was a moment of indecision about whether the motion had actually passed – with just three affirmative votes. [Three of seven board members were absent.]

According to AATA staff, the board’s bylaws indicate that a majority of members present is needed to pass a resolution, not a majority of board members who serve on the board.

The draft articles of incorporation of the possible new transit authority differ in that respect: “Decisions of the Board of Directors require a majority vote of the Directors appointed and serving at a Board meeting having a quorum present.”

It’s not clear that Cooper was legally required to abstain from the vote. A similar issue has arisen in connection with contracts between the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the city of Ann Arbor. At the May 5, 2010 DDA board meeting, a question was raised about the participation of mayor John Hieftje and city councilmember Sandi Smith in a vote they’d be taking as DDA board members.

When the DDA board resolution took the form of a grant to the city, legal counsel for the DDA – Jerry Lax, of Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels – analyzed the situation as requiring Smith and Hieftje to recuse themselves, which they did. But when the resolution was on a contract between the DDA and the city, he analyzed their participation as conforming with Act 317 of 1968 ”Contracts of Public Servants with Public Entities.”

The statute prohibits public servants from soliciting contracts with entities by whom they are employed:

(2) Except as provided in section 3, a public servant shall not directly or indirectly solicit any contract between the public entity of which he or she is an officer or employee and any of the following: (a) Him or herself. (b) Any firm, meaning a co-partnership or other unincorporated association, of which he or she is a partner, member, or employee. [...]

However, there is a specific exemption for contracts between two public entities [emphasis added]:

15.324 Public servants; contracts excepted; violation as felony. Sec. 4. (1) The prohibitions of section 2 shall not apply to any of the following: (a) Contracts between public entities.

Lax also serves as legal counsel for the AATA.

Bus Garage Painting

The board considered a change order to a painting contract for the expanded part of the AATA bus storage area that’s been constructed. To the original $66,187 contract, the board added another $68,000 to include the cost of painting the pre-existing portion of the structure, as well as the cleaning and surface preparation of the pre-existing area.

Terry Black, AATA manager of maintenance, said the request for the change order was in conjunction with the bus storage garage expansion. The contractor will be painting the expansion portion of the garage. That will leave half the existing area dull and dingy, he said. He can’t use capital funds to do painting of the existing section, he explained.

So what he’s requesting is to use operating funds. Year to date, he’s spent $96,000 of his facility maintenance budget. He has $323,000 for the entire year – at roughly the halfway point. [AATA's fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30.] Typically, he said, he would be in the hole at this time of year, because of winter snow removal, but he’s in pretty good shape, he said. So he has $226,000 left in the approved FY 2012 budget. He wants to take a portion of that to paint the other half of the garage. It’s been 10 years since anything has been done to it, Black said. The 10 years of accumulation from buses idling has an impact.

David Nacht very much appreciated the clarification that it’s repurposing existing funds and there’s no budgetary impact. CEO Michael Ford said that if board members took the opportunity to look at the improvements that had been made to the bus storage and maintenance area, he felt they’d be impressed. Black gave board members a quick tour immediately following the meeting.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution on painting the garage.

Bus Garage Painting: Quick Tour

After the April 26 special meeting, AATA manager of maintenance Terry Black took board members on a quick inspection of the work they’d recently authorized, including the new bus storage facility and new hoists.

On the left is the newly constructed portion of the bus storage area. On the right is the pre-existing portion, which will also be painted, based on the AATA board's April 26 resolution.

AATA manager of maintenance Terry Black explains to board members how the new bus hoist is controlled.

This new hoist is long enough to accommodate articulated buses, if the AATA eventually acquires such vehicles. The external, above-ground posts allows for washing of a bus chassis, without having the contaminants from the wash run down into the inner workings of the lift. That's a negative impact of washing buses using a bus hoist with below-ground lifting mechanisms.

Public Commentary

At its April 26 meeting, the board entertained commentary from the public as required under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. AATA board meetings include two opportunities for pubic comment, one toward the beginning of meetings (restricted to commentary on agenda items) and one at the conclusion of meetings.

