The "boomerang map" showing the Ann Arbor corridors being studied for higher quality transit options like bus rapid transit, streetcars, and monorail. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Some early results of the “Ann Arbor Connector Feasibility Study” were presented last Tuesday evening at the Ann Arbor District Library in an open-house style format with boards and easels, complemented by a presentation from the consultant hired to perform the study, project manager Rick Nau of URS Corporation.

Nau reported that the study is currently in the needs analysis phase – traffic congestion was a phrase Nau sprinkled through his remarks during the evening. The initial needs analysis shows that the majority of the travel demand in the Plymouth-State corridors is accounted for by trips between different parts of the University of Michigan campus.

The study has not reached the point of drawing lines on maps for possible transportation routes. Instead, the representation of the area of study is a “boomerang map” stretching from US-23 near Plymouth Road to Briarwood Mall. The boomerang includes two of four “signature transit corridors” identified in the city of Ann Arbor’s Transportation Plan Update – Plymouth/Fuller roads and State Street.

Prompted by an audience question, Nau made clear that the study has not yet reached the dollars-and-cents analysis phase that will eventually come. The study is expected to be completed by December 2010 with the preliminary recommendations to be publicly presented in the fall.

Nau’s presentation focused on establishing the need for higher quality transit along the corridor and the range of technology choices available to meet that need. Those technology choices range from larger buses running along the regular roadway to elevated monorail trains.

Transit Technology Choices

The choices Nau laid out to the audience broke down into five categories, all of which are comparable to current systems in American cities, most of which are larger than Ann Arbor.

University of Michigan planner Sue Gott gave introductory remarks at the June 8 open house.

Streetcars: Modern, electrically-powered vehicles that operate on single-car trains and carry 100-120 passengers each, a streetcar system would not offer a great travel-time advantage given that its track operates in mixed flow with cars and makes frequent stops. They are, however, a popular method with patrons, offering a smooth and quiet ride.

Nau cited officials in Portland, Ore. who estimated their city’s streetcar system has generated $6 billion in adjacent growth and development. It wouldn’t be Ann Arbor’s first ever streetcar line – two railroad stations in town and the downtown area were connected by streetcars in the early 1900s.

Light Rail: This is an electrically-powered model that is larger than a streetcar but more expensive. Light rail operates with three-car trains and carries more people. Light rail typically offers an exclusive or semi-exclusive right-of-way, meaning no cars drive over the tracks, which leads to quicker travel. Although usually found in larger cities like Dallas and Denver, Nau said he thinks Ann Arbor could support it since the travel demand is more comparable to that of a bigger city.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): Cheaper than other options, a BRT system can run with contemporary, “articulated” buses, rubber tires and a duel-fuel technology similar to current AATA vehicles. Typically, an exclusive lane is dedicated to these buses in this system for at least part of the day. Nau mentioned how excited the people of Cleveland were for the opening of their BRT system, which he said remains popular there today.

Monorail: This option is an elevated track similar to Chicago’s L that offers cars with great time efficiency, using electricity that is supplied within the rail itself.

Automated Gateway Transit/Personal Rapid Transit: Driverless, automated systems similar to Detroit’s People Mover.

All these options may be far more sophisticated than what the city has now with standard AATA buses. With no projections yet on the necessary capital, URS can’t give a recommendation on what would be right for Ann Arbor and what wouldn’t be a good option. That will come during later phases of the study.

A demonstration of dual technology. One of the slides in the PowerPoint presentation turned up blank, so Eli Cooper, transportation program manager for the city of Ann Arbor, grabbed the corresponding poster from an easel and manually filled in the blank.

“What we’ll try to do is narrow this universe of alternatives down to a more manageable set of things that can be considered in future studies,” Nau said.

When a time does come to enact a plan, it will almost certainly need government funding – a lot of it. While a massive project is obviously unlikely to be paid for with city and state dollars alone, getting federal assistance requires a lengthy process that may take 10 years to complete, Nau said.

As for the study itself, AATA is paying for half of the $640,000 price tag. The city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority agreed to each pitch in $80,000. The University of Michigan makes up the rest of the funding for the study with a $160,000 contribution.

The Funding Partnership: Who Pays?

