Density and transit in metro Milwaukee

Greater Milwaukee has had a long and contentious debate about public transit, with one common argument against investing in rapid transit being that the region doesn't have the population density to support it. A recent study from the U.S. Census Bureau, however, may be cause for reexamining that contention. It finds Milwaukee among the densest metropolitan areas in the U.S., with greater population density than many of the nation’s most populous metros, including Atlanta, Houston, and Seattle.

In 2010, the Milwaukee metropolitan area – comprised of Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha counties – ranked 15^th in population density among the 102 metro areas in the U.S. with populations over 500,000, with a density of 5,258 persons per square mile. Milwaukee was second only to Chicago among Midwest metros. Notably, the Milwaukee area’s density declined slightly between 2000 and 2010, by 3.6%. This downtick followed a national trend, however, as 33 of the nation’s 50 largest metro areas saw their densities decline during that period. The complete data set can be found here.

Rather than using the traditional method of determining population density, which involves simply dividing total land area by total population, the Census Bureau study used “weighted density,” which averages the densities of each census tract in a metro area while giving each tract a relative weight based on its share of the metro’s total population. Using this methodology, for example, if 75% of a given metro area’s population lives in low-density suburbs, that metro will have a lower weighted density than another metro area of the same size and with the same population where 75% of residents live in medium- or high-density urban neighborhoods.

A frequently-cited example illustrating why researchers are converting to this new method of determining population density is the fact that under the traditional definition, the Los Angeles metro area has a higher density than the New York metro area, which is counterintuitive to anyone who has visited both places. Using weighted density, the New York metro is more than twice as dense as L.A., because the typical New Yorker lives in a denser neighborhood than the typical Angeleno.

While metro Milwaukee is not as dense as New York or Chicago, it is denser than many metro areas considered to have admirable public transit systems, including Seattle and Portland. Milwaukee also is denser than many others that have made recent investments in rapid transit, such as Minneapolis and Phoenix with their relatively new light rail systems, and Cleveland and Kansas City, where bus rapid transit (BRT) systems recently have been developed. 

Rapid transit may come back into Greater Milwaukee’s infrastructure planning at some point in the future. While many factors impact the success of a rapid transit system, we now have a clearer understanding of our population density and how it compares with other metro areas around the country.

When is a plan not a plan?

According to a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel PolitiFact article, Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele's decision to use $36.6 million in federal funds to buy new buses "kept" a campaign promise to "develop a plan" to finally spend the money, which was allocated to the region 20 years ago.

While that assessment technically is correct, and while the county's fiscal condition provides ample justification for the decision, it is difficult to avoid reflecting on what this outcome says about transportation decision-making in our region.

The funds are part of a $289 million congressional appropriation from 1991, which originally prompted studies of light rail and/or special bus and carpool lanes in the East-West Corridor between Milwaukee and Waukesha. The thinking, at the time, was that express or rapid transit options in the corridor might greatly benefit commuters, and that this was a unique opportunity to pursue such options with substantial federal assistance.

Instead, after years of political disagreement, all but $91 million was allocated to highway and bridge projects (and $48 million was retrieved by the feds). Ultimately, the $91 million was split 60/40 between the city and county, with the city's share earmarked for a downtown streetcar line and the county's share now being used to buy buses.

Thus, it seems the "plan" essentially is to stick with what we have. While other metropolitan areas seek modern express and rapid transit solutions (either rail or bus) to buttress service for existing riders and provide viable alternatives to driving, commuters in and out of Milwaukee will get virtually nothing new from our $289 million gift for modernized mass transit. (If constructed, the 2.1-mile downtown streetcar line could benefit the downtown economy and serve downtown visitors, but it is not designed to serve daily commuters in a meaningful way.)

In light of our moderate traffic congestion, sticking with what we have may prove to be the correct decision. But given the extremely lengthy timeline for implementing major transportation improvements - and the one-time opportunity to use federal dollars to help implement them here - wouldn't it feel better to know that the county's ultimate use of the funds to replace buses was predicated on years of fact-based and measured deliberation, as opposed to our 20-year inability to agree on long-term improvements?

Proposed new transportation policy mirrors national debate

A key transportation provision in the governor's proposed budget that may have huge implications for mass transit also reflects a larger ideological debate that's raging in the nation's capital.

The provision stipulates that effective in 2013, state operating assistance for local transit systems no longer will be provided from the state's transportation fund, but instead will come from General Purpose Revenue (GPR). According to the Budget in Brief, the move is designed to "strengthen the relationship between user fee revenues and investments in transportation infrastructure." In other words, motor vehicle-related taxes and fees should be used exclusively for highways and roads, leaving other transportation modes to seek assistance from the general fund.

Wisconsin's transportation fund collects about $1.7 billion annually from transportation-related fees and taxes to help fund the state's transportation infrastructure. In the 2009-10 fiscal year, about $970 million of the fund's revenues came from the state's 30.9 cent per gallon gasoline tax, while another $610 million was derived from vehicle registration fees. The remaining $120 million came from other transportation-related fees.

In 2009, the fund provided $112 million in assistance to local transit systems, including $65 million to the Milwaukee County Transit System (accounting for more than 40% of its operating budget). The proposed budget would cut local transit assistance by 10% in 2012, then make the shift to GPR funding in 2013, freeing up an extra $116 million for highway needs.

The long-term impact of the proposed budget provision on local transit systems could be substantial. Rather than having to compete with the relatively small universe of transportation-related programs that currently receive support from the transportation fund, transit would have to compete with the much larger array of programs that vie for GPR. Considering the state's overall budget challenges, it is possible that local transit assistance could suffer dearly under such a scenario.

In the end, whether the provision is appropriate public policy may depend on one's definition of a user fee. And, interestingly, that's a debate that is now playing out on a national stage.

