Why County-wide Transit for Washtenaw County?

First, a little background...

You probably know by now that Wake Up Washtenaw is all about sustainable, transit-oriented development. We believe transit is a big part of sustainability because it enables us to dial-down our vast use of fossil fuel for transportation, but also because it encourages compact, walkable development, which is more sustainable independent of how we move around. (Illustration: Manhattan Island is the most densely populated piece of land in the United States. It has also been shown that the carbon footprint of residents of Manhattan Island is the lowest in the United States. (See "To learn more" at the end of this post for details and references.) That's why Wake Up Washtenaw focuses so much on transit rather than other aspects of sustainability - it addresses two challenges at once.
You may also know that Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) is working to become a county-wide transit authority. Right now, it's chartered in, by, and for the City of Ann Arbor, and local support comes primarily through property taxes paid by Ann Arbor residents and businesses. (It also gets substantial income from fares, the Federal and State governments, and the University of Michigan.)

But AATA currently serves areas well beyond the city limits, including the City of Ypsilanti and the townships of Pittsfield and Ypsilanti. That has been done through "Purchase of Service Agreements" (POSAs), by which transit service is paid for in fixed amounts from the general funds of the other jurisdictions. In effect, AATA sends a bill to each municipality outside Ann Arbor where it runs buses.

The POSA system has been a problem for several years. The AATA Board (composed entirely of people appointed by the Mayor of Ann Arbor) became increasingly concerned that the other municipalities were not paying as much for their service as the citizens of Ann Arbor were for theirs. So they raised the POSA bills. This caused extreme heartburn in the POSA areas, especially Ypsilanti city and township, which were struggling to balance their budgets already. AATA said it would have to cut back service in those areas that couldn't pay their transit bills.

Ypsilanti residents stormed their City Council with protests against service cut, and Council responded by putting the issue back in the residents' court by including a dedicated transit millage on the ballot in November, 2010. Now, the City Ypsilanti was already the most heavily taxed jurisdiction in the county: 32.6942 mills compared to Ann Arbor's 16.4660 and Ypsilanti Township's 11.9. But Ypsi residents overwhelmingly (72% in favor) voted to add another mil (actually 0.9789) to their taxes so they could continue their transit service at the current level.

That brings us pretty much to the present.

So how would a county-wide authority help?

It would help in three major ways: politically, systemically, and economically.

Politically it's much easier to get the required funding (most likely a millage) if everyone shares the pain. Well, not everyone. The Michigan law under which the new transit authority would be incorporated (Public Act 196) allows jurisdictions within a proposed transit region to "opt out" of the deal beforehand. This is done by the elected officials of the jurisdictions by passing a resolution in Council or Board. Some of Washtenaw County's more rural townships have already indicated that they don't intend to participate. That's OK. Many others are interested in improved (or any!) transit. But if you're an elected official anywhere, it's politically tough to stand up and say, "We think you should pay more taxes!". But it's a lot easier if a transit authority presents a plan to the entire county and says, "Here's what you'll get if you pay X. Want it?" Under Act 196, the entire county - except those parts whose leaders opted out - gets to vote as a whole. (We'll call that the "service area".) Because the city of Ann Arbor "owns" AATA and has the largest tax base, they have effective veto power over county-wide transit, and they are the only jurisdiction with that power. So except for Ann Arbor, if the total service area vote says "Yes" to transit, the entire service area gets it, even if individual municipalities in the service area voted "No". That's how Act 196 is written, and it's that way because, in order for transit to work, it has to be a system...which brings us to the next advantage...

SMART system map

The systemic advantage of county-wide (or wide service area) transit is illustrated by the Detroit area's SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) system. But it's a negative example. SMART serves the Detroit suburbs (sort-of). Under SMART, every jurisdiction got to decide whether they wanted to be part of the system or not. As a result, the service is a patch-work quilt of areas where SMART buses stop and where they don't. For example, they don't serve Livonia, which voted itself out - they serve areas all around Livonia. And because they aren't supported by the City of Detroit, which has its own transit system (and problems), it doesn't pick people up in Detroit on the way in, or drop them off in Detroit on the way out. It can be very confusing, especially for any visitors who are daring enough to try to take public transit in the Detroit area. Having holes in the system is confusing, makes planning difficult, and makes service more expensive for surrounding areas. When transit planners can work out routes for an entire region, the results will be seamless, easier to understand, and more efficient.

