Evaluating Proposed Train Between Milwaukee and Madison

A while back, I had predicted to a few friends that Scott Walker would raise the issue of rejecting Federal money for HSR between Milwaukee and Madison. The second part of my prediction was that, like on most issues, Scott Walker's reasoning was the part that would bother me.

Recently, this played out as I had predicted.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/84198582.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/85788762.html

As I have stated before, I am highly skeptical about the value of rail projects. I think that public investment in transit is valuable, but I am also of the opinion that given the demographic and geographic qualities of SE WI, that BRT is a more advisable option. However, it is investment in infrastructure that brings out the value of the transit system. Within the city, traffic light controls, advance ticketing, curb bump outs, and "next arrival" clocks would vastly improve any transit system, regardless of the machine selected to move people around.

Therefore, I could see a basic point in not pursuing a large transit project that would have to be run by the state without properly considering it.

However, I am a supporter of diversifying transit options and think that public investment in all forms of transit should be considered differently. I also think that the state spends too much on road construction, and that these projects should be given the same scrutiny that other forms of public subsidy of transit are given.

And it is in that analysis of the proposal that I find Scott Walker lacking. The overriding question in any analysis of government spending should be whether the project provides a value to the State in relation to its cost. Current estimates for the ongoing operational costs are $7.5M for 2013 and rising to $15M by 2022. The question therefore, is will this project provide Wisconsin with more than $15M benefit per year over that time period. My response is that it should only be done in such a way that this ROI can be achieved.

But what about the $800B in government money that it will cost to build it you ask? Well, we can evaluate the merits of the Federal Government's decision to fund rail networks, but if Scott Walker is opposed to the Federal Government's decisions, then he should be running in the other November race against Feingold. Perhaps, Walker would rather face Mark Neumann in a primary, rather than Tommy "Train to Madison" Thompson.

The fact of the matter is that the Governor of Wisconsin has to be looking out for what is best for Wisconsin, rather than relying on national talking points. In order to evaluate what is best for Wisconsin, you therefore need to perform the analysis that I am proposing: can rail be implemented in such a way that Wisconsin benefits more than the costs of operating the rail. Since Wisconsin is not on the hook for the infrastructural costs, then the analysis need only extend to the ongoing operational costs of an estimated $7.5M, and rising to $15M over the first ten years. If the train route cannot be operated in a manner such as to provide this meager economic benefit to the state, then the project should rightly be tabled. However, it rather seems that the goal should be to design and implement it in a way such as to achieve far greater benefit than it will cost to operate.

How can this be done? Well, first advocates on both sides need to be more honest about what this line is and is not. No one is going to ride it from Brookfield to Madison or Milwaukee. Not even that many people are going to ride between Milwaukee and Madison. This is about connecting to Chicago. The line from Milwaukee to Chicago is already proven as a popular transportation option. It doesn't take long before the costs of tolls, parking, gas and driving time make up for the cost of the ticket. (If Wisconsin were to implement tolls on I-94 as well, then these fares could actually be allowed to increase with the market.) However, right now you need to get on the train in Milwaukee or at the Airport. Stations in Brookfield, Occonomowoc, Watertown, and Madison would open these communities up to the same connective advantages as those living between Milwaukee and Illinois. Kenosha County has been the 4th fastest growing county in Wisconsin due to its interconnections to Chicago and Northern Illinois. By extending this route West, Waukesha, Jefferson, and Dane counties can benefit from this connection as well.

The Madison - Milwaukee - Chicago region can effectively become a single job market for professional couples. Lots of people already commute between Milwaukee and Chicago or live in between due to spouses working in different cities. Even back in 2000 (comprehensive commuting data is surveyed every ten years with the census) over 31,000 people commuted across the state border every day for work between Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha Counties and Northern Illinois. The existing rail connection both supports and benefits from the interconnection between these two regions. In 2000, even without the assistance of a convenient train route, over 1400 people commuted between Northern Illinois and Waukesha County daily. Therefore, even ten years ago, there was already a base of commuters and connectivity between Waukesha County and Northern Illinois upon which to build upon now.

The proper analysis of the expansion of rail between cities across Wisconsin should be made upon the basis of the return on investment. Since Wisconsin is not paying for the start-up costs for the Milwaukee to Madison line, to make this project economically valuable to Wisconsin, it need only produce a greater economic benefit than it costs in subsidies. If constructed and operated properly, I am certain that that level of benefit can be achieved, primarily by expanded connections between SE Wisconsin (including Madison) with Norther Illinois, resulting in opening greater economic opportunities to the citizens of SE Wisconsin.

