140
768 7
_ HTHS

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State

University 1

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’_______—,
2/05 m/CIRC/DateDueJndd-ms

 

 

 

 

 

THE SUBSIDIZATION OF TRANSIT SYSTEMS

IN MICHIGAN
By

Irwin Samec

Submitted to
Michigan State University
as fulfillment of "Plan B Option"
for the degree of

MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING

June, 1972

 

masks

l.‘

 

 

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE PAPER

0

During the last decade the words "mass transit" have
become household words. Since the turn of the century mass transit
facilities have been in existence in all the major metropolitan areas
of the country, and it is therefore usual for the average person to
equate mass transit facilities with the large cities of the country.
However, the largest proportion of mass transit systems, particu-
larly bus systems, are found in the smaller metropolitan areas,

1. e. , cities with a population under 500, 000. It is in these smaller
cities during the last two years that many of the bus systems have
gone bankrupt or have been taken over by the municipal government.
The reasons for the failures have become a cliche: low ridership,
outdated equipment, high labor costs. The solution to the failures
often takes the form of subsidization, either municipal or state.

The situation described above is exactly what is occurring
in Michigan at the present moment. Presently there is a bill before
the State legislature which would finance mass transit facilities
throughout the State of Michigan by an increase in the gas tax. The
need to plan for the effective distribution of public funds for use for
mass transit facilities is obvious. Such questions as the need for
subsidization and the policies for distribution of funds must be
answered.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Page
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE PAPER . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER
1. TRANSIT SYSTEMS IN MICHIGAN . . . . . . . . 2
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 2
Muskegon Transit Authority. . . . . . . . . 3
Flint Transportation Authority. . . . . 8
Kalamazoo Department of Transportation . . 13
Capital Area Transit Authority
(Lansing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Summary................23
2. SUBSDDIZATION OF TRANSIT . . . . . . . . . 26
Introduction . . . ' . . . . . . . 26
The State Finance Approach . . . . . . . . 30
Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority . . . . . . . . 30
New Jersey Department of
Transportation . . . . . . . . 33
Critique of the State Finance
Approach . . . .. . . . . . 35
The Local Finance Approach . . . . . . . 36
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid '
Transit District . . . . . . . . . . 36
New Orleans Public Service '
Corporation . . . . . . . . . 39

Critique of the Local Finance
Approach.............. 41

 

ii

 

i0

 

 

CHAPTER

The Michigan Proposal: Senate

Bills 1071 and 1072.

Critique of the Michigan Proposal
Equitability ' . . .
Certainty
Convenience .

Economy and Adequacy
Summary

3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
AND FINANCE .

Introduction .

System Improvements . .
HUD Transit Planning Programs .
Elias' Run- -Cutting Model .
Testing the Model . .

Recommendations for a Subsidization

Plan .

Structure . .
Sources of Revenue .

4 . SUMMARY
BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX

iii

Page

44
49
51
52
53
53
55

.56

56
57
59
65
'71

74
75
76
81
85

87

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1

TRANSIT SYSTEMS IN MICHIGAN

Introduction

 

The problem of public transit systems in Michigan failing.
to operate with revenues collected from their service charges is
not unique to any metropolitan area in the state. In fact, a single -
year in which aid is not given to a selected metropolitan area is
unique. The solutions to the problem of declining patronage and
deficit operation have varied from a bus "pool" concept to municipal
take-over. None of these tried solutions have worked well enough
to allow the transit system to pay for its operational costs from its
own pockets.

This chapter attempts to define the problem of the failing
transit systems in Michigan by reviewing four metropolitan systems.
Detroit is excluded from the review because it is unique from the
rest. The areas reviewed are: Muskegon, Flint, Kalamazoo, and

Lansing. Basically, the purpose of the review is to gain a wholistic

 

 

perspective of transit operations in Michigan so that the recent

proposal for state aid to public transit systems may be analyzed.
In the review of each of the areas mentioned, attention

. will be paid to the history of the system, the problems of the

system, solutions tried to correct the problems, and finally the

present financial need of the systems. The format of this review

will be in a series of profiles culminating in a summary of the

commonality of problems and needs.

Muskegon Transit Authority

 

Prior to 1929 the city of. Muskegon was served by a pri-
vately owned electric streetcar line. The streetcar line remained
in existence until that time thanks to the voters of the area who in
1921 kept the streetcars running by a tax on property owners. After
1929busse‘s were more economical and the streetcar system was
abandoned.1

The bus system remained in Muskegon until its abandon-
ment in March of 1972 when deficits and a voter turn -down of a
property tax caused the operation to be terminated because of lack
of funds. The bus system was owned and operated by the Muskegon

Transportation Authority. The Muskegon Transportation Authority

 

1The Muskegon Chronicle, January 23, 1972, p. 8.

 

 

was established and incorporated in 1965 pursuant to the provisions
of Public Act No. 55 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1963. Prior
to the establishment of the MTA, the MTA leased the physical
_ assets of the private operator then serving the area and hired the
private operator (City Coach Lines) to run the bus system. The
arrangement provided relief from local and federal taxes. In June
of 1968, the arrangement was terminated and the MTA became the
sole owner and operator of the system with all personnel as direct
employees.

In 1968, the American Academy of Transportation, an Ann
Arbor consulting firm, undertook a study of the public transit
facilities in Muskegon. The immediate reason for the study was
the low ridership and deficit of the bus company. The buses that
were. in service at that time were in desperate need of replacement.
Also with the passage in the Michigan State Legislature of the
Metropolitan Transportation Act, allowing for the creation of
Transportation Authorities and exemption from state taxes, there
was a unique opportunity for reorganization. 3 The study made

several short- and long-term recommendations. The short-

 

2Muskegon Mass Transportation Report, 1970, p. 2.

3Muskegon County Metropolitan Transportation System,
American Academy of Transportation, pp. 1 - 3.

 

term recommendations dealt primarily with changes in service,

the changes being. recommended on the basis of a comprehensive
origin-destination study of possible riders in the metropolitan area.
, Among the long -term recommendations designed to improve the
declining ridership on the Muskegon transit system, two recom-
mendations stand out. The bus pool concept, or industrial tripper
as some have called it, basically involves the selection of a route
containing workers who have the same destination. The criteria
for selection of the route are as follows:

"a. A zone of worker residences around the streets on the
tripper line containing approximately 150 residence loca-
tions no more than 1 block either side of the tripper line,

b. Starting the tripper line at the farthest end of the zone of
worker residence and running generally in the direction of
the plant where they work,

c. Selecting those streets for the tripper line that have the
most worker residences directly on the street where the
line is to run. "4

Four bus pools or industrial trippers were suggested for the
Muskegon area based on the above criteria and had limited success.
The second recommendation of importance made by the Academy
was that a Muskegon County Transportation Authority be established

in order to take advantage of the newly enacted Metropolitan Trans -

portation Act in Michigan which allowed exemption from state taxes.

 

4Muskegon Mass Transportation Report, p. 38.

 

 

 

This recommendation, however, was never carried out because the
county supervisors voted against forming the county authority.

The Academy suggested in their 1968 report to the Muskegon
- Planning Commission that new equipment be purchased, specifically
diesel powered buses; however, the City voted in 1971 to purchase
Twin Coach mini —buses which were gasoline powered and had a
seating capacity for twenty passengers. The new equipment was
paid for in part by the Federal government under the Federal Urban
Mass Transportation Act of 1964, which paid for 50% of the cost of
the equipment. 6 The mini -buses made substantial improvements
in the number of passengers riding on the bus system, especially
on the Junior College route and the: industrial plant routes. How-
ever, the increased ridership was still not enough to offset day -to-
day operating costs, even though the mini -buses were more
economical in terms of cost of operation per mile. One of the
factors which served to offset the savings was higher labor costs.

The following was written by the Chairman of the Muskegon
Transit Authority in a letter addressed to the State Highway Depart-

ment of Michigan:

 

51bid., p. 50.

6Ibid., p. 35.

 

5’

 

"The transit operation is subsidized by $10, 000 from Muskegon,
$1, 000 from Downtown merchants and $5, 000 from othergovern-
mental units. The revenue from passengers averages from
$10, 000 to $13, 000 per month and the trend is a slight decrease.
The average daily passengers carried is 1800, showing a
decreasing trend. The daily route miles is 1550 and the trend
is to lengthen the routes. "7
Perhaps the singlemost important item in the letter was the citing
of the loss of passengers and at the same time citing the lengthening
of the routes which meant increased cost of operation. Indeed this
process foreshadowed the doom of transit in Muskegon. The subsidy
for operation increased from a meager $8, 000 for the year of 1966.
to ($16, 000 in 1969, and to an astounding $110,000 for 1971. In 1972
the MTA lost 29¢ for each 35¢ fare carried. 8
The City tried to supplement the transit system first by
an additional tax on property, which was turned down by the voters.
The next step was in seeking aid from the State under the proposed
Milliken Plan which was contained in Senate Bills 1071 and 1072,
giving an allocation of monies to transit systems from an increase
in the gas tax. However, the plan was and still is (as of mid- 1972)

in the State legislature. The plan was estimated to have given

Muskegon approximately $140, 000, which would have been enough

 

7(To John Klump, Planner, State Highway Department.)

8Supra, footnote 1.

 

to cover the deficit of transit operation. With no help available
from the residents or the State, on February 6, 1972, the transit

system was closed down. The City was and still is obligated to pay

0

. the eighteen full -time employees of the transit system vacation pay,

and after the sale of the equipment must pay back some of the
$187, 940 to the State and Federal government for the grants

issued to pay for the buses. 9

Flint Transportation Authority

 

From 1947 until 1964 public transit in Flint, Michigan,
was owned and operated by the Flint'City Coach‘Linesr The bus
system was owned. and operated by City Coach Lines, a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. The Flint
City Coach Lines operated under a franchise granted to them by
the City. 10

During the City Coach Lines operation from 1951 to 1961,
annual revenue passenger volume declined 73% and bus miles

operated dropped 43%%. Beginning with 1958 the bus system

operation resulted in substantial debt.. The year 1961 produced an

 

9The Muskegon Chronicle, January 21, 1972, p. 15.
10

 

Bus Service: Present and Future, Flint, Michigan, 1962,

 

pp. 1 -4.

 

 

operating deficit of $95, 431, and from the period 1958 through 1961
the total deficit was a little over $200, 000. 11

Faced with the high operating deficits, the private con-

. sulting firm of Simpson and Curtin of Philadelphia was commissioned
to advance alternatives. Perhaps the main thrust of the whole
report was, given the fact that Flint wanted to maintain a transit
system, substantial advantages could be gained in tax relief if the
city was to take over the operation.

The City did take over the operation in 1964 and formed
the Flint Transportation Authority under Michigan enabling legisla-
tion. The Authority gained substantial savings in taxes due to public
ownership. The FTA purchased the rolling stock of the City Coach
Lines and then contracted with the former owners to operate the
system for 5% of the gross revenue.

Despite the changes, the condition worsened. In 1966 a
study was conducted to determine the causes of the continued down-
ward trend of ridership and to provide appropriate solutions. The
study showed that the comfort and convenience of the private auto-

mobile was chiefly responsible for the. loss of ridership. One

 

11Ibid. , Table II.

12The Flint Bus System, American Academy of Transpor-
tation, 1966, pp. 4-10.

 

 

 

10

suggestion of the study was to attempt to make the system viable

by optimizing the existing services and facilities. In order to do
this it was recommended that bus pools be established similar to

_ those in Muskegon. The study was conducted by the American
Academy of Transportation which also made the same recommenda-
tions for Muskegon.

The recommendations of the Academy were accepted by
the Flint Transportation Authority, which made application to the
Department of Transportation for a Demonstration Grant on
August 4, 1967. The grant application was approved by DOT on
January 15, 1968, and was titled: Project MICH -MTD -2. It was
established to run .for a three -year period from January 15, 1968,
through January 15, 1971. 13 Participants included the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration of DOT, the City of Flint and the
Mott Foundation, also of Flint. The four major stated objectives

of the program were:

"1. To demonstrate the feasibility of special purpose bus lines
for specifically identified passenger groups.

2. To demonstrate the specialized marketing techniques needed
to promote and establish personalized bus service.

3. To demonstrate system economies through integration of
these special -purpose lines with existing general -purpose
operations. ' '

 

13Mass Transportation Demonstration Grant MICH-MTD -2,

1970, pp. 1 -4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

O

0300?;
a. 0: N .me “.me . 00v .veo 0.5m e3 .30 N Na 0.3. NNm ~00 .vem .m. 0.3 end .mNm .N eeofi
e.m0~ e.0e NS 0: .eg new oNN .mg 0.3“ 0.3. eKm N3 .000 .m 0.em R.— .e3 4 . mean
5 . no” 0 . Ne 0.0e 0N0 .meo e.mm e00 .eem 0.0m“ .. 0.: v. 3. e3 .03. .0 me mom .0mm 4 «ea
0. 02 e. on N . Ne 3N .000 0. mm new .0ew v.52 efim e.mv man .53 .e a .0m . evw den 4 meg
0.09 e.$ 0.0e 80.20 e.mm 30.500 542 .e.em. eKw SedwNJ 0.0m emoeem.‘ Neg
m.N0~ 0.0m mfve woN .30. 1mm new .000 0.52 n.0e 0.9. $062 .w 0.Ne $3 .eheJ . $3
e60 N . em 0. 0e . Nvo .0e0 J 0.me wMN .ee0 .H 0.3: 0.0m. e.0v . men JR. .v m. 2. 0K .80 J 03H
. _ 0. 03 A . om . a .3 Neo .0? .H msve 3N .000 .H H .eE a .3. v.9. wt .waé 0.NN. wow .20 .N 33
0.00 0Nm 0.0m vow .mmN J .mNn vmv .e2 4 5.03 . SN“. new 30 .0: .m 0.; Se Kea .N.. 0mg
Néo w.mm N60 mmoJNvJ e00 03.02.; 0.0: e.mm , N.vw 000.000.“. NJ? mememN $3
0.000 0.3 0.09 KN .wNw 4 0.03 mmo £3 4 0.03 0.0N 0.00“ New .000 .o 0.03 «Na .Nee .N . ema—

xer 08 505 $0 0.600 3305 355% 505 . 30sz x33 muomcommmm x005 8:2 30>.
o: 2 933000 mmouc 05:96 m 025?... m 02.30 m
you 1300.. 00a mom venom
mumoO 8:2 33.00%
953000 2033’
eeg .. emam
25.0.5 mam 24m ,
. 0.500 0252.530 Q72. .mDZm>mm .mEDAQ/ mmozmmmfm .mmaaz M18305» "mHImZOEkAmm >m<2$5m
9 ,9 3

 

 

12
4. To develop criteria for determining mix (balance) between

special purpose and general purpose operations. "14
The guiding objective was, of course, to reverse the trend of declin-
ing ridership on public transportation through service and promo-

) tional innovations.

With grant approval, the project proceeded to collect
specific origin -destination data on target ridership groups. Follow-
ing this data collection a marketing program was outlined and zone
fare schedules were established. The service was begun on
September 9, 1968, and was known as the Maxi -Cab Commuter
Club.

As in Muskegon, specific routes were established. A
slight improvement was made in total ridership, but not enough
impact was made to offset the operating losses. By the summer
of 1971, deficits reached a high point, and the Flint Transportation
Authority closed down the bus operation.

In October of 1971, the City voted to resume bus service.
within the City under new management. The new management of
the bus system came from the Mass Transportation Authority,
obtaining most of its funding, other than passenger revenues,

directly from the City. In April of 1972, the MTA was given

 

14Ibid., p. ii.

 

 

 

13

$28, 887 to cover operating losses. Since the MTA resumed service

in October, 1971,, the City has subsidized the operation with a total

of $216, 187. 15

Kalamazoo Department of Transportation

 

Prior to 1967 bus service in Kalamazoo was operated by
the Kalamazoo City Lines, a private corporation. In November of
1966, the citizens of Kalamazoo overwhelmingly supported by a
four to one margin the acquisition, operation, construction and
maintenance of a mass transit system. After 1967 the bus systems
serving the Kalamazoo area were consolidated into the Metro
Transit System. The Metro Transit System was the outgrowth of
a study commissioned by the City and prepared by Public Adminis-
tration Services of Chicago, a private consulting firm. The study
was intended to include a review of the operations of the bus system
in Kalamazoo, the desirability for new equipment, consolidation of
present services and the suggestion of recommendations for
Mproving the declining trend of passenger ridership. After the
study was completed, the Mayor and City Council made application
to purchase the existing bus system and to establish a municipal

Department of Transportation. The creation of the Metro Transit

 

15The Flint Journal, March 28, 1972, p. 29.

