MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: jficke13 on February 10, 2015, 12:34:38 PM
-
Apparently we're building this thing. So, I say damn the torpedos and connect it to Bradley Center 2.0. Right now it's going to run from nowhere to nowhere and cost a pile of imaginary money, so why not have it run at least to one place I want to go and cost a larger pile of imaginary money?
-
Is that the real issue—that it connects nothing to nothing? Haven't been following this story, but I do know that many cities have above-ground train/streetcar systems that get plenty of use...including out here in SF.
-
Is that the real issue—that it connects nothing to nothing?
Eesentially, yes, as well as the imaginary money. I defy anyone to tell me who's going to use the darn thing, and for what?
-
The pics I've seen make the streetcars seem fairly small. Would it make a real difference in getting 15,000+ to and from an arena? I could see it if the trains are as long as the El in Chicago, or at least as the light rail in MSP, but the pics make the Milwaukee ones look tiny.
-
Not sure why we are going back to 19th century technology. A streetcar? It's a glorified bus. In fact, they just create a new bus route instead. Paint the bus red or something. Call it the "the fabulous wheeled-streetcar." Same thing except a lot less costly.
-
The pics I've seen make the streetcars seem fairly small. Would it make a real difference in getting 15,000+ to and from an arena? I could see it if the trains are as long as the El in Chicago, or at least as the light rail in MSP, but the pics make the Milwaukee ones look tiny.
A fixed route that has limited application only for folks in the immediate extended downtown area. Many are questioning the true cost/benefit.
-
Not sure why we are going back to 19th century technology. A streetcar? It's a glorified bus. In fact, they just create a new bus route instead. Paint the bus red or something. Call it the "the fabulous wheeled-streetcar." Same thing except a lot less costly.
Correct, this romantic fascination, with "rail transportation" that is extremely expensive, and in this case inefficient, is just bizarre.
-
Just get 10-12 of these owned by the city. If it were to work anywhere, Milwaukee would be a safe bet.
(http://www.geekalerts.com/u/Pedal-Pub.jpg)
-
Just get 10-12 of these owned by the city. If it were to work anywhere, Milwaukee would be a safe bet.
(http://www.geekalerts.com/u/Pedal-Pub.jpg)
Humming "roll out the barrel" just looking at that photo.
-
Here's a map of the proposed line: http://www.themilwaukeestreetcar.com/route.php
If you look at the system with all of the envisioned extensions, it actually seems like it would be pretty useful, but the initial line is ridiculous. Phase 1 looks as if it was designed with the sole intention of helping yuppies on the eastside get to the Metra station for a weekend trip to Chicago.
-
Just get 10-12 of these owned by the city. If it were to work anywhere, Milwaukee would be a safe bet.
(http://www.geekalerts.com/u/Pedal-Pub.jpg)
They have those already!
-
Adding those extensions will help. Seems decent. I know many here are predisposed to hate the entire project, but it could be pretty successful. It works in other cities.
-
Adding those extensions will help. Seems decent. I know many here are predisposed to hate the entire project, but it could be pretty successful. It works in other cities.
But "it" is not the same. In other cities the light rail lines/trolleys/etc can go places where buses cannot (e.g., underground) and can sometimes go faster than buses in open stretches. I'm not philosophically opposed to rail, just unnecessary rail where a bus would suffice.
-
Eesentially, yes, as well as the imaginary money. I defy anyone to tell me who's going to use the darn thing, and for what?
As proposed? No one. For nothing. I mean we just print money to spend on stuff as it is, so why not print a little more and then the thing has a fighting chance of being ridden by someone (e.g. MU fans to and from Water St. and the BC 2.0)?
What they want is the El. If Milwaukee wants mass transit then buckle up and build it so people might utilize it.
-
Also:
The initial route and extensions would be within a quarter-mile* of the following destinations:
100% hotels
90% occupied office
90% occupied retail
77% of parking
77% of housing
90% of major downtown attractions
100% of downtown’s 20 largest employers
That makes no sense. What does "100% of hotels" or "77% of housing" even mean?
-
Also:
The initial route and extensions would be within a quarter-mile* of the following destinations:
100% hotels
90% occupied office
90% occupied retail
77% of parking
77% of housing
90% of major downtown attractions
100% of downtown’s 20 largest employers
That makes no sense. What does "100% of hotels" or "77% of housing" even mean?
Its obvious that you are against the proposal. What is also obvious is that you didn't bother to read the website. The explanation is below that.
-
Its obvious that you are against the proposal. What is also obvious is that you didn't bother to read the website. The explanation is below that.
The website explains that the numbers are based on the line being within a quarter mile of the facilities in the chart. What is not clear is how you determine the universe of facilities for the statistic (e.g. 100% of hotels in East Town? Downtown? Milwaukee? Wisconsin?)
-
But "it" is not the same. In other cities the light rail lines/trolleys/etc can go places where buses cannot (e.g., underground) and can sometimes go faster than buses in open stretches. I'm not philosophically opposed to rail, just unnecessary rail where a bus would suffice.
True, and I don't have a strong opinion on this thing one way or the other. But two comments: (1) It could be beneficial if it is built out, and I'd rather see a bolder plan upfront rather than a very short line with hope/intention of building it out and (2) when I travel to big cities in the US or Europe I have never taken a bus and never even consider it... but I will take streetcars, trains, etc. I am not actually sure why that is the case, but I think bus routes tend to be confusing (take time to figure out), have time tables that have to be followed, and connections, etc. The fixed transit options seem simpler, not nauseating, and generally get me where I want to go.
If I were moving downtown, and this was built out, I sure would want to live within a few blocks of a station if practical.
I do question long term what the value will be. I expect we'll have "google" type of pods moving people around in bigger cities (autonomous taxis) within 15 years.
-
The website explains that the numbers are based on the line being within a quarter mile of the facilities in the chart. What is not clear is how you determine the universe of facilities for the statistic (e.g. 100% of hotels in East Town? Downtown? Milwaukee? Wisconsin?)
That's what I mean.
I'm ambivalent about the project. I think if they build it as proposed it will be useless. It won't be the end of civilization as we know it, or even the end point of the Simpsons Monorail towns, but it will be a waste of time, construction hassle, and money (although I don't really care about that because I'm not convinced that we pay for anything with real money so just issue some bonds and lets pretend we're taking financing seriously). Maybe if they strapped their ambitious pants on and build a real mass transit that goes from where people are to where they want to go it might work. Maybe they should consider doing that?
-
True, and I don't have a strong opinion on this thing one way or the other. But two comments: (1) It could be beneficial if it is built out, and I'd rather see a bolder plan upfront rather than a very short line with hope/intention of building it out and (2) when I travel to big cities in the US or Europe I have never taken a bus and never even consider it... but I will take streetcars, trains, etc. I am not actually sure why that is the case, but I think bus routes tend to be confusing (take time to figure out), have time tables that have to be followed, and connections, etc. The fixed transit options seem simpler, not nauseating, and generally get me where I want to go.
If I were moving downtown, and this was built out, I sure would want to live within a few blocks of a station if practical.
I do question long term what the value will be. I expect we'll have "google" type of pods moving people around in bigger cities (autonomous taxis) within 15 years.
Good commentary GOO.
Same here on "when I travel to big cities in the US or Europe I have never taken a bus and never even consider it... but I will take streetcars, trains, etc." I think the reason is simply that it is fixed and you can look at a map and see where it stops.
It'll be a curious here locally as next month a hybrid system termed a Busway opens in Hartford. It runs 12 miles from nearby Downtown New Britain to the Train Station in DT Hartford. They are busses made up to look like light rail cars and they have fixed stations (even connecting to a train station).
-
There's something to consider that most people are overlooking because the majority of those opposed are either too focused on the present and/or their view of the world is too myopic.
Granted, "Phase I" is terrible. On the surface, it has little value to the city and its residents; however, the value it does have is that it's a starting point. Look at the new transit systems that have sprung up in the past 20 years around the country, and you'll see that nearly every single one was built in phases. You have to start somewhere, and that's what the streetcar is. For the streetcar to be successful, it has to not only go places, but it has to go to places where people would see the streetcar as a convenience. Waukesha, absolutely not. Shorewood, possibly. Marquette, definitely. 'Quon, not if we're keeping out the riff raff.
But here's the thing... those "places" aren't just defined by municipality and neighborhood boundaries... they're defined by what's actually there, and there's a little-known phenomenon called "Transit-Oriented Development" that is actually a real thing. You can look at Salt Lake City, Denver, Minneapolis, etc., and there are dozens of examples where apartments, condos, offices, retail, recreation, etc. have been built along these lines.
Further, you have to consider that Milwaukee is in competition with every other major city out there. If every other major city is going back to "19th century transportation," do you seriously think that refusing to do the same is going to put Milwaukee at the top of the transportation technology pyramid? And don't forget that a lot of young talent out there today are already saddled with enough debt and don't want to deal with the hassle/cost of driving. If you can't attract those employees, you're going to lose employers.
So why am I against the streetcar? Because I don't trust the Milwaukee politicians to move the city forward and use the streetcar for its intended purpose. I see it merely as a tool to line campaign coffers and bestow patronage.
