This go!pass, subsidized by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, lets its holder ride AATA buses an unlimited number of times.

If I rode the AATA buses to and from work every day and paid the full $1.50 fare each way, the cash value of that card would be about $750 per year. Of course if I were actually riding the bus that frequently, I’d be somewhat better off purchasing a 30-day pass for $58 a month, which would come out to just a bit under $700 annually.

What I actually paid for that card this year was $10 – just a bit over 1% of its potential cash value.

So what sort of dark magic subsidizes my potential rides on AATA buses? And why do I have access to this magical go!pass card, when you, dear Chronicle reader, likely do not?

Along the road to answering these questions, I’d also like to make a proposal. It’s a vision for broadening the program, getting more transit passes into the hands of Ann Arbor residents, and expanding the possible uses for the go!pass – including (shudder) the ability to use a transit pass to pay for parking.

Policy Choices Already Made: Charge More for Parking

A cynical explanation of my public transportation subsidy would go like this: On average, the unwitting motorists who park their cars in Ann Arbor’s public parking system pay prices set 3% higher than necessary; and this 3% “surcharge” is used to subsidize the bus rides of go!pass holders.

The percentage is basically right – because Ann Arbor’s public parking system generates about $15 million in revenue annually, and the annual subsidy required to pay for the rides taken by go!pass holders is about $500,000. And that $500,000 is, in fact, allocated from the fund that receives parking revenues.

But before you conclude that bus riders are benefiting at the expense of motorists, it’s worth considering the benefit to motorists from this subsidy: fewer cars on the road, which means better traffic flow for motorists; less competition among motorists for parking spaces; and reduced need to reserve for capital replacement and new construction of parking structures, which relieves some upward pressure on parking prices.

And if you’d like to argue against the go!pass transportation subsidy on the grounds that this “surcharge” on parking prices is effectively a tax – one that we voters never approved – then it’s worth considering that the total “surcharge” applied by the Ann Arbor public parking system is actually closer to 20%, of which only 3% goes to subsidize transportation. The other 17% is baked right into the contract with the city of Ann Arbor, under which the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority operates the city’s public parking system.

Under the terms of that contract, the city receives 17% of gross parking revenues, which the city uses to “subsidize” various general fund activities – like the salaries of police officers, firefighters, city planners, and allocations to human services nonprofits.

So when mayor John Hieftje talks about how he wouldn’t trade Ann Arbor’s budget situation for that of any other city in Michigan, it’s easy to understand why: Dealing with tight financial times is easier when you can cover the first 2% or so of your general fund budget with revenues from your public parking system. Other cities in Michigan don’t necessarily have the option to cover a general fund budget gap through increased parking prices.

In any case, I think it’s sound public policy to analyze the subsidy provided for go!passes as an investment in the city’s transportation infrastructure. I think it’s less sound to treat the public parking system as a way to backstop the general fund.

But my point in writing is not to argue the merits of either policy choice. Those policy choices are already currently in place. What I’m suggesting is that now is a good time to reflect on the specifics of how the transportation subsidy is allocated.

How Is the Transportation Subsidy Allocated?

The go!pass program is administered by getDowntown, but the entity that makes the policy choice on allocation of the go!pass subsidy is the board of the Ann Arbor DDA. That’s a function of the fact that the DDA manages Ann Arbor’s public parking system under contract with the city. And in broad strokes, as long as the city gets its contractually obligated 17% of gross revenues, the DDA has latitude to expend parking system revenues according to the collective wisdom of its board.

For around 10 years, a transportation subsidy has supported the go!pass program, which is available only to Ann Arbor downtown employees. I get my go!pass card through the Workantile, a downtown coworking community.

At its June 2, 2010 meeting, the DDA board made a three-year allocation from the parking fund for the go!pass subsidy: $445,672 for FY 2011; $488,054 for FY 2012; and $540,060 for FY 2013, the current year. This money is paid to the AATA to cover the cost of rides that go!pass holders take. The size of that subsidy is a function of at least two factors.

First, go!pass holders take a lot of rides on AATA buses. During the 12 months between Oct 1, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2012, they took about 604,000 rides. That reflected a slight dip in go!pass ridership, down from 634,000 rides in the previous year.

go!pass total rides by year. The number of rides taken with go!passes has roughly doubled since 2004. This past year reflected a dip, which appears to be related to a reduced number of cards in circulation: 6,591 compared to 7,226. (Data from AATA; chart by The Chronicle.)

go!pass rides by month, year over year. The red trend line is the most recent year, 2012. The previous year is shown in black. (Data from AATA; chart by The Chronicle.)

While the total number of rides dipped slightly, the number of rides per card continued its upward trend. Since 2004, the number of rides per card has increased from about 60 to about 90. (Data from getDowntown program; chart by The Chronicle.)

The size of the needed subsidy is also partly a function of AATA policy. At its Aug. 24, 2011 meeting, the AATA board voted essentially to calibrate the cost of the go!pass rides to the amount of money the DDA had already allocated, instead of calculating the actual cost, which would likely have been more.

The size of the subsidy that’s needed to support bus rides taken through the go!pass program is also reduced somewhat by the $10 cost that’s charged to a company for each employee’s go!pass. And a go!pass program rule further amplifies the effect of the $10 cost per go!pass. That rule requires participating downtown employers to purchase passes for all their employees – at a cost of $10 a year. So companies are required to be “all-in” with the go!pass program.

Say a 20-person company participates in the program, but only five employees think they’ll ever want to ride the bus, for whatever reason. That 20-person company is still required to purchase 20 go!passes at $10 apiece. The $150 collected for those 15 go!passes – which will likely never be used – helps offset the cost of the rides taken with the five other cards, which could be heavily used.

From presentations I’ve seen getDowntown executive director Nancy Shore give, the Workantile’s pattern of go!pass usage is typical. A few card holders take a relative large number of rides, while the “long tail” of cards shows relatively little use:

Workantile go!pass usage.

So the financial effect of the “all-in” requirement is to reduce somewhat the amount of additional subsidy that is needed, with the cost of little-used cards partly offsetting the cost of the rides taken with heavily-used cards.

But the “all-in” requirement is not financially motivated. Instead, it’s seen mainly as a way to put a bus pass in the hand of someone who might otherwise never even consider using the bus to get somewhere. And that person might wind up taking a couple rides, and might even add the bus as an occasional option to satisfy their travel needs.

That makes sense to me – putting a convenient, economical tool for accessing public transportation in as many hands as possible, on the theory that it might help win some converts. Some of those converts might add to the nice meaty head of the “long tail,” but others might help shorten and thicken up that tail.

With that in mind, why do those hands we’re putting these bus passes in have to be attached the ends of arms belonging to downtown employees?

Bus Passes for Everyone

I would make two observations. First, the go!pass program is a success measured in terms of participation and ridership. But I think the subsidy is greater than it needs to be to achieve the goals of the program. I think there’s a lot of room to increase the $10-per-card cost, without diminishing the fact that these go!passes would still be an incredible bargain to a cardholder or to a company. But some revision to the “all-in” requirement for downtown businesses might be required.

Second, ordinary Ann Arbor folks who own property and pay the 2 mill transit tax are susceptible to the same incentives and influences that downtown employees are. If you put a convenient, economical tool for accessing public transportation in all of their hands, you might make converts to public transportation out of them as well.

The DDA board will, between now and April 2012, weigh the question of continuing to support the go!pass program – because the three-year allocation goes only through this fiscal year, which ends on June 30, 2013. If the board were to maintain the public transportation go!pass subsidy at roughly current levels – around a half million dollars a year – but reduce the public transportation subsidy just for downtown employees, that subsidy could be extended to a broader group of people.

So here’s what I’d like the DDA board to consider: Begin a transition from the DDA’s historical approach to the go!pass subsidy, which is downtown-employee centric, to one that is more broadly inclusive of Ann Arbor. I’m not suggesting that we pull the rug out from under the go!pass program all in one go. But eventually, I’d like to see the following kind of program replace the current go!pass.

• A physical swipe-able transportation card would be sent to every Ann Arbor address that pays property taxes – because the card would be included in the tax bill. Any registered voters who were missed in that mailing would also receive a card. Having such a card would simply be part and parcel of living in Ann Arbor. They’d be as ubiquitous as library cards. Such cards could also be obtained by any non-resident for, say $10.
• The transportation cards would be issued in a “pre-loaded” state with, for example, 20 bus rides or 10 hours of parking. You could swipe it to board a bus, or to pay for your downtown parking. So this subsidy would be available broadly, not just to downtown employees. But it wouldn’t be as generous as the current subsidy to downtown employees.
• Additional value could be loaded onto the cards though online purchase or at automated kiosks at the downtown AATA transit center, which is being rebuilt. To make the kiosks a reality, though, the AATA would need to re-think some choices on that new transit center building it’s starting to build. At its Oct. 18, 2012 meeting, the AATA board opted to add the cost of LEED certification to the budget of the new transit station, but not to include the cost of automated ticketing kiosks.

The DDA board will be holding a retreat on Nov. 16. That would be a good occasion to engage in the higher-level policy discussion that could lead to such a transit pass program, funded with public parking revenues.

Other Ridership

Though it’s unrelated to my specific proposal, this column seems like a good repository for some additional data on other subsets of AATA ridership (University of Michigan affiliates) and other modes of transportation (Amtrak). So here it is:

University of Michigan ridership on AATA buses by month from 2005-2012. The most recent year is the red trend line. The previous year is the black trend line.  (Data from AATA; chart by The Chronicle.)

University of Michigan ridership on AATA buses – yearly totals: 2005-2012.  (Data from AATA; chart by The Chronicle.)

Total ridership on AATA fixed route service by month from 2004-2012. The most recent year is the red trend line. The previous year is the black trend line. (Data from AATA; chart by The Chronicle.)

Total ridership on AATA fixed route service yearly totals from 2004-2012. (Data from AATA; chart by The Chronicle.)

Total boardings and deboardings at the Ann Arbor Amtrak station, located on Depot Street. The most recent year is the red trend line. The previous year is the black trend line. Last year the monthly totals showed Amtrak on pace to set a record through May, but numbers dropped from May through the rest of the year, when compared to the previous year’s highs. This year tracked about the same as last year through March, dropped, but recovered in June and July and was back to previous years’ highs in August and September. (Data from MDOT; chart by The Chronicle.)

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local issues like transportation. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already on board The Chronicle’s bus, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

In this month’s Chronicle milestone column, I’d like to talk about options, and how some recent experiences with transit caused me to reflect on the current somewhat chaotic media landscape.

This Ruckus scooter is only slightly older than The Chronicle, and over the last four years it has logged over 3,700 miles around Ann Arbor.

In my household, a few years ago we made a decision to get rid of our one car. So when I need to go somewhere, a car parked in my driveway is not the go-to option. Instead, I choose to walk, ride my Ruckus, take the bus, use a Zipcar, or on rare occasions, bum a ride from a friend or call a cab.

Generally, I don’t miss having a car. But so far this year, I’ve had occasion to get smacked by our decision not to use our community’s mainstream mode of transportation. At times like those, I fantasize what it would be like if car ownership weren’t the norm in most of America, including Ann Arbor. Surely the options we have would become more second nature to everyone, and there would be sufficient demand to support better service and access. Everyone would develop different expectations, and habits.

By way of analogy to media, the decision about a mainstream mode has already been made for us here in Ann Arbor. The media “car” – the one daily newspaper that most people received because there were no other options – has been pulled off the road. But for some of us, our expectations and habits haven’t fully adapted, and the alternatives can seem confusing, disjointed and unreliable.

I (still) regularly hear complaints that Ann Arbor lacks a “real” newspaper, and I react in two ways. First, I do feel nostalgia for the Ann Arbor News – I spent a good chunk of my life there, after all. I miss a daily local newspaper, too. But what I really miss is the ideal of a daily local newspaper – and that’s something I’m not sure The News, at least in its final years, actually delivered.

In its place is a collection of options for news and information, some better than others. I would expect to see even more in the coming years. The Chronicle is certainly one of those options, but will not satisfy the full range of our community’s information needs. Still, I’d argue that The Chronicle’s focus on local government provides Ann Arbor residents with far better coverage of local government than it’s enjoyed in the nearly two decades I’ve lived in Ann Arbor.

