Mayor Barrett,

On Monday, November 10th, your representative to the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), Sharon Robinson, will cast an important vote for the future of transit in our city and region. We write to you to encourage her to vote “yes” to any sales tax funding proposals. While we have recently outlined why we think RTA’s are an efficient way to deliver regional services, we have a few more things we think you should consider.

• Milwaukee’s transit system (MCTS) is in a sad state. Route cuts, service reductions, and fare increases have been the outcome of ugly budget battles. While MCTS is managed by Milwaukee County, and is paid for by the state of Wisconsin and Milwaukee County, it would be foolish to think the city does not have a stake in the game. The transit system constitutes a large part of the image of Milwaukee and is heavily used by city residents. With the RTA managing regional transit, you will have gained some control of a system that is critical to the life of the city. Today you have zero votes on how the system is managed, tomorrow you can have 1.
• The creation of a regional transit authority that actually manages transit will improve the image of the region by ultimately bringing all the systems under the same branding and management. This should make the transit experience both less confusing and more appealing for residents and visitors. This will also end the question of “who runs Milwaukee’s transit system?” A straw poll of ten people on the street would certainly reveal a significant number who believe the city is responsible for the buses.
• This is a regional effort for a region that has been very fragmented to-date. It would be a big win for you to say you’re working for the city and the region.
• This is the start to building the funding mechanism to unlock the $91.5 million in federal funding for a new starter system. This is a way to end the deadlock with Scott Walker.
• The Milwaukee County 1% Sales Tax Advisory Referendum recently passed, a clear sign that residents are ready for change.
• The business community is behind the RTA. They are ready for regional governance that can get their employees to and from work. Transit Now has a lengthy list of supporters.

Please join your counterparts from Racine and Kenosha in voting yes for a true regional solution on November 10th.

Sincerely,

Jeramey Jannene & Dave Reid

Urban Milwaukee is launching a new series spotlighting new, urban businesses in Milwaukee. We believe urban small businesses, especially those in mixed-use buildings, are what help build the fabric of a great city.

Blatz Market & Liquor Depot, located in the former Blatz brewery on Broadway, isn’t your regular liquor store. Owner Joe Woelfle, a resident of the Blatz Condominiums himself, didn’t set out to create a high-volume store to compete with the nearby Metro Market liquor store. Instead Woelfle worked with his distributor, Beer Capitol Distributing Inc, to create a product assortment that was unique from other stores in the area. The end result is a selection of almost 130 different types of beer, 130 unique wines largely in the $9-$15 a bottle range, and a spirits section that covers your needs. The product mix will allow Blatz Liquor to cover all the needs of Blatz residents, office tenants, and future residents of the Residences on Water, while also offering a unique collection of beers and wines to draw customers in from further away.

While I am far from qualified to discuss the wine selection (which appeared to have a great enough variety to keep you occupied for years trying different brands), the selection of beer was exciting. Blatz Market & Liquor Depot has your standard Miller and Bud brands, but the selection of micro and craft brews puts other liquor stores to shame.

You’re able to find the entire Lakefront Brewery catalog. But if you define local to mean beers from all over Wisconsin, and not just Milwaukee, you’re covered. Beers from Capital Brewery, Rush River Brewing Company, Ale Asylum, and Furthermore Brewery fill an entire rack. Not surprisingly, Blatz Market & Liquor Depot does carry its namesake product, Blatz beer, in both cans and bottles (to which we were surprised to learn still even comes in bottles). Milwaukee’s other famous products, Pabst and Schlitz, are both well stocked as well. The real differentiator between the new store and other neighborhood stores when it comes to beer though is that all beers are sold cold at Blatz Market & Liquor Depot.

The physical location itself delivers a unique shopping experience. Located on Broadway inside of the former Blatz brewery, the walls still show signs of the massive amount of beer production that took place in the building. Instead of hiding the darkened cream city brick behind drywall, as is too often done, Woelfle chose to leave it exposed ensuring customers of an experience not too be found in suburban strip malls. The store is largely free from the images of MillerCoors and Anheuscher-Busch products that plague the shopping experience at other stores. This leaves customers free to concentrate on the product they want, instead of the product they’re being sold. Shopping at Blatz Market & Liquor Depot is a pleasure.

Owner Joe Woelfle is not a first time entrepreneur. Last October he purchased Chicago Avenue Liquor in South Milwaukee, a store he describes as “the neighborhood liquor store.” The product mix there he describes to be quite different from his new location in the Blatz building, with the majority of sales coming from household names such as Miller and Fleischmann’s.

