Fixed-route AAATA ridership by year and by category: no additional subsidy (blue); go!pass downtown employees (red); University of Michigan affiliates (yellow). (Data from AAATA, charted by The Chronicle.)

If it’s approved, the five-year millage will be used to pay for a range of service increases, focused on increased frequency for some existing routes, new routes, longer hours of operation and added hours on weekends.

In that context, I think it’s worthwhile to start getting a firmer grip on current ridership levels and historical trends.

In the last 10 years, AAATA fixed-route ridership – the “regular bus,” as contrasted with paratransit services – has grown from 4.2 million in fiscal year 2004 to 6.4 million rides in 2013. That’s about 50% growth.

And ridership in FY 2013 was consistent with that continued upward trend. But the trend this year was just slightly upward: The 6.4 million fixed-route rides provided in 2013 was barely up from 6.35 million rides in 2012 – about a 0.8% increase.

Two programs that offer financial subsidies to passengers – MRide and go!pass – showed a greater increase in ridership than the most recent overall trend. Rides taken on AAATA buses through the University of Michigan’s MRide program showed an increase of about 5% between 2012 and 2013 – from 2.61 million to 2.74 million rides. And rides taken with the go!pass, funded in largest part by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – increased about 4% between 2012 and 2013 – from 604,000 to 629,000 rides.

I’m going to use the term “out-of-pocket ridership” for those rides not supported through an additional subsidy from the go!pass or MRide programs. Out-of-pocket ridership actually showed a decrease of about 3% from 2012 to 2013 – from 3.15 million to 3.04 million rides.

A more detailed look at the historical ridership data by category has implications, I think, for reasonable community expectations for future out-of-pocket ridership – if a millage is approved and service improvements are implemented. And that more detailed look also has implications for a reasonable basis for negotiations between AAATA and the University of Michigan on the financial component of the MRide deal.

Here’s a quick summary of my thoughts. I think the success of the five-year improvement plan should be measured in part by increases in out-of-pocket ridership. I think the MRide agreement between UM and the AAATA should include not just a fare component but also a component to cover UM’s “local share.” And I think the go!pass program should be conceived as a tool to help increase general out-of-pocket ridership, not just serve to benefit people who have a formal affiliation with downtown Ann Arbor.

You’ll find a more detailed analysis of these issues below the fold. This column also includes more charts – and even some maps with colored dots.

What Fuels Upward Ridership Trend: Price or Quality?

Before considering Ann Arbor’s local ridership statistics, it’s worth looking at some national numbers to check for any clear trends. Chart 1 below summarizes statistics from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). After a somewhat downward trend for total public transportation ridership from 1990 through 1996, total ridership has shown a slight but steady upward trend. In particular, the most recent nine-year period (indicated with the vertical black bar) shows year-to-year increases since 2004 in every year but two – 2009 and 2010.

Chart 1: Public transportation ridership by year and by mode. (Data from American Public Transportation Association http://www.apta.com, charted by The Chronicle.)

From Chart 1 above, it’s also clear that bus and heavy rail are the two major categories of public transportation. It’s easy enough to scan Chart 1 to see that heavy rail (blue) shows an increasing trend since 2004. Less clear in Chart 1, however, is the slight downward trend in ridership for bus transportation. That downward trend is more readily apparent in Chart 2 below, which plots each mode separately, instead of stacked in bars.

Chart 2: Public transportation data by year and by mode. (Data from American Transportation Association http://www.apta.com, charted by The Chronicle.)

Even while national public transportation trends for bus ridership are slightly downward for the most recent decade, public bus ridership in Ann Arbor is strongly upward. AAATA’s ridership on fixed-route buses has grown about 50% in the last decade – from 4.2 million in fiscal year 2004 to 6.4 million rides in 2013. Chart 3 shows that upward trend and reflects a two-year dip similar to the national trend:

Chart 3: Fixed-route AAATA ridership by year and by category. (Data from AAATA, charted by The Chronicle.)

But that upward trend is not uniform for out-of-pocket ridership and two programs that offer subsidized fares – MRide and go!pass. The University of Michigan pays a fare on behalf of its affiliates (faculty, staff, students) through the MRide program. UM affiliates can board buses simply by swiping their M-Cards in the fare boxes on AAATA buses. The go!pass program is a benefit for employees of businesses located in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture district. Business owners can purchase a go!pass for their employees for $10 apiece – which allows downtown employees unlimited rides for a year. The bulk of the cost to provide go!pass rides is covered by a grant from the Ann Arbor DDA to the AAATA.

Chart 4 below presents the same data as Chart 3 – but broken down by out-of-pocket ridership (blue), go!pass rides (red) and MRide rides (yellow).

Chart 4: Fixed-route AAATA ridership by year and by category: no additional subsidy (blue); go!pass downtown employees (red); University of Michigan affiliates (yellow). (Data from AAATA, charted by The Chronicle.)

It’s plain from cursory inspection of Chart 4 that from 2004 to 2005, out-of-pocket ridership (blue bars) dropped precipitously. But that’s just a function of the fact that the MRide program launched in August 2004 – so FY 2004 included just two months worth of MRide data. [The AAATA fiscal year runs from October through September.] From that drop, it’s evident that even before the MRide program launched, many UM affiliates were already riding AAATA buses, but paying their own fares.

Chart 5 below isolates the same out-of-pocket ridership data presented in Chart 4. Looking back over the last decade, the trend for out-of-pocket ridership is flattish to slightly upward. Out-of-pocket ridership increased by 11% between 2005 to 2006 – from 2.65 million to 2.95 million. But over the next eight-year span, out-of-pocket ridership increased by a total of just 3% – from 2.95 million in 2006 to 3.04 million in 2013.

Chart 5: Fixed-route AAATA ridership by year for out-of-pocket rides – those taken with no additional subsidy (blue). (Data from AAATA, charted by The Chronicle.)

In contrast to the flattish out-of-pocket ridership trend, the number of rides taken with an additional subsidy through the go!pass program has more than doubled – from 296,855 in 2004 to 628,959 in 2013. When the same go!pass ridership data from Chart 4 is isolated, as in Chart 6 below, the increasing trend is more evident:

Chart 6: Fixed-route AAATA ridership by year for rides taken under the getDowntown go!pass program (red). (Data from AAATA, charted by The Chronicle.)

As a fraction of total rides taken on the AAATA, go!pass rides account for about 10%. So despite the dramatic growth in go!pass ridership, the impact of that growth on total ridership is limited.

Compared to the go!pass program, UM ridership has not grown as much percentage-wise, but has still shown robust increases. From the first full year of the program, rides taken under MRide have increased by 57% – from  1,744,718 in 2005 to 2,736,848 in 2013. The MRide data is isolated in Chart 7:

Chart 7: Fixed-route AAATA ridership by year for rides taken under the University of Michigan MRide program (yellow). (Data from AAATA, charted by The Chronicle.)

