Milwaukee Approves Streetcar. Connect it to Bradley Center 2.0?

[mu-rara]

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.....

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[mu-rara]

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.
 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

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?

[Coleman]

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

A few years old, but an explanation

http://www.newsweek.com/will-why-liberals-love-trains-68597

[ChicosBailBonds]

Have they?

Yes

Flawed Economic Impact Studies

The literature is endless

[GOO]

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.  

[mu-rara]

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?)

[brandx]

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[mu-rara]

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.

[martyconlonontherun]

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.

[rocket surgeon]

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!! 

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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".

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[rmi210]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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".