The economic advantage is really three advantages: for transit, for the municipalities, and for the community.
The new transit agency won't have to spend time negotiating separately with each municipality about POSAs, whether they're fair or affordable. There will be a dedicated funding source that won't require a yearly tussle with several local governments.
And the local governments won't have to sweat over a transit portion of their yearly budget. The money will go straight from the citizens to the transit agency.
Finally, the community as a whole benefits in many ways by having regional transit. It's worth spending more time on each of the benefits, but not in this post. Later. In brief: "Life doesn't stop at the city line" as someone said. Citizens work in one jurisdiction and live in another, and they can save significant amounts of money by using transit rather than buying extra family vehicles. People who can't afford to drive or who have health issues that prevent them from driving are not trapped in their houses. Young people can take transit to get to after-school activities rather than making their parent's be their live-in chauffeurs. People who choose not to take transit find the roads less crowded and the air less polluted. And, as I said at the beginning, transit encourages more sustainable forms of development. More on these later...

Bottom line: county-wide transit is a "win" for everyone.

To learn more:

• Manhattan population density is 69,873 per square mile (http://www.demographia.com/dm-nyc.htm) compared to 88.4 per square mile, the U.S. average (http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10_thematic/2010_Profile/2010_Profile_Map_United_States.pdf);
• Manhattan resident carbon footprint: output of CO₂ equivalent average 8.91 metric tons, compared to nearly 20 nationwide (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_footprint).
• Ann Arbor Transportation Authority: http://www.theride.org/
• County-wide transit expansion plan: http://www.movingyouforward.org/
• AATA income sources: http://michigan.gov/documents/treasury/817548AnnArborTransportationAuth20100323_315871_7.pdf
• POSA pains, see for example Minutes of the June, 2009 AATA Board meeting, p.5: http://www.theride.org/pdf/Board/Minutes/2009Jun17BoardMinutes.pdf
• Millage levels in Washtenaw County, compiled by Vivenne Armentrout: http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/aata-moving-us-where-the-politics/
• Ypsilanti transit millage: http://www.cfte.org/success/2010BallotMeasures.asp
• Michigan Public Act 196 ("PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACT"): http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28vv25rp550rcjbx55dgpwt4b4%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectname=mcl-act-196-of-1986
• SMART: http://www.smartbus.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Maps/2012%20Website%20System%20Map.pdf

A Reply to Sam

Mr. Sam Leckrone was given a guest column in today's AnnArbor.com, titled "Spending money on high-speed rail system an ill-conceived idea". As readers of this blog can well imagine, for me to see a title like that is like waving the proverbial red flag in front of the bull.

None the less, Sam has at least one valid point in his column: he spotted some very strange time-comparisons in a document published by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in the 2009 publication he cited in the article, "Chicago – Detroit/Pontiac Corridor Service Development Plan" (all links are at the end of this post). Thank you for doing the math, Sam! MDOT should be ashamed and update (or at least clarify) the figures. Here is the table Sam was objecting to, with times used in suspected calculation in blue, and suspect calculation results in red:

Exhibit 2. Travel Time Comparisons between Travel Modes (Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac)

Mode	Estimated Travel Time Downtown to Downtown One-way	Estimated Total Travel Time	Passenger Rail Estimated Travel Time Comparison
Passenger Rail Walk/Auto Segment1 Station Segment Train Segment2 Auto Segment	15 minutes Downtown Chicago to Union Station 10 minutes 4 hours-46 minutes 15 minutes from New Center station to Downtown Detroit	5 hours-26 minutes	--
Auto and Parking	4 hours-30 min. to 5 hours	4 hours-30 min. to 5 hours	4 minutes to 34 minutes slower than train
Bus3 Auto/Walk Segment Station Segment Bus Segment Auto/Walk	15 minutes to downtown bus station 10 minutes 7 hours-10 minutes 15 minutes bus station to downtown	7 hours-50 minutes	3 hours-24 minutes slower than train.
Air Auto/Transit Segment Airport Segment Air Segment4 Airport segment Auto Segment	1 hour Downtown Chicago to O'Hare Airport 1.5 hours 1 hour-15 minutes Detroit/Wayne Airport-O'Hare Airport 15 minutes 40 minutes to Detroit Wayne Airport to Downtown Detroit	4 hours-40 minutes	14 minutes slower than train

