Will Milwaukee Ever Freakn Upgrade Or Remain The Same??? Opinions Please (Madison: rental car, sales)

[arimor]

THERE HAS BEEN PROPOSIALS FOR LIGHT RAIL AND THEY HAVE BEEN SHOT DOWN.

AND THERE IS NOW A PROPOSIAL FOR A RAIL BUS WHICH IS STUPID.

THESE ARE MIDWEST/CITIES IN AMERICA THAT CAN BE COMPARED TO MILWAUKEE IN CITY SIZE AND PEOPLE POPULATION AND REGION WHO HAS LIGHT RAIL AND OR SUBWAYS SO WHY CANT MILWAUKEE KICK THINGS OFF AND JOIN THE FORE FRONT IN THE MIDWEST

WHERE SHOULD I BEGIN: MILWAUKEE-
Land area: 96 sq mi. (249 sq km);
2005 population estimate (rank): 578,887 (22)

baltimore:
Land area: *77 sq mi. (199 sq km); 2005 population estimate (rank): 635,815 (18)

Baltimore, Maryland: ABOUT THE SIZE OF MILWAUKEE SLIGHTLY SMALLER
Metro Subway








An outbound train stops at the Old Court station (the first station inbound from Owings Mills).


Baltimore, Maryland:
Light Rail








Buffalo, New York: Metro Rail
Buffalo 292,648


Camden / Trenton, New Jersey:Camden, city (est pop. 90,492), trenton 85,403
River LINE Light Rail



Newark, New Jersey:280,666
The City Subway








Cleveland, Ohio:478,403 (33)
Land area: 78 sq mi. (202 sq km);








The Green Road terminal, in a view from the Green Road overpass^^



A few minutes later, the train shown above has turned around at Green Road and has returned to Warrensville to pick up westbound passengers. [July 2003]


red line^^


The University Circle station spans a bridge over Cedar Road red line ELEVATED^^^

east troy, wi


St. Louis, Missouri:
2004 population estimate (rank): 343,279 (52) Land area: 62 sq mi. (161 sq km);
MetroLink





Location: Central West End
Car: 1025

DETROIT 886,671 (11) Land area: 139 sq mi. (360 sq km);
THO DETROIT IS WAY BIGGER IN SQ MILES OF CITY AND POPULATION I WANTED TO INCLUDE THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE MIDWEST










KENOSHA, WI





^^^THE BROWN BUILDING AHEAD IS THE METRA NORTH STATION TO CHICAGO CHEAPER THAN AMTRAK




DAYTON, OH ELECTRIC BUSSES(BELOW) Dayton Dayton, city (EST pop. 182,044





CHICAGO'S METRA WHICH GOES TO KENOSHA





MAIN LINES^^^^^^^^^



SOUTH SHORE^^^^^

ELEVATED CHICAGO:


DENVER, CO 2005 population estimate (rank): 557,917 (25)
LAND SIZE OF DENVER:Land area: 155 sq mi. (401 sq km);

[quijote]

I would like to see a metro rail system return to the Milwaukee area (yes, there used to be one, decades ago), but I doubt it will happen any time soon. Even the bus system in Milwaukee is underused. Americans--not just Milwaukeeans--are too much in love with their cars, and often don't want to rub shoulders with hordes of people. In spite of population increases in specific zones of the city's east side, the trend in Milwaukee metro is for people to move out to places with open spaces and room for cars. But in spite of that, Milwaukee is already a fairly compact city/metro, so it's rather easy and relatively inexpensive for people to drive around. Mequon, for example, is considered an "outer-ring suburb," yet its distance from downtown (~15 miles) is just about equivalent to the distance between downtown Chicago and one of its inner-ring 'burbs, Skokie. But try driving from Skokie to the Loop during rush hour, then you'll see why Chicago's rail system is so successful. In Milwaukee, even in bad traffic, time from Mequon to downtown is less than 30 minutes.