I’d like to circle back to the topic of media options later in the column.

But first, my transit tales.

Two Transit Tales

On Jan. 21, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners held a half-day retreat to talk about their goals for the upcoming year. They decided to hold it at the offices of the county parks & rec department, at County Farm Park near Washtenaw Avenue and Platt. Normally, the county board meets at the administration building boardroom on Main Street in downtown Ann Arbor, within walking distance for me. Though theoretically I could walk to County Farm Park, I wasn’t particularly interested in the hour and a half hike it would entail.

That distance is well within range of my scooter, a sturdy red Honda Ruckus. But it had snowed the night before, and despite its beefy tires and off-road vibe, the Ruckus isn’t safe for icy, snow-covered roads.

My next option was the bus. But a quick look online to check the route revealed that bus service didn’t begin early enough on a Saturday to get me there on time. I could take it home – and I did – but getting there wasn’t going to work.

My fourth option was Zipcar. I use this car-sharing service for trips that are generally longer distances than I feel comfortable traveling by scooter, for occasions when the extra time of a round-trip bus ride isn’t feasible, and for periods that are relatively short in duration – a couple of hours, max. It costs about $8 an hour, which I find extremely reasonable for the convenience. But since in this case I’d need the car for about five hours, it seemed too extravagant an expense.

So I turned to my final option – a taxi. Although I called an hour ahead of my pick-up time, it was late and I had to call again – apparently the dispatcher hadn’t sent out the request. The taxi finally arrived about 20 minutes after the time I’d requested. But the driver – an engaging man from Senegal, who advised me that Air Africa has the cheapest fare and a direct flight to Dakar – made an extra effort and I arrived on time. It cost me $13.50 plus tip.

Transit Tales: Something Odd Afoot

The following week, on Jan. 27, I had another encounter with the challenges of cultural expectations for transportation. It was the morning that President Barack Obama spoke at the University of Michigan, an event held at the Al Glick Fieldhouse on South State. His speech began at 9:30 a.m., but the media were told to arrive by 7 a.m., so that our equipment could go through a security check.

It was one of those days when no snow had been forecast, but when I got up there was a light covering. Still, I thought I’d try my Ruckus – only to wipe out at the end of our driveway.

When I called for a taxi, the dispatcher actually laughed – with Obama in town, they were already backlogged. It would be at least an hour, probably more.

And so I walked – I was lucky that this was an option.

The trek from my home to South State takes about 30 minutes. I was cutting it close, but I arrived at the intersection of State and Hoover at around 7 a.m. and thought I’d be fine. As I approached, I saw that the street was closed there for security. The media entrance was only a few yards away, but the officer at the intersection wouldn’t let me through.

Why? Because members of the media were entering from a parking lot at Crisler Arena, southwest of the fieldhouse. None of the communications from the White House or UM had indicated that it was mandatory to drive to the event – it just never occurred to anyone that someone might walk. And security folks don’t like anomalies.

The officer directed me to walk down State Street to Stimson, another 10 minutes at least. (Though the street itself was blocked off, the sidewalk on the east side was open to pedestrians.) There would be a Secret Service agent at State and Stimson, she said, and he would have to be the one to let me through.

As I walked down State Street, it was maddening to see the entrance I needed just across the street. There was another security checkpoint there, with metal detectors, so it seemed unlikely they’d be taking a risk by letting me through to that point. But no.

I eventually found a Secret Service agent, who seemed skeptical that I was with the media. He asked me where I had parked – it seemed to him questionable, if not bizarre, that I had walked. He asked for my media credentials for the event. But of course, it was exactly those credentials that I’d be picking up at the media entrance – the place I needed to go.

Finally, I pulled out a scrap of paper from my back pocket. Before leaving home I’d scrawled down the name and cell phone number of a White House press contact. Incredulously, I watched as a glimmer of recognition crossed the agent’s face – he knew this guy, apparently. And that random, wrinkled paper was my ticket. He allowed two Ann Arbor police officers – polite, professional and aware of the weird situation – to escort me back up State Street to the media entrance. [Here's a link to what happened inside later that morning.]

Transit Tales: Takeaways

I draw several conclusions from these experiences. First, there’s a long way to go before public transit – be it bus or rail – is a viable option, or let’s say a preferable one, for most people. The infrastructure just doesn’t support it. Nor does our culture. The county board retreat was organized by board chair Conan Smith, one of this region’s more vocal advocates for public transportation. I don’t know if it occurred to him to hold the retreat in a location that would be accessible by bus. To make that a priority, it first has to occur to you that someone coming to the retreat would use the bus to arrive there. Despite its reputation, Ann Arbor remains a car-centric city.

Another conclusion relates to privilege. Even though I don’t own a car, I made that decision by choice, not necessity. And I have options that many people do not enjoy. One fundamental option is my ability to live in a place that accommodates my transportation choices. Most of my work – attending public meetings of local government – is within walking distance from my home. That’s because 14 years ago, we could afford to buy a house in this neighborhood. I also can afford the yearly Zipcar membership of $50.

Perhaps more importantly, I have the luxury of being my own boss – though there are many days I wouldn’t describe it that way. That affords me the flexibility of making decisions on how to spend my time. But if I had to travel to a job across town, and had to arrive at a certain time each day or risk getting fired, I’m pretty sure that taking the bus would not be my first choice. Even less so if kids were in the mix.

Even with a lifestyle that’s amenable to the kinds of transit options I’ve chosen, it definitely requires more planning, mindfulness, time and overall effort than stepping out my back door whenever I want, walking 10 feet to a car, getting in and driving away. There are good reasons why many people can’t imagine giving that up.

Transit as a Metaphor

Not so long ago, many people couldn’t imagine giving up their daily newspaper, either. For anyone who grew up with it, getting a physical, printed newspaper dropped on your sidewalk or porch every day was a common ritual and an anchor to the community like nothing else. People might not have lived in the same neighborhood, or worked at the same company, or worshiped at the same church or temple or mosque – but you could be pretty sure they at least skimmed the same newspaper that you did.

It was something taken for granted – until suddenly, it was gone.

Just as I no longer have a “standard” mode of transportation, many people in this community no longer have a standard mode of getting local news, though not by choice. And just as it takes more planning, mindfulness, time and overall effort to deal with an array of transit options, the same is true for managing new options of getting news and information.

If you aren’t accustomed to managing those options, confronting more of them makes life more complex, at least initially. You have to figure out which sources you trust, where you can find certain kinds of information – sports, crime, politics, business, entertainment, etc. – and how you can actually get your hands on it, literally or electronically. And if that’s not how you want to spend your time, it’s annoying. Or if you don’t feel equipped to seek out this information yourself, it’s frustrating. That’s why some people are angry – still, nearly three years after the owners of the Ann Arbor News announced plans to close in 2009.

I’ve felt angry too. But being angry is exhausting and, frankly, futile.

We gave up our car by choice, while this community was forced to give up its daily printed newspaper involuntarily – but in both cases, our reality shifted and habits had to change. I believe that eventually, we’ll emerge from this transitional period into an era of a better informed community.

It might be because technology makes it possible to get information directly from a source, rather than filtered through a third party. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen “news stories” from other publications that mirror, sometimes verbatim, the press releases I’ve received earlier in the day. Press releases – whether they originate from a business, government or nonprofit – certainly shouldn’t be a community’s only source of information. But I’d rather read the original press release than have it rewritten by a “digital journalist” and repackaged as “news.”

The Chronicle has built a reputation for providing in-depth coverage of local government and civic affairs. I can envision other locally-owned publications emerging to focus on different areas that aren’t currently well-served, either based on geography or topic. In unsettled times, there are myriad opportunities.

I’m not suggesting that any of this will be easy. It is, in fact, quite messy right now – for residents seeking information, for organizations trying to get the word out about their news and events, and for those of us who are trying to serve what we see as specific needs in this community. In The Chronicle’s case, nearly four years ago we saw the need for more basic information and analysis of our local taxpayer-funded entities, and that’s what we’re providing.

The other big piece of this is the business model, of course. Are people willing to support the information they find valuable? Can it be done without relying on media conglomerates that have very little, if any, connection or commitment to our communities, beyond sucking out advertising revenue? My husband Dave Askins, The Chronicle’s co-founder and editor, wrote about this issue quite elegantly exactly two years ago, in The Chronicle’s March 2, 2010 milestone column. If you haven’t read his column – “How Much Would You Pay for That?” – I’d highly recommend it.

Having made a transition away from the status quo in another way – by ditching the car – I’m optimistic about making this media transition as well. I believe we’ll eventually learn to change our habits, manage our media options, and even figure out a better way to build the kinds of connections we relied on the daily newspaper to make in the past. In some ways, we’re building a road as we’re driving along – or walking or taking the bus – while we’re not even sure of the destination.

It’s time to get comfortable with that, and settle in for the trip.

About the writer: Mary Morgan is publisher and co-founder of The Ann Arbor Chronicle. The Chronicle could not survive to count each milestone 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!

An architectural drawing of the proposed Fuller Road Station. (Image links to city of Ann Arbor webpage on the Fuller Road Station)

The press release includes a statement from mayor John Hieftje, which reads in part: “After months of fruitful discussions, we received new information from the Federal Rail Administration regarding the eligibility of monies for the local match. This information altered project timing such that we could no longer finalize a proposal under the current Memorandum of Understanding.”

On the university’s side, Jim Kosteva – director of community relations – is quoted in the press release as follows: “We are optimistic the city’s drive to win additional federal and state dollars for Fuller Road Station will be successful …When the time comes, we stand ready to reengage.” [.pdf of press release]

The press release also includes the news that the university will build the parking deck it had planned for the Fuller Road Station site at a different location: “… it is acknowledged that the University will need to move forward with building a parking structure, in a yet to be determined location, near the Medical Campus to address the expected demand as employment and patient activity continues to grow.”

The university was primarily interested in the initial phase of the project, a large parking structure with more than 1,000 spaces planned.

The city of Ann Arbor’s main interest was in the second phase of the project – a multimodal transit center that city officials hope would include a new Amtrak station, bus depot and sufficient parking for those needs. That component of the project appears to be very much still in play, contingent on identifying funding.

The Chronicle has compiled a timeline overview of Fuller Road Station with links to previous coverage. After the jump, we look at: (1) the train/bus station component of the project; (2) what led UM to initially participate in the project; (3) what happened since a memorandum of understanding between the city and the university was ratified; and (4) the timing of the decision to halt the project.

Funding a Rail Station

With the university’s parking requirements no longer a part of the project, some of the controversy surrounding it could be reduced. That specific controversy stemmed from the objection that the construction of a large parking deck would require some kind of lease arrangement with the university over a long enough period to be tantamount to a sale of the land. A sale of city parkland is required by Ann Arbor’s city charter to be put to a voter referendum.

The parcel is zoned as public land (PL). The city council approved a change to the city’s zoning code in July 2010 that explicitly allows for “transportation facilities” on public land.

The city was looking to an investment from the university in Fuller Road Station to count toward matching funds for federal funding that would support construction of a later phase of the project, which would include a rail station. The project would still need to include a parking component – but not anywhere near the scale of the structure UM was planning to build. It’s not certain what funding sources will be available to the city of Ann Arbor as it moves forward with the project without UM’s involvement.

However, federal funds have always been a part of a hoped-for funding strategy. And in the spring of 2011, the city received news that initial federal funding for the project had been awarded – $2.8 million from the Federal Rail Administration, towards a $3.5 million project for environmental assessment and engineering at the site. The difference is required to be paid by a local match. The city and the university have already made expenditures in connection with that project that the city believes will count for most if not all of that local match. It’s typical that federally-funded infrastructure projects require something on the order of a 20% match in local funds.

The rail station component of the project is estimated to cost about $18 million, with necessary modifications and upgrades to tracks totaling an additional $6-7 million. When the FRA funding for the environmental assessment was announced, Ann Arbor transportation program manager Eli Cooper called the award significant because it indicates the FRA’s willingness to be the lead federal agency for the project. Although it’s not guaranteed, the FRA does not typically fund initial phases of a project like the environmental assessment without following through with funds for the project itself.

