The Wisconsin state budget is now at a point where it will go to a conference committee after the Senate approved their version of the budget yesterday.  The conference committee will reconcile the difference between the Assembly and Senate versions, and send the budget off to Governor Doyle.  Doyle will then use his line-item veto power on certain language he doesn’t like, and Wisconsin have a budget.

The item of most interest to most Milwaukeeans, outside of income tax levels, is the proposed Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority.  We have created a chart to track the changes that have been made to the proposal, and included a more in-depth explanations into each step below.

What will come out of the conference committee to merge the two budgets, we cannot guess.  In regards to stimulus funds, the amount of money for high-speed rail jumped up to $8 billion, from previous considerations of around $2 billion.  Conference committees are a bit unpredictable sometimes.  It looks like the KRM will get done, one way or another, and that a new sales tax is coming for Milwaukee County.

We’ll update you when we know more, but for now here is a look at how it got to the way it is.

RTA Board, Governor’s Budget Proposal

Governor Doyle stuck his neck out to include the recommendations of SEWISRTA in his original budget proposal.  Those recommendations, as a refresher, were up to a 0.5% sales tax to fund the KRM and transit services in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee Counties and remove transit from the property tax.  Also included was the ability for municipalities to enact a .15% sales tax for public safety, which was included to gain the support of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  When Doyle issued his recommendations, he removed Barrett’s 0.15% sales tax.

RTA Board Recommendations
Governor Doyle Budget Recommendation

Joint Finance Committee

The Joint Finance Committee of the Wisconsin State Legislature then took up the Governor’s proposed budget, and made their changes.  The Joint Finance Committee RTA changes were made in the middle of the night , with a number of Republicans (who hold the minority in both the Senate and Assembly) heading out to the bars while waiting for Democrats to finish caucasing behind closed doors.

When the meeting finally started, Senator Lena Taylor, Representatives Pedro Colon and Tamara Grigsby had helped turn the southeastern Wisconsin RTA in two RTAs.  One “regional” transit authority for Milwaukee County only, that was funded by a 1% sales tax, and was in charge of supporting transit, parks, EMS, and culture.  The amendment included no clear dividing lines between areas, so it wasn’t clear if Milwaukee County would have parks paved with gold or the best-staffed EMS department in the world.  Of that 1%, 15% would go directly to the City of Milwaukee, with no apparent restrictions on how it could be spent.  This was somewhat similar to the referendum that was narrowly approved by Milwaukee County voters on November 4th.

The second RTA created was the KRM authority, which would operate the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee commuter rail line.  The motion was sponsored by Senator John Lehman, Senator Lena Taylor, Representiave Cory Mason, and Representative Pedro Colon.  Instead of using the RTA board recommended, and Governor proposed .5% sales tax to fund both buses and the commuter rail line, the rail line was to be funded by a $16 rental car tax (per transaction).  A pork stop for Pedro Colon was included to have the train’s first stop out of the Intermodal Station be at East National Avenue (originally called West in the motion that was distributed), a mere mile out of the station.  A stop would make sense in such a location for a light-rail or streetcar vehicle, but not a heavy rail train.  Additionally, the make-up of the board was extremely partisan in nature, with the Milwaukee and Kenosha County Board Chairs appointing their county’s representative as the County Executives in each respective county is a Republican.  Racine County would have had their member appointed by the County Executive.  Bonding authority for the KRM was also reduced to $50 million.  The motion was approved on a party line vote, 12 aye, 4 no.

Representative Robin Vos (R) from Racine County proposed a motion to require a referendum be held in each county to approve the KRM and to exclude western Racine County from the rental car tax.  It was defeated on a party line vote, 4 aye, 12 no.  Vos also moved to amend the KRM authority to have county members of the authority appointed by the county executives.  This was again defeated on a party line vote.

Motion 218 - Southeast RTA
Motion 223 - KRM Authority
Motion 226 - KRM Authority
Motion 228 - KRM Authority

Wisconsin State Assembly

On June 10th, 2009, the Wisconsin State Assembly approved their version of the budget.  They approved a version of transit services more similar to what the Governor and RTA board had recommended than the Joint Finance Committee’s approval.  In brief, the Assembly approved a few key changes to the Joint Finance Committee motions.

