Dear Friends:
Earlier this month, I traveled to Portland, Ore., and Denver, Colo., to study the highly successful public transportation systems in those cities.
Our Milwaukee delegation included County Executive Scott Walker, Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce president Tim Sheehy and philanthropist Michael Cudahy. We met with engineers, local transit experts and city officials in Portland and Denver, and toured and rode the transportation systems in both cities.
Our goal was to learn what public transportation means to these communities, and to see first-hand the tremendous economic development opportunities generated by successful mass transit systems.
We saw how a modern, intermodal public transportation system can create jobs, spark economic growth, reduce sprawl, attract young professionals and help a city reach new levels of greatness.
Why Denver and Portland?
We visited Portland and Denver because they provide good models for Milwaukee to follow. All three cities are approximately the same size - according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2005 population estimate, Milwaukee, with 578,887 residents, has a larger population than both Denver (557,917) and Portland (533,427).
At the same time, Milwaukee has a greater population density, about three times that of both Denver and Portland. Population density is a key indicator of a community's willingness to use public transit. Typically, more people in less space means greater need for public transportation to ease congestion and help move people around.
All three cities also have growing downtown districts and adjacent neighborhoods. According to MapInfo, the 2006 residential population that lives within a three-mile radius of downtown Milwaukee is 205,100, which is greater than that of both Portland (138,000) and Denver (188,600).
These statistics suggest that Milwaukee would be a good fit for a modern, multimodal public transit system on par with Denver and Portland. If it can work there, it can work here - an encouraging sign considering the great transit successes in these cities.
Portland's award-winning transportation system has long been one of the best in the country. In addition to their bus and light rail systems, Portland opened a new, modern streetcar system in 2001 to connect emerging near-downtown neighborhoods to Portland State University.
The 2.4 mile system cost $56.9 million to construct - approximately the same cost as my proposal - and has served as a catalyst for new development. More than $2.3 billion in private investment and development has occurred in the areas served by the first streetcar line, and Portland State University has seen applications and interest skyrocket, making it a stronger, more attractive educational institution.
Portland's system has been so successful that three streetcar line extensions have been added since 2001.
The story is similar in Denver, where approximately 150 Colorado companies were listed in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Best Workplaces for Commuters" 2004 study. In fact, Colorado employers lead the nation in offering commuting alternatives for its workforce.
On an average weekday, 63,000 people utilize the 16th Street Mall Bus Rapid Transit system. The one-mile pedestrian/transit mall is home to a diverse array of more than 1,000 downtown retailers and retail centers. A Bus Rapid Transit line runs through the core of the city's downtown and has helped Denver grow to the 10th-largest downtown retail center in the country.
Since 1990, downtown Denver and surrounding neighborhoods have witnessed over $4 billion in private investment, thanks in large part to its modern transit system.
Milwaukee is one of the only cities of our size in the country that does not have a fixed transit system in operation, and most of our peer cities are expanding existing systems.
I believe we can replicate the great success stories in Denver and Portland here in Milwaukee - linking workers to jobs, sparking new economic growth and development, and seamlessly connecting our entire area.
Earlier this year I unveiled my Comprehensive Transit Strategy for Milwaukee, a new transportation vision that utilizes $91.5 million in federal transit funds to upgrade and modernize Milwaukee's ailing, outdated system.
My plan will improve citywide accessibility and connect workers to jobs by installing two Bus Rapid Transit lines and a downtown streetcar service. My vision also transforms the Amtrak Station downtown into a multi-modal central transit hub that will link the entire city and region.
It's time to move Milwaukee forward and spark economic growth and development through public transit, just like in Portland and Denver. I encourage you to take a look at my Comprehensive Transit Strategy for Milwaukee at www.city.milwaukee.gov/ImprovingOurTransitS22513.htm.
Tom Barrett is the mayor of Milwaukee.
