MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Wareagle on March 13, 2009, 08:04:16 PM
-
Huge transit news whether or not you are a fan of streetcars in Milwaukee. They are coming. Please, no politics, I just think the news is big enough to share on this board.
Congress backs streetcar system for Milwaukee
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/41218767.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/41218767.html)
Ending a 17-year-long dispute, Congress has thrown its support behind a modern streetcar system in downtown Milwaukee.
With local officials deadlocked over how to spend $91.5 million in long-idle federal transit aid, Sen. Herb Kohl and Rep. David Obey quietly inserted a provision in the massive federal omnibus spending bill to hand 60% of the money to the city for a downtown rail line and 40% to Milwaukee County for buses. President Barack Obama signed the $410 billion package into law Wednesday.
That's a victory for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, who has championed a downtown streetcar loop, and a defeat for County Executive Scott Walker, who has fought the idea. Kohl and Obey, both Wisconsin Democrats, acted at the urging of Barrett, their former congressional colleague.
Modern streetcars resemble light rail vehicles, but are smaller and less expensive. Otherwise, they spur the same kind of debate as light rail: Supporters say a fixed rail system stimulates economic development and provides a transportation option that is attractive to both visitors and residents, while opponents say it's too costly and isn't as flexible as a bus line.
The $91.5 million is all that remains of $289 million appropriated in late 1991 for public transit in the Milwaukee area. Over the years, officials have debated and rejected plans for a bus-only highway, a full-scale light rail system, a guided electric bus system and reserved bus and car-pool lanes on I-94.
Meanwhile, the federal government took away $48 million and state and local officials agreed to spend $149.5 million on other projects. Wisconsin's congressional delegation fought to keep the money from being diverted to other regions, while pleading with local authorities to settle the issue.
In recent years, Barrett has advocated spending part of the money on modern streetcars and part on express buses, while Walker insisted all of it should be spent on express buses. The Milwaukee Connector study committee has been reviewing both ideas.
At one point, Barrett proposed splitting the money 50-50, which would have provided $45.75 million each for streetcars and express buses. Walker rejected that idea and instead suggested spending half the money on express buses and putting half aside for some future use. Barrett refused.
Now Barrett has $54.9 million to spend on streetcars and Walker has $36.6 million for buses, in addition to the $25.7 million that the federal economic stimulus package is pumping into the Milwaukee County Transit System.
-
Ridiculous.
-
Ridiculous.
+1 Public transit = Biggest waste of money
Notice the affiliation of everyone involved? -thats as far as I'll go until they create a third topic board-
-
not really. Infrastructure is the best way to get a community to grow. And this money has been around for a long time. Just was never utilized.
-
It's not a bad idea in theory, but the problem here is we're talking an intra-downtown loop from 4th Street to Jackson/Van Buren West to East and Juneau to Michigan North to South (this is what the earlier proposals were). You can walk either east/west or north/south in this route 10-15 minutes. I don't know if taking a trolley from 4th and State to Broadway and Juneau, for example, is really going to save you much time at all.
Why aren't buses sufficient? They don't require you to tear apart the streets for rails and/or hang ugly overhead wires. Not to mention you need to do extra maintenance in the wintertime to get the rails/wires clear of snow and ice. Plus you can adapt the route to where the riders are.
If you want to build a practical mass transit system in the Milwaukee area, do practical things like investing in the bus system and building a REAL commuter rail line from Downtown, thru the Menonmee Valley to Waukesha County. Don't waste money on an antequated street car system that runs thru a small loop of downtown.
-
I agree with General here. I think commuter rail is a very smart idea. A small downtown trolley loop is not. What would be cool is light rail running west through Waukesha county all the way to say maybe Delafield. Then another line running north to Port Washington, and a final line running south to Kenosha (where you can also hop on the Chicago Metra line). You could have smaller lines connecting these three main arteries.
-
Oh man. No more major construction, please! Between the Interchange and Marquette's new buildings, I can't take much more.
-
I agree with General here. I think commuter rail is a very smart idea. A small downtown trolley loop is not. What would be cool is light rail running west through Waukesha county all the way to say maybe Delafield. Then another line running north to Port Washington, and a final line running south to Kenosha (where you can also hop on the Chicago Metra line). You could have smaller lines connecting these three main arteries.