• Rename KRM authority SERTA (South Eastern Regional Transit Authority).  Designate it the only entity in Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha that can apply as an RTA to the FTA.
• Rename the Milwaukee Regional Transit Authority the Milwaukee Transit Authority (MTA).
• Authorize the Milwaukee County Board to assess a .65¢ sales tax for Milwaukee County. Mandate ½ ¢ has to go to the Milwaukee Transit Authority for transit.
• If the sales tax is adopted, existing funding for transit must be removed from property tax levy.
• Authorize the Milwaukee County Board to approve up to .15% (NOTE: Urban Milwaukee believes this should be cents, not percent, as that would be 9.75 cents as written) of the sales tax go to Milwaukee County municipalities prorated on a formula based on the number of police and fire employees within each municipality.
• Increase the approved car rental tax to $18. Designate that $1 per vehicle from this vehicle rental tax will go to the City of Racine for the Belle Urban System & $1 per vehicle go to the City of Kenosha for the Kenosha Transit Authority to support their local transit systems. Each city will then be required to generate new funds to match new car rental tax revenues. The $1 for the respective cities will not be released by SERTA until the City of Racine and the City of Kenosha have demonstrated an established funding source to produce the matching funds.
• Add a KRM stop in the City of Milwaukee at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Bay Street. (NOTE: This is a long-discussed stop in Representative Jon Richards district)
• Include language specifying that municipalities in Racine and Kenosha Counties, outside of the cities of Racine & Kenosha, shall not have a KRM transit stop in those municipalities until they each provide for a sustainable mechanism to generate new funding to contribute to the Belle Urban System or the Kenosha Transit Authority.
• Restore the language from Governor Doyle’s budget proposal to provide $100 million in bonding
  authority.

The Assembly made adjustments to the KRM after key members met with members of Herb Kohl’s staff and communicated with FTA officials to learn what it would take to get federal approval for the project (federal funds are key to the development of the KRM).

Full Assembly KRM Amendment

Wisconsin State Senate

The Wisconsin State Senate approved a budget closer to that of the Joint Finance Committee than the Assembly on June 18th, 2009.  In brief, their key changes included the following.

• Delete the Milwaukee County Regional Transit Authority (RTA) proposed under the substitute amendment. Remove the reference to the Milwaukee County RTA as an eligible applicant under the southeast Wisconsin transit capital assistance program and, instead, make Milwaukee County an eligible applicant under that program.
• Grant Milwaukee County the ability to enact an additional 1% sales tax for transit, parks, culture, and emergency medical services, and require the property tax levy be reducing by $67 million (NOTE: this would be about half of what the sales tax brings in).
• Require Milwaukee County to distribute the other 15% of the new sales and use tax revenues to the municipalities in Milwaukee County. Require the municipalities to use these funds to support police, fire, and emergency medical services. Specify that the funds would be allocated among the municipalities in Milwaukee County on a per capita basis.
• Rename the KRM Authority, as proposed in the substitute amendment, the Southeastern Regional Transit Authority (SERTA). Modify the appointments to the SERTA board by specifying that the Kenosha County board chair, rather than the Kenosha County Executive, would appoint the Kenosha County member to the board. Specify that SERTA would be an eligible applicant for the southeastern Wisconsin transit capital assistance program that would be created under the substitute amendment. Require that the KRM commuter rail project include a stop in the City of Milwaukee at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Bay Street.

Full Senate Budget - Page 65 for RTA

After a recent weekend trip to take in three Milwaukee Brewers games in St. Louis versus the rival St. Louis Cardinals, I spent a significant time reflecting on the differences (and similarities) between the stadiums each team calls home.  Miller Park is located 3.2 miles from Milwaukee City Hall, while Busch Stadium is located 1/5th (0.2) of a mile from the iconic Arch.  Miller Park has the roof, Busch Stadium has the view.  Busch Stadium has the proposed Ballpark Village, Miller Park has its own sales tax.  Miller Park has gameday bus service, Busch Stadium is located on a light rail line.  And least important for the sake of this analysis, they each have their namesake beer.  With all of that considered, which stadium does more for the city?

Market Size

The comparison is worthwhile to make as the size of the St. Louis and Milwaukee markets are quite similar.   Greater St. Louis has a 2007 estimated population of 2,871,421.  Greater Milwaukee has a 2007 estimated population of 1,739,497.  Missouri has an estimated population of approximately 5,900,000, and is home to the Kansas City Royals as well. The population of Wisconsin is estimated near 5,600,000.  The markets are extremely similar in size when taking the state population into consideration.  Furthermore, both stadiums are located in Midwest, making them subject to colder starts and finishes to the season than say the Houston Astros.

Stadium Location

Busch Stadium is located in downtown St. Louis.  Almost every seat in the stadium has a view of a part of the skyline and the Gateway Arch.  The stadium is currently bordered by a few surface parking lots, garages, and hotels.  A few of those surface parking lots will become buildings as the mixed-use Ballpark Village is developed.  There are numerous hotels within walking distance of the stadium, many closer than the surface lots of Miller Park.  The St. Louis light rail system, Metrolink, runs right by the stadium with a stop conveniently labeled “Station” within a stones throw.  I-64 is immediately adjacent to the stadium.

Easily visible from almost every seat in the stadium.

Miller Park is located three miles west of downtown Milwaukee along I-94.  The stadium is surrounding on literally every side by surface parking lots, some stretching as far as a half mile from the stadium.  If the roof is open, and you’re in the top level of the stadium, there is a chance you could catch a glimpse of the US Bank Center, the tallest building in Wisconsin.  The nearest attraction is the Potawatami Casino, and there isn’t a hotel within walking distance.  The 90 bus line runs from Downtown starting two hours before the game, but must contend with traffic waiting to park once it leaves Wisconsin Avenue.

