The Milwaukee County Board’s Transportation, Public Works, and Transit Committee, chaired by Supervisor Michael Mayo, held a meeting on Wednesday morning to discuss the recommendations approved by the Southeast Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority. Julia Taylor, the Governor’s Appointee on the RTA, was on hand to answer questions along with Carl Mueller, the RTA’s PR consultant, and Ken Yunker, who has worked closely with the RTA in his role at SEWRPC.

Supervisor Toni Clark, Vice Chair of the Transportation Committee, made it clear during her opening statements that she wasn’t even open to considering an idea of a transit authority. She referred to the past RTA proposals and recommendations as “terrible”. Supervisor Clark questioned how the RTA would be able to pay back bonds, questioning if the “5% sales tax [sic]” would be used. Supervisor Clark’s questioning continued with wondering how the management of the funds would occur with such a disproportionate share coming from Milwaukee County. Julia Taylor responded by indicating that the funds stay in the county and a locally appointed group decides what to spend them on. This theme of how the money works was repeated throughout the meeting, It was repeated over and over again by Taylor that Racine and Kenosha had the same concerns, and that a “firewall” had been put in place to ensure that the funds stay within the county. Supervisor Clark ended her questioning by saying “it doesn’t make sense.”

Next up was supervisor John Weishan, who represents a western area of Milwaukee County.  Weishan I anticipated would be critical, as I had heard his opposition to local funding for a commuter rail line at Milwaukee Transit Rider’s Union meeting.  He had indicated that he believed the state should be paying for any type of inter-county service.  Not surprisingly, his questioning of the RTA beat around the bush of the position I previously learned he held.  At one point even saying he wasn’t sure “why this isn’t a state project.”

Weishan also had objections to the makeup of the RTA board and was critical (and potentially jealous) of the ability of western Racine County to be excluded from the RTA.  He went as far as to propose that western Milwaukee County be left out of the current RTA.  What the RTA representatives failed to hammer home is that western Racine County isn’t currently served by any public mass transit system, unlike western Milwaukee County.  Racine County west of I-94 isn’t getting a free ride, it’s not getting a ride.  Furthermore, and a point that Ken Yunker made, there isn’t the density west of the interstate to support a mass transit system (as of the 2000 it is not classified as an urbanized area, while east of I-94 is).

If the idea behind having an RTA is to create a dedicated funding source that is only for transit and can enable regional efforts to actually move people to where they need to go, then leaving western Milwaukee County out seems like lunacy.  Under Weishan’s idea of leaving western Milwaukee County out, MCTS would still exist to serve the western half of the county, while a system would exist in eastern Milwaukee County that would actually connect with the rest of the region.

Supervisor Patricia Jursik was up after Weishan.  Her immediate concern was that the RTA could change the federal funding formula for Milwaukee County.  Ken Yunker assured her that “federal funds must stay in the county to which they are designated.”  He also went on to mention how the region gets an extra $8 million annually for having a transit authority.

Supervisor Jursik continued her questioning with her indicating that she thought the RTA was biting off too much.  To which Julia Taylor responded that there was a need for the commuter rail and bus systems to be together so that they can work together to move people.  She also reminded the committee that Milwaukee County passed a resolution stating that it wouldn’t support a commuter rail system without a funding source for buses.

It was at this point that Supervisor Jursik took aim at SEWRPC referring to them as “road and highway friendly” and questioned their lack of support for transit.  Ken Yunker responded that “what’s missing with transit is the money to implement transit”.  He indicated that the RTA had voted on and approved a plan to provide the money to implement transit.  Jursik hit on a point that perhaps is often left out of the SEWRPC debate and that is that SEWRPC can only play the roll they are asked to.  In the case of the RTA, SEWRPC has helped find a way to make transit work for the region.  I think if Milwaukee (especially the Common Council which has been critical of SEWRPC) could find a way to better leverage SEWPRC to do more work like they are doing on the RTA they would be much more pleased with the result.

One of those things SEWRPC has proven to plenty skilled at is identifying trouble areas in the MCTS budget.  Supervisor Jursik didn’t mention how much MCTS has come to rely on those previously mentioned federal funds (given for use on capital expenses), and how both Scott Walker AND the Milwaukee County Board have misappropriated those funds year after year for operating expenses.  This has created a situation where there isn’t funding available to pay for new bus purchases (which have been put off) and to sustain the routes we have (which have been paid for to-date with the money for new buses).