 

 

 

H

14

System within the municipal government allowed for consolidation
and special operations with Western Michigan University, the
Parchment School District, and the Kalamazoo School District.
The following benefits have been cited from the municipal
take-over of the system:
"1. The consolidation of existing mass transportation systems.

2. The operation of the combined system by the City of
Kalamazoo.

3. The continuance of an expanded scope of service at
improved levels and within the existing fare structure.

4. The financing of initially acquired new equipment and
facilities from sources Other than earnings but with the
provision for equipment replacement from such operating
income.

5. The retention of flexibility which permits this basic system
to be expanded and improved as circumstances permit or
require. "16
The initial improvements to the bus system were the con-

solidation of the privately run Upjohn Company bus system with the
Kalamazoo City Lines and the changing of routes to reflect desires
for travel within the urban area. Also a replacement schedule for

new buses was worked out so that in twenty years all equipment

would be replaced. _

 

16City of Kalamazoo: 'Final Mass Transit Application,

1969, p. 34.

 

 

15

In the process of municipal take-over, the City made
application to the Federal Department of Transportation for a grant
to cover the acquisition cost of the present facilities ($989, 948. 00).
In 1967, when the grant was approved, it was approved for one -half
the net project cost ($742, 461. 00). Since that time the City has
pledged full support both financially and morally to the transit
system. In addition, the City acquired from undistributed cash
reserves and depreciation reserves the necessary monies to pur-
chase the required capital improvements in anticipation of the
remaining federal grant ($247, 487), and subsidized the Metro
Transit System $150, 000 in 1968 and $170, 000 in 1969.1,7

The final application for the remaining monies from the
federal grant in August, 1969, predicted that on the basis of muni-
cipal take-over, consolidation of routes, and new equipment, the
system could operate without deficit in 1975, as the figure on the

following page indicates. The figures have proved to be wishful

thinking. In an article in the Kalamazoo Gazette in April, 1972,

 

the present plight of the system was described. The City has
spent in the last year approximately one -quarter of a million
dollars in subsidy to the transit system. Because of the large

subsidy, it has been necessary to cut back the number of routes

 

17Ibid., p. 28.

 

16

oo.oom.mow

oo.oom.mv»

oo.omm>oam
Aoo.ome.eeflw0
Aoo.wme.eeflw.
Aoo.omw.hvflwv
Aoo.mmm.eem0
Aoo.mmm.emwv

 

. AmmOAV m0 BHhomm

00.0m.
oo.om
oo.mN
oo.va
om.NH
NV.NH
mm.ofl
om.vm

 

mBHmau mmm meHm

oo.ooo.omm~dw
oo.oom.mMH~Hw
o.omn.mwmw.

oo.ooo.oenw
oo.mem.omom
oo.emv.omom
00.0mm.dmew
oo.oom.~n~w

 

mmzmmxm

oo.oom.odm.am
oo.oom.amd.flm

oo.ooe.mmmw
oo.owm.memm
oo.mmo.mamw
oo.wmm.momw
oo.meo.wwm»
oo.m~m.mm~»

mzoozim

 

ooo.omm.v
ooo.oem.m
ooo.omn.~
ooo.mom.a ..
ooe.ema.fl
ome.paa.a
mmm.nnm
mmfl.emm.fl

 

mmmozmmmem

mozmma mmmmmxm oza mzoozH

ooo.eva
ooo.mma
ooo.oHH
oom.mm
ooo.Ho
ooo.om
oom.wm
ooo.am

 

 

mmfimmfi mmwzmmmdm

ZOHPmQDAOA

mama.

ommfi
mhmd
chad
memd
mead
head
mmmH

mew»

mmmd
ommH
moon

.ome

mwmm

.memd

bean
mmmH

 

Mdmw

 

 

 

17

within the system and to increase the fares. This will undoubtedly
cause further deterioration of the situation. Although patronage has
gone up at a rate of 3% per annum, the cost for operation has
exceeded the gains made through increased ridership. The subsidy
figure for the year 1972 is expected to be $190, 000. Some decline

in the amount of subsidy is expected, however, as the school district
has an outstanding bill of $132, 000 as theresult of using the Metro

Transit System' s buses in the school desegregation plan. 18

Capital Area Transit Authority (Lansing)

 

In 1958 the Lansing Suburban Lines Inc. took over the city
bus operation from the defunct Inter -City Coach Company. The
Lansing Suburban Lines provided service within the Lansing city
limits and also served the city of East Lansing, the communities
of Haslett, Holt and Okemos and the subdivisions west of Lansing
in Delhi Township. The bus company owned eight buses and leased
eight others, while the City provided garage and shop facilities. 19

In 1964 the City of Lansing, under the 1964 Urban Mass
Transportation Act, made application for a capital improvement

grant, specifically for the purchase of new rolling stock. The

 

18Kalamazoo Gazette, April 16, 1972, p. B2.

19The State Journal, December 9, 1968, p. B1.

 

 

 

 

r.

18

application was approved, and the City became eligible to receive
$378, 600 for the purchase of eighteen buses, twelve new, and
expenses for contingencies. 2-

In March, 1968, seeking to establish a transit system
which was locally controlled, the management of the bus system
in Lansing was transferred from the Lansing Suburban Lines to
the Metro Lines Inc. However, even with the aid of a Tri -County
Regional Planning Agency report on Mass Transit, the Metro Lines
fell into debt. The Metro Lines asked the City of Lansing to sub-
sidize the operation of the system for $30, 000 in August, 1969, but
was turned down by the City Council. Instead of subsidizing the
operation, the City chose to set up a Lansing Metropolitan Trans-
portation Study Committee to investigate feasible alternatives for
the maintenance of a transit system in Lansing.

The study committee was greatly aided in their study of
mass transit by the Tri -County Report on Mass Transit which was
published in April, 1969. The Report, while serving as a planning
document, also had the function of fulfilling the planning require-
ments of the federal grant in aid for the purchase of new buses

which was made in 1964.

 

0City of Lansing: Application for Mass Transit Facilities

 

Grant, 1964, p. 1.
21

 

The State Journal, March 12,1968, p. A12.

 

 

 

 

19

The following recommendations were made in the Tri-

County Report:

"1.

2.

10.
ll.

12.

13.

Create a transit advisory committee.
Establish a transit Authority.
Consider future transit potential before initiating action.

Structure Routes to satisfy transit goals, policies and
standards.

Encourage operation of buses on the Washington Avenue
Mall.

Provide a commuter bus service to selected outlying com-
munities in the Tri -County Region.

Institute an express bus service.
Establish schedules which maximize convenience.
Establish an equitable fare structure.

Institute and maintain a comprehensive public relations
program.

Incorporate the various school bus systems into the local
bus system.

Apply for capital grants under the Federal Mass Transporta-
tion Act of 1964 regarding the purchase of capital goods
specified in the Transit Improvement Program.

Apply for a demonstration grant under the Federal Mass
Transportation Act of 1964 to bear operational costs
resulting from the implementation of the Improvement
Program. "22

 

22Mass Transit in the Tri-County Region, Tri -County

 

Regional Planning Agency, 1969, pp. 69-70.

 

 

C

20

Perhaps the most significant recommendation was that of creating
a transit authority. The Metropolitan Transportation Study Com-
mittee, formed in September, 1969, directed their efforts to
justifying bus service within the Lansing, area. The study com-
mittee in 1970 recommended the take-over of the present deficit-
plagued bus system. In April of 197 0 the City of Lansing acquired
the assets of the failing Metro Lines and turned over the operation
of the system to an interim management company, Capital Area
Transit Inc. The Capital Area Transit Inc. operation was sup-
ported by the City in its deficits until logical alternatives could be
reviewed for the creation of a Metropolitan Transit Authority.

A strike terminated all bus service in the Lansing area
from December 18, 1970, to April 28, 1971. The reason for the
length of the strike was not directly attributable to the demands of
the drivers but rather to the deficit of the operation and the unwill-
ingness of the City to contribute any more subsidies, preferring to
make expenditure in the investment of a Metropolitan Authority.

In April of 1971 the bus service in Lansing was under way
again. Perhaps the proposal for a one year property tax leviedat
the rate of 50¢ per $1, 000 valuation stirred the populace of the area

enough to move the City into action. With the aid of Model Cities

 

23The State Journal, April 29, .1970, p. C1.

 

 

 

21 .4

and a grant from the State Bureau of Transportation, the City had
enough money to put the system back in operation. The ostensible
reason for the Model Cities grant was to facilitate the movement of
the minority populace in the center of the Lansing area to shopping
centers and places of work throughout the City. The State Bureau
of Transportation grant was to be used for innovative techniques
such as exclusive bus lanes and express service. Henry Jollman,
who had initiated and operated the successful M. S. U. bus system,
was appointed the manager of the Lansing bus system. 24
The money which was to be used for innovative techniques
eventually was used for a rather dismal promotional campaign.
The idea of exclusive bus lane service was met with considerable
anger on the part of area merchants who feared that exclusive bus
lane service would eliminate convenience parking for their stores.
One idea did clearly emerge in the promotional campaign
and initial funding, and that was the creation of a bus loop to serve
the inner- city citizens. A search was set in motion to find a vehicle
which would be unique and economical to operate in that area. The
Model Cities Agency made an additional contribution of $43, 000 in
order to keep the system going when it became apparent that the

system might cease operation again.

 

2411010, April 28, 1971, p. C11

25mm, July 3, 1971.

 

 

22

On June 12, 1971, the Capital Area Transportation Authority
was organized bythe Regional Transportation Study Committee.

The initial proposal called for representatives from East Lansing,
Lansing, Delhi, DeWitt, Meridian, Windsor and Delta Townships.
Although there was some disagreement as to whether the Authority
should be a Department within the Lansing government or a regional
commission, the regional commission solution was the approach
chosen.

As a spur to the regional authority, the Federal government
approved two grants under the Mass Transit Demonstration Project
section of the 1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act. The first was
a $924, 000 facilities improvement package. By April 8, 1972, the
City expected to purchase six electric buses with a seating capacity
of twenty passengers. The other grant-in-aid came in April, 1972,
for a demonstration project to run exclusive routes on a no fare
basis. (The project as of yet has not gotten under way. )26

Although it may appear that the Lansing area is finally
under way in the provision of a mass transit system, especially
with the federal grants that were approved, the picture is deceiving.

Ever since the City-assumed operation of the system, and even

under the Operation of the Authority, the system has incurred a

 

2611111, April 8, 1972.

 

23

U

deficit of approximately $15, 000 per month. The deficit does not
eyen include the $80, 000 matching funds required from the City of
Lansing. In February, 1972, the City of Lansing voted to subsidize
the operation of the bus system from February 28 to June 30 for a

sum of $30, 000.27

Summary

 

All four bus systems that have been reviewed in this paper,
in addition to others in the State of Michigan, have the common
position of not being self - supporting.

There also appears to be a distinct pattern to all the moves

,3 and reorganization attempts by the cities in maintaining their transit
systems. The first step involves the study of selected routes and
route changes. This usually culminates in the initiation of broadened
service to outlying areas, which leads to higher maintenance costs
on the part of the transit operation. The next step involves applica-
tion for federal grants for new equipment, with the idea that better
service in the form of modern equipment will increase patronage.
Having failed to reverse the passenger ridership trend, the next
step is the creation of a Metropolitan Authority with the underlying

assumption that transit service is a public utility and ought to be

 

27Ibid. , February 28, 1972. "

. ‘ A

 

 

 

24

supported similar to other services which the city provides. After
the Authority has been established, success has not been met with.
All cities with transit facilities are eagerly awaiting the passage of
the Milliken plan which would allot a percentage of an increase in
the gas tax to metropolitan areas with transit systems.

The Milliken package to transit systems represents a
significant inroad into trying to solve the financing question of
public transit. But even with the State making substantial grants
to the cities for the operation of transit systems, one can' t help
but wonder if this represents still another failing step in trying to
retain the system, when in fact it should have been dropped some
time ago.

The current financial need of the systems reviewed in this
paper based on 1971 figures are as follows (note these are operating
costs only and do not include payments which the cities must make
as part of a grant -in -aid package with the State or Federal govern-
ments):

Operating 'Losses Needed
to Be Subsidized 1972

Lansing $150, 000 to $200, 000
Kalamazoo - $190, 000
Flint ' $200, 000

Muskegon ' $150, 000

 

 

25

The figures for the continuation of transit service in the above
areas have taken on great importance in the minds of people '
because the amount needed to subsidize a transit system is
certainly far below the $500, 000 per mile of highway construction.
However, it must be remembered that transit service within each
of these cities accounts for but a small percentage of the total
trips made by persons in the area. Highways when properly linked
and constructed can and do account for more than 95% of all trip

making in the areas.

 

 

CHAPTER 2

SUBSIDIZATION OF TRANSIT

Introduction

 

The preceding chapter has cited the need for the
subsidization of public transit in Michigan. If money is to be
provided for municipal systems. the first step will necessarily
be” in the adoption of the legal mechanisms for funding at the state
level. It is the intent of this chapter to analyze some of the more
pertinent state legislation throughout the country on subsidization
of public transit facilities. This analysis will begin with a review
and critique of present legislation outside the State of Michigan
and culminate in a detailed analysis of the present legislation before
the Michigan Legislature on subsidization for transit systems
(Senate Bill 1071 and 1072).

In a recent issue of the Urban Lawyer Roeseler and Levi

 

found that thirty-two out of fifty states now have pertinent legisla-
tion concerned directly with the protection of public transportation

in metropolitan areas. Of these thirty -two states, twenty -one were

26

m

27

found to have provided for direct financial subsidies, while others
provided some. form of indirect assistance.28 The forms of those
subsidies vary greatly from state to state and encompass every
method of taxation, individual or multiple based. California, for
example, uses a combination of a sales tax and a real estate tax
with a prescribed millage limitation. The taxes in California are
assessed within transit districts which may be established through-
out the state by the state legislature. In addition, ad hoc taxes for
specific periods may be levied to underwrite such major capital
investments as construction of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System
in San Francisco. 29 In Oregon, a payroll tax is used for the same
purpose. 30 In Massachusetts a special cigarette tax was levied
five years ago for the purpose of underwriting transportation
systems. 31 The majority of states with legislation on public transit
usually provide for tax exemption for the systems, similar to
Michigan, or provide, for rebates to local transit authorities from

highway user taxes or sales taxes. Legislation by and large is

 

28The Urban Lawyer, "State Subsidies for Transit, "

Roeselar, p. 59.
29

 

Cal.'Pub. Utilities Code 29140 (West Supp. 1971).

3OOre. Rev. Stats. 267.385 (Repl. Pt. 1969).

31Mass. Ann. Laws Ch. 25B (Supp. 1971).

28

responsive to individual crisis situations, providing for financial
relief or metropolitan reorganization of the transit management.
Perhaps the most complete transportation subsidy and bureaucratic
management package in contrast to most legislation is that found
in New Jersey. In New Jersey the state has provided for an all-
purpose transportation tax administered by a transportation depart-
ment which includes the state highway department. 32

Perhaps the most appropriate and equitable method of
providing support for public transit systems directly is the "high '.
way uSer' 3 tax, " which has not been used to date. In its broadest
form the highway user' 5 tax includes fuel taxes, taxes on specific
roads and bridges, personal property taxes on motor vehicles,
license taxes, truck taxes and fees, and other tax levies relating
directly to the use of vehicles on the public highway network. The
highway user' 5 tax is based on the theory that the users should pay
for the construction and maintenance of the basic system. Indeed
this is sound in theory, but usually the monies already collected
within those categories mentioned are preempted for other uses.
It is obvious that public transit relates directly to public trans-
portation systems and should be entitled to a fair share of highway

user subsidies. But it is indicative of the highly political nature of

 

32N. J. Stat. Ann. 54:8A (Supp. 1971) (Commuters

Income Tax) .

