Rta Response To Public Hearings

Draft -
RTA Staff summary on

the public comment
period which ran from
April 19, 2018 –
June 3, 2018
Prepared for RTA Board

of Directors
June 13, 2018

The following communication summarizes the feedback that staff has heard on the proposed Connect
Southeast Regional Plan since the RTA Board acted to release it for review at the April 29, 2018 Board of
Directors meeting. For purposes of organization this memorandum has been broken into the following
sections:
• Section A - Overall Takeaways

• Section B - Summary of Elected, Appointed Officials and Provider Comments
• Section C - Summary of RTA Board of Directors Comments
• Section D - Summary of Community/Public Comments/Survey Findings
• Section E - Summary of Financial Review
• Section F - Recommended Proposed Changes for Board Consideration in the Core Service Area
• Section G - Recommended Next Steps
A. Overall Takeaways
For the last 50 days, since the April RTA Board meeting, RTA Board Members, RTA staff, our consultants
and CAC members have been having open community conversations on the draft Connect Southeast
Regional Plan. These conversations have taken place all across the region in rural parts of northern
Macomb (Richmond/Lennox) and Oakland Counties, to southern and western Wayne County, multiple
meetings in the urbanized core of our region, including Detroit, Livonia, Novi, Mount Clemens, to Ann
Arbor in Washtenaw County, to Lansing to Mackinac Island as part of the Detroit Regional Chamber’s
Policy Conference. In total we have presented the draft plan in over 35 different sessions during this
short time span. This number does not factor in the additional meetings and educational sessions put
on by our region’s business leaders, philanthropic community, or transit advocates. The RTA continues
to be contacted by communities across the region and will be giving several additional community
presentations over the next several weeks; which leads to takeaway #1:
Takeaway #1 – Our Region has a strong interest in having more mobility options
When presenting the details of the plan, the most frequent takeaway was that our existing transit
systems are underfunded, and that existing service does not fully meet the needs of the region. Few
comments were shared about the overall quality of service being provided by our existing providers
(AAATA, DDOT and SMART). Rather, there was an understanding that we have under-invested in transit
for many years compared to our peer regions. Also, people understand the correlation that lack of
investment in transit is putting the region further behind our peer economic regions (aka Amazon H2Q
story). It is also clear that that there is a strong desire to continue the conversation until we come up
with a regional solution to our existing funding problem. The overall majority of people want more
transit service, more frequent service and better passenger amenities (i.e., one seat rides, Wi-Fi, and a
unified fare card).
Takeaway #2 – Our Region understands the way we move will be changing in the near future
While acknowledging that the exact future of transport and mobility is not clearly defined today, most
people liked the idea of the Advanced Mobility Fund and having dedicated funding available to have our
CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

1
SUMMARY 6/13/18
region prepared to be a leader in implementation in this area. Also, many communities stated they
liked the idea of being able to provide more innovative first mile/last mile options that don’t exist in our
region today.
Takeaway #3 – In the Core Service Area there is strong support for added frequency associated with
15 for 15 Program
There is strong support for adding additional frequency for the east-west corridors identified in the plan
as well as the Premium corridors. Many people commented on how they like SMART’s new FAST service
running on Gratiot, Woodward and Michigan Avenue. We received many comments about adding
more 15 for 15 service across the region, including a desire to expand service in Western Wayne,
requests included extension of the north-south lines of the western suburbs to run from Ypsilanti
through Plymouth and into Livonia. Additionally, requests included increased service to northern
Oakland and Macomb Counties, as well as, connections between Washtenaw and Oakland Counties.
Specific recommended changes are discussed further in Section F of the report.
Future Frequency of Service Provided under the Connect Southeast Michigan Plan

2
SUMMARY 6/13/18
Takeaway #4 – In the Hometown Service area, while there is a need for more mobility options, 1.5
mills is too large of an ask
Across many northern Oakland and Macomb Counties we have heard from local Township, City and
Village administrators that they are supportive of transit in their communities and they already fund on-
demand type services. However, the 1.5 mills request is not equitable for the return on investment that
they would be provided and many communities stated they would not know how to program that large
of investment in their more rural communities if it was distributed on a per capita basis. Many
acknowledged that their existing transit needs are not being met and that they could benefit from
expanded funds for transit, just not 1.5 mills worth.
Takeaway #5 – There are many competing infrastructure needs in our region
We heard primarily in Macomb County that there are many competing infrastructure needs in our
region including roads and water/sewer. Many individuals expressed that the region should be seeking
to fix its roads first that transit runs on top of, while many others expressed that it can’t be an either-or
solution. We need investment in both our roads and in transit for our region to be competitive with
other regions.
Takeaway #6 – There is strong support to fix our mobility problem now, including being willing to
support increased investment
We received a lot of comments that we need to act now and put the 1.5 mill Connect Southeast
Michigan plan to the voters in November 2018 to fix our mobility issues. The comments requested that
the RTA Board put the transit plan on the ballot to give voters a chance to decide. Many comments
supported voting for expansion of regional transit to attract continued investment and growth in Metro
Detroit. More details on statements of whether individuals see value in the Connect Southeast
Michigan plan can be found in Section D.
Takeaway #7 – There is strong support for the Airport Express Service across all four counties.
A popular program in 2016, the Airport Express Service continued to be a very popular program as part
of the Connect Southeast Michigan plan. We also received comments that the new Michigan Avenue
SMART FAST service serving Wayne County is an excellent addition to our region, and many in Oakland
and Macomb stated that they would be users of this new service.
Takeaway #8 – More definition is needed for the Flexible Funding prior to going to the polls
There were several questions about the specific services eligible to be provided under the Flexible
Services Program (both Hometown and Core Area). The majority of comments received supported the
concept of the program, however, many stated that they would like additional definition around the
types of services that would be eligible and how the program would be administered.

3
SUMMARY 6/13/18
Takeaway #9 – Many across the region still want more capital-intensive investments in transit
solutions including BRT, expansion of streetcar, new light rail systems and expanding commuter rail
up into Oakland and Macomb Counties
We received many comments from across the region wanting more capital investments added to the
plan including more rail investment and adding back more capital costs to Premium 15 for 15 routes
(i.e., Woodward Ave.). Support for these capital investments centered around the belief that if more
capital-intensive investments were made on fewer corridors, a high rate of economic return could be
realized.
Takeaway #10 – Existing transit providers should seek opportunities to consolidate services
Individuals expressed opinions that there is a perception of waste and duplicative efforts between the
existing providers. Others pointed to expand recent successes (Northland Mall reroute) by existing
providers to deliver transit services more efficiently by building off the successes of the current
providers and encouraging collaboration and cooperation amongst them.

4
SUMMARY 6/13/18
B. Summary of Elected Officials and Provider Comments
During the comment period, we have received comments from county leadership in Macomb, Oakland,
Wayne, and Washtenaw as well specific comments from transit providers SMART and AAATA. The
following summarizes the key themes that we have heard from each related to the Connect Southeast
Michigan Plan framework:
Macomb County – supports transit as the only all opt-in County into the SMART system, however
concerned about the impact that the RTA millage discussion may have on the August 2018 SMART
renewal millage. Also has concerns about the condition of Oakland County roads and believes road
investment is a higher priority for Macomb County residents than expanded transit.
Oakland County – supports regional transit but only in the 25 communities that currently opt-into the
SMART system. Wants to see the enabling statute modified to allow for a smaller regional transit
taxing footprint. On June 5, 2018 Oakland County Administration provided specific comments on the
plan the financial model. These comments are addressed in Section E.
Washtenaw County – supports regional transit, supports the draft Connect Southeast Michigan plan
with minor changes.
Wayne County – supports regional transit, supports the draft Connect Southeast Michigan plan as
presented.
City of Detroit – supports regional transit, supports the draft Connect Southeast Michigan plan as
presented.
SMART – provided written comments around how the Connect Southeast Michigan plan impacts their
system. A written response to all SMART comments is provided at the end of this section (most of
which all the route changes requested by SMART have been made to the revised plan).
AAATA – provided written comments around how the Connect Southeast Michigan plan impacts their
system. Specific concerns included:
• Proposed merger of certain functions of all transit agencies should be clarified. If this is intended
to refer to DDOT and SMART, that should be clarified in the plan. We feel that neither the Ann
Arbor area nor metro Detroit area would benefit from including the AAATA in any such
discussions.
• Add back in capital funds for the Washtenaw Ave (Ypsi-A2) corridor to bring it up to a premium
corridor. We believe this would be an excellent corridor for transit signal priority and other
treatments.
• Evaluate the need for express bus service on US-23. As an alternative, we would suggest an
express service between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, or increased level of express service on I-94
from Chelsea to/from Ann Arbor.
See Section F for responses to these suggested changes.

5
SUMMARY 6/13/18
Response to SMART comments given on the Connect Southeast Michigan Plan
Note: Because the comments were received in the form of a scanned PDF file, each SMART comment is abbreviated
with the first few words of the comment. A full response follows each abbreviated comment. The complete original
comment memo is attached behind the responses.
“SMART’s existing Southfield extension of 710 currently follows 9 mile all the way to Telegraph. This
service change was introduced in fall 2017…”
In response to this change, the RTA proposes to modify the 9 Mile route in the CSM. The west end of the
route will be split so existing service level to 9 Mile and Telegraph is preserved while additional trips will
proceed northwest to 12 Mile and Telegraph via Southfield Civic Center.
“On Page 26 of the May 10 Financial Tech Model Review PowerPoint, the 48 and 510/515 would be
consolidated to form the foundation of a new Van Dyke/Mound service, but the map shows most of
the route operating on Mound and Mt. Elliott, not Van Dyke…”
This route has been revised several times through the development of the plan. As it no longer follows
the existing Van Dyke routes, the RTA now proposes to leave those routes unchanged and operate the
Van Dyke-Mound Road route as a FAST overlay service. To serve the new Amazon facility at Mound and
23 Mile, the Van Dyke/Mound FAST corridor will split at 23 Mile with half of trips serving the Amazon
facility and half serving the Wal Mart where the current SMART service terminates.
“What about situations like where the DDOT 48 extends south of Gratiot and then follows Lafayette
downtown, or where SMART 330 runs North/South on Beech Daly before turning to run east/west on
Grand River...”
The above change (Van Dyke/Mound) addresses the concern regarding DDOT 48. This route will no
longer be modified. Route 330 had previously been proposed to be truncated so the non-Grand River
portion would remain, while the Grand River portion would be served by the new consolidated service.
However, the RTA now proposes to leave the Route 330 service, which functions more as a circulator,
unchanged. All service on Grand River beyond 7 Mile Road would be in addition to service out there
today.
“23 Mile service seems excessive…”
The 23-mile service was designed based on specific feedback provided by the County Executive offices
and projected growth along the corridor.
“It does not seem like the reason for the millage rising from 1.2 to 1.5 has been adequately explained,
especially with the dramatic shifting of capital investments away from the BRT concept.”
The BRT projects in the 2016 RMTP were heavily dependent on federal funding, which constituted a risk
to that program, and also meant that removing them did not reduce the millage as much as one might
expect. There are a few primary reasons for the millage increase:

6
SUMMARY 6/13/18
• Substantial increase in funding for the communities beyond the fixed route service area, through
the Hometown Service Program
• Substantial increase in infrastructure spending through the Chokepoint Reduction program and
the Advanced Mobility Program
• Increase in assumed service levels on some consolidated corridors, particularly Mound/Van Dyke
and Grand River.
• Major investment in commuter express network that was entirely absent from the previous plan.
“Two capital expenditures seem to be fairly outsized. Spending $400 million on Advanced Mobility
and $143 million on planning/development seems questionable…”
The way our region moves, connects to other communities, services and regional assets is evolving. The
Advanced Mobility program has been set up to create innovative public private partnership with
emerging first/last mile providers that will continue to expand across the region. While it may seem
outsized today, we believe this level of funding is an investment in our region’s future and will result in
sizable economic returns in the future. Ultimately, the RTA Board will be approving projects and budgets
in the implementation phase of the plan. The planning and development dollar allocations are funded to
allow for selected project to enter a project development phase that will make them competitive for
future federal funding.
“If federal formula funding increased in the future due to a significant federal program expansion,
would the dollar amounts distributed to each provider increase proportionately, or continue to grow
only with the rate of inflation…”
We don’t see this as a likely scenario under the current federal administration, however, should this
occur the board would address through its planning and service provider committee.
“Curious why on page 25 of the financial memo, the useful service life of a paratransit vehicle is
assumed to be 4 years instead of the 7 years/200,000 miles called for according to the FTA’s Altoona
Testing standard for small cutaway buses.”
This assumption is actually not used in the financial forecast because the CSM Plan’s paratransit
spending constitutes lump sum grants to the providers. The FTA’s standard for grant management is 4
years / 100,000 miles (FTA Circular 5010.1D)
“Why is there even less service in Livonia, Westland, Northville, Plymouth, or Canton than proposed in
2016...”
The RTA has proposed revisions to the plan to add more fixed route service in these communities based
on community feedback received during the public engagement process. Additional service is being
proposed in Canton based on community feedback (see Section F).
“There seems to be continued confusion about what the Hometown Service would actually do…”
It would provide greater mobility services to expand paratransit programs, senior shuttles, shopping
shuttles and other on demand mobility options. We have not heard confusion regarding the intent of

7
SUMMARY 6/13/18
the program however we have heard that the available funding may be greater than some communities
can currently identify corresponding needs. There are no lines on the map as you recommend because
the Hometown Program is specifically intended to be a local-controlled program and not dictated
regionally. This arrangement is purposeful and directly addresses concerns over local control identified
in the 2016 Regional Master Transit Plan.
“SMART’s overarching concern is that this plan could effectively be adding a new story to a building
while putting the foundation at risk…”
We have heard this criticism of the plan and are committed to work with SMART to minimize any risk of
the unintended consequences of SMART members choosing to opt-out as a result of a successful RTA
millage. SMART maintaining its current membership and financial resources is imperative for the
successful delivery of the Connect Southeast Michigan Plan should the RTA Board choose to place it on
the ballot. Using the building analogy, if proper care and routine maintenance (aka – continued
excellent service by SMART that communities have come to value for over 20 years) are applied over time
foundations tend to last years and years without jeopardy of collapse.
“For many communities receiving limited fixed route service today, and that will receive limited
additional fixed route service under CSM, the main incentive they have to participate in SMART is the
receipt of Community Credits from SMART millage dollars to support local senior services. The CSM
plan would provide more money to each community than SMART can afford to provide under its
current millage, so it would make sense for these communities to leave SMART if they can pay one
(RTA) millage and receive more money than through SMART. While this problem has not led SMART
to actively oppose the Connect Southeast Michigan plan, it does make us fearful of the plan’s
unintended consequences.”
SMART maintaining its current membership and financial resources is imperative for the successful
delivery of the Connect Southeast Michigan Plan.

8
SUMMARY 6/13/18
C. Summary of RTA Board of Directors Comments
As part of the joint Planning and Service Coordination/Budget and Finance Committee meeting we
received several comments on the draft Financial Tech Memorandum that was reviewed in detail with
committee members. Additionally, Board Member Swatosh provided specific comments on the plan
structure and routes. Responses to those questions are provided below:
1. We have the projected ROI numbers (Millage and “All Source”) and I understand that they are for
the entire 20-year period. Is it possible to project them in 5-year increments? (This would be a
good management and oversight tool.)
Once the plan is finalized these tables will be provided in 5-year increments.
2. Why do following routes (from the 2016 plan) that provided connections in the SMART opt-out
areas appear to be missing from the 2016-plan?
o the M-59 service to Waterford/White Lake

o the Dequindre service to Rochester (the “Walking Man” issue still would exist!)
o the Ford road service to Canton
o the Plymouth road service to Livonia
The Ford Road extension to Canton has been restored in the revised Connect Southeast Michigan
Plan. In addition, the John R route is now proposed to continue to downtown Rochester via Troy
Beaumont Hospital, serving much of the area that was previously to be served by the Dequindre
extension that is no longer included in the plan. M-59 service to Waterford/White Lake was not
provided as Waterford/White Lake are in the Hometown Service Area. Plymouth Road service to
Livonia was not able to be provided within the 1.5 mill allocation. We did not get any additional
feedback regarding these routes beyond what is already addressed in Section F.
3. Why shorten the 9 Mile service? It currently goes from Jefferson to Telegraph. The proposed 9
Mile route would delete service to the Easter Seals Facility on 9 Mile just West of Lahsher, that
services several thousand patients.
The 9 Mile service to Telegraph is not being discontinued. Rather, the Connect Southeast Michigan
Plan proposes to increase service on 9 Mile Road while creating an additional service pattern on the
west end. Half of trips would terminate at 9 Mile and Telegraph, while the other half would
terminate at 12 Mile and Telegraph via the Southfield Civic Center, running along Northwestern
Highway and Civic Center Drive to 12 Mile. The map has been updated accordingly to show that
service to 9 Mile and Telegraph remains.
4. The “Limited-Stop 510 SMART route is a commuter express. It appears to have been deleted in the
new plan? The “consolidation of DDOT 48, SMART 515 and SMART 510 would decrease the level
of service.
This route has been revised several times through the development of the Connect Southeast
Michigan Plan. As it no longer follows the existing Van Dyke routes, the RTA now proposes to leave
those routes unchanged and operate the Van Dyke-Mound Road route as a FAST overlay service. To
address the comment below about the new Amazon facility at Mound and 23 Mile, the Van

9
SUMMARY 6/13/18
Dyke/Mound FAST corridor will split at 23 Mile with half of trips serving the Amazon facility and half
serving the Wal Mart where the current SMART service terminates.
5. Why doesn’t the Mound/Van Dyke route connect north to any major north of M-59 such as the
Amazon facility due to open this Fall? How do you propose to serve north/south access to
approximately 2,000 new jobs at the new Amazon facility by Mound and 23 Mile? SMART is going
to add service for the Amazon facility and the RTA was made aware of that plan.
SMART, Macomb County and Oakland County recently announced that SMART is intending to
provide this service to the new Amazon facility so no additional north south services are proposed as
RTA providing this service would be redundant. The Connect Southeast Michigan Plan does provide
east/west service via 23 Mile Road connecting Pontiac and points east and west of the Amazon
facility; allowing people in Pontiac and other communities in Oakland County convenient one seat
ride access to these new job opportunities.
6. Why is SMART Van Dyke service cut south of 15 Mile?
See response to question 4 above.
7. Why combine DDOT’s major artery Grand River service with SMART’s 330 local circulator? What is
the benefit?
The Connect Southeast Michigan Plan has been modified to leave SMART Route 330 unchanged.
Instead, DDOT Route 21 has simply been extended to Novi, with half of the newly extended trips
short-turning at Farmington Hills.
8. If SMART, DDOT and the AAATA are to operate the new fixed route services, how will new buses
be purchased? Who will do all the Procurement work?
No final determination has been made regarding the details of bus procurement associated with the
Connect Southeast Michigan Plan. However, during the planning process it was recognized that
there may be financial and coordination benefits of cooperative procurements of more than one
agency, with one agency playing a lead procurement role.
9. Concerning the Airports Express Service:
a) Who will operate this service and what will be the business arrangement… Fares, Customer
Service?
The financial model assumes that the operation of this service will be analogous to the Air Ride
service from Ann Arbor to DTW Airport which is a contractual arrangement with a private company.
However, the financial model does not dictate board action and an alternative approach may be
recommended by staff and approved by the RTA Board at the time of implementation. If these
services are approved as part of the plan, the RTA commits to talk to the existing providers to offer
them the first right of refusal to staff these new services.
b) Will this service be via a contract with a current overland coach service and/or will this be a P3
project?

10
SUMMARY 6/13/18
See response to question 9a above.
c) Will there be service quality and safety standards required?
If the service is provided by an existing public provider it is assumed that the quality and safety
standards of that provider will be adopted for this service. If the service is operated by a private
provider quality and service standards will be part of a contractual arrangement that adheres to the
RTA procurement process.
d) Where does the Macomb service start and why does the Macomb service go to WSU?
Many of the routes are envisioned to include more than one stop. The Macomb service travels via I-
94, starting at Lakeside Mall with stops at Eastland Center and Midtown Detroit (WSU).
e) Why is there no Airport Express Service from Downtown Detroit?
This was removed from the plan as it was considered redundant with the Midtown/WSU airport
express service, as well as the SMART provided FAST Michigan Ave service that connects downtown
Detroit to the DTW airport already being provided today.
10. The proposed plan increases the highest frequency span of FAST service from 6am-8pm to 4am-
9pm. Who covers the increased cost?
The plan does not propose any changes in FAST service on Woodward and Gratiot. The graphics in
the financial tech memo are intended as rough approximations as service levels tend to be volatile
especially at the start and end of service. The 4am-5am service period has been removed as that
was shown erroneously. Woodward has 30-minute service from approximately 5am and 20-minute
service from approximately 7pm to 9pm (varies by direction). Gratiot operates higher frequency
service slightly longer.
11. For the routes with 15-minute service at peak, what is the time span of service off-peak?
The spans and headways vary considerably by route. In general, in corridors where SMART and
DDOT service are consolidated, the DDOT service level was used as the minimum standard for
service at all times, as well as the overall span of service. In addition, where DDOT operates 24-hour
service, that service is extended to the suburban portion of consolidated corridors, with frequency
increased so a bus comes at least every 30 minutes throughout the span of service (including
overnights on 24-hour routes).
The illustrations in the Financial Tech Memo provide an indication of the spans and headways
proposed on all of the 15-minute routes. These are subject to refinement and detailed service
planning in coordination with the Providers. This will be done after the Master Plan has been
adopted.
12. If SMART, DDOT and the AAATA are to operate the new fixed route services:
• How will all the operators’ new driver, maintenance employees be hired and trained?

11
SUMMARY 6/13/18
The Connect Southeast Michigan Plan does not address this level of detail and does not assume
that any changes will be made to the Human Resources practices and policies of the transit
providers in the region.
• The current maintenance facilities and vehicle storage facilities need to be expanded. Much
planning will be required to make sure facilities are ready in time. How would this be
managed?
The implementation details of facilities construction and/or expansion are not included in the
Connect Southeast Michigan Plan. Project delivery discussions/assumptions discussions will be
started after the Master Plan has been adopted.
• Has DDOT and SMART been consulted concerning the plan for procurement, hiring and
training?
These topics have not been discussed, however discussions will be held after the Master Plan
has been adopted.
13. What is the justification for doubling the FAST service on Michigan Ave.?
The service was increased to establish a minimum service standard for all FAST corridors. In
discussions with SMART, a higher level of service was desired but was not feasible with SMART’s
existing resources.
14. In the “Commuter Express Service” 15 Park & Ride lots are planned with no locations identified.
Have any locations been identified and acquisition costs confirmed? (Note: SMART will probably
have to close two of their Park & Ride lots when Farmington Hills opts out.)
The Park and Ride locations have not been identified yet. Costs are estimated based on costs of
similar facilities.
15. Who will oversee/coordinate the Hometown Service process with the communities to make sure
the region is being served with cost-effective local services? At $30 million/year this is a
tremendous amount of funding for a very loosely defined project. This will take a great deal of
oversight and coordination. How will the RTA accomplish the design, establishment and
oversight?
Agree the RTA will provide oversight of Hometown Service and Core Area Flexible funds. This
activity will be required to assure fiscal transparency and prove to the public that the RTA is being
good stewards of the dollars provided. Following passage of the Master Plan the RTA will work
closely with existing transit providers, community leaders and community transit providers to
develop eligibility guidelines and program parameters that more clearly define oversight
requirements and funding distribution.
16. Are there Ridership Projections and Employer Worker Data available for the regional Express
routes?

12
SUMMARY 6/13/18
Ridership forecasts have not been developed. Journey to work data is available from SEMCOG as
well as the U.S. Census.
17. Why is the acquisition/takeover of the Q-Line “assumed”? Doesn’t it require the approval of the
RTA board?
The acquisition of the QLINE after a period of ten years after operation was already approved by the
RTA Board in 2016 and is included in the existing 2016 RMTP. As such that service was extended
forward and inclusion of the operational costs only were included as base element of the Connect
Southeast Michigan Plan. The decision to keep the QLine as part of this Master Plan update is a
policy decision that is within the rights of the Board of Directors to remove from the draft Connect
Southeast Michigan Plan or keep within the plan.
18. What commitment is assumed to the Q-Line for their operating Expenses, capital and debt?
Annual operations and maintenance costs are assumed, based on existing O&M costs, which are
sufficient to operate service and maintain the system in a state of good repair. It is not anticipated
that any major capital projects would be needed within the 20-year millage horizon, including no
new vehicles. It is not assumed that the RTA would take on any existing debts. The annual O&M cost
is currently estimated to be approximately $5.8 million.
19. How was it determined that $146 Million (>$7 Million per year, for the next 20 years) would be
paid consultants for planning? Would the board have a say on how these funds would be spent? If
so, would that be by majority vote or super majority (7/9)?
$146 million was set aside for future planning needs over the next 20 years. No determination has
been made on whether that work would be done in house or by consultants. Execution of
contractual vehicles for any services requested by the RTA if deemed necessary do not require a
super majority vote of the board.
20. How is the $5.9 Million for “RTA Administration” proposed to be spent? How about an
Organization chart with proposed headcount?
RTA administration costs assumed in the model include $2 million for annual administration,
$500,000 for service planning and corridor studies, $920,000 to operate the integrated fare
collection system, and $2.5 million to operate the one-click/one-call traveler coordination center.
An organization chart can be provided once the framework of the plan has been agreed upon.
21. Facilities cost projection of $846 Million seems to be excessive, the $368 million proposed for
“Chokepoint Reduction” is very expensive and the “Advanced Mobility” cost projection of $400
million is very generous. Is this a cost-effective or conservative plan or a free-spending plan?
The funding allocations for these programs were developed based on existing conditions and the
potential for alternative mobility solutions in the future. The RTA Board will be approving projects
and budgets in the implementation phase of the plan.

13
SUMMARY 6/13/18
22. Please define the difference between a millage expenditure and a non-millage expenditure in the
chart below.
Non-millage sources of funding include farebox revenue, federal formula funds, federal grants, state
matching funds, and LBO funding.
23. How will the RTA handle to loss of current services if/when municipalities choose to opt out of
SMART or the AAATA, or those agencies see their millage rates reduced in the future, if the RTA
millage would be on the ballot and approved?
The provisions of PA 196 allow communities to opt-in and opt-out of service agreements at their
own will. RTA does not control nor can speak to the contractual relationships that existing between
existing opt-in communities and SMART. If such actions happen in the future the RTA commits to
work with SMART to rebalance service in those impacted communities.
24. Why is the Light Rail from Detroit to Metro airport still considered a viable project worthy of
millions of dollars of research and planning when the 21-mile light rail project could never be
funded? It would cost ~ $2 Billion. The FTA would never approve matching funds and has never
funded. They have never approved a light rail project of that length.
The Federal Transit Administration has funded several light rail systems and individual lines of
significant length in cities such as Dallas, Denver and Phoenix to name a few. A rail connection to
the airport has been identified as a regional priority, however allocation of the project development
and planning funds is at the discretion of the RTA Board which may choose higher priority project
worthy of those funds.

14
SUMMARY 6/13/18
D. Summary of Community/Public Comments/Survey Results
This section provides a more detailed summary of the activities that have taken place over the last 50
days and results from the online survey tool that was used to garner input from individuals across our
region. In total more than 3,000 people provide input during this 50-day period. Many of the
comments received provide the justification for the proposed changes outlined in Section F.