If the city eventually pursues the project independently of the university’s own parking needs, it would provide a more narrow focus on the amount of parking that’s required just for the rail station component. To meet that need, some amount of parking spaces would be required for short-term and drop-off parking, as well as some long-term parking. The figure corresponding to the city’s allotment of the spots when UM was involved would have worked out to around 200 parking spaces. Those spaces would need to be constructed as a project independently of UM’s parking needs.

The FAQ maintained by the city of Ann Arbor about Fuller Road mentions that Greyhound and Amtrak have indicated an interest in the project. [For a historical look at Amtrak ridership from 1994-2011, see "Transit Ridership Data Roundup: 2011"]

The Fuller Road Station is included in a 30-year vision that has been developed by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority as part of a transportation master plan for a countywide system. The transition of the AATA to a system of governance that includes a wider geographic area than the city of Ann Arbor is currently being debated by the Ann Arbor city council. That’s a discussion centered on details of a four-party agreement – between the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA.

Wall Street Controversy Led to Fuller Road Location

The attempted collaboration by UM with the city on Fuller Road Station stemmed from a controversy about UM’s plans to build a parking structure on Wall Street dating back at least four years. Plans by UM to expand in the general area go back to the 1980s. In 2008, the university’s plans to address its parking needs by constructing a parking deck on Wall Street had generated vocal opposition among nearby residents.

Early sketch of Fuller Road transit station from 2008-2009. (Image links to higher resolution image.)

So the alternative proposal to build the parking structure at the Fuller Park location next to the railroad tracks – in conjunction with a transit station that the city hoped to construct – had relieved some of the Wall Street controversy.

The specific pitch by the city to the university to collaborate on a multimodal transit center was publicly given concrete form at a January 2009 meeting of city staff and neighbors held at the Northside Grill, on Broadway in the Wall Street neighborhood. The city had identified the possible site for the proposed Fuller Road Station – a parking lot on land designated as part of the city’s park system – in its “Model for Mobility” long-term transportation planning initiative.

Later that year, on Nov. 5, 2009, the city council ratified a memorandum of understanding with the university for the parking deck component of the project. It called for a 22%-78% city-university proportionate share of the 1,050 parking structure spaces and a corresponding financial responsibility for construction. With an estimated cost of $46.6 million, the city’s share of the parking structure (phase 1) would have been roughly $10 million.

The UM board of regents approved the project at its Jan. 21, 2010 meeting. The memorandum of understanding calls for the parking structure component of the project to be ready for use by June 15, 2012. Construction would have needed to start in 2011 for that target to have been met.

The memorandum of understanding between the city and the university also gave a nod to the university’s interest in the rail station component (phase 2) portion of the project, but placed no obligations on UM: “The City and University shall cooperate and use their best efforts to achieve completion of mutually-beneficial elements of Fuller Road Station not included in Phase One.” Now, however, it’s not clear how UM might be involved on any elements of a rail station that might connect across the tracks to the UM hospital complex. The Feb. 10 press release includes the statement from Kosteva: “When the time comes, we stand ready to reengage.”

After the City-University MOU

Since the ratification of the memorandum of understanding, the project had languished, with little visible progress on the city-university deal. But community conversation about the deal has continued – during public commentary at meetings of the city council, the city’s park advisory commission, the city planning commission and of the UM regents. That’s because the Fuller Road location for the construction of parking for UM included at least as much controversy as the original Wall Street location – due partly to the fact that the parcel (currently a surface parking lot) is located on city-owned land designated as part of the city’s park system.

In May 2010, the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) considered a resolution that called for the city council to abandon the Fuller Road Station project, or at the least to get a better deal from the university in terms of revenues provided to the city for leasing the structure. [Chronicle coverage: "Better Deal Desired for Fuller Road Station"] That caught the attention of Hieftje, an advocate of the project, who attended PAC’s May 18, 2010 meeting and asked commissioners for their support. [Chronicle coverage: "Hieftje Urges Unity on Fuller Road Station"]

Hieftje’s request led commissioners to reconsider their position, dropping a call to stop the project but still urging city council to work for a more open process and to ensure a better financial deal to benefit the parks system. [Chronicle coverage: "PAC Softens Stance on Fuller Road Station"] The Ann Arbor city planning commission voted 7-2 on Sept. 21, 2010 to recommend approval of the Fuller Road Station site plan.

By the next year, with no visible additional movement, in June 2011 Hieftje indicated at a city council meeting that he’d be willing to schedule a work session on the topic of Fuller Road Station. And when a July 11, 2011 work session was added to the council’s calendar, it appeared the topic would be Fuller Road Station. However, at the council’s July 5, 2011 meeting, Hieftje indicated that the upcoming work session would not deal with Fuller Road Station – it dealt instead with possible changes to the city’s approach to garbage collection, as well as a reorganization of the city/county office of community development.

Later in July 2011, Hieftje sent a letter to constituents that reviewed much of the information that was previously known, but appeared to introduce the possibility that the University of Michigan would provide construction costs for the city’s share of the parking structure up front, with the city’s portion of 22% to be repaid later.

Although the final project has not been voted on and formally approved by the city council, aspects of Fuller Road Station, including its design, have moved ahead. A task force for a public art component was formed last year, for example. But at the public art commission’s November 2011 meeting, commissioners on the task force reported that they were told by city staff that the project had been delayed by 6-12 months.

Timing of the Decision to Halt Fuller Road Project

The Feb. 10 announcement about halting the joint university/city project comes after a release on Jan. 31 by the Sierra Club-Huron Valley Group of the city of Ann Arbor’s response to a Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on Fuller Road Station.

The material released under the FOIA request indicated growing frustration on the university’s side dating back at least to late October of last year. In an Oct. 20, 2011 email sent to mayor John Hieftje and city administrator Steve Powers – with the subject line “Action on Fuller Road Station” – UM director of community relations Jim Kosteva wrote:

There is growing anxiousness among university leadership regarding the ongoing delay in getting the commitment from Council and construction started. And revisiting our decision to postpone the structure(s) on Wall Street is becoming a more frequent discussion.

In that email Kosteva points to the imminent opening (since opened) of the new C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital and the increased pressure that the new hospital puts on the university’s parking system. [.pdf of Oct. 20, 2011 Kosteva email]

The decision about halting the Fuller Road Station project was made at least as early as Wednesday, Feb. 1. And in retrospect, there were some signs of that. During that afternoon’s meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Hieftje appeared pre-occupied at the board table – he did not cast his vote of principle against the Republic Parking management incentive, as he has consistently done the previous three years.

And Lucy Ann Lance reported on air just after 9 a.m. on Friday, Feb. 3 that a hoped-for guest who could talk about UM’s parking and transportation system – Hank Baier, associate vice president for facilities and operations – would not appear on her Business Insider radio show (1290 AM) that morning.

Joe Grengs, University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning, speaking at a Feb. 9 forum on sustainability in the city of Ann Arbor.

Possibly factoring into a delay in announcing the news were two public events held by the city of Ann Arbor on Wednesday and Thursday this past week (Feb. 8 and 9) – events where the topic of Fuller Road Station might naturally emerge. On Wednesday, the city hosted two sessions of a forum on the city’s non-motorized master plan update. And on Thursday, the city held the second of a four-part series on sustainability forums. The city’s transportation manager and AATA board member, Eli Cooper, was a speaker at both events. Had the news been released before those events, conversation might have centered on Fuller Road Station to the exclusion of other topics.

Even without the news of the project’s suspension, the topic of Fuller Road Station was raised during the sustainability forum, which focused on land use. During a question-and-answer period, Clark Charnetski – a member of the AATA’s local advisory council – voiced support for the proposed location.

Charnetski’s comment prompted a response from Joe Grengs, a panelist and UM associate professor of urban and regional planning. Grengs said he didn’t believe the university needed more parking, and that there are steps that could be taken to reallocate parking within UM’s current infrastructure.

The Fuller Road Station project undermines the city’s stated sustainability goals, Grengs said, because the mode of parking falls into a completely different category than walking, biking and rail transit. All of those latter modes work well in areas of high density, he said. But cars work against that – they are “big, hulking objects” that simply sit all day, he observed. So to have 1,000 cars parked at that location every day, at a place where there should be opportunities for interaction – places for retail or recreation, for example – “to me is a mistake and I’d urge the city to think about that,” he concluded. Grengs’ remarks were met with a smattering of applause from the audience.

Grengs’ commentary included a view that has been expressed by UM graduate student Joel Batterman at more than one public meeting covered by The Chronicle: That the university could meet its parking needs by reallocating and optimizing its current parking resources. Batterman is an urban planning student who is specializing in transportation issues. From his remarks made to UM regents on Jan. 20, 2011: “… continually increasing parking supply may be less environmentally and fiscally sustainable than an alternative strategy of adjusting parking pricing to more efficiently use existing parking supply.”

Fuller Road Station Timeline Overview

The following is a detailed timeline of the Fuller Road Station project, compiled by The Chronicle, with links to previous coverage.

• 1824 Ann Arbor is founded.
• 1837 University of Michigan re-locates from Detroit to Ann Arbor.
• 1993-Jun-26 UM and city make a land swap deal involving the surface parking lot at the site of the proposed Fuller Road Station. Ann Arbor News article states: “Oak trees to be spared from ax – A request from UM officials for a temporary parking lot may be the key to saving condemned burr oak trees.”
• 2006-Jun-15 City of Ann Arbor “Model for Mobility” introduced as a three-point vision, with: (1) north-south commuter rail, (2) east-west commuter rail, and (3) local circulator connector system.
• 2008-Sep-18 University of Michigan regents give initial approval to $48.6 million Wall Street parking structure.
• 2008-Dec-16 UM officials meet with residents who live near the proposed Wall Street parking structure projects.
• 2009-Jan-27 City transportation program manager gives combined multimodal transit center and parking structure concrete form by showing a sketch of the project, indicating its location at the Fuller Park parking lot. The presentation takes place in the context of a neighborhood meeting to respond in part to concerns about the UM proposal to build parking structures on Wall Street.
• 2009-Jun-19 UM regents pause the proposed Wall Street parking structure project.
• 2009-Aug-17 Ann Arbor city council approves $213,984 of city funds for an environmental study and site assessment. Of that amount, $104,742 was appropriated from the economic development fund.
• 2009-Nov-05 Ann Arbor city council approves memorandum of understanding with UM on Fuller Road Station.
• 2009-Nov-05 Ann Arbor city council authorizes additional $111,228 for environmental study and site assessment.
• 2010-Jan-21 UM board of regents approves the Fuller Road Station project.
• 2010-Feb-10 Public forum held for Ann Arbor residents on Fuller Road Station.
• 2010-May-04 Ann Arbor park advisory commission weighs a resolution calling for the city council to abandon the Fuller Road Station project, or at the least to get a better deal from the university.
• 2010-May-04 Ann Arbor city planning commission recommends amending zoning code list of permitted principal uses of public land (including the site of the proposed Fuller Road Station) – specifically, changing a “municipal airports” use to “transportation facilities.”
• 2010-May-18 Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje attends meeting of park advisory commission urging their support of Fuller Road Station.
• 2010-Jun-01 Ann Arbor park advisory commission modifies resolution draft due in part to the mayor’s visit at their previous meeting.
• 2010-Jul-06 Ann Arbor city council votes to change zoning code to allow transportation facilities as allowable use for public land.
• 2010-Jun-15 Ann Arbor park advisory commission passes resolution on Fuller Road Station calling for transparency.
• 2010-Sep-21 Ann Arbor city planning commission votes 7-2 to recommend approval of the Fuller Road Station site plan.
• 2011-May-17 Ann Arbor park advisory commission gets update on Fuller Road Station, including award of $2.8 million from Federal Rail Administration for environmental study and site analysis. The funds would reimburse some money already expended.
• 2011-Jun-06 Public commentary at a city council meeting prompts city councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) to request that a council work session be scheduled on Fuller Road Station – mayor John Hieftje agrees that one can be scheduled.
• 2011-Jun-20 City council adds a working session to its calendar for July 11, 2011.
• 2011-Jul-05 Mayor John Hieftje indicates during the city council’s meeting that Fuller Road Station is not among the intended topics for the July 11 work session.
• 2011-Jul-27 Mayor John Hieftje sends letter to constituents about Fuller Road Station.
• 2011-Oct-20 Jim Kosteva, UM director of community relations, sends an email to the mayor and city administrator warning of the need for urgency.
• 2012-Jan-31 Press release from Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club calls for details of Fuller Road Station plans to be made known.
• 2012-Feb-10 Press release from the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan announcing a halt to the project.
• 2012-Jun-15 Date by which Ann Arbor-UM memorandum of understanding anticipates Fuller Road Station parking structure would be ready for use.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council and the University of Michigan. 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!

