Showing posts with label transit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transit. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Streetcars, Safety and Hucksters

Constituents of City of Milwaukee Alderman Tony Zielinski may want to read his recent bloviating regarding the Mayor’s 2018 City of Milwaukee Budget.

He’s wholeheartedly opposed to the City’s streetcar project. Yet, and this shows his desperation to develop a coherent rebuttal, Zielinski is presenting this as a choice between either funding the streetcar project or eliminating some police and fire fighter positions.


Because that’s the only two choices we have as a City – streetcars or safety? More appropriately, it’s a safe political road to getting Zielinski some attention – playing off the misplaced fears of citizens to continually funnel more and more money to police and militaristic options. 

For some context, Wisconsin has spent over a billion dollars on new stadiums for the Brewers, Bucks and Packers in the last decade. Private sport structures whose benefits go to their private owners. The State and the City has also doled out millions in subsidies to businesses for years and years.




But here comes Zielinski with numerous press releases condemning the Mayor and the streetcar.

Where were all of Zielinksi’s press releases condemning the millions of dollars in giveaways to stadiums, developers and other corporate interests?

Milwaukee is spending $128 million on a streetcar to be used by residents, tourists and businesses.

How is this a waste?

Every other major city has some sort of streetcar, light rail or similar. So, it seems more like Milwaukee is behind the curve as far as what businesses and workers want in amenities and infrastructure. Local infrastructure is what creates jobs and draws businesses, residents and tourists.

As an alderman supposedly so concerned with constituents’ tax dollars being spent efficiently, how much of the entire Milwaukee budget does Mr. Zielinksi want going to police and fire?

As Bruce Murphy highlighted in a recent article, “In 2004, when Barrett started as mayor, the police and fire budget represented 62.7 percent of the city’s combined shared revenue and property tax levy; by 2017 the police and fire budget accounted for 87.7 percent. Increasingly, it’s become difficult for the city to pay for anything but police and fire services…Today, police and fire workers account for 77 percent of all taxpayer contributions to city employee pensions.”

So, Mr. Zielinski, how much more of the City of Milwaukee budget should go to just police officers and fire fighters?

How much more do we need to spend on public safety Mr. Zielinksi? How many police officers does Milwaukee need? Let’s see the numbers. Let’s see your analysis. How are you arriving at your conclusions?

Milwaukee has 42 police employees for every 10,000 people in the City of Milwaukee. Ranking Milwaukee 14th in the U.S. The average in the U.S. for cities with a population over 500,000 is 24 police employees for every 10,000 people. The population of the City of Milwaukee ranks 30th among the 100 largest cities in America.

Milwaukee already has almost twice as many police employees as other similar-sized cities.


To pretend to be concerned about the budget or to present this as acting fiscally responsible is deceitful. Just like when federal politicians complain about the federal budget while simultaneously pumping more money into the Pentagon. For Zielinski to talk of City budget woes, yet he wants to throw more money at the two most heavily-funded departments, he cannot be taken seriously.

Maybe if we focused more on infrastructure to attract businesses we could create more jobs, alleviating some of the poverty and inequality in Milwaukee and, thus, reducing the need to spend a majority of the City of Milwaukee budget on police officers.

As City of Milwaukee resident who voted for Zielinski as my representative, I am extremely disappointed by his position. It is incredibly short-sighted.

Maybe Tony should do some reading about urban infrastructure, transit, connectivity and smart growth. Does Mr. Zielinksi not realize that his Bay View neighborhood benefits from the growth in downtown Milwaukee? Does he not understand that the construction, new restaurants and positive developments occurring in Bay View are related to the boom that is taking place in downtown Milwaukee? It’s partially because of the FIRE industries located in the downtown, where many Bay View residents work, that Bay View residents have the disposable income to spend on bars, restaurants and other attractions. (Not to mention all the workers involved in the construction and/or renovation of these projects.) To hamper the streetcar, and thus the potential and attractiveness of the downtown, is to hamper Bay View. The investment in the streetcar is an investment in all of Milwaukee, including Bay View.

To start, the streetcar will connect the downtown – its employment centers, the lakefront and the major attractions (Summerfest, Art Museum, the Bucks arena, etc.). Hopefully, if Milwaukee can be as forward thinking as every other city its size, we will expand the system…connecting to Miller Park, UWM, Marquette and Mitchell airport, to name a few.