15
SUMMARY 6/13/18
Connect Southeast
Michigan Transit
Plan
Public Engagement Summary
6/7/2018
Public Engagement Summary | 2
PREPARED BY HTNB
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
Community Events .................................................................................................................. 4
Comment Summary................................................................................................................. 6
Survey Summary..................................................................................................................... 7
Combined Feedback Summary.............................................................................................. 10
Regional Transit Framework Engagement.............................................................................. 11
Media Activity........................................................................................................................ 11
Next Steps ............................................................................................................................ 12
Introduction
The following document summarizes the engagement activities that accompanied the release of
the proposed Connect Southeast Michigan Plan for public comment by the Regional Transit
Authority (RTA) Board of Directors. The proposed Connect Southeast Michigan Plan was
developed in partnership with the executive leadership teams with representatives from all four
counties (Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw and Wayne) in the four-county RTA region. As the
champion of the proposed plan Wayne County Executive Warren Evans, presented it to the RTA
Board on March 15, 2018. At the RTA Board Meeting on April 19, 2018, the Board decided to put
the proposed Connect Southeast Michigan Plan out for public comment. The RTA used the
following strategies for public outreach:
x Community Events
x General Comments
x Online Survey
x Traditional and Social Media
At each public meeting, the RTA presented on lessons learned from 2016, trends in Southeastern
Michigan for transit, and the details of proposed plan. Following the public engagement period,
the RTA Board may choose to adopt the proposed plan as an update to the 2016 Regional Master
Transit Plan.
MEETING NOTIFICATIONS
RTA stakeholders were e-mailed invitations to participate on two occasions. The first to announce
meeting dates, followed later by a second, to encourage participation in the survey. Elected and
appointed officials in the 4-county area were notified of community meeting dates in direct mail,
as well as emails. Lastly, approximately 4,500 copies of the Connect Southeast Michigan
informational newsletters were printed and distributed by the RTA team and partner orga nizations.
Community Events
Beginning on April 25, 2018, the RTA hosted six public meetings across the four-county region to
engage people on the proposed Connect Southeast Michigan Plan. In all, 293 people attended
the meetings. A breakdown of each meeting location and attendance can be found in Table 1.
Each meeting was styled with informational boards, large system maps, a formal presentation,
and a question and answer session. Staff was onsite to discuss the plan, take comments, and
answer questions.
TABLE 1 PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY
Date Event Location Attendance

April 25, 2018 South Oakland Baldwin Public Library 77
300 W. Merrill St.
Birmingham, MI 48009
April 26, 2018 City of Detroit Detroit Historical Museum 78
5401 Woodward Ave.
Detroit, MI 48202
April 30, 2018 Wayne Schoolcraft College, 36
VisTaTech Center
18600 Haggerty Rd.
Livonia, MI 48152
May 2, 2018 North Oakland Rochester Community House 46
816 Ludlow Ave.
Rochester, MI 48307
May 2, 2018 Washtenaw Ann Arbor Public Library 26
343 S. 5th Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
May 3, 2018 Macomb Mt. Clemens Public Library 30
150 Cass Ave.
Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
Total: 293
The RTA preformed additional outreach at public events throughout the region. The date and
location of these meetings are listed in Table 2.
Table 2 Additional Outreach Events
April 19, 2018 WDET Smart Politics with Stephen Henderson in Shelby Township
April 20, 2018 Eight Mile Boulevard Association Luncheon
May 9, 2018 Issues & Ales event at Fillmore 13 Brewery (Chairman Hillegonds)
May 15, 2018 Detroit City Council Community Meeting in District 5
May 18, 2018 Dearborn Business Leaders
May 22, 2018 Meeting with Richmond/Lenox EMS
May 22, 2018 I-94 Resident Roundtable Community Meeting at Next Energy
May 24, 2018 South Oakland Meeting
May 26, 2018 Connect Southeast Michigan information booth at Eastern Market
May 29, 2018 Waterford Township Board
May 30, 2018 Macomb Transit Tele-Town Hall (with Transportation Riders United)
May 31, 2018 Novi Moses Connect Southeast Michigan Informational Meeting
May 31, 2018 Rochester Moses Connect Southeast Michigan Informational Meeting
June 3, 2018 Oakland Transit Tele-Town Hall (with Transportation Riders United)
June 4, 2018 Royal Oak Beaumont Hospital
June 5, 2018 Oakland County Economic Development Committee presentation
June 12, 2018 Conference of Minority Transportation Officials presentation
Comment Summary
During the comment period, the RTA solicited feedback through a number of mediums including;
e-mail, written comments, in-person at meetings, and phoned in. In total RTA received 233
comments that were written, emailed, or via telephone. Of these comments 97 expressed
support for the plan, 57 were neutral comments, and 43 spoke out against the plan.
Additional outreach events in Macomb and Oakland included two Transit Tele-Town Hall
meetings. In Macomb over 30,000 voters received phone or voicemail invitations to the town hall
meeting, resulting in over 4,000 people joining for at least part of the call.
The top most commonly mentioned themes were requests for more service, funding, and the
potential vote in November 2018.
MORE SERVICE
A popular theme was increasing service, the comments highlighted people’s desire for a more
comprehensive service area. Included in this was the desire to add more services in the
Hometown Service area. However, much of the Hometown Service area also felt that spending
would not be adequate to justify support, and that their options for service in return were out of
date and underwhelming. Commenters requested more clarity on what they would be getting
from supporting the plan.
There was a desire to expand service in Western Wayne, requests included extension of the
north-south lines of the western suburbs to run from Ypsilanti through Plymouth and into Livonia.
Additionally, requests included increased service to northern Oakland and Macomb Counties, as
well as, connections between Washtenaw and Oakland Counties. Several comments requested
extending the QLine or adding additional commuter rail service from Detroit to Pontiac.
Washtenaw County commented in favor of expanding commuter rail service through Ann Arbor
and into Chelsea, Lima and Dexter. Commenters mentioned expansion of QLine service into
Oakland County for access to special events and commuting. People asked for more frequency
and more premium services, such as light rail, to connect the region.
FUNDING
Comments on funding centered around
requests for the funding to implement
the plan and concerns about how the
money would be spent. Expressed
frequently was the concern over the
need for a millage. There was
apprehension over investing additional
funding in transit while roads are also in
need of investment. Proposed ideas for
funding sources included additional
sales tax, or only taxing areas that desire
transit expanded.
Some townships in the Hometown

Service area noted that the millage rate
would be greater than they collect for
general township operations in their Figure 1 Baldwin Public Library
communities, and as such, they were
unsure how they would be able to utilize all of the funds they would be receiving. Lastly, the
comments mention the ability for local control, specifically to how money is spent in the Hometown
Service areas and what regulations will be in place.
VOTE
While the comment period for the proposed Connect Southeast Michigan Plan was separate from
the discussion on a November 2018 ballot opportunity, many of the comments mention this
theme. The comments request that the RTA Board put the transit plan on the ballot to give voters
a chance to decide. A handful of commenters indicated that they would be voting no if the plan
was placed on the ballot. Several of the concerns focused on whether communities would have
the option to opt out, and what impact the loss of these communities would have on the RTA’s
ability to deliver the projects in the plan. Many comments supported voting for expansion of
regional transit to attract continued investment and growth in Metro Detroit.
OTHER COMMENTS
In addition to the top three themes, people
commented on many topics including
routing, farecards and parking. Several
voiced support for streamlining the system
with an all-inclusive regional fare card. While
others expressed support for including a
variety of modes and how they will
supplement each other.
Concerns were identified over the services

ability to reach jobs located in population
centers outside of Detroit. While others
expressed concern that the RTA had not
done a sufficient job of advertising the goals
and benefits to particular service areas, Figure 2 VisTaTech Center at Schoolcraft College
specifically those residents that fall within the
Hometown Services.
Another common concern expressed was that the RTA’s footprint is simply too large to provide
adequate service and should be reduced.
A desire was expressed to address suburban commuters need for parking and access. Royal
Oak and Birmingham were cited specially as areas that should include parking to facilitate easier
access of express services.
Lastly many shared experiences living in other cities, like Chicago and New York, and expressed
their desire to have these same positive transit interactions in Detroit.
Survey Summary
In tandem with the request for public comments, the RTA hosted a survey to gauge support for
public transit and how such a system would be used. The survey opened on April 19, 2018 and
closed on June 3, 2018. During that time there were 2,263 surveys completed.
Survey results were received from 938 transit riders, 41%, and 1325 non-transit riders, 58%. As
shown in Figure 3, the survey results came in from across the region, 11% from Macomb, 38%
from Oakland, 17% from Washtenaw, and 34% from Wayne. The survey reached people from
different parts of the region and is representative of a spectrum of opinions. Participants were
asked whether or not they currently use transit, how they would use transit if it was available to
them, what were their priorities for a transit system, feedback on the plan, and their willingness to
support regional transit in the future.
FIGURE 3 SURVEY PARTICIPANTS COUNTY OF ORIGIN
11%
34%
38%
17%
Macomb Oakland Washtenaw Wayne
Survey responses included participants from every age group. The greatest input came from the
26-49 age group constituting 51.4% of responses. The next highest level of participation were
ages 50-65 at 25.3%, then ages16-25 with 12.3% of responses and followed closely by the over
65 demographic with 9.5%.
TABLE 3 PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS BY AGE
Age Range
Under 16 years 0%
16 to 25 years 11%
26-49 years 47%
50-65 years 23%
Over 65 years 9%
Prefer not to answer 11%
Each of the 938 transit users surveyed were asked if the current transit system meets their needs.
50% said that the current system meets some of their needs, while 17% responded that it meets
most of their needs and 17% said that their needs were not met at all.
Figure 4 DOES THE CURRENT TRANSIT SYSTEM MEET YOUR NEEDS?
Meets all of my needs 5%
Neutral 11%
Not at all 17%
Meets most of my needs 17%
Somewhat meets my needs 50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Non-transit users were asked what prevents them from utilizing transit, and 26% responses
selected it is not convenient. In addition, 18% people cited that transit rides take too long, 14%
said they prefer their car, 15% selected that transit does not take them where they need to go and
their area is not served received 14% of the responses.
Figure 5 WHY ARE YOU NOT A TRANSIT USER?
I require special services that are not provided 0%
None of the above 1%
Too complicated to use multiple systems 12%
There is not service in my area 14%
Will not take me where I need to go 15%
I prefer my car 14%
Takes too long 18%
Not convenient 26%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

All participants were asked if they would be willing to support the millage, 61.9% replied yes, 8.3%
replied maybe, 11.7% replied undecided, need more information, and 17.9% replied no.
FIGURE 6 SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN
70%
62%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 17%
11%
9%
10%
0%
Support
Yes Maybe Undecided No
The survey remained open until midnight of June 3, 2018. The data will be compiled and
presented to the RTA Board of Directors.
Combined Feedback Summary

When combining comments and survey responses, a total of 2,250 pieces of feedback were
received and analyzed. Further evaluation of these combined results are shown in Figure 7.
Updated responses found 60% of feedback remained in support of the Plan, neutral or
undecided comments made up 20% of feedback, and comments against the proposal were 18%
of total responses.
FIGURE 7 COMBINED SUPPORT FIGURES FOR CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN

70%
61%
60%
50%
40%
30%
21%
20% 18%
10%
0%
Yes Maybe/Neutral No
Regional Transit Framework Engagement

In addition to the engagement done during the formal CSM period, the RTA has been actively
meeting with local government officials and stakeholders since January 2018. This included
meeting with leaders of eleven municipalities and townships, two executive committees and
several stakeholders in Oakland County to discuss their potential transit needs. Some of the major
themes discussed in these meetings included concern over opt-out communities, the growing
transit burden required by senior and special needs populations and the high millage cost;
particularly for communities that have operating millages lower than 1 mill. These meetings
provided essential input towards the development of the Hometown Service program as it is
conceived in the CSM.
Media Activity
Leading up to the public meetings, the RTA and the proposed Connect Southeast Michigan Plan
appeared in many publications. From April 19, 2018 to April 25, 2018, the date of the first public
meeting in South Oakland, the RTA appeared in 31 publications.
The social media team created an online campaign to encourage residents of Southeast Michigan
to engage in the request for public comments, using posts, tweets, Facebook events and
photographs. During the public meeting series, the RTA had 58,378 engagements with users,
and generated 1,151 responses to social media posts. The full social media report, as well as
documentation of all other media activity, can be found in Appendix B.
Figure 8 Examples of top pHUforming social media posts Facebook (Left) Twitter (Right)
Telephone Town Halls

The RTA working in partnership with Transit Riders United (TRU) held also held
two telephone town-halls to get feedback on the Connect Southeast Michigan
Plan. The town-hall lasted one hour and provided participants an overview of
the Connect Southeast Michigan Plan proposed services. Participants were
allowed to submit their questions for RTA staff to respond. On May 31, 2018
over 4,000 people joined for at least part of the call, with 2,000 staying on for at
least several minutes, and 400 staying through the entire hour call. On June 3rd
nearly 4,000 people participated in some of it, 1,500 people during the first 10
minutes, and 280 stayed on the call for the entire hour.
Staff found this to be a very effective tool to reach a large audience to educate
our region on the Connect Southeast Michigan Plan and thanks TRU for
coordinating this outreach opportunity.
Total Survey Results
*DATA DOES NOT INCLUDE THIRD PARTY SURVEY RESULTS, 852 RESPONDENTS ENCOURAGED TO SELECT MORE THAN ONE
OPTION
*DATA DOES NOT INCLUDE THIRD PARTY SURVEY RESULTS
*DATA DOES NOT INCLUDE THIRD PARTY SURVEY RESULTS
*1,325 RESPONDENTS ENCOURAGED TO SELECT UP TO THREE OPTIONS
*1,325 RESPONDENTS ENCOURAGED TO SELECT UP TO THREE OPTIONS
*DATA DOES NOT INCLUDE THIRD PARTY SURVEY RESULTS OR 35 RESPONDENTS WHO PREFERRED NOT TO ANSWER
*2,263 RESPONDENTS ENCOURAGED TO SELECT ONE OR MORE ANSWER
❖
❖
❖
❖
➢
➢
➢
➢
❖
➢
➢
➢
❖
❖
❖
❖
❖
❖
E. Summary of Financial Review
On June 5th, RTA was presented with a list of questions on the financial plan from Oakland County. The
following section provides an overview of the financial comments received and responses to questions
posed during the last 50 days.

16
SUMMARY 6/13/18
Financial Analysis Technical Memorandum
Connect Southeast
Michigan Transit
Plan
Version 2 – DRAFT June 2018
Financial Analysis Tech Memo
PREPARED BY: HNTB Corporation
June 2018 2
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Financial Model ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Local Funding Mechanism......................................................................................................................... 6
Multiple Transit Providers .......................................................................................................................... 6
Financial Task Force ................................................................................................................................. 7
Agency and Board Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 8
2. Model Inputs .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Economic and Financial Assumptions..................................................................................................... 10
Demographic Assumptions...................................................................................................................... 11
Property Valuation (Taxable Value) ........................................................................................................ 12
Revenue Sources .................................................................................................................................... 13
Operations and Maintenance Costs ........................................................................................................ 23
Capital Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Service-Specific Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 28
3. Connect Southeast Michigan Plan ...................................................................................................... 30
Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................................................... 30
Routes at 15-Minute Frequencies ........................................................................................................... 30
Commuter Rail......................................................................................................................................... 35
Commuter Express .................................................................................................................................. 35
Airport Express ........................................................................................................................................ 36
New/Extended Local Service .................................................................................................................. 36
Streetcar .................................................................................................................................................. 37
Planning and Development ..................................................................................................................... 37
Core Area Flexible Mobility...................................................................................................................... 37
Hometown Service .................................................................................................................................. 37
Advanced Mobility Program .................................................................................................................... 37
Transit Supporting Infrastructure to Reduce Chokepoints ...................................................................... 38
Regional Fare Integration ........................................................................................................................ 38
Regional Facilities ................................................................................................................................... 38
4. Connect Southeast Michigan Plan Costs............................................................................................ 39
Regional Transit Millage .......................................................................................................................... 39
Operating Costs....................................................................................................................................... 39
Capital Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 40
Impact to Existing Transit Providers ........................................................................................................ 41
5. Existing and Future Funding ............................................................................................................... 42
Regional Transit Millage .......................................................................................................................... 42
June 2018 3
State Funding .......................................................................................................................................... 42

Federal Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 42
Reliance on Providers ............................................................................................................................. 43
6. Regional Growth in Service................................................................................................................. 45
7. Performance Measures ....................................................................................................................... 47
Cash Flow by Year and by Jurisdiction ................................................................................................... 47
Debt Coverage ........................................................................................................................................ 47
85% Rule Compliance ............................................................................................................................. 47
Transit Spending per Capita .................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix A: Cash Flow Summary Tables
Appendix B: Presentation to the joint meeting of the RTA Planning and Service Coordination
Committee and the Finance and Budget Committee, May 11, 2018
Appendix C: Letter to the RTA from Michael Spitz, Chair, Oakland County Economic Development &
Community Affairs Committee
Appendix D: RTA Responses to Oakland County “Business Issues” Memo dated June 4, 2018
Appendix E: RTA Resolution 22, a resolution adopting key policies and procedures that will govern
implementation of the Regional Master Transit Plan (adopted September 22, 2016)
June 2018 4
Introduction
An effective regional transit system is essential to the economic vitality of Southeast Michigan and the
quality of life for our residents. The vision for transit in the region is to go beyond the services and
infrastructure we have today to create the foundation for an innovative system for tomorrow.
Since the 2016 transit referendum’s narrow loss, elected, business and philanthropic leaders have
worked diligently with transit advocates, outside experts and the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast
Michigan (RTA) to review and update the 2016 Regional Master Transit Plan (RMTP), adopted by the
RTA. We began by listening and taking into account the most consistent feedback to the 2016 RMTP.
The proposed Connect Southeast Michigan Plan builds on and modifies the 2016 plan with those
insights. The plan provides $166 million per year in operations funding (in 2019 dollars) – a total
investment of $870 million over 20 years in transit supporting infrastructure – and addresses the feedback
to provide a more robust, regional solution to transit and mobility for Southeast Michigan. A voter-
approved tax of 1.5 mill in 2018 will raise $5.4 billion over 20 years and leverage an additional $1.4 billion
in farebox, state and federal revenues.
This document provides the financial structure that the Connect Southeast Michigan Plan has been
constructed around including full compliance with Public Act No. 387 of 2012 which:
• Affords the RTA two financing mechanisms, property millage and vehicle registration tax (VRT).
This plan assumes the use of a property millage of 1.5 mills;
• Requires that the RTA millage cover the entire four-county area; and
• Requires full compliance of an 85% return on investment (ROI) for all millage dollars collected in
Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties and the City of Detroit.
June 2018 5
1. Financial Model
A spreadsheet-based cash flow model was developed to evaluate future transit options and ultimately
determine the funding required to implement the proposed Connect Southeast Michigan (CSM) Plan. The
CSM model is based on the cash flow model developed in 2015 for the 2016 RMTP and includes updates
to reflect current conditions.
A financial model is a complex analysis tool using historical trends and assumptions about the future to
predict future costs and revenues. A variety of inputs—such as when new service begins, how much new
service costs, and how much state and federal funding will be available—were used to define the
proposed CSM Plan in the model. The model forecasts future cash flows for existing transit agencies –
Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT), Detroit Transportation Corporation (DTC), Suburban
Mobility Authority for Regional Transit (SMART), Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority (AAATA), M-1
RAIL, and the RTA – based on the proposed plan’s transit service proposal for Southeast Michigan, and
assesses the long-term revenue outlook for a corresponding property tax.
The financial model helps build support for a fiscally constrained transit plan vision that the residents of
Southeast Michigan can support to fund transit at higher levels than are currently being provided across
the region. A transparent and documented financial analysis process justifies the investment needed to
implement the CSM Plan. This is an essential step for making regional transit in Southeast Michigan a
reality.
Local Funding Mechanism

RTA legislation allows two local funding sources: a property tax millage and a VRT. A property tax millage
was selected early in the 2016 RMTP process as the most appropriate local funding mechanism to
implement the plan and the same funding mechanism has been chosen for the CSM Plan. It is a more
consistent and reliable funding source than a VRT and can be collected through well-established systems
at the state and local level. The financial model estimated the long-term costs of the CSM Plan and the
corresponding millage rate required. While the millage will be RTA’s primary source of funding, it will be
supplemented by state and federal funding as well as fare revenues. The model assumes the millage will
begin generating revenue in 2019 and be applied at a uniform rate going forward. Due to lack of local
support for a VRT, this funding source was not included in the current version of the financial model and
is not addressed in this document. The current CSM Plan requires a millage rate of 1.50 mills.
Multiple Transit Providers

The financial model accounts for all existing transit providers in Southeast Michigan, as well as the RTA.
Many of the proposed service improvements in the CSM Plan are assumed to be operated by these other
providers under an arrangement with the RTA. The financial model estimates the financial impact of
building and operating transit services at the individual project level and forecasts the cash flows of each
agency based on a variety of service options and funding assumptions. It reflects assumptions about
which agency will operate a proposed new service, simulates the transitioning of service from one
provider to another over time, and estimates the costs of subsidizing expansions of service provided by
the existing operators if the RTA chooses to pursue such a strategy in a given corridor.
Transit agencies simulated in the financial model include:
• AAATA
• DDOT
• DTC (The Detroit People Mover)
• M-1 RAIL (QLINE)
June 2018 6
• RTA
• SMART
The model incorporates the unique cost and revenue context of each agency. Historical data and annual
financial reports, meetings with each provider, and an inventory of agency assets allowed the project
team to make assumptions about the future revenue, expenditures, and operating cost structures of each
agency. The model also considers the funding sources of each agency, including any existing local
millages as well as federal and state funding. The model allows for changes to existing millage rates over
time, changes to each provider’s member municipalities, and the application of a region-wide RTA millage
in the future. The RTA’s region encompasses the entire four-county region within which the other existing
providers operate, including Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties. The model can apply
an RTA millage to the entire four-county region, or to a subset of individual member cities.
Financial Task Force

Recognizing the importance, and also the complexity of developing a transparent financial analysis
approach, the RTA enlisted a Financial Task Force (FTF) (Table 1.1) to assist in financial model
development and give feedback on financial assumptions. The FTF was initially convened in 2015 and
was comprised of representatives from local and state government, the business community, academia,
and community foundations throughout all four counties under the RTA jurisdiction. Meetings of the FTF
were convened throughout the development of the financial model and various 2016 RMTP options were
reviewed with the FTF to solicit feedback on assumptions and preliminary option outcomes. This
collaborative process provided a local perspective to help calibrate the financial model by validating the
reasonableness of the assumptions, forecasts, and methodology. The FTF also assessed the feasibility of
various program options and associated tax rates. The FTF model recommendations remain relevant
and have been retained in the CSM plan development process. No additional FTF meetings were held as
part of the 2018 plan updates.
TABLE 1.1: 2016 FINANCIAL TASK FORCE

Name Title Organization
John Blanchard Director of Local Government Relations General Motors
Mike Brownfield Director of Strategy Governor’s Office
Mary Jo Callan Director of Ginsberg Center University of Michigan
Dennis Cowan Managing Partner Plunkett Cooney
Charles Griffith Director of Climate and Energy Programs Ecology Center
Board member, AAATA
Joe Heffernan Partner Plante Moran
George Senior Program Officer Kresge Foundation
Jacobsen
Ronia Kruse President and Chief Executive Officer OpTech
Michael Maher Executive Managing Director Talmer Bank
John Naglick Chief Deputy CFO and Finance Director City of Detroit
Faye Nelson VP of Public Affairs DTE Energy
Susan Pollay Executive Director Ann Arbor Downtown Development
Authority
Roy Rose President Anderson, Eckstein, and Westrick
Melissa Roy Executive Director Advancing Macomb
Conan Smith Executive Director Metro Matters
Ned Staebler Chief Executive Officer TechTown
June 2018 7
The FTF provided input to the RTA over a series of five meetings during the 2016 RMTP process. The
first FTF meeting provided an overview of the financial model, outlined financial assumptions, and
introduced key future transit option questions. The second and third FTF meetings further refined
assumptions and evaluated three future transit options that were developed based on the market
analysis, public feedback, and prior FTF meeting input. At the fourth meeting, the FTF provided the
following observations about the process for developing a realistic and appropriately conservative funding
strategy for regional transit:
• The technical approach appears to be rigorous.

• The analysis appears to reflect the types of revenues and expenditures that the RTA is likely to
experience during implementation of the RMTP.
• The assumptions on growth rates as communicated to us by the planning team during the
meetings appear to be reasonable based on historic trends and the information available at this
time.
• Through the use of sensitivity tests, the planning team appears to have considered the relative
impacts of a reasonable range of potential deviations from baseline assumptions on the millage
needed to implement the plan.
Stakeholder Outreach
In updating the financial model for 2018 and revising the plan, RTA and consultant staff held meetings
with the Providers, as well as members of the RTA’s Planning and Service Coordination Committee and
Finance and Budget Committee. Meetings were also held with the county executives of each of the RTA
member counties. The following meetings were held:
• January 30, 2018 – Meeting between RTA staff and Macomb County Director of Planning and
Community Development John Paul Rea to discuss transit services in Macomb County.
• February 2, 2018 – Meeting between RTA staff and Oakland County Deputy Executive Director
Gerald Poisson, as well as county planning staff, to discuss financial assumptions,
methodologies, and proposed transit services in Oakland County.
• April 11, 2018 – Meeting between RTA staff, HNTB, and representatives from AAATA, DDOT
and SMART to discuss the draft CSM Plan, financial assumptions and how the Plan would affect
the Providers.
• May 10, 2018 – Joint meeting of the RTA Planning and Service Coordination Committee and
Finance and Budget Committee, at which HNTB staff presented the financial assumptions
included in the draft CSM Plan. The presentation given at this meeting is attached as Appendix
B.
• June 5, 2018 – Meeting of the Oakland County Economic Development & Community Affairs
Committee. A letter sent to the RTA following that meeting is attached as Appendix C, and the
RTA’s response to a memo presented at that meeting is attached as Appendix D.
June 2018 8
2. Model Inputs
The financial model incorporates several economic and financial assumptions in order to develop a
realistic and appropriately conservative cash flow forecast. The model assumes a 20-year analysis period
following the introduction of an RTA property tax millage in 2019. More information regarding sources and
how the data is integrated into the model is provided in the following subsections.
The financial model (Figure 2-1) integrates key financial levers such as:
1. Macroeconomic and financial assumptions such as inflation, capital cost escalation, and bond
interest rates.
2. Demographic forecasts provided by SEMCOG.
3. Information from each of the existing transit providers, including:
a. Past and current revenue sources,
b. Existing service levels and corresponding Operations & Maintenance (O&M) costs by
route and mode, and
c. Ridership.
4. Property tax base for tax years 2008 through 2017, reported to the State of Michigan by each of
the four counties. This data was used to project taxable values for the years 2019 through 2038.
5. State and Federal funding growth, estimated based on existing state and federal legislation
and proposed growth in Southeast Michigan transit expenditures.
6. Recommended transit services and corresponding O&M costs by provider, route, and mode
based on the transit market analysis that was conducted as part of the 2016 RMTP.
7. Capital cost estimates associated with the recommended infrastructure improvements.
8. Implementation schedule of when recommended transit services begin.
9. Stakeholder input gained through the FTF and meetings with the region’s transit providers.
FIGURE 2-1: STRUCTURE OF THE FINANCIAL MODEL
June 2018 9
The financial model helps decision makers understand the relative impacts of these inputs, such as fixed-
route transit service levels, paratransit service levels, capital investments, the future distribution of state
and federal funding, and fare policy, on the local revenues needed to implement the plan.
Economic and Financial Assumptions

INFLATION
Historical inflation from the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) was used to convert past year dollars to
constant 2019 dollars (2019$). Forecasted inflation from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was
used to convert future expenditures and revenues to 2019 dollars. The forecasted annual average rate of
inflation is approximately 2.4%.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESCALATION
To develop an accurate and conservative estimate of construction costs, the historical U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Construction Cost Index for Michigan was used and adjusted to constant 2019 dollars.
Escalated construction figures reflect a 0.9% historical annual growth rate (2000-2016) in excess of
inflation. Accounting for inflation, construction costs are projected to escalate at an average rate of
approximately 3.4% annually.
VEHICLE COST ESCALATION
For an accurate understanding of how transit vehicle costs have escalated in the past, historical vehicle
costs were analyzed. Data from the American Public Transportation Association’s (APTA) annual Public
Transportation Vehicle Database 1 found the cost of standard 40’ diesel transit buses grew at a rate of
1.34% annually (2008-2015) above inflation. This rate is assumed to continue in the future.
LONG-TERM DEBT
Historical rates from the Federal Reserve’s 20-year state and local bond index are used to forecast a
long-term debt interest rate. The average of monthly rates from 1990 through 2015, adjusted for historical
inflation, results in an estimated rate of 2.78% above inflation. An assumed payment period of 10 years is
used for long term debt in the financial model. The model only allows RTA to issue long-term bonds that
mature by 2038. Given the assumed 10-year repayment period, this means 2028 is the final year in which
the RTA is permitted to issue long-term debt in the financial model.
SHORT-TERM DEBT
Historical rates from Moody’s for corporate bonds for all industries are used to forecast a short-term debt
interest rate. The average monthly rates of Baa rated bonds from 1990 through 2015, adjusted for
historical inflation, results in an estimated rate of 4.88% above inflation. An assumed payment period of
two years is used for short-term debt in the financial model. The model only allows the RTA to issue
short-term bonds that mature by 2038. Given the assumed two-year payment period, this means 2036 is
the final year in which the RTA is permitted to issue short-term debt in the financial model.
COST OF BORROWING
The financial model calculates the amount of borrowing needed in each year for the RTA to maintain a
positive cash balance and the resulting principal and interest payment burden on the agency. A debt
1
2008-2015 Public Transportation Vehicle Database. American Public Transportation Association. Retrieved from
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/OtherAPTAStatistics.aspx
June 2018 10
service coverage ratio (DSCR) of 1.5 is maintained for each year of outstanding debt. This is generally
consistent with the high quality (“A”) bond ratings maintained by peer agencies.
The financial model also assumes an issuance cost of 1% relative to the value of bond proceeds.
Demographic Assumptions
SEMCOG’s ten-year demographic forecasts by city (from 2015 to 2045) were used to forecast population
and housing unit growth in Southeast Michigan. These forecasts were interpolated to produce individual
year forecasts through 2045.
POPULATION
Southeast Michigan’s population is forecasted to grow at 0.26% per year from 2019 to 2038 (Table 2.1).
The population over 65 years of age is forecasted to grow at 1.93% annually during the same period
(Table 2.2).
TABLE 2.1: AVERAGE ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH, 2019-2038

Growth
Jurisdiction Rate
Macomb 0.26%
Oakland 0.21%
Washtenaw 0.85%
Wayne 0.15%
Detroit 0.17%
Region 0.26%
Forecasted 2019-2038
Source: SEMCOG Ten-Year Forecasts (2015-2045)
TABLE 2.2: ANNUAL OVER-65 POPULATION GROWTH

Growth
Jurisdiction Rate
Macomb 2.14%
Oakland 2.02%
Washtenaw 2.85%
Wayne 1.52%
Detroit 1.75%
Region 1.93%
HOUSING UNITS
SEMCOG's ten-year housing unit forecasts by city (from 2015 to 2045) are used to forecast housing unit
growth in Southeast Michigan. SEMCOG’s forecasts were interpolated to produce individual year
forecasts through 2045. It is assumed that the growth rate from 2035 to 2045 will continue in perpetuity
beyond 2045. Overall, housing units in Southeast Michigan are forecasted to grow annually at 0.38%
from 2019 to 2038 (Table 2.3).
June 2018 11
TABLE 2.3: ANNUAL HOUSING UNIT GROWTH (PER YEAR)

Growth
Jurisdiction Rate
Macomb 0.42%
Oakland 0.36%
Washtenaw 0.98%
Wayne 0.25%
Detroit 0.31%
Region 0.38%
Property Valuation (Taxable Value)

BASE VALUATIONS
The latest year of historical property taxable valuation data included in the financial model is tax year
2017. These valuations are the basis for all future projected growth in valuations and the resulting millage
revenue for any taxes levied against those future valuations. Table 2.4 shows the Tax Year 2017
valuations.
TABLE 2.4: TAX YEAR 2017 TAXABLE VALUATIONS

Taxable
Jurisdiction Valuation
Macomb $26,056
Oakland $54,724
Washtenaw $15,808
Wayne $39,461
Detroit $6,038
Region $136,049
Year-of-Expenditure Dollars (YOE$), millions
Source: Michigan Department of Treasury State Tax Commission 2017 Taxable Valuation Reports
TAXABLE VALUATION GROWTH
Past taxable property valuations were obtained from the Michigan Department of Treasury at the
municipal level.
Overall growth in aggregate taxable property valuation by jurisdiction is a function of two variables:
1. Projected growth in per-unit property values (i.e. the average growth in the value of an individual
property). This was assumed to grow at the rate of inflation, as projected by the Congressional
Budget Office (see “Economic and Financial Assumptions” section on Page 10); and
2. Projected growth in total housing units, based on the SEMCOG demographic forecast.
These growth rates were compiled by city and township, and aggregated to the county level. The
resulting forecast shows aggregate taxable property values in the four-county region projected to increase
by an average rate of 0.48% per year (in constant 2019$) from tax year 2019 to tax year 2038 (Table
2.5). Factoring in the estimated rate of inflation, the average annual regional growth rate is 2.88%.
June 2018 12
TABLE 2.5: ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX VALUATION FORECASTED GROWTH (PER YEAR)
Growth Rate
without with
Jurisdiction Inflation Inflation
Macomb 0.53% 2.93%
Oakland 0.37% 2.77%
Washtenaw 1.10% 3.52%
Wayne 0.31% 2.71%
Detroit 0.26% 2.66%
Region Total 0.48% 2.88%
FIRST YEAR’S TAX LEVY
The financial model assumes that, if a referendum passes in November 2018, the first levy would be
collected in 2019, based on tax year 2019 valuations.
THIRD-PARTY REVIEWS
Pending results of third-party review of the RTA’s property tax forecasting methodology, this section will
be updated by July 2018.
Revenue Sources
The financial model accounts for a variety of existing and potential future revenue sources. These include
system-generated, local, state, and federal funding. The model allows existing revenue streams to be
adjusted in the future and new revenue sources, such as a region-wide property tax millage, to be
introduced. Assumptions were made about future funding levels for each revenue source based on
stakeholder input, demographic and economic data, and historical funding growth trends.
SYSTEM-GENERATED REVENUE
Local transit agencies receive revenue from fare collection, advertising, purchase of service agreements
(POSA), and other agency activities. An estimated $47.5 million in system-generated revenue was
reported by the existing transit agencies in Southeast Michigan in 2017. Table 2.6 summarizes the most
recent year’s totals for system-generated revenue for each of the existing transit providers. About 80% of
this revenue came from fares, with the remainder coming from advertising, POSAs, and other sources.
TABLE 2.6: SYSTEM-GENERATED REVENUE, 2017

