Public Transit Favored in the 2019 Races for Madison Alder

In sharp contrast to two years ago when no winning candidate made public transportation a major issue in his or her race to be district alder in the city of Madison, expanding and improving the city's public transportation system now seems to be on the platform of almost every candidate. And whereas only five of the city's twenty aldermanic seats were even contested last time, this time (2019) eleven or more than half, of the Council seats are in contention. In fact, five of the seats needed to have primaries to narrow the final field down to two.

That expanding and improving Madison's transit system is being touted as a common goal is the conclusion of a survey involving a simple read of campaign websites, newspaper articles and the League of Women Voters' informative and infamous Candidates’ Answers. We had expected our piece to be a simple scan of the situation in which candidates would be rated as pro-transit or not. But given that almost everyone would be rated as pro-transit, that would have had little value. Rather, we just refer you to the League's excellent information source, wondering if we are finally beginning to see our transit system (and its riders) receiving the kind of public attention and support it deserves.

The Madison Area Bus Advocates has long argued that public transportation touches on many issues of concern to many including employment opportunities, economic well-being, accessibility, social equity, affordable housing, climate change, land use and environmental sustainability to name a few. But it seemed that our yowls were simply met with silence, or even worse.

For instance, despite objections and concerns that included testimony in front of a number of relevant city commissions, Madison lost its intercity bus terminal on West Washington Ave. almost ten years ago. And as we mentioned recently, replacing it is not even mentioned in the area's latest Transportation Improvement Plan that schedules transportation projects out for five years. Where is concern for the social equity of having a comfortable heat–controlled indoor waiting area for airplane users vs. having nothing but an exposed outdoor sidewalk without even restroom facilities for waiting intercity bus users?

Current attention to expanding and improving our public transit system has been a welcome surprise because no incumbent on the current Common Council has defined his or her tenure in terms of being a strong advocate for public transit even as he or she may expend substantial effort in steering city resources toward expensive road reconstruction. The Common Council continues to reject Metro's annual request to fund additional weekend or evening service. And no one raised a peep when Madison's mayor transferred $5 million out of Metro's contingency fund in the 2017 budget in order to finance the purchase and maintenance of other vehicles in the city's fleet such as fire trucks and snow plows.

So while gratifying after years of either benign neglect or even active predation (as in making buses rolling billboards) the pervasiveness of pro-transit pronouncements could reflect an awakening or,  equally plausibly, a shallowness, something that can only be assessed with the passage of time.  When the Common Council enacts its next annual budget, how will investing in transit be prioritized relative to other concerns such as public safety, public health, city services, affordable housing, inclusivity, equity, economic vitality or fiscal responsibility? (Is separating transit from any of those other concerns a false dichotomy?) Only when we see what legislation gets sponsored and how votes get cast can we evaluate the true meaning of any campaign pronouncement.

Beside the good news that most candidates for Madison alder say they see the importance of investing in public transit, our survey brought us an ominous message about money in politics as well. That message seems especially curious in light of so much concern expressed over affordability, social equity and fiscal responsibility.  Not so curious, when one considers the fact that alders help manage our property taxes. 

Generally, the cost associated with aldermanic elections has not warranted newspaper space, but last time (2017) it did.  The reason is that a competitive race may usually cost in the range of $8,000-$10,000, already enough to dissuade many qualified and talented people from entering a race. But Maurice Cheeks apparently spent almost $18,000 on the aldermanic race for District 10, more than three times his opponent. "Three other incumbents facing challengers — Alds. Barbara Harrington-McKinney, Sheri Carter and Zach Wood — spent a combined $12,000. Fifteen alders ran unopposed, with four spending no money." We will not know how much is being spent this year until July when campaigns may make their final report to the city clerk's office.

In general however, one cannot survey this year's aldermanic races without coming away impressed by the amount of talent and community spirit of people who call the city of Madison, Wisconsin their home.