In Washington, the federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) essentially has run out of cash. With the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax frozen since 1993, and substantial gains in vehicle fuel efficiency, the ability of the gas tax to keep up with the country's infrastructure needs has been exhausted. In fact, more than one bipartisan blue ribbon commission has urged prompt action to rectify the situation.

Because both congressional Republicans and the Obama administration have said a federal gas tax increase is off the table for now, attention has now turned to how HTF dollars are being spent.

In an August 2010 report entitled "Restoring Trust in the Highway Trust Fund," two researchers from the Reason Foundation argue that the diversion of 2.86 cents per gallon of the federal gas tax for mass transit operating assistance - first initiated in 1982 - is an inappropriate use of a motor vehicle-related user fee and has weakened public support for the gas tax. Consequently, they recommend "shifting non-highway programs either to general revenues or to the states" and using HTF funds only to rebuild and modernize the Interstate system.

A few months later, two researchers from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group issued a rebuttal entitled "Do Roads Pay for Themselves?" The paper argues, among other things, that the federal gasoline tax is not a true user fee, as the amount an individual driver pays in gasoline taxes has no relationship to the frequency with which he or she uses interstate highways. The authors also contend that the notion that highways pay for themselves via user fees is a "myth" used by highway advocates "to secure access to scarce government revenue for their desired public policy ends—distorting transportation decision-making."

The debate on this issue will heat up soon, as Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood recently predicted Congress would have a new federal transportation bill on the president's desk by August. Given the change in policy in the new Wisconsin state budget, might this be another instance in which a debate in Madison will drive groundbreaking debates occurring on a national level?

Framing the issues for the county executive candidates

During the past three years, the Public Policy Forum has churned out more than a half-dozen reports on issues pertaining to Milwaukee County government as part of our mission to educate the public about key policy issues impacting the region's economy and quality of life.

Those include an award-winning report on the county's transit funding crisis; a comprehensive review of the fiscal condition of its parks system and cultural facilities; another award-winning assessment of its overall fiscal condition; a redesign plan for its adult mental health system; and a carefully-researched analysis of potential substantive changes to its governance structure.

Today, we release a 2011 Milwaukee County Executive Election Brief that describes and frames those issues in a manner designed to be comprehensible to voters and helpful to the candidates themselves. The report begins with an overview of Milwaukee County’s budget and finances that provides a broad sense of the county’s budgetary structure and its longstanding fiscal challenges. Then, it summarizes and updates our recent research on the structural deficit, mass transit, mental health, and parks/recreation/culture. Each section concludes with a set of questions and policy considerations that should be foremost in the minds of candidates and voters.

Our goal, as always, is to cut through the politics and boil down these controversial issues to their basics. Doing so shows that in many respects, the issues and problems facing Milwaukee County government are elementary in nature and demand equally elementary, yet politically difficult, responses. Our hope is that the candidates will acknowledge the relatively uncomplicated roots of the county's challenges and candidly discuss their proposed solutions.

The full report can be accessed here. Also, tomorrow's the last day to sign up here for our February 4 county executive candidates forum, at which the report will be discussed.

Does our congestion warrant HOT lanes?

The recently initiated debate regarding pay-only express lanes (also known as high-occupancy toll, or HOT lanes) on Wisconsin highways mirrors the discussion in other jurisdictions that have pursued such lanes.

On the one hand, local opponents, like those in Arlington, Virginia, say "Lexus lanes" only will serve wealthy commuters and their construction creates the same pollution and sprawl impacts as regular highway expansion. On the other, local proponents, similar to those in California, point to the popularity of HOT lanes among both wealthy and low-income citizens, as well as their success in reducing congestion and financing highway improvements without resorting to broad-based taxes or fees.

While sorting out the pros and cons is difficult and subjective, there appears to be one overlooked question in the early discussion about using HOT lanes here: is our traffic congestion severe enough to merit use of such lanes, the success of which requires drivers to agree to pay considerably more to reduce their travel times?

The Federal Highway Administration, which generally has been supportive of HOT lanes, states that a "requisite" for their effective deployment is a "high density corridor typical of a larger metropolitan area with limited travel options and a lack of parallel highway routes." The Brookings Institution similarly states that "HOT lanes work best on roads where there is heavy traffic and long delays during peak hours. Without such congestion, drivers would have little incentive to pay significant tolls."

If HOT lanes are considered for southeast Wisconsin, the congested corridors that might logically be considered include I-94 between Downtown and the Illinois border; I-94 between Downtown and Waukesha County; and I-43 between Downtown and Ozaukee County. But is peak period traffic congestion in those corridors severe and prolonged enough to convince frugal Wisconsinites to pay several additional dollars per day to use new HOT lanes, assuming they could be financially, environmentally and physically accommodated?

It is impossible to know the answer to that question without rigorous analysis by highway planners and engineers. One clue, however, may come from the Texas Transportation Institute's (TTI) latest Urban Mobility Report.

According to that report (as discussed in this July 2009 blog post), congestion in Metro Milwaukee has not grown since the 1990s. Examination of the report also reveals that each of the large urban areas that has implemented HOT lanes - Orange County (CA), San Diego, Houston, Denver and Minneapolis - ranks among the top 25 in terms of highway traveler delays, while Milwaukee ranks 67th.

An updated TTI report on traffic congestion levels is scheduled to be released in the near future. It will be interesting to see whether the new report provides additional clues regarding the efficacy of HOT lanes in Milwaukee.

The People Speak: Citizens' views on transportation issues

The June 2010 People Speak poll, conducted in conjunction with the UWM Center for Urban Initiatives and Research and The Business Journal Serving Greater Milwaukee, covers several transportation issues, including congestion, transit options, revenue diversification, and regional governance.

