Comments on: AATA Ridership Up, Fiscal Reserves Down

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:59:11 +0000

According to a commenter on my blog, the City of Milan voted last night (October 29) to opt out. Dexter Village on the same night postponed the decision, as reported in the Dexter Leader. That leaves Dexter Village as the only community in the county that has not made an affirmative decision one way or another (whether to opt out or stay in), assuming that you count the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti as already opted in via the 4-party agreement.

]]>

By: Jack Eaton

Jack Eaton — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:45:28 +0000

Re (30) Joel, you continue to miss my point. You said that it was expected that rural areas would opt out and I asked why we spent so much money planning service throughout those rural areas. The money spent on meetings full of six-figure transit administrators, consultants and lawyers could have been spent on actual local transit service.

In the current AATA budget, there is approximately $230,000 in staff time for planning the WALLY commuter rail service that other communities have already said they do not want to support financially. Couldn’t we reduce the number of transit administrators and increase local bus service by $230,000?

It does not matter how lofty the transit goals are. If other communities are not willing to contribute to the cost of expanded transit, then we should stop using Ann Arbor transit funds to study these expansion ideas.

]]>

By: Joel Batterman

Joel Batterman — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:43:32 +0000

Jack, there was real interest in Western Washtenaw in securing stable funding for the WAVE and People’s Express systems, as well as commuter routes. I’d bet that interest will increase in future, especially once political leadership comes to reflect the increasing commuter population in those areas. There are plenty of precedents for transit in rural areas: all of Macomb County, including the agricultural northern end, is part of suburban Detroit’s SMART service area.

I don’t see a conflict between expanding transit to new areas and improvements within the existing footprint. My motivation is that we need both, and a new millage would include the entire service area, including Ann Arbor, for precisely that reason. If you have other ideas for funding better service in Ann Arbor, without new revenue, please do suggest them.

Vivienne, I’m not sure anyone has truly found transportation policy enlightenment; the web of transportation decision-making is indeed tangled. (In fact it’s often more like independent strands.) WATS is the administrative body responsible for planning and allocating state and federal transport money, just as the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments is for the greater metro Detroit region. But in general, since these regional bodies have limited authority, they are not responsible for initiating particular transportation projects; that is the role of other, predominantly more localized agencies, like AATA, cities and the Road Commission. (An exception is Detroit-Ann Arbor commuter rail, managed by SEMCOG, and the pace of that project proves the rule.) MDOT does indeed make decisions on state roads, such as Washtenaw – though not on most of the sidewalks adjacent to it, since the state right-of-way along much of the corridor only extends to the curb!

I don’t know if anyone would argue that this system makes sense. There’s value in local self-determination, just as there is in individual liberty. Paul Ryan’s distaste for “central planners” isn’t entirely unfounded. But I would respond that freedom, and local control, also carry accompanying responsibilities. And when no one can take charge of common challenges – such as transportation – that affect many individuals and multiple jurisdictions, we ultimately lose the larger freedom to decide our future.

]]>

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:43:01 +0000

AATA staff reports from Pittsfield Township board meeting that the vote to withdraw from the Act 196 authority was approved tonight, with the idea that Pittsfield wants for now to continue to use purchase of service agreements to provide some transit service in the township.

]]>

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 21:05:17 +0000

So, I’m sincerely seeking enlightenment. Re (26), it was my impression that WATS administers Federal transportation funding by allocating it among communities – it is literally a committee, well staffed of course. I also thought MDOT makes decisions on state roads. I know the Road Commission has responsibility for maintenance and some improvement, funded by the gas tax, of roads within the county other than within Ann Arbor. Confusing.

]]>

By: Jack Eaton

Jack Eaton — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:24:21 +0000

Re (26), Joel, that is my point. It was always quite likely that the rural areas would not opt in. So, why did we go through the expense of drafting elaborate service plans for these areas without first exercising due diligence and finding out whether they were interested?

I stand by my statement that the vast majority of the population of the opt-in areas already have service. Saline has a population of less than 9,000 compared with 114,000 in Ann Arbor and 19,000 in Ypsilanti. Providing service to Saline represents a tiny increase in population served. While the service in Ypsi Twp may be inadequate, it has some service. Opponents of the grand “county-wide” transit plan have consistently said rather than creating a huge system, we should improve the service within the current AATA area.

Sadly, the creation of a PA 196 authority probably has more to do with schemes to provide commuter rail and to finance Washtenaw corridor improvements than any real desire to provide transit to the whole county.

]]>

By: Joel Batterman

Joel Batterman — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:57:55 +0000

Yes, the state constitution limits transit spending to 10% of total gas tax revenue. While WATS does have Ann Arbor representation, it is not the body responsible for implementation. Jim is correct that major road project decisions are made on a countywide basis – through the County Road Commission – whereas no equivalent body exists for transit. This is a historical accident with unfortunate consequences.

And Jack (18), it may be that the more rural townships would never have chosen to opt in to this authority. Certainly, participation from the more urbanized areas is more important. But it isn’t correct to say that most people in the opt-in areas already get AATA service.

Saline has no service at all right now. Ypsilanti Township has almost nothing south of I-94, except a single one-way loop that runs hourly weekdays and not at all on weekends. Most of Ypsilanti is similarly served by infrequent, one-way loops, even though it’s probably the most transit-dependent place in the county.

Not all of the people in these places are going to be riding the bus; neither do all Ann Arbor residents. But as in Ann Arbor, many of them would, and unless patterns of aging, gas prices, and general economic conditions suddenly reverse, I think that number will be increasing in future years.

]]>

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:14:03 +0000

The City of Chelsea voted to opt out last night (October 23), per their city clerk.

]]>

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:49:50 +0000

That is a useful perspective (23) but it omits the funding piece. Roads are funded by the “gas tax” via both state and Federal transportation departments. A small fraction of that has been carved out to support mass transit, but the extent is limited by law. (I haven’t looked this up, but I recall that no more than 10% of the gas tax trust fund can be spent on transit.) So transit projects have to be supported at some level by local taxes. AATA is able to leverage our local property tax support so that only about 26% of the service is paid out of taxes (another 35% is paid by fares). But without that local tax support, we wouldn’t have the service.

What the townships are opting out of is the opportunity to tax their citizens. I’m sure they would accept the service as a gift, if offered.

Ann Arbor does have a say in the regional road system decisions through WATS.

]]>

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:07:12 +0000

In this country, we have erected an immense policy barrier to mass transit. Road projects are imposed from the top down, but transit projects are built from the bottom up. Ann Arbor doesn’t have the option of opting out of road projects that benefit the townships. But the townships do have the option to opt out of transit projects. So we end up with road projects, like US-23 and I-94, that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, that we have no choice but to help pay for, while transit project costing a tenth as much don’t happen because they can be scuttled by any government unit along the route. Until we change this policy we will be stuck with the single occupancy private car as our primary means of transportation.

]]>