Barack Obama seems to have his head in the right place when thinking about the need for mobility in a regional sense. He doesn’t advocate New York to Chicago high speed rail or other long routes, something that a plane does and will probably always do better. He doesn’t talk about cost inefficient monorail technology or other fancy, whiz-bang technologies.

Obama recognizes that high speed rail is the perfect mode of transit for regional connectivity and that the Midwest is a good place for that implementation.

“If you think about the Midwest, think about right here, what we’ve got is all kind of towns that we could connect,” Obama said. “All of these cities are, they basically take in the air about 45 minutes to an hour to fly.”

“But by the time you get to the airport,” Obama continued, “take off your shoes, get to the terminal, realize that your flight’s been delayed two hours, go pay $10 for a cup of coffee, and a sandwich for another $10, come back, you get on the plane, you’re sitting on the tarmac for another 25 minutes, you finally take off, you’re circling above the city for another half hour, when you land they can’t find your luggage, and then you get to where you’re going — by the time it’s all done it’s a five-hour trip! …So the time is right now for us to start thinking about high-speed rail as an alternative to air transportation, connecting all these cities and think about what a great project that would be in terms of rebuilding America.”

This is the second article in a series on Milwaukee transit. The first article was “Milwaukee Transit: The Game and The Players“.

It’s absolutely critical to understand the different transit technologies available if one is to understand and evaluate the merits of the various transit proposals for Milwaukee. Technologies include Bus-Rapid Transit (BRT), Express Bus Transit, Electric-Guided Bus, Standard Bus, Street Car, Light Rail and Heavy Rail. This article examines the technologies, largely with regard to how they would be implemented here in Milwaukee.

Bus-Rapid Transit (BRT) - The most important distinction between BRT and other forms of bus transit is that bus-rapid transit must feature right-of-way exclusively for buses through most, if not all, of the route.

It is also important that the service offer off-bus ticketing. This is crucial to ensure that stop time is minimized, especially at peak riding times. Another frequent feature of BRT is level boarding, that is a raised curb, or lowered bus. This helps speed boarding and shorten stop-times.

As part of the off-bus ticketing and level boarding, bus-rapid transit often features stations for boarding. Unlike the current 3/4-shielded bus stops we have in Milwaukee, BRT stations are typically bigger, offer a little more protection from the elements, and have substantially more route information, usually including a digital display indicating when the next bus will arrive. At bigger, central stops, this can often mean transit personnel working to sell tickets or help passengers board. The stops also extend out to the lane the bus travels in, as opposed to the standard bus model of the bus pulling over to a curb.

The greatest distinction between bus-rapid transit and standard bus service (when it comes to Milwaukee) is the frequency of stops and the exclusive lane use. To increase the speed of service, bus-rapid transit stops on average no more than once every half-mile. Depending on the layout of a given city, the service may have more stops in the densest areas. The greater spacing between stops allows bus-rapid transit to provide a greater speed of service to customers, along with a smoother ride. It is designed to go greater distances more quickly than standard bus service.

When considering a possible implementation in Milwaukee, imagine going from UW-Milwaukee to downtown in a dedicated lane and only making one or two stops at major intersections such as North Avenue and Brady Street. The bus would get signal priority at all stop lights, so you wouldn’t be stuck watching cross traffic. In some areas it might even be grade-separated.

When it comes to the actual vehicles that make the run, BRT vehicles are often articulated (meaning there is a second vehicle attached through an accordion-like connector). This allows them to have a greater capacity than standard buses and still be able to navigate city streets. At the cheapest level, they are diesel-powered buses. Options are available for hybrid diesel-electric buses, which have a greater up-front cost, but have a better fuel economy. Another potential plus of a hybrid bus is that it is presumably quieter, much like when a Toyota Prius accelerates.

