Last week, the University"s transportation department announced that it is negotiating with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to turn over 60-90 percent of its operations to the municipal bus system. While the University"s bus system can be improved, eliminating any part of its operations will irrevocably damage service, may cost student jobs, and in the long run, will cost the University more than maintaining the current system. The public should evaluate the motives of those at both the University and AATA who are pursuing the proposed deal.

The Quality Issue

The University"s bus system currently operates a variety of routes from the busy Bursley-Baits route to the lightly used but critically-important Paratransit service. While the system is not perfect, the University attempts to meet the unique demands of University faculty, staff and students by assigning extra buses to accommodate the rushes before classes and running buses on the weekends and late at night. While the AATA has a high-tech fleet of buses, service will inevitably suffer: The AATA has no experience handling the unique demands currently met by the University bus system and would be forced to radically alter its operating practices to match what the University achieves on a daily basis.

An internal transportation department memo obtained by The Michigan Daily reveals that the University anticipates a reduction in service quality the memo suggests that the AATA " start with routes that are "less risky" and do not serve the employee population heavily we are open to severe criticism if faculty and staff are not happy with the AATA service."

The AATA will most likely be less responsive to student desires than the current University system. The campus bus service relies heavily on students for temporary and part-time drivers, and in the past, routes have been changed to reflect student/driver input. The AATA has no experience running routes like the Bursley-Baits shuttle that requires 2-3 minute service at certain peak times in the day. Even if the AATA makes radical changes to their operating practices, it is possible that they could merely integrate current University routes into AATA crosstown routes making them less convenient for students and faculty satisfied with the current shuttle routes.

Accountability

Unlike the University"s bus system, the AATA receives funding from state and national sources and it would not be directly responsible to University needs. Among the drivers voicing the most vigorous opposition to an AATA takeover at an employee meeting were former AATA drivers. Since the University bus system receives funding directly from the University"s general fund and employs many students as drivers, The University would be more sensitive to student needs than the AATA would be.

Student Jobs

The campus system also employs many student bus drivers and generally offers better a working environment than the AATA. The University claims students will not lose their jobs, but the inevitable outcome of any takeover of the University bus system by AATA will be a decreased total number of student-drivers hired by the University.

Unlike AATA, the transportation department provides training and flexible hours to student-drivers, and reducing the size of the University"s bus system will reduce or eliminate these opportunities. Although the number of University drivers will probably be reduced through attrition, student jobs and the training opportunities and flexible hours will inevitably be lost.

A Costly Proposition

While the AATA has underbid the University"s transportation department for operating some University bus routes, relinquishing bus routes to the AATA will cost the University more than maintaining the current system. The AATA currently operates at $75 per operating hour the ratio of all costs divided by the number of hours AATA buses are in operation.

Because of lower overhead and fewer technological amenities on buses, the University operates at about $40 per operating hour. If the AATA stays at its current operating costs, there are very few reasons why the organization should pick up campus routes. But it is also unlikely that the AATA could underbid the University which is operating a much lower dollar per hour value.

Although the transportation department may be able to save money in the short run by paying AATA to operate some of its routes instead of replacing the aging bus fleet, in the long run the University can save money by maintaining the current bus system.

Positive Benefits?

Proponents of the AATA takeover of the current University bus system most notably AATA Executive Director Greg Cook see the merger as beneficial to students because under the partnerships, students would ride all AATA buses for free.