HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1980.03.26 - 12052MARCH 27, 1980
MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION # 9573
BY: SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, John H. Peterson, Chairperson
IN RE: RESPONSE TO MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION #9252
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners through a hi-partisan committee
recommended a policy statement expressing a uniform Oakland County position in response to the
adoption by the SEMTA Board of the Transit Plan for Southeastern Michigan known as the "XL"
Alternative; and
WHEREAS, it is the bi-partisan view of members of the Oakland County Board of
Commissioners that the XL plan as adopted does not adequately meet the public transportation
needs of Oakland County residents; and
WHEREAS, Oakland County government is charged with the responsibility for assuring
that the public transportation needs of the county are met; and
WHEREAS, the maiority of Oakland County Commissioners oppose the underground
portion of light rail to the extent that the capital costs decreases the availability of funds for
expansion of light rail and other capital improvements in phase I for Oakland County; and
WHEREAS, over the signatures of 25 out of 27 Oakland County Commissioners,
Miscellaneo us Resolution #9252 was adopted as a statement of minimum public transit needs
required in Oakland County to be included in a regional plan which can be supported by this
. county; and
WHEREAS, a hi-partisan Special Transportation Committee called for in Resolution
4 9252 to facilitate the negotiation and presentation of the resolution plan to the SEMTA Board,
the Michigan Legislature and to UMTA, was appointed; and
WHEREAS, the Special Transportation Committee has completed its presentations; and
WHI:Elf;EAS, negotiations are now at the Michigan Legislative level and between
legislators of this state; and
WHEREAS, the apparent negotiations now being carried on by a special state legislative
committee include three (3) negotiable items including:
(I) Revision of Oakland County SEMTA Board representation
selection procedure;
(2) Establishment of a date for a public referendum on the
matter of a new tax covering Mass Transit operating
deficits;
(3) Reduction in the length of the underground segment of
the light rail portion of the XL adopted plan; and
WHEREAS, the negotiations in the Legislature have now gone beyond the scope of
Miscellaneous Resolution #9252; and
WHEREAS, the attached is a summary of the SEMTA Board response to Miscellaneous
Resolution #9252 as extracted from their resolution adapted February 19, 7980, together with
the Special Transportation Committee comments, which only gives favorable consideration to
a portion of Resolution #9252.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
responds to the February 79, 1980, SEMTA Board resolution according to the Special Transportation
Committee's recommendation attached.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Special Transportation Committee, having completed
the presentation of Resolution #9252, and since negotiations are now at the legislative level and
among legislators, is herein and now dissolved.
MR, CHAIRPERSON, on behalf of the Special Transportation Committee, I move the
adoption of the foregoing resolution.
SPECIAL TRANSPORTATIQN COMMITTEE
Assurance that the feasibility of extending the
light rail fine beyond Ten Mile Road to "Pontiac,
or some other terminus north of Pontiac" will be
stud ied
c) Feasibility study for extending
light rail line to Orion and
Oxford Townships
COMPARISON OF RESOLUTIONS
OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD RESOLUTION
A, Transit Services
, Light Rail Transportation Services
a) Light Rail Service - Detroit
to Pontiac
b) Spur to the Silverdome
STAFF INPUT
Assurance that the feasibility of extending the
light rail line beyond Ten Mile Road to Pontiac
will be studied.
The subject of a light rail line spur to the
Silverdome was not addressed by the SEMTA
Board resolutions. The SEMTA Board did commit
to run a spur of its Detroit to Pontiac Commuter
Rail Line to the Silverdome.
SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
COMMENTS
The inclusion of an extension from 10 Mile
to Pontiac in Phase I would require stopping
development of present plans for which
feasibility studies have been accomplished.
The subject of a light rail line spur to the
Silverdorrie was not addressed by the SEMTA
Board resolutions. The SEMTA Board did
commit to run a spur of its Detroit to Pontiac
Commuter Rail Line, rather than light rail, to
the Silverdorne in time for the 1982 Super
Bowl Game. We have received assurance
From SEMTA representatives that this will be
a permanent facility with continuing service
for future Silverdome events.
The response assures a feasibility study of an
extension to Pontiac, or north of Pontiac,
but there is no assurance that it will go be-
yond Pontiac. The General Manager of
SEMTA will confirm the intent of the
resolution by letter.*
'Mr. Saki has responded to this in his letter
dated March 24, 1980 (See attached memo).
There should be continuing emphasis for co-
ordination of specific problems that arise in
local areas. SEMTA will furnish the names
of the people on °CART'S subcommittee of
the Regional Elderly and Handicapped
Committee. Page 1.
OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD RESOLUTION
2. Bus Services
a) Not less than the amount of additional
buses provided in the Low Capital
Alternative,
STAFF INPUT
While the SEMTA Board resolutions do not
directly address this provision, the SEMTA
staff memo (See Appendix C) states that the
level of bus service under XL in Oakland
County will be that described in the Low
Capital A Iternative ,"
SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
COMMENTS
The SEMTA staff memo is a part of the SEMTA
Board resolution and, therefore, the Board's
requests have been met, Specifically, staff
has advised there will be 13 or 14 more large
busses in 1980 for a total of 118,
b) Immediate implementation of the first
phase of OCART and an expansion of
OCART consistent with Act 51, as
amended,
While the SEMTA Board Resolutions do not
directly address this provision, the SEMTA
staff memo (See Appendix C) discusses the
implementation of OCART and states
"Oakland County will be served by 107
small buses with 50 in OCART, 4-4 in
general public service and another 13 in
maintenance reserve, By the end of 1980
there will be 47 OCART buses in service
and 15 general public local system buses
in Waterford, Birmingham and Ferndale/
Pleasant Ridge," Further expansion of
OCART consistent with Act 51, P.A. 1951
(as amended) is not addressed.
The staff memo is part of the resolution and,
therefore, the Board's requests have been met.
The 47 busses were delayed because the
formula was changed from 100% State funds
to 20% State and 80% Federal funding and
because of the controversy over access to
wheelchairs for the busses. Further expansion
of OCART consistent with Public Act 51 is
State law and S EMTA has assured us they will
comply with the law, The earlier report of
Oakland County small busses of 117 was a
misprint. The correct figure is 107, The
original 47 OCART busses promised will be in
place by July 31, 9980 a ccording to SEMTA
staff, A total of 50 busses will complete the
OCART System, The balance of the 57 busses
will be assigned for local service and/or
maintenance reserve,
Page 2
c) Improved Management and assured coordination
throughout Oakland County transportation system,
especially OCART
d) Park and Ride Systems
SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
COMMENTS STAFF INPUT OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD RESOLUTION
This provision is not addressed by the SFMTA
Board Resolutions.
While the SEMTA Board resolutions do not
directly address this provision, the SEMTA
staff memo (See Appendix C) lists the
additional park and ride services proposed
by SEMTA under the XL Alternative.
SEMTA has responded satisfactorily to this
request.
SEMTA has responded satisfactorily to this
request.
e) Capital facilities and passenger amenities to
support the transit expansions including
shelters, bus stop signs, maintenance garages,
and high capacity intermodal passenger
terminals in Pontiac and Royal Oak
While the SEMTA Board Resolutions do not
directly address this provision, the SEMTA
staff memo (See Appendix C) states that
SEMTA's recently completed Fixed Facility
Improvement Recommendations (December
1979) outlines the following expenditures
in Oakland County designed to support the
expanded bus network.
- Large bus terminals - Construct new 85-
space northwest garage in vicinity of 9
Mile/Farmington and expand the Oakland
terminal in Troy,
- Small bus terminals - Construct new 55-
space Waterford facility in vicinity of
Joslyn/Pontiac Plaza, construct new 63-
space Northwest facility, retain Royal
Oak facility.
• Maior bus passenger loading facilities
(excluding commuter rail and light rail
facilities) - The Royal Oak and Pontiac
multi-modal terminals are in the design
stage. Funds from the state have been
committed for construction expected in
1980-81.
Page 3
OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD RESOLUTION
, Other Provisions
1, SEMTA should consider the requests by local
Oakland County governmental iurisdictions
2. A contractual guarantee must be established
for equitable proportional expenditure of
funds as acquired by SEMTA for overall
transportation needs in Oakland County,
3, SEMTA shall include and implement in the
first phase the transit service improvements
in Oakland County as specified by the
Resolution.
STAFF INPUT
This provision was not addressed by the SEMTA
Board Resolutions,
This provision was not addressed by the SEMTA
Board Resolutions,
The SEMTA Board Resolution, and the staff memo,
address this provision. The reply, in brief,
basically states that SEMTA con respond affirma-
tively to all of the needs stated in the Oakland
County Board Resolution except for the extension
of light rail to Pontiac in Phase I of the regional
plan, The main reason given tor this response is
that Federal policies and regulations could not
allow for such an inclusion, Pages 7 and 8 of the
SEMTA staff memo supplied in Appendix C more
fully describe SEMTA's reasoning.
SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
COMMENTS
The response to this concern is expressed in
the March 24, 1980 letter from the General
Manager of SEMTA (see attached).