The amount of parking Miller Park requires because of the use of surface lots is really quite amazing.

Both stadiums are not the first iteration at their given location.  County Stadium preceded Miller Park, and Busch Memorial Stadium preceded Busch Stadium.

Cost and Ownership

Busch Stadium had a final cost of $365 million when it opened in 2006.  Of that cost, $45 million (12%) came from a long-term loan from St. Louis County.  Private financing came in the tune of $90.1 million in cash from the Cardinals, $200.5 in bonds paid by the team, and $9.2 million in interest earned on the construction fund the Cardinals held. The stadium has a seating capacity of 46,861 and is owned by the St. Louis Cardinals.  The stadium does not have a roof, or its own named expressway.  I was unable to determine who paid for the cost overruns of $20.2 million.

Miller Park had a final cost of $400 million when it opened in 2001.  The Brewers owners (led by the Seligs at the time) paid for 22.5 percent ($90 million).  The taxpayers of Milwaukee, Racine, Waukesha, Washington, and Ozaukee Counties are still paying (with a 2014 estimated ending date) a 0.1% sales tax to cover 77.5% of the costs ($310 million).  The stadium has a seating capacity of 43,000 and is owned in a partnership between the Southeastern Wisconsin Professional Baseball District (64 percent) and the Milwaukee Brewers (36 percent).  The stadium features a fan-shaped retractable roof.  The location of the stadium necessitates the construction and maintenance of Miller Park Way and the interchange with I-94, an expense I’m not sure is fully internalized in the cost of the stadium.

The most obvious difference between the two ballparks is the percentage of public financing.  Busch Stadium was 12% taxpayer funded, Miller Park was 77.5%.  Why was this?  The biggest aspect appears to be the team’s ability to pay.  The Cardinals had been banking money for years for a new stadium, while the Brewers, led by Bud Selig, did not have nearly the ability to pay what the Cardinals did.  Ironically, the Brewers were able to obtain the retractable roof, despite having less money to start with than the Cardinals.  The second most important factor in the funding for Milwaukee’s stadium appears to be the elected leaders, who were willing to go along with the Brewers plan (ultimately leading to a recall election and defeat for Senator George Petak of Racine).

A downtown stadium without a roof could have shaved at least $80 million from the sales tax burden, as the city could have offered TIF financing at least near $30 million and the retractable roof’s cost of $50 million would have been eliminated.

Busch Stadium has an open atmosphere that should work well with the neighborhood that develops around it.

Accessibility via Transit

As mentioned, Busch Stadium is next door to the Stadium Metrolink light-rail station, with connections to the airport, Illinois, and western St. Louis.  The station platform is packed after games, but I was unable to find ridership figures or estimates for gameday traffic.  The system itself handles about 60,000 riders a day.  The station is located along a standard route, encouraging familiarity and predictability with taking public transit to the stadium.  Unfortunately, a bus wasn’t anywhere to be found during my stay in St. Louis as a referendum was voted down in November and as a result bus service was reduced by nearly a third.

A sign announcing the cancellation of service to a downtown St. Louis bus stop. A frequent sight unfortunately.

In Milwaukee, the MCTS’s 90 bus route serves the bus starting two hours before the game.  Having ridden both after a game, there are significantly more people waiting to take the Metro.  The 90 bus only serves riders from downtown Milwaukee and along Wisconsin Avenue, unlike the St. Louis Metrolink line.  The gameday-only nature of the 90 bus also is rather confusing to many riders who aren’t familiar with the route.  The ride into the stadium is also far from smooth, as the bus must compete with stop and go traffic, from automobiles waiting to get into Miller Park parking lots, once the bus leaves Wisconsin Avenue.  There are many times where getting out of the bus and walking from the edge of the parking lots would be much faster than waiting to get dropped off at the front doors.

Edge to St. Louis and Busch Stadium for frequency of service, quality of service, areas for rides to originate, off-bus ticketing (a problem on buses for visitors), and predictability/reliability of service.

Accessibility via Car

Both stadiums are readily accessible by car.  Milwaukee is clearly more accessible by motor vehicle by virtue of the fact that there is nothing around it, making it ease for riders to find the one interstate exit to the stadium (conveniently labeled Miller Park Way).  Busch Stadium is served by multiple exits, but the large number of one-way streets in downtown St. Louis seem to induce rush hour congestion where none needs to be.  Overall, the traffic flow near Busch Stadium, despite the massive amount of pedestrian traffic, seems to flow just fine.

Ballpark Village will be built at the top of this image, just north of the stadium. Despite the presence of the interstate immediately next to the stadium, Busch Stadium seems less car-orientated than Miller Park.

Spillover Effect

What does each do for businesses, both nearby and far away?

Busch Stadium provides obviously a large boost for the hotels in the surrounding area, perhaps more measurable than Miller Park because of the immediate proximity.  There are also numerous vendors selling goods outside the stadium, something you don’t see at Miller Park.  On the flip side, grocery stores across the state of Wisconsin benefit marginally from the food sales generated by tailgating.