Representatives from each of the four study-funding partners were present at the meeting, saying a few words before Nau took the podium. Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, kicked off the meeting, stressing the study evolved out of a transportation plan update that was completed last year. The plan recommended action to address future needs as the community evolves.

“The issue of transportation is not one of those things that respects any boundaries,” Cooper said. Transportation impacts from downtown affect the area outside of the downtown, and the university affects the entire community. “The community is responsible not only from within, but for those who commute here from without,” Cooper said.

Roger Hewitt of the DDA followed Cooper, stating that his organization handled more than parking, and was very excited and deeply involved with this mass transit project. University planner Sue Gott from UM said she was interested in improving mobility and noted new sustainability efforts at UM where all new construction is to meet Silver LEED standards. AATA CEO Michael Ford said he wanted to move more people and be more effective for Washtenaw County and beyond.

The preliminary analysis of travel among main activity areas within the area of study in the “boomerang map” shows that the main activity areas themselves and the majority of trips between them are related to the UM campus. There are 50,000 daily trips made between central campus and north campus, for example.

The study has looked at current travel demand among nine activity areas. Four out of 36 of those connections have current travel levels that would support a more robust transportation technology than a standard bus. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

From a chart presented at the June 8 open house slide presentation – and available on the connector study website – the preliminary needs study shows four trips where current travel demand would support a transportation technology more robust than a standard bus.

The four trips that would currently support more sophisticated transportation are between: North Campus and Central Campus; Medical Center and Central Campus; Downtown and Central Campus; South Campus and Central Campus

The prominence of UM-centric trips in the study area was already a concern for some who believe the project will serve UM more than the community at large. That concern factored into discussions about who should pay for the study, and later for the construction of the project.

In June 2009, when the DDA board voted to approve its $80,000 share of the study, DDA board member Sandi Smith said she had reservations about providing support for what would essentially be a “U of M trolley.” Then-board member Rene Greff, co-owner of Arbor Brewing Co., said UM had enough money to support this study itself. That was countered by DDA board member Leah Gunn’s perspective of the UM as the area’s major economic engine, which was not separate from the Ann Arbor community. As part of that discussion, mayor John Hieftje indicated that he felt it was an advantage to have the city involved in any applications for federal grants.

In detail from The Chronicle’s report of the June 3, 2009 DDA board meeting:

Board member Sandi Smith, who is also a city councilmember … had a problem providing support for a project that was essentially going to be a “U of M trolley.” She said she understood that the route was not completely determined, but she had some hesitancy, still. She stressed that if the feasibility study indicated that 70% of the ridership would come from the University of Michigan community, then the cost of construction should reflect that. Rene Greff echoed Smith’s sentiments, saying that the university had enough money to fund the study by themselves. She said that she was willing to support funding the study but stressed that there should not be an expectation in the long-term for a corresponding level for participation in the system’s construction.

For her part, board member Leah Gunn offered the perspective that the University of Michigan was the major economic engine of the city and indeed of the state. She said that just because someone attends the university or works there, it doesn’t mean they’re not part of the community. The project benefits the university, thus benefits the community as well, she said.

Hieftje indicated that the city had “not held back in making clear that the University of Michigan would need to step up.” He suggested that there would be an advantage, though, in being the entity that applied for federal grant dollars, or at least making an application in concert with the university going forward.

The discussion of the study’s funding distribution came against a backdrop of a total cost that had initially been estimated as dramatically lower – $250,000. In February 2008, the plan was to have AATA provide $100,000 and the other three partners $50,000 apiece.

When the bids came back dramatically higher than expected for a total price tag of $640,000, the initial plan was to have each funding partner contribute $160,000 apiece. The DDA and the city resisted the idea of being counted as separate funding sources, and agreed to split one $160,000 “share,” at $80,000 apiece. The AATA picked up the extra share, for a total of $320,000.

Public Comment

The June 8 connector study open house at the downtown library included a segment for attendees to pose questions or make statements.

Two residents made comments that highlighted the possibility that a more sophisticated transportation technology could itself be an attraction to the Ann Arbor area. Ray Detter, head of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, noted that there’d been an acceptance of the idea of increased density downtown. He said there could be an additional 5,000 people living downtown. A transportation connector was not just a necessity, he said, but also an amenity that would create something of an attraction, providing vitality to the downtown.