Woelfle’s experience might have helped sway residents of the Blatz to support his opening a liquor store. He said there were only a few residents concerned with his store’s opening.

One challenge that has presented itself in the development of a retail establishment in a converted brewery is street-side signage. Woelfle agreed not to place the word “liquor” in bold lettering right outside his door on Broadway, something that would be sure to anger condo owners. He’s currently considering his options, but sounded likely to settle on a sign that resembled the classy Blatz signs affixed on the corners of the building.

Blatz Market & Liquor Depot will be an asset to the neighborhood. Joe Woelfle appears to have wisely chosen his product selection to avoid the pitfalls of nearby stores that have failed (the wine only, on the corner of Van Buren and Ogden). The store is stocked with mass-marketed products that appeal to the masses, and a healthy variety of hard-to-find beers and wines that are sure to draw in customers that live far closer to other liquor stores. The attention to quality should make the store a long-term asset to Blatz Condominiums residents.

You can follow the comings and goings of Blatz Market & Liquor Depot on the Blatz Cave blog. Stay tuned to the blog as monthly wine tastings are planned to run on Thursday’s to accommodate the Jazz in the Park crowd.

Yesterday, Dave Reid and myself were invited to the Brownfields Study Group 10th Anniversary Celebration. Now brownfield redevelopment is wonderful, and Milwaukee has some wonderful examples including the nationally-recognized Menomonee Valley, but we were a little distracted by the view from the event. The event was held on the 40th floor of the US Bank Center in the offices of Foley & Lardner.

Kudos to Kohl’s for continuing to push the envelope by powering more and more stores with solar power.

Kohl’s Corp. will expand its solar program to a sixth state, Oregon, with plans to convert four of its nine stores there to solar power. In addition to Oregon, Kohl’s has solar projects in California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and Wisconsin. When complete, the company said, the four Oregon installations will together provide up to 900 kilowatts of power and are expected to produce up to 1 million kilowatt-hours of energy per year. Over the 20-year life of the program, the solar energy produced is expected to offset 12.9 million pounds of carbon dioxide, which is enough energy to power 1,682 households in Oregon annually or the equivalent of taking 1,255 cars off the road for a year. The Menomonee Falls-based department store chain says it is the largest retail host of solar power, and its distributed solar program is the largest in the world among retailers.

Unfortunately it’s not a complete solution to making the store “green” and closer to carbon-neutral, as the company is installing solar cells on stores that are your typical “big box”, surrounded by large asphalt parking lots that encourage (and largely limit your options to) driving to and from the store. This isn’t to say that they should stop putting solar cells on the stores because it’s not a complete solution. It’s really good that they are, they’re pushing the rest of the industry to be better stewards of the environment (and protecting their bottom line long-term). To really inspire and drive change though Kohl’s should consider a more holistic approach.

Two ideas immediately come to mind to add to the solar power component.

1. Invest in porous pavement, which reduces storm water run-off. Couple this with designing new stores to encouraging more walking, less driving (i.e. not forcing walkers from another store to cross a parking lot)
2. Back down from the hypocritical statement saying there wasn’t enough going on downtown and build stores in urban areas, starting with Milwaukee. No surface parking, far less driving, far less energy consumed by everyone.

Ask yourself what’s missing along most of Wisconsin Avenue as it crosses through downtown.

Then take a look at Milwaukee’s lower east side.

The biggest difference?  The trees.  The trees that cover the lower east side give it a sense of place, despite being just north of downtown.  Despite sporting the highest population density in Wisconsin for a neighborhood, the lower east side seems calm, manageable, and cool (thanks to the shade provided by the trees).

Trees also have a large number of other effects.

Trees Increase Revenues

Merchants often oppose tree planting programs, fearing their signs or windows will be blocked from view.  Careful species selection and trimming can maintain views and overcome these objections.  But is it worth the effort?  One study [3] found customers not only prefer shopping districts with trees, but are willing to pay more for products purchased there.  Specifically, the study found:

• Customers traveled longer, farther, and more often to tree-enhanced shopping districts.  The stayed longer, and were willing to pay more for both products and parking.
• Participants rated “Amenity and Comfort” of tree-lined sidewalks about 80% higher compared to non-shaded streets.  Also, “Quality of Product” ratings were 30% higher in districts having trees, and customer service was considered better on these streets.
• When asked to estimate a price for each of 15 items in a “basket of goods,” participants consistently priced goods significantly higher in districts with trees.  It did not matter what type or price range of products were being sold.
• Merchants also showed a general preference for trees, but they consistently underestimated the effect of trees on customer behavior and buying decisions.