The People Speak is a tracking poll, conducted at regular intervals throughout the year. Its purpose is to gather information from the region's citizens about their interests in, concerns about, and preferences for public policy. By gathering and reporting these citizens' perspectives, the partners hope to expand the public voice in policy matters affecting greater Milwaukee.

Highlights from the June 2010 poll of 386 residents of Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha Counties include:

• Average grades for the region's transportation infrastructure. Local roads garner a C- and freeways a C+. Local bus service and main thoroughfares each earn a C-, as well.


• Overall, respondents see traffic congestion as a moderate to severe problem, but do not feel it has been increasing over the past decade. Still, there is majority support for increasing the capacity of the I-94 East-West freeway.


• Declining support since September 2009 for commuter rail and for high speed rail to Madison.


• Support for a downtown Milwaukee streetcar system is strongest among Milwaukee County residents, although about a third of respondents overall say they would regularly use a streetcar to get around downtown Milwaukee.


• Over half of respondents say they would support a $0.01 per-gallon increase in the gas tax to fund transportation improvements. This funding option is more popular than toll roads or increases in the vehicle registration fee. With respect to funding the Milwaukee County Transit System in particular, most agree that a half-cent sales tax is the "best option."

For the Research Brief and full results, please go to the poll's website.

The People Speak: Citizens' views on water issues

The winter 2010 People Speak Poll, conducted in conjunction with the Center for Urban Initiatives and Research at UWM and The Business Journal Serving Greater Milwaukee, focuses on water issues including quality, quantity, governance, and economic development.

The People Speak is a tracking poll conducted at regular intervals throughout the year. Its purpose is to gather information from local citizens about their interests in, preferences for, and concerns about public policy. By gathering and reporting these citizens' perspectives, the partners hope to expand the public voice in policy matters affecting greater Milwaukee.

Highlights from the February 2010 poll of 429 residents in Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington and Ozaukee counties include:

• Solid support for efforts to use the region's fresh water resources as an economic development tool.


• Concern for water quality in Lake Michigan, but confidence in the quality of local drinking water.


• Consensus on the need for and importance of water conservation in general, but not a tendency to conserve water on a household level.


• Moderate to strong support for allowing the City of Waukesha to access water from Lake Michigan, as long as the water is returned to the Great Lakes basin.


• Preference for regional water governance, rather than leaving it up to municipalities or the state.

In addition, the February findings on a more general set of public policy issues mirrored the September poll results in these ways:

• Evenly split opinions on whether to pursue high speed rail and commuter rail and whether to implement toll roads.


• Weak support for increased user fees or sales taxes to provide property tax relief.


• Weak support for a mayoral takeover of Milwaukee Public Schools.

The February poll also revealed growing sentiment that jobs are the most important issue facing the region, growing pessimism regarding the direction of the United States government, and virtually no support for using sales tax dollars to pay for a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks.

For full results, go to the poll website.

The decade of infrastructure?

The Governing Magazine web site recently published a provocative piece declaring the first decade of the 21st century the "decade of infrastructure."

While acknowledging the many infrastructure challenges still facing the United States, the piece argues the past decade was the one in which Americans came to grips with the importance of their roads, bridges and transit systems. It also cites increased use of transit nationally and creative approaches to highway and bridge reconstruction as evidence of an infrastructure epiphany.

Regardless of whether one agrees with this premise from a national perspective, it is interesting to think about it from a regional point of view. Was the past decade the one in which southeast Wisconsin came to grips with its longstanding transportation infrastructure problems?

The answer to that question is in the eye of the beholder, but certainly we can point to the following signs of success:

• After years of controversy, the $810 million Marquette Interchange reconstruction project not only happened, but happened pretty darn well. The project came in on time and on budget, and the disruption associated with it was far less onerous than many had feared.


• Milwaukee gained national attention from its decision to tear down the Park East Freeway and replace it with a ground level boulevard. While the projected economic development benefits have not come close to materializing so far, most would agree the plan has not produced more congestion and otherwise has worked well from a transportation perspective.


• The Sixth Street viaduct project showed that roads and bridges, in addition to connecting commuters between two points, can serve as neighborhood gateways and points of architectural pride. The related Canal Street reconstruction, meanwhile, has been a significant factor in the rebirth of the Menomonee Valley.


• After years of planning for the day when federal funds might be available for high speed rail, Wisconsin was rewarded with a recent $823 million federal pledge to a Milwaukee-Madison rail line. Undoubtedly, there will be plenty of future debate regarding the merits of this project, but it certainly is a sign that our state's political leaders can successfully compete for federal infrastructure dollars.

On other major transportation issues, success is more difficult to define. For example, significant progress was made on planning and building diverse support for the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee commuter rail line, but lack of a local funding source has prevented the project from moving forward. Meanwhile, an act of Congress broke a 17-year logjam and divvied up $91 million in federal funds reserved for a Milwaukee transit project, allowing the City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County to independently pursue downtown streetcars and bus rapid transit, respectively. Still, lack of local funding sources looms as a major obstacle to those projects as well.

Which brings us to perhaps the region's biggest transportation infrastructure failure of the past decade: the inability of elected leaders to agree on a dedicated funding source for the Milwaukee County Transit System. As the Forum has documented in great detail, MCTS' funding problems escalated throughout the decade. Receipt of stimulus dollars to buy new buses has delayed a full-fledged crisis for now, but that crisis is expected to re-emerge within the next three years. While a new regional transit authority proposal from Governor Jim Doyle could solve the problem, its fate remains uncertain.

So, as we begin a new decade, those looking to enhance the region's mass transit infrastructure find themselves asking the same two questions they asked at the beginning of the previous decade and the decade before that: how will we pay for our basic bus service, and how can we even think about new transit options until we solve that fundamental problem first?

