If Madison's motor vehicle occupancy WAS 1.6, we'd have a hell of a lot less congestion than we do now. That number is fantasy.
I've made many counts personally at University Avenue and on Regent Street and the general result is 5 single-occupant vehicles to every one double occupancy vehicle. 7 people divided by 6 vehicles yields 1.16 passengers per vehicle. Mike N. once noted a DOT or RPC figure of about 1.2. Using the higher rate at 2.2 billion miles traveled yields 2.64 billlion passenger miles. This analysis is flawed at its core because it implies that the major criterion for judging rail viability is reducing the miles traveled by the people who drive in from Verona, Waunakee, Sauk Prairie and hundreds of other communities where perhaps jobs should relocated to match where people want to live. Most of those mils are rural miles and have little to no health impact until those enter residential areas. The primary criteria should be: 1. Protection of human health through reducing pollutants 2. Conservation of energy to maintain a viable planet and eliminte the strange trend toward threatening energy rich nations with war. Also, cost analyses never seem to compare transit costs with all the costs of owning and operating motor vehicles, including the millions spent on collisions and health damage every year. In Racine County alone in 1993, the cost paid by insurance companies for collision damages and collision-related health care was over $40 million. High-volume light rail to serve the University Avenue corridor would eliminate from 17,000 to 24,000 of the current 60,000 trips per day. Ride-sharing would cut down on many of the rest, and be the cheapest and easiest means to achieve these goals within the City of Madison. One key is to stop mandating parking for every structure built. Overall parking needs to be reduced to a level that, when fully occupied, induces a total traffic volume that keeps pollutant levels below effective health standards. Such standards exist in California, where they have wisely rejected EPA's lax version of health protection. Madison is substantially in excess of the California standards for most dangerous motor pollutant - fine particulate, for both the average annual and 24-hour concentrations. > ---------- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 4:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Bikies] [Fwd: Fwd: RE: Commuter rail editorial. This is > good.] > > <<File: forward.htm>> > > From: Mike Roach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2003/01/09 Thu PM 02:30:52 CST > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Fwd: RE: Commuter rail editorial. This is good. > > > > > > > >Madison is a modest city of 210,000 people centering on an urban area > of > > >330,000 people, all of whom are located in Dane County. The home of the > > >University of Wisconsin and capital of a state proud of its Progressive > > >history, several members of its city council want to put Madison on the > > >map by building a rail transit line. > > > > > >Madison Metro Transit currently carries about 10 million unlinked trips > > >and 35 million passenger miles per year. Madison roads and streets > carry > > >about 2.2 billion vehicle miles per year. At an average occupancy of > 1.6 > > >people per car, that represents 3.5 billion passenger miles. Transit > > >therefore represents just 1 percent of the urban area's motorized > > >passenger miles. > > > > > >Miles of driving are growing at about 2.7 percent per year, but transit > > >ridership has been stagnant for the past fourteen years. In the five > > >years before that, it declined by a quarter. Despite being a liberal > > >university town, Madison is not a transit town. > _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