From the press release: “The bipartisan, bicameral package aims to improve and maintain roads across the state, implement numerous reforms to the Department of Transportation and establish a funding source to be used only to directly improve roads, bridges and key infrastructure. The legislation also would create a regional transit authority in Southeast Michigan.” For background see “AATA in Transition: Briefed on State’s Plans.”

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!

Even if you don't know me, this photo is a dead give-away that I am not a car guy. I deliberately shot that photo from an angle that would include Suburban Chevrolet's sign in the background, And I thought I'd nailed it – because the sign said "Suburban." (Photos by the writer.)

The sales consultant was keen to point out that Suburban Chevrolet was the first area dealership to have a vehicle available for test drives. But test-driving a car is pretty remote from The Chronicle’s mission, and even more remote from my personal transportation choice.

I share a membership in Zipcar with my wife, but don’t even remember the last time I’ve sat behind the wheel of a car myself. Zipcar, a car-sharing service, is like an insurance policy – a backup plan I never use. I get around by bicycle.

Still, in the Chevy Volt, I spotted a chance to write about a major public works construction project in downtown Ann Arbor – the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure, which will feature around 640 parking spaces on a lot that previously offered 192 spots.

Twenty-two of those new spots will be equipped with electric car charging stations. Dave Konkle, former energy coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor who now consults for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on its energy projects, identified the federal grant that’s helping to pay for the stations. The grant is worth $264,100 and will also pay for photovoltaic panels that will provide the energy for two of the spots – it was obtained through the Clean Energy Coalition’s Clean Cities Program.

That public project is closely tied to the assumption that visitors to downtown Ann Arbor will continue to make a personal choice for private transportation in the form of an automobile, and that some of those people will choose electric cars like the Volt.

The idea I want to think about in this column is that public choices depend on the sum of many private, independent choices made by actual people. It’s an idea that was driven home to me at a public transportation forum hosted earlier this week by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority at SPARK East in Ypsilanti.

At that forum, Bob Van Bemmelen – recent Republican candidate for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – had this advice for the AATA as it pitches to the public the idea of countywide public transit: You have to make it personal, he said.

So I’ll begin by telling you a little bit more about the Suburban Chevrolet sales guy who gave me a ride in the Chevy Volt – who is as much a car guy as I am a bicycle guy: Nic Allebrodt.

Test Riding the Volt with a German

On the phone with Nic, I pitched the idea that I did not want to drive the car myself. Rather, I wanted simply to ride along in the Chevy Volt with someone who is actually passionate about cars, really loves cars, lives cars, breathes cars, likes nothing better than to drive a car – a car guy. Nic did not hesitate in answering: “That’s me!”

If the name Allebrodt looks and sounds German to you, you’re right. Nic’s light accent signals his German origins, but does not betray that he moved to the U.S. just last year. I’ve written about my friends Hans and Walter before – two characters from my eighth grade German textbook who taught me various stereotypes of Germans, among them that Germans love cars. The first German dialogue I ever had to memorize concluded with Hans showing off his car to Walter: “Dort ist mein Wagen!” [There is my car!]

Nic lived up to that stereotype. He told me that in Germany, he’d worked for a rental car company, thus had a chance to drive a vast range of cars on a regular basis, including the Audi RS6. This meant nothing to me, of course, but a bit of rummaging on the Internet revealed that if you need to go 150 m.p.h., that’s the car for you.

The yellow ball on the righthand side of the dash display is an indicator of less efficient driving style.

As Nic put the Chevy Volt through its paces for me, and I rode along in the passenger seat, we didn’t come anywhere close to 150 m.p.h. But as he navigated onto I-94 west, using the entrance ramp at Zeeb Road, the acceleration pressed me back into the seat. The dashboard also knew we were accelerating – the green ball that provides feedback on driving style floated upwards and turned yellow. That indicated less efficient driving. But efficiency is not exactly a priority when entering the freeway.

I asked Nic to drive us through downtown Ann Arbor. I wanted to see if the car would draw stares – it didn’t. Nic’s colleague Michael Jackson, who rode along in the back seat, offered a theory that the Volt had been test driven during its development phase in this area, so people were familiar with it. Also, he said, it’s a fairly normal-looking car.

We got to downtown by getting off I-94 at the Weber’s Inn exit and heading east straight down Huron Street, south onto Fifth Avenue to Liberty, where we turned west towards Main Street.

Parking, Charging Underground

At Fifth and Liberty, we had no choice but to turn, because the construction site of the new underground parking garage blocks southbound traffic.

When I mentioned that the garage will offer some spots with electric vehicle charging stations, Nic pointed out a feature of the Volt that might allay concerns about drivers who use those public stations – what if someone comes along and unplugs the car while it’s parked?

The OnStar mobile app for iPhone or Android monitors charging, so a driver would be alerted if it got unplugged. Likewise, the mobile app lets a driver know when the battery is fully charged. So a driver who wanted to time their visit to the downtown just until the battery was topped off could do that pretty easily.

The Volt's navigation screen as we rolled into downtown Ann Arbor. I guess we could have been treated to the strains of "On the Road Again" if we had actually turned on the XM radio station displayed at the top of the screen.

According to Chevrolet’s standard data on the Volt, that topped-off battery would get you around 35 miles with no extra assist from the Volt’s gasoline engine. Even without charging during the day, based on a 2009 survey of downtown Ann Arbor workers, 35 miles of range would get 77% of them to and from work each day. [.pdf of getDowntown survey]

The gasoline engine would give you an additional 340 miles of range. During our test ride, we didn’t turn on the Volt’s gasoline engine. It’s not actually hooked to the drive train – it just works as a generator for the electric battery.

When I think about the Volt’s gasoline engine and its electric battery, I imagine that many drivers will treat the two options the same way I treat my Zipcar membership and my bicycle: The gasoline engine will work like an insurance policy that rarely, if ever, gets used.

Other drivers might build the Volt’s gasoline engine into their expected normal use of the car. That’s how my wife treats the Zipcar membership. If the trip would require her to navigate her scooter on roads she perceives as too dangerous, she reserves a Zipcar. We make different personal transportation choices within the same set of options.

The public parking system can also be seen as serving a variety of different personal choices. And I think our investment in that system should take the range of personal choices into account when we’re budgeting for its continued maintenance.

Even though the talks between the city of Ann Arbor and the Downtown Development Authority were supposed to have concluded by the end of October 2010, discussion continues about how much revenue the city of Ann Arbor should withdraw from the public parking system to shore up the general fund.

That conversation has not included the possibility that it’s not just basic maintenance activity that could be jeopardized by the city’s revenue expectations. What could also be threatened is the ability to meet possible future demands placed on the public parking system – not for more spaces, but for a different kind of space, one that allows you to charge your electric vehicle while it’s parked.

When the bonds for the Fifth Avenue parking garage were approved, part of the argument included rhetoric along the lines that this would be the last parking deck Ann Arbor would ever build, because the future belongs to public transportation – we won’t need more spaces. But what if we need different kinds of spaces – spaces that allow you to charge your personal electric vehicle? Where would the funding be sourced for the capital investment required to retrofit parking structures with charging stations? A natural place to look would be to fees paid by parkers – which would be unavailable if they’re allocated instead to the city’s general fund activities.

John Mouat, who chairs the DDA board’s transportation committee, has kept the issue of alternate vehicles in front of the DDA over the last several months at committee meetings and board meetings. His scope includes all manner of two-wheeled vehicles, very small four-wheeled vehicles, and electric cars as well. But Mouat’s perspective does not seem to have percolated up to the level of the Ann Arbor city council, which seems to see public parking system revenue as simply that – another revenue source that can be tapped.

Of course, it might be that massive investment in public infrastructure to support electric vehicles is not actually necessary – even if electric vehicles become a significant part of the U.S. automobile fleet. In a phone interview with Joe Malcoun, an associate with DTE Energy Resources, he offered the perspective that in largest part, the owners of electric vehicles will probably charge them at home. DTE offers a special program for electric vehicles that includes incentives for investing in a home charging station and a discounted rate, through separate metering, for the electricity used.

Malcoun did allow that the availability of at least some charging stations as part of public infrastructure might be driven by another factor: A psychological need for some drivers to have access to charging stations. But 22 stations in the new underground parking garage might be sufficient to address that need, he said.

As a side note, I had originally contacted Malcoun not for this column, but rather to track down some information about the charging stations in the Edison building parking lot at Main and William. Whether widespread availability of charging stations is a requirement to support a large U.S. electric vehicle fleet, will, I think, be a matter of how many actual individual people are willing to make a personal choice for an electric car in the absence of that infrastructure.

Public Transit: Making It Personal

The idea that individual, personal choices are at stake was a central theme that emerged at a sparsely-attended forum held on Tuesday, May 10 on the topic of countywide transit. The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority is hosting another series of meetings to get additional public input on its draft transportation master plan (TMP), which AATA has been developing over the last year. [Most recent Chronicle coverage: "AATA Speaks Volumes on Draft Transit Plan"]

The half-dozen attendees at Tuesday’s forum, held at SPARK East on Michigan Avenue in Ypsilanti, had ample opportunity to weigh in with their own reactions to the draft plan. The plan was presented by AATA’s Michael Benham, who’s leading the TMP project. Also on hand were AATA manager of community relations, Mary Stasiak, and AATA chief executive officer, Michael Ford.

The advice offered to the AATA by attendee Bob Van Bemmelen was to make it personal for people. [Van Bemmelen might be familiar to Chronicle readers as the Republican candidate in November 2o10 for the District 4 seat on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, which was won by Wes Prater. Or they might remember him from his attendance at a forum hosted by Think Local First last year on local currencies. ]

Bob Van Bemmelen at the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority forum held on May 10 at SPARK East in Ypsilanti. Standing is Michael Ford, AATA's CEO.

At the transit forum, Van Bemmelen was encouraged to hear another attendee, Larry Krieg, make the same point that Krieg has made during public commentary at AATA board meetings: The American Public Transit Association (APTA) has calculated that a family using public transit would save around $10,000 per year, compared to owning a car. Van Bemmelen said you’d need to prove that number, but that was the kind of thing the AATA should be talking about, to bring the discussion down to a personal level of how much money residents might save.

Van Bemmelen also wanted a more persistent transit sales pitch on a personal level. He described how someone selling lawn service might send a mailing or put a flyer in the door, not just one time, but on a repeated basis. After a while, it might begin to stick. The lawn care guy might then pay a personal visit and say, “Look, I see you out struggling on that lawn trying to push the mower – I can do that for you and here’s my rate, you’ll see it’s competitive.” Van Bemmelen wanted to see the equivalent sales pitch for transit. He said that he does not use the bus now, but he might. [Given the job he took recently with the VA hospital in Ann Arbor, he might be able to commute from Ypsilanti by bus.]

Responding to Van Bemmelen, Stasiak said she agreed with him: You have to sell transit one person at a time – it requires a face-to-face conversation. Sometimes it takes holding someone’s hand to make them feel like it’s not difficult, she said.

One of those face-to-face conversations took place at the forum – with John Dawson, who in addition to advocating for a particular bus route, wanted to know how to get his ADA card for the AATA renewed. Stasiak took his information so that she could follow up. [As a side note, Dawson told The Chronicle that his grandfather previously owned the building where the meeting was held.]