Provider Revenue
AAATA $8.5
DDOT $21.2
DTC $2.6
SMART $15.2
Year-of-Expenditure Dollars (YOE$), millions,
Sources: Agency financial reports
FARE REVENUE
The existing transit agencies in Southeast Michigan generated an estimated $38.5 million in fare revenue
in 2017. The financial model forecasts fare revenue for the system through the farebox recovery ratio,
defined as the percentage of total operating expenses met through fare revenues. Farebox recovery for
June 2018 13
existing agencies is derived from the National Transit Database (NTD). The farebox recovery for any new
RTA-operated (or RTA-contracted) service is based on existing experience within the region for current
modes (local bus, airport express, people mover, streetcar), and is based on national experience for
Commuter Rail. The farebox recovery for each CSM Plan route corresponds with the recovery ratio of the
assigned provider of that route. Table 2.7 describes the assumed farebox recovery of each service and
provider. Table 2.8 shows 2017 fare revenues by agency.
TABLE 2.7: FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIOS BY SERVICE TYPE AND AGENCY
Recovery
Mode / Agency Ratio Source
Airport Express
AAATA 72% 2014-2016 average (per NTD)
RTA 72% Assume same as AAATA
Commuter Rail
RTA 20% Per RTA Guidance
Local Bus (including limited-stop and express services)
AAATA 16% 2014-2016 average (per NTD)
DDOT 18% 2012-2016 average (per NTD)
SMART 16% 2012-2016 average (per NTD)
RTA 20% Per RTA Guidance
People Mover
DTC 11% 2012-2016 average (per NTD)
Streetcar
M-1 50.00% M-1 RAIL Business Plan
RTA 35.00% Per RTA Guidance
TABLE 2.8: FARE REVENUE, 2017

Provider Revenue
AAATA $6.9
DDOT $18.6
DTC $1.4
SMART $11.6
YOE$, millions
PURCHASE OF SERVICE AGREEMENTS
AAATA, DDOT, and SMART enter into POSA with local governments and other organizations to provide
a range of transportation services based on a community’s unique needs, and in some cases to
supplement the service funded under a dedicated millage. AAATA provided service to the cities of Ann
Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Chelsea, and the charter townships of Pittsfield, Scio, Superior, and Ypsilanti
through POSAs in 2017. According to the City of Detroit’s Executive Budgets, DDOT has historically
entered into POSAs with SMART and human service organizations. SMART enters into partnerships that
provide a range of transportation services based on a community’s unique needs. SMART’s annual
financial reports present an aggregate operating revenue category that includes POSA information and
other sources of system-generated revenue. Funding from these agreements was correspondingly
incorporated into the model.
June 2018 14
LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND MILLAGES
Southeast Michigan transit agencies receive local contributions for transit service through different types
of taxes. Local support is provided to DDOT and DTC through a subsidy from the City of Detroit General
Fund. Local funding for AAATA and SMART is provided through local transit millages. The millages that
fund SMART are collected by three constituent entities: Macomb County, the Wayne County Act 196
Authority, and the Oakland County Act 196 Authority. The Act 196 authorities represent the member
communities within Oakland and Wayne counties that have elected to opt into the SMART system.
LOCAL MILLAGES
Local transit millages are property taxes levied for transit services. One mill is equivalent to one dollar of
tax per thousand dollars of taxable value. The current AAATA and SMART millage rates are shown in
Table 2.9. In 2017, AAATA and SMART combined received approximately $85.7 million in revenue from
property tax millages.
As a baseline assumption, the financial model assumes that these millage rates are held constant in
perpetuity, subject to the “Headlee Amendment”, which limits year-of-year growth in millage revenue to no
greater than the rate of inflation. The financial model is capable of raising, lowering, or eliminating these
millages over time for any jurisdictions, as well as introducing any new millages, including, but not limited
to, the region-wide RTA millage.
In August 2014, voters in the Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne County service areas approved an increase
in the property tax millage from 0.59 to 1.0 mills. The increased millage rate increased local SMART
funding from $39.3 million in fiscal year (FY) 2014 to $68.7 million in FY 2015.
TABLE 2.9: TRANSIT MILLAGE RATES AND 2017 REVENUE

Millage Rate Revenue
AAATA
Ann Arbor 3.2 $14.2
Ypsilanti 1.679 $0.5
Ypsilanti Township 0.700 $0.8
SMART
Opt-In Communities 1.000 $71.5
YOE$, millions
Note: Millage rates are as authorized by voters, and do not reflect reductions resulting from the Headlee Amendment.
RTA PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE
The Regional Transit Authority Act (Act 387 of 2012) grants the RTA authority to seek a millage to fund
transit service within Southeast Michigan. If the proposal to seek a millage is approved by seven-ninths of
the RTA board (including an affirmative vote from at least one member from each county and the member
appointed by the Mayor of Detroit) and a majority of the electors within Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw,
and Wayne counties (including the City of Detroit), the millage will be applied equally over the member
counties. The financial model is capable of introducing and modifying this millage at any time in the
future. The model can also consider the inclusion or exclusion of individual cities and townships from the
millage. However, unlike existing SMART and AAATA millages, state law only permits the RTA millage to
be applied to the entire four-county region with no ability for communities to opt out or for differential rates
to be applied in different jurisdictions. The scenarios described in this memorandum all assume that a
single four-county millage will remain unchanged from 2019 through 2038.
June 2018 15
To compute millage revenue, the financial model multiplies the millage rate by the projected taxable
values in the affected jurisdictions for each year the millage is in effect. The forecast assumes that the
first year’s levy would be collected against 2019 taxable valuations.
The total computed revenue is reduced by a millage reduction factor of 1%, which reflects any unpaid or
delinquent property taxes, and any costs of collection that will be deducted before the funds are
transferred to the agencies. The 1% value of this reduction factor was estimated based upon a review of
recent financial reports from AAATA and SMART, and is considered conservative.
Projected revenue was further reduced from the theoretical total (based on taxable valuation) to account
for value capture by other entities, such as Tax Increment Finance (TIF) districts, and Downtown
Development Authorities. These tax capture districts collect millage revenue associated with all increases
in taxable valuation within their boundaries following the initial creation of the district, including the
revenue for millages imposed by other agencies, including the RTA.
Table 2.10 lists the assumed reduction in potential millage revenue for each RTA member jurisdiction.
These estimates were obtained in discussions with county budget staff at the four counties, and through
review of county assessment and equalization reports. Because of the large number of tax capture
districts, particularly in Wayne County, the aggregate long-term effect of tax capture is difficult to forecast.
Therefore, the rates shown in Table 2.10 were assumed to remain constant for the duration of the RTA
millage.
TABLE 2.10: ESTIMATED REVENUE REDUCTIONS DUE TO TAX CAPTURE DISTRICTS, 2018
Jurisdiction Tax Capture Rate
Macomb 1.1%
Oakland 2.2%
Washtenaw 3.1%
Wayne (except Detroit) 5.4%
Detroit 28.8%
Sources: County 2017 equalization reports; additional analysis conducted by Wayne County
RTA VEHICLE REGISTRATION TAX
The RTA also has the power to generate funds for transit service through a four-county VRT at a rate of
$1.20 per thousand dollars of assessed value. The financial model can forecast the revenue generated
from a VRT in the future. Similar to an RTA millage, a VRT must also be approved by the RTA board and
by a majority of voters in the four-county region. However, no VRT scenarios were developed as part of
the CSM Plan.
STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING
On October 1, 2013, the RTA became the designated recipient for state and federal grants for the region.
In this role, the RTA establishes the distributions of state and federal formula funding for transit among
the providers currently operating service in the region. By extension, if the RTA becomes a direct operator
of service or contracts with private operators to expand service, the agency will have the opportunity to
allocate some portion of these formula funds to itself to help offset the cost of the CSM Plan. The
following sections describe the funding sources currently supporting transit in the region, how these
sources are projected to grow in the future, and how the RTA will allocate funds in conjunction with the
implementation of the CSM Plan.
June 2018 16
STATE FUNDING
Table 2.11 provides the total state operating and capital assistance received by each transit agency in
2017. The total quantity of state funding reported by the providers in 2017, $107.1 million, is primarily
comprised of formula-based operating funding and grants intended to match federal grants.
TABLE 2.11: STATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FUNDING, 2017

Provider Funding
AAATA $14.6
DDOT $42.7
DTC $6.2
SMART $43.6
YOE$, millions
The State of Michigan’s Public Act 51 of 1951 (“Act 51”) established the Comprehensive Transportation
Fund (CTF) as a state-restricted fund for public transportation purposes. CTF funding is appropriated in
the annual state transportation budget. The two primary revenue sources for the CTF are a 10% Michigan
Transportation Fund earmark and an automobile-related sales tax. The Michigan Transportation Fund,
separate from the CTF, is funded by motor fuel taxes and VRT. Public transportation agencies in
Southeast Michigan receive funding from the CTF through the Operating Assistance Program and the
Capital Assistance Program. According to the providers’ financial reports, state operating support totaled
$96.3 million in 2017. The majority of this funding, $87.7 million, came through the Local Bus Operating
Assistance Program.
Local Bus Operating Assistance Program (LBO) is the largest annual CTF appropriation, accounting
for the majority of operating assistance funding allocated to providers in Southeast Michigan. Urbanized
areas with populations over 100,000 receive state operating assistance for up to 50%of eligible expenses.
Non-urbanized areas, and urbanized areas with populations below 100,000, receive assistance for up to
60%of eligible expenses. 2 However, actual reimbursement rates are subject to available funding and are
typically lower than these eligible amounts, with the actual amount each agency receives awarded in
proportion to the available funding. MDOT reports that in FY 2018, urban areas eligible for a 50%
reimbursement rate will receive actual reimbursements at 35%, while rural areas and small cities eligible
for the 60% reimbursement rate will receive actual reimbursements of 39%. 3
Figure 2-2 shows statewide growth in eligible expenses and available LBO funding since 2010.
According to the RTA, the existing transit providers within the region received an estimated $87.7 million
in LBO funding in 2017. Total state operating support, as reported by the providers’ financial statements,
was approximately $96.3 million in 2017.
Historically, available LBO funding has grown at a rate slower than the growth in eligible expenses
statewide, such that agencies’ reimbursement rates have gradually declined to well below the statutory
limits. Recent legislative changes have increased LBO funding. Due to state transportation legislation
passed in 2015, statewide LBO funding increased by 11% between 2016 and 2017. However, growth
beyond 2018 is expected to slow once again, with the average annual growth rate forecasted to be 0.8%
2
The Comprehensive Transportation Fund and State Support for Local Public Transit Agencies. House Fiscal Agency. April 2013.
http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/transportation.asp
3
MDOT presentation to the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Michigan Public Transportation Association, August 2017.
June 2018 17
per year, well below the projected rate of inflation. Therefore, the reimbursement rate for agencies
throughout the state will continue to decline, potentially falling below 20% by the 2030s.
In the absence of a transit plan that has been approved by the voters, it is assumed that the eligible
expenses of all transit agencies in Michigan will continue to grow at approximately the same rate as one
another, such that every agency’s LBO dollars will grow at approximately the same rate, and every
agency’s reimbursement rate (LBO funding as a percentage of eligible expenses) will decline at the same
rate.
Increased transit expenditures in Southeast Michigan, as envisioned in the CSM Plan, will bring more of
the statewide LBO dollars to the region, but will also exacerbate the oversubscription of the program,
causing reimbursement rates to decline further. The financial model’s allocation formula for LBO funds
among the various providers in Southeast Michigan is designed to ensure that they are held harmless by
the CSM Plan. The providers’ LBO allocations were projected based on a “no-build” (no CSM Plan)
condition, and held to the same dollar amounts under the “build” (CSM Plan) condition. Any increase in
LBO funding to the region that results from the implementation of the CSM Plan will be allocated
to the RTA to help offset the costs of implementing the plan.
FIGURE 2-2: STATEWIDE LBO FUNDING, 2009-2018
$600,000,000
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$300,000,000
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
$0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
LBO Funding Eligible Expenses
YOE$, millions
Source: Michigan Department of Transportation
Capital Assistance Program provides matching funds for projects receiving funding through federal
programs. 4 According to annual financial reports, the existing transit agencies spent an estimated $10.9
million in capital assistance from the State of Michigan in 2017. State capital assistance revenue data
was obtained from available annual financial reports and estimated based on aggregate reporting of state
operating and capital funding. Forecasts of Capital Assistance Program funding from the State of
Michigan reflect a historical average for each agency based on the annual financial report data available.
The region is estimated to receive $8.0 million in state capital assistance in 2018, thereafter growing with
inflation.
4
Local Bus Capital and Operating Assistance Programs. Michigan Department of Transportation. Accessed September 2015.
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-11056_11266-26940--,00.html
June 2018 18
FEDERAL FORMULA PROGRAM GRANTS
Federal transit support is provided through a variety of grant programs that apportion resources based on
designated criteria and a distribution formula. The following are several of the major federal formula
programs. The historical apportionment trends for these formula programs are shown in Figure 2-3.
Section 5307 and Section 5340 Urbanized Area Formula Grants provide funding for public
transportation capital, planning, and job access and reverse commute projects. The formula
incorporates population, number of low-income residents, vehicle revenue miles, and passenger
and route miles 5. There are separate funding allocation tiers for bus and fixed guideway transit. In
2017, the Detroit and Ann Arbor urbanized areas received over $47 million in Urbanized Area
formula grants, primarily to support bus service. 6 The Detroit People Mover receives a small
portion of this funding as well.
Urban areas with commuter rail receive a guaranteed minimum in the fixed guideway tier, and
this is likely to result in a substantial 5307 funding increase for Southeast Michigan after the
Commuter Rail service begins operation. The minimum fixed guideway funding in 2018 for
regions with commuter rail is $10.0 million. This increase is reflected in the financial model for
scenarios in which Commuter Rail is included, and is assumed to begin accruing to the region
four years after the start of commuter rail service.
Historical Urbanized Area Formula Funding totals were estimated from aggregate federal formula
and discretionary grant totals in the agency annual financial reports and from Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) apportionment reports. Future funding growth is uncertain and subject to
annual appropriations and periodic reauthorizations of the federal transportation programs.
Reflecting this uncertainty, while also recognizing that Southeast Michigan’s share of the national
total will increase if the system grows, the financial model assumed federal formula funding will
increase with the rate of inflation, with the exception of the Commuter Rail increase mentioned in
the previous paragraph.
Section 5337 State of Good Repair Formula Grants provide funding to ensure fixed-guideway
rail and high-intensity motorbus systems continue safe, efficient, and reliable operations. Eligible
expenses include the maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of capital assets. The only
eligible fixed-guideway transit in Southeast Michigan is the Detroit People Mover. The 2017
Section 5337 funding for Southeast Michigan was approximately $1.2 million. 7 Commuter Rail
and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) are also eligible and, if implemented, will result in an increase in
Section 5337 funding to the region. However, because the 5337 funding formula is highly
complex and difficult to forecast, no increase in funding beyond inflationary growth has been
assumed in the financial model.
Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities grants provide funding to replace and rehabilitate buses,
bus-related facilities, and related equipment. Each state and territory receives an equal allocation
5Federal Transit Administration. Accessed April 2018. Table 5: Fiscal Year 2017 Formula Programs Apportionment Data Unit
Values. https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/apportionments/table-5-fy-2017-formula-apportionments-data-unit-values-full-year
6
Federal Transit Administration. Accessed April 2018. Table 3: FY 2017 Section 5307 and Section 5340 Urbanized Area
Apportionments. https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/apportionments/table-3-fy-2017-section-5307-and-5340-urbanized-area-
formula-appropriations-0
7
Federal Transit Administration. Accessed April 2018. Table 11: FY 2017 Section 5337 State of Good Repair Formula
Apportionments. https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/apportionments/table-11-fy-2017-section-5337-state-good-repair-
apportionments-full-year
June 2018 19
and then the remaining funds are apportioned based on a formula considering population,
population density, vehicle revenue miles, and passenger miles. A 20% local match is required.
Starting in 2016, an additional competitive grant program was introduced as part of the Section
5339 program. Section 5339 funding for the Ann Arbor and Detroit urbanized areas (UZAs)
totaled $4.7 million in 2017. 8 This funding source is projected to increase with the rate of inflation
regardless of any expansion of transit service in Southeast Michigan.
FIGURE 2-3: FEDERAL APPORTIONMENTS FOR MAJOR TRANSIT FORMULA PROGRAMS,

2009-2018
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307)

State of Good Repair (Section 5337)
Bus and Bus Facilities Formula (Section 5339)
Bus and Bus Facilities Competitive (Section 5339)
YOE$, millions
Note: Prior to 2012, the Section 5337 State of Good Repair Formula was known as Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization.
Source: Federal Transit Administration
The Detroit and Ann Arbor UZAs combined spent an estimated $45.1 million in federal formula grant
funding in 2017, according to financial reports provided by AAATA, DDOT, DTC, and SMART. Refer to
Table 2.12 for the federal formula grant revenue received by each agency.
TABLE 2.12: FEDERAL FORMULA GRANT REVENUE, 2017

Provider Funding
AAATA $6.8
DDOT $14.5
DTC $0.7
SMART $23.1
8
Federal Transit Administration. Accessed April 2018. Table 12: FY 2017 Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Formula
Apportionments.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/fy17fullyearapportionmenttable12section5339busandbusfacilitiesapportionments.xls
x
June 2018 20
YOE$, millions
Source: Agency financial reports
In October 2015, the RTA adopted Resolution 15, which established a sub-allocation formula for Detroit
UZA Section 5307 and 5339 funding. The sub-allocation formula evaluates ridership, population, local
operating contribution, and revenue miles, weighted equally. This formula will effectively result in a 50/50
split of the Detroit UZA funding between DDOT/DTC and SMART. AAATA currently receives all of the
Ann Arbor UZA Section 5307 and 5339 funding.
As anticipated federal funding to the region grows, the financial model assumes that the existing
providers will be held harmless, with their federal formula funding allocations increasing at the rate of
inflation. The RTA will retain all federal funding growth above the rate of inflation to help fund the CSM
Plan.
FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM GRANTS
The federal government supports transit investment projects through competitive, discretionary programs
that evaluate individual projects against one another for funding awards. Discretionary funding can be
unpredictable. Forecasts for the region are estimated based on a multi-year historical average for each
transit provider that was calculated from the available annual financial report data.
In addition to formula funding, the Federal Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities program also includes
discretionary grant funding. In 2018, the FTA made $264 million available for this competitive grant. This
program in particular could fund the replacement of transit vehicles and upgrades to maintenance
facilities. This is one example of the federal discretionary program grants available to the RTA to fund
regional transit.
An estimated $13.3 million in federal discretionary grant funding was received by the existing transit
agencies in 2017 (Table 2.13). Discretionary funding can be unpredictable; therefore, forecasts for the
region are estimated based on a multi-year historical average for each agency that was calculated from
the available annual financial report data, that that average amount assumed to grow at the rate of
inflation in the future. Going forward, these revenues are assumed to remain with the transit providers to
continue supporting their respective capital programs.
TABLE 2.13: ESTIMATED 2017 FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING

Provider Funding
AAATA $0.9
DDOT $1.7
DTC $1.7
SMART $9.0
Total $13.3
YOE$, millions
The RTA is also assumed to receive an increased level of federal discretionary funding for capital projects
it will facilitate. The share is not a fixed percentage but rather is tied to specific projects for which federal
support is likely. The assumed levels of federal capital assistance were determined based on stakeholder
feedback that established a funding probability and likely federal share for each capital project included in
the CSM Plan. These project-specific grants are in addition to the base level of expected federal
discretionary funding, and will go to the RTA to offset the costs of the added services provided by the
Connect Southeast Michigan program.
June 2018 21
FEDERAL SECTION 5309 CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANT PROGRAM
The Capital Investment Grant program funds new fixed-guideway, extensions to fixed-guideway,
mixed traffic BRT, projects of substantial investment, and projects improving capacity on an
existing fixed-guideway system. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) of
2015 allocates over $2.3 billion annually to the program from FY 2016 to FY 2020. Funding is
distributed through four categories:
New Starts projects are new fixed guideway projects or extensions to existing fixed guideway
systems with total estimated capital costs of $300 million or more, or are seeking $100 million or
more in Section 5309 funding. The maximum federal funding share for New Starts projects is
60%.
Small Starts projects are new fixed guideway projects, extensions to existing fixed guideway
systems, or corridor-based BRT projects with total estimated capital costs of less than $300
million and are seeking less than $100 million in Section 5309 funding. The maximum federal
funding share for Small Starts projects is 80%. 9
Core Capacity projects are substantial corridor-based capital investments in existing fixed
guideway systems that increase capacity by at least 10% in corridors at capacity either today or
in the next five years. Core capacity projects may not include elements designed to maintain a
state of good repair.
Programs of Interrelated Projects are comprised of any combination of two or more New
Starts, Small Starts, or Core Capacity projects. The projects must have a logical connection to
one another and all must begin construction within a reasonable timeframe.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers the Surface Transportation Block Grant
Program (STBG). This formula grant program is intended to provide a source of flexible funds that
are controlled by states, regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), or local
governments. The funds can be used for the improvement of highways, bridge projects, facilities
for nonmotorized transportation, transit capital projects, and public bus terminals and facilities. A
state must set aside a required proportion of STBG funds for the Transportation Alternatives
program, planning and research, and off-system bridges. After deducting these set-asides, 52%
of a state’s remaining STBG apportionment is to be dispersed based on population, and 48%
may be used in any area of the state. Because formula funding originates with a federal source, it
cannot be used as part of the local match funds. 10 Of the $11.4 billion total apportionment for
STBG in 2017, Michigan received approximately $301 million. 11
CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY PROGRAM
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) formula grant program is jointly administered
by the FHWA and FTA. The funds are controlled by states and local governments and a portion
must be set aside for planning and research. CMAQ funds are distributed to state and local
governments to help nonattainment and maintenance areas meet the requirements of the Clean
9
Federal Transit Administration. Accessed June 2016. Fact Sheet: Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants. Retrieved from
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/5309_Capital_Investment_Grant_Fact_Sheet.pdf
10
Federal Highway Administration. Accessed April 2018. Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/stbgfs.pdf
11
Federal Highway Administration. Accessed April 2018. Computations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Surface Transportation Block
Grant Program (STBG) Funds: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/comptables2017/table4p1-1.cfm
June 2018 22
Air Act. Funding may be used for technology systems, alternative fuel facilities, emergency
communications equipment, and workforce development, training, and education activities. Table
2.14 includes the estimated annual local funding allocations for fiscal years 2016 through 2020,
after set-asides, for each county based on population. SEMCOG administers the CMAQ program
in Southeast Michigan. It is anticipated that the funding will be split evenly between transit and
roadway projects.
TABLE 2.14: ESTIMATED ANNUAL CMAQ ALLOCATIONS, 2016-2020

County Funding
Macomb $3.2
Oakland $4.7
Washtenaw $1.3
Wayne $6.9
YOE$, millions
Source: Michigan Department of Transportation. FY 2016-2020 Estimated Funding Allocation Table.
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11041_60661---,00.html
Operations and Maintenance Costs

Unit operating costs were developed for the RTA and existing transit providers so a variety of future
transit options could be modeled. The unit costs were developed for vehicle operations, fuel, vehicle
maintenance, non-vehicle maintenance, and administration. Paratransit costs were treated differently to
account for an aging population. More information about O&M costs is provided in the following
subsections.
FUEL PRICES
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Energy Outlook was used to project future fuel prices in
constant 2019 dollars. The EIA forecast covers the period from 2015 through 2050. Over that period,
diesel fuel prices are forecasted to grow at an average rate 1.2% per year above inflation, and the cost of
electricity is forecasted to grow 0.5% annually above inflation. 12
To reflect the uncertainty of future energy markets and develop a conservative financial plan for
implementation of the CSM Plan, all forecasted fuel costs were increased by a 50% contingency factor in
the financial model.
UNIT OPERATING COSTS
Unit operating costs were estimated for each provider and type of transit service (Table 2.15). Operating
costs are determined from up to ten years of historical operating cost data, as reported by the existing
providers to the NTD. Provider operating costs are broken into five categories (vehicle operations except
fuel, fuel, vehicle maintenance, non-vehicle maintenance, and administration). Each cost category is
associated with one of three “cost drivers”: vehicle revenue-hours (VRH), vehicle revenue-miles (VRM),
and vehicles operated in maximum service (VOMS). Historical total cost data was divided by historical
cost drivers to develop estimated unit costs, adjusted to constant 2019 dollars. Growth in these unit costs,
expressed in constant 2019 dollars, was forecasted by mode for each transit agency, based on historical
growth trends relative to inflation.
12
Energy Information Administration. Accessed February 2018. Annual Energy Outlook:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=3-AEO2017&region=1-
0&cases=ref_no_cpp&start=2015&end=2050&f=A&sourcekey=0
June 2018 23
Where the RTA was considered as a potential direct operator of service, the RTA’s unit operating costs
were based on those of its peer agencies in Southeast Michigan.
Operating costs for Commuter Rail were estimated based on national experience and previous corridor
studies.
Operating costs for each transit service in the CSM Plan depends on the assigned provider of that
service. Because operating costs vary by provider, the assumed operator of a particular service directly
influences its operating cost.
Unit operating costs, by cost category and agency, are shown in Table 2.15. It should be noted that
although Light Rail was also considered in the plan development, unit costs were not developed in the
model because final operating cost estimates were available for the proposed projects. Therefore, it was
not necessary to use the model to estimate costs from unit costs and cost drivers.
TABLE 2.15: MODE UNIT OPERATING COSTS BY AGENCY (2019$)

Operations Vehicle Non-Vehicle Fuel
Agency/ (less fuel) Maintenance Maintenance Admin. (VRM/gal or
Mode (per VRH) (per VRM) (per VOMS) (per VOMS) VRM/kWh) Source
Local Bus, Premium Bus, and Commuter Express
AAATA $64.77 $1.65 $13,183 $89,179 4.39 NTD Reports
DDOT $50.86 $2.65 $77,057 $72,861 3.39 NTD Reports
SMART $87.31 $1.83 $12,496 $84,687 3.32 NTD Reports
RTA $87.31 $1.83 $12,496 $84,687 3.32 SMART Costs
Airport Express
AAATA $80.27 $0.45 $16,534 $125,787 3.39 NTD Reports
RTA $80.27 $0.45 $16,534 $125,787 3.39 AAATA Costs
Commuter Rail
RTA $400.88 $6.01 $95,411 $377,053 1.36 Minneapolis
People Mover
DTC $137.88 $9.83 $103,342 $595,870 0.13 NTD Reports
Streetcar
M-1 $131.21 $6.33 $68,880 $66,000 0.14 M-1 Forecast
RTA $131.21 $6.33 $68,880 $66,000 0.14 M-1 Forecast
The costs associated with some components of transit operation are anticipated to grow at a rate greater
than inflation. Mode-specific operating cost growth rates by agency (Table 2.16) are applied in addition to
inflation and like the base unit costs, are based on historical trends. The historical trends were based on
the same NTD data used to estimate the current unit costs as shown in Table 2.15. To limit the volatility of
future growth and to ensure a financially conservative forecast, the historically computed growth rates
were restricted to between 0% and 2% per year. Any observed growth rates outside that range were
limited to that range.
June 2018 24
TABLE 2.16: MODE OPERATING COST GROWTH RATES BY AGENCY

Operations Vehicle Non-Vehicle Fuel
Agency/ (less fuel) Maintenance Maintenance Admin. (VRM/gal or
Mode (per VRH) (per VRM) (per VOMS) (per VOMS) VRM/kWh) Source
Local Bus, Premium Bus, and Commuter Express
AAATA 0.35% 0.00% 0.00% 1.98% 1.99% NTD Reports
DDOT 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.38% NTD Reports
SMART 1.39% 0.31% 0.80% 0.60% 0.25% NTD Reports
RTA 1.39% 0.31% 0.80% 0.60% 0.25% SMART Costs
Airport Express
AAATA 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 1.16% NTD Reports
RTA 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 1.16% AAATA Costs
Commuter Rail
RTA 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Minneapolis
People Mover
DTC 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% NTD Reports
Streetcar
M-1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% M-1 Forecast
RTA 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% M-1 Forecast
Growth in constant 2019 dollars or real values above inflation
PARATRANSIT SERVICE
It was assumed each provider’s future paratransit operating costs (Table 2.17) within their existing service
areas will grow in proportion to growth in the over-65 population. Fleet requirements were assumed to
grow at the same rate. This is separate from any further increase in service included in the CSM Plan.
TABLE 2.17: ESTIMATED PARATRANSIT OPERATING COSTS AND GROWTH RATES BY AGENCY,
2016 (ADJUSTED TO 2019 DOLLARS)
Compound Annual
Total Costs Costs/ Growth Rate
Agency ($ millions) rev-hr (2019-2038)
AAATA $7.9 $51.31 2.7%
DDOT $6.9 $8.50 1.8%
SMART $22.4 $105.48 1.8%
2019$
Source: National Transit Database reports, 2016, SEMCOG 2040 population forecast
Capital Costs
CAPITAL PROJECTS
The financial model includes estimated costs for transit capital projects. Capital costs were estimated on a
per-mile basis for corridor projects, per-unit for garages and vehicles, and lump sums from project studies
or peer research for specific projects (e.g., call center, fare integration, etc.) for which such data was
available. Independent corridor studies developed detailed capital cost estimates for Commuter Rail
projects.
June 2018 25
CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS
Depending on the capital project, some costs were broken down into a cost per unit or cost per mile,
while others were entered in the model as sum totals for the project. The assumptions below describe
how costs were derived for projects that were considered for inclusion in the CSM Plan. These costs are
expressed in 2019 dollars and reflect the estimated cost of construction based on current unit costs.
Projects should be expected to have somewhat higher costs at the time of construction due to both
inflation and construction cost escalation. Not all of the projects listed below were included in the final
plan, but are still listed in the event they are added in subsequent plan revisions.
• Airport Express –$550,000 per route was assumed to fund terminal station facilities.
• Commuter Express – For each Commuter Express corridor, $750,000 was budgeted for capital
costs of park-and-ride facilities.
• Commuter Rail – Capital costs are assumed to be $132 million and split evenly over a three-year
construction period. It is assumed passenger coaches will be leased and therefore do not have
any upfront capital cost. Locomotives will be purchased for the start of service. A $3.3 million cost
for mid-life refurbishment of passenger coaches is assumed as a capital cost in 2034.
• Premium Transit Corridors – Regional transit corridors with planned infrastructure upgrades are
assumed to carry a capital cost of approximately $1.5 million per mile. These investments will not
necessarily be spread evenly among each route. Instead, this funding will allow improvements at
strategic locations along each corridor. These improvements could include upgraded passenger
facilities at high ridership locations, ancillary pedestrian improvements, and potential running-way
improvements such as transit signal priority and bus queue jump lanes.
• Fare Integration – Based on the ongoing RTA fare integration study, a capital cost of $25 million
was set aside for regional fare integration.
• Local Bus – A capital cost of $20,000 per mile is included for new and extended local bus
service. These funds will primarily go toward the installation of signs and shelters at new bus
stops.
• Streetcar – It is anticipated the RTA will assume ownership of the QLINE streetcar system and
will incur costs associated with ongoing operation and maintenance of the project at that time. No
RTA-funded capital costs or existing capital debts from M-1 RAIL are assumed within the 20-year
planning horizon (2019-2038).
• Transit Centers and Facilities – Up to $137.1 million was included to support upgrades to
existing transit support facilities, including needed garage expansions to accommodate the
service increases included in the CSM Plan. In addition, the potential capital project list included
$11.0 million to construct a regional One-Click/One-Call center to coordinate on-demand transit
services and provide passenger information.
• Planning and Development – Planning and development costs have been identified to support
potential future expansions to the region’s rapid transit network. These include a Light Rail Transit
(LRT) planning study to Detroit Metropolitan (DTW) airport, commuter rail expansion, funds to
evaluate future transition into BRT services, and funds to evaluate and plan for the expansion of
the streetcar network.
• Chokepoint Reduction Program – This is envisioned as a discretionary grant program that will
be administered by the RTA to improve traffic flow and infrastructure conditions in key transit
corridors throughout the region.
The financial model allows for the adjustment of the share of federal and state funding available to
individual capital projects. The estimated capital costs by project type, and assumed federal, state, and
local share of costs are shown in Table 2.18.
June 2018 26
TABLE 2.18: CAPITAL COSTS AND STATE/FEDERAL FUNDING ASSUMPTIONS
Project Federal Share State Share RTA Share

Airport Express 13% 0% 87%
Commuter Rail 0% 33% 67%
Premium Transit Corridors 40% 0% 60%
Commuter Express 15% 0% 85%
Local Bus 13% 0% 87%
Transit Facilities 15% 0% 85%
Fare Integration 0% 0% 100%
Regional Call Center 51% 0% 49%
Chokepoint Reduction Program 0% 0% 100%
VEHICLE COSTS
Because the financial model assumes capital costs to be one-time occurrences while vehicles must be
replaced on a regular cycle, vehicle costs were treated separately from other capital costs. Estimated
vehicle purchase costs were determined through peer system research, APTA vehicle cost data, and
RTA guidance (Table 2.19). Standard bus costs were determined for conventional diesel, hybrid,
compressed natural gas (CNG), and electric propulsion. While the transit agencies operate a mixed fleet
of conventional and hybrid buses, it was assumed that all future bus purchases will be conventional diesel
buses. This assumption was based on feedback from the agencies that they are curtailing the purchase
of hybrid buses due to higher capital costs and minimal operating cost savings.
As aforementioned, vehicle costs for Commuter Rail coaches are not included because it was assumed
these vehicles will be leased, and ongoing lease costs are included as an operating cost for these modes.
Commuter Express service was assumed to be provided using standard buses, while Airport Express
service will be provided through a fully contracted arrangement, with the contractor providing the vehicles.
Vehicle service lives were identified based on FTA guidance (Table 2.20).
TABLE 2.19: ASSUMED VEHICLE COSTS
Vehicle Cost
1
Automated Guideway $2.0 million
1
Bus – Diesel $462,000
2
Commuter Rail – Locomotive $2.4 million
1
Demand Responsive $97,000
1
Demand Taxi $31,000
3
Streetcar $5.5 million
2019$
Source: 1. Peer system research, 2. RTA guidance, and 3. M-1 RAIL press release
June 2018 27
TABLE 2.20: ASSUMED VEHICLE SERVICE LIFE

Vehicle Type Service Life
Bus 12 years
Commuter Rail - Locomotive 25 years
Paratransit Vehicle 4 years
People Mover Vehicle1 25 years
Streetcar1 25 years
1
For informational purposes only. People Mover and QLINE vehicle replacements are not part of the CSM Plan.
The financial model contains assumptions regarding the planned replacement of existing and new
vehicles (Table 2.21). Existing and expanded bus and paratransit fleets are assumed to be replaced on a
rolling basis, wherein the entire fleet is replaced over the course of one life cycle. For example, with an
assumed 12-year service life for buses, an agency is assumed to replace 1/12 of its bus fleet each year.
For modes with smaller fleets of more expensive vehicles, such as the streetcar, Commuter Rail, and
People Mover, it was assumed the entire fleet will be replaced at once, with the timing of replacement
based on the age of the current fleet (or the assumed startup year for modes not currently in operation).
TABLE 2.21: ASSUMED VEHICLE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE

Vehicle Type Year
Bus Rolling cycle
Commuter Rail Coach 2046
Paratransit Vehicle Rolling cycle
People Mover Vehicle 2020
Streetcar 2042
Service-Specific Assumptions
In addition to global financial assumptions, the financial model allowed for a wide array of service-specific
assumptions. These inputs collectively defined the scope and timing of services included in the CSM
Plan.
FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE
Fixed-route service included in the CSM Plan can be classified into three broad operational categories:
• Expansion of the existing providers’ services, with the RTA providing funding for the cost of the
expansion;
• Transfer of existing services and vehicles from one provider to another, typically with the goal of
consolidating duplicative service and providing a one-seat ride to passengers crossing between
SMART and DDOT jurisdiction; or
• Entirely new service operated by an existing provider or the RTA, with 100% of the funding for
that service provided by the RTA.
The first two categories may be combined. For example, a corridor currently served by both DDOT and
SMART could be consolidated under a single operator, with the RTA also funding an overall increase in
service on that corridor.
June 2018 28
In defining new service in the financial model, three variables must be addressed:
1. Who will operate each service?