Bus-rapid transit systems do not operate in isolation from other transit systems; existing standard bus service should be routed as a feeder system for BRT. Transferring from the slower standard busing to bus-rapid transit should be easy and encouraged for distance commuters. For an understanding of how this and other features of bus-rapid transit may work, watch this short video of BRT in Bogota, Columbia.

The estimated cost of building a BRT system is $5-$10 million per mile.

In summary, bus-rapid transit systems feature rubber-tired, high-capacity, fast boarding vehicles with dedicated lanes.

Express Bus Transit - An express bus system (as proposed by Mayor Barrett) varies just slightly from bus-rapid transit. The most significant change is in the use of the dedicated lanes. Express bus transit as it is proposed for Milwaukee would get signal priority and priority lanes for large parts of the system, but not dedicated lanes. While dedicated lanes are just that, priority lanes are existing lanes that buses are able to stop in (using curb bump outs).

Reconfiguring lanes as priority lanes is substantially less expensive than using dedicated lanes. While it may not yield an average speed as high as bus-rapid transit, with dedicated lanes, it still yields service substantially faster than standard bus service by eliminating the need for buses to pull over.

The other advantage of using priority lanes is that they are substantially more politically appealing than dedicated lanes, not only because of construction cost, but because they do not require the elimination of any parking.

While a dedicated lane could be constructed down Prospect Avenue, for instance, by removing parking on one side of the street and adding some form of barrier - a curb - between the existing lanes and the new dedicated lane, a priority lane takes the existing right lane and bumps the curb out at an intersection once every half-mile or so. This preserves parking next to the lane and allows other vehicles to drive in the priority lane.

As with any of the technologies listed, the need for dedicated and priority lanes is dictated by how much other traffic is on the road. There isn’t a need to build full-blown priority or dedicated lanes in non-congested areas. When it comes to an area like downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin Avenue especially, it may be necessary to build dedicated lanes even for express buses. A dedicated lane would be on the high-end for cost options to speed travel through downtown. A more affordable, but potentially less-effective option, would be to implement “queue jump” lanes at intersections. “Queue jump” lanes operate similar to traditional signaled turn-lanes, except instead of giving exclusive priority for vehicles to turn, they would allow buses to go through the intersection first before the rest of traffic. Study of any express bus route will reveal which lane enhancements options would be the most cost-effective.

Express bus service in Milwaukee would feature off-bus ticketing, digital displays to indicate the next bus’s arrival, and easy-on, easy-off buses that are at the same height as the curb. As with bus-rapid transit, typical standard bus service can and should be routed as a feeder service to these faster modes of transit.

The estimated cost of constructing an express bus system is $2-$5 million per mile.

The vehicles for express bus service are very similar, if not identical, to bus-rapid transit. That is, they are most often high-capacity, articulated, diesel buses. For routes with expected lower ridership or less need to navigate tight turns, the articulated second section might not be used.

Electric-Guided Bus - Electric-guided bus transit is the most “train like” of all bus types. While still being rubber-tired, electric-guided buses are powered by an overhead wire, similar to modern light rail systems. They do feature the ability to leave the wire temporarily in the event of a detour.

The substitution of rubber tires for steel wheels makes electric guided bus systems cheaper than light rail, but slower and a little less smooth ride. Light rail systems run on smooth steel rails, guided buses would run on the existing road network with an overhead wire.

The proposal for the use of electric-guided buses in Milwaukee was adopted by the Milwaukee Common Council, but was ultimately vetoed by Mayor Barrett because of funding, technology, and existing route elimination issues. If Barrett had not vetoed the service, the proposal would have moved into the preliminary engineering stage. Barrett was not alone in opposing the service, as County Executive Scott Walker was in opposition of the proposal.

The estimated cost of guided bus construction is $30-$35 million per mile (cost for a proprietary Bombardier system).