My Personal View

Part of the reason that Van Bemmelen was interested in the idea of “selling” public transit is that he’s looking down the road to the point when county residents might be asked to support a countywide system with a countywide tax – public transit would require some kind of additional support beyond fares. A countywide transit tax is something that will likely not be put before voters for another year at least.

A first step would be to create a kind of placeholder organization that would serve as a countywide governing body, in the event that such a tax were approved by voters. The AATA itself is a local, Ann Arbor authority. At the forum, Michael Ford presented some of the alternatives, including what the countywide membership on a board might look like. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Concerns Raised Over Transit Governance"]

You don’t have to sell me very hard on the importance of public transit. I’m willing to continue to pay at least the roughly 2 mill Ann Arbor tax that is passed through to the AATA and generates roughly $9 million in revenue for use on public transit. While I understand the public policy issues – like land use, environmental impact, access for seniors and the disabled – if I reduce it to a personal level, the reason I value public transit is that I want it as my backup plan.

That’s reflected in my transit choice for the evening of the transit forum – my bicycle. I did mull over the choice of a bus – it’s roughly a nine-mile trip each way from Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti, and it was threatening rain. But I figured if was raining when it was time to return, or if I felt too tired to pedal back home, I could take the return trip by bus, and take advantage of the bike racks mounted on the front of every AATA bus.

The fact is, my current personal choice is for private transportation. I want the freedom to go exactly where I want to go – which in most cases is a bike rack or a vertical pole near the entrance of my destination – and I want the flexibility to travel when I like. I noted that Larry Krieg had to leave a few minutes before the meeting ended, because he had to catch a bus. I was able to stay until the end. Bicycles beat buses on that metric.

Even so, I’m willing to pay to support the public transit system. Not because Larry Krieg wants to ride the bus. Not because it’s better for the environment. Not because it will lead to better land use and reduce sprawl. Not because it provides mobility to seniors and disabled people.

For me, the public transit system is like the gasoline engine is for some drivers of the Chevy Volt: I’m willing to pay for it to be there, just in case I personally need it.

About the writer: Dave Askins is editor and co-founder of The Ann Arbor Chronicle.

Roger Kerson at the AATA board retreat on Aug. 10. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The AATA, branded on the sides of buses as “The Ride,” aims to be the public transportation provider for Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, as well as all of Washtenaw County. Kerson is one of seven members on the AATA board.

While he may be the newest board member, Kerson does not lack for eagerness in promoting the AATA’s current initiative to develop a countywide transportation plan. “We’re engaged in a planning process,” he says, “for developing mass transportation and we encourage people to go to MovingYouForward.org … We need to engage in a lot of conversation.” The Moving You Forward website seeks community feedback on every aspect of public transportation.

“Where do you live? Where do you work? Where do you shop? Where do you go to the movies? Are there ways in which you could reduce your carbon footprint by using transit, using the bike?” Kerson asks, adding that the AATA welcome views from all Ann Arborites and county residents, whether they use transit or not.

Encouraging that kind of communication is familiar ground to Kerson. He is currently a media consultant at RK Communications, his consulting firm. Kerson’s roots in Ann Arbor stretch from his time at the University of Michigan, where he graduated with distinction in 1980. “I think Woodrow Wilson was president then,” he quipped. Kerson stayed in Ann Arbor after college, soon becoming interested in journalism.

He began writing for a publication called The Alchemist, which he describes as “The Ann Arbor Chronicle in its day, before the Internet.”

[The editor of The Alchemist back in 1980 was James Delcamp, who's currently running for the state House seat in District 66, which includes parts of Livingston and Oakland counties. Though his time at The Alchemist apparently didn't overlap with Kerson, Delcamp wrote to The Chronicle that he has an old 1981 issue containing a Kerson piece with the headline: "Ann Arbor's Oldest Food Coop on the Brink." Delcamp called it "a great article."]

In 1988, Kerson moved to Chicago to become a freelance writer. Though he has written for mainstream publications like the Chicago Sun-Times and Columbia Journalism Review, Kerson identifies his main work as “indie media,” writing for publications such as The Michigan Voice, Michael Moore’s newspaper in Flint before Moore became a filmmaker.

Although Kerson was a stringer for the Hammond Times in Indiana, he says, “I never had a nine-to-five job … I just became a freelance writer by doing it, so I guess I’m a citizen journalist, rather than a professional one.”

Before moving to Chicago, Kerson held “one sort of leisurely job” as an intern [in 1984-1985] and ultimately a staff writer [in 1986-1987] for Solidarity, a UAW monthly publication. The job marked the start of his long affiliation with the labor union. Four years later, he ended his freelance writing to become a communications consultant, still in Chicago.  While there, the UAW became one of Kerson’s chief clients: “That was pretty interesting to me because I wasn’t just writing about it; I was being part of the issue.”

In 1999, Kerson relocated back to Michigan to become the assistant director of public relations for the UAW. By 2006, he had become the director of public relations, a job he held until earlier this year. When asked what some of the highlights were to the job, Kerson answered lightly, “We saved the auto industry.” He quickly went on, “I mean, that wasn’t just me, but that’s what happened while I was there.” As public relations director during the auto crisis, Kerson led a UAW advocacy campaign throughout 2008 and 2009 for federal aid to the auto industry.

Yet as an AATA board member, Kerson’s tendencies favor bikes and buses over cars. Kerson contrasted the shrinkage of the auto companies with his experience on the AATA: “We’re talking about expanding … Yesterday we talked about a fixed service to Ypsi, a potential train to Brighton, a potential bus service to the airport, all different kinds of services that either exist now in some form, or the AATA could do them.” Kerson was referring to a discussion that he and his fellow board members had held about those various strategic initiatives in a four-hour long board retreat/meeting on Aug. 10. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Targets Specific Short Term Strategies"]

A good transit system, he continued, facilitates economic development and is economical to the consumer. Citing statistics from the American Public Transit Association, he said that switching to transit can save an individual $9,000 a year.

Not only is transit economically viable, he says, it’s also environmentally viable: “Transit jobs are the original green job. Every bus driver is keeping fifty cars off the road.” He cautioned, “We have to do this. We have to change how we move around because climate change is real, and the human and economic costs of that are maybe, in some ways, beyond calculation.”

Environmentalism has been a theme common to Kerson’s community activism. For three years he has served as president of the Ecology Center’s board of directors, though he ultimately considers transit and housing his two principle issues. Along with his service with the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center, Kerson has served on the board of directors of the Washtenaw County chapter of the ACLU and the Ann Arbor Housing and Human Services Advisory Board.

In reflecting on his impressions of the AATA as a new member, Kerson emphasized the importance of forming partnerships. Although Ann Arbor is the only municipality that collects a tax to support the AATA, economic activity spreads throughout the county. He says the AATA has collaborated successfully with Ypsilanti, various townships, the University of Michigan, and private bus companies.

That spirit of collaboration runs through the rest of Kerson’s life. For example, the former journalist cites Facebook as a main medium for gathering news. While allowing he reads the New York Times and Talking Points Memo, he says, “I also get news that’s not always news of the world, but the news of the community and friends I care about.” For additional knowledge, Kerson often relies on his knowledgeable Facebook friends to scope out relevant news: “My universe of things I can look at has gotten larger – I have other people looking for me, if you know what I mean.”

Hayley Byrnes is an intern with The Ann Arbor Chronicle.

New AATA board chair Paul Ajegba presents a plaque of appreciation to Dawn Gabay, deputy CEO, who served for two years as interim director of the authority until Michael Ford was hired as CEO this past summer. In the background at left is board member Jesse Bernstein. To the right, opening a box containing his ceremonial gavel, is outgoing board chair, David Nacht. (Photo by the writer.)

Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board meeting (Oct 21, 2009): Some news of significance announced at the AATA‘s board meeting last Wednesday received relatively brief mention and discussion: There will be a special meeting of the AATA board at Weber’s Inn, on Thursday, Oct. 29, 2009 at 5 p.m. in the Varsity Room.

The topic of the meeting will be the possibility of reorganizing as a regional authority under Act 196. That meeting will be a precursor for the conversation about countywide service – and a countywide millage.

As far as the board’s business as reflected on Wednesday’s agenda, the item receiving by far the most discussion was one authorizing a contract for $171,704 for facility camera upgrades. Board member Rich Robben got an animated conversation rolling when he pointedly asked, “Was the bid spec written around a product line??” The board wound up authorizing the contract, with dissent from Robben and fellow board member David Nacht.

Putting a punctuation mark on the past year’s activity was the board’s new chair, Paul Ajegba, who presented the former chair, David Nacht, with a ceremonial gavel in appreciation of his service. Ajegba also presented deputy CEO Dawn Gabay with a plaque in appreciation for her service as interim director of the agency.

Reorganization as Act 196 Regional Authority

Ted Annis gave his final bit of “headline news” from the planning and development committee – “final” because board member Rich Robben will be taking over as chair of that committee. The news was that the committee recommended outsourcing the design of a countywide bus system. A request for qualifications (RFQ) should be issued for that design, rather than having AATA staff prepare it in-house, Annis said, because of “bandwidth,” which is to say that it’s a question of staff having adequate time.

By way of background, the AATA is currently funded for service inside the city of Ann Arbor by a transportation millage levied at just over 2 mill. Service to areas outside the city is funded by purchase of service agreements (POSAs) with specific muncipalities.

In October of 2008, the AATA board actively discussed the possibility of reorganization as a regional authority under the Public Transportation Authority Act 196, with the planning and development committee bringing a recommendation to the board that the AATA reconstitute itself as a regional authority according to the act. Discussion of a possible countywide transportation millage for the fall of 2009 was also active, but the planned WISD school millage, which is actually appearing on the Nov. 3 ballot, was seen as diminishing the prospects for approval.

Then, in March 2009, an item was placed on the board’s agenda to reorganize the AATA under Act 196, but was pulled. As The Chronicle previously reported ["Bus Fares Will Increase"]:

The upcoming hire had an impact on planned consideration of the organization’s vision statement, which the board had been scheduled to work through as a full group Wednesday evening. That item was tabled in the interest of receiving the input of the new executive director, when he is hired. [emphasis added]

For the same reason, another agenda item was pulled, which would have entertained the possibility of the AATA reforming itself under Act 196.

Now that the Michael Ford has been hired as CEO of the AATA, the transportation authority is again taking up the matter.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen asked the board to make sure that the Oct. 29 board meeting at Weber’s was open to the public. Annis, for his part, established that the nature of the discussion would be broad and wide-ranging.

Security Video Cameras for Facilities

An agenda item asked that the board authorize a contract for Security Corporation for security camera upgrades at the AATA’s facilities: Blake Transit Center, Ypsilanti Transit Center, and the AATA headquarters on South Industrial. There are already cameras at those facilities. The recommendation to accept the bid – from Security Corporation – came to the board from the performance monitoring and external relations committee (PMER – pronounced “PEE-mer” at the AATA), which is now chaired by Jesse Bernstein.

Bernstein introduced the resolution, summarizing Security Corporation’s proposal as a great leap forward in technology, offering the best cameras, the most storage and the best price.

The staff memo describes Security Corporation’s proposal as follows:

The security system upgrade proposed by Security Corporation will not only modernize AATA’s system, but will improve the effectiveness of its surveillance capabilities by more than 50% and the ability to retain, recall, and replay incidents by as much as 75%. The upgrade transforms AATA’s system from being primarily analog-based to a high resolution digital system, meaning images can be quickly retrieved and reviewed, or transmitted and shared with law enforcement agencies and insurance carriers.

As a bonus, the system will greatly enhance monitoring of both the BTC and the YTC. The system is robust and flexible enough to accommodate future satellite facilities, including the Plymouth Road Park and Ride lot now under construction.

New low-light, high pixel digital cameras will provide the ability to “zoom in” on areas of interest without limiting the camera’s field of vision. (The old pan-tilt-zoom cameras capture only the camera’s immediate field of vision, and as that field narrows during the zooming process, less and less of the surrounding area is observed.)

Dollars on technology or people?

The questions came first from board member David Nacht, who wanted to know if the $171,704 was actually best spent on technology as opposed to people to provide security. Bernstein replied  that the new camera system would provide a record of behaviors in real time that people could not, and that if something goes wrong, the AATA would have a record of that behavior.