-
But "it" is not the same. In other cities the light rail lines/trolleys/etc can go places where buses cannot (e.g., underground) and can sometimes go faster than buses in open stretches. I'm not philosophically opposed to rail, just unnecessary rail where a bus would suffice.
That's my concern as well. I'm most familiar with the light rail in MSP, and it travels places that don't also include cars or buses. That allows them to use longer trains, and go faster. It's been a while, but I believe that is also the case in San Diego.
San Francisco is a unique animal. The streetcars appear to be about the size they'd be using in Milwaukee, and they travel right down the middle of the street. But SF has a very unique topography - the streetcars were built in the first place because the hills were too steep for other forms of mass transit. Not the case in Milwaukee, where buses already get around those same streets just fine.
I love the use of trains for mass transit. I always take the Tube when I'm in London, the Metro when I am in Paris or DC, the El when I'm in Chicago, and even the NY subway. And even though I live an hour from MSP so I usually have my car with me, I have taken the light rail several times to avoid traffic hassles and get there faster than on a bus. The problem I see with the proposed Milwaukee streetcar is that it won't be solving any mass transit "problems."
-
Choo chooo
-
Not sure why we are going back to 19th century technology. A streetcar? It's a glorified bus. In fact, they just create a new bus route instead. Paint the bus red or something. Call it the "the fabulous wheeled-streetcar." Same thing except a lot less costly.
It's part of the ideological handbook
-
i wish they would allow a binding referendum-let the people who are paying for it decide-wow, what a novel idea. what are the pols afraid of? oh yeah, they know what's best for all of us cuz they are edumacated. glad i don't live in milwaukee county. yes i know there are fed funds(free money!!) going in to it, but the rest will have to be funded locally including the never ending maintenance and ongoing operation costs. how much per ride will be subsidized? don't know year to year until you find out how much it isn't used. all the infrastructure that is going to have to be torn up and re-located, lost parking spaces...this is all wrong.
-
i wish they would allow a binding referendum-let the people who are paying for it decide-wow, what a novel idea. what are the pols afraid of? oh yeah, they know what's best for all of us cuz they are edumacated. glad i don't live in milwaukee county. yes i know there are fed funds(free money!!) going in to it, but the rest will have to be funded locally including the never ending maintenance and ongoing operation costs. how much per ride will be subsidized? don't know year to year until you find out how much it isn't used. all the infrastructure that is going to have to be torn up and re-located, lost parking spaces...this is all wrong.
We tried that here in California...then one judge said too bad to millions of voters. Choo choo choo chooo
The system is so f'ing corrupt.
-
That's my concern as well. I'm most familiar with the light rail in MSP, and it travels places that don't also include cars or buses. That allows them to use longer trains, and go faster. It's been a while, but I believe that is also the case in San Diego.
San Francisco is a unique animal. The streetcars appear to be about the size they'd be using in Milwaukee, and they travel right down the middle of the street. But SF has a very unique topography - the streetcars were built in the first place because the hills were too steep for other forms of mass transit. Not the case in Milwaukee, where buses already get around those same streets just fine.
I love the use of trains for mass transit. I always take the Tube when I'm in London, the Metro when I am in Paris or DC, the El when I'm in Chicago, and even the NY subway. And even though I live an hour from MSP so I usually have my car with me, I have taken the light rail several times to avoid traffic hassles and get there faster than on a bus. The problem I see with the proposed Milwaukee streetcar is that it won't be solving any mass transit "problems."
Actually, I wasn't referring to the streetcar and trolleys. Those are mostly for the tourists. I was referring to the MUNI trains that operate on several lines...a combo above-ground/underground map. Somewhat similar to BART, but strictly local.
-
i wish they would allow a binding referendum-let the people who are paying for it decide-wow, what a novel idea. what are the pols afraid of? oh yeah, they know what's best for all of us cuz they are edumacated. glad i don't live in milwaukee county. yes i know there are fed funds(free money!!) going in to it, but the rest will have to be funded locally including the never ending maintenance and ongoing operation costs. how much per ride will be subsidized? don't know year to year until you find out how much it isn't used. all the infrastructure that is going to have to be torn up and re-located, lost parking spaces...this is all wrong.
thankfully it is not MKE County, City of MKE only
-
There's a strange dynamic that runs through Wisconsin. A weird attitude. Glad I got out years ago.
-
There's a strange dynamic that runs through Wisconsin. A weird attitude. Glad I got out years ago.
How so?
-
In this particular case, it's a solution in need of a problem. Of course the end goal of those pushing this is to expand it, because they know nobody will ride, and they can simply say, in order to attract more riders we need to expand it, but again, a street car? Just plain stupid. That expansion as planned, will exponentially increase the cost up front and ongoing, and still will be basically useless. On a per rider basis, It'd probably be cheaper to pay Uber fees for everyone who uses it, and I'm only half joking.
Running trains out to mequon, brookfield, etc., is a completely different discussion. There again however, the cost would be massive and extremely difficult to justify.
-
Ride the SLUT!!
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20841428/#.VNsuKe90yM8
-
Ride the SLUT!!
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20841428/#.VNsuKe90yM8
at least they're having a little fun with it until it becomes a fiscal nightmare. there are many(no strawmen here) examples of these all over the nation-FAILING. beautiful-another taxpayer money laundering scheme run out in broad day light-what a country?? hey, how is amtrak doing for us??
-
at least they're having a little fun with it until it becomes a fiscal nightmare. there are many(no strawmen here) examples of these all over the nation-FAILING. beautiful-another taxpayer money laundering scheme run out in broad day light-what a country?? hey, how is amtrak doing for us??
The Hiawatha line continues to post record numbers. But hey... let's kill the KRM line idea or anything that might extend Metra from Kenosha to Milwaukee because God forbid Wisconsin would ever want to ride the economic coattails of Chicago.
All this anti-transit rhetoric is a very dangerous thing. So are the registered voters in SE Wisconsin.
-
How so?
Since I assume you live here, you have to at least acknowledge the ideological divide.
-
The Hiawatha line continues to post record numbers. But hey... let's kill the KRM line idea or anything that might extend Metra from Kenosha to Milwaukee because God forbid Wisconsin would ever want to ride the economic coattails of Chicago.
All this anti-transit rhetoric is a very dangerous thing. So are the registered voters in SE Wisconsin.
There are areas where it is successful, and many areas where it is a giant failure.
Light rail is brought out by one side as this panacea for so many things. Does the cost justify it?
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/04/have-us-light-rail-systems-been-worth-investment/8838/
-
Since I assume you live here, you have to at least acknowledge the ideological divide.
Personally, I would have used the term "seemingly infinite gaping chasm" instead of "divide."
-
There are areas where it is successful, and many areas where it is a giant failure.
It's not too often that Chicos imparts wisdom upon us, so let's just end it right there and call it a day.
Could it work in Milwaukee, absolutely. Would it work in Milwaukee, probably not.
-
In this particular case, it's a solution in need of a problem. Of course the end goal of those pushing this is to expand it, because they know nobody will ride, and they can simply say, in order to attract more riders we need to expand it, but again, a street car? Just plain stupid. That expansion as planned, will exponentially increase the cost up front and ongoing, and still will be basically useless. On a per rider basis, It'd probably be cheaper to pay Uber fees for everyone who uses it, and I'm only half joking.
Running trains out to mequon, brookfield, etc., is a completely different discussion. There again however, the cost would be massive and extremely difficult to justify.
I don't think running trains out to outer ring suburbs is really needed (yet). There simply wouldn't be enough demand, and with auto-driving vehicles on the horizon (say next 25 years), I'm not sure if we need to come up with that type of infrastructure for commuters.
As far as the street car, that's a tough one. I'm pretty fiscally conservative, but in this case I can see the value. It's infrastructure that most world class cities have, and it's never going to get cheaper to build than today. There isn't really a "good" time to pay for it. You either bite the bullet now and start it, or you continue to wait while the eventual costs only continue to rise.
Again, I'm not 100% on the street car, but I also can't just say "NO!" either. Progress and infrastructure are expensive, and the benefits aren't often realized immediately.
-
The Hiawatha line continues to post record numbers. But hey... let's kill the KRM line idea or anything that might extend Metra from Kenosha to Milwaukee because God forbid Wisconsin would ever want to ride the economic coattails of Chicago.
All this anti-transit rhetoric is a very dangerous thing. So are the registered voters in SE Wisconsin.
The KRM line...much like the street car, a solution in search of a problem. If it were free, go for it. Why not? Of course it wasn't free. In fact it was extremely expensive and would only have gotten worse. When you break these things down to a per rider basis, they become impossible to justify (in the case of the milwaukee area projects that have been proposed/approved).
-
There's a strange dynamic that runs through Wisconsin. A weird attitude. Glad I got out years ago.
us too
-
The problem with this project is that Barrett and the proponents didn't sell a larger vision from the start. I can see value in connecting neighborhoods, but a 2 mile circle... not so much.
-
The Hiawatha line continues to post record numbers. But hey... let's kill the KRM line idea or anything that might extend Metra from Kenosha to Milwaukee because God forbid Wisconsin would ever want to ride the economic coattails of Chicago.
All this anti-transit rhetoric is a very dangerous thing. So are the registered voters in SE Wisconsin.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
I am not anti-transit at all. Anti-expensive, under used, rail system, maybe.
