Connect to the map through the original J/S article: http://media.jsonline.com/images/30156649-mjs_mke_metro_map_distort_with_stops_copy.jpg

Click on full screen at the top, to the right of SCRIBD.

Yes, I did. I still can't read any of the text for the stops on each route.

OK--if I zoom way in I can read it.

It does make more sense that Barrett's trolley or the "High Speed" rail to Madison...

I suppose they could put the subway in the deep tunnel system and use it on only sunny days.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that, CD. I think it ranks right up there with both the Talgo test track and Zoo Train East. I wouldn't bet against there being someone, somewhere right now working on justifying it based on the number of jobs created to build the thing.

I don't think you are wrong, Bob...

You live in a Village? I would have guessed a compound or institution.

Indeed. The bus is enough.

I thought the official name of the program for affording movement from where the jobs aren't to where the jobs supposedly are was going to be the Mass Transit Urban Abatement program. I'll let someone else work out the acronym.

I don't see it happening either, but I bet it would cut down on drunken driving...

If that were true Sarah, wouldn't the current bus system be having that effect already?

It's needed?

There's a reason trains and their related modes of transportation cease to exist.....they're obsolete!

Idiots like Tom Barrett keep trying to convince us that 19th technology will attract and grow business in dumps like his city.

Plus, why would you want a subway system running through Milwaukee when MMSD can't even control their tunnels? HAHA Maybe that's the master plan. Get some federal funds for transit only to turn it into a solution for their sewers.

Nameless:

If trains are so obsolete why is the rest of the world rushing to build them, and putting them in all future plans while using less roads and highways.

Because with the population the world is looking at and the climate crises, we need to look away from gas cars to high speed mass transit, to clean energy production and electric cars like the tesla.

Climate crisis?
I think you been riding the wrong kind of train..

YEs, to a place where you can jump into a vehicle parked in your own driveway and literally go anywhere you want without waiting or connecting. That is so ancient...

Bren:

Agreed. Too bad it is likely a pipe dream (especially in view of the demise of KRM). Furthermore, I find that most critics of any rail-based public transportation have never utilized such services and thus have not personally experienced any benefits that such services offer. Sad.

Brian, through the lenses of time and environmental stewardship, automobile travel is indeed primitive. A car should be for weekend travel if it is needed at all. I'd infinitely prefer the subway to driving during the work week. The bus is an impractical option as the schedules and travel times would waste nearly 3 hours/day. That's because of backward-thinking. Instead of making the bus a more attractive option with less wait time and more regional stops, the number of buses and regional stops are cut.

As far as buses/trolleys, Milwaukee was a national model in mass transit. My father tells me that in the early and mid-part of the century that people commuted to Chicago to work. If one could get on a trolley one could connect to a train. The later "trackless" trolleys were also electric but were actually able to stop in at the curb. Noiseless, no air pollution. Why did they go away? Because people were in love with cars and common sense went out the window. It's depressing to think about all of the trolley tracks and cable that were torn up, and how much dirtier the air is as a result.

patchreader, that has been my experience as well. Folks who've either never set foot or heard a few mugging stories. Ah, parochialism.

Bren:

FYI, I uploaded images of Chicago's subway (i.e., CTA) and passenger locomotive (i.e., METRA) rail maps. They are difficult to view in their reduced size, however you can readily pull either up on the Internet.

You will note the northeastern-most line of the Metra map ends in Kenosha and was to be continued to Milwaukee as part of the now dead KRM proposal. The southeastern-most line goes to Indiana.

The CTA lines connect two airports (i.e., OHare and Midway), three stadiums (i.e. United Center - Bulls and Blackhawks; Wrigley Field - Cubs; and the former Comiskey Park- White Sox) and countless neighborhoods and suburbs to downtown Chicago.

All one has to do is visit a crowed Metra or CTA station during rush hour and witness how each transportation system is fully utilized to move people between the suburbs and downtown (i.e., home and work) as part of a daily commute. Truly amazing, yet unrealized by many.

