We’re taking a bit of a post-graduation vacation with the family out to Seattle this week, hence the low amount of posting.
Two things that jump out right now: Cars are just impractical in and around Seattle. Secondly, they are actually building new commuter rail throughout the area. They’re a midsize metro area located on a major body of water, and people are using it! Imagine that.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and sons Carter and Colton.
I'm the President of The Park People of Milwaukee County, President-elect of the Washington Heights Neighborhood Association, an elected official of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, a union leader, community organizer and transit advocate who is working to make Milwaukee great again. I've been writing this weblog for nearly ten years ... read more...
Here we go again…..mass transit, and how “backwards” Milwaukee is for not having it, and how here’s ANOTHER city that has better mass transit than Milwaukee – to that I say “Good for Seattle”, sarcastically.
The first premise I have a problem with is the comparison of Seattle to Milwaukee, which is silly. The city of Seattle, population wise, is similar to Milwaukee, but the metro area is SUBSTANTIALLY larger – over double. If by some miracle Milwaukee ends up having 3.3 million people in the metro area in the coming years I will be the first person trumpeting the horn for increased mass transit. If we are going to look at history, though, I don’t see that happening.
The second thing I take issue with is your assertion that cars are impractical in Milwaukee. Really? Of the 50 largest cities in U.S. Milwaukee has the 3rd lowest commute time. I’ve lived here for over 30 years and had no discernable problem driving or parking, and it seems like the general population isn’t having a problem either.
Building ‘new’ commuter rail you say?!?!? Of course they are, they already have a commuter rail set up and with a growing population they can justify adding, but to say because Seattle’s adding to their system doesn’t mean Milwaukee needs to build a white elephant.
Lastly, just a little info regarding the “use” of their transit system; there is only 7.4% of that population using the commuter rail. Again, not a HUGE reason to build a fixed, inflexible rail system, especially in Milwaukee.
Gotcha. So we should wait until we have 3 million people to starting thinking about building any kind of mass transit in Milwaukee. That kind of lack of long term planning or forsesight is a big reason Milwaukee lost people and lost jobs in the 80′s and 90′s.
Point being, Seattle – and many many other cities like it – have what they have because it meets their needs. That doesn’t mean Milwaukee or Southeast Wisconsin more appropriately, needs exactly what Seattle has in terms of commuter rail.
The point is, we don’t have anything. They do here, and it’s very popular. I posted something just last week about the boom in use of mass transit across the Country in the wake of rising gas prices that only bolsters that point. Mass transit is booming everywhere it’s available, including Seattle.
It would be booming in Milwaukee too if certain politicians and trade groups weren’t putting up roadblocks to any new mass transit options or cutting the slim amount of mass transit we do happen to offer.
My point about cars here being impractical had nothing to do with Milwaukee actually. They’re just impractical in any city with a fixed amount of real estate and a growing population. Cities here and abroad have come to the logical conclusion that the answer to transit isn’t “everyone should have a car!” as Scott Walker would like to see.
Dan,
One, we’re not going to be at 3 Million anytime soon, if at all. Two, even if we were on a prolific pace to get to that number, now is not the time to spend the kind of money needed to build a railway system.
99+% of Milwaukeeans are having their transit needs met, and have no need for commuter rail. That mode of transportation was abandoned in the 1950′s for a reason, actually many reasons. What is going on around the rest of the country is a colossal waste of money, unless you live in extremely dense populations, like NY, Chicago, Boston, etc. The use of mass transit may be trending up, but popular??? By definition that can’t be true (definition of popular: “Of, representing, or carried on by the people at large”), considering only 7.4% of the greater Seattle area uses mass transit (which I’m assuming includes buses, so commuter rail is an even smaller percentage). Also, just because San Jose, St. Louis, Portland and other cities are willing to throw tax payer money out the window certainly doesn’t mean Milwaukee should.
As for the car thing, sorry for putting words in your mouth. Now for the conclusions regarding transit, two things: 1) most everyone HAS a car and 2) the alternative cannot be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on something a select few use, and the rest of us have to pay for.
Just a quick point about your conclusions… that’s the function of government my friend, a point we often disagree on. To provide the “big things” collectively that we can’t do on our own.
Being more on the conservative side, you obviously think that government should do far less than it does already while I think in the interest of the common good and to advance a community, region or common goal, government can and should be a part of the solution.
You and people like Scott Walker see more transit options as hurting “you”. I see greater transit options benefiting the entire city, county and region not only economically, but socially as well.
Personally, if I had to choose between paying an extra 0.025% on a washing machine so I could expand my job prospects and take a train to work and a bus to a Bucks game versus paying $4.50 for a gallon of gasoline and $75 every time I needed to fill up my car, I’d choose the former.
But that’s just me. And a lot of other people too I suspect, which is another reason places like Seattle, San Jose, Portland, Minneapolis, etc. are seeing big population increases.
Milwaukee is providing the “big things”. We have public transportation, although it’s only used by a small percentage of people (which I am more than happy to support). We have public education; we have a police force, a fire department, public parks, hospitals. It’s just my opinion, regarding the transit question, that we don’t need an expensive, fixed, outdated technological transit expenditure right now. The problem is you and others in the “more public transportation” camp think we don’t have enough. I on the other hand, believe we have more than enough transit options for the current and foreseeable future. It’s telling when Milwaukee has one of the lowest, if not bottom three transit times compared to the 50 largest cities in the country. Knowing that, I think it’s fiscally irresponsible of us to spend MORE money on something that is virtually unnecessary.
I do not disagree with your assertion that government should be there to advance a community, region, or common goal….they should, but not if it’s not a good idea. I do disagree with you when you insinuate that I believe that more transit options are hurting me. That’s not why I oppose it. I just happen to look at this community and know, based off of where we live, where we work, and where we play, that spending the type of money needed to make a full service light rail system, as good for the greater Milwaukee community.
I think you’re underestimating the cost associated with building, maintaining, and most importantly subsidizing something as big as light rail. All the cities/areas you state are larger than Milwaukee, and not because of mass transit. Their ability to attract, not push away businesses is more the reason their populations are increasing.