Is the SE Michigan Regional Public Transit Survey Giving You the Full Story?
- Patty P.
- Jun 14
- 6 min read
If you are a resident of Western Wayne County, you may have seen or heard about a survey titled "Southeast Michigan Regional Public Transit Survey," with the Canton Township logo on top. Residents should be leery of completing the survey, and skeptical if you hear a politician relying on it for truth. The survey is significantly biased towards individuals who use public transit, have a positive view of it, and will support a tax increase to expand it.
The survey is looking for public feedback on metro Detroit transit and claims responses will influence administrative decisions for all Western Wayne County communities. What about other Wayne County Communities? Based on the mixed messaging, it is unclear whose survey this is, Canton's or Wayne County's? Is this survey for Western Wayne County input or SE Michigan? There should be no ambiguity.
At first glance, the survey seems like a good-faith effort to gather community input on public transit services, asking residents about the current state and future changes. However, it fails to mention key facts: a state law was passed, taking away local rights, and changes come with a tax increase to previously opted-out communities. Take an even closer look, and you’ll see the survey leaves out other critical context regarding the history, current operations, and future of Wayne County Transit.
A Quiet Reversal of Local Control
Since the 1995 millage referendum, Wayne County municipalities have had the ability to opt-out of participating in the SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) transit system. At that time, 16 Wayne County communities opted out:
Belleville
Brownstown Township
Canton
Flat Rock
Gibraltar
Grosse Ile Township
Huron Township
Northville (City and Township)
Plymouth (City and Township)
Rockwood
Sumpter Township
Van Buren Township
Woodhaven
Livonia originally opted in, but then in 2005 a local Livonia ballot measure passed by a 55% yes vote to opt-out.
These local decisions weren’t arbitrary; they were based on community input and cost-benefit analyses that found SMART services did not justify the tax burden to residents. Many of these communities chose instead to fund their own senior or paratransit programs more effectively at the local level.
In December 2024, during Michigan's lame duck session, the Michigan House voted to strip those communities of their 30-year right to opt out. The Michigan Senate followed suit, and Governor Whitmer signed the bill into law. This reversed three decades of local autonomy—without a local vote, without service guarantees, and without community consent. Some state representatives and senators from Wayne County voted for HB-6088, i.e. they voted against the rights of their own constituents and communities. They didn't represent their districts; they undermined them.
The Current State of SMART
Residents deserve to understand what they’re being asked to fund. Here's the current reality of SMART operations:
Low usage: In communities that are already opted in, SMART buses average just 4.5 riders per bus. Just take a look for yourself the next time you come upon a SMART bus (if the bus windows aren't blacked out, that is).
Heavy subsidies: SMART operations are 97% subsidized. That means fare revenue barely covers any costs—taxpayers pick up nearly the entire tab.
Pension liabilities: SMART is facing a $71.8 million pension hole, a financial burden that could worsen if the system expands without real reform.
Separately-funded senior services:Â Most communities already have local systems in place; they are not funded by SMART taxes.
No local control: Municipalities don’t control where SMART routes go—or even whether their area gets service at all. Both Macomb and Oakland County, for example, have wide areas that are taxed while having no or minimal bus service.
SMART System Map
The Survey: What It Tells You—and What It Doesn’t
While the survey claims to seek public feedback, it doesn't present the full picture, which means residents are taking the survey without actually knowing WHY. Surveys should inform decisions—not shape outcomes through omission or assumption. People would answer differently if they knew all the facts.
Presumes expansion is the goal: Rather than neutrally assessing support for SMART or alternatives, the survey is biased toward assuming expansion is desirable and inevitable.
Omits key facts: Nowhere does it mention that all Western Wayne County and almost all Downriver communities previously opted out. Nor does it disclose the state’s December 2024 legislative override of that opt-out option or that a tax increase ballot initiative is on the way.
Lacks cost-benefit analysis: It avoids discussing that service is not tied to contribution or how it may affect residents' household budgets, especially in areas receiving little or no actual service in return.
No service guarantees: It doesn’t clarify that municipalities won’t control route placement, frequency, or even whether service arrives at all. The fact that they're asking for feedback implies just the opposite.
Bias Analysis
The first thing I noticed when analyzing the survey was that it didn't take advantage of branching functionality. Respondents should see different questions depending on their yes or no answer in question 1, which asks if someone has used transit in SE Michigan in the last 12 months. Questions 2, 3, & 4 are shown to the respondents who answered no. Likewise, question 5 if shown to respondents who answered yes.
Question 5 asks why someone hasn't used transit in the last 12 months, but only offers options that suggest issues with the transit system. It lacks choices like "I prefer to drive," "Transit is inconvenient," "It doesn't suit my lifestyle," or "I just don't want to use it," implying all non-use is due to transit failure. There's no option for lack of interest. Additionally, are the 12 responses randomized for each respondent to minimize bias caused by the order of the answers?
Question 6 asks the respondent to rank the locations they are most likely to use public transit. "Not applicable", "would not use", or similar concepts are not listed as a response. This question is leading and forces the user to respond. In this question, a non-response is a response, because the survey will just accept the default order as your response if you don't reorder it.
Question 8 asks what public transit services you would like to see incorporate or expanded into your community. There is no response for "none." There is a response for "other" with a free form text box, but the authors know that making it difficult to respond with "none" will make that answer less likely.
Questions 9 and 10 ask whether you use public transit when you travel outside of SE Michigan and include a freeform box to provide more information.
Question 11 is similar to question 8 and lists many of the same responses as 8. At least in question 11, there is an option for "none of the above."
Question 12 asks to check the box for which amenities are most important to include at bus stops. There is an option here for "none of the above." This question did not ask for a ranking, although every survey program makes it easy to create such a question.
The remainder of the questions ask some demographic data, which is good to help segment responses.
Finally, who is participating in the survey? Is the survey being circulated outside of Facebook and in-person responses at Canton Liberty Fest? Without a random selection process, sampling bias is likely to occur. The distribution of the survey participants is important.
Non-partisan Issue
Despite the strictly party-line vote in Lansing, local elected officials on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about the 2024 legislative override and the lack of transparency surrounding regional transit expansion.
To be clear, this conversation isn’t about opposing public transit. It’s about fairness, transparency, and local control. There are legitimate arguments for improving regional mobility—but they must be based on accurate data, open dialogue, and clear cost-benefit analysis. At our transit event on May 5, there was broad consensus amongst attendees that some form of public transit is needed. But in its current state? No. The system needs to be right-sized.
The current approach—eliminating local opt-out rights, issuing a biased survey, and proposing a countywide millage without guaranteed service—undermines public trust. Officials must provide their justification, if one exists, before asking residents to fund a system they didn't choose and may not benefit from.
What Residents Can Do
A SMART millage could appear on the ballot in 2026, but transit expansion is not final until it passes. Ballot wording is unknown at this time, as it will be a renewal in some Wayne County communities and a new tax in others.
If you live in an opted-out community, now is the time to speak up.
Ask:
Will we receive bus routes or public transit? When and how often?
What will it cost households annually?
Who decides if our needs are met, or if we're just subsidizing other areas?
If your State Rep or Senator voted to pass this bill, ask them to justify their vote which took away your rights.
Stay informed. Attend local meetings. Contact your city officials. Demand clarity.
The Bottom Line
Public transit is crucial but must serve those who fund it. A top-down, one-size-fits-all system risks wasting taxpayer money and eroding trust. Southeast Michigan voters need complete information before funding an expanded SMART system, as effective transit policy relies on good governance and accurate information.