Nick, one more comment. Cedar Falls does not fund MET $400,00 per year. The actual total for service is $352,240, $299,535 of which is for Route 9 and 50% of the cost for Routes 6 & 7. The remaining funds the Paratransit service. The subsidies provided by Cedar Falls for both the Fixed Route service and Paratransit do not cover the entire cost of their service, federal, state and other funding sources make up the difference.

Nick, I just came across this site as I was searching for something else. For the most part, I agree with your views in this post. I have been with MET since June of 1980. I remember when I started we had approximately 35% more service on the street. But, in the mid-to-late 80’s due to the local economy, MET’s local funding was reduced and services were cut. Back then MET operated all day service with additional buses operating on “peak hours”. This is the service that was cut and the funding that provided this service was never restored. The peak service was an excellent service to attract the “choice riders” as you talk about in this post. But without knowing the “whole” story, I’m sure one could wonder why MET cannot implement the features as you alluded to. Briefly, let me explain the challenges faced with ALL public transit systems. Capital replacement for bus funding: Due to lack of funding, Iowa transit systems operates one on the oldest fleets in the nation. Although MET’s fleet is probably in better shape than most other Iowa transit systems, still 45% of our buses are at or beyond their useful life. Funds received under the federal transit program for buses in Iowa flow through the IDOT and are awarded to transit systems in Iowa based on the systems age/miles of their buses. Today, over 65% of the Iowa fleet is at, or past, it’s federal useful life. It would take approximately $165 million dollars to replace these vehicles. On a good year, Iowa will receive 8-10 million, yes on a good year! Oh, and by the way, Iowa is a “donor state” meaning that Iowa puts more into the transportation fund than it receives. I would prefer that Iowa keeps the money sent to D.C. and let us fund our own projects. But, good luck to get any of our Federal Representatives to talk about that. Federal and State Operating funds have increased very little for the past several years, 2% to 3% on average, some years with no increase. Same with the local funding. I’m sure there are some that will say that transit should not be so dependent of tax payer funding. I disagree, there is not one transit system in the United States that purely operates on fares. The highest farebox return that I have ever heard was at CTA in Chicago. If I remember correctly, fares were approximately 22% of their total revenue. A transit system could not even come close to raising fares enough to cover all of the expenses. Why do I pay taxes then? Public transit is a community service, as is police, fire and the public library. In ending, I totally agree that MET is a system currently operating for the transit dependent. We do not cover enough area within the cities and the frequency is lacking to attract choice riders, not uncommon to most systems of our size or other urban transit systems in Iowa. The GPS feature as you and Rob described is great, but it costs money. Should we proceed with a project like this when almost half of our fleet is past it’s useful life?? It does no good to have a GPS app when the bus is broken down on the side of the road. As for your assessment of the MET website, I disagree. Yes it can be improved but designed from the 1990’s?? MET operates with a very lean staff and does a very good job with what we have to work with. It would be great to have all of the bells and whistles like the much larger transit agencies but that’s not possible today. MET is proud of the service we offer on the funding we receive. It is vitally important to the elderly, students, workers and the disabled community that have no other way to travel in our area, something I believe most people take for granted. Ride the bus, talk to the riders and ask them how important MET is in their life. I cannot disagree more with Rob’s comment “we are REALLY behind the times here”. Behind the times compared to what? New York transit, Chicago or Los Angeles?? Yes, probably, but our budget is a tad bit smaller. Compare our overall operations with transit systems of a similar size and I think you will find out different. I truly believe you are a transit supporter Nick. I think we need to sit down sometime and have a talk about how a public transit system is operated and the funding challenges and regulations that they are faced with. It is not just MET, it is most every transit system across the states. Lastly, every three years the Federal Transit Administration conducts a Triennial Review of all transit systems in the United States. MET’s review was in early May of this year. In the seventeen areas reviewed MET had ZERO deficiencies, something only accomplished by a handful of transit agencies each year according to the Federal Transit Administration.
Mark Little, G.M.
MET Transit

Nick, I couldn’t agree more about GPS location. I often catch the #9 to UNI in the mornings at 4th an Walnut, and even though the bus stop is 100 feet from my house, I still find myself standing out in the cold for 6-7 minutes, and if it’s late, I find myself wondering, “Did I miss it??” First world problems, I know…but I have to think we are REALLY behind the times here. If you married GPS service with a few strategic bus stop signs (and a QR code for the app), I think we could increase ridership. Would love to see a LOT more people on the buses.