WASHINGTON- Whether they’re trying to save money, help the environment or just give driving a rest, more Americans are choosing to hop aboard public transit.

Each weekday, 34 million Americans ride trains, buses, trolleys or other forms of mass transit, according to the American Public Transportation Association, a Washington-based trade group. That’s a 30 percent increase over 1995.

With so many people riding, you might think transit systems would be flush with money. Yet several public transit systems across the country appear to be just a few dollars short of collapse. 

The Chicago Transit Authority, for example, recently proposed a plan that would raise fares on trains from $1.75 to a whopping $3.00 and would eliminate 39 bus routes throughout the city. The announcement came despite the fact that CTA added 45,000 daily bus and rail passenger trips in 2007, growing to 1.5 million trips each weekday.

Boston’s transit system, the T, saw its passenger trips grow to 1.2 million each weekday in 2007. However, the T has doubled fares since 2000, going from 85 cents to $1.70 a ride for transit pass users. In order to tackle its growing debt with fare increases, fares would need to rise 40 percent more over the next several years, said Eric Bourassa, head of the “Keep the T on Track” campaign.  

More riders than ever -- and systems are still insolvent? What’s going on?

“Transit used to provide service to only those who needed it,” said Art Guzzetti, APTA’s vice president for policy. “Now it’s being looked to as a solution for congestion, taking cars off the road for climate, helping regional growth. With growth comes additional cost.”

Dollars in, dollars out

The idea that additional riders create more expense for transit agencies makes most people scratch their heads in confusion. 

But fare revenues only make up about one-third of a typical transit system’s operating budget, according to APTA. Less frequently-traveled train and bus lines can be big money losers.

Transit officials rely heavily on government dollars to keep their systems running and in good repair, as well as for financing transit improvements like additional train lines or new bus fleets.

Federal money available for public transit has grown rapidly in the past few years, from $5.4 billion in 1999 to $8.8 billion in 2007  But that money can only be used for new projects, not for everyday expenses such as paying bus drivers or keeping the lights on at stations. 

“We don’t fund operations,” said Paul Griffo, spokesman for the Federal Transit Administration, which dispenses federal money to states for public transit. “It’s all capital improvements.”

That leaves state and local governments responsible for footing much of the bill for transit systems’ operating budgets. Hot-button issues such as health care are drawing attention away from transportation in many state legislatures, and when the focus does turn to transportation, public transit systems often compete with highways and bridges for a limited pool of funds.

That’s what happened in Boston after state legislation in 2000 required the T to adopt an annual budget instead of billing its expenses to the local government. The T shares funding with highways, including Boston’s Big Dig project, which put a multi-lane highway under the city. The project ran over budget and helped to eat up billions of dollars that were meant for the T, pushing the system into massive debt. 

“When you build a huge public works project, you have to plan for these things,” said Bourassa of Keep the T on Track.    

Chicago Transit Authority is also looking to plug a large gap in its budget caused by dwindling state funds. A 2005 funding shortfall nearly caused a partial shutdown in CTA service until the state legislature came through with $55 million in additional money at the last minute.

 The CTA has found itself on the same collision course this year. CTA officials have threatened that proposed cuts will take place starting early next month without an infusion of state funds to fill a projected $158 million operating deficit for 2008.

Fare box revenues made up 43 percent of the CTA’s 2006 budget, 10 percentage points more than what fares cover in the average transit system’s budget. 

Guzzetti, of the American Public Transportation Association, said state and local funding is not keeping up with the growing demand for public transit. “Ridership went through the roof last year. Systems are bursting at the seams,” he said. “You can’t have flat levels of support.”

Transit’s ripple effect

Public transit advocates point to its benefits, including reducing emissions into the environment, easing congestion and spurring economic growth in surrounding cities. An APTA report found that every $1 invested in public transit projects creates between $4 and $9 in economic activity. 

The choice of riding the bus or train instead of driving has intangible benefits for residents as well, said Scott Bogren, spokesman for Community Transportation Association of America, a transit advocacy group.

Low-income residents and the elderly often make up a large chunk of a system’s riders, he said. Keeping transit affordable and accessible to residents can help seniors, for example, continue to live in their own homes instead of having to move to a nursing home. 

That’s why, Bogren said, states need to consider all the costs and savings involved with promoting public transit.

“There are so many benefits that don’t come from fares,” he said. “Transit systems of all sizes have to get out of the business of defining their success from what they’re getting at the fare box.”