Comm/Comm: Scheduling Data

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Edward Vielmetti told the board he rides the #5, #6, #4, #22 and other bus routes. He said he uses the Mobile RideTrak to see how early he is for the next bus. A few years ago, he said, he’d requested from the AATA under the Freedom of Information Act the set of data that the AATA regularly uploads to Google – the Google Transit Feed Specification (GTFS). After some labor he’d received the data on a CD. He pointed out that it’s possible technically to put the data online so that as long as the terms and conditions are met, anyone can download it. It wouldn’t be real-time data, but rather an enhanced digital version of what the current schedule would be.

So Vielmetti asked the board to consider publishing the data that is already provided to a wealthy company based in California [Google] on the same terms to anyone who wanted it. One additional reason to care, beyond knowing where the nearest bus stop is: Other data sources like Walk Score use the proximity of bus stops as a proxy for how walkable an area is.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Eli Cooper.

Absent: Sue Gott, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Next regular meeting and board retreat: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at noon, Holiday Inn Express, 600 Briarwood Circle. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to get on board and support The Chronicle, too!

The plan will undergo a period of public review lasting 30-days.

The five-year program includes: (1) countywide demand-responsive services and feeder services; (2) express bus services and local transit hubs services; (3) local community connectors and local community circulators; (4) park-and-ride intercept lots; and (5) urban bus network enhancements. For Ann Arbor, the program includes increased bus frequencies on key corridors, increased operating hours, and more services at weekends. The total hours of operation in the Ann Arbor district are expected to increase by 33% on weekdays and over 100% on Saturdays and Sundays.

By way of illustration of the five-year service programs for other districts in the county, the west district (including Chelsea and Manchester) would see new weekday and Saturday curb-to-curb services (from home to their final destination), as well as new “feeder services” that would get residents from their homes to a transit connection.

Like the task force recommendations, the AATA’s April 26 draft service and funding program stops short of recommending a new tax as the way to fund additional services: ”This is not a recommendation that a millage be pursued as a funding source, but is intended to illustrate the level of funding that would be needed.” However, the draft program does identify the needed countywide tax rate to cover the $32.9 million gap in revenues and costs for expanded service as 0.5 mill. One mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

Funding for the service program in the draft plan would also depend in part on fare increases for specific services, as well as a possible fare structure based on concentric zones, centered on Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The next zone out would include Dexter and Saline. And the third zone would include the rest of Washtenaw County as well as parts of Wayne County, where the AATA already offers service to Detroit Metro Airport. Within zones, travel would be less expensive than across zones. Also included in the draft report are different ticket types, including family fares, and a 7-day weekly pass that would be more economical than a 30-day pass – to appeal to lower-income workers.

The report includes a number of appendices, including demographic projections for each of the county’s districts, as well as a breakdown of how the “transit dependency index” is computed, which was one of many factors in decisions about what services to include in the draft five-year program. Decisions about the elements to include in the draft five-year program also incorporated the results of a public outreach effort the AATA has made over the last year and a half.

Publication of a final funding and service plan is a required step in a framework that could lead to the formation of a new transit authority, tentatively being called the Washtenaw Area Transportation Authority. The new authority would have broader representation, funding and coverage area than the AATA. The so-called “four-party agreement” framework under which the transition could take place has been ratified by only one of the four parties – Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor city council voted 7-4 at its March 5, 2012 meeting to ratify the agreement.

As a party to the agreement and the initiator of the process, the AATA is expected to ratify it in the near future. The city council of the city of Ypsilanti is expected to take up the issue after the May 8 election, when Ypsilanti voters will make a decision on a city income tax and a bond issuance to cover debts associated with the Water Street property. Washtenaw County is the fourth party to the agreement.

The final five-year service and funding plan will be issued by the AATA after public review and discussion with the unincorporated board of the new transit authority (the U196 board), which has been meeting since fall 2011.

A series of district advisory committee meetings will start on May 1, through May 17. The Ann Arbor district meeting will take place on May 14 at 7 p.m. at the Mallets Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library.

