Call me crazy, but I think we're gonna get an RTA through the legislature this year.
Call me crazy, but I think we're gonna get an RTA through the legislature this year.
You're crazy??? But we have a good shot at it.
What prompted this post?
Yep, I see now. Fingers crossed!
What are the bill numbers?
To answer my own question: SB 909, for those who want to read it.
Last edited by dtowncitylover; January-26-12 at 01:15 PM.
The authority may design routes to augment, complement,
enhance, replace, or improve other forms of public transit
operating within or on the corridors. Initial plans for a rolling
rapid transit system may include all of the following:
[[a) A Woodward corridor line to operate along, on, or near
Woodward avenue between a location in or near the downtown Detroit
station and a location in downtown Birmingham in Oakland county. As
used in this subsection, "downtown Detroit station" means a
location in or near the Campus Martius area of downtown Detroit.
[[b) A Gratiot corridor line to operate along, on, or near
Gratiot avenue between the downtown Detroit station and a location
in downtown Mt. Clemens in Macomb county.
[[c) A northern cross-county line to operate between the city
of Troy and the city of Mt. Clemens, using a route to be determined
by the authority. The route determined by the authority under this
subdivision shall have stations along Big Beaver road in the city
of Troy and highway M-59 in portions of Oakland and Macomb
counties.
[[d) A western cross-county line to operate between the
downtown Detroit station and the Ann Arbor Blake transit center for
a distance of approximately 47 miles. This corridor shall include,
at a minimum, stations in the city of Ypsilanti, Detroit Wayne
county metropolitan airport, and the city of Dearborn. The
authority shall determine the exact route.
How can they vote no?
Somehow I think the DDOT and SMART unions are going to have a problem with this part.Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the authority may not acquire, accept responsibility for, or obligate
itself to assume liability for, or pay any legacy costs of an
existing public transit authority or agency that may be purchased,
merged with, assumed, or otherwise acquired in any manner by the
authority, including, but not limited to, costs associated with any
authority or agency's litigation, claims, assessments, worker's
compensation awards or charges, swap losses, pensions, health care,
or other postemployment benefits of an existing transit agency or
authority without first securing an affirmative vote of a majority
of the electors of each member county in the public transit region
There's some big unanswered questions in the legislation. The bills include language for levying a special assessment to pay for transit services.
"[[2) An authority may levy a special assessment within the public transit region only as approved by the board and the electors of the public transit region."
But there's no explanation of how that special assessment would be set or assessed nor how it would be voted on and how it would be applied. Seems like a big piece of the puzzle is missing until those questions are answered.
Local units have been doing special assessments for decades, and the procedures for them are spelled out elsewhere. My suspicion is the drafters found no need to repeat well-known procedures in a bill which is already pretty long and complex. Just IMHO.
I hope the language also includes how to pay for it, and I hope that doesn't end up being the dealbreaking hurdle.. hope for the best, we'll see.. I wonder how many state legislators are up for re-election this year..
There's some big unanswered questions in the legislation. The bills include language for levying a special assessment to pay for transit services.
"[[2) An authority may levy a special assessment within the public transit region only as approved by the board and the electors of the public transit region."
But there's no explanation of how that special assessment would be set or assessed nor how it would be voted on and how it would be applied. Seems like a big piece of the puzzle is missing until those questions are answered.
There is separate language in companion bills that spell outmore specifics on funding. HB1501 and HB1502 each have information on levying county-specific vehicle registration fees of 1.20-1.80 per 1,000 sticker price. There is also a bill that dicusses the special assessment method in more detail also, I believe - not sure what number it is though.
It would be a whole lot cleaner and easier to collect to just have a general sales tax surcharge for the RTA area.There is separate language in companion bills that spell outmore specifics on funding. HB1501 and HB1502 each have information on levying county-specific vehicle registration fees of 1.20-1.80 per 1,000 sticker price. There is also a bill that dicusses the special assessment method in more detail also, I believe - not sure what number it is though.
Agreed. I'm very concerned that if they are funding this with an additional local registration fee on top of the ~$60 increase already [[and the sister legislation that would allow counties to also have a registration fee surcharge for county use toward roads), AND SMART and AATA will still be asking for local millages to fund thier systems underneath the RTA umbrella [[since the registration fees will fund the RTA and it's rapid bus) that somewhere voters aren't going to be OK with approving multiple fees for different transit systems. Especially on top of local millages for everything from trash hauling and police to libraries and roads.
Last edited by cramerro; January-30-12 at 11:37 AM. Reason: Added surcharge.
I am in agreement too. However the same State laws that set-up revenue sharing made this illegal. Its kind of ironic that the State legislature would fight this because they have also made severe cut-backs to revenue sharing over the last 12 years.
