Will Milwaukee Ever Freakn Upgrade Or Remain The Same??? Opinions Please

[kbleeke]

i do agree strongly with that people want a rail system because its "cool".
however there would be a use for a rail system for the north and west sides of the city where many people cant afford cars and thus a rail system could connect them with jobs in the valley.

chicago's rail systems succeed because the metro area is so spread out unlike milwaukee. there is plenty of countryside between chicagos far suburbs and downtown. and that is unlike milwaukee where once you see any decent amount of farms, the metro area ends.

[south-to-west]

I don't think that Milwaukee is ready for light rail yet, given its traffic patterns and average commute times. However, I do feel like the following would enhance the quality of life in regards to transportation in Milwaukee:

-- Implement a bus rapid transit system (BRT) with dedicated lanes on streets or dedicated busways, traffic signalization that favors buses, and of course enhanced buses. BRT has been successful in Pittsburgh and LA and its operating costs are lower. Buses basically stop at designated stops at certain intervals like a train.

-- Stop funding public transport through property taxes and instead fund it through a sales tax and/or gasoline tax.

-- Promote and invest in intercity rail connectivity between Milwaukee-Chicago and Milwaukee-Madison. Regional connectivity has the potential to boost Milwaukee's economy, allowing people and businesses based or operating in Chicago or Madison to also live or work out of Milwaukee. Linking the regions major airports can also bring more passengers through Mitchell. Even more importantly--wouldn't be nice to be able to get drunk at a Badger game and not have to worry about getting back to Milwaukee?

[adam76]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

-- Implement a bus rapid transit system (BRT) with dedicated lanes on streets or dedicated busways, traffic signalization that favors buses, and of course enhanced buses. BRT has been successful in Pittsburgh and LA and its operating costs are lower. Buses basically stop at designated stops at certain intervals like a train.

-- Stop funding public transport through property taxes and instead fund it through a sales tax and/or gasoline tax.

-- Promote and invest in intercity rail connectivity between Milwaukee-Chicago and Milwaukee-Madison. Regional connectivity has the potential to boost Milwaukee's economy, allowing people and businesses based or operating in Chicago or Madison to also live or work out of Milwaukee. Linking the regions major airports can also bring more passengers through Mitchell. Even more importantly--wouldn't be nice to be able to get drunk at a Badger game and not have to worry about getting back to Milwaukee?

All of these, wholeheartedly

[Drover]

Originally Posted by kbleeke

chicago's rail systems succeed because the metro area is so spread out unlike milwaukee. there is plenty of countryside between chicagos far suburbs and downtown. and that is unlike milwaukee where once you see any decent amount of farms, the metro area ends.

No, Chicago's rail systems succeed (and that's a relative term if you've been following the financing squabbles that have been going on here) for precisely the opposite reason you cite: because Chicago is more dense than Milwaukee, and the Chicago area is more dense than the Milwaukee area. Our metropolitan area is roughly 5 times the size of yours, but the downtown business district isn't substantially bigger than Milwaukee's downtown core. So imagine five times as many people trying to pour into the center of your city every weekday morning and then pour back out every weekday afternoon. That adds up to a lot more traffic congestion. Try driving from, say, Naperville or Schaumburg to the Loop on a weekday. Your 20-mile drive will take you well over an hour. And then when you get downtown you get to spend $15-25 to park your car. It's enough to make a Chicagoan long for the relative ease of Milwaukee's rush hour. Trains are effective only because for many they are a more convenient and less time-consuming, and often less costly out-of-pocket means of getting to their destination than driving.

It's also important to realize that our rail infrastructure has been in place for a long, long time. Some parts of the CTA "L" system are over 120 years old. Most of it was built before cars became ubiquitous and when there as less infrastructure to get in their way and less bureaucratic tape (lawsuits, environmental impact statements, several layers of taxing/financing bodies, jurisdictional squabbles, etc.) to get in their way. In fact, the CTA rail system was a private-sector undertaking and was not consolidated into a public agency until the 1940s. The Metra system (heavy-rail commuter lines to/from the suburbs) operates on pre-existing freight lines; they were not built primarily for commuter use. If Chicago had no rail infrastructure already, it would probably be just as difficult to implement one as it has been in every other city that doesn't already have one.

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by Drover

No, Chicago's rail systems succeed (and that's a relative term if you've been following the financing squabbles that have been going on here) for precisely the opposite reason you cite: because Chicago is more dense than Milwaukee, and the Chicago area is more dense than the Milwaukee area. Our metropolitan area is roughly 5 times the size of yours, but the downtown business district isn't substantially bigger than Milwaukee's downtown core. So imagine five times as many people trying to pour into the center of your city every weekday morning and then pour back out every weekday afternoon. That adds up to a lot more traffic congestion. Try driving from, say, Naperville or Schaumburg to the Loop on a weekday. Your 20-mile drive will take you well over an hour. And then when you get downtown you get to spend $15-25 to park your car. It's enough to make a Chicagoan long for the relative ease of Milwaukee's rush hour. Trains are effective only because for many they are a more convenient and less time-consuming, and often less costly out-of-pocket means of getting to their destination than driving.