This brief was filed from the AATA headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Highway, where the board held its special meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

The purpose of the meeting is to receive formally a detailed five-year service plan that has been developed by the AATA as part of its plan to expand its governance and transportation service to a countywide area. The service plan is part of a key step specified in a four-party agreement – between the AATA, the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, and Washtenaw County – that would establish a framework for a possible transition to a new governance structure. From the agreement: “… AATA will publish details of the service and funding plan in newspaper(s) of general circulation in the Washtenaw County.”

Of the four parties to the agreement, the city of Ann Arbor is the only entity so far to ratify it. The Ann Arbor city council voted to approve the four-party agreement at its March 5, 2012 meeting.

Bernstein indicated that it’s hoped the AATA board members will receive copies of the service plan by Monday, April 23, before voting on it on April 26.

Also at April’s monthly board meeting, AATA’s CEO Michael Ford indicated that the working name for the new transportation authority, if one is formed through the four-party agreement, is “Washtenaw Area Transportation Authority.”

The task force is currently “on hold” following its Feb. 29, 2012 meeting, when it made its recommendations to the AATA. A few days after that task force meeting, the Ann Arbor city council ratified its part of a four-party agreement – between the AATA, city of Ann Arbor, city of Ypsilanti and Washtenaw County – that provides a framework for possible transition to a new governance structure for the AATA.

The April 19 board resolution addresses part of the reason that the task force was reluctant to make a specific funding recommendation: Pending currently is state legislation on transportation funding through vehicle registration fees and the establishment of a regional transit authority for a four-county area in southeast Michigan (including Washtenaw County). From the board’s April 19 resolution: “…the AATA will monitor proposed legislation and other conditions affecting transit funding, and reconvene the FTF as needed to consider amendments to their recommendations …”

The financial task force had calculated that there’s a roughly $32.9 million gap between existing funding and what would be needed to fund the first five years of expanded services. To cover that gap, the task force calculated that a countywide millage of 0.5 mill would be needed – if the mechanism of funding were to be a countywide transit tax. But the task force declined to identify a millage as the solution to that funding gap, in light of pending legislation at the state level that might make other mechanisms available. [.pdf of Feb. 29 report draft approved by whole group]

The categories of service recommended as part of the first five years of the program include ongoing bus replacements, urban bus network enhancements (including enhancements to the WAVE, a western Washtenaw express), countywide door-to-door and flex services, express bus services, local community circulators, park-and-ride lots, vanpool services, and “superstops” in the Washtenaw Avenue corridor.

The subcommittee also recommended an average increase for fixed-route fares of $0.50, with the possibility of fare increases for paratransit services as well. Higher fares should be charged for express bus services, with the possibility of distance-based zone fares.

Also significant in the financial task force report was a recommendation that certain projects – like the north-south high-capacity connector, the Washtenaw Avenue high-capacity service, as well as the east-west and north-south commuter rail service – be considered separately. Those projects are not recommended for inclusion for local expenditures in the first five years. It’s also recommended that the Ann Arbor downtown circulator service (previously called The LINK) should be discretionary and should rely on private investment.

The language of the resolution passed by the AATA board on April 19 does not accept the task force recommendations unconditionally. The resolved clause reads [emphasis added] “… accepts the recommendations of the Financial Task Force for consideration by the AATA and the community.”

And the minutes from the April 10 meeting of the planning and development committee indicate that there may not be universal agreement on the AATA board with at least one of the task force recommendations – to exclude rail projects from expenditures of local funds in the first five years of the plan, and to spend local money only on local projects.

From the minutes: “Eli Cooper was assured by Michael Benham [AATA strategic planner] that the FTF is an advisory task force, with the board having ultimate authority to accept, decline, or modify their recommendations. Eli expressed concern with only using local money for local projects for the first 5 years. If this was to occur, then the Board may not be in alignment with their overall priorities (for expansion of services). Other than that, Eli was interested to hear more about the FTF and staff opinions as to how they see the first 5 years playing out.”