Numerous Brewer fans end up on Water Street and Bluemound Road after games, but not in the numbers that Cardinals fans show up in Laclede’s Landing to drink their In-Bev beers.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Busch Stadium was the lack of restaurants near the stadium.  There were a couple, but not in the number I would expect an urban stadium to bring.  Nothing like what is visible at Wrigley and Fenway.  Ballpark Village will hopefully ignite a process that brings a large amount of street level retail to the area.

Parking is the biggest difference between the two.  At Miller Park almost every parking stall by the stadium is controlled by the Brewers and your money goes directly into their coffers.  In St. Louis, a wide diversity of ownership is present near the stadium.  The result?  A diversity of pricing options, and light competition that works to keep prices down somewhat.  Similar to how things are with the Bradley Center in Milwaukee.

The real upside to Busch Stadium’s parking setup is that the stalls can be used for more than one purpose.  At Miller Park the surface parking lots are exclusively for stadium activities.  At Busch Stadium, the parking can be used for many purposes.

Ballpark Village will be a nice addition to the area around the stadium.

Tailgateability

Coining a new term specifically for this article, “tailgateability” is the measure of the ease of eating out of the back of your car an area provides.  Miller Park wins, but really not by a lot.  At Miller Park, you can fire up your grill at any parking stall, in St. Louis this is possible for a lot of the spots, but far from all of them.

This brings up an important point though, is tailgating possible at urban stadiums?  Certainly it is.  There is no reason why the roofs of parking garages and select surface lots couldn’t be sold at a small premium to tailgaters.  In Milwaukee shuttles could run between numerous areas like the lakefront parking lots and Summerfest lots to accommodate even more tailgaters.  Also, grills could be installed and public plazas could be constructed (or actually used) that would accommodate tailgaters.

Fans take to the streets after games in St. Louis as the street grid distributes them across the city. Cars are more confined to a lot of one way streets.

Conclusion

Each stadium has features that make it an enjoyable place to watch baseball.  The roof at Miller Park is nice, but was the $50+ million price tag worth it?  You could argue each way.

The location of Busch Stadium is much more enviable than that of Miller Park and leads to a number of efficiencies.  It’s underdeveloped at this point though, Ballpark Village’s development is a must.  St. Louis has a great asset in the stadium, and a fair number of buildings nearby that work well with it.  Adding more mixed-use buildings nearby will greatly improve the downtown and build a true 24-hour neighborhood.

The fact that so little of Busch Stadium was paid for with taxpayer dollars is a plus.  Having a winning culture that sold tickets and a slightly bigger fan base helped put the team in that position though.  Consequently though, it did appear that every piece of food at the stadium cost a dollar more.  Pick your poison, although I’m sure most would choose the private funding.

Building Miller Park in downtown Milwaukee was studied (drawings included below), but there was likely a hidden cost to that.  Would Milwaukee have been to eliminate the Park East Freeway if the stadium was to be near the end of the freeway stub?  Probably not.  Suburban opposition to such a proposal would have been a lot stronger.

At the end of the day, not building the new stadium in downtown Milwaukee was certainly a missed opportunity.  The only beneficiary of its current location is the Brewers themselves.  But was it something that downtown Milwaukee needed desperately?  No, it’s pretty clear it wasn’t.  Milwaukee did miss out on a chance to accelerate all the good things going on in or near downtown though.

Miller Park Downtown

From Thursday Architects…

This project was commissioned by the City of Milwaukee as a background study in hopes of persuading the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers to locate his new publicly funded ballpark downtown rather than on the suburban fringe of the city. Promoted without success by a New Urbanist Mayor, the City proposed the demolition of a freeway spur on the north side of downtown, and the location of a new ballpark along the edge of the Milwaukee River as part of new neighborhood development at the northern edge of downtown. Parking was to be accommodated by new and existing lots and garages dispersed throughout the downtown area and immediate environs. The Brewers’ owner wasn’t buying it; and the $500M “Miller Field” will open this season in a 20,000-car parking lot west of Milwaukee.

Rendering includes Grace Lutheran Church and Blatz Condos.

Looking south down Water Street.

Perhaps the greatest week of eating in Milwaukee, Downtown Dining Week, kicks off today and runs through June 4th.  You can eat a $10 three course lunch or  $20 three course dinner at some of Milwaukee’s best restaurants.  If you’re looking to get a taste of great restaurants that you haven’t been to before, this is your week to branch out.

Thank you to Bid #21, Milwaukee Downtown, for putting on such an excellent event every year.  Let’s eat (remember to tip generously)!

It’s certainly good that we value our parks, public places, and the lakefront, so a public debate over the appropriateness of placing UWM’s School of Freshwater Sciences on Lake Michigan is worth having, but the downtown lakefront is the right location.