2. What (if any) RTA subsidies will be provided to the existing agencies to support a service
increase?
3. When will changes be implemented?
CAPITAL PROJECTS
Capital projects, including the opening year of a project, estimated costs, and assumed levels of state and
federal funding, are defined in the model. Many capital projects are tied to specific service changes, so
the opening years will be linked between the operating and capital investments.
PARATRANSIT SERVICE
Paratransit service inputs included determining who will operate the existing system in the future, what if
any expansion will occur (and operated by whom), and when these changes may occur.
June 2018 29
3. Connect Southeast Michigan

Plan
The CSM Plan was developed based on market analysis, financial model analysis, and stakeholder
involvement. It reflects a fiscally constrained approach that prioritizes Southeast Michigan’s transit needs
within the context of historical funding sources and the resources that a successful property tax
referendum is expected to make available.
Existing Transit Service

AAATA, DDOT, DTC, and SMART will continue operating their existing services after the CSM Plan is
implemented, with the exception of regional transit corridors that are currently served by more than one
provider, some of which will be consolidated under a single provider as part of the plan. Aside from those
specifically modified as part of the CSM Plan, the providers’ other existing services are assumed to
remain unchanged in the future.
Routes at 15-Minute Frequencies

15-Minute Service Corridors will consolidate and replace existing separate DDOT/SMART service
operating in some corridors and will also introduce entirely new or extended service in other corridors. 15-
Minute Service corridors will be operated by a single agency (either SMART or DDOT) for the entire
length of the corridor, crossing between the City of Detroit and its surrounding suburbs, and between
counties, without the need to transfer between providers. The selection of one provider or the other in the
CSM Plan was based on the desire to balance operating costs between the two agencies, while also
minimizing deadhead distances for each provider. Routes will operate at increased frequencies and will
allow cross-county travel with no midday, evening, or weekend transfers required.
RTA will subsidize the full incremental operating cost of increased service beyond what exists in each
corridor today, plus the cost of purchasing any additional buses required (including spare vehicles equal
to 20% of the increased fleet required to operate the service and replacement vehicles after 12 years).
The RTA’s investment in service increases in these 16 corridors is estimated at $69 million per year
(2019$), not including the cost of purchasing additional vehicles.
PREMIUM CORRIDORS (WOODWARD, GRATIOT, MICHIGAN, GRAND RIVER, WASHTENAW, AND

VAN DYKE/MOUND)
Six premium corridors were identified, each of which will provide service at 15-minute frequencies or
better throughout the day, as well as infrastructure improvements. In general, the service levels currently
offered on the DDOT-operated portions of existing routes that operate in Detroit will be extended far into
the suburbs, offering 24-hour service for the first time on the suburban portions of the Grand River
corridor, doubling FAST service on Michigan Avenue, and introducing new FAST service on the Van
Dyke/Mound corridor.
Capital investments in the six Premium Corridors will enhance user access, service quality, and transit
facilities throughout the region. The CSM Plan budgets capital costs of $1.5 million per mile, resulting in a
total capital cost of $238 million (2019$) (not including vehicles). RTA will partner with local municipalities
to coordinate these enhancements and leverage transit investments with other local improvements within
these corridors. Improvements might include sidewalks, curb extensions, and crosswalks to improve
station accessibility; enhanced shelters, lighting, and travel information to improve the passenger
experience; and potential running-way improvements such as transit signal priority and queue jump lanes
June 2018 30
to improve service speed and reliability. These investments will not necessarily be spread evenly along
each corridor and may be concentrated on certain corridors and segments more than others. Additional
planning will be needed to identify the most effective capital investments.
TABLE 3.1: PREMIUM CORRIDOR SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS
Corridor Termini Service Changes Operator First Year

No Changes (Infrastructure
Woodward Detroit to Pontiac / Troy SMART Existing
Only)
Detroit to 23 Mile /
No Changes (Infrastructure
Gratiot North River Park-and- SMART Existing
Only)
Ride
• Increase FAST service to
Detroit to DTW via
Michigan match Woodward/Gratiot SMART 2019
Merriman
• No change to local service
• Upgrade/extend DDOT 21
• 10-minute peak service to
Farmington Hills
Grand River Detroit to 12 Mile / Beck • 24-hour service to DDOT 2019
Farmington Hills
• Half of trips extend to 12
Mile (except night)
• No Changes (Infrastructure
Washtenaw Ann Arbor / Ypsilanti AAATA Existing
Only)
• New FAST service along
Mt Elliott Street, Mound
Road, and Van Dyke Street
to 23 Mile Road.
Van Dyke / • 15-minute all-day service
Detroit / Utica DDOT 2019
Mound Road to 23 Mile
• Half of trips terminate at
WalMart in Shelby
Township; other half to 23
Mile and Mound Road
Note: Infrastructure improvements are expected to follow over a period of five years.
HIGH-FREQUENCY CORRIDORS
The remaining ten corridors in the 15-Minute Service family will offer service at 15-minute frequencies or
better during peak periods, as well as overall improvements in span and frequency of service throughout
the day. In general, the service levels currently offered on the DDOT-operated portions of existing routes
will be extended far into the suburbs, offering 24-hour service for the first time on many suburban
corridors.
June 2018 31
TABLE 3.2: HIGH-FREQUENCY CORRIDOR SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS
Corridor Termini Service Changes Operator First Year

Mack and Moross to • Upgrade DDOT 17
8 Mile Grand River and Seven • 24-hour service, 15-minute DDOT 2021
Mile peak headways
• Upgrade/extend SMART 710
• 15-minute peak, 30-minute
all day
9 Mile Mack to Telegraph • Half of westbound trips SMART 2021
terminate at 9 Mile and
Telegraph; remainder at 12
Mile and Telegraph
• Upgrade/extend SMART
740
15-minute peak, 30-minute
all day service between
Little Mack and 13 Mile to OCC Orchard Lake and
12 Mile SMART 2022
Twelve Oaks Mall Van Dyke, via downtown
Royal Oak
• Half of all trips extend west
to Twelve Oaks Mall and
east to Little Mack
Harper to Twelve Oaks • 15-minute peak, 30-minute
15 Mile SMART 2023
Mall all day, add Sunday
service
• Upgrade SMART 125
Fort/Eureka Detroit to DTW • 15-minute peak, 30-minute SMART 2023
all day, 21 hours per day
• Consolidate DDOT 22 and
SMART 415; extend to
Michigan/Schaefer to Somerset
Greenfield DDOT 2022
Somerset Collection • Upgrade to 24-hour service
• 12-minute peak, 15-minute
all day, 30-minute overnight
• Consolidate DDOT 25 and
SMART 610
• Upgrade to 24-hour service
as far as Moross
Jefferson Detroit to Gratiot/15 Mile 12-minute peak, 15-minute DDOT 2020
all day, 30-minute overnight
to Moross
• Half of trips continue to 15
Mile
• Upgrade SMART 495
State Fairgrounds to
John R • 15-minute peak, 30-minute SMART 2023
Rochester
all day
23 Mile Pontiac to 23 Mile/Gratiot • 15-minute peak, 30-minute SMART 2024
all day; add Sunday service
Pontiac to Southland
Telegraph • 15-minute peak, 30-minute SMART 2024
Center
all day; add Sunday service
June 2018 32
FIGURE 3-1: ASSUMED 15-MINUTE SERVICE CORRIDOR HEADWAYS BY HOUR
June 2018 33
June 2018 34
Commuter Rail
Detroit to Ann Arbor Commuter Rail service will offer the first rapid, reliable connection to regional job
centers in Washtenaw and Wayne counties. Eight daily trips in each direction will connect stations in Ann
Arbor, Ypsilanti, Wayne, Dearborn, and the Detroit New Center Amtrak station. Commuter Rail, along with
two feeder bus lines in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, is assumed to open in 2024. Express bus service will be
implemented on an interim basis beginning in 2019 following the same service pattern as the future
Commuter Rail service on Interstate 94 until rail service is instituted in 2024. When Commuter Rail
service begins, the interim express bus service will be reduced to a single late night “cleanup” trip, to
complement the commuter rail service pattern.
Feeder bus service will connect stations in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti with nearby employment centers and
is assumed to be operated by AAATA (fully funded by the RTA). Daily service will be coordinated with
Commuter Rail arrivals/departures.
Commuter Express
Commuter Express service will be limited-stop peak-hour service connecting key employment centers
beyond the downtowns of Detroit and Ann Arbor, and providing park-and-ride service to downtown
commuters throughout the region. There are 11 corridors planned, including upgrades to an existing
AAATA route. Service to Ann Arbor will be operated by AAATA and all other service will be operated by
the SMART. Both operators may opt to use private contractors to provide these services.
Routes will connect key employment centers with non-stop, premium, weekday service with at least
seven round trips per day. Routes will only run at peak periods. The CSM Plan includes $11.2 million in
capital funding for 15 new park-and-ride lots throughout the region. Commuter Express vehicles and park-
and-rides could also be deployed for special event services such as Detroit professional sports games,
University of Michigan sports games, and other major regional attractions.
June 2018 35
TABLE 3.3: COMMUTER EXPRESS SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS
Corridor Termini Service Level Operator First Year

Rush hour
US 23 8 Mile Rd to Ann Arbor AAATA 2021
commuter service
Rush hour
I-75 Fisher Fwy Southland Center to Detroit RTA 2021
commuter service
Rush hour
I-96 Plymouth to Detroit RTA 2021
commuter service
Twelve Oaks Mall and OCC Rush hour
M-10 Lodge Fwy RTA 2020
Orchard Ridge to Detroit commuter service
Great Lakes Crossing and Rush hour
I-75 Chrysler Fwy RTA 2020
Pontiac to Detroit commuter service
Rush hour
M-59 Pontiac to Mt Clemens RTA 2020
commuter service
Twelve Oaks Mall to St Clair Rush hour
I-696 RTA 2021
Shores commuter service
Twelve Oaks Mall to Lincoln Rush hour
M-39 Southfield Fwy RTA 2021
Park commuter service
Rush hour
I-94 New Baltimore to Detroit RTA 2020
commuter service
Plymouth and Livonia to Ann Rush hour
M-14 AAATA 2021
Arbor commuter service
Double existing
Canton Express Canton to Ann Arbor service to four AAATA 2020
round trips
Airport Express
• Ann Arbor via Ypsilanti (RTA takes over existing service in 2019, with additional station stop in
downtown Ypsilanti)
• Macomb County via Wayne State University (2020)
• Oakland County - M-39 via Troy and Dearborn (2020)
• Oakland County - I-275 via Wayne (2020)
Routes will connect Detroit Metropolitan Airport (DTW) with daily premium express service. Routes will
operate hourly for 13 hours, seven days per week. The RTA will seek an operator to provide these
services, which may be one of the existing providers or a private contractor. The providers will have the
right of first refusal.
The CSM Plan includes a $550,000 allowance for the capital costs of stations facilities for each Airport
Express route.
New/Extended Local Service

The following new or extended local services are also included in the CSM Plan. Two new services will be
operated by AAATA, one new service by SMART, and two existing SMART corridors will be extended.
The RTA will subsidize the full cost of new service and the incremental cost of service expansions,
including the purchase of additional buses.
June 2018 36
Routes operated by AAATA:
• Ypsilanti-Michigan Avenue Connector (2022)

• Ypsilanti-Livonia (2021)
Routes operated by SMART
• Ford Road (SMART route 250 extension and service increase) (2019)
• Middlebelt Road (SMART route 280 extension and service increase) (2019)
• Northville-Canton (2022)
Routes will operate for 16 hours on weekdays, 13 hours on Saturdays, and 11 hours on Sundays. Service
will be hourly, plus half-hourly peak period service on weekdays. The plan includes funding for the cost of
bus stop signs and shelters.
Streetcar
The CSM Plan assumes the RTA will take over the QLINE streetcar in 2027 in compliance with its
enabling statute.
Planning and Development

The CSM Plan includes funds to support Planning and Development funding to plan for potential future
rapid transit investments including LRT to DTW airport, commuter rail expansion, future expansion of
more capital to move towards a higher level of premium Bus Rapid Transit and expansion of the streetcar
network.
Core Area Flexible Mobility

A block grant program will fund new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Paratransit, non-ADA Demand
Response services and first/last mile connections to fixed-route transit within the fixed route service area.
The program will be funded at $20 million in 2019 and will grow in proportion to the region’s over-65
population growth each year. Funds will be distributed based on the senior populations in each county.
The RTA anticipates this program will invest $622 million regionally over the 20-year plan.
Hometown Service
The CSM Plan sets aside $30 million annually (growing with inflation) in block grants to support local
services in the 60 communities outside the fixed route service area. This program makes funding
available for local eligible transit projects in each Hometown Service community. Funding is distributed to
the Hometown Service communities in proportion to the millage revenue raised in each Hometown
Service community.
Advanced Mobility Program

The CSM Plan sets aside $20 million annually (growing with inflation) for county-led innovative mobility
programs including connected and autonomous vehicle pilots; ridesharing partnerships; and modern
transit supportive infrastructure. Funds are allocated to the counties in proportion to the total millage
revenue raised in each county.
June 2018 37
Transit Supporting Infrastructure to Reduce Chokepoints

This $368 million 20-year grant program will support infrastructure improvements throughout the region
that promote safe and efficient transit operations. The allocation formula for this program will be
reevaluated and adjusted as needed on an annual basis to ensure that the full CSM Plan is in compliance
with the 85% Rule.
Regional Fare Integration

Regional fare integration will unify the regional transit system through a consistent fare policy and a
regional fare card. A regional fare card will allow for seamless regional travel and easier transfers
between different providers and include the installation of upgraded fare boxes within AAATA, DDOT, and
SMART buses. A capital cost of $25 million is assumed for regional fare integration.
Regional Facilities
The CSM Plan includes funding for construction, upgrades, and maintenance of new and existing regional
facilities. $82 million is included in the plan for regional operations facilities such as maintenance and
administration facilities. The costs will be spread between 2023 and 2025. In addition, the plan includes
$11 million for construction of a regional One Click/One Call center to coordinate on-demand transit
services and provide passenger information.
June 2018 38
4. Connect Southeast Michigan

Plan Costs
Regional Transit Millage
The CSM Plan will require a regional transit millage of 1.5. It is assumed the millage will begin in 2019 for
a period of 20 years. The regional transit millage will be collected in addition to the existing transit
millages in the SMART and AAATA service areas. If the millage is approved by voters, all property
owners within the four-county RTA jurisdiction will pay the millage. Communities will not have the option
to “opt-out” of the millage.
Operating Costs
O&M costs for new service were estimated at full build-out of the CSM Plan. This includes both new
service as well as subsidized increases to existing services already operated by the current transit
providers. Costs are summarized in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 in 2019 dollars (actual costs will be higher in
the years of implementation). The expenditures in Table 4.2 are listed by provider, meaning that services
such as the QLINE streetcar (to be taken over by RTA), Commuter Rail, Airport Express, and some other
services are listed as RTA expenses, while RTA-funded 15-Minute Service Corridors, expanded local
service, and some Commuter Express service are allocated to the region’s existing providers, who will
operate those services, but will be reimbursed by the RTA for the provision of the services.
TABLE 4.1: CSM ANNUAL O&M COSTS BY MODE OR EXPENSE

Mode Expense
RTA Administration $5.9
15-Minute Service Corridors $69.3
Local Bus $8.9
Airport Express $6.4
Commuter Express $10.7
Commuter Rail (incl. feeder
$10.0
bus)
Core Area Flexible Mobility $20.0
Hometown Service $30.0
Streetcar $5.4
Total $166.6
2019$, millions
June 2018 39
TABLE 4.2: CSM ANNUAL O&M COSTS BY PROVIDER

Provider Expense
AAATA $8.2
DDOT $28.4
RTA $65.5
SMART $64.5
Total $166.6
2019$, millions
Note: RTA costs include RTA administration, Commuter Rail, QLINE, Hometown Service, Airport Express, and most Commuter
Express routes. Core Area Flexible Mobility funds are allocated to DDOT, SMART, and AAATA based on the over-65 populations
in their respective service areas. A final determination of who will provide Airport Express and Commuter Express services has
not been made at the time of the release of this report.
Capital Costs
Capital and vehicle costs were estimated for projects included in the CSM Plan through the 20-year
analysis period of the Plan. Total capital and vehicle costs for all of the projects included in the CSM Plan
is just over $1.6 billion (2019$) (Table 4.3). These total costs include portions of the costs that may be
covered by state and federal grants. The RTA millage-funded cost will be lower, as discussed further in
Chapter 5.
TABLE 4.3: CSM PROJECT CAPITAL COST, 2019-2038

Facility Vehicle Other Total
Project Costs Costs Costs Costs
Advanced Mobility $400.0 $400.0
Airport Express $2.2 $0.0 $2.2
Local Bus $1.9 * $1.9
Chokepoint Reduction $368.0 $368.0
Commuter Express $11.2 * $11.2
Commuter Rail $135.0 $7.7 $142.7
Planning and Development $142.6 $142.6
15-Minute Service Corridors $237.0 * $237.0
Regional Services $118.2 $118.2
RTA-Funded Buses* $190.7 $190.7
Total $873.5 $198.4 $542.6 $1,614.5
2019$, millions
Note: Airport Express is assumed to be fully contracted to an outside provider who will provide vehicles for the service. The RTA
will not be required to purchase vehicles for this service.
*RTA-Funded Buses will be shared between Local Bus, Commuter Express, and 15-Minute Service Corridors.
VEHICLE PURCHASES
Overall fleet requirements are calculated based on the sum of all route-level VOMS totals, multiplied by
an assumed spare ratio. The spare ratio for all modes and agencies was assumed to be 20%, which is an
industry standard. Vehicles are assumed to be purchased in the year prior to commencement of service,
with one exception. Vehicle purchases for services beginning in 2019 are assumed in 2019. This ensures
no vehicles are purchased before the program begins in 2019.
Table 4.4 shows the assumed pass-through bus purchases by the RTA for use by the existing transit
providers to operate new CSM Plan. It is assumed RTA-purchased buses will be shared between local
bus, Commuter Express, and 15-Minute Service Corridors. Table 4.5 shows the assumed vehicles
June 2018 40
purchased by the RTA for directly operated or contracted Commuter Express and Commuter Rail
services. Based on the timing of previous purchases and input from stakeholders, the model does not
include any streetcar vehicle or the Detroit People Mover vehicle purchases between 2016 and 2035.
Commuter Rail locomotives will be purchased in 2023 for the 2024 launch of service. Commuter Rail
coaches are assumed to be leased and are not included as a capital cost.
TABLE 4.4: ANNUAL PASS-THROUGH BUS PURCHASES

(15-Minute Service Corridors, Local Service, AAATA-operated Commuter Express service)
2019 ‘20 ‘21 ‘22 ‘23 ‘24 ‘25 ‘26 ‘27 ‘28 ‘29 ‘30 ‘31 ‘32 ‘33 ‘34 ‘35 ‘36 ‘37 ‘38
AAATA 2 12 4 3 2 12 4 3
DDOT 29 4 2 24 5 4 2
SMART 20 6 14 34 24 20 6 14 34 24
TOTAL 51 22 20 34 27 44 7 22 20 34 27
Note: For service between 2019 and 2038. The financial model assumes vehicles are purchased during the year prior to service
except for 2019 services, which are purchased the same year.
TABLE 4.5: ANNUAL RTA VEHICLE PURCHASES

(Commuter Rail and RTA-operated Commuter Express service)
2019 ‘20 ‘21 ‘22 ‘23 ‘24 ‘25 ‘26 ‘27 ‘28 ‘29 ‘30 ‘31 ‘32 ‘33 ‘34 ‘35 ‘36 ‘37 ‘38
Bus 20 13 20 13
Locomotives 3
TOTAL 20 13 3 20 13
Note: For service between 2019 and 2038. The financial model assumes vehicles are purchased during the year prior to service
except for 2019 services, which are purchased the same year.
Impact to Existing Transit Providers

New or expanded services from the CSM Plan will impose new costs on the region’s transit providers.
While some new service will be operated directly by the RTA (via contracted service), other CSM Plan-
funded services will be operated by AAATA, DDOT, and SMART (Table 4.6). The RTA will provide
subsidies for CSM Plan services operated by the existing transit providers. These subsides will offset the
impact of the increased O&M costs to these agencies. In some cases, a new service, whether operated
by the RTA or an existing agency, will replace an existing service, leading to potential reductions in cost
to a provider.
TABLE 4.6: PROVIDER ASSIGNMENT OF CSM PLAN SERVICES

Mode Assigned Provider
15-Minute Service Corridors AAATA, DDOT and SMART
To be determined – RTA
Airport Express
placeholder
Commuter Express AAATA and RTA placeholder
Hometown Service RTA
Local Bus AAATA and SMART
Core Area Flexible Mobility AAATA, DDOT and SMART
Commuter Rail RTA
Streetcar RTA
June 2018 41
5. Existing and Future Funding

Federal and state funding levels for Southeast Michigan as a whole were estimated based on recent
legislation and then distributed to the RTA and providers based on the CSM Plan. While future federal
and state formula funding distributions have been estimated based on the best information available, the
actual amount of funding available in the future will be different. Formula funding distributions will be
refined as needed in the future. If revenues fall short or costs exceed what is estimated, the RTA will work
together with Southeast Michigan’s transit providers to adjust formula funding distributions.
Regional Transit Millage

A regional transit millage of 1.5 will generate $5.4 billion in local transit funding over 20 years from 2019
to 2038. This revenue goes to the RTA, which then allocates it to its directly-funded services and
programs, and to the providers that will be operating CSM Plan routes in partnership with the RTA.
State Funding
The financial model forecasts future growth in statewide LBO funding and estimates the amount of that
funding that comes to Southeast Michigan based on growth in eligible expenses in the region compared
with expected growth in eligible expenses in the rest of the state. The portion of the LBO funding that
comes from motor fuel taxes is projected to grow at the rate of inflation, while the remaining portion of
LBO funding is projected to remain constant. Blending these two growth rates results in an overall
expected LBO growth rate of approximately 0.8% per year. Relative to the rate of inflation, this means
that statewide LBO funding is expected to decline.
Eligible expenses, meanwhile, are expected to grow at the rate of inflation statewide, before considering
any increases resulting from implementation of the CSM Plan. With eligible expenses growing faster than
available funding, all systems throughout the state are projected to see a declining rate of reimbursement
for eligible expenses. Statewide LBO funding was $186,250,000 in 2018, and is expected to grow to
$220,383,000 by 2038. Statewide eligible expenditures, estimated at $543 million, is expected to growth
to $872 million by 2038, before considering increases due to the CSM Plan.
Implementation of the CSM Plan will increase eligible expenditures in Southeast Michigan, shifting more
LBO funding to the region instead of other regions. This increase will be retained by the RTA to offset the
cost of the CSM Plan. AAATA, DDOT, SMART, and DTC will be held harmless in that their funding will
remain the same whether or not the CSM Plan is implemented, with the RTA capturing the additional
growth that comes to the region as a result of the CSM Plan. See Figure 5-1 for an overview of the
assumed distribution of LBO funding in the Plan.
Because the RTA will be facilitating capital projects, it is also assumed to receive an increasing level of
state capital assistance funding. The share is not a fixed percentage but rather is tied to specific projects
for which state support is likely. The assumed levels of state capital assistance were determined based
on stakeholder feedback that established a funding probability and likely state share for CSM Plan capital
projects.
Federal Funding
Federal formula funding is allocated by the FTA to UZAs (Census-defined Urbanized Areas) for transit
service. Allocations are based on a complex formula accounting for regional population, types of services
offered, and levels of service provided. Projected federal formula funding changes from the CSM Plan
were based on the introduction of a new mode (Commuter Rail), which will make the region eligible for an
increase in “Fixed Guideway Tier” funding under the FTA Section 5307 formula grant program. The
June 2018 42
“Commuter Rail Floor”, a minimum funding level for all UZAs with commuter rail systems, is $10.0 million
in 2018. This amount is anticipated to grow at the rate of inflation, and to begin accruing to the region in
2026.
Although the increases in existing bus service will likely generate a further increase in formula funding,
this was not included in the financial plan to ensure a conservative forecast. Therefore, all existing
formula funding, assumed to grow at the rate of inflation, continues to be allocated to the providers with
only the commuter rail-related increase being retained by the RTA.
FIGURE 5-1: DISTRIBUTION OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING
Reliance on Providers
The CSM Plan relies on an incremental service model in which many of the transit corridors included in
the plan already have some level of service, and the RTA would subsidize the incremental cost of
increasing service in those corridors. To implement this approach, it will be necessary for the RTA to
establish agreements with the providers with respect to cost sharing the maintenance of effort in those
corridors. The cost-sharing approach envisioned in the plan would have the providers continue to fund
service at current levels and maintain the necessary fleet to provide its current levels of service in these
corridors, while the RTA would fund the incremental cost and the purchase of additional vehicles.
Table 5.1 summarizes the estimated total O&M cost of proposed shared corridors, by provider, including
both the total cost of the 2018 service levels, total cost of expanded service under the CSM Plan, and the
RTA and provider shares of those costs.
June 2018 43
TABLE 5.1: OPERATING COST-SHARING BREAKDOWN IN RTA/PROVIDER SHARED CORRIDORS

Expanded
Existing RTA Provider
Provider Service RTA Share
Costs Subsidy Share
Costs
AAATA $0.2 $0.4 $0.2 50% 50%
DDOT $20.0 $33.3 $13.3 60% 40%
SMART $44.7 $91.4 $46.7 49% 51%
2019$, millions
Note: table only includes corridors where RTA and providers would be sharing O&M costs. These are:
AAATA: Canton Express.
DDOT: Grand River; Greenfield; Jefferson.
SMART: 8 Mile; 9 Mile; 12 Mile; 15 Mile; 23 Mile; Fort/Eureka; Michigan FAST; John R; Telegraph; Ford Road local;
Middlebelt local.
June 2018 44
6. Regional Growth in Service

Full implementation of the CSM Plan will significantly increase transit service, vehicles in operation, and
O&M expenditures in Southeast Michigan. VRH will increase by 33% (Table 6.1), VRM will increase by
37% (Table 6.2), and VOMS will increase by 29% (Table 6.3) for fixed-route service. This increase in
service corresponds with an increase in funding for transit service from the RTA (Figure 6-1).
The tables below show the total existing service levels in the region, and how those will increase with
implementation of the CSM Plan. It should be noted that the Detroit People Mover, while included in the
tables, will remain the responsibility of the City of Detroit and is not funded or included in the CSM Plan.
Likewise, the service levels shown for AAATA, DDOT, and SMART include both CSM-funded service as
well as their own locally funded service,
TABLE 6.1: VEHICLE REVENUE HOURS