This brief was filed from the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library at 343 S. Fifth, where the AATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Graphic by The Chronicle, based on AATA's RideTrak website, to which the image links: http://mobile.theride.org/

The goal of the transition is to provide expanded service in Washtenaw County – both within the city of Ann Arbor, and outside the AATA’s current service area. [.pdf of four-party as initially considered on March 5]

The council considered several amendments to the four-party accord on Monday night, but did not approve all of them. Four of the amendments, all of which failed, were proposed by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) or Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Their amendments would have: (1) added a seat for city of Ann Arbor on the board of the new transit authority (giving the city 8 out of 16 seats); (2) added a requirement that the minimum transportation services to the city of Ann Arbor be commensurate with the Ann Arbor millage; (3) required that the parties agree to reconsider the four-party agreement if pending state legislation were to be passed, which would establish a regional transit authority (RTA) for the counties of Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland; and (4) required at least 50% of the jurisdictions in Washtenaw County to participate in the new transit authority as an additional contingency to closing the deal.

None of those four amendments got more than five votes from the 11-member body. [.pdf of document showing all proposed amendments]

The council also considered an amendment put forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) stipulating that by signing the agreement the city council was not thereby automatically pledging its full faith and credit to any project undertaken by the new transit authority. That amendment received unanimous support.

Another amendment proposed by Briere was also approved – on a 9-2 vote – which gives the city of Ann Arbor the right to withdraw from the agreement if a funding source is not approved by a majority of Ann Arbor voters. But the amendment does not require the withdrawal unless Ann Arbor voters have not approved a funding source by Dec. 31, 2014.

The vote on the four-party agreement as a whole was 7-4, with dissent from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

The new transit governance structure would be provided under Act 196 of 1986 instead of the state statute under which the AATA is currently incorporated – Act 55 of 1963. Called for in the four-party agreement is a 15-member board, to which Ann Arbor would appoint seven members. The AATA currently has a seven-member board.

The other eight slots on the board would be filled as follows: city of Ypsilanti (1); Pittsfield Township (1); an east district that includes Ypsilanti Township (2); a middle south district (1); a middle north district (1); a north east district (1); and a west district (1). [.jpg of map showing districts]

Act 55 was originally conceived to provide public transportation for cities, whereas the subsequent Act 196 was enacted to allow a broader range of political subdivisions to create public transportation systems, including counties. [See "Act 55 versus Act 1986" for more detail.]

Several steps remain before the AATA’s operations could transition to a new governance structure, including: (1) the approval of the four-party agreement by the city council of Ypsilanti and the Washtenaw County board of commissioners; (2) the ratification of articles of incorporation by the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti; and (3) voter approval of a funding mechanism for the new transit authority.

Funding: Additional Transit Millage?

Of the steps that remain before the AATA could be transformed into a new transit authority, the most significant one, which is a contingency spelled out in the four-party agreement, would be voter approval of a funding source adequate to pay for the planned expanded service.

The most likely scenario at this point would be an additional transit tax for property owners countywide – or whatever geographic area remains after any political subdivisions choose to opt out of inclusion. Five townships out of 20 in the county have already indicated a preference not to participate. The other townships and the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Chelsea and Saline are participating so far with the unincorporated Act 196 board, which has been meeting since the fall of 2011.

A financial advisory group, which has been providing input to the AATA on the fiduciary aspects of the plan, declined at its Feb. 29, 2012 meeting to recommend that the funding source be a transit millage. But if the funding source were to be an authority-wide transit tax, that group has calculated the required amount to be 0.5 mill. [A mill is $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value on a property. For a house worth $200,000, with a state-equalized value of $100,000, 0.5 mill is $50 per year.] The 0.5 mill tax is estimated to generate around $32 million over five years.

At the advisory group’s Feb. 29 meeting, Dennis Schornack, a special advisor to Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder on transportation issues, characterized the pending legislation recently introduced in the state legislature as likely requiring two to three years to see any practical implementation, even if the bills were enacted swiftly. [See Chronicle coverage: "Michigan Regional Transit Bills Unveiled"]

The calculation that a 0.5 mill tax on property owners authority-wide would be sufficient to fund expanded service is based on a requirement in the four-party agreement – that the current millages levied by the cities of Ann Arbor (a bit over 2 mills) and Ypsilanti (a bit under 1 mill) would remain in place and be passed through to the new Act 196 transit authority.