So with numerous retail locations empty along Wisconsin Avenue and even more underdeveloped properties located just off the grand avenue, wouldn’t adding more trees be the equivalent of picking the low-lying fruit?  This isn’t to say that the core of downtown Milwaukee is completely barren, some properties are wonderfully streetscaped, but the vast majority are concrete heat islands.

There certainly isn’t a shortage of people downtown, well over 78,000 people work downtown on a daily basis.  Numerous retailers complain that the downtown workers don’t purchase things downtown before heading home at night.  More street trees would be a good step to fixing that.  It would encourage people to get outside and walk around, and make the environment seem safer to outsiders (despite downtown’s good safety record).

To any naysayer that claims adding trees would eat needed sidewalk space, I challenge them to stand on almost any downtown street during a weekday and count how many times they had to get out of the way because the sidewalk was entirely full.  They wouldn’t need to use their toes to count, and would be lucky to almost run out of fingers.

The answer to the title of this blog post is yes.  Adding more street trees to downtown Milwaukee is a no brainer.  It would be a cheap and easy way to improve the business climate, encourage further use of the park once concept, and a good way to make the area more attractive to potential residents.

What’s the cost of parking in downtown Milwaukee? It might just be more than the cost of plugging the meter. The low cost of parking in Milwaukee might actually be preventing new development from happening downtown.

Consider the prices for parking in downtown Milwaukee (thanks to SBT and Colliers International)…

• The median monthly unreserved parking rate in downtown Milwaukee is $120, compared to the national average of $153.79, according to the report.
• The median monthly reserved parking rate in downtown Milwaukee is $150, compared to the national average of $185.78.
• The median daily parking rate in downtown Milwaukee is $12, compared to the national average of $15.42.
• The median hourly parking rate in downtown Milwaukee is $4, compared to the national average of $5.10.
• The median metered hourly parking rate in downtown Milwaukee is 63 cents, compared to the national average of $1.48. (emphasis ours)

At a glance, the most drastic difference from the national average comes in the form of Milwaukee’s parking meters. The difference is so great that in downtown Milwaukee people are paying 50% less for metered parking than the national average.

A now dated study from HNTB indicated that the city had an adequate supply of parking in 1998, but was short on metered parking. By 1999, the city had increased the number of parking stalls by 1,525 during John Norquist’s term alone. More have been added since, helping to lead to what today is believed by many to be an oversupply.

There is by this author’s pound-the-pavement, visual survey a disproportionately high number of surface parking lots in downtown Milwaukee compared to many other major cities. To make matters worse, there is a great number of free street parking spaces just north of the MSOE campus that are filled daily. These are problem areas for a variety of reasons.

This oversupply is bad for development downtown because building a parking structure is often required to obtain financing for a new development, yet is currently a huge money losing venture. To put it in perspective, per-stall costs are well over $20,000 and will be pushing $30,000 if material prices keep rising. Underground parking is significantly more expensive. The market currently doesn’t generate the revenue required to pay back the costs per stall. Informal sources have put the break even point for a new parking garage at $180 a month per stall. Building facilities to parking cars isn’t cheap, and Milwaukee’s below-average parking costs are a hidden burden on making new developments happen.

The end result is that developments don’t get done because downtown Milwaukee has too much parking. Infill developments that do happen (The Residences on Water being a good example) help the problem very slowly by replacing surface parking with buildings, but aren’t enough at the current rate.

The cheap cost of parking in downtown Milwaukee is definitely is a huge obstacle, if not the biggest, for new developments downtown.

What can be done to help the private market, encourage development downtown, and fix the surface parking lot problem?

First, Milwaukee needs to implement parking benefit districts downtown.

What is a parking benefit district? In short it’s market rate street parking with the money generated in excess of city expenses and enforcement costs going towards improving the neighborhood through improvements like bicycle lanes, expanded sidewalks, and other streetscaping improvements. The decision on what to spend the money on would be made by the Business Improvement District (BID) or a similar organization. Prices would be adjusted to ensure 80% of stalls are occupied during peak business hours.

A parking benefit district would actually make parking easier in downtown Milwaukee. Higher rates for on-street parking would discourage all-day parking, leaving more spots open for people coming in and out of the neighborhood. It would also ease congestion slightly, by opening up the street and eliminating people circling looking for spots. More information is available from various sources after a quick search.