SEMTA responded that they cannot give us
a contractual guarantee and outlines their
reasons in Section 7 of the attached March
24, 1980, letter from Mr, Salci„
The Special Transportation Committee agrees
with staff's input in column 2. The SEMTA
General Manager assured us in his March 24,
1980, letter that application will be made to
UMTA for funds to conduct this study. The
SEMTA Board resolution states that this appli-
cation will be submitted prior to the end of
Fiscal Year 1981,
Special Transportation Committee's Comment: Our conclusion to the SEMTA Board resolution is that services provided in the XL Plan as adopted will be
provided. It would appear that the interpretation of this should be that the XL Plan stands as is, and that
in general, the bus items included in Resolution #9252 were already in XL, but that the opposition to the
underground segment on the basis that its capitol costs decreases the L.R. T. expansion possibility was not
favorably reacted to.
So to r• hinen
Trarport,c1,,7‘n AW.hrf,rily
Firs/ Ni'lorm! Badina
_6() vvr)odvvarci Avnu
DpIroil Michk:18n 43226
313 256 8600 Ch rn-un
R. J. 41exander
1st Vice-Chi3irma 7
Rudnlph M McCHUough
2nd Vice-ChairmRn
Hnny M Iriw Jr.
Murmy.J.,:Ton
George L ahodny
Richard Platt
Thorns L. Tomllnson
Torn Turner
a
March 24, 1980
Mr. John Peterson, Chair
Special Transportation Committee
Oakland County Board of Commissioners
1200 North Telegraph
Pontiac, MI 48053
Dear Commissioner Peterson:
The intention of this letter is to clarify SEMTA's position in
regard to items questioned by the committee on March 19 and raised
in the March 6 document "Evaluation of Oakland County Misc.
Resolution #9252 and SEMTA Board Resolutions." What the committee
considered to be discrepancies between the Commission's resolution
and ours may not be so upon elaboration and clarification of
several points,
1. Light Rail Service
SE= will apply to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration
for permission and funding to study the feasibility of ex-
tending the light rail line beyond Ten Mile Road to Pontiac
or some other terminus north of Pontiac to include Orion and
Oxford Townships.
2. Commuter Rail to Silverdome
The passenger facility at the Silverdome that will be built
by the end of 1981 will be permanent and will give us the
capability of providing service for the 1982 Superbowl as
well as subsequent events. The facility design is in this
year's budget.
Mr. John Peterson
March 24, 1980
Page Two
3, Bus Service
Bus service in Oakland County will not be less than the amount
of additional buses described in the Low Capital alternative.
There are currently 104 buses assigned to the Oakland Division.
Under the regional improvement plan, the total number of buses
assigned to the Oakland Division will be 200. As a comparison,
in the mid-1970's when SEMTA began operations, there were 61
Oakland County buses in the fleets inherited from Great Lakes
and Martin Lines companies.
4. Intra-county commitments under Act 51
SEMTA's budgeted expansion of OCART and intra-county line
services exceeds the legislative requirements under Act 51
by almost 25%. The legislation established a target expenditure
level in FY'80, for expanded intra-county services in Oakland
County, amounting to 40% of Act 204 funds collected in the
county. That sum is $1,283,370 for the cost of expansion
services beyond the July 1, 1978 mileage level (defined as the
baseline level). For small bus services, the SEMTA FY'80
budget calls for a total of 1,893,800 miles of service which
is 1,208,554 miles over the baseline level of 685,246 miles.
At a budgeted $1.19 average operating/maintenance cost per
mile, that service expansion amounts to expenditures of
$1,438,179. That expenditure exceeds the legislative require-
ment by $154,809. In addition, expansion of intra-Oakland
line route services has amounted to at least 142,000 additional
annual miles at a budget cost of $248,500, so that total intra-
Oakland service expansion exceeds the requirement by more than
$400,000.
5. Improved management, especially OCART
Improvements to the management and coordination of public trans-
portation throughout Oakland are being made consistently. We
think the steady and substantial ridership increases reflect
these improvements. The Oakland County resolution specifically
addresses OCART.
As you know, SEMTA has been operating OCART Phase I with 16
buses since January 1979. There will be 47 vehicles in the
fleet by the end of July 1980. The main objective for the
first phase has been to provide service first to handicapped
riders, then to seniors and others as time and space al/ow. In
the next few months service for handicapped and senior citizens
will be expanded while other riders (i.e. commuters, weekend
shoppers) will also be able to use the service during certain
hours and days.
