Posts Tagged ‘Transportation’

Wigderson’s Take on: Proposed Hoan Bridge Bike Path

By James Wigderson
 Special Guest Perspective for the MacIver Institute

It’s the $9.4 million question, or possibly we could be playing for ten times that amount. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) will stop taking comments this Wednesday on whether the planned rehabilitation of the Hoan Bridge on Milwaukee’s lakefront will include a pedestrian and bicycle path. They will make a decision by the end of the year.

Design Sketch Courtesy of WisDOT

The Wisconsin DOT has actually come up with five different proposals for the proposed bicycle path. The most expensive idea is to build an additional path to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic above the existing bridge. The price tag on that idea is $95 million.  Even the Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin is not in support of that idea.

Other alternatives include building another elevated bridge to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians for $84.4 million, widening the existing structure for $76.4 million, or closing down one of the north bound lanes to create the bicycle and pedestrian path down the center of the bridge for $27.5 million.

The least expensive plan has drawn the endorsement of the Bicycling Federation of Wisconsin for practical political reasons. This plan would shut down the right northbound lane on the bridge, construct a concrete barrier to protect bicyclists and pedestrians from automobiles, and would cost $9.4 million. The price tag is practically a bargain considering the proposed alternatives.

Connecting a bicycle trail from Chicago to Sheboygan, and possibly as far as Door County, over one of the most iconic landmarks in Wisconsin, is a long time dream of bicycling fanatics. You thought Cubs fans were obnoxious before, wait until we’re spending tax money just to allow them to slow down traffic.

That’s exactly what the two less expensive plans would do – slow down traffic. According to the Wisconsin DOT, using their growth models they anticipate traffic flow would deteriorate to an “F” rating by 2035. Just like in high school, an “F” rating isn’t very good.

Bicycle path proponents like to point out that the average speed would be reduced to 50 mph, the current speed limit on the bridge. While this may be correct, they act as if the times when the traffic does not achieve the average is not a big deal. As the Wisconsin DOT points out, the drop in average speed is because of the increased density of the traffic, creating more unsafe conditions for motorists and decreasing the reliability of the Hoan Bridge as a connection for commuters to the larger interstate traffic system.

The commuter that finds the traffic route unreliable may have to make more drastic considerations than the recreational bicyclist who enjoys bicycling the Hoan for the view. A person who depends on the Hoan to connect to I-94 for a job in Wauwatosa or Menomonee Falls is not going to feel good about watching bicyclists occupy an entire traffic lane if their daily commute may be severely curtailed randomly, or if they themselves are the subject of the morning accident reports.

Commuters placed in such a situation may have to consider whether living in Bay View and points south is worth it, or if there is a preferable alternative that promises an easier commute.

The ease of commute is not just a hypothetical situation for the Wisconsin DOT to consider. As the draft executive summary of the bicycle path feasibility study says of the “F” rating, “The latter result is below WisDOT’s acceptable design year standard of LOS ‘D’ for Milwaukee County freeways. These conditions would worsen over the 50+ year life of the investment.”

Making matters worse for commuters dependent on the Hoan Bridge, the creation of a combined pedestrian/bicycle path on the Hoan Bridge will actually add to the period the bridge is being repaired.

The Wisconsin DOT also notes that response times by emergency vehicles using the Hoan Bridge will get worse as a result of the higher traffic density.

The traffic impediment would be below the DOT’s standard, and would only get worse. The bicycle and pedestrian path would defeat the entire purpose of having the Hoan Bridge in the first place. This is what is considered the politically feasible plan.

Let’s also put the price tag of the proposed bicycle and pedestrian path into some perspective. The cheapest plan is $9.4 million. That one bicycle project would cost nearly as much as the city of Milwaukee intends to spend ($11.3 million) on it’s entire bicycle infrastructure plan for the next ten years. The $9.4 million only sounds reasonable when compared to the fantastic numbers of the other options. Remember, we’re talking about a 2 mile bike path here.

In addition to the infrastructure costs of adding a bicycle lane, the Wisconsin DOT will also be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the bicycle path, including snow removal. Unless, of course, the bicycling enthusiasts in favor of the path across the Hoan Bridge plan on volunteering to shovel the snow from the bike path themselves. (Remember kids, no shoveling salty snow into the lake!)

The maintenance of the bicycle and pedestrian path across the Hoan Bridge will also require periodic shut downs of the remaining right lane of traffic. Let’s face it, only a very few of the most avid cyclists will endeavor to scale the windy incline of the Hoan during the (generously) four months of Milwaukee’s harsh winters.

