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 title of this post is purely fiction at this point, but is what this writer believes should happen.

Undoubtedly you’ve heard by now that the General Motors factory in my hometown of Janesville is closing. What many (politicians and residents alike) are not considering is the massive trickle down effect this is going to have on the rest of Janesville as a large source literally abandons the city. Sure the UAW has ensured that many of the employees at General Motors are not going to feel any financial pain for a long-time, but thousands of others are not as fortunate. Employees of Janesville-based GM part suppliers (of which there are many) are going to receive next to nothing as they lose their jobs in coming years.  And that’s just the start

This massive unemployment will have the effect of putting the hurt on numerous other local companies and institutions. The School District of Janesville will be faced to downsize in the face of falling property tax values (despite just having passed the largest referendum in Wisconsin history). Mercy Health System will certainly feel some pain as the number of patients remains largely steady, but their ability to pay diminishes. Oh, and the massive number of chain food choices (both fast and sit-down) that exist along Milton Avenue, look for their numbers to greatly diminish.

Assuming nothing drastic happens (read: no large employers opens shop in town or there is no mass migration from the city) Janesville residents are largely looking at a future of under-and-un-employment. Many of the GM employees will be offered jobs at other plants, but that doesn’t include suppliers and those who relied on serving them (the service industry the city seems to want to tout now).

To make matters worse, long-time Janesville employer Gilman (now split into two companies ThyssenKrupp Krause Inc. and ThyssenKrupp Drauz Nothelfer) announced they were closing and eliminating all 140 jobs. This was a local employer that at one time not too long ago employed nearly 500 people in Janesville, my father included.

Politicians, including Janesville-natives Senator Russ Feingold and Representative Paul Ryan, are already calling for aid packages or more money to be sunk into the city to encourage new employers in Janesville. Most of the companies that have recently opened (or considered opening) shop in Janesville are in the warehousing and distribution industry, an industry highly susceptible to losses from rising fuel costs (much like the SUV’s made in Janesville are). Spending money on tax breaks and credits to attract industry to Janesville seems like a losing battle does it not? Especially since they did just that a few years ago, and now are asking General Motors to pay the state back.

The fact is that companies will either consistently search for the best tax deal (leading to a long-term losing game for cities) or for the best existing environment. Beloit largely has Janesville beat on location in the wake of soaring fuel costs. Beloit is located at the intersection of Interstate’s 43 and 39/90 and is closer to Milwaukee, Rockford, and Chicago. Why would the state look to continue to pour money into Janesville then? Good question.

The state should instead take a radical approach. Jim Doyle and company should largely encourage the unemployed in Janesville to move to Milwaukee (or Madison). Why? There are more jobs in the Milwaukee area, and Milwaukee certainly has the capacity to create more jobs (look no further than the redevelopment occurring Menomonee Valley and soon the 30th Street Corridor). The old adage of “it takes money to make money” holds true in the globalization era. The big cities like Chicago are getting bigger and stronger, while the stagnant towns like Janesville and many other manufacturing towns are getting smaller.

The ironic fact is that a migration of residents to Milwaukee could actually reduce the unemployment in Milwaukee. Creating a larger base of skilled/trained individuals for jobs should only attract more companies to the region, or to expand operations in the case of existing ones.

How do we achieve this migration? Create marketing plans for Milwaukee, bring in relocation specialists to help the unemployed find work in Milwaukee, and offer tax incentives for relocating families.

While Wisconsin politicians for obvious reasons can not advocate residents to move to Chicago, the Windy City offers a substantial number of opportunities, arguably more than Milwaukee.

How do we preserve home values in Janesville and help Janesville adjust structurally? Implement an aggressive urban growth boundary that prevents building outside of designated areas to preserve the value of existing homes. This will not only limit of the dilution of home values, but encourage urban infill (through the redevelopment of existing properties) and encourage Janesville to kick to structurally kick its oil habit through reduced drive distances.

The City Council of Janesville must also actively seek to make opening businesses in Janesville as easy a process as possible. They should also seek to improve the efficiency of existing employers.

Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Department of Highways (formerly Transportation) should also implement a legitimate mass-transit from Janesville to Milwaukee. While Van Galder/Coach USA provides a route to Madison, and Chicago, there is not a mass-transit to Milwaukee. In fact when I go to visit my parent’s house, I must first take a bus to Madison, then transfer to another to Janesville.

Janesville has a substantial agricultural base on which it can seek to orient itself around in the “ethanol era” where food prices currently only go up.

The most difficult thing that must be done in Janesville is to redevelop the Delevan Drive Industrial Corridor, for as it turns out Gilman and General Motors were not only in the same city, but next-door neighbors. This will likely mean dividing those properties into smaller units so businesses can locate there.

Wisconsin needs to do everything in its power to avoid Janesville becoming like Flint and so many other towns that have lost their largest employer. That starts with not pouring money into Janesville to give residents false hope.

