News
Bus fare bump draws dissent
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Becky Vevea:
- Supervisor's efforts to stay in touch fall short (December 11, 2008)
- Eagon to join race for student district (December 11, 2008)
- Man dies from beating (December 10, 2008)
- Student starts up City Council effort (December 10, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
A number of Madison residents voiced their concerns Tuesday regarding Metro bus fares increasing next year, proposing instead to cut back on road improvements.
However, the City Council voted to keep funding for road projects at their proposed levels.
The public testimonies kicked off the City Council’s long process of approving the city’s budget Tuesday night.
Residents who spoke against the fare increase opposed the large number of road improvements included in the mayor’s capital budget and proposed to delay those projects and use the money saved toward Metro operation and improvements.
“The mayor’s roads-to-nowhere air of Palinism,” Madison resident Mike Barrett said.
Several residents noted the increase could cause a decrease in ridership, causing negative effects on the environment by forcing more people to use cars and on the economy by forcing people to spend less money on other things.
“Without a critical mass of riders, service will cut back,” Madison resident Barbara Smith said. “We need to increase bus ridership, not decrease it. … Raising fares to $2 would be a disaster for people on fixed incomes.”
Ald. Marsha Rummel, District 6, and Ald. Robbie Webber, District 5, proposed five amendments to the capital budget that would delay a number of road improvement projects, many of which are on the edge of the city.
The amendments to delay projects along County Highway M were not adopted by the council after debating the issue, meaning the city will fund these projects and not use the saved money to keep bus fares stagnant.
The fate of bus fares will be voted on during the budget meetings over the next two days.
“I don’t see what one year of waiting (to start the road improvements) really gets us,” Larry Nelson, director of city engineering, said.
Ald. Paul Skidmore, District 9, whose district includes part of the highway, said delaying the improvement projects would limit the success of the neighborhood plans for the affected areas, but Webber disagreed.
“To say that the neighborhood plan has these projects in it is false,” Webber said. “Maybe they should, but they don’t, and I’ve seen them.”
Webber said because the road improvements are on the edge of the city, the county has the same level of responsibility, if not more, in funding the projects. She added they have refused to fund them because they know the city ultimately will.
County Board Supervisor Carousel Andrea Bayrd spoke against the bus fare increase because it is already too expensive for many individuals living in her district. She urged the council to be creative with ways to keep the bus fare at a normal level.
“These are individuals who do not have enough money now to pay for it. … They are terrified of the change,” Bayrd said of the people who ride the buses with her in the district.
Bayrd said the increase would also discourage middle-class riders, such as those who live in her neighborhood in the Midvale Heights area, to ride the bus as a way to protect the environment.
Among the road improvement projects that will be included in the 2009 capital budget is the Gilman Street reconstruction project, which would renovate Gilman Street between University Avenue and North Henry Street
The renovation is part of the Downtown Improvement plan that started in summer 2003 with the renovation of State Street. The amendment to include the project passed easily because most of its funding is coming from tax incremental financing.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
If it costs more to operate the bus, explain to me why the riders shouldn’t bear that cost?
Expanding bus service does little if anything positive for the city. Improving roads increases property value and attracts businesses/jobs. Good roads are needed for the transportation of goods. Oh yeah, and nearly everyone drives a car and uses them unlike the bus.
Guess what bus riders, raising the fairs may “force people to spend less money on other things”. If you can’t afford to own a car, do you think you might have a problem with your money management, and maybe it isn’t such a bad thing for you to be spending less money on crap? And claiming that raising fares will hurt the economy is total bull. What about the rest of the taxpayers that have to pick up the bill?
Wow, is that an unnecessarily mean and narrowly-focused POV.
In case you haven’t noticed, the streets in and surrounding Madison have become very congested. As the population grows, mass transit needs to serve a larger portion of the community, and people’s driving habits will need to change. Here’s a small example: More than 6x as many people are in the downtown Madison area and UW campus than there are parking lots to accommodate them.
We need to keep the cost of riding the bus as competitive as possible to promote ridership - THEN raise the fares when revenue is up from ridership. The bus is an inconvenience compared to the ease and privacy of driving a car, but it’s the answer to our congested roads, costs of driving, and environmental needs.
The idea that somehow enhancing Gillman St. and State St. downtown is laughable. Ditto the outlying roads the County budget doesn’t want to kick in for.
And - thanks to the crackerjack reporters on this topic! Much better than the WSJ and CapTimes this week. You rock.
The argument is about priorities. If the city is increasing the cost of bus fare, and spending money on new road projects, it will only serve to increase car commuting and decrease bus use. Road money should be diverted to expand bus service and keep bus fares low, not make it easier for car commuters to get into the city.
See, here’s the deal. If you increase bus fare enough the homeless and scuzzballs can’t ride. As a result, the bus becomes more attractive to the working folks, who stopped riding because on their last bus trip three years ago Mr. Pantspisser left a yellow pond to wade across. Since the homeless are also carless, but working folks have cars, the increase in fare results in the carless homeless/scuzzballs walking and the working folks taking the bus and leaving their cars in the garage.
“The argument is about priorities. If the city is increasing the cost of bus fare, and spending money on new road projects, it will only serve to increase car commuting and decrease bus use.”
Yeah, GREAT argument, except you forget one thing: the buses you speak of use those same roads you’re against fixing. The less you spend on keeping road in good repair is that much more you’ll be spending keeping those buses fixed up.
I see your paper was like the Cap Times and WSJ and didn’t note the affiliations of the two residents you quoted. One is the VP of the Madison Area Bus Advocates, and runs a planning consultant whose signature initiative is to pay people to not drive their cars to work. The other is Secretary of the MABA. I understand that there probably wasn’t a resident there who wasn’t driven by some kind of organizational agenda, but it’s important to note if the speakers have those kinds of affiliations.