The entity to place a ballot question before voters would be the new, incorporated Act 196 transit authority. In order for a question to be placed on the ballot for the Nov. 6, 2012 election, it would need to be certified to the county clerk no later than Aug. 28. Calculating backward from that date would need to accommodate the 30-day initial window that local government units in the county have after the articles of incorporation are filed, if they wish to opt out of the new Act 196 authority. And a millage campaign to encourage voters to support the additional tax would likely need a few months of lead time to get organized.

Given Ann Arbor’s approval of the four-party agreement, it could be considered by the Ypsilanti city council as early as March 20 and by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners at their March 21 meeting.

Financial Advisory Group Work

AATA’s financial advisory group is a collection of more than 20 representatives of the public and private sectors, led by McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and retired Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel. They have met since the fall of 2011.

At the group’s Feb. 29 meeting, the categories of service recommended for inclusion in the first five years of the program include ongoing bus replacements, urban bus network enhancements (including enhancements to the WAVE, a western Washtenaw express), countywide door-to-door and flex services, express bus services, local community circulators, park-and-ride lots, vanpool services, and “superstops” in the Washtenaw Avenue corridor.

A subcommittee that did much of the detail work for the larger group is recommending an average increase for fixed-route fares of $0.50, with the possibility of fare increases for paratransit services as well. [The current basic fare for fixed-route service is $1.50.] Higher fares should be charged for express bus services, with the possibility of distance-based zone fares, according to the subcommittee.

Also, projects like the north-south high-capacity connector, the Washtenaw Avenue high-capacity service, as well as the east-west and north-south commuter rail service are recommended by the financial group to be considered separately. Those projects are not recommended for inclusion for local expenditures in the first five years. It’s also recommended that the Ann Arbor downtown circulator service (previously called The LINK) should be discretionary and should rely on private investment.

Compared to existing levels of funding and the amount of funding needed to support the AATA’s planned expansion of service, the financial advisory group identified a roughly $20 million gap on the operating side and a $12 million gap on the capital side – for the first five years of the plan. So over the first five years of the plan, the group identified a total $32 million funding gap, an average of roughly $6 million per year. The group calculated that this gap could be covered through a 0.5 mill property tax. Within the city of Ann Arbor, 0.5 mill of property tax translates roughly to $2.25 million a year.

[.pdf of budget summary][.pdf of capital budget] [.pdf of operating budget] [.pdf of financial performance data] [.pdf of financial group's final report] [.pdf of financial group's subcommittee report]

Other Steps Before Any Ballot Proposal

Before the Act 196 authority could be incorporated, several other steps would still need to be completed. The four-party agreement would still need to be ratified by the Ypsilanti city council and the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

According to the four-party agreement, the AATA would also need to publish the details of the funding and expanded service plan in a newspaper of general circulation. And the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would need to approve the articles of incorporation for the new Act 196 authority. Before the AATA would be able to request that Washtenaw County file the articles of incorporation with the state of Michigan, the funding and service plan would need to be published, and the two city councils would need to ratify articles of incorporation. [.pdf of draft articles of incorporation]

The Route to Approval

The four-party agreement nearly failed to appear on the March 5 agenda at all.

By way of background, the council had previously postponed voting on the four-party agreement at its Jan. 9 and Jan. 23 meetings. Thirty-nine people spoke at a public hearing held on Jan. 23.

The council postponed the agreement again at its Feb. 6 meeting. But for that meeting, the AATA itself had requested a postponement until March 5.

The council agreed at its Feb. 6 meeting to postpone the vote until March 5 – but with the proviso that postponement to that date certain would be “contingent upon materials being submitted to City Council by Feb. 29, 2012.” During the deliberations on postponement, councilmembers were content to give the mayor and city administrator the discretion to hold the item off the agenda, if the desired information was not submitted to the council by Feb. 29.

In an email sent to councilmembers on Feb. 24, city administrator Steve Powers wrote: “I do not believe the intent of Council’s motion is met by AATA providing material late on the 29th and prior to the public information session on the 2nd.”