Provider Existing 2018 Existing plus CSM % Increase
AAATA 299,141 343,204 15%
DDOT 783,617 1,027,240 31%
SMART 798,167 1,063,783 33%
RTA (Airport/Commuter) 0 94,031 n/a
TOTAL BUS 1,880,925 2,528,258 34%
RTA Commuter Rail 0 5,840 n/a
People Mover 50,373 50,373 0%
Streetcar 24,062 24,062 0%
TOTAL ALL MODES 1,955,360 2,608,533 33%
Note: Fixed-route service only; does not include paratransit. Existing annual hours are estimated based on current service levels.
TABLE 6.2: VEHICLE REVENUE MILES

AAATA 4,137,454 4,535,954 10%
DDOT 11,866,287 15,039,849 27%
SMART 11,897,902 16,426,079 38%
RTA (Airport/Commuter) 0 2,298,377 n/a
TOTAL BUS 27,901,643 38,300,259 37%
RTA Commuter Rail 0 221,336 n/a
People Mover 586,382 586,382 0%
Streetcar 199,113 199,113 0%
TOTAL ALL MODES 28,669,138 39,307,090 37%
Note: Fixed-route service only; does not include paratransit. Existing annual miles are estimated based on current service levels.
June 2018 45
TABLE 6.3: VEHICLES OPERATED IN MAXIMUM SERVICE

AAATA 87 102 17%
DDOT 227 258 14%
SMART 227 296 30%
RTA (Airport/Commuter) 0 37 n/a
TOTAL BUS 541 693 28%
RTA Commuter Rail 0 11 n/a
People Mover 10 10 0%
Streetcar 5 5 0%
TOTAL ALL MODES 556 719 29%
Note: Fixed-route service only; does not include paratransit.
FIGURE 6-1: REGIONAL GROWTH FROM CSM PLAN
Notes:
Service only; RTA administration costs excluded.
Costs are for annual operations and maintenance only; does not include capital expense or vehicles purchased and replaced.
June 2018 46
7. Performance Measures
The financial model generates performance measures to objectively evaluate the CSM Plan.
Cash Flow by Year and by Jurisdiction

Appendix A contains complete tables showing anticipate revenues and expenditures by year for the 20-
year program (2019-2038). In addition to showing the regional totals, tables are also provided for the four
counties, as well as the City of Detroit and the non-Detroit portion of Wayne County. The county- and city-
level revenue and expenditure totals do not precisely match the revenue and expenditure totals for the full
four-county region for several reasons:
• The RTA financial plan does not include spending every dollar that the RTA will potentially raise.
In order to secure debt financing and to ensure fiscal stability, the RTA must maintain minimum
cash balances in every year of the plan, meaning that the RTA will bring in slightly more revenue
than it expends.
• Bond proceeds, and the subsequent debt service, are a regional revenue and expenditure, and
are not allocated to the individual counties. Therefore, these totals are not shown on the county
and city cash flow sheets.
Debt Coverage
For the CSM financial plan to be viable, funding sources must be sufficient to generate a positive agency
cash balance in all years through 2038. If the RTA’s cash flows require the agency to take on debt, the
agency must be able to maintain a debt service coverage ratio equal to 1.5 or greater in all years in which
debt is outstanding. All bonds must be retired by the end of 2038 (the final year of the millage
authorization). The CSM Plan meets this requirement.
85% Rule Compliance

The RTA’s legislation sets forth an “85% Rule,” which requires the RTA ensure not less than 85% of the
money raised through a millage or VRT in each member county, and in the City of Detroit, is expended on
the public transportation service routes located in that jurisdiction. The provision was included to ensure
to taxpayers in each jurisdiction that 85% of their investment will be returned in the form of public transit
service and infrastructure enhancements.
On each proposed route identified in the CSM Plan, the RTA calculated operating, capital, and vehicle
expenditures and allocated these to the jurisdictions in which the service is located. For transit routes that
cross into more than one jurisdiction, the costs were allocated base on the percentage of the route’s
length that is within each jurisdiction. Regional investments, like facilities, fare integration, administrative
costs, and debt service, were allocated throughout the region in proportion to route-specific capital and
operating costs. Paratransit expansion was allocated based on the existing over-65 populations in each
jurisdiction. Hometown Service was allocated in proportion to the revenue raised in Hometown
communities in each county. Advanced Mobility was allocated in proportion to total revenue raised in
each member jurisdiction.
By law, the 85% Rule is met when all money the RTA spends on new transit expenditures in each
member jurisdiction equals at least 85 % of the amount of revenue raised by the RTA in that same
jurisdiction. This calculation includes all RTA directly-generated and non-RTA sources of funding, such as
federal and state grants; passenger fares; and other system-generated revenues. The RTA further
ensures compliance with the 85% Rule by managing the expenditure of local dollars so 85 % of those
locally generated dollars are expended within the jurisdiction as well. This secondary calculation only
June 2018 47
includes RTA directly generated revenue (via property tax millage or VRT), without including non-RTA
sources of funding. This is a more restrictive standard than is required by law.
For the CSM Plan to be viable it must comply with this 85% Rule. The CSM Plan meets the 85% rule
using the most general and strictest interpretations of the law.
Because the RTA’s expenditures, particularly for capital facilities, will be focused in some jurisdictions
more at some times than others, it is possible the RTA will not comply with the 85% Rule in every
jurisdiction when computed on a short-term basis, particularly in the early years of the program. The RTA
will track compliance on a cumulative multi-year basis. The financial model tracks 85% Rule compliance
across an aggregate 20-year period from 2019 through 2038, as well as in individual years and
cumulatively.
The total assumed RTA millage collected and RTA expenditures in each jurisdiction are shown in Table
7.1. The table shows total millage revenue raised in each jurisdiction, total expenditures by jurisdiction,
and the estimated split of millage and non-millage-funded expenditures. As shown, when accounting for
all sources of revenue, every jurisdiction will receive a return on millage investment of greater than 100%.
This is because of the increase in state funding, federal funding, and fare revenue that is expected. When
accounting for only the millage portion of program funding, every jurisdiction remains in compliance with
the 85% Rule.
It should be noted that while Detroit is shown as a separate jurisdiction, the revenues and expenditures
for Detroit are also included in the Wayne County total.
Revenues do not precisely match expenditures for several reasons: first, not every dollar of revenue is
spent over the course of the program. To cover debt service requirements, the RTA will need to maintain
a minimum balance at the end of every fiscal year, making it impossible to spend every last dollar. The
remainder serves as a reserve against debt service payments. Additionally, expenditures covering
interest on debt are not allocated to any of the jurisdictions, as these expenditures support the cost of
implementing the CSM Plan as a whole and cannot be associated with any one program or service.
Therefore, interest on outstanding debt is excluded from the table.
TABLE 7.1: RTA MILLAGE COLLECTED AND EXPENDITURES (2019-2038)

Macomb Oakland Washtenaw Wayne Detroit
Millage Revenue Collected $1,083.9 $2,196.5 $694.2 $1,442.4 $168.0
Expenditures by Source
Non-Millage $227.2 $456.7 $247.7 $450.7 $238.4
Millage $939.4 $1,892.5 $642.7 $1,800.2 $717.0
Total $1,166.6 $2,349.3 $890.4 $2,251.0 $955.3
All Sources ROI 107.7% 107.0% 128.3% 156.1% 568.7%
Millage ROI 86.7% 86.2% 92.6% 124.8% 426.8%
YOE$, millions
Note: Detroit is included in the Wayne County total, but is also shown as a separate jurisdiction.
85% RULE PERIODIC TRUE-UP AND REBALANCE
In addition to confirming that the CSM Plan complies with the 85% Rule at the end of the program and
taxing period (2038), there was also a desire on the part of the RTA Board and its member jurisdictions to
track the progress toward compliance with this rule on a period basis. Table 7.2 summarizes the
projected expenditures and revenues by jurisdiction at five-year increments. Comparing actual future
results against these forecasted results will enable the RTA to identify if and when the actual distribution
June 2018 48
of funds against revenues has deviated from the forecast, so that a “true-up” process, or adjustments to
the plan to ensure compliance with the 85% Rule, can be implemented.
TABLE 7.2: PROJECTED EXPENDITURES VS. REVENUES AT YEAR 5, 10, 15, AND 20
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Millage Returned % of Millage Generated
Macomb 86.5% 88.1% 87.2% 86.7%
Oakland 82.2% 82.5% 84.7% 86.2%
Washtenaw 145.8% 112.5% 100.4% 92.6%
Wayne 134.3% 135.9% 128.8% 124.8%
All Sources ROI
Macomb 90.6% 99.0% 105.0% 103.7%
Oakland 147.1% 103.2% 110.4% 108.0%
Washtenaw 256.0% 104.3% 120.4% 104.1%
Wayne 235.1% 137.5% 147.3% 143.5%
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON ONGOING 85% COMPLIANCE AND THE PROTECTION OF

STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR EXISTING PROVIDERS
The RTA recognizes that, over time under the CSM Plan, the level of CSM Plan revenue raised in each
member jurisdiction may vary from the projections used to determine that the CSM Plan complies with the
85% Rule. Further, the CSM Plan is built on the principle that the allocation of state and federal formula
funding in support of routes and services in the CSM Plan will not reduce the amount of state and federal
funding currently allocated to existing transit providers within the RTA’s transit region, as adjusted for
inflation. The RTA adopted a policy on September 22, 2016 (Resolution 22, attached as Appendix E) and
developed procedures ensuring the RTA Board will adhere to rigorous and transparent monitoring and
adjustment procedures to address potential deviations from the CSM Plan’s financial assumptions and
ensure long-term compliance with the 85% Rule. The policies and procedures also provide a structure to
ensure the existing providers will not be impacted by reduced state and federal funding from the RTA.
SENSITIVITY TESTS
In response to stakeholder feedback and to better understand potential financial risks in the
implementation of the CSM Plan, several sensitivity tests were conducted, which are described in this
section. As Oakland County’s return of millage dollars is closest to 85% among the member jurisdictions,
the sensitivity tests were constructed around potential scenarios in which Oakland’s ROI might be lower
than projected.
Oakland housing growth exceeds forecast by 10%; other counties unchanged
Starting from the existing baseline SEMCOG forecast, the housing growth forecast was increased so that
by 2038, housing in Oakland County is 10% higher than the baseline forecast. This was modeled as a
gradual deviation from the baseline, so in the first year it would be 0.5% higher, 1% higher in year 2, 1.5%
higher in year 3, etc.
This results in Oakland County’s millage contribution being approximately 5% higher than forecast over
the combined 20-year period. Among individual years, the deviation grows from 0% higher in year 1 to
approximately 10% higher in year 20.
To mitigate the effects of higher revenue in Oakland County and overall, the RTA could reduce its millage
or increase program expenditures. A reduced millage of approximately 1.45 instead of 1.5, with no other
June 2018 49
changes to the program and Oakland County accounting for a higher share of revenues, would bring
Oakland County’s millage ROI to exactly 85.0%, and 102% return on all funding sources.
At a full 1.50 millage, Oakland County would fall to 84.8% return of millage dollars before accounting for
spending of the additional revenue, meaning that the majority of the increased revenue would need to be
spent in Oakland County to comply with the 85% Rule.
Oakland valuation growth exceeds forecast by 10%; other counties valuation growth is lower;
overall RTA revenue remains the same
As with the previous scenario, this scenario modeled a gradual increase in the forecasted tax base of
Oakland County such that it exceeded the baseline forecast by 10% after 20 years. However, in this
scenario, overall four-county revenue was held constant relative to the baseline scenario, by reducing the
valuation growth rate in the other three counties such that the RTA’s four-county revenue remained the
same and the millage remained at 1.50
In this scenario, Oakland County’s return of millage dollars would be exactly 85.0%, while the return of all
sources (including state and federal funds as well as farebox revenue) to Oakland County would be
102%.
The result of this scenario suggests that the CSM can withstand a deviation in the long-term allocation of
tax base of up to 10% before changes to the program would be needed in order to remain in compliance
with the 85% Rule.
Transit Spending per Capita

Transit spending per capita is a useful benchmark to measure the overall level of regional transit
investment. As the CSM Plan was developed, peer region per capita spending was used as a guide for
identifying an appropriate system size.
METHODOLOGY
Eleven peer regions from throughout the United States were selected for a comparison of transit
spending per capita. This included regions with similar populations, a shared industrial heritage, and
aspirational transit system. For a comparison of transit operations spending across these regions, data
was 2016 NTD was used. At the time of analysis this was the most current data available.
Transit spending was defined as operating expenses reported to the 2016 NTD. Regional transit
spending was defined as the sum of operating expenses for all reporting agencies to an UZA region. In
some instances, this included public transit agencies, university transit systems, paratransit providers,
and vanpool operators. In addition to AAATA, DDOT, DTC, and SMART, Southeast Michigan includes
VRide, Inc. – Michigan and the University of Michigan Transportation Services. Reporting agencies with a
different primary UZA were excluded from this analysis. Transit spending per capita was calculated by
divided total regional transit spending by UZA population. UZA population comes from the 2010 Census.
PEER REGION COMPARISON
In 2016, Southeast Michigan spent $67 per capita ($271 million total) on transit operations. This lags far
behind regional peers (Table 7.3).
June 2018 50
TABLE 7.3: TRANSIT OPERATIONS SPENDING
Region UZA Population Total Spending per Capita

Southeast Michigan 4,040,112 $270,941,761 $67
Atlanta 4,515,419 $557,490,624 $123
Austin 1,362,416 $217,074,058 $159
Boston 4,181,019 $1,590,045,692 $380
Chicago 8,608,208 $2,522,535,098 $293
Cleveland 1,780,673 $281,048,488 $158
Columbus 1,368,035 $127,451,500 $93
Denver 2,374,203 $487,909,962 $206
Indianapolis 1,487,483 $68,702,040 $46
Nashville 969,587 $80,418,347 $83
Pittsburgh 1,733,853 $419,405,050 $242
Seattle 3,059,393 $1,252,721,158 $409
Source: 2016 National Transit Database
CSM PLAN SPENDING PER CAPITA
The CSM Plan will increase regional per capita transit spending from $67 to $110 (Figure 7.1).
Although transit spending in Southeast Michigan will still fall behind many other peer regions, this
represents a significant increase in regional transit investment, and will go a long way toward meeting the
needs of a region striving for greater economic resilience and growth.
FIGURE 7-1: EXISTING (2016) TRANSIT OPERATIONS SPENDING PER CAPITA
2019$, millions
Source: 2016 National Transit Database
June 2018 51
Appendix A: Cash Flow Summary Tables