¹ Travel time estimates for walk, auto and station segments obtained from Milwaukee-Madison Passenger Rail Corridor Project
Environmental Assessment, WisDOT ID 0410-40-40/0499-10-39, http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/d1/hsrail/environ.htm
²Travel time estimates for train segment are based on Midwest Regional Rail System, Executive Report, September 2004.
³Average bus travel time
⁴ Based on, Northwest Airlines, http://res.nwa.com/App/FlightSearchResults, Accessed September 2007

However, Sam has also given voice to a number of misconceptions about high-speed rail and the utility of passenger rail in general.

1. He states that the top speed of the proposed Detroit to Chicago route is 79 MPH, based on the 2009 MDOT publication. The current goal is stated in a memo from the House Fiscal Agency to the House Committee on Appropriations in September 2011:
   "Since 1992, the state, federal government, and AMTRAK have dedicated funds to development of high speed rail service on the Detroit-Chicago rail corridor. The stated goal has been to reduced route time from 6 hours to 4 hours through increased train speeds (up to 110 mph) and reduction in bottlenecks." (p.1)
   "The department [MDOT] indicates that planned improvements 135.7 [mile] Kalamazoo-Dearborn track segment have the potential of increasing train speeds on that corridor to 110 mph. Combined with the 97 mile segment from Kalamazoo to Porter, Indiana, over 232 miles – 76% of the Wolverine route – would be at the 110 mph standard." (p.3)
   (Admittedly, that's not high-speed by European or Asian standards.)
   
2. Sam writes, "Nobody will give up driving their cars on I-94 to ride a train that is slower than the freeway..." In fact, ridership on that route has increased substantially over the last years, even as train speeds have gone down due to poor maintenance by host railroad Norfolk-Southern. In November of 2010 the Chicago-Pontiac "Wolverine" gained 21.9% over November 2009. (November 2011 lost some of that gain due to extreme speed restrictions.)
3. He further states, "Mass transit is NOT greener than the private automobile." To compare the efficiency of modes of transportation, the best measure is energy used for each mile a passenger is moved. The Federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics, using BTUs per passenger-mile, rated domestic air carriers at 4,123; passenger cars at 3,672; and Amtrak at 2,138. That puts the train at 58% of the energy used compared to passenger cars, and 51% of the energy used compared to air travel.

Sam then brings up an old and oft-debunked myth about the cost and value of public vs. private transportation: that public transportation is subsidized, so money should be spent into roads instead. The fallacy here is the unspoken assumption that roads pay for themselves through fuel and registration fees. In fact, Congress had to subsidize the Highway Trust Fund to the tune of $14.7 billion in FY 2010, which was 29% of Federal highway spending for that year. Projections indicate that this subsidy will grow as cars become more fuel efficient.

Like many critics of public transportation, Sam has not stepped back to consider the larger cost of private automobiles to our country. The cost of parking (which can approach $50 for 24 hours in downtown Chicago) extends to the hidden cost of "free" parking – the many square miles of land devoted to parking that could be used for housing, business, agriculture, or recreation. Highways are dangerous: 32,788 were killed on highways in the U.S. in 2010, and that's considered a "good" record. Automobile congestion is costly, too: in 2010, the average commuter in the Detroit area wasted $687 in traffic – and in Chicago, each commuter wasted $1,568.

The reason trains have experienced steady growth in ridership is that they provide a much more pleasant and productive travel environment. Business people can use their travel time productively on their laptops using Amtrak's recently-installed WiFi, or just resting after a tense meeting. Families with small children appreciate being able to get up and walk around, get snacks any time, and use one of the two restrooms in each coach. I've traveled from Ann Arbor to Chicago by train many times, and appreciate being able to relax, in contrast to the white-knuckle driving experiences I had before I found how convenient the train is.

