After all was said and done near 5:30 A.M., only one amendment that had a significant effect on the bill was added. That amendment, AA2, eliminated recognition of the November 2008 advisory referendum passed by Milwaukee County voters that endorsed swapping property tax funding for a 1% sales tax to support transit, parks, recreation & culture, and EMS services. Under the amendment Milwaukee County will be required to pass a binding referendum exclusively on the sales tax funding of transit. Rep Barca first attempted to table the amendment, which failed, and then to reject the amendment outright, which failed by a single vote. At that point a vote to approve the amendment was taken, which passed on a near party-line vote with the notable exceptions of western Milwaukee County Representatives Cullen, Krusick, and Staskunas, all Democrats who appear to believe the majority of their districts may not support a property for sales tax swap for transit. After the results of the vote were announced, Representatives Kessler and Young, both Milwaukee County Democrats, asked to reconsider their votes, allowing for the amendment to be reconsidered in the future.

The Assembly will take up the bill again Thursday, the last scheduled day of their session before the November elections. Assuming the bill passes out of the Assembly, the Senate would also take up the bill that day.

A list of all the actions taken by the Assembly can be found on the Wisconsin website.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a breakdown of the bill that the full Assembly will take action on on Tuesday after it was passed by the Assembly Transportation Committee with bipartisan support. A bit more complex than the proposal put forth in the Governor’s Executive Budget, AB282 would allow the transit authority to levy up to a 0.5% sales tax for transit in Milwaukee County (because of the previous advisory referendum), as well as allowing Kenosha and Racine counties to hold referendums to enact a sales tax to fund their systems. The bill puts in place a requirement to eliminate the property tax funding of transit with the addition of another funding source, reducing the property tax burden on Milwaukee County residents (and down the road Kenosha and Racine residents).

This is a make or break vote for the Milwaukee County Transit System and regional transit. As we’ve stated before, Milwaukee transit should be regionally managed and must be funded with a dedicated funding source. If the bill doesn’t pass, the Milwaukee County Transit System is in for a large number of service cuts and fare increases due to unmet capital needs and Milwaukee County’s ongoing budget woes. The stimulus package spared the system significant pains for one year (fares still went up 25 cents) by granting the money to purchase 90 new buses that will arrive this summer, but that won’t happen again. The region is staring down a cliff, and it would be a real shame to drive off the edge.

The bill has the support of the business community, Governor Jim Doyle, Milwaukee County voters via referendum, and there are adequate provisions for Kenosha and Racine voters to join when they are ready. Please give your State Assembly Representative a call, and let them know you want them to vote for AB282.

See the premier broadcast of Gridlock: Public Transit in SE Wisconsin this Thursday July 2nd, at 6 PM on WMVS Milwaukee Public TV.

Gridlock will give you an intimate look at our transit dilemma and accomplishments–and a snapshot of what is happening in some other cities. Many local leaders and grassroots advocates are featured in this documentary!  See the full press release below.

Join us at the Transfer Café at 5:30 on July 2nd to enjoy the premier of Gridlock amidst the warmth of transit friends and advocates, and tasty eats and drinks. Please RSVP to me at kthomas@transitnow.org by Thursday July 2 at noon.

Enjoy the six-minute trailer.

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

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

The 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.]

Timeline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ

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

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

Does that streetcar affect the current transit funding crisis?

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

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

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

Where would the streetcar run?

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

Would the streetcar eliminate street parking where it runs?

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

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

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

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

Why not a bus instead of a streetcar?

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

No one would ride the streetcar

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

Why Only 3 Miles In Length?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winning Route of the Urban Milwaukee Streetcar Contest

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

View Transit Idea A in a larger map

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.

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.

Supervisor Jursik explained that despite the task force’s work and positive output the Transportation, Public Works and Transit Committee unfortunately rejected the findings.  She expressed her displeasure with the committee’s actions saying “I’ve been very depressed the last few days”.  She then made a strong plea to deny the committee’s rejection so they could then move to take positive action on the task force’s recommendations.  She also referred to a public meeting held on January 13th saying “I was really quite surprised by the consensus of the speakers in terms of regional transit”.

The concerns over governance and control popped up again when Supervisor Coggs stated “my concern is the governance issue wasn’t brought up” and that “I think it needs to be strongly said that we do need representation”.  Supervisor Larson attempted to quell these concerns saying that “we’re trying to issue our opinions on this” and added that “there’s a coalition building and I think Milwaukee County should be part of it”.  He felt Milwaukee County needed to step up as even “the business community is willing to step up”.  He was part of the task force that put forward the recommended response.  Supervisor Thomas added his support to the task force recommendations saying “if we don’t get outside of this room we’ll be talking about this for at least another 30 years”.

