When the budget finally made it to his desk, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle used his extensive veto powers in a lot of ways.  The most significant of which was arguably the line-item veto of the Milwaukee Transit Authority and the proposed 0.65% sales tax increase for Milwaukee County.  Doyle did not veto SERTA, the authority which is to run the KRM commuter rail line, and the $18 rental car tax.  This veto puts back on the drawing board Doyle’s proposal for a three-county sales tax to fund the KRM and bus service in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee Counties, while at the same time not delaying the KRM development process.

The move, which many see as a slam of Milwaukee by Doyle, arguably shouldn’t be completely viewed that way.  Doyle did propose a three-county sales tax of up to 0.5% for Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha Counties to establish an authority that would operate all of the transit in the area including the KRM.  Doyle’s reasoning for the veto was that the MTA didn’t have a regional approach.

Some have speculated that this was done as part of Doyle’s potential re-election bid.  That it was an attempt to position himself against Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker.  I don’t buy that, Doyle had proposed the sales tax in his budget previously, and he wouldn’t have allowed the KRM to continue to move forward because, Walker will surely run all over rural Wisconsin talking about “Doyle’s choo choo,” sales tax or no sales tax.  If Doyle was that desperate to position himself against Walker, he would have vetoed the KRM as well.  I can’t speak for Doyle, but I think this was a clear statement to southeastern Wisconsin to get its act in order and come up with a functional, regional solution.

So what’s next? Something has to happen as the 2010 MCTS funding crisis is quickly approaching.  The word on the street is that Doyle is pushing the legislature for a real regional sales tax for Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee Counties to be introduced as its own legislation.

Now is the time for the Milwaukee caucus to actually deliver for their constituents and get this done.  We’ve watched Lena Taylor and Pedro Colon settle on the Joint Finance Committee for a compromise that gave Racine and Kenosha a free ride as a way to protect Racine Senator John Lehman, but now is the time for real action, real solutions.  Because with the funding crisis looming, and Scott Walker probably willing to cut off his own arm to avoid raising taxes, it’s now or never time.

Unfortunately, what is the Milwaukee caucus doing right now?  Pouting.  Taylor, Colon, and Grigsby led the charge on the Joint Finance Committee to vote down a small spending allotment of $35,000 to further study the KRM.

Even worse, Milwaukee County Board Chair, Lee Holloway has given a series of statements which sound more like a whining teenager, than someone who is determined to leverage his friends in the legislature to go out and get a real funding solution for a real crisis.

Meanwhile, Holloway said he would work against the KRM line by appointing himself and an ally to the transit authority board.

“We are going to vote against the KRM, right down the line,” Holloway said.

“It’s just terrible,” Holloway said. “I’m very critical of (Doyle). I thought he was a friend of Milwaukee County.”

It’s time for our Milwaukee caucus to bring home a real dedicated funding solution for transit in southeastern Wisconsin.

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

The Regional Transit Authority, a solution to Milwaukee’s transit woes that we’ve advocated before, is coming down to the wire in the halls of the state capitol.  For the plan to move forward it needs to be included in the state budget, and for that to happen it needs to be approved by the Joint Finance Committee.  The Joint Finance Committee will vote on the matter on Thursday.

The matter is anything but a done deal, and your support is turning a few votes.

Please make a call Wednesday if you have the chance.  Even if it’s just a one second “vote for the RTA on Thursday”, it’ll make a difference.

Please call, your city needs you.

Senator John Lehman (Racine) especially needs to hear from you!
(608) 266-1832 (866) 615-7510, Fax (608) 267-6793, Sen.Lehman@legis.wisconsin.gov
PO Box 7882, Madison, 53707

Representative Cory Mason (Racine)
(608) 266-0634, Rep.Mason@legis.wisconsin.gov
PO Box 8953, Madison, 53708

Representative Robin Vos (Racine)
888 534-0063, 608 282-3663 fax, rep.vos@legis.wisconsin.gov
PO Box 8953, Madison, 53708

Representative Pedro Colon (Milwaukee)
888 534-0008, 608 282-3608 fax, rep.colon@legis.wisconsin.gov
PO Box 8952, Madison, 53708

Representative Tamara Grigsby (Milwaukee)
888 534-0018, 608 282-3618 fax, rep.grigsby@legis.wisconsin.gov
PO Box 8952, Madison, 53708

Senator Lena Taylor (Milwaukee)
608 266-5810, 608 267-2353 fax, sen.taylor@legis.wisconsin.gov
PO Box 7882, Madison, 53707

Senator Alberta Darling (Milwaukee)
608 266-5830, 608 267-0588 fax, sen.darling@legis.wisconsin.gov
PO Box 7882, Madison, 53707

[Full disclosure, Jeramey is a member of the RTA Steering Committee and a passionate advocate for the efficiencies of mass transit.]

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.

The submissions are in, and it’s time to pick your favorite.

While you’re free to vote for whatever you may wish, I encourage you to consider the following aspects as criteria for judging a plan.

