As business and labor leaders, we stand together on the need for regional transit in southeastern Wisconsin. We must act now on legislation to preserve and expand regional transit.
Good local bus service tied to a regional transportation network that utilizes commuter rail supports jobs and economic development. The current state of transit leaves our workforce underutilized and our businesses under-connected to the region's talent base.
Efficient transit operations provide a platform for business expansion, job growth and job creation. Unfortunately, it's something our region falls short of.
Just look around at the stiff competition we face for jobs and economic development from peer metropolitan areas that treat transit as critical infrastructure - just like roads or sewers. There is a diverse workforce utilizing transit not just because they have to but because they want to.
When given the choice, the diverse talent pools we work to develop and attract often choose to live in communities that have invested in their transit infrastructure and have good transit options.
This is not about partisan politics. It's about creating basic infrastructure to get people to jobs, help businesses be efficient and competitive and put southeastern Wisconsin on the map in a very competitive global economy.
We face a highly competitive future where it is clear that any business operator would hesitate to make a major investment in a new plant and then face difficulties in getting workers to the front door. If southeastern Wisconsin wants to attract new jobs or simply do better at connecting the current workforce with existing opportunities, our state leaders need to understand that without good transit, it's hard to set the table.
We must act decisively now on regional transit authority legislation to remove transit from the property tax while capping the tax levy - and give communities the ability to efficiently coordinate and invest properly in critical transportation infrastructure through a dedicated sales tax.
Like this collaboration between labor and business, our region must collaborate with our many partners to secure a better future for our southeastern Wisconsin communities and build a smarter, better-connected place to do business, raise our families and enjoy life.
The opportunity to adequately fund and develop our transportation infrastructure is necessary for both employers and the workforce they rely on to stay competitive. We urge the legislature to act now, or we all face a less certain future for jobs.
This blog was co-written by Tim Sullivan, president and chief executive officer of Bucyrus International Inc., and Sheila Cochran, secretary-treasurer and chief operating officer of the Milwaukee Area Labor Council, AFL-CIO.
15 Comments
Pray tell me just how we will be able to make this work without bankrupting us when it works so poorly in virtually all other venues? There seems a decided lack of will on the part of those who are promoting this "need" to spend any of their own dollars, corporate or philanthropic, to drive the effort. Is this only a good idea if taxpayers pay the full cost to subsidize the ridership?
Wisconsin should ban unelected taxing authorities such as this proposed regional transit authority. These entities like MATC, MMSD, and the Wisconsin Center Authority are undemocratic, unaccountable and typically mismanaged with no recourse for the taxpayers. MATC has been known to tax to the max year in and year out, but we the taxpayers have no say in its operations and its tax demands. MMSD has loaded our water bills with fees and they still pollute the lake. The Wisconsin Center is a total joke, a few conventions a year and a dead Milwaukee Theater that cost us $50 million with no public input. These unelected fiefdoms are directly counter to one of the primary founding principles of our country - no taxation without representation.
It needs to be pointed out that the argument that our property taxes will be relieved by another taxing authority is ridiculous. This was done in the early 1990's and our property taxes still went sky high. Don't believe the tax and spenders- they never cease in demanding more of your money and they can always find a way to waste it.
PS-These supporters of the KRM, the slow train to the Madison airport, and the transit authority keep calling these things an investment. Who buys an investment without knowing the numbers? None of these proponents ever mention the costs, expenses, estimated ridership, subsidies, etc. Mr. Sullivan certainly wouldn't spend large sums of his or Bucyrus money without examining the financial aspects of the "investment". Why should we the taxpayers do otherwise?
Ha! B.M. ... Here we go again!
Mr. Marsh is here! I thought I heard knuckles dragging.
Bob, Tim: good to see you join in the conversation. Have you done any research since your last transportation posts? If I remember correctly you both were challenged to find ANY cost analysis available that these decisions are based on. Or are you willing to admit that without knowledge this is a decision we should put in the wait and see bin?
I look forward to reading the results of your investigation.
Hi, Bob.
I'll take your word that we were "challenged," but frankly I think that term applies more aptly to thehand sitters. You can do your own cost analysis. But while you're at it, let me know how much the trucks and busses are paying us for all the roads we built for them. And how much do barges and boats pay for all the dams, locks and dredging the taxpayers get charged for? Oh, and let's not forget how much we pay for airports through grants, subsidies and publicly guaranteed loans. Do you have figures for all of this? And if you're against subsidies for rail, are you also opposed to all of these? You and Uncle Bill talk about how efficient the roads are.