Getting a light rail line here would do wonders for Milwaukee. The linking of SE Wisconsin would actually attract businesses and help a lot with growth.
-
I agree with General here. I think commuter rail is a very smart idea. A small downtown trolley loop is not. What would be cool is light rail running west through Waukesha county all the way to say maybe Delafield. Then another line running north to Port Washington, and a final line running south to Kenosha (where you can also hop on the Chicago Metra line). You could have smaller lines connecting these three main arteries.
Barrett's idea is that once this downtown loop is proven to be successful, it can be expanded to run to places such as Miller Park and UWM. I agree that commuter/light rail is definitely a smart(er) idea. The problem is that there's still such a misperception among the public about light rail. One example is Ari Gold's statement here that public transit is the biggest waste of money. That's ignoring the fact that cities such as Portland that have implemented light rail have actually experienced economic growth as a result. It's sad that Milwaukee had $289 million since 1991 to put together a transit system but bickering amongst lawmakers whittled down that amount over time. If we're talking about wasting money on transit, lets talk about the billion plus dollar repaving and widening of I-94. The widening is not necessary because it will actually create more congestion.
-
I haven't found it spelled out .. this streetcar thing .. is it going to run on some form of rail? Or rubber tire?
Didn't we already try a rubber tire trolley running a loop downtown, that failed? What would a rail-based vehicle do to make that route more attractive?
-
As a user of a track-based system (in San Jose), I think it would be a great idea for Milwaukee.
As an undergrad, I had to use the pitiful buses. At least there's a hope that the track system will connect major city points: MU or near it, Bradley or near it, Miller Park, Summerfest, UWM, etc.
-
As a user of a track-based system (in San Jose), I think it would be a great idea for Milwaukee.
As an undergrad, I had to use the pitiful buses. At least there's a hope that the track system will connect major city points: MU or near it, Bradley or near it, Miller Park, Summerfest, UWM, etc.
The problem I have with this whole system is all I've heard since I've moved to Milwaukee 8 years ago is that the bus system is falling apart and we need to save it and expand it to help bring people from the inner city to jobs downtown and out in the suburbs.
Well, what does building a second-rate streetcar system do to save that system? Nothing. And where is this streetcar system going to run? In a loop around a small portion of downtown. This does NOTHING to solve either of those problems.
We ran rubber-tired trolleys around downtown the last several years, and no one rode them. We even made them free for a while. But why didn't it work? Easy: downtown Milwaukee isn't population-dense enough, and downtown Milwaukee is highly walkable. The presence of such a system isn't going to encourage anyone that's not already living or working in downtown Milwaukee to change their mind probably.
-
what Milwaukee needs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3xGtjhZ_Yg&feature=related
though I'd argue Mayor Quimby is infinately more competent than Tom Barrett.
I am not opposed to a light rail or even a DC style metro system in theory (if Milwaukee wasn't a swamp) and I'm sure technologically speaking you could probably have a 'green' or environmentally friendly system (hippies will eat that sh*t up like they did hope'n'change).
However since I believe milwaukee to be too small of a community the whole system will be built with taxpayer money, and never turn any sort of profit, even enough to break even. thus widening the budget deficit and libs answers to budget deficits are: RAISE TAXES. which will hurt more than help. Another problem is the fact that if this is increased to include the suburbs, homeless will have access to that area and you think people in WFB, MF, Brookfield and Mequon want more homeless vagrants in *THEIR* community?
-
Another problem is the fact that if this is increased to include the suburbs, homeless will have access to that area and you think people in WFB, MF, Brookfield and Mequon want more homeless vagrants in *THEIR* community?
A metra-style rail system like they have in Chicago has never had this problem. It goes from all areas of Chicago through the richest suburbs. Its not a problem because it costs $3-$5 (you can get cheaper monthly pass rates) or so to ride and homeless people don't have that. Plus, this argument is silly because the Milwaukee county transit system already travels to super-rich communities like Whitefish Bay and it hasn't been a problem there (I work in Whitefish Bay).
The problem I have with some people who don't want to invest in this is that they fail to see the big picture. They would rather save $10 on their taxes and let Milwaukee fall behind almost every other Metropolitan area in the country.