Yes, other sites have been suggested, such as the vacant land near the Milwaukee Water Works purification plant on Lincoln Memorial Drive, the port-owned property near the Lake Express terminal, the parking lots just west of the Henry W. Meier Festival Park, sites near the existing Great Lakes Water Institute, and even the Port of Milwaukee Headquarters, but building the facility on any of these sites won’t give the new school the prominence of place the way the Pieces of Eight location will. Unfortunately, it would just be another example of when Milwaukee does something half right.

The Great Lakes Water Institute has been operating in one form or another since the 70’s, at 600 East Greenfield Avenue, and certainly has been involved in important research, but during that time Milwaukee’s hasn’t become the focal point for water research. Of course there are a lot of factors that have held back the institute from rising to greater prominence including the lack of proper funding, and the need for a graduate level school, but also hiding it away where it isn’t visible, where it isn’t prominent, and where it isn’t integral to Milwaukee and Lake Michigan detracts from its ability to be the symbol of Milwaukee’s commitment to water research.  Locating the School of Freshwater Sciences near the Milwaukee Art Museum and Discovery World right on Lake Michigan will only add to its prominence, and help to insure its place as part of Milwaukee’s new image.

If Milwaukee is to become the water capital of the world, then its leading institution needs prominence and visibility. You might say it needs a postcard location.

To learn more about this proposal and possibly lend your support, the Harbor Commission will be holding a public hearing Thursday May 28th, at 6:00 pm at City Hall Room 301-B, 200 E. Wells St. on this proposal.

In what can only be characterized as a transparent attempt to prop up Milwaukee County’s budget, the Board of Supervisors and County Executive Walker appear poised to push the Milwaukee County Grounds land sale to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee through, despite the concerns of citizens, the City of Milwaukee, and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s own staff.  Residents of both Wauwatosa and Milwaukee have spoken out in opposition to this proposal.  The City of Milwaukee formally adopted a resolution opposing this proposal, and according to a recent survey even many members of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s staff oppose this proposal.

So what is the really reason to approval this land sale and move forward?  Why do members of the Milwaukee County Board and County Executive Walker think it’s such a great idea in the face of all of this opposition?   Money.  Money.  Money.  $13.6 Million reasons to be precise.

During a year that saw Supervisors Clark and Coggs fly off to D.C. on the taxpayer credit card, and County Executive Walker preparing to ride off on his taxpayer funded bike ride, the Milwaukee County budget faces a shortfall that forced Milwaukee County to order unpaid furloughs for half of all county employees.  Instead of looking at how this proposal will negatively impact the core of the county, or what it does for the long-run future of the region, while at the same time ignoring the negative impacts to the environment, such as increased pollution, and increased congestion, Milwaukee County looks at it as a way to pay off a couple of bills.  It’s a shame our county services are going to suffer due to a budget shortfall, but using one-time deals to pay off on-going expenses is a concerning one to say the least.

Although, they took more time by utilizing a series of options, in truth the County Board acted similarly on the Palomar and RSC & Associates proposals in the Park East.  Bad deals, with poor results, done in order to prop up the Milwaukee County budget.  This Thursday May 21st at 9:30 AM the County Board of Supervisors will vote on this proposal, and all indications are that it will receive approval, so all I can say is, here we go again.

Yes.  The single most important expansion of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee currently underway is the proposed School of Freshwater Sciences.  We’ve all heard it “water is the new oil.”  It is true, fresh water just might be the key to future growth in Milwaukee and Southeast Wisconsin, and with 120 water-oriented companies and facilities for five of the eleven largest water companies in the world, not to mention UWM’s existing Great Lakes Water Institute, Milwaukee is poised to become the world leader in this industry.  Not necessarily in the traditional model of simply selling water, but in the research that will help communities efficiently, and cleanly utilize fresh water.  In the research that will allow companies to cost effectively use water and properly return it back to its source.  In the research that will keep our water clean.  How better to protect and preserve Lake Michigan for recreational and public uses, than to have Milwaukee become the leading city for research into proper, clean, and efficient use of fresh water.

Already the world is watching, just recently the U.N. named Milwaukee a Global Compact City, making Milwaukee one of thirteen cities in the world with this designation.  This designation depends on Milwaukee’s commitment to water quality and water research.  Clearly the race is on, and the economic future of Milwaukee will be deeply impacted by the decisions we make today.  The next step for Milwaukee is to build the headquarters for the School of Freshwater Sciences.  Currently, UWM and the M7 Water Council are looking into the former Pieces of Eight site to locate the landmark facility, the window on Milwaukee, the cornerstone of the capital.  Could this facility be located somewhere else as some suggest?  Yes, it could, but this time UWM has picked the right site.  Because image matters.  In the real estate world the phrase “location, location, location,” is an often repeated mantra and when corporate, educational, or political leaders visit Milwaukee to learn about our research efforts the location of this landmark facility will help sell Milwaukee as the water capital.  When potential graduate students visit Milwaukee, this location will help sell them on our city and our university.