Mr. John Peterson
March 24, 1980
Page Three
The following are among the improvements and new features to improve
the overall efficiency and utilization of the system that you will
be seeing in the near future:
a. A 200% increase in monthly service hours, including expanded
Saturday and Sunday service;
b. New route tours throughout the county based on origin/
destination information generated in Phase I;
c. Increased service coordination between OCART and local
small buses, regular route large buses and small buses in
Genessee, Washtenaw, Livingston, Wayne and Macomb Counties;
d. Special weekday service offered to groups at specific
senior resident centers in the primary service area and
individual communities in the out-county service area;
e. Shuttle service (large buses and small buses) for commuters
travelling to and from commuter rail stations in Pontiac,
Bloomfield, Birmingham, Royal Oak and Ferndale;
f. Expanded marketing and public information program to
increase public awareness and understanding of the system:.
Establishment of a new operating terminal in the Pontiac area
will improve the efficiency of north Oakland operations
(currently all system vehicles operate out of the SEMTA
Royal Oak tel./anal);
h. In April a newly renovated, expanded OCART dispatch center
with new radio and telephone equipment will be completed;
i. Special subscription service to agency clients will be tripled;
Establishment of a major transfer site at the Pontiac Mall
to be used by OCART, SEMTA Pontiac Arrow and Waterford
Dial-A--Ride buses;
k. Initiation of fixed-route, fixed schedule "express" service
which will link out-county communities with the Pontiac area;
1. Intermodal terminals in Pontiac and Royal Oak will serve as
a coordination point for train, small bus, big bus, Greyhound
bus and taxi-cabs.
g.
,f
Mr. John Peterson
March 24, 1980
Page Four
6. Requests of local jurisdictions
SEMTA shares your opinion that significant emphasis must be
placed on the requests from local governmental jurisdictions.
We recognize that public officials and their staffs know their
communities well and have much to offer us as we expand service.
The Annual Plan is the official mechanism for accomplishing,
this goal. It is mailed to each local jurisdiction in the region
for review and comment prior to adoption of SEMTA's budget by
SEMCOG and the SEMTA Board.
To underscore our commitment to the local government liaison
function, we have devoted a full-time staff position in the
Public Affairs Department since 1978 to give and receive
information to and from local units. Among the duties of this
staff person is meeting with public officials and their staffs
to discuss potential service changes and new service, as well
as existing passenger amenities such as shelters, park and
ride lots, bus stop signs, etc. Meetings are conducted regularly
in the offices of these officials. Frequently, SEMTA staff
members from the Operations and Planning Departments attend
as well.
7. Contractual guarantees
SEMTA was created to meet the needs of the region which do not
stop at political boundaries. The most cost-effective and
efficient way to provide improved service delivery is through
the policy direction of the SEMTA Board which is based on a
one-person, one-vote principle determined by the Michigan
Legislature. Contractual guarantees are not in anyone's best
interests.
I assume you are concerned with a contractual guarantee in order
to assure that Oakland will get its fair share of services.
Macomb, outer Wayne, the City of Detroit and each of the other
political jurisdictions within our region have the same concerns.
We know of no way to provide the contractual guarantees you seek,
and we are not certain it would be fair to other units of
government to enter into such an agreement even if we could
figure out a way to do it. The best mechanism we all have is
through the SEMTA Board structured to provide meaningful
representation for every segment of the region.
Sincerely,
,
Larry E. Salci
General Manager
LES/sds
APPENDIX C
ADDENDUM TO SEMTA BOARD RESOLUTION
PASSED FEBRUARY 19, 1980.
DATE,: February 14, 1930
107 The SEMTA Board
1=1: Public Affairs Department
SUBJ: Response to Oakland County Policy
Statement on Transit ITecds
DiSI!OS -ITIO:. SOUGHT: Approval ki
if /
APPROVED BY:
Marvin Moltzer
(
PREPARED "P:Y Call tPiirry
Larry B. Said
ST,NARY Or PROM.7r-A:
The Oakland County Board of Commissioners adopted, by an almost unanimOns vote,
a resolution outlining the public transportation needs pi Oakland County.
The needs were delineated within the conte n t of Oakland as a county with multiple
service needs, i.e., residential for wore than one million persons, major
employment center, .focus of recreational, leisure, educational and cultural.
pursuits, etc. The resolution cited the need for several specific categories
and modes of public. transit services A representative group of Oo=issieners
presented the resolution to the f:=ENTA Board on February 5. A comitmcnt we
made by the Board to respond at the STINTA Board meeting on February 19.
This agenda item discusses the Oakland County resolution and proposes a SEnTA
response to it. SENTA can comply with the spirit and latter of all of 0a -]ii2e:-,d
County's stated needs with one exception. That exception, light rail to
Pontiac, cannot be accomplished in first phase, for reasons described in Luis
acr.enda item.
