Milwaukee Approves Streetcar. Connect it to Bradley Center 2.0?

[jficke13]

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?

[Groin_pull]

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.

[NavinRJohnson]

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?

[GooooMarquette]

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.

[Eldon]

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.

[jsglow]

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.

[NavinRJohnson]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

Just get 10-12 of these owned by the city. If it were to work anywhere, Milwaukee would be a safe bet.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Just get 10-12 of these owned by the city. If it were to work anywhere, Milwaukee would be a safe bet.

Humming "roll out the barrel" just looking at that photo.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

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.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Just get 10-12 of these owned by the city. If it were to work anywhere, Milwaukee would be a safe bet.

They have those already!

[Groin_pull]

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.

[Eldon]

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.

[jficke13]

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.

[jficke13]

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?

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

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?)

[GOO]

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.

[jficke13]

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?

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

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).

[Benny B]

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.

[GooooMarquette]

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."

[ChicosBailBonds]

Choo chooo

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[rocket surgeon]

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.