Watch Out for the Urban Sprawl that Accompanies the Commuter Train

The Capital Times asks Just how close is Dane County to getting commuter rail? 

On June 29, however, the Madison area saw arguably the biggest single step toward getting a regional transit system when Gov. Jim Doyle signed a state budget that included approval for Dane County to form a regional transit authority (RTA).

This is as good a time as any to recall that urban sprawl was introduced to this country by the train, not the accursed automobile. Whether we look to Long Island or Chicago's North Shore, it was efficient, swift rail, that opened the door to suburbanization eighty years ago.

This is not an argument to thwart the plans to bring commuter rail to Dane County, but it is a reminder that we must have rational and enforceable zoning that keeps development concentrated along the rail line, rather than subdivisions that bloom throughout county.

The benefits of rail, with its smaller carbon footprint than individual cars, the reduced congestion, and the ease of travel are compelling reasons to support the system. Hopefully the transportation planning will be accompanied by good land use planning.

Comments

[germantown_kid]

What's the hokey carbon footprint of an 21st century electric vehicle? Better yet, what is the carbon footprint of a nuclear power plant?

In contrast, the railroad is an 19th century technology. Didnt passenger train service to Madison end under your tenure as mayor?

[Bill Richardson]

Point well taken about urban sprawl. Chicago built their elevated trains back in 1892 when the had over a million people in Chicago and Paul is right the wealthier folks hopped on the train and got outta Dodge.

Small point but the Madison trains will cross 58 streets at grade- it "ain't" a subway or an Elevated train- it will be at street level or at grade. It will stop all traffic cold in both directions including emergency vehicles nearly 8,000 times a day between 0600 and 11 p.m. weekdays with the heaviest train runs during rush hours!

Can you say "Gridlock" on day one the first passenger steps aboard after building a billion dollar train for four or five years?

A nineteenth century train is to 21st century transportation as the telegraph is to the IPhone. We all love trains, but this is a true whopper of a bad idea. BTW, Chicago transit lost $400 million last year and is now facing a $16 billion dollar re-build of its train system.

CARBON FOOTPRINT: Size Sasquawatch!

Transport 2020 plans to buy 11 Diesel powered locomotives each weighing in around 75 to 80 tons and they will push and pull 70 ton passenger trains with each one getting 1.25 miles per gallon in each of those nine Diesels (two in reserve). They will be doing start, stop, wait, start, stop, wait at the 17 depot stations along the 16.3 miles of track between Middleton (HWY14/12 Beltline) to the Town of Burke near Reiner Road about four miles short of downtown Sun Prairie. Nine Diesels running 17 hours a day six days a week? Yeah that carbon footprint should be visible from Mars.

[Stephen M. Leo]

Bill,

"the Madison trains will cross 58 streets at grade..."

I've always found this to be a most bogus argument against a rail line. It suggests that in the absence of a commuter rail line commuters currently enjoy an uninterrupted route along the proposed service route that is completely free of traffic stops. As anybody who has driven along University Avenue can testify, drivers today have to stop at numerous intersections along the way, only those stops are for other automobiles and trucks, not trains.

Given that drivers are already accustomed to stopping periodically for traffic, there is nothing qualitatively different about stopping for a commuter train as it passes by (other than it may take less time for a train to clear the intersection than a line of cars.)

"A nineteenth century train is to 21st century transportation as the telegraph is to the IPhone."

Using your analogy, "a nineteenth century automobile (Karl Benz was granted a patent in 1896 for a gasoline powered car) is to 21st century transportation as the telegraph is to the iPhone". Of course, any sentient being would have to acknowledge that a twenty-first century car is a very different machine than those developed over a hundred years ago: cleaner, quieter, more reliable, and far more efficient.

Last time I checked, we weren't planning on bringing civil war era rail technology to Dane County. What's under discussion is bringing twenty-first century rail to Dane County. As anybody who has travelled in Europe can testify, a lot has changed in the past hundred years.

"Transport 2020 plans to buy 11 Diesel powered locomotives each weighing in around 75 to 80 tons and they will push and pull 70 ton passenger trains with each one getting 1.25 miles per gallon in each of those nine Diesels (two in reserve). "

Another bogus comparison. That diesel powered locomotive would be carrying thousands of passengers in a normal service day, many of whom would otherwise be driving cars that add to traffic congestion, require parking, and spew carbon dioxide into the air.

And of course, the RTA could go with trains powered by electricity or natural gas, which would have an even lower carbon footprint (depending on how the electricity was generated.)

Bill, arguing with straw men on Vikki McKenna's radio show is not honest debate...

[R.J.]

When are you going to start shoving soccer down our throats too?

[Bill Richardson]

Stephen,
(Reply in the order of your reply)

You dismiss that trains crossing University Ave 160 times a day between 0600 and 11 p.m with the heaviest number of train crossing (13 per hour during Rush hour- the 6-9am and 3-6p.m.times) is in ADDITION to the stops we have now. People will not accept doubling their commute times with a shrug. Their first response will likely be, "Who's brilliant idea was this?"

Take University Ave. where Campus drives spilt to U. ave and West Johnson. 6 Lanes of traffic stopped cold 160 times a day there will cause a back up East and West that will gridlock every street feeding U ave or Johnson. There is a pedestrian cross walk there now but it is rarely used, but when it is, it ties up traffic for several minutes and that is a 45 second to 1 min stoppage very rarely. Add a 1 to two min stop 13 times an hour during rush hours for trains crossing in two different directions- this is the double tracked area- you will see parking-lot like traffic stoppages.