-
As far as the street car, that's a tough one. I'm pretty fiscally conservative, but in this case I can see the value. It's infrastructure that most world class cities have, and it's never going to get cheaper to build than today. There isn't really a "good" time to pay for it. You either bite the bullet now and start it, or you continue to wait while the eventual costs only continue to rise.
But therein lies the problem, it's going to get more expensive to operate and the costs will continue to rise, whether built now or not. The upfront cost of building it is the smaller of the two issues. It serves very little purpose out of the gate,and the costs to operate are going to increase exponentially over time. That is why it's a bad idea. The benefits (whatever those are, I still don't know), simply do not justify the cost. I don't see any argument that positions this particular system as proposed as infrastructure. I simply don't see any economic development it is going to drive.
-
But therein lies the problem, it's going to get more expensive to operate and the costs will continue to rise, whether built now or not. The upfront cost of building it is the smaller of the two issues. It serves very little purpose out of the gate,and the costs to operate are going to increase exponentially over time. That is why it's a bad idea. The benefits (whatever those are, I still don't know), simply do not justify the cost. I don't see any argument that positions this particular system as proposed as infrastructure. I simply don't see any economic development it is going to drive.
Yes, but if your logic is correct, how/why are all of these other places continuing to maintain their street cars and trains?
They were just lucky to build them a long time ago?
In 50 years, is milwaukee going to be wishing it had a built a rail system years before?
-
The Hiawatha line continues to post record numbers. But hey... let's kill the KRM line idea or anything that might extend Metra from Kenosha to Milwaukee because God forbid Wisconsin would ever want to ride the economic coattails of Chicago.
All this anti-transit rhetoric is a very dangerous thing. So are the registered voters in SE Wisconsin.
Amtrak does just fine here in the Northeast.
I would think you'd want commuter rail in the Wisconsin connecting to Chicago. They are expanding commuter rail out here from Springfield, MA straight down to New Haven, CT (with a stop at Hartford's Airport) simply to connect the corridor into New York City. The New Haven train line into NYC is one of the busiest in the country.
-
I ride the Hiawatha to Chicago when it works with my schedule. Cheaper than driving for 1 person, driving more economical for 2. Evading Chicago rush hour is worth it.
Problem is, Hiawatha is packed every morning yet it still loses money. If they raised the price to break even, would ridership fall.
This streetcar sh*tshow is a financial failure for the City. Feds will pump in operating costs for 18 months. After that property tax payers in MKE are on the hook. Glad I'm not one.
I only need to go into the city for Warrior games, and an occasional business meeting. Lucky me.
-
Amtrak does just fine here in the Northeast.
I would think you'd want commuter rail in the Wisconsin connecting to Chicago. They are expanding commuter rail out here from Springfield, MA straight down to New Haven, CT (with a stop at Hartford's Airport) simply to connect the corridor into New York City. The New Haven train line into NYC is one of the busiest in the country.
We already have commuter rail from Chicago to Milwaukee, that's not close to what was approved yesterday.
I agree with Eldon, take a bus, paint it a pretty color make it in the shape of a street car and promote the same route as the train. Much less expensive and practical.
-
Since I assume you live here, you have to at least acknowledge the ideological divide.
I live here. I was just trying to get a handle on exactly what part of our mentality he was referring to.
-
Since I assume you live here, you have to at least acknowledge the ideological divide.
Ideological divide is not exclusive to Wisconsin or Milwaukee. Ideological divide is much different than the words he used "Weird Attitude"
-
Yes, but if your logic is correct, how/why are all of these other places continuing to maintain their street cars and trains?
They were just lucky to build them a long time ago?
In 50 years, is milwaukee going to be wishing it had a built a rail system years before?
By these other places, you mean, NY, Chicago, SF, LA, Boston, Miami...?
We also need to distinguish between street car and commuter rail. The milwaukee metro area doesn't even approach 2million people, and cannot support either one. It frankly doesn't have enough butts to justify the expense, and support the ongoing operational costs. As others have pointed out, the Hiawatha line has full seats, but Amtrak takes a bath on every run. That money has to come from somewhere.
IMO, in a relatively small city like Milwaukee, money is much better spent on freeway expansion. It costs much lest, and is more useful...and beyond that, it's going to need to be maintained and expanded anyway. There simply is not enough money to do both.
-
The KRM line...much like the street car, a solution in search of a problem. If it were free, go for it. Why not? Of course it wasn't free. In fact it was extremely expensive and would only have gotten worse. When you break these things down to a per rider basis, they become impossible to justify (in the case of the milwaukee area projects that have been proposed/approved).
KRM and the streetcar were nothing alike except for the fact they proposed poor execution of an otherwise good idea. The streetcar is intra-city transit, whereas something like KRM wouldn't have just inter-city transit, but inter-metro transit. If you extended Metra to Milwaukee, it would provide significant populations of people with greater access to employment, entertainment, recreation and education on both sides of the border. If you're an employer, mass-transit between Milwaukee and Chicago could at least double your employee pool.
Live in Oak Creek and want to take a job at Abbott or Pactiv?
Live in D/T Milwaukee and want to study medicine at Rosalind Franklin?
Live in Racine and want to catch a performance at Ravinia?
Live in Kenosha and want to teach part-time at Marquette/UWM/MSOE and Northwestern/Loyola/DePaul?
Own a business in Milwaukee or Racine and want to attract potential employees from Illinois?
Want to work for a few hours at NML on a Friday morning, grab an early lunch & couple of beers, then hop on the train with a few buddies to catch the Brewers at Wrigley?
Sure, some people could do some of the above in a car, but provide an alternate transportation solution, and those numbers who would rise exponentially.
That said, KRM wasn't the answer, though it was closer than any other transit option that's been proposed. People will tolerate as much as a 60-75 minute commute on a train, but they won't tolerate 30 mins on a train, 10 minutes on a platform, and 35 minutes on another train.
We already have commuter rail from Chicago to Milwaukee, that's not close to what was approved yesterday.
True... but that's different from commuter rail between Chicago and Milwaukee.
-
That said, KRM wasn't the answer, though it was closer than any other transit option that's been proposed. People will tolerate as much as a 60-75 minute commute on a train, but they won't tolerate 30 mins on a train, 10 minutes on a platform, and 35 minutes on another train.
My neighbor commuted to NYC for 15 years. It was a 90 minute train ride one way. He's not alone.
-
It's not too often that Chicos imparts wisdom upon us, so let's just end it right there and call it a day.
Could it work in Milwaukee, absolutely. Would it work in Milwaukee, probably not.
I impart it every day, ignore that wisdom to your own detriment. ;)
-
My neighbor commuted to NYC for 15 years. It was a 90 minute train ride one way. He's not alone.
I live in Jefferson County, WI, and it's a 50-minute commute to my job in the Milwaukee metro. Half of my drive is in farm country and the rest avoids all freeway gridlock. Until commuting is no longer that easy for the distance involved, Milwaukee metro cannot support a commuter rail system.
-
By these other places, you mean, NY, Chicago, SF, LA, Boston, Miami...?
We also need to distinguish between street car and commuter rail. The milwaukee metro area doesn't even approach 2million people, and cannot support either one. It frankly doesn't have enough butts to justify the expense, and support the ongoing operational costs. As others have pointed out, the Hiawatha line has full seats, but Amtrak takes a bath on every run. That money has to come from somewhere.
IMO, in a relatively small city like Milwaukee, money is much better spent on freeway expansion. It costs much lest, and is more useful...and beyond that, it's going to need to be maintained and expanded anyway. There simply is not enough money to do both.
Well, I'm talking street car specifically. The commuter train issue is a whole different bag of doughnuts, and with auto-driving vehicles coming, investing in a large scale commuter line might not be worthwhile. (not to mention lack of population). Light rail like MN might be interesting. Maybe connect the city neighborhoods and inner ring suburbs?
Anyways, I'd have to look at SF's population was when they installed the street cars. If it was the same as Milwaukee now, would that change anything, or are we all just going to say "It was a different era!" or still say it costs too much?
I guess, I'm just looking 20/30/40/50 years into the future. Are we going to be glad that Milwaukee had some forethought and installed rail infrastructure? or is this going to be seen as a boondoggle?
In theory is there a magic population # that we have to reach where we would all be in favor of a street car?
-
Well, I'm talking street car specifically. The commuter train issue is a whole different bag of doughnuts, and with auto-driving vehicles coming, investing in a large scale commuter line might not be worthwhile. (not to mention lack of population). Light rail like MN might be interesting. Maybe connect the city neighborhoods and inner ring suburbs?
Anyways, I'd have to look at SF's population was when they installed the street cars. If it was the same as Milwaukee now, would that change anything, or are we all just going to say "It was a different era!" or still say it costs too much?
I guess, I'm just looking 20/30/40/50 years into the future. Are we going to be glad that Milwaukee had some forethought and installed rail infrastructure? or is this going to be seen as a boondoggle?
In theory is there a magic population # that we have to reach where we would all be in favor of a street car?
In 40-50 years, ogden and the east side may be ghost towns (thats where the streetcar is supposed to start/end). That's one nice thing about buses. They can move in accordance with where the population moves.
-
In 40-50 years, ogden and the east side may be ghost towns (thats where the streetcar is supposed to start/end). That's one nice thing about buses. They can move in accordance with where the population moves.
