HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1975.11.06 - 14797November 6, 1975
REPORT
BY PLANNING &
IN RE Misc. Res. [quitable Distribution Within Detroit Urbanized Area
of Mass Transii.. Fundir!f:, CAtainable Under National Mass Transportation
Assistance Act of
TO THE OAK LAN D COUNTY L'OARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Misc. Res,
the 7outheastern Michigan T rampo r ,..:,,-, tForty a cc.d w i ti, the oh
:.:OMMITTEF, Patrick
d by tkIs Ebard on April 17, 1775,
letter. The b.tbr has been reviewed hy unty Executive's 7
Division and the attached report was (liven by the Manning Division to your
Committee at its meeting of Octo ber 70, 1975.
The Pl anning an d Bu ildi ng ,::omm:ri-ee , by Patrick M. Nowak, Chairman
moves .-orepoing report.
October 30, 1975
The letter indicates that Oakland County's share of
Section Five funds would amount to 1.553 for fiscal 1975;
14,84% of the regional total. Using 14.84% as the basis, the
county could receive the following amounts over six years:
1975 - $ 1,553 million
1976 - $ 2,588 million
1977 - $ 3.364 million
1978 - $ 4,011 million
1979 - $ 4,400 million
1980 - $ 4,658 million
The primary objective of Resolution #7038 was to establish
some general parameters within which transit development in
Oakland County - the sub-region of the Detroit region can be
planned for and implemented. It is difficult to substantiate
the claim that development of new transit services and improve-
ment of existing services within this sub-region and between
the sub-region and the entire region can be classified as
development of local transit service
The question of "need as May be demonstrated by utilization
of a public transportation system" can hardly be applied in
those parts of the urbanized region that does not have a
minimum acceptable level . of transit service. How can
potential customers use public transit when it is not readily
available to them?
sgt/dje
SETI-JT3
SOUfl iEASTERN MICHIGAN-
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
211 Fort Stret `A'ost, Su woo
P.O. 13o.:: 333
43231
313n62-9S03
June 30, 1975
Mr. Fred D. Houghten
Chairman
Oakland County Board of Commissioners
1200 North Telegr -aph Road
Pontiac, Michigan 48053
Dear Mr. Houghton,
-Reference is made to your letter of April 21, 1975 regarding the
Oakland County Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution #7038,
entitled "Equitable Distribution of Transit Fundings." - The reso-
lution suggests that SEMTA advise the Oakland County Board of
Commissioners - on what is to be an equitable distribution of such
funds, based upon the federal formula which considers total urban
zed population and urbanized population density. The.. formula if
used to determine funding distribution would yield the following'
if counties were receiving funds directly from IMTA:
Wayne . Oakland Macomb' Total
Amount: $7,604,000 $1,553,000 ':51,308,000 $10,465,000
Percent: 72.66% 14.84% 12.50% - . 100%
In addition to the above the Authority has programmed as a part of
Fiscal Year 1976 activities a .$900,000 suburban service expansion.
However', there are other factors that must be considered when deter-
mining equities. SEMTA does not receive these . Federal Transit funds
based upon political jurisdictions but rather from the perspective
of a total urbanized region. SETA as a regional transit agency,
does not maintain the view that its primary chArge is to develop a
koi-;71ula which establishes an "equitable" distribution of these
ft1:1,1s along county jurisdictions However, in the issue of equal
distribution of federal transit funds, one could be looked at from •
several factors:
,jo-a;ern P. U7t-'ico.
Jarn::::::
A!:.,rn A
Sincerely,
Mattilé J. Myers
Chairwoman of the Boar
4
Mr. Fred D. Houghten • June,30,,l975
—Pagb 2
1) Public transportation operating within a local jurisdiction
versus total transportation operated in the region and fiscal
requirements for maintaining that service, 2) Total urbanized
population and dehsity in the local jurisdiction versus total
urbanized population and density within the region, 3) Direct
coriDutloas made by a 1,)(.1 jurisdictioa thcouh public
rrans,pel-tation as a_part of the dollar for dollar matching fed-
eral requirements and their return on same, 4) Need as may be
demonstrated by utilization of a public transportation system,
5) Need as demonstrated by such factors as public transportation •-
dependency . due to low income, lack of automobiles, travel .
habits, etc.
Such a list of potential equity criteria is not exhaustive.
However, SEMTA as a regional agency must concern itself with
equity as it related to ,providing and .meeting public transportation.
needs of the region as a whole and, within this framework, must
. first concern itself with the regional perspective of public
transportation needs.
At such a time when all local jurisdictions are in fact making
contributions directly to the operation of public transportation
.systems in order to. assist in meeting the aforementioned match
requireMents, this perspective may change.
MJM:CB:caj
#7038 November 6, 1975
Moved by Nowak supported by Moffitt the report be accepted.
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the motion carried,