D.T.SCTiCSTON:
On January 31, 1930, the Oa kland County Board of Comm.issieners, by a. vote of
22 to 2, voted in favor of a policy- statement concerning Public transportation
in Oakland Counry. The Connty ExecuLive arid to..:u-thirds or L em dc ad Conissien
subsoquontly expressed support for the resolution.
The resolution stated that Oakland County could only support a puhlic tlans-
portation system that included light rail service from DeLkoit to Pontiac in
the first phase with a spur to the Silverdoma (and a feasibility study for
extension to Orion and 0:cford), the bus ex.pansion described in the Lou Capital
alternative, the immediate deployment of OCART's 47 busfleot,pnrk and ride
buses, and capital facilities and passenger amenities such as shelte r s, bus
stop signs, maintenance garages and interrelal passenger terminals in Pontiac
and Royal Oak. It also reiterated the position that the County is opposed to
underground rail to the extent that the capital. costs d ecrease the aveiability
of funds for the e:-:pension of light rail and other improvements in Oa k land
County.
Fehreal-.v 14, 1930
Page Two
SEA is pleased that Oaklaind Coenty developed a positive, clear stator ,rent
of its pnhlic transportation needs. S= is also pleaseJ rhat Oakland County
has set the delivery 'of public transportation services as a Li Ti priority for
itself.
SEMTA can -respond affirmatively te all of the 1 -icds stated in the Juncau 31
resolution except for the extension of Ii:zjlt rail. to Pontiac in phase one
of the regional plan TR fact, SEgTA lies air-ad b ,egeo. lap I :a ia I ic, the
bus anfA train expansion that was part of the Low Cap -ital alternative, The
1morov=ents and expanded ser ,iices wil l. be in place hefe .,:c the light rail
system is operating. DeCiSiaa5 alout recently 11.2 1 Teazod 1-1.o be ssrvice
and sarvice.projected for tha near f u ture w,2re generated by a series of rich?r-
ship forecasts and route rationalization studies undertaken by SENTA staff,
The components of the agenda item that follows will address the peel 110
,,lemonts of the Oakland County resolution,
Bus improvements
The level of service in (I7.1;land County :Yin be that descrilpod in the Low
Capital alternative. The following new lnrge bus route.:; wiJa he irTlementcd:
Greenfield, Service from Northland to Beaumont ilospital via
Greenfield and 13 Nile Road.
Southfield. Service from Northland to Birmingham via Southfield,
14 Mile and WoodwF,rd,
Coolidge, Service between. l'orthland aJ Somereot via 8 Mile.Roeid,
Coolidge and Big Beaver.
Civic Center - FTanklin. Service hetwa= Northland and tha 12 1.1i1c-
Northwestern area via Providence, 9 Mile, Evergreen, Civic Canter-
- Drive and Franklin.
Evergreen. Service between Beaumont Hospital and Fairlanc via 13
Mile and Evergreen. •
Southfir-ld-Daarhorn. Express service linking the Southfield and
Dearborn areas in both directions to serve customers living in one
area and work -ing In the other.
12 Nilci West. Service linking the Voodward corridor, Southfield,
Farmington Hills 2nd the 12 Oaks-Novi area.
Farmington. Service 11ekirig the Farmington and Farmington Tbilis
areas a5_th destinations in western VaynL1 Couny
12 Oaks. Service to 12 Oaks along the Grand River corridor to the
east and along Novi. Rend cennect10 -itillthe Northuillo, Ply].-0,th and
Canton areas.
13 Mile. Service between Oakland and Neconlb Counties fro Beanent
Hospital cast via 13 Nile Fead,
February 14, 19F,n
Pae Three
Pontiac area. ST7MA has begun a joint study with the City of Pontjac
to update the transit plan for Pontiac. After detailed analysis, the
study will develop reco=enations for improved service within Pontiac
and service. connecting Pontiac end neighboring cor=nities sueh .as
Orchard Lae, Waterford, Rochester and Lake Orion.
Park and Ride Routes
Rochester-Troy-Detroit Park and Ride. Express service between
Rochester, Troy and Detroit with service to Chrysler Hondquarters
and the New Center area via 1 -75
Dequindre Park and Ride. Express service rinMfig both east c an O akland
- County and western Macomb Cotinty to Detroit..
NOVi Park and Ride. Express service between the Novi-12 Oaks-Welled
Lake area and Detroit.
Route Extensions and Imnrovements
Service on existing routes will be upgraded through the addition of
increased capacity to relieve overcrowding and accom=dctc further
growth, throng-11 the extension of routes into previously unserved
areas, and through expansion in the hours of service to provide
nore convenient and attractive services.