Because the number of rides taken under the MRide program is such a substantial percentage of the total rides – about 43% in 2013 – the robust growth in the MRide program also results in growth for total rides.

To summarize, even though total AAATA fixed route ridership has shown a robust increase over the last decade, not much of that growth is attributable to out-of-pocket ridership. Most of the ridership growth during that period is attributable to rides that receive an additional subsidy – through the go!pass or MRide programs.

That summary provides a competing narrative to the one that the AAATA has given in connection with a recently completed analysis of peer transit agencies. That analysis was presented to the AAATA board at its  Nov. 21, 2013 meeting. The peer analysis showed an 18% higher-than-average cost per service hour than peer agencies. That comparison is presented in Chart 8:

Chart 8: AAATA Operating Expense per Revenue Hour compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA are based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

However, the AAATA calculates that the number of rides per service hour is 50% higher than the peer median. That peer comparison is presented in Chart 9:

Chart 9: AAATA Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

And the greater-than-average riders per hour leads to a 17% lower operating expense per trip than the peer group median. The operating expense per trip peer comparison is presented in Chart 10:

Chart 10: AAATA Operating Expense per Trip compared against FTIS Top 20 peers. Top 20 peers to AAATA based on Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) analysis. Data from Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS), developed for Florida Department of Transportation by Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University, http://www.ftis.org/intdas.html, accessed Nov. 22, 2013.

To summarize the peer comparison analysis, even though AAATA’s cost per service hour is higher, the number of riders is also higher, which results in a lower cost per rider than the AAATA’s peer agencies. The narrative the AAATA has offered to account for this data is: “Investment in quality service pays off in ridership.” That is:

Narrative 1: Passengers are attracted to ride AAATA buses in greater numbers – because of the quality of AAATA’s service.

But a different narrative is suggested by the historical trends in ridership growth – which is concentrated in those categories that receive a fare subsidy. That alternate narrative is this:

Narrative 2: Passengers are attracted to ride AAATA buses – because a third party is paying for a large portion of AAATA fares.

Bearing in mind those narratives, let’s look ahead to the possible approval of a new transit millage and the implementation of higher quality service – like increased frequency, and extended and added hours of service. I think it’s fair to measure success of the five-year transportation improvement program by the evidence for Narrative 1 that we might see over the course of the next five years.

The kind of evidence we should expect to see, especially if Narrative 1 is true, is an increase in AAATA’s out-of-pocket ridership.

Success Statement: Out-of-pocket ridership will increase over the period of the five-year improvement plan.

In terms of the charts I’ve reviewed so far, that translates into taller blue bars in Chart 5, which I’m repeating here to save scrolling:

Chart 5: Fixed-route AAATA ridership by year for out-of-pocket rides – those taken with no additional subsidy (blue). (Data from AAATA, charted by The Chronicle.)

More on the AAATA’s Largest Customer: UM

If growth in AAATA ridership over the last decade is largely a function of increased ridership by University of Michigan affiliates, then it makes sense to ask why the university ridership has increased over this period.

At least part of the increase appears to be a function of an increased number of university employees and students. The total number of Ann Arbor campus employees (including the hospital) has increased by 20% over the last nine years – from 35,137 in 2005 to 42,277 in 2013. Most of the added jobs have been in the university’s hospital system. The employee numbers are presented in Chart 11:

Chart 11: Ann Arbor campus University of Michigan employee head counts – hospital (lighter green) and excluding hospital (medium green). (Data from AAATA and University of Michigan, charted by The Chronicle.)

Although their numbers haven’t increased as much over the same period, the student population (including graduate students) has increased by 10% – from 38,219 in 2005 to 42,348 in 2013.

The roughly 15% increase in total number of UM affiliates compares with a 57% increase in ridership under the MRide program – from  1,744,718 in 2005 to 2,736,848 in 2013. So trips made under the MRide program have increased at a greater rate than the increase in number of UM affiliates. Ridership is plotted against university affiliate numbers in Chart 12:

Chart 12: Ann Arbor campus University of Michigan affiliate head counts: employees (light green) and students (dark green) plotted with MRide trips. (Data from AAATA and University of Michigan, charted by The Chronicle.)

In any case, as the university continues to add jobs and students, it’s reasonable to expect that rides taken on AAATA buses by university affiliates will make up an increasing percentage of total rides taken on the system. In 2013 that percentage was about 43% – up from about 37% in 2005.

One consequence of that proportionally heavy university ridership is this: The seasonal pattern of university ridership is felt in the bus system as a whole.

To see that impact, let’s start with Chart 13 below, which is a year-over-year plot of monthly ridership. It reveals the seasonal pattern among the total AAATA ridership:

Chart 13: Total Fixed-route AAATA ridership by month and year. (Data from AAATA, charted by The Chronicle.)

The basic pattern discernible in Chart 13 is a peak ridership in September and October of each year, followed by decreases in November and December. In January, ridership levels recover and are sustained through about April, when the levels decrease and remain at a lower level through July and August.

That’s not the same seasonable pattern as the one shown in Chart 14 among go!pass holders, which drops from October to November then shows a gradual rise through the rest of the fiscal year:

Chart 14: Fixed-route AAATA ridership by month and year for rides taken under the go!pass program. (Data from AAATA, charted by The Chronicle.)

Given the relatively lower percentage of trips taken by go!pass riders, it’s reasonable that the go!pass seasonal pattern does not have a discernible impact on the overall seasonal plot in Chart 13.

But the seasonable pattern among university affiliates does appear to have a clear impact on the overall seasonal pattern. That conclusion is based on comparison of the seasonal pattern for UM ridership alone, which is shown in Chart 15, with the seasonal pattern by non-UM affiliates and non-go!pass riders, which is shown in Chart 16:

Chart 15: Fixed-route AAATA ridership by month and year for rides taken under the MRide program. (Data from AAATA, charted by The Chronicle.)

Chart 16: Fixed-route AAATA ridership by month and year for rides with no additional subsidy. (Data from AAATA, charted by The Chronicle.)

Comparing Charts 15 and 16 with Chart 13, it appears that the overall seasonal ridership pattern is inherited from the seasonal pattern of university riders. That hints at the possibility that the majority of rides under the MRide program are taken by the most highly seasonal component of university affiliates – students. That’s confirmed by the actual breakdown provided to The Chronicle by the University of Michigan for one period of sampling, which is presented in Chart 17:

Chart 17: MRide trips broken down by affiliate type.

Policy Implications for MRide Agreement: Fund the Local Share

The seasonal nature of the impact of UM ridership and the student-dominated nature of that ridership has potential implications, I think, for how the MRide deal between the university and the AAATA should be structured.