Through the lenses of practicality, our automobile travel is far more ahead of Europe. There are reasons why Europe relies on commuter train service that simply just don't exist here. Those same reasons are why high speed commuter and subway lines work in some areas of the U.S. but would be highly impractical in others.

If you have ever been to New York City, you know why subways work and are used in high volumes. There simply isn't enough space for infrastucture to serve a fluid system of car transportation to serve 11 million people. For that matter, there is not enough parking. Same in Chicago, although the infrastucture in Chicago has been much improved over time. But again, parking is at a premium.

In Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha and Madison, the populations are much smaller and the designs of the cities are spread out over a greater area that parking and infrastructure can easily support the car transportation system. With improvements that are ongoing, i.e. the Hale and Zoo interchanges, as well as those completed, i.e. the Mitchell and Marquette interchanges, car travel was far cheaper to upgrade and now is much more efficient.

As far as pollution, there has been much improvement over the years to lessen the carbon footprint of cars. Coincidentally, the 50th anniversary of the last commuter train was this past week. It became too expensive, andnothing has changed today.

Another difference between places like NYC and the rest of the US is that many of the people in this area don't commute to jobs that are located downtown or in a 'city center'. Commutes from suburb to suburb seem to be much more common than a commute into downtown or from downtown out.

The Freeway Fliers aren't running anywhere near full. When they start filling to capacity, then we can start thinking about running a train. If we cannot fill buses, there is no way we will come close to selling enough train tickets to cover the cost.

According to the map above, the subway system would be useless to me for getting to and from my job. The only route near my home is a North-South route that will take me either downtown or to Silver Spring drive. No route goes anywhere near my office.

Jay, these investments pay for themselves over time through ticket prices. We need all three of the projects you describe: a train to Madison, a subway system or improved above-ground system, and an upgrade of the Chicago/Milwaukee Amtrak.

We do not need HSR to Madison or a subway. Creating new fixed route transportation in an area that absolutely does not need it is about as stupid an expenditure as one could make. The costs are astronomical and there is absolutely no way they'd ever be paid back or be self-supporting.

I've been on rail systems in other cities and the subways in NYC. They're only practical because of surface congestion and no one who could would chose them over the comfort and convenience of being in a car. We don't have surface congestion here.

By car it takes a little less than an hour and half to get from Milwaukee to Madison. By the time you get to and from the departure and destination points for HSR your trip time would be approximately the same. HSR has been rejected, repeatedly, as it should be.

We could build long range roller coasters along the same routes mentioned in the subway study. They would cost a lot less, be something nobody else has, wouldn't be any less practical and would probably get more usage than a subway would. I think we should do that. Because it would be cool. And money's no object. It would pay for itself with tickets over time - because I said so.

That isn't true. Study after study showed that the commuter lines could not sustain themselves and would need millions of dollars just to operate, not to mention repairs and upgrades. That is what killed the project. Subsequently, Amtrak already does run somewhat of a commuter service, has many passengers, and still requires government subsidy.

There just isn't a need here. We are neither big enough, nor are our highways congestive enough to support such an idea. Look at the cost of the trolley in Milwaukee that will travel 2 miles, and you will see that such an idea is not practical.

And as long as someone can get from point A to point B in a car, and have parking. The vast majority will continue to use that mode of transportation. It's all about independence.

There just isn't enough people that would use any of the suggestions. It would really cost the taxpayers in the end. Not a good idea at all.

What we now know as the Milwaukee County Transit System(MCTS) was owned by a private company until 1975, when Milwaukee County bought the near bankrupt operation.

I am not aware of a single year, in the last 37 years, in which ticket prices/fare-box revenue was sufficient to cover their operating costs,let alone the capital expenditures.

I have not seen any reportage on the viability of the new "express service" (Red,Green,Blue) that travels some of the high density areas and stops half as much as "regular" service. If 'express service' does not attract sufficient ridership to cover operating costs a subway never will.

Does anyone know if any of the 'Freeway Flyer' routes have ticket/fare-box revenue that covers operating costs?