Board member Ted Annis put the expenditure in the context of the roughly $120,000 spent on security personnel each year at the Ypsilanti Transit Center, with roughly half again that amount spent at Blake Transit Center in Ann Arbor.  Annis wanted to know if the technology investment would reduce the security personnel cost.

CEO Michael Ford clarified that the proposal was not thought of as a way to reduce security personnel cost, so much as an upgrade to current technology – the old technology was 10 years old, he said. Ford also clarified that the old system did have a means of retrieving old footage, but that the new system was much better in that respect.

Bernstein suggested that down the road it might be possible to reduce some security personnel.

Annis suggested that the resolution be tabled until AATA staff had a chance to look into the possibility of reducing security personnel in connection with the camera enhancements.

How were the bid specifications written?

Board member Rich Robben then observed that the winning bid was the only one out of five bids that was judged to “adequately address” the specification. “Was the bid spec written around a  product line??” he wondered. Here’s an excerpt taken from the staff memo, which was included in the meeting board packet, which had prompted Robben’s query:

AATA prepared specifications for upgrading its facilities camera security system and requested proposals from companies recognized as leaders in the security camera field. Five responses were received and analyzed by Staff. The summary of that analysis is as follows:

Wiltech Technologies: $143,492
ANALYSIS: Wiltech did not adequately address AATA’s specifications. They provide 15 new cameras with no accompanying drawings or diagrams showing the areas of coverage. (Drawings were required in AATA’s specifications to facilitate the analysis of the area being monitored.) Wiltech’s surveillance software for controlling their new cameras will not integrate with AATA’s existing access control system. This incompatibility will result in having to manually make changes in some camera settings rather than making them quickly via software. Wiltech does not identify the storage capacity of their recording system so that AATA can assess the recording time at varying frames-per-second and at varying degrees of resolution. Wiltech does not include racks or mountings for network hubs and switches. The wiring Wiltech intends to use will not guarantee the highest resolution for images being captured. Wiltech proposes an extra charge (over and above their bid price) for three years of warranty protection. The computer hardware Wiltech proposes will be purchased separately and assembled by Wiltech with no apparent ongoing support. Wiltech identifies no service capabilities for any existing AATA equipment that will be integrated into the upgraded system.

Security Corporation: $171,704
ANALYSIS: Security adequately addresses all aspects of AATA’s specifications. Security provides 26 new cameras along with detailed drawings clearly showing the areas of coverage the cameras will provide. New storage cabinets in the Dispatch area necessary to replace existing cabinets that must be removed in order to accommodate larger LCD monitors are included as part of its bid. Security guarantees (in writing) the compatibility and integration of their new components with existing AATA units being retained as part of the upgrade. Security’s bid includes the replacement of upgraded monitoring equipment at facility gates. The storage capacity of the recording system is clearly identified to enable AATA to calculate the storage time of the system at various frames-per-second and at varying degrees of resolution. Security guarantees that any new wiring used in the maintenance or vehicle storage areas will be placed in industry standard conduit. Security will provide industry standard Dell computer hardware with ongoing support provided by Dell. Security’s bid includes the installation of new security system work stations at both the BTC and the YTC. Their bid also includes three years of warranty protection at no additional cost. Security’s bid price includes joy-stick control units (for increased ease and speed in monitoring and adjusting cameras), along with additional monitors to accommodate future system expansion.

Edwards Service: $173,667
ANALYSIS: Edwards Service does not adequately address all aspects of AATA’s specifications.

Simplex Grinnell: $177,456
ANALYSIS: Simplex Grinnell does not adequately address all aspects of AATA’s specifications.

D/A Central, Inc.: $210,846
ANALYSIS: D/A Central does not adequately address all aspects of AATA’s specifications.

The answer from AATA staff: No, the bid specifications were not written with Security Corporation’s product line in mind. The lowest bid, from Wiltech, was described as “the least responsive.”

Annis then shifted the conversation to the zooming-in capability. He suggested that it would make sense to connect the cameras in the Ypsilanti Transit Center to the Ypsilanti Police Department. CEO Michael Ford replied that this was something that could be explored after the cameras were installed. Annis asked, “Why not before?” Ford did not disagree, saying, “You’re spot-on on that, and there’s some things we could have done differently.”

Board chair Ajegba drew out the fact from staff that there’d been an incident where the existing cameras weren’t able to capture an adequately high resolution image to allow identification of a suspect by the police.

Nacht then acted on Annis’ suggestion and actually moved to table the resolution, saying that it was important to make sure that the board was not spending money on technology in a casual way, saying that “These are not casual times.”

Annis then noted that the new park-and-ride at Plymouth Road needed some kind of equipment anyway – it was getting the same equipment from the same vendor – and that the police department needed higher resolution cameras.  He characterized the situation as: “We need the stuff, but can we take it a step further?” Here Robben inserted what would become a salient fact: The proposed contract didn’t cover the park-and-ride facility, because that facility was covered under a different contract.

Board member Sue McCormick, who’s director of public services with the city of Ann Arbor, drew out from staff the fact that tabling the resolution had consequences for the bid – it had a 30-day window, which ends on Nov. 1. In response to Nacht’s concern that the company that had made the winning bid might have a legal claim if their bid was not accepted within that time frame, McCormick explained that typically there’s a right to reject all bids associated with an RFP.

Nacht clarified that he was not against security: “Who could be against security?” Bernstein assured Nacht that the proposals had been scrutinized at PMER.

Board member Charles Griffith weighed in saying that the expenditure was not a big expense in the scheme of things, and that it was an expenditure that came once every 10 years. More was spent on the engineering study for the park-and-ride lot, he said. It would be good to improve security, he said, but stalling the purchase was not the right way to go.

Nacht then relented somewhat, saying that his inclination was to ratify the decision of the committee (PMER). He then withdrew his motion to table the resolution.

CEO Michael Ford suggested that the legitimacy of the process could be re-checked.

Two bidding processes, same outcome

Chris White, who is AATA’s manager of service development, clarified that the specifications for the Plymouth Road park-and-ride video equipment were the same as for AATA’s three other facilities, although the bidding for the Plymouth Road park-and-ride had been a process handled by OHM, AATA’s prime contractor for the park-and-ride project, which is currently under construction.

At this, Nacht expressed skepticism that two completely different bidding processes would lead to the same vendor.

McCormick then systematically queried staff to elicit when the selection of Security Corporation as OHM’s  sub-contractor was known to staff. White explained that the bids came in in August and that OHM did the review. As for the AATA’s RFP, the bids were due by the end of August. To Ford, there seemed to be enough unclarity that he suggested a postponement: “We don’t seem to have our stuff together.”

Nacht then declared his intention to vote against the resolution, saying, “I don’t have confidence in the procurement process as staff has explained it.”

Bernstein then defended the recommendation of his committee, reminding his colleagues that the AATA had a procurement manual and that from what he could tell, the bidding process for the cameras adhered to that procurement manual.

McCormick expressed the view that it was an appearance issue having to do with the fact that of the five companies that had submitted bids, only one was responsive. That appearance issue, she concluded, had no basis in fact. Staff clarified that the compatibility of systems between the park-and-ride facility cameras and the AATA’s other three facilities was not a function of the same vendor being selected for both installations, but rather the requirement that the system have open architecture.

Outcome: The board approved the contract with Security Corporation, with dissent from Nacht and Robben.

Other Business

M-Ride

M-Ride is a University of Michigan program in which UM affiliates do not pay a fare on boarding – instead, their fare is a paid by UM and supplemented with a federal grant for which UM qualifies. The contract was given a one-year extension at the July AATA board meeting. Board member Sue McCormick reported that the negotiating team had not been back to the table since that time.

David Nacht reported that he had talked to Jim Kosteva, the UM director of community relations, at the reception for Michael Ford as the new CEO in September. Nacht said he’d mentioned to Kosteva that UM’s idea of passing some of the cost on to students and other affiliates could result in a reduced level of ridership.

Board member Ted Annis asked AATA staff to break out M-Ride ridership on a monthly basis in the ridership reports.

Night Ride

The board considered a resolution to award a three-year contract for its Night Ride service to the Blue Cab Company.

Night Ride is a late-night, shared-ride taxi service offered by the AATA within the city of Ann Arbor. Night Ride trips are scheduled by phone reservation, like a taxi: 734.528.5432. The fare is $5 per person, regardless of the length of the trip.

Board member Ted Annis questioned whether the contract needed to be awarded for three years and wondered if it could be shorter. Deputy CEO Dawn Gabay clarified that the concerns that he might be having about issues surrounding Night Ride were actually associated with A-Ride. A-Ride is a shared-ride, door-to-door transportation service for people who can’t use regular AATA bus service because of a disability. After being satisfied that it was “another story for another day,” the contract was voted on.

Outcome: The resolution awarding a three-year contract for the Night Ride service to the Blue Cab Company was unanimously approved.

Year-End Performance Monitoring Report

Jesse Bernstein ticked through a number of year-end performance figures as a part of his performance monitoring and external relations committee report. Here are some highlights:

• The AATA had budgeted a cost per bus service hour of $110/hour, but had come in at $106/hour.
• The coverage goal of having 90% of residents served by a route with a bus stop no more than 1/4 mile from their residence was met – 91% of residents live within the goal distance.
• The 95% on-time goal needed work – on-time performance stood at 83-87%.
• The number of accidents of 1.6 to 2.9 per 100,000 miles was below the goal of no more than 3.5 accidents per 100,000 miles.
• The goal of 20 passengers per service hour was exceed by the 31-34 passengers per service hour that had been achieved.

Bernstein concluded that the expectations in areas where goals were being met might need to be adjusted upward.

A bit later in the meeting, David Nacht asked for some clarification on the better-than-budgeted financial performance, saying that he had concerns about how the “preventive maintenance” fund was used. It seemed to him, Nacht quipped, that it was almost like, “We use it to prevent maintenance.” It still wasn’t clear to him, Nacht said, even after five, six, or seven years on the AATA board, just how that fund worked – it seemed in some respects like a bank account or a reserve level. He said that the expenditures out of the fund made it difficult to see how aligned the AATA was in other areas.

Public Commentary

Jim Mogensen: In addition to highlighting the Oct. 29 meeting on Act 196, which is reported in detail above, Mogensen urged the board to look at local service as the core of AATA’s service and then to layer any commuter service on top of that. That approach contrasts with one where low-ridership local routes are sacrificed, with the funding for those routes reallocated to commuter routes.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge urged the board to have all of its activities, plans and proposals scanned and placed on the AATA website. He also asked that the committee meetings be made more accessible to the public. He suggested that the meetings of the full board be scheduled at a time that did not conflict with meetings of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners’ meetings.

Sandra Holley: Holley reminded the board of the security issues at the Ypsilanti Transit Center – there was a series of “snatch and grab” theft incidents as people got off the last bus. She suggested emergency, blue-light call boxes as a way to improve security – they would be linked directly to the Ypsilanti police department.

Carolyn Grawi: Grawi gave the board some petitions signed by employees of businesses along Research Park Drive, supporting the installation of a stop light where Research Park meets Ellsworth. [Background: The drive is a large circular loop nestled in the northwest corner of State and Ellsworth. It has entrances off of State as well as off Ellsworth. The Center for Independent Living, where Grawi works, is located on Research Park Drive, and CIL is advocating for AATA bus service to come through the drive. A condition on bus service into the drive from the point of view of the AATA: Installation of a stoplight at Ellsworth, so that buses exiting the drive, heading east to Ypsilanti, can turn left.] Grawi also reminded the board that Investing in Abilities Week started on Oct. 21.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Ted Annis, Jesse Bernstein, Paul Ajegba, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

WALLY poster on the wall of the AATA board room. (Photo by the writer.)

Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board meeting (Sept. 23, 2009): At its Wednesday afternoon meeting, the AATA board approved a recommendation from its planning and development committee to use $220,000 in  federal stimulus funds to maintain bus service to the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. It’s a temporary measure, with the expectation that by fall 2010, a longer-term funding mechanism will be found for Ypsi buses.