Barcamp Milwaukee 2007
Originally uploaded by marcusnelson

According to Forbes, Milwaukee is an up-and-coming tech city. They tout the strength of some of the biggest companies in the area, Rockwell Automation and Johnson Controls.

What did they overlook? The strength of business brewing activities afoot in the city. BarCampMilwaukee, DrupalCampWisconsin, MilwaukeeDevHouse, Web414, and the KEEN efforts at local universities. Not to mention the emerging angel investment groups including Silicon Pastures. The tech community efforts in Milwaukee out pace the strength of many other fresh coast cities and are second to only Chicago, and they’re only getting stronger.

There isn’t any guarantee that these activities will lead to new wealth-generating businesses, but they’re certainly at the very least creating a supply of talented and connected web experts who can create significant competitive advantages for area firms.

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.

As a follow-up to my post on Chicago’s Green Alley Program, I did some reading on rubber sidewalks they’re building. That led me to how they’re making their bus stops solar powered (we’re talking the three-sided ones, not the poles in the ground).

About 100 solar shelters will be installed next year by the company that has the contract for shelter advertising. The installation will save the city an estimated $20,000 in electricity costs every year, according to Heramb.

I don’t know if they’ve considered this, but what if you turned these solar powered bus stops into a decentralized grid of power centers?  Why stop at just powering the light at the bus stop?  Why not power all the street lights on the block?  Why not power the new electronic parking meter LUKE too?

Imagine all Department of Public Works property throughout the city of Milwaukee being powered by a money-saving distributed network of solar panels on top of MCTS bus stops.
I would imagine Milwaukee could save a lot of money doing this and improving on an idea started by our friends to the south.

The city of Chicago, in its continual quest to be at the forefront of the implementation of green features, has launched the Green Alley Program.  In a city with almost 2,000 miles of alleyways, this is a huge step.  Nearly 50 alleys have already been built, with many more to come.  The pavement allows water to drain into the water table instead of puddling and running to the sewer system.  This obviously reduces the strain on the sewer systems, but there are other benefits to the program.  The pavement reflects more heat, reducing the urban heat island affect that plagues urban areas in the summer.  Dark-sky lighting fixtures are also installed that are not only more energy efficient, but eliminate the waste of light shining into the sky all night long.  This keeps the alleys well-lit, while at the same reducing the light pollution that comes with life in a big city.  Costs will continue to drop as more of the porous pavement is produced by cement companies and more of the dark-sky lighting fixtures are installed.

The Chicago Green Alley Program properly bundles a series of efficiency and environmental improvements that are helping fuel a renewal in the quality of urban life.  While programs like this go largely unnoticed now, down the road they’re going to be part of the decision process when you choose where you want to live (not the program itself, but the results).  Cities that invest now are only adding to their bottom lines long-term, through both a probable reduction in costs and an increased tax base in neighbors that have the improvements.

MSOE has a permeable pavement parking lot, which aside from being good for keeping water out of the sewer system keeps the surface of the lot a lot more dry during the rain and therefore a lot more pleasurable and safer to walk on (no puddles or slick spots).  Permeable pavement is one of those things that the first time you see it in action, you wonder why it isn’t required in new buildings.

It would be a true shame if Milwaukee does not adopt this same program in the next year or so, especially for a city that faces sewage discharges into Lake Michigan on a regular basis during periods of high rain.  Milwaukee would be wise to at the very least make permeable pavement a requirement in all new construction in the Park East neighborhood.

Special thanks to Jason Varone at the NYC-centric Streetsblog for drawing my attention to this development.

Heading East on I94
Originally uploaded by compujeramey

The project I love to hate, the Pabst Farms development, won’t be the recipient of a new interchange with Interstate 94 anytime soon. The state won’t be building a new interchange until there is a new developer lined up.

This is a positive sign of some restraint on interstate spending by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. A department who appears to have no problem building a massive, remodeled interchange on the edge of downtown, planning to rebuild the Zoo Interchange in a few years, and then diverting traffic away from those new interchanges at the drop of a hat by building a new interchange on the edge of the Milwaukee-metro area.

Wisconsin continues to build out this massive network of highways by simply expanding the number of lanes and expanding the size of interchanges. The Pabst Farms interchange is yet another sign of a state that doesn’t have a strategy to deal with transit except for throwing more money into the wind, while state’s like Colorado build out efficient, modern mass transit networks and Illinois looks to continue to expand the Metra system and improve the L.

For now it looks like the battle will continue. Urban visionaries will continue to campaign for the destruction of urban freeways (see Norquist and the Park East Freeway<?a>), while suburbanites campaign for the development of new interchanges on the edge of the metro area. This back and forth is going to continue until the state of Wisconsin is able to come up with some kind of people-moving strategy that doesn’t involve continually building massive concrete structures that eventually fall under disuse.