In the commuter rail debate I would like to thank our Mayor Tom Barrett for the clear presentation of his transit solutions on the City of Milwaukee web site. It will allow for clear and productive debate. Part of that plan is a 3-mile loop for the downtown called the Downtown Circulator. I hope my comments on its shortcomings can create a better alternative.
As someone who has lived and visited some of the most congested cities in the world, including New York and Seoul among others, people are willing to walk farther than one may imagine; a quarter mile or more to a transit station or stop. Many working in downtown Milwaukee, as I have, look forward to the opportunity to walk before and after work as well as at lunchtime. Even if the route would go directly from their parking to their office door, most would choose to walk. Though the distance from one end of the loop to the other would be too far for most people, how many would be in that situation?
The people mover in Detroit, as well as the Kenosha Street Car, have both failed to be sufficiently utilized. The Kenosha Street Car, which costs 25 cents and services a large new condominium development, the Kenosha Marina, the Kenosha Museum, and passes through a historic downtown connecting them to the METRA station, operates only four hours a day, 10:05 a.m. – 2:05 p.m. in the winter and eight hours in the summer. Obviously not being used by commuters to Chicago as intended.
Installing a rail system is costly, permanent and inflexible. The system would be highly subsidized but all transportation is. The building of roads would be considered a subsidy for cars, something drivers pay for through the gasoline tax, but more importantly roads contribute to commerce and the taxes associated with it. Any rail system for Milwaukee would make no such contribution. The number of riders, if any, would have no influence on commerce and may in fact restrict commerce while raising taxes.
The major impediment to people visiting downtown is not lack of transit but of convenient parking. Outside of park and rides that utilize the expressways and bring people into the city quickly and conveniently, people with cars do not want to ride local transit into downtown. Taking away parking spaces is far too detrimental to downtown activity. There is an interesting design solution expressed in Barrett’s proposal of curb bump outs serving as transit stops where most of the parking can be preserved. Unfortunately this would also restrict the flow of traffic, making it undesirable for people to drive into the city where the need to search for parking is typical. The costs and associated new taxes will create another financial disaster on top of the present County Pension crisis.
One comment given in the debate was that a fire hose across the tracks would stop the whole operation. Modern rail systems have only one legitimate purpose and that is to relieve congestion by operating independently of vehicular traffic. Not many cities outside of Europe have rail systems that operate in vehicular thoroughfares. Many systems in Europe are continuations of rail that was installed before the predominance of the automobile. In the former communist block they exist in a system that until recently virtually told people where to live and work and lacked the economic vitality to allow most of its citizens to own cars. Historic European City centers were originally designed with no concept personal vehicles for the masses that require ample roads and concessions for storage as well as maintenance.
A second requirement for a rail system to work is population density. This is what allows the rail system to contribute to commerce, allowing people who could otherwise not enter a city because of congestion, to get to their jobs and the cultural attractions that city centers provide. Allowing people to reach their destinations quicker and easier than by driving. Milwaukee is no where near the population density required. Our street system was more than sufficient in the past when the population was greater and more prosperous than now. As the population has dispersed into the suburbs, so have the jobs. This illustrates the real goal of the rail debate in Milwaukee, as many commentators have picked up on, and that is to force people to use mass transit. Good luck Comrades.
A third requirement is destinations and here size does matter. Most major cities in the world have a loop route, more commonly called a circle line, in their subway systems. The loop however is excessively larger than what Mayor Barrett is proposing. It covers an expansive area, connects to all linear lines and many stops are small city centers in themselves, providing immense variety along the route for whatever task the rider might be on.
Mayor Barrett’s loop does connect important downtown features and the Post Office is a more important destination than people give it credit for. Plans suggest that the train station will also grow in prominence. Its far corner touches on dense residential areas. In reality it does not matter what reasoned presentation others or I may make in favor or in opposition. No consultants need to be hired for feasibility studies. This route can be implemented immediately. No rail need be installed to see if this plan will work. Simply run the red trolley buses on the proposed route and do some promotion and advertising. I am sure the Journal Sentinel would volunteer free space being such strong supporters of the plan. I suggest the title be shortened to Downtown Circle to be more descriptive. Run it 24 hours a day if you like and record the rider ship throughout the day. I predict the results will hardly justify a rail car the length of three buses with the probable capacity of four. It may be a legitimate productive use for the red trolleys, no rail required.
What Milwaukee and the region needs to do is design its rail system in advance, whether it be a subway or some kind of elevated rail, that operates independently of our road system. The exact routes and stations need to be located and the work required, moving steam tunnels, sewers etc., needs to be identified and the costs calculated. Milwaukee has no such plan. With this plan all growth can be guided to make the best use of the proposed system that would be built when required and not before. Regarding a circle line, a minimal size would run from UWM to Mitchell Street and west to connect State Fair, the Zoo, Mayfair Mall and other amenities.
Any rail system for the Milwaukee Metropolitan area, circular or linear, requires the potential for rapid and expansive economic growth and a lot of hard work on the part of our elected officials to make it happen, lowering taxes and soliciting major corporations. As our economy booms and new skyscrapers go up in some of the largest most congested cities of our nation why is Milwaukee not attracting any of this growth? The tax climate is so suppressive in Milwaukee and Wisconsin that further tax increases proposed by our Governor and a tax heavy rail system, any rail system, pushed on the public is negligence. Would I be wrong to categorize it as a human rights violation depriving people of their livelihood?
No comments:
Post a Comment