1. Ability to serve 78,000 individuals working downtown, and the 15,000 or so that live in the area.

2. Ability to serve event attendees coming downtown and parking at various locations.

3. Ability to interact with existing systems (Amtrak, intercity bus, MCTS) and future ones (KRM, HSR).

4. Ability to encourage future development.

5. The line is close 3 miles (applications significantly greater than 3 miles were disqualified).

The Proposals

• The Mayor’s
• Downtown to Brady by Sam Dodge
• Line to UWM by Sam Dodge
• Ogden-Third Ward-MAM by Sam Dodge
• Viaduct Streetcar by Dan
• UWM to Ogden and Van Buren by Joe Klein
• Downtown to Walker’s Point by Marty
• North Side-Marquette-Cathedral Square by Dave Steele
• North Side-Brewery-Downtown by Dave Steele
• Entertainment Streetcar by Rob Vosters
• Transit Idea A by Streetcar Sam

The Ballot Box

 Loading ...

When Governor Jim Doyle unveils his budget proposal later today, one thing that is likely to be included in it is the recommendations of the Southeastern Wisconsin RTA.  While this certainly doesn’t mean the RTA is a done deal, it’s a large step forward towards fixing transit funding issues in the Milwaukee region.

The Assembly and Senate could certainly remove it from the budget they approve, but with Democrats in control of both houses the odds of that are lower than in years past.

If Doyle had not put the recommendations in his budget, the currently advisory RTA would have dissolved, and Milwaukee would have had to wait another two years for the next budget proposal to have a shot at fixing the looming transit funding crisis (which would have been in full swing by then).

So say it’s included in the final budget, what does that mean?  Depending on the exact language, each county will then have the ability to pull the trigger on an RTA sales tax up to 0.5%.  Each county will arrive at that final amount, based on a local committee that determines a budget for the county and includes the localized cost of the KRM commuter rail line.

Today is a good day for mass transit in the Milwaukee region.

A regional transit authority with a dedicated funding source is the solution to the Milwaukee regional transit woes. The use of an authority represents the most efficient and reliable way to deliver a service to a region. A dedicated and reliable funding source is essential to empowering an authority to deliver the services for which it is tasked. While Milwaukee’s freeway system was designed and built to serve the region, the Milwaukee region’s multiple transit systems stop and start at invisible lines. The various transit systems have different fares, operating hours, vehicles, and branding. As they are now, the systems simply aren’t designed to work together to ensure a high quality of service to the region.

The end result of the patchwork quilt that is the Milwaukee region’s current transit systems is not pretty, nor productive. Constant budget battles for funding result in rising fares, reduced and or eliminated routes, varying service frequency, and antiquated equipment. At the same time, system operators are left without a budget to move riders across invisible lines that separate them from jobs.

The Milwaukee County Transit System is a prime example of the pitfalls of our current system of transit governance. In 2001, shortly before Scott Walker took office there was nearly $37 million available that Milwaukee County had received from the federal government for capital improvements to the transit system. Because the transit system, though a publicly-supported private company, is funded locally via property tax revenue it competes for funds against nearly all other county services. It is subject to yearly budget battles. The end result is a bitter fight between the Milwaukee County Board and the Milwaukee County Executive. This fight results in cuts and reductions in service across the board, not only for transit, but every service the county pays to provide. The federal funds earmarked for capital improvements (replacing old buses) have been used repeatedly for operating expenses to the point where they are nearly gone. The capital funds have been used to reduce the level of service cuts and reductions to the transit system, but at a great expense. A situation has been created where old and obsolete buses are being kept running well-past their expected lifetime. This has resulted in maintenance costs climbing at an ever increasing rate. Therefore, operating costs are now higher, and there isn’t money to pay for new buses to lower them.

The end result? The coming Milwaukee County transit funding crisis that has been studied extensively by the non-partisan Public Policy Forum.

What is a solution to this funding problem? A dedicated funding source deposited into a lock box account for a single use. A regional transit authority supported by a half-percent maximum sales tax varying by county service needs would accomplish this. A well-planned and budgeted sales tax could also create and support regional transportation initiatives that allow residents and visitors to easily move throughout the region. A move to a sales tax should not be viewed as a significant tax increase, instead using a sales tax should be seen as a logical tax transfer.

Sales taxes have a significant benefit to residents over property taxes, they’re paid by non-residents. Property taxes are paid by residents, either directly as a property owner-occupant or indirectly by renters as they are passed on by landlords. Sales taxes are paid by consumers. Consumers that come to the Milwaukee region for work or entertainment. This includes events at Miller Park and the Bradley Center frequented by out of region residents, and anything purchased at General Mitchell Airport by travelers. Furthermore, thanks in large part to Wisconsin’s progressive history, sales taxes are not levied upon unprepared food purchases at grocery stores. Using a sales tax creates a dependable revenue source to pay for existing transit service and new regional initiatives. A property to sales tax conversion would also allow a reduction to occur with property taxes, varying by the costs of the existing transit systems.

A regional transit authority with a dependable and dedicated funding source offers the best chance to move both the City of Milwaukee and the greater Milwaukee region forward. A dependable funding source will ensure reliable service that is largely free of yearly fare increases and route cuts. Furthermore, a regional transit authority will be able to operate similar to a utility provider, free to concentrate on providing one service, transit. This would be much unlike Milwaukee’s current systems which are political footballs subject to the whims of elected officials. Implementing a regional transit authority will provide the framework for future transit infrastructure improvements, including the potential use of the $91.5 million already allocated to Milwaukee by the federal government. A future with a regional transit authority is a future where people in the Milwaukee region can move within the region with ease utilizing a high quality transit system.

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.