Zielinski’s latest press release - October 2, 2017 - proposed eliminating $208,000 for two streetcar management positions and instead moving that money to police officer positions. Since police officers average around $65,000 per year, this would equate to roughly three police officer positions. Which, of course, makes no sense. Are these just political ploys to introduce Zielinski to a wider audience within the City for a possible mayoral run? Plus, eliminating management from the streetcar only burdens its potential. Citizens, businesses and tourists will benefit from a well-run streetcar.

The City of Milwaukee has made repeated cuts to other departments and vital community services while, up to this point, leaving untouched the fire and police department. This cannot continue. Should the Mayor continue to allow the police and fire departments to strong-arm the City of Milwaukee budget? Why should every other department, worker, and/or project continue to accept less, while the police officers and fire fighters continue to get more and more?

The Mayor is functioning with less and less. And, in the face of such adversity, his budget seems practical and reasonable.

Where were Zielinski's press releases when other vital departments’ budgets were being cut and their employees were getting furloughs, laid-off, not getting raises, paying more for health care and contributing more to retirement? Was he bashing the Mayor then for not funding those departments? Other departments’ budgets haven't seen increases in years, many have seen cuts, yet the police and fire fighters keep getting theirs. They always do. And that’s why they take up 88% of the entire budget!

Zielinski's comments and position on the streetcar should definitely be in the forefront of his constituents' minds during his next re-election campaign. His short-sighted outlook will have negative long-term consequences for Bay View, Milwaukee and the citizens.

For Further Reading:
Infrastructure Financing Options for Transit-Oriented Development
Measuring Benefits of Transit-Oriented Development
Impact of Transit Cuts On Access To Jobs In Metropolitan Milwaukee
Light Rail In Milwaukee: An Analysis Of The Potential Impact On Economic Development
Strategic Value Creation In Infrastructure Projects
Why America's Public Transportation Is Crumbling

Aside:
Alderman Zielinski has just released yet another press release.

A driver ran a red light the other day and killed a woman and her daughter. The accident is terribly saddening (any avoidable accident such as this always is).

Zielinski is now demanding city-wide installation of red-light cameras.

Here, again, we have a situation that will cost the taxpayers money. The red-light cameras will need to be purchased, installed, monitored, repaired and occasionally upgraded.

I'm not against such technology. I'm just saying, this, too, costs money.


For Zielinski, the money spent on cameras would be fine. But spending on a streetcar, which would also benefit local citizens, is too much. Even though a streetcar would mean less people having to drive and, thus, less people possibly blowing through red lights.

It should also be noted that red-light cameras will not prevent accidents. They don't stop cars that have gone through red lights. If you're not noticing the red light and blowing through it, you're also not going to notice the camera.

Saturday, August 3, 2013

US Infrastructure Is A Disaster

  • 1 in 9 of the country's bridges are rated as structurally deficient, meaning they require significant maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement. 
  • Of the 84,000 dams in the U.S., 14,000 are considered "high hazard" and 4,000 are deficient. It would cost $21 billion to repair these aging dams.
  • 42% of the country's major urban highways are considered congested, and 32% of major roads in the U.S. are in poor or mediocre condition.
  • Even though a third of Americans don't drive cars, 45% of households lack access to transit. 
  • There are 240,000 water main breaks in the U.S. each year, and many water mains and pipes are over 100 years old.
  • The Federal Aviation Administration anticipates that the national cost of airport congestion and delays will nearly double from $34 billion in 2020 to $63 billion in 2040.
  • 90% of locks and dams experienced an unscheduled delay or service interruption in 2009. Barges being stopped for hours can prolong transport of goods and drive up prices.
  • Congestion on rail lines is costing the U.S. economy about $200 billion a year, or 1.6% of economic output.
  • Although public school enrollment is gradually increasing, national spending on school construction declined to $10 billion in 2012, about half of what was spent before the recession.
  • National Park Service facilities saw 279 million visits in 2011 and has a deferred maintenance backlog of $11 billion.
10 Signs That US Infrastructure Is A Disaster

