So, when the Transit and Parking Commission voted 7 – 2 to reject the fare increases for Madison Metro, many wondered what the Mayor’s response would be and if indeed he would make good on his promise to not reappoint people who disagree with him. Well, here’s his initial response:
Dear Common Council Colleagues,
Last night the Transit and Parking Commission voted to reject the fare increase that I and a majority of the Council supported. The TPC took this action based in part on last minute information printed off the Web regarding a national elasticity model. In doing so the TPC chose to ignore the detailed analysis for Madison prepared by dedicated Metro staff. Moreover, the TPC dealt with only half the equation, failing to recommend how Metro’s budget should be cut to make up for the $682,000 hole they created.
In response to the TPC action, I have asked Metro staff to:
* Prepare a list of service cuts for the TPC for its consideration at its next meeting.
* Analyze and respond to the late information on elasticity that formed the justification for TPC’s vote last night.
My hope is that confronted with the direct results of their action, the TPC will reconsider its vote at its next meeting in January.
Twelve of you took a courageous vote when you voted to support the fare increase. There was no political advantage in doing so. I remain convinced, as I hope you do as well, that a fare increase, while never popular, is the only way to guarantee the short and long-term strength and financial viability of our Metro system.
Sincerely,
Dave Cieslewicz
I have many responses to his response, but none better than this one posted to several listserves:
Dear friends,
The mayor has chosen his words carefully, and created a clear message. Unfortunately such messages, while serving political intent, can be overly simplified and as a result incomplete if not inaccurate. As a member of TPC who, after much careful consideration, voted against the fare increase, I feel that it is important to make sure that the alders and all citizens concerned about Metro’s future have a full understanding of why the TPC voted by a wide margin against the fare increase. My own reasoning follows. I would certainly encourage other members of TPC to communicate their reasoning as well. We will all need to work hard now to ensure that the council understands our concern, and the important reasons for opposition to a fare increase.I will begin by saying that the mayor is correct in stating that an important consideration was the alternative elasticity estimates of a national transit organization as opposed to those used in Metro’s budgeting estimates. But here I am very troubled and disappointed by the mayor’s characterization; he makes it sound like we randomly pulled these off some web site and disregarded the work of Metro’s staff. The truth of the matter is that the alternative numbers come from careful compilations made by the most respected transit organization in the country, and made by carefully isolating fare increases from other confounding factors in determining the impact of fare increases on lost ridership. By Metro’s own admission the models used by Metro have been impossible to validate due to a combination of confounding factors (changes in fuel prices and/or parking fees at the same time as fares were changed, and the implementation of ride passes), and the inability to track the needed ride data. The national numbers, statistically analyzed over something like fifty cities, and specifically separating out confounding factors, seem to many of us a more conservative and careful approach. Keep in mind that the analysis done by Metro estimates a significantly lower loss of ridership with fare increases than the national model, and has never been validated. To myself and others this seemed a very risky way to promise closure on a revenue shortfall. If the ridership loss is greater than they predicted we still have a budget shortfall.
A related concern not mentioned at all in the mayor’s note but of critical importance to our decision is that two huge factors that affect elasticity are parking fees and fuel prices. Since fuel prices are making an unprecedented plummet at this time, and since parking fees are not being raised (which should always happen in phase with fare increases) there is concern that not only the optimistic and non-validated Metro numbers but even the more conservative national numbers could underestimate elasticity. This was described as creating the perfect storm for lost ridership, and it was observed that it would be disastrous if we raised fares now and had to turn around and cut service a few months down the road.
Another important concern that was considered by TPC but not mentioned in the mayor’s note is that lost ridership to a great extent means ridership shifted to individual cars. By Metro’s own assumptions the fare increase option we would most likely have had to consider (Option 1A) was estimated to reduce ridership by 211,249 rides in 2009. This is against a projected ridership increase with no fare increase. Madison has expressed the intent of being a “greener” city. Madison is also now falling into air quality non-attainment. The acceptance of such a significant lost ridership, and the concern that it could be much higher, certainly did not seem to be in the best interest’s of Madison’s environment or Metro’s future.
