A Milwaukee County light rail system would cost more money and carry fewer riders than planners project, a longtime rail opponent argues in a study to be released Tuesday by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.

Response: I am not an opponent of light rail. I am an opponent of waste. This is not an issue of likes, dislikes or preferences. The issue is data and analysis. Considered outside the context of costs and impacts, light rail is attractive. The problem is that the data shows it to be exhorbitantly expensive and of little transportation impact in Milwaukee.

But the numbers cited by transportation consultant Wendell Cox are themselves inflated, a top aide to Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist, a leading light rail supporter, said Monday.

Cox, who lives in the St. Louis suburb of Belleville, Ill., has visited Milwaukee several times to offer support for Against Light Electric Rail Transit and its spokesman, downtown merchant George Watts. He has written numerous studies criticizing different types of passenger rail projects and supporting highway projects.

His latest study focuses on state consultants' final recommendation, or "locally preferred alternative," for the East-West Corridor between downtown Milwaukee and Waukesha: a $444 million, 15-mile light rail system in Milwaukee County; a $1.32 billion reconstruction of I-94 with new bus and car-pool lanes; and a $90 million expansion of bus service.

State Transportation Secretary Charles Thompson had recommended further engineering studies on the entire $1.86 billion package before legislators forced him to promise he wouldn't even study light rail and special lanes.

Cox, however, bundles the $444 million cost of light rail with the $250 million cost of special lanes and the $90 million cost of expanded bus service to come up with a $784 million cost for what he calls the "light rail preferred alternative."

Response: The $784 million figure is used once --- in an informational table comparing the total costs of the studied alternatives. It is directly from the Light Rail Preferred Alternative ("Locally Preferred Alternative") report prepared in the planning process. The light rail cost analysis in the text does not include bus costs. Our "light rail preferred alternative" is the "locally preferred alternative." We chose to use the former name so that the alternative could be readily classified as an alternative that includes light rail, as opposed to the bus alternatives, that did not. It appears that the Journal Sentinel did not read the report closely enough to understand this.

He says the estimate is low compared with other cities' light rail projects. Cox cites a National Academy of Sciences report that says "cost overruns of 50% to 100% are common" on large transportation projects -- both highway and rail -- and concludes "this could . . . add $600 million to $1 billion to the capital cost of light rail."

Response: The projected cost overrun is based upon the $444 million cost of light rail alone.

Similarly, Cox bundles the $11 million annual operating cost of light rail with the costs of operating expanded bus service and maintaining special lanes to produce a $31.1 million annual cost.

Response: The $31.1 million figure is used once --- in an informational table comparing the total costs of the studied alternatives. It is directly from the "Locally Preferred Alternative" report prepared in the planning process. The annual operating cost overrun analysis includes the entire transit system.

Then he says the operating cost estimate was too low to account for inflation and for higher average costs on other cities' light rail lines, and that labor costs appear to be higher in Milwaukee. He concludes that "annual operating costs could be at least $5 million higher than projected," which he describes as "a nearly 50% operating cost overrun."

James Rowen, Norquist's policy chief, said: "This is the way a highway proponent would attack light rail.

Response: This is not about promoting highways. It is about data and analysis. I challenge anyone to show that light rail's transportation impact in Milwaukee would be significant (using the planning documents that have been developed by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the US Department of Transportation in cooperation with local governments, including the city of Milwaukee.

He would inflate the numbers and forget to remind people that the highway portion of the East-West Corridor would be three times the cost of light rail."

Response: This is an invalid comparison. The highway would carry significant numbers of new travellers. The light rail line would not, according to the studies prepared for the Milwaukee light rail project. On a cost per passenger mile basis, light rail is exceedingly more costly than the highway improvements. This conclusion is not reached because of any preference on my part for highways over light rail --- it is reached by dividing the cost of the two projects by the number of new users. If Milwaukee were to spend as much per new person trip on a highway alternative as its light rail plans, a highway investment of $52 Billion would be the result (compares Alternative 3 to the Null Alternative).

Referring to the "cost overrun" estimates, Rowen said, "He's throwing out this giant number just to scare people."

Response: The $600 million to $1 billion maximum capital cost overrun for light rail is based upon a comparison of light rail costs in other cities and cost overruns as documented in a National Academy of Sciences study. The purpose of using this number is to ensure that local policy makers and taxpayers are aware of the potential financial risk.

In an interview, Cox said he didn't mean to mislead anyone by grouping numbers together.

He also said he wasn't arguing against light rail but was just trying to bring better cost estimates to policymakers' attention before a decision is made.

In a foreword to the study, James Miller, Wisconsin Policy Research Institute president, says officials might still choose to build a light rail system out of "a combination of civic boosterism and pride," as they chose to build a new Milwaukee Brewers stadium, but they should be aware of the costs involved.