The train is definitely not for everyone, but it's a valuable transportation alternative that we'll need more and more as congestion and the cost of driving increase.

To learn more:

• "Spending money on high-speed rail system an ill-conceived idea" (2012-01-22, p. A-6), online

• "Chicago – Detroit/Pontiac Corridor Service Development Plan", PDF online

• Memo from William E. Hamilton, [Michigan] House Fiscal Agency, to House Committee on Appropriations, September 27, 2011, PDF online

• "Energy Intensity of Passenger Modes (Btu per passenger-mile)", online

• "The Contribution of the Federal Transportation Investment Programs to Fiscal Responsibility and Deficit Reduction", originally on this site, but now cached by Google.

• "Traffic Fatalities in 2010 Drop to Lowest Level in Recorded History", National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  "What Congestion Means to You, 2010", Texas Transportation Institute PDF

• "November 2010 Monthly Performance Report" and "November 2011 Monthly Performance Report", Amtrak, linked toward the bottowm of this page.

SMART or NOT?

Yesterday evening (December 19), I attended a gathering of transportation, research, and government people at the Michigan League of the University of Michigan. The U of M and its sponsors are conducting a tremendous amount of research to transform transportation and accessibility around the world, and is putting it into place with excellent results in places like South Africa, Pakistan, India, and the Philippines.

But not in Michigan.

Although the state of Michigan supports research and assistance for others, it doesn't make use of it for its own benefit. Instead, politicians make decisions that ignore research findings supported by Ford Motor Company, ALCOA Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, not to mention the citizens and tuition-payers of Michigan. In addition, Michigan politicians overrule Federally-mandated procedures designed to insure that community members and stakeholders have a voice in their own transportation decisions.

I'm speaking of SMART, the University of Michigan, and the United States Department of Transportation's own procedures for establishing transit systems. And I'm referring, of course, to last week's decision by three men to implement a transit system for the Detroit metropolitan area that bypasses all the resources provided for sound decision-making, and all the community stakeholders. (All links below)

The three men are Dave Bing, Mayor of Detroit; Rick Snyder, Governor of Michigan; and Ray LaHood, United States Secretary of Transportation. Their decision to replace a light rail system with rapid buses ignores the experience and research findings of those who truly know about public transportation options. The decision also overturns the multi-year information gathering process that citizens paid for, as the process went through several iterations of the painstaking Federal Transit Administration's requirements, designed to link the best engineering knowledge with the most cogent local interests.

Citizens, stake-holders, investors, and engineers all agreed: the best option for Detroit is to begin with light rail on Woodward in combination with better connecting bus service. In a post to this blog in July 12 of this year, I debunked criticisms of the process with detailed references to how the light rail decision was arrived at. Light rail is the Locally Preferred Alternative.

Yesterday's gathering at the University of Michigan was notable for who was there. It was even more notable for who was not there. Present: sponsors from Ford, Rockefeller, and ALCOA; interested citizens and advocates from Washtenaw County, Detroit, and Lansing; researchers from U of M and Michigan State; the CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; the Chair of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners.

Absent: anyone from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, the office of Governor Rick Snyder, the Michigan Department of Transportation, the office of Mayor Dave Bing, or the counties of Oakland or Macomb. In other words, nobody who needs information to make sound transportation decisions was there.

I'm really glad people in Cape Town, Chennai, and Manila are benefiting from research conducted by the University of Michigan. What a shame it doesn't benefit Michigan itself.

To learn more:

• SMART, Sustainable Mobility & Accessibility Research & Transformation
• Detroit Mayor Dave Bing's Op Ed in the Detroit Free Press, 2011-12-18
• "Smearing Woodward Avenue Rail" in this blog post.
  

Detroit's Dilemma: Light Rail, Bus Rapid Transit, or Rapid Bus?