Clawson. Upgraded frequency on the Crooks Rood branch and extension
of service into Troy - specifically to the Big Beaver corridor for
employment access in that corridor.
Woodward. Service expansion to increase capacity in both the peak
and reverse peak directions and extension of the So:n,erset Pall route
to provide better access to the Big Beaver corridor. -
Berkley_ More frequent service in both directions to provide letter
connections to Detroit and between the Northland-Southfield-Royal
Oak areas along 10 Mile, 11 Mile, 12 Mile, Labser and Greenfield.
Orchard Ridge. Irproved schedules and all do service lining
Detroit and Northland to the Parmirqy Hills-West Bloomfield area.
Southfield-Creenfield-Detroit. Increased capacity and all-day service
on routes linking the Sout.hfiPlclOak Perk area to Wayne State and
downtown Detroit.
John R. Increased capacity - institution of express or limited stop
service between Oakland Mall, Madison Heights, Hazel Park and Detroit.
Rochester Road. Extension of local service north on Rorbest ,,r Road
to the Rochester-Avon area and improved and extended service on
Hilton, Campbell and Stephenson Iligh .:7ay to provide Improved north-
south service in eastern Oakland Connty.
robrery 15, 19,7,C
raga Four
9 Mile and Il Mile. More frerpAent service to provi
service linking Oakland and Macomb Counties.
o bettor east-west
Miscellaneous service improvements as needed to aecem=date growth.
Will be assigned to specific routes as needs dictate.
In addition to the above buses, 12 buses for maintenance reserve wifl
be added, bringing the total increase in the lineheul bus fleet
serving Oakland County to an additional 96 buses, and when combined
with the present fleet of 104 large buses will bring the total
assigned to the Oakland division to 200.
Small Bus Exviansion
Implementation of the proposed S7MTA paratransit (small bus, ride-sharing,
taxi service) policy will result in the full iipTle:-entatioe of the OCART
system as planned, as well as the iultiation of additional general public
dial-a-rides providing local-service. The general public local service
systems will be provided in areas where fixed route large .bns service is
unfeasible or where small bus feeders to the large bus and rail system
are a productive.optiou.
In southern Oakland County, the small bus program will consist mainly of
the OCART system for the elderly and handicapped with general public scrice
available in selected areas to supplement the fixed rac e a large has serVice.
Under current plans, when the background networb is implemented, Oakland
County will be served. by 107 small buses with 50 in OCATZT, 44 in general
public service and another 13 in maintenance reserve. By the end of 1.,0
there 1.LLEI be 47 OCART buses in service and 15 general public local systcm
buses in Waterford, BiLL,A4ham and Perndale/Pleasant Ridge.
General public local service systems and OCART will be the 'principal ser-
vices in northern Oakland County. The snail bus systems will provide for
localized travel within the communities in northern. Oakland and will llnk
these com7.-ounAties to destinations in Pontiac and southern Oakland County,
They will also provide feeder service to the fixed route buses and .the
commuter rail lines. Link-ups between OCART and bases in CePn'SSE.,
Livingston and -Washtenaw Counties will begin this year
Other Bus Service;
SEMTA is currently working to ward implementing innovative service improve-
ments to make more productive use of its resources during off-peak. times
(mid-day, evening and weekend services). This will include service to regional
shopping centers, service to recreational area; and special event attractions
such as Northland, Oakland Mall, 12 Oaks, the Detroit Zoo, Cronb ,-ook, etc,
In addition to these special services, major improve=cuts In off-pe,:lk ser-
vice on regular routes will also be included. Those 17provemonts will not
require additional peak hour fleet exponsion but will provide for now and
expanded off-peak services. Some of the specific 1=rovements will include
rzore frequent evening, Saturday and Sunday service on routes currently
served in those time periods and the implcntRtinn Of Saturday and Sunday
services on routes without this service at proseat,
ACE'N-DA rr7,1
Febrnary 15, 1930
Pn'71,e. Five
In the small bus area, improvements will inclue putt in tii, OCI,RT buses to
use at tires Lea regular elderly and hendicapped ridership is low. This
would inhln,de gene ral public access to rehtiac, ti rious region ,l shopping
centers and recreational areas from the outlying co=nnities in northern ahd i
west= Cial.-7,1aud County,
c2,tr Train
By 1935 tIlre will be fiva coonter trains between Pontic and De=-roit, SF:MTA
has corTImitted itself to a special train service to the Silverdoe for the
•1987 Superbowl-,
Passenrer konities. ancl
The fol1o7Ang items are takeh from SI'=A's recehtl -y completed Tacility
Imprer.,ET,Aent RecoThmendations (P LT 1079) which outlines some $(i0 nillion
. in cr(penclitures to support the expanded bus networi.(, The_ expenclit-res in
Cakland County will total nillion, components
o Large bus terminals - Construct new 85-space northwest garac in
vicinity. of 9 Mile/Farm:ington and expand the 0a1U.and terminal in Troy.
o Smell bus 'terminals - Construct new 55-space Waterford i i acility
in vicinity of JoE,1YniFohtiae Plaza, construct new 65-space rorthwest
facility, retain Royal. Oak facility.
