Looking at Minneapolis, Melissa Kovach, observes that even with a light-rail line, nearby downtown sporting events, and anchor tenants, the urban mall, Block E, still has a vacancy rate equivelant to Grand Avenue’s (30%).

The way to a healthy urban retail environment proposed by the Public Policy Forum is to focus on unique, indepdent retailers at the street-level.  Words of wisdom that sound similar to what we concluded when we explored the idea of rebuilding the Shops of Grand Avenue.

It’s great to see more and more people coming around to the idea that an urban shopping center that is simply a clone of the suburbs will fail.

What survives?  Look at the Delmar Loop in St. Louis.  An urban neighborhood served by a light-rail line, with good urban, street-level design.  Every time I visit the area, it seems to grow bigger and healthier.

What do we have to look at locally? The Third Ward.  No fixed transit connections, but it is served by two bus lines.  Most importantly though is the extensive network of street-level retail establishments with offices and condos above.  Good urban design grows upon itself, unlike a stationary mall.  This is no more evident than in the growth of the Fifth Ward where retail, offices, and condos are spilling over from the Third Ward.  The Fifth Ward, officially known as Walker’s Pointer is located just south of the Third Ward, and has seen projects like South Water Works spring up over the past year, and now Riviana appears to be moving forward again even in a down economy.

There is also the East Side concept of dorm-oriented development that appears to be taking hold.

By bringing in Deanna Inniss as a recruiter and taking the inside of Grand Avenue off of her plate, she is poised to build off the success of the Third Ward and spread that unique urban shopping experience to the rest of downtown. Godspeed to Deanna, and kudos to BID #21 for bringing her in and not saddling her baggage of bad ideas past.

Market Size

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

Stadium Location

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

Easily visible from almost every seat in the stadium.

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

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

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

Cost and Ownership

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

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

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

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

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

Accessibility via Transit

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

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

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

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

Accessibility via Car

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

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

Spillover Effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tailgateability

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Miller Park Downtown

From Thursday Architects…

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

Rendering includes Grace Lutheran Church and Blatz Condos.

Looking south down Water Street.

The Twin Cities are heading into a budget deficit for transit operations that could result in fare hikes, it appears the mixed-mode (detailed in the article) funding source for transit is failing.  Ironically, it appears largely due to declining auto sales.  On the plus side though, things are moving ahead on the Northstar commuter rail line into Minneapolis.  The Twin Cities continue to impress with their vision of a true intermodal system.  They have light-rail connecting the Mall of America, the airport, and downtown Minneapolis, an expansive bus system, commuter rail under construction to connect northwest suburbs, and a proposed light rail line to link downtown St. Paul with downtown Minneapolis.  The new baseball stadium is even logically located at a hub on this network.

In Montana, they want to expand Empire Builder service using stimulus funds and start manufacturing more rail equipment there.  Probably not the best idea, the money would be better spent relocating Montana residents to more urban centers, expanding manufacturing capacity in those centers, and growing inter-city rail between nearby major cities.  Long-haul Amtrak routes are plagued by delays, are less cost-efficient, and don’t generate the kind of positive goodwill that the Hiawatha between Milwaukee and Chicago does.

All that said, rail service in Montana is a good idea (provided it connects population centers).  But the most important thing is that we build the most cost-effective routes first to generate momentum going forward (and one would guess they’re not in Montana, with a state population about the same as Milwaukee County).  That momentum will help reorient the country to using rail as a substitute for short-flights and inter-city driving.

In New York City weird things happen when street lights go out, traffic gets calmer.  Perhaps something more intersections in Milwaukee could use.

Also in New York City a coalition wants to tear down the Sheridan Expressway.  It’s recently been labeled “the worst highway in the nation.“  If they tear it down, hopefully they get the land deal structured better than we did in Milwaukee.

If you’re looking for a good article on cross-country train travel, GOOD Magazine has a great feature piece.  Please note the difference between inter-city rail, and cross-country, long-haul travel.

Seattle is struggling through potential transit cuts due to sales tax collection reductions.  This same problem has been rearing its head in other cities.  There hasn’t been much data that I’ve come across that indicates if these systems pushed too hard on the tax as a funding source (and didn’t leave enough in a rainy day fund), or if something else is at work.  What is known is that its the opposite of what we have seen here in Milwaukee, with collections rising despite the economy faltering.  Are people in the Midwest simply traveling less?  I’ll follow up on this in a future article.

In other news, maybe there is hope for Janesville, WI.  A former GM town in Indiana appears to be on the rebound.  I still think the best bet is to relocate the people to our urban cores, and not for the state to throw dollar after dollar into the dying city itself.

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.

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.