The board took an extended lunch to work out an amendment to the task force recommendations to gain majority support from the board.  This amendment added specific governance recommendations, including additional appointees for Milwaukee County and diversity requirements, to the RTA’s configuration.  In the end the board rejected the committee’s action and voted positively in support of the task force’s recommendation with the additional amendment in place.

What else does $18 million buy us?  Well, it would be about the salary Bucks’ star Michael Redd will earn in the 2010-2011, around the time the Palomar would have opened down the block.  If you had bought one of the condos financed with $18 million in taxpayer dollars you would have been able to get a good view of Redd’s jump shot from the luxury box that the Palomar was going to buy for residents.

Also, you could get Prince Fielder for two years (story just broke).

But how about something that would have impacted the city the way the Palomar was supposed to (and in case you can’t remember Mary Beth Waite had a whole list of great things the building was going to do), what else could we do with that $18 million?

What if we as Milwaukee spent $16 million on the local funding share required to access the $91.5 million available to build a new type of transit system and executed Mayor Barrett’s transit vision?  Well instead of a hotel and condo project, we would have a streetcar system that links downtown together, as well as an express bus system.

Sure, there is a question of a funding source for operating costs for that system, but the RTA (which we endorsed) has a solution in the works.

Would you spend $18 million on a building that may or may not encourage development on the land around it?  Or would you spend it on a system that links up not only downtown, but the region and encourages development on (and increases the value of) every property near the route.

It’s not a choice between the two, but it’s important when considering the potential value of the Palomar to consider what else you could get with a similar amount of public dollars.  Spending that much on a luxury project with dubious catalytic potential is just too much.

In case you’re not yet convinced it probably wouldn’t have been a good investment to make.  Manpower received a $25.3 million TIF for their new headquarters just a few blocks away from the project.  They brought 900 permanent jobs, as opposed to the 200 or so permanent jobs the Palomar would have created.

George Torres was called on to explain his vote against the recommendations of the RTA, and almost immediately went on the defensive for his boss, County Executive Scott Walker.  Torres was called because he is Scott Walker’s representative on the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority.

Torres appeared to have every excuse for why he voted no, most of which appeared to be solved by the inclusion of a local management committee (included in the recommendations that were passed 6-1 by the RTA).  He expressed concerns that the state would dictate what happened with the RTA, that the RTA would be the sole recipient of revenue from the sales tax, and that subcontracting was worded to occur with current transit operators, not potential future operators.  Torres also aired concerns that the appropriation of funds was too focused on the KRM.

Thomas Kujawa asked Torres what the County Executive wanted as a funding source, to which Torres primary response was the diversion of gas tax money.  This follows a typical Scott Walker model of avoiding a tax increase to fund anything, and simply stealing money from another pot.

A refreshing critique came in the meeting when Supervisor Larson took issue with the comments he was hearing from Mr. Torres and the fact that Scott Walker had paid for ads against the successful 1% sales tax referendum.  He also took issue with Torres saying that only 3 out of the 18 communities in Milwaukee County had passed it, noting that Torres failed to mention that those that didn’t failed by the slimmest of margins.

Kujawa at one point exclaimed the “RTA isn’t brain surgery, are we going to solve the problem or not?”  Throughout the meeting he clearly displayed displeasure with the responses Mr. Torres was giving.

It’s worth noting that a handful of supervisors not on the task force were in attendance at the meeting, including Supervisors Weishan, Lipscomb, and Borkowski.

Supervisor Jursik ran through a list of individuals that will be invited to the next task force meeting.  They include the following:

• Chairman Holloway
• Chairman Mayo
• Julia Taylor
• Kerry Thomas
• A member of the Cudahy Chamber of Commerce
• Alderman Witkowski
• Ken Yunker
• Samual Jenson (Transit Riders union)
• Matt Nelson (Transit Riders union)
• Richard Riley (ATU)
• Supervisor Broderick
• Pete Bietzel/Tim Sheehy
• Rob Henken
• Sharon Robinson
• Bill Sell
• Mayors McCue, Zepeke, Ricahrds, Bolender

Towards the end of the meeting Supervisor Jursik explained that the goal of the task force would be to develop a consensus statement to take back to the Transportation Committee and ultimately the County Board.  It will be interesting to see what the task force comes up with.  I would expect it to be pro-RTA with some potentially legitimate concerns included because of the involvement of both Supervisor Larson and Supervisor Jursik, who both showed a genuine interest in progress at the last Transportation Commitee meeting.