If Milwaukee had more of a fast-paced city-dwelling population combined with suburbanites sick and tired of hour-long commutes, then there might be an outcry for rail. But the reality is that unlike Chicago, Seattle, SF, NYC, DC, and other places, it's easy and quick to navigate Mke by car.

By the way, some of the places boasting a rail system are better at appearances than reality. Buffalo, NY, for example, has a rail system, but hardly anyone uses it (for the reasons I've mentioned regarding Mke), and all it does is go in a straight line from downtown (which makes Mke's downtown look like Oz) to a semi-abandoned state university campus (the primary campus is in the 'burbs, where the rail doesn't go). Buffalo wasted a lot of money on this project, and the project hasn't had the positive effect that was hoped for.

[adam76]

I don't think the people of Milwaukee are opposed to some type of light or commuter rail completely, however the proposals we have had so far have left much to be desired. Several years ago when Norquist was still around there was a push for light rail. The main problem with this proposal was that the proposed termination point was near the Italian Community Center. This would be a really fun walk during winter all the way to Wisconsin Ave and points north where most people would actually want to go.

The more recently proposed Milwaukee Connector made even less sense. All that did was mimic current bus routes and it didn't even reach out into the burbs to make it worth using for commuting.

I also think that various rail proposals have not been very realistic in funding operating costs which causes people to oppose it. The folks pushing the Connector claimed operating costs were almost neutral compared to the current bus system, or could be replaced with TIFs or hotel taxes. This simply does not pass the smell test. Passenger fares cover very small percentages of operating costs with the exception of the highest volume ones. I think Chicago's Metra system is mandated to take 55% of revenue from fares, but that is the exception.

Consider --

Fare Revenue as a percentage of operating costs

St Louis - 28%
Baltimore - 19%
Buffalo - 21%
Denver - 20%

Give us a rail proposal with routes where people actually want to go, common sense stops, and realistic funding proposals. Denver and Cleveland use a 1% sales tax, St Louis is 1/2%. Don't lie to us that a hotel tax or bus cost savings will make up the difference, and for goodness sakes don't fund it via the property tax.

There seems to be this coolness factor with light rail that somehow a city is more modern and hip if it can put choo choo trains on its tourism brochures. Who cares if it is a bottomless money pit when we can say we're cooler than those backward folks in Indianapolis?

[Fishtacos]

You were comparing Milwaukee to many places MUCH larger than Milwaukee. Newark serves greater NYC metro. Many people fly in there instead of LaGuardia and JFK for less hassle and easier commute to metro NYC. 20 million people. Chicago is 9 million people. Baltimore again also serves the 8 plus million metro area of D.C./Baltimore. Even St. Louis has a million more people than Milwaukee in its metro area.

And, these other places are much more spread out as has been previously mentioned. In slightly larger metros such as say St. Louis....good luck with that outer ring Mequon type suburb commute. ...It's 20 minutes to go to suburb next to you, let alone anywhere else in St. Louis. Traffic is much worse there, ...and their traffic is much less than any of the above mentioned places.

Milwaukee is a small metro, with very compact built burbs next to the city. i am not unopposed to improved public transportation by any means, but let's not comapre Milwaukee to some of these areas....because it isn't the same.

[Nuclear_Art]

The only way for anything to be done in regards to better public transportation is to have greater political pressure. People that feel strongly about this really need to organize and shout loud to all politicians to make themselves heard. There really is no large well known political action group supporting transportation alternatives. I hear very little positive news and the only news I hear is from opponents.

Proponents have to organize and organize fast. They have to work hard to get people interested and excited about these projects. There is quite a bit of negative opinion to overcome but it can be done. The majority of citizens are not against commuter rail, they are simply apathetic about it. It will be a matter of making them interested.

Commuter rail can work in Milwaukee.