Of course, it’s not like there is not already an alternative to bicycling the Hoan Bridge. Bicyclists are already expected to use nearby 2nd street to get to and from downtown. Granted, the view from 2nd street isn’t nearly as impressive as it is from the top of the Hoan Bridge, but at least on 2nd street you get a nice view of the bridge.

Proponents of the bicycle path love to point to other iconic bridges that have mixed use. However, the Hoan Bridge was not built for mixed use. It was built for automobile traffic. The Wisconsin DOT has a responsibility to defend the bridge’s primary function, especially given the price tag for the proposed recreational use and it’s hindrance of vehicular traffic.

It’s unfortunate federal and state requirements of considering mixed use traffic for transportation projects except in extraordinary circumstances cause the state to have to go through this exercise. However, it’s hard to imagine that extraordinary circumstances are not readily apparent in the case of repairing the Hoan Bridge.

Share
Tags: , ,
Posted in mi perspectives | November 29, 2011 | | 5 Comments

Democrats Push Pedal Power as Solution to Budget Woes

By James Wigderson
Special Guest Perspective for the MacIver Institute

State Representative Brett Hulsey has found a way to solve all of our state budget problems. Everyone, get out of your cars. No really, get out of your cars and ride a bicycle.

In his press release, Hulsey cites a new study that says, “replacing short driving trips with biking would benefit the upper Midwest, including Wisconsin, by saving at least $3.8 billion, saving 1,000 lives, and cutting traffic by one-fifth or 20%.”  Good to know someone on Hulsey’s staff knows 20% is the same as one-fifth. Probably homeschooled.

If only Governor Jim Doyle had known about bicycles. He, and Representative Hulsey, might never have had to raise taxes in Doyle’s last budget.

There is, of course, one small catch. When the study says, “replacing short driving trips with biking” they mean 50% of the trips less than or equal to eight kilometers. In American English, that’s almost five miles on your SUV’s odometer.

My wife’s trips today to the grocery store, Menards hardware store and for take out pizza all should have been on her bicycle. But of course that wouldn’t work. It’s hard to carry the latest Christmas outdoor decorations from the hardware store on the back of a Schwinn, even with a basket. Two gallons of milk, cereal for a week, bacon, eggs, bread, and light bulbs weren’t going to fit on the back of the bike, either. As for the carry out pizza, that might have worked. Just leave the two-liter of soda and the breadsticks behind.

So we were 0-3. Actually we were 0-4 if you throw in the trip to the corner gas station to fill the car’s tank for the week.

That sounds like a lot of trips and that’s the point. Even if she had been able to make those trips by bicycle, she would not have been able to make all the trips because of how long it would have taken her.

That means somebody else would have needed to make 4 trips today by bicycle to make up for the Wigderson family. I’m sure the elderly couple next door could have taken bicycles to church today.

It sure as heck wasn’t going to be me. If I took a bicycle everywhere I went, I wouldn’t be able to use my cell phone. The gasping for air would get me arrested for making obscene phone calls.

If my wife’s trips today were impossible to make by bicycle, imagine what they would be like a month from now. Do Trek bicycles come with a snowplow accessory?

Of course, somebody on Hulsey’s staff should have pointed out the absurdity of ever hoping that Wisconsinites would abandon their cars for 50% of their trips less than five miles.

The authors of the study don’t offer policy prescriptions that would make Wisconsinites and others in the Midwest suddenly get on their bikes and ride 50% of the time for short trips. They only point it is out that it’s possible if we become more like the Netherlands. No wonder Democrats are in love with windmills.

They do let the cat out of the bag by letting us know that converting car lanes to bicycle lanes can cost as much as $50,000 per city block. Portland, OR, spent $10,000 per block on a ten-block stretch of city streets to close a lane to cars and open it to two-way bicycle traffic. The city of Chicago, in the fiscally unsound state of Illinois, just spent $140,000 to make a bike lane on four city blocks, including a bridge.

But the authors are hopeful that cities in the Midwest can become more like their Dutch counterparts because some cities are already “bicycle friendly,” including Milwaukee. Part of being bicycle friendly is making the roadways safer for bicyclists, measured in the mortality rate of bicyclists. If Milwaukee builds a lane across the Hoan Bridge that “friendly” rating might go down.

Milwaukee recently committed to a plan to become even more bicycle friendly. They are going to spend $11.3 million over the next ten years to create more bicycle lanes, and that does not even include land acquisition. The city’s goal is for a bicycle to be used for 5% of all trips less than five miles by 2020.

That’s a long way from Holland’s bicycle use, and certainly nowhere near the 50% that the study’s authors hoped for. Perhaps the Milwaukee Common Council should pass a law requiring residents to wear wooden shoes and plant tulips.