It is my belief that an electric-guided bus system is a good example of good intentions gone wrong. It’s promoted as a cheaper option for nearly the same service as light rail, but it is just that: cheap. It’s more expensive than express busing, but slower than light rail. Spending less gets you a lower-speed service, which would result in fewer riders. So you could spend less upfront, but you would get fewer riders and have a less effective service. Fewer riders diminishes the ability for organic transit-oriented development to occur. It would be better to stick with standard bus service than go to electric-guided buses. I will explore this notion of transit-oriented development more, later in the series.

Standard Bus Service - Standard bus service is what the people of Milwaukee County have been riding for years. The service is very effective at going just a couple miles. Your standard run-of-the-mill bus service can be very good at ensuring you don’t have to walk far to get to a bus.

The traditional way busing has been done in Milwaukee (and elsewhere in the world) does have significant flaws. Frequent stops substantially slow the service down. To make matters worse, going in and out of traffic to get to the curb to pick-up/drop-off is not only slow, but is uncomfortable for the rider.

If you’re going a short distance, the current approach taken by the Milwaukee County Transit System works fine. If you’re going a distance that is more than a couple of miles, the constant pulling to the curb gets tiring, and the speed is lackluster.

It’s worth noting that Milwaukee’s currently stock of buses exacerbate the discomfort from pulling in and out of traffic by being out-of-date and loud. The buses currently in use make it difficult to have a conversation on the bus because every time the bus changes speed there is a substantial amount of engine noise generated, both inside and outside the bus.

Having been a frequent rider of bus systems elsewhere in the country (and world), I can tell you there are far quieter buses out there. In fact, I would guess that almost every new bus available from manufacturers is considerably quieter than what Milwaukeeans are experiencing now.

That said, Milwaukee isn’t alone in having loud transit. Fred Jandt, editor of Mass Transit Magazine, recently wrote an article detailing the differences in the philosophy of noise dispersion for automobiles versus mass transit (hat tip to Nate Holton for the link).

While priority and dedicated lanes will make the ride much smoother, new buses would provide a substantially more comfortable version of the existing, standard MCTS bus service.

Street Car - Street car systems are significantly different from light rail. Street cars are steel-wheeled, electric single-car trains. While light rail by definition is expected to use private right-of-way, street cars ride on rails in the street. This causes a slight reduction in speed, but delivers a smoother and more-defined (by the rails in the road) service than typical standard bus service.

Street car routes are usually no longer than 5 miles and have an emphasis on moving people within a neighborhood. You can expect street car speeds to rival standard bus service at nearly 12 miles-per-hour, but the service would be substantially more quiet (on modern systems) and much smoother. Street car systems are very successful at moving people within an area without the need for automobiles.

Street car stations are typically spaced no more than a couple blocks from one another.

Street car systems have an estimated per mile construction cost of $14-$18 million.

Street car systems are less costly than light rail because they feature single-car trains, share existing right-of-way, and have shorter routes. Street cars are designed for circulation within a local area, while light rail is designed more for regional connectivity. Using one for the other’s purpose would be inefficient.

Light Rail - Light rail is the slower and smaller version of heavy rail. Light rail systems include multiple cars per train, unlike street cars. To be classified as modern light rail, the system must be electrically powered. This is frequently done by an overhead wire. Light rail cars also operate in private right-of-ways for almost all of their routes, meaning they are separated from the rest of the street by some barrier (such as a curb or wall).

Light rail has the capability to get up to higher speeds, but not as fast as traditional heavy rail. Some systems, especially in Europe, connect to smaller, near-by towns. Light rail, however, is not designed to go long distances and does not usually interconnect with the existing national rail system. Light rail systems are focused on regional connectivity at distances from 5 to 20 miles. Using dedicated right-of-way and higher capacity trains than street cars, light rail would be well-suited for connecting the edges of Milwaukee County with downtown.

Stations for light rail are usually at least a half-mile apart from one another. Paired with dedicated right-of-way, this allows light rail to have substantially higher speeds than street cars. But private right-of-ways and multi-car trains causes light rail implementation to be expensive.

The name “light rail” was selected in 1972 by the U.S. Urban Mass Transit Administration. The idea behind the name is a little convoluted.