Everyone should go read the bill as currently proposed:
Senate bill 909
I'll look through it more. Hopefully, this is better crafted than DARTA, and hopefully, the majorities in both houses have enough since to give Southeast Michigan the option. There is no reason beyond narrow ideology why they shouldn't pass this. I know they are Republicans, but I want them to back up their forever-rhetoric about the inherent goodness of local self-determination [[well, apart from PA4 lol) with action allowing for Southeast Michigan to have the option of making its own transit destiny.
EDIT: Here is something I found interesting in Sec. 5, Item 3 of the bill. It basically says that the body can do these things by a simple majority or set an even higher [[or, theoretically, lower) vote threshold:
[[3) Actions of the board shall be by simple majority vote of
all serving members of the board, except as follows:
[[a) The board shall provide in its bylaws that the following
actions require the approval of a supermajority, not to exceed 4/5
of serving members:
[[i) The placing of a question of the levy of a special
assessment under section 10[[2) on the ballot by the authority.
[[ii) The determination of the rate of, or amount of, any
special assessment to be requested by the authority at an election.
[[iii) The placing of a question of approving a motor vehicle
registration fee on the ballot by the authority.
[[iv) The determination of the rate of, or amount of, any motor
vehicle registration fee to be requested by the authority at an
election.
Last edited by Dexlin; January-27-12 at 06:35 AM.
BTW, this is being sent to the committee, and here are the members on the Senate's Transportation Committee if anyone is interested in getting in contact with them:
Tom Casperson [[R) Committee Chair, 38th District
Mike Kowall [[R) Majority Vice Chair, 15th District
Jack Brandenburg [[R) 11th District
Phil Pavlov [[R) 25th District
Goeff Hansen [[R) 34th District
John J Gleason [[D) Minority Vice Chair, 27th District
Morris Hood III [[D) 3rd District
Also, special shout-out to state senator Casperson, who oddly enough being from all the way up in Escabana, has been the most consistent backer of a regional transit authority for Southeast Michigan.
Last edited by Dexlin; January-27-12 at 07:32 AM.
"Local units have been doing special assessments for decades, and the procedures for them are spelled out elsewhere. My suspicion is the drafters found no need to repeat well-known procedures in a bill which is already pretty long and complex. Just IMHO."
Are you not familiar with special assessments? They're not subject to the approval of voters. I'm not aware of any special assessment process that includes such a step.
EDIT: cramerro beat me to it, and added far more information than I was going to.
It sounds to me that votes for special assessments will indeed include both the board and voters, and by "voters" it's likely that they are talking county voters.
Last edited by Dexlin; January-27-12 at 07:43 AM.
"They have before. Several times. Thistime however they will be seen as being divisive."
If they do pass it, and mass transit becomes a reality down the road, that would mean less cars on the road, right?
Wouldn't having less cars on the road mean less revenue for fixing the roads? They were all just talking about upping the vehicle registration cost and changing the tax on gas to help raise funds to fix the roads. Wasn't there also talk of moving toward more hybrid buses as well? I'm already seem them on Woodward ...
I'm seeing lack of vision, consistency and leadership here; perhaps I missed something from Lansing in the last week?
"If they do pass it, and mass transit becomes a reality down the road, that would mean less cars on the road, right?"
Perhaps. But most of the riders are going to be people already riding buses or people who don't use transit today because they don't have access to it.
Last edited by Novine; January-27-12 at 10:43 AM.
That's the reason they are changing the fuel tax model. They are changing it from a per gallon tax to a % of wholesale price tax. As fuel usage drops and fuel cost rise the revenue stream should grow or at least remain constant. With this change the fuel tax will automatically go up as fuel prices increase."They have before. Several times. Thistime however they will be seen as being divisive."
If they do pass it, and mass transit becomes a reality down the road, that would mean less cars on the road, right?
Wouldn't having less cars on the road mean less revenue for fixing the roads? They were all just talking about upping the vehicle registration cost and changing the tax on gas to help raise funds to fix the roads. Wasn't there also talk of moving toward more hybrid buses as well? I'm already seem them on Woodward ...
I'm seeing lack of vision, consistency and leadership here; perhaps I missed something from Lansing in the last week?
It's the same reason they changed from a weight based assesment on license plate fees to one based on the cost of the vehicle years ago. They used to have to go back to the legislature every few years to raise the vehicle license fees. Now they go up automatically as the price of new vehicles increase.
"There is also a bill that dicusses the special assessment method in more detail also, I believe - not sure what number it is though."
If so, it hasn't been posted on the state legislature's web site.
|
Bookmarks