Share
Tags: , , ,
Posted in mi perspectives | November 7, 2011 | | 7 Comments

Healy Petitions PSC for Ruling on Milwaukee Streetcar Costs

MacIver News Service | October 5, 2011

[Madison, Wisc…] The president of the MacIver Institute on Wednesday petitioned the State’s Public Service Commission, seeking a definitive answer regarding who will have to pay for the costs of relocating utilities to make way for the construction of a 2-mile streetcar in the City of Milwaukee.

“The utility rate payers of Southeastern Wisconsin deserve to know whether or not they will be on the hook for costs associated with the construction of a two-mile train that serves a tiny fraction of citizens, businesses and tourists in a tiny fraction of the city of Milwaukee,” Healy said. “I am hopeful the PSC will provide these answers before work on the project begins.”

Healy wants to know who will be paying for infrastructure costs associated with construction of a proposed a 2-mile boutique trolley route. He has requested a declaratory judgment that the City of Milwaukee will be responsible for paying for the costs associated with moving utility facilities underneath the proposed Milwaukee Streetcar route. Healy is represented in the matter by Richard M. Esenberg and Thomas C. Kamenick of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.

Last month, in their response to queries made by State Senators Van Wanggaard and Leah Vukmir, the PSC confirmed that utility-related costs associated with the Milwaukee streetcar project could exceed $70 million.

“Although these cost estimates are likely to change, it is imperative that the public and relevant officials know who will bear them.” Healy’s petition notes.

In his petition, Healy asserts that the City, and not the utilities’ ratepayers should pay for the costs.

“There is no “adequate health, safety or public welfare justification” to require the utilities to permanently move their facilities in order to accommodate the Milwaukee Streetcar line,” according to the petition “There is nothing about the existence or location of these facilities which threatens the public health, safety or welfare. The only reason that they have to be moved is construction of the Milwaukee Streetcar line.  This cannot constitute an “adequate health, safety or public welfare justification” as a matter of law. Such a justification must involve, at minimum, an exercise of the City’s police power. Building and operating a street car is not such an exercise.”

BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT

General construction of the $64.6 million, 2.1-mile rail line would be funded by $55 million in federal transit aid (previously allocated twenty years ago) and $9.7 million in tax-incremental financing district funds. Supporters assert that rider fares, downtown parking fees and advertising revenue will cover the $2.65 million annual operating cost.  The Milwaukee Common Council has approved the project although they have withheld the release of funding for the project pending additional information.

In their response to queries made by State Senators Van Wanggaard and Leah Vukmir, the PSC confirmed that additional, utility-related, costs associated with the project could exceed $70 million.

The PSC broke down the costs:

  • WEPCO  - $45 million
  • ATC .5 to 15.4 million
  • AT&T 10 million

The PSC said the ATC costs will vary depending on the need for corrosion protection for the steel conduit holding the underground transmission lines because of the proximity to DC (direct current) lines powering the proposed streetcars. The Commission further notes that the AT&T estimate is not for costs that would be incurred by other co-located telecommunication providers.

As the letter to Wanggaard and Vukmir states “Wiscosnin Stat. 227.41 allows the Commission to issue a declaratory ruling if a petition is filed by an interested person regarding whether a utility would be obligated to pay for moving its facilities associated with the Streetcar Project. Here, an affected utility or a ratepayer would request a declaratory ruling.”

Healy has filed the petition HEALYPETITION with the PSC requesting such a ruling as an individual utility ratepayer in Southeast Wisconsin, not on behalf of or in his role as President of the MacIver Institute.

Share
Tags: , , ,
Posted in News | October 5, 2011 | | Comments Off

Who Will Pay for Milwaukee Train’s Utility Costs?
Brett Healy Seeks Declaratory Ruling from PSC

MacIver Institute President Seeks Declaratory Ruling From PSC on Milwaukee Trolley Utility Costs

The president of the MacIver Institute wants a definitive answer regarding who will be on the hook for paying for infrastructure costs associated with construction of a proposed a 2-mile boutique trolley route.

Brett Healy

Brett Healy, President of the Wisconsin-based John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy, announced that he will file a petition with the Public Service Commission requesting a declaratory judgment that the City of Milwaukee will be responsible for paying for the costs associated with moving utility facilities underneath the proposed Milwaukee Streetcar route.

STATEMENT BY HEALY

“This two-mile train line at best benefits a minuscule segment of Milwaukee residents, business owners and tourists. I believe the costs should be borne by them and not those who will receive no benefit. Nevertheless, the taxpayers and ratepayers of Wisconsin deserve to know how much this will cost and who will have to pay for this project before any more expenses are incurred. I am seeking a declaratory judgment so that all involved will know, without a shadow of a doubt, who is going to pay for this trolley. While the PSC has issued an initial analysis that the City of Milwaukee could be responsible for these costs, taxpayers and ratepayers in Wisconsin deserve a definitive answer.”

BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT

General construction of the $64.6 million, 2.1-mile rail line would be funded by $55 million in federal transit aid (previously allocated twenty years ago) and $9.7 million in tax-incremental financing district funds. Supporters assert that rider fares, downtown parking fees and advertising revenue will cover the $2.65 million annual operating cost.  The Milwaukee Common Council has approved the project although they have withheld the release of funding for the project pending additional information.

In their response to queries made by State Senators Van Wanggaard and Leah Vukmir, the PSC confirmed that additional, utility-related, costs associated with the project could exceed $70 million.

The PSC broke down the costs:

  • WEPCO  - $45 million
  • ATC .5 to 15.4 million
  • AT&T 10 million

The PSC said the ATC costs will vary depending on the need for corrosion protection for the steel conduit holding the underground transmission lines because of the proximity to DC (direct current) lines powering the proposed streetcars. The Commission further notes that the AT&T estimate is not for costs that would be incurred by other co-located telecommunication providers.

As the letter to Wanggaard and Vukmir states “Wiscosnin Stat. 227.41 allows the Commission to issue a declaratory ruling if a petition is filed by an interested person regarding whether a utility would be obligated to pay for moving its facilities associated with the Streetcar Project. Here, an affected utility or a ratepayer would request a declaratory ruling.”

Healy will be filing a petition to the PSC requesting such a ruling as an individual utility ratepayer in Southeast Wisconsin, not on behalf of or in his role as President of the MacIver Institute.

Share
Tags: , , ,
Posted in News | September 30, 2011 | | Comments Off

Nothing Rapid About Bus Debate in Milwaukee

By James Wigderson

Special Guest Perspective for the MacIver Institute

Oh, wait. Now it’s a good idea?

When Governor Scott Walker was the county executive in Milwaukee, he advocated the creation of bus rapid transit system using federal funds that were set aside for transportation improvements in Milwaukee County. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (Walker’s opponent for governor in 2010) has the train disease, and he believed the $91.5 million in federal funds should be used instead for rebuilding a streetcar system. Those funds were first allocated to the area back when the Milwaukee Brewers used that hideous interlocking MB logo.

Congress decided to split the baby in half and gave Barrett $55 million for his electric streetcar system.  Unfortunately for Milwaukee taxpayers, the streetcar system is going to cost a lot more than $55 million. There have been estimates as high as $70 million just to move the utility infrastructure along the proposed line. Throw that on top of the estimated $9 million the city will have to pay for its share of the construction and the $2.62 million in annual operating costs.

Someone forgot to tell Barrett that the last time a trolley system was used to any good purpose was on Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood, and even then it ran empty.

Meanwhile, the rest of the federal transit money, $36.6 million, was given to Milwaukee County to use for the bus rapid transit system. The money is currently sitting idle until Milwaukee County moves forward with plans for the bus rapid transit system.

A bus rapid transit system that uses modern buses making less frequent stops and uses traffic controls to cross the city much faster than normal buses. It has the advantages of light rail in that its speed makes it attractive to commuters. It also avoids the disadvantage of light rail – permanent, costly infrastructure that can’t change as transportation needs change.

When Walker proposed bus rapid transit for Milwaukee County (for reference sake, the current Brewers’ logo had just been unveiled), skeptics wondered if it was just an excuse to avoid supporting a light rail system like the city of Milwaukee wanted. Others, like then-County Supervisor Chris Larson, suspected Bus Rapid Transit was just a back door method of gutting the existing county bus system.

Larson said to WUWM, “So it’s not a new expanded service, it’s just replacing something that’s already there so it’s like somebody took away your car and then gave it right back to you and said, ‘Look you have a new car, only now with this new car you won’t be able to stop everywhere you want to. You’ll have to stop every six stops instead.’”

Fast-forward a couple of years. Walker is in the governor’s mansion. Chris Larson is a State Senator that sometimes shows up for work.

The state budget passed by the Republican legislature killed the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) commuter train and the regional transit authority (RTA) that funded it’s planning and lobbying efforts. The remaining money sitting in the fare box from the rental car tax, plus federal and state grants, has to be divided up.

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele and members of the Milwaukee County Board want $15 million of the leftover federal KRM money for three rapid bus lines.

“In addition to shorter travel times for transit riders, express routes would allow the County to reprogram funds from portions of underlying local routes to support other parts of the transit system facing severe potential service cuts.

“If approved, the grants would be used to create express bus routes along three existing highly used local route corridors to improve transit travel times.”