Expect Wage & Benefit Givebacks

Abele Dumps County Transit Company
County Executive Chris Abele has decided to award the $164 million dollar county transit contract to a new company, MV Transportation, and drop Milwaukee Transport Services (MTS), the non-profit operation that has run the county bus system for decades...
The not-for profit operator would be replaced by MV Transportation, a privately held corporation based in Texas, whose website says it “provides passenger transportation management, operations, and related services to jurisdictional and private entities around the world.” ...
However, once a new entity takes over, the contracts for all union workers would have to be renegotiated, and the new company may push for more efficiencies. Anticipating that, the bus drivers’ union, ATU 998, has been circulating a PowerPoint presentation opposing the move to a for-profit management firm. 
When asked if he expected wage or benefit givebacks, Abele said “I honestly don’t know. I can tell you that was not the goal. The goal was better services and to keep fares down.”
In this instance, Abele is being naive, stupid or devious. Or maybe it's just his typical cliched response/excuse, providing little insight into his actual thought-process, giving little explanation as to how he decided a major program change for the county. "How was I to know they'd save money by cutting corners and wages?"

Privatization is always about cutting benefits, decreasing pay, and/or breaking unions. I'd like the county executive to explain how he believes this move will "keep fares down" while providing better service.

Typically, in cases like this, the managers continue to receive lofty salaries (and more often than not actually get paid more), while the workers see their pay and benefits slashed.

It would be one thing if the pay and benefits of present workers were guaranteed to remain intact, whilst the new company was also making assurances of more routes and improvements to other services. But this seems like more of the hope-and-prayer variety of public policy decision-making.

Does Abele really believe lower-paid, disgruntled workers are going to provide better service? Otherwise, what exactly are the cost-saving methods this new company is going to initiate that are going to reap big rewards for the county? Are there any clawbacks or stipulations in the new contract?

I guess some politicians feel news-grabbing headlines prove they're doing something positive for their community.

For Further Reading:
Walker's Privatization Debacle

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Wisconsin Reading

Other critics, though, say the job cuts suggest that waging war on public-sector worker unions, cutting funding for public education and proclaiming the state “open for business” won’t magically turn Wisconsin into a new economy powerhouse. 
“What it says to me is that political rhetoric is irrelevant,” says Jack Norman, past research director at the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future. 
Norman says companies make hiring and other decisions based on demand for their products and whether they can do business better in a different location. The effect of government policies is somewhere on the fringe, he says. 
On the other hand, Norman says one could argue the cuts to public worker take-home pay and other cost-savings measures under Walker have actually made Wisconsin’s economy worse. Here is a graphic showing job growth in Wisconsin before and after he took office. 
“I think we’re seeing a local version of the austerity vs. investment debate going on across the capitalist world,” says Norman. “And right now, some countries are getting rid of their austerity policies because they aren’t working.” 



Light rail from downtown Milwaukee to Waukesha? Republicans at the state killed it
Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) commuter rail? Republicans at the state killed it
Extending the Amtrak Hiawatha Service to Madison at 110 mph (with stops in Brookfield and Watertown)? Republicans at the state killed it
Building a maintenance base for trainsets the state had already purchased from Talgo? Republicans at the state killed it
Rebuilding the train shed at Milwaukee Intermodal Station? Republicans rejected federal funds to fix the non-ADA compliant shed and are now left with a situation that will cost Wisconsinites millions
A streetcar starter system in downtown Milwaukee? Republicans killed it. 
The common link? All the projects were proposed by Democrats, had a presence in the City of Milwaukee, and involved steel wheels on steel rails. 
Since becoming Governor in 2010, Scott Walker will have effectively rejected over $1 billion in federal money for rail transportation projects. The loss of high-speed rail funds to connect Chicago, Madison, and Milwaukee represent $823 million. The KRM funds would have beenat least $140 million. Assuming Walker (who has made clear his opposition to the Milwaukee streetcar) ultimately supports the amendment proposed by the Joint Finance Committee, he will also be rejecting $54.9 million for the Milwaukee Streetcar, which is the last of a $289 million 1991 federal grant.