I live on the East Side right now, and I'm not looking forward to the expansion if it takes away parking/driving lanes only to put fixed-path bus on the roads that also has to stop at stoplights. I imagine it has to or else they'd have to build it as a subway or an el right?
-
I live in Jefferson County, WI, and it's a 50-minute commute to my job in the Milwaukee metro. Half of my drive is in farm country and the rest avoids all freeway gridlock. Until commuting is no longer that easy for the distance involved, Milwaukee metro cannot support a commuter rail system.
I knew it wouldn't take long for the myopia to which I alluded to surface.
Ironically, isn't this why Gimbels was ultimately able to get a foothold in NYC... because Macy's executives were taking advice from their wives who in no manner resembled a cross-section of their average customer.
-
Bus Rapid Transit. Bogota, Colombia. Now this...this has potential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6ImWY4IBc
Mods, for some reason it is not letting me embed the video. I noticed that the syntax changed on the youtube site (been awhile since I tried to embed a video)
Anyway, I think the commuter rail extension to Milwaukee would seem to have some promise. And I'm all for riding Chicago's coattails. In fact, I would be very happy if they announced a study being done about the potential of a high speed rail line between Milwaukee to Chicago. And I don't mean "high speed rail," i.e., 79 mph like that train to Madison. I'm talking HIGH SPEED RAIL, i.e., the true high speed rail like the kind that France and Spain have. You know, so folks in the Mil could get down to the Loop in 40 minutes or so. Obviously I don't know the costs of this; but I do know that given the potential benefits, I would eagerly listen.
Guys, should we really get a streetcar just because Cincinnati and Portland have them? Buuuuut daaaaad, Sacramento is getting one...Let me guess, you are the guys whose senior pic has you cheesin hard, sportin an AWESOME mullet and the stone-washed jean jacket to match.
I'm well aware that transit stops can spur economic development, but it's certainly not the only way.
EDIT: In case you're wondering, yes, I do work for MCTS.
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/cU6ImWY4IBc
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/cU6ImWY4IBc
@1:17...you would think that in a story about Bogota, they would have interviewed the Colombian Tovar.
-
@1:17...you would think that in a story about Bogota, they would have interviewed the Colombian Tovar.
+1
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/cU6ImWY4IBc
Thanks man. And the code is there for posterity.
-
In 40-50 years, ogden and the east side may be ghost towns (thats where the streetcar is supposed to start/end). That's one nice thing about buses. They can move in accordance with where the population moves.
Ya, but with that line of thinking, why do any infrastructure work in the city? If we don't know where everybody is going to live in 50 years, let's not build bridges, roads and sewers that last. Let's just use band aids, it's cheaper.
Neighborhoods shift and change, but we know Milwaukee is going to be the major city in WI from here to eternity. Real estate near water is always going to be in demand, so it's likely that the eastside, downtown and even the third ward aren't magically disappear.
Now, I'm not saying the street car is magic, or that Milwaukee should automatically do it. But, I am saying that this might be one of those infrastructure costs that isn't fully realized until we have retrospect.
I'm sure some people were against he federal highway system too, but that seems to have worked out pretty well.
Sometimes we have to pay for future needs, and hopefully our politicians and city planners are smart enough to make the right decisions (not sure that they are, but that's a whole different convo).
-
I knew it wouldn't take long for the myopia to which I alluded to surface.
Ironically, isn't this why Gimbels was ultimately able to get a foothold in NYC... because Macy's executives were taking advice from their wives who in no manner resembled a cross-section of their average customer.
Then again, Gimbels is gone and Macy's still exists. ;)
-
Ya, but with that line of thinking, why do any infrastructure work in the city? If we don't know where everybody is going to live in 50 years, let's not build bridges, roads and sewers that last. Let's just use band aids, it's cheaper.
Neighborhoods shift and change, but we know Milwaukee is going to be the major city in WI from here to eternity. Real estate near water is always going to be in demand, so it's likely that the eastside, downtown and even the third ward aren't magically disappear.
Now, I'm not saying the street car is magic, or that Milwaukee should automatically do it. But, I am saying that this might be one of those infrastructure costs that isn't fully realized until we have retrospect.
I'm sure some people were against he federal highway system too, but that seems to have worked out pretty well.
Sometimes we have to pay for future needs, and hopefully our politicians and city planners are smart enough to make the right decisions (not sure that they are, but that's a whole different convo).
Why do you believe this to be the case? I spent many years in Ohio, where Cleveland was once the largest city. Columbus is now. In Texas, the growth of Austin and San Antonio in the last 30 years has been explosive. You just never know.
I don't believe I'm reading anyone saying don't do infrastructure improvements, or expand infrastructure options. The issues at hand are what should be done, WHY it should be done, who benefits, etc. There seems to be a love affair with choo choos in this country by some ideologues and for the life of me I'd like to know why? It's a serious question. They are great in some parts of the country, but I feel like they have become a plank position and a one size fits all answer. They are expensive as hell to build, more dollars to operate, they lose money because of the ridership, in many places they have made very little to no impact on traffic (depending on the study). So what is the fascination?
-
Auto-driving vehicles...if they are adopted at the rate of electric cars, we won't see them to any important degree for decades. The idea of GM devising an auto-driving car and putting people's lives in their hands is terrifying. 8-)
-
Don't forget that they will have to hire unionized drivers and mechanics. That's always part of the equation
-
Why do you believe this to be the case? I spent many years in Ohio, where Cleveland was once the largest city. Columbus is now. In Texas, the growth of Austin and San Antonio in the last 30 years has been explosive. You just never know.
I don't believe I'm reading anyone saying don't do infrastructure improvements, or expand infrastructure options. The issues at hand are what should be done, WHY it should be done, who benefits, etc. There seems to be a love affair with choo choos in this country by some ideologues and for the life of me I'd like to know why? It's a serious question. They are great in some parts of the country, but I feel like they have become a plank position and a one size fits all answer. They are expensive as hell to build, more dollars to operate, they lose money because of the ridership, in many places they have made very little to no impact on traffic (depending on the study). So what is the fascination?
I do believe that Milwaukee will remain the largest city in WI. Call me crazy.
Now, as far as trains and their value, truthfully, I'm not an expert on the subject, and I don't have enough knowledge to say that it is 100% going to work in Milwaukee. I don't know. That's my honest answer.
BUT, it seems like you're pushing back pretty hard based upon a political viewpoint, not a factual examination of Milwaukee's current needs and potential growth structure. Maybe you have done a ton of research, I don't know... but you seem to keep throwing up political objections, not objections based upon the actual idea and it's potential for Milwaukee down the road.
And just to be clear, I don't think a street car is a magic bullet for Milwaukee, but I also see other major cities that had the foresight to install mass transit options. You couldn't afford to build subways in NYC now, so thank god they did it a long time ago.
Maybe Milwaukee needs to bite the bullet and start some new infrastructure planning now so they can reap the benefits down the road?
-
I do believe that Milwaukee will remain the largest city in WI. Call me crazy.
Now, as far as trains and their value, truthfully, I'm not an expert on the subject, and I don't have enough knowledge to say that it is 100% going to work in Milwaukee. I don't know. That's my honest answer.
BUT, it seems like you're pushing back pretty hard based upon a political viewpoint, not a factual examination of Milwaukee's current needs and potential growth structure. Maybe you have done a ton of research, I don't know... but you seem to keep throwing up political objections, not objections based upon the actual idea and it's potential for Milwaukee down the road.
And just to be clear, I don't think a street car is a magic bullet for Milwaukee, but I also see other major cities that had the foresight to install mass transit options. You couldn't afford to build subways in NYC now, so thank god they did it a long time ago.
Maybe Milwaukee needs to bite the bullet and start some new infrastructure planning now so they can reap the benefits down the road?
Am I wrong in having reservations about calling the streetcar "mass transit" when it will have to stop at the same stoplights I have to stop at in my car?
-
Am I wrong in having reservations about calling the streetcar "mass transit" when it will have to stop at the same stoplights I have to stop at in my car?
Well it can carry 100+ people @ once, how many does Honda Accord fit?
-
Am I wrong in having reservations about calling the streetcar "mass transit" when it will have to stop at the same stoplights I have to stop at in my car?
So do buses, and the Hiawatha stops several more times than my car between Milwaukee and Chicago.
I'm not sure that "It stops" is a deal-breaker in terms of public transit.
-
If it behaves just like a bus... well you know the rest.
They want mass transit like the El. Maybe they should step up and propose something that might actually be an improvement on the current situation.
-
If it behaves just like a bus... well you know the rest.
They want mass transit like the El. Maybe they should step up and propose something that might actually be an improvement on the current situation.
Well, I don't think there is enough demand to pay for a large scale mass-transit option like that.
But, a mid-scale train/street car might be a good option.
-
If it behaves just like a bus... well you know the rest.
They want mass transit like the El. Maybe they should step up and propose something that might actually be an improvement on the current situation.
How much are the developers, who may be the biggest beneficiaries of this largess, gonna pump into the streetcar project? ....Crickets.....
-
How much are the developers, who may be the biggest beneficiaries of this largess, gonna pump into the streetcar project? ....Crickets.....
Well, in theory they pay property taxes, or build developments that potentially increase property value and the tax base.