Under the current arrangement, the university pays a fare of $1 per ride to the AAATA. [I'm going to gloss over one wrinkle involving the federal grant received by UM for operation of its own blue bus system, which the university uses to defray its cash costs to cover the $1 fares for its affiliates.]

The full cash fare for a one-off ride on the AAATA is $1.50. The rational basis for the $1 per ride that UM pays is this: Riding the bus two trips every day of a 30-day period (60 rides) would result in a total full cash fare cost of $90; but someone could just as well purchase a 30-day flex pass for $58, which is roughly 2/3 the cost of paying the full cash fare each time they board the bus. Two-thirds of $1.50 is $1. QED.

I’m not persuaded that consideration of the hypothetical rides taken by 30-day flex pass holders is the best rational basis for establishing the fare per ride paid by UM to AAATA.

But rather than focusing on the amount of the fare, I think it’s more important to frame the question in terms of the typical funding model for public transportation in America – of which fares are just one component. The other three major components are local taxes, state assistance and federal assistance.

Broadly speaking, fares cover something less than a quarter of the AAATA’s expenses. Here’s a breakdown of revenues from the approved AAATA budget for the current fiscal year:

Chart 18: AAATA FY 2014 Budget: Revenue. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from AAATA.)

When the AAATA contemplates arrangements to provide transportation services to other jurisdictions – like Pittsfield Township, for example – that negotiation is not about fares that the jurisdiction would pay on behalf of its residents. When the AAATA reaches an agreement with the township, the amount paid by the township covers the “local share” – the darker blue wedge of the funding pie indicated in Chart 18 under POSA (purchase of service agreement). The money paid by the township to the AAATA under a POSA is analogous to the tax that Ann Arbor property owners pay. Pittsfield Township property owners don’t pay a local transit tax like Ann Arbor residents, so the township pays a POSA instead. Pittsfield Township passengers still pay their own fares.

So when the AAATA talks to UM about fares, it’s a completely different conversation from the one the AAATA has with the township. The conversation with UM is about fares. But the conversation with Pittsfield Township is about “local share.” So how is the University of Michigan different from Pittsfield Township?

In one important respect, the University of Michigan is no different from Pittsfield Township – because no property taxes are paid by UM. If UM did pay taxes on its property – which has roughly $1 billion of estimated taxable value – the roughly 2 mill Ann Arbor transit tax would generate about $2 million annually. Based on that observation, I would be eager to consider a way to add coverage of some “local share” to the MRide agreement – so that both fares and local share would be addressed. That’s reasonable, given the typical funding model for public transportation.

On the other hand, it’s inconceivable to me that the AAATA should or would contemplate asking a church – a tax-exempt entity just like UM – to pay a “local share” in addition to whatever fares are paid, so that the cost of bus rides taken by its congregants to attend church would be covered.

To find some kind of middle ground – between UM-as-township and UM-as-church – I think it’s worth being more thoughtful about specific UM riders. Instead of thinking about “UM affiliates” as an unanalyzable block, it would be useful to think about the funding issue in terms of rider profiles.

Consider Dan, a university employee who lives within the city limits. I’d be willing to count the “local share” for Dan’s MRide trips as covered by the transit taxes he or his landlord pays. So UM could reasonably contend that only Dan’s fare needs to be a part of the MRide funding negotiation. Analyzed in the same way would be a non-city resident, Fran, who commutes to work at a facility leased by the UM from a private entity. That is, the property taxes paid by the UM’s landlord would count as covering the ”local share” of Fran’s MRide trips. Only Fran’s fares would be subject to negotiations on the MRide agreement.

And there’s nothing special about students per se when considering rider profiles in this way. It’s not important whether a UM affiliate is a student, but rather that their place of residence generates tax revenue. If UM student Stan rents a house, then the transit tax paid by his landlord can count as the “local share” for his MRide trips. Only Stan’s fare needs to be a part of the MRide agreement negotiations.

But UM students who live in dormitories should be analyzed differently, I think. If Mary lives in a UM dormitory, which doesn’t generate any tax revenue, then her trips taken under MRide don’t currently have a funded “local share.” That’s what makes UM different from a church: Churches don’t maintain large residential complexes with a population that need services. And that’s one reason why it’s reasonable to treat UM differently from a church.

It’s also reasonable to treat UM differently from a church because of the sheer volume of UM affiliates, the majority of whom are students, who ride AAATA buses. Given that the volume of UM bus riders has a significant impact on the seasonal ridership patterns overall, it’s reasonable to treat UM differently from a church.

The current agreement between AAATA and UM covering funding for MRide was ratified by the AAATA board on Sept. 16, 2010 and runs for five years, through 2015. So it’s not too early to start thinking about how the negotiations on an extension of the agreement might be framed.

Policy Point 1: The MRide agreement between the University of Michigan and AAATA should include a component to acknowledge “local share” in addition to fares.

Usefulness of Ride-Level Data: go!pass Data Illustration

To implement an MRide agreement based on the kind of profiles I’ve contemplated above would, I think, be straightforward – even if it would require some work. That work would include making sure that the relevant profile data for the basis of MRide local share funding is encoded in all UM affiliate M-Cards. The fare boxes used on AAATA buses would collect that profile data from passenger M-Cards when they board AAATA buses and swipe them through the fare box.

The GFI Genfare fare boxes used by the AAATA can collect all sorts of data, including longitude and latitude of the boarding location.

I’ll illustrate the usefulness of this kind of information with boarding data from the go!pass program – partly because that’s the data I have. But the go!pass data is interesting in its own right.

I plotted out a set of go!pass boarding locations – collected from November 2012 through October 2013. Locational data was missing from some of the boardings, but the dataset included 571,792 rides with valid lat-long coordinates. Those coordinates correspond to the location where the boarding took place. As a coarse-grained technique to collect the locations into groupings, I truncated the lat-long values at four decimal places (reduced from 8 places) and colorized the dots based on frequency of boardings. That’s the plot in Map 19 [link to dynamic map]:

Map 19: go!pass boardings from November 2012 to October 2013. N=571,792. About 30% of go!pass riders during that period boarded the bus east of US-23. (Data from getDowntown. Mapping by The Chronicle.) A zoomable version of this map is available at http://geocommons.com/maps/326684

First, the plot illustrates the fact that the AAATA bus service already lives up to the part of the authority’s new name – the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. It’s clear that downtown employees are boarding the bus at myriad locations outside the city of Ann Arbor.

If you click through to visit the dynamic version of the map, you’ll notice that it takes several seconds to load. First to load are the boarding locations east of the intersection of Washtenaw Avenue and US-23. About 30% of go!pass boardings are located east of US-23.

