Given the endless hours many of us spent playing video games growing up, it was only inevitable that we might learn a life lesson or two from them. For example, I am convinced the only purpose of Nintendo sports games was to teach the American youth a healthy hatred of the Soviets.

One of my favorites, SimCity, taught me that industrial areas should always be located near low-income housing and that Godzilla attacks are really bad for city infrastructure. And most importantly, it taught me the best way of reducing traffic congestion is to build trains.

But last week The Capital Times featured an article that challenged my beloved childhood belief in the power of train-based mass transit. It described how buses (buses!) could be used to reduce congestion via Bus Rapid Transit. According to the website of the National BRT Institute, the purpose of Bus Rapid Transit is to “achieve the performance and benefits of more expensive rail modes” by using methods such as designated bus-only traffic lanes and technology to coordinate routes.

To many Madison Metro riders, “Bus Rapid Transit” may sound like Orwellian Newspeak, but BRT was one of the alternatives considered by the City of Madison’s Transport 2020 scoping process, completed in 2006. Most relevantly, as The Capital Times article points out, Gov. Doyle’s proposed 2010 budget authorizes the creation of a Madison-area Regional Transit Authority that could raise the sales tax by 0.5 percent.

The main purpose of the proposed RTA is to fund an approximately $250 million mass transit system between Middleton on the west and Sun Prairie on the east. The plans being developed by Transport 2020 call for a light rail system, but apparently a network of super-buses might also be a viable alternative.

At first glance, the idea of BRT sounds like an appealing option for the greater Madison area. The proposed rail network would travel east-west through the isthmus, excluding cities such as Fitchburg, Verona and Monona. The flexibility of BRT would allow bus lines to be extended in the various directions necessary to serve these areas. Also, the technology upgrades that accompany the BRT system could also be applied to existing bus lines to make the Madison Metro system an improved transit option.

While BRT may have many appealing aspects for the Madison area, clearly there is a reason why the original SimCity did not include bus systems as an option for aspiring city planners. The goals articulated in the Transport 2020 plan include providing alternatives to car-based transportation and using a transit network to focus future development around “opportunity corridors.” A light rail system is much more capable of achieving these goals than even the best BRT in the history of the world.

BRT might be an option for providing alternative transit options on the east and west sides of Madison, but buses will be unable to escape the congestion and obstacles of the isthmus. Transit alternatives for the downtown and campus areas are arguably the most important part of any proposed system, so any transit system through the isthmus must provide, well, rapid transit to make it a viable option for commuters.

In addition to effectively serving the downtown area, a light rail system would provide a better nexus for future development in the suburbs. The rails and stations of a train network provide a tangible symbol of — to be scientific — “mass transit awesomeness” around which development can occur. This is not the most empirical argument, but train stations provide a psychological sense of permanence that the east or west transfer points will never be able to achieve.

From a political standpoint, BRT is also likely to come up short. The Madison RTA is likely to be brought to a referendum, with the debate centering around a $200+ million mass transit system. If the full implementation of a BRT system costs upwards of the $190 million cited by The Capital Times article, a new bus system does not have a good chance of serving as a galvanizing force for extensive mass transit in Madison.

However, there is still room for some discussion of buses. SimCity obviously inculcated my anti-bus bias, but I eventually moved on to SimCity 2000, where one could also build bus systems. BRT is not the solution to all of Madison’s transit desires, but a more efficient bus system is a necessary compliment to the proposed super-train. Some elements of BRT could be incorporated into routes offshooting from the east-west light rail line, and improvements in scheduling and information boards that provide up-to-the-minute transit times could make the Madison Metro system a more appealing choice for commuters.

That said, though I am convinced super-buses are only a small part of Madison’s mass transit future, the only way to be sure is to crank up SimCity 2000 and start building.

Zachary Schuster ([email protected]) is a graduate student studying water resources engineering and water resources management.