ES Major bus passener lending facilities (excluding co,,hter rail and
light rail facilities) - The Royal. Ohl( and Pontiac uulti-mcd:11 ter-
rinals are in the design stage. Funds f:E:om the state lava bran
co-ittnd for construction expected in 1930-81.
O Las shelters, pa ,,Is and signs - 120 shelters, 500 weitinT pads ace
500 sIgns arc CO-anittd.
[MN) FACILITY HPHDITOH - P=.TODPO 1Wi-1('2 L
OtiS Oniv
OAMD COI.ATY
rcici lry lerminT)M
OakThnd L-H
NW L-H
Wt,-rfnrd SB
NW SB
• SUB-TOTAL
Pork E, Ride Lots . _
Woo ward .
I-695/0rchard Lake__
I-75/Big Beaver. •
SUB-TOTAL
Sh•Pli-,rs
Asst.;o 120 shE!lters
Pads
500 DEirl
Sinns _ . . _
Al;stim. 500 signs
Nor Lo72.dinq Fecilities _ _ . _
For 2 (Typ2 II & Type TIT)
(Preliminary)
TOTPJ
Inflatod Cost
$4.4 Million
2.7
2.1
2.2
.$1-1-.4 Million
$ 0„6111ori
0.3
0.7
0,3
$ 0.7 Million
$ 0.5
$ 0.02 Million
S 0J),B Million
$14.5 IYilThion $!;0.1 Million = 35,4
1,C1D.tk irrii
February -.1., 1r0'
Page Seven
Light Pail
On Deactcher 18, 1979 the SENTA Board adopted-a regional plan Chat included a
light rail alignment: in phase one from downtown. Detroit to 10 kiln Road in
Ole Woodward corridor, earl in second phase, to 10 Mile Road in the Woodward
corridor, and to 1.5 Nile Road on the Gratiot corridor. .
The Oakland County Co=issionarS I resolution contains the phrase, "Oal;_land
County only supports a public tLansportatiou system that includes light To:7 1
.trannportation. services which include light rail service from Detroit to
Pontiac (and) a spur to the Silverdome (and) the route preference shall be....
Woodward Avenue through Ferndale and Pleasant Ridge and then over the Grand
Trunk right of way through Royal Oak and nolth to Pontlae_" Later in the
resolution, the phrase, "SENTA shall include and implement in the first
phase the transit service improvements in. Oakland County specified in this
resolution" is also included. it is not possible to accomplish this unless,
the sF:mTA Board .decided to reconsider its December 18, 1979. action,
Taken togeth er, the 17ederal Government's .policies on molar transportation
improvements (March 14, 1978 and Septeber 22, 1976) and the YiEftB's require-
ments make it impossible for us to immediately aece=odate the :Dnard of
Comissioners t desires These desires im -1.ght be accommodated in the future,
however, provided that: (1) we were willing to delay implementation of
all transportation improvements, including those for Oakland County, for at
least two years; (2) the Federal Covarnent was willing to approve the test
end evaluation of a. Detroit to Pontinc."mlni=m useable scrgic ee and, (3)
after that test and uvaluatien, this segment was to be selected over the
other choices available.
The reason why all rransportatio. improvements, ir!.cludng those for Oakland
County, mould have to be delayed for several years is that neither the
Federal Government -nor the state could legally allow, a Detroit to Pontiac: .
light rail sem.ent to go into preliminary engineering because the -social,
economic and environmental impacts of that segment loW21 never been dotermined
and documented in a Draft Environmental ImpacfL Statemeut, Federal policy
requires that these impacts be documented in a DEIS which Un-TA imst approve
for circUlation and which tho Michigan Environftteatal Review F,oard must approve
as an "acceptatie" decision document, Following, these approvals, the D'i.:TS,
must be eil-culated . and public hearings must be held benre a decision can
be made to select this plan over all others. Wur arc fast approaching the
point where the selected light roil - pia -a for service between Detroit and
30 Mile Read will be allowed to go into preliminary engineering. To get
to this point, a number of alternatives -were identified, approved for te5t
and evaluation by the Federal Government, and their respective ccenomic,
social and environmental impacts were determicied and decnimnted in a 0719.