Let’s assume that in most cases a boarding east of US-23 is by a non-city resident inbound toward Ann Arbor, and that the east-of-US-23 boarding is paired with a downtown Ann Arbor boarding on the same day. From those assumptions, it’s plausible to conclude that more than half (30% times two) of the bus rides taken under the go!pass program are by passengers who live outside the city of Ann Arbor and commute to work in downtown Ann Arbor.

In Map 20, the Blake Transit Center’s location emerges in the plot of boarding locations between Fourth and Fifth Avenues north of William. But clearly the BTC is not the only place people get on the bus in downtown Ann Arbor:

Map 20: Downtown Ann Arbor go!pass boardings.

At an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority retreat on Jan. 30, 2014, board member Al McWilliams described a grand vision, which he allowed was unattainable, of Ann Arbor as a carless zone. Visitors who arrived to Ann Arbor would leave their private vehicles on the periphery and take public transportation into the city.

The dynamic described by McWilliams is already a reality in a very limited way – through the AAATA’s park-and-ride lots. Results from a recent survey of downtown commuters indicated that 8% of the people who responded said they drive part way and then take the bus the rest of the way to work. About that 8% of respondents, the report from CJI Research concludes that the point from which they take the bus is “presumably from a park and ride location.” Data from go!pass boarding swipes makes it possible to start validating that assumption.

At least some go!pass riders take advantage of officially designated park-and-ride lots. That’s illustrated in Maps 21, 22 and 23:

Map 21: Miller Road park-and-ride location.

May 22: Pioneer High School park-and-ride

Map 23: Plymouth and US-23 park-and-ride.

But the dataset I plotted suggests that there could be other locations that are potentially being used as informal park-and-ride lots by go!pass commuters. The year’s worth of boarding data showed Meijer at Carpenter and Ellsworth recorded about 8,000 boardings. And Fountain Plaza near Washtenaw Avenue and Golfside recorded more than 4,000 boardings. Neither of those locations are part of the AAATA’s park-and-ride program. High frequency boarding locations are shown in Map 24 [link to dynamic map]:

Map 24: High frequency boarding locations (more than 2,500 boardings in a year). Highlighted with pink arrows are Meijer at Carpenter and Ellsworth and Fountain Plaza near Washtenaw Avenue and Golfside.

It’s also possible that those locations are not necessarily being used as informal park-and-ride lots for work commuting purposes – but rather are simply shopping destinations for some go!pass holders.

That’s a possibility that highlights the conditions for use of go!passes. Namely, they’re not just for commuting to work. Using a go!pass to run shopping errands is completely within the parameters of the program.

And that’s an opening to make a point I’ve written about before: The DDA should consider extending the benefits of go!passes more broadly than just to downtown employees. At the DDA board retreat on Jan. 30, 2014, board chair Sandi Smith floated the idea of a go!pass for downtown residents as well as employees. I count as progress the fact that any DDA board member is reflecting on what kind of transportation program the DDA would like to fund.

In a column written over a year ago, I argued for extending the go!pass benefit generally to Ann Arbor transit taxpayers – but reducing the amount of the subsidy. I won’t repeat those arguments here. But some readers might wonder why I think the DDA could legally fund activity outside the downtown district. It’s because the roughly $500,000 annual go!pass subsidy is funded out of revenue collected in the public parking system, which the DDA manages. That is, the go!pass is not funded with tax increment finance (TIF) revenue.

So from a legal perspective, if it’s legal for the DDA to turn over 17% of the gross revenue from the parking system to the city of Ann Arbor to use wherever in the city it likes – as the DDA does now under the terms of its contract with the city – then it’s legal to fund a city-wide transportation pass with public parking revenue.

Or if the DDA is committed to providing an additional transportation subsidy only to those people who have a connection to downtown, then that connection could be defined simply as “boarded the bus in the DDA district.” Imagine a go!pass distributed with every tax bill – a transportation pass for which users could purchase additional rides by using an online interface. And imagine that every month, when a user logs on to review their account, there’s a message that reads something like: “You boarded the bus 15 times in the DDA district. This month the DDA is able to pay for 10 of those rides.” That’s a program that could support not just downtown workers, but also downtown residents and downtown shoppers.

Ultimately, I think that programs similar to the go!pass could be used as a tool to help boost out-of-pocket ridership. And that’s important, because I think that’s part of the way we should measure the future success of AAATA service.

Policy Point 2: The DDA should consider using Ann Arbor public parking system revenue to fund a transportation pass with broader eligibility than just downtown employees.

A Big Pile of Data

Around this time of year, The Chronicle has historically published a transit data roundup, adding the most recent set of ridership data to the set we’ve been gradually compiling. For this column, I’ve left out Amtrak ridership – because the five-year transit improvement plan is not supposed to involve any rail-based service. And the five-year transit improvement plan is focused strictly on the immediately adjacent geographic vicinity of Ann Arbor.

And this year I’ve written the annual data roundup as a column, because data mostly does not speak for itself. But data does repeat itself, and so will I. Again, here’s what I conclude based on this big pile of data.

I think the success of the AAATA’s five-year improvement plan should be measured in part by increases in out-of-pocket ridership. I think the MRide agreement between UM and the AAATA should include not just a fare component but also a component to cover UM’s “local share.” And I think the go!pass program should be conceived as a tool to help increase general out-of-pocket ridership, not just serve to benefit people who have a formal affiliation with downtown Ann Arbor.

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

AATA board member David Nacht presses his microphone button. (Photos by the writer.)

That business included the approval of its fiscal year 2011 budget, which starts Oct. 1, 2010 and goes through Sept. 30, 2011. The FY 2011 budget calls for a total of $27,030,407 in expenses, among them a provision for a 2% merit-based increase in non-union staff compensation, with an additional 1% bonus pool for the organization’s top performers.

The board also approved another five-year MRide agreement with the University of Michigan to provide transportation for UM faculty, students and staff. Under the agreement, which runs from 2010-2015, UM affiliates will continue to board without paying a fare, with UM paying the AATA $1 per boarding.

When added to the per-boarding payment, $800,000-$900,000 of federal funds – received by UM and included as part of the MRide deal – will result in an estimated $2.37 million payment by UM to the AATA in FY 2011, the first year of the new agreement.

The board also voted to award a three-year contract to RideConnect – a partnership of WATS, Washtenaw County, WAVE and People’s Express – valued at $200,000 per year. The contract will be paid by federal and state funds designated specifically to aid the coordination between public transit and human services transportation needs.

The board’s meeting also included, for the first time, literal buttons. The board convened a meeting for the first time at its new meeting location – the Ann Arbor District Library’s board room – which is equipped with video recording equipment, including buttons used by meeting participants to turn their microphones on and off.

And some remarks by a public speaker pushed the wrong button for David Nacht, who responded to the speaker’s remarks by saying that attitudes reflecting age-based discrimination were not appropriate.