Even if the crossings take only a minute for the trains to pass, the traffic has to be stopped in both directions BEFORE the trains arrive and then there is a delay as the "slinky-effect" of traffic starting up delays everyone even more. Add in four/five months of our snow packed to ice covered roads at every RR crossing and you have nothing but WINTER FUN with trains in Wisconsin!

Trains have not really evolved that much from the 19th century, cars have. Trains are heavy, burn fuel oil- adding electric lines overhead to the proposed trains would add millions more to cost and maintenance and only transfers the pollution and carbon use elsewhere. Cars of today run 98% cleaner than those of 1960's.

BTW, even though rail systems in Europe are far better than here Europeans commute by car at a bit less than Americans - 78% and rising to 88% and rising here. Wealth is the biggest factor in how one commutes to work. Wealthier people drive unless transit can compete successfully for their convenience- and this turkey will not trot in Madison.

T2020 Expects people will walk to the bus (easy, granted) wait for the bus, be taken by bus to the train station, dismmount the bus, wait for the train, take the train near work, then either take another bus or walk the rest of the way to work. For bus riders, it will double their commute time for car drivers, a few might try it a few times and decide their time is more important and convenience out weighs wasting time waiting for transit.

Diesel powered trains are still pretty much the same as they were 50 years ago- pretty dirty, stinky, noisy and would consume thousands of gallons of Diesel fuel every week for the 9 locomotives running 17 hours a day under the worst conditions for locomotives (as it is for cars/trucks) stop, go, wait at 17 stations along the route.

T2020 hopes for 11,000 passengers a day on their commuter trains. That is 5,500 people to and from work. Considering that CTY Exec and Mayor Dave say about 100,000 people enter Madison area by car or truck each day subtracting 5,500 people will not be an appreciable difference in traffic. Given also that much of the ridership will be those that presently ride the buses- even T2020 admits that- the number of NEW people using trains will be far smaller.

"Arguing with straw men" ???

Why is it liberals cannot just discuss the issue without a personal comment against anyone who disagrees with their position? Insecure, or just lacking in substance to their own arguments?

As long as Vicki invites me to come on her show I will. T2020 committee members had to be forced to have public meetings about RTA and trains and are content to keep a low profile until they snag federal funds.

The four meetings in Feb./ March of this year (Middleton Feb 23,09, Stoughton, DeForest, Sun Prairie) brought out massive resistance to trains (350 against 112 for RTAs and Trains) even though they were not well publicized by T2020. David Trowbridge does a fine job of presenting the facts of the case. He is a solid guy. My disagreements are not with him, they are with our paid elected officials who are pushing a solution (trains) that makes things worse simply to chase federal dollars. Bad public policy.

The problem is traffic congestion. Why not deal with it? Trains make it worse, that is not a viable solution.

[Stephen M. Leo]

"Their first response will likely be, "Who's brilliant idea was this?"

Sorta like what people think now during the daily gridlock of rush hour as they crawl off of the isthmus? It is equally plausible that they might look at that commuter train whizzing along its corridor while they're stuck in traffic and think: "maybe I should have left the car at home and taken the train."

"Trains have not really evolved that much from the 19th century, cars have. Trains are heavy, burn fuel oil- adding electric lines overhead to the proposed trains would add millions more to cost and maintenance and only transfers the pollution and carbon use elsewhere. Cars of today run 98% cleaner than those of 1960's"

Another straw man, Bill. Just as diesel cars have improved (again, Europe leads the way here), so have diesel trains. I had the pleasure driving a diesel car while on business in Germany not long ago: they start right up, run quietly, and and handle just as well as gasoline cars. Further, there are trains that run on natural gas and of course, electricity. Train technologies come in a variety of sizes and configurations, ranging from the French TGV to the smaller and ubiquitous trams one finds all over Europe and a lot of American cities. All are well understood technologies, and none are particularly exotic. Commuter trains are not the lumbering beasts you depict them to be.

"The problem is traffic congestion. Why not deal with it? Trains make it worse, that is not a viable solution."

I disagree with your premise: trains do not make traffic congestion worse, but they can reduce it. Buses compete for space on the same roads as cars, and simply widening roads just leads to more cars and more congestion.

Further, your argument is based on automobiles remaining affordable for most working folks. If you believe that gasoline is going to go up in price over time (not unreasonable given growing demand from China and India), then it follows a lot of folks may not be able to afford that second car (especially in this economy), and they're going to need alternatives. As I learned first hand while living in suburban Philadelphia, living near a good mass transit system (well, okay...SEPTA was just okay...but still...) allows a family to get by with one car, and in a pinch, no car at all.

In closing, a robust transportation system is one that will allow folks to get around despite changing circumstances. If you believe that gas is going to remain at $2.50 despite growing demand from China, India, and Brazil, and that gas supplies will remain stable and reliable despite instability in the world economy and the volatile political situation in the Middle East, and that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have nothing to do with global climate change, then by all means, put all our transportation resources into just accomodating automobiles.

On the other hand, if one believes that fossil fuels are going to become more expensive in the future, and that fuel supplies will remain vulnerable to disruption by war or natural calamity or terrorist activity, or that we need to reduce our civilization's carbon footprint as the ice caps shrink and sea levels rise, then maybe providing transportation choices other than just the automobile might be warranted.

Bill,

"Why is it liberals cannot just discuss the issue without a personal comment against anyone who disagrees with their position? Insecure, or just lacking in substance to their own arguments?"

Please...spare me the whiny lecture. Liberals just got tired of being slagged constantly by Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of their sad, sorry ilk and learned to fight back without apology. And judging from the election results last November, the rest of the country did, too.