You're both right, actually. Chicagoland is a very spread-out metro area, as the original poster said, with the farther suburbs and edge cities mixed in with patches of farmland and other undeveloped spaces. However, much of Chicagoland is densely populated--the city itself and the inner-ring suburbs, of course, but also the first-band outer-ring suburbs. This configuration is a perfect motivator for getting people to take public transit. As you say, what would be a 20-minute drive in Milwaukee becomes a 60-minute drive in Chicagoland. If Milwaukee can use light rail, it will not be for the exact reasons why such transport is so popular in Chicago.

[EnjoyEP]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

-- Promote and invest in intercity rail connectivity between Milwaukee-Chicago and Milwaukee-Madison. Regional connectivity has the potential to boost Milwaukee's economy, allowing people and businesses based or operating in Chicago or Madison to also live or work out of Milwaukee. Linking the regions major airports can also bring more passengers through Mitchell.

If done correctly, this would be a great asset for Milwaukee. My Milwaukeean breatheren may hate to hear it, but in terms of business viability, one of our (Milwaukee's) best assets is close proximity to Chicago. However, as it stands, getting from Milwaukee to-fro the heart of Chicago for business purposes is nearly impossible on a daily basis due to traffic/freeway patterns, etc. If there was a connectivity between the two that made things easier, then you might see much more of a relationship like you get on the east coast where many big cities are within an hour of one another.

Again though, doing it correctly and find a way to properly fund it, ensure the demand is there, etc., would be absolutely key, and frankly, given the history of local politicos' decision making, I would have my serious doubts.

P.S. I refuse to answer the poll question itself because I just don't think throwing some light rail out there necessarily would constitute a "freakin upgrade" for the city.

[Minnehahapolitan]

I agree with the poster above. Milwaukee would have more economic stimuli created by a bullet train between Madison and Chicago. Kinda like Philadelphia played up its proximity to New York. The first line that is built in Milwaukee,IMO, should be a quick 10 mile line connecting The Airport, Downtown, and UWM. You would get a few commuters, swarms of students and businessmen/travelers from the airport. It would be pretty similar to the light rail in Mpls. It has done amazingly well and is used by alot of people.

[43north87west]

Originally Posted by EnjoyEP

If done correctly, this would be a great asset for Milwaukee. My Milwaukeean breatheren may hate to hear it, but in terms of business viability, one of our (Milwaukee's) best assets is close proximity to Chicago. However, as it stands, getting from Milwaukee to-fro the heart of Chicago for business purposes is nearly impossible on a daily basis due to traffic/freeway patterns, etc.

Agreed! An inbound commute by car is not viable, Milwaukee to Chicago. Some people do it but they're nuts, IMO.

Amtrak is great if you are going to Northbrook, or the Loop. Not too expensive either.

There's always flying, but O'Hare is such a delay-prone disaster zone, you're better driving. At times, I think you could ride a bicycle faster than you could risk trying to get in and out of O'Hare in a reasonable amount of time.

Although Milwaukee doesn't like the "suburb of Chicago" image, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Milwaukee-Chicago-Gary corridor is HUGE and has major economic impact. Easy travel between the Loop and the downtown Milwaukee area, plus decent public transportation in and out of downtown, would be a huge benefit, and would almost certainly lure some Chicago based businesses that have interests to the north or in the Milwaukee area.

In the DC area, people commute an honest three hours per day just to be able to afford a little land and a decent suburban life without spending a million dollars. They are relegated to I-95 (awful), or in the far south suburbs, the VRE light rail system, which is a poor implementation of light rail. Having seen this, I suspect that Milwaukee would become a very reasonable commuting option for someone who did not mind spending a couple of hours per day on the train. If people are pressured enough to drive 3 hours plus, per day in DC, why not sit on a train for less time between cities. I worked for a Chicagoland company and was based in Milwaukee for several years, and we commuted all the time via train. It was a little bit slow, but the thing was we were centrally located in the Loop, so the train was an obvious choice. If we were in the burbs... forget it.

Anyway, I would agree that a very high speed rail system between Milwaukee and Chicago would greatly benefit the Milwaukee area, despite the fact that people tend to resist the Chicagoland influence (and the people) for whatever reason.

[EnjoyEP]

Originally Posted by 43north87west

Although Milwaukee doesn't like the "suburb of Chicago" image, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Agreed. I mean, does Baltimore have such an inferiority complex versus Washington DC? I never have understood our inferiority complex versus Chicago.

I for one love being so close to Chicago. And also, I would not have a real desire to live in Chicago...but that isn't a dig at Chicago...for those that love a huge city, Chicago is there and Milwaukee is available for getaways/for those that want to live in a more manageable, affordable, mid-sized city, Milwaukee is there and Chicago is available for getaways. Either way, the opportunities for business, synergy, etc., is endless (just think, with the Northern 'Burbs of Chicago growing and Kenosha growing, this is largely a 10+ million person coridor within 85, 90 miles).

Somehow I feel it largely goes to sports (the inferiority thing)...which is really a shame. I love sports as much as anyone, but it shouldn't so grossly impact our regional view of one another.