An attendee who lives and works downtown – Rob Thomas – noted that the form of some transportation technologies might have an impact on their ability to attract new riders. He wanted to know if that would factor into the analysis. In response, Nau acknowledged that rail systems did have the ability to attract new riders and that many who give it a try become believers. Construction of such a system costing hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of 2-3 years created a great deal of anticipation, he said, and when it does open, “it’s like Christmas” and people want to ride it.

Clark Charnetski expressed his confidence that high speed regional rail would be coming to Ann Arbor and that it would be important for people to have a way to get around Ann Arbor once they get here.

Local developer Peter Allen complied with a request at the start of the meeting that people turn off their cell phones.

Another resident noted that the use of public transportation is voluntary. He asked if the idea had been explored of requiring a payment to bring a privately-owned vehicle into the city – had that been considered as a funding option? Nau answered that as far as funding options, for projects like this you don’t look at two or three different funding options, you look at 10 or 15 different possibilities. They could include everything from a tax increment finance district (TIF) to using parking meter revenues.

A city councilmember representing Ward 1, Sabra Briere, expressed concern over the potentially considerable costs of building anything with fixed guideways, whether it be rails or bus-exclusive lanes. She asked what an estimate would look like, but Nau wasn’t ready to give out even ballpark figures, saying cost-estimation was the next phase of the study.

Steve Bean, an independent mayoral candidate and chair of Ann Arbor’s environmental commission, asked Nau if there was any possibility of reducing road repair costs due to an improved transit operation, and of downsizing the size of the road network. Nau said the study had not looked at that specifically, but that has not been the experience in other cities. Although passengers enjoy these systems, the overall reduction in traffic on the roads is not significant enough to warrant a decrease in road infrastructure investments.

Later, Nau did say that if some kind of enhanced transit option were not chosen and implemented, it would be necessary to expand the road network.

Carolyn Grawi, director of advocacy and education for the Center of Independent Living, asked about the accessibility to the disabled in any of the transportation systems. Nau assured her that all systems had quick boarding processes and that if they were built with the help of federal funding, it would be “absolutely required that every system be 100 percent accessible.” In response to a question from a different audience member, Nau indicated that all of the options presented could also accommodate bicycles.

Grawi also asked about affordability, both for residents and potential riders. Nau said the cost of these projects for residents was notoriously complicated, but fare would have to be at a price “that would be appealing for the vast majority of the public.”

Additional reporting for this article was provided by Dave Askins.

Jesse Bernstein, who chairs the AATA board's performance monitoring and external relations committee, outlined a plan for expanding service that sees the next six months devoted to making the organization more transparent and gathering information from the community. (Photos by the writer.)

The emphasis on community engagement and listening to the needs and wants of the people who might use an expanded service – before trying to design the specifics of the service – would not be something confined to this particular initiative. Said Bernstein: “This is not a one-shot campaign; this is how we’re going to behave going forward.”

The board adopted a resolution to advance their plan for the future of public transportation in the county.

The board also heard a presentation on the results of a survey of voter attitudes towards a possible transit millage in Washtenaw County. The survey measured support of a millage at 51% – with 17% and 34% of voters saying they’d definitely or probably vote yes, respectively.

In other business, the board adopted its capital and categorical grant program, approved a contract to replace some doors and windows at AATA headquarters, authorized an application to the Michigan Department of Transportation and approved a 21-month purchase-of-service agreement with the city of Ypsilanti.

Countywide Millage Survey of Voter Attitudes

The AATA has been actively exploring the issue of expanding its service countywide for 18 months or more. [See Chronicle coverage: "AATA Plans for Countywide System," "AATA Adopts Vision: Countywide Service," "AATA Gets Advice on Countywide Transit"]

Hugh Clark of CJI Research and Bob Dykes of TRIAD Research Group gave the board a presentation on the survey they’d conducted for the AATA to explore the likelihood that a countywide transit millage would be approved by voters.

The survey also explored attitudes of voters towards the county where they live, their awareness and satisfaction with AATA, and the impact on voter attitudes of additional information about the millage (arguments for and against).