Second, the city should explore ways to reduce and eliminate surface parking lots.

Surface parking lots break apart neighborhoods, both visually and physically. They offer rates cheaper than parking garages. Modern parking garages integrate with neighborhoods much better than surface lots. To make matters worse they’re a great source of run-off. Surface lots by lowering the market rate for parking in Milwaukee, actually prevent new developments from happening. Surface lots should be looked at as an opportunity to turn a negative into a positive. Converting unsightly, polluting pieces of blacktop into wealth-generating buildings should be a priority in Milwaukee.

The city can do this by offering incentives to develop surface lots or by imposing taxes or fees on them. Taxes on early bird specials, and special taxes or fees on surface lots are sure to be met with political opposition. More politically appealing may be the route of offering incentives to developers in the form of TIF districts. Incentive packages could also be made for lot owners to sell the lot, as many have been reluctant to sell to-date.

Milwaukee needs to move to market-rate metered street parking and work to eliminate more surface lots to encourage new development, help existing parking garages, increase safety and walkability, and most importantly keep downtown as the economic and social heart of not only the city, but the region.

This is the second article in a series on Milwaukee transit. The first article was “Milwaukee Transit: The Game and The Players“.

It’s absolutely critical to understand the different transit technologies available if one is to understand and evaluate the merits of the various transit proposals for Milwaukee. Technologies include Bus-Rapid Transit (BRT), Express Bus Transit, Electric-Guided Bus, Standard Bus, Street Car, Light Rail and Heavy Rail. This article examines the technologies, largely with regard to how they would be implemented here in Milwaukee.

Bus-Rapid Transit (BRT) - The most important distinction between BRT and other forms of bus transit is that bus-rapid transit must feature right-of-way exclusively for buses through most, if not all, of the route.

It is also important that the service offer off-bus ticketing. This is crucial to ensure that stop time is minimized, especially at peak riding times. Another frequent feature of BRT is level boarding, that is a raised curb, or lowered bus. This helps speed boarding and shorten stop-times.

As part of the off-bus ticketing and level boarding, bus-rapid transit often features stations for boarding. Unlike the current 3/4-shielded bus stops we have in Milwaukee, BRT stations are typically bigger, offer a little more protection from the elements, and have substantially more route information, usually including a digital display indicating when the next bus will arrive. At bigger, central stops, this can often mean transit personnel working to sell tickets or help passengers board. The stops also extend out to the lane the bus travels in, as opposed to the standard bus model of the bus pulling over to a curb.

The greatest distinction between bus-rapid transit and standard bus service (when it comes to Milwaukee) is the frequency of stops and the exclusive lane use. To increase the speed of service, bus-rapid transit stops on average no more than once every half-mile. Depending on the layout of a given city, the service may have more stops in the densest areas. The greater spacing between stops allows bus-rapid transit to provide a greater speed of service to customers, along with a smoother ride. It is designed to go greater distances more quickly than standard bus service.

When considering a possible implementation in Milwaukee, imagine going from UW-Milwaukee to downtown in a dedicated lane and only making one or two stops at major intersections such as North Avenue and Brady Street. The bus would get signal priority at all stop lights, so you wouldn’t be stuck watching cross traffic. In some areas it might even be grade-separated.

When it comes to the actual vehicles that make the run, BRT vehicles are often articulated (meaning there is a second vehicle attached through an accordion-like connector). This allows them to have a greater capacity than standard buses and still be able to navigate city streets. At the cheapest level, they are diesel-powered buses. Options are available for hybrid diesel-electric buses, which have a greater up-front cost, but have a better fuel economy. Another potential plus of a hybrid bus is that it is presumably quieter, much like when a Toyota Prius accelerates.

Bus-rapid transit systems do not operate in isolation from other transit systems; existing standard bus service should be routed as a feeder system for BRT. Transferring from the slower standard busing to bus-rapid transit should be easy and encouraged for distance commuters. For an understanding of how this and other features of bus-rapid transit may work, watch this short video of BRT in Bogota, Columbia.

The estimated cost of building a BRT system is $5-$10 million per mile.

In summary, bus-rapid transit systems feature rubber-tired, high-capacity, fast boarding vehicles with dedicated lanes.

Express Bus Transit - An express bus system (as proposed by Mayor Barrett) varies just slightly from bus-rapid transit. The most significant change is in the use of the dedicated lanes. Express bus transit as it is proposed for Milwaukee would get signal priority and priority lanes for large parts of the system, but not dedicated lanes. While dedicated lanes are just that, priority lanes are existing lanes that buses are able to stop in (using curb bump outs).

