What follows is a long, rambling "diatribe" about the buses vs. train
issue, or, more to the point, the buses and trains vs. cars issue.
Since Mark's post warned us to anticipate opposition from the dinosaurs
on this issue, I decided just to leave it long and somewhat unfocused,
figuring it brings up points for discussion that others can embellish
and improve upon.
* * *
*
Jeff's points are relevant to both of the tangents of the AAA
propaganda posted here under Mark's name (I'm refusing to believe he
would have posted something that has been so thoroughly discredited for
so many years--since I started this, I've seen Mark's explanation). The
discussion of buses vs. trains does not really need to occur until the
city leaders in Madison decide to stop making single-occupant commuting
their preferred means of transportation. This talk about building yet
another parking ramp on West Washington and near Pizzeria Uno is insane,
unless the city policy is, indeed, to ENCOURAGE everyone to drive in a
single-occupant vehicle. Even though there are several hundred
vacancies in the two ramps where people from Alliant were parking, we
now need a new ramp because the spots could not be rented by a new
employer or guaranteed to them. (And, contrary to recent postings here,
the parking ramps are not self-sustaining, because I don't think the
formula takes into account what the land would be used for if it had a
productive purpose, rather than parking the beasts of the
environmentally challenged.) Now I hear they are going to build new
ramps and then give employers subsidies for renting them (read: higher
property taxes for the rest of us). And of course federal law provides
for subsidies for parking for commuters (and a much smaller subsidy for
bus riders), but, of course, nothing for pedestrians and bicyclists.
It seems to me that the advantages of working downtown are so
overwhelming that employers should be lining up to get space downtown.
Because we so massively subsidize driving (why does a gallon of milk
cost substantially more than a gallon of gas, even though the low dairy
prices are putting several dairy farms out of business every day?), most
people who don't bother to do the analyses think having a 30-mile
commute with "free parking" is preferable to a much shorter commute
where people have to pay for parking (and can easily bike or walk and
have a vastly greater choice of healthy and non-fast food). I think
people pay at least $5 a day to park downtown compared to less than $2 a
day if they take the bus, and they still do it even if they live within
a block of a bus stop. People are just brainwashed, pure and simple, to
think driving is the preferable means of travel (but, then again, when's
the last time you saw an ad for bicycles or walking shoes on TV?).
Since City of Madison policy is, whether we pretend otherwise or not,
to encourage all commuters to drive solo if they so choose, the debate
of trains vs. buses is irrelevant, because the percentage of those using
it is so small. Therefore, people should not be trying to sell better
transit as a means of reducing congestion; it is really a means of
offering options to people who, for whatever reason, do not choose to
drive. Given the Bush-McDoyle-Bauman practice of promoting auto use,
congestion will be getting worse. At that point, it will be nice to
have a transit option that doesn't share motor vehicle roads. People
not only don't like buses because only "losers" ride them, but because,
when commuting, buses are slower than other vehicles on the road,
because they have to share the road and then stop frequently. Because
we know that the newly constructed lanes on highways are 90% cluttered
only a couple of years into their openings, things will continue to get
worse, as people move farther and farther away from their jobs.
I long for the days when a train ride from Madison to Milwaukee will
take an hour or an hour and a half, and a commute by car or bus will
take five hours because of the stopped traffic on the interstate
starting as early as Oconomowoc. This, of course, is happening in all
the big cities, which is why all of them have made major investments in
and commitments to non-SOV transit, usually in the form of trains,
whether of the commuter or light rail variety--places that I
traditionally think of as being very unenlightened such as Dallas and
Salt Lake City. It is faster and cheaper to travel by train than by
car--what we need to work on is getting the people to train some way
other than driving--remember the picture of the bike parking ramps in
Europe at the one BTA presentation--room for thousands of bikes--all
occupied.
I don't really think the relevant arguments is buses vs. trains; it
should be buses and trains, and how to design a system where the trains
offer longer rides and the buses serve a feeder role. Madison Metro has
showed us how NOT to design a revamped bus system, plagued in part by
their decision to accommodate the rare suburban rider over the much more
common near-downtown rider, and thus we still have the buses running in
packs, which means the labor costs are the same but the transit
frequency is one-half to one-third of what it could be for the core
ridership, which consists of those who live near-downtown and thus live
within walking distance of more than one route. Everyone knows people
who used to take the bus before the transfer points, but now drive solo
because the commute on the bus takes twice as long as it used to. Metro
should actually be encouraged to listen to people who actually use the
bus and think about successful bus systems, rather than to perpetuate a
system which results in worse and worse bus service year after year just
because Castro dumped a bunch of prisoners on us in the early '80s. I
think that Anne's suggestions about a campaign to make bus riding more
desirable fits in here.
Another point that we continue to ignore (but maybe Cheney et co know
something about, given their interest in their unprovoked war against
Iraq) is that oil production will start to decrease in only a few years.
The percentage of existing world oil supply that is in the Middle East
continues to increase as the increased production in other parts of the
world that was stepped up to deal with the oil embargoes of 1973 and
1979 took a disproportionate toll on the reserves in those places.
Because the American government--regardless of which of the twin parties
controls the government--continues to be a complete pawn of the
terrorist and brutal Israeli government, causing widespread hatred of
America in the non-Israeli Middle East, which just might have had
something to do with the Twin Towers leveling campaign of 2001, things
are even in worse shape than if the US and Israel stopped the genocide
in Palestine. As oil production peaks and starts to decline, the price
of gas will go up (supply and demand--all the imperialist wars to make
oil the private property of Bush, Cheney, and others who will benefit
financially from their war against Iraq will only slow, not stop, the
trend). And while most of the secondary costs of driving (increased
health care costs from asthma and air pollution, decreased productivity
of the land due to sprawl, etc., etc.) are passed along to the taxpayer,
the increased cost of fuel may well be borne by the user. There are
always points at which increased costs in one area lead to changed
habits. When gas is at $20/gallon, only the hardened caroholic will
continue to drive where alternatives exist.
Once the price of gasoline doubles and triples, every city in the
country is going to be scrambling to get some federal bucks to build
environmentally sane ways of moving people (i.e., alternatives to
highway building and encouraging SOV driving), such as light and
commuter rail systems. If Madison gives in to the AAA, McDoyle, and
other dinosaurs of the past now, we will be in worse shape than we would
be if we invested now.
Another point to be aware of when arguing with the unenlightened masses
is that the way Transport 2020 is presented makes it seem very
expensive. Figures of several hundred million dollars are thrown about.
That seems a lot more expensive than comparing with a highway project
here and a highway project there (for instance, if they compare the
costs of extending commuter/light rail to Verona versus the costs of
building the double-decker megaAutobahn, the cost of the train will seem
much higher, especially when expressed in dollar/user). Yet, highway
projects are incredibly expensive. The East Washington reconstruction
is said to be $60 million (probably will be $100 million+); the
Milwaukee St.-Highway 51 interchange alone cost more than $26 million.
Pitting the total cost of building a system accessible to virtually all
people (and not only those who own cars) vs. partial costs of highway
construction makes mass transit seem unduly expensive, and is a false
comparison.
Back to direct bikies issues for a moment, we should make sure--as
someone earlier pointed out--that bicycles are considered part of the
transportation solution mix. For instance, commuters should be
encouraged to bike to the station rather than drive, so that the cost of
a parking lot/ramp is not added into the entire cost of the train
system. The trains should be equipped to carry bikes at all times of
day, including rush hour. Minor add-ons like this make train-riding
more of a desirable option.
>>> "Schimpff, Jeff A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/10/03 09:46AM
>>>
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.
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.]
>
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