Ari, couldn't help but break the rules and bring political affiliations and stereotypes into it eh? I'm not gonna go down that road. Try to make actual arguments instead of just degrading "hippie libs."
-
The I-94 Reconstruct is far from a waste of money.
The pavement has long outlived its life cycle and is starting to deteriorate. A complete resurfacing is required to restore a ride integrity.
More importantly, the I-94 interchanges are far from safe in terms of modern day freeways. Uncontrolled on-ramps, acceleration lanes that are too short and deceleration lanes that are entirely unsafe with frontage roads crossing with stop control only.
Widening is only icing on the cake. If you are going to reconstruct, you plan for future traffic volumes. Also, it will link with the new Tollway very nicely.
-
all it takes is a couple civils that know their transportation design to point out why this is important, eh ptm?
-
A metra-style rail system like they have in Chicago has never had this problem. It goes from all areas of Chicago through the richest suburbs. Its not a problem because it costs $3-$5 (you can get cheaper monthly pass rates) or so to ride and homeless people don't have that. Plus, this argument is silly because the Milwaukee county transit system already travels to super-rich communities like Whitefish Bay and it hasn't been a problem there (I work in Whitefish Bay).
The problem I have with some people who don't want to invest in this is that they fail to see the big picture. They would rather save $10 on their taxes and let Milwaukee fall behind almost every other Metropolitan area in the country.
Ari, couldn't help but break the rules and bring political affiliations and stereotypes into it eh? I'm not gonna go down that road. Try to make actual arguments instead of just degrading "hippie libs."
Actually, the Metra system in Chicago not only serves the 'burbs, but nearly all of their lines (namely the ones serving the south side/suburbs, like the Metra Electric) have stops within the Chicago city limits. For a kid who grew up in the northwest suburbs, it was always a great option for me to get to the city, since I knew I'd be downtown in 45 minutes and didn't have to worry about driving the Kennedy Expressway at any hour of the day.
To me, this style of a rail line has always made some sense to me (I call it "heavy rail"), provided sufficient population density exists. It utilizes existing infrastructure in a lot of cases (the tracks were built/currently owned and maintained by freight railroads), riders pay based on the length of their trip, and the largest cost is building stations and platforms. I don't get building "light rail" from scratch, considering how much money must be invested in the infrastructure, tearing up existing city streets, the loss of parking, disruption/rerouting of traffic, and ongoing maintenance costs.
You can implment such a line in parts of the Milwaukee area and supplement the service with buses in the Milwaukee city limits; however, I believe that a lot of rail lines within the city of Milwaukee have been torn out in recent years (namely the ones that comprised what was known as the Beerline that ran to the central city of Milwaukee and the East Side), and this would be a major obstacle to even developing a full system.
-
if it was built when the funding was originally available for it, the mid '80's, Mke would have a light rail system and the funding would have covered it. Since then, material costs have risen dramatically and the amount allotted has not changed. I still think it is something that needs to be implemented for future city growth and mobility.
-
if it was built when the funding was originally available for it, the mid '80's, Mke would have a light rail system and the funding would have covered it. Since then, material costs have risen dramatically and the amount allotted has not changed. I still think it is something that needs to be implemented for future city growth and mobility.
-
Renee-
Though this issue at the heart is a political one, I was only referencing the green/hippie aspect of this, not the whole argument. Also concerning having the suburbs connecting to the rail line and the homeless I intended to point out that in DC the closest metro stop to Georgetown is a significant distance away.
Saying that one would rather save a pittance on their taxes versus helping Milwaukee grow is a vast oversimplification. Like I said I would support a light rail because of convenience, if it is financially sound and doesn't become a drain on the taxpayers. Since no public transit is able to do such, I don't support growing public transit. Also I don't think Milwaukee (even including suburbs) is a large enough of an area to get behind such a substantial undertaking.
-
if done correctly, see twin cities, light rail can be great for a city and actually is financially sound. Milwaukee has plenty of examples where similar sized metro areas were able to do this cost effectively.
-
I'm so glad Tom Barrett and Jim Doyle have erradicated the problem of potholes around downtown. Whew!
Hey, can I post whole documents from the Wisconsin Right to Life and then make a statement that "I don't want any politics"?