You may have heard that yesterday (Dec. 13, 2011) a decision was made to cancel Detroit's Woodward Avenue Light Rail project, and to substitute instead a "rapid bus" system that would serve four Detroit corridors.
In an interview with Fox 2 News (linked below), Detroit Mayor Dave Bing is quoted as saying, "I don't think we should concentrate all of our efforts on the Woodward light rail. I think we've got to look at this region and do what's best for the region." A Detroit News article, "Light rail backers push Woodward line as bus system proposed", outlines the details and includes interviews with people who back the light rail system.
Does this mean the light rail plan is history? Another ambitious plan for Detroit that falls into oblivion? Possibly. Moneyed backers of the light rail system are reluctant to give it up, so some semblance of the proposed system may yet be built.Either way, now is a good time to look more closely at rapid bus in comparison with light rail. When transportation nerds hear "rapid bus", we think "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT). But I'm not at all convinced that the Detroit plan will actually involve BRT - at least, not at first.
You see, some statements made by Gov. Snyder and his spokespeople a couple of months ago about the low cost of rapid bus, when Snyder announced his plan for Detroit transit, lead me to believe either of two possibilities: they may not understand what is really involved in"Bus Rapid Transit", or they may have used the term "rapid bus"because they envision something simpler and less expensive.
Here's a little table outlining the similarities and differences between Light Rail, true Bus Rapid Transit, and rapid buses:

	Light Rail	Bus Rapid Transit	Rapid Buses
Runs on	Rails in separate lanes	Asphalt or concrete in separate lanes	Asphalt or concrete in normal traffic lanes, possibly on a freeway at times
In traffic	Usually has the right of way	Usually has the right of way	Runs with traffic, but may have special signals at some intersections
Stop spacing	1-2 per mile	1-2 per mile	2-3 per mile
Getting on	Station or special platform	Station or special platforms	Bus shelter
Paying	Buy ticket before boarding	Buy ticket before boarding	Pay on the bus
Initial average cost per mile	$34.8 million	$13.5 million	Much less, but not documented
Operating cost	Low	Moderate	Moderate
Potential for development	High	Moderate	Low

Light rail is a well-established transit mode that runs on rails, usually on its ownright-of-way. The Detroit plan called for mixing with traffic in the downtown area to give better access to local businesses. Over most of the line, stations were located about a half-mile apart, though the downtown area had closer spacing. Compared with buses, light rail is relatively inexpensive to operate. Each 120-foot train holds about three times as many passengers as the 60-foot buses normally used for BRT; each train and bus is operated by one driver, and since personnel is typically the largest cost, running BRT buses costs roughly three times as much as running a light rail train. Also less expensive is the energy for moving them: electricity for the trains,versus diesel or natural gas for the buses. However, to those low costs we must add the cost of maintaining the track and electric wires, while normally only the pavement would be a factor for the buses.

Bus Rapid Transit in its pure form is designed to work like a light rail train on rubber tires. It has its own right of way, similar station spacing, and people board at stations after paying their fare. The station platform is level with the floor of the bus, so people, strollers,and wheel chairs can roll on and off without having to lower the bus,deploy a ramp, or slow the boarding process in any way. When crossing streets, the approach of a bus changes the signal so the bus can proceed without stopping. Everything is designed to move people as efficiently as possible. But as you can imagine, dedicating a lane to nothing but buses, building stations, and purchasing large,specialized buses makes BRT pretty expensive compared with other kinds of bus service.

Rapid (or Express) bus is primarily a way of using ordinary buses on existing streets or freeways to speed up service at a minimum of cost. The buses stop less frequently than local buses, and in some cases have devices that give them some amount of precedence at intersections. Rapid bus routes are inexpensive to set up, since they don't necessarily need special stations, equipment, or lanes. But they sacrifice many of the advantages of either light rail or BRT systems: they are slower and less comfortable, because they stop and start much more frequently. Boarding is slower if fares are collected by the driver as passengers get on.

Los Angeles provides good examples of all three of these transit modes (see links below). The Blue, Green, and Gold line are light rail; the Orange Line is BRT,and there are 26 rapid bus routes in addition to multiple local bus lines. (The Red and Purple lines are what's known as "heavy-rail"subways.) I've ridden the Blue, Green, Gold, Red, and Orange lines,but not the rapid buses. The Orange Line runs from North Hollywood to Canoga, part of the way in the wide median of Chandler Boulevard, the rest of the way on the old right of way of Southern Pacific Railroad's Burbank Branch; it is being extended to Chatsworth. I rode it in October of 2007 in mid and late afternoon, and found the bus a little bumpy and jerky, but well patronized. (The buses are equipped with TVs, but what do you expect in Hollywood?) During rush hours,the BRT system now operates at capacity due to high ridership, and the LA transit authority is experimenting with ways to increase capacity, such as using longer buses or running buses in "fleets"of two or three.