In other words, what was once a criticism of rapid buses, that they could be used to replace slower lines along the same route, is now an asset. Milwaukee County would be able to actually save local tax money for the existing bus system by taking out some of the routes and replacing them with the rapid bus system. Funny how that works.

More importantly, the whole exercise shows just how outdated and expensive rail projects, much more expensive than bus systems, not only compete for transportation funding but waste the money. Milwaukee County’s belated enthusiasm for rapid buses was only made possible when Walker and the legislature killed off wasteful rail spending.

Meanwhile, Barrett waits for his train. The last time Milwaukee had a streetcar system analysts said the city lacked the population density to keep it viable. Buses, they said, were the wave of the future. That report was issued in 1949. The Braves hadn’t even moved to Milwaukee yet, and I have no idea what the team logo for the minor league Milwaukee Brewers looked like then.

Now Milwaukee County actually has a chance to build a system that commuters will use to actually move people to jobs in the Milwaukee area, unlike Barrett’s train boondoggle that merely runs along existing bus routes, forever.

Barrett and Abele are close political allies. Perhaps Abele should give Barrett a call tell him it’s time to hop on board the bus.

Share
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in mi perspectives | September 28, 2011 | | Comments Off

Infrastructure Spending Increases Over the Past 10 Years

Click here for the full article

Share
Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in mi fast facts | September 16, 2011 | | Comments Off

Off the (High Speed) Rails

California Learning Expensive Lesson on Cost of ‘Free’ Money

By James Wigderson
Special Guest Perspective for the MacIver Institute

Last year when Governor Scott Walker was a candidate, he made it clear that he would stop a supposedly high-speed rail line between Milwaukee and Madison. Some speculated that Walker would be forced to break his promise because the project would be too far along when he took office. Others speculated that Walker would break his promise because: “Who would turn down $810 million in federal money?”

But even before he took office, Walker’s determination killed the proposed train. The federal government fulfilled its threat and sent the money for high-speed rail elsewhere.

Where? California, to be exact.

At the time Walker campaigned against the proposed high-speed rail line, one of the concerns was the hidden costs to Wisconsin. Those hidden costs included possible cost overruns, construction and maintenance for local train stations, maintenance of the lines and ongoing operating costs.

Indeed, California hasn’t even laid track yet and already cost overruns are threatening the project. The estimated cost for the project is $43 billion. Well, that’s the official number. Outside groups are putting the cost at closer to $65 billion or more, while the Legislative Analyst’s Office said $67 billion.

That’s a lot more than the $6.3 billion currently available to California to spend on the project. Of that, only $3.5 billion comes from the federal government, and that’s only if California breaks ground for the train in 2012. The rest comes from $10 billion in bonding that the voters approved provided there was matching federal funds.

To beat the 2012 deadline, California is going to use the majority of the federal funds to build the first leg of the high-speed train between Corcoran, CA (pop 24,813) and Borden, CA  (unincorporated) in the Central Valley. One California blog described it as, “somewhere outside of Fresno to somewhere else kind of closer to Bakersfield.”

That makes about as much sense as building a high-speed train between Merrill, WI and Lac Du Flambeau, WI, let alone between Madison and Milwaukee. But it’s somewhat-with-lots-of-strings-attached-free-federal money, right?

Other critics are calling California’s high-speed train start, “the train to nowhere,” after the infamous “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska that was a symbol of federal pork projects.

The leg between Corcoran and Borden will probably not attract the ridership necessary to pay the operating costs, so state taxpayers will have to subsidize the system. They should get used to it, as a recent study at the University of California – Berkeley raised serious concerns about the ridership estimates for the high-speed rail line even if it is ever completed between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

That’s becoming a big “if.”

California just received more bad news about  the financing for the proposed high-speed rail line. The House Appropriations subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development just voted to cut the Obama Administration’s transportation request for passenger rail by nearly $7 billion, leaving only enough money in the transportation budget to pay for Amtrak and some smaller projects, according to the Los Angeles Times. With Congress in an anti-spending mood, and with even California’s congressional delegation recognizing that there might not be more federal money coming, California’s high-speed rail project could be in even more trouble.

California is often cited as the poster child of states in fiscal crisis. Because of their precarious state budget situation, for the high-speed rail line to be completed, the $60 billion was going to have come from someplace other than Californians. What California rail enthusiasts are discovering is that Margaret Thatcher was right when she warned, “eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.”

Perhaps Californians can use this opportunity to dodge the bullet train just like Wisconsin did, months ago, thanks to Scott Walker.

As the magazine The Economist wrote recently when editorializing against high-speed rail for Britain, high-speed rail is really not all that great. It tends to displace economic development rather than make it grow, and benefits the major hub (like London) rather than the outlying communities that are promised the economic benefits. It’s much more expensive than merely improving the existing infrastructure, although a new train system certainly lends itself to political photo opportunities.