Reconfiguring lanes as priority lanes is substantially less expensive than using dedicated lanes. While it may not yield an average speed as high as bus-rapid transit, with dedicated lanes, it still yields service substantially faster than standard bus service by eliminating the need for buses to pull over.

The other advantage of using priority lanes is that they are substantially more politically appealing than dedicated lanes, not only because of construction cost, but because they do not require the elimination of any parking.

While a dedicated lane could be constructed down Prospect Avenue, for instance, by removing parking on one side of the street and adding some form of barrier - a curb - between the existing lanes and the new dedicated lane, a priority lane takes the existing right lane and bumps the curb out at an intersection once every half-mile or so. This preserves parking next to the lane and allows other vehicles to drive in the priority lane.

As with any of the technologies listed, the need for dedicated and priority lanes is dictated by how much other traffic is on the road. There isn’t a need to build full-blown priority or dedicated lanes in non-congested areas. When it comes to an area like downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin Avenue especially, it may be necessary to build dedicated lanes even for express buses. A dedicated lane would be on the high-end for cost options to speed travel through downtown. A more affordable, but potentially less-effective option, would be to implement “queue jump” lanes at intersections. “Queue jump” lanes operate similar to traditional signaled turn-lanes, except instead of giving exclusive priority for vehicles to turn, they would allow buses to go through the intersection first before the rest of traffic. Study of any express bus route will reveal which lane enhancements options would be the most cost-effective.

Express bus service in Milwaukee would feature off-bus ticketing, digital displays to indicate the next bus’s arrival, and easy-on, easy-off buses that are at the same height as the curb. As with bus-rapid transit, typical standard bus service can and should be routed as a feeder service to these faster modes of transit.

The estimated cost of constructing an express bus system is $2-$5 million per mile.

The vehicles for express bus service are very similar, if not identical, to bus-rapid transit. That is, they are most often high-capacity, articulated, diesel buses. For routes with expected lower ridership or less need to navigate tight turns, the articulated second section might not be used.

Electric-Guided Bus - Electric-guided bus transit is the most “train like” of all bus types. While still being rubber-tired, electric-guided buses are powered by an overhead wire, similar to modern light rail systems. They do feature the ability to leave the wire temporarily in the event of a detour.

The substitution of rubber tires for steel wheels makes electric guided bus systems cheaper than light rail, but slower and a little less smooth ride. Light rail systems run on smooth steel rails, guided buses would run on the existing road network with an overhead wire.

The proposal for the use of electric-guided buses in Milwaukee was adopted by the Milwaukee Common Council, but was ultimately vetoed by Mayor Barrett because of funding, technology, and existing route elimination issues. If Barrett had not vetoed the service, the proposal would have moved into the preliminary engineering stage. Barrett was not alone in opposing the service, as County Executive Scott Walker was in opposition of the proposal.

The estimated cost of guided bus construction is $30-$35 million per mile (cost for a proprietary Bombardier system).

It is my belief that an electric-guided bus system is a good example of good intentions gone wrong. It’s promoted as a cheaper option for nearly the same service as light rail, but it is just that: cheap. It’s more expensive than express busing, but slower than light rail. Spending less gets you a lower-speed service, which would result in fewer riders. So you could spend less upfront, but you would get fewer riders and have a less effective service. Fewer riders diminishes the ability for organic transit-oriented development to occur. It would be better to stick with standard bus service than go to electric-guided buses. I will explore this notion of transit-oriented development more, later in the series.

Standard Bus Service - Standard bus service is what the people of Milwaukee County have been riding for years. The service is very effective at going just a couple miles. Your standard run-of-the-mill bus service can be very good at ensuring you don’t have to walk far to get to a bus.

The traditional way busing has been done in Milwaukee (and elsewhere in the world) does have significant flaws. Frequent stops substantially slow the service down. To make matters worse, going in and out of traffic to get to the curb to pick-up/drop-off is not only slow, but is uncomfortable for the rider.

If you’re going a short distance, the current approach taken by the Milwaukee County Transit System works fine. If you’re going a distance that is more than a couple of miles, the constant pulling to the curb gets tiring, and the speed is lackluster.

It’s worth noting that Milwaukee’s currently stock of buses exacerbate the discomfort from pulling in and out of traffic by being out-of-date and loud. The buses currently in use make it difficult to have a conversation on the bus because every time the bus changes speed there is a substantial amount of engine noise generated, both inside and outside the bus.