The People Speak: Citizens' views on transportation, education reform, taxation

The second installment of the results of the autumn People Speak poll, conducted in partnership with the University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee's Center for Urban Initiatives and Research and The Business Journal Serving Greater Milwaukee, focuses on public policy issues such as mass transit and mayoral takover of MPS.

The People Speak is a tracking poll that will be conducted at regular intervals throughout the year. Its purpose it to gather information from local citizens about their interests in, preferences for, and concerns about public policy. By gathering and reporting out these citizen perspectives, the partners hope to expand the public voice in policy matters affecting Greater Milwaukee.

Highlights from the most current Research Brief include:

• A majority of residents of southeastern Wisconsin favor high speed rail connecting Chicago, Milwaukee and Madison, as well as commuter rail connecting Racine, Kenosha, and Milwaukee. A downtown streetcar line in the City of Milwaukee is less favorable, but still garners support from half of Milwaukee County residents.


• When it comes to funding transportation improvements, toll roads have the most support, with about half of all residents in favor. Increasing the gasoline tax is not favored by most residents, nor is the creation of a regional transit authority funded by an increased sales tax.


• A mayoral takeover of the Milwaukee Public Schools is favored by 43% of poll participants in the region. The level of support among City of Milwaukee residents is the same--43%. The greatest support comes from Democrats, 50% of whom are in favor of the idea.


• Establishing a regional authority to oversee parks and cultural facilities for all of southeast Wisconsin garners the support of a majority of poll participants across the region. The only county in which a majority of respondents is not in favor is Ozaukee.


• Residents of the region are split on whether they would favor increased user fees in order to lower property taxes. Increased sales taxes for this purpose are slightly less favored.

For full results of the poll, go to the poll website.

The luxury of mass transit

The city-state of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, opened a new high-speed rail system last month. The Los Angeles Times reports that despite the city's crushing traffic congestion (estimated to cost over $1.4 billion annually in lost productivity), it will be a hard sell to get riders.

The article calls Dubai a "city defined by individualism and gated communities." Indeed, this is the home of the tallest man-made structure on Earth (the Burj Dubai office tower); fantastical artificial islands of high-rise condos, hotels, and villas (the Palm Islands); and a shopping mall containing, among other things, a 22,550-square meter indoor ski area (Ski Dubai at the Mall of the Emirates.)

So, reports the Times, "authorities are highlighting the grandeur of the new rail system over its convenience." Judging by the Dubai Metro station pictured above, the new train system is living up to its billing. The goal is to increase the number of residents using mass transit from 5% to 20%.

If Dubai is successful in getting commuters out of their expensive cars and onto high-speed rail, could luxury be a tactic used here to attract individualistic U.S. riders? Perhaps, but at a cost of over $177 million per mile, the Midwest likely won't be the first to try transit Dubai-style.

PPF Pearls: Addressing Milwaukee County's transit crisis

The more things change, the more they stay the same when it comes to Milwaukee County's mass transit debate.

In the wake of Governor Doyle's veto of a Milwaukee County-only transit authority with sales tax authority, the county's struggling transit system submitted a report to the County Board last week projecting huge deficits beginning in 2011, as well as significant service cuts to bridge a smaller gap in 2010. Not coincidentally, the projected budget gaps are eerily similar to those projected by the Public Policy Forum in our May 2008 report, "Milwaukee County's Transit Crisis: How did we get here, and what do we do now?"

The updated transit budget projections cite the need for an additional $11.4 million in county property tax levy in 2011, $19.9 million in 2012 and $24 million in 2013 to maintain proposed 2010 service levels and fare structures and conduct needed bus replacement over a four-year period. Our May 2008 report projected gaps of $18 million, $24 million and $21 million in the three years following the next budget (2010-2012).

Of note is that we did not factor in the receipt of $25.6 million in federal stimulus funds for new buses nor the significant service cuts proposed for 2010, and we used a three-year bus replacement schedule. The deficits projected by transit officials would be even higher than our original projections if not for those factors.

But perhaps even more indicative of the extent to which little has changed is the following passage from our 2008 report, in which we suggest the need for a "triage" approach to stabilize the system's finances and service in the short-term:

"The underlying philosophy of this approach is that while a comprehensive, dedicated funding source appears necessary to permanently address MCTS’ structural budget problems, it is uncertain when and whether this approach will actually happen...In the meantime, the data indicate it is critical to hold the line on fare increases and service cuts for at least the next two to four years to help stabilize or even begin to grow ridership, and to take other prudent steps to reduce the magnitude of a full-fledged funding crisis when significant bus purchases are required."

In light of the significant service cuts proposed for 2010 - which include the elimination of all freeway flyer service - and the continued uncertainty of a state-authorized funding solution, policymakers may wish to re-read our discussion of the need for and components of a triage strategy that could be pursued without state legislation. There are short-term strategies that local policymakers can consider on their own, if they have the will to do so.

Interesting tidbits from Texas Transportation Institute Study

Television and newspaper coverage of the new Urban Mobility Report from the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) has emphasized the $300 million annual cost of traffic congestion to Milwaukee area commuters while also acknowledging that Metro Milwaukee's traffic conditions are tame when compared to other urban areas.