Survey Sample

The 1,100-person sample was drawn from registered voters in Washtenaw County, with interviews conducted by telephone. For each of four separate geographic regions, 275 interviews were administered: Ann Arbor, non-Ann Arbor urban areas, eastern Washtenaw, and western Washtenaw.

The populations of each of those areas is different; however, survey results were weighted accordingly.

Survey Questions

Q: Overall, how satisfied are you with Washtenaw County as a place to live?

61% very satisfied
35% somewhat satisfied
 3% somewhat dissatisfied
 1% very dissatisfied
 1% not sure

-

Q: In your opinion, is Washtenaw County a better place to live than it was five years ago or is it a worse place to live?

39% same
25% worse
24% better
12% not sure

-

Q: Have you or has anyone in your household ridden any of AATA’s buses in the past year?

40% yes
59% no
 1% not sure

-

Q: Overall, would you say you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable opinion of Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, AATA?

26% very favorable
39% somewhat favorable
 4% somewhat unfavorable
 1% very unfavorable
 2% mixed (volunteered)
23% not sure
 5% have not heard of AATA

-

Q: How would you rate the job AATA currently does of providing public transit services?

15% excellent
44% good
11% only fair
 1% poor
28% not sure

-

Q: How important do you think it is to provide public transit services in Washtenaw County?

35% extremely important
37% very important
19% somewhat important
 7% not very important
 2% not sure

-

Hugh Clark, of CJI, said the most important result of the survey was measurement of how important voters thought providing transit services was: 72% of those surveyed thought it was either extremely or very important.

Q: [BEFORE information was presented] Sometime next year, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, AATA, may have a tax issue on the ballot for the purpose of providing and expanding public transportation throughout all of Washtenaw County. Assuming that it would increase property taxes by one mill …

17% definitely yes
34% probably yes
21% probably no
20% definitely no
 7% not sure

-

Q: [AFTER information was presented] Sometime next year, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, AATA, may have a tax issue on the ballot for the purpose of providing and expanding public transportation throughout all of Washtenaw County. Assuming that it would increase property taxes by one mill …

24% definitely yes
34% probably yes
17% probably no
20% definitely no
 6% not sure

-

The support of the millage was characterized as soft – because most of those who say they’d support the millage would only “probably” do so, as opposed to “definitely.”

Looking at the impact on voter attitudes of information on both sides, more people moved from outside the “definitely/probably yes” category into that category than people who moved into the “definitely/probably no” category:

48% consistent positive
11% moved positive
 3% undecided
 5% moved negative
33% consistent negative

-

Q: If Livingston and Washtenaw counties decide to develop the WALLY line, what if some of the money from this tax increase would be used to provide the Washtenaw County share of money to operate the WALLY line?

26% more likely
26% less likely
43% no difference
 5% not sure

-

Q: There has also been some discussion about operating a commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Detroit. What if some of the money from the tax were used to provide the Washtenaw County share of money to operate the commuter rail service?

42% more likely
22% less likely
31% no difference
 4% not sure

-

So offering north-south commuter rail (WALLY) as part of expanded service would have little impact either way on voters’ attitude. Offering east-west rail as part of the service had a somewhat positive effect on voters’ likelihood of supporting a millage.

The survey tried to explore what kinds of arguments might be effective against a millage. The survey did not find great support for the ideas that there’s enough public transit already and we don’t need to expand it, or that AATA spends a lot of money on things that aren’t important. On the other hand, the ideas that they couldn’t personally afford it or that the economy is too uncertain tended to resonate quite strongly.

Hugh Clark, of CJI Research, presents survey results to the AATA board.

The survey also tried to determine what ideas would generate support among voters. It found that providing door-to-door transportation for seniors and those with disabilities was an idea that resonated with voters: 59% said it was very important and 30% said it was somewhat important.

Survey respondents also reacted favorably to the idea that county service might be more coordinated between AATA, the WAVE (Washtenaw Area Value Express) and People’s Express: 46% said they’d be more likely to support a millage with some kind of coordination, with 41% saying it made no difference.

Among the perceived benefits of transit, the survey found, 80% agree (strongly or somewhat) that public transit is important in attracting jobs, 78% agree (strongly or somewhat) that it’s important for seniors or disabled people to be able to get around, and 76% agree that they or someone in their family might need public transit services.