It was at this point that County Board Chariman Lee Hollaway’s (who hadn’t been in the room long at all) phone went off interrupting the meeting.  Committee Chairman Mayo reminded the room to turn their phones off.

At this point it was time for Freshman Supervisor Chris Larson to begin his questioning of the RTA.  He began by asking if the RTA’s proposed .5% maximum sales tax was in competition with the County Board’s 1% sales tax plan for transit, parks, and EMS service.  Julia Taylor and Carl Mueller responded that it was not.

Chris Larson claimed that he was “inclined to be for the RTA.”  He was the only Supervisor on the committee who seemed interested in actually hammering out the differences between the RTA and the County and reaching a solution.  This came as a pleasant surprise because Larson not only overrode Walker’s veto to put the Advisory County 1% Sales Tax Referendum on the ballot on November 4th, but was the public face of the Vote Yes campaign.

At this point Chariman Lee Holloway, who had just moved his chair uncomfortably close to the RTA representatives, interrupted the meeting to address his fellow supervisors.  He told them that Julia Taylor, Carl Mueller, and Ken Yunker (whom he continually referred as “the people to my right”) had zero experience running a transit system, and that as a committee the supervisors had plenty.  He told the supervisors that “we can be the RTA itself” and that the RTA was merely an administrative cost.  Holloway exited the meeting shortly thereafter.

Supervisor’s Sanfelippo and Borkowski spoke after Holloway, but neither had much of interest to say.   San Phillipo merely indicated that he wasn’t against the KRM commuter rail line.  Borkowski, typically a Republican voice on the board, accused the RTA of piggybacking on the success of the county sales tax referendum (which he did not support).

It was at this point that, Chairman Mayo took the chance to personally rip Julia Taylor.  He accused Taylor of not involving the County Board in the RTA (ironic because Taylor had met with Mayo about the issue as well as other members).  He also told her he hoped she represents Milwaukee better in the future, as if finding a local funding source for a collapsing transit system and promoting a regional solution wasn’t supporting Milwaukee County.

Supervisor Clark would then state that the “RTA would hurt Milwaukee” following a factually incorrect rhetorical question from Mayo, “didn’t we just pass a .1% percent sales tax?”  Awkward infighting would emerge later in the meeting between the two regarding Clark’s support of a City of Milwaukee vote on SEWRPC and Mayo opposing it rather oddly in front of the entire audience.

Weishan made a motion to reject the recommendations of the Regional Transit Authority.  After considerable debate, including Jursik attempting to hold the measure, all of the committee members with the exception of Larson voted to reject the recommendations of the RTA.  Larson argued that a vote no would be seen as more inaction by the Milwaukee County Board.  It was clear that at least Mayo, Clark, and Weishan knew the motion was coming (from which Weishan read verbatim from a printed copy), but that Supervisor Larson and potentially others were kept in the dark.

By the end of the meeting it seemed clear that every supervisor on the committee with the exception of Chris Larson was interested only in the power of having complete control of the transit system with no regard to how fast it’s driving towards the edge of the cliff.  Only Supervisor Chris Larson demonstrated the interest in taking what is a strong bargaining position for the Milwaukee region and especially Milwaukee County and turning it into a legitimate transit solution.

We have previously endorsed the RTA as a good proposal for fixing the region’s transit woes.  Outside of the reasons detailed in that column, there are a couple other strong factors.  The sales tax generated in a county goes first to cover the cost of the KRM line to connect the three counties (.15%) and the remaining portion stays in the county to be managed by a local management board (of elected officials).  Second, the RTA is firmly grounded in reality and has political support from multiple levels of government as well as regional support.  A county itself can not pass a sales tax, it needs state approval, and the RTA has laid a plan to do just that.  Milwaukee County passing a sales tax could fix our local bus system, but it still doesn’t address regional connectivity issues, the RTA presents a great start to connecting the entire region.

The committee members raised legitimate concerns over representation, but failed to agree that a solution has been put in place.  The solution, which we believe is satisfactory, is two-fold.  First, for any RTA action a super-majority is required, so while there may not be representation by population, the suburbs do not possess any controlling power over Milwaukee because Milwaukee County through the Governor’s appointee (who has to be from the city), the County Executive, and the Mayor’s appointee have enough power to block any anti-city moves.  Second, once the tax is enacted it will be controlled by a local committee.  Money will be spent to support regional connectivity in the form of the KRM, but the rest is completely under local control.

