The Transport 2020 Final Report August 2002 is the basis for a recommendation by the
Transport 2020 study group to construct a commuter rail system in Madison. Only in
Madison would such a fairyland exercise get so far and spend so much.
That Report purports to be a "Transportation Alternative Analysis for the Dane County/
Greater Madison Metropolitan Area." Regrettably, the Report begins badly, by eliminating
any consideration for addressing 97.7% of the commuter traffic in the metropolitan area
(p. 4-1).
In other words, the Report addresses only 2.3% of the commuter traffic (p. ES-2). Of
that 2.3%, only 4% of the daily transit boardings for the recommended bus/rail start-up
system (the MOS of the LPA) are projected to be by rail (p. 10-9). MOS = minimal
operable segment. LPA = Local Preferred Alternative

Rail Will Carry One Commuter per 1000
In simple terms, for every 1000 commuters, 978 will go by car, 22 will go by bus, and 1
will go by rail. Thus, the Report is all about how to spend money to carry 23 out of 1000
commuters, while NOT spending money to carry the other 978.
Moreover, for that 1 rail rider per 1000 commuters, the Report proposes to spend 157
times as much in capital costs for rail ($188.6M) versus carrying that 1 commuter by bus
($1.2M). See the table on p, 10-22. [Note: the $1.2M is calculated as the proportional
increase in bus capital costs to carry 1150 more daily trips by expanded bus, re the data of
the table on p. 10-22]

Rail Will Worsen Madison Street Traffic
The Report admits that to carry that 1 commuter by rail will make traffic conditions
notably worse for the other 999 commuters out of 1000. That fails to meet the common
good.

The Bottom Line
The 2020 "Baseline" system (expanded bus; column 3 of the table on page 10.22) will
do essentially everything that rail will do, at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Caveat. The cost estimates above accept the numbers of the Report as accurate. Yet,
the most likely case, based on studies, is that rail will cost 45% more than estimated,
whereas bus will cost only 20% over estimate. That would make the rail (capital plus
operating costs) sum up to $278M, while expanded bus needed to carry that 1 rail
commuter per 1000 commuters would cost $1.4M. Also, most likely, the Report
overestimates the rail ridership. Thus, most likely, rail will cost >200 times as much as bus,
in order to carry that <1 rail commuter per 1000 commuters.

Rail in Madison Is An Environmental Waste
Thus, not only does the Report make no economic sense, it makes no environmental
sense; i.e., it wastes resources.

The Report exhibits extreme prejudice against cars
Transport 2020 projects that commuter trips will increase by 35% from 1990 to 2020,
and that 97.7% of it will be by car. However, Transport 2020 rules out any increase in road
capacity as too costly and impractical (p. 4-1).
That conclusion by Transport 2020 is nonsense. The addition of only one lane of car
roadway will carry the commuter load carried by a one track rail system, as the Portland,
Oregon data show. Hence, the isthmus is not an intractable bottleneck.

Adding Such Isthmus Car Lanes is Cheap
Madison could add two or more lanes of car traffic through its isthmus by eliminating
on-street parking and replacing it via a surface parking lot every couple of blocks. Cost:
minimal.

Improved Mobility as a Goal
The Report lists 5 goals. Goal 2 is to improve mobility for people and goods. Given
that goal, then no matter which mass transit system is chosen, the Madison metropolitan
area cannot avoid upgrading roadways for car traffic.

The Report Violates Its Mobility Goal
The Report does not plan for roadway expansion for cars, and its own data show that its
proposals will actually worsen mobility for people and goods. Why? Because 97.5% of the
traffic will still be by car, and commuter rail would significantly degrade that traffic by
delaying it when trains block car traffic at railroad crossings. The Report itself quantifies this
(e.g., p. 8-11), showing that crossings would be blocked as much as 20% of the time at
peak traffic hours. Result: waste and pollution.

The Report Is Glaringly Incomplete
Failure of the Report to include car roadway traffic data and lane expansion plans
destroys its credibility as an objective proposal for meeting Madison's traffic needs. The
public, needs to see these costs factored in, to be sure there is money to meet them. Plans
to increase Madison traffic congestion are not an option. Finally, the consultant's alleged
track record suggests caution.

The Report is Irrational
Car lane capacity upgrade was rejected by using the Portland trick of comparing rail to a
car lane upgrade in excess of the commuter capacity of the proposed rail.
Costs of rational lane expansions were not reported.
The impact on business and mail deliveries of densifying car traffic was not addressed.
Need EIS.
Cost per new rider of the proposed rail was hidden.
Cost Overruns (e.g., cost of buying track right-of-ways) were not addressed. Overruns
could double costs.
The Report fails to prove any benefit of rail over bus.