The good news for Feb. 19, 2009

I can't work up a full post today, so instead I'm going to offer you the thoughts and news of other, far more motivated people. I hope you'll take a moment to read them, and then check back here tomorrow, when I will again attempt to write something more substantial.

• [The Daily Page] Transportation analyst Tim Wong (who served on the Madison TPC for five years before getting the boot from the mayor) has a pretty interesting and well-fleshed out argument for why bus fares in the city should not be increased. I'm inclined to agree.
• [Discovery] The smartypants over at MIT have come up with this neat gizmo for your bike called the Green Wheel. It's an electric assist hub that recharges through pedaling and plug-in, but doesn't actually rub up against any part of your bike (Bluetooth technology!) so provides a much smoother ride. Plus, it looks like it will be a lot cheaper than existing electric hubs. Very cool.
• [Dane101] Things to do in Madison when you're (not) dead. Music, this weekend, so much!
• [SPLC] This is not good news. In fact, it's quite disturbing. Racist extremists are finding a foothold in our nation's armed forces, but officials continue to deny that there's a problem. Happily, the SPLC (my civil rights law firm crush) is on the case.
• [Wonkette] Rick Santorum still an idiot, last name still hilarious.
  

Which is it, Mayor Dave?

I'm trying to parse the various possible results of different bus fare increases (or lack thereof) being put out by a whole cadre of city officials.

Last night, the Transit & Parking Commission voted to increase the current fare from $1.50 to $1.75, a "compromise" over the increase to $2.00 that the Mayor and others wanted. According to Alder Brenda Konkel, the discussion and voting process seemed a little confused and muddled, and no one appeared to be terribly happy with how things went down.

Mayor Dave, in his blog post today regarding the vote, expressed his concerns with the decision. What he said, though, seemed to contradict itself:

My conclusion was (and still is) that the bigger increase was better because the smaller increase is the worst of both worlds: higher fares for, at best, the same service. By going to $2.00 we could actually increase service for the first time in years and provide a lot of other improvements. A smaller increase doesn't get us much; it's just running in place. And it sets us up for the possibility of another fare increase pretty soon with, again, no service expansions.

Which is it? The immediate increase to $2 equals expanded service "for the first time in years" and "a lot of other improvements"? Or will it result in "no service expansions" as he suggests would be the case if fares were upped to $2 in a slightly more incremental fashion?

Additionally, is the smaller increase "just running in place," as Mayor Dave suggests here, or will it result in the doomsday scenario recently laid out by Chuck Kamp, Transit General Manager.

Look, I don't doubt that Metro is hurting for funds, and I'm a huge proponent of substantial, efficient, and affordable public transportation. Given the historic upswing in ridership numbers, coupled with the shrinking of the average bus rider's pocketbook, shouldn't we be looking for ways to provide those services that don't place such a large burden on the people most in need?

I strongly suspect that the Mayor, Kamp, and most of the other people directly involved in the life and health of Metro have its best interests in mind, and are working hard on making the most of a pretty crappy situation. The public could stand for slightly more straight-forward answers and information on the subject, though.

We could also stand for a society that placed more emphasis on funding public, mass-transit solutions and less on building huge interstates and propping up those companies that stubbornly insisted on continuing to build gas-guzzling vehicles. Just a thought, anyway, but that's a whole other set of issues.

A study in editorial contrasts - bus edition

The Wisconsin State Journal and the Capital Times have long been held to be opposing voices when it comes to their editorials. The WSJ tends to hang a little to the right, and the Cap Times tends to hang a little to the left. And when the issues aren't necessarily of the partisan kind, they still do a good job of staying as far away from the others' opinion as possible.

Case-in-point: In the debate over whether or not to raise bus fares in the city of Madison to $2, the WSJ argues that yes, absolutely they should go up. The Cap Times, of course, argues the opposite. The language used in both editorials could not be more different. Whereas the WSJ uses words like "reasonable" and "modest" to describe the proposed rate hike, the Cap Times turns to descriptions like "dramatically" and "massive".