29

the field of legislation relating to auto transportation that there has
been to date no, meaningful redistribution of highway user tax
revenues necessary to underwrite the operating losses of urban
transit systems. '

The following more detailed reviews and critiques of
subsidization legislation in states outside of Michigan are presented
to serve as a framework for analyzing the recent proposal in
Michigan for an allotment of monies to transit systems based on a
percentage increase of motor fuel taxes. The reviews and critiques
are also included as they suggest meaningful alternatives to the
subsidization plan as proposed in Michigan.

Basically there are two distinct approaches by which the
individual state may seek to finance transit systems within its
borders. The first approach is that of creating metropolitan
districts or transit districts and empowering a governing body
within that district with certain taxing and/or bonding privileges
confined exclusively within that district. This approach is one
which shall be termed the "Local Finance Approach. " The other
approach which the state may initiate is one which seeks to finance
metropolitan transit districts through state funds, 1. e. , everyone '
within the state regardless of his residence is subject to a tax for

the transit districts. This approach shall be termed the "State

30

Finance Approach. " The Local Finance Approach is best typified
by the states of California and Louisiana, while the State Finance

Approach is typified in the states of Massachusetts and New Jersey.

The State Finance Approach

 

Massachusetts Bay Trans -
portation Authority

 

 

Boston is one of the oldest cities in terms of transit
development. In 1887 the largest horsecar railway system in the
country was in operation there. By 1887 the first subway in the
country was placed in service in Boston. Historically the area has
been a leader in transportation innovation and has consistently
maintained one of (the highest per capita patronage records in the
country. 33

Overall coordination of the transit systems in Boston first
came about with the establishment of the Metropolitan Transit
Authority in 1947. The area under the jurisdiction of the Authority
served Boston and thirteen surrounding cities and towns. The MTA,

however, had management problems and was plunged into debt,

reaching a high deficit of $20 million in 1960. The deficit in the

 

33A Survey of Mass Transit in 20 Major Cities, p. 36.

 

31

operation of the system was distributed by formula to the various
municipalities within the Authority.

In 1962 a $5. 4 million project supported by a two -thirds
federal grant was conducted in the Boston area to determine the
effect of various service, fare, station parking, and equipment
changes, particularly on the rail and bus feeder systems, for the
purpose of providing reliable information on long—and short-range
decisions regarding transportation planning and financing. 3

Encouraged by the findings, the state legislature formed .
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority with its jurisdiction
extended to cover 78 cities in the Boston region. The MBTA was
empowered to construct rapid transit lines, to coordinate the
various services of private bus companies, to make contracts for
the services or purchase of these private bus companies, to make
contracts with the commuter rail lines in the region for commuter
services and-to participate in the overall comprehensive transporta-
tion planning for the Boston Metropolitan Region. 36

A major feature of the enabling legislation for MBTA was

the authorization of a $225 million revenue bond issue supported by

 

3411616.. pp. 37-38.

3
5Report on Mass Transportation, Vol. 3, Bursley, p. 57.

 

36Ibid., pp. 61—63.

32

a statewide tax of two cents per pack on oigarettes. The money
from the cigarette tax is not only used today to retire the bond for
new construction but also for the multi -million dollar operating
deficit for railroad commuter service on 200 miles of routes serving
Boston. The method of financial support for the transit system in
Boston is unique in the country. New Jersey is the only other
example of where a statewide tax is used fOr transit systems.

The cigarette tax is used only for extension of present
services and to cover the deficit of commuter rail Operations;
therefore the MBTA was also given taxing power in the form of
state assessments to the seventy-eight memberICities, to cover the
debt incurred by transit systems other than rail. A complex formula
apportions different levels of assessments to different towns,
depending on the nature of the deficit. For example, all deficits
arising from debt service on former MTA facilities are paid only
by the original thirteen cities. Three-fourths of all debt service
is shared by the seventy -eight member towns and cities apportioned
according to the number ofcommuters living in each community

#5....“

and traveling to Boston or Cambridge; The remaining 25% is divided

 

3711616.. pp. 61-63.

33

among those communities having rapid transit systems in
proportion to the number of boarding passengers.
N9 city or town with rapid transit may vote to leave the

Authority. 3 9

New Jersey Department

 

of Transportation

 

The New Jersey plan for financing of mass transit systems
as of 1971 had yet to be. placed in effect, and therefore the success
of the plan is also yet to be determined. The plan, adopted in 1970,
is known as the Emergency Transportation Act of 1970. 40 The Act
specifies a minimum payment and a graduated income tax as the
source of money for the newly created Department of Transportation.
The minimum payment and graduated income tax is levied against
all_persons within the state who have a minimum income over $2, 000.
There are also standard deductions similar to those of the federal

income tax Which serve to lessen the tax on the individual in New

Jersey. 41 A unique feature of the legislation is that it also provides

 

38Ibid., p. 59.

39Annotated Laws of Massachusetts, c. 161A, Sec. 15.

40Annotated Laws of New Jersey, 54:8A-1.

41Ibid. , 54:8A-10.

 

 

34

for taxing of those individuals who use the transportation systems
of New Jersey and who live outside the state:

"The legislature finds and declares that a critical transporta-
tion problem exists in connection with transportation interstate
between this State and another State bordering thereon when
there is such number of daily commuters between said States
as to create a severe peak -load demand requiring facilities and
services, by any means or mode of transportation far in excess
of those needed for normal travel outside of usual commuter
hours, caused by the carrying on of activities in 1 of the States
by persons residing in another, from which activities such
persons derive income or gain from sources within the State
other than that in which they reside. The Legislature further
finds and declares that whenever the aggregate number of
persons residing in each of such States who are employed, or
carry on a trade, business, occupation or profession in the
other exceeds 100, 000, that fact reasonably indicates that a
critical transportation problem exists. "42

All the monies collected under the Emergency Transporta-
tion Act are placed in the Transportation Fund and relegated
according to the following specified purposes: to meet the cost of
administering the tax; to defray the cost of or provide financing of
transportation systems being rail, automotive or rapid transit
by advances, loans or otherwise; to make rebates of taxes to
persons entitled to such; and finally to make payments to other
states whose residents derive their income in New Jersey and have
their income subject to withholding in New Jersey, part of the with-

held tax being used for the Transportation Fund. 43

 

42Ibid. , 54:8A -5.

43Ibid. , 54:8A —20.

35

Critique of the State

 

Finance Approach

 

The greatest disadvantage of the State Finance Approach
is the inequity of the taxes levied. In New Jersey and Massachusetts
there are many areas which need improved transit systems, but the
majority of the states' population is isolated from those areas. The
question that must then be asked is: Is it equitable for the state to
levy a statewide tax for the purpose of subsidizing transit operations
in selected metropolitan areas? Needless to say, the passage of
this type of legislation was fought vigorously by the rural element
in the two states' respective legislatures. Only a vigorous promo-
tional campaign and political maneuvering allowed the passage of
the bills, and will undoubtedly be needed for any such legislation
in those states considering the passage of similar bills.

Another criticism of the State Finance Approach lies in the
type of taxes used to raise revenue for transportation operations.
Neither the Massachusetts plan with its cigarette tax nor the New
Jersey plan with an income tax fit the Old of a user's tax. Income
or the amount of cigarettes one purchases bears little relationship
to the use of transportation facilities. Ibelieve it could be more
effectively argued that the cigarette tax revenues should be placed
in the hands of the Massachusetts Health Department rather than

the Transportation Department.

36

Both tax plans do have the feature of being cgfivenient
methods. The payment of an additional sales tax on cigarettes
and additional income taxes on the state income tax free the
individual from filling out separate forms or even going out to
vote on the passage of a bond, although in some cases it would
become necessary. Additional bureaucratic departments are
kept to a minimum as the tax may be administered through
established departments within the state. The New Jersey plan
has not yet been tested; however the Massachusetts plan has

raised sufficient revenues.

The Local Finance Approach

 

San Francisco Bay Area

 

Rapid Transit District

 

Although the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District began with the Bay Area Metropolitan Rapid Transit
District Act of 1949, the financial scheme for the implementation
of a Bay Area Rapid Transit System was not provided until the
passage of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Act of 1957. The district as created under this act comprised
territory within five counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,

San Francisco, and San Mateo. As a regional public agency, the

37

District was given the responsibility of building and operating a
rapid transit system for the transportation of passengers.

The governmental functions of the District were vested in
a Board of Directors. Members of the Board were to be appointed
by mayors, city councilmen, and county supervisors Within the
District. To be appointed, members needed no more specialized
qualifications than to be a resident and registered to vote in the
county which they represented and be willing to serve a four year
term for less than lucrative compensation.

In order to carry out the avowed purpose of the District,
which was to establish and maintain a rapid transit system for the
San Francisco Bay Area, the Board was empowered with the follow-
ing wide powers by the state legislature: ”It may acquire, con-
struct, or use the rights of way of rail and bus lines, stations and
platforms, yards and parking lots and any and all other facilities
necessary or convenient for rapid transit service within or partly
without the district, underground or above ground. "45

To finance these activities the Board could, with the
approval of the county board of supervisors and three-fifths of the

voters of the District, issue general obligation bonds up to the

 

44Report on Mass Transportation, Vol. 2, Bursley, p. 30.

 

45Annotated Statutes Of California: Public Utilities, 28507.

 

38

amount approved provided the bonded indebtedness did not exceed
15% of the assessed valuation of property within the District; The
Board could assess and collect an annual tax. sufficient to pay
principal and interest on these bonds and to cover service of the
debt. The Board could also assess an additional tax of five cents
on each one hundred dollars of assessed valuation of taxable
property Within the District to cover expenses other than debt
service on its general obligation bonds. This tax was designed as
a supplement to the revenues expected from the operation of the
transit system and was therefore expressly limited to the actual
Operational requirements of the District. The Board could also
issue bonds to be financed out of anticipated revenues. It could
also issue equipment trust certificates for the purchase of rolling
stock, also to be financed out of future revenues. Finally, as the
fifth and final source of funds, the Board could even choose to issue

special assessment bonds.

Once the transit system was established, the revenues

‘ generated by its rates and service charges were to pay the costs

of operation, repairs, depreciation, maintenance, new rolling

stock, and debt service. The Board set ticket charges accordingly,

 

461bid. , 28950.

39

the only statutory limitation being that ”the rates shall be
reasonable. ”47

I The BART system had a final cost of approximately
$1. 5‘ billion. The State Legislature under the powers specified
above allowed the District to levy a one -half of one percent .retail’
SESLLB’.‘ in the counties of San Francisco, Contra Costa, and
Alameda. 48 The property tax assessment necessary to retire the
general obligation bonds was levied at a rate of 60¢ per $100
assessed valuation. 49 In addition to these sources of revenue, the

5¢ per $100 additional property tax assessment was used to pay for

the administration and staffing costs. 50

New Orleans Public

 

Service Corporation

 

The City of New Orleans, located near the mouth of the
Mississippi River, has few east-west transportation corridors but
many north -'south corridors. Recently the city began a $52, 000

feasibility study for a rail rapid transit system serving the central

 

47Ibid., 28950.

 

48Bursley, Vol. 2, p. 34.

49Ibid., p. 35.

solbid” pp. 35-36.

40

business district and the airport. Public transportation in the city
has been provided by the New Orleans Public Service Corporation
which, in addition to being the governing authority of public trans-
portation, is also responsible for all public utilities in the city.
The public transportation system in New Orleans in 1970 consisted
of some 480 buses and 35 streetcars. Some former trolley-car
rights of way in the wide medians of New Orleans' downtown streets
have been converted into exclusive bus lanes, providing the central
city an exceptionally good passenger distribution system.

The fares in New Orleans are ten cents, with a fifteen
cent fare on eXpress trips. The ability of the system to maintain a
low fare is directly attributable to the unique manner of transit
finance. The system is run by the New Orleans Public Service
Corporation, an investor owned utility company, which provides in
addition to transit service gas and electric service in New Orleans.
The ordinance governing the utilities operation recognizes that,
although the company provides three services, it is a single entity.
Accordingly, net income is computed on total operations rather than

separately on each Operation. It is further recognized that transit

 

51A Survey of Mass Transit in 20 Major Cities, p. 68.

 

41

is not self -supporting and is in effect subsidized by revenues from

the electric and gas operations. 52

Critique of the

 

Local Finance Approa ch

 

Perhaps the greatest problem involved with the subsidiza-
tion plan as used in California is the reliance on pub_l_i_c_ support in
order to effectuate the funding for the planning and construction
of mass transit systems. A two -thirds .majority of the persons
living. within the transit district is needed to approve the financing.
plan within the transit district. It is obvious that two -thirds of the
people within any district do not need to rely on a mass transit
system, and therefore progress is made only after a careful and
well -funded promotional campaign for mass transit. The problem
of public support is clearly shown in the San Francisco Area by the
fact that San Mateo and Santa Clara counties,“ in organizing transit

districts which would'eventually link up with BART, had voters turn

53

down referendums for the financing of the proposed transit system.
It is also quite evident that the California plan and the

New Orleans operation do not fit the mold of financing transit

 

52Ibid., pp. 69-70.

53Bursley, Vol. 3, p. 40.

42

systems through a users' tax as previously mentioned. In
California the property tax and sales tax do not have any reason-
able connection with public transportation except insofar as possible
increase in value of property and increased retail trade. These
are at best obscure benefits. The relationship is better in the New
Orleans plan because one can see the relationship of transportation
with other public utilities, 1. e. , the transportation of people is

a public service as much as the providing of electric and gas
service.

Another of the disadvantages of the local finance approach
is the cumbersome bureaucratic organization which must be
created to administer the financing of the local operation. The New
Orleans approach surmounts the bureaucratic problem by combin-
ing the administration of the utilities with the transit operation;
however, this is not the case with San Francisco, which must have
the "additional" bureaucracy which carries out the financing
operation.

Among the chief advantages of the local finance approach
is its equitability. In the State Finance Approach, everyone within
the state is assessed a tax whether he benefits from the transit
operation or not. The Local Finance Approach, by confining the

various taxes within the area where the transportation problem

43

occurs, better relates the support of the transit system to those
who will be involved with it.

The Local Finance Approach also has the ability to
respond to new financial demands for the local transit system.

The State Finance Approach usually involves a fixed rate of
taxation, where the monies collected are placed in a fund and the
money is distributed either on the basis of population, or route
miles of service, or number of passengers. The State Finance
Approach does not have the ability to quichly respond to a change
in people's desire for service, different transit systems, or
innovative techniques.

Another advantage of the local finance approach is that
the raising of funds is usually under a scheme which provides
dependable revenues. Revenues received from electric and gas
service in New Orleans are definitely a dependable source of
income. The sales tax in California used for. transit funding has
also proven to be very dependable. If one source of revenue is
not dependable, it is the property tax used in California. The dis-
advantage of the property tax lies in the often faulty method of .
assessment of value of property, the reliance on individual initiative
to pay the tax, and the administration of the tax, which is often too

cumbersome in proportion to the service it renders.

44

The Michigan Proposal:
Senate Bills 1071 and 1072

 

 

The first Michigan State Legislative initiative which
reflected the state' s_ concern for the deterioration of public transit
throughout the state was the passage of the Metropolitan Trans-
portation Authorities Act of 1967. Under this Act, a Regional
Transportation Authority could be established by the majority vote
of the board of supervisors of contiguous counties which share a
metropolitan area. 54 In 1971, the Act was amended to allow for
the creation of Authorities through the participation of munici-
palities.

Under the Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act
the Regional Authority was delegated the following powers:

"Authorities under this Act shall plan, acquire, construct,

operate, maintain, replace, improve, extend and contract for
public transportation facilities. An Authority is a public benefit
agency and instrumentality of the state with all the powers of

a public corporation, for the purpose of planning, acquiring,
constructing, operating, maintaining, improving and extending
public transportation facilities, and for controlling, operating,
administering, and exercising the franchise of such trans-
portation facilities, if any, including charter operations as
acquired. "55

One prohibited power is that of taxation or of pledging the

credit or taxing power of the state. 56 Money for the financing of

 

5‘IEPublic Acts of the State of Michigan, Act No. 204, 1967.

55Ibid., Sec. 3.