In his email, Powers’ allusion to March 2 was a drop-in session hosted by the AATA in the city council chambers from 4-7 p.m. About half a dozen residents attended who were not affiliated with the AATA. Several AATA staff, members of the AATA board, and members of the financial advisory group were also on hand.

The Feb. 29 reference in Powers’ email was to the meeting of the financial advisory group, co-chaired by McKinley Inc. CEO Albert Berriz and retired Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel.

Powers’ email was countered in a message sent by AATA CEO Michael Ford to Powers and all city councilmembers on Feb. 27: “… we will be sending Councilmembers the Financial Task Force recommendations on Feb. 29 as promised. I believe this will fulfill the intent of Council’s motion. My staff and I continue to plan coming to council on the 5th as previously discussed.”

By the time the financial advisory group had concluded its meeting on the morning of Feb. 29, the council’s agenda had been published online, but did not yet include the four-party agreement agenda item. After the advisory group’s meeting, which was held at the offices of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on South Fifth Avenue, Ford walked the block to city hall, located at Fifth and Huron.

Later that afternoon, the four-party agreement appeared on the council’s agenda.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of of public entities like the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

At that board meeting, some board members indicated they’d like to see SDG include more local resources as the process moves forward. The local planning firm Carlisle Wortman has since been engaged. The original contract with SDG for development of the transit master plan was for $399,805. It was previously extended and increased at the AATA board’s Nov. 18, 2010 meeting by an amount not to exceed $32,500.

The additional amount approved by the AATA board at its Feb. 16 meeting is meant to cover the costs of continued public engagement through district advisory committees throughout the county, support of a financial advisory group (scheduled to meet on Feb. 29), analysis of the AATA fare structure and payment mechanisms, and detailed description of the initial 5-year component of the 30-year transit master plan.

This brief was filed from the fourth-floor boardroom of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave, where the AATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Amtrak train pulling away (despite appearances) from the Ann Arbor station on Jan. 25, 2012. Later that same day, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority buses converging on downtown Ann Arbor's Blake Transit Center. (Photos by the writer.)

The Chronicle is taking the pause between council meetings as an opportunity to offer readers a look at Ann Arbor’s current bus system ridership numbers over the last several years.

Part of a 30-year transit vision developed by the AATA includes the relocation of the Amtrak station – from Depot Street to a spot in the city’s Fuller Park. The proposed city/University of Michigan collaboration on the Fuller Road Station includes a large parking structure for the UM medical complex as its first phase. So we’re also taking a look at current ridership data on the Amtrak line through Ann Arbor.

Ann Arbor’s regular fixed route bus system provided 5.95 million rides for fiscal year 2011, which ended Sept. 30, 2011. That’s slightly better than the previous year, but was slightly off the record high year of 6.02 million rides delivered in FY 2009. The first three months of the 2012 fiscal year – October, November and December 2011 – show slight increases over the monthly numbers for FY 2011.

Of those 5.95 million rides provided by AATA in FY 2011, 2.43 million of them (41%) were provided through the University of Michigan MRide program – which allows faculty, students and staff of the university to board AATA buses without paying a fare. The cost for the service is paid by UM to the AATA. It was a record-setting year for the MRide program.

Also making up a portion of those 5.95 million rides were trips taken by holders of the getDowntown go!pass program, which allows downtown Ann Arbor employers to provide free bus passes for their employees for a nominal cost – the cost of the rides is funded through a grant from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

In FY 2011, 634,000 rides were provided under the go!pass program – a 23% increase over FY 2010, adding to the trend of monotonically increasing numbers of go!pass rides over the last decade. The first three months of FY 2012 don’t show the same kind of double-digit increases for go!pass use as FY 2011 – they’re tracking roughly the same as last year.

The number of riders getting on and off the Amtrak trains that passed through Ann Arbor during the 2011 calendar year was 141,522. That figure tracked close to the same level of activity the station has seen since 2006 – from 140,000 to 145,000 riders. Through May 2011, Amtrak was on pace to eclipse the record number of riders in 2010 (145,040). But starting in July 2011, ridership was lower in every month (compared to 2010) through the end of the year.