But, you are correct. Essentially the city is providing infrastructure where private parties will benefit.
I suppose its not unlike an arena plan.
-
Well, in theory they pay property taxes, or build developments that potentially increase property value and the tax base.
But, you are correct. Essentially the city is providing infrastructure where private parties will benefit.
I suppose its not unlike an arena plan.
I suppose that the developer, Gary Grunau, etc. pay the piper with political donations to the Mayor and the Alderman, so I guess they do pay.
Unlike an arena plan? Like the one where the owners are paying more than half (and the city can't afford to pay anything because they are paying for the f*cking streetcar). The pro streetcar gang, screams about building an arena for millionaires, yet because they (the pro streetcar gang) want their bright shiny new bauble......no complaints about rich developers benefitting from the streetcar.
This is all about priorities. What drives more economic development? The Bucks or the streetcar?
I am not big believer in the economics of public funding of arenas, but that horse is out of the barn. If it's a choice between a streetcar with a very dubious upside and an arena with a less dubious upside, I'm going with the arena.
-
I suppose that the developer, Gary Grunau, etc. pay the piper with political donations to the Mayor and the Alderman, so I guess they do pay.
Unlike an arena plan? Like the one where the owners are paying more than half (and the city can't afford to pay anything because they are paying for the f*cking streetcar). The pro streetcar gang, screams about building an arena for millionaires, yet because they (the pro streetcar gang) want their bright shiny new bauble......no complaints about rich developers benefitting from the streetcar.
This is all about priorities. What drives more economic development? The Bucks or the streetcar?
I am not big believer in the economics of public funding of arenas, but that horse is out of the barn. If it's a choice between a streetcar with a very dubious upside and an arena with a less dubious upside, I'm going with the arena.
I don't necessarily disagree, but it's the same side of the coin to me. Public funds being used as an investment hoping it increases activity, investment, real estate, jobs, etc.
A big difference would be that the Bucks already have one free building, and the new building is really just a donation to a for-profit business.
But, in the grand scheme, it's the not the first or the last time a business has received large tax breaks from a local government. It's not new, and it's not automatically a good or bad idea. Case by case basis I suppose.
-
I suppose that the developer, Gary Grunau, etc. pay the piper with political donations to the Mayor and the Alderman, so I guess they do pay.
Unlike an arena plan? Like the one where the owners are paying more than half (and the city can't afford to pay anything because they are paying for the f*cking streetcar). The pro streetcar gang, screams about building an arena for millionaires, yet because they (the pro streetcar gang) want their bright shiny new bauble......no complaints about rich developers benefitting from the streetcar.
This is all about priorities. What drives more economic development? The Bucks or the streetcar?
I am not big believer in the economics of public funding of arenas, but that horse is out of the barn. If it's a choice between a streetcar with a very dubious upside and an arena with a less dubious upside, I'm going with the arena.
I was going to say rail is the no brainer and arenas are subject to debate. There was debate on Scoop here:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=45373.25
Heavy private investment always follows the rail.
My repost from the thread:
I would like to see this stat.
Did a one mile long light rail from point A to point B (one mile away) in Charlotte really spur $1 billion in private investment?
I couldn't find the exact stat. $1bil is probably overstated on my part (misremembered). 3-4 years ago New Haven was discussing funding a study on installation of a 1-mile stretch of light rail and I had read it in one of the many articles on the subject.
But I found several examples online in a quick search on "private investment generated by light rail". They always pay-off and then some.
On expansion of the Metro into the DC suburbs including a blurb on impact in Portland & Seattle:
Riding light rail and streetcars into better communities
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/riding-light-rail-and-streetcars-into-better-communities/2014/11/14/58fd98b2-6a86-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html
Modern streetcars in this country have a proven track record. There have been outstanding success stories. Portland, Ore., and Seattle stand out. Portland’s first-phase streetcar line cost about $100 million to build but resulted in more than $3.5 billion in private investment in a decade. The first modern streetcar in Seattle, going from downtown to an obsolete industrial area to the north, in a mere decade has resulted in Amazon moving its corporate headquarters there, a biotech cluster anchored by the University of Washington Medical School and thousands of new residences.
Streetcars have shown that the corridors they traverse redevelop rapidly, which did not happen with buses. Why? Streetcar lines are permanent, signaling to the private market that the transportation system is not going to change tomorrow. Also, middle-class Americans like streetcars. Consumers who have a choice ride streetcars and other rail transit but generally not buses.
On Minneapolis-St. Paul:
http://www.dot.gov/fastlane/central-corridor-light-rail-links-twin-cities-each-other-and-opportunity
The Central Corridor has also been an engine of economic development; since the line was announced, it has helped attract more than a hundred economic development projects that are planned or being built and generated billions of dollars in private investment.
On Dallas, TX:
http://www.dart.org/about/inmotion/march14/3.asp
The expansion to date has generated $7.4 billion in regional economic activity, creating more than 54,000 person-years of employment that paid in excess of $3.3 billion in salaries, wages and benefits.
http://www.metro-magazine.com/news/story/2014/01/studies-tout-dallas-light-rail-s-impact.aspx
The region’s long-term investment in the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light rail system has generated more than $7.4 billion in regional economic impact, according to a new study of the agency’s capital spending between 2003 and 2013.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=45373.25
-
I do believe that Milwaukee will remain the largest city in WI. Call me crazy.
Now, as far as trains and their value, truthfully, I'm not an expert on the subject, and I don't have enough knowledge to say that it is 100% going to work in Milwaukee. I don't know. That's my honest answer.
BUT, it seems like you're pushing back pretty hard based upon a political viewpoint, not a factual examination of Milwaukee's current needs and potential growth structure. Maybe you have done a ton of research, I don't know... but you seem to keep throwing up political objections, not objections based upon the actual idea and it's potential for Milwaukee down the road.
And just to be clear, I don't think a street car is a magic bullet for Milwaukee, but I also see other major cities that had the foresight to install mass transit options. You couldn't afford to build subways in NYC now, so thank god they did it a long time ago.
Maybe Milwaukee needs to bite the bullet and start some new infrastructure planning now so they can reap the benefits down the road?
I'm asking a simple question. Why are choo choo choo choo trains so loved by a particular ideology? The data is overwhelming who pushes them. I'm just curious why?
-
Sorry MUCT, those economic impact studies for stadiums, lightrail, etc, etc have been so debunked over the years. As soon as one of these projects is announced, out comes the economic impact study to help justify them. So many of them have fallen so dreadfully short. There are also these associations that by doing X, Y happened as if Y would not have happened UNLESS X came first. That is a false premise, but it used to justify these things all the time. It's done in business all the time as well.
-
Sorry MUCT, those economic impact studies for stadiums, lightrail, etc, etc have been so debunked over the years. As soon as one of these projects is announced, out comes the economic impact study to help justify them. So many of them have fallen so dreadfully short. There are also these associations that by doing X, Y happened as if Y would not have happened UNLESS X came first. That is a false premise, but it used to justify these things all the time. It's done in business all the time as well.
Have they?
-
I'm asking a simple question. Why are choo choo choo choo trains so loved by a particular ideology? The data is overwhelming who pushes them. I'm just curious why?
Because they require public investment, and only one "ideology" is generally open to public investment in the common good.
-
I'm asking a simple question. Why are choo choo choo choo trains so loved by a particular ideology? The data is overwhelming who pushes them. I'm just curious why?
First, I don't have a clue if trains are some sort of liberal agenda item. I've never been a registered DEM, and I don't go to the secret meetings. (the ones where they decide that Steve Guetenburg is still a movie star)
Secondly, how am I even supposed to "prove" what you are asking? Do you want me to trot out some tired political talking point like: "Conservatives don't like trains because they are in bed with big oil!" (BTW, I have no idea if that is true, but people say sh*t like that and pretend its a fact. Just like people say libs love trains like it's a fact.)
I know you love politics, but it would be cool if you could discuss a topic based upon merit, not the small letter after somebody's name.
-
Because they require public investment, and only one "ideology" is generally open to public investment in the common good.
One ideology doesn't care about costs to "invest" initially or the cost down the road....just kick that can.
That's what you meant.
Plenty of people of another ideology are just fine with investment for the common good, of course this is the tricky part....define "common" and "good". Usually it ends up being not so common and not so good.
-
A few years old, but an explanation
http://www.newsweek.com/will-why-liberals-love-trains-68597
-
Have they?
Yes
Flawed Economic Impact Studies
The literature is endless
-
A few years old, but an explanation
http://www.newsweek.com/will-why-liberals-love-trains-68597
And conservative developers and business owners who's businesses will/may benefit.
I think you get a mix that support these streetcar type of things. Developers who have or will have property and buildings near the line. Some for business owners. Look at the mix coming out in support of a line in Milwaukee. A complete mix.
Maybe it is bad overall or good. But it isn't just a liberal thing.
-
And conservative developers and business owners who's businesses will/may benefit.
I think you get a mix that support these streetcar type of things. Developers who have or will have property and buildings near the line. Some for business owners. Look at the mix coming out in support of a line in Milwaukee. A complete mix.
Maybe it is bad overall or good. But it isn't just a liberal thing.