Fact is, if we hadn't massively supported them (as we continue to do) with tax dollars, the rail lines in this country would probably be much more vibrant. So would mass transit for that matter. So there's your challenge, Bob. Tell us the numbers. I'll bet you find rail to cost less and be a lot more efficient than the mess we have now.
Mr. Marsh: You make some excellent points but also some very misinformed ones. It is unfortunate that some of the public projects you mention have not performed as promised as this creates an atmosphere of skepticism and mistrust. The transportation issue, however, is a different animal. This is infrastructure that will generate economic development in many ways. Yes, the cited numbers are inflated but accurate numbers are out there for specific communities that have benefited by building modern transit systems. I can provide links to multiple sources of this information if you would like. If you want to find examples of tax dollars being spent on transportation projects that yield insignificant revenue, you need look no farther then the incessant building and rebuilding of four lane roads and bridges to nowhere in rural areas of the state.
RE-Irving: Mark, I agree regarding four-lane roads to nowhere are not efficient use of taxpayer money. Just as building a slow train to the Madison airport is very wasteful. So what is the average cost per ride considering projected ridership on the slow train to the Madison airport vs. cost per ride on I-94 between Madison and Milwaukee based on current usage? Please be specific. Show me how the slow train to the Madison airport will not be a boondoggle. Same with KRM, the wildly inflated ridership projections for that rail line are a very small fraction of the annual usage on I-94 between Kenosha and Milwaukee (2.1 million riders on KRM per year vs. approx. 150,000 passenger rides on I-94 per day). If you want to read about rail transportation boondoggles from an organization that doesn't have a financial interest in them, read the following: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8463
But I will take you up on the info you have- how were the projections specifically made for ridership on the slow train to the Madison airport and for KRM?
PS-The primary point of my comment is that unelected, unaccountable taxing authorities should be prohibited. They are directly counter to what our representative democracy is based upon.
Bob, firstly I meant challenged as in 'asked to look it up' not as in 'possessing some deficit'. Secondly to directly answer your question: truck, busses and cars pay for the roads through user taxes such as gasoline tax (state and federal), diesel tax (state and federal), tolls (state), licensing fees, tag fees and sales taxes. Our inglorious governor recently took nearly all those funds and transferred them to other areas to cover his patute; so you know I'm not snowing you.
I can not claim to know anything about dams and locks.
As far as airports, our airport pays for itself and contributes to the county.
So now you have those answers hopefully you will allow me the point. NO ONE I know is against public mass transit. What I and many others rail against (pun intended) is the suggestion that a train could even remotely be a good use of tax dollars. We have a bus system in place already. Privately run, successful and providing great service. I've used Badger Bus; very convenient and easy. I don't work for or with them just to be open. Why would we spend $800+ million to put these people out of work, provide a lower service, not be able to afford the upkeep, have no flexibility with origins and destinations and have 55 jobs when it is up and running. The only reason I find is akin to bullheadedness. "We want a train because Bob down the street has a train".
Mayor Barrett made one of the most damaging statements recently. He stated AMTrak ridership is way up in recent years. On the surface that sounds great; right? The train has been running since the 80's. It runs the same schedule since the 80's. Meaning for 20 years this service has been running under utilized. It still is underutilized and after 20 years it still does not cover it's operating costs. I know they have not added any new runs or added equipment. Now apply 20 years of underutilizatin to the Milw Mad train and you understand why those that take a step back and look around can see the waste of another train.
In my humble opinion the money would be better spent making the bus service in Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties FREE. If you really want mobility for people, that's the way to go. All the CEO's that claim to want to help move people to jobs can line up now to support such an initiative. The fares paid now cover so little of the cost that moving to full funding would possibly be the smallest line item on the county budget. It would get a lot of the old poluting 'beaters' off the road. It would possibly revitialize downtown. If you say you want to help; get on board (pun intended) and lets REALLY get people moving again.
Like all major airports in the United States, Mitchell International Airport was created by federal dollars and receives millions of dollars in federal subsidies annually by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The FAA oversees flight patterns, the TSA provides safety services, etc. Billions upon billions of federal dollars are spent on airports every year. Without the federal subsidies, airports could not function. Same for the Interstate highway system. And ports. And bridges. And trains. The common good is served by these expenditures. These are investments in our common quality of life. Some of these people are absolutely clueless. Clueless!