It's funny how that works. When Barack Obama wants uniformity on an issue he simply says that the debate is over and for the good of the nation we're all supposed to follow suit with whatever central planning solution he's come up with next. He doesn't want politics, after all! That might prevent him from getting his partisan agenda passed!
-
I'm so glad Tom Barrett and Jim Doyle have erradicated the problem of potholes around downtown. Whew!
Hey, can I post whole documents from the Wisconsin Right to Life and then make a statement that "I don't want any politics"?
It's funny how that works. When Barack Obama wants uniformity on an issue he simply says that the debate is over and for the good of the nation we're all supposed to follow suit with whatever central planning solution he's come up with next. He doesn't want politics, after all! That might prevent him from getting his partisan agenda passed!
This post is so incoherent I don't even know which side of the aisle you are on...
-
I guess I should be more clear in saying that I believe that the I-94 reconstruction is not a waste of money but that widening it does not make sense to me. I agree that the road bed is beyond its useful life and that the design of onramps, etc, is outdated. I know most people argue that it makes sense to widen during reconstruction as it will save a lot of money that way. I just get frustrated when hardly anyone blinks an eye at spending an extra couple hundred million dollars widening a freeway, yet those same people would be outraged at the prospect of spending that kind of money on a light rail system.
-
Milwaukee is not a dense enough city with bad enough traffic to support rail in any form. Milwaukee is among the easiest cities in which to drive a car and you are not going to get enough people out of cars and onto trains to make the rider subsidy worthwhile. Every passenger train, no matter the form, requires a subsidy per rider to support operations. It cannot pay for itself. Some of the more outlandish LR ideas in Milwaukee have involved subsidies of over $20 per rider per trip! That is not a sustainable use of transportation dollars.
Other points:
1) Rail requires high densities around stations. For example, the Metro in DC has stop at the Pentagon, NIH, etc where 40,000 people work. Lots of bang for your transit buck. Milwaukee does not have these type of density and never will.
2) Rail is useful when geography limits your ability to build roads. The BART in San Fran crosses San Fran Bay and all the bridges that are ever going to be built there are already built. Milwaukee had no geograpy issues.
-
The NewsHour had a segment a few weeks back about mass transit .. I knew there was a subsidy involved, I just had no idea what it was. I figured the public picked up, I dunno, 25-50% of the cost of a "ride".
They gave a figure, I think it was for BART, that each ride cost $6, and the passenger paid $1.50. WOW. I had no idea (some) subsidies were like 70-90% of the total.
And I was surprised that a ride cost anywhere near $6. My 50 mile round trip commute in my car costs $4 in gas, let's say $1 in insurance, depreciation .. hard to understand how ONE bus trip is $6. That's not even a round trip. Seems like it costs society $12 for my trip to work on a bus, but only $5 if I pay for it myself.
I mean, I supported mass transit figuring its cost to society was cheaper than everyone just driving their own car. But that math sure doesn't seem to work out. What am I missing? (besides the environmental argument.)
-
I mean, I supported mass transit figuring its cost to society was cheaper than everyone just driving their own car. But that math sure doesn't seem to work out. What am I missing? (besides the environmental argument.)
It is cheaper if everyone does it. Hardly anybody does. So the cost of each ride goes up. Whether you have 5 people in a bus or 25 people in a bus, you have the exact same expenses (bus, gas, driver, insurance). More people ride, cost per driver goes down.
-
(Not to be insulting, but: well, duh.)
I guess the real question is .. what %age of commuters do you need to stop driving, and take the bus, for it to be reasonably competitive with just driving?
(Of course, $5/gallon gas would change the math too. I get that.)
-
It is cheaper if everyone does it. Hardly anybody does. So the cost of each ride goes up. Whether you have 5 people in a bus or 25 people in a bus, you have the exact same expenses (bus, gas, driver, insurance). More people ride, cost per driver goes down.
So it's all about coercion. How democratic (small "d"!) of you. Restricting choices, restricting opportunity because you think you can manage people's lives better than they can themselves.
-
So it's all about coercion. How democratic (small "d"!) of you. Restricting choices, restricting opportunity because you think you can manage people's lives better than they can themselves.