Board Deliberations on Survey Results

Board chair Paul Ajegba focused on the poor job performance rating reflected in the survey, which was only 1%, and told CEO Michael Ford that congratulations should be passed along to the AATA staff.

Board member Charles Griffith wanted to know to what extent it made sense to sculpt a message to target specific audiences. Bob Dykes, of TRIAD, allowed that there might be some advantage to highlighting different issues with different groups, but advised that obviously you don’t want to say something that’s 180-degrees opposite to different groups.

Board member Rich Robben wanted to know what the margin of error was for the survey – it was 3.8%. But Dykes said that more importantly, the survey had been done rigorously by people with experience. He also pointed out that on a typical poll reported on TV, the sample is taken from 1,500 people from across the U.S., and this survey was based on 1,100 respondents across Washtenaw County.

Dykes also advised that in a publicity campaign for transit, you can’t make a case to most people by telling them they should spend money on it because they’re going to use it – they’re still not going to use it, he said. A question on that came from the audience – which board chair Paul Ajegba allowed, as Dykes was already mid-sentence in responding: Did that mean that the 40% of households with a member who’d ridden an AATA bus would not increase?

Dykes allowed that he was exaggerating – he gave an example of an Ohio transit system that had increased that percentage of households from 7% to 24%. His point, though, was that the majority of people will still not be using mass transit after expansion. So it’s not a compelling case in putting together a campaign.

What might lead people to support a millage, Dykes suggested, was the idea that they should pay to help disabled and seniors get around: “It’s hard to run against seniors,” he said.

Paul Ajegba chairs the AATA board. Before the meeting he was getting his paperwork in order.

In his public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen would point out that the survey was conducted by telephone – it was 1,100 people who’d agreed to participate in a very long survey by phone.

But speaking to the issue of possible negative arguments, he noted that while the information presented in the survey was negative, it was still reasonable. A negative campaign, he cautioned, didn’t have to be reasonable.

One point that Dykes made during his presentation on the survey was that if someone says they can’t afford it, you can’t argue with them.

At that, Jesse Bernstein was animated: “That’s not what we’re going to do,” he said. “What we have to do is say: ‘What do you want?’ We tell them what they could have. The campaign is not to convince, it’s to come up with a plan.”

A large portion of the agenda separated these comments of Bernstein’s from the discussion of the board’s resolution on advancement of a plan for shaping the future of public transit. But at that time, he picked up where he’d left off.

Resolution on the Future of Washtenaw Public Transit

When the board came to the last item on its agenda, after quickly dispatching all of its other business, board chair Paul Ajegba declared: “Now for the big one!”

Bernstein said that in his one and a half years serving on the AATA board, this was the most important thing he’d ever seen the board do. The old days, he said, of trying to convince the public were gone and instead they would take a “ready, aim, fire” approach where they would spend the next six months talking to stakeholders – including all the agencies that already have transportation plans.

In mentioning other agencies with transportation plans, Bernstein was alluding to remarks made by Jim Mogensen during public commentary at the start of the meeting. Mogensen cautioned the board to consider the fact that all the agencies that have begun participating in the needs assessment process have transportation plans of their own – the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), the city of Ann Arbor, University of Michigan and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA).

Mogensen said he saw the role of the consultant the AATA expected to hire as playing a similar role of a conference committee to hash out a healthcare bill from the version proposed by the House, Senate, and pharmaceutical companies. He wondered, though, whether there’d be a “public option” for the transportation plan.

Carolyn Grawi, in her public commentary turn at the conclusion of the meeting, stressed that it was important for the AATA to be at the table for the master planning efforts in surrounding townships, like Pittsfield. She’d attended a Pittsfield Township meeting on master planning for the township, but the AATA was not there, she said.

In his deliberations, Bernstein said that after they had an idea of what people needed and wanted, and people had an idea of what was possible, they could embark on implementing not a 2-3 year plan, but a 25-30 year plan.  There’d be a series of 3-5 year plans on how to get to the 30-year point, said Bernstein.

At the end of the meeting during public commentary, Ann Arbor resident Nancy Kaplan would ask Bernstein about the 25-30 year horizon the board was considering and the use of census data in planning: “Do you expect the population to increase?” she asked.