[43north87west]

Originally Posted by arimor

THERE HAS [sic] BEEN PROPOSIALS FOR LIGHT RAIL AND THEY HAVE BEEN SHOT DOWN.

There have been some, but the proposals have been somewhat lacking. We're comparing Milwaukee metro to Baltimore-Washington, which is several times the size. Milwaukee is not quite as close to Chicago, as Baltimore is to Washington. If it were, we could definitely capitalize on the proximity. The entire Baltimore Washington area is basically one metropolitan area, sharing transportation, highways, and air travel. The whole thing is a massive, congested area, which Milwaukee is not.

On the other hand, I live in Scottsdale, AZ right now. Phoenix does not have any appreciable public transportation. They have buses but they don't run frequently and the bus is not a very good alternative to driving. Phoenix is installing light rail but it is in the infancy stage, and won't be much to shout about for a long time. At least they have the foresight to do it though.

Now, back to Wisconsin. Wisconsin needs no more property tax. I was always a fan of toll roads to provide revenue. That won't be a popular statement, but if neighbors do it, why not jump on and toll them when they visit? Share the cost. In summer, that means carloads of vacationers. It means a lot of revenue either way. Out east, everything is a tollway or a toll bridge, and you just deal with it. Irritating, maybe, but not insurmountable. The revenue could be used to bump up the financing for better public transportation in metropolitan areas, and between metropolitan areas. In my opinion, this would make the region between Madison, Milwaukee, and Chicago, much more economically viable for the future. Also, Wisconsin needs to focus on local rail transportation like Chicagoland has. The two systems could be joined at certain points.

Unfortunately there is the stigma to overcome. Same as Phoenix. Some people think public transportation is for poor people. But like Phoenix, a lot of people don't leave their bubble for long enough to check out other cities, or they do it via rental car or tour bus. You can tour entire cities by train, in this country and in Europe. No cars or buses required. But try selling that to Milwaukee's sheltered suburbanites. After a few years of listening to people complain about the "horrible traffic" on the way in from Mequon or the Lake Country, I still laughed about it. That is traffic? Try I-95 leaving DC on a Friday evening.

Relatively speaking, people in Milwaukee seem a little bit removed from reality, especially Milwaukee's suburbanites. To many suburbanites, public transportation in Milwaukee is for inner city people (i.e. blacks and Hispanics) without cars. As harsh as that sounds, I've heard it many times. No matter how you finance it, toll roads, property taxes, luxury taxes, hotel taxes, or ridership (not likely)--selling suburban car owners on the benefits of something they don't see the value of, that they don't need, that they don't want, and that they won't use, is going to be a very tough sell.

[EnjoyEP]

Originally Posted by quijote

I would like to see a metro rail system return to the Milwaukee area (yes, there used to be one, decades ago), but I doubt it will happen any time soon. Even the bus system in Milwaukee is underused. Americans--not just Milwaukeeans--are too much in love with their cars, and often don't want to rub shoulders with hordes of people. In spite of population increases in specific zones of the city's east side, the trend in Milwaukee metro is for people to move out to places with open spaces and room for cars. But in spite of that, Milwaukee is already a fairly compact city/metro, so it's rather easy and relatively inexpensive for people to drive around. Mequon, for example, is considered an "outer-ring suburb," yet its distance from downtown (~15 miles) is just about equivalent to the distance between downtown Chicago and one of its inner-ring 'burbs, Skokie. But try driving from Skokie to the Loop during rush hour, then you'll see why Chicago's rail system is so successful. In Milwaukee, even in bad traffic, time from Mequon to downtown is less than 30 minutes.

If Milwaukee had more of a fast-paced city-dwelling population combined with suburbanites sick and tired of hour-long commutes, then there might be an outcry for rail. But the reality is that unlike Chicago, Seattle, SF, NYC, DC, and other places, it's easy and quick to navigate Mke by car.