The LA Transit "Metro Rapid" and similar area services use articulated buses, for the most part,similar to those on the Orange Line (but painted different colors). They stop at bus shelters (not stations) and are built with low floors to make boarding more rapid. Some of the bus shelters are equipped with "next bus arrival" signs. In the City of Los Angeles, traffic signals along their route recognize the buses' presence and change to let them through, but outside the city many of the signals aren't equipped to recognize them, and don't give them precedence. Their speed and passenger-carrying capacity is less than that of light rail or the Orange Line BRT, but greater than that of the local buses.

Development incentive is probably the the most important difference for a metropolitan region choosing between light rail, BRT, and rapid bus systems. Light rail systems built recently in several U.S. cities have spurred tremendous investment in developments around the stations. Four to eight dollars of private investment is widely reported for every dollar spent building light rail. Most observers agree that rails in the ground give developers confidence that the service will be around for the long term, and that lots of people will be riding.
BRT figures aren't so easy to come by in this country. The systems I've looked at personally (Los Angeles and Cleveland) don't appear to have attracted much development that wouldn't have happened anyway. However, Enrique Peñalosa,who spearheaded the BRT system in Bogotá, Colombia, points to tremendous development near the BRT corridors of his city. Bogotáhas no other rapid transit in competition with BRT, whereas both LA and Cleveland have rail transportation options, which experience shows to attract development quite reliably.
There is no evidence that I know of to indicate that rapid or express buses stimulate development. Because they have so little fixed infrastructure, there is no assurance for developers that their investment would be safe.
Perhaps in Detroit, with few rapid transit options other than BRT, it would attract some of the development we've been looking for from a light rail system. We can hope - and push for - a true BRT system. But let's not give up on light rail: experience around the country shows light rail is really what attracts private investment to cities.

To learn more:

• myFOXDetroit.com,updated December 14, 2011 at 6:49 PM EST. "WoodwardLight Rail Project Derailed"
• Detroit News December 14, 2011 at 7:47 pm, "Light rail backers push Woodward line as bus system proposed"
• About Enrique Peñalosa in "Sustainable Cities"
• Bus Rapid Transit (Wikipedia)
• Los Angeles transit information:
  • Home page
  • Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit (Wikipedia)
  • Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit schedule
  • Metro Rapid Bus (Wikipedia)
  • Metro Rapid Bus Service schedule

Exalted, Unreasonable Hope

Do you know the exalted, unreasonable hope that wells up out of utter despair? That's what I tried to get at with this piece.
- Darol Anger, from the liner notes to "The Unbearable Gift", on his CD album Woodshop.

I've been following with great interest Vivienne Armentrout's blog, "Local in Ann Arbor" (all links below). Vivienne has a great eye for detail and a gift for putting the details all together in a lucid, enlightening essay.

But much as I admire her abilities, I almost always end up in disagreement with her. (So much for the idea that we can solve all our disagreements if we all agree on the facts.)

Vivienne has been doing a carefully-researched series titled, "AATA: Moving Us Where?", analyzing the emerging county-wide transit plan, "Moving You Forward". Her well-documented conclusion: we can't do it. We don't have the money, and there are far too many uncertainties in the political arena, not to mention the uncertainties of life in general.

That's why Darol Anger's thoughts (quoted above) struck me when I noticed them in a copy of Sing Out magazine this morning. I continue to hope, unreasonable though it may seem, that we'll be able to develop and support a county-wide transit system. Here are two ways to look at it: historically, and in terms of alternatives.

Historically

When have we ever achieved anything worth doing, without risk? Consider...

• Would we be living in America if our ancestors hadn't taken the risk of coming here, not knowing whether they would make it in the "new world"? (Many, many of them died in the attempt.)
• Would the United States be an independent nation if the Founding Fathers had waited until the budget permitted them to raise an army? (And the outcome was in grave doubt for many years.)
• Would the Interstate Highway System have been built if it was known back in 1956 that the system would cost more than 1.2 trillion dollars...and practically none of that was identified in the budget?

