Milwaukee Approves Streetcar. Connect it to Bradley Center 2.0?

[Eldon]

A bus drives around this car



Looks like the inside of a bus to me



Looks like the outside of a bus to me (traffic, streetlights)



A bus doesn't have this problem

[Eldon]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Your last paragraph is dead on. 

[MUEng92]

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!

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[MUEng92]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[AZWarrior]

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.

[Hards Alumni]

Your last paragraph is dead on. 

Nah, it is all on point. 

[rmi210]

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.

[Spotcheck Billy]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[4everwarriors]

Hand me downs? Hell, we didn't even have electricity half the time. It was rough, man.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[GOO]

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).

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[mu-rara]

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?

[jficke13]

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.

[hairy worthen]

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

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[mu03eng]

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.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Beer gardens

[Litehouse]

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.