8 Comments
As all of these guys were going around Denver and Portland,being shown what a great transportation system they all have by the managers, planners, and political hangers on here is the question that needs to be asked by Tom and his party:
How did you get to work today?
In most cases, I bet that that the Denver and Portland officials are not often riding on the systems that thay are recommending we implement.
Public transit is as attractive as other public taxpayer funded systems. Everyone enjoys using a the public toilet, right? And people are clamoring to get into the public schools, especially in Milwaukee! The Public Museum here is doing great! How about the great public parking structure next to the museum? WOW. Even our public courthouse is a pleasure to be in, with the dirty halls and garbage strewn about.
As soon as people can afford to, they get private transportation to avoid using the public system. Giving money to the government to create more public transportation is foolish and wasteful. Let's try to improve the business conditions in Southeastern Wisconsin by lowering taxes and government, and as the economy and wages expand, more people will be able to "opt out" of public transit.
Stop proposing ways to expand government monopolies and increase government spending. Just stop already.
Right. The kind of neanderthol, keep the status quo, never do anything special kind of thinking by Art Flater is the kind of crap that keeps a city in the dark ages.
Have you ever ridden the mass transit systems Denver or Portland? I have! They got us around so efficiently, and we saw more of the cities and we spent more money in the cities because of them. I guarantee you, if I would have had to take a cab to every place, I wouldn't have gone to many places at all.
Milwaukee is a city. It's time to start acting like one.
If dullards like you can't comprehend the benefits of concepts of public transportation, just get out of the way and quit screwing things up for the rest of us AND for the tourists, convention-goers and others who come visit our city.
Keep fighting the good fight, Mr. Mayor!
I couldn't agrre more with Art. The fact is, the devil is in the deatils, and Mr. Mayor, you are very light on details. For example, you referenced that in Denver, "On an average weekday, 63,000 people utilize the 16th Street Mall Bus Rapid Transit system." Why don't you mention that the cost to ride this BRT line in Denver is $0.0. Yep, zero. Free. Who do you think subisizes this "successful" route?
And do you really expect people to believe that building a 2.4 mile streetcar in Portland generated over $2 billion dollars in investments? What a joke. If the sole reason was a streetcar, trust me, every podunk town in America would be building a streetcar. The truth is that Portland's development investments are driven by the incredibly generous tax abatements offered to developers. Portland also has the most stringent land use development laws in the country, i.e., urban sprawl is held to a minimum.
I would encourage folks to to do their own research by visiting the Federal Transit Administration's website which contains an abundance of ridership and cost information for America's bus and rail transit systems. What needs to be debated are figures such as the cost per hour to operate mass transit, the ridiculous tax subsidies that are necessary to operate transit, the mode spilt that transit carries in each city (for example, in wonderful Portland, pulic tranist has a 10% mode split - on an average day, 90% of the population does NOT use public transit to get from point A to point B), and other statistical information.
In Denver for example, state law requires that all public transit systems in Colorado must privatize 50% of their service. This helps bring costs down significantly because there is less reliance on highly paid union labor for transit service. As a result Denver gets far more bang for the buck when it comes to transit. Is this cost scenario in place in Milwaukee? In two words: Absolutely not!
So, a true debate goes beyond emotions. Facts and logic, if allowed to see the light of day, would surely indicate that signicantly expanding public transit service would result in little impact on traffic congestion, require huge subsidies, and ultimate create a system that sucks away hard earned taxpayer money. These are all facts that I would welcome a debate on any day of the week.
I believe the Mayors intentions are good and I applaud his and his predecessors efforts to keep the revitalization of downtown Milwaukee on track. As a former east side & downtown resident who has spent the last eight years living in Portland, I'd like to share my impressions of Portland's transportation system and why it would be ill-advised for Milwaukee to follow the same course.