Light in this context is used in the sense of “intended for light loads and fast movement”, rather than referring to physical weight, since the vehicles often weigh more than those on so-called heavy rail systems. The investment in infrastructure is also usually lighter than would be found for a heavy rail system. Read more.

The cost to build a light rail line is estimated at $30-$40 million per mile.

None of the transit proposals for Milwaukee include light rail. This is an important and misunderstood fact. If you understand nothing else about this series, understand that no one is proposing true light rail in Milwaukee.

Heavy Rail - Heavy rail is the system of standard trains you are used to. All inter-city freight railroads are heavy rail; Amtrak is heavy rail, and most commuter lines are heavy rail (Metra in Chicago being the nearest example). The former North Shore Line that ran down down the middle of streets on the south side of Milwaukee and down to the edge of Chicago was heavy rail.

Heavy rail systems feature greater top speeds than light rail, but at a greater cost. While at first glance it would seem logical to build in-city rail systems the same way inter-city systems are built, there are numerous reasons not to. Heavy rail systems typically feature diesel powered trains, while light rail is electric. This creates a substantial difference in engine noise, not to mention air quality. Also, light rail trains ride much closer to the ground than heavy rail, making for easy on and off for light rail passengers. Light rail train-sets are optimized for stopping and starting; heavy rail is designed for going long distances at high speeds. If you’re still not convinced, ride the Amtrak Hiawatha line to Chicago and back, and imagine stopping and starting every half mile.

Heavy rail is the technology chosen for the proposed Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) system. Light rail is not a realistic choice for this because of the long distances and the need for fast travel.

The next article in the Milwaukee Transit series will focus on the current proposals on the table. This will include a look at how they would be funded, and what potential they may have.

The second phase of the Milwaukee Intermodal Station’s re-development received a boost recently, when Senator Kohl included $1.5 million for the Milwaukee Intermodal Station in an appropriations bill funding the Department of Transportation in 2009. Much of the station has been renovated and the facility now creates a stylish entry point into Milwaukee but the overall project is far from completion. The remaining work involves renovating the train shed, updating the bus canopies, improving the parking areas and platforms. Specifically the most pressing and overdue update to the station is to bring the platforms and ramps within the train shed into Americans with Disability Act compliance. Although the second phase in the re-development of the Milwaukee Intermodal Station will require significantly more funds to complete, this funding a good step forward in that effort.

Understanding the discussion around Milwaukee transit requires an understanding of who has the keys to unlock the federal funds to improve and expand the existing system. We need to lay some groundwork before any discussion on the actual proposals can start.

The Game

There is one primary reason there is a serious debate going on in Milwaukee about improving transit, and that is because there are federal funds already designated for transit in Milwaukee. The Journal Sentinel has provided a good overview of the history of those funds…

In 1991, Congress set aside $289 million to build a bus-only highway parallel to I-94. After state officials pulled the plug on that project, the federal government took away $48 million, and state and local officials have studied, debated - and ultimately rejected - other ways to use the rest of the money, including a light rail system, bus-and-car-pool lanes on the freeway, expanded bus service and guided electric buses. A 1999 deal diverted $149.5 million to road, bridge and pedestrian projects, leaving $91.5 million for a transit project.

The deal mentioned that diverted $149.5 million included funding assistance for the construction of the Marquette Interchange, the 6th Street Viaduct, and Canal Street.

So that $91.5 million can easily be spent by a simple vote of our elected officials, right? Wrong. In fact, the way access to the money is set up only four individuals have control, locally, of how the money can be spent.

Making an agreement more difficult, the money can only be spent on capital improvements, new buses or new infrastructure (be it rail or bus). This isn’t a huge hurdle until you consider the Public Policy Forum analysis that concludes the Milwaukee County Transit System will have a budget shortfall of $18.3 million in 2010 and $23.7 million in 2011. It gets worse…

Since 2001, nearly $40 million of a $44 million reserve of federal capital funds has been allocated by the county to fill holes in MCTS’ operating budget and avoid significant service cuts. At the same time, bus purchases have been deferred to allow for the expenditure of those reserves on operations. The elimination of the reserve and the looming need to replace at least 150 buses sets up an ominous fiscal crisis.