Personally, I think both editorials have a few worthwhile points. I also think they both fall flat in other areas.

In addressing a proposed amendment that would add a slight increase to property taxes to help avoid a rate hike, the WSJ complains that "It's time for those who actually ride the buses to contribute a bit more to maintain routes and improve service." While I certainly understand the concern of property taxpayers, I've got two issues with this. 1) Property taxpayers do ride the bus, too (shock! I know!). I know a few personally. 2) I don't think shifting the burden entirely onto the shoulders of frequent bus riders is the right thing to do. It is, in fact, quite insensitive to the facts about a lot of regular riders.

While it's true that a wide range of people from all different income brackets and walks of life use the bus, those who most rely on the service tend to be working class, or handicapped, or students (or any combination thereof). As a society, it behooves us to care for those most at risk. This must be balanced with personal accountability and responsibility on the part of those being helped, absolutely, but we cannot place the full financial burden of something as essential as the bus system on them and not expect it and them to crumble under the weight.

We should be encouraging more people to use mass transit, not vice versa. That means keeping it affordable, and finding other ways to fund it. Alders Brian Solomon and Satya Rhodes-Conway have proposed an amendment to the Mayor's budget that would do a lot (not all) to address this issue.

It would "delete the fare increase and save money in other ways. For example, Metro could bring in $40,000 in extra revenue by eliminating free rides on Clean Air Action days" (not sure how I feel about that, but if it helps keep fares low, it's worth considering). They also propose reallocating $100,000 in fuel savings, as apparently fuel costs were not as great as anticipated this year. The amendment also calls for an expansion of service, better marketing, and the implementation of new security programs at transfer points (which apparently involves a $25,000 cut, so that warrants further scrutiny).

While these measures may not be the end-all-be-all of the problem, they are a good example of the kind of creative and innovative efforts to reorganize so that the burden is not on the riders themselves.

Back over at the Cap Times editorial, while I generally agree with their ultimate point, their doom and gloom language does feel a little over the top. While I, and others, strongly suspect that a rate increase would have adverse effects on riders and ridership, until actual studies on the subject are done, no concrete conclusions can really be reached. Still, rather alarmist-ly, they ask:

Did right-wing critics of mass transportation take charge, in coalition with global warming deniers? Are the fantasists who would have us believe that our bus system is underutilized and unnecessary pulling a silent coup? Has a once progressive city suddenly forgotten that mass transit decisions go to the very heart of questions about equity and access for all to employment, education and culture?

I really don't get the impression that this all stems from some vast right-wing conspiracy. Rather, it strikes me as an honest debate over how to best address the severe budget shortfalls the city is facing. While there are some on the pro-hike side of the argument who seem to think that bus riders are all lazy liberal professors, the majority, I believe, are really trying to do the right thing. It's a complex issue, and one without an easy answer.

Ultimately, I do believe that it's in the best interests of the city to make sure public transportation is as affordable and convenient as possible. People rely on it to get to work, school, and other commitments. An employed, educated citizenry benefits everyone.

Will hiking bus fares hurt more than help?

Mayor Dave Cieslewicz today announces his proposed 2009 city operating budget, calling it a "share the pain" plan, reflecting the increasingly difficult economic times we're all living in. It does look like he's honestly trying to make things work as best they can for everyone without dramatically cutting services, and I applaud him for being willing to make such tough decisions.

So far, most of the proposed budget looks fairly reasonable, though I've yet to see anything more detailed than a bullet pointed list of its features.

The one thing that does have me concerned so far, though, is the proposal to raise bus fares by fifty cents, up to two dollars per ride. There is also mention of how the plan also "Doubles funding to $80,000 to help those with low-incomes" but I'm not entirely sure what that means. That's important, because while it's good that the plan calls for expanding service, the good that does may be offset by an increase in the base fare. People working with tight personal budgets often rely on the bus to get them to and from their jobs. Fifty cents may not seem like much to some of us lucky souls, but for someone who uses the bus on a regular basis just to get to work, it adds up right quickly.