56Ibid., Sec. 14.

 

 

45

the transit authorities could only come from fares, tolls, rents,

or contributions from the various political entities participating
within the authority. State help in financing came only in the form
of indirect assistance. Regional Authorities are exempt from all
state taxes. Previous to the passage of the bill, the majority of
the transit operations in the state were privately owned and were
taxed as private corporations. Many of the transit operations were
owned by corporations which were located outside of Michigan, and
with the passage of this bill municipal take-over was hastened.

The bill also specifically established the Southeastern
Michigan Transportation Authority and invested it with all the
powers of other Transportation Authorities, including the right to
assert its jurisdiction ten miles beyond the territorial limits of
the specific political entities participating in the authority. 57

The Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act of 1967
did provide for needed consolidation of transit elements within the
various metropolitan areas, but it did not solve the most critical
problem of financial transit operations. While routes and service
were coordinated on a regional basis, passenger revenue still

declined. Only'contributions from the federal government and the

participating counties and municipalities financed the operating costs.

 

57Ibid., Sec. 5.

C:

46

The solution to the problem of finance and the need for
subsidization of public transit as sketched in Chapter One of this
paper ultimately embodied itself in Michigan State Senate Bills
1071 and 1072. .

The Senate Bill 1071 establishes a State Discretionary
WWithin the State Treasury. The discretionary fund is to be
used by the office of Urban and Public Transportation, to be
created by executive order within the Department of State Highways.
The funds are to be specifically. used for providing the means of
solving transportation problems in urban areas at the lowest
economic and social cost. Only those urban areas which have an
established Transportation District and Transportation Authority
as defined by the Metropolitan Transportation Act of 1967 are
eligible. In addition, the urban area must have a population of
50, 000, including fringe areas which must have 1, 000 persons per
square mile.

The objectives of the expenditures from the discretionary
fund include eliminating the congestion on public roads through the
increased use of public transit, provision for improvements to.
county roads‘and additions to the state trunkline systems. In

addition, the following objectives are stated:

 

58Senate Bill No. 1071, 3288*; 71, State of Michigan.

47

"(A) Providing increased access to jobs, education, recreation
and other cultural and social activities through public
trapsportation.

(B) Encouraging desirable economic development in urban
' areas. -

(C) Encouraging in urban areas proper land utilization and
enhancement of the environment.

(D) Creation and preservation of public transportation services
determined to be efficient means of meeting transportation
requirements in urban areas. ”59
The importance of public transit over the auto is clearly

shown in the priorities for the expenditures of funds. The highest
prigrity is for the payment of debt service and retirement of bonds
sold by transportation authorities within the state for the purpose
of financing the construction or acquisition of public transportation
facilities. The second priority is for the payment of operating and
capital facility costs of state aid transit corridor systems. The
third priority is for funding of programs designed to improve the
efficiency of systems or concepts for public transportation in the
urban areas.

Funding for transit authorities or governmental units is

to be determined under the bill on the basis of transit vehicle miles.

 

59Ibid., p'. 4.

601922., p. s.

48

A transit vehicle mile is defined in the bill as a transit vehicle,

meaning a bus, rapid transit car, or railroad passenger car,

operated for a distance of one route mile whether on a paved road

or fixed rail or rails. The following regulations further govern

the distribution of monies from the discretionary fund:

”1.

The number of route miles in the state aided transit
corridor system (public transportation routes) of each
eligible authority or municipality shall not exceed the
urban trunkline mileage within each urban area as set

forth in the latest report of the Department of State High-
ways or 1/2 the urban trunkline mileage plus 12 miles for
each 250, 000 population within applicable urban areas,
whichever is greater. The rate of payment to an eligible
authority or municipality shall be based upon actual operat-
ing costs but not to exceed $1. 00 per transit vehicle mile
or $20, 000 per approved corridor route mile as determined
by the department.

The number of transit vehicle miles in the state aid transit
corridor system shall be based on the frequency of public
transportation in the state aid corridor system as developed
and approved by the eligible authority or municipality
subject to the following guidelines:

a. Public transportation service less than hourly and for
w a period less than 10 hours each weekday is not
eligible.

b. Scheduled public transportation service which produces

" ' less than an average ridership of 25 passengers miles
per transit vehicle mile in the peak direction and hour
and an average ridership of 10 passenger miles per
transit vehicle for the remaining hours of service is
not eligible.

Payments for public transportation are based on service
actually rendered. Advances from the state transportation
discretionary fund against projected costs and services

49

may be made to eligible authorities or municipalities 9.9

a quarterly basis. The state transportation discretionary

fund may also be used to provide part of the capital facility

costs of a state aid transit corridor system. "61

Senate Bill 1072 provides the means for the collection of
mOnies for the Transportation Discretionary Fund. The Bill
pr/gposfies _the levying of an 8. 3 cents per gallon tax on all gasoline
sold or used in producing or generating power for propelling motor
vehicles upon the public roads. This MrepreSentsman increase of
1. 3 cents over the present state gasoline tax of 7 cents. The
increase in tax is to be administered in the same manner, except '
that 1/2cfievnt ofgthe increase will'be placed in the Transportation
Discretionary Fund. The remainder of the increase will be placed
in the highway motor vehicle fund or distributed to the various
county highway commissions. Agencies or private owners of
vehicles which are used for passenger transportation and have a
capacity of 10 or more persons are eligible for a 2 cent rebate on

the gasoline tax. 62

Critique of the Michigan Proposal

 

(The Michigan proposal bears'a striking resemblance to

the taxation plan for public transit as adopted in Massachusetts.

 

611b1d.. pp. 7-8.

62Senate Bill No. 1072, 32 87"" 71, State of Michigan.

50

The difference between the plans, besides a state assessment to
each of the metropolitan areas in the Massachusetts plan, is'the
tax that is levied in Michigan is on the sale of gas rather than
cigarettes. The Michigan proposal, however, comes closer to
the concept of a user' 3 tax in that the tax is directly related to the
use of transportation facilities. However, it should also be noted
that many of the taxes that are acquired through licensing, tolls,
and vehicle tax are preempted for the construction of highways
exclusively. The increase in gas tax for the subsidization of transit
facilities is at best a meager attempt at supporting transit systems
by a user' 8 tax.

Perhaps the greatest objection to the Milliken proposal
lies in the fact that the approach taken for financing the transit
system is a Statewide Approach rather than a Local Approach such
as used in San Francisco. The rural elements in the State,
particularly in the less densely populated areas of the Upper
Peninsula, have Opposed the tax because it taxes them for a
service that they will never take advantage of. It is surprising
that many citizens of the metropolitanareas outside of the Detroit
area are Opposed to the proposal based on the assumption that the
tax is one which will benefit only the Detroit area.

The framework used in the following evaluation is that

which was used by Adam Smith in the evaluation of tax plans over

51

two centuries ago. Adam Smith' 3 evaluation is particularly
valuable here in that the criteria for evaluation are universal
economic principles not limited either to the collecting or distri-
bution of monies. Thus a very broad critique is possible. The
criteria are as follows:

-Equitability--Are the individuals or companies taxed fairly
with respect to the benefits to be derived from the
- expenditure of the collected monies?

‘ Certainty--Is the source of the tax one which will supply a
dependable and constant source of monies over the years
which it is to be collected?

Convenience--Does the tax structure allow the individual or
company to pay the tax in a way which will not require
tedious paperwork on his part? Does the tax structure

a create additional and overlapping bureaucratic agencies?

Economy--Is the tax plan one which raises revenues which
meet the need and does not overly tax creating surplus
revenues. Does the tax plan create any diseconomies?

/'
/

Adequacy--Does the tax plan generate enough monies to meet
the need?

Equitability

 

The question of equitability has already been touched upon.
It is obvious that an increase in the gas tax to finance the operating
deficit of mass transit systems, and for the construction of new
systems, benefits those persons living in metropolitan areas with

a population of over 50, 000. Although the bill for aid to transit

52

passed the State House of Representatives, the bill has been
retained in the, Senate Highway Committee in an attempt to solve

the problem of equitability. One of the more meaningful and
considered amendments to the bill was advanced recently by

Sen. Alvin Degrow, Republican—- Pigeon. The amendment would
allow county commissioners who want mass transit to enact the
proposed gasoline hike. Those who did not wish to enact the pro-
posal could ignore it. Allowing individual counties to accept or
reject the proposal has two outstanding deficiencies. The first is.
that allowing counties their own choice means that overall revenues
will be less from the tax increase, [and it would therefore be neces-
sary to find other means of raising revenues or to raise the gasoline
tax once again. The second deficiency is the fact that a mass
transit system is by its nature a regional concept. Allowing indi-
vidual counties to decide their own participation would seriously
jeopardize the regional concept, and would nOt allow for effective

coordination of trip making.

Certainty

The sales tax that has been levied on gasoline at the rate
of 793 per gallon has proved itself as a stable source of money for

the construction of new highways. Projections for auto ownership

53

Show a continued increase. The proposal for a levy on gasoline
will be a stable source of income in much the way as the past tax

used for the Highway Fund.

Convenience

 

Any sales tax frees the individual consumer from needless
paper work or accounting, which is the responsibility of the retailer
of the goods, in this case the gas station manager.

In some cases a sales tax levy dOes call for additional
bureaucratic agencies to collect and administer the sales tax.
However, as the mechanism for collecting and allocating the gasoline
tax has already been established in Michigan, the only additional
bureaucratic addition that will be needed will be the personnel
required to distribute the collected monies to the various metro—
politan areas. Thus the proposal for an increase in gasoline tax
to subsidize transit systems is convenient from the standpoint of

the consumer and from the viewpoint of governmental efficiency.

Economy and Adequacy

 

The Michigan proposal for subsidization states that a '
route of service is not eligible for grants —in-aid if the route pro-

duces less than ten passengers per vehicle mile. Under such a

54

limitation, most of the routes in the cities reviewed would not be
eligible for funding because the average passengers per vehicle
mile is approximately two. Exceptions are granted under the plan
for funding to the areas that do not meet the ridership requirement.
Therefore the initial impact of the proposal will not be to subsidize
the losses incurred from the operation of the system but rather in
meeting capital expenditures for improvement of the transit
facilities.

It is interesting to note that Lansing, which Operated
approximately 1, 000, 000 miles of transit service, would be
eligible for $1, 000, 000 in aid if it were not for the stipulation on
passengers per vehicle mile. This figure would more than cover
losses incurred by running the system.

Perhaps one of the disadvantages, aside from the passenger
stipulation as noted above, is the fact that even if the standards were
lowered to allow funding for systems which operate with less than
five passengers per vehicle mile, the funding process would be
subject to wide variations. Variations in the routes and miles of
service are common. It would be necessary to work out an average
figure for transit vehicle miles if the system is to be funded previous

to its quarterly period of operation.

55

r’
I

i Summary

 

The proposal before the Senate fails in three respects:
equitability, economy and adequacy. The tax that is levied on the
people is disproportionate to the advantages that each individual
could choose to receive. The amount of money placed into the
discretionary fund is useful only to the Detroit area, where
ridership is high enough to meet the stipulated qualifications for
funding. Those metropolitan areas outside of Detroit could
receive money only by being granted special exceptions and also
through the grants for capital improvements. (There is every
indication that metropolitan areas which fail to meet the passenger
per mile stipulation will be granted money under the exception
clause within the bill.)

The tax plan is acceptable with respect to the certainty
of funds to be collected and also in regard to convenience of paying
the tax.

The transit aid program as discussed has severe pitfalls,
especially in the areas of finance and equitability. The next
chapter will attempt to make specific recommendations for the

elimination of these failings.

CHAPTER 3

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

AND FINANCE

Introduction

 

The last two chapters have cited the need for monies to
subsidize the transit systems in Michigan and the ineffective
proposal before the State for their financing. This chapter sets
forth two recommendations: (1) A proposal for the reduction of
operatingicosts of the systems, which would thus reduce the
subsidy to the systems; and (2) a more realistic subsidization
plan.

The operating components of a public transit system,
particularly bus systems, may be divided into the following areas:
scheduling of service, encompassing not only the number and
running times of the transit vehicles, but also the routes on which
there would be service; and the scheduling of operators for the
transit vehicles themselves, which is otherwise known as ”run-

cutting. " Within each of these areas the author feels that significant

56

57

improvements may be made, reducing the deficits incurred by the
Operation of the transit systems in Michigan.

Even with improvements within the areas Specified above,
money will be needed for the acquisition 'of new transit equipment,
and an additional sum is needed to offset operating deficits. The
proposal before the State Senate, although it would raise enough
revenues to pay for equipment and operations, would not distribute

money to metropolitan areas outside of Detroit to pay for those items.

Therefore a more realistic and equitable plan is herein proposed.

System Improvements

 

An Often cited advantage of buses is their ready flexibility,
since they are not confined by permanently installed rails or wires.
However, there has been a reluctance on the part of transit manage-

ment to take full advantage of this flexibility in making large-scale

 

route changes. This reluctance often stems in part from a hesitancy
to modify long —standing traditional routes, many of which are suc-
cessors to former streetcar lines. Another reason given is the
shortage of an ongoing transit planningjfunction within the system
stemming from economy moves. Also, fears have been eXpressed
that the disruption of existing travel habits combined with a poorly

conceived plan might cause further patronage losses.

58

It seems reasonable, however, that systemwide routing
changes would be appropriate in many cases. Certainly all the
urban areas reviewed have undergone substantial change in recent
years. The downtown areas which were once the focal points of
transit service have seriously declined, and many of the shopping
and employment activities have moved outward from the center of
the urban area to fringe areas. Systematic routing changes, based
on demands for public transit throughout the metropolitan area,
would enable transit companies to increase patronage and incur
less deficit in their operation.

The investigation of alternative routes and service
schedules has been undertaken and proved to be a success by the
private consulting firm of Alan M. Voorhees. The basic technique
used by the consulting firm was the development of a series of
computer simulations under a Housing and Urban Development
grant. The computer simulations, referred to as the HUD Planning
Programs, by providing a representation of the existing transit
system on an urban road network, allow the rapid determination of
travel paths in any given system, the development of patronage.
estimates for each line and segment of the system, and the genera—

tion of a variety of useful quantitative data such as travel speeds,

59

hours, miles of operation, and service frequency requirements.

Some of the more detailed data outputs of the operations
analysis included within the HUD Transit Planning Programs are
the times required for walking and waiting, the differing service
frequencies on the various transit lines, the co -existence of
multiple transit lines on a single street, the reluctance of transit
patrons to transfer between lines, and the reliance of some transit
patrons on feeder service by automobiles.

The output data is not only important in the sense of pro- .
viding analysis data for transit systems, but also because the whole
package of programs being done under a Federal grant is public
property and thus may be acquired and used by any citizen or transit
agency, the only limitation being the necessary computer knowledge

to run the package.

HUD Transit Planning Programs

 

The Washington, D. C. , area was used as a test case for
the HUD Transit Planning Programs. The Washington, D. C. case
clearly points out the applicability of the programs and the benefits

that may be derived for any transit systems.

 

3
Urban Mass Transit Planning Project: Technical Report
#6, Volume II, Voorhees and Associates, 1968, pp. 1-23.

64

 

 

A Systems Analysis of Transit Routes and Schedules,
Voorhees and Associates, 1969, p. x.

 

60

The early stages of the D. C. study consisted of gathering
and processing data for the analysis. This involved two sets Of
data. One was an accurate description of the current travel patterns
by patrons of the D. C. Transit System. “(As far as applicability to
Michigan transit systems, it has already been mentioned that all
the cities reviewed have this data available in report form.) For
the D. C. study the information was gathered by a passenger origin—
destination study which described inbound and outbound trips.

The second set of data consisted of the current operating
characteristics of the D. C. Transit System. This included route
locations, bus headways, bus speeds, Operating “cost data, and field
counted passenger volumes. (This information is available for those
cities previously reviewed as examples of transit systems in Michi-
gan.) The first three of these items served as inputs for repre-
senting the current D. C. Transit network in the computer format
required by the computer programs. Using the travel pattern data,
this simulated network was then calibrated, i. e. , the various
parameters and options of the programs were adjusted until the
passenger volumes and other characteristics agreed satisfactorily

with known actual cOnditions. 66

 

65Ibid. , pp. 7 -16.