In California, Governor Jerry Brown recently made two appointments to make a “fresh review” of the high-speed rail project. Brown also must approve any bonding that is issued to fund the train. If it looks like a high-speed train in the middle of nowhere with no prospects for adding onto it further, the prudent thing for California to do would be to drop the project entirely.

Maybe Brown should call Governor Scott Walker and ask him how to word the press release?

Share
Tags: , , ,
Posted in mi perspectives | September 12, 2011 | | 4 Comments

Senator Seeks Answers on True Cost of Milwaukee Streetcar Project

MacIver News Service | August 23, 2011

[Milwaukee, Wisconsin]  A controversial Milwaukee streetcar project, thought to be funded primarily with federal funds, could have fiscal implications throughout Wisconsin, a state lawmaker warns.

Racine County Republican State Senator Van Wanggaard  sent a letter to Public Service Commission Chairperson Phil Montgomery seeking more information about the proposal.

“While I recognize that the Milwaukee City Council believes it is acting in the best interest of its citizens, this proposal could have implications that extend far beyond the City of Milwaukee,” Wanggaard wrote. “According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, utilities have warned that the cost of moving utility lines along the proposed route could exceed $50 million.”

Utility ratepayers may be on the hook for such expenses, thereby making this a state issue, according to Wanggaard.

The $64.6 million, 2.1 mile rail line would be funded by $55 million in federal transit aid (previously allocated twenty years ago) and $9.7 million in tax-incremental financing district funds. Supporters assert that rider fares, downtown parking fees and advertising revenue will the $2.65 million annual operating cost.

“Since many of my constituents are customers to these same utility companies, I am worried that these costs could be passed on to Racine County ratepayers.” Wanggaard’s letter to the PSC continued. “Taxpayers of Racine should not be required to pay for the local transportation desires of the city of Milwaukee.”

Wanggaard, who said in the letter he was working ‘on behalf of the ratepayers of southeastern Wisconsin,” asked for answers to four specific questions.

  1. What infrastructure could potentially be affected by this project?  Specifically, what kinds of infrastructure would have to be moved or modified in some fashion, and who owns the affected infrastructure?
  2. What is the approximate cost for moving the utility facilities and equipment?  Most importantly, who would pay for the costs:  ratepayers, Milwaukee property taxpayers, or another party?
  3. What jurisdiction does the PSC have over this project?  Specifically, what aspects of the proposed streetcar line would have to come to the PSC for approval, and what is the process for that approval?
  4. Does the PSC have the authority and means to prevent non-Milwaukee residents from financing the proposed Milwaukee streetcar line? If not, what legislation would be required? If so, what steps must be taken to ensure that my constituents are not picking up the tab for a transportation system that few, if any, of them will ever use?

Sen. Wanggaard

Even before ground is broken on the 2.1-mile route, Milwaukee officials are seeking additional federal aid for proposed route extensions to add 1.5 miles to the line. These expansions would boost the construction cost past $100 million nearly double the annual operating costs.

AT&T and American Transmission Company, the firm that owns the electric transmission lines, have indicated to city officials the cost of relocating utility infrastructure in the area will be tens of millions of dollars.

“Preliminary estimates we have received from utility providers suggest that the cost of modifying, rerouting, or removing this infrastructure along Broadway to accommodate the proposed streetcar project could run in the tens of millions,” said Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce’s Steve Baas in testimony before a city committee prior to the vote. “Presumably, these costs would have to be recovered from additional city funding or from businesses, residents and property owners of the city in the form of higher taxes.  The magnitude of the infrastructure modifications required along the Broadway route could also likely have an impact on the proposed timeline for the streetcar project, delaying its implementation and operation.”

Despite Baas’ concerns, the committee–and later the full Milwaukee City Council–voted to move forward with the project, although they with withhold releasing funds for construction pending getting answers about the utility costs from the city comptroller.

Similarly, Senator Wanggaard hopes to get answers on the potential utility-related costs from the PSC before the project advances much further.

In 1949 a consulting firm told the city it was time to get rid of its streetcars, saying, among other things, Milwaukee lacked the population density to make their operation feasible. March 2, 1958 was the last time a streetcar ran its route in Milwaukee. Since then the population density of the city has decreased by nearly half.

Share
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | August 23, 2011 | | Comments Off

You Would Pay for Milwaukee’s Expensive Trolley Folly

By James Wigderson
 Special Guest Perspective for the MacIver Institute

Mayor Barrett's Trolley Folly Route

A city of Milwaukee Common Council committee has given the go ahead on building a street car system from Milwaukee’s lower east side to Milwaukee’s downtown. Nobody is really sure how much the system is even going to cost and, due to some utility issues, they’re not even sure where the street cars are going to actually run.