A review of the full set of performance measure data yields several additional interesting tidbits and questions that may be relevant to taxpayers and elected officials as we prepare for billions of dollars of expenditures on I-94 reconstruction and expansion and a major overhaul of the Zoo Interchange, and as we continue to debate new transit options for the region. Here are a few:

1. The mobility data - which tracks back to 1982 - indicates that while freeway congestion levels in Metro Milwaukee grew considerably from the early 1980s to mid 90s, they have leveled off since then. For example, while the average Milwaukee peak hour commuter suffered seven hours of delay per year in 1982, that number tripled to 21 in 1993. Since that time, however, it has stayed about the same, and even decreased to 18 in both 2006 and 2007. Does this finding cast doubt on the accuracy of repeated projections that traffic congestion in Metro Milwaukee would grow precipitously without major investment in added freeway capacity? Or, conversely, does it support the value of investments we have made on a new Marquette Interchange and other improvements? Does the data speak mainly to freeway congestion, which may have reached its natural limit, as opposed to congestion on parallel arterials, which may have increased instead? Also, how does this finding mesh with recent projections utilized to plan the I-94 and Zoo Interchange projects?



2. A key indicator used by the Texas Institute is a Travel Time Index, which measures "the ratio of travel time in the peak period to travel time in free flow". Milwaukee's Travel Time Index in 2007 was 1.13, which means a trip that would take 20 minutes in free flow conditions would take 22.6 minutes on average in peak periods. Again, a look at the historical trend shows that this index leveled off in the mid 90s and is lower in 2007 than it was earlier in the decade. But what is perhaps most striking is just how low the index is. With an average two-and-a-half minute delay in peak conditions versus free flow for a 20-minute commuter, should we be surprised that highway expansion proposals often are contentious? Likewise, is the lack of intolerable traffic congestion in Metro Milwaukee perhaps the biggest reason why proposals for modern transit investments have not taken hold here as they have in other cities? Should the other benefits associated with such transit investments really be the basis for our deliberations?



3. TTI tracks "operations strategies" utilized to manage congestion from 2000 to 2007. This data indicates significantly greater usage of three such strategies in Milwaukee: freeway ramp metering, freeway cameras, and better signal coordination on arterials. Is there a need to further explore the causal relationship between these lower cost strategies and steady congestion levels in Metro Milwaukee before we consider costlier alternatives?

There's a lot of data in TTI's report, and it certainly can be used by advocates on all sides of the transportation spectrum to make the points they wish to make. Let's also hope that in the course of our upcoming transportation deliberations, those presenting options to policymakers and citizens also make fair and objective use of it.

Stimulus or no stimulus, Milwaukee County needs an infrastructure plan

Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's statement (as reported in today's Journal Sentinel) that he will not request federal stimulus funds already has generated considerable reaction from other elected officials and in the blogosphere, and likely will continue to do so. While taking sides in the ideological debate over the need for and composition of a stimulus package is not the purpose of this piece (see previous Milwaukee Talkie blogs on stimulus here and here), my two cents - based on the Forum's previous research on county government - is simple: something must happen soon to address Milwaukee County's pressing infrastructure needs.

Our report last May on the county's transit funding crisis outlined how the imminent need to purchase 150 new buses (at a cost of approximately $56 million) could soon require the county to reduce transit service by up to 30%. Meanwhile, our analysis of county-owned parks and cultural institutions concluded that:

Major maintenance and basic infrastructure repair needs are significant and growing at each of the county-owned assets, with the exception of the Milwaukee County Historical Society headquarters, which is in the final stages of a major renovation. Among the more significant deferred maintenance/infrastructure needs assessment totals are $10 to $15 million for the Milwaukee Public Museum, $5.5 to $8.5 million for the Milwaukee County Zoo (plus a $130 million capital improvements wish list), and $276.6 million in the Milwaukee County Parks.

Many are quick to blame the county executive's position on tax increases for these infrastructure backlogs. A far less commonly understood and perhaps more important contributor, however, is the 2003 decision made by both the executive and county board to cap annual debt issuance for capital projects at approximately $30 million per year.

That decision was predicated on an equally important decision made that year to refinance approximately $100 million of long-term debt. The refinancing plan was structured in a manner that provided a significant near-term reduction in annual debt service payments (in order to generate operating budget relief), but that caused a spike in those payments in the out years. County policymakers prudently recognized that failure to control new debt in the interim would cause significant long-term problems, so they instituted an annual bonding cap. Today, an area of county fiscal affairs that is praised by bond rating agencies is its sound management and rapid repayment of its debt.

The catch, however, is that the policy to limit annual capital bonding did not necessarily reflect the county's infrastructure needs, was not accompanied by an analysis of those needs versus the resources available, and did not result in a plan to address the mismatch. That remains the problem today.

Are federal stimulus funds the solution to that problem? Probably not, given the depth of the county's needs and the uncertainty as to whether those needs even would be eligible for stimulus dollars.

But those who are taking options off the table that could at least help - and this goes for the county executive with regard to stimulus funds as well as supervisors who have rejected analysis of a sale or lease of General Mitchell Airport and closure of county pools - have an obligation to specify the realistic solutions they have in mind to comprehensively address the county's infrastructure needs and the legislative strategy they intend to pursue to implement those solutions.

Whether it's addressing the county's infrastructure repair backlog, solving its transit funding crisis, or figuring out how to fix or replace its aging mental health complex, it is time for less politicking and more real and honest consensus-building and planning.

Can't we all get along when it comes to spending stimulus funds?

For years, state and local officials in Wisconsin and across the nation have pleaded with federal officials for more help in addressing their crumbling infrastructure. Now that it appears those pleas may be answered as part of a huge federal stimulus package, disagreement has arisen over who gets to control and spend the money.


State governments received welcome news earlier this month when President-elect Obama told the National Governors Association that the stimulus package he was planning would include substantial allocations to the states for roads, bridges, mass transit and other public works projects. That news, however, was not as well-received by local government officials.


Stateline.org reports the National League of Cities and National Association of Counties have sent a report to the Obama transition team arguing that local governments should receive the bulk of the funds, as they're better equipped than states to spend infrastructure dollars quickly and effectively. Local officials also argue they need more help than state governments because states already are hitting them with recession-induced cuts in state aids.