Furthermore it’s not clear what the current management of the County Board is giving residents.  Yes, an advisory sales tax referendum has been passed (and kudos to the board for having the courage to override Walker’s veto and put it on the ballot), but to-date they have allowed the system to crumble and become an embarrassment to the region.  There was a claim by Supervisor Mayo that in 2003 Milwaukee had the best system in the country, but unfortunately it’s not 2003 anymore and the blame Scott Walker game is just that, a game.  They have allowed Walker to balance the budget by reducing the system to shambles and raising fares, and have failed to make it a priority until now.  The RTA has been at work since before the 1% measure was put on the ballot trying to find a sustainable funding source and Holloway’s labeling of the RTA as “carpet baggers” was about as accurate as the Chicago Tribune calling the 1948 election for Dewey instead of Truman.

It was extremely dissappointing to see that the County Board is drunk with power following the passing of the advisory referendum.  They are not in a position to get a 1% sales tax enacted to support MCTS, and from the meeting it was clear they don’t have a state lobbying plan in place to get the funding before the system completely implodes.  It was, however, refreshing to see Supervisor Chris Larson support the RTA and have a legitimate interest in a compromise that will work for both his constituents and the region.  It would be wise for the rest of the board to follow Larson and push for a compromise that leverages the extremely powerful lobbying position of regional support through the RTA and local support through the referendum for a legitimate transit funding solution for the Milwaukee region.

Recently, we advocated for the formation of a regional transit authority that has a dedicated funding source as a solution to the transit issues facing the Milwaukee region. Following that editorial we wrote an open letter to Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett encouraging him to vote on the morning of November 10th for the sales tax proposal.

On Monday morning, six of the seven appointed officials on the South Eastern Wisconsin Regional Transit Authority board voted for just what we recommended, a dedicated funding source in the form of a sales tax to manage Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee’s transit systems of up to .5% depending on the county. The SEWISRTA is currently only advisory and subject to expire soon. They were tasked with reporting back to the Governor by November 15th, 2008 and were required to have a super majority vote for their recommendations, so the sales tax proposal vote on November 10th was crucial.

Because of the way sales tax can be implemented in Wisconsin, the fight for great mass transit must now be taken to the state level. The Governor will now hopefully include the RTA’s recommendations in his budget proposal and will lobby for it along with members of the legislature.

There will certainly be opportunities for action by the public (in the form of calling, emailing, or talking directly to your legislators) regarding the SEWISRTA’s recommendations and the proposed state budget.

Because we think this issue is critical to the future of the city of Milwaukee and the region we have created a page to track this issue. Please use it as a reference point on the issue, and don’t hesitate to contact us if we left anything off of it.

SEWISRTA Tracking Page

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

A regional transit authority with a dedicated funding source is the solution to the Milwaukee regional transit woes. The use of an authority represents the most efficient and reliable way to deliver a service to a region. A dedicated and reliable funding source is essential to empowering an authority to deliver the services for which it is tasked. While Milwaukee’s freeway system was designed and built to serve the region, the Milwaukee region’s multiple transit systems stop and start at invisible lines. The various transit systems have different fares, operating hours, vehicles, and branding. As they are now, the systems simply aren’t designed to work together to ensure a high quality of service to the region.

The end result of the patchwork quilt that is the Milwaukee region’s current transit systems is not pretty, nor productive. Constant budget battles for funding result in rising fares, reduced and or eliminated routes, varying service frequency, and antiquated equipment. At the same time, system operators are left without a budget to move riders across invisible lines that separate them from jobs.

The Milwaukee County Transit System is a prime example of the pitfalls of our current system of transit governance. In 2001, shortly before Scott Walker took office there was nearly $37 million available that Milwaukee County had received from the federal government for capital improvements to the transit system. Because the transit system, though a publicly-supported private company, is funded locally via property tax revenue it competes for funds against nearly all other county services. It is subject to yearly budget battles. The end result is a bitter fight between the Milwaukee County Board and the Milwaukee County Executive. This fight results in cuts and reductions in service across the board, not only for transit, but every service the county pays to provide. The federal funds earmarked for capital improvements (replacing old buses) have been used repeatedly for operating expenses to the point where they are nearly gone. The capital funds have been used to reduce the level of service cuts and reductions to the transit system, but at a great expense. A situation has been created where old and obsolete buses are being kept running well-past their expected lifetime. This has resulted in maintenance costs climbing at an ever increasing rate. Therefore, operating costs are now higher, and there isn’t money to pay for new buses to lower them.