FY 2011 Budget

Before the board for consideration was the organization’s operations budget for the 2011 fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1, 2010 and goes through Sept. 30, 2011.

Budget: Merit Increases

During his report to the board, Rich Robben, chair of the planning and development committee, described how the Sept. 14, 2010 meeting of the PDC had included significant discussion about the inclusion of merit pay increases for non-union staff at the AATA. [AATA union employees will receive a 3.5% increase effective Jan. 1, 2011.]

The budget that was being brought forward to the board, Robben said, includes a provision of 2% in merit increases plus an additional 1% as a bonus pool for high performers. The initial budget proposal brought to the committee included no merit increases for non-union employees, while the second version included a 3% merit pay allocation. The 2%-1% split was a compromise. From the Sept. 14, 2010 PDC meeting minutes:

Mr. Robben raised questions about staff merit increases in the second version of the FY2011 budget that had been prepared. Michael Ford indicated that up to 3% was included in that budget version. He noted that the budget document currently under review included monies for a lump sum bonus for management employees, but restated other Board members’ concerns over legacy costs and political implications associated with making merit increases permanent.

Mr. Robben and Ms. Dale discussed merit increases, with input from staff. It was noted that the rate of increase for comparable raises in the Southeast Michigan region had been identified by AATA’s salary administration consultant. The average salary increase in our area for FY2011 is 2.9%. Ms. Dale objected to not providing merit increases for staff based merely on some other entities having to face salary freezes or reductions – especially if the denial of raises is not necessary to balance AATA’s budget.

Mr. Robben also objected to zeroing out merit increases indicating that it is appropriate to reward good, hard working employees. He stated that withholding raises is the wrong message to send to the organization. Ms. Dale added that people are more likely to look at how the organization is spending large amounts of money in the community versus the $70,000 or less that would go toward employee raises. The committee took a position objecting to withholding merit increases for staff, and settled upon a compromise recommendation to present to the full Board.

This compromise recommendation would budget 2% for merit increases, and place another 1% into a bonus pool to reward high performers. Michael Ford was directed to identify the terms of such a reward plan.

During deliberations at the Sept. 16 meeting, board treasurer Sue McCormick said that as she’d gone through the budget, one of the items that had given her pause was the increase in personnel expenses as a percentage of the budget. A contributing factor, she said, was that the AATA provides its services through its employees, and is therefore a staff-intensive organization. She concluded that she was satisfied that the increase was appropriate.

Another issue she wanted to draw attention to, said McCormick, was the strategy they had in place to increase the use of part-time motor coach operators (MCOs) as a way to manage bus driver operator costs. In this budget, however, the number of part-time MCOs was staying relatively constant, and full-time MCOs were being added. It’s important, she said, to recognize the increased costs associated with that – benefits, for example. She said she’d be asking staff to explain why they seemed to be moving in a direction different from the policy they’d put in place a year ago.

David Nacht spoke to the issue of preventive maintenance for which the AATA was showing an increase in its FY 2011 budget. The use of federal funds for preventive maintenance is a topic that Nacht has paid particular attention to over the last few years. From The Chronicle’s report of the AATA’s May 12, 2010 board meeting:

[Jesse] Bernstein asked for some additional clarification on how the federal Section 5307 formula funds are used by AATA as compared to the peer systems. Brian McCollom fielded that question. He explained that such funds can be used on two main categories of items: (i) capital expenses – like buses, shelters, and terminals, and (ii) preventive maintenance on capital assets. The Section 5307 funds pay 80% of the costs, he said, with a 20% local match expected.

In the peer systems, McCollom said, about 11% of operating budgets were paid out of Section 5307 funds, compared to 10% for the AATA. Looking at the balance between capital expenses and preventive maintenance in the Section 5307 funds, the AATA has a 60-40 split, whereas peer systems show an average of a 33-67 split for capital expenses and preventive maintenance.

The analysis of AATA’s use of 40% of its Section 5307 dollars on preventive maintenance, compared to a 67% portion by peer systems, may have given board member David Nacht some comfort. Nacht has often expressed concern about the use of preventive maintenance dollars. Most recently, at the board’s March 24, 2010 meeting, he had cautioned against using preventive maintenance dollars for budget fixes:

Nacht concurred, saying that financial direction was especially important, given how easy it is to use preventive maintenance dollars for temporary budget fixes.

At the Sept. 16 meeting during deliberations on the FY 2011 budget, Nacht returned to the same theme, saying that he’d never before been part of an organization that seemed to have a “ready pot of cash” that you can throw into your operating budget “to make everything okay.” However, he said he’d satisfied himself that the AATA was in line with peer organizations with respect to preventive maintenance funds, and that the AATA’s use of these federal preventive maintenance funds is consistent with Congressional intent. He cautioned, however, that it allows for a casualness and sloppiness – something he had not seen in the AATA, he stressed.

Nacht asked the board to bear in mind the broader community and context in which the budget was being formulated – people are being laid off and these are difficult economic times. He said he was trying to continue the work that former board member Ted Annis had done to try to make the organization more efficient. [Annis was  not reappointed to the board this summer when his term ended.]

Budget: Where Does AATA Get Its Money, How Is It Spent?

The major categories of budget revenues and expenses are as follows:

FY2011 AATA Budget (Oct. 1, 2010 -- Sept. 30, 2011)
REVENUES:

Local Tax Revenues           $  9,414,574
Purch. of Svc Agr.(Urban)*        716,935
Purch. of Svc Agr.(Nonurban)*     434,545
Passenger Revenue               4,737,615
State Operating Assist.         7,533,996
Federal Operating Assist.       3,545,109
Interest and Other                735,688
TOTAL REVENUES               $ 27,118,462

*Purchase of Service Agreement

EXPENSES:

Operations Wages             $  6,223,959
Maintenance Wages               1,355,383
Management Wages                3,278,046
Fringe Benefits                 4,589,092
SUBTOTAL                       15,446,480 

Purchased Services              2,622,649
Diesel Fuel and Gasoline        1,424,000
Materials & Supplies            1,506,603
Utilities                         456,447
Casualty & Liability Costs        440,200
Purchased Transportation        4,391,628
Other Expenses                    532,400
Local Depreciation                210,000

TOTAL EXPENSES               $ 27,030,407 

OPERATING SURPLUS (DEFICIT)     $  88,055

-
Outcome: The FY 2011 operating budget was unanimously approved.

MRide: UM-AATA Partnership

Before the board was a new five-year agreement with the University of Michigan to provide transportation to UM students, faculty and staff. Around 41% of all rides on AATA buses are taken by UM affiliates. Ridership numbers for both UM affiliates and non-UM riders was a subject of board discussion at the Sept. 16 meeting.

