BRT Public Meeting Will Feature Updated Maps, Conceptual Costs and New Information
Wednesday, May 18th – 5-7pm – Marquette University Alumni Memorial Union
BRT Rendering
MILWAUKEE – Milwaukee County and MCTS will hold another public meeting this week to get input on the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Feasibility Study. The meeting on Wednesday, May 18th, will feature an open house format from 5-7pm at the Marquette University Campus Alumni Memorial Union.
New information will be available for the public to see, ask questions and give their input. New items include:
- Updated BRT Route Maps
- Conceptual Costs for the Route and Stations
- BRT Ridership Estimates
- BRT Benefits and Potential Impacts
The BRT Feasibility Study is examining adding BRT service to better connect people to jobs, school, medical appointments and other opportunities within the East-West Corridor between Downtown Milwaukee and the Milwaukee Regional Medical Center in Wauwatosa.
The East-West Corridor has long been recognized as the most heavily congested corridor in the Milwaukee area. BRT would strengthen existing transit service and create economic development while also taking cars off the road and easing congestion in neighborhoods.
MCTS currently gives more than 50,000 rides a week to people in the East-West Corridor – that’s 2.6 million rides a year. The proposed BRT service would increase ridership in the corridor while also speeding up travel times for bus riders.
The meeting will be held in the third floor ballroom of the Marquette University Alumni Memorial Union, 1442 W. Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee. Street parking is available or, you can take the GoldLine, BlueLine, Routes 14, 23, 30 or 30X to campus.
NOTE: This press release was submitted to Urban Milwaukee and was not written by an Urban Milwaukee writer. While it is believed to be reliable, Urban Milwaukee does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
Mentioned in This Press Release
Recent Press Releases by Milwaukee County Transit System
MCTS Winter Bus Schedule Starts December 1, 2024
Nov 4th, 2024 by Milwaukee County Transit SystemThe winter schedule includes timetable updates
MAY 17, 2016
The Score Card of our city, county and state government is at an “All-time” low due to a lack of due diligence and by design disenfranchisement of the People.
We are willing to listen and provide input for INCLUSIVENESS and changes since the April 12th and April 14th Public Hearings of the BRT-Bus Rapid Transit plan for Small Starts Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants.
Both hearings were rejected by the People with disagreement over 1). Area of Focus not in Area of high un- and under-employment, 2). Lack of improved travel for millions invested – too costly, 3). Customer Care.
Given the talking points of this Meeting Notice, we are led to believe some NEW points will come to the table in the Open House format on May 18, 2016.
However, if it is the same alternative, East/West Corridor with a false facade, it will increase skepticism and non-support. The same is true if the narrative is “Wait” – Let’s do the East/West and we can add the areas you are speaking of in the north/south corridors later. This is the tactic taken by the City of Milwaukee Streetcar project. DPW/Department of Public Works is back at this time seeking $20 millions for more bait-n-switch.
The FTA Capital Investments Grants are available for to provide a vital BRT framework with best practice standards in Milwaukee County.
This effort was placed on a fast-track timeframe that failed to start with the People. We, the People, came in “last month” and in “July-August” the application is submitted.
It is important to note that MPA LLC has planned 3 Lunch & Learn Briefings for providing information, Inclusion, and a narrative for support. The first panel (James Macon – ATU998, Joe Peterangelo – Public Policy Forum, Ken Muhs – SEWRPC and Dan Meyers – AECOM) is Wednesday, May 25, 2016, 11:00am-1:00pm, Grace Center, 250 E. Juneau – ($25.00 per person) will submit a report of support or no support based on the merits of citizen participation and customer services. mpapublicpolicyreview.blogspot.com
This is the paradigm and WinWin formula for innovation, customer care, increase ridership, massive improvements with business connections on the Urban to-from Rural format for economic development in the city, village,district, county, region and state of Wisconsin.
African American, other People of Color and Work Challenged talent and vetted business at the neighborhood, census tract, and business development areas are to be brought to the table with INCLUSION – ALL HANDS ON DECK, WE CAN TRUST.
==============
MPA LLC Position Statement on April 12, 2016
MPA LLC is against this project at this time because it does not address the PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NEEDS of the CORE CONSTITUENTS of Milwaukee.
The planners once again have failed to be INCLUSIVE of People of Color and the Work Challenged.
The planners have failed to connect the dearth – key populations/HUBS “in need” of Employment and public transportation to hot spots of Employment.
The planners have failed to look beyond the optics of the bus service and connecting the real time and express time to help bring forward those who most need public transportation.
The planners have failed the Milwaukee population that is systemically trapped in Enduring Concentrated Poverty and are focusing on the HAVES. We must provide for those workers living in the north, far north and immediate south area that do not have driver’s licenses, do not have dependable automobiles, need cost-appropriate public transportation.
BRT/Bus Rapid Transit is a renewed interest of Peter Beitzel, MMAC, the haves coupled with privilege and convenience without the stakeholders that will fund the lion’s share of the funding for the project.
We cannot continue to have “rigged” systems of government and government failing to create scenarios for strategic planning and development that connect hot spots of employment with today’s employment paths for the majority of the people of Milwaukee mired in Enduring Concentrated Poverty.
The Employment points need to be Fond du Lac/145 enhanced and bound out North and/or where the positions are that would fuel the economy of the families in Milwaukee trapped in Enduring Concentrated Poverty.
The present plan addresses the haves – those with cars – those with disposable funds – those seeking privileges of convenience while the Milwaukee population is having difficulty purchasing transit passes and navigating quality of life travels.
Again, the funds would be on the backs of those that do have security in knowing that they have access to public transit. This will need massive INCLUSION, the fingerprints of residential and commercial stakeholders at the table to represent the ridership and neighborhoods in the city of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County.