I can't help but wonder if it shouldn't be possible to expand service without hiking rates, especially since ridership is at all-time highs. It's a trend we're seeing nationwide, largely due to the increased cost of gas, and most experts seem to agree that the trend will only continue in the long-run. Shouldn't this mean that Metro is taking in more revenue from riders? And shouldn't that help to offset some of the costs associated with the proposed rate hike? I'm asking this honestly, because I don't know the precise details of how things work at Metro and what everything costs.

I'm concerned, though, because if there does absolutely need to be a rate increase, it absolutely should be coupled with some sort of program to help lower income riders.

I drove for Women's Transit Authority for a year, shortly before it went under, and had the chance to get to know a number of hard working women who relied on our (free) service to get to and from (often several) jobs. They were also big bus riders, though had many seemingly legitimate complaints about route cuts and overall service. Many had been entirely left behind when Metro retooled how it ran a number of years ago (the switch from lettered to numbered routes). One woman who worked at St. Mary's Care Center out on Madison's west side had called Metro to see if they picked up anywhere nearby, only to be assured that there was a bus stop "just about a mile away" - a bus stop, it turned out, that was over a mile away over an unlit hill in the middle of the country, and one that didn't run late enough to pick her up from her second shift job.

I understand that the buses can't feasibly serve everyone all of the time, but it seems like there are currently holes that could be filled. And it seems reasonable that we should be putting some extra resources into helping expand and better the service of something that helps ease congestion on our roads, lower the amount of pollutants being spewed into the air, and provides a lower cost way for people on smaller incomes to get around.

Heck, maybe we could take some of the money from the proposed I-94 expansion and put it toward Metro service instead. It's an idea, anyway.

I'll be curious to read a more detailed report of the mayor's budget, and what exactly that money to "help those with low incomes" is for. I just want to make sure we keep in mind how difficult even a fifty cent increase in fares can be for a lot of the people who rely the most on the service.

UPDATE TO ADD: Brenda Konkel posted the slightly more specific ways in which the higher rates would be used (she's also pretty miffed about the budget cutting funding for Community Services agencies, and I don't blame her). I'm still trying to find out more information about this supposed "Transit for Jobs" program that's mentioned, and what exactly they're doing to defray costs for lower income riders. Plus, it's looking like higher fuel costs aren't really the main reason for the increase. Interesting.

***

On a somewhat related note, I was very excited to read this article in the Chicago Tribune. It notes how Congress recently passed, by a veto-proof margin, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act, which, while spurred on by the recent tragic Amtrak accident in California, also includes some major provisions for expanding rail service nationwide:

The landmark legislation, which the White House said President George W. Bush will sign, calls for almost doubling the federal funding provided to Amtrak—about $13.1 billion over five years.

Among other precedents, it authorizes $3.4 billion to create high-speed passenger rail corridors and provide rail capital-improvement grants to states.

The ambitious project proposed for the Midwest would cover 3,000 miles in nine states. All lines would radiate from a hub in downtown Chicago. The cost of a fully completed Midwest network is estimated at almost $8 billion.

...

Planners envision the line running from Chicago up through Milwaukee, Madison, the Twin Cities and eventually Duluth, while separate routes from Chicago would extend east to Detroit, Cleveland and Cincinnati.

Can I just tell you how excited I am about that? I have been chomping at the bit for passenger rail service between Chicago and Madison, at the very least, ever since moving here. I would seriously use this about once a month, if not more, and I know a lot of other folks who feel the same way. It's good to see that lawmakers and others are finally sitting up and taking notice that we've become far too reliant on cars in this nation, and that good, reliable train and bus service should be just as, if not more so, funded as highway construction and the like. It's a shame that it's taken skyrocketing fuel costs for this to happen, but better late than never, I figure.

h/t Fearful Symmetries.

("ssshhh, baby listen, hear the train?")