The board also approved a roughly $25 million budget for its 2010 fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 20, 2010. It was about $1 million more than board member Ted Annis wanted to see – he dissented both from the planning and development committee’s budget recommendation as well as from the board’s vote to adopt it.

The longer-term solution to funding Ypsi buses, as well as Annis’ dissent on the budget, were partly reflected in the physical surroundings of the AATA board room. Sometime in the last month, two framed posters have been hung on the wall there – one shows the proposed WALLY north-south rail route that extends through northern Washtenaw County into Livingston County, and the other is a map of Washtenaw County. Both show regions broader than the current AATA millage area.

It’s a voter-approved countywide millage that offers one possibility of funding Ypsilanti buses. And Annis contended at the board’s meeting that in order to sell voters on such a millage, the agency’s operating costs needed to be reduced from the $102 per service hour that the adopted budget reflects.

Ypsilanti Buses

The board considered a resolution brought forward out of the planning and development committee, to use $220,000 in federal stimulus funding to bridge a gap in funding for bus service to the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Townships. The arrangement goes through June 2011. [See previous Chronicle coverage: "Federal Money May Save Bus #5 for Ypsi"]

By way of background, bus service in communities outside of Ann Arbor is funded through Purchase of Service Agreements (POSAs) with AATA. In contrast, bus service in Ann Arbor is funded through a transportation property millage (tax) that is currently levied on property inside the city limits at a rate of just over 2 mills.

Board chair David Nacht led off deliberations by asking what amount of federal stimulus funds the board had initially been discussing to be used for bridging the funding gap for the Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township POSA agreements.  Dawn Gabay, deputy CEO of the AATA, clarified that the amount initially discussed had been lower – $101,000. But that amount, she said, included service reductions. [Those reductions had included the elimination of Route #5 and reduced hours on Routes #10 and #11.]

Nacht then declared it was unfortunate that Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township found themselves in their current financial situation. “Let’s be plain about it,” he said, “it’s a subsidy – a transmission of wealth to the eastern side of Washtenaw County.”

From left: AATA board members Ted Annis, Charles Griffith and Jesse Bernstein. They're looking over the text of the resolution that extended federal funding assistance to Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. (Photo by the writer.)

But then Nacht continued, “I support that subsidy.”  Noting the regional dynamic of the economy, Nacht said it was in the broader interest of Ann Arbor taxpayers to think about transportation in “a thoughtful and non-parochial way.”

Board member Ted Annis, who chairs the planning and development committee, said it was an obvious and straightforward decision to make: using $220,000 out of around $6.5 million in federal stimulus funding to bridge the POSA gap. However, he stressed – as he had done at the planning and development committee’s meeting – that the money came from the federal government. The fact that the money would be paid directly to the AATA to provide bus service was an argument in favor of the move, he said.

Board member Charles Griffith noted that it’s a short-term solution to a problem that is expected to continue. In a context where some of the service is funded through POSAs and other service is provide through a millage, he said, it’s important to find longer-term solutions and to do so in “an expeditious manner.”

Board member Paul Ajegba emphasized the fact that the stimulus funding was being authorized because of the good-faith effort Ypsilanti was making to establish a more stable funding source, saying that a letter from the city of Ypsilanti had been requested to specify that commitment. [A resolution passed by the Ypsilanti city council called for the council to put a Headlee override millage on the ballot in November 2010, which would be dedicated to fund Ypsilanti transportation – if no progress was made in putting the AATA on a countywide funding base.]

Outcome: The use of federal funds to bridge the funding gap in the POSAs for Ypsilanti and for Ypsilanti Township was unanimously approved.

AATA FY 2010 Budget

-

Budget Background

The city of Ann Arbor levies a transportation millage at a rate of just over 2 mills. One mill equals $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s state equalized value, or SEV. So the owner of a house with a market value of $200,000, and a corresponding SEV of $100,000, pays $200 a year towards funding bus service in Ann Arbor.

The transportation millage for Ann Arbor was passed by voters in 1973, and has no end date.

In the proposed AATA budget, revenue from the Ann Arbor transportation millage is expected to contribute $9.7 million, or 38% of AATA’s $25.4 million budget:

Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Proposed Operating Budget
Fiscal Year October 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010   

REVENUES:

$ 9,699,574 Local Tax Revenues
  1,141,278 Purchase of Service Agreements
  4,334,150 Passenger Revenue
  6,753,976 State Operating Assistance
  3,169,840 Federal Operating Assistance
    361,200 Interest and Other

$25,460,018 TOTAL REVENUES

EXPENSES: 

$ 5,825,945 Operations Wages
  1,255,055 Maintenance Wages
  2,650,112 Management Wages
  4,178,738 Fringe Benefits

$14,100,801 SUBTOTAL 

  1,662,820 Purchased Services
  1,686,200 Diesel Fuel and Gasoline
  1,273,292 Materials & Supplies
    419,237 Utilities
    485,000 Casualty & Liability Costs
  5,125,083 Purchased Transportation
    410,435 Other Expenses
    260,000 Local Depreciation

$25,422,868 TOTAL EXPENSES

$    37,150 OPERATING GAIN (LOSS)

-

Public Commentary on the Budget

Thomas Partridge spoke at the start of the meeting during time allotted to the public for comment on agenda items. Partridge criticized the budget as proposed for continuing the discriminatory policies of the AATA in all parts of Washtenaw County, including the area where the transportation millage is levied, namely the city of Ann Arbor. Partridge said that the board had neglected its responsibility to put forward as a part of its budget a plan for countywide transportation that was equitable and just for the most vulnerable among us.

Later, at the end of the meeting, Partridge would follow up on a similar theme by pointing out that there had been a candidate for the 7th Congressional District election of 2008 who had still not managed to achieve the restoration of paratransit service in the area he had wanted to represent. [Partridge named the Lakestone Apartments (formerly Eagle Pointe) off Jackson Road as a specific example.] As Partridge drew out the description, board chair Nacht recognized himself, so that when Partridge named that 2008 candidate, Nacht was already smiling in acknowledgment.

Deliberations on the Budget

As a part of opening deliberations on the budget, board chair David Nacht drew out the fact that the proposed budget had not enjoyed unanimous support of the planning and development committee. It had been a 2-1 vote of the three-member committee. The committee’s chair, Ted Annis, had been outvoted by his colleagues, Paul Ajegba and Rich Robben.

So Nacht asked Ajegba to give a statement of support, to be followed by an explanation from Annis.

Ajegba commended AATA staff as well as Annis for their work on the budget. Staff had identified around $900,000 worth of cuts to achieve the budget that’s being proposed, he said. The difference in opinion had to do with whether to implement an additional $1 million in cuts, which had been advocated by Annis. Ajegba said he was in agreement with many of the cuts proposed by Annis, but he felt that they needed a more gradual implementation. He expressed concern that the quality of service could drop if they were implemented too rapidly.

Annis clarified that the cuts he’d identified were designed to achieve a goal of $96 per bus service hour. In terms of dollars per bus service hour, the proposed budget translates to $102. He cited an analysis done by Dick Porter, a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Michigan, which concluded that the AATA is $4.4 million less efficient than average, when compared to 20 comparable-sized agencies.

As one example, Annis cited the Bay City transportation system: Bay Metro, which serves Bay County. [The  110,000 population of Bay County, the millage area for Bay Metro, is roughly parallel to the population of Ann Arbor. Bay Metro is organized under Michigan's Act 196, and levies a countywide millage at a .75 mill rate. The period of the millage is five years.] Annis noted that Bay Metro operates at a rate of $85 per bus service hour.

Annis said that he wanted to stress that AATA staff had agreed to look at the University of Michigan bus system, which operates at the rate of $55 per bus service hour.

The AATA, Annis said, was “too fat.” The agency needed to “go on a diet,” he concluded.

Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, responded to Annis by saying that he had discussed some of the findings of Porter’s study with Porter and that closer examination might reveal that in some cases the comparisons were not “apples to apples.”

For his part, Nacht was curious to know how many employees were covered by the $1.5 million line item for health insurance – he wanted to know how much the AATA was spending per person. The answer from Ed Robertson, head of human resources, was 190 employees plus 15 retirees. Doing a quick calculation in his head for the dental portion of the coverage, Nacht concluded, “$1,000 – that’s a lot of money for teeth.”

Robertson explained that beginning in FY 2011, hourly employees will begin to pay towards their own health coverage, which was something that management personnel had already been doing for a number of years. This prompted Annis to wonder what the potential impact of the possible national health care reform would be on AATA’s health coverage costs.

Paul Ajegba took care to emphasize that he and Rich Robben had not opposed the additional cuts per se that had been proposed by Annis, but that they felt that implementing them more gradually was important as far as assuring continued quality of service.

Annis reiterated the connection of the budget to the likelihood that voters would approve a countywide millage: “If we want to get to a countywide millage, we need to get costs in line.” He noted that in Bay County, voters approved the millage every five years by a wide margin. [According to the Bay County clerk's office, for the Nov. 2, 2004 vote, which authorized the .75 mill levy through 2010, there were 32,606 yes votes and 20,509 no votes.]

Board member Charles Griffith drew out the importance of evaluating cost efficiencies on an ongoing basis, as opposed to the end of the year when the budget was being prepared. In response to Griffith, Annis pointed to the process improvement teams that Rich Robben had introduced, based on Robben’s experience as the executive director of plant operations at the University of Michigan. Noting some cost reductions for telephones, Nacht said that when he saw things like that in the budget, it was clear to him that someone had been looking for “how to save a nickel” on an ongoing basis.

This prompted Annis to tick off some costs he thought could be reduced. He asked Nacht if he knew that there were four full-time people who answered phones at the AATA. There were also 2.5 full-time positions dedicated to mowing grass and keeping bus shelters clean, Annis said.

Nacht allowed that there were cheaper ways of getting information to people than having them call a person and ask, but that he’d on occasion found it useful to call up the AATA from a bus stop to ask when the bus was coming. Ford pointed out that technology was being explored to provide bus arrival information. [A pilot program for real-time tracking can be found here.]

Outcome: The 2011 budget was approved, with dissent from Annis.

Additional Cuts Proposed by Annis

When Annis said he’d identified an additional $1 million in cuts that would bring the AATA’s bus service hour cost down close to $96, what was he talking about?

Here’s his list of ideas:

• $20,000 Eliminate Michigan Public Transit Association (MPTA) membership
• $24,000 Change the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) membership from Corporate ($26,000/year) to Individual ($2,000/year or so)
• $225,000 Cut overtime of $455,000/year by 50%
• $250,000 Reduce executive headcount by two FTEs net
• $125,000 Reduce mid-level executive headcount by two FTEs
• $100,000 Reduce “ExtraBoard” [This is the daily job bank. A dozen or so extra people report in the morning to cover unscheduled absences. The idea is to cover absent bus drivers.]
• $85,500 Bring the go!pass programs in-house (without adding headcount) and eliminate the payment for the getDowntown program
• $112,200 Redesign the Ypsilanti Transit Center so that private security is no longer needed
• $65,000 Redesign the Blake Transit Center in Ann Arbor so that contracted security is no longer needed. [This does not necessarily entail converting to a canopy with no inside warm area or bathrooms. The BTC is currently being reviewed by an architectural firm for remodeling or reconstruction, and this would be incorporated as a design objective.]
• $100,000+ Outsource the facility maintenance and vehicle cleaning, currently $485,000/year
• $60,000 Remove one FTE from vehicle service and maintenance
• $30,000 Reduce custodial services for dry areas from daily to MWF
• $100,000 Eliminate external media advertising of $102,000 and use the advertising on buses themselves

Countywide Millage

The theme of a countywide millage vote was woven throughout the meeting. It came up specifically as a reality during question time for the CEO when Ted Annis asked to see a copy of a survey questionnaire that was being prepared to gauge support for a possible millage. The survey is part of an overall marketing plan.

Later, during deliberations on the budget, it was mentioned that on Oct. 3 an on-board rider satisfaction survey would begin. Annis asked if a “taxpayer satisfaction survey” was being planned.

Board Officer Elections

The board elected its officers for the next year by acclamation. Paul Ajegba will be the board chair, Ted Annis will be its treasurer, and Charles Griffith will serve as secretary.

