Ypsilanti PAC, officials discuss future of bus service in the city
Members of Advance Ypsilanti, a political action committee, say city residents need to get invested in Ypsilanti's public transit system and search for long-term funding solutions.
The group, known as AY PAC, held a meeting Tuesday night at the Ypsilanti Senior Center to discuss the future of Ann Arbor Transportation Authority routes in the city and public transportation in general.
The meeting featured input from residents, AY PAC members, and four members of the Ypsilanti City Council, including Mayor Paul Schreiber.
On Sept. 7, the Ypsilanti City Council voted to reduce some bus routes and service to the city to save money. AATA has been subsidizing the Ypsilanti bus routes for several years, but asked the city to pay its full amount for service - around $245,000 for next year - or lose the bus service by spring 2010.
But the AATA Board of Directors agreed last week to use $220,000 in federal stimulus money to keep bus service intact in Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township for the next year.
Tuesday's meeting was designed to discuss what to do after that money runs out.
Residents say the bus service is vital to workers in Ypsilanti and their employers - many of them located in Ann Arbor. And they say seniors, students, and people with disabilities rely on public transportation for day-to-day activities.
Several residents at the forum also mentioned the planned Detroit to Ann Arbor light rail system and proposed expanded countywide bus service as incentives for a regional authority to oversee a more comprehensive transportation system.
AY PAC member Beth Bashert said city officials and the public needed to stay on top of the issue and work together for a long-term solution.
"We need to bring together folks to resolve the transportation issue," Bashert said.
Schreiber noted a couple possible solutions. He said the city could introduce a Headlee Rollback millage of 0.9 mills to city residents to help pay for busing, but added that making the issue strictly local was part of the problem.
Schreiber said each community that uses AATA is given a one-year contract, and if one community opts out, it impacts other communities along the bus lines. He called it a piecemeal approach and said the present bus system is already minimal for the city's riders.
And although the City Council voted to reduce the bus service, Schreiber said council members recognize the seriousness of the issue.
"Everyone on City Council knows public transportation is something we need," Schreiber said.
The bigger potential solution the city and AY PAC are pushing is to put a 2-mill proposal on the ballot - as soon as next August - to create a countywide or regional transportation authority.
Schreiber said the city doesn't expect to be in better financial shape to pay for AATA service when the stimulus dollars run out. He said the city is facing a $2 million deficit in 2012 and a $3 million deficit in 2013.
Council member Mike Bodary emphasized if a countywide transportation millage is passed, any Headlee exemption millage would immediately sunset so residents wouldn't be double taxed.
Several residents weighed in on the issue.
Ingrid Kock, a member of Keep Ypsilanti Rolling, said discussions have been held before about a regional transportation authority but little has come of the talks. She said the city needs a good fallback position in case the millage proposals fail.
"Nothing has happened. Nothing," Kock said.
Several residents said such a millage would be a hard sell for voters on the west side of the county, where there's little or no public transportation.
Others argued the harder sell could be voters in Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor residents currently pay 2 mills for the bus system and may be reluctant to pay further taxes to subsidize public transportation.
"The group to talk to is the citizens of Ann Arbor," Ypsilanti resident Grace Sweeney said.
Bashert said residents and public officials could make a difference if they get the issue on the public's mind.
"It's our job here to galvanize Ypsilanti," Bashert said.
AY PAC members say residents needed to be committed to the process on three levels: the need for public transportation, the need for public input on the issue, and a commitment to a regional transportation authority.
AATA plans to conduct public surveys from riders and area residents.
David Wak is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
AndyYpsilanti
Wed, Sep 30, 2009 : 4:36 p.m.
I don't want to give the impression that nothing good came out of the AY PAC meeting. Indeed, there was a lot of discussion on what we should be doing. To be sure, a regional funding effort is what we need to focus on, but again, we need to have a local solution ready if the AATA is not willing put forward a regional ballot issue. Several AY PAC members, like Glen S., agree with this, but several others were not willing to entertain it. The same people that wouldn't discuss a local "back up millage" were openly hostile to some of the city council members in attendance. These are the same council members that the PAC has stood against in the past. That is what I considered political posturing, and that sort of thing is can destroy the cooperation we need to exhibit if we want to get regional funding in place. I have had my dissagreements with several of these same council members in the past, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to work with them in the future. Save the politics for the election, and work together on the transportation issue as a unified Ypsilanti.
