Is Milwaukee getting a light rail? (Kenosha, Racine: home, construction, universities)

[Milwaukee City]

roughly something like this.

[Milwaukee City]

The more I think about it, I wouldn't have a stop in Madison it would just slow things down to pick up 20 college kids. Plus you already have badger bus and wisconsin coach lines and greyhound.

[Ron Burgundy]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

Agreed but I think in 20yrs will be more plausible. However I believe all 6 counties of the Milwaukee area freeway should be 4 lanes each way and 5 lanes in Waukesha. My beef with the whole rail thing is these dumb routes.

So your beef is no longer with the money? Makes sense since expanding freeways up to 5 lanes wide (5 lanes, here?!?!) isn't anywhere close to being a reasonable use of funds.

[tully]

A UW-Madison station has already been ruled out because it would defeat the purpose of high-speed.

As far as light rail routes, that's cart-before-horse. Without an RTA in place with sales-taxation authority, it won't happen in Milw, period.

As somebody mentioned, in era of rail upgrading/adoption by other cities, legislatively torpedoing rail puts Milw on an island and certainly doesn't help its image. (ie. prevailing image of a place where growth/advancement is not seen as desireable by much of the population). It reinforces it.

And Racine probably continues to die. And Kenosha remains a BR community option for Chicago, not Milw as it should be.

The ace in the hole from Milw POV, though, is still high-speed. (IF Chicago Hub is funded as expected.) Madison/Minneapolis get back on the radar and Chicago suddenly is within the magic 1-hour "bedroom community" distance. Yes, Milwaukee could become a BR community for Chicago, perhaps not in the truest sense of the word (a sleepy burb where nothing happens), but as a somewhat quieter, less populated and lower-cost lakefront option where stuff happens

On the off chance highspeed doesn't go through, it would be disastrous because then Milw cements where it is-- second banana, no connection (or time-consuming and/or expensive), to Racine/Kenosha/Madison/Minneapolis, and a slower-than-necessary slog to Chicago. And no cache at all.

[Judith Reidy]

I am very interested in supporting light rail and access for all in the city. All vibrant cities have such an system to promote commerce and business in the city.

[rso092]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

So you would be perfectly fine with Milwaukee disappearing into obscurity? Because that's exactly what's going to happen unless we get with the times.

You seem to have absolutely no understanding of modern-day mass transit whatsoever. In the past, big cities like Chicago and NYC built their heavy rail mass transit systems, long before the invention of the automobile, to move millions of people from place to place. New light rail systems in cities like Portland and Denver, were mainly designed to reign in suburban sprawl through the use of TODs (Transit Oriented Developments) and ease traffic congestion on the freeways. TODs are developments that occur at or around newly constructed train stations, usually in the form of mixed-use developments such as the Bayshore Town Center. This serves to bring more people back into the city's core as well as breathe new life into poorer neighborhoods that will have rail lines running through them, similar to what Midtown Center has done for the area near Fond Du Lac Ave. Light rail is more of an economic development tool, than it is a solution for moving people from place to place, but it manages to accomplish both. Constructing a light rail system is also a signal that your city is thinking about its long-term future. Perhaps Milwaukee doesn't need light rail right this very second, but who knows what we'll need 10 years from now?

Who cares if we don't need it and can't pay for it, I want it NOW, dammit!

[rso092]

Originally Posted by Ron Burgundy

So your beef is no longer with the money? Makes sense since expanding freeways up to 5 lanes wide (5 lanes, here?!?!) isn't anywhere close to being a reasonable use of funds.

5 lanes...why not? Many smaller metro areas have far more robust freeway systems. For example, Greensboro, NC. I40 is 6 and 7 lanes in some places, and even if you include the entire Triad (Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point primarily) there are over 500,000 less people than Milwaukee.

[Ron Burgundy]

Originally Posted by rso092

5 lanes...why not?

Who cares if we don't need it and can't pay for it, I want it NOW, dammit!

(Touché)

[rso092]

Originally Posted by Ron Burgundy

Who cares if we don't need it and can't pay for it, I want it NOW, dammit!

(Touché)

i didnt say i want or support a 5 lane freeway, just pointing out the fact they aren't unheard of in a midsize metro like Milwaukee

[Milwaukee City]

I say make all Milwaukee area freeways 5 lanes each way, then we won't have to widen freeways for the next 70yrs. I would do this in Kenosha county, Racine, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee counties.