Bernstein pointed out that transportation interacts with growth and land use. “Think about Washtenaw Avenue,” Bernstein said, “it’s single-story buildings, because there’s no incentive to build anything else.” He then offered the possibility of a different pattern of land use if, at the intersections of Hewitt and Washtenaw or Golfside and Washtenaw, there were a transit center – there’d be the possibility of a town center developing. It would send the message to developers: Here’s a resource you can use permanently.

Bernstein went on to describe how in Denver and in Charlotte, development had followed fixed rail when it went in. However, Bernstein cautioned that “If people don’t want it, let’s not do it.” He said the system should be one where people who ride it say, ‘Great – that’s what I need,’ and people who don’t ride it still support it, because they think it’s important.

That was the same kind of sentiment that Bernstein summarized before the board voted. The Chronicle’s paraphrase: “We need to get together and find out what people want and what they need and once we do figure out what that is, we can fund it and build it.”

That’s the paraphrase The Chronicle read to Alan Haber on Thursday night, at the meeting of the RFP review committee that’s considering proposals for the Library Lot. Haber is one of the proposers of the Community Commons, which was set aside by the committee for further consideration on Thursday. One of the proposals that was retained for further consideration was a conference center and hotel that is supported by Bernstein.

Against that background, The Chronicle asked Haber if that quote sounded like him, and Haber allowed that yes, it did. Told that it was not him, but rather Jesse Bernstein talking about countywide transportation the previous evening, a smile lit Haber’s face.

Outcome: The “ready, aim, fire” plan was unanimously approved by the board.

Reports from Committees and the CEO

The committees in large part reported their activities by referring interested people to the board packet with the committee meeting minutes.

Committees

Jesse Bernstein did note one highlight for the performance monitoring and external relations committee: There’s interest from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in resurrecting the downtown circulator called The LINK.

He also said that he’d been looking at alternative sites for the board meeting room – the “ready” phase of the plan adopted by the board for the future of county transportation calls for the following [emphasis added]:

A) Assure that the entire community has access to clear and understandable information about AATA’s service delivery system and how to measure our performance using multiple communications methods, including traditional and existing as well as emerging technologies, such as improving the content and accessibility of our web site and providing video coverage of meetings, to promote transparency and accountability.

For video taping, one possibility being considered is the Ann Arbor District Library downtown location. Thomas Partridge, in his public commentary at the end of the meeting, called on the board to find a larger venue, with TV broadcast facilities, because it was vital that the board go public.

To try to accommodate more people, on Wednesday the board met in an alternate room instead of the board room. It was the second alternate location that’s been tried in the last two months. Last month, the long narrow room that was used put audience members at some distance from the board members, and combined with the sound of ventilation fans, this led to complaints about the ability of audience members to hear.

Reporting from the AATA’s local advisory council (LAC), Rebecca Burke passed around a letter to the board asking for language revisions to the LAC’s charge: words like “handicapped” needed to be replaced with “disabled,” for example.

Ted Annis, the board’s treasurer, did not attend Wednesday’s meeting. However, he did send along a one-page treasurer’s report that calls for the hiring of a chief financial officer for the AATA.

CEO’s Report

Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, reported that he’d been meeting with city of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti officials.

He said that a letter had been sent to the owners of the Arborland property – who last summer did not extend the long-time agreement they’d had allowing AATA buses to use a bus stop in the parking lot of the shopping center.  Owners – but not tenants – had objected to use of parking spaces by bus commuters as an informal park-and-ride lot. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA to Arborland: We Could Pay You Rent"] In the month and a half since sending the letter, Ford reported no response. AATA is working with the city of Ann Arbor and Michigan Department of Transportation on coming up with a solution to the difficulties caused by having a bus stop located on Washtenaw Avenue.

The Blake Transit Center RFP (request for proposals) will go out at the end of January 2010 for its reconstruction on the same footprint as the current station. [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Board: Get Bids to Rebuild Blake"] There’ll be a two-phase design and construction phase, said Ford.

AATA board member Jesse Bernstein, left, and AATA CEO Michael Ford at the Library Lot RFP presentations held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library on Jan. 20, 2010.

Ford reported that he’d attended the presentations at the downtown library by respondents to the city of Ann Arbor’s RFP for the library lot.