State officials counter that they're the appropriate recipients given the mechanisms already in place to receive and distribute federal infrastructure allocations. They also contend that states have a bigger picture view of infrastructure needs and can properly allocate stimulus dollars in a manner that will best serve the greatest number of residents.


This national dispute is being replicated in Milwaukee. After Governor Jim Doyle sent a $3.7 billion wish list of infrastructure projects to federal officials, Milwaukee Alderman Bob Bauman criticized the governor for failing to consult with local officials and sacrificing local road and bridge needs for state highway expansion projects. More recently, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett sent his own list of $599 million in infrastructure projects to the president-elect.

So how should this dispute be settled? One interesting idea comes from a University of Maryland professor who suggests a national commission modeled after the federal base closing commission. The commission would review potential stimulus-funded infrastructure projects and provide a list for Congress that would receive an up or down vote in its entirety. That approach certainly has potential to eliminate the intrusion of pork-barrel spending, but could a national commission be fair to localized infrastructure projects, which tend to be far less glamorous than larger state projects?

This is a very difficult issue to referee because both sides have a point. Federal transportation dollars typically are distributed to states precisely because the feds have little interest or capacity to get involved in divvying up dollars to local projects. Also, state government does have an appropriate role to play in funding and coordinating a statewide transportation network that serves residents and businesses beyond local boundaries.

It is this very dynamic, however, that often prevents local transportation needs and wants from being addressed. Projects like the Marquette Interchange always receive priority from state officials because of their statewide importance and the number of people they serve. Such prioritization arguably would be fully justified and acceptable if there were some remaining fiscal capacity to also fund high priority local road and transit projects.

Too often, however, there is not. Furthermore, in Wisconsin, the requirement that the non-federal share of transit projects must be funded at least in part with local dollars is an additional huge impediment. Consequently, localized transportation projects either fall to the local property taxpayer or simply don't get done. The City of Milwaukee's huge local street repair backlog and continued inaction on commuter rail and light rail/bus rapid transit exemplify this dynamic.

Alderman Bauman is right about the need for better consultation between state and local officials, albeit without the hyperbole that typically accompanies transportation discussions in southeast Wisconsin. In light of the certain strife that will occur between the state and local governments when it comes time to cut the state budget, it certainly would be refreshing to see consultation and cooperation regarding how to spend that rare influx of federal transportation dollars.

MillerCoors leases headquarters space in Milwaukee region

One way of looking at MillerCoors' announcement of its new headquarters location is that the company decided to stay in the Milwaukee region after all. Their new headquarters in the West Loop area of downtown Chicago would place them exactly 1 hour and 4 minutes by high-speed rail from downtown Milwaukee. This is currently less time than it takes to drive from downtown Milwaukee to the M7 region's border.

It seems that MillerCoors executives were cognizant of the potential for a high-speed link when they considered possible Chicago locations. It was reported that one of the key reasons for MillerCoors' choice of 250 S. Wacker was that it is was close to public transportation. No doubt, the public transportation they speak of is the proximity to Union Station which is exactly one block west of the new MillerCoors headquarters. Amtrak and Metra both stop at Union Station.

MillerCoors executives might have also become aware of the Amtrak re-authorization bill that President Bush signed into law on Oct. 15th, 2008, which raises the specter of more federal funding for high-speed rail in the Midwest. Assuming the authorization is fully funded in upcoming appropriations bills, Milwaukee could have a high-speed rail connection into downtown Chicago within five years, placing the two city centers 1 hour and 4 minutes apart. This improvement would shave 25 minutes off current Amtrak service and is considerably faster than the average drive-time of 1 hour and 30 minutes between the two cities.

The reduction in Miller's corporate presence will leave a void in Milwaukee. Though not entirely gone, their philanthropic support and the tertiary economic activity that Miller brought to the community will be missed. We should not, however, write off all secondary economic activity from the MillerCoors relocation. Milwaukee, with its cheap housing, amenity-rich downtown and a pending high-speed rail link, would be positioned to gain more than its fair share of investment over the next few years. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation estimates the development potential that occurs as a result of high-speed rail at between $152-$227 million in increased downtown development. In tough budget times, such an increase in tax base would be welcomed by Milwaukee governments.

A high-speed rail link could also foster housing and employment market equilibrium in the Chicago-Milwaukee mega-region. That's a fancy way of saying that Chicagoans would find it easier to migrate north to take advantage of Milwaukee's cheaper housing and Milwaukeeans would find it easier to migrate south to find more lucrative and more plentiful job opportunities. Recent Public Policy Forum research finds that this migration is already taking place with nearly $400 million in net personal income being claimed by new M7 residents who had lived in the Chicago region the previous year. Conceivably, rail improvements linking the two regions would only serve to encourage more Chicago households to make the move north.

In the end, high-speed rail is far from a panacea. The start-up costs are steep and the operation of such service will likely require ongoing public investments. In fact, an M7 economic renaissance may not even require a high-speed train, but it surely will require the recognition that Chicago is our partner in growing a livable mega-region with a diversity of housing, transportation and employment options.

Rail or no rail, Chicago and Milwaukee are cities that are increasingly seen as two parts of one whole. MillerCoors executives understand this. Do we?

Postscript: If the topic of regional transportation improvements piques your interest, sign up to attend the Public Policy Forum's Luncheon on December 4th as we explore the prospect for regional transit. Click here for more details.

Transportation on my mind...

Before heading over to Marquette University Law School yesterday to watch Mayor Barrett and County Executive Walker debate Milwaukee's transit future, I came across three other transportation stories making news that day.