MRide: Ridership

Charles Griffith reported that ridership is down compared to last year by around 6% – half of that decline, he said, staff thought might be attributable to the discontinuation of the LINK service, which was a downtown circulator bus that did not charge a fare. Demand-response service, reported Griffith, was down about 10%, which was attributed partly to the fare increase and partly to the overall downward trend in the economy.

During question time, Jesse Bernstein asked if the downward ridership trend was reflected nationally. Chris White, AATA’s manager of service development, told Bernstein that the short answer is yes. To look at the impact on ridership of the fare increase implemented by the AATA in two increments over the last two years [from $1 per ride to $1.25, then to $1.50], White said, they looked to UM riders as a control group. White concluded that the decrease in ridership is attributable to external factors.

The fare increase was implemented starting in May 2009, so any impact on ridership would be seen in the difference between 2008-09 and 2009-10. Among UM riders there was a 2.6% decrease, while among non-UM riders there was a 7.2% decrease, suggesting that there are external factors at play, but that fares also may have played a role in decreasing the numbers of AATA riders.

AATA RIDES

Acad Yr  UM Riders         Total Riders      Non-UM Riders

2003-04  1,374,000         4,188,064         2,814,064

(MRide commences)

2004-05  1,697,859  23.6%  4,493,117   7.3%  2,795,258  -0.7%
2005-06  2,040,282  20.2%  5,212,039  16.0%  3,171,757  13.5%
2006-07  2,103,611   3.1%  5,320,811   2.1%  3,217,200   1.4%
2007-08  2,254,026   7.2%  5,738,828   7.9%  3,484,802   8.3%
2008-09  2,368,474   5.1%  5,948,024   3.6%  3,579,550   2.7%
2009-10  2,306,942  -2.6%  5,630,030  -5.3%  3,323,088  -7.2%

Cumulative change since 2003-04 

           932,942  67.9%  1,441,966  34.4%    509,024  18.1%

-

MRide: New Contract

During his report on the PDC committee meeting, Rich Robben gave a description of the MRide agreement that the committee was recommending to the board for its approval. The MRide agreement has been in place between the AATA and the University of Michigan since 2004, and provides a program under which UM students, faculty and staff can board AATA buses without paying a fare – the cost of providing their transportation is arranged through the MRide agreement. The agreement considered by the board on Sept. 16 is a five-year deal retroactive from Aug. 1, 2010 to July 31, 2015.

Robben said he’d abstained from voting and also would abstain from voting during the board meeting – Robben is a UM employee [executive director for plant operations].

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 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.

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 agreement is for UM to pay AATA $1 per ride. According to Chris White, AATA’s manager of service development, the previous arrangement worked out to around $0.80 per ride, though it was not defined that way in the contract.

The staff analysis of this deal notes that the boarding payment is higher than the average fare paid by people who purchase a 30‐day AATA pass. The total estimated UM payment for FY 2011 is $2.37 million, of which federal formula funds earned by UM bus operation are expected to provide $800,000‐$900,000.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen noted that there are considerations for Title 6 (civil rights) that arise from the analysis of the federal grant money passed through from UM as part of the MRide agreement – it’s not technically fare revenue. Mogensen cited the official minutes of the June 23, 2010 AATA board meeting [emphasis added]:

Roger Kerson noted that the operating cost per passenger is $3.24 and the fare $1.50. Phil Webb explained that many passengers do not pay $1.50 as a significant portion of fares are paid by a third party making the average fare less. Chris White noted that a portion of the money AATA receives from the MRide comes from federal funds and is not technically fare revenue.

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.

At the Sept. 16 board meeting, Chris White indicated that 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.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the new MRide agreement.

RideConnect

In his report out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee (PMER), Charles Griffith described a proposed contract with RideConnect – a partnership of WATS (the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study), Washtenaw County, WAVE (the Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express) and People’s Express – valued at $200,000 per year. The contract will be paid by federal and state funds designated specifically to aid the coordination between public transit and human services transportation needs as a “mobility management” initiative.

During board deliberations on the item, Chris White described “mobility management” as a term of art that the Federal Transit Administration had come up with. Essentially it had to do with coordination of transportation, he said. There was a saying White said he liked to use addressing the notion of coordination: “If coordination were easy, it would already be done.”

The coordination that would be addressed in this contract would be between nursing homes, senior centers, churches, human services organizations and various transportation providers, White said. RideConnect, he explained, is a 501(c)(3) organization that had bid on the contract. AATA staff had inquired with United Way’s 211 program, but neither they nor any other organization submitted a bid.

What RideConnect would do would include referral of services as well as “trip brokering,” White said.

David Nacht asked why AATA did not do this in house. White said that the AATA did not have the kind of countywide view a few years ago that the AATA does now. At that time it had been People’s Express that had really pushed it forward, White said. Nacht asked who the “human being” is who is the head of RideConnect – he wondered if she used to work for one of the local transit agencies.

White told Nacht that Vanessa Hansel is the head of RideConnect and that she did not formerly work with any of the local transit agencies. Nacht confirmed with White that Hansel did not have any personal or business relationships that could create an appearance of a conflict of interest. White explained to Nacht that Hansel had been vetted by the county and by WATS.

Nacht said that his concern was based on the fact that it is a single-bid contract for an entity the AATA had helped to create – and now they were funneling funds to it. Nacht asked that as federal funds are passed through to RideConnect, the appropriate budgetary data could be looked at in RideConnect’s records.

Charles Griffith indicated that PMER had looked at the issue and had requested some additional reporting from RideConnect as part of the contract. Sue McCormick characterized the venture as a “strategic partnership” for the AATA – nonprofits generally ran at lower cost-per-unit of delivery than the public sector.

Outcome: The contract with RideConnect was unanimously approved by the board.

Auditing Services: Rotating

In his report out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Charles Griffith related a discussion they’d had about the AATA’s auditing services. It had been brought to their attention by Sue McCormick – an AATA board member who is the city of Ann Arbor’s public services area administrator – that it was important to rotate the contract for their auditing services in order to get a wider range of opinion about their operations.

They’d determined that they would grant the contract to the firm with the highest score, which is their current provider, but the contract would be only for one year instead of five years. They could then use the year to discuss how they would achieve some kind of rotation.

The performance monitoring and external relation committee minutes of Sept. 15, 2010 are consistent with Griffith’s summary:

Michael Ford reported that a Request for Proposals for Auditing Services was issued to 20 auditing firms, and three responses were received. The incumbent firm, Rehmann Robson who has been under contract for ten years, received the highest score.

However, Sue McCormick found the process problematic as the reviewers came back with split views on the three proposers. Ms. McCormick reported on previous discussions at the Board level about implementing a policy to rotate auditors to insure a high level of scrutiny and avoid the situation of having one long‐term auditor which can lead to complacency.

