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.

Despite public opinion, bus fares likely to go up

The Capital Times is reporting that, despite overwhelming public sentiment against the move, the city will likely increase bus fares when the final budget is passed.

I still don't think this is a good idea, and suspect that the increased fare may lower ridership or make it static enough so as to negate any financial benefit from the rate hike.

What I'm still in the process of finding out, too, is if the city currently has their fuel prices locked in, and if so, what that number is. In the past, they've been able to lock in at rates lower than the state average, saving them a good chunk of change. If that's still the case, then all this talk of the rate hike being related to higher fuel costs seems a bit dubious. That's not to say that the overall upward trend in prices isn't hurting them at all, but I'm skeptical of their claims that it's one of the main reasons for the increase. It doesn't help that offsetting fuel prices seems to be at the bottom of the list of things they'll do with the revenue.

I don't doubt that they're hurting. Everyone is. But I wonder if there are ways to shift the burden around so that it has less impact on essential services like mass transit. A few alders even made proposals that might have helped, but they were all rejected by the city's financial committee.

Presumably these are all people with a far better grasp on economics and the city/metro budget than I, but I can't help but wonder...and remain opposed to the rate hike.

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?")

Bike City

Just noticed this over at Atrios' corner o' the web: Bicing, a great public bike sharing program in Barcelona (a beautiful city for pedaling, by the way).

"Bike stations are placed strategically throughout the city, and subway stops usually have signs pointing to them. Members have a card which they swipe, they're told which bike to grab, and off they go. It isn't necessary to return the bikes to where you got them; they can be dropped off at any bicing station. The first half hour is free, and after that there's a bit of a surcharge. When the program began they set the annual membership fee at some absurd low figure like 7 Euros, causing most of the city to sign up. That's now been increased to 24 Euros.

It's apparently become quite popular with seniors, who use them for leisurely afternoon bike rides."

Seems like a pretty excellent idea to me. Here in Madison, we do have the Red Bikes program, courtesy of Budget Bicycle. Though you get the deposit back in the end, the initial cost is a bit too steep for many folks to afford. There's also the Bikes At Work Program, though I have doubts about its effectiveness, seeing as how they only provide a whopping five bikes for use and qualifications for use are pretty narrow.

With all the recent hubbub over Mayor Dave's now defunct Street Car proposal (no comment), this sort of program seems like a cheap, clean and good way of adding to the city's public transit options. That and actually expanding the Metro's service areas and times to make it an option for people who work second or third shifts.