The first, in the Philadelphia Inquirer, headlined a call from the I-95 Corridor Coalition , made up of east coast transportation and police officials, for a doubling of highway spending and "drastically" increased use of transit and rail in the corridor extending from Maine to Florida. Interestingly, a coalition spokesman acknowledged that neither the states nor feds have the capacity to fund the estimated $71 billion annual cost and argued that public-private partnerships be utilized to help fund improvements. That is the direction in which the Pennsylvania Legislature may be headed in light of proposals to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike and authorize privately built toll lanes on existing highways.

The second and third articles, from the Associated Press and Wall Street Journal, detailed the "surge" in transit ridership nationwide during the second quarter and the significant challenges facing many transit agencies as they try to accommodate it. The AP story laid out the arguments for and against increased federal funding, while the Journal story reported on specific proposals in Congress to boost mass transit funding.

Armed with this context, I listened to the mayor and county executive lay out their respective transportation visions and argue again about use of the $91.5 million in federal funds authorized 17 years ago for a Milwaukee transit project. As I did so, I couldn't help but reflect on the following:

• While we continue to argue with each other on the local level, other mega-regions have formed powerful coalitions to advocate in Washington for their collective transportation needs. Who is more likely to get their fair share of an insufficient federal transportation funding pie, huge regions of the country who band together to fight for their parochial interests, or mid-sized metropolitan areas whose elected officials can't even agree on priorities among themselves?


• Not only Pennsylvania, but countless other states are acknowledging that their transportation infrastructure needs and those of the nation as a whole are so staggering that non-public funding and/or operation of parts of that infrastructure, as well as congestion pricing or other tolling mechanisms, must be contemplated as at least part of the solution. Ironically, the decrease in driving and popularity of smaller vehicles is making the problem even more acute, as gasoline tax revenue is no longer an elastic source of revenue. Is Wisconsin behind the eight ball in awakening to these realities?


• The Journal article notes that "momentum is building in Congress" to increase funding for public transportation, signaling good news for those counting on greater federal support to build and operate light rail, bus rapid transit and/or commuter rail in southeast Wisconsin. At the same time, however, both that article and the AP story describe the monumental challenges facing transit systems in paying for existing bus and rail service. That reality - combined with a depleted Federal Highway Fund that has some in Washington talking about diverting transit dollars for highway needs - reflects the challenges Milwaukee will face in attempting to obtain federal money for new transit services.

Of course, the fundamental lesson here is that transportation needs not only here in southeast Wisconsin, but across the country, are immense, and that other states and metro areas are objectively assessing those needs and developing strategic, diversified and cohesive approaches to meeting them. If indeed Washington is poised to provide more money, then it's a pretty safe bet that those with the best plans and the most unity will be first in line to get it.

Milwaukee County's Transit Crisis

Coverage of the Public Policy Forum's latest report, "Milwaukee County's Transit Crisis: How did we get here and what do we do now?" appeared in Sunday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Unfortunately, the headline was somewhat misleading. It stated that the Forum is calling for a wheel tax, which we are NOT. This was simply one of a number of options that we identified in the report as possibly helping to solve the financial crisis faced by MCTS if policymakers wish to solve it with a new revenue source. That said, the article did a good job summarizing the Forum's research, which found that policymakers face a stark choice:

They can accept a transit system that is a shell of its former self – one that contains no freeway flyer service, few night and weekend options, and sparse service west of 76th Street, south of Oklahoma Avenue or north of Silver Spring Drive – or they can consider one or more selections from a difficult menu of policy options that could either delay the day of reckoning once again, or perhaps prevent it altogether.

Key findings from the Public Policy Forum's analysis of the Milwaukee County Transit System funding crisis:

• Barring an infusion of new funds from the federal government, the need for federal funds in the system’s operating budget soon will outstrip the amount of funds available by well over $15 million annually. Funding projections developed by the Forum – and reviewed for reasonableness by current and former Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS) officials – show potential overall shortfalls of $1.6 million in 2009, $18.3 million in 2010, $23.7 million in 2011 and $21.1 million in 2012.


• Since 2001, nearly $40 million of a $44 million reserve of federal capital funds has been allocated by the county to fill holes in MCTS’ operating budget and avoid significant service cuts. At the same time, bus purchases have been deferred to allow for the expenditure of those reserves on operations. The elimination of the reserve and the looming need to replace at least 150 buses sets up an ominous fiscal crisis.


• MCTS not only faces serious funding issues pertaining to fixed route service, but it also must address a growing funding gap in paratransit services for persons with disabilities due to increased demand for those services.


• MCTS’ fiscal challenge has been greatly exacerbated by a new governmental accounting rule that requires the system to budget annually for its long-term liability for retiree health care benefits. This has added approximately $8.5 million per year to MCTS’ operating budget.


• MCTS buses carried 10.3 million fewer riders in 2007 than they carried just seven years earlier, ranking it first among 13 peer transit systems in lost riders from 2000 to 2006. Only once in the last seven years did MCTS see an increase in ridership (a 1.9% increase between 2004 and 2005). The uptick corresponded to the only year that fixed-route bus service was increased.


• The cost effectiveness of MCTS buses was best among peer systems in 2006 based on data from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration, indicating that further cost savings due to efficiency improvements may be limited.

Crisis Management Isn't Working for Transit

Those who follow local government, and those who ride the bus, have a keen sense that the Milwaukee County Transit System is in or nearing fiscal crisis. We hear about it every summer, when cuts in service or increases in fares are discussed as part of the County budget. We hear about it whenever new transit improvements are considered, as many, including those who might ordinarily be predisposed to support such improvements, argue that we can't build new systems until we properly fund the one we have. And, we are increasingly hearing about it from business and civic organizations, such as the MMAC and GMC, which have placed finding a solution to this problem at the top of their 2008 "to do" lists.