Phil Webb outlined three options for next steps: re‐let the bid and get new proposals, hire the incumbent firm for the three year term, or hire the incumbent firm for a one year term and establish an audit rotation policy and issue a request for proposals for five years starting next fiscal year. Sue McCormick moved that the committee recommends that the Board authorize execution of a contract with Rehmann Robson based on the terms of the Request for Proposals, and report back to the committee within four months with a recommendation for an auditor rotation policy. Roger Kerson supported the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

During deliberations at the Sept. 16 board meeting on the award of a one-year contract to Rehmann Robson, David Nacht asked for clarification about the bidding. Sue McCormick reported that there were only three bidders and that the evaluation – based 60% on technical ability and 40% on cost – was somewhat inconclusive. If the evaluation had been only technical, she said, the choice would have tended in a different direction.

It gave her a reason to review the general policy on the awarding of auditing contracts, McCormick said, which was to award them for no more than five years. Rehmann Robson has been under contract for auditing services for the AATA for the last 10 years. There’s no policy in place, she said, to ensure a variety of perspectives from different auditors – no term limit on auditors, she said. But because the current firm is very familiar with the AATA, they are able to offer their services more cost effectively, McCormick said – they’re familiar with the AATA chart of accounts, for example. She said that for the time being the recommendation is to move ahead with a one-year contract and use the time to review the auditing policy.

Nacht concluded that this approach sounded reasonable. Bernstein also said he welcomed the process of reviewing the audit, but noted that every time they’d double-checked they’d always found they’d been in compliance. Nacht suggested that it might be worth it for PMER to take a look a specialist firms with experience in transit auditing.

Outcome: The resolution to award the one-year auditing contract to Rehmann Robson was unanimously approved.

Officers Elected (Redux)

The AATA had in July held an election of officers in the wake of the departure of Paul Ajegba and Ted Annis from the board. Ajegba had served as chair and Annis had served as treasurer. At July’s meeting, Jesse Bernstein was elected chair and Sue McCormick was elected treasurer.

Charles Griffith, the board secretary, served as the nominations committee for the election of officers for the 2010-2011 year and reported during the Sept. 16 meeting that the same three individuals were interested in continuing to serve. There were elected unanimously by acclimation: Bernstein as chair; McCormick as treasurer; and Griffith as secretary.

The committee structure would continue as before, said Bernstein. The planning and development committee (PDC) will be chaired by Rich Robben – he’ll be joined on that committee by David Nacht and Anya Dale. The performance monitoring and external relations committee (PMER) will be chaired by Griffith, and he’ll be joined by McCormick and Roger Kerson. The board’s governance committee consists of the board chair, plus the chairs of PDC and PMER: Bernstein, Robben, Griffith.

Communications and Comments

As it typically does, the board heard reports from committee chairs and its CEO, along with various public commentary.

Comm/Comm: Countywide Transportation Master Plan (TMP)

Board chair Jesse Bernstein thanked the staff for all the work they’d been doing to educate the community about the countywide transportation master plan (TMP) that AATA has been developing over the last several months. That work will continue through the end of the year and into early 2011. As an example, he cited a presentation that AATA staff had given to a Willow Run neighborhood group, which had been so well received that the neighbors wanted the staff to return and tell them more.

At the meeting, the board also heard an update on the development of the TMP from Michael Benham. For a detailed description of the process of community engagement, which began several months ago, see previous Chronicle coverage: “AATA Moves Engagement Process into Gear.”

From The Chronicle’s previous coverage, here’s what the time line looks like:

• July 2010: Develop vision objectives for short, medium and long-term goals – 30 years into the future in very general terms. What do people want to see in terms of public safety, economic vitality, urban sprawl, and health. From understanding that, it would be possible that transit helps realize goals. Audit the existing situation and how it meets community needs. Look at the forecast for the next 30 years and see how those needs can be met.
• July-August 2010: Look at the current transit system and develop a needs assessment.
• September-November 2010: Develop a list of options – some of which already exist – and evaluate those against the community’s values. Sift and package the options into different scenarios. Hypothetical examples of the kind of scenarios that could be produced are a paratransit-intensive scenario, a rail-intensive scenario, a low-funding scenario or a high-funding scenario.
• November-December 2010: From the set of packaged scenarios, develop the preferred scenario.
• January-February 2011: Develop a Transit Master Plan, review of funding opportunities and implementation of plan.

The process is thus now in its “scenario building” phase. During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen reminded the board to make sure that the scenarios are subjected to an appropriate Title 6 (civil rights) analysis.

At the Sept. 16 meeting, the board expressed concerns about the process for development of the TMP centered on the board’s role – at what point will they be asked to weigh in? This was a question that Charles Griffith had conveyed from the performance monitoring and external relations committee before the TMP presentation.

The issue was taken up in slightly different form by David Nacht at the conclusion of Benham’s presentation, when he asked for details about how the technical recommendations from the consultant Steer Davies Gleeve would be integrated into the feedback from the community about what people say they want. Nacht wanted a way for the board to come to a consensus about what they’d found out from the first phase of the process. For example, he said, maybe they learn that the transit experts are recommending A, B, and C as options but that there is support in the community only for A and B. Nacht wanted a specific and concrete way of identifying that, not something vague.

Bernstein followed up on Nacht’s remarks by saying that as he spoke with various leaders throughout the county, he was struck by the need for education about what transit is and what the AATA already does. Sue McCormick noted that one of the challenges that is inherent in asking people what they need is that people sometimes don’t realize even what the range of options is. She suggested that the first kind of thinking needs to be broader, not narrower.

Comm/Comm: Local Advisory Council Report

Rebecca Burke gave the report from the local advisory council, which is the AATA body that provides advocacy for senior and disabled riders. She reported that the executive council of that body had appointed six members, the first three of which are re-appointments: Cheryl Weber, Mary Wells, John Kuchinski, Lena Ricks, Eleanor Chang, and Stephen McNutt.

Burke reported that she would be stepping down as the chair, with Karen Wanza taking her place.

Burke told the board that it had been a pleasure to work with them and said she’d been encouraged that the board had been open to working with the LAC. Board chair Jesse Bernstein thanked Burke for her work.

Comm/Comm: CEO’s Activity Report – Blake Transit Center

Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, submits a written report of his monthly activities, which is included in the board’s information packet for each meeting. [.pdf of September 2010 CEO report] He typically reviews some of the highlights orally at the board meeting.

Michael Ford, AATA's CEO, before the meeting started is actually pointing out The Chronicle's reporter to an AATA staffer, not calling board chair Jesse Bernstein out at the plate.