Streetcar Route

It appears that the City is moving away from the proposed "Downtown Circulator" route and instead focusing on a more commuter oriented route, attempting to service the densest parts of the city and Downtown.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/59689692.html

I think that this is the correct move and I like to see that they look similar to the proposed streetcar route alternatives that I created a while ago.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=107292549626428610164.00046349b761eb5a87519&ll=43.044178,-87.887535&spn=0.068624,0.179043&t=h&z=13

My only concern with these is that they don't extend up Prospect/Farwell to North Ave. I really think that that extension of the route is what makes it economically feasible because it actually connects quality, high density housing with downtown (and presumably the jobs that support that housing). These are the people that are most likely to be converted to riders on the route and should be targeted with this starter system. Even in the state of the economy, this area has continued to see development - Latitude (Under Construction), Park Lafyette (still under construction), St. Johns (soon under construction), Transera and an unnamed apartment building (both proposed by New Land).

Looking at the distance, with reference to my streetcar route map, unidirectional track up Prospect and down Farwell is a similar distance of track as the original downtown circulator in bidirectional track. Therefore, I feel that it should be economically feasible to extend the route to North Avenue.

Milwaukee Connector or (Trains v. BRT)

I will start out by saying that am skeptical to tepid regarding the use of a fixed rail system in Milwaukee. My analysis changes for connections between population centers such as increasing Amtrak service to Chicago, the KRM to Kenosha, and Rail connection to Madison. But my point locally is that we have spent so much on developing a car-centric city so far, that to deny this is a waste of those expenditures.  This doesn’t mean that we have to continue with our heavy investment in car infrastructure, in the future, it just means that a system has to be designed, including technology selections, for the particular location that it will serve.

Despite all of the venom that comes forth from people when you discuss it, with respect to the decision between rail v. BRT v. Busses, it has always seemed like this is just a matter of vehicle selection and could be pretty easily identified with an economic study of the available vehicles/systems. 

I am going to try to take a look at the proposed technology options, as well as how the proponents of such technology are trying to sell that theirs is the correct choice.

One of the problems, as noted by Renn ( http://theurbanophile.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-rail-transit-is-bad-idea-for.html ) is that rail proponents define the benefits of rail in terms of externalities - reduced pollution, Transit Oriented Development, "coolness"/image, rather than the merits of a rail based system itself.

This self-selection of benefits raises a flag, and to the minimal extent is a reflection of the much greater cost to implement a rail system versus other public transit system options.  “Sure, you are paying more, but you are also getting TOD! and saving the Earth!” However, I don't subscribe to the Wal-Mart brand of government, and believe that if there is value, then the increased expenditure can be worthwhile.

This is where rail proponents have lost me. There has been little effort to explain what makes the increased investment in rail worthwhile over the other public transit options. Where is an analysis of maintenance/operational costs?, fuel costs?, train set operational lifetime?, are people willing to pay higher fares to ride a train? - are there advantages found in any of these areas?

With respect to the external factors given in support of rail, I would submit that any public transit meets whatever "environmental" goals are established, and I would venture that with proper design, a BRT system could be pretty d**n cool. The last point, TOD, may have an impact in favor of rail, but I feel that the present discussion of it hasn't been accurate thus far.

TOD (Transit Oriented Developent) recognizes that property values, and increased investment in residential/commercial development increases around new/improved transit stops. There seems to be a much higher correlation of this between rail transit, than is found with other forms of public transit (buses).

However, I think that the point that is overlooked is the infrastructural investment that is made. Generally any public infrastructural investment that is compatible with the surrounding area is going to improve demand and property value. This would be true for brownfield remediation, parks, riverwalks, transit, even public parking structures and commercial developments (see TIF's) therefore, TOD seems more to me to be a reflection of the heavy infrastructural investment in the area (transit only really benefits those areas with access points) rather than specifically tied to the transit itself. The transit (specifically rail transit) concentrates the economic benefit at specific locations, maximizing the return found at those locations.

To expand this thought, Milwaukee has $100M to spend on public transit, if that $100M is used to make a rail route from downtown (Wisconsin/Water) to the East Side (North/Prospect) with a stop in the middle (Brady/Van Buren).  That $100M investment is only useful to properties at those three intersections and I would guess exponentially decays the further away you get.  I would guess that at 5+ blocks from the intersection there is minimal incremented value.  So those three locations get, to use a legal concept, a 1/3 undivided interest in the $100M investment.  This is a lot of incentive to develop at those three locations.  On the other hand if you used $100M to buy the best bus system in the world for that same route, but it stopped every block along the way.  You still get added value to the area, but it is distributed across the entire route, and so the development is more spread out and likely less aggregated.

This is one of the areas where I think that proponents of BRT have failed. We understand that it is cheaper, that part is implicit. However, BRT proponents have failed to address its advantages beyond costing less and being "flexible" in its routes. I think that the route "flexibility" argument isn't as strong as BRT proponents think it is. Any transit system design would reflect near-term growth projections, or its a poorly designed system. Additionally, the often touted statistic of BRT proponents that many of the current transit system routes have changed little in the last 100 years (cited as evidence of bus route permanence) inherently argues against the "flexibility" advantage.