First of all, this theory that a streetcar line is going to provide an adrenaline shot to the economy is pie-in-the-sky. If you really want to boost Milwaukee's economy, create a tax climate that attracts big businesses. Get RedPraire downtown for starters. And while Portland's transit officials love to credit the streetcar for the construction boom in the pearl and waterfront districts, reality is that huge tax breaks the city handed out to builders are the catalysts behind the developments there.
Next, a brief commentary on Portland's transportation system. To hold up Portland as the poster child of "transit success" is to ignore the big picture here. Portland's MAX line, like all other light rail systems, has done nothing to alleviate traffic congestion, which has gotten worse despite all the millions poured into mass transit. Portland's freeway system is a patchwork of interchanges and bridges, most have which have been in service well beyond their years. The city of Portland has continued to dump money into light rail, streetcars, and sky trams while neglecting the increasingly dangerous (many heavily traveled bridges don't even have shoulders) state of affairs on the interstate corridors. In fact, I wish Portland's mayor would fly to Milwaukee to witness a world class freeway system taking shape, especially when I'm stuck in a 3 lane parking lot that was an interstate waiting for a drawbridge built in 1917 to open and let a 50 foot schooner float on down the Columbia river. Did I mention this sort of thing happens on an almost daily basis?
Back to Milwaukee; using urban density statistics to forecast favorable ridership is to make a heroic leap of faith. The topology of Milwaukee is not like that of Portland, nor is the mentality of its inhabitants. Compared to Milwaukee, Portland is a very densely packed city with both natural and man made growth boundaries. Portland's light rail and streetcar lines attract riders partly due the inconvenience of navigating the city's narrow surface streets and aforementioned freeways and partly due to the "organic" constitution of Portlanders. Portlanders are quite accustomed to getting around on foot or by bike. In fact, Portland has the greatest percentage of bicycle commuters of any major U.S. city. Milwaukeens are much more tethered to their cars. Given the disperse layout of population centers in SE Wisconsin and relatively efficient freeway system, this isn't likely to change. What works in Portland, and I use the term "works" loosely, is by no means guaranteed to work in Milwaukee.
Lastly, I'll admit that the allure of a modern streetcar system has a certain tourist appeal. But invariably, what you'll wind up getting for your millions is an underutilized, overpriced novelty that the public will wind up subsidizing. Speaking of novelties, Milwaukee's transit line already has a trolley that runs a loop almost identical to the one in the mayor's proposal. Do you know how many new trolley cars the city could by for $91.5 million?
All is not as rosy as it seems, even in the city of roses.
Having visited Milwaukee numerous times, and having lived in Portland for a period of time, I encourage Milwaukee to step up to the plate and be a real city by investing in transit.
Compare the levels of transit investment to the economic health of cities. A few great lakes cities paint an especially bright picture: Detroit (I've also been a Detroit resident.) and Chicago. Everybody knows which one is in better shape, and most people know that Detroit has made virtually no transit investments in recent decades.
BTW - Detroit has spent millions over the years on tax incentives to "attract big businesses."
BTW2 - Before Portland starting investing in transit, it was a declining industrial town. Its traffic congestion didn't exist before because nobody wanted to be there.
Lets make sure we all understand that investing in public transportation in this country will not be easy. You need leadership to promote a vision and then stimulate the populace in realizing the benefits of another form of transportation. I've seen and read about national level leadership in other countries making clear statements about their support for a public transportation as an option. Unfortunately, that has never really been the case here.
For those of you interested in details, I would HIGHLY recommend that you review how much a roadway (interstate, regional, local) project gets subsidized and how much more, nationally, in comparison to transit. Based on this figure alone, you will see the glaring disparity in investment - significantly less for transit. So, you multiply this by the decades long philosophy centered around mobility through the automobile; corporations that are invested in such a product (parts, manufacturers, oil) and make political contributions to suit these market demands, and the general lack of support for transit and all of this results in the current environment.
We can discuss details and the voluminous regulations that are attached to public transit monies, compared to highway spending, until we are blue in the face. But what are you really expecting from public transit? That it takes you door to door? We need to make sure we understand what public transportation is first before we can begin to debate what it is supposed to do.