Agreed. Everybody has their own agenda. Developers support because they perceive the train will help their development sell. (Don't usually care about long term if they are going to sell it). Business owners support because they have been promised something. (Johnson Controls mouthpiece intimating support while JCI is looking to expand the 507 E Michigan complex....hint....What did Mayor McDonothing promise them for that support? A sweet deal on the land they want maybe?)
-
Agreed. Everybody has their own agenda. Developers support because they perceive the train will help their development sell. (Don't usually care about long term if they are going to sell it). Business owners support because they have been promised something. (Johnson Controls mouthpiece intimating support while JCI is looking to expand the 507 E Michigan complex....hint....What did Mayor McDonothing promise them for that support? A sweet deal on the land they want maybe?)
Try doing what Ammo suggested and discuss the issue on its merits. But the reason has to be better than something as simple-minded as libs are crooked and getting rich from their scheme.
-
A few years old, but an explanation
http://www.newsweek.com/will-why-liberals-love-trains-68597
So it's not about good idea or bad idea. It's about R or D.
Got it.
-
Try doing what Ammo suggested and discuss the issue on its merits. But the reason has to be better than something as simple-minded as libs are crooked and getting rich from their scheme.
I already have over multiple threads. This is terrible use of tax dollars that should be spent on higher priority needs. (Education, Safety, streets, you know, the things gov't was intended for) This is a great example of why Democrats should not be allowed to be in charge. Using limited resources for projects with low probability of success is why large cities all over America are in shambles. Dems have been in charge of the large cities for 50 - 60 years. They chase after bright shiny, cool choo choos paying no attention to the boring but important blocking and tackling gov't is designed for.
You want to stop suburban sprawl, stop forcing people to move to the suburbs to get away from the idiocy. The streetcar is the best example of run away idiocy yet.
-
I'm in the perfect demographic of being a young-professional who works and lives in the city. I don't understand anyone who would actually use it. I have friends who say they will use it all the time but I just don't see it. No matter what, I need a car in the city. We are 20 years away until this will expand enough for me to be ok without a car. So if I want to get to work, I have to walk 10 minutes to the stop, hope I hit it right on timing, ride the train down, walk to work and then do the return trip. I assume it will cost $2 each way and take 25 minutes. Or I could just drive, pay $8 parking in my office, and save 30 min round-trip without going outside in the winter. Going out on the weekend? I'll probably just pay $5 for Uber and split it with my friends, instead of paying the ticket per person. It's cool when you are visiting a town, but I wonder home many people will use it day to day. The kicker is there are already bus routes that does the same thing.
-
I already have over multiple threads. This is terrible use of tax dollars that should be spent on higher priority needs. (Education, Safety, streets, you know, the things gov't was intended for) This is a great example of why Democrats should not be allowed to be in charge. Using limited resources for projects with low probability of success is why large cities all over America are in shambles. Dems have been in charge of the large cities for 50 - 60 years. They chase after bright shiny, cool choo choos paying no attention to the boring but important blocking and tackling gov't is designed for.
You want to stop suburban sprawl, stop forcing people to move to the suburbs to get away from the idiocy. The streetcar is the best example of run away idiocy yet.
you da man!!
-
I'm in the perfect demographic of being a young-professional who works and lives in the city. I don't understand anyone who would actually use it. I have friends who say they will use it all the time but I just don't see it. No matter what, I need a car in the city. We are 20 years away until this will expand enough for me to be ok without a car. So if I want to get to work, I have to walk 10 minutes to the stop, hope I hit it right on timing, ride the train down, walk to work and then do the return trip. I assume it will cost $2 each way and take 25 minutes. Or I could just drive, pay $8 parking in my office, and save 30 min round-trip without going outside in the winter. Going out on the weekend? I'll probably just pay $5 for Uber and split it with my friends, instead of paying the ticket per person. It's cool when you are visiting a town, but I wonder home many people will use it day to day. The kicker is there are already bus routes that does the same thing.
For me, this is the real problem. As a couple of people here can probably testify, I am not exactly conservative.
This idea is ludicrous. The idea that MKE should invest a pile of money on infrastructure that is clearly outdated, and is static is the reason MKE gets laughed at. Maybe the next great idea will be something forward thinking like a new automotive plant!
Seriously folks, if you're defending this or think its a great idea, you're really part of the problem.
-
So it's not about good idea or bad idea. It's about R or D.
Got it.
A pox on both of them, quite frankly. There is a reason why people are leaving them both in droves, some of us were way ahead of the curve nearly 20 years ago.
I keep waiting for why they are a good idea. I'm still waiting. What is the fascination of trains with the left? They are inflexible as hell, cost a ton to build, a ton to maintain, they aren't taking people out of their automobiles. What is the benefits and how could all that money be used elsewhere for other things, almost all I would argue would be more beneficial to the "common good".
-
And conservative developers and business owners who's businesses will/may benefit.
I think you get a mix that support these streetcar type of things. Developers who have or will have property and buildings near the line. Some for business owners. Look at the mix coming out in support of a line in Milwaukee. A complete mix.
Maybe it is bad overall or good. But it isn't just a liberal thing.
Hmmm, I never realized only conservatives owned businesses or were developers. I learn something new every day.
-
http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5652-1.pdf (http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5652-1.pdf)
For an accurate view of what rail can be and the economic impact it has a lot of the time, look at pages 109-130. Also for Chicos, this is not a projection, this is REALITY. The majority of the cities listed are not forecasts, they are the reults of study, what we call facts. And in many of the metro areas, traffic times and number of vehicles was reduced. So it seems "they aren't taking people out of their automobiles" isn't entirely true.
I agree it does not work everywhere, but I think Milwaukee would benefit and getting a start on it is the first step. Here in Denver they have created a great light rail system by having each phase(2-3 years) create a new line. By 2017, you can essentially get within a mile or less of anything of importance in a thirty mile circle around downtown. Also the economic impact is so evident when you see the new lines being created, nearly every station has some condos or modern apartment complex being build with shopping centers, restaurants, etc as well. Additionally, one part of the equation often overlooked is the fact that even if that light rail system loses money the increase in new business and sales taxes makes up for it many times.
I know Milwaukee is afraid of change and it takes light years to get any public project to go anywhere, but don't be so short sighted. I have seen it work in the long run. FWIW, Denver population is 50 thousand more than Milwaukee and 4 years ago they were the same size. Metro area of Milwaukee is just over 2 million, Denver is just over 3 million.
Lastly, the original line that was just in downtown Denver did occasionally have to stop at lights and still does. Granted I do not know the frequency comparison between the Milwaukee proposal and Denver but this seems to be a sticking point for some people. All in all it seems people who are vehemently against it, are against any and all public infrastructure projects, rather than against trains, rails, etc.
-
http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5652-1.pdf (http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5652-1.pdf)
For an accurate view of what rail can be and the economic impact it has a lot of the time, look at pages 109-130. Also for Chicos, this is not a projection, this is REALITY. The majority of the cities listed are not forecasts, they are the reults of study, what we call facts. And in many of the metro areas, traffic times and number of vehicles was reduced. So it seems "they aren't taking people out of their automobiles" isn't entirely true.
I agree it does not work everywhere, but I think Milwaukee would benefit and getting a start on it is the first step. Here in Denver they have created a great light rail system by having each phase(2-3 years) create a new line. By 2017, you can essentially get within a mile or less of anything of importance in a thirty mile circle around downtown. Also the economic impact is so evident when you see the new lines being created, nearly every station has some condos or modern apartment complex being build with shopping centers, restaurants, etc as well. Additionally, one part of the equation often overlooked is the fact that even if that light rail system loses money the increase in new business and sales taxes makes up for it many times.
I know Milwaukee is afraid of change and it takes light years to get any public project to go anywhere, but don't be so short sighted. I have seen it work in the long run. FWIW, Denver population is 50 thousand more than Milwaukee and 4 years ago they were the same size. Metro area of Milwaukee is just over 2 million, Denver is just over 3 million.
Lastly, the original line that was just in downtown Denver did occasionally have to stop at lights and still does. Granted I do not know the frequency comparison between the Milwaukee proposal and Denver but this seems to be a sticking point for some people. All in all it seems people who are vehemently against it, are against any and all public infrastructure projects, rather than against trains, rails, etc.
Please. I can find you studies that show the exact opposite. Your "reality" is the same economic impact study nonsense that is thrown out there all the time, that conveniently ignores major data points, or hyperinflates others.
The jobs part of it is a canard. It's a work project program, you could make that claim about EVERY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT. Of course it short term provides jobs, that doesn't make it efficient or the right way to spend money. Nor does it mean a positive ROI either. If that were the case, well we might as well build stuff 24/7/365 on every square inch of this country...because you know...it means people are working. The long term "jobs" created...at what value, what cost, what benefit, what tradeoff? What could that money have been spent on differently?
Again, I'm not against investment at all. I'm fully for it, but that doesn't mean willy nilly on choo choo trains or other projects that benefit so few at a cost of so much. It's upside down in MOST cases. Not all, but in most. There are exceptions to every rule, and rest assured politicians can't wait to say "it worked great in city Y, so that means it will work great in city Z"...and when it doesn't and is an economic albatross over the next 50 years, that politician is long gone. Of course, in the meantime, they continue to sink millions into it with the promise that just "$50 million more is all we need to really make it work...this time....we promise".