In the nomination process during the last month – which Jesse Bernstein had been appointed to administer at the board’s previous meeting – both Ajegba and Nacht had expressed their interest in serving as chair, which was a repeat of last year’s scenario. Whereas last year it was Ajegba who stepped aside, this year Nacht bowed out before the election took place.

In electing the new chair, a moment of levity resulted when Nacht misspoke in asking for any other nominations for “the new CEO.” Annis joked that Michael Ford, who’s been the AATA’s CEO a little over two months, was “visibly shaken” at Nacht’s miscue.

Bank of Ann Arbor

Representatives of the Bank of Ann Arbor, where the AATA parks some of its money, were on hand to give the board a presentation on the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service. CDARS is a way for local banks to offer the higher interest of a CD – as compared to a Treasury bill, for example – while at the same time covering an entire investment under FDIC insurance, even though the amount of that investment might exceed the FDIC limit on an individual CD.

This is accomplished under reciprocal agreements among banks within the CDARS network, which allows a bank to break down the amount of an investment into smaller CDs that meet FDIC insurance limits.

A concrete example provided at the meeting was for a 90-day investment of $5 million, invested with CDARS, which would yield $10,000 in interest, compared with the $1,000 it would earn if invested in a U.S. Treasury bill.

Public Comment

At the end of the meeting, several people spoke on various issues.

Carolyn Grawi: Grawi works with the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living. She encouraged the board to move forward with regional transit. She expressed her support for the board’s decision to help Ypsilanti bridge its funding gap, saying,”it’s important that we support our neighbors.”

Tim Hull: Hull is a University of Michigan student. He thanked the board for their support of Ypsilanti. He called the board’s attention to the situation at Arborland, where the relocation of the bus stops to Washtenaw Avenue, from inside the shopping plaza, had resulted in sometimes hazardous situations when bus riders tried to make connections. People wound up trying to run across the busy street trying to make their transfers. He suggested that it might be better not to offer and advertise transfers at all, if they could not be done safely.

Rebecca Burke: Burke is chair of the AATA’s local advisory council and she asked CEO Michael Ford to reappoint Joanne Weintraub and Karen Wanza to the council. They both had more than 25 years of experience with the AATA, she said, and she supported their re-appointment. She also asked that a representative of the AATA board attend the meetings of the LAC.

Sandra Holley: Holley expressed concern about an article in the Eastern Echo, the Eastern Michigan University student newspaper, that she said highlighted cuts to bus service to Ypsilanti that had caused unfounded rumors. She said someone needed to talk to EMU to get it straightened out.

LuAnne Bullington: Bullington thanked David Nacht for his service as board chair. She also thanked the board for their support of Ypsilanti. She suggested to Ted Annis that Kalamazoo and East Lansing would make better comparisons than Bay City, when evaluating the performance of the AATA. She also discouraged a comparison to the University of Michigan bus system, because they used student bus drivers. She did not want to see students driving AATA buses, she said.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Ted Annis, Jesse Bernstein,  Paul Ajegba

Absent: Sue McCormick, Rich Robben

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

AATA's manager of community relations, Mary Stasiak, talks with a frequent passenger on route No. 2.

On Tuesday afternoon, representatives of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority were on hand at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library to meet with members of the public to talk about a proposed fare increase. The AATA board will likely consider the proposal at its March 18 meeting. If passed by the AATA board, the first phase of the two-phase plan would take effect in May 2009, raising the basic fare from $1 to $1.25.  In May 2010, it would climb another 25 cents to $1.50 [details on the proposed fare increases].

The lower level multipurpose room at the library can accommodate more than a hundred people, but in the course of the two-hour meeting, only around ten members of the public stopped by – some arriving well after the meeting started, and some leaving somewhere in the middle. In that regard, the meeting was like a public bus: it left the station at its scheduled time with some passengers, took additional riders on board along the way, and let some of them off before the route was finished. But one could ask the same question about the meeting that is frequently asked about the bus system: Why does the AATA run some buses that appear to be mostly empty?

In the course of the mostly informal conversation that unfolded Tuesday afternoon, Phil Webb, who is the controller at AATA, provided part of the answer to the empty buses question: Passengers need to be able to rely on the bus showing up every day and every time it’s scheduled to be there, even if on some days at some times the ridership is reduced. As for the public meetings, they’ve been scheduled as well, and the public relies on the AATA keeping to that schedule.

A second  meeting will be held on Tuesday, Feb. 17 from 6-8 p.m., also in the multipurpose room of the downtown Ann Arbor library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. In Ypsilanti, hearings will be held at the City of Ypsilanti Council Chambers, One S. Huron St., Ypsilanti on Thursday, Feb. 19 from 4-7 p.m. and Thursday, Feb. 26 from 1-3 p.m. [confirm dates].

Phil Webb, controller for AATA.

If the meeting was like a public bus, then it left the station with Mary Stasiak, manager of community relations for AATA, at the wheel.  She gave some background on the proposed fare increase. Simply put, without it the AATA would face a structural deficit. That is, expenses would begin to exceed revenues. So where does the AATA get its revenue?  Stasiak explained that  79% of AATA revenue comes from a combination of federal, state, and local taxes.  Fares account for the remaining 21%. But fares for door-to-door paratransit services, which the AATA is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide wherever it operates fixed-route service, cover only 12.8% of the cost of operating the service, said Stasiak.

Free Bus Rides for Seniors?

Part of the AATA paratransit service offerings includes the senior taxi program (Good as Gold), which currently offers $2 taxi rides with advance notice ($3 same day) to those 65 and older.  The current fare proposal is to make rides for seniors free on fixed-route service (the regular bus). But the idea that senior citizens could ride the bus for free was not met with support from one senior attending the meeting on Tuesday. From a woman who retired to Ann Arbor and does not own a car: “To me it seems completely outrageous that I could ride a bus all over the place and not pay anything for it! I think you’re too cheap!”

It emerged during the ensuing conversation that part of the strategy behind these free rides is an attempt to brake the demand for the senior taxi program, which has risen over the last three years, and could easily triple, said Stasiak, as the population ages. Webb said that the idea was to save money by offering free fares to seniors on the regular bus. It’s less expensive for the AATA to provide a free ride on the bus than to charge $2 for door-to-door taxi service.

For the car-free retiree, it was a question of being able to use the fares that seniors paid for their bus rides to help fund expanded service times to evenings and weekends. She said that the last bus out of downtown left at 10:18 p.m., which made it difficult to take the bus home from a typical performance at Hill Auditorium.

Fare Levels and Elasticity of Demand

Although the question of the effect of fare prices on ridership was raised at Tuesday’s meeting, it was not discussed at an economist’s level of detail. Taking his turn at the wheel of the “meeting bus,” the  gentleman who raised the question (a frequent No. 2 bus rider, along with his wife) said he recalled the notion from courses in economics he took 60 years ago. The basic idea of  elasticity of  demand is that given a certain number of people riding the bus, it’s possible to calculate a fare price that would fund the bus system operations with fares alone. And based on the current percentage of operations covered by fares (20%), that fare price for AATA would need to quintuple to $5 per ride. But at $5 it wouldn’t be reasonable to take the current level of demand for bus rides as indicative of demand when rides are priced at $5. Demand at that price could reasonably expected to drop.

Transportation-themed art from Ann Arbor Public Schools students adorned one of the walls of the lower level multipurpose room at the Ann Arbor District Library's downtown location – where the fare increase proposal meeting was held.

But as Webb explained, it’s simply not expected that public transit like AATA’s bus system can be funded by fares alone. While reducing fares could increase ridership, possibly increasing revenues overall (more rides at a cheaper price could mean more revenue than fewer rides at a higher price), increased ridership can mean increased costs. If demand increases to a point where an additional bus needs to be added to a route, for example, the increased revenue from fares is balanced against the increased expense of adding an extra bus.

However,  the No. 2 bus rider noted that there was far more capacity in the system than was currently being used, and thus, what he wanted to know was this: What’s the capacity of the bus system, and at what relative capacity might the system be able to fund itself? Otherwise put, “If you filled every bus at every time, would you break even?” Webb clarified that in the transit industry, the notion of capacity isn’t what’s used so much as a statistic called the “passengers per service hour.”  System-wide, AATA operates at 31 passengers per service hour.

Aside: To get an idea of how the passengers per service hour relates to system capacity in layman’s terms, it’s useful to consider two scenarios that could reasonably be seen as “filling every bus at every time.”  Scenario A: A full bus departs Blake Transit Center, heads to its end destination at Ypsilanti Transit Center. Along the way, nobody gets off the bus. Nobody is standing at any of the stops along the way. At the final destination, everybody disembarks. Scenario B: A full bus departs Blake Transit Center, heads to its end destination at Ypsilanti Transit Center, and at the first stop everyone gets off the bus, and one busload of passengers who were waiting at that first bus stop board the bus. At each subsequent stop the same thing happens. In both cases, the whole time the bus is on the road, every seat is filled. Both have the system at “maximum capacity.” Yet in Scenario B, the passengers per service hour stat is much greater than in Scenario A – greater by a factor equal to the number of stops along the way.

Who Rides Free – Sponsored Fares

Tom Partridge, a name familiar to Chronicle readers as a frequent speaker at public meetings, boarded the “meeting bus” after it had left the main station. When he took his turn at the wheel, he steered it down a familiar road, focusing on the importance of  countywide transportation accessible to everyone. He also objected to the proposed fare increase for taxi rides for seniors and disabled people. (Under the proposal, both categories of taxi rides arranged with advance notice would rise from $2 to $3 by 2010; rides arranged the same day would rise from $3 to $4).  He called the fare increase for seniors and disabled people “inherently discriminatory.”

Partridge contrasted these fares for seniors and disabled people with the M-Card and go!pass programs, which allow University of Michigan staff and students, as well as employees of participating downtown businesses, to ride AATA buses at no cost to themselves. Stasiak and Webb pointed out that the fares for these people are not free but rather are “sponsored” – either by UM or by the Downtown Development Authority. In the case of the M-Card program, said Webb, the  2.1 million M-Card rides (drivers record each ride by pressing a button) are sponsored through a combination of a cash payment  of $700,000 per year made by UM to AATA, plus a federal grant to UM of $1.1 million. The $1.8 million works out to 87 cents paid per M-Card ride. System-wide, said Webb, the amount actually paid per ride averages 71 cents.

The arrangement between AATA and UM expires in August 2009. It’s currently being negotiated, with the first meeting between representatives of the organizations having already met, Webb said. Webb is helping to represent AATA in those negotiations.

The Expense Side of the Equation

The topic of negotiations was also a part of Tuesday’s meeting in connection with AATA’s expenses. While most of the conversation focused on fares and the revenue side of the structural deficit that Stasiak said AATA would face without increased fares, she also highlighted some ways that AATA had addressed the expense side. One major step was the recent successful negotiation of union contracts, which resulted in changing the health insurance carrier, and  higher co-pays for health insurance, with an overall savings of 14% on health insurance premiums.

The effective management of expenses, Stasiak said, was reflected in the 2009 budget, which kept the 2008 budget’s same level for operating expenses.

Waxing Poetic about AATA Buses

The handful of people who  came to the meeting and spoke were, by and large, quite enthusiastic about Ann Arbor’s buses. One woman, who was there with her walker at the start of the “meeting bus” ride and stayed to the finish, said, “I love Ann Arbor’s buses.” What’s that love based on?  She said she rode every route the AATA offers except for three of them (No. 14, No. 13, and No. 3). And even though she allowed that in the wintertime the bus sometimes runs behind, she said, “It does come. I know it’s going to come.”

Another passenger who boarded the “meeting bus” as it was nearing its final destination was Erica Dunham, who asked if the possibility of monetary assistance for AATA had been solicited from private corporations – energy companies and financial institutions. The only instance that Stasiak and Webb could recall was many years ago when someone had donated money to subsidize service in Scio Township to a housing development off Jackson Road. Dunham expressed her support by waxing literally poetic, reading aloud some stanzas she’d crafted, which concluded: “It all adds up to bringing our community/ Success, respect, equality and unity.”

In Ann Arbor, it would seem, there’s a poetry-bus connection.