Some people will make the argument that the highways and roads are subsidized. The last time I checked we had a substantial excise tax on gasoline that essentially charges the users of roads a tax. This tax works so well that Governor Doyle has been able to raid in excess of $1,500,000,000 in order to fund other things in the budget.
The problem with a train like this is that it diverts funds from things people actually use. Use the money to improve the bus service. Use it to improve the roads. Don't use it to build a train that hardly anyone will use based on the estimates being provided by proponents of the train.
BJ:
Clearly you and I disagree on some of your basic premises. To begin with, it is misleading and simplistic to state that trucks, busses and cars pay for our system thru user fees. A typical 18-wheeler pays about $14K a year in taxes. This may sound expensive, but in fact, it comes no where near paying for the damage to roads and bridges, not to mention the capital cost of the highway system or for new or expanded construction. It's not the cars that cause us to have to widen the road to Chicago nor to rebuild the Zoo interchange. It's the trucks. One 80,000 pound truck does the same road damage as 9,600 cars. And it's probably worse in this climate.
I'm not trying to be an opponent of the trucking industry here. They operate under the rules which exactly their right. I'm trying to make the point that government (taxpayers) subsidize ALL transportation systems. So to argue against rail because of that fact is hypocritical. This includes air travel.
Speaking of which, that local airport you cited is all well and good (public subsidies included). But what happens when it needs upgrading? How much in public grants and publicly funded and guaranteed loans will it need? And by the way, if it's such a profitable little shop, why does our County Exec want to privatize it?
So on to public transportation.
When you quote Mayor Barrett, I think it is you who make the damaging statement. Public transportation will always- always be underutilized when cars are readily available and affordable. At least in this country, because thats the way we made the system work sixty some years ago. You look to the past 20 years. I look to the next twenty years - when gas prices go up. When our overburdened roads crumble at an increased rate. When we need to make changes to handle business and labor transportation needs. Once again, my basic premise is unlike yours. I believe we need to make fundamental changes. I look at rail and see other countries and communities succeeding with it. I see lowered transportation costs. I see us sending fewer dollars to Iran for oil, not to mention spending fewer dollars on armed invasions to protect our oil IV.
This is not about free busses. This is about 21st century ways to move goods and people. Its not even about a line to Madison. It's about linking Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, Minneapolis, St. Louis and other midwest cities. It's about regional growth and rejuvenation that's not just nice, but desperately necessary. It is you whom I'd ask to get on board.
The question is if KRM or the slow train to Madison are being subsidized, the question is are they efficient uses of taxpayer money. They clearly are not if you compare the cost per ride- something the proponents do not want to discuss. Apparently the train proponents have not read the news- the US government is broke! The state government is broke! We can't afford to waste money on more boondoggles.
The KRM and the slow train to the Madison airport are both redundant means of transportation for areas that are currently well-served by roadways that allow flexibility in getting people to where jobs are. If we need a bus line to Racine, so be it. But there certainly is no magic in getting to Racine via train. As to Madison, the whole idea is ridiculous- a slow train to the Madison airport, six miles from the capitol square, while we already have a bus line that can get you there directly and at significantly less cost. So why do we need to spend nearly a trillion dollars on a train?
Bill Marsh: The Madison line will be only the first leg of the long-promised Milwaukee-Twin Cities High-Speed Rail line, and it will not be "slow". And we here have been spending billions on installing other cities'/states' trains for decades without a word of complaint from any Wisconsinites I've ever heard. Now the rest of the nation will be paying for our state-of-the-art high-speed rail. This project will create many, many needed jobs. But why all this after-the-fact second-guessing here? This project is a done deal.
Alan Campbell asks "how we will be able to make this work without bankrupting us when it works so poorly in virtually all other venues?" I would ask where he got that, since it is so off the mark. Rail works well everywhere. Alan Campbell asks: "There seems a decided lack of will on the part of those who are promoting this "need" to spend any of their own dollars, corporate or philanthropic, to drive the effort. Is this only a good idea if taxpayers pay the full cost to subsidize the ridership?" That is a fallacious and well-worn argument since we don't collect enough licensing/gasoline taxes to maintain roads and bridges, either. Nor do we charge user-fees for parks, police, fire protection, sheriff department, waste disposal, schools, libraries, etcetera. We subsidize airports, harbors and buses now. We pay for the air-traffic controllers and tower personnel. Using Alan Campbell's philospohy, we'd charge people who called the police, and we'd assess victims of fires for the fire-department's time, effort and costs.