We’ve all heard the talk about how Miller Park should have been downtown, and how Milwaukee always seems to not get it “just right”.  Well this is a chance to get the right idea, in the right place, at the right time.

To learn more about the proposal and lend your support, the Harbor Commission will be meeting Friday May 8th, at 8:00 am at the Port Authority, 2323 S. Lincoln Memorial Drive, to hear presentations from UWM and the M7 Water Council.

The Regional Transit Authority passed the Joint Finance Committee this morning at 2:17 a.m., but not in a very regional way.  The Regional Transit Authority is now largely property of the Milwaukee County Board thanks to Pedro Colon and Lena Taylor’s amendment.  The .5% sales tax is now a 1% sales tax, and Racine and Kenosha counties are out.  The 1% Milwaukee County sales tax increase will also cover parks and EMS as well as transit, with no clear distinction on which piece gets which amount.  Furthermore, 15% of the 1% sales tax will be distributed to the City of Milwaukee to use as they wish.

The KRM is now an authority onto itself, funded by a $16 rental car tax for Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee counties.  Numerous questions await if the federal government will sign off on such a funding formula.  The makeup of the KRM authority is also different, and will not follow the recommendations of the RTA.  There are no longer representatives from the county seats.

More in-depth details to come tomorrow evening on Urban Milwaukee.

The Milwaukee circulator streetcar is moving forward, but there is still confusion in the mind of many.  We’ve covered the issue in the past, but this article attempts to bring everything together in one place, the history, the frequently asked questions, and the proposed route.

Timeline

1991 - Milwaukee awarded $289 million for the construction of a dedicated-bus lane in the East-West Freeway corridor (Interstate 94 from Downtown to Waukesha).  When the plan was canceled, the federal government took back $48 million.

1998 - Jim Rowen at The Political Environment has the best summary…

Then Gov. Tommy Thompson prevailed on Rep. Tom Petri (R) to allow Thompson to direct the transit funds to other transportation projects, including freeways, because Thompson wanted the money for the Marquette Interchange reconstruction. Intervention by then-Rep. Tom Barrett (D), and Sen. Herb Kohl, (D), prevented that outcome - - and I don’t recall then State Rep. Scott Walker, (R), piping up and complaining that would mean less money for Milwaukee County buses someday.

1999 - A deal between County Executive Tom Ament, Mayor John Norquist, and Governor Tommy Thompson and approved by the federal government diverts $149.5 million to a series projects that include the construction of the new Marquette Interchange, the 6th Street Viaduct, and Canal Street.  The fund (which does not gain interest) is left with $91.5 million designed for capital costs of a downtown circulator starter system.  To access the remaining funds, approval is needed from the Milwaukee Mayor, the Milwaukee County Executive, the President of the MMAC, and the CEO of the Wisconsin Center District (WCD).

2006 - The Milwaukee Common Council approves an electric-guided bus plan, backed by the MMAC and WCD, intending to move it into preliminary engineering.  Mayor Tom Barrett vetos the $300 million proposal, the majority of the Common Council reverses their previous position and upholds the veto.  Plan killed.  Credit the Common Council for trying to do something on the issue, but the system was seriously flawed and I think that was realized at the end of the day.

2007-2008 - Tom Barrett and Scott Walker each pushed the issue of the $91.5 much more publicly.  Barrett unveiled a plan that included a downtown streetcar loop and two express bus lines, and talked of reconfiguring existing bus service to work with new, express service.  Walker unveiled an express bus plan scant on details, but complete with attacks on the Mayor’s plan.  It appeared he had the intention to simply cut all standard bus service in the areas to be served by express buses.  Both, being career politicians, cleverly avoided any mention of the money needed to operate such a system after building it.

September 9th, 2008 - Tom Barrett and Scott Walker debate the merits of their respective proposals at a forum at Marquette moderated by Mike Gousha.  Barrett offers to split the $91.5 million 50/50 in person to Walker (an idea he had been proposing for weeks if not months prior), Walker refuses.

March 2009 - Senator Herb Kohl and Representative David Obey include an earmark provision in the bill that became the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 that divided the $91.5 million between the City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County.  Milwaukee County received 40% ($36.6 million), with the City of Milwaukee receiving 60% ($54.9 million).  Barrett and Walker are each now free to pursue using their respective allocated funds to build a new mode of transit service in Milwaukee.

More details on the origin of the money, and past issues is available in an article on Milwaukee transit politics.

FAQ

Is the streetcar proposal part of the proposed Regional Transit Authority (RTA)?

No, but in the future it could become part of the RTA.  At this time no serious discussions have taken place between the City of Milwaukee and appointed-members of the RTA (outside of of course the Mayor’s appointee Sharon Robinson).  The RTA is currently being debated in the Wisconsin State Senate and State Assembly after being included in the Governor’s budget proposal.  It would allow the counties of Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee to enact a sales tax up to 0.5% to fund transit services (key aspect: it would not enact the sales tax as further action would be needed locally in each county).

Does that streetcar affect the current transit funding crisis?