Charts and graphs by The Chronicle – as well as more detailed breakdowns – are provided after the break.

Overall Ridership on AATA Buses

AATA operates on a fiscal year that runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. The data provided by the AATA to The Chronicle is organized based on that time period.

Figure 1. Total AATA Fixed Route Ridership by Year (Image links to larger file)

Figure 2. Ridership on AATA Fixed Route by Month 2004-2011 (Image links to larger file)

Fiscal year 2006 was the first year that AATA ridership crossed the 5 million-ride threshold on its regular fixed route service. By 2008, ridership was just under 6 million and actually nudged past 6 million in 2009. Ridership has remained relatively level over the four years from 2008 to 2011. In 2010, there was a dip of about a quarter million rides, but in FY 2011, the most recent full fiscal year, the number was again just shy of 6 million at 5,954,569. [See Figure 1.]

Figure 2 includes the ridership trend through the first three months of FY 2012 – October through December of 2011. Comparing the dark red line (FY 2012) with the heavy black line (FY 2011) shows an increase in each month of about 30,000 rides.

UM Ridership on AATA Buses

About 40% of rides on the AATA regular bus system are taken by University of Michigan students, faculty and staff under the MRide program. The program is commonly described as one that allows UM affiliates to “ride for free,” which is a chafing point for AATA public relations staff. The program does allow UM affiliates to board AATA buses without paying a fare. But the cost of the rides is intended to be compensated through payments UM makes to the AATA under the MRide contract.

The first MRide agreement was for a five-year period from Aug. 1, 2004 to July 31, 2009. When negotiations between UM and the AATA did not produce a new five-year agreement by July 31, 2009, the two organizations agreed to a one‐year extension of the original agreement for the period from Aug. 1, 2009 to July 31, 2010. Under that arrangement, UM paid AATA a total $1,987,642 to cover the cost of UM affiliate rides.

Then at its Sept. 16, 2011 meeting, the AATA board ratified a new five-year deal from 2010-2015. One difference between the previous agreement and the one that the board considered and approved at the Sept. 16 meeting is that the new arrangement makes explicit a per-boarding amount to be paid by UM. In the previous arrangement, UM agreed to pay a lump sum for the boardings, with additional money contributed through a federal grant for which UM is eligible.

While the federal grant is still a component of the new MRide arrangement, the boarding payment is now explicitly tied to the number of rides taken by UM riders. The current agreement is for UM to pay AATA $1 per ride. The regular fare for AATA buses is $1.50. The MRide rate is based on the cost per ride paid by holders of a 30-day pass, which costs $58. The previous arrangement had worked out to around $0.80 per ride, though it was not defined that way in the contract.

Although early in the MRide negotiations there was some consideration given to UM charging a partial cost of rides directly to its riders through the new swipeable fare box technology recently installed in AATA buses, that possibility was quickly taken off the table.

The count of UM riders is achieved by UM riders swiping their MCards through the AATA fareboxes. However, the usage data is provided to UM, and AATA does not have access to statistics on who is riding the buses – faculty, staff, or students. That information can be analyzed by UM, however.

Figure 3. UM Ridership on AATA Buses by Year (Image links to larger file)

Figure 4. UM Ridership on AATA Buses by Month (Image links to larger file)

By 2008, ridership in the MRide program had more or less stabilized at around 2.3 million rides per year. In the most recent year – FY 2011 – the program had 2.4 million rides [see Figure 3]. The monthly trend for the first three months of FY 2012 shows an increase in MRide program ridership in each month, compared to FY 2011 [see Figure 4]. In December 2011, that increase was only about 10,000 rides, compared to almost 20,000 more rides in January and February. December is a typical trough for MRide ridership numbers, which show seasonal variation tied to the academic calendar.

go!pass Ridership on AATA Buses

Another bus pass program accounts for about 10% of AATA regular bus ridership – getDowntown’s go!pass program. Under the program, downtown Ann Arbor employers can purchase bus passes for their employees at $10 apiece. Participating employers must purchase passes for all their employees. The passes are good for unlimited rides on AATA buses.