So, in order to “help” poor people you will reduce traffic lanes and congestion for the majority to add BRT lanes for the minority that cost more than regular bus passes so the poor can’t afford them. The entire concept is ridiculous. The bus system worked and already went there. But people that “know better” want the average middle class family penalized for “the greater good”.
This, the trolley, and the regular restructuring of the route layouts harm the users more than help. And from the quantity of empty city buses I already see, even during rush hour, the BRT will not solve the issue. All it will do is create added congestion for those that need to traverse these areas. But the people who want it “know better” and only care about what “good” they can do… Even though it has been proven the people that use BRT and the Trolley will primarily be a small segment of the population that could afford other means.
The economics of long term running all of these projects exceeds the income they will ever make increasing the tax burden on the middle class. Stop doing everything you can against the middle class, and help them for once. Drop the BRT and drop the Trolley.
First off there are no “city buses”.
And you see some “empty ones”? Which? do you know the routes average traffic pattern?
I can throw in anecdotes as well, I take the green line to and from work everyday, from my home that I own to my office downtown.
I am lucky if I can get a seat in the morning, and It is almost impossible to in the evening until well after Mitchell street.
BRT works in other places, as does rail transit, more buses will not increase congestion, quite the opposite in fact.
Where is the proof that people who use transit can afford other means? Even if they can so what? Would you rather them drive everywhere and truly increase congestion?
Brian’s entire post is ridiculous. Baseless assertions obviously all spewed to save his precious traffic lanes. Bottom line, we need less traffic lanes, more mass transit and more safe bike lanes. It’s 2016, not 1966.
@Nicholas
Fine, sorry “County Buses”.
Empty ones? I traverse Hwy 100 every day as part of my commute and this East West Corridor for Doctor appointments. The majority of buses during rush hour that I pass on highway 100 have 2-5 riders. Very few are packed. Also in this corridor I have seen more low ridership buses than full. When I rode buses, there was a window where buses would be near full ridership, but that window was generally small. Get more than 30 minutes off prime and ridership dropped significantly. I have been a solo rider on a bus in that East West Corridor. So, yeah, this may be anecdotes, but when this is what people see when looking at buses it does the pro-BRT crowd a great disservice.
Since they changed numbers to colors I have not been a bus rider. The buses no longer service me to or from where I need to go, so I do not have a choice. My commute on a bus currently would have 5 buses and over a mile of walking over a two hour plus time frame vs 15-45 in a car due to traffic. I have a disability meaning walking is not user friendly. So, the service would only affect me by reducing lanes of traffic and increasing traffic congestion. You must hate physically disabled people from your comments against me.
The BRT, last I read, would be much more expensive than the standard bus. Added up it could easily make a cheap car payment… Unless you need to use a vehicle as a style/status symbol. My rust bucket is payed off and cheap to own. Costs me less each month than bus passes. Then again I am capable of using my hands and working on things… which appears to be a dying art.
Every study I have seen the mass transit options project mass profit and savings, but usually cost more than they make while never achieving the ridership. Year 2 plus reviews usually show that the negative impacts were greater than the gains yet they still project future “growth” to offset the losses and that growth rarely surfaces to compensate for the losses. I have read studies from almost every state where the raw data proves that the city/county would have been better off modifying or adding to their current buses as opposed to adding varying modes of transit/special lanes. Re, the trolley, unless that transit is fixed from one terminal to another rail does not work. Rail is great for short term, but as a city changes over time the cost to move the tracks to where they are needed exceed the cost of replacing the system with buses… Hence, why Milwaukee dropped the trolleys the first time. Rail is great if you are going from airport to depot or depot to depot, but standard routes they fail as cost to move track exceeds scope of project.
Think about the issue the way private industry would.
1) If the bus is at maximum capacity, increase the number of buses on that route at those times.
2) Do not take out traffic lanes for a special bus lane that will only cause added backup whenever someone in that lane does anything except go straight.
3) saving the people that choose mass transit a few minutes by cutting stops also disenfranchises those that are in the areas that are skipped and is a direct affront to those people getting to their destinations meaning you will have buses in the standard traffic lane causing congestion every time they stop and the BRTs pulling over stopping traffic at their designated stops. This is all a negative to traffic and commerce.
@Dave
Personal anecdote again so sorry, but related to the article and your comment. When bicycles have to obey traffic laws and have licenses so when they cause an accident or injury so they can be gone after legally is the only time I want them on the roads. I have had over a dozen incidents with bicyclists. All but 3 when my vehicle was stopped or I was on foot. All of the incidents occurred when the bicyclist was disobeying traffic laws, and usually wearing headphones. Several times the bicyclist struck me as I was a pedestrian. But with leg braces I can’t run away from an idiot on a bicycle while they look at their phone and doesn’t look at where they are going as they skip to the next song in their playlist. I have been injured in accidents due to cyclists disobeying basic traffic rules and not paying attention. But there is never a recourse as long as they are healthy enough to flee the scene they do so. On Capitol drive I was involved in an accident because a bicyclist ran a red light. A car hit me to avoid hitting the cyclist. The cyclist fled the scene. Get bicyclists to obey basic traffic rules and maybe less people will be against bicycle lanes.
So, Dave, your post to me is ridiculous and spewed to inflict your limited use specialty lanes for use only during good weather that adversely affect the majority. Or in my case of no use as being handicapped I can’t use them and directly against what I can use and my best interests. You people and your anti-handicap mindsets. Why don’t you think about other people? Why don’t you think about those with disabilities? You small minded people. It is 2016 and you only care about yourselves. When will you think about others?