Many factors led to people's decisions to go ahead with these efforts. One factor was an optimistic vision of the future, an "unreasonable hope", as Darol Anger put it, that they could make their lives better by working through the uncertainties.

Another factor was "utter despair" at the current situation, whether it was poverty and opression in the "old world", anger at being exploited by England, or frustrating snarls of congestion on two-lane roads. My feeling is that, if we're not in "utter despair" yet (and many Michiganders are), we will be soon.

One Alternative

What happens if we elect the "status quo" alternative, continuing as we have been? Certainly, one alternative is to do nothing. We could try to continue with AATA as it is, supported mainly by the millage paid by Ann Arbor residents, together with state and federal funding and relatively small "Provision of Service Agreement" funds from outlying areas.

As Vivienne has counted the cost of improvement, so too, we need to count the cost of doing nothing. I hope Vivienne will update and elaborate on the estimate I did two years ago in my blog entry, "Can we afford a county-wide transit system?" Using data from the Census Bureau, WATS, AAA, and APTA, I came up with these conclusions:

• 112,980 households in Washtenaw County had 2 or more automobiles;
• the annual cost of owning an auto at that time was $9,190 (it's closer to $10,000 now);
• if only 20% of the multi-auto houseolds were able to reduce their vehicles by one because of improved transit, the total savings in the county would be $207,657,240 each year;
• if residents kept 75% of that money and paid only 25% for transit, the county-wide savings for residents who sold one car would amount to $155,742,930 county-wide, and the transit agency would receive $51,914,310 in local funds;
• each household would pay $386.88 in transit tax, and those that sold a second vehicle would gain $1,160.64, a 300% return on investment.

These figures are now two years old, and they don't take into account Michigan's local tax structure. It would be a great service for someone with a better understanding of the legal details to update and refine these numbers.

We also need to consider the "collateral damage" of leaving most of the county very auto-dependent: the loss of people who can no longer afford to live in such an expensive transportation environment, and the loss of creative young people who far prefer to live free from the many burdens placed on us by our automobiles.

So the ultimate question to answer is, Can we afford not to have a county-wide transit system?

To learn more:

• Local in Ann Arbor, blog by Vivienne Armentrout
• Moving You Forward, a countywide transit vision
• Sing Out magazine
• Can we afford a county-wide transit system? Wake Up Washtenaw blog entry
• WATS - the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study
• AAA's Daily Fuel Guage Report
• APTA - the American Public Transit Association November 2011 Transit Savings Report

Rick Snyder's New Way to Go

Wednesday, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder introduced a new transportation funding proposal. Little by little, details are coming out.
First, here are the main parts of the proposal as they were delivered Wednesday:

• Changing the way motor fuel is taxed from per-gallon paid at the pump by motorists, to a percentage of the price paid by wholesalers; the shift is to be "revenue neutral" when it kicks in, but will change as the price of oil fluctuates;
• Adding an additional registration fee for license plates;
• Allowing regions to add a further fee to license plates for regional transportation projects;
• Creating a regional transportation authority for Southeast Michigan that includes the City of Detroit, and the counties of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, and Washtenaw.

Today (Friday, Oct. 28) Dennis Schornack, Special Advisor to Gov. Snyder, added a number of details at a meeting of the special financial advisory group of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. (This is the blue-ribbon pannel assembled to propose funding methods for the Transit Master Plan.)
Remember that these are still proposals, and must be approved by the House and Senate, which will certainly have a lot to say about it...but here are some of the highlights:

