"Through the screening and evaluation process, all nonhighway strategies were determined to be ineffective in addressing the project purpose and need, i.e. lowering traffic volumes or increasing capacity to bring about the required levels of service. A detailed description of how each alternative was evaluated against the purpose and need is described in Appendix A ... Transportation demand modeling showed high transit alternatives, such as that being proposed by the Transport 2020 process, was only able to remove 2 to 3 percent of the traffic from the Beltline. These transit measures removed even less traffic from the US 151 corridor, leaving the current highway congestion and mobility concerns. TDM measures implemented at realistic levels produced similar results." P. 1-11
The transportation demand management (TDM) analysis is flawed because it draws upon false assumptions. The Transport 2020 and other transit plans referenced all fail to address the root causes of the dilemma (prosperity measured by unending consumption and growth coupled with dependency on fossil-fueled motor vehicles and unsustainable sprawl). More conventionally, the Transport 2020 and other transit plans all offer solutions based on lack of leadership, lack of funding, and limited vision. If funded at the same rate per mile as the proposed highway project's funding levels, the nonhighway TDM options would have a significant impact. TDM solves capacity problems if actual commitments were proposed to employ them. As written, the SDEIS/DEIS is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Real TDM solutions that include a vision of simplified, sustainable economies based on electrified rail, denser urban areas coupled with rural agrarian life vs. exurban commuter consumer-oriented existence would envision a far different future for this transportation corridor. In other words, instead of spending $500 million on a 2.2 mile freeway, we should be creating and planning for a no-fossil fuel, no-commute model of life that is sustainable. Some may dismiss such thoughts as utopian, but even if the current limited TDM plans were funded at a rate per person-mile as is the Verona Road freeway project, they would be successful far beyond the --- "Comments on the SDEIS are encouraged from all members of the public and are due by Friday, December 17, 2010." http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/d1/verona/index.htm These are comments on the supplemental and draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS/DEIS) reports for the Dane County US 18/151 (Verona Road) corridor. I've edited these down to bite size quick reads... --- _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