Perhaps it will be worth every pun on the Tennessee William’s title, “A Streetcar Named Desire.” It’s the “Streetcars Named Expensive.” Or it’s “A Streetcar Named Pointless.” WTMJ-AM’s Charlie Sykes called it, “A Streetcar Named Boondoggle.” If the system does get built, the first two cars need to be named Blanche and Stella or I won’t be held responsible for Milwaukee’s lack of imagination.

The cars can be christened with bottles of Schlitz, as long as we’re going to the future backwards. Milwaukee can even ask Lenny and Squiggy from Laverne and Shirley to do the christening.

Lenny, Squiggy, Tennessee Williams, would all be perfectly appropriate for the new streetcars. The last time streetcars ran in Milwaukee was in 1958. Milwaukeeans chose to abandon the streetcars for the new-fangled diesel buses, nine years after a study recommended getting rid of the streetcars. A 1949 Milwaukee Journal article about the study said, “Factors weighed in determining the best type of transport vehicle for Milwaukee included the density of passenger traffic, the effect upon streets for automobile use, speed in transporting passengers and the maximum inducement for use of public transportation systems.” (See this interactive graphic from our friends at the MacIver News Service for more on the old system).

Of course, the history of the streetcar is the history of transportation. Man’s desire is to cover greater distances at greater speed with greater individual freedom. When the first electric streetcar started rolling in Appleton, WI, in 1882, the automobile was still a new invention. Trains were the fastest means of transportation, and for cross-town traffic people could either walk or use actual four-legged horsepower. By the time Appleton rid itself of streetcars in 1930, the automobile was well-established and General Billy Mitchell had proved the superiority of the airplane in warfare. The streetcar died in Appleton where it began, and across the country other cities replaced them, too.

Technology advanced beyond the narrow rails of a fixed streetcar system. People found better means of transportation that were not tied to fix rails. Buses and cars were more flexible, allowing for changes due to changes in ridership, traffic patterns, and even road construction.

Ironically, some of the bus routes still reflect the routes run by the streetcars until the 1950s. The number 15 still runs down Oakland Avenue on the East Side of Milwaukee.

Now, like Paul Newman in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid resisting the future by throwing away his bicycle, so-called progressives are pushing for an expensive return to 19th century technology in Milwaukee. Former Congressman David Obey and Senator Herb Kohl, old enough to have ridden the old streetcars, did Wisconsinites no favor when they finally settled how $91.5 million in federal transportation aid was divvied up. They decided $54.9 million should be spent on the new streetcars. (The rest went to the Milwaukee County bus system.)

Milw. Co. Transit (Bus) Route Map

This fixed rail system does not explore any new territory. Not one passenger on the proposed streetcars would be unable to reach their destination using the existing public transportation system. Existing bus routes already cover the same ground. The buses do it without laying down an expensive new infrastructure, tearing up streets, relocating utilities, or eliminating public parking.

Not one person would be traveling to a job that they couldn’t on the bus line. Not one person would be traveling to an entertainment venue that they couldn’t on the bus line. Not one person would even be traveling to another transportation means, like the airport, bus station or train station, that they couldn’t already reach using the county bus system.

If the city planners want the exact same route as the proposed streetcars, a slight change to the route 30 bus could accomplish it for far less than $54.9 million, and the operating costs are already accounted for. Easily done, all for the bother of printing a new schedule. That’s yet another advantage of the bus system over any fixed-rail system.

Route 30

Unlike the proposed streetcar system, the route 30 even takes passengers beyond the downtown to places like UW-Milwaukee, Marquette University and even the North Side of Milwaukee. It can even reach into the African-American community, something the current plans for the proposed streetcars seems to avoid for some reason.

Mayor Tom Barrett was quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel saying that after it’s built, people would wonder why it wasn’t being extended to Miller Park. No, we won’t. To get from the East Side of Milwaukee to Miller Park just takes a free transfer on Wisconsin Avenue. For the rest of the metro area, there are Freeway Flyer routes.

Oh, and our  own cars…

Despite the redundancy and the history of the proposed streetcars, the Milwaukee mayor is determined to spend the “free” federal money. This is even though nobody knows at this point what the final costs would be, who will pick up the tab for the utility infrastructure change costs (hint: likely ratepayers in the entire state), or how the city can afford the ongoing operating expense.

The city is estimating the local share of the project to be $9.7 million. Of course, that was before the cost of relocating the utility infrastructure along the route became an issue. The annual operating expense is estimated at $2.62 million, or $3.94 per rider (based upon the city’s probably inflated estimated ridership of 665,000 by 2015).