The end result? The coming Milwaukee County transit funding crisis that has been studied extensively by the non-partisan Public Policy Forum.

What is a solution to this funding problem? A dedicated funding source deposited into a lock box account for a single use. A regional transit authority supported by a half-percent maximum sales tax varying by county service needs would accomplish this. A well-planned and budgeted sales tax could also create and support regional transportation initiatives that allow residents and visitors to easily move throughout the region. A move to a sales tax should not be viewed as a significant tax increase, instead using a sales tax should be seen as a logical tax transfer.

Sales taxes have a significant benefit to residents over property taxes, they’re paid by non-residents. Property taxes are paid by residents, either directly as a property owner-occupant or indirectly by renters as they are passed on by landlords. Sales taxes are paid by consumers. Consumers that come to the Milwaukee region for work or entertainment. This includes events at Miller Park and the Bradley Center frequented by out of region residents, and anything purchased at General Mitchell Airport by travelers. Furthermore, thanks in large part to Wisconsin’s progressive history, sales taxes are not levied upon unprepared food purchases at grocery stores. Using a sales tax creates a dependable revenue source to pay for existing transit service and new regional initiatives. A property to sales tax conversion would also allow a reduction to occur with property taxes, varying by the costs of the existing transit systems.

A regional transit authority with a dependable and dedicated funding source offers the best chance to move both the City of Milwaukee and the greater Milwaukee region forward. A dependable funding source will ensure reliable service that is largely free of yearly fare increases and route cuts. Furthermore, a regional transit authority will be able to operate similar to a utility provider, free to concentrate on providing one service, transit. This would be much unlike Milwaukee’s current systems which are political footballs subject to the whims of elected officials. Implementing a regional transit authority will provide the framework for future transit infrastructure improvements, including the potential use of the $91.5 million already allocated to Milwaukee by the federal government. A future with a regional transit authority is a future where people in the Milwaukee region can move within the region with ease utilizing a high quality transit system.

This post is part of Urban Milwaukee’s participation in Blog Action Day 2008 - Poverty.

Poverty as defined by Princeton’s Wordnet is “the state of having little or no money and few or no material possessions.” Too often people believe poverty means unemployment. It does not.

Those that are unemployed likely do live in poverty, but there are a significant number of people that live in poverty and have jobs. In 2006 Milwaukee had the eighth-highest rate of poverty of large US cities, with 26.2% of people living below the federal poverty line. To put that percentage to an actual headcount, 26.2% of the city of Milwaukee’s population is 143,000 people. By comparison, Wisconsin’s poverty rate is 11% accounting for 581,000 residents, nearly 200,000 of which are children.

How does transit play a role in poverty?

Transportation is a major expense. While the average American household spends 19.3% of its income on transit-related expenses, a household making less than $13,908 (after taxes) spends 40.2% of its take home pay on transit. Almost 95% of those transportation dollars are going towards paying for a private automobile. For those making $13,900 to $27,176, it doesn’t get much better, with 25.3% of income going to household transportation expenses.

The more we design cities for cars the more we’re digging a deeper hole for those living in poverty to get out of. We need a transit system that keeps hard-working people from having to spend 40.2% of their income on a car.

Investment in public mass transit solutions is a must for communities. In Milwaukee County we have struggled with our funding source (currently using undedicated funds from property tax revenue). This struggle has hurt the Milwaukee County Transit System and the community at large. And while many of us reading this can easily swallow a fare increase from $1.60 to $2.00, there are plenty of Milwaukeeans that can’t. Every service cut and fare hike makes it harder for hard-working people to get out of poverty. While we spend millions on job training programs every year, it’s important that those with jobs aren’t spending a disproportionate amount of their precious and scarce dollars on transportation.

Milwaukee needs a dedicated funding source for its transit. The revenue from the funding source can be put towards the system to upgrade the quality of service and lower fares. If Milwaukee County Transit System can save people both time and money, fewer tax dollars are going to be sunk into other programs to counteract poverty. A well-funded transit system will simply leave more money in the pockets of riders, especially those that are forced to count their pennies.

Milwaukee needs a well-funded transit system to serve as a piece of the puzzle to get people out of poverty.