Two links to information about TMER&L (subsequently, TMERT), the private operation that predated MCTS:

http://www.tmer.org/Section/History/The_Milwaukee_Electric_Railway_and_Light_Company/index.html

http://www.r2parks.net/TMER&L.html

you and sykes should check out the subsidy for cars and cars and their real environmental costs. it apupraches infinity. busses are great. so are bikes. (skykes even opposed bus racks on them cause he said there was not enough use-their use doubled from last year).

Some places have done that. Kansas city has The Power & Light District. After visiting that city, returning to Milwaukee seems like a bad dream. And when you would think about KC you think rail roads and cow pies. In Milwaukee it's not a question of how you get there, it's a question of why would you go.
http://www.powerandlightdistrict.com/

Personally, I'd rather wait underground for the next train than have to wait outside in 'Wisconsin January' weather.

Oh crud, I just bought a Chevy Volt.

So your NON-socialist president will price-fix the gasoline market? I'm not sure you understand what a socialist is.

What exactly is the 'transportation issue' that needs to be 'truly solved'?

CD: The transportation issue he may be referring to is: Those who drive electric vehicles are paying no road tax. So. Like Washington State, we need a mileage tax to compensate for the loss of revenue.

@Craig... A mileage tax sounds like lots of work(read:government bean counters). I think we can simply adjust the yearly registration/plate fees for higher gas miles per gallon / non-gas vehicles.

Lets just have the registration/plate fee charge be inverse of the gas mileage. If the average car on the road travels 12,000 miles and gets 20 mpg, they consume 600 gallons of gas and pay $185.40, @ 30.9 cents/gallon, in Wisconsin fuel tax. They also pay a $75 yearly registration fee.

Drive an electric car and you pay the current base registration $75 + $185.40 = $260.40;Chevy volt or Toyota Prius might pay $75 + $100 = $175; Austin Mini, VW Rabbit, Fiat 500 might pay $75 + 50 = $125.

Keeping track of individual miles driven sounds like an expensive undertaking; it might cost more to manage than it would generate in net revenue, above a simple adjustment calculation for miles per gallon.

Jay: I was being facetious, I do not believe we need to tax people who are frugal. I think this will take hold in CA, WA, and OR, where growing government seems to be the norm.

Jay:

If people don't drive much, but own a low MPG vehicle, why should they be subject to the same tax as a person that owns the same vehicle, but drives many more miles?

Wouldn't it be easiest to just tax gasoline and/or diesel fuel to accomplish your tax goal? If people drive less or have high MPG cars, they buy less gas (and pay less in taxes). No bean counters required...

@CD... I'm not sure one can work out an ideal solution on the tax schedule for roads. A per/gallon tax on gasoline is not now, nor was it ever, a perfect proxy for sharing the actual cost of roads. Roads/bridges have the initial capital cost[fixed] and roads/ bridges need continuing services(snow-plowing, crack repairs, bridge painting)[variable], even if they see near zero usage.

Without going to the additional expense of reading everyone odometer or installing a government GPS,we need to assess those that have non-gasoline/ diesel or high mpg vehicles for their share of the roads. A modest increase in the 'fixed' component (registration fee), inversely proportionate to mpg, appears to be the most efficient and even handed.

See, I don't see it that way since there is such a wide variety in the number of miles people drive. I drive a couple thousand miles per year, but the average is around 15,000 miles per year. Why should I pay the same amount at registration as the average driver with the same model of car as I? I am using the roads far less than the average person. While gas tax might not be perfect, it at least seems to better address the issue of those that use the roads most, pay the most.

@CD... I re-read the string and I think I was not clear... The increase in the registration, inverse to the gas mileage, is in addition to the current per/gallon tax.

So, with my example the all electric car(now paying zero) would be paying in lieu of the per/gallon rate as a registration fee increase. The high mpg cars would be 'making up' for their shortfall in per/gallon contribution with a slightly higher registration fee. No change in the registration fee for the low mpg vehicle, as they pay their share at the pump.