Wow, talk about a jump. Who said anything about coercion? I was just stating a basic economic principle (more people do it, it will cost less...as Hilltopper said...duh). Are there more positives than negatives to mass transit? I think so. But I never said I believed in coercing people to do it. We must make it an attractive enough option that enough people want to do it. Sadly, I think too many people in Wisconsin are romantically tied to their pick-up trucks and SUVs, even though 90% of people have no use for them.
I love how people of a certain unnamed political stance resort to a personal attack like this if they disagree with you. Stick with the issues and make a rational argument, or you look like a fool.
Any other completely ridiculous statements you want to put in my mouth?
-
I guess the real question is .. what %age of commuters do you need to stop driving, and take the bus, for it to be reasonably competitive with just driving?
(Of course, $5/gallon gas would change the math too. I get that.)
The first part of your post....I have no idea. That would be an important statistic to find out.
And you are absolutely right about the gas. This topic would carry more relevance if gas prices hadn't gone down so much recently. But you are kidding yourself if you think they are going to stay at $1.90 forever.
-
Wow, talk about a jump. Who said anything about coercion? I was just stating a basic economic principle (more people do it, it will cost less...as Hilltopper said...duh). Are there more positives than negatives to mass transit? I think so. But I never said I believed in coercing people to do it.
You didn't need to say anything. The collectivist Left says it all with its actions.
Spiking taxes on non-users to pay for a system of transport that 95% of people will never use is absolutely coercive.
Working to raise the price of gasoline through badgering of oil companies and decades-long bans on drilling is absolutely coercive.
Passing federal laws for local transportation funding which requires a local funding component absent any local vote is absolutely coercive.
Social engineering is completely coercive. The Big Government Left doesn't need to put people on the trains itself. It just needs to make every other facet of the lives of people who don't want to ride some wasteful and inefficient street car miserable.
-
Count me on the huge WASTE OF MONEY bandwagon on this.
Not to mention any number of other reasons (there are many) that this is a boondoggle that will be used by very few people but cost a ton. We have it in Los Angeles and other cities I visit have it. It's a "feel good" project with very little ROI that benefits a handful of folks. People will argue that it creates jobs and helps to get people from A to B. OK, but it also has an incredible capital expense, benefits few (not the many), has large maintenance expense, etc.
We have oil galore in the gulf, Alaska, the Continental shelf, not to mention more cubic tons of natural gas then any country in the world and more shale than you can shake a stick at. Gas can remain low if we CHOOSE to keep it low as a nation, but we don't have the juevos to do that. It would also create jobs, many more in fact....car producers, oil producers, transportation of the product, distribution. But what the hell.
I get that some people love to ride the train but I don't see how this comes close to solving any transportation issues or energy for that matter. If someone can find a city where light rail has been put in and TRULY made a difference (not the fluff articles, but the business articles that show how they are losing there arse) then I'd like to read them.
-
Count me on the huge WASTE OF MONEY bandwagon on this.
We have oil galore in the gulf, Alaska, the Continental shelf, not to mention more cubic tons of natural gas then any country in the world and more shale than you can shake a stick at. Gas can remain low if we CHOOSE to keep it low as a nation, but we don't have the juevos to do that. It would also create jobs, many more in fact....car producers, oil producers, transportation of the product, distribution. But what the hell.
Just to reiterate...I stated earlier in this thread that this particular streetcar system is a bad idea and a waste of money for Milwaukee in this instance. We kind of wandered off into the general issue of mass transit and that is what my most recent posts were addressing.
-
You didn't need to say anything. The collectivist Left says it all with its actions.
Working to raise the price of gasoline through badgering of oil companies and decades-long bans on drilling is absolutely coercive.
Passing federal laws for local transportation funding which requires a local funding component absent any local vote is absolutely coercive.
We are talking about mass transit. Not gas or oil prices. Exactly what federal laws are you referring to? Stay on topic...you are wandering and it doesn't help your argument (if you would prefer to go on some rant about leftists...be my guest but I am not going to participate in that argument).
You seemed to have grouped me with the "Left" based on my stance on ONE issue...and then brought in grievances with the "Left" that are unrelated to the original topic at hand.