The replacement of the Hoan Bridge and its associated freeway ramps with a grade level route offers many opportunities but will also require the rerouting of a portion of the 40,000 motorists that travel over the Hoan Bridge each day. Although 40,000 motorists seems like a lot of traffic, history has shown in both the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco and the Park East Freeway here in Milwaukee that traffic patterns will change and the grid system will be able to support the rerouted traffic.

To put this rerouted traffic on to the grid a few changes will be required to link the Lake Parkway in to the system. First I-794 should be replaced with an at grade extension of the Lake Parkway. Although this will undoubtedly cause the loss of federal dollars it will also reduce some of the traffic taking this route merely by removing the interstate from maps. The road itself could be rebuilt as a parkway which would run in the current footprint of the freeway and then turn west to connect with Greenfield Avenue across a new bascule bridge. Although once across the river the majority of the traffic would follow S. 1st Street into downtown, with the addition of a rebuilt S. Barclay Street and a new bascule bridge connecting Walkers Point to the Third Ward the traffic could find a multiple of routes into downtown. To facilitate this rebuilding of the grid some properties on both sides of the river will need to be acquired but this is surly less expensive than a complete rebuild.

Specifically in order to connect across the river to Greenfield Avenue a road connecting to the new bridge would require the relocation of Kaszube’s Park and the acquisition of some surrounding property. This relocation could actually offer an opportunity to create a larger park that could be better separated from industrial properties in the area. This new park could be developed as a greenbelt running between the parkway and the lakefront. Further the remains of the freeway demolition could be utilized to create an expanded park much like the new Lakeshore State Park.

This is just one idea of how to possibly replace the Hoan Bridge and create a better Milwaukee in the process. Surely the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (”Wisconsin DOT”) will be investigating a variety of options in the coming months but hopefully the Wisconsin DOT will look at this as more than a demolition project and find a way to work with the city to build a better Milwaukee.
View Larger Map

Both the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and The Business Journal of Milwaukee have covered the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s announcement that they’re examining options for the future of the Hoan Bridge as the day nears when it will need costly repairs. We thought it was time to weigh in.

The Journal Sentinel article leads off by saying the idea has “crashed and burned” because the mayors of St. Francis and Cudahy like the bridge. Which is all well and good, except last I checked the bridge is in Milwaukee so perhaps talking to Milwaukee elected officials would have been a good idea? Being an interstate, it is state-owned, but to deny Milwaukeeans a comment on the issue is a little too much.

A critical aspect of the discussion that the Journal Sentinel article ignored was that any proposal will not simply include tearing down the bridge. It will include replacing the bridge. Certainly simply removing the bridge would be a fiasco, replacing it does not have to be if street-level lift bridges are placed at the right points.

We have come up with seven good reasons to replace the bridge with a street grid system.

1. The bridge does not generate economic development along the land it runs, a replacement that was integrated with the city street grid would. The increased traffic would be great for businesses, both existing and new. The increased accessibility would further encourage more residential development in the area.

2. The bridge is going to be costly to repair, and will continue to cost taxpayers money in the future. Replacing it with a street grid based system will be more cost-effective both now and in the future.

3. The bridge is a risk for MMSD. This reality was driven home in 2000 when the bridge partially collapsed directly above MMSD’s Jones Island facility (the end destination of your toilet).

The Hoan Bridge was the site of a near disaster in December 2000 after two of three support beams failed, causing nearly 200 feet along the northbound lanes to buckle and sag by three to four feet. It left the span in a near collapsed state. In late December 2000, demolition experts used explosives to remove damaged sections of the bridge that crossed over the MMSD’s Jones Island treatment plant.

“We were genuinely concerned it was going to fall on critical conduits of the MMSD plant, cutting off electricity to our facility,” Shafer said.

The DOT spent more than $16 million to demolish and rebuild the damaged area before the Hoan Bridge reopened for traffic in November 2001.

4. Never the “Bridge To Nowhere” ever again. While the bridge was built and left unconnected for a number of years early in its life, it was also closed for almost an entire year in 2001 following the partial collapse. Replacing the bridge with the street grid will give drivers options in the event of one road closing.

5. Replacing the bridge will still leverage existing assets like the Lake Parkway, but will also allow easier access to areas like Walker’s Point/Fifth Ward and the south side of the Third Ward. At the same time synchronized lights should make getting downtown just as easy.

