In a nation so geared towards the automobile in virtually all aspects of its life as ours, public transportation has a notoriously hard time getting the necessary funding to provide a decent alternative. The Madison area is no exception, with the result that Metro Transit faces a funding crisis.

Earlier this month the Madison Metro Transit System, i.e. Madison’s municipal buses, raised its fares across the board, the price of a single ridership ticket soaring a whopping 33 percent, from $1.50 to $2.00 – and that in the middle of the worst recession in 75 years and in the face of a lot of opposition, including from the city’s own Transit and Parking Commission. ‘Faut le faire!’ as the French say (‘It takes guts!’ – or stupidity, depending on how you look at it).

Critics on a mission, like this newspaper, who compare Madison’s bus system to European municipal bus systems, often despair at Madison’s high fare prices, low level of bus service especially outside the Isthmus area, and the generally poor state of public transportation infrastructure, such as dedicated bus lanes and traffic signals or simply the lack of posted schedules at most bus stops.

It is of course easy to dismiss these comparisons as unfair. After all, European cities (and countries) have a much deeper tradition of public transportation than American cities and states. But it is also true that in America we have made the conscious choice to favor the automobile over public transportation and it still shows in land-use decisions made every day by planning departments in villages, towns and counties all over the state.

So, what does a comparison with other transit systems in the United States, which some would argue is more appropriate, reveal about Madison Metro? A report prepared in September of last year by Abrams-Cherwony & Associates for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation compared Madison Metro Transit with eleven other northern systems (‘peer systems’) chosen for having similar size characteristics and modes of service (Albany, New York; Dayton, Ohio; Hartford, Connecticut; Indianapolis; Omaha, Nebraska; Rochester, Rhode Island; Spokane, Washington; Syracuse, New York; Tacoma, Washington; Toledo, Ohio), and with eight other systems chosen to evaluate the per capita performance (‘population peer group’: Ann Arbor, Michigan; Reading, Pennsylvania; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Erie, Pennsylvania; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Knoxville, Tennessee; Lincoln, Nebraska; Lexington, Kentucky).

The report concludes: The results of the peer group and trend analysis show that Metro Transit is a smaller system than the peer average in terms of the amount of service supplied and the dollar amount needed to maintain the current level of service in the Metro Transit service area. Metro Transit also receives a lower level of operating and capital funding compared with the peer average, which has a direct effect on the amount of service that can be provided and hinders Metro Transit’s ability to plan and implement new projects and services that would improve public transit in the service area. However, because the City of Madison is the location of a major university and also the state capital, Metro Transit has the advantage of having a large market of residents who are typically more likely to ride transit and as a result carries more passengers and exhibits much better passenger productivity levels compared to the larger peer systems. Further, Metro Transit far exceeds its service area population peers in terms of the level of service on a per capita basis.

Overall, the comparison report shows Madison Metro in a pretty good light: Metro Transit is generally a more cost effi cient and cost effective agency compared to the peers, with half of the cost measures being better than the peer average and the other half only slightly below average. In addition, Metro Transit generally does a better job than the peer group at containing cost increases, which is an improvement from the 2003 performance review when Metro Transit’s operating costs increased at a higher rate than the peer average. However, the cost increases at that time were justifi ed on the basis that Metro Transit had to provide a higher level of service to meet higher demand. Although ridership increased on the Metro Transit system during the most recent review period, the agency did not provide a substantial increase in service, which would have resulted in higher operating costs. Finally, Metro Transit is above the peer average as measured by the percentage of operating costs that are allocated for operations. This performance indicates that Metro Transit spends more of its resources on providing service while spending less on administrative functions.

Chuck Kamp, who took over as Transit general manager in 2006 after a long career in public transportation, including in Washington D.C. and Appleton, is fully aware of Madison Metro’s shortcomings (while we ride the number four bus from Baldwin Street to the Square he marvels at public transportation systems he has used in Europe; that bus, by the way, was full, even though it was in the middle of the day and not at a peak time).