No, the $91.5 million is not available for operating costs of MCTS.  Nor, despite what Scott Walker advocates, does the implementation of a streetcar compete for funding against the existing transit system.  The key to fixing the existing transit funding crisis is to obtain dedicated funding.  Currently property tax dollars from the general fund of Milwaukee County are used.  These are supplemented by dollars from the state.  When this is not enough (as it not been numerous years in a row) federal dollars designated for capital expenses (new buses) have been used for operating expenses.  This problem has been looming for years, and has been postponed with service cuts and fare hikes.

Does the streetcar stand a better chance of being built with the RTA in place?

Yes.  The RTA would provide a dedicated funding source for transit in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee counties.  It could also serve as the operator of multiple services in place of MCTS and other existing services, this included the KRM commuter rail line and potentially the streetcar.  The streetcar proposal currently has the majority of the funding needed for construction (capital costs), but not for the operating budget.  The RTA is a logical fit for operation of the streetcar, especially since the proposed route would sync with the RTA-proposed KRM commuter rail line at the Milwaukee Intermodal Station.  The RTA is likewise a good choice for the operator of the region’s bus transit services as centralized branding, route planning, and uniform ticketing will lead to the attractive and cost-effective intermodal transit system.

Where would the streetcar run?

On steel rails embedded in the road in the same lane as traffic runs on.  The rails would not damage cars or cause a bumpy driving experience.  Unfortunately for road bikers, narrow tires may get stuck in the space between the rail and the road, but there isn’t a shortage of streets in downtown Milwaukee that bikers can utilize.  Portland, perhaps the most bike friendly city in America, has avoided this problem by dedicating space for bike lanes or having bike lanes intersect streetcar tracks perpendicularly.  The streetcar would also have signal priority, so it won’t get stuck at stop lights.  An example image from Portland is included below.

Would the streetcar eliminate street parking where it runs?

Rarely.  Depending on the configuration of the street and the location of the stops minimal parking would be lost.  Using the same space for stops as the existing buses do would save stalls (and make logical transferring points) will reduce the need to eliminate parking. Additionally, using streets that don’t have much street parking on them to start (such as Van Buren Street south of Juneau) will make the loss of parking minimal.  An example image of how a streetcar stop may function is included below, remember that the spot is already “unparkable” as it is a bus stop.

What’s the difference between a streetcar system and a light rail system?

There is a three-fold difference between streetcars and light rail.  The first is the intended users, streetcars work within a handful of densely populated neighborhoods circulating people (light rail connects location at least a couple miles apart (downtown to the airport, UWM, or Miller Park, with maybe one stop inbetween each).  The second difference is the type of track such a system would need, to go longer distances a light rail system a dedicated right-of-way is needed where no other vehicles can run.  Longer travel distances also yields itself to bigger and longer trains, bigger trains mean bigger stations.  Streetcars, as their name, indicates run in the street, with traffic and are much shorter (and smaller) than light rail vehicles.  The third difference is the cost.  Light rail costs more, at least $10 million more per mile, Tucson, AZ estimates light rail would cost $30 million more per mile than a streetcar (numbers will vary based on size of system, need for land acquisition, and road configuration).  At the end of the day it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison though as they serve different purposes.

More discussion on this issue can be found in a previous article on transit technologies.

Why not a bus instead of a streetcar?

Quality of the ride, and the chance of sparking investment.  Riding on steel rails provides a very smooth ride, on top of having curb bump-outs at stops so there isn’t weaving in and out of traffic, and signal priority to avoid waiting at stop lights.  Second, investing in the steel rails in the ground has a great chance of sparking development nearby as has been shown in numerous other cities where modern streetcar systems have been built.  It’s a show of confidence that a bus can’t deliver.  There is also an unfortunate reality that there is a stigma attached to standard bus service, and that people will ride the streetcar that would rarely, if ever, ride a standard bus.

No one would ride the streetcar

False.  The 78,000 or so people that work downtown along with the 15,000 that live downtown are likely riders.  That’s before entertainment is considered, to which the streetcar would enable people to avoid paying for parking next to the Bradley Center or other venues and park in other areas of downtown.  It would be a boost to downtown businesses, as it would encourage people to move about the area after parking.  Current MCTS riders would also have their ability to move about the downtown extended, which might allow some to take a bus downtown and the streetcar to their ultimate destination (or save someone currently taking a long walk).  Riders of the future KRM commuter rail line will be able to get off at the station and ride the streetcar to their ultimate destination.  The last and final obvious group of potential riders is tourists, who stay at all the various hotels around downtown or drive into downtown to the convention center and currently don’t go elsewhere in the city.

Why Only 3 Miles In Length?

Money, money and politics.  The federal money was donated to create a starter system.  At a cost between $18-$30 million per mile, three miles would keep the cost below $100 million and provide a starter system with obvious routes to UWM, the west, and the airport as potential future extensions.