Finally, and of great importance is the burden placed on Madison’s poor, who are much more affected by fare increases than any of us on TPC or the city council. While there was the promise of increased funding for a transit to work program, and while there were some great proposals for how to better provide Metro ride options for the poor, too little is currently in place. A fare increase without addressing this need first is simply wrong; the cart would be before the horse. Keep in mind the numbers – a 17 or 33 percent increase in the cash fare (depending on which option was to be adopted), to address a one percent shortfall in Metro’s budget. Who can in good conscience sign up for this? Did anyone catch Neil Heinen’s editorial tonight? Well said.
That summarizes the reasons why I voted against the fare increase. But before closing I feel the need to express one more concern regarding statements in the mayor’s note. He suggests that we dealt with only one half of the equation by leaving Metro with a deficit. In fact the specific topic of the remaining deficit was brought up and addressed. We did in fact fully recognize that this leaves Metro with a projected $682,000 budget shortfall. But there are a couple of important further considerations here as well. First, this is a budget projection. And second the shortfall is slightly more than one percent of Metro’s annual budget. No one can accurately project expenditures within one or two percent. No one can know whether this budget shortfall will result in a cash flow deficit. While I can certainly understand why it will now be good practice for Metro to begin considering where service might have to be cut, as the mayor requests, it is certainly premature to begin speaking of cuts as though they are now facts brought upon us by the TPC decision. Good management practice will also include a very detailed review of all Metro operating expenses; I personally have no doubt that a one percent budget deficit can readily be addressed through such a review. As a TPC member I would certainly want to see the details of exactly such an effort before I would vote for any service cuts, and I hope the mayor adds this review to the requests he has made to Metro staff. It will be needed for the January TPC meeting.
I hope these perspectives are helpful. I understand the mayor’s anger with us and his frustration at our vote against fare increases. But I also hope he understands that we were not simply swayed by some random information found on the web, or that we somehow only did half of our job. These are not easy decisions, and it is imperative that the council, the mayor’s office, and all citizens of Madison understand the many factors that had to be considered in making our vote.
With best regards,
Kevin Hoag
Here’s the Neil Heinen editorial from Channel 3 that the writer talks about:
It might have been the easiest solution. We understand that. But without some additional provisions to help low income folks afford the transportation upon which many depend the only option was to defeat the increase.
The best thing to do now is probably work on those additional provisions. We can’t wait for the comprehensive transportation system that will ease the pressure on Metro that this region absolutely must have. But this fare debate should be evidence of how urgent it is that coordinated system by developed and built. Affordable transportation is a public service. It’s up to all of us to provide it.
Here’s another explanation of what happened at the meeting from someone who was there, slightly edited to just include observations of the vote:
After public testimony and some initial discussion, Ald. Brian Solomon moved to NOT increase fares. He gave a lengthy rationale, most of which involved suggesting that the econometric models that Metro traditionally relies upon to predict the effect of a price increase understate the loss of ridership. . . . Ald. Sanborn tried to get Sharon Perpich [sic] of Metro to say that she had compared their projections from the 2005 fare increase to the actual results, but she really couldn’t do that . . .
The consensus seemed to be that raising fares with the suspect models would do a lot more damage than leaving the fares as is, and actually monitoring what happens, with the possibility of raising fares down the road . . . While it looked increasingly as though Solomon’s motion would pass, it wasn’t clear by how much. Then Gary Poulson said he planned to vote with Brian. Then Carl Durocher shocked most of us by saying that, although he didn’t usually have to do anything but break a tie, this time he planned to vote to keep the fare the same. Sharon McCabe had some concerns about what might happen if fares weren’t raised . . . But in the end Sharon went along. The only “no” votes were Jed Sanborn and Duane Hinz. . . .
For now, I think I will leave it at that. I really can’t do better than the thoughtful and well reasoned TPC Commissioner’s response.