The cost of the rides has historically been carried by payments from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority out of its parking fund. At its June 2, 2010 meeting, the DDA board authorized a three-year grant to fund the go!pass program – $445,672 for FY 2011; $488,054 for FY 2012; and $540,060 for FY 2013.

In the past, the AATA has adjusted the charge to match actual ridership – which means that the amount of the DDA grants would likely need to increase as well, if that policy continued. However, a financial crunch at the DDA led the AATA to modify the amount it charges for rides taken under the go!pass program. At its Aug. 24, 2011 meeting, the AATA board voted to set the charges at the same amount for which the DDA had provided grants.

Figure 5. go!pass Ridership on AATA Buses by Year (Image links to larger file)

Figure 6. go!pass Ridership on AATA Buses by Month (Image links to larger file)

Figure 5 shows that the number of rides taken with the go!pass has increased steadily since 2004. That’s partly due to the steadily increasing number of go!passes in circulation. From FY 2010 to FY 2011, the number of passes sold jumped about 10% – from 6,537 to 7,226.

Ridership was up 23% in FY 2011 compared to FY 2010. It’s conceivable that some of the increase could be attributable to a change in the way go!pass ridership data is collected. It’s now collected with swipeable cards that pass holders run through the fare box, instead of depending on a driver’s manual button press. That change started on Nov. 1, 2010.

On the theory that fewer undercounting errors might be associated with a swipeable card system, some increase in the number of rides might be expected due purely to the change in data collection. However, in FY 2008, the program also had a ridership increase that outpaced the increase in passes sold – a 20% increase in ridership with a 5% increase in go!pass circulation. There was no change in data collection method at that time. In addition, there does not seem to be a similar bump in MRide ridership associated with the same change in data collection method, implemented in 2009.

Through the first three months of FY 2012, ridership on the go!pass program is tracking fairly close to FY 2011 [see Figure 6].

Ann Arbor Amtrak Ridership

Ann Arbor is one of the stations on Amtrak’s Wolverine Line, which runs from Pontiac through Detroit to Chicago. Amtrak ridership data is provided online by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. Service is three times a day in each direction, for a total of six train stops a day. The schedule, westbound and eastbound is: 7:48 a.m. WB, 12:29 p.m. WB, 1:04 p.m. EB, 5:45 p.m. EB, 7:17 p.m. WB, 11:32 p.m. EB.

Figure 7. Ann Arbor Amtrak Ridership by Year (Image links to larger file)

Figure 8. Ann Arbor Amtrak Ridership by Month (Image links to larger file)

In the early part of the 2000s, ridership through the Ann Arbor station climbed steadily to reach 140,000 riders in 2006. [That counts passengers either getting on or getting off the train in Ann Arbor.] Since then, ridership has remained in the range of 140,000-145,000 except for 2009, when there was a clear dip – to about 126,000. That off year could be explained by the economic downturn in the fall of 2008, and by the the fact that average Ann Arbor area gas prices fell from over $4 per gallon in July 2008 to under $2 per gallon by January 2009 [see Figure 7].

Ann Arbor’s Amtrak ridership started off 2011 on a record-setting pace through April, which continued a bit less dramatically through May and June. By July, however, ridership numbers fell below the 2011 figures for every month through the end of 2011. That could be explained in part by decreases in the quality of on-time performance associated with speed restrictions placed on the track by its owner Norfolk-Southern in June 2011. The speed restrictions stem from the need to upgrade the track. Rather than undertake the track work necessary to allow for regular speeds, Norfolk-Southern elected to impose the speed limits. [As an example, the 5:45 p.m. scheduled arrival on Jan. 24, 2012 was 68 minutes late.] And in May 2011, the Detroit News published a column extolling the virtues of the car trip between Detroit and Chicago.

In October 2011, MDOT struck a deal with Norfolk-Southern to purchase the 135 miles of track between Kalamazoo and Dearborn. Track improvements, funded by federal stimulus money, are expected to allow the speed restrictions to be lifted.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!