Last Wednesday night, as part of the process of passing the city’s budget, the Madison City Council voted to increase Madison Metro bus fares from $1.50 per ride to $2. The change came mostly as a result of increased costs, led by rising fuel costs, which the Mayor’s office says have gone up 230 percent since the last increase in fares.

Clearly the city has a vested interest in having people ride buses. They help keep streets free from traffic jams and help lower carbon emissions. In recognition of these societal benefits, various levels of government heavily subsidize the cost of a bus ride. The average cost per ride is $3.13, yet on average those riding the buses pay only 88 cents

per ride. After the proposed increase in fares, the average cost paid per ride would rise to only $1.10, the difference coming from various bus passes that allow passengers to purchase rides for less than the sticker price.

The arguments in support of the increase in fares are pretty straightforward. Costs continue to rise over time due to inflation, and fares ought to increase to keep up with the rising costs. The last fare increase up to $1.50 per ride was in 2000. According to the Consumer Price Index, the measure of how much prices increase each year kept by

the federal government, it would take $1.91 in 2008 dollars to have the same purchasing power as that $1.50 in 2000. However, the CPI measures the increase in price of all goods, and the price of fuel for the buses has far outstripped other items — hence the 230 percent increase in the cost of fuel. Considering the average pace of inflation, the fare increase easily falls within the realm of a reasonable increase to keep up with rising costs.

The increase in fares will also mean the cost to ride a bus around downtown Madison will be the same as the cost to catch a ride on one in Chicago or Milwaukee. Considering the lower population density and resulting decrease in efficiency of the bus system, it’s not too bad of a deal.

The primary argument advanced in opposition to the increase was that those who ride the buses are those least able to afford the increase. While this may have some semblance of truth, ultimately having people who use the buses most pay for an increased share of the costs is the best solution.

The problem with those who oppose the increase out of sympathy for lower-income bus riders is that in their rush to prevent bus passengers from paying more they disregard the fact that someone ultimately has to pay for it. Those people are not necessarily from a higher tax bracket or any better off than frequent bus riders. There are thousands of low-income people who don’t live along a bus route or need to go places where the buses don’t. Think of a single mom who needs to rush home from work in order to get her child to soccer practice on time.

Even if the funds to avoid a fare increase were raised through an Obama-style “tax on the rich,” the opportunity to use that money to help those people through some other government expenditure would be lost.

Multiple amendments were proposed and defeated to delay road repairs in order to adequately finance Madison Metro without an increase in the bus fares, the argument being that low bus fares were of a higher priority than the road construction. This line of reasoning takes a flawed approach to the budget. The budget should not be constructed by deciding upon a tax level and then resolving to spend all the generated revenue. Rather, each expenditure ought to be justifiable based on its own merits. If appropriating funding to repair certain roads is irresponsible fiscal policy, then it is irresponsible fiscal policy regardless of whether it accompanies an increase in bus fares or not.

Some have expressed concern over the impact the increase in fares might have on the ASM-sponsored, unlimited-ride bus passes given out free to students. Currently, the contract to provide those passes runs through the summer of 2010, thus locking the reduced rate that comes out of our segregated fees for each ride. However, as long as there is inflation, chances are that at the end of our contract, a higher fare would have

been negotiated anyway.

Just as those who for whatever reason can’t ride the buses are forced to bear the costs of their own transportation, there is no reason bus riders ought not continue to contribute to the increasing costs of their heavily-subsidized mode of transportation.