INTA and MITID. approved this document and it was thea circulated and public
hearings were held, inc process took sever:Al years to completcc anC: none
of the improvements were permitted to proceed except for Li ccc DP. 1a order
to accommoate the board of Commissioners' desires, we would have to 1 -rc.:11.:
the entire process, at a price of two y(7.11 .o delay, and none of tire improvements
(i)nth for Oakland County and the 1:(_::-1t Of 01,7 reg i on) could lw iiplemuted,
3ebroary 14, 1550
Paoce
The second problem posed by the Board of Coo.issdonors' dLsir for a ".Phse I"
1)etroit to Pontiac light TnIl segt!ant is that 1.1 .:ftA hes never Leen requested to
• annrove its test and evaluation. Federal policy on dAternativa Analysis
reiires that analysis to be coaducted In two phnsec;, with_ the second following
▪ antrovol of the results of 'the first. The first phase tnist Produce
re::;:_ocel consensus on a "long ranti,e plan," and, if thot. plaa .inolddes a roil
elettent, liMT).'s approval of alternative 'ci; :con useabl 0 e7„Eents" of that
rail element must be identified and approviid by th1TA fol test and ovalo2 ,tioa
in the second phase effort. Tn. our Alternatives Analysis, wa ohtaind Inegionel
consensus on a 1.0n. ran-F,e. Oan in N'rly of 1977, selection of the "Combination
I." plan. This plan included light rail in the UondwLrd corridor to 16 1-tile
. Roar' and in the Gratiot corridor to 15 nila Road. =A than reqnired 13-.; to
postulate "first" stage increments and ro secure their approval to test and
ev2luae these increments. Since a Detroit to Pontiac increment was not pos-
tulated, ITYTA approval was not souii:ht and would be required
Finally, if we were to have the rest of the region a .;.orea that no 7 -Trovements
sl=ld be implemented at this L inn (even thovgh ridership dec Jo inc,,,nsins
daily) so that OaTtlnnd County's re'qhest scold be satisfied, ni f wore
to agree that a Detroit to Pont iso inore.T.ient or segmtit could hrT,
PPd evated, there is no gutrah:ec that such a s.e,p,aat woilid 1,o selected one:
ether choices to the region, In atl a s words, severn1 yeaLs con1C
be lost, the cost of say alternative wonld be t,nra (dno to inflation)
and the Detroit to 10 Mile alternative still be selected,
The Board can examine —the feasibility of lis,ht rail to Pontiac wItheat jeo-
pardizing its etilielit CMCiE:107.. If S17.1-717A proceeds on a first stage Detroit
to 10 :Mile rail sys!Lom, befoTe that systairl is oven i.e censtrnetioa, work conld
start on the necessary analYsis of alternative exteasioos to that syste3,
to 16 Mile, t6 Pontine, etc., as well as on Woodv;nd 'versus the CTU riht. of
Ott ILTLT)
Ti-cut the Board adopt this agenda item cc a response to the Oaklond. County
• Policy St:atemant.
Resolution approving response to Onl:land County Policy Statopiect.
TO BE CONS1DERFD at the February 1.9, 1980 Board Meetia,
#9373 March 27, 1980
this ..... ...day o f March .19 „8„0..
Moved by Peterson supported by Patterson the rules be suspended for
immediate consideration of the resolution.
AYES: Hoot, Kasper, Kelly, Lewand ., McDonald, Moffitt, Montante, Moore,
Moxley, Patterson, Perinoff, Pernick, Peterson, Price, Wilcox, Caddell, DiGiovanni,
Doyon, Dunaskiss, Fortino, Gabler, Gorsline, Hobart. (23)
NAYS: Aaron. (1)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the motion carried.
Moved by Peterson supported by Montante the resolution be adopted,
AYES: Kasper, Kelly, Lewand, McDonald, Moffitt, Montante, Moore, Moxley,
Patterson, Perinoff, Pernick, Peterson, Price, Wilcox, Aaron, Caddell, DiGiovanni,
Dunaskiss, Fortino, Gabler, Gorsline, Hobart, Hoot. (23)
NAYS: None, (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and
having a seal, do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of
sco ) ar.leQU5 3Q5QIIA iQr) .//.937.3 ,BPAI.ct pf,
with the original record thereof now remaining in my
office, and that it is a true and correct transcript
therefrom, and of the whole thereof.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed the seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan
Lynn D. Allen. ........ ----Clerk
By Deputy Clerk