The costs are the reasons the rest of the state should be concerned. The city plans to pay for the operating costs using, “the City’s parking fund, farebox revenue, and state and federal transit aid.” The proposal at this time says the fare will only be $1.00 per rider. (By comparison, the fare for the Milwaukee County Bus System is $2.25.) That means $2.94 per rider, or nearly $2 million, will have to come from other sources. The city can’t squeeze much more from the parking checkers which leaves state and federal aid.

Other people’s money.

Your money.

But they have an alternative plan. If the state ever allows Regional Transit Authorities again, supporters of the streetcar system are hoping to suck money out of one of those. Either way, a streetcar system taking in state aid would either mean increased subsidies from outside Milwaukee, or else reduced aid to the bus system which would directly hurt those who actually depend on public transportation (the poor, elderly, minorities and the handicapped).

Much like the characters in Williams’ play. The whole thing is one big, heated, selfish, dysfunctional mess.

Share
Tags: , , , ,
Posted in mi perspectives | July 18, 2011 | | 7 Comments

Ten Ways the Budget Could Be Better

The 2011-2013 Budget for the State of Wisconsin is the most fiscally responsible two-year Badger State spending plan in at least a generation. It pays the bills, is short on accounting gimmicks, restrains spending and includes measures that will improve government efficiency and invigorate the private marketplace in order to help individuals and businesses here create jobs.

It is a good budget.

That being said, it could be better.

The document forwarded by the legislature still contains onerous interference into the private market. Program cuts that could have been made were modified for political expediency. And, although it has a dramatic decrease in earmarks over budgets past, is not pork free.

In a perfect world, we would see vetoes on the following items:

1. Craft brewers are gaining market share because they are meeting a consumer demand. The Legislature has no business restricting the production and marketing of a good or service on the basis of the size or scope of the actors involved.

2. On SeniorCare, the governor got it right the first time. The legislature’s moves added unnecessary expense to the budget. There is no sound reason Wisconsin’s seniors enrolled in the program shouldn’t first exhaust federal remedies, such as Medicare Part D. We are the only state in the nation with a stand-alone drug entitlement program for the elderly.

3. At a time when we are empowering management in their dealings with government labor, tying the hands of the Milwaukee Police Department makes neither fiscal nor ideological sense. The proposal that mandates that suspended officers receive pay during termination appeals has no place in state law, or this budget.

4. The legislature meddled when it decided to create an individual income tax deferral for investments in Wisconsin businesses. Why do they insist on picking winners and losers? Does the Legislature really believe an investor will commit his/her retirement savings to a Wisconsin business because the government will hand out a modest break on the capital gains? Investment of capital flows to attractive projects and businesses regardless of geographic boundaries.

5. The recycling mandate and its 19 million dollar price tag should end up back on the scrap heap. If a government entity believes a service is necessary, it should pay for it.

6. State taxpayers should not subsidize high-speed broadband internet access. WiscNet should not be a government priority. Private service providers are fully capable of meeting this need without government competition.

7. We would have preferred to see zero dollars in bonding authority for the purchase of more land via the Stewardship Fund. The legislature significantly cut Walker’s request but they should have eliminated it all together. The state owns enough land.

8. And while it will not happen, you would not hear us howl if the veto pen was used to make the School Choice plan available to all families statewide. We need an education system whose sole focus is the education of the child, not artificial boundaries or the status quo.

9. This budget modifies state law to make it easier and less expensive for government to exercise eminent domain in a few specific cases. It’s a needless increase in the ability of the state to interfere with property rights. If changes to the state’s eminent domain law are truly warranted, they should be considered as a separate piece of legislation, not in the budget.

10. Finally, the pork and earmarks remain a thorn. As we said earlier, this is hardly a pork-laden document like the Doyle budgets of the last decade. Nonetheless the habit has proven hard to break. And while this list is not comprehensive, worthy or not, these projects deserve to be line-itemed out.

  • The elimination of the state per diem limit for sewerage district officials
  • The new position at Crex Meadows Wildlife Education Center
  • The $10,000 for the Sheboygan Aerospace port
  • $300,000 for the Bay Area Medical Center in Marinette
  • $25,000 for the Copper Falls State Park in Oconto

The State Budget is a solid plan. The best this state has seen in decades. It eliminates the structural deficit that has plagued this state for the last three administrations. But why settle for good?

Governor Walker will announce his vetoes on Sunday. Clearly he could make the plan even better.

Share
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News, mi perspectives, mi reports | June 23, 2011 | | 5 Comments
« Older Entries

MacIver on facebook @MacIverWisc on twitter MacIver Youtube channel subscribe