In summary…

They can accept a transit system that is a shell of its former self – one that contains no freeway flyer service, few night and weekend options, and sparse service west of 76th Street, south of Oklahoma Avenue or north of Silver Spring Drive – or they can consider one or more selections from a difficult menu of policy options that could either delay the day of reckoning once again, or perhaps prevent it altogether.

So you have “free” money to the tune of $91.5 million, tempting some to float proposals for using it to patch up the operating budget for MCTS. That certainly won’t be possible this time; it will have to be spent on capital improvements, not operating costs.

What will have to be done? Any proposal put forth by any of “the players” will not only have to include a plan for integrating any new mode of transit with the existing system, but will also have to include some framework for fixing the current transit funding crisis. In all reality this is going to need to be in the form of a sales tax or property tax increase. But how much of an increase?

It’s not likely that political support could be found for a proposal that adds a new express level of service to the transit offerings without also addressing funding for the most basic level of service.

“The game” is complicated.

To make things worse, “the players” can’t seem to agree on anything. Who are “the players”?

The Players

The players consist of four locally influential figures who represent various organizational units. The way the federal funds are structured places power in the offices of these individuals, rather than in the organizations they represent (which isn’t to say the organizations they represent have no power at all in this process). So, while you would expect the City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County would have to sign off on any deal, that is actually not the case. The Mayor of Milwaukee and the Milwaukee County Executive have to sign off. All four of the players will have to agree to the same plan for the federal government to release the funds. A simple majority will not work.

If you flash back to 1991, when congress set aside the initial $289 million, you’d think getting an agreement between the Mayor of Milwaukee and the Milwaukee County Executive would appear to be a little easier, since the Mayor at that time was John Norquist, and the County Executive was soon to be Tom Ament (replacing the outgoing David Schulz). Those two were more likely to agree on a transit system than the current combo of Tom Barrett and Scott Walker. Unfortunately, both Norquist and Ament had their political careers ended by scandal shortly after the start of the new millennium.

The end result of the structure of the federal funds allotment and the political shake-up is that you have a proud Democrat in one office and a proud Republican in the other who must agree to the same plan.

The players are…

Mayor of Milwaukee - Tom Barrett: Mayor Barrett proposes splitting the money with County Executive Scott Walker. His proposals to-date have included mixed-modes, including a street-car starter system and an express bus system. It is important to note that the current Milwaukee Country Transit System is not under his control (nor that of anyone else in Milwaukee City Hall). Barrett is a Democrat and in his second term as Mayor. It is unknown whether he has ambitions to run for Herb Kohl’s Senate seat after Kohl eventually retires, but that could be a factor when party lines get drawn deeper. Barrett formerly represented Milwaukee in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the state legislature.

Milwaukee County Executive - Scott Walker: County Executive Walker favors spending the money exclusively on a bus system. Walker is a Republican, a potential candidate for Governor in 2010, and was recently re-elected County Executive. He has opposed any tax increase (be it property or sales) at almost every juncture during his time in office. Walker has not supported further study of the proposals put forth by Barrett.

Wisconsin Center District CEO - Richard A. Geyer: Geyer represents the Wisconsin Center District which operates the Midwest Airlines Center, US Cellular Arena, and Milwaukee Theatre. To-date he has supported further study of proposals put forth by Mayor Barrett.

A little background on the Wisconsin Center District…

WCD receives no property tax money or State subsidy. Its funding comes from operating revenues and special sales taxes on hotel rooms, on prepared food and drinks generally sold in restaurants and taverns, and on car rentals. Within the boundaries of Milwaukee County, WCD collects 2% on rooms, 3% on car rentals, and 0.25% on food and beverage sales. It also receives a 7% hotel room tax formerly collected by the City of Milwaukee. These visitor taxes primarily repay a $185 million bond issue that funded the Midwest Airlines Center project.

Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce President - Tim R. Sheehy: Sheehy has been with the association since 1983. To-date he has supported further study of proposals put forth by Mayor Barrett.

Other Elected Officials - Even if these first four players do come to an agreement, there remains another hurdle to cross. The proposal to the federal government to get the funds must be accompanied by some local funding. That could come from the state level, that could come locally, or it may be that a substantial portion could be raised privately. One way or another though, other elected officials are going to have to be involved in this process. Barrett and Walker can make the wheels start turning, but other officials are going to needed to keep them rolling.

One thing worth nothing when it comes to discussing local/state funding is that the recently remodeled Milwaukee Amtrak Station (now the Milwaukee Intermodal Station) will most likely count as local funding. In almost all proposals to-date it has served as the anchor point, and represents a significant capital investment that won’t have to be remade when and if Milwaukee ever spends the $91.5 million.

Next Up

The next article will be focused on understanding the different transit technologies. How many of you know the difference between a street car system and a light rail system? And what is bus-rapid transit?

The follow-up to to that will be examining the current proposals put forth, including one by outsider Michael Cudahy. This will include a look at funding options.

The final piece will be the recommendations of UrbanMilwaukee and a look at the effects of transit-orientated seen elsewhere.

In one of the worst kept secrets surrounding the future of downtown Milwaukee, an announcement finally arrived today that the out-of-place and severely dated United States Post Office located on St. Paul Ave, next to the brand spanking new, gorgeous Milwaukee Intermodal Station, is moving south to be closer to the airport in a new, more efficient facility.

This is a huge win-win for both areas. First, this should increase commerce surrounding the airport by adding a labor-intensive business near a large retail stretch. Second, it’s obviously going to be a boost for efficiency for moving mail in-and-out of Milwaukee. With a significant amount of mail moving through the air, this should get it sorted and on-and-off planes faster and reduce costs for USPS.

In regards to downtown Milwaukee, the Third Ward, and the Menomonee Valley, this is the start of a huge boost that has been a long time coming. The new Milwaukee Intermodal Station that is quickly becoming a well-known gateway to Milwaukee is in a terribly misused and underused area. Eliminating the Post Office and replacing it with nearly any mixed-use building would be a huge boost for the area and trigger development in underused buildings and surface parking lots across the street.

The land that Milwaukee’s Central Processing Facility for USPS currently occupies is not only in a great location because of the proximity to the train station, but it sits on the Menomonee River immediately adjacent to where it merges with the Milwaukee River. Any development on the site will certainly seek to reconnect the neighborhood with the river and further foster urban Milwaukee’s image as an area that is increasingly connected with its natural capital.

If you want to consider the kind of visual impact replacing the Post Office will have, consider the Harley Museum set to open soon just across the river. Not only has that development triggered another development in the Iron Horse Hotel, but it’s taken a long underused property and made it a legitimate piece of the city again. Replacing the Post Office will not only trigger development north across St. Paul Ave, but will increase the value of the Harley Museum and all of the land along that stretch of the rivers.

Milwaukee Intermodal Station
Originally uploaded by compujeramey

It’s good to see Senator Dick Durbin demanding better service from Union Pacific on the Amtrak route that runs from St. Louis to Chicago.

What does this have to do with urban Milwaukee? The expansion and improvement of Amtrak (greater frequency of runs, faster service, ultimately lower prices) is good for Milwaukee’s most urban neighborhoods.

The downtown location of the Milwaukee Intermodal Station is great for nearby land values and for access by the greatest number of riders. Easy for us that live here to get out, and for travelers from other cities to get in. The money spent to redevelop the station was worth every penny.