By the way, some of the places boasting a rail system are better at appearances than reality. Buffalo, NY, for example, has a rail system, but hardly anyone uses it (for the reasons I've mentioned regarding Mke), and all it does is go in a straight line from downtown (which makes Mke's downtown look like Oz) to a semi-abandoned state university campus (the primary campus is in the 'burbs, where the rail doesn't go). Buffalo wasted a lot of money on this project, and the project hasn't had the positive effect that was hoped for.

This post is very accurate I feel.

Buffalo, NY and their underused / overfunded rail system is a great example.

When considering light rail in Milwaukee, as much as folks may want it for the "coolness" factor, we need to consider a) is there sufficient demand for this?, b) if the demand is there, will that translate into sufficient usage as to not make it a financial albatross?, c) how will it be financed in an already heavily taxed region?

I am not necessarily against it if the demand is there and that it won't be a financial albatross, but I am skeptical. I don't think people would be as married to their cars here if it was a huge pain to get around in a car like it is in metro Chicago / the DC-Baltimore metro, etc., however, it is a manageable city in terms of auto navigation and thus, I don't think it would be easy to pry people out of the convenience of their cars.

[EnjoyEP]

Originally Posted by adam76

There seems to be this coolness factor with light rail that somehow a city is more modern and hip if it can put choo choo trains on its tourism brochures. Who cares if it is a bottomless money pit when we can say we're cooler than those backward folks in Indianapolis?

I agree fully with this.

If there is a real demand and need in a city where economic value would be demonstrated in light rail [eg: Chicago, Seattle, etc.], then I am not against it. I am just not convinced that this is the case in Milwaukee, and a lot of other towns pushing towards light rail.

Economically this would need to be viable, and thus far, I haven't seen or heard of anything that makes any sense, especially considering that public transit in place (eg: the bus) isn't heavily used either.

[adam76]

What is ironic about this whole thing is that when Miller Park was in the proposal stages a common argument against building it was that the $300M spent could have been used towards other more pressing needs such as schools, police, etc. No one says that about a rail system that would probably cost twice as much at a minimum. Not only that but the primary users of any hypothetical rail system would probably be suburban dwellers coming to the city for work or play more than those of the inner city (unless you just so happened to live close to a station). There are multiple threads on this board about poor education, racial tension, poverty etc. A small portion of what would go towards rail would go a long way.

I think when you start adding too many zeros to a dollar figure, people start to lose perspective on how much money you are talking about. There was a study done on the St Louis rail system and it's benefit to the poor there. The annual taxpayer subsidy to fund the rail system could buy a Toyota Prius for every one of the poor people (those who don't own cars) who used the rail system, spend $6,000 per year per car on maintenance, replace the cars every five years, and still have $49 million left over every year. That $49 million every year would be enough to give the remaining 47,300 riders of the system an annual subsidy of $1,043.

Perspective is a good thing.

[EnjoyEP]

Originally Posted by adam76

What is ironic about this whole thing is that when Miller Park was in the proposal stages a common argument against building it was that the $300M spent could have been used towards other more pressing needs such as schools, police, etc. No one says that about a rail system that would probably cost twice as much at a minimum. Not only that but the primary users of any hypothetical rail system would probably be suburban dwellers coming to the city for work or play more than those of the inner city (unless you just so happened to live close to a station). There are multiple threads on this board about poor education, racial tension, poverty etc. A small portion of what would go towards rail would go a long way.

I think when you start adding too many zeros to a dollar figure, people start to lose perspective on how much money you are talking about. There was a study done on the St Louis rail system and it's benefit to the poor there. The annual taxpayer subsidy to fund the rail system could buy a Toyota Prius for every one of the poor people (those who don't own cars) who used the rail system, spend $6,000 per year per car on maintenance, replace the cars every five years, and still have $49 million left over every year. That $49 million every year would be enough to give the remaining 47,300 riders of the system an annual subsidy of $1,043.

Perspective is a good thing.

Again, great post...couldn't agree more.