He also reported that AATA had met twice with University of Michigan officials to work towards a mutually beneficial arrangement on the M-Ride agreement.  By way of background, M-Ride is a program where UM affiliates – students, faculty and staff – can board buses by swiping their MCards, with their fares paid through a combination of UM payments to AATA, plus federal grants for which UM qualifies. The deal was extended for one year when UM and AATA could not reach a longer-term agreement.

Ford reported that UM and AATA would be meeting once a week to work through the deal.

Other Business

The board passed four additional resolutions. Of these, the most significant was the approval of a purchase-of-service agreement with the city of Ypsilanti for $312,330 from Oct. 1 2009 through June 30, 2011. [Chronicle coverage: "Buses for Ypsi and a Budget for AATA"]

The board also approved its capital and categorical grant program – which reflects some changes in light of federal stimulus money that AATA has received.

And the board authorized a contract with Ann Arbor-based JC Beal – which was selected from five bidders – for $169,950 to fix doors and windows at the AATA headquarters.

The annual submission of AATA’s application for funding to the Michigan Department of Transportation was also authorized.

Other Public Commentary

Carolyn Grawi, of the Center for Independent Living, in addition to calling on the board to involve itself and others in all relevant planning processes [included elsewhere in this report], announced that she was pleased that the AATA bus would now be stopping in front of CIL on Research Park Drive.

Thomas Partridge began his remarks at the end of the meeting by saying that he had not majored in engineering or transportation at Michigan State University – a remark that prompted Paul Ajegba to quip, “We’ll forgive you for that!” Partridge continued by saying that he’d attended a conference that was also attended by Ford Motor Co. and Boeing, which are companies planning advanced transportation systems – in other countries like South Africa and India. Why not in the U.S., Partridge wondered.

Present: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Jesse Bernstein, Paul Ajegba, Rich Robben

Absent: Ted Annis, Sue McCormick

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]

Accessibility to Planning Information

On council’s agenda for Monday, May 4, is the adoption of the Ann Arbor Transportation Plan Update. Council heard from a citizen who noted that there was not a copy of the plan available on the second floor of the Larcom Building in the public notebook, and that the size of the online file made her reluctant to risk downloading it out of concern it would lock up her computer. [It's a 10MB file. Although the text is digital (i.e., not a scanned image) the document is fairly graphics-intensive.] She wondered how she might get access to the information. What are the changes being proposed, she wondered?

Note: Planning commission recommended adopting the plan with the following amendments, and they are reflected in the document before council on Monday night:

… subject to making the following four amendments to the short-term recommendations in table 3-1: (1) remove or reprioritize the Nixon Corridor Study and add a State Street Corridor Study (Eisenhower Parkway to Stimson Street) for the purpose of determining system improvements needed if density recommendations are made on State Street; (2) have staff work with MDOT on the road diet for Jackson Avenue from Maple Road to Revena Boulevard; (3) establish a line-item in the CIP for gap improvements in the sidewalk system, with priority to gaps from neighborhoods to schools, and to transit; and (4) adding another location to the recommendation “Assess Potential for Place Based Tax Increment Funding…”: the Jackson Avenue/Maple Road Intersection, primarily west along Jackson Avenue to Wagner Road and north along Maple Road to Dexter Avenue, also considering appropriate segments to the south and east where zoning is currently non-residential.”

She noted that the transportation plan would presumably be included in the planning commission’s work at their Tuesday night meeting – as that body considers a consolidation of all the various area plans into a single document. What’s the linkage between the transportation plan and that master plan, she wondered? And how could the public gain access to the most recent draft of the proposed consolidation of plans – she expressed some skepticism based on an earlier draft that it was merely a consolidation without any substantive changes. In addition to that concern, she said that there were places in the consolidated plan that referenced “the plan” when it wasn’t apparent what plan was actually meant. “That’s just not real access to that information,” she concluded, adding, “I don’t see how you guys could vote on it intelligently.”

Mayor John Hieftje responded by saying that council typically didn’t track things through planning commission, precisely because things could change along the way, but at the appropriate time, they would take a more detailed look at it.

Woven through the resident’s concerns was the issue of access to information: Where was the legal notice published announcing the Tuesday election [for school board]? She suggested that the Tree Town Log, which is a monthly publication of government events (both online in .pdf form and in paper format), include more actual government events, as contrasted with parks and recreation events, so that citizens had a clearer idea of what was going on with respect to civic affairs.