66Ibid. , pp. 23 -27.

E?

{Q

61

In addition to the two basic data sets described above, it
was also desired to develop the ability to closely estimate the daily
cost of operating the system. Although the cost calculations included
within the HUD Transit Planning Programs proved to be inadequate,
other items provided proved to be indispensable to an independently
developed cost estimating model. This cost model was prepared
using actual D. C. Transit cost experience. Application of the model
relied on such values produced by the HUD Programs as route miles,
running times for each line, and required buses for each line. The
model was also calibrated to satisfactorily represent the actual
results. 67 '

The completion of the two data sets and cost formulation
led to the conclusion that it was indeed possible to accurately simu-
late the operation of an actual transit system using the HUD programs.
It then followed that the effect of modifications of the existing system
could likewise be simulated. Each modificatiOn is, in effect, an
alternate system. The remainder of the D. C. study was devoted to
postulating and testing several alternatives and selecting the one
that would provide substantially improved service at no increase and,

hopefully, a reduction in total operating costs. 68

 

67Ibid., pp. 39-42.

68
Ibid., pp. 45-47.

‘3

t"

62

The HUD Transit Planning Programs in themselves cannot
provide a revised bus route schedule. The Programs test each
alternative route proposed and build upon successive ones from the
experience gained. In the D. C. study two different alternatives
were postulated and analyzed, leading to a third and final system
termed the ”Optimum System. "

To assist in alternative development, routes in the D. C.
study were classified into the three basic categories of radial,
crosstown, and feeder, and the function of each of these three kinds
of routes was taken into account. A number of routing and operating
criteria were established which included the provision of route
simplicity, the avoidance of large terminal loops on transit lines,
and the avoidance of long, complex routes. An important criterion
used requred the maintenance or reduction of existing operating
cost levels. The peculiar characteristics of specific subareas and
corridors served by the D. C. Transit System-were studied to gain
insight into possible route improvements, using both the travel
pattern data and the system characteristics obtained in the simula-
tion methods. Special attention was given to crosstown travel.
Routes extending" into Maryland were carefully analyzed, since many
Of the franchise and regulatory difficulties which had affected the

original design of those routes no longer existed. 69

 

69Ibid., pp. 45—47.

63

Each of the alternative routes was processed together with
the travel pattern data using the HUD Transit Planning Programs.
The cost model was then applied to obtain operating costs for each
of the alternative systems. The principal bases for evaluation were
comparisons between each alternative and the existing system of
total door -to -door travel times, numbers of transfers, and operating
costs. These evaluations led ultimately to the development of the
Optimum System for which these comparisons were made in even
greater variety and detail. 70 '

In addition to overall system comparisons, a feature of the
HUD Transit Planning Programs permitted the examination of the
effects of the system on individual analysis zones in the served area.
Thus it was possible to pinpoint precisely those zones in which
transit users would be benefited in terms of travel time or transfers
required, those zones in which these characteristics would be
essentially unchanged, and those few zones where users would be
disadvantaged by the proposed system.

The Optimum System embodied the best elements of all

previously considered alternative systems and the existing system.

For all three of the principal bases of evaluation—~travel time,

 

70Ibid., pp. 57 -86.

C}

64

transfers required, and operating costs-—the Optimum System
proved superior to the existing system. The following summarizes
some of the more significant findings in comparing the Optimum
System to the existing system:

a. Travel time reduced for 26% of peak riders and lengthened
fOI‘ 9%‘70.

b. Travel time reduced for 25% of midday riders and
lengthened for 8%.

c. Number of peak trips involving transfers reduced 12%.
d. Number of midday trips involving transfers reduced 17%.

e. Number of peak trips involving more than one transfer
reduced 37%. 71

Results from the application of the cost model indicated
that there would be a 1. 7% decrease in daily operating costs (from
$61, 312 to $60, 251) for the Optimum System as contrasted to the
existing system. Thus the goal of reducing operating costs was met.
Furthermore, the number of buses required for peak hour of opera-
tion was reduced 4. 7%, which suggested that there was even a
greater chance for reduction of operating cost.

On the basis of the above improvements it was felt that the

Optimum System and the HUD Transit Planning Programs were

 

71Ibid., p. xiii.

721bid., p. xiv.

65

successful. Although many of those involved in transportation
systems planning do not now have the computer knowledge to test
and duplicate the efforts by the Voorhees firm, it is believed that
significant advantages may be gained from the programs' use.
Presently, bus systems contract a transit study out to private firms
which do not have the computer resources to enable them to run a
full scale operations analysis as briefly sketched here. As has
been mentioned in the first chapter, several of the reviewed cities
in Michigan have made minor route and service changes based on

a private consulting firm' 5 recommendations. However, these
changes usually reflect the linking up of major commercial centers
and employment centers, without a detailed knowledge of both the
level of demand for transit service and the Operating costs that
would be incurred by the route and service changes. Therefore,
the use of the HUD programs, especially at the State or regional
level where computer services are available, ‘would allow a more
definitive investigation in transit systems for the respective metro-

politan areas. Thus an ongoing planning function for transit systems

might be established.

Elias' Run-Cutting Model

 

The Voorhees computer package could not create an exact

estimate of costs of operation because it did not take into account

0

p

66,

the cost of labor, 1. e. , the costs of the transit vehicle operators.

In 1968, just after the Voorhees model was developed, Dr. S. Elias
of West Virginia University was given a federal grant from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The grant was
used for the development of a computer program which would

assign the operators of a transit vehicle in an optimal way so as to
reduce overtime and undertime costs, thus reducing the daily
Operating deficit of a transit company. Previous to the development
of the Elias computer model, operators' schedules were constructed
manually. The manual construction, which could not take into
account all cost variables, resulted in large penalty payments to

the vehicle Operators.

Dr. Elias' model, developed and published in The Develop-

 

ment of a Mathematical Model for the Optimizing of the Assignment

 

of Man and Machine: "Run —Cutting" in Public Transit, is a relatively

 

simple and straightforward model. As in all models, it sets out to
represent the real world, in this case a bus system, in a series of
mathematical equations and computer manipulations.

Basically the bus system is conceived of as a series of

routes which traverSe the metropolitan area. Along each of the

 

73The Development of a Mathematical Model for Optimizing

the Assignment of Man and Machine, Elias, 1966, pp. 1-3.

 

 

67

routes run a finite number of buses at times based on demand.
Each of the buses on a particular route is designated a block '
number. The block number is assigned to each of the buses
regardless of the number of times the bus traverses its particular
route, or the direction it travels. The block number of the bus is
similar to the flight number of an aircraft in that it identifies the
particular vehicle on a route. Thus by assigning a number to each
of the routes and a block number to each of the buses on the route,
the system may be defined for all the vehicles.

With the transit system so defined, the next step was to
identify the particular jobs the operators could perform within the
system. This perhaps was the most difficult part of the analysis.
The system as conceived by Elias definedthe job of the individual
operator as a series of pieces of work. The pieces of work were
the number of driving hours between the sign —on time of the
operator and his relief time, the hours between the relief points,
or the hours between his relief point and sign —off time. 75

Each route within the system had an infinite number of
potential relief times, e. g. , an operator of a particular bus may

be relieved at every block throughout the route. Obviously the

 

74Ibid., pp. 11-12.

7
5Ibid. , pp. 14-15.

68

situation with an infinite number. of potential relief times was
impractical: (1) a large number of relief times would give rise

to a large number of pieces of work with the result being many

paid and unpaid break periods; (2) a large number of pieces of work
would impair the manipulation of the large-amount of data, manually
or with the aid of the computer.

In order to overcome the problem of infinite potential
relief times, Elias resorted to heuristic programming (the selec-
tion of a set of significant variables from a universe of variables).
The justification for the heuristic approach lay primarily in the
reduction of variables and in the fact that heuristics, when applied
correctly, yields a comparably valid solution to that of using the
universe of variables. 77

The scheme for the selection of a significant set of relief
times from all possible times was based on two things: (1) any
piece of work less than two hours would result in penalty payments
(1. e. , a driver' 5 minimum pay for any piece of work either 20 minutes
or 100 minutes is two hours); (2) the total for all pieces of work for

the individual should be as close to eight hours as possible.

 

76Ibid., pp. 36-39.
771bid., pp. 36-37.

78Ibid., pp. 39—40.

69

. The scheme as adopted by Elias for the selection of relief

times and pieces of work is pictured below:

.. . ..-o- " Alternative one‘

 

I 3+ l'. ' 3+ I ' RCSidUC " ' I
I I . I .

Alternative two

 

 

I 4+ I 3+ ‘ ' Residue I
I I I
Alternative three _. . .’ . , g
-_ ‘ 5+ ‘ ’ ' . 3+ ' Residue
. #- . a ,1 . l

 

It is clear that by making runs as close to eight hours as
possible penalty payments due to undertime and overtime will be
minimized. It is also clear that a piece of work under two hours
will require penalty payments. Moreover, when a piece of work
under two hours is combined with another piece of work to form a
run, the result will require either undertime or overtime. There-
fore a piece of work around three hours duration was a better
choice. Four and five hour work periodsalso would facilitate the

construction of split runs having work time as close to eight hours

as possible.

cut
‘7

JV

‘3'

70

As can be seen from the figure, each alternative was split
into three pieces. Any block having a trip time of less than five
and one -half hours was retained as it was and was considered as
only one piece. NO other alternatives of splitting were used because
it would have given rise to a piece of two hours or less duration,
which would be uneconomical. Any block having a trip time of more
than five and one ~half hours was split at the first relief time which
would give a piece 'of work of duration three hours or a little above
it. If the trim time was more than ten hours, a second piece of
work would be similarly constructed. If the residue was less than
six hours long it was retained as it was. If not, a third piece of
work of duration three hours or slightly more would be constructed
until the residue was less than three hours. For the second and
third alternative of splitting, the only difference was that the first
piece of work would be four and five hours long respectively instead
of three hours as the first alternative. 7

The computerized program developed by Elias may be
summarized as follows:

1. A computer program splits every block into a number of dif-

ferent pieces of work as previously described.

 

791bid., p. 41.

<9

71

Another program prepares a number of different schedules

from which one can choose the minimum cost schedule. The

main steps in this second program are as follows:

a.

A computer constructs all possible valid runs from the set
of pieces initially read -in (e.g. A-7-10).

It computes the additional cost and pay time for each of
these valid runs (etg. A-11).

It arranges these runs in the ascending order with respect
to the additional cost and stores the run, the additional
cost, and the pay time in three different column vectors
(e.g. A-12).

It makes a number of different schedules, one starting
with each piece of work (e.g. A-13).

It computes total additional time and total pay time for each
schedule.

Finally it arranges all the schedules in ascending order
with respect to the additional cost and prints all the

results (e. g. A-14). 80

Testing the Model

 

Because of the problems which confront the Lansing bus

system, it was decided by the authOr to use the system to test

 

80Ibid.

 

72

and evaluate the Elias run—cutting model.

Data inputed into the first program was obtained from
CATA and appears in the Appendix on pages A-1-6. The first of
the pages is the headway sheet for the system and the rest of the
sheets represent the running times of the buses over the routes.

A total of ten buses are in operation throughout the city.

During the month of MarchfigebDriver' s Amalgamated
Union of the Lansing System sought changes in their contract with
CATA. The most significant of these changes insofar as is con-
cerned here was the proposal for an eight hour driving day instead
of the then current ten hour day. In other words, the drivers would
then be eligible for time and a half pay for every hour or part of
an hour worked beyond eight hours instead of ten.

If the current schedule was to remain in effect and the
proposal for the reduction of the work day accepted, it is clear
that the company would absorb a severe loss due to overtime pay-
ments. It was assumed in this paper that the reduction of the work
day would be placed into effect, and a comparison was made between
the cost of the outputed schedule of the Elias model reflecting the
change of hours and the cost of the current schedule not reflecting
the change in hours except in overtime pay. If the Elias model

made significant reductions in the penalty payments Of CATA, then

‘4‘

it"

LB

73

the model would be deemed to be effective. (Note: A more
precise and controlled test could have been conducted if (1) the
author of this paper had more computer skills and (2) if there wasn't

a limitation on computer time and money. If the above two condi-

tions were resolved it would have been possible to compare the

schedule in effect and the computerized schedule using the same
data that went into the making of the manually constructed schedule.)

The results of the comparison are as follows:

Number Total Penalty Time

of Runs Pay Time Payments
Manual Schedule 15 160 37. 74
Computer Schedule 19 160 9. 18

The results clearly point out that the Elias model has the
ability to reduce substantially the amount of penalty payments which
a company must pay. Although the test as constructed is perhaps
not the most rigid nor the most desirable, it nevertheless does
prove that the Elias model has definite capability in reducing costs
of transit Operation.

(Problems were encountered in running the first program,
which was supposed to split the various blocks into pieces of work.

Although the program was duplicated wholly and exactly from that

a.”

d3

7.4

given by Elias in his report, the' program never broke the blocks

. up into three different alternatives, as discussed in the previous

pages of this report.

No difficulty was encountered in running the second program,
which assigned a cost to each of the possible combinations of pieces
Of work and outputed a number of different schedules and a ranking

of the schedules with the least cost penalty payment schedule first.)

Recommendations for a Subsidization Plan

 

Although the implementation of the computer programs
previously discussed could significantly reduce operating costs of
transit systems, there would still be a need for money for the
purchasing of new equipment and the remainder of operating deficits.
The proposal before the Michigan Senate is ineffectual from the
standpoint of providing money to the metropolitan areas outside of
Detroit, and from the standpoint of user equitability. The Michigan
proposal in seeking to distribute funds on the basis of route miles
and average passengers does not reflect the demand Of potential
ridership. All available literature suggests that the demand for
public transit is closely linked to the provision of services. It
seems reasonable to assume that transit systems outside of Detroit

will not attract more passengers than present under the current

‘6‘

75

Michigan proposal. Also the Michigan proposal, in seeking to
raise revenues for transit systems through an increase in the
gasoline tax, does so at the disadvantage of the rural populace,
who will seldom if ever, use transit systems.

Recommendations for a subsidization plan which would
solve the problems briefly sketched above fall into two categories:
recommendations for an agency at the local level rather than the
State level; and sources of revenue other than a proposed raise

in the gasoline tax.

Structure

Presently State statutes provide for the formation of
metropolitan transportation authorities as passed in 1967 and
amended in 1971. With regard to the financial powers of the
metropolitan authority, the following is stated:

"The authority may not levy taxes, nor may pledge the credit
or taxing power of the state or any political subdivision.
Transportation facilities shall be financed, in addition to other
methods of financing provided by law, as follows:

(a) By fares, rates, tolls and rents.

(b) By other income or revenues from whatever source
available, including appropriations or contributions
of whatever nature or other‘revenues of the partici-
pating counties and political subdivisions within the
geographical boundaries of the authority.

45S»

76

(c) By grants or contributions from federal, state or
other governmental units and any other grants, con-
tributions, gifts, devises or bequests from public or
private sources. "

Metropolitan authorities, if given power to raise revenues,
especially the power of levying specific taxes, would be preferable
to the present proposal before the State. Taxes levied by the leeal
aut’hgritieswould be confined to people and businesses within their
jurisdiction. This'would solve the problem of equitability, as rural
areas outside the metropolitan area would be free. of providing
financial support. Also, it may be said that local authorities would
be mere responsive to the needs of the metropolitan area; and,
therefore, the funds that would be raised would be in a better rela-
tion to the need. And finally, control over transit systems would
remain totally in-the hands of the metropolitan area, thus freeing
the transit system from dependence on other governmental units,
financially and otherwise. Bureaucratic entanglements which are

characteristic of operations receiving support from more than one

level of government would be avoided.

Sources of R evenue

 

A number of sources for revenue other than an increase
in the gasoline tax have been proposed, within and outside of
Michigan, for financial support of transit systems. Invariably all

try to tax users of transportation systems.

as

(y.

77

One of the most common forms of revenue is that derived
from an increase in parking rates. The theory behind the increased
rate is that those who cannot afford the new rates will be forced to
use public transit. Those that choose to pay the higher rates will
simply pay for a balanced transportation system. Unfortunately,
such a scheme will not work in many of the cities of Michigan. All
the cities presently have seriously deteriorated central business
districts. Higher costs related to the use of the central business

distflrjflethwill lead only to further deterioration. If the central

business district deteriorates one may ask, "Where will the buses
run to?" The dependency of buses on a central business district
has been well documented and involves questions of operating cost,
particularly the question of running a bus system within a highly
dispersed metropolitan area.