Midtowner
Wed, Sep 30, 2009 : 3 p.m.
AY PAC still hasn't said how it will protect bussing. From Andy's description of the meeting last night, it was nothing more than a fund raiser for people who hate Pete Murdoch.
Glen S.
Wed, Sep 30, 2009 : 2:48 p.m.
I agree with Andy that we should consider a fallback position in case a regional effort fails, but given the limited time-frame, I think it important to focus our efforts on the option most likely to succeed at the polls, as well as the option most likely to bring long-term benefits. In my opinion, focusing first on the (City of Ypsilanti-only)Headlee rollback without first trying to pass a regional solution would be a big mistake. First, because I think Ypsilanti voters would be far more likely to support an effort if we are joined by our neighbors; and second, because I think "fixing" the funding situation inside Ypsilanti without simultaneously addressing the funding issues in neighboring communities would be pointless and counter-productive. Before AATA agreed to use stimulus funding to rescue Ypsilanti, City Council was exploring a number of options for cuts -- including one ridiculous scenario that would have had certain bus routes simply stop at the Ypsilanti City limits, do a U-turn, and return toward Ann Arbor. If, on the other hand, we pass a Headlee override in Ypsilanti, while failing to address the larger funding issue, I can imagine a scenario where cash-strapped neighboring townships eventually decide to eliminate service, creating the opposite situation -- a "system" that serves Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, but not the township areas in between. Far from being "political posturing," my take is that those, like AY-PAC, who favor a regional approach (as opposed to a more myopic, "local" approach) recognize that Michigan's tradition of strong local control - with hundreds of local cities and townships all fighting each other for the same shrinking resource "pie" - has been a primary catalyst for urban sprawl and a major drain on our economy; as well as a major hindrance to efforts to promote better, greener planning -- and especially regional public transit. Again, I think time is short -- and the public's patience for any kind of new tax proposal limited. Likewise, I think trying to promote two different, yet related, proposals might confuse, and possibly turn off, potential voters -- especially amid other potential ballot issues. Clearly, as a community, we need to make a choice, and make it soon. For my part, I strongly favor going in the direction of a regional solution, and then considering a local effort only as a last resort.
Lisa Bashert
Wed, Sep 30, 2009 : 1:59 p.m.
That perspective "I don't use it, therefore it's not a public service" is pretty short sighted. How about the waitress who serves you in Ann Arbor but lives in Ypsilanti? How about the aide at the hospital who attends you and rides the bus from the township? It kills me that low-wage workers are priced out of living in Ann Arbor but taking the bus from those less expensive outlying areas is "not my problem -- I don't use the bus service." Discontinue it and you'd find out pretty quick how tough life is without all the low-wage workers who do take the bus. If you are so fortunate that you need not take the bus now, congratulations. What about when you can't drive any longer? When gas costs $5 per gallon? When you become disabled? What about school children who need to take the bus? What about the blind and mentally disabled people who need it for independence? And so on... we are all one community.
AndyYpsilanti
Wed, Sep 30, 2009 : 1:52 p.m.
First, the AATA is already funded by taxes. In A2 there is a dedicated millage. In Ypsilanti and all of the townships that are served, the AATA is paid from the general fund. What a regional millage would mean is a reimagining of the AATA; a transformation from the Ann Arbor Transit Authority to an Ann Arbor AREA Transit Authority. The AATA already services the most densely populated areas of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Superior, Pittsfield and other townships. It also includes express service to Chelsea and Canton, and servers hundreds of commuters from outlaying areas through park and ride. Instead of each area paying for service separately from their general funds (read: tax revenue) it would be a unified tax specifically for transit, hopefully including the A2 to Detroit rail system. A tax of this type does not have to be a county wide tax. It could be applied to those cities and townships that receive bus (and rail service). In theory, this regional approach would be easier to pass than a county wide millage. But it will still be an uphill battle. Many township residents dont believe they receive any benefit from bussing, however, if they make any regular trips to A2 they do. Less traffic, more available parking spaces, and less pollution are benefits that anyone who goes into A2 experience. Many township residents dont believe the bus even services their area. