My 2 cents on Randal O'Toole posted at: http://www.ibmadison.com/transportation?id=424
O’Toole’s opinions are not relevant to Madison’s transportation future. His analysis starts with the assumption that everyone will always want to live and get around the same way they do right now and that all transportation decisions should be made based on short-term cost/benefit ratios that reach the majority of citizens today. With this kind of analysis the interstate highway system could not have justified itself in the 1950’s! Yet between 1960 and 2000 the interstate highway system had a spectacular return on investment that is benefiting us all today. But now that the interstate highway system has been built out things are starting to change. Our population is aging and older Americans tend to drive less. Fewer young people are getting their license at age 16. Energy and environmental concerns have changed the economics of driving. Americans have driven less over the last five years, while transit, walking, and bicycling are up during the same time. Real-estate studies suggest that a growing number of Americans are looking to live where they can meet more of their needs without getting into a car. These trends are likely to intensify going into the future. The problem is that you cannot create the kind of environment overnight that we are going to need in the future. It has to start slowly and be built up over time – just like the interstate system was built. The people who put together the Transport 2020 report were thinking about the kind of City we want to have in the future, not about dealing with today’s troubles. This difference in perspective between O’Toole and T2020 is at the root of what O’Toole misreads as “strategic misrepresentation”. The Parsons Brinckerhoff study that O’Toole cites was based on Bush Administration requirements that mandated looking at ridership estimates over a 5-year time frame for all transit projects seeking federal funding. Rail systems can last over 40 years – and that 40-year time frame is where T2020 was focused. This is why the short-term ridership estimates were not included in public presentations – because short term estimates miss the point about why T2020 chose the commuter rail option. The good news is that the Obama Administration is reversing the anti-transit policies of the past. That means that federal funding for transit may be easier to justify with long-term analysis – and that funding could possibly cover a larger portion of the costs of creating a commuter rail line if the RTA chooses that option. – Matt Logan, Madison WI _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