If there is any truth to the old saying that "misery loves company", then perhaps Milwaukeeans will take comfort in the fact that we're not alone. In Boston, the head of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority recently asserted that their system is "broke" despite a $70 million fare hike enacted last year. And closer to home, Illinois officials approved a quarter-cent sales tax increase and $3.00 hike in the real estate transfer fee to address a severe funding crisis facing the Chicago Transit Authority.

In both Boston and Chicago, the funding crises were predictable. Both emanated from unhealthy issuance of debt, exhaustion of reserves and deferral of maintenance - strategies that are typically used when the growth in operating costs exceeds the growth in revenue sources and the political will does not exist to address the situation head-on, such as by developing a new business model, cutting service or raising taxes. So, the problem gets pushed off from year to year until the inevitable crisis emerges.

Here in Milwaukee, our budding crisis can be attributed to a number of similar factors. One is the depletion of reserves, in this case a pool of Federal capital funding that has been plugged into the operating budget and will soon be exhausted. Another is deferral of needed bus purchases, which can no longer occur. Other factors include a governmental accounting change that now forces the Transit System to budget annually for its retiree health care liabilities, and the growing cost of paratransit services. The combination of these factors has led the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission to project that a 35% cut in service will be required as early as 2010 if a replacement for the depleted federal revenue is not secured.

The Public Policy Forum is about to place research and analysis of this issue at the top of its "to do" list, as well. While it is possible that the full-blown crisis can be delayed past 2010, there is grave danger in waiting. For one thing, many of the solutions that have been put on the table so far -- such as a dedicated sales tax or capturing the annual growth in motor vehicle sales tax revenue for transit -- could take years to enact and implement, particularly if referenda are involved.

For another, crisis management seldom yields sound and long-term public policy solutions, but more typically yields band-aid approaches that address the immediate problem but don't really solve it. As Chicago and Boston have learned, when all of the reserves have been depleted, when debt has mounted to an unsafe level, and when bus purchases cannot be delayed any longer is not the time to search for creative solutions.

Transit referendum could have steep hill to climb

As you may have heard, the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities has recently crafted legislation that would allow, by referendum vote only, the creation of regional transit authorities with taxing powers. However, a recent article in the Daily Reporter announces that some transit advocates would rather it be left up to elected leaders in each region to implement taxing authority for transit.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel voices support for the referendum proposal in this morning's paper. In their editorial, they state:

"...it's up to the business community to start pushing for referendums and to get behind a sales tax that can pay off big in economic development."

Naturally, strong business support would be needed to pass any sort of tax increase. Public sector support probably wouldn't hurt either. In fact, support and leadership would have to be garnered from many different constituencies if advocates expect eventual passage.

However, "needing support" is not a very intriguing point. It's a given.

A more compelling analysis is to weigh the actual chances for support in southeastern Wisconsin for funding a transit authority. So, what are the chances?

Based on what I've seen in other regions, referendum passage could pivot on the following three issues:

• What transit referendum? Oh, you mean the "livability" referendum. The saying goes, "he who frames the issue determines the outcome of the debate." And, so it is with transit. Framing an improved transit system beyond just "moving people" - but, instead, connecting transit to land-use, economic development, quality of life and other livability issues.
  
• Has the train already left the station? Many regions find that having a system component already in place makes it easier to gain voter approval. The reasoning is that voters generally abhor change and that envisioning a "system expansion" is much easier to swallow than voting for "a whole new system."
  
• Is this your first time? Transit referendum typically don't pass the first time out of the gate. The reasoning is that it takes time to build coalitions and conduct adequate public engagement in the lead-up to the vote.
  

Based on these observations, southeastern Wisconsin could have an uphill climb in persuading the public to support passage of a regional transit authority with taxing powers.

Time for Milwaukee to emulate Madison?

The city of Madison and Dane County recently announced an agreement to pursue the creation of a regional transit authority (RTA) in an attempt to improve the Madison region's transit infrastructure. This announcement came after a rather bitter disagreement between Mayor Dave Cieslewicz and County Executive Kathleen Falk over the kind of transit needed. The Mayor opted for a city-focused trolley; the county executive wanted a county-wide commuter train.

Sound familiar? The Falk/Cieslewicz battle is similar to the disagreement between Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and County Executive Scott Walker over how transit should look in Milwaukee.

The debate in Madison ended with a signed regional cooperation agreement that calls for the creation of an RTA and the implementation of a multi-phased plan to improve the regions transit infrastructure. The proposal seeks to up the sales tax in Dane county by .5% - not an insignificant figure. The funding mechanism would tie buses, trolleys, trains and roads into one integrated, multimodal transportation system.

The Madison newspaper, Wisconsin State Journal, endorsed the proposed agreement this week in an editorial, which read, in part:

"In addition to keeping alive the plan to develop a commuter rail line, the agreement:

• Merges Cieslewicz's plan for Downtown streetcars with the commuter rail proposal to create one transportation system that could be developed in phases.
• Offers a new way to finance the operation and expansion of Metro Transit bus service, relieving pressure on property taxpayers.
• Provides a new way to pay for improvements to roads in Dane County's villages and towns.

Consequently, the agreement offers aid to a variety of transportation options throughout the county.

Madison and Dane County need more information before deciding whether commuter rail, streetcars, expanded bus service or an added sales tax are the right transportation answers. But by holding the options open, Wednesday's agreement keeps Madison and Dane County on track toward regional solutions."

Is the Milwaukee area ready for such an agreement? This is a difficult question to answer, but a 2006 Public Policy Forum opinion survey did find strong support for transit improvement projects throughout the Milwaukee region, with transit options having higher approval rates then "more highway capacity." The Public Policy Forum will continue to track public opinion and monitor progress on transit planning in the Milwaukee community.