Hieftje defended the city’s website by citing an award for user interface, to which she responded that standards needed to be higher than “good enough to win awards.”

Councilmember Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) solicited feedback on the city’s online calendar listing of city events. The resident said that it was fine as far as it went, but suggested that when you click on the event title to get more information, there wasn’t really all that much more information there. She suggested, for example, that a link to a council meeting’s agenda would be useful to include in a calendar listing for a council meeting.

Mack Pool

A half-dozen or more supporters of keeping Mack Pool open were at caucus, some of them indicating an affiliation with a2qua by wearing T-shirts with the logo. Before any of the Mack pool user advocates spoke, Hieftje offered his reassurance: “I’d be surprised if it wasn’t funded – along with the Leslie Science Center.” He suggested that there could be a working group in Ward 5 that might promote a better conversation with Ann Arbor Public Schools on the subject.

A representative of Mack pool users, who spoke on behalf of many others at caucus, stressed that the users of Mack pool were not just saying “Hey, give us the money!” but rather that they had developed a plan for the pool, which included: reducing costs, increasing use, and increasing fees for non-seniors. The facility is not sustainable for the Ann Arbor public school system alone, he said, due to the inherent fixed costs (e.g., like heating the pool), so there needs to be a partnership. This partnership, he said, would ideally come from cooperation between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor public school system. In Ann Arbor, he said, there were essentially “three governments” that could cooperate better: the University of Michigan, the public schools, and the city.

In addition to the medium-term goal of making Mack sustainable, he suggested that investments could be made to showcase Mack Pool as a “green pool,” perhaps by using ozone for purification instead of chlorine. When financial difficulty forced the city to think about cutting, he said, it was a good time to think about improving services through better cooperation, without cutting.

One of the problems identified regarding cooperation was the scheduling of 35 hours of pool time by the school system, when it only used 15 hours of that time. Councilmember Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Hieftje related that there had historically been attempts by the city to achieve a better and fairer balance between Rec & Ed (the AAPS community education arm) and the city for bearing the cost of various facilities. [On the agenda for Monday is an agreement between the city and the schools for maintenance of ball fields – a resolution that is sponsored by councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).]

The speaker noted that from a PR perspective, it’s not good positioning for the Leslie Science Center to be linked to the pool, and stressed that they did not wish to sound like they were throwing the science center under the bus. He emphasized that there is some serious swimming going on at Mack Pool (people get in the pool and swim up and down the lane for an hour) as opposed to the “splashing around a lot” that goes on at Fuller.

Councilmembers also heard from a swimming instructor who noted that of the various pools where she gives swim lessons, Mack is by far the  easiest one to teach in. In fact, she said, some of the others make it quite difficult to provide instruction.

Underground Parking Garage

Councilmembers also heard from a resident who’d recently attended a meeting of the Gray Panthers where Heiftje had been a guest speaker.  She said she was there at caucus to take exception to a description the mayor had given of Europe during his remarks to the Gray Panthers. [It's a standard talking point of the mayor's to cite the hundreds of bicycles that he's seen parked at train stations when visiting Europe, with all of the automobile parking underground.]

“I want to know how you can destroy space around the public library!” she said, referring to the plan to build an underground parking garage under what is now a surface parking lot. She asked if anyone had bothered to survey women about their attitudes towards parking underground [an allusion to perceptions of decreased safety in underground structures as compared to surface lots]. She described living in Indianapolis in Riley Towers, where there was a lot of space around the building. She went on to describe the importance of air, light, and space around buildings, saying that she’d prefer that the space remain empty next to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor library.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) chimed in, alluding to the height of Riley Towers, pointing out that you can’t have it both ways: lots of air and space and short buildings. He also noted that as of now, the plan is to build the underground parking garage and put surface parking back on top. The Gray Panther responded by saying that Rapundalo had a rebellion in his ward, such was the overall dissatisfaction there with city government.

In defense of building additional parking spaces, Hieftje cited the need to plan for the contingency of losing the parking on the Brown block, if it is developed. [First Martin shows the property in its portfolio under "build to suit."]