I'm Published

Self published that is. A small work of fiction that I hope everyone will enjoy. Available now on my Create Space e-store, and it should be available on Amazon within five business days. My wife and I would appreciate your support.

Click here to buy now.

Click here to buy for Kindle.

810 Million Dollars

Can we give it back?

That is the amount Wisconsin has received for the proposed Milwaukee to Madison high speed rail. just a small part of the 3,000 mile Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, according to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. I suggested to one local pundit that the maximum ridership would be 4,000 in the first month and downhill from there, making reference to the now extinct Janesville to Chicago line that had one daily rider and averaged less than 20 riders a day. I think I could be a bit high with any of those figures.

Living in Korea for four years, I depended on mass transit to get into Seoul. On several occasions we visited our central church. The trip using the train took us just under two hours. If we grabbed a taxi to the train station we could make it in an hour and a half, if we didn't have to wait long for the train. Someone suggested that the bus was quicker. But I was more familiar with the train and during off peak hours there were always plenty of open seats. Unlike the bus, the buses often lined up at the stops eight deep like a train, which were always crowded.

Many of the students I tutored in English, as they started their professional careers, consistently expressed their desire to someday buy a car. Though parking was an issue and the main streets in Korea, sometimes eight lanes wide as they worked there way through narrow valleys between the mountains, were always packed with traffic.

But it just wasn't the horror of traveling during rush hour, the passengers pressed hard one against the other that they abhorred, it was their time that they cherished. On one of those trips to our central church, usually a two hour trip, one of our local church elders offered us a ride in his minivan. We slogged through the Seoul metropolitan traffic and after 15 minutes were well settled into our seats, content with watching the mass of humanity that surrounded us when our driver said;

"We're just about there!" Maybe twenty-five minutes point to point.

There is no need for the Milwaukee to Madison train line. It does not matter how fast it travels, driving will always be quicker and cheaper. That is as long as we are allowed to have our own cars. Looking at the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative you have to wonder if that is not the whole idea; denying us our cars. Electric cars are a great idea, but what if you are only allowed to charge them at your personal residence? With the time it takes to get to a station, then wait for the train and then transfer to another form of transportation to get to your destination, no one will take this train.

I suggested in the past that high speed rail only has value if it could compete with, or perhaps 'complement' is a better word, the airplane. A System traveling at +300 mph that connects only major airports. Airports already containing plenty of long term parking as well as car rental facilities. And all major airports have well established connections to their respective city centers.

The expense of high speed rail is far greater per rider than our existing system. Even in high density areas such as Chicago some have suggested that rail is too expensive and that the existing roads could handle the extra traffic. I think I can safely say that wouldn't be true in Manhattan. And few rail lines of any kind in the United States turn a profit. The only high speed rail line that turns a profit is between Tokyo and Osaka. One of the richest most densely populated areas of the world. And the supposed environmental benefits of rail are disappearing as passengers per miles traveled is dropping as rail invades low density areas. That high speed line to Duluth, population 85,000, could send it over the edge.

In fact existing rail transit as a commuter system can only claim viability because it came before the availability of the automobile. New rail systems will not spur development. They are an economic disaster for the communities where they have been built. With the unsustainable tax burden (not to mention the existing tax burden) that the Milwaukee to Madison rail line will create there will be no new development in Wisconsin and there will be no need or desire to relocate or expand existing businesses along the rail line.

We do have an attractive corridor between Milwaukee and Madison that can become one of the most attractive areas in the country, if we can revive our local economy. We already have many natural areas preserved from development, Lapham peak and several other State Parks. A transit system as a planning tool, a tool to control development in what some call a responsible fashion, is far superior than the heavy handed restrictions and land grabs our federal and local governments seem to favor more and more. The expressway whose own nodes, access points, have created pockets of density is another example.

But a fixed transit system has few advantages over buses. And those only exist if they operate free of interaction with other systems such as cars or freight trains. So they can move fast and free and not obstruct traffic. But they are extremely expensive and cannot be supported without hurting our local economy.

These should be important considerations to planners and architects as they propound they uphold standards of ethics. Some recognizing the economic infeasibility of old technology rail transit systems (the bullet train is some 40 years old and travels faster than what we have planned for Wisconsin) and are investigating personal rapid transit systems.

If we had a truly ethical government, the waste, corruption and folly removed, there would be plenty of money to develop systems judged money losers, but holding other benefits the public values. If we can cut taxes and spur development, a transit system can be 'planned' right down to its paths and stations, influencing development without actually building it until it could be deemed economically responsible.

Still we would hardly be a Manhattan or Tokyo. But rather than shopping the market for the latest fad, old technologies and systems that have already been shown not to work, at least to those with basic standards of intellectual honesty, why not demand something new to meet the specific needs of this community? And not putting out money for studies, but guided with common sense going to companies and saying this is what we want. Show us what you can do to meet our needs.

And some person rapid transit systems go a bit larger. Perhaps a ten passenger system between Milwaukee - Madison is sufficient, and  if it works well maybe run it all the way to Minneapolis/St. Paul. Yes a personal rapid transit system is much lighter than traditional rail. If designed well it can require a lighter support system, a smaller infrastructure, which means it could be brought through tighter areas. It would not be difficult to make it much quieter than traditional rail or elevate it above the roadways.