But he also points out positive aspects of Metro Transit, like improvements in customer service, which range from electronic announcement boards at bus shelters on the Square that provide passengers with precise information about bus arrivals, and an instant email and text messaging alert system about last-minute route and schedule changes that people have signed up for in the thousands, to cameras on buses (“we have seen the positive results of these cameras as being preventive tools; we have seen videos of kids coming on buses looking for trouble – they look at those cameras and they get off”), an online trip-planner that takes much of the guesswork out of figuring out which buses to take when (it does indeed work quite well once one has figured out how it works), and real-live customer service reps that take care of all customer questions and complaints within ten business days (that’s the theory; the practice is very close).

Madison Metro operates a fleet of 200 buses and 20 para-transit vehicles. The heavy-duty buses are federally required to last for 12 years or 500,000 miles, whichever comes first. As Chuck Kamp explains, Madison has a very good maintenance program, so some of the buses that we are retiring now were built in 1992 and 1993, so we exceed that federal minimum.

Five of the new buses hybrids, which have been tested for a year and a half: We have been satisfied from a maintenance standpoint, the quietness, the customer experience and a fuel economy standpoint that they work well and through the economic stimulus package we are going to buy 18 of them with 100 percent federal funding. They save about 30 percent fuel; we get five to five and a half miles per gallon compared to four or four and a half miles per gallon.

The cost of a typical bus is about $310,000, while a hybrid costs about $490,000.

In 2008 Madison Metro carried more than 13.43 million passengers (plus 250,000 for para-transit), up from 12.67 million in 2007 and just over 12 million in 2006. It is in fact the highest number of passengers since 1979, when 13.95 million riders boarded a bus. The most recent low-point was in 1989 when just over nine million people took the bus.

When asked to describe the situation Madison Metro is currently in, Chuck Kamp says: We are in the interesting mix of the best of times and the worst of times. The best of times in that ridership is increasing rapidly at five to six percent a year, we are getting requests from outside jurisdictions to explain how Metro works and I think those municipalities are beginning to entertain the thought of potentially being part of our regional system. All those are good signals. But we are also in challenging times because for years, not just in Madison, but all over the United States, public transit systems and their funding structures in particular have not worked well. I would describe our funding for transit as ‘broken’.

Why?

Well, a couple of things. Number one: State funding for Metro and other transit systems has dropped from about 42 percent of our budget ten years ago to 35 percent for Metro. Now, the state of Wisconsin is ranked number 14 in the nation in terms of the best transit funding at the state level. We have to manage that decline in state funding of seven percentage points, which on a $50 million budget represents $3.5. So we have to find the difference from very limited sources, from either the taxpayers or the riders. The city of Madison’s tax levy for public transportation went up 35 percent in four years – more than any other municipal service like police or fire department. That’s not sustainable. So this year we had to increase our fares. Nobody wanted to do it, but we had to. We are at a funding crossroads. Our funding structure is not sound, it is not stable, it is not predictable and it is not sustainable. And that has to be corrected.

But Chuck Kamp does see some light at the end of the tunnel: I am encouraged that there is now draft legislation that would allow municipalities, counties or a combination to form regional transit authorities and use up to a half-cent sales tax for funding. Now I know that is a new tax, but we need a regional transit authority, regardless of what happens with a new rail system. If we are going to start working with Stoughton, if we are going to expand services in Fitchburg and Middleton, and we are getting requests from Cross Plains, Waunakee and Westport, if we are going to seriously look at that kind of service expansion, then we need a regional transit authority. I don’t think we can rely on the federal government for a lot more money; I don’t think we can rely on the state, given its budget problems, for significantly more money. We have to rely on local support for public transportation.

Since the Madison mayor and the county executive have tentatively set the fall of 2010 as a date to have a referendum about the RTA (regional transit authority), the earliest a new funding mechanism could be in place would be for Madison Metro’s 2012 budget. Until then things will be tight, although Chuck Kamp rules out any more fare increases (“into the indefinite future”), asking surrounding municipalities for more funding instead and using admittedly controversial money sources, such as advertising.

Back in his office, Chuck Kamp and his planning team spread out ridership maps to show why Madison Metro provides great service in some areas and sketchy service at best in others. It all comes down to population density: the denser an area is populated and the more compact the development, the better for public transportation. In the suburbs, however, land-use practices work against public transportation: Public transportation works less well in areas on our fringes where the density of development and the availability of free parking is expansive, and I would say, excessive. It’s poor land-use, but that is our country’s way now, and it has been for 60 or 70 years. We need to change that.