Public transportation is merely one component of a package of components that need to work together in order to allow for a community to realize its potential. It should not be considered in isolation; it is not meant for that. Let me repeat....Public Transportation is just one component of the urban environment.
"Understand History"'s comments are dead-on. There is a larger question here, considering the current global crisis surrounding non-renewable energy sources, about whether we want to continue on the path we're on. Flader and Hearns (in their comments above) seem to be up-in-arms about the prospect of using taxpayer dollars for a public transit system - though we have $90+ million left in federal funding, solely for the purpose, just collecting dust right now - yet I bet they didn't bat an eye when it was decided that Milwaukeeans would foot the bill for the $1+ BILLION Marquette Interchange reconstruction that's currently going on. Why do we so readily subsidize highway maintenance and private transportation, and yet we can't be bothered to give anything more than lip service to a modest public transit in Milwaukee? This is ridiculous. We need to start looking toward the future. The money for a transit project is there. Let's use it for SOMETHING before it's all dried up in pointlessly argumentative wheelspinning.
Gary Kercheck posted thought-provoking ideas in his comment above and added a lot to the discussion here. However, his statements include several flawed arguments that are often deployed by those opposing transit. Here are some responses to a few of the misconceptions in his post:
STATEMENT: "this theory that a streetcar line is going to provide an adrenaline shot to the economy is pie-in-the-sky"
FLAW: Evaluating the potential economic value of a transit system in the short term and thinking about transit as independent from land use decisions.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: If transit decisions are made in coordination with land use policies and combined with careful, modest development incentives, a new transit system could help Milwaukee position itself for long term economic success. Yes, the development that occurred along the transit lines in Portland was partially the result of development incentives, but it happened nonetheless and the transit is part of the amenity package that has made Portland an attractive place. Transit will not produce immediate returns, but may create a more long-term, fundamental change to the atmosphere of the city that will ultimately lead to greater success.
STATEMENT: "If you really want to boost Milwaukee's economy, create a tax climate that attracts big businesses."
FLAW: Twentieth Century economic development thinking in a Twenty-first Century economy.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: Rather than attracting big businesses, let's make Milwaukee a place where people want to start small ones. The old fashion approach to economic development where cities entice companies with big tax breaks in an effort to create jobs doesn't make sense anymore. In the emerging talent and information driven global economy, successful cities will be places that offer interesting amenities, an urban experience, and opportunities for entrepreneurship. How does Milwaukee become a entrepreneurial city that is positioned to succeed in the new economy? It attracts the people who will be at the helm. For the young, educated, talented people who will create the successful businesses that command the new economy, living in a vibrant, interesting city is a priority. Whether consciously or subconsciously, for many people the presence of a fixed-rail transit system is a litmus test that separates "real" cities from boring, non-cities. Why is Detroit Detroit and Chicago Chicago? A lot of reasons but transit investments are a big part.
STATEMENT: "Portland's MAX line, like all other light rail systems, has done nothing to alleviate traffic congestion"
FLAW: Thinking that the purpose of transit is to improve life for people not using it.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: Transit is not supposed to alleviate congestion; it's supposed to create options so people can avoid congestion. Portland's growth has naturally resulted in more congestion. Successful cities are always congested cities. Although annoying for drivers, traffic congestion is a indicator of economic success. The trick is to give people mobility options that allow them to get around the city without dealing with the traffic.
STATEMENT: "The topology of Milwaukee is not like that of Portland, nor is the mentality of its inhabitants"
FLAW: Circular logic – People in Milwaukee need cars so they drive cars and because they drive cars, there is no need to eliminate the need for cars.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: Yes, people in Portland ride bikes and trains and eat healthy, organic, plant-based meals, while people in Milwaukee drive everywhere and drink beer and eat brats. However, looking around Milwaukee lately, folks are starting to look a little different and part of building the system would be changing the culture.