So the station is great, but where can we as Milwaukeeans travel to easily through that station? Currently Minneapolis and Chicago are the only easy destinations (and the few small city stops along the way). Transferring to other lines in Chicago is plausible, but service delays and the frequency of runs make it somewhat difficult.

If Senator Durbin and the people of Illinois get their way, Union Pacific will improve the conditions on the rail line and Amtrak service will improve. This will increase the ease at which Milwaukeeans can get to St. Louis.

More efficient connections to big cities will only drive more people to Milwaukee’s inner-core of great neighborhoods. Better service is both great for business and great for urban residents.

Long-term hopefully this will lead to the development of a high-speed rail corridor that includes Milwaukee. The Chicago-St. Louis route provides a great opportunity to test and implement technologies because of the lack of freight travel and the relatively flat terrain.

High-gas prices, long security check times at airports, and increasingly more extreme weather conditions will lead more and more people to Amtrak and innovators like Megabus. What can be done to create a better, more efficient service? Improving the Chicago-St. Louis line is a good first step towards building a super-efficient rail network in the fresh coast.

From time to time Urban Milwaukee will feature a collection of links we think are worth your time to read, but don’t merit us spending the time to fully summarize and insert our viewpoints yet.

• "Neighbors fed up with vandals, lack of patrols" - A story of chaos and vandalism ensuing in a northwestern Milwaukee neighborhood that the police don’t seem to care to fix.  If I lived there I would be scared for my life judging by the stories told and the police departments unwillingness to monitor things.
• "City ranks at bottom of health categories" - This shouldn’t come as a huge surprise to you, but being host to most of the people that experience severe socioeconomic problems in this state means the city’s health ranking will be pretty low.  In other news, keep your pants on.
• "Experts say ‘most dangerous city’ rankings’ twist numbers" - Clearly, it’s disgusting how they glorify Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, and company as such dangerous places.  Offer a solution, not an insult.
• "All routes lead to Amtrak Station" - A summary, more or less, of the status of all transit projects in the Milwaukee-area.  If you’re short on time just know that the story ends with Scott Walker killing everything in favor of a weak express bus plan.
• "Developer completes Park East financing" - Mandel Group Inc. has all the money it needs for the first phase of the North End on the site of the former Pfister & Vogel tannery.  I’m excited to watch the progress of this and enjoy the results.

Milwaukee Intermodal Station
Originally uploaded by compujeramey

I walked down to the new Intermodal Station (in the rain mind you) to snag some photos. The results can be found on my Flickr set tracking construction of the station.

The power with which the building lights up the area is super impressive and ultra important to the continued evolution of downtown Milwaukee towards a 24/7 neighborhood.

Milwaukee Intermodal Station
Originally uploaded by pear52

The Milwaukee Intermodal Station grand opening will be Monday, November 26th. While you probably have visited the station during the reconstruction phase, the 26th will mark the first day that the station will be free of construction equipment.

If you haven’t stopped by Milwaukee’s newest and nicest gateway to the city, make time to. It’s an amazing improvement.

My new Palace Expansion
Originally uploaded by marcosparco

Here’s a radical thought, let’s leverage casinos to build a transit system in Milwaukee.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer (as reposted by the biglittler blog here), Atlantic City casinos are getting together to fund the operating deficit of express train service between New York City and their boardwalk to appeal to 25-34 year olds who don’t like sitting in traffic. The casinos are contracting with NJ Transit to operate the trains. Read more…

Could Milwaukee leverage the Potawatomi Casino in the Menomonee Valley to grease the wheels on funding for a light rail system? Connecting the casino with the new Milwaukee Intermodal Station, Miller Park, the companies in the Menomonee Valley, State Fair Park, and the new UWM campus on the County Grounds (along with the Zoo) would provide a smooth route that connects many major landmarks and a decent amount of jobs.

The rest of the central city (the folks who need the system the most) should still be connected with a route that runs up Fond du Lac Avenue from the Intermodal Station (thereby linking up almost all of downtown). Much like Michael Cudahy’s vision.