| D-DOT SUBURBAN BUS ROUTES - 1994 |
Shortly after entering office in January of 1994, Detroit's new mayor, Dennis W. Archer, attempted to
fulfill one of his campaign promises of merging the DDOT (city) and SMART (suburban) bus
operations. His first attempt resulted in a pilot program where duplicate bus operations along East
Jefferson, Michigan, John R. and Fort streets would merge, resulting in only one of the agencies
providing the service along each of those routes. The Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional
Transportation (SMART) bus system would operate all of the bus routes along Michigan and
Jefferson Avenues, while the city-run DDOT would operate the service along Fort Street and
John R.
Beginning on Saturday, June 25, 1994, the DDOT routes #25 E. Jefferson and #37 Michigan would
be coordinated into the SMART system, while the suburban SMART routes #125/130 Fort Street-
Detroit, #150 Taylor-Detroit (which also operated along Fort St) and the #495 John R. would fall
under the operation of the city-owned DDOT bus system.
It had been anticipated that merging the bus routes would save the systems money because service
along these routes were virtually duplicated by DDOT and SMART,...especially within the city of
Detroit. According to then SMART interim general manager and deputy Wayne County Executive
Michael Duggan, " ...sometimes SMART and DDOT buses are traveling bumper to bumper
up Jefferson. We're paying for two sets of drivers, two sets of mechanics."
Officials had also discussed plans for possibly merging the DDOT and SMART maintenance facilities.
If the pilot program of merging these routes proved successful, officials from both agencies next
planned to fully merge the two operations. However, there was a slight down side to this coordinated
service for some of SMART's patrons. Some suburban riders who used SMART routes into Detroit
during the off-peak hours now found that their lines were all "local." These routes now picked-up
passengers in both the suburbs and the city, instead of express (or "limited") operations in the city
limits, thus increasing travel time.
During this DDOT/SMART coordinated service arrangement, those DDOT coaches at that time which
came equipped with the computerized digital route signs were re-programed to display the #125/130
Fort, #150 Taylor and #495 Woodward-John R. route destinations. Since only the recently
purchased (1992) #3000-3100-series "high-floor" NewFlyer and the (1989) #2000-series MCI
(Canada) "Classic" coaches came equipped with the digital signs, these coaches were heavily used
on these former SMART routes. Window signs had to be used on the older "RTS" coaches whenever
they were assigned to these routes, since they still used the old sign-curtain roll signs.
Meanwhile, the unavailability of a dedicated funding source to support public transit in the region was
beginning to take its toll on the suburban SMART bus system. Financial problems at the SMART
operation had been mounting since the SEMTA years, and by the arrival of 1994 the transit agency
had approached a $20 million deficit. This prompted the SMART Board to attempt to seek a
dedicated transit tax in 1995 to eliminate its debt within five years. It was decided that a 0.33-mil
property tax would be asked of suburban voters in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties.
With the millage campaign now in motion to push support for a suburban transit tax to support
'suburban' bus service, angry responses began to be voiced by DDOT and city officials. The City
stated that it had agreed to the route merger plan only if a full-scale merger of DDOT and SMART
came next, which would have required a higher-mil "tri-county-wide" property tax. Mayor Archer
wanted a larger 0.8-mil tax to be levied in both the city and suburbs to support a merged system.
However, it was felt by many SMART and suburban officials that the passage of a tri-county wide tax
would be difficult, and opted for the suburban only approach.
According to then DDOT Director Albert Martin, in a Detroit Free Press article written during that
time, " ...DDOT (had) lost 10,000 daily riders in the joint venture with SMART. ...That
translates into an expected loss of nearly $700,000 in fare box revenue by June, the end of
the first year."
Because suburban officials had decided to seek passage of a tax to continue financing a separate
suburban bus system, DDOT officials decided to discontinue its nine month long cooperative
agreement with SMART. Consequently, effective Saturday, April 1, 1995, DDOT took back the
operation of its #25 E. Jefferson and #37 Michigan routes, while the SMART system resumed
operation of its previous routes along Fort and John R. streets. Thus, another attempt (one of many
since 1967) to merge the city and suburban bus operations had once again resulted in failure.
fulfill one of his campaign promises of merging the DDOT (city) and SMART (suburban) bus
operations. His first attempt resulted in a pilot program where duplicate bus operations along East
Jefferson, Michigan, John R. and Fort streets would merge, resulting in only one of the agencies
providing the service along each of those routes. The Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional
Transportation (SMART) bus system would operate all of the bus routes along Michigan and
Jefferson Avenues, while the city-run DDOT would operate the service along Fort Street and
John R.