Connect Southeast Michigan Plan ‐ Long Range Financial Forecast
RTA Cash Flow Summary Millions of YOE Dollars
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Total
Revenues
Federal
Formula grants $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $11.8 $12.3 $12.6 $12.9 $13.2 $13.5 $13.8 $14.1 $14.4 $14.8 $15.1 $15.5 $15.9 $180.0
Discretionary grants $25.2 $20.1 $25.7 $22.3 $25.7 $4.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $123.4
Federal Subtotal $25.2 $20.1 $25.7 $22.3 $25.7 $4.5 $0.1 $11.8 $12.3 $12.6 $12.9 $13.2 $13.5 $13.8 $14.1 $14.4 $14.8 $15.1 $15.5 $15.9 $303.4
State
Local Bus Operating Assistance (LBO) $11.9 $14.7 $16.7 $18.2 $20.6 $23.5 $23.6 $23.8 $24.6 $24.7 $24.9 $25.0 $25.2 $25.3 $25.5 $25.6 $25.8 $26.0 $26.2 $26.3 $458.0
Discretionary (all non‐federal) $0.0 $0.0 $15.5 $16.0 $16.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $48.1
State Subtotal $11.9 $14.7 $32.2 $34.2 $37.1 $23.5 $23.6 $23.8 $24.6 $24.7 $24.9 $25.0 $25.2 $25.3 $25.5 $25.6 $25.8 $26.0 $26.2 $26.3 $506.1
Local
Macomb Property Tax $40.6 $41.9 $43.2 $44.5 $45.9 $47.3 $48.7 $50.1 $51.5 $52.9 $54.4 $55.9 $57.5 $59.1 $60.8 $62.5 $64.3 $65.8 $67.4 $69.1 $1,083.5
Oakland Property Tax $84.0 $86.4 $88.9 $91.4 $94.0 $96.6 $99.3 $101.9 $104.6 $107.4 $110.2 $113.1 $116.1 $119.2 $122.4 $125.6 $129.0 $132.1 $135.4 $138.8 $2,196.5
Washtenaw Property Tax $24.4 $25.4 $26.3 $27.3 $28.4 $29.4 $30.5 $31.5 $32.6 $33.7 $34.8 $36.0 $37.2 $38.4 $39.7 $41.1 $42.5 $43.7 $45.0 $46.3 $694.2
Detroit Property Tax $6.6 $6.8 $6.9 $7.1 $7.2 $7.3 $7.5 $7.7 $7.9 $8.1 $8.4 $8.6 $8.8 $9.1 $9.3 $9.6 $9.8 $10.1 $10.4 $10.7 $168.0
Rest of Wayne Property Tax $49.3 $50.6 $51.9 $53.2 $54.6 $56.0 $57.3 $58.9 $60.5 $62.1 $63.8 $65.5 $67.2 $69.0 $70.9 $72.8 $74.8 $76.7 $78.7 $80.7 $1,274.5
Local Subtotal $205.0 $211.0 $217.2 $223.6 $230.0 $236.6 $243.3 $250.1 $257.0 $264.2 $271.5 $279.1 $286.9 $294.9 $303.1 $311.6 $320.3 $328.5 $336.9 $345.6 $5,416.6
System‐Generated
Fare revenues $9.2 $16.8 $18.2 $19.0 $19.8 $23.3 $24.3 $25.1 $28.9 $29.8 $30.8 $31.8 $32.9 $34.0 $35.1 $36.3 $37.5 $38.8 $40.0 $41.3 $572.8
Bond Proceeds $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $52.8 $34.4 $21.6 $27.0 $16.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.8 $11.9 $13.5 $12.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $193.9
System‐Generated Subtotal $9.2 $16.8 $18.2 $19.0 $72.7 $57.7 $45.9 $52.1 $45.7 $29.8 $30.8 $31.8 $32.9 $37.8 $47.0 $49.7 $49.7 $38.8 $40.0 $41.3 $766.6
Total Revenues $251.3 $262.6 $293.3 $299.0 $365.6 $322.3 $312.9 $337.8 $339.5 $331.2 $340.0 $349.1 $358.4 $371.8 $389.7 $401.4 $410.6 $408.4 $418.6 $429.1 $6,992.8
RTA Expenditures
Capital
Commuter Rail (incl vehicles and Planning and Develop $0.0 $0.0 $47.0 $48.6 $58.8 $0.0 $0.0 $15.1 $15.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $190.3
Streetcar Planning and Development $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.4 $13.7 $14.1 $14.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $46.8
Airport LRT Planning and Development $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $18.0 $18.6 $19.3 $19.9 $20.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $96.4
Airport Express $2.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.2
Premium Corridors
Woodward $48.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $48.2
Gratiot $0.0 $45.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $45.9
Van Dyke $0.0 $0.0 $49.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $49.1
Grand River $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $48.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $48.8
Michigan $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $46.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $46.7
Washtenaw $0.0 $0.0 $14.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $14.4
BRT Subtotal $48.2 $45.9 $63.6 $48.8 $46.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $253.3
Expressway Park and Ride $0.0 $11.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $11.6
Local Signs and Shelters $0.0 $0.0 $2.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.0
Infrastructure Program $18.4 $19.0 $19.7 $20.4 $21.1 $21.8 $22.5 $23.3 $24.0 $24.8 $25.7 $26.5 $27.4 $28.3 $29.3 $30.2 $31.2 $32.3 $33.3 $34.5 $513.6
RTA Purchased Buses $33.3 $17.1 $10.2 $17.9 $14.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $30.1 $19.4 $25.8 $15.1 $26.6 $21.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $232.0
Regional Services
Fare Integration $25.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $25.0
Transit Centers & Facilities $11.0 $0.0 $0.0 $18.2 $46.5 $29.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $105.5
Regional Services Subtotal $36.0 $0.0 $0.0 $18.2 $46.5 $29.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $130.5
Capital Costs Subtotal $138.1 $93.6 $142.5 $171.9 $206.4 $75.3 $56.1 $73.1 $54.3 $24.8 $25.7 $56.7 $46.8 $54.1 $49.6 $56.8 $53.0 $32.3 $33.3 $34.5 $1,478.8
Operations & Maintenance Costs
Airport Express
DTW‐Dearborn/Oakland $0.0 $2.3 $2.4 $2.6 $2.8 $3.0 $3.2 $3.3 $3.5 $3.6 $3.8 $4.0 $4.1 $4.3 $4.5 $4.7 $4.9 $5.1 $5.3 $5.5 $72.9
DTW‐WSU/Macomb $0.0 $4.3 $4.6 $4.9 $5.2 $5.6 $5.9 $6.2 $6.5 $6.7 $7.0 $7.3 $7.7 $8.0 $8.3 $8.7 $9.1 $9.5 $9.9 $10.3 $135.7
DTW‐Ann Arbor $1.9 $2.0 $2.2 $2.3 $2.5 $2.6 $2.8 $2.9 $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.5 $3.6 $3.8 $4.0 $4.1 $4.3 $4.5 $4.7 $4.9 $66.3
DTW‐I275 $0.0 $2.2 $2.4 $2.5 $2.7 $2.9 $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.5 $3.6 $3.8 $4.0 $4.1 $4.3 $4.5 $4.7 $4.9 $5.1 $5.3 $70.1
Airport Express Subtotal $1.9 $10.9 $11.6 $12.3 $13.1 $14.0 $15.0 $15.7 $16.4 $17.0 $17.8 $18.6 $19.4 $20.3 $21.1 $22.0 $22.9 $24.0 $25.0 $26.0 $345.0
Commuter Rail $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $12.7 $13.1 $13.5 $13.9 $14.3 $14.7 $15.2 $15.7 $16.2 $16.6 $17.2 $17.7 $18.2 $18.8 $19.4 $237.1
Streetcar $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $8.2 $8.4 $8.6 $8.8 $9.1 $9.3 $9.5 $9.7 $9.9 $10.2 $10.4 $10.6 $112.8
Commuter Express
Ann Arbor‐Plymouth‐Livonia Express $0.0 $0.0 $1.4 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.3 $2.3 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $35.5
Canton Express $0.0 $0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $6.5
US 23 $0.0 $0.0 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $10.3
I‐75 Fisher Fwy Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $18.0
I‐96 Express $0.0 $0.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $27.1
M‐10 Lodge Fwy Express $0.0 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.3 $2.3 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $36.7
I‐75 Chrysler Fwy Express $0.0 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $2.1 $2.1 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $2.7 $2.8 $2.9 $3.0 $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $47.1
M‐59 Express $0.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $27.4
I‐696 Express $0.0 $0.0 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $2.1 $2.1 $29.4
M‐39 Southfield Fwy Express $0.0 $0.0 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $2.1 $28.9
I‐94 Express $0.0 $1.4 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $2.6 $2.7 $38.9
Michigan ‐ AA to DET Express $2.3 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $2.7 $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $19.2
Commuter Express Subtotal $2.3 $8.2 $14.6 $15.2 $15.8 $13.9 $14.5 $15.0 $15.5 $16.0 $16.6 $17.2 $17.8 $18.4 $19.0 $19.7 $20.3 $21.0 $21.7 $22.5 $325.2
FAST Service ‐ RTA Subsidy
Woodward $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Gratiot $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Michigan $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.3 $2.3 $34.4
Van Dyke $9.3 $9.7 $10.0 $10.4 $10.8 $11.3 $11.7 $12.1 $12.4 $12.7 $13.1 $13.5 $13.9 $14.3 $14.7 $15.1 $15.5 $16.0 $16.4 $16.9 $259.7
FAST Service Subtotal $10.5 $10.9 $11.3 $11.8 $12.2 $12.7 $13.2 $13.6 $14.0 $14.4 $14.8 $15.3 $15.7 $16.2 $16.6 $17.1 $17.6 $18.2 $18.7 $19.2 $294.1
Enhanced Corridor Service ‐ RTA Subsidy
8 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $3.9 $4.0 $4.2 $4.3 $4.5 $4.6 $4.8 $4.9 $5.0 $5.2 $5.3 $5.5 $5.6 $5.8 $5.9 $6.1 $6.3 $6.5 $92.3
9 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $4.3 $4.5 $4.7 $4.9 $5.1 $5.3 $5.5 $5.7 $5.9 $6.1 $6.3 $6.5 $6.8 $7.0 $7.2 $7.5 $7.7 $8.0 $109.1
12 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.8 $6.1 $6.4 $6.6 $6.9 $7.1 $7.3 $7.6 $7.9 $8.2 $8.4 $8.7 $9.0 $9.4 $9.7 $10.0 $10.4 $135.5
15 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $9.1 $9.4 $9.9 $10.2 $10.6 $10.9 $11.3 $11.7 $12.1 $12.6 $13.0 $13.5 $13.9 $14.4 $14.9 $15.4 $193.1
Fort / Eureka $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.3 $5.5 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $6.6 $6.9 $7.1 $7.4 $7.6 $7.9 $8.2 $8.4 $8.7 $9.0 $113.1
Greenfield $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.3 $3.5 $3.6 $3.7 $3.9 $4.0 $4.1 $4.2 $4.3 $4.4 $4.6 $4.7 $4.8 $5.0 $5.1 $5.2 $5.4 $73.7
Grand River $6.6 $6.8 $7.1 $7.3 $7.6 $7.9 $8.2 $8.5 $8.7 $8.9 $9.2 $9.5 $9.7 $10.0 $10.3 $10.6 $10.9 $11.2 $11.6 $11.9 $182.7
Jefferson $0.0 $4.3 $4.4 $4.6 $4.8 $5.0 $5.2 $5.3 $5.5 $5.6 $5.8 $5.9 $6.1 $6.3 $6.5 $6.6 $6.8 $7.0 $7.2 $7.4 $110.2
23‐Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $10.7 $11.2 $11.6 $12.0 $12.4 $12.8 $13.2 $13.7 $14.2 $14.7 $15.2 $15.7 $16.3 $16.8 $17.4 $207.7
John‐R $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $7.7 $8.1 $8.4 $8.7 $9.0 $9.3 $9.6 $10.0 $10.3 $10.7 $11.1 $11.5 $11.9 $12.3 $12.7 $13.1 $164.3
Telegraph $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $8.8 $9.2 $9.5 $9.8 $10.2 $10.5 $10.9 $11.3 $11.7 $12.1 $12.5 $12.9 $13.4 $13.8 $14.3 $170.9
Corridor Service Total $6.6 $11.1 $19.7 $29.7 $52.9 $74.6 $77.8 $80.4 $83.0 $85.7 $88.5 $91.6 $94.7 $97.9 $101.0 $104.4 $107.8 $111.5 $115.0 $118.8 $1,552.7
Local Service (RTA Subsidy)
Ypsilanti‐Michigan BRT Connector Local $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.2 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $2.7 $2.7 $2.8 $2.9 $3.0 $3.1 $3.3 $3.4 $3.5 $3.6 $3.7 $49.0
Ypsilanti‐Livonia Local $0.0 $0.0 $2.7 $2.8 $2.9 $3.0 $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.4 $3.5 $3.7 $3.8 $3.9 $4.0 $4.2 $4.3 $4.5 $4.6 $4.8 $65.8
Ann Arbor Commuter Rail Feeder $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $10.7
Ypsilanti Commuter Rail Feeder $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $10.3
Ford Rd ‐ Extended to Canton $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $2.1 $2.1 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.5 $2.5 $2.6 $2.7 $2.8 $2.9 $3.0 $44.3
Middlebelt $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $2.7 $2.8 $2.9 $3.0 $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.4 $3.5 $3.6 $3.7 $3.9 $4.0 $58.8
Northville‐Canton Connector $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $2.1 $2.1 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $2.7 $2.8 $2.9 $3.0 $39.2
Local Service Subtotal $3.5 $3.7 $6.5 $10.6 $11.1 $12.6 $13.1 $13.5 $14.0 $14.5 $15.0 $15.5 $16.0 $16.6 $17.1 $17.7 $18.3 $19.0 $19.6 $20.3 $278.1
Advanced Mobility $20.0 $20.5 $21.0 $21.5 $22.1 $22.6 $23.1 $23.7 $24.2 $24.8 $25.4 $26.0 $26.6 $27.2 $27.9 $28.5 $29.2 $29.9 $30.6 $31.3 $506.2
Hometown Service $30.0 $30.7 $31.5 $32.3 $33.1 $33.9 $34.7 $35.5 $36.3 $37.2 $38.1 $39.0 $39.9 $40.9 $41.8 $42.8 $43.8 $44.9 $45.9 $47.0 $759.3
Core Area Flexible Mobility $20.0 $21.0 $22.1 $23.3 $24.5 $25.8 $27.1 $28.1 $29.2 $30.3 $31.4 $32.6 $33.8 $35.1 $36.4 $37.8 $39.2 $40.2 $41.1 $42.1 $621.5
RTA Administration $2.5 $6.1 $6.2 $6.4 $6.5 $6.7 $6.8 $7.0 $7.2 $7.3 $7.5 $7.7 $7.9 $8.1 $8.3 $8.4 $8.6 $8.9 $9.1 $9.3 $146.4
O&M Costs Subtotal $97.3 $123.1 $144.6 $163.1 $191.3 $229.6 $238.5 $246.0 $262.0 $270.0 $278.5 $287.4 $296.5 $306.0 $315.4 $325.4 $335.5 $345.8 $356.0 $366.5 $5,178.4
Debt Service $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $7.0 $11.5 $14.4 $17.9 $20.1 $20.1 $20.1 $20.1 $20.1 $22.0 $20.9 $21.4 $18.7 $8.6 $0.0 $243.1
Total Expenditures $235.4 $216.7 $287.0 $335.0 $397.7 $311.9 $306.1 $333.5 $334.2 $315.0 $324.3 $364.2 $363.5 $380.3 $387.0 $403.0 $409.9 $396.8 $397.9 $400.9 $6,900.3
Return on Investment Calculations Millions of YOE Dollars
Macomb County
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2018‐2038 Total
RTA Millage ‐ Macomb County
Macomb Property Tax $40.6 $41.9 $43.2 $44.5 $45.9 $47.3 $48.7 $50.1 $51.5 $52.9 $54.4 $55.9 $57.5 $59.1 $60.8 $62.5 $64.3 $65.8 $67.4 $69.1 $1,083.5
RTA Expenditures for projects benefiting Macomb County
Capital
Commuter Rail (incl vehicles and Planning and Development) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Airport Express $0.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3
Premium Corridors
Woodward $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Gratiot $0.0 $27.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $27.6
Van Dyke $0.0 $0.0 $31.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $31.7
Grand River $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Michigan $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Washtenaw $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
BRT Subtotal $0.0 $27.6 $31.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $59.2
Regional Services
Capital Costs Subtotal $17.5 $36.5 $37.8 $7.5 $7.6 $35.3 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $13.9 $10.0 $10.2 $9.6 $12.3 $11.3 $8.1 $8.3 $8.6 $264.6
Airport Express
DTW‐WSU/Macomb $0.0 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.6 $2.8 $3.0 $3.1 $3.2 $3.4 $3.5 $3.7 $3.8 $4.0 $4.2 $4.4 $4.5 $4.7 $4.9 $5.1 $67.9
DTW‐Ann Arbor $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
DTW‐I275 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Commuter Rail $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Streetcar $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Commuter Express
Canton Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
US 23 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐96 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
M‐59 Express $0.0 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $13.7
I‐696 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $9.0
I‐94 Express $0.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $27.2
Woodward $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Gratiot $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Michigan $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Van Dyke $6.2 $6.5 $6.7 $7.0 $7.3 $7.5 $7.8 $8.1 $8.3 $8.5 $8.8 $9.0 $9.3 $9.6 $9.8 $10.1 $10.4 $10.7 $11.0 $11.3 $173.8
8 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $14.6
9 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $1.2 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.2 $2.3 $31.4
12 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $28.3
15 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.2 $3.3 $3.5 $3.6 $3.7 $3.8 $4.0 $4.1 $4.3 $4.4 $4.6 $4.7 $4.9 $5.1 $5.3 $5.4 $68.0
Fort / Eureka $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Greenfield $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Grand River $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Jefferson $0.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $26.8
23‐Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 $5.2 $5.4 $5.5 $5.7 $5.9 $6.1 $6.4 $6.6 $6.8 $7.0 $7.3 $7.5 $7.8 $8.0 $96.2
John‐R $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Telegraph $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Corridor Service Total $0.0 $1.0 $2.9 $4.3 $7.6 $12.9 $13.5 $13.9 $14.4 $14.9 $15.4 $15.9 $16.5 $17.0 $17.6 $18.2 $18.8 $19.5 $20.1 $20.8 $265.2
Middlebelt $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
O&M Costs Subtotal $18.1 $24.1 $27.3 $29.6 $34.0 $40.3 $42.0 $43.4 $44.8 $46.2 $47.7 $49.3 $50.9 $52.6 $54.2 $56.0 $57.8 $59.5 $61.2 $63.0 $901.9
Sources of funds expended inMacomb County
Project‐Specific Discretionary Grants
Federal $1.0 $11.4 $12.7 $0.0 $0.0 $4.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $29.5
State/Other $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Discretionary Grant Subtotal $1.0 $11.4 $12.7 $0.0 $0.0 $4.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $29.5
Formula Funding (Prorated from RMTP Total)
Federal $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.8 $2.0 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $2.6 $2.7 $2.8 $2.8 $31.6
State LBO $2.0 $3.7 $3.6 $2.3 $2.4 $5.6 $3.8 $3.7 $3.9 $4.4 $4.4 $4.6 $4.5 $4.4 $4.5 $4.6 $4.6 $4.6 $4.7 $4.7 $80.8
Formula Funds Subtotal $2.0 $3.7 $3.6 $2.3 $2.4 $5.6 $3.8 $5.5 $5.9 $6.6 $6.7 $7.0 $6.9 $6.8 $6.9 $7.2 $7.2 $7.4 $7.4 $7.5 $112.4
RTA Millage Funding $31.5 $42.6 $45.7 $31.5 $35.7 $62.0 $40.0 $39.8 $40.8 $41.6 $43.0 $51.6 $49.4 $51.0 $51.9 $55.9 $56.4 $54.6 $56.3 $58.1 $939.4
System Generated Revenue $1.1 $3.0 $3.1 $3.3 $3.5 $3.6 $3.8 $3.9 $4.1 $4.2 $4.4 $4.5 $4.7 $4.9 $5.0 $5.2 $5.4 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $85.3
Oakland County
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2018‐2038 Total
RTA Millage ‐ Oakland County
Oakland Property Tax $84.0 $86.4 $88.9 $91.4 $94.0 $96.6 $99.3 $101.9 $104.6 $107.4 $110.2 $113.1 $116.1 $119.2 $122.4 $125.6 $129.0 $132.1 $135.4 $138.8 $2,196.5
RTA Expenditures for projects benefiting Oakland County
Capital
Airport Express $0.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.8
Premium Corridors
Woodward $26.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $26.5
Gratiot $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Van Dyke $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Grand River $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $20.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $20.2
Michigan $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Washtenaw $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
BRT Subtotal $26.5 $0.0 $0.0 $20.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $46.7
Regional Services
Airport Express
DTW‐WSU/Macomb $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
DTW‐Ann Arbor $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
DTW‐I275 $0.0 $2.2 $2.4 $2.5 $2.7 $2.9 $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.5 $3.6 $3.8 $4.0 $4.1 $4.3 $4.5 $4.7 $4.9 $5.1 $5.3 $70.1
Commuter Rail $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Streetcar $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Commuter Express
Canton Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
US 23 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐96 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
M‐59 Express $0.0 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $13.7
I‐696 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $20.4
I‐94 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Woodward $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Gratiot $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Michigan $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Van Dyke $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
8 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $17.4
9 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $3.1 $3.2 $3.4 $3.5 $3.7 $3.8 $3.9 $4.1 $4.2 $4.3 $4.5 $4.7 $4.8 $5.0 $5.2 $5.3 $5.5 $5.7 $77.8
12 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.6 $4.8 $5.0 $5.2 $5.4 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.5 $6.7 $6.9 $7.2 $7.4 $7.7 $7.9 $8.2 $107.2
15 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.9 $6.1 $6.4 $6.6 $6.9 $7.1 $7.3 $7.6 $7.9 $8.2 $8.4 $8.7 $9.0 $9.4 $9.7 $10.0 $125.1
Fort / Eureka $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Greenfield $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.9 $3.0 $3.1 $3.3 $3.4 $3.4 $3.5 $3.6 $3.7 $3.9 $4.0 $4.1 $4.2 $4.3 $4.4 $4.6 $4.7 $64.1
Grand River $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $2.7 $2.8 $2.9 $3.0 $3.1 $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.4 $3.5 $3.6 $3.7 $3.8 $4.0 $60.8
Jefferson $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
23‐Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.7 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $6.6 $6.9 $7.1 $7.4 $7.6 $7.9 $8.2 $8.4 $8.7 $9.0 $9.3 $111.5
John‐R $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $7.5 $7.8 $8.1 $8.4 $8.7 $9.0 $9.3 $9.6 $10.0 $10.3 $10.7 $11.1 $11.4 $11.9 $12.3 $12.7 $158.8
Telegraph $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.2 $4.4 $4.5 $4.7 $4.8 $5.0 $5.2 $5.4 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $6.6 $6.8 $81.4
Middlebelt $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.3 $2.3 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $2.7 $2.8 $40.7
Sources of funds expended inOakland County
Federal $12.8 $0.8 $0.0 $8.1 $7.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $28.8
State/Other $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Federal $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.9 $4.2 $4.7 $4.8 $4.9 $5.1 $5.1 $5.2 $5.6 $5.6 $5.7 $5.8 $5.9 $66.6
State LBO $4.5 $4.6 $4.3 $5.6 $7.6 $7.6 $8.1 $7.8 $8.4 $9.3 $9.3 $9.4 $9.5 $9.4 $9.4 $9.9 $9.8 $9.7 $9.8 $9.8 $163.8
RTA Millage Funding $71.5 $49.8 $51.3 $77.2 $115.5 $81.4 $84.2 $83.5 $85.5 $87.0 $89.9 $104.0 $103.9 $107.5 $109.0 $120.3 $120.1 $113.3 $116.9 $120.6 $1,892.5
Washtenaw County
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2018‐2038 Total
RTA Millage ‐ Washtenaw County
Washtenaw Property Tax $24.4 $25.4 $26.3 $27.3 $28.4 $29.4 $30.5 $31.5 $32.6 $33.7 $34.8 $36.0 $37.2 $38.4 $39.7 $41.1 $42.5 $43.7 $45.0 $46.3 $694.2
RTA Expenditures for projects benefiting Washtenaw County
Capital
Airport Express $0.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5
Premium Corridors
Woodward $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Gratiot $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Van Dyke $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Grand River $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Michigan $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Washtenaw $0.0 $0.0 $14.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $14.4
BRT Subtotal $0.0 $0.0 $14.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $14.4
Regional Services
Airport Express
DTW‐WSU/Macomb $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
DTW‐Ann Arbor $1.9 $2.0 $2.2 $2.3 $2.5 $2.6 $2.8 $2.9 $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.5 $3.6 $3.8 $4.0 $4.1 $4.3 $4.5 $4.7 $4.9 $66.3
DTW‐I275 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Commuter Rail $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $11.4 $11.8 $12.1 $12.5 $12.9 $13.3 $13.7 $14.1 $14.5 $15.0 $15.4 $15.9 $16.4 $16.9 $17.4 $213.4
Streetcar $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Commuter Express
Canton Express $0.0 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $4.7
US 23 $0.0 $0.0 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $10.3
I‐96 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
M‐59 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐696 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐94 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Woodward $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Gratiot $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Michigan $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Van Dyke $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
8 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
9 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
12 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
15 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Fort / Eureka $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Greenfield $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Grand River $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Jefferson $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
23‐Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
John‐R $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Telegraph $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Middlebelt $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Total Expenditures $20.0 $18.7 $78.7 $84.5 $72.6 $30.8 $31.9 $40.5 $41.8 $35.1 $36.3 $37.5 $41.0 $45.0 $47.8 $42.7 $45.1 $45.4 $46.8 $48.2 $890.4
Sources of funds expended inWashtenaw County
Federal $0.7 $0.2 $5.8 $2.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $9.5
State/Other $0.0 $0.0 $15.5 $16.0 $14.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $46.5
Federal $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.5 $1.6 $1.5 $1.5 $1.4 $1.6 $1.7 $1.9 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $21.7
State LBO $1.1 $1.4 $3.9 $4.0 $3.3 $2.4 $2.6 $3.0 $3.3 $2.9 $3.0 $2.7 $3.0 $3.2 $3.3 $2.9 $3.0 $3.1 $3.1 $3.2 $58.4
City of Detroit
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2018‐2038 Total
RTA Millage ‐ Detroit
Detroit Property Tax $6.6 $6.8 $6.9 $7.1 $7.2 $7.3 $7.5 $7.7 $7.9 $8.1 $8.4 $8.6 $8.8 $9.1 $9.3 $9.6 $9.8 $10.1 $10.4 $10.7 $168.0
RTA Expenditures for projects benefiting Detroit
Capital
Airport Express $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1
Premium Corridors
Woodward $17.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $17.8
Gratiot $0.0 $18.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $18.4
Van Dyke $0.0 $0.0 $17.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $17.5
Grand River $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $25.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $25.0
Michigan $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $16.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $16.4
Washtenaw $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
BRT Subtotal $17.8 $18.4 $17.5 $25.0 $16.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $95.0
Regional Services
Airport Express
DTW‐WSU/Macomb $0.0 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $33.9
DTW‐Ann Arbor $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
DTW‐I275 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Commuter Rail $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $11.9
Streetcar $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $8.2 $8.4 $8.6 $8.8 $9.1 $9.3 $9.5 $9.7 $9.9 $10.2 $10.4 $10.6 $112.8
Commuter Express
Canton Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
US 23 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐96 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $15.7
M‐59 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐696 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐94 Express $0.0 $0.4 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $11.7
Woodward $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Gratiot $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Michigan $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $8.8
Van Dyke $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.5 $3.6 $3.7 $3.9 $4.0 $4.1 $4.2 $4.3 $4.5 $4.6 $4.7 $4.9 $5.0 $5.1 $5.3 $5.4 $5.6 $85.9
8 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.2 $2.3 $2.3 $2.4 $2.5 $2.5 $2.6 $2.7 $2.8 $39.6
9 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
12 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
15 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Fort / Eureka $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $23.3
Greenfield $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ‐$0.1 ‐$0.1 ‐$0.1 ‐$0.1 ‐$0.2 ‐$0.2 ‐$0.2 ‐$0.2 ‐$0.2 ‐$0.2 ‐$0.2 ‐$0.2 ‐$0.2 ‐$0.2 ‐$0.2 ‐$0.2 ‐$0.2 ‐$3.0
Grand River $3.8 $4.0 $4.1 $4.3 $4.4 $4.6 $4.8 $4.9 $5.1 $5.2 $5.4 $5.5 $5.7 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $6.5 $6.7 $6.9 $106.4
Jefferson $0.0 $1.4 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $2.1 $2.1 $2.2 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.4 $2.5 $37.4
23‐Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
John‐R $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $5.6
Telegraph $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $9.6
Middlebelt $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Sources of funds expended inDetroit
Federal $7.9 $7.4 $7.0 $10.0 $6.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $38.7
State/Other $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.8
Federal $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.3 $2.1 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.7 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $24.2
State LBO $2.7 $3.2 $3.1 $4.2 $4.4 $5.0 $6.0 $6.2 $5.9 $4.8 $4.9 $5.1 $4.9 $4.9 $4.9 $4.9 $4.9 $5.1 $5.1 $5.1 $95.4
Rest of Wayne County
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2018‐2038 Total
RTA Millage ‐ Rest of Wayne County
Washtenaw Property Tax $49.3 $50.6 $51.9 $53.2 $54.6 $56.0 $57.3 $58.9 $60.5 $62.1 $63.8 $65.5 $67.2 $69.0 $70.9 $72.8 $74.8 $76.7 $78.7 $80.7 $1,274.5
RTA Expenditures for projects benefiting Wayne County
Capital
Airport Express $0.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.4
Premium Corridors
Woodward $3.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.9
Gratiot $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Van Dyke $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Grand River $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.6
Michigan $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $30.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $30.4
Washtenaw $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
BRT Subtotal $3.9 $0.0 $0.0 $3.6 $30.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $37.9
Regional Services
Airport Express
DTW‐WSU/Macomb $0.0 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $33.9
DTW‐Ann Arbor $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
DTW‐I275 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Commuter Rail $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $11.9
Streetcar $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Commuter Express
Canton Express $0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $1.8
US 23 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐96 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $11.5
M‐59 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐696 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐94 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Woodward $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Gratiot $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Michigan $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $25.6
Van Dyke $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
8 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 $20.7
9 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
12 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
15 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Fort / Eureka $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.2 $4.4 $4.6 $4.8 $4.9 $5.1 $5.3 $5.5 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $6.3 $6.5 $6.7 $6.9 $7.2 $89.7
Greenfield $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $12.5
Grand River $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $15.5
Jefferson $0.0 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.2 $2.3 $2.3 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $2.6 $2.7 $2.8 $2.9 $2.9 $3.0 $3.1 $46.1
23‐Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
John‐R $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Telegraph $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.1 $4.3 $4.4 $4.6 $4.8 $4.9 $5.1 $5.3 $5.5 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $6.3 $6.5 $6.7 $80.0
Middlebelt $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $18.1
Sources of funds expended inWayne County
Federal $2.7 $0.3 $0.2 $1.5 $12.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $16.9
State/Other $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.8
Federal $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.4 $2.4 $2.5 $2.6 $2.6 $2.7 $2.9 $2.8 $2.9 $3.0 $3.0 $3.1 $3.2 $36.0
State LBO $1.6 $1.9 $1.8 $2.1 $2.9 $2.9 $3.1 $3.1 $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.3 $3.3 $3.5 $3.4 $3.4 $3.5 $3.4 $3.5 $3.5 $59.7
Wayne County (Incl. City of Detroit )
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2018‐2038 Total
RTA Millage ‐ Wayne County
Wayne Property Tax $56.0 $57.4 $58.8 $60.3 $61.8 $63.3 $64.8 $66.6 $68.4 $70.2 $72.1 $74.1 $76.1 $78.1 $80.2 $82.4 $84.6 $86.8 $89.1 $91.4 $1,442.4
RTA Expenditures for projects benefiting Wayne County
Capital
Airport Express $0.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5
Premium Corridors
Woodward $21.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $21.7
Gratiot $0.0 $18.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $18.4
Van Dyke $0.0 $0.0 $17.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $17.5
Grand River $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $28.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $28.6
Michigan $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $46.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $46.7
Washtenaw $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
BRT Subtotal $21.7 $18.4 $17.5 $28.6 $46.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $132.9
Regional Services
Airport Express
DTW‐WSU/Macomb $0.0 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $2.6 $2.8 $3.0 $3.1 $3.2 $3.4 $3.5 $3.7 $3.8 $4.0 $4.2 $4.4 $4.5 $4.7 $4.9 $5.1 $67.9
DTW‐Ann Arbor $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
DTW‐I275 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Commuter Rail $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.3 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $23.7
Streetcar $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $8.2 $8.4 $8.6 $8.8 $9.1 $9.3 $9.5 $9.7 $9.9 $10.2 $10.4 $10.6 $112.8
Commuter Express
Canton Express $0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $1.8
US 23 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐96 Express $0.0 $0.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $27.1
M‐59 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐696 Express $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
I‐94 Express $0.0 $0.4 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $11.7
Woodward $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Gratiot $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Michigan $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.3 $2.3 $34.4
Van Dyke $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.5 $3.6 $3.7 $3.9 $4.0 $4.1 $4.2 $4.3 $4.5 $4.6 $4.7 $4.9 $5.0 $5.1 $5.3 $5.4 $5.6 $85.9
8 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $2.5 $2.6 $2.7 $2.8 $2.9 $3.0 $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.4 $3.5 $3.6 $3.7 $3.8 $3.9 $4.0 $4.1 $4.2 $60.3
9 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
12 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
15 Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Fort / Eureka $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.3 $5.5 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $6.6 $6.9 $7.1 $7.4 $7.6 $7.9 $8.2 $8.4 $8.7 $9.0 $113.1
Greenfield $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.4 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $9.6
Grand River $4.4 $4.6 $4.7 $4.9 $5.1 $5.3 $5.5 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $6.1 $6.3 $6.5 $6.7 $6.9 $7.1 $7.3 $7.5 $7.7 $7.9 $121.9
Jefferson $0.0 $3.2 $3.4 $3.5 $3.6 $3.8 $3.9 $4.0 $4.1 $4.2 $4.4 $4.5 $4.6 $4.8 $4.9 $5.0 $5.2 $5.3 $5.5 $5.6 $83.5
23‐Mile $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
John‐R $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $5.6
Telegraph $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.6 $4.8 $5.0 $5.2 $5.3 $5.5 $5.7 $5.9 $6.1 $6.3 $6.5 $6.8 $7.0 $7.2 $7.5 $89.5
Middlebelt $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $18.1
Sources of funds expended inWayne County
Federal $10.6 $7.7 $7.2 $11.4 $18.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $55.6
State/Other $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.7
Federal $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.6 $4.5 $4.1 $4.2 $4.4 $4.4 $4.6 $4.6 $4.7 $4.8 $5.0 $5.1 $5.2 $60.2
State LBO $4.3 $5.1 $4.9 $6.3 $7.2 $7.9 $9.1 $9.3 $9.0 $8.1 $8.1 $8.3 $8.2 $8.4 $8.2 $8.3 $8.4 $8.5 $8.6 $8.6 $155.1
Appendix B: Presentation to the joint meeting of the RTA Planning and

Service Coordination Committee and the Finance and Budget Committee,
May 11, 2018
June 2018
Connect Southeast Michigan
Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan
Planning and Service Coordination Committee
Finance and Budget Committee
Financial Model Review

May 10, 2018
Meeting Agenda
1. Introduction
2. Overview of the Financial Model
3. Key Data Sources
4. Plan Parameters and Methodologies
5. Revised RMTP
6. Public Feedback Snapshot
2 Financial Model Review - May 10, 2018

1 – Introduction
 Purpose of the Meeting:

1 – Introduction
 Purpose of the Meeting:

Overview of Financial Model
Technical Approaches and Methodologies
What’s in the CSM Plan

2 – Financial Model Overview
 Integrated Cash Flow

Approach
 Additional layer of
complexity:
– Six agencies represented
– Financial linkages
between agencies
 Updated for 2018

3 – Key Data Sources – Demographics
 Demographics – SEMCOG 2015-2045 forecast

Released February 2018
Forecast by city
− Population: 0.24% per year

Used for per-capita spending measures
− 65+ Pop: 1.69% per year

Used for paratransit demand growth
− Housing Units: 0.38% per year

Used to grow tax base (taxable property)

3 – Key Data Sources – Funding
 2017 taxable valuations: County reports to MI Treasury

Taxable valuations by city / township, by property type
 Historical millage data: AAATA and SMART annual financial reports

Calibration of millage revenue assumptions
 Tax capture: Historical data from county assessors

Refinement of millage revenue assumptions

3 – Key Data Sources – Funding
 State (LBO) Funding

− Statewide growth: Programmed CTF increases through 2021;
MTF grows at inflation after 2021; other sources zero growth
− Share to SE Michigan: In proportion to statewide eligible expenditures
− Growth with RTA program: RTA only captures increase over no-build forecast
No-Build With RTA Program
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
AAATA DDOT DTC SMART AAATA DDOT DTC SMART RTA
 Federal Formula: No increase from program (except Commuter Rail)

3 – Key Data Sources – Existing Service
 Providers’ Existing Service Levels:

Provided at a route level for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays
− DDOT: Current as of January 2018

− SMART: Current as of January 2018
− AAATA: Current as of 2015, with planned service increases in 2016, 2017, and 2018
− Relevant service stats

− Revenue-hours
− Revenue-miles
− Vehicles in maximum service (VOMS)
− Ridership
− Farebox recovery
− Calibrated against NTD service statistics

3 – Key Data Sources – Operating Costs
 Providers’ Operating Costs: Calculated from Reports to the FTA

Used to estimate costs of service changes and new service
− Existing Modes Represented:
Mode AAATA DDOT SMART DTC M-1
Bus   
Commuter Bus   
Demand Response / Paratransit   
People Mover 
Streetcar 
 Operating Costs for New Modes

− Peer systems
− Vendor cost estimates

3 – Key Data Sources – Macroeconomic
 Inflation
− Historical: CPI-U (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
− Future: CPI-U (Congressional Budget Office)
Used to adjust past and future costs to the present
 Construction costs: Army Corps of Engineers Construction Cost Index

Used to escalate construction costs into the future
 Fuel costs: Energy Information Administration 10-Year Outlook

Used to estimate future O&M costs for diesel, hybrid, and electric vehicles
 Bond interest: Fed Reserve state and local bonds, 1990-2015 average
Used to estimate future O&M costs for diesel, hybrid, and electric vehicles

3 – Key Data Sources – Transit Vehicle Costs
 American Public Transportation Association (APTA)

− Capital Costs for New / Replacement Vehicles
 Federal Transit Administration

− Vehicle Service Life

4 – Plan Parameters
 Taxable Valuations Forecast

− 2017: County reports to Michigan Treasury
− Future growth = Growth in $/unit X Growth in number of units
− Growth in $/unit: Inflation rate
− Growth in # units: Based on SEMCOG housing unit forecast

 Property Tax Forecast

− Revenue = Millage Rate X Valuations X Tax Capture
− Impact of tax capture: Based on historical
Percentage of Millage Not Captured

Macomb Oakland Washtenaw Wayne Detroit
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

 Master Plan Overview
− 20-year horizon: 2019-2038
− Four-county taxing area

Role of
Role of RTA
Providers
Plan the program Operate service
Negotiate agreements with Own & maintain

providers infrastructure & fleet
Administer regional
Collect (and keep) fares
programs
Participate in regional
85% Rule compliance
initiatives

 The “85% Rule”

“ . . . authority shall ensure that not less than 85% of the money raised in each member
jurisdiction . . . is expended on the public transportation service routes located in that member
jurisdiction.” Simple, right?
− How do we measure expenditures?

− Multi-county routes split in proportion to route-miles
− Regional programs allocated various ways (by pop, by revenue, etc.)
− Administration allocated in proportion to all other expenditures
− How do we measure revenue?

− More than one way!
− It’s complicated!

 The “85% Rule” continued…

− How much millage revenue is raised in each county? This is known
− How much total is spent in each county? This is known
Result:
85% Rule Methodology #1: Total Expenditures / Millage Raised
Because millage isn’t only funding source, the region will be at > 100%
− How much millage is spent in each county? This is somewhat subjective

Result:
85% Rule Methodology #2: Millage Expended / Millage Raised
Region will be almost exactly 100%

 Three Service Delivery Models

Consolidate 2 into 1
Upgrade a Route (e.g. DDOT & SMART) New Service
and Upgrade
Existing corridors Existing corridors New corridors
Location
Route extensions Route extensions New Overlay (e.g. FAST)
Providers or
Service operated by . . . Providers Providers
Contract Operator
Incremental cost + Incremental cost + Total cost of new service +

RTA pays . . .
new vehicles (incl spares) new vehicles (incl spares) new vehicles (incl spares)
Fort/Eureka Commuter Express

Examples Nine Mile (SMART 710)
(DDOT 19, SMART 125) network

 O&M Cost Methodology

− “Fully allocated” cost model based on NTD-derived unit costs, by agency and mode
Vehicle Operations cost per Revenue Hour PLUS
Vehicle Maintenance cost per Revenue Mile PLUS
Non-Vehicle Maintenance cost per VOMS PLUS
General Administration cost per VOMS PLUS
Fuel cost per MPG and Revenue Miles and $/gallon
− Growth based on historical trends, by agency and mode

Constrained to 0-2% range of potential growth rates

 O&M Cost Methodology

Unit costs for existing bus modes
VO per VRH VM per VRM NVM per VOMS GA per VOMS Fuel (mpg)
AAATA $60 $1.55 $12,359 $78,831 4.14
DDOT $48 $2.49 $68,074 $68,308 3.35
SMART $81 $1.74 $11,776 $80,123 3.86
Growth rates (above inflation)

VO per VRH VM per VRM NVM per VOMS GA per VOMS
AAATA 0.35% 0% 0% 1.98%
DDOT 0% 0% 2.00% 0%
SMART 1.39% 0.31% 0.80% 0.60%

 O&M Cost Methodology for New Modes

− QLINE: Based on M-1 RAIL costs, with electricity growth forecast
− Commuter Rail: Based on Northstar Line (Minneapolis)

5 – The Program
 Program Overview
− Corridor Capital Improvements
− Corridor Service Improvements
− Express Service
− Regional Mobility Programs
− Regional Infrastructure Program

5 – The Program
 Service Typologies
− “15 at 15” Corridors
− 15 minute peak headway (all day in premium corridors)
− Service at least 30 minutes during all service hours (including overnight)
− Extend 24-hour corridors beyond Detroit
− Meet or exceed existing DDOT headways
− Add Sunday service
− Capital improvements in premium corridors
− Express Corridors
− Service at least hourly during peak periods
− Airport service hourly all day
− Provide park-and-rides
− BRT is no longer included in the Program

5 – The Program
 “15 at 15” Corridors

– 5 Premium Corridors
– 10 High-Frequency Corridors
– Phased implementation,
2019 through 2024

5 – The Program – 15 Routes at 15 Minute Frequencies
 Premium Corridors: 15 minutes all day with infrastructure

improvements
Termini Service Changes Operator Infrastructure
$1.5M/mile
Woodward Detroit to Pontiac / Troy • No changes N/A
($45M total)
Detroit to 23 Mile / $1.5M/mile
Gratiot • No changes N/A
North River Park and Ride ($39M total)
Detroit to DTW via • Increase FAST service to match Woodward/Gratiot $1.5M/mile
Michigan SMART
Merriman • No change to local service ($41M total)
• Consolidate DDOT 21 and SMART 330
• 10-minute peak service to Farmington Hills $1.5M/mile
Grand River Detroit to 12 Mile / Beck DDOT
• 24-hour service to Farmington Hills ($44M total)
• Half of trips extend to 12 Mile (except night)
• Consolidate DDOT 48 and SMART 510/515
Van Dyke /
• 10-minute peak service to 16 Mile $1.5M/mile
Mound Detroit to Utica SMART
• 24-hour service to 16 Mile ($41M total)
Road
• Half of trips extend to Lakeside Mall (except night)

 High Frequency Corridors: 15 minutes peak service (or better)

Termini Service Changes Operator
Upgrade DDOT 17:
8 Mile Mack to Grand River DDOT
24 hour service, 15 minute peak headways
Mack to 12 Mile / Upgrade/extend SMART 710:
9 Mile SMART
Telegraph 15 minute peak, 30 minute all day
Harper to Twelve Upgrade/extend SMART 740:
12 Mile SMART
Oaks Mall 15 minute peak, 30 minute all day (Doubled b/w Lawrence Tech & Royal Oak)
Harper to Twelve Upgrade/extend SMART 780:
15 Mile SMART
Oaks Mall 15 minute peak, 30 minute all day, add Sunday service
Consolidate DDOT 19 and SMART 125;
Fort/Eureka Detroit to DTW DDOT
Upgrade to 15 minute peak, 30 minute all day, 21 hours per day

 High Frequency Corridors: 15 minutes peak service (or better)

(continued)
Termini Service Changes Operator
Consolidate DDOT 22 and SMART 415; extend to Somerset;
Michigan/Schaefer to
Greenfield Upgrade to 24 hour service, DDOT
Somerset Collection
12 minute peak, 15 minute all day, 30 minute overnight
Consolidate DDOT 25 and SMART 610;
Detroit to Gratiot/15 Upgrade to 24 hour service as far as Moross,
Jefferson DDOT
Mile 10 minute peak, 15 minute all day, 30 minute overnight to Moross
Half of trips continue to
State Fairgrounds to Upgrade SMART 495:
John R SMART
16 Mile 15 minute peak, 30 minute all day
Pontiac to 23 Upgrade/extend SMART 756:
23 Mile SMART
Mile/Gratiot 15 minute peak, 30 minute all day; add Sunday service
Pontiac to Southland Upgrade/extend SMART 275:
Telegraph SMART
Center 15 minute peak, 30 minute all day; add Sunday service

5 – The Program – Express Regional Services
 Airport Express
– Three new routes beginning 2019,
contract operator
– Take over AirRide
– Hourly service, 13 hours per day
 Commuter Express
– Ten new routes, operated by AAATA
and SMART
– Double service on existing AAATA
Canton Express
– Hourly service, seven hours per day
– 15 new Park and Ride lots

5 – The Program – Other Operating Projects
 Commuter Rail
– Eight round trips/day, begin 2024
– AA-Detroit Express bus starts 2019
– Northstar Line costs; leased locos
– $132 million infrastructure investment
+ Passenger car overhaul in 2030s
 QLINE
– RTA assumes operations in 2027
 New Local Bus Routes

– New local feeder bus service in Ann
Arbor and Ypsilanti (AAATA)
– Ypsilanti to Livonia (AAATA)
– Ypsilanti to Merriman Rd (AAATA)

5 – The Program – Regional Mobility Programs
 Core Area Flexible Mobility
– $20 million annually to expand
paratransit, senior mobility, and
first/last mile connectivity
– Funding growth: inflation +
over-65 population
 Hometown Service
– Dedicated funding ($30M/year) for
communities outside the fixed route
service area, grows with inflation
– For community-designed services
such as call-and-ride, regional
connections, and volunteer operator
grants

5 – The Program – Other Regional Initiatives
 Advanced Mobility Program

− $20 million per year for innovative mobility investments (grows with inflation)
− Including autonomous and connected vehicles, rideshare, transit-supportive infrastructure
 Chokepoint Reduction Program
− $25 million annually for infrastructure upgrades, signal priority, transit lanes, etc.
 Funding for new/upgraded bus garages ($82 million)
 Fare integration program / universal fare card
 Future Rapid Corridor infrastructure planning and design
− LRT to DTW
− Streetcar network expansion
− Expanded commuter rail service

5 – The Program
 Funding Assumptions
− Operating Costs
− Bus O&M costs funded with millage (RTA funds 100% of O&M cost; providers keep fares)
− Rail and streetcar O&M costs funded with millage and farebox
− Capital Costs
− Assume federal support for corridor improvements and bus garages
− Assume state support for commuter rail infrastructure
− All other capital improvements 100% millage funded

6 – Public Feedback Snapshot
RTA COMMUNITY MEETINGS  137 Questions/Comments

Date Event Location Attendance
received
Baldwin Public Library
April 25, 2018 South Oakland 300 W. Merrill St. 77
Birmingham, MI 48009
Detroit Historical Museum  60 minute Q/A period each
April 26, 2018 City of Detroit 5401 Woodward Ave. 78 meeting
Detroit, MI 48202
Schoolcraft College,
VisTaTech Center
April 30, 2018 Wayne 18600 Haggerty Rd. 29
Livonia, MI 48152
Rochester Community House
 Themes
May 2, 2018 North Oakland 816 Ludlow Ave. 46 − Funding information
Rochester, MI 48307
Ann Arbor Public Library
May 2, 2018 Washtenaw 343 S. 5th Ave. 26 − More service
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Mt. Clemens Public Library − Approval process/voting
May 3, 2018 Macomb 150 Cass Ave. 30
Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
TOTAL 286  Survey (June 3 Cut-off Date)

− 996 received to date
Appendix C: Letter to the RTA from Michael Spitz, Chair, Oakland County
Economic Development & Community Affairs Committee
INTRODUCTION
On June 5, 2018, Deputy Oakland County Executive Robert Daddow submitted a memorandum to the
RTA entitled “Tax Impact on Oakland County Residents And Other Significant Business Issues – RTA
Plan II Draft”. Mr. Daddow also summarized the County’s concerns at a June 5 meeting of the Oakland
County Economic Development & Community Affairs (ED&CA) Committee. Subsequently, on June 7,
ED&CA Committee chair Michael Spisz transmitted a letter to RTA Board chairman Paul Hillegonds,
formally requesting that the RTA provide written responses to Mr. Daddow’s memorandum. That letter is
included in this appendix.
June 2018
1200 N. Telegraph Road
Pontiac, Michigan 48341
248-858-0100 (Phone)
248-858-1572 (Fax)
www.oakgov.com/boc
June 7, 2018
Mr. Paul Hillegonds

Regional Transit Authority
of Southeast Michigan
1001 Woodward Avenue, Suite 1400
Detroit MI 48226
Dear Mr. Hillegonds:
On June 5, 2018, Matt Webb of the RTA and Jeremy Papuga of HNTB gave a presentation to the
Economic Development & Community Affairs (ED&CA) Committee of the Oakland County Board of
Commissioners on the Connect Southeast Plan II. Following the presentation, Bob Daddow, Deputy
County Executive, discussed the potential financial impact on Oakland County residents and business
issues related to the proposed RTA Plan II.
During the meeting a motion was approved, as part of the parliamentary procedures, requesting a
formal response from the RTA to the comments and concerns raised during the meeting, which were
based on the information provided in the presentations.
Tim Soave, an RTA Board member, stated the concerns regarding the RTA Plan II will be discussed at
both the Finance & Budget Committee Meeting and the Funding Allocation Committee Meeting on June
15, 2018. We are requesting the RTA provide a written response addressing the concerns brought
forward by the ED&CA Committee.
The information provided by the RTA will be helpful in facilitating a better understanding of the
proposed RTA Plan II. We look forward to receiving this information and further discussions on effective
regional transit systems.
Sincerely,
Michael Spisz, Chair

Oakland County ED&CA Committee
Attachment
Appendix D: RTA Responses to Oakland County “Business Issues” Memo

dated June 4, 2018
INTRODUCTION
On June 5, 2018, Deputy Oakland County Executive Robert Daddow submitted a memorandum to the
RTA entitled “Tax Impact on Oakland County Residents And Other Significant Business Issues – RTA
Plan II Draft”. That memorandum, annotated with the RTA’s responses, is included in its entirety in this
appendix.
June 2018
RTA point by point responses are provided below in red italic font. The RTA would be happy to sit
with the Economic Development & Community Affairs Committee and the appropriate Oakland
County staff to review these responses in greater detail if needed. (Response Provided June 12, 2018)
TAX IMPACT ON OAKLAND COUNTY RESIDENTS AND OTHER SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS ISSUES –
RTA PLAN II DRAFT
OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN

June 4, 2018
1) Three principal documents were provided to RTA Board members through early May 2018:
a) ‘Connect Southeast Michigan – Framework Summary’, March 2018. Released in mid-March.