Looking at various routes, also yields the reality that three miles is about as short as one can go before the system doesn’t connect anything.  It won’t be easy for the city to obtain the remaining money to build the system, but it won’t be impossible either.  To put it in perspective, the final cost of Miller Park is four times that of the streetcar proposal.  Still, it’s a lot to swallow politically, so as Barrett says “it’s the goldie locks plans, not too big, not too small, just right.”  If you disagree, run for Mayor or County Executive, just don’t be surprised when you get laughed out of the room.

Who is going to pay for the rest of the capital costs?

The portion the city received for the streetcar from the $91.5 million was $54.9 million, which is a significant amount, but not enough to cover the costs of Tom Barrett’s proposal.  That leaves options to fund the remainder.  The likely funding option is that the city bonds the money to build it, and it is paid back through the general property tax fund.

Another possiblity is that a benefactor or two could fund the system. Michael Cudahy has been an outspoken advocate of a streetcar system, flying Walker and Barrett around the country (and to Ireland) to look at different systems.  He had mentioned funding the capital costs for his own route, so there is an outside chance Barrett could convince him to fund some portion of the ultimate route.

Using the RTA’s potential bonding ability (as derived from its sales tax collections) is extremely unlikely, but is technically a possibility.

Theoretically one could also put together a series of tax-incremental financing districts to pay for the capital costs, but that would hamper the city’s ability to collect the increased property tax revenue that the line would generate through transit-oriented development.

Mayor’s Proposed Route

View Milwaukee Streetcar Map in a larger map

Winning Route of the Urban Milwaukee Streetcar Contest

We held a contest seeking out the best possible three-mile streetcar route, and a clear winner emerged.  We’ve included that route below as the Mayor’s route isn’t final until their are rails in the ground.

View Transit Idea A in a larger map

Despite last ditch efforts by Alderman Dudzik to hold the project in committee, which would have effectively killed the project, Janet Zweig’s public art project was approved at today’s Common Council meeting with an overwhelming majority.  How things can change in such a short time.  As of the last Public Work Committee meeting it sure looked like this project was going to fall to Milwaukee’s “We’re not Chicago” syndrome.  Meaning so often our leaders and our residents thinking the best we can do is hope to fill a few pot holes, and that anything beyond that is overreaching for Milwaukee.

But I don’t buy into that discussion.  As I’ve tried to indicate in my previous posts on this topic this debate has really been about something larger than the specific proposal.  It was about, do we as a city care about our public spaces?  Do we want to embrace creativity?  Will we reach further?  At least in today’s case, as far embracing art and improving public spaces Milwaukee said “Yes.”

Now I do wonder, when it comes to expanded mass transit, and reclaiming our streets will Milwaukee again say “Yes?”

If accent lighting on the interstate isn’t the perfect definition of lipstick on a pig, I don’t know what is.  That said I’m not opposed to it.  In fact, I think dressing the Marquette Interchange for the prom was a positive step forward. There is, however, only one thing I wish would have happened differently.

More money should have been spent on minimizing the impact the interchange and Interstate 794’s have in dividing the Third Ward from downtown.  This includes not only the obvious areas between East Town and the Third Ward near the Milwaukee Public Market, but the less obvious, but looming problem, the visually isolated Milwaukee Intermodal Station.

How could this be achieved?  Well, as mentioned previously, putting more lipstick on the pig ala better lighting under the interstate to encourage more pedestrian activity from one side to the other (and hopefully encourage more development).

As I said before…

The idea I like the most is the creation of a barrier between the streets and the parking lots with rotating public art from area students.  Mix that with upward shooting lights and more contemporary designed fixtures to achieve an experience under the freeway that is similar to walking along the Riverwalk.  Make the area as visually appealing as possible to reduce the negative impact the massive cement structure has on adjacent land.

WisDOT did seem to have some intention of doing something with the space under 794.  Hopefully they follow through with that, and do something other than generic surface parking lots and what they refer to as “architecturally-enhanced piers”.  The “architecturally-enhanced piers” (pictured blow) were seriously what’s mentioned on MChange.org as all it would take to make the area more appealing.

The other low-hanging fruit (concrete) is the removal of the temporary lanes separating the two portions of 794.  It appears in an effort to make the project come in under budget, WisDOT decided to just leave construction pieces at the site (a supposedly temporary concrete piece bigger than the Milwaukee Public Market).  Unfortunately, leaving the temporary lanes in place (pictured below) makes the space under the freeway completely dark, negating the “architecturally-enhanced piers”.

The lights on the Marquette Interchange are a good thing.  They make driving through downtown more noticeable (if the skyline was failing to do that already) and will probably help the image of the city.  My concern is just that WisDOT should be spending more attention to the visual effect the freeway has on the land bordering it in the city.  More lighting under the freeway would help.

Ironically, the happy motorists living in the suburbs seem to have an issue with $815,000 being spent on lights, but not on the $810,000,000 cost of the entire project.  Ironic?  We think so.  The entire project did cost 1,000 times as much as the lights.  Penny-wise, pound-foolish comes to mind.