As with a raise in parking rates, so too would a system

Of tolls on specific roads be regressive. This proposal, which

 

has worked so well in many large cities, is not applicable to those
cities reviewed in Michigan. None of the cities have high enough
volumes of traffic to justify the use of such a system. It is doubtful
that revenues gained from tolls would even offset the money needed
for the maintenance of such a system. And as with increased
parking rates, there would be further deterioration of the central

business district.

‘3':

78

One source of revenues which could be used in Michigan,
and has been successfully used in California, is an increase in
the license fees for autos. The license fee for the first car is a
percentage of the valuation of the car (2%), and each additional car
owned by the family is taxed at a minimum of twiee the rate for
the first car. The theory behind this scheme is that the value of
a vehicle reflects the number of miles driven, because persons
with higher incomes tend to have more expensive cars, live
further from their places of work, and drive further to places of
recreation. In addition, many low income families are forced to
own old automobiles in order to get to work, because mass transit
service is so inadequate.

Also a retail sales tax levied within the jurisdiction of the
metropolitan authority onauto parts and supplies other than gasoline
could be of use in supplying funds for mass transit. Presently the
tax on such items is preempted into the general fund. However, it
seems more rational to channel the collected taxes on these items
into programs which directly involve transportation facilities.

Another source of funds that may be used by the metro-
politan authorities is that which is deposited in theState Highway
Trust F3951, which to date has been used exclusively for the con-

struction of roads. By 1980 all the interstate roads within the

"-11.

79

State of Michigan should be complete; in fact the only sections
now which are interstate'and not complete are those which border
on or are in metropolitan areas. Thus it seems reasonable to
assume that the state, if it keeps its present level of taxation on
gas, would soon have a surplus of funds which could be used for
mass transit systems.

A more rational plan for the subsidization of transit
facilities in the State of Michigan would embody the following
recommendations:

1. Rather than create a State discretionary fund and a much
larger and more complex bureaucratic structure, it is
recommended that the necessary taxing powers be given
to metropolitan transit authorities which may be
established under present State statutes.

2. It is recommended that the necessary taxing pgwers given
to the metropolitan transit authorities be subject to a
simple majority approval of the residents within the
jurisdiction of the authority, that the taxes levied be
imposed only within the authority' 5 jurisdiction, and that
the taxing powers include:

a. the levying of up to 1¢ tax per gallon of gasoline,

"'55

80

the levying of a 2% tax on the valuation of each
purchased car (license fee) and 4% for each additional
car purchased by the same family, the difference
between the present fee and that amount received
through the valuation above to be used for mass
transit within each of the districts,

the levying of up to 2¢ per one dollar retail sales tax
on all automotive parts and supplies,

the redistribution of gas tax money (which is presently
directed into the Highway Trust Fund for interstate
roads) for mass transit systems after the interstate

system is complete in 1980.

Qt

CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY

The people of the State of Michigan are as much concerned
about traffic congestion as people throughout the country. The vast
highway and interstate network has failed to solve the problem of
congestion and has added little to the aesthetic and environmental
quality of life in the city. With this failure has come the recogni-
tion that a balanced transportation program, one which uses mass
transit, is the only solution to the congestion problem. The main-
tenance of transit systems is now viewed within the State as a priority
item.

This paper has attempted to first define the problem of
transit systems within. the State. It has shown that during the last
decade those metropolitan areas outside of Detroit which have
transit systems have operated in deficit all the time. Patronage
on the systems has been declining and equipment has become out-

dated. The transit systems in each of the cities have made changes

in the form of minor route changes and in management, and even

81

*1»

82

reorganization within the municipal government itself. But
despite these changes, little has been accomplished in terms of
attracting new patronage. The highway systems have undoubtedly
contributed to this decline in a severe way. The transit systems
which operate today depend heavily upon municipal grants in aid
to offset daily operating losses. Today an estimated $7, 500, 000
is needed in just the four cities reviewed to keep the systems
running.

Secondly this paper has looked at the proposal before the
Michigan Legislature which attempts to solve the problem of -
financing within these transit systems. But the proposal before
the State was not built upon the lessons in other states which
provide subsidies to transit systems. The approach taken is similar
to the one in Massachusetts, taking a statewide financing approach.
However, it is exactly this kind of approach which may ultimately
void the passage of the Michigan bill. The Michigan proposal even
fails to provide money to those areas outside of Detroit by allocat-
ing money from the established transportation discretionary fund
on the basis of passengers per route mile. Clearly. the most
equitable plan and the one which would provide the money that is
needed to all transit systems would be one which would be an
embodiment of a local finance approach with money raised on the .

basis of a series of user taxes.

83

Thirdly this paper has looked at ways in which transit
systems may reduce their operating deficits and made recom-
mendations for a more realistic approach to the financing of
transit systems. Transit systems have been reluctant to change
their routing structures even though the cities themselves have
changed immensely. Changing the routing structure would allow
an increase in patronage. The Voorhees model, if used on a
regional basis, would also establish a planning function within the
transit companies and thus allow a ready ability for the transit
companies to adapt to new concepts and patronage distribution
patterns. Money may also be saved'through the use of the Elias
run—cutting model. All the transit companies reviewed are con-
stantly making minor changes in the hopes that they will make the
change that will increase revenues. They have done sowithout
changing the operator' 3 schedule and thus leave themselves open
to higher operating costs by way of overtime and undertime
penalties made to the operators. Finally, a proposal has been
advanced for a new plan for the subsidization of transit facilities.
Basically it keeps the metropolitan transit authorities, but it
allows the authorities the financing power which they are presently
excluded from using. Allowing the authorities the power of levying

their own gasoline tax and a retail sales tax on automotive parts

8.4

and supplies would solve the problem of equity and would allow the
metropolitan areas outside of Detroit their fair share.

This paper certainly does not attempt to solve the problems
of transit systems. The solution to the problems lie in a complex
maze which includes solutions to the growth of the cities themselves,
the individual choice of which mode to use, and the willingness of
the public to pay. This paper has, though, pointed towards a more
rational way of looking at the problems and solutions with regard to

the financing of transit systemsin Michigan.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BTBLIOGRAPHY

American Academy of Transportation, The Flint Bus System,
1966 o

 

American Academy of Transportation, Muskegon County
Metropolitan Transportation System, 1970

 

Bursley, Gilbert E., Chairman, Report 2: the Joint Legislative
Committee 33 Urban Mass Transportation (SCR 120,1969)
Vol. III, Michigan, 1969.

 

 

 

California State Statutes, Public Utilities Code 29120
(West 1965).

 

Elias, Samy E.G., The Develppment pf 3 Mathematical Model for
thimizing the Assignment 3: Man and Machine "Run-Cutting:
in Public Transit, West Virginia University, September,
1966.

 

 

 

 

The Flint Journal News, Flint, Michigan.

 

Flint Planning Department, Mass Transportation Demonstration
Grant Mich-MTD-Z, 1970

 

 

 

The Kalamazoo Gazette News, Kalamazoo, Michigan.

 

 

Department of Planning, City of Kalamazoo, Michigan, City pi
Kalamazoo, Final Mass Transpprtation Application
Project No. Mich. Utg—S, August, 1969.

 

 

Department of Planning, City of Lansing, Michigan, City pi
Lansing, Application for a Mass Transportation
Facilities Grant, 1964

 

 

The Lansing State Journal News, Lansing, Michigan.

"Mass Transportation", Highway Research Record, Highway
Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1970.

 

Massachusetts Annotated Laws (supp. 1971).
Michigan Annotated Laws, (supp. 1968).
State of Michigan Senate 31113 1071'5 1072.

The Muskegon Chronicle News, Muskegon, Michigan

Muskegon Planning Commission, Muskegon Mass Transportation
Report, Muskegon Planning Commission, 1970.

New Jersey State Annotated Laws (supp. 1971).

Oregon Revised Statutes 267, 85, 1965

Roeseler W. G., Levi, Peter S., "State Subsidies for Public
Transit: An Overview of Current Legislation", The Urban
Lawyer, Spring, 1972.

 

Simpson, Curtin, Bus Service Present p Future Flint, Michigan,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 15, 1962

 

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Mass Transportation
1p the Tri—Counpy Region, Tri-County Regional Planning
Agency, Lansing, Michigan, April, 1969.

 

"Transportation System Evaluation", Highway Research Record,
Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1968.

Voorhees, Alan M. & Associates, A Systems Analysis pi Transit
Routes and Schedules; Washington Metropolitan Area
;1 Transit Commission, November, 1969.

 

Voorhees, Alan M. & Associates, Urban Mass Transit Plannipg

Project, National Technical Information Service, U.S.
Department of Commerce, January, 1968.

APPENDIX

A-I

 

3013 RUN TIME TIME TOTAL LUNCH
Ha) :H)UTIZ rH) 0:! LH“F TIE“. 1';nlan)
"' 2:24
3 Mall 1-1A 5:25A 3:450 10:20 1:10
( , 10:40
4 Penn-Millet Z-IA 5:45A 4:05P 10:20 11:20
11:20
5 Penn-Ailler 2-2A 5:45A 4:05? 10:20 12:00
9:40
66 N.Lnns-S.Cedar 5-1A 5:25A 4:25P 11:00 10:20
' 5:10
14 H011 1-4? 9:05A 7:259 10:20 4:00
~ 2:20
15 N.Lana-S.Cedar 5-2P 0:45A 7:05? 10:20 5:00
-” 'I. 5:30
17 Hall 1-2P 12:15B 10:55P 10:20 6:20
” 4:10
18 Hall 1—5P 11:45A 10:10? . 10:25 5:00
2:10 In
9 Holt “-1? 9:25A- 7:05P 9:40 :50 Holt
”t SPLIT RUNS
1 M811 I-SA 5:55A 12:05 6:10
10:28
Penn-Miller 2-1P 5:45? 7:20 5:55
7 nall‘ 1-41 _5:0sa 9:25 3:40
11:15
Hall 1.5? _11:55A 6:55 7:00
10 Hall 1-5A 6:05A 12:15 6:10
. _ 10:25
Penn-Miller 2-2P 5:45? 7:20 -5:55
11 H511 1-2A 5:55A 12:55 6:00
11:25
M011 1-10 3:25? 7:05 5:55
23 N.Lana '5-2A 5:25A‘ 9:05A 5:00
Heals 1-1A 12:05? 1:10?
3-21’ 2:20P 3:00?
1-4P 3:10? 4:00? 10:30
I-SP 4:10P 5:00?
1-29‘ 5:500 0:25? 6:20
‘dtz nolt 4-15 5:25a 9:001 4:15
Healn 5-1A 9:40\ 1J:20i
' 2~1A 10:4UA 11:20h 10350
2-2A 11:203 12:05? ?:2§
N.Lnna S-lv 4:059 7:053 9:03

"I .

’-

handay thru
Friday only

015131-108 .. mama”10.1.1. ROUTE

EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 1972

 

 

 

10:10

Load at 3.2. corner of Michigan and Grand (on Michigan Ave)

figpte from Down qup
E. Michigan Ave. to Grand River thru East Lansing to Hamilton Rd. thru Okemos

(outbound) (inbound)

Down: Fran Abbott Okemos Keri. Abbott Fran Down
Town dor Gd.Riv. 112.11 Gd_._I_\:iv. dor Town
,5:40 5:50 5:55 * 6:00 6:05 6:10 ' 6:15 6:30
6:CK) 6:10 6:15 " 6:20 6:25 6:30 6:35 .6:50
.6:20 6:30 6:35 * 6:40 6:45 6:50 6:55 7:10
@qu 6:50 6:55 " 7:00 7:05 7:10 7:15 7:30
7E00 7:10 7:15 * 7:20 7:25 7:30 7:35 7:50
7:20 7:30 7:35 " 7:40 7:45 '7:50 7:55 8:10
-7:40 ' 7:50 7:55 * 8:00 8:05 8:10 8:15 8:30
'8:00 "8:10 8:15 ** 8:20 8:25 8:30 8:35 8:50
8:20 8:30 8:35 * 8:40 8:45 8:50 8:55 9:10
8:40 8:50 8:55 *' 9:00 . 9:05 9:10 9:15 9:30
9:00 9:10 9:15 ‘ 9:20 9:25 9:30 9:35 9:50
9:20 9:30 9:35 *‘ 9:40 9:45 9:50 9:55 10:10
'9:40 9:50 9:55 '10:00 10:05 10:10 10:15 10:30
10:00 10:10 10:15 '“10:20 10:25 10:30 10:35 10:50
110:20 10:30 10:35 ’10:40 10:45 10:50 10:55 11:10
.10:40 10:50 10:55 *‘11:00 11:05 11:10 11:15 11:30
11:00 11:10 11:15 “11:20 11:25 11:30 11:35 11:50
'11:20 11:30 11:35 “*11:40 11:45 11:50 11:55 12:10
11:40 11:50 11:55 “12:00 12:05 12:10 12:15 12:30
12:00 12:10 12:15 “12:20 12:25 12:30 12:35 12:50
12:20 12:30 12:35 "12:40 12:45 12:50 12:55 1:10
12:40 12:50 12:55 *‘ 1:00 1:05 1:10 1:15 1:30
"1:00 1:10 1:15 * 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:50
1:20 1:30 1:35 " 1:40 1:45' . 1:50 1:55 2:10
.1:40 1:50 1:55 ' 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:30
2:00 2:10 2:15 " 2:20 2:25 2:30 2:35 2:50

. 2:20 2:30 2:35 ‘ 2:40 2:45 2:50 2:55 3:10
'2:40 2:50 2:55 ‘“ 3:00 3:05 3:10 3:15 : 3:30
3:00 3:10 3:15 * 3:20 3:25 3:30 3:35 3:50
3:20 3:30 3:35 ‘* 3:40 3:45 3:50 3:55 4:10
3:40 3:50 3:55 ' 4:00 4:05 4:10 4:15 4:30
.4:00 4:10 4:15 " 4:20 4:25 4:30 4:35 4:50
4:20 4:30 4:35 ' 4:40 4:45 4:50 4:55 5:10
4:40 4:50 4:55 " 5:00 5:05 5:10 5:15 5:30
5:00 5:10 5:15 “ 5:20 5:25 5:30 5:35 5:50

~ 5:20 5:30 5:35 ** 5:40 5:45 5:50 5:55 6:10
'5:40 5:50 5:55 " 6:00 6:05 6:10 6:15 6:30
' :00 6:10 6:15 6:20 3:25 6:30 6:35 6:50
6°20 6:30 6:35 6:40 6:45 6:50 6:55 7:10
6:45 6:55 7:00 7:05 7:10 7:15 7:20 7:35
7:10 7:20 7225 7:30 7:35 7:40 7:45 8:00
7:35 7:45 7:50 7:55 8:00 8:05 8:10 8:25
8:00 8:10 8:15 8:20 8:25 8:30 8:35 8:50
8:25 8:35 8:40 8:45 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:15
8:50 9:00 9:05 .9:10 9:15 9:20 9:25 9:40
9:15 9:25 9:30 _9:35 9:40 9:45 9:50 10:05
9:40 9:50 9:55 10:00 10:15 10:20 10:30

A-Z

No Holidays

Route Serves
EasterneHigh
Sparrow Hospital
Medical Arts Bldg.
Frandor
N.S.U.