Little or no financial information was contained in this document.
b) ‘Connect Southeast Michigan Transit Plan – Draft, dated May 2018. Released for a May 10, 2018
RTA Board meeting. (RTA Plan II).
c) Excel spreadsheet by county / Detroit for the 20-year projections by line item. Included both
operating and capital components. Released for a May 10, 2018 RTA Board meeting.
2) Overview of deficiencies, errors and omissions in the RTA Plan II:
a) Budgets can only be understood by way of the assumptions used to arrive at the amounts cited
in that budget. If the assumptions are based on incorrect metrics, the budget is likely wrong.
b) The 2018 RTA Plan II continues many of the same errors that existed in the 2016 RTA Plan.
Some of the errors in the RTA Plan II are actually worse than the prior Plan. Replicating the
same errors, errors previously identified to RTA staff, raises the question as to whether the
errors are intentional.
c) There was an apparent lack of involvement in the development of the operating and capital
budgets by the finance departments of the counties / Detroit with the second Plan. No County /
Detroit consensus was reached on the proposed budgets making clear that the Plan was not
appropriately vetted.
d) Per Plan II, property tax revenues comprise roughly 80% of the total revenues for the RTA Plan. .
Given the errors described below, the operating and capital budget presented in RTA Plan II are,
in my opinion, not suitable for justifying a ballot initiative of some$5.4 billion over 20 years. As
with the first Plan, the RTA Plan II demonstrates a lack of understanding of Michigan property
tax laws.
e) The alleged support of the business community and others for the RTA Plan framework
summary (‘a Plan to do a Plan’) is surprising, given that at the time of the announced support,
there was virtually no financial information that had been released by the RTA, making it
doubtful that any had analyzed the details of the RTA Plan II financial information before they
“formally” supported the Plan. One wonders how the RTA Plan II operating and financial plan
RTA Response to Financial Technical Memorandum Questions raised June 5, 2018 1

could have reasonably been supported before it was complete with financial details provided in
early May 2018.
f) The financial analysis and issues cited below generally involve Oakland County alone. It is clear
however that the same type of errors and omissions would be applicable to the analysis of other
counties and Detroit as well.
3) Property tax financial issues with the 20-year projection:
a) Allocation of Property Tax Revenues follows (based on RTA Plan II assertions):
i) Macomb County – 19.8%.

ii) Oakland County – 41.0%.
iii) Washtenaw County – 11.9%.
iv) Detroit – 3.2%.
v) Wayne County (sans Detroit) – 24.1%.
vi) Total – 100.0%.
Because the growth rate of the taxable value (and thereby property tax revenues) used for the
RTA levy for Oakland and Macomb Counties will likely continue to exceed that of Wayne County
and Detroit in the coming years, the relative future percentages of support from Oakland and
Macomb Counties can reasonably be expected to increase against Washtenaw and Wayne
Counties and Detroit, especially given the information noted below.
RTA Response: Because the Headlee Amendment constrains any growth in tax base beyond the
CPI to primarily new construction, the magnitude and location of future regional development is
the primary driver of the magnitude of any growth above inflation in each jurisdiction. The RTA
forecast is driven by SEMCOG forecasted growth in housing units. This forecast is developed at
the individual city/township level. Among the four RTA member counties, the fastest projected
growth in housing (and thus, the fastest growth in taxable value), is in Washtenaw County. The
lowest projected growth is in Wayne County. Thus, the RTA concurs with Oakland County’s
assertion that growth in Oakland and Macomb is likely to outpace growth in Wayne, and this is
reflected in the financial forecast and in corresponding 85% Rule calculations.
b) Wrong Taxing Period. Given the approach in the operations and capital projections, it is critical
that the base year be correct as the adjustment factors used in the projections are assumed
against that base. The RTA Plan II financial projections for property tax revenues begin with the
December 31, 2016 taxable value amounts instead of readily available December 31, 2017
values, values which would be used for a December 1, 2018 levy if the RTA tax were to pass in a
November 2018 vote.
The use of the wrong date resulted in an understatement of taxable value for Oakland County of
$2.58 billion (an actual increase of 4.71% year over year over 2016). This increase arose
primarily from new construction and the effect of the Consumers Price Index realized in
calendar 2017.
The incorrect date used understates Oakland County’s RTA property tax revenues presented in
the RTA Plan II by no less than $77.3 million over the 20-year term. (Meaning that the RTA tax

Plan immediately costs Oakland taxpayers more than asserted by the RTA supporters.) The same
error, i.e. use of the incorrect tax value year, was identified in the 2016 RTA Plan and yet the
practice of using the wrong year and understating true cost to Oakland taxpayers remains in the
current Plan.
RTA Response: Oakland County’s description of the RTA’s use of a December 31, 2016 base year
is incorrect. The RTA’s financial model does indeed use the Tax Year 2017 Taxable Values as its
base, because Tax Year 2018 valuations were not available at the time of the 2018 CSM Draft
Plan development. Oakland County’s taxable value in that base year was $54.72 billion.
However, contrary to Oakland County’s statement above, the first year RTA levy projection was
NOT based on the Tax Year 2017 valuations. Rather, growth was applied to these valuations
using the same methodology used for all future growth in valuations. This estimated growth is
incorporated into the revenue projection. The estimated Oakland County taxable valuation for
the first year’s levy (2019) is $57.80 billion. This is less than a 1% difference from Oakland
County’s estimated valuation of $57.30 billion, with the RTA’s forecast being higher than
Oakland County’s estimate, not lower.
The draft financial tech memo did not explicitly discuss the base year of the forecast, but does
state in several places that the first year of valuations and levies was 2019. To further clarify this
concern, the tech memo has been revised to explicitly state that the model used 2017 as its base,
applied growth to this base to get to 2019 valuations, and that the 2019 valuation was used for
the estimated revenue in the first year’s levy.
c) Growth in Property Tax Revenues. The calculation of property tax revenues under Michigan’s
statutes is basically: millage rate (or, 1.5 mils for the RTA proposal) times taxable value =
property tax revenues levied. As such, over a 20-year term, the taxable value increases must be
projected to derive property tax revenues based off of the first-year revenues. The basic
increase in taxable value arise from two components – the Consumer’s Price Index (CPI) and
new construction.
RTA Response: The RTA concurs with this summary and it is consistent with our forecasting
methodology, which is similarly divided into two components: inflationary growth (CPI), and new
construction.
Concerns follow:
i) The ‘growth factor’ used for Oakland County in the RTA Plan II was .37% per year
representing the CPI, new construction, less several deductions over a 20-year period.
Clearly, this is an understatement as the taxable value growth arising from 2016 to 2017 –
alone was 4.71%, or roughly 12.7 years of the taxable value growth expected as outlined in
the RTA Plan II alone!
RTA response: As noted in the draft financial tech memo, the 0.37% value is the average
annual rate of growth in excess of inflation. To account for the two components of growth
noted in the introductory paragraph above, the financial model explicitly models each
component separately. First, valuations are grown in constant 2019 dollars to account for
new construction; then, inflation (based on the Consumer Price Index) is applied. When
inflation is included, Oakland County’s projected average annual rate of growth is projected

to be 2.77% per year. To further clarify the context of these growth rates, the applicable
table in the financial tech memo has been updated to show both constant 2019 dollars and
year-of-expenditure (inflated) dollars.
Regarding the 4.71% Oakland County valuation growth which occurred between 2016 and
2017: it is important to remember that the RTA’s financial model is intended to forecast
growth over 20 years using average annual rates. Taxable valuations in Oakland County
have rarely grown at the rate experienced in the most recent year, and in just the past
decade several years were negative.
The model makes no attempt to predict economic cycles, which is why many of the growth
factors are long-term averages and/or extrapolated from many years of historical data.
ii) In the 2016 RTA Plan, a similar error occurred. In that RTA Plan the growth factor was based
on .12% PLUS the CPI. In the current RTA Plan, the CPI factor was apparently omitted, but in
other parts of the RTA Plan II is assumed to be 2.4% for the 20-year period. CPI is a major
component to the means by which taxable values grow under Michigan property tax
statutes.
RTA response: As stated above, this is not a correct interpretation of the RTA’s revenue
forecast. CPI was not omitted.
The methodology for estimating valuation growth is the same in the current plan as it was in
2016. What changed is SEMCOG’s demographic forecast for Oakland County. SEMCOG
released a new forecast in February of 2018. This is the reason for the 0.37% vs. 0.12%
annual growth above inflation.
iii) Per the Plan’s text, the .37% was based on housing units built – one house; one unit –
irrespective of the taxable value of the house built. In this instance, an 800 foot bungalow
exhibits the same taxable value increase as part of the growth factor as a $5 million
mansion.
RTA response: This is only partly true. First, as an aside it should be noted that while the
financial tech memo and other data tables summarize Oakland County as a single entity, the
actual underlying forecast methodology is conducted at the level of individual cities and
townships, because this is the granularity of available data on taxable valuations and
projected demographic growth. For example, while the county aggregate estimated growth
is 0.37% per year above inflation, the projected growth in Novi is 0.44% per year above
inflation, while Royal Oak is projected to grow at 0.12% per year above inflation. The
countywide average represents the aggregation of its 52 individual cities and townships,
weighted for both the relative size and taxable valuations in each community.
Now, regarding the aggregate growth rate, it does implicitly assume that (a) the overall mix
of new land uses in each city/township will be similar to the overall mix of existing land uses
in that city/township, and (b) that the average valuation of new construction will be similar
to existing in each city/township. Given the lack of a reliable forecast for the type and value
of future housing growth, the consensus on the 2015-2016 Financial Task Force was that this
assumption was reasonable if somewhat conservative.

In addition, the use of housing units built as a basis of the taxable value growth factor totally
ignores industrial, commercial and manufacturing new construction and effectively assumes
NO taxable value increases for the next 20 years!
RTA response: This is incorrect, the forecast does not assume that there is no taxable value
growth in these other property types. Rather, it applies the housing-based growth rate to ALL
taxable value in each jurisdiction. The use of housing as a proxy for overall growth was
discussed at length with the Financial Task Force in 2015-2016. Given the lack of other
reliable long-term growth forecasts that would explicitly address these other property
classifications, the consensus among task force members was that housing was a suitable
proxy for new construction of these other classifications.
iv) The RTA Plan II cites – 2.4% as the expected CPI over the life of the Plan – yet, uses .37% as
the growth factor in conflict with Michigan property tax statutes.
RTA response: As previously discussed, this is a misunderstanding of the forecasting

methodology. The 0.37% growth rate is in addition to inflation.
v) Using the RTA CPI of 2.4% and adding a modest 1.6% for new construction (net of various
offset reductions some of which were discussed in the RTA Plan II) over a 20-year period,
the property tax amounts that would be levied would be roughly $2.56 billion from Oakland
County (including the correction for the wrong taxable year); the RTA Plan projected $1.71
billion to be collected. The understatement of RTA property tax revenues from Oakland
County alone would be roughly $848 million!
RTA response: as previously discussed, the discrepancy described here is based on an

incorrect interpretation of the RTA’s methodology. The projected average annual growth in
taxable valuations in Oakland County is 2.87% in year-of-expenditure dollars.
Regarding the separate question of what rate of growth in housing would be appropriate to
use for a 20-year horizon: The 0.37% rate of growth projected by the RTA is based on a
regionally adopted forecast published by SEMCOG and adopted by its Executive Committee
earlier this year. The RTA would have concerns about using a different growth forecast that
conflicts with SEMCOG’s forecast, but is open to discussions with Oakland County as to how
its 1.6% estimate was developed.
For reference, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number average rate of growth in
housing units in Oakland County between 1990 and 2010 was 0.5% per year (1,083,592 in
1990 to 1,202,362 in 2010, equivalent to a compound annual growth rate of 0.5%).
vi) Similar understatements would occur due to the same error in the other counties. No
detailed calculation for these counties or Detroit was prepared with this analysis. However,
if Oakland County is roughly 40% of the total RTA Plan II property tax revenues (before
considering the effects of the error), the total revenue underestimation could be as great as
$1.5 billion to $2.0 billion in the RTA Plan II.
RTA response: This is an incorrect assumption. See previous RTA responses about Oakland
County’s incorrect interpretation of the forecasting methodology.

vii) As a secondary consideration, the taxable value growth for new construction within Oakland
County is expected to largely occur in the present ‘opt-out’ areas of the Act 196 Authority,
meaning the more significant underestimation of property tax revenues occurs in areas with
the least amount of RTA Plan II services over the 20-year period.
RTA response: The RTA’s financial model does not apply a uniform countywide growth rate.
Growth rates were developed for each individual city and township, based on SEMCOG’s
forecast. The model forecasts growth by individual municipality, and the forecasted revenues
are reported out of the financial model.
The RTA does not believe that its forecast methodology is systematically understating future
growth, as addressed in previous comment responses, and so the RTA feels that Oakland
County’s concern about disparate growth rates in different communities is adequately
addressed in its financial model.
For reference, the Oakland County communities with the highest projected housing growth
rates are Oak Park (1.85%/year), Lyon Township (1.77%/year), and Oxford Township
(0.91%/yr).
viii) Given this significant understatement of property tax revenues, Oakland County’s
contribution to regional transit (along with Macomb County’s) is woefully understated
relative to Wayne and Washtenaw Counties and Detroit.
RTA response: See previous RTA responses about Oakland County’s incorrect interpretation
of the forecasting methodology. The discrepancy in forecasts is a concern for the RTA,
however, and we have asked for input from the County Equalization Departments of each
County within the region and an independent thirty party review of the assumptions made
during the development of the Connect Southeast Michigan plan. Once feedback is
received, these review findings will be made available to Oakland County.
Given the above, it is conceivable that the setting of the millage rate of 1.5 mils will raise funds
well beyond the expectations of the use of those funds as expressed in the RTA Plan II and
should have been lowered is the above erroneous assumptions had been properly considered.
RTA response: The RTA believes we have applied appropriate assumptions and does not concur
with the county’s conclusions regarding the accuracy of its forecast. As mentioned above we do
intend to have an independent third-party review of our assumptions.
d) ‘Opt-out Communities’ Impact with Corrected Property Tax Information. The RTA Plan calls for
$30 million in total to be distributed to ‘Home Service’ areas, i.e. generally to ‘opt-out’
communities throughout the four-county region. The reference to ‘opt-out’ communities herein
is basically those outside of the current Act 196 service footprint.
Concerns follow:
i) Assuming Oakland’s share of the revenue was 41% (noted in the RTA Plan II above and not
adjusted for the wrong period or growth factor) and assuming the Home Service funds

would be distributed on the same basis as property tax revenue levied, (an assumption not
binding on any RTA Board) the Oakland opt-out communities would receive $12.3 million
annually for roughly 38 communities to split. Over the 20-year period this comes to $246
million.
RTA Response: The plan proposes to allocate Hometown Service Program funding to
individual communities in proportion to the populations in these communities, not based on
the overall countywide revenue as the county’s estimate above assumes. Oakland County’s
2019 estimated distribution would be approximately $17.7 million (2019 dollars). Over 20
years, and accounting for inflationary growth, this amounts to approximately $438 million in
year-of-expenditure dollars, or nearly 80% higher than the county’s estimate in the above
comment.
ii) The ‘opt-out’ communities included in the adjusted $2.56 billion in Oakland County’s RTA
property tax revenues would be taxed some $1.19 billion. When considering the amounts
to be expended in the Oakland County, the taxpayers in the ‘opt-out’ communities would be
effectively transferring roughly $945 million in their property taxes to RTA-preferred
communities outside of those opt-out areas.
RTA Response: The RTA estimates these communities will contribute approximately $704
million (year-of-expenditure dollars) over 20 years.
iii) The allocation any resources to any of the so-called Home Service Areas at any level is NOT
guaranteed and can be withheld by the RTA Board with a simple majority vote. This is
another error that existed in the RTA 2016 Plan that Oakland County attempted to remedy
by securing a legally binding guarantee as part of the 2016 RTA Plan but the RTA refused to
take up the issue.
RTA Response: Inclusion of the Hometown Service Program in the Connect Southeast
Michigan Master Plan would commit the RTA to administering the program as currently
defined - $30M/year distributed to those communities identified, based on population.
Changes to the program as defined in CSM would have to be undertaken as part of the
annual Master Plan update process, and according to current bylaws would require
unanimous consent of the Funding Allocation Committee (FAC). Further, compliance with the
85% requirement within the RTA’s enabling statute provides a default guarantee that the
Hometown service areas are provided their allocations as part of Oakland County’s overall
program in accordance with the proposed Connect Southeast Michigan Plan.
e) Personal Property Taxable Value Phase Out. The Plan failed to address the phase out of certain
personal property taxes. The personal property revenues associated with portions of the
commercial and manufacturing taxable value (estimated at $200 million in taxable value) will be
totally phased out over the next several years.
In addition, the utility companies have just secured the introduction of legislation that would
fully eliminate their taxable value for personal property taxes over the coming years with no
taxable value being considered for those purchases beyond December 31, 2017. In the event
that the utility personal property taxable value legislation is passed and fully eliminates this tax,

it would represent a 2.04% loss in taxable value (based on December 31, 2017 values) over the
coming years.
Why is this important? It is because spending decisions made upon revenue projections that will
not be met will require adjustments to the resource allocations used in the build-out process.
The costs of any given line/route will not go down, so the RTA Board, at their whim, can move
money out of one area (say, a Home Services area) and send it elsewhere, further exacerbating
the inequities inherent in RTA Plan II.
RTA Response: The RTA concurs that there is uncertainty in projecting revenues out over such a
long period, and as Oakland County notes above, some of this uncertainty stems from political
and legislative actions that are outside of the RTA’s and its member jurisdictions’ control.
Through development of its financial model, the RTA has already laid the groundwork for robust
tracking and performance measurement tools that will be used to ensure that the RTA is
delivering on its promises, and that any future adjustments to the plan maintain compliance with
the 85% Rule and RTA’s other fiduciary requirements (such as debt service). If Oakland County
has specific recommendations that it would like to propose be account for in the financial model,
the RTA would not object to incorporating this data into the model so a scenario could be run to
isolate the potential future impacts of personal property tax phase outs.
f) Tax Increment Financing Authorities (TIFAs). The RTA Plan likely understates the effect of the
property tax revenue shunted off to TIFAS. The RTA Plan uses 2.2% and likely a more
representative percentage over the 20-year term would be 3.5% - or an overstatement
adjustment of perhaps $20 million.
RTA Response: The 2.2% value was developed in discussions with the Oakland County
Treasurer’s office. The RTA is open to revisiting this assumption if there is reason to believe it is
low. Please provide Oakland County’s desired tax capture number, with supporting
documentation if possible, and we will review it for possible incorporation into the Financial
Model. The additional 1% reduction factor addressed in the next comment is intended to address
some of this uncertainty. As the County is likely well aware, it is extremely difficult to forecast the
future impact of tax capture due to both the large number of existing capturing entities as well
as the discretionary nature of tax capture (release of funds as well as the creation of future
districts).
In Detroit’s case, the TIFAs shunt 28.8% of all revenues levied and this factor appears to have
been properly incorporated in the RTA projections. However, the dollars the regional voters
would be supporting are for transit operations, not TIFA operations – estimated to be $52
million over the 20-year period. Much of this revenue would flow into the downtown
operations as that is where a great deal of captured value in Detroit exists.
RTA Response: Unfortunately, the creation of these tax capture entities is beyond the RTA’s
control. The RTA has explored the possibility of exempting its millage from tax captures, but to
date these discussions have not been fruitful. This would likely require legislative action at the
state level.

g) Chargeback Provision / Delinquencies. Oakland County’s delinquency loses from the
Delinquent Tax Revolving Fund process are about .5%; the RTA Plan used a reduction factor of
1.0%. This understates revenue for Oakland County (.5% x $2.56 billion = $13 million).
Conversely, using the 1% reduction factor noted above for Detroit and comparing it to the
collections as noted in the City’s 2017 CAFR for the collection period 2015, the amount of
uncollected property taxes rate was 26.5%, not 1%, meaning the City’s expected property tax
collections for RTA operations are overstated.
RTA Response: 1% is a global factor that was developed in part by examining SMART’s CAFR’s
and calculating the difference between taxable value in opt-in communities and the actual
revenues realized by SMART in those years. It was also discussed with finance officials at the four
counties. If Oakland County desires the RTA to use your specific .5% rate over the life of the plan,
the RTA would be happy to do so; please provide that direction in writing.
Looking specifically at Detroit, this was discussed at length with the Wayne County Equalization
Director as well as City staff who advised the RTA that Detroit’s collection rate is rapidly rising
and likely to converge with the other jurisdictions in the coming years.
h) Impossible Fluctuations in Property Tax Revenues. In the RTA’s detailed property revenue line
items for the individual county and Detroit projections reflects substantial fluctuations in the
transit revenue collected in each county from year to year – some as much as 40%+ from year to
year. Basically, this cannot happen under Michigan statutes. Once a reduction occurs, the
taxable value resets downward and the only means by which taxable value can increase would
be through CPI increases and new construction. The impact on total RTA Plan II projections has
not been calculated, but has been corrected in the above calculations by Oakland County.
RTA Response: The lines being referenced here are not millage revenues levied by year. Rather,
the county summary tables are intended to show sources and uses of funds by year, and thus the
expenditures match the sources shown at the bottom of the table. The reason that millage
sources in a given year fluctuate is because RTA expenditures fluctuate in those years,
particularly in the early years of the program when the RTA will be launching a number of major
capital projects. In short, the series of numbers Oakland County is looking at here illustrate how
expenditures in that year were funded.
The summary tables that Oakland County is referencing do include the projected millage revenue
generated by each jurisdiction by year. These estimates can be found in the very top row of the
same series of tables.
In revised summary tables to be released with the upcoming plan revisions, the heading on the
bottom portion of the table will be clarified to prevent this confusion in the future.
4) Capital Cost Assumption. While the RTA Plan is not specific in the nature and location of the capital
Plans, the Plan reflects a cost increase factor of 3.4% for capital costs (2.4% CPI and an additional
factor of 1.0% for added inflation relating to construction costs). In southeastern Michigan
competition for construction labor is fierce given the number of construction projects underway.
Additionally, the federal government is imposing tariffs on a number of construction products that

will result in inflation increases beyond that which is normally experienced (steel and aluminum
being just examples).
While it is difficult to assess what level of inflation that should be applied to construction projects
over the 20-year time frame, the 3.4% used in the RTA Plan II is understated easily into the near to
mid-term future. This factor is then critical for the infrastructure build-out for the RTA Plan II
including projects such as roads, rail and other construction projects.
RTA Response: The basis of this factor is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Cost Index,
which is updated annually by the USACE. The index is specific to transportation projects and specific
to the State of Michigan. The RTA believes that it is reasonable and prudent to use this widely-cited
and historically-based estimate of construction cost escalation. However, the RTA would be open to
other documented estimates of future construction cost escalation for Michigan transportation
projects. If Oakland County has specific construction cost escalation factors for its that are
appropriate to use in a 20-year projection, please provide them to the RTA in writing and we will
review them for possible inclusion in the financial model.
5) Policy-related issues:
a) Supplanting and Loss of Millage. One of the largest business issues in determining the viability
of the RTA Plan is the assumption that the Act 196 millages in Wayne and Oakland Counties and
that the passage of the SMART millage in Macomb County in August 2018 and in future years
will always occur.
Similarly, the apparent assumption in the RTA Plan II is that the Detroit City Council will keep
appropriating roughly $80 million from its General Fund in operating subsidies to the Detroit
Department of Transportation (DDOT) and the PeopleMover. In the law, and in the RTA Plan II,
there is no minimum appropriation requirement for either the operating subsidy from the City
Council of from millage proceeds. Should the City Council withhold this level of appropriations
from DDOT and the PeopleMover, it is likely that pressures will be provided on the RTA Board to
use RTA funds to cover a reduction of the City’s operating subsidy for DDOT. The expansion of
RTA funds to cover a reduction of City Council’s appropriation would require only a simple
majority vote of the RTA Board. Similar concerns exist for failure of local millages.
RTA Response: Due to the constraints of the 85% Rule, it would not be possible for the RTA to
substantially deviate from the planned the geographic distribution of its millage revenues to shift
additional resources into Wayne County or the City of Detroit. The RTA anticipates that some
revisions to the plan will inevitably occur over a 20-year period due to a variety of unforeseen
circumstances. Changes to the underlying local service provided by DDOT and SMART are indeed
a foundational basis for the CSM Plan, and the RTA anticipates working closely with the
providers to establish written agreements for cost-sharing on many of the existing transit
corridors that are identified for service improvements under the plan. Were the providers to “pull
out” of these corridors, it would be necessary to revise the planned service in the corridors.
b) 85% True-up. While the RTA legislation requires that a minimum of 85% of the RTA tax levy be
spent on transit services in the county from which the taxes were extracted, there is no
mandatory effective provision for a ‘true-up’ of the distribution of funds to the county in which
they were raised. The policy and accounting issues involved in adequately addressing this matter

are far from easy. How often is a true-up conducted? Who conducts the true-up? Given that
the millage is a zero-sum arrangement and moneys expended in the ‘wrong’ county is already
gone at the time of any reconciliation, which constituency group takes a reduction in future
service to compensate for the prior shortfalls?
The accounting system in use clearly hasn’t addressed the costs allocated by service line for
actual costs incurred. This can be very difficult to capture in the normal course of operations.
While the RTA Board passed a resolution on this matter in the 2016 RTA Plan, it did so before
the results of a regional accounting sub-group tasked with identifying the business issues and
resolutions to those issues had reported their findings to the Board.
There can be no viable Plan without this matter being resolved.
RTA Response: This is an RTA Board Policy decision that has been discussed as part of the CSM
plan review. The existing policy which was adopted by the RTA Board in September 2016, has an
annual review process of revenues collected and expenditures spent and reported in a special
schedule during the RTA’s annual audit conducted by an independent certified accounting firm.
Further, the existing policy proposes triennial rebalancing schedule to assure compliance with
the 85% mandate. The approach on how the funds are rebalanced is also included in this
adopted RTA policy. The RTA is in agreement that this policy will need to be updated prior to
passage of a successful referendum to address many outdated sections. If the RTA Board and
other stakeholders wants to revisit the 85% True-up policy decisions, there is plenty of time to
take that action.
Below are the excerpts from the pertinent policy that is in place today. Please advise as to which
portions of this policy are unacceptable to Oakland County.
Excerpts from RTA Resolution #22 passed in 2016
85% RULE ONGOING COMPLIANCE / “RE-BALANCING”
The Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan (RTA) shall on an ongoing basis monitor
Regional Master Transit Plan (RMTP) revenue raised in each Member Jurisdiction and
expenditures of those monies made within each Member Jurisdiction following the timeline and
procedures set forth below. Deviations from the revenue and / or expenditure within each
Member Jurisdiction will be ‘trued-up’ (i.e. brought into compliance) with the 85% Rule as set
forth below.
MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT (MOE)
The RMTP is built on a principle of ensuring local transit services are maintained to provide local
access and connections to regional transit system. Further, the RMTP is built on a cooperation /
partnership model that contemplates that the existing transit providers will operate many of the
regional routes proposed in the RMTP with the RTA providing the funding necessary to support
enhanced frequency, span of service, and/or extension of these routes as outlined in the RMTP.
These principles require that the existing transit provider maintain a baseline level of funding to
support their services. The goal of the RTA is to supplement and not supplant local operating
funding as set forth below. Therefore, the RTA will require that before the receipt of any RTA

subsidy the receiving transit provider shall maintain the level of local funding assigned to deliver
transit service reflected in the 2015 audited financial statements. At no time will RTA funding be
used as a substitute for local funding. Further, the RTA will require that before the receipt of any
RTA subsidy the receiving transit provider shall commit to maintaining the level of investment as
identified in the RMTP.
The RTA recognizes that both SMART and AAATA local funding is subject to renewal by voters on
a reoccurring basis, while DDOT local dollars are supplied by the general fund. If unforeseeable
circumstances arise where all or a portion of the local funding is not renewed causing an overall
reduction in revenue generated for the providers, the RTA will work with the provider to adjust
the baseline level of local funding target and any affected partnership routes.
Annual Monitoring and Adjustment
Each year, the RTA staff shall report to the Board and identify any deviations from the
projections upon which compliance with the 85% Rule was demonstrated at the plan level by
reporting actual revenues received by the RTA from each Member Jurisdiction and actual
expenditures made by the RTA on the public transportation service routes located in each
Member Jurisdiction.
Service providers shall track RTA funds received and the actual expenditure of those funds by
Member Jurisdiction and shall be required to annually report these expenditures as part of the
annual reporting process. This will include (1) increases or decreases in RTA revenue as well as
(2) increases or decreases in expenditures.
The year-end dates for each of the member jurisdictions and the transit agencies are varied. The
following is a table that outlines the fiscal year for each entity.
Entity Fiscal Year Fiscal Year CAFR Release Date (average)

Begin End
Regional Transit Authority for October 1 September 30 March 31 (6 months)
Southeast Michigan
Ann Arbor Area Transportation October 1 September 30 January-February (3 -4
Authority months)
Detroit Department of July 1 June 30 May (11-12 months)
Transportation/People Mover
Suburban Mobility Authority for July 1 June 30 November (4-5 months)
Regional Transportation
Detroit July 1 June 30 May (11-12 months)
Macomb January 1 December 31 June (6 months)
Oakland October 1 September 30 March 31 (6 months)
Washtenaw January 1 December 31 March 31 (3 months)
Wayne October 1 September 30 March 31 (6 months)
If the balance of revenues and expenditures in a given member jurisdiction is positive (i.e. a
favorable variance) then the RTA will follow the process outlined below.