Having been a frequent rider of bus systems elsewhere in the country (and world), I can tell you there are far quieter buses out there. In fact, I would guess that almost every new bus available from manufacturers is considerably quieter than what Milwaukeeans are experiencing now.

That said, Milwaukee isn’t alone in having loud transit. Fred Jandt, editor of Mass Transit Magazine, recently wrote an article detailing the differences in the philosophy of noise dispersion for automobiles versus mass transit (hat tip to Nate Holton for the link).

While priority and dedicated lanes will make the ride much smoother, new buses would provide a substantially more comfortable version of the existing, standard MCTS bus service.

Street Car - Street car systems are significantly different from light rail. Street cars are steel-wheeled, electric single-car trains. While light rail by definition is expected to use private right-of-way, street cars ride on rails in the street. This causes a slight reduction in speed, but delivers a smoother and more-defined (by the rails in the road) service than typical standard bus service.

Street car routes are usually no longer than 5 miles and have an emphasis on moving people within a neighborhood. You can expect street car speeds to rival standard bus service at nearly 12 miles-per-hour, but the service would be substantially more quiet (on modern systems) and much smoother. Street car systems are very successful at moving people within an area without the need for automobiles.

Street car stations are typically spaced no more than a couple blocks from one another.

Street car systems have an estimated per mile construction cost of $14-$18 million.

Street car systems are less costly than light rail because they feature single-car trains, share existing right-of-way, and have shorter routes. Street cars are designed for circulation within a local area, while light rail is designed more for regional connectivity. Using one for the other’s purpose would be inefficient.

Light Rail - Light rail is the slower and smaller version of heavy rail. Light rail systems include multiple cars per train, unlike street cars. To be classified as modern light rail, the system must be electrically powered. This is frequently done by an overhead wire. Light rail cars also operate in private right-of-ways for almost all of their routes, meaning they are separated from the rest of the street by some barrier (such as a curb or wall).

Light rail has the capability to get up to higher speeds, but not as fast as traditional heavy rail. Some systems, especially in Europe, connect to smaller, near-by towns. Light rail, however, is not designed to go long distances and does not usually interconnect with the existing national rail system. Light rail systems are focused on regional connectivity at distances from 5 to 20 miles. Using dedicated right-of-way and higher capacity trains than street cars, light rail would be well-suited for connecting the edges of Milwaukee County with downtown.

Stations for light rail are usually at least a half-mile apart from one another. Paired with dedicated right-of-way, this allows light rail to have substantially higher speeds than street cars. But private right-of-ways and multi-car trains causes light rail implementation to be expensive.

The name “light rail” was selected in 1972 by the U.S. Urban Mass Transit Administration. The idea behind the name is a little convoluted.

Light in this context is used in the sense of “intended for light loads and fast movement”, rather than referring to physical weight, since the vehicles often weigh more than those on so-called heavy rail systems. The investment in infrastructure is also usually lighter than would be found for a heavy rail system. Read more.

The cost to build a light rail line is estimated at $30-$40 million per mile.

None of the transit proposals for Milwaukee include light rail. This is an important and misunderstood fact. If you understand nothing else about this series, understand that no one is proposing true light rail in Milwaukee.

Heavy Rail - Heavy rail is the system of standard trains you are used to. All inter-city freight railroads are heavy rail; Amtrak is heavy rail, and most commuter lines are heavy rail (Metra in Chicago being the nearest example). The former North Shore Line that ran down down the middle of streets on the south side of Milwaukee and down to the edge of Chicago was heavy rail.

Heavy rail systems feature greater top speeds than light rail, but at a greater cost. While at first glance it would seem logical to build in-city rail systems the same way inter-city systems are built, there are numerous reasons not to. Heavy rail systems typically feature diesel powered trains, while light rail is electric. This creates a substantial difference in engine noise, not to mention air quality. Also, light rail trains ride much closer to the ground than heavy rail, making for easy on and off for light rail passengers. Light rail train-sets are optimized for stopping and starting; heavy rail is designed for going long distances at high speeds. If you’re still not convinced, ride the Amtrak Hiawatha line to Chicago and back, and imagine stopping and starting every half mile.

Heavy rail is the technology chosen for the proposed Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) system. Light rail is not a realistic choice for this because of the long distances and the need for fast travel.

The next article in the Milwaukee Transit series will focus on the current proposals on the table. This will include a look at how they would be funded, and what potential they may have.