6. We’ve done this before, and have been largely successful. The conversion of the Park East Freeway, an elevated freeway on the north side of downtown, was a huge success when you look at traffic flow. It’s just as easy to get down McKinley Avenue as it was to get down the freeway. We can apply the same principles from the Park East Freeway freeway-to-boulevard conversion to the Hoan Bridge.

7. The Hoan Bridge is currently inaccessible for bicyclists and pedestrians. Any replacement will presumably serve both of those groups better, as well as being better for mass transit riders. Currently riding the bus over the bridge may be a pleasure, unless you need to get to somewhere in the middle where you are forced to back track. A street grid solution will allow riders to get to more locations much more easily.

RedPrairie’s relocation story has been a funny one, especially now that it appears they’ve finally decided to move to Delafield. To understand what’s going on it appears you don’t have to read between the lines, you just have to read the lines.

Flash back a couple years and you’ll remember RedPrairie had a CEO by the name of John Jazwiec who was constantly in the news. Jazwiec was a resident of the East Side, living in a plush house near Lake Park. Rumors at the time were centered around the company relocating from a suburban location on 94 to Park East land near the Milwaukee River. A back and forth game ensued with Jazwiec claiming he was ready to move the company out of Wisconsin, because they couldn’t find the talent they needed here. Then Jazwiec claimed he was robbed in his own home and was ready to start his own police force for his block before resigning his post and leaving the area rather abruptly. The Park East plans, which appeared to be rocky at best at the time, were suddenly off the map.

Today the company is led by R. Michael Mayoras, a Delafield resident. Well guess which relocation site is at the top of the list? One in Delafield.

If we as outsiders know anything it’s that the CEO of RedPrairie appears to have a lot of power to affect where or where not the company may be located.

The damaging thing for RedPrairie in moving to Delafield is that they’re moving further away from their future workforce. It’s nearly impossible that they could have an intern from Marquette, UWM, or MSOE that would be capable of getting out to Delafield and back on a regular basis. If Red Prairie begins to complain about not being able to find the talent they need again (as Jazwiec did openly before), it’s purely self-inflicted. As MSOE, UWM, and Marquette continue to train top-notch engineers and future business leaders looking for employment, RedPrairie is moving further away.

Barack Obama seems to have his head in the right place when thinking about the need for mobility in a regional sense. He doesn’t advocate New York to Chicago high speed rail or other long routes, something that a plane does and will probably always do better. He doesn’t talk about cost inefficient monorail technology or other fancy, whiz-bang technologies.

Obama recognizes that high speed rail is the perfect mode of transit for regional connectivity and that the Midwest is a good place for that implementation.

“If you think about the Midwest, think about right here, what we’ve got is all kind of towns that we could connect,” Obama said. “All of these cities are, they basically take in the air about 45 minutes to an hour to fly.”

“But by the time you get to the airport,” Obama continued, “take off your shoes, get to the terminal, realize that your flight’s been delayed two hours, go pay $10 for a cup of coffee, and a sandwich for another $10, come back, you get on the plane, you’re sitting on the tarmac for another 25 minutes, you finally take off, you’re circling above the city for another half hour, when you land they can’t find your luggage, and then you get to where you’re going — by the time it’s all done it’s a five-hour trip! …So the time is right now for us to start thinking about high-speed rail as an alternative to air transportation, connecting all these cities and think about what a great project that would be in terms of rebuilding America.”

To be honest, we don’t know exactly. But we do know that they’ve proposed 8 sites, and we’ll break down each one to determine which one we think might be the best. Our best and worst rankings are available at the bottom of the article.

Site #1 - The Prospect Mall
Actual Location: Prospect Avenue between Ivanhoe Place & Kenilworth Place
What’s There Now: Former Prospect Mall, currently empty, along with surface parking lot across Farwell
Note: We have heard that this project would potentially only use the east side of Prospect, the surface parking lot and Qdoba. We are unsure how it would integrate into the currently empty mall. If this is true, it could change our ranking (see bottom of article) of the site.  UPDATE We contacted Boulder Venture to clarify this question but they are unable to comment on the proposal at this time.