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people who live in township apartments would tell them otherwise. A regional solution could also entail expanded bus service into the townships. With all of that said, even with all of the feelings around the area that it is high time that we have a modern, useful and far reaching transit plan, just as all successful metro areas have, we may not be able to bring this issue to the ballot. It is in the hands of the AATA to lead the way, and they may choose not to. In that case, Ypsilanti must be prepared to find a way to pay its own way for the services rendered by the AATA. Given our current financial woes, the only viable solution is to move out of the general fund model (the same fund that covers police, fire, DPW, parks, ect.) and into its own transit millage, just like A2. A Headlee Rollback Millage may not be the best solution, or the solution we want, but it may be our only solution. This type of millage could be written to end in the event a regional transit solution is enacted. This could mean that a millage could appear on the ballot WITH a regional proposal, and take effect in the event that the regional millage is voted down, or be voted on now in the event the AATA wont put forward a proposal, and end in the future if a regional millage is later passed. I attended this meeting. I hoped to hear an open discussion of all possible solutions for bussing. Instead, what we got was more along the lines of political positioning. If we are going to be successful in finding funding for transit in Ypsilanti and beyond, we are going to have to put politics aside. The suggestion by council members and Keep Ypsi Rolling that we be prepared with a solution for local Ypsilanti funding was roundly dismissed by many members of AY PAC. That kind of political posturing will get us nowhere. We need to have a fallback position prepared. We need a regional transit solution to cover both bussing and rail. All successful metro areas have transit. But Michigan has a strong tradition of no cooperation between municipalities, and uncontrolled sprawl; we have been rewarded for this attitude with failing cities. We may not be able to push the solution we need through to a successful vote. We need to be prepared to offer a local solution for Ypsilanti if we can not cooperate as a region.
Ypsi-Booster
Wed, Sep 30, 2009 : 12:37 p.m.
Last time I checked, I couldn't pick and choose those public services that I wanted to pay for. Or if you could, may I have a refund on those state and federal taxes that I pay to help maintain US-23, that I never use? Or how about the taxes that help to maintain city parking lots that I don't use? What about housing or food assistance, that with luck, I'll never need? Okay, you could ask bus passengers to pay a higher fare (and I would), but the fare alone will never pay the cost of the trip. Taxes or other revenue sources must help. I'd be willing to bet that tax subsidies for streets, freeways, and public parking lots far exceed subsidies for public transportation. p.s. I contacted my Ypsilanti council representatives prior to the Sept. 8 meeting on the transportation resolution, and I was not impressed by their commitment to public transportation. I don't think they grasp that it's a vital public resource. Can I also just add what a crappy interface annarbor.com has?
Midtowner
Wed, Sep 30, 2009 : 11:40 a.m.
Isn't AY PAC the same people who gave us Water Street? Are they going to fix busing like they fixed that? Hang on to your wallets people.
pseudo
Wed, Sep 30, 2009 : 11:21 a.m.
This does have to be a county-wide discussion with true county-wide service and that is complicated but this has to happen. Simply foisting this on to the voters in Ann Arbor is a non-starter. Getting everyone in the county to share the burden equally makes more sense. I am amused to see the new council members talking about raising taxes.
Glen S.
Wed, Sep 30, 2009 : 9:44 a.m.
Continuing to try fix public transit funding on a community-by-community basis ignores the fundamental basis of how regional transit systems actually work. For example, if an Ypsilanti resident take the bus to work in Ann Arbor, his or her ride in is "counted" as service being provided in Ypsilanti -- even thought Ann Arbor also benefits substantially from decreased traffic, by needing to maintain fewer parking spaces, etc. If that same commuter also happens to attend Washtenaw Community College (Ann Arbor Twp.), or perhaps shops for groceries at Meijer (Pittsfield Twp.), the situation becomes even more complicated. Local leaders, especially those in the more densely-populated eastern side of Washtenaw County, need to overcome their "nimby" approach, and work together to build a truly regional solution -- by understanding how public transit benefits our ENTIRE region, and by looking beyond today's needs to build a future-oriented system that incorporates (and provides adequate funding) for an integrated system that includes not only buses, but commuter rail, and non-motorized transit, as well. Hopefully, by beginning this discussion, Ypsilanti can become a catalyst to get this process started.
Chuck Warpehoski
Wed, Sep 30, 2009 : 9:15 a.m.
I'd say we all benefit from it. Think how much worse parking in Ann Arbor and traffic on Washtenaw would be if everyone riding those rush hour buses were driving. It's like the roads. As a walker/bicyclist, I don't benefit from all the highly-paved, car-centric roads around here, but I don't think that I should be excluded from paying for them.