Furthermore, many of the advantages of a new BRT system come with investments in improving infrastructure. Traffic signals that adjust to allow oncoming buses to pass are an infrastructure investment, improved bus shelters/sidewalk "bump-outs" that allow passengers to board buses at grade without the buses pulling over and "kneeling" are an infrastructure investment, improved ticket sales kiosks (there are currently none) and LED indicators of wait time for the next bus are infrastructure investments. These are many of the features that any transit system an attractive system to riders, and would be included in any BRT system.  All of these are significant infrastructure investments that both discourage route "flexibility," but also reflect the infrastructure investments that allow for TOD over the current transit system.

Other infrastructure improvements for a BRT system, like dedicated lanes (or bus/bike lanes) on some route portions are further infrastructure investments that help to maximize the benefits of the BRT vehicle. Add design elements to all of these infrastructure improvements, and you would have a BRT system that rivals any train set in the "coolness" factor as well.

Even with all of these improvements, BRT is likely much less expensive than rail, so the cost factor is weighs in BRT's favor; however, by focusing on the "cheap" and "flexible" portions of the argument, BRT proponents sell themselves short in the potential benefits of BRT.  The same “cheap” and “flexible” concepts could be presented and argued for more persuasively if they were couched as broader coverage, more service for the same price.

However, there is a growing body of evidence that rail does attract higher levels of ridership than bus transit. This is an offshoot of the coolness/image factor.  Friends attest to this from their personal experience and anecdotal evidence in Mpls.  Looking to Mpls. rail infrastructure appears to have a shown a transformative power (TODs, people giving up cars, the middle classes choosing city neighborhoods as a place to invest) that is not nearly as realized by BRT precisely because of the coolness factor or the “flexibility” issue, perceived or otherwise. The rationale (at least on a gut level) is that once fixed rail is in, it's going to be maintained. The Hiawatha light rail corridor in Mpls has radically changed the equation for many in Southeast Mpls. Attorneys who would not be gung ho to ride the bus (BRT from the suburbs, maybe) make purchasing decisions to invest in homes in SE Mpls (Longfellow neighborhood, in particular), because the LRT drops them off a a couple blocks from work.

They not against a BRT component to Mke's transit system, but they feel that the denser, neighborhoods of Milwaukee (East Side, Third Ward to Bayview) are better served by rail and could be transformative. You want to see Walker's Point blossom? Put a streetcar through it. People will invest in droves. You want to see a fraction of that investment? Perhaps put a BRT stop in the same spot.

If we are looking at what might best serve current demand, and enhance that level of service, then BRT might perform admirably. Take an existing transit corridor, look and the ridership and trip times, provide a dramatically improved trip time and stronger connections, and shazam: the people who already ride the bus have found a dramatic improvement to their quality of life. Perhaps you'll even get some people who found the previous bus service too slow or unreliable to be relied upon will start using the BRT. Generally, this will be people that already live in the transit corridor. However, rail will actually attract different people to live on and near the route. Often a more affluent demographic, who would never consider making that purchase based upon a bus connection. That's what is meant by transformative.

Rail can transform a neighborhood and a route, by attracting a new ridership, a new demographic, and thereby changing neighborhoods (encouraging the middle class/creative classes that prefer that type of life style to invest in the city) vs. BRT which, I submit, simply is an enhancement to the service which already exists and, according to Scott Walker and the like, is there solely to serve the poor (those who can't afford a car).

Two reasons, two visions. Call me an elitist, but I think that the benefits of attracting the middle/creative classes to further invest in Mke and in order to make the city seem "cool" enough for UW grads and others to want to come an live in, investments in rail (not a circle) are very wise and will, in the long run, allow Mke to reap much greater benefits through growth and innovation (and corresponding tax revenues, be them sales or property) than incremental transit improvements in poor neighborhoods. However, ideally, I'd like to see both.

I do have to admit that my perceptions are coming as someone who already uses the bus system 2-3 times a week and the proximity to a bus line was noted in the desirability of the location of our house. Therefore, as someone who is already a transit user, the efficiencies of an improved transit system that are the biggest factors in improving my ride and ride experience (traffic light priority, notification of "next bus" times, automated ticketing, smoother ride, more efficient boarding through bump outs and at grade doors) are all provided as what I consider to be infrastructural improvements.

And yes, there is a real "cool" factor, and as I wrote somewhere before, increasing transit riders is about gaining new ridership plain and simple. The new transit system has to be designed with an eye to attracting new riders. As strong as TOD has been, when you are starting/replacing with a new transit system, its not a matter of "build it and they will come" without having a plan of what route (vehicles, amenities, stops, route) is going to be targeted/attract what riders.

I agree with your skepticism of the downtown circle streetcar versus one new line connecting downtown (intermodal) to the East Side. I would personally rather see a streetcar line that would extend to at least Shorewood, and more preferably, to Bayshore Mall. I feel that that route would get you the most bang for your buck, service the densest parts of the city. Connect current transit users to jobs, retail, and entertainment. Plus target some of the most easily convertable new transit riders. Why not go for the low hanging fruit?