• The state-wide registration fee is to be based on the value of the vehicle, as the current fee is; it is advertized as "$10 per month", but that obviously adds up to $120 per year; that's said to be a maximum, so presumably people whose cars are worth less money would pay less than $120 for their registration;
• Any county or contiguous group of counties can propose a license fee of up to $40 per year; (that's $13.3333 per month); the amount would need to be approved by the majority of voters in the proposed region, with no "opt-out" provision for sub-regions that don't think they want to participate; in our case, that means the votes of everybody in Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties, including the City of Detroit, would be tallied together - not as individual counties, and if the majority of voters in one county voted against it while the majority of the region voted in favor, they would still be subject to the tax;
• All the funds raised by either new fuel or new license fees would be subject to the Michigan constitutional requirement that 90% of all funds raised through vehicle and fuel taxes be allocated to roads and bridges, with a maximum of 10% going to transit;
• Funds raised by a regional registration fee would be limited in where they can go: 95% would be directed to the county in which they are raised; in other words, for every $1,000,000 Washtenaw County raises, it would be guaranteed at least $950,000 for its internal use, but the other $50,000 could be spent in another part of the region at the discrition of the regional authority;
• The Governor will recommend that the full 10% constitutionally allowable be used for transit, which is more than the amount currently allocated; using the example above, Washtenaw County would be able to use $100,000 for transit out of every $1,000,000 it raises through license fees;
• The regional transit authority for Southeast Michigan would be responsible for four proposed transit routes: Gatiot Avenue, Woodward Avenue, M-59, and Michigan Avenue to Detroit Metro Airport and Ann Arbor;
• Other public transit services in the area would be "contracted" to provide service, and would receive federal and state funds through the regional transit authority
• The committee setting up the regional authority for Southeast Michigan is composed of Governor Snyder, Mayor Dave Bing, andx Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff; these would continue to serve as titular heads of the authority once it is set up, though of course others would carry out the day-to-day administration.

So that's a lot of information, but it's all tentative. Remember the second Detroit River Bridge? The Governor proposes, the Legislature disposes. (But the Governor hasn't given up on the bridge yet...)
The information we have raises a lot of questions as well. Mr. Schornack, when questioned about some of them, smiled and said the Governor preferred to start with the "10,000-ft. view" and work out the details later. What questions do you have? We may be able to get at least a few answers from the Governor at Monday's Michigan Rail Summit.
Meanwhile, I'm off the the Midwest Highspeed Rail Association's Fall meeting in Cleveland. I started this blog on the AATA bus coming home from the meeting, and I'm now on the Megabus en route from Toledo to Cleveland. (I had to try the Megabus service to see how public transportation that claim to make a profit actually feels to the consumer. More later...)

If you don't offer walkable urbanism, you can write off your future development

"If you don't offer walkable urbanism, you can write off your future development." - Christopher Leinberger

That was his answer when I asked about need for healthy development in the face Southeast Michigan's declining population and environment.

Leinberger, a Professor at the University of Michigan's Taubman School of Architecture and Urban Planning, and a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, was speaking at Concentrate's Speaker Series at The Ann Arbor Comedy Showcase. (No joke.)

After his talk, I pressed him further about Ypsilanti Township's situation - after all, that's where I live and where I'm a Planning Commissioner. He answered with a smile, "Ah, Ypsilanti! What a great town!" "But what about the Township," I insisted. "Focus, focus, focus on the downtown!"

Unable to monopolize the Great Man's attention further, I couldn't tell him that Ypsi Township doesn't have a downtown. But I can imagine his reply if I had. "Work with the City!" Can we actually work together, the City and the Township...?

I just read in today's Ypsilanti Courier that Paul Schreiber, the City of Ypsilanti's Mayor, addressed his City Council with a gloom-and-doom message last night. So bad is the financial outlook that not only could 65% of the City's general-fund employees be laid off, but those that remained would have their health insurance capped or cropped. The Township isn't much better off, with the work-week reduced to 30 hours and mandatory furlough days.
The City's Water Street project was to be a great example of what Leinberger praised tonight as a "near-downtown" center of walkable urbanism. Instead, it's a $1.3 million annual debt load on the City and it's citizens. We've got to find a way to turn it from a burden into a profitable, tax-paying development. The City and the Township need to work together for that, because without a financially healthy urban center, neither of the Ypsilantis will pull through this financial crisis. But we can't seem to work together, can we?

It was Ben Franklin who said, "If we don't all hang together, then surely, we shall all hang separately."

Looks like we're about to prove him right. The noose is tightening around Ypsilanti, both City and Township. Let's get together and at least plan our development strategy jointly, beginning with walkable urbanism, a focus on downtown, and and end to greenfield development in the Township.

More on this later...