If you must know...I consider myself an independent who will vote for what makes the most sense for the country (not just myself and my personal finances). Mass transit spurs growth in cities. Take a look around. We are falling behind.
-
We need to hook MKE up to METRA Rail from chicago and expand it to our suburbs. Commuter rail == win.
We don't need another go at a more expensive downtown trolley system to get poor people to jobs that don't exist.
Wisconsin, and specifically Milwaukee County, residents pay some of the highest property taxes in the nation and this is the crap we get in return? Weird that businesses are leaving along with any intelligent young people.
The only benefit that those of us that actually pay our taxes will ever see from this is if one of us gets hit by one of these "light rail vehicles" and collects insurance from it. Just think, you could be the next Freeway!
-
The only benefit that those of us that actually pay our taxes will ever see from this is if one of us gets hit by one of these "light rail vehicles" and collects insurance from it. Just think, you could be the next Freeway!
I think you would be the first "Streetcar."
-
During the KRM process, METRA has expressed great concern about the connection of the services. The Kenosha METRA station provides very minimal schedule for a bookend station. It is a long trip and most of the trains do not reach Kenosha. Also, the further congestion of the line is of great concern.
A KRM to METRA connection would not be more ideal than taking the Amtrak.
The fact of the matter is that Milwaukee and it's surrounding suburbs do not have the population to support a METRA type rail. The physical layout would be very similar to METRA's. Milwaukee would have a center-hub rail with four legs (Bayside, Pewaukee, Greendale, Racine?). Each leg would have 4-6 stops. This would hardly be enough ridership to warrant such a system.
-
The fact of the matter is that Milwaukee and it's surrounding suburbs do not have the population to support a METRA type rail. The physical layout would be very similar to METRA's. Milwaukee would have a center-hub rail with four legs (Bayside, Pewaukee, Greendale, Racine?). Each leg would have 4-6 stops. This would hardly be enough ridership to warrant such a system.
I agree. I don't need 4 legs. I only need them to start at my house and go downtown :)
A downtown loop will be the same as the busses. Poor people complaining that it costs $2, homeless people paying for a ticket and sleeping on it all day, and suburban people not being serviced by it so they complain about paying for it.
The MCTS bus service is actually one of the best in the nation. If we absolutely must spend this money somewhere other than balancing the county budget for once, then we might as well use it on existing infrastructure that hasn't been getting the money they need lately. Putting in something new that there isn't a demand for that will compete with our existing bus service is the height of silliness. It would be funny if it weren't my money.
-
The fact of the matter is that Milwaukee and it's surrounding suburbs do not have the population to support a METRA type rail. The physical layout would be very similar to METRA's. Milwaukee would have a center-hub rail with four legs (Bayside, Pewaukee, Greendale, Racine?). Each leg would have 4-6 stops. This would hardly be enough ridership to warrant such a system.
Says who? Like I said earlier in this thread...you could expand it to Port Washington in the North...hell you could even go to Sheboygan. Go to Delafield to the West or even Johnson Creek or Madison...then I bet you get ridership (imagine how many people would use it for Badger and Brewer games). The shortest leg would probably be south to Kenosha...but I bet you could still get 5 or 6 legitimate stops in there. North and West would be much more.
-
Badger or Brewer games just aren't enough to justify a rail line. You've gotta have commuters who use it 5 days a week, or it's just a total waste of money.
I imagine there are some folks who commute from Milw Metro to Chicago .. but .. those folks have a long ride .. they're not going to be up for 3 transfers to get to their exact location. If it's not about 10 minutes off the line, they aint going.
-
Says who? Like I said earlier in this thread...you could expand it to Port Washington in the North...hell you could even go to Sheboygan. Go to Delafield to the West or even Johnson Creek or Madison...then I bet you get ridership (imagine how many people would use it for Badger and Brewer games). The shortest leg would probably be south to Kenosha...but I bet you could still get 5 or 6 legitimate stops in there. North and West would be much more.
And your shortest leg, Kenosha, would have the most population encompassed. While this is the most populated line, it doesn't compare to a single METRA line. The majority of METRA lines have the population needed still within Cook County with stop like Des Plaines and Cumberland. The Milwaukee region does not have the population to support this type of transit.
Sports do not carry any type of transportation other than automobiles, unless it's Wrigley Field.