-
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10396278_1555577801377550_2998172183407482312_n.jpg?oh=e94dd0d453f8026a321b2bd8cf525711&oe=5551B2E5)
A bus drives around this car
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10985590_1555479744720689_4440835544790021541_n.jpg?oh=c2503a47f441513af72bb73e0782deb8&oe=5588F670&__gda__=1432055631_53a88f6f322988d282eaf18344d4834e)
Looks like the inside of a bus to me
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2695/5818060740_25661ffaec_b.jpg)
Looks like the outside of a bus to me (traffic, streetlights)
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10885044_1547402655528398_6079048376355723535_n.png?oh=685e8011a7720339a019a5b0650f421d&oe=558D3E1C)
A bus doesn't have this problem
-
http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5652-1.pdf (http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5652-1.pdf)
For an accurate view of what rail can be and the economic impact it has a lot of the time, look at pages 109-130. Also for Chicos, this is not a projection, this is REALITY. The majority of the cities listed are not forecasts, they are the reults of study, what we call facts. And in many of the metro areas, traffic times and number of vehicles was reduced. So it seems "they aren't taking people out of their automobiles" isn't entirely true.
I agree it does not work everywhere, but I think Milwaukee would benefit and getting a start on it is the first step. Here in Denver they have created a great light rail system by having each phase(2-3 years) create a new line. By 2017, you can essentially get within a mile or less of anything of importance in a thirty mile circle around downtown. Also the economic impact is so evident when you see the new lines being created, nearly every station has some condos or modern apartment complex being build with shopping centers, restaurants, etc as well. Additionally, one part of the equation often overlooked is the fact that even if that light rail system loses money the increase in new business and sales taxes makes up for it many times.
I know Milwaukee is afraid of change and it takes light years to get any public project to go anywhere, but don't be so short sighted. I have seen it work in the long run. FWIW, Denver population is 50 thousand more than Milwaukee and 4 years ago they were the same size. Metro area of Milwaukee is just over 2 million, Denver is just over 3 million.
Lastly, the original line that was just in downtown Denver did occasionally have to stop at lights and still does. Granted I do not know the frequency comparison between the Milwaukee proposal and Denver but this seems to be a sticking point for some people. All in all it seems people who are vehemently against it, are against any and all public infrastructure projects, rather than against trains, rails, etc.
I am all for public infrastructure projects. What I am against is relatively inferior public infrastructure projects. If streetcars were the only mode of transit, well then, build away. They are not the only mode, however. The invention of the bus has made streetcars virtually superfluous. Buses accomplish everything that an above-ground streetcar can for a fraction of the price. Now, if the streetcar can actually go underground/above ground, can cut through wooded areas, or perhaps use existing tracks, then I will listen to a streetcar proposal. But it is my understanding that this new streetcar does none of these things. I am not against trains. I like trains. But only when they serve a purpose and can be shown to be an improvement over already-existing modes of transportation, e.g., door-to-door faster than a plane, yet simultaneously cheaper than a car.
Regarding the cases of hipsters/yuppies loving streetcars and claiming that these young professionals are the catalyst for creating and fostering economic development, etc., I would advise everyone to look at the great city of Brotherly Love. I live in Philly. We have streetcars/trolleys. There are entire routes where every single stop is in a dirt poor neighborhood. Philadelphia is a counterexample to the notion that streetcars are sufficient for economic development. We even have neighborhoods full of hipsters, yet they don't move to the areas that are serviced by the streetcars and neither do new businesses. So while I agree that hipsters probably love streetcars, they clearly don't love them that much. And to really hit the point home, Camden New Jersey, right across the river from Philly, has several light rail stops in addition to heavy rail stops in addition to being on the waterfront, yet the hipster population is zero.
But what about Denver? And Salt Lake City? And San Antonio? And Columbus, Ohio? And Raleigh-Durham?
Two points to rebut the cases of Denver and SLC.
First, their growth is merely correlated with street car building. So, in order to convince me of the true worth of the streetcar in these cities, you would need to rule out the case that Denver, SLC, and Portland were already growing before the construction of their respective streetcars. In other words, was the streetcar an effect of economic prosperity or was it the cause? A well-designed, peer-reviewed study employing a differences-in-differences methodology would do an approximately good job of answering this question.
Second, I would point out that you should not use absolute economic growth as your benchmark. Rather, you should use relative economic growth as your benchmark. In other words, we spent X on a streetcar system and got Y as a return. Y is positive and therefore we should celebrate. Yay! Not so fast. We could have spent X on something else and gotten Z as a return, where Z>Y.
-
Your last paragraph is dead on.
-
This reminds me of when I was a kid in the early 80's and all my rich friends had Intellivision. We weren't wealthy but my parents were able to buy us Magnavox Odyssey II. My brothers and I enjoyed while it was new, but after a year or two would only turn it on every week or two at most. It was painfully obvious that it wasn't as good as Intellivison whenever I would go over to my friends house and they stopped making new games for it earlier than the other systems.
For you young'uns, if you don't know what Intellivision or Odyssey II are, look em up on your new fangled internet machines!
-
This reminds me of when I was a kid in the early 80's and all my rich friends had Intellivision. We weren't wealthy but my parents were able to buy us Magnavox Odyssey II. My brothers and I enjoyed while it was new, but after a year or two would only turn it on every week or two at most. It was painfully obvious that it wasn't as good as Intellivison whenever I would go over to my friends house and they stopped making new games for it earlier than the other systems.
For you young'uns, if you don't know what Intellivision or Odyssey II are, look em up on your new fangled internet machines!
We had Atari 2600 while the rich kids had intellivision. I remember coming home after those experiences as well. Honestly don't even remember the Oddysey platform.
-
We had Atari 2600 while the rich kids had intellivision. I remember coming home after those experiences as well. Honestly don't even remember the Oddysey platform.
Yeah, we were the only ones I knew who had it. It was like having Keds when everyone else had Nikes. I had such a hard childhood.
-
Yeah, we were the only ones I knew who had it. It was like having Keds when everyone else had Nikes. I had such a hard childhood.
That is something.
(http://www.museumofplay.org/online-collections/images/Z006/Z00684/Z0068443.jpg)
-
Yeah, we were the only ones I knew who had it. It was like having Keds when everyone else had Nikes. I had such a hard childhood.
Did it make you "hungrier"? I was a "Keds kid" and it seemed to me that I wanted good grades, etc. a lot more than some (though certainly not all) of the "Nike kids" I met at MU.
-
Your last paragraph is dead on.
Nah, it is all on point.
-
I am all for public infrastructure projects. What I am against is relatively inferior public infrastructure projects. If streetcars were the only mode of transit, well then, build away. They are not the only mode, however. The invention of the bus has made streetcars virtually superfluous. Buses accomplish everything that an above-ground streetcar can for a fraction of the price. Now, if the streetcar can actually go underground/above ground, can cut through wooded areas, or perhaps use existing tracks, then I will listen to a streetcar proposal. But it is my understanding that this new streetcar does none of these things. I am not against trains. I like trains. But only when they serve a purpose and can be shown to be an improvement over already-existing modes of transportation, e.g., door-to-door faster than a plane, yet simultaneously cheaper than a car.
Regarding the cases of hipsters/yuppies loving streetcars and claiming that these young professionals are the catalyst for creating and fostering economic development, etc., I would advise everyone to look at the great city of Brotherly Love. I live in Philly. We have streetcars/trolleys. There are entire routes where every single stop is in a dirt poor neighborhood. Philadelphia is a counterexample to the notion that streetcars are sufficient for economic development. We even have neighborhoods full of hipsters, yet they don't move to the areas that are serviced by the streetcars and neither do new businesses. So while I agree that hipsters probably love streetcars, they clearly don't love them that much. And to really hit the point home, Camden New Jersey, right across the river from Philly, has several light rail stops in addition to heavy rail stops in addition to being on the waterfront, yet the hipster population is zero.
But what about Denver? And Salt Lake City? And San Antonio? And Columbus, Ohio? And Raleigh-Durham?
Two points to rebut the cases of Denver and SLC.
First, their growth is merely correlated with street car building. So, in order to convince me of the true worth of the streetcar in these cities, you would need to rule out the case that Denver, SLC, and Portland were already growing before the construction of their respective streetcars. In other words, was the streetcar an effect of economic prosperity or was it the cause? A well-designed, peer-reviewed study employing a differences-in-differences methodology would do an approximately good job of answering this question.
Second, I would point out that you should not use absolute economic growth as your benchmark. Rather, you should use relative economic growth as your benchmark. In other words, we spent X on a streetcar system and got Y as a return. Y is positive and therefore we should celebrate. Yay! Not so fast. We could have spent X on something else and gotten Z as a return, where Z>Y.
I agree with your last point, that's why I said it should be constructively looked at city by city, rather than just scoffed at because it costs money. But i think development around transit hubs is significant and should be included in the examination, and not meaning development in terms of construction job creation (I think Chicos thought this is what I meant from his earlier reply to my original post.) I mean new business locations, new housing, new jobs at those new locations, etc.
Also, I was not arguing population increase because of streetcar....haha, obviously that is absurd. I was comparing the two cities sizes in terms of the population size that would be served by the transit. sorry for the confusion I am terrible at English. That's why i stick to web design and writing in code.