Five pairs of two seats, with business class leg room, would translate into a car about twenty feet long and eight feet wide. Perhaps five tons total operating weight. How difficult would that be to support and move at twice the speed of traffic (140mph) or faster? (I'm asking, I'm not an engineer)

Computerized, as it would be an isolated system, to save on labor costs and create a nearly on demand access. With computerized ticketing systems, common, one would purchase a ticket from a vending machine priced specifically to distance traveled. You would need one attendant at each station, maybe one or two more at the busiest, to deal with problems or collect extra fees if the wrong ticket was purchased. If everyone on a car is going all the way to the end of the line and the car is full it would automatically go express.

When someone buys a ticket the system can determine how long before a car will arrive that they can board, and a new car can be pulled up if no other car is coming. A device in the armrest would take the ticket and spit it back out when you reach your destination. The system could guarantee boarding within five minutes. If there is no one seeking a ride, no cars will be moving. A semi on demand system would require a surplus of cars. A cost analysis would have to be made.

The greatest advantage is the system is capacity flexible. If populations dramatically increase more cars can be added. Like that scene in Korea, with the buses lined up like a train. Why build an unsustainable system that will carry hundreds and expect the demand to appear? Why not a system that meets the demand and can be expanded?

Providing spacious seating a bicycle ticket could be bought, where a bike rack drops in one set of seats allowing for up to three bikes to be held. A car with five pairs of seats could carry six bikes and six bicyclists. And we have many attractive bicycling options in the Milwaukee - Madison corridor. A pair of seats could lift up to provide for handicapped access. Yes, every pair of seats would need its own access.

With the expressway and bicycle corridor that already exists, adding a fixed mass transit 'plan' could control development, create nodes of density through planning rather than government dictate. Currently I personally believe when purchasing a house people are more interested in bicycling options than mass transit options. And that would be recreational bicycling.

A system that truly responds to the future needs of Wisconsin. That is, if we are to grow along with the rest of the country.

Unfortunately common sense, public ethics, and vision are not currently in vogue.

Modern Residential Construction

My older brother moved into a new suburb some years ago. Standing at a certain point, one could bounce the floor in his house and watch the walls moving as well. Amazingly there was no corresponding cracking in the drywall and no squeaking. The wonders of modern materials and engineering. I didn't find it attractive. Soundness creates a sense of security. Could there be some yet to be documented negative influence on the social and ethical norms of the greater society? One's environment influencing the way one feels, and thinks about, and judges his surroundings? I enjoy investigating the metaphysical but have a more tangible point to make.

This summer there was a story of a home where the outdoor gas grill caught fire and soon the entire home was consumed by the flames, a complete loss. Living in the city, when an older home catches fire, I know that a structure seldom burns to the ground. That when the fire department arrives they have a lot of work to do, climbing onto the roof to vent the smoke, searching for victims, and other general fire fighting duties. Yet when they get to a single family home of modern construction how often do they have the chance to do much more than pour water on the blaze? Unfortunately too often, as a rise in fire fighter deaths is attributed to modern engineered construction materials and/or systems.

Modern multifamily structures, like we see in our own downtown here in Milwaukee, have high standards for fire separation between units built into the codes, preventing similar conflagrations. (OK maybe it's just the sprinklers) But this boom in downtown construction, much of it standing empty, also points out the money ties between our construction industry, with its contractors and unions, and the political establishment. A lot of money has been made and contributed.

In the multi-unit construction Architects are involved. Could that be one of the reasons the safety standards are higher? Or maybe it is just privacy issues in multi-unit construction that would require a more substantial construction. I am sure many in the Architectural profession promote this kind of development for ideological reasons. Is there an intentional lack of focus on single family housing for these same ideological reasons? If these multi-unit buildings are not a response to market forces and waste tax payers money, two criteria, I would consider it an unethical endeavor.

And though some Architects are involved in residential design, what is their focus? Functionality? Interior designs that meet the ever changing demands of modern families? Cost savings? And are Architects involved at all? They are not required in construction under 50,000 cf.

Systems that are engineered, using less material and cutting costs, are often (but not always) substandard when fire is added to the mix. But we have smoke detectors that get everyone out of the house safely. A product of a disposable society? If something goes wrong we throw it away and get a new one? So let us not raise the standards, cutting into the contractors profits, but let's require sprinkler systems. More work for the construction industry.

Wood is the definition of a renewable resource. Is it best to use as little as possible when constructing a home? Or would it be better to go heavier and create a home that will on average last much longer? I would say go heavier. And beyond the traditional timber framing, there are some modern engineered materials that would work just as well if not better.

There are serious issues with modern single family home construction that have not come to the forefront and in the interest of public safety they should be. Lives are on the line.

Early Work

A project from 1970.

And here's one for you blue door fans.

Yes, I am still writing on Architecture though I haven't posted recently.

My wife was impressed that my mother saved all my art work. Happy Mother's Day to all to whom it applies.