East Lansing
Okemos
Brookfield Plaza
Yankee Stadium
Meijers

K-Mart

Meridian Mall

 

Route Schedule
5 Charter
Information call

 

489-3768

Capitol Area
Transportation
Authority

240 Mill St.
Lansing, Mich.
48933

* - goes W. Saginaw
" - goes Churchill

to Marsh Rd. to Meridian Mall - back Grand River to Michigan Ave. to Grand (N.E. corner)

LMGIU Aw ROUTE ' la

 

 

 

. 1.831 01-101mm]; 1:00-1'1: A-3
EFFECHIJE rIfiJRUARY 14, 1972
(outbound) (inbound) (outbound) (inbound)
Down St.Lawr K-Mart St.Lawr Down Down Logan Pl.Grove Logan Down
1%“ “03° 10.81...- 31.0.83. - 312141-...11231925: J 0111; iii-31:129.. .Town
5:50 5:55 6:15 6:30 6: 40. .
f r:10 6:17 :35 6:42 7:00
6:30 6:35 6:55 7:10 7:20
6:50 6:57 ":15 ' 7:22 7:40
7:10 7:15 7:35 7:50 8:00
‘ 7:30 7:37 7:55 8:02 8:20
.7:50 7:55 8:15 8:30 8:40
8:10 8:17 8:35 3:42 9:00
8:30 8:35 8:55 8:10 9:20
. 8:50 8:57 9:15 9:22 9:40
9:10 9:15 9:35 9:50 10:00
~ . 9:30 9:37 9:55 10:02 10:20
9:50 9:55 10:15 10:30 10:40
. 10:10 10:1? 10:35 10:42 11:00
10:30 10:35 10:55 11:10 11:20
1 10:50 10:57 11:15 11:22 11:40
11:10 11:15 11:35 11:50 12:00
11:30 11:37 11:55 12:02 12:20
11:50 11:55 12:15 12:30 12:40 . '
12:10 "12:17 12:35 12:42 1:00
12:30 12:35 12: 1:10 1:20 .
112:50 12:57 1:15 1:22 1:40
.1:10 1:15 1:35 1:50 2:00 i' _
1:30 .1:37 1:55 2:02 2:20
1:50 1:55 2:15 2:30 2:40
'1 2:10 2:17 2:35 2:42 3:00
— 130 2:35 2:55 3:10 3:20
2:50 2:57 3:15 3:22 3:40
3:10 3:15 3:35 3:50 4:00
3:30 3:37 3:55 4:02 4:20
3:50 3:55‘ 4:15 4:30 4:40 ‘ ‘ .
4:10 4:17 4:35 4:42 5:00
4:30 4:35 4:55 5:10 5:20
' 4:50 4:57 5:15 5:22 5:40
5:10 5:15 5:35 5:50 6:00 -
5:30 5:37 5:55 6:02 6:20
5:50 5:55 6:15 (:30 6:40 '
. 6:10 6:17 6:35 6:42 7:00
6:30 6:35 6:55 7:10 7:20

' Load at N.E. corner of Grand & Michigan
Load at N.E. corner of Michigan & Grand (on Grand)
(on Grand) Route from Down Town

Michigan and Grand to Ottawa to Logan to
Mt. HOpe to Pleasant Grove to Victor to
Deerfield to Holmes to Waverly to Kentfield
to Brighton Dr. to Stillwell to Lucie to
Wainwright to Jolly to Pleasant Grove back
Pleasant Grove to Mt. Hope to Lugan to

Allegan to Grand to Michigan (S.E. corner)

 

Route from Dcrn Town
Michigan and Grand to Ottawa to Walnut to
Oakland to Saginaw to K-Mart back Saginaw
to Pine to Allegan to Grand to Michigan
(8. E. Corner)
Route Serves
Capital Com :11ex
__‘ Medical' 7 'est
w’St. Lawrence Hospital
Fisher Body
Olds Force-Plant
Olds Jet Plant
Edgemont Center
Meijera Thrifty Acres

 

 

Park West Apts.
Lansing Mall
K-Mart

Route Serves
Olds Main Plant
Olds Product & Delivery
Colonial Village
Dwight Rich School
- Churchill Downs Subdivision

JOLLY - CEDAR ROUTE 11011-111 1111131110 ROUTE A“ 4

EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 1972

 

 

 

(outbound) (inbound) (outbound) (inbound)

1mm Cedar Jolly Cedar Down Down Larch Gier Capitol Down
'mm Mt.Hone Cedar Mt.Hcpe Town ___P’_Iog1.Gd.Rix, Gd.Riv. Town
"I' 5: 40 5:50 6:00 6:10 . 6:20
.1 5:50 6:00 6:05 6:20 5:20 6:30 6:40 6:50 7:00
.:2 6:30 6:40 6:45 7:00 7:00 7:10 7:20 7:30 7:40
'£0 7: 10 7:20 7:25 7:40 7:40 7:50 3:00 8:10 8:20
:40 7: 50 8: 00 8:054 8:20 8:20 8:30 8:40 8:50 9:00
uZO 8:30 8:40 8:45 9:00 9:00 9:10. 9:20 9:30 9:40
800 9:10 9:20 9:25 9:40 9:40 9:50 10:00 10:10 10:20
:40 9:50 10:00 10:05 10:20 10:20 10:30 10:40 10:50 11:00
n20 10:30 10:40 10:45 11:00 11:00 11:10 11:20 11:30 11:40
:00 1 :10 11:20 11:25 11:40 11:40 11:50 12:00 12:10 12:20
:40 11:50 12:00 12:05 12:20 12:20 12:30 12:40 12:50 1:00
320 12:30 2:40 12:45 1:00 1: 00 1:10 1:20 1:30 1:40
:00 1:10 1:20 1:25 1:40 1:40 1:50 2:00 2:10 2:20
:40 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:20 2:20 2:30 2:40 2:50 3:00
320 2:30 2:40 2:45 3:00 3:00 3:10 3:20 3:30 3:40
000 3:10 3:20 3:25 3:40 3:40 3:50 4:00 4:10 4:20
n40 3:50 4:00 4:05 4:20 4:20 4:30 4:40 4:50 5:05
:20 4:30 4:40 4:45 5:05 5:05 5:10 5:20 5:30 5:40
805 5:10 5:20 5:25 5:40 5:40 5:50 6:00 5:10 6:20
«40 5:50 :00 6:05 6:20 6:20 6:30 6:40 6:50 7:00
u20 6:30 :40 6:45 7:00 ALL TRIPS GO TO TURNER St.

Loads at N.E. coiner of Giand & Michigan
(on Grand)

loads at N.E. corner of Grand 8 Michigan
(on Grand)

Route from Down Town

Gia.nd to Shiauassee to Washington to
Grand River to Larch to Sheridan Rd. to
Turner to Thomas to Larch to Gier back
High to North to Illinois to Taft to

Otto to Grand River to Capitol to Michigan
to Grand (N.E. corner)

E*ute from Dowgmfown
and to Ottawa to Capitol to Kalamazoo
to hashington to Mt. Hope to Cedar to
Jolly back Cedar to Mt. Hope to Washington

to Kalamazoo to Grand N.E. corner

 

 

Bgute Serves
Washington AptS:
Diamond Reo

Walter French Jr. High
Everett Schools
Jolly-Cedar P.Lara

 

Route Serves

L.C.C. .

Apothecary Shop

North Lansing

Motor Wheel

C.W. Otto Jr. High

Hildebrandt Housing (N. Turner)
‘ Crista Rey

 

MONDAY THRU FRIDAY ONLY
NO HOLIDAYS

CAPITOL AREA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
240 Mill Street

Lansing, Michigan 48933

Route, Sshedule and Charter Information call 489-3768

PEWSYLVA?" I‘ll-7.300113.“ MILLER ROAD RCU’l‘L‘ A _ 5-

EFFECTIVE Fl-ZHRUARY 14, 1972

 

 

 

 

(outbound) (inbound) (outbound) (inbound)
'Down Penn M.T.A. Penn Down Down Logan Miller Logan Down
Town Mt.Hope Mt.Hope Town Town Holmes Hagg Homes Town
. 7‘ 6:00 THU 5320 5:25 6740
6:00 6:10 6:20 6:30 6:40 6:40 6:50 7:00 7:05 7:15
i 40 6:50 6:55 7:00 7:15 7:15 7:25 7:30 7:35 7:50
7:15 7:25 7:30 7:40 7:50 7:50 8:05 8:15 8:25 8:40
7:50 8:00 8:15 8:25 8:40 8:40 8:50 9:00 9:05 9:20
8:40 8:50 9:00 9:10 9:20 9:20 9:30 9:40 9:45 10:00
9:20 9:30 9:40 9:50 10:00 10:00 10:10 10:20 10:25 10:40
10:00 10:10 10:20 10:30 10:40 10:40 10:50 11:00 11:05 11:20
10:40 10:50 11:00 11:10 11:20 11:20 11:30 11:40 11:45 12:00
11:20 11:30 11:40 11:50 12:00 12:00 12:10 12:20 12:25 12:40
12:00 12:10 12:20 12:30 12:40 12:40 12:50 1:00 1:05 1:20
12:40 12:50 1:00 1:10 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:40 1:45 2:00
1:20 1:30 1:40 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:20 2:25 2:40
2:00 2:10 2:20 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:50 3:00 3:05 3:20
2:40 2:50 3:00 3:10 3:20 3:20 3:30 3:40 3:45 4:00
3:20 3:30 3:40 3:50 4:00 4:00 4:10 4:20 4:25 4:40
4:00 4:10 4:20 4:30 4:40 4:40 4:50 5:00 5:05 5:20
4:40 4:50 5:00 5:10 5:20 5:20 5:30 5:40 5:45 6:00
5:20 5:30 5:40 5:50 6:00 6:00' 6:10 6:20 6:25 6:40
6:00 6:10 6:20 6:30 6:40 6:40 6:50 7:00 7:05 7:15
6:40 6:50 7:00 7:05 7:15 '
Loads on 8.3. corner of Grand 6 Michigan Loads on N.E. corner of Grand & Michigan
(on Michigan Ave.) -(on Grand) - 1‘
Route from Down Town Route from Down T233
_f§chigan Ave. to Pennsylvania to Meijer's Michigan and Grand to Ottawa to Logan to

Jolly to Washington to Miller to Hagg
back Logan to Allegan to Grand to Michigan
81E. corner

.rifty Acres back Pennsylvania to Mich-
igan and Grand N.E. corner

Route Serves

 

 

Eastern High School Route Serves
M.E.S.C. Employment Office Olds Main Plant
Department of Social Services Product Delivery
Century Store Yankee Plaza
Meijer's Thrifty Acres . Logan Shepping Center
Lansing General Hospital . . Dykstra Ford

' Topps

Cree Farm Housing
Co-Op Optical

CAPITOL AREA TRANSPOR‘ATION AUTHORITY
‘ 240 Mill Street
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Route, Schedule and Charter Information call 489-3768

Monday thru Friday only No Holidays

EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 1972

HOLT ROUTE'- via 8. Washington a Cedar

 

 

(outbound) (inbound)
Down Wash Jolly Holt Jolly Wash Down
Town Mt.Hope Cedar”. Plaza Cedar Mt.Hopo TOWE
5:40 . 5:45 5:55 6:10 6:20 6:30 6:40
6:40 6:45 6:55 7:10 7:20 7:30 7:40
7:40 7:45 7:55 4 8:10 8:29 3:30 8:40
8:40 8:45 8:55 9:10 9:20 9:30 9:40
9:40 9:45 9:55 10:10 10:20 10:30 10:40
10:40 10:45 10:55 11:10 11:20 11:30 11:40
11:40 11:45 11:55 12:10 12:20 12:30 12:40
12:40 12:45 12:55 1:10 1:20 .1:50 1:40
Ar.2:10 :
1:40 1:45 1:55 Lv.2:30 2:40 2:50 3:00
3:00 3:05 _ 3:15 3:30 3:46 3:59 4:00
4:00 4:05 ‘I 4:15 4:30 .4:40 4550 5:00 '
5:05 5:10 5:15 '5:30 5:40 5:50 5:00
6:00 5:05 5:15 6:30 6:40' 5:50. 6:55
Loads at NLE. corner of Grand and Michigan ~(on Grand)

Route from Down Town
Grand to Ottawa to Capitol to Kalamazoo

. to Washington to Holmes Rd. to Cedar to
Aurelius Rd. to Holt Plaza back Holt Rd;
to Cedar to Holmes to Washington to Kala-
:nazoo to Grand and Michigan N.E. corner

MONDAY THRU FRIDAY ONLY
NO HOLIDAYS

_Rpute Serves
washington Park Apts.
Diamond Reo
Ingham Medical Hospital
Washington Apts.
Everett Schools
Jolly - Cedar Plaza-

'Long Commerce Park
Cedarway Executive Bldg.
Holt Plaza
K—Mart

 

CAPTIOL AREA TRAfljPORTATIUN AUTHORITY

240 Mill Street
Lansing, Michigan

Route, Schedule and Charter Information call

48933

489-

3768

La

'UT DATA

(I.
"
‘—

0'1

‘ Back Platform

Time-On Time-off Time Time

Front

Block Time

BAP(Block,Alternative,Piece)

Piece

r4
If

F?
m

i")

W)
l’)

O\

1!
vo...‘

ti

6]

V!

C)

1‘
\D

00

vi

..7J

m

b)

.25

{x

(\n
«4

LA

11“

l3
01

[0

JD

16.

1'1

.20
.81..

C)

'J

H

O!

V1

9‘)

'4.

W)

'4

7

15

'\
0 Cd

12h

X"

5‘
J.

.5»

m
m

(0

.2C

15.37

02‘;

('1

‘ 1

f') *4 (U
f’) V 5 F.
Ti J OJ
d? h) -7
'3 "‘2 7"
o o o
.T ") V7
n‘) L”) D
c: N N
o O o
(7'
Ln P3
{‘1 3’7 \1‘
o o o
0‘ 0‘ 0J
v4 1-I
F~ TD 30
.3 " 'fi
0 o- o
1 an C“
H
03 rm (3
'\s ". T'J
o o O
,3
V ‘ '\J (g
.-( s; f")
u ( o ‘ I' t

F)
s 4

IO

L"

I“?

15.00

0.03

U\
OJ

C \
A

t.)
to

[:3
‘5:)

L3

6“

N
(\l

N

\IO;?

7

I‘
-

l’)
(\J

Cd Cu

f’l

[O

16.07

P}
'I‘

O
m
.4

(\l

rt

10

“U

.0!

15

("U

Ir‘

.J'

V!

04

.20

I“?
'4

:4

CJ 3

(‘J
1")

'\
.w

If)

(:1
DJ

N
U3

«4

0’

“‘0

v4

P.

‘\l

[H

.f

(fl
(\J

r’)

[G

C."

5!.

£5065

90;}!

v“)
")

.JU

T)
n,

f')

313
31%

to
'f.

to

r‘__- P!

' 0

r4

7'

\1

321

C)
rw

9.57

a

.\
1

(\9

f0

L3
'73

0!
'0

F)
‘9

I”)

C)

15.0&

r4
(T

J
.20

of"

J

.91
l;.':)7

'0

10
I’)

‘.%7

5

DU

10

.20

"l

V.)
I")
"7

All
#12

~3‘f0

'o

02"

F~'

\O

U‘

'0
'0

(:3
CU

9')

PU

"

r-x

' J
(\J

'5 a

[‘0 -1
s“ v{

"a or.
O .

C
I
U

C I'J"

(\i

N’?)

In G"
r4fl

h“ \(j

:_.[ I".

\‘(V

a-&

‘4
(\I

L"
1""

a)
(‘1

Is
U‘fi

{A

(\J

to
m

l")

.20

g.)

1’)
‘4

I‘

a
‘il

11‘
»

15

Y0
hfi

16.33

n2)

1
~..'

1

P]

0d

Cr

051

'-

d

1

\D

'7‘

[.1 o

#32

P?
w“

[0

b?
an

‘4

w-i

V“

bJ

K,‘

h

1A-7'

m
'0
.T

~
' i

V"
‘4
U3

(U

1:)
'3

LG

!h

L o u'i

(‘J
H
[P

V)

l’)

f. 3
VJ

1’)
H)

(\I

v"

('N

P";
v 4
LIN

Q:

l":

C)‘

0)

")

‘P‘

J’
r-l
13

to
I")
O

." ‘q'
L‘OLL'

190cm

\Ll

l \-\
»

fiw‘

v-I rx'
7" 1‘)
U} U

zl.

- J

C
l

as?
-J

~)..

- 5 ,
.\ d
. . C ‘c‘

v
‘-

O»

“O

L“

h‘

'0“

['7

19.33 .20

n
L

74
vi

I'.)
"J

EXTRAS

HEUULED AS

33

ARE

3(3

”6 3L0

?
.L

LLOW

'1

F

A-B

«I
(.4

p...
h.