Pros

• Close to other dorm (Kenilworth) and close to campus
• On an existing bus route (30)
• Uses a currently unused property
• Would help area businesses by delivering 500 new customers
• Would please students to be close to other students

Cons

• Would create another cluster of students possibly creating more neighborhood backlash

Site #2 - Near Brady Street Site
Actual Location: 1744 N. Farwell Avenue, Southeast Corner of North Farwell Avenue and East Royall Place
What’s There Now: Surface Parking Lot

Pros

• Would deliver 500 new customers to Brady Street area
• Replaces existing surface parking lot
• Close to entertainment for students
• On existing bus route (30)

Cons

• Would be furthest dorm from campus

Site #3 - Near Beerline Site
Actual Location: 1887 N. Water Street, just west of Humboldt Avenue
What’s There Now: Empty Warehouse Building, former home of Pro Graphics Inc

Pros

• It’s near the Good Life which is fun to eat at? (and Wolskis)
• It’s a short walk to Brady Street (although not as close as the other site)
• Next to river

Cons

• Would draw continued opposition from nearby condo owners
• Site could be better capitalized by condo development
• Next door to empty Gallun Tannery (wouldn’t necessarily encourage condo development there)
• Close to an existing transit route (10), but transit route does not go through campus
• Awkward walk to Riverview, despite being just across the river
• Potentially difficult spot for shuttle bus to pick-up/drop-off from.

Site #4 - Hometown Gas Station
Actual Location: 1436 North Avenue
What’s There Now: Abandoned gas station

Pros

• On North Avenue near entertainment district
• On existing transit route (21)
• Inbetween both Riverview and Kenilworth dorms
• Next to river
• Easy for current UWM Shuttle to stop here on route from Riverview

Cons

• Would draw ire of many residents because of Milwaukee River Overlay District due to its spot along river
• Nearby residents would certainly raise a fuss about parking, congestion, regardless if it were true or not.

Site #5 - Humboldt Avenue Site
Actual Location: 2628, 2650, and 2660 North Humboldt Avenue, just south of Center Street
What’s There Now: Collection of buildings

Pros

• On existing bus route that goes downtown, but not to campus (10)
• Next to river
• Would integrate well if Riverview shuttle went up Humboldt, then down Locust to get to campus
• Would help revitalize businesses along Center Street

Cons

• Would draw ire of many residents because of Milwaukee River Overlay District due to its spot along river
• Close, but yet not, to Riverview dorm, awkward walk
• Not a good connection to campus without UWM shuttle
• Would certainly irritate neighbors with noise of freshman students walking to keg parties in the area

Site #6 - Holton Terrace
Actual Location: 2825 N. Holton Street, at the intersection of Holton and Locust
What’s There Now: Green space adjacent to Holton Terrace public housing

Pros

• Would utilize what is currently underutilized land, which long-term may be catalytic to other development along Locust and Holton

Cons

• Perception of being next to public housing facility would be negative, regardless of how safe the facility is.
• Neighborhood would likely reject students and be irritated with their noise
• Not near any retail or entertainment districts

Site #7 - Tracks Tavern and Grille
Actual Location: 1020 E. Locust Street
What’s There Now: Tracks Tavern and Grille, surface parking lots, and a few apartments

Pros

• Would replace surface parking
• Would be near existing new development (Alterra Coffee on Humboldt)
• Would be catalytic to other development near the intersection
• Would integrate well if Riverview shuttle went up Humboldt, then down Locust to get to campus
• Would likely not generate resistant from neighbors
• Connected to campus during school year with bus (60)
• Next to two parks

Cons

• Awkwardly close, but yet separated from main campus
• Not near other entertainment/retail options other than Alterra [there are some bars on locust]
• Next to two parks that are overly big and underlit at night, might not be well used by students at night out of fear

Site #8 - Heinemann’s Commissary
Actual Location: 1300 E Locust Street
What’s There Now: Heinemann’s Commissary located in a small building

Pros

• Would integrate well if Riverview shuttle went up Humboldt, then down Locust to get to campus
• Connected to campus during school year with bus (60)

Cons

• Small lot, tall building
• Would likely draw opposition from residents over Milwaukee River Overlay District despite tall public housing facility next door
• Along busy street
• Close, but awkwardly far from main campus because of long Locust Street bridge
• Would not be positioned well to generate neighboring new development
• Students would be fairly isolated, with longer walks to any retail or entertainment.

Best sites currently for the new UWM freshman dormitory

1. Prospect Mall Site
2. Near Brady Street Site
3. Hometown Site

Worst sites currently for the new UWM freshman dormitory

1. Near Beerline Site
2. Holton Terrance
3. Humboldt Avenue Site

View Larger Map