At the board meeting, Ford expressed appreciation for the staff work on the budget. He mentioned that the Blake Transit Center (BTC) had been a focus of discussion by a Stakeholder Action Group (SAG) looking at the future of BTC. In May, the AATA hired an architect for the design of a new transit center at the existing location. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Hires Architect for Transit Center"]

The SAG includes representatives of the Ann Arbor District Library and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority as well as the city of Ann Arbor. The redesign and reconstruction of BTC has been the subject of a conversation with the DDA about site planning for the entire block  between Fourth and Fifth avenues, north of William Street, for  several months. [See Chronicle coverage: "DDA Floats Idea for Fourth Avenue"]

The CEO report for September indicates that the previous plan to re-build the BTC exactly on the footprint of the existing facility may now be open for discussion:

The Stakeholder Action Group (SAG) held its second meeting in late August. At that time, the announcement was made that the City informed AATA that the surface lot to the south of the site is not available for additional on‐site bus parking capacity.

There is a prospective new look to the project; however. Consideration is being given for relocating the structure on the existing footprint, which would make possible expansion of the facility easier, should a portion of the adjacent surface lot become available in the future. The SAG reviewed the new site design option where the BTC would be positioned along the south property line and “centered” on the site. This would result in bus circulation directed toward Fifth Avenue, as opposed to away from Fifth, which is currently the case. The project team is studying the revised site proposal to make certain that the proposed design would not affect pedestrian and vehicular circulation for Library patrons.

The CEO report does not mention any connection between the new underground parking garage – currently being constructed on the Library Lot north of BTC – and a newly constructed BTC. When the city council approved the bonds for the underground parking structure at their Feb. 19, 2009 meeting, they also reduced the planned scope of the project. From Chronicle coverage:

Hohnke then proposed an amendment that would slightly reduce the scope of the project, by whittling around 100 spaces off the total through eliminating the Fifth Avenue extension all the way to William Street. Even the reduced number of spaces would represent roughly a 10% increase in the 5,000 spaces currently in the city’s off-street parking inventory, Hohnke said.

Queried by Mayor John Hieftje, Hohnke said that cost savings of removing the 100 spaces would be around $6 million.

By way of background, the Fifth Avenue extension of the underground parking garage was originally conceived as providing flexibility to connect under the street from the parking garage to whatever new building might be developed on the Fifth & William [aka Old Y lot] parcel. That same extension, which is not currently planned to be built, could connect to a newly constructed Blake Transit Center.

Comm/Comm: CEO’s Report – Public Forum

At the Sept. 16 board meeting, Ford also announced a forum for all AATA riders, including fixed-route service riders [i.e., the regular bus service] – which is scheduled for Oct. 21 at the Ann Arbor downtown library at 5:30 p.m. [In recent months, Tim Hull, during his public commentary, has called for some kind of regular mechanism for input from riders of the regular bus service that would be parallel to the local advisory council, which provides advocacy for the senior and disabled community.]

Charles Griffith also brought up the idea of additional rider forums, with the possibility of designating a time before regular board meetings. Staff will look into a variety of options, Griffith said.

Comm/Comm: New Board Meeting Venue

Jesse Bernstein opened the meeting by thanking the director of the Ann Arbor District Library, Josie Parker, and the downtown library itself for allowing the AATA to meet at that location, as well as the staff at CTN for providing the audio-visual technical assistance necessary for broadcast and taping. He concluded his remarks of appreciation by quipping that it would now be possible for the board to watch the meeting again and “find out what we did.” Video of the first meeting and all subsequent AATA board meetings will be available streamed on the web via CTN’s Video on Demand feature.

Comm/Comm: Roger Kerson’s Business Relationship

Board chair Jesse Bernstein noted that the AATA’s newest board member, Roger Kerson, had provided a communication to the effect of his businessmen relationship with the national transit workers union organization, and if there are any conflicts of interest there, Kerson will be recused from voting.

Comm/Comm: Ypsilanti Service, WALLY

Lawrence Krieg, founder of Wake Up, Washtenaw!, is a member of the Ypsilanti Township planning commission as well as the technical committee that is studying the Washtenaw Avenue corridor. He addressed the board at the start of the Sept. 16 meeting on the topic of proposed improvements to service between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, which they had considered at their August retreat. About the idea of increasing frequency of service during peak hours to every 10 minutes, Krieg said it was “excellent – go for it!”

As for the idea of increasing frequency of local Ypsilanti service, Krieg noted that most of the routes are loops, making them unattractive for choice riders, so he suggested a simpler two-way service instead. Express service during peak hours between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, he said, was a good idea but unlikely to succeed as proposed. The largest employment centers for Ypsilanti workers are north campus and the VA hospital, St. Joe’s, and Eastern Michigan University, so Krieg suggested that a better strategy would indicate a greater frequency on Route #3.

Krieg continued his remarks during the time allotted for public comment at the conclusion of the meeting. He said he was a frequent rider of the Michigan Flyer service to the airport and said that he’d welcome better coordination between AATA routes and the Michigan Flyer. Current service is quite good, he said, and he didn’t think AATA needed to operate an airport service itself.

Krieg also called for coordination with the UM College of Architecture and Urban Planning and the Ross Business School to help make the business case to private entities for investment in WALLY, the proposed Washtenaw-Livingston commuter rail line. He said the current down economy had put the brakes on WALLY, but that it would be an enhancement to the economy when things turned around.

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road Station

Elizabeth Donahue Colvin told the board that she’d grown up riding Detroit buses and now rode the Ann Arbor buses – she appreciates having time to read on the bus. She also complimented the helpfulness of the AATA bus drivers. She said she lived in the Wall Street neighborhood and – with some of the condo associations, like Nielsen Square and Riverside Park Place – had written a letter to the UM board of regents expressing support of the Fuller Road Station project. UM had previously contemplated constructing two parking structures right in the Wall Street neighborhood – Colvin told the board they much preferred the location proposed for Fuller Road Station for those facilities. She asked the board to call on them, if there is anything they can do to help move that project forward.

Comm/Comm: Call for More Youth

Thomas Partridge, during public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, said he’d reminded people for years that John F. Kennedy had visited Ann Arbor to move America forward. He called on the AATA to move the community forward with respect to transportation, focusing on modest goals. Among those goals, said Partridge, should be to put a friendly, more youthful face on management – not to be disrespectful of the long service of current managers.

David Nacht responded to Partridge’s comments by saying that he did not think Partridge meant to be discriminatory in his remarks, but that if someone stood at the podium and called on the board to get rid of all the females or all the people of a particular color or religion, it would jump out as discriminatory. Nacht said that he found the idea of replacing older staff with more youthful staff equally offensive.

Comm/Comm: More Notice, No Quorum

Tim Hull addressed the board on the topic of fall service changes, saying that they’d been put in place with little notice, one of which included the elimination of some stops on Briarwood Circle. He called for broader involvement in those decisions. Hull also told the board that he’d shown up in August at the library expecting to see the board meet, but they’d failed to achieve a quorum – he was surprised and disappointed.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Oct. 21, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]