On other points:

Cox claims light rail wouldn't attract any new riders and says state consultants used methods biased in favor of light rail to estimate ridership.

Response: The Locally Preferred Alternative provides much lower levels of bus and light rail service than the other alternatives studied earlier in the process. Our estimate, based upon service levels, is that the Locally Preferred Alternative would carry fewer daily riders than the base (Bus) alternative. Thus, light rail would carry no new riders.

Mass transit advocates have said ridership estimates must account for not only commuters, but also people who would ride light rail to special events or travel around downtown on their lunch hour. Cox said buses could handle the special event and downtown shuttle ridership.

Rowen said it was "laughable" to think the Transportation Department would hire consultants biased in favor of light rail. Norquist frequently accuses the agency of being biased against transit and in favor of highways.

Response: Our point was not that the consultants were biased toward light rail --- it was that the process they used to analyze light rail was biased. This bias included extraordinary manual upward adjustments to the light rail alternative ridership projections, unwarranted elimination of the Bus Alternative from consideration and failure to consider a robust bus alternative.

Cox says light rail doesn't reduce traffic congestion or air pollution, and says congestion could be reduced better by adding another regular lane in each direction to I-94.

Response: The data in the light rail planning documents says virtually the same thing.

Federal environmental regulations ruled out the idea of adding regular lanes. Rowen said Cox's arguments were "irrational" and "completely goofy."

Response: If federal regulations precluded consideration of an alternative that could have solved the I-94 mobility problem, then local officials should have petitioned Wisconsin's representatives in Congress for relief. It is irrational and goofy for federal regulations to outlaw for study any alternative. It is time that transport policy be based upon facts and reality rather than and ideological bias against particular alternatives.

Cox also predicts that two commuter rail projects -- a 90-day extension of Amtrak service to the western suburbs and a proposed extension of Chicago's Metra service from Kenosha to Milwaukee -- would be "expensive and ineffective."

Footnotes show Cox's only research on either project was to read one article each in the Journal Sentinel and Milwaukee magazine. When questioned, he apologized for not reviewing the projects more thoroughly.

Response: The reporter misunderstood me. I did not apologize for the sources used, but indicated that, if anything, I considered the information in Milwaukee magazine and the Journal-Sentinal to be overly conservative. It seems, however, a bit ironic to be criticized by the Journal-Sentinal for relying on the Journal-Sentinel as a source. It should be news to all in the Milwaukee area that the Journal-Sentinel does not consider itself a reliable source.

To the Editor:

Your April 5 editorial on my Wisconsin Policy Research Institute light rail study was unfair and diversionary.

Your criticism was incorrect and required a considerable stretch. The capital and operating costs that we cited for the Locally Preferred Alternative were not "higher than previous estimates" --- they were taken directly from project documents. Moreover, our informational portrayal of total capital costs of $784 million was never intended nor described as a light rail only cost. You should have read the report more carefully.

I am pleased that this invalid criticism is all you could find in 50 pages, but sorry to see that you have had to resort to ad hominem attacks. The fact is that our analysis largely uses data directly from the planning documents. There is no getting away from the fact that, according to planning documents, the annual cost of attracted each new rider to light rail is enough to pay the mortgage on a $330,000 house. Our concern about cost overruns is not diluted by the fact that similar overuns occur on other types of projects --- our intention was simply to alert the community to the $600 million to $1 billion in additional taxes that could be made necessary by light rail.

Perhaps the crowning moment of your coverage, however, was the Tuesday Larry Sandler article that criticized me for using the Journal-Sentinel as a source in a brief analysis of commuter rail. That's good advice. I'll not rely on the Journal-Sentinel again.

Sincerely,
Wendell Cox

The capital and operating costs that we cited for the locally preferred alternative were not "higher than previous estimates" -- they were taken directly from project documents.

Moreover, our informational portrayal of total capital costs of $784 million was never intended nor described as a light rail-only cost. Editors should have read the report more carefully.

I am pleased that this invalid criticism is all the Journal Sentinel could find in 50 pages, but I am sorry to see that the paper had to resort to ad hominem attacks. The fact is that our analysis largely uses data directly from the planning documents.

Our concern about cost overruns is not diluted by the fact that similar overruns occur on other types of projects. Our intention was simply to alert the community to the $600 million to $1 billion in additional taxes that could be made necessary by light rail.

Perhaps the crowning moment of your coverage, however, was a March 31 article by Larry Sandler that criticized me for using the only a Journal Sentinel article and a Milwaukee magazine article as a sources in a brief analysis of commuter rail. That's good advice. I'll not rely on the Journal Sentinel again.

Wendell Cox
Belleville, Ill.