The guidelines to be used for the funds from a favorable variance shall be distributed as follows:
• No more than the first 15% of a favorable variance will be held by RTA in a regional cash
reserve account until the next annual budget at which time they can be released for
services as approved by the RTA Board in a manner consistent with RTA Act provisions.
• For the remaining 85% or greater applicable to each Member Jurisdictions’ favorable
variance:
o No greater than 60% of the variance amount will become available in the year
succeeding the year in which the RMTMP applies. The remaining 40% will be
held in a cash reserve bearing interest for the benefit of the respective Member
Jurisdiction.
o No greater than 30% of the variance amount will become available in the second
year succeeding the year in which the RMTMP applies. The remaining 10% will
be held in a cash reserve bearing interest for the benefit of the respective
Member Jurisdiction.
o The remaining 10% will be distributed in the rebalancing years described below.
o In any given year, the cash reserve may be used to mitigate that preceding
year’s unfavorable variance in that Member Jurisdiction’s area should one exist.
Note – the RTA Board shall periodically assess whether the percentages used above and
the three-year time period for the re-balancing can be shortened based on actual
experiences in the re-balancing process. Changes to the above process shall be approved
by the RTA Board.
This means that 85% of any favorable variance coming from a Member Jurisdiction will remain
with that member jurisdiction and accumulate in the cash reserve account. Unfavorable
variances from any member jurisdiction will be resolved in the re-balancing years through
reductions in either existing services, reductions in services that have yet to be implemented and
/or through favorable variances in the cash reserve account as noted above.
The Funding Allocation Committee will make a recommendation for the RTA Board to approve
the investment of favorable variances within Member Jurisdictions through the following
process:
• The transit provider representing the member jurisdiction will submit a recommendation
on investment of the favorable variance to RTA staff.
• Note – The transit provider is the transmitter of the recommendation. Each Member
Jurisdiction may develop its own process for creating the recommendation.
• RTA staff will review the recommendation and provide guidance on how it meets the
tenants of the RMTP.
• The original recommendation with the RTA’s guidance included will be presented to the
RTA Board for review and approval.
The RTA’s annual audit will include a supplemental schedule within the audited financial
statements on the deviations from the RTA Act’s 85% Mandate and the financial basis for the re-
balancing on an annual basis. A report of the activity within the cash reserve accounts will be
provided annually to the RTA Board by Member Jurisdiction as part of the approval of the annual
operating budget or, if not available in sufficient time to accomplish its inclusion in the annual
operating budget, for adjustment to the then current year’s operating budget.

Annual Financial Monitoring and Reporting Process
The RTA will adopt the following financial monitoring and reporting requirements as part of its
annual budget and audit process and its procedures for ensuring overall 85% rule compliance.
October 1 Beginning of RTA fiscal year.
December 1 RTA property tax levied.
December 31 Quarterly financial statements - due no later than 45 days after quarter’s end.
March 31 Complete Independent Audit of RTA’s Financial Statements and Schedules
As required by state statutes, the RTA audit of its financial statements, including
a Single Audit Act report (if applicable), shall be produced no later than 180 days
after year end.
RTA staff will report on the amount of revenue received and expenditures within
each Member Jurisdiction based on existing year end dates (June 30th for
Macomb, Oakland, Wayne, City of Detroit (DDOT and DTC), and SMART;
September 30th for AAATA, and December 30th for Washtenaw County) The
report must include a comparison to the amount of revenue and expenditure
projected in the RMTP and reflected in the audited financial statements.
If needed, the RTA will develop a mid-year budget adjustment to reflect any
changes identified arising from the ‘true-up’ process and results included in the
audited financial statements, as well as activity of the cash reserve accounts
prior to the release funds for use in the current year from the cash reserve
accounts by Member Jurisdiction.
To the extent that a service provider cannot assemble the necessary financial
information to be included in the RTA’s audited financial report required by state
statutes, the cash reserve funds otherwise available for use in other Member
Jurisdictions, as approved by the RTA Board shall be released for use in those
Member Jurisdictions no later than March 31 or by the first RTA Board meeting
in April. Subsequently and when the service provider submits the requisite
financial information to the RTA as required, the RTA Board will act as
appropriate with respect to the funds in the cash reserve account, if any, for a
Member Jurisdiction by Board action.
May / June RTA receives its Delinquent Tax Revolving Fund distributions from the counties.
June 30 Quarterly financial statements - due no later than 45 days after quarter’s end.
August Second Revenues and Expenditures to Date Report
RTA staff will issue an unaudited preliminary financial report based on the
revenue received and expenditures within each Member Jurisdiction, cumulative
amounts received in previous year and projected amounts through 2036 based

on a June 30th year end. This financial report, which will become the basis for
the subsequent year’s audited financial statement report due no later than
March 31, will include a comparison to the amount projected in the RMTP and
amounts expended by the service providers within a Member Jurisdiction (to the
extent available).
No later than August 31, the RTA Board will be presented a recommended
operating and capital budget for the next two years by RTA administration for
consideration in the adoption of the budget.
September 30 Budget Adoption
The Board will adopt an annual budget for the RTA that is in compliance with the
Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act, Public Act 2 of 1968, as amended, MCL
141.421 to 141.442 (the “Budget Act”) and an operating budget for the next
succeeding year no later than September 30th.
It is possible that events and known changes to the RMTP will require an
adjustment to the current and next year’s operating budgets and require an
amendment of the RMTP by the RTA Board for the current and / or next year’s
budget. RTA staff will maintain a record of recommended adjustments to future
budgets and the RMTP and the Board shall take the necessary action to
effectuate the adjustments.
Triennial Rebalancing
Recognizing the need for sufficient data to identify trends in RTA revenue and expenditure
changes, and balancing this against the need for responsive changes to such trends, the RTA will
analyze the favorable and unfavorable variances as reported by the independent CPA on an
annual basis. As outlined above, the release of the cash reserves will be made as early as the
financial information is made available by the service providers but no later than every three (3)
years. The reconciliation at the end of the third (or earlier) year is to resolve any deviations
impacting 85% compliance (“re-balancing years”) for the earlier periods.
This re-balancing process will include updates to its long-term cash-flow and financial model to
reflect modified projections based on actual RTA revenues and expenditures to-date and any
proposed modifications from the Member Jurisdictions. To the extent feasible, revenue trends
will be developed with input from county Equalization Departments or City Assessing
Departments. This financial analysis will include recommended changes in RMTP services and
expenditures as necessary to rebalance the plan to ensure overall 85% compliance. The RTA
Board is expected to address the favorable and / or unfavorable allocations between the
Member Jurisdictions through budgetary amendments to the operating and / or capital budgets
of each service provider.
This monitoring and rebalancing will ensure the RMTP as a 20-year plan maintains full and
complete compliance with the 85% Rule. Further, as a matter of policy, where re-balancing is
required as a result of excess revenue from a Member Jurisdiction, it will be the policy of the RTA
to implement the corresponding changes to service and expenditure levels in the RMTP at the
earliest practicable opportunity (i.e., in the earliest plan year practicable).

Triennial Re-balancing Process
The RTA will adopt the following triennial process as part of its procedures for ensuring overall
85% Rule compliance.
July 1 to Aug 31 Begin Development of Financial Projection
RTA will use the audited financial statements from the previous fiscal year from
each Member Jurisdiction and service provider as the basis for projection.
Further information to help guide the projection may be provided by each
Member Jurisdiction’s County Equalization Department or City Assessing
Department.
As part of the RTA’s re-balancing process, capital projects and public transit
services on public transit service routes located in Member Jurisdictions will be
evaluated and adjusted.
When the actual revenue collected for a Member Jurisdiction is less than
projected in the RMTP an adjustment to service is necessitated, the RTA Board
shall take one or more of the following actions consistent with applicable law (1)
alter plans, projects, or public transit service levels within the Member
Jurisdiction to balance expenditures with revenues, (2) extend the time period
for completion of a project and / or (3) use favorable variances from the
accumulated, unspent cash reserve account pertaining to that Member
Jurisdiction. The actions required will be incorporated in the operating and / or
capital budgets submitted for RTA approval for as part of the bi-annual
budgeting process or through a mid-year adjustment to the operating budget.
Nov 1 Begin Public Outreach
The RTA will conduct public outreach to ensure that the RMTP re-balancing
actions are, to the extent reasonable without violating the 85% Rule mandate, in
line with the public’s needs and vision for the RTA. This outreach will include, but
is not limited to, holding public information sessions and conducting the Public
Satisfaction Survey in accordance with Section 6 (9c) of PA 387 of 2012.
March 1 Report on Outreach and Survey Findings
The RTA administration will report on the outreach and survey findings to date
and how the rebalanced RMTP is responsive to those findings.
PROTECTION OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE EXISTNG PROVIDERS IN THE PUBLIC
TRANSIT REGION
The RTA shall not, as a matter of policy, allocate state and federal formula funding in support of
routes and services in the RMTP in a manner that reduces the amount of state and federal
funding allocated to the existing transit providers for 2016 (“the Base Year”), as adjusted for
inflation and as reported in the audited financial statements of the service providers. While the

RTA by virtue of its investments may as a matter of law be eligible for additional revenue for
RTA-funded routes and services, the RTA as a matter of policy will limit the allocation of any new
state and federal formula funding arising from RTA-funded routes and services in the RMTP in a
manner consistent with this policy.
It is further important to recognize, in addition to this policy, that most state and federal funding
allocated in support of the RMTP will be passed through to SMART, DDOT, and AAATA to operate
the cross-county connector routes and new local services (referred to above as the “partnership
routes”).
Specifically, this policy applies to the allocation of (1) federal section 5307, 5339, and 5337
funding and (2) Local Bus Operating Assistance applied in support of routes and services in the
RMTP. The Base Year funding levels will be adjusted annually for inflation using the Consumer
Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U). If the available funding for an urbanized area under the
federal program or the RTA region under state formula program is more than this inflation-
adjusted baseline the funding may be assigned to the RTA in accordance with the assumptions
made in the RMTP. While not anticipated, if the available funding for an urbanized area under
the federal formula programs is less than this inflation-adjusted baseline, the amount distributed
to the providers will be adjusted proportionately. Similarly, if the available funding to the RTA’s
public transit region from state formula programs is less than this inflation-adjusted Base Year
amount in any subsequent year, the amount distributed to the providers will be adjusted
proportionately.
Future Agreements
Specific details that will address the contractual relationship between RTA and the providers will
be addressed through the use of Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA). The RTA will further
define roles and responsibilities in these agreements, define eligible expenses, operational
details, and the process that will be used to pay for RTA services. The RTA, where possible will
try to sync with MDOT schedules and payment policy to reduce reporting burdens on providers
and ensuring the RTA receives timely, accurate, and relevant information to ensure
accountability.

Appendix E: RTA Resolution 22, a resolution adopting key policies and

procedures that will govern implementation of the Regional Master Transit
Plan (Adopted September 22, 2016)
June 2018
F. Recommended Proposed Changes to draft Connect Southeast
Michigan Plan
Over the past several weeks our consultant, HNTB, has been completing revisions to the Financial
Model and changes to the Connect Southeast Michigan Plan, as reflected in the Financial Model. The
changes can be categorized as follows:
 Changes in response to RTA staff feedback

 Changes in response to Provider (DDOT/SMART/AAATA) feedback
 Changes in response to public and RTA board comments
 New or updated data
In applying proposed changes, one goal is to maintain the millage at or below 1.5. This was
accomplished, as all of the changes described in this section, when applied, resulted in an estimated
millage rate of 1.50.
The following changes were made to the underlying assumptions in the Financial Model:
 No longer assuming that the buses purchased to implement the Plan will be hybrid buses. This is
based on feedback from the Providers that they are generally curtailing their use of hybrids due
to higher purchase costs and minimal operating cost savings. This results in substantial savings
to the Plan.
 Revising the federal funding formula to indicate that QLINE may be eligible to receive federal
5307 funds. The impact to the RTA is negligible because the RTA is already projected to receive
5307 Fixed Guideway funds equal to the Commuter Rail Floor amount of nearly $10 million per
year; this exceeds the formula-based amount the region would receive for commuter-rail,
QLINE, and People Mover operations.
 Updated operating costs for the QLINE and Commuter Rail based on actual QLINE data and
updated Minneapolis data, respectively.
The following changes were made to the existing route proposals included in the draft CSM Plan:
 Altered the 8 Mile routing to align with recent changes to DDOT Route 17.
 Altered the 9 Mile routing on the map to indicate that service to 9 Mile and Telegraph is
preserved. The west end of the route will be split so existing service level to 9 Mile and
Telegraph is preserved while additional trips will proceed northwest to 12 Mile and Telegraph
via Southfield Civic Center. This was in response to a comment from John Swatosh.
 Altered the 12 Mile East and 12 Mile West routings to better align with the existing SMART
Route 740 service through Royal Oak. Service was already reduced on the two overlapping
routes to achieve a peak headway of 15 minutes through Royal Oak, rather than the 7.5-minute
peak headway included in the draft Plan. These changes were suggested by Ben Stupka.

17
SUMMARY 6/13/18
 Altered the 15 Mile route to better align with the existing SMART Route 780 routing, with route
extensions east to Gratiot and west to Twelve Oaks Mall. This change was suggested by Ben
Stupka.
 Changed the Van Dyke/Mound Road service to a FAST corridor, such that the existing SMART
510/515 service and DDOT 48 would no longer be consolidated/discontinued. The new FAST
service would operate as an overlay along overlapping portions of Van Dyke; similar to how
FAST operates on Woodward, Gratiot, and Michigan. At its northern terminus (23 Mile Road) the
route would also split to serve both the Wal Mart (same terminus as SMART 510/515) as well as
the planned Amazon Fulfillment Center at 23 Mile and Mound Road. The assumed operator of
this corridor was changed from SMART to DDOT. These changes were in response to comments
by SMART and by John Swatosh.
 Changed the Grand River corridor so that SMART Route 330 is no longer consolidated with
DDOT Route 21. The corridor is now simply an extension and expansion of DDOT 21 service.
SMART Route 330 remains unchanged from existing service. This was in response to comments
by SMART and by John Swatosh.
 Altered the Fort/Eureka corridor so that DDOT Route 19 is no longer consolidated with SMART
Route 125. The corridor is now simply an expansion of service on SMART Route 125. DDOT
Route 19 remains unchanged from existing service. As a result, the operator of the Fort/Eureka
corridor is now assumed to be SMART (previously it was DDOT). This change was made to avoid
any potential loss of service along Fort Street.
 Reduced peak service in the Jefferson corridor to better align with existing peak service.
 Extended the John R corridor to downtown Rochester via John R and Rochester Road; also
serving Beaumont Hospital in Troy via Dequindre Road. This was suggested by Ben Stupka.
 Altered the 23 Mile Road routing to align with SMART Route 756, extending east to Gratiot and
23 Mile via downtown Rochester. This was suggested by Ben Stupka.
 Adjusted the proposed hours of service on the expanded Michigan FAST corridor to better align
with existing service levels on Woodward and Gratiot. This was in response to a comment from
John Swatosh that it appeared the spans and headways were being expanded on Woodward
and Gratiot, when in fact this is not being proposed.
 Updated the map to clarify that the capital investments on Woodward and Gratiot will include
the branch services to Troy and North River Park and Ride, respectively.
 Minor adjustments to other routes to match most current DDOT/SMART service.
The following are new projects and services added since the draft CSM Plan.
 Added a capital project, at $1.5 million/mile, along Washtenaw Avenue between Ann Arbor and
Ypsilanti, to enhance transit infrastructure along AAATA Route 4.

18
SUMMARY 6/13/18
 Added one round trip express bus “cleanup” trip between Ann Arbor and Detroit to provide late
night service after commuter rail service stops for the night.
 Extended SMART Route 250 (Ford Road) west to Canton Center Road in Canton, also adding
weekday trips and introducing Saturday and Sunday service.
 Extended SMART Route 280 (Middlebelt Road) north to Orchard Lake Road in West Bloomfield
Township, also adding peak hour weekday trips.
 Created a new Northville-Canton connector with local service operating every 30 minutes during
peak hours, and hourly throughout the day and on weekends.
The updated Connect Southeast Michigan map is shown on the next page.

19
SUMMARY 6/13/18
Memphis
MACOMB COUNTY Armada
Leonard Township Richmond
OAKLAND COUNTY Bruce Township
Ortonville Oxford Township Armada
Township Addison
Groveland Brandon Township
Holly Township Township Township
Oxford
15 ROUTES AT 15-MINUTE FREQUENCIES FASTER COMMUTES ACROSS THE REGION Romeo HOMETOWN Richmond
$69M PER YEAR OPERATING COSTS PLUS Reducing Chokepoints with Holly
SERVICE
$238M IN CAPITAL COSTS Transit Supporting Infrastructure Lake Orion
$25M PER YEAR Lenox Township
15-Minute Service (6am - 8pm) Springfield Independence Oakland Washington Ray Township
Rose Township Township Township Township Township
$1.5M PER MILE IN INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES Implementing Advanced Mobility Orion Township
15-Minute Rush Hour Service (Peak) $20M PER YEAR Clarkston New Haven
Planning and Desiging Future Rapid Transit Chesterfield

$143M TOTAL HOMETOWN Township New Baltimore
Auburn Hills Macomb Township
15 NEW EXPRESS REGIONAL SERVICES SERVICE Lake Angelus Rochester Shelby Township
$17M PER YEAR PLUS $13M IN CAPITAL COSTS LOCAL SERVICES Rochester Hills
White Lake Waterford
Airport Express New Local Bus Existing Local Bus Highland Township Township Pontiac
$10M PER YEAR Township Utica
Commuter Express with Park and Ride Streetcar
Sylvan Lake
Keege Harbor
Mount Clemens
HOMETOWN SERVICES AND FLEXIBLE MOBILITY Harrison
COMMUTER RAIL CONNECTING Hometown Service in 60 Communities Milford Commerce Orchard Lake Village
Bloomfield Hills
Troy Sterling
Heights Clinton Township
Township
ANN ARBOR AND DETROIT $30M PER YEAR, DESIGNED BY LOCAL OFFICIALS Milford
Township
$9M PER YEAR PLUS $135M IN CAPITAL COST, West Bloomfield Bloomfield
Township Wolverine Lake Township
8 DAILY TRIPS TO NEW CENTER Core Area Flexible Mobility Township Birmingham Fraser
Walled Lake Southfield Township Clawson
$20M PER YEAR
Franklin Beverly Hills
Royal Madison Warren
Wixom Bingham Farms
* All costs are 2019 dollars, reflecting the first year of the program. Actual costs in the years of implementation will be different due to inflation. Roseville
Lyon Township Berkley Oak Heights St. Clair Shores
Lathrup Village
Farmington Hills Center
Novi Southfield Line Eastpointe
Farmington Oak Park Ferndale Hazel
HOMETOWN South Lyon
Novi Township Royal Oak Township
Park
SERVICE Northville
Harper Woods Grosse Pointe Shores
Grosse Pointe Woods
Hometown Service is specifically WAYNE COUNTY Grosse Pointe Farms

Northville Township Highland Park
designed to enhance local decision-mak- WASHTENAW COUNTY Livonia Redford
Hamtramck Grosse Pointe
Salem Township
ing for transportation services. Sixty Plymouth Township Grosse Pointe Park
communities outside the fixed-route Lyndon
Township
Dexter
Township
Webster
Township
Northfield Plymouth DETROIT
service area will have the opportunity Township Township
to design and implement local services Dexter Ann Arbor
that best meet the specific mobility Township Garden City
needs of their residents. Chelsea
Lima
Township
Scio Township Barton Hills Dearborn
Superior Township Westland
Sylvan Canton Inkster
Township Township Melvindale
Potential community-designed services Wayne Dearborn Heights River Rouge
include the following: HOMETOWN Ann Arbor
Allen Ecorse
• Dial-A-Ride Expansion
SERVICE Ypsilanti Van Buren Taylor
Park Lincoln Park
Township
• Rapid Corridor Connections Romulus
Detroit Wyandotte
Lodi Pittsfield
• Homebound Service Support Sharon Freedom Township
Ypsilanti
Belleville Metropolitan Southgate
Township Township Township Township Airport
• Ride-Sharing Partnerships
• Medical Campus Connections Saline Brownstown Riverview
• Office Park Circulation Township
• Downtown Connections Manchester HOMETOWN Trenton
• Technology Deployments York Township Augusta Township SERVICE Woodhaven Grosse Ile
Manchester Bridgewater Saline Township Township
Township Township
Services will be funded through revenues Sumpter Township
Huron Township Flat Rock
Gibraltar
generated as part of the Connect Milan
Miles
Southeast Michigan plan, and funds will
be allocated on a per capita basis.
Rockwood Brownstown 0 2.5 5 10
Township
By implementing these plan modifications, the following benefits can be realized for our region; the
Connect Southeast Michigan Plan:
1. Provides More Service over a Larger Area:

Currently, the primary existing transit providers (DDOT, SMART, AAATA) serve 1,328 square miles.
The Connect Southeast Michigan Plan has a core service area of almost 1,500 square miles. When
you add Hometown Service areas we impact 2,780 square miles, more than doubling the current
collective reach of SMART, DDOT and AAATA.
2. Connects More Communities:

DDOT, SMART and AAATA collectively serve 85 communities. Under Connect Southeast Michigan
158 communities (includes, cities, villages, Townships, and unincorporated areas) are touched by
the plan through the implementation of new projects and a reliable 20-year funding source available
to meet the mobility needs of the communities in the region
3. Connects More People to Jobs:

Connect Southeast Michigan improves access to jobs and employment opportunities in all four
counties. The current fixed-route transit network provides frequent transit access to 500,000 jobs.
Improvements under the connect Southeast Michigan plan, through a 67% increase in frequent
service connects to 1,450,000 jobs. Additionally, express service provides access to 100,000 jobs
currently not directly served by Commuter Express Service today. All 25 of the largest employers
in SE Michigan can be reached via frequent service under the revised plan.
4. Creates a Healthier Region:

Connect Southeast Michigan plan helps create a healthier region in all four counties. The current
fixed-route transit network provides frequent transit access to 49 medical facilities. Improvements
under the Connect Southeast Michigan plan more than triple that number by connecting to 169
medical facilities.
5. Opens More Doors for Learning:

This plan connects our students with resources for education. We estimate mobility is enhanced by
providing frequent transit service to 540 K-12 schools and 25 colleges and universities. Currently
only 158 K-12 schools and 10 colleges and universities are served by existing transit routes.
6. Provides Better Commuter Access:

Tired of sitting behind the wheel in rush hour traffic? Take transit instead; this plan provides a one-
seat ride for commuters connecting Ann Arbor to Detroit via a Commuter Rail option and adds 11
new commuter bus express routes along with 15 new park n ride lots. Portions of all 11 of the
commuter express routes experience congestion reducing speeds below 35 miles per hour. Nearly
40% of all commuters in our region cross county lines, the majority of which use the proposed
Connect Southeast Michigan Express corridors. The eleven commuter express corridors and the
commuter rail in the plan will provide a mobility alternative to roughly 700,000 workers commuting
across borders on our major roadways.

20
SUMMARY 6/13/18
7. Connects DTW Airport to Our Communities:
This plan provides direct access to Detroit Metro Airport (DTW) for every county. DTW is one of the
20-busiest airports in the U.S. which in turns provides expanded economic development
opportunities for visitors coming to our region. Parking at Detroit Metro Airport ranges from $9 -
$33 per day. Compared to an Airport Express round-trip fare that is expected to be in the range of
$15-20, new airport express service will provide a more affordable alternative to parking at the
airport. SMART’s FAST service to the DTW airport along Michigan Ave will also be improved to
service every 15 minutes compared to 30 minutes today.
8. Improves the Transit Experience:

Are you intimidated to ride our existing transit system? Confused on who provides what service and
whether you will need different transfers? This plan will greatly improve your rider experience with
a unified fare card simplifying how you use transit, one-click – one call service, Wi-Fi service on
board new services and off-board fare vending options. The unified fare card will simplify payment
on multiple systems and convenient options to purchase fares.
9. Allows Future Flexibility:

The Connect Southeast Michigan plan provides $20 million annually for the creation of a new future
mobility fund that is intended to fund innovative mobility projects using the newest technology in
the industry. No other long-range regional transit plan in the U.S. has been identified that
dedicates more money over a 20-year period to prepare their region for the future of mobility.
10. Provides Immediate Infrastructure Upgrades & Long-Term Planning:

Immediate investment in our infrastructure to reduce automobile and transit congestion, improve
the speed of service by providing funds to upgrade up to 100 intersections per year with transit
priority signal upgrades, as well as funding to further study and design additional transit upgrades to
our system over time.

21
SUMMARY 6/13/18
G. Recommended Next Steps
Building upon the lessons learned after the narrow defeat in 2016, the Connect Southeast Michigan Plan
is a much-improved plan when compared to the 2016 RMTP. The feedback provided during the public
comment period by leaders of the region, our existing transit providers, the business and philanthropic
community, and the public only served to strengthen the plan. Staff believes this updated plan closes
the gaps in our system, increases service frequencies assuring our communities have expanded mobility
options to be able to get to their doctors’ appointments, to get to work, and will improve the overall
quality of life in our region.
On technical merit alone, there is no reason why this updated version of the Connect Southeast
Michigan Plan should not be allowed to be put on the ballot in November 2018 to allow our region’s
voters to decide if they concur with the conclusions identified in Section F.
When factoring in other externalities and undercurrents that exists in our region that are likely to impact
the implementation of the Connect Southeast Michigan Plan, it is clear that our regional leadership has
not reached consensus on advancing the plan for voter action in 2018.
Edward Hale summarized where regional transit stands today - -
We came together as a region following the narrow defeat and developed the framework for the
Connect Southeast Michigan Plan, this represented our beginning. Over the last several months,
despite the outward appearances of conflict, to date, our region leaders have committed to keep
together to continue to push forward to work on the need for better mobility. What is needed
however, is a greater will to work together to achieve a successful solution. Given the amount of
dialogue continuing to happen, the number of communities across the region who continue to provide
comments and the need to address the financial opinions raised by Oakland County RTA staff
recommends the following next steps:
CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF SUMMARY

22
6/13/18
1. We need to working together until we can address the outstanding concerns raised by
Oakland and Macomb Counties with the current version of the CSM. It will require
compromise from all parties.
2. Postpone the June FAC to allow additional time to hear on-going community comments.
Continue efforts to listen to concerns and educate communities, businesses and interested
stakeholders on the need for more mobility options in our region.
3. Respond to Oakland County Economic Development Committee requesting clarifications on
Financial Model used to build the Connect Southeast Michigan plan
4. Continue to work with the County Executives (deputies) and Mayor’s Office to pursue
possible legislative changes for a smaller property tax area. Continue to reach out to State
legislators to discuss the potential future request to modify the RTA enabling statute.
5. Work with HNTB to evaluate the impacts of reducing the taxing district to match the Core
Service Area defined in the proposed CSM plan, including the impacts of the proposed
additional services defined in Section F.
6. Incorporate feedback from the Board of Directors based on the proposed changes
recommended in Section F of this technical memorandum.
7. Report back to the Board in July/August on progress of 1-5 and the feasibility of possibly
taking action on a redefined Connect Southeast Michigan Plan.
RTA staff is committed to working with the Board and other key stakeholder to achieve a common
mobility solution for our region and stands ready to answer any questions at our upcoming June
15th joint committee meeting.
CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF SUMMARY

23
6/13/18

Rta Response To Public Hearings

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rta Response To Public Hearings

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Draft -

RTA Staff summary on

Prepared for RTA Board

June 13, 2018

• Section A - Overall Takeaways

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

Takeaway #5 – There are many competing infrastructure needs in our region

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

See Section F for responses to these suggested changes.

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

“23 Mile service seems excessive…”

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

o the M-59 service to Waterford/White Lake

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

6. Why is SMART Van Dyke service cut south of 15 Mile?

See response to question 4 above.

9. Concerning the Airports Express Service:

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

c) Will there be service quality and safety standards required?

e) Why is there no Airport Express Service from Downtown Detroit?

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

TABLE 1 PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

Date Event Location Attendance

Table 2 Additional Outreach Events

Some townships in the Hometown

Concerns were identified over the services

FIGURE 3 SURVEY PARTICIPANTS COUNTY OF ORIGIN

Macomb Oakland Washtenaw Wayne

TABLE 3 PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS BY AGE

Figure 4 DOES THE CURRENT TRANSIT SYSTEM MEET YOUR NEEDS?

Meets all of my needs 5%

Not at all 17%

Meets most of my needs 17%

Somewhat meets my needs 50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 5 WHY ARE YOU NOT A TRANSIT USER?

I require special services that are not provided 0%

None of the above 1%

Too complicated to use multiple systems 12%

There is not service in my area 14%

Will not take me where I need to go 15%

I prefer my car 14%

Takes too long 18%

Not convenient 26%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

FIGURE 6 SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN

Yes Maybe Undecided No

Combined Feedback Summary

FIGURE 7 COMBINED SUPPORT FIGURES FOR CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN

Regional Transit Framework Engagement

Telephone Town Halls

CONNECT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN PLAN – STAFF

PREPARED BY: HNTB Corporation

State Funding .......................................................................................................................................... 42