For the record, I am neither for or against the streetcar (probably lean against it because of its small differentiation from a bus.), but I have talked to multiple people who are automatically against it and can't tell me much about details, just about cost.
-
We had Atari 2600 while the rich kids had intellivision. I remember coming home after those experiences as well. Honestly don't even remember the Oddysey platform.
We had games like Monopoly, Life, chess and checkers while the rich kids had video games like Atari
-
We had games like Monopoly, Life, chess and checkers while the rich kids had video games like Atari
We had those too. Our Atari was a hand me down from the neighbors.
-
Hand me downs? Hell, we didn't even have electricity half the time. It was rough, man.
-
Hand me downs? Hell, we didn't even have electricity half the time. It was rough, man.
Yeah, but at your age they hadn't implemented the income tax yet and your generation didn't create all this warming, and dust bowls and such. :)
-
After some thought, if I were paying taxes in Milwaukee I'd be against the street car.
It is a glorified bus without the advantages of a subway or El. Would I be more likely to use it than a bus. Yes the fixed route and ease of figuring out the system has advantages. But the advantage is very limited.
I'd rather see Milwaukee as a city on the cutting edge and work on developing a self driving car urban area. Be the first even if it runs in designated lanes like a street car would, with designated routes. At least it could be easily updated and go off route in the future as needed, and it would provide separate cars for each rider or group.
And to Chicos, re the above, I know not all developers and business people are conservative. I didn't mean to imply that, just that the support of the streetcar is a mixed bag of the usual suspects and conservative business people and developers (not trying to say all developers/CEO's/business owners are conservative.... come on, I don't think anyone on this site is even close to being that out of touch... except maybe Ners).
-
I live in Milwaukee and I obviously play taxes in Milwaukee.
I think some sort of rail service is a good idea.
However, the "Street car" might not be the right answer. I'd be more in favor of a light rail system that connected Tosa, Eastside, Downtown and Bayview/airport.
HOWEVER, what I'm proposing would cost WAAAAY more, and isn't on the table.
Generally, I'm in favor of long-term infrastructure with an eye on the future. I'm unsure if this project if the correct choice.
-
I live in Milwaukee and I obviously play taxes in Milwaukee.
I think some sort of rail service is a good idea.
However, the "Street car" might not be the right answer. I'd be more in favor of a light rail system that connected Tosa, Eastside, Downtown and Bayview/airport.
HOWEVER, what I'm proposing would cost WAAAAY more, and isn't on the table.
Generally, I'm in favor of long-term infrastructure with an eye on the future. I'm unsure if this project if the correct choice.
And something like this would make a lot of sense, but it is expensive, and requires planning. Milwaukee would never do it.
-
I live in Milwaukee and I obviously play taxes in Milwaukee.
I think some sort of rail service is a good idea.
However, the "Street car" might not be the right answer. I'd be more in favor of a light rail system that connected Tosa, Eastside, Downtown and Bayview/airport.
HOWEVER, what I'm proposing would cost WAAAAY more, and isn't on the table.
Generally, I'm in favor of long-term infrastructure with an eye on the future. I'm unsure if this project if the correct choice.
This is why I have a huge issue with the streetcar. There is no way that this one line is all they want to do, this is ante to try and get a larger system. So to get the boot in the door they are going to install a bad, narrow system(street car is inferior to all other mass transit) in the hopes once they have it they can expand further.
Have some mo#$^@#?%$#$%ing leadership and lay out a light rail system that makes sense. Yes it is more expensive but make a case for it and the new arena as part of a city and county revitalization plan. Have some freakin' vision and gumption. I would absolutely support a light rail system that had long term vision and none of the back room politics.
I am so sick of Milwaukee whining about money and infrastructure and support from the state without ever trying to do something for themselves.
-
The City Council has handed state legislators a gem.
MKE City Council: We need $$ for a very important program.
State Legislature: What? You can afford the trolley. Why can't you afford this important program?
-
This is why I have a huge issue with the streetcar. There is no way that this one line is all they want to do, this is ante to try and get a larger system. So to get the boot in the door they are going to install a bad, narrow system(street car is inferior to all other mass transit) in the hopes once they have it they can expand further.
Have some mo#$^@#?%$#$%ing leadership and lay out a light rail system that makes sense. Yes it is more expensive but make a case for it and the new arena as part of a city and county revitalization plan. Have some freakin' vision and gumption. I would absolutely support a light rail system that had long term vision and none of the back room politics.
I am so sick of Milwaukee whining about money and infrastructure and support from the state without ever trying to do something for themselves.
+1 Go big or go home.
-
We had Atari 2600 while the rich kids had intellivision. I remember coming home after those experiences as well. Honestly don't even remember the Oddysey platform.
I had an intellivision but wanted an Atari 2600. I guess it a matter of perspective. Intellivision was more expensive and had better graphics, but was limited with the type of games you could play
-
This is why I have a huge issue with the streetcar. There is no way that this one line is all they want to do, this is ante to try and get a larger system. So to get the boot in the door they are going to install a bad, narrow system(street car is inferior to all other mass transit) in the hopes once they have it they can expand further.
Have some mo#$^@#?%$#$%ing leadership and lay out a light rail system that makes sense. Yes it is more expensive but make a case for it and the new arena as part of a city and county revitalization plan. Have some freakin' vision and gumption. I would absolutely support a light rail system that had long term vision and none of the back room politics.
I am so sick of Milwaukee whining about money and infrastructure and support from the state without ever trying to do something for themselves.
Well, the bigger problem for Milwaukee is we're already taxed at a pretty high rate, so it's a tough sell to say that they are going to spend all of this extra money on more infrastructure.
In general, Milwaukee has been inefficient with it's spending, and hasn't done enough to attract high end real-estate (both homes and business) that will increase the tax revenue.
-
Well, the bigger problem for Milwaukee is we're already taxed at a pretty high rate, so it's a tough sell to say that they are going to spend all of this extra money on more infrastructure.
In general, Milwaukee has been inefficient with it's spending, and hasn't done enough to attract high end real-estate (both homes and business) that will increase the tax revenue.
Right, that is my point about the leadership, you gotta make tough calls. The city and county can't say they don't have enough revenue, they just have to make sound decisions.
We have the population density to support mass transit, we just have morons in charge who can't take leadership positions on anything.
I know this might end up down a political path, but what has the city or county of Milwaukee "accomplished" in the last 20 years? I've only lived in Milwaukee since 1999 and I see incremental improvements, but I really can't figure out what the leadership of this area has accomplished other than not having it turn into Detroit.
-
Beer gardens
-
This is why I have a huge issue with the streetcar. There is no way that this one line is all they want to do, this is ante to try and get a larger system. So to get the boot in the door they are going to install a bad, narrow system(street car is inferior to all other mass transit) in the hopes once they have it they can expand further.
Have some mo#$^@#?%$#$%ing leadership and lay out a light rail system that makes sense. Yes it is more expensive but make a case for it and the new arena as part of a city and county revitalization plan. Have some freakin' vision and gumption. I would absolutely support a light rail system that had long term vision and none of the back room politics.
Yep, it shouldn't be this complicated. Put in three main lines: (1) First line leaves the train station and goes up 4th St. to the BC, then goes west on State St. to Tosa, the medical center, and the innovation park and put some kind of a park-n-ride at the end out there. (2) Second line leaves the train station and goes up 4th St. to the BC then goes east on St., head out on Prospect/Farwell to Maryland past UWM. (3) Third line leaves the train station and goes east on St. Paul and then follows Milwaukee St. to 1st St. to KK and goes through Bayview and ends up at the airport. Maybe add a fourth that goes from the train station, past the Casino to Miller Park.
-
Right, that is my point about the leadership, you gotta make tough calls. The city and county can't say they don't have enough revenue, they just have to make sound decisions.
We have the population density to support mass transit, we just have morons in charge who can't take leadership positions on anything.
I know this might end up down a political path, but what has the city or county of Milwaukee "accomplished" in the last 20 years? I've only lived in Milwaukee since 1999 and I see incremental improvements, but I really can't figure out what the leadership of this area has accomplished other than not having it turn into Detroit.
That bold part is actually important and fairly impressive.
-
Detroit guy here. The city is making a huge comeback and there's been a lot of investment made both publicly and privately to make sure this happens. Ironically, two of the things that you guys seem to argue about most (streetcar and a new stadium) Detroit has already broken ground on both projects.
Our streetcar is in it's initial phase and is going to be roughly 4 miles long going right up Woodward Ave which is the main street in DET. There's plans to expand it to the suburbs, but for now going from Downtown to Midtown is plenty. And the new Red Wings stadium is going to be incredible. Not only are the investing in the actual stadium, but there's plans to build 4 neighborhoods around it. The future is bright here in Motown and I'm excited to watch it unfold.
-
Detroit guy here. The city is making a huge comeback and there's been a lot of investment made both publicly and privately to make sure this happens.
Of course, you can only go up so any progress is progress. The governance of the city was a disaster for 50 years. A long uphill battle, but it appears some of the adults are finally in charge, even though they are getting in their own way from time to time as well.
-
Of course, you can only go up so any progress is progress. The governance of the city was a disaster for 50 years. A long uphill battle, but it appears some of the adults are finally in charge, even though they are getting in their own way from time to time as well.
Mike Duggan is the man