I.

.4

611

3.34

(V V)
. I .4

~01)

V) I“)

m m

'01”)

r‘.) '2

OJ (\1

«..-r';
(“70

N L".
1 " 7"!

0.83

.17

.,a.t

(‘1

~

\"

II‘

.(J

‘()

(‘J

U

1‘
O L-

(U
(I

(I)

‘1“

0.50

19.17
15.83

6.67

A

{\‘l
L )
VJ

V'
F)

m

r- (I-

(\J

‘1')

(3

‘4

V)

“.
. s

'-
n

6

,0

1"
l\

to

C‘
(\J

L' )
U‘I

17

(IV

C.)

(\l

[x

if)

I")

.20

6-17

I")
.— ¢
l\

mu

1":

-
C

rt
(R:
r\

(2‘
(U

N
(\3
[‘x

l’)

l...

3?

f\

3.30

.33

H

"M

r‘\

f?!

" In

1.1

v1

6.1I

". L ‘
.' a.

(\l
V,

l'\

f")

ff}

‘(3

(U

r\

7‘,”

v4
H
(L;

[r]
c

I“)

H."

(U
r 4

(r)

3.33

4
A

(T)
(.2

(C

813

‘1

er)

I
a

‘0'

s'l

I”)
t’)

V)

1‘.

(”J

3‘

‘n

s

I";

x.)

I- n

‘4 C‘J
’\ “‘

LO Q‘)

<1 'J
rt 9")

\1")

”5")".
‘ :0 14‘

O O

0- P’)

(\4”;

(l ‘1)

{1‘ [1‘

7

2.58

‘ t
K \'
(0

t4
l"-

.213

rx
(2

(.7
'4

UK

I‘ r.
I,
f

‘V‘
U I‘J

:33

u.‘ -

l

v4 ('4
T‘ v4

'0 I";

run

ms:

”)2“
V414
(h Ch

won
I”) P":

WI”)

‘.C.‘.‘('“..

(QC)
0 o
C

'3 P")
c l’)
O O
‘él O-
“ .4

f\ *3
O (D

C‘s! \O
('1 '4

r: rt-
f~J C\'

C“ (P

C\

‘3'

('7)

k.)

a
.20
"q

0‘

N m
(V (I;
0 0‘

N) F)
P; V)

I’) I’)

mm
(at:

duo
L.“ 'U

c a
f") ‘0
1“ f4

f\L.J

v4 U‘

or”)
rt?!

00

f

I)":

Q
u\‘

ca
(‘3

Co
(\1

0

t1

.")

.20

N P")
’l‘ VI
0 0‘

F)
f")

.00

N C.)

V (b

"9 “5 \‘4

c.) 3")

VI ‘3
v-d u—i

Ix
<1

I“)
f’)

{3.

C‘

‘l

-2

DJ

1.

3

7
\D

3.

VJV r"

a

, -

#4

V)

‘-

0

F30]

N

(1’

r’;

('3

110

pm
1"")

«9
1-6

(7‘
(\E

. ‘4

(\1

4.17

.23

r:
m

O

t\'

’3

N

(‘0

f:

11
;I‘\

.20

m
m
l .

r1

('2.

l{\

ff.
(‘0

ff: \ ‘

f"!

1‘ ,‘
u

' ' A-IO

a
' 4.4
41“
rl(\l
“T1 1’11"
U)
‘1
Q:
'r mm 1.
luv-4 l’)") X
o o o o “J
'3‘: mm
U)
4 a
I)
UJ
.1
OD CD 2)
T‘Jc: coca C.)
I o o 0 (U
0 DD 3- .
L)
W
“W (D C) LU
{)1} Lin 0’.
' O o 0 <1
"1" NN
"1H .ur»: (n
X
D
C)
_J
CD
..\ :nn
ml") f\ '4 L9
‘ O a O -“
"1? CD? 0—4
"“1 fir! :r
O o
.J C
.1
Cf-
LL .
”3 DC 0 .
~ 0 C (:2 (r I
' o o C_.
’55) oo 1...
Y. CD
:1. I
(2
~. ‘t‘t’u :3: ‘
(CH
IA. C‘v
1'.) U
'J)
LI \)
I a 5

v.0”
' .

 

- ’ ._-,m_.

Sign Work Gap I Guarantee P e n a 1 t y ' Work

 

 

 

 

 

No. B Sign _ Allowance Pull Pull Allowance off Time Time Time Spread 'Tiay
1 on __out in - ‘ Over Spread Under me
@911 0 Sign Pull Travel Travel Pull Sign 1 ‘ ‘ Time ~ Time
‘ c on out - in off .
k 19.80 3.03 5.90 1.08 0.00 0.53 1.82' 6.92 12.82 3.53
2 18.88 0.00 0.00 18.88 19.88 0.00 0.08 0.08 10.78 3.72.
8 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 16.96 3.38 2.72 0.74 a 0.00 0.00 0.74 7.28 9.98 8,00
2 13.50 0.00 0.00 13.50 18.88 0.20 0.00 0.08 10.78 3.72
7 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 19.80 3.03 5.90 1.08 0.00 0.53 1.82 8.92 12.82 8.53
2 18.88 ' 0.00 0.00 18.88 19.85 0.00 0.08 0.08 10.78 3.72
8 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 15.13 3.27 1.00 0.00 0,08 0.00 0.08 8.15 8.15 8.23
2 11.78 0.00 0.00 11.78 14.85 0.20 0.00 0.08 10.78 3.72
9 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 ' 19.80 4.88 4.07 0.00 0.37 0,53 0.91 8.75 12.82 9.65
, 2 14.85 0.00 0.00 14.85 19.83 0.00 0.08 0.08 10.78 3.72 .
i 10 1- 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 18.27 4.23 3.17 0.00 0.06 0,00 0.06 8.12 11.29 8.17
. 3 13.95 0.00 0.00 13.95 18.10 0.00 0.08 0.08 10.78 3.72 ‘
* 11 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 18.11 3.75 1.50 0,37 0,00 0.00 0.37 7.63 9.13 8.00
3 12.28 0.00 0.00 12.28 15.83 0.20 0.00 0.08 10.78 3.72
. 12 1 6.98_0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 18.27 2.35 5.05 1.78 0.00 0.00 1.78 8.24 11.29 8.00
1 3 15.83 0.00 0.00 15.83 18.10 0.00 0.08 0.08- 10.78 3.72 ' .
13 1 8.98 O.C8 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 18.10 5.89 1.54 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.79 9.58 11.12 10.36
4 12.32 0.00 0.00 12.32 17.93 0.00 0.08 0.08: 10-78 3-72 - -
‘ 14 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 17.80 4.54 2.39 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 8.43 10.82 '8.84
1 5 13.17 0.00 0.00 13.17 17.83 0.00 0.08 0.08‘ 10.78 3.72 . - a - .. '
’ 15 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 14.90 3.37 0.87 ‘ 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.06. 7.92 7.92 8.00
‘ _ 5 11.45 0.00 0.00 11.45 14.82 0.20 0.00 0.083 10.78 3.72
g‘ . 18 1 8.98 0.08.0.17 0.00 .23 10.78 0.00 0.00 17:80 3.09 3.84 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.02 8.98 10.82 8.00
W - g 5 14.82 0.00 0.00 14.82 17.83 0.00 0.08 0.08 W’ 78 3.72 .
' 1 17 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 1:230 3.40 1.04 0.72 0.00 0.00 0,72 7.28 8.32 8.00
1 5 11.82 0.00 0.00 11.82 15.02 0.2 0.00 0.08 10.78 3.72 .
Q 18 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 17.80 2.89 4.24 1.42 0.00 0.00 1.42 6.58 10.82 8.00
.‘ 5 15.02 0.00 0.00 15.02 17.83 0.00 0.08 0.08; 10.78 3.72 .
E 19 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 19.02 5.85 2.50 0.00 0.77 0.14 0.91 9,54 12,04 10,45
. 8 13.28 0.00 0.00 13.28 18.85 0.00 0.08 0.08 10.78 3-72
20 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 - 14.58 3.53 0.17 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.42 7.58 7.58 8.00
7 10.95 ‘ 0.00 0.00 10.95 14.28 0.20 0.00 0.083 10.78 3-72 - . .
21 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 1 19.34 4.97 3.50 0.00 0.43 0.30 0.73 8.88 12.58 9.59
7 14.28 0.00 0.00 14.28 19.17 0.00 0.08 0.083 10.78 3.72 -
22 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 1 14.95 3.55 0.54 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 7.97 7.97 8.00
7 11.32 0.00 0.00 11.32 14.87 0.20 0.00 0.083 10.78 3.72
23 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 1 19-34 4.58 3.89 0.00 0.23 0.30 0.54 8.47 12.38 9.00
7 14.87 0.00 0.00 14.87 19.17 0.00 0.08 0.053 10.78 3.72
24 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 3 16.33 3-63 1.84 0.49 0200 0.00 0.49 7.51 9,35 8,00
7 12.82 0.00 0.00 12.82 18.05 0.20 0.00 0.02? 10.78 3.72
25 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 -} 19-34 3~20 5.27 0.91 0.00 0.30 1.22 7,09 12,36 8,30
7 18.05 0.00 0.00 18.05 19.17 0.00 0.08'0.0§ 10.78 3.72
, 28 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 } 18-40 5.36 2.17 0.00 :0.62 0.00 0.82 9.25 11.42' 9.87
8 12.95 0.00 0.00 12.95 18.23 0.00 0.08 0.085 10.78 3.72 . .
27 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 3 14-83 3-47 0.50 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 7.85 7.85 8.00
| 8 11.28 0.00 0.00 11.28 14.55 0.20 0.00 0.083 10.78 3.72
‘1 28 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 8'3 18.40 3.78 3.77 0.35 0.00 0,00 0.35 7.65 ”.42 8.00
u{ 8 14.55 0.00 0.00 14.55 18.23 0.00 0.08 0.0: 19-73 3.72 _
t 29 1 8.98 0.08 0.17 0.00 7.23 10.78 0.00 0.00 3 1 5“ 6.00 1.87 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.94 9.89 11.58 10.83
‘ ' 9 12.45 0.00 0.00 12.45 18.37 0.00 0.08 0.03

 

PAY TIM;

‘-‘1.‘ITIJ."/.=

!

q
'\

7,?1‘5'1'

\’

U1

"J

if";

r(

'3

f’)

n

l’.‘ P’
"C: :1)
(‘1' (\J

o o
1") f‘)
C‘ C.“
.’\. 3‘.
r4 - 4
1‘ 74
1'" '1‘

C I
P“. -->
r‘ k-\
(L C'

,-

1‘)

3'6],

0

*4

P" "3 T\
F) t - ‘4
h'} x.“ U
I O O
r\ r\

. [x

(I

O

C' L) f‘\
C: ('1 4—'
-.' " 1"\‘
.T C l\

o o a
.31 I.» ~O
1-1 '4 1'4
5'\ ‘3 LA

‘-<

IIW

9'4

"lb

(f

.1:
c.

‘4

(\1

J
:\.'

D

06'

—

’1

P)
U, 'o

f.

{1‘

J
m) r" )
C . U‘. L,"
(j '1 ."_
l.) r‘\ '\
o o D
l_, J" o
C.‘ C‘ 1‘?
l8. “2' r'
f‘ 1.“ (‘1
1f \' x"
r\ f\ f‘-
I O .
C‘ '3‘ 3
T! r 1 v--'
. .‘ i 7 n’\
8.; 9." r.)

(i!

_. {J

“’g.
I

rv

‘(

v"

(‘1
I.)

7_\

(1;.
'9'

1:

41.04%-
H.

4
a

0‘ I

.‘ ‘-
la ‘

cr‘

vfi '1 j
C.
1’1“.”

(1;
c- -_1 7.;

H v7.

C r ..-.'

L‘ C.) C ‘
' I"

C) 9 ’ V ‘

. C .

C 3 C I f")

(I L" ‘6
.\v ‘7: \

t3

‘ I

’n‘
)_,.

I

'5 C-

K: .1'.

A-

- ) ’1 j
C - i J J“.
r; 3: ~21

o o o
.3 J'I u".
__5 .‘4 1:'
7" H H

.- v7 i‘"
:‘ "-1 ’ ‘
.‘flfi - l
: '; J. b
O I .
.f‘l v ._."
(\ {\ 1.
‘ I \1 I "
1\ .' 1 q ‘

I2

J I
(h ( 7
>4 4
' ‘ (\D
o O
|\ (x
".1 1':
w" ‘.-(
0 V"
II; DJ:
.1 I ‘
.x' 1“
o t
‘} 4 a
1 1 \
‘ -
. .
L 0 . ¥

L: '2) Q L“ C) C C-
I“ C‘- u." 0“ J ) r_\
3‘ "3 v") (3 4" 1"
y ' ._\ ‘ 1". 4 "1 C-
< o o o o o o 0
C1 0‘ (I C! o. O C

)— f\ P~ l\ 1’\ (j. V) (—
p— .4 1 1 -I - . 1 :" ' 1
-J 'T.‘ *4 H ¢' 3" " '~.
. \’ '3 s". 9-4 "s l' - Q)
7": . O O O O 0 0
t.
C
:‘ ‘0 ”I 3"; {Q "3 H r4
I: T 1' v ' C‘ " I 3 v 1
3:. {V “5 f <‘ t" -'\'
( '_- ' 9 .'_ —‘ Y“ "J
in --{ - 4 '4 ~- i‘\‘ r\ f")
~~ ‘7 '3. v ' \ l ‘f. :‘-
“I V N -.'- 3‘ (J O o‘
~L ' ‘
U.
(‘7 ”A. f‘.’ _ V; '3- (.‘I
\' V \ ‘2 (V 'Ll ‘:
_ ' r4 44 r1 '_\'
'J
i'
o
‘ Q . " " z ‘ f \

(Jf’)
H“)
( .(,
ill“
0 o
(i'(f‘1
(‘N
, y
AN
N,”
O O
vCIJ
\' \r
O r”
"3 '3
1'; ..
.\ r4
«1r
J 4.)

T!
’ '7)
~nx:
-1-19'.‘

V)
ha
\i
r 1

lf‘
10

(.‘D
'— 4

'1

~11:

IT

.J

0"

7:13

T"'\
..
5‘

.71
"
0'41-

l’\f\

r4

u-J

f\

(r

\

P"!

f!)

A

9/1"

I

O
t) .1' N g-) f\
f‘) LJ'I. r‘ if" ‘C'
'\ "~ '\ ;\ ~4'
q { r4 ‘.' ‘1 9'.
o u o o c
0 t" (I; (T. f“
r4 - H
(1' L. (' "I (I.
~ 1 ~ -‘: 1
"V3 f‘.‘ .'\ 1V." 1."
t': l\ C' C 7‘
o o . o u
9".
V‘ f’) \1 r4 \3
r 7' 3‘ .- _‘
('v L. ‘.-’ r-t "
.\ Tm ,_; ‘\' 0
(‘x 1‘1 “ l '4
(_o ('\ '\ ‘4 \f.
.4
I
'.’\ 1". 'r f.‘ ’1
I I. Y 71 I“
T l ‘ a ‘y .’l 1-\

(I

I;

r?

. \J

A-l3

'H, "v ,:
"“h L'14~ T -

\

1...
.-

- T)

")
.")
..1

u,’

aw

"

f.

B)...

K

_'1

> CS

\rk 141..

1 1

«4‘

DAY

CNLTY

P'

-27

DI

8.1390

I.)
[A

CD
0.!
Vi
9’)

8')
-¢

0:3
[$15
87.1
(.10
‘o o
(1'57?

.OISU
I

O .f
(’4 V ‘
L‘ r."
-J . )
C-J ~‘1
1") ~ 4

HI‘).

5‘1")

8.00MB
SOL'UAO

Q“

.1

07
C

.‘
\
J

1
.-

‘
0.5

3

113'on

1:813
.2th5

L-
'1:
t

1
v- Q

L“ (I

'0
I“

J
‘-

90 71:30:}

-7
‘4’.

U .-
A V

1 .
19

(\1

:57
‘9

.d‘
2.1

C.)

A- I5

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllHlllllllIIHIIIIIIIIHIIHHHI

31293 02637 8699

 

......