Beginning on Saturday, June 25, 1994, the DDOT routes #25 E. Jefferson and #37 Michigan would
be coordinated into the SMART system, while the suburban SMART routes #125/130 Fort Street-
Detroit, #150 Taylor-Detroit (which also operated along Fort St) and the #495 John R. would fall
under the operation of the city-owned DDOT bus system.
It had been anticipated that merging the bus routes would save the systems money because service
along these routes were virtually duplicated by DDOT and SMART,...especially within the city of
Detroit. According to then SMART interim general manager and deputy Wayne County Executive
Michael Duggan, " ...sometimes SMART and DDOT buses are traveling bumper to bumper
up Jefferson. We're paying for two sets of drivers, two sets of mechanics."
Officials had also discussed plans for possibly merging the DDOT and SMART maintenance facilities.
If the pilot program of merging these routes proved successful, officials from both agencies next
planned to fully merge the two operations. However, there was a slight down side to this coordinated
service for some of SMART's patrons. Some suburban riders who used SMART routes into Detroit
during the off-peak hours now found that their lines were all "local." These routes now picked-up
passengers in both the suburbs and the city, instead of express (or "limited") operations in the city
limits, thus increasing travel time.
During this DDOT/SMART coordinated service arrangement, those DDOT coaches at that time which
came equipped with the computerized digital route signs were re-programed to display the #125/130
Fort, #150 Taylor and #495 Woodward-John R. route destinations. Since only the recently
purchased (1992) #3000-3100-series "high-floor" NewFlyer and the (1989) #2000-series MCI
(Canada) "Classic" coaches came equipped with the digital signs, these coaches were heavily used
on these former SMART routes. Window signs had to be used on the older "RTS" coaches whenever
they were assigned to these routes, since they still used the old sign-curtain roll signs.
Meanwhile, the unavailability of a dedicated funding source to support public transit in the region was
beginning to take its toll on the suburban SMART bus system. Financial problems at the SMART
operation had been mounting since the SEMTA years, and by the arrival of 1994 the transit agency
had approached a $20 million deficit. This prompted the SMART Board to attempt to seek a
dedicated transit tax in 1995 to eliminate its debt within five years. It was decided that a 0.33-mil
property tax would be asked of suburban voters in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties.
With the millage campaign now in motion to push support for a suburban transit tax to support
'suburban' bus service, angry responses began to be voiced by DDOT and city officials. The City
stated that it had agreed to the route merger plan only if a full-scale merger of DDOT and SMART
came next, which would have required a higher-mil "tri-county-wide" property tax. Mayor Archer
wanted a larger 0.8-mil tax to be levied in both the city and suburbs to support a merged system.
However, it was felt by many SMART and suburban officials that the passage of a tri-county wide tax
would be difficult, and opted for the suburban only approach.
According to then DDOT Director Albert Martin, in a Detroit Free Press article written during that
time, " ...DDOT (had) lost 10,000 daily riders in the joint venture with SMART. ...That
translates into an expected loss of nearly $700,000 in fare box revenue by June, the end of
the first year."
Because suburban officials had decided to seek passage of a tax to continue financing a separate
suburban bus system, DDOT officials decided to discontinue its nine month long cooperative
agreement with SMART. Consequently, effective Saturday, April 1, 1995, DDOT took back the
operation of its #25 E. Jefferson and #37 Michigan routes, while the SMART system resumed
operation of its previous routes along Fort and John R. streets. Thus, another attempt (one of many
since 1967) to merge the city and suburban bus operations had once again resulted in failure.
© 2007
| This map shows those routes followed by the #19 Fort and the #125/130 Fort Street-Detroit routes which were operated by DDOT during its 1994-95 joint venture with SMART. |
| This map shows the route of the SMART #150 Taylor-Detroit when operated by DDOT during the 1994-95 agreement with SMART. |
| The above map shows the two routes followed along Woodward Avenue by DDOT coaches during the 1994 consolidated route agreement. While one branch followed along the regular #53 Woodward route, the other followed the SMART route #495 John R. along John R. Street. |
Information for the above article was compiled from various Detroit newspapers articles courtesy of the Stan Sycko newspaper collection,
and from DDOT Route Update notices and bulletins archived in the author's collection. Additional information courtesy of Motor Coach
Age magazine article, "SEMTA and SMART" October-December 2003 edition, by Schramm and Campbell.
and from DDOT Route Update notices and bulletins archived in the author's collection. Additional information courtesy of Motor Coach
Age magazine article, "SEMTA and SMART" October-December 2003 edition, by Schramm and Campbell.