The Fiscal Bureau reports that case law is on the side of Milwaukee on the subject of residency, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court and various state courts "have tended to uphold the constitutionality of the municipal residency requirements, generally siding with the public interests of governments and its policy reasons for such requirements."
Sweeping aside a 75-year-old City of Milwaukee residency ordinance and others like it, Republicans on the Legislature's budget committee voted Thursday to allow police and firefighters to live at least 15 miles outside of any community in the state and bar utility ratepayers from having to bear any costs for a proposed streetcar in the city - potentially killing the project. 
On several votes Thursday, the Joint Finance Committee loaded up the state budget with policy items that had little to do with Wisconsin's finances. Many of the other policy items also limited the powers of local governments, such as a measure barring them from regulating the size of sodas.
GOP fakes up a controversy over the UW system's financial reserves

Saturday, July 28, 2012

The Missing Link

It's good to (finally) see the Journal Sentinel clutching onto Richard Longworth's promotion of a more regional governance between Milwaukee and Chicago, and amongst other regional cities. But how long will this latest fascination last? Lip service (or should I say ink) to regionalism has flippantly been given by the Journal in the past.

Sadly, such communal (dare I say socialist) conceptions of government - cooperation for the benefit of the whole - whereby decisions are made with a broader concern have been brushed aside for decades by political and business leaders alike.

In 1992, looking at the potential positive regional impact from light rail transit (LRT), Marc Levine, professor of history and urban studies at UWM, found, "The UWMCED study concludes that, although the economic benefits of LRT should not be oversold and will require supportive public policies to be fully realized, a light rail system could contribute significantly to economic development in the city of Milwaukee and the entire region."

Levine, in reporting on Milwaukee's inner city in 2006, stated, "As a consequence of these trends, income inequality in metropolitan Milwaukee deepened last year, as the inner city fell further behind other areas of the region... These are massive income gaps that have widened considerably since 1990 and signify deep economic polarization in the region. “Regionalism” has become the new buzzword among city and corporate leaders, but, so far at least, there has been little indication that these leaders are prepared to implement the kinds of regional equity policies –in transportation, tax-base sharing, or growth management—that other communities have used to attack regional economic disparities."

In 2008, Levine proposed, "The region’s corporate leaders, represented by the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce and the Greater Milwaukee Committee, supposedly support regional rail transit. If that’s true, they should make it the centerpiece of the Milwaukee 7 initiative, turning it into a more muscular regionalism that could underpin an economic revitalization of the city and region."

And, other voices have been calling for more regional approaches to governance for decades. Suddenly the Journal Sentinel is on board. Better late than never, I guess.

The problem is that by opposing rail (and other more regional - cooperative - policies), the Journal Sentinel has stymied progress on the very issue they suddenly see as a no-brainer. Rail would-have-been an catalyst for infrastructure, jobs, and an improved regional linkage. It would have been one of the biggest investments in the region in a generation or more.

The Journal Sentinel goose-stepped right along with Scott Walker and his plan to refuse funding for rail expansion in the region.

Milquetoast coverage and the occasional blip regarding a "regional" solution to the issue-of-the-moment is not full-throated support for regionalism nor meaningfully helpful in bringing regional governance, as a topic, to the forefront.

It's hard to claim to be for the region when one supports policies that prevent the region from more efficiently linking together and growing.

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Blood on the Tracks

I've never been to Waterloo, and I'm sure its a quaint and beautiful town, but a high-speed rail line will not reduce property values and isolate neighborhoods, as a town alderwoman, Laura Cotting, states.

Mrs. Cotting, with typical NIMBYist attitude, is offering nothing but red herrings. Wisconsin's major metropolitan areas are one of only a few in the entire country that do not have some sort of regional rail transit. If Wisconsin's economic indicators - unemployment rate, job growth, etc. - were exceptionally better than the rest of the nation, such a belief may be justified. "They've all tried the rail thing, and they're doing worse than we are." But the opposite is actually the reality. Cities and regions which have instituted cohesive rail systems have seen the best and most stable growth.

John DeWitt, a developer offered his (misinformed) thought, "“Looking down the line there are so many different views on whether high-speed rail is good at all, and, to an extent, I think it’s hard to say.” The consensus is that rail is better for jobs, growth, and the environment.

Most of the country has actually decided rail is a good thing. And, most of the studies done on the subject have shown growth near transit stations and in the neighboring area, alongside increased property values.

For Further Reading:
Average Cost of Owning An Automobile
Economic Development & Smart Growth
Effect of Rail Transit on Property Values
Light Rail Can Turn Into Money Train
Milwaukee Needs to Lose Its Rail Phobia
Public Transportation Produces More Jobs
Trains and the City
Transit Oriented America
True Cost of Owning a Car
Why You're Better Off Not Owning A Car

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Misplaced Priorities

So taxes for stadiums are good? But taxes to support transit or parks would be excessive?