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?

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.

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.

The least objectionable of several undesirable options?

The Journal Sentinel's Dan Egan and Larry Sandler did a nice job in Monday's newspaper summarizing the issues surrounding a potential long-term lease of the Milwaukee water utility.

The story aptly captures the overriding concern likely to be associated with the proposal: relinquishing control of a public asset to a profit-driven private entity will result in higher costs for users. That concern is exacerbated by the fact that such control would need to be relinquished for a lengthy period of time - perhaps 75 to 100 years - to make the economics of the deal work.

It is those economics, of course, that have led city policymakers to consider this option, as it is thought that a long-term lease could attract an upfront payment in the range of $500 million. City Comptroller Wally Morics wisely has proposed that, if such a deal were to go forward, those funds would serve as a pseudo-endowment that would produce a significant, ongoing source of revenue to city government, as opposed to a short-term revenue boost.

It is far too early to evaluate whether the water works proposal or the other huge privatization proposal that has been floated for Milwaukee - a long-term lease of General Mitchell International Airport - will be in the best interest of the taxpaying public. But should these proposals reach the point of serious deliberation, then it is critical to keep in mind why they are being contemplated in the first place.

In the case of the city, a key factor is the lack of revenue options available to address its extraordinary expenditure pressures. City officials face a huge increase in the required pension fund contribution resulting from the stock market collapse, annual employee and retiree health care costs that significantly exceed the rate of inflation, and steady or even increased demand for its various services (including, most notably, police and fire). In the meantime, the state revenue streams upon which the city heavily depends are being cut because of state budget woes, and the state has blocked its ability to consider new local revenue options.

In fact, in comparing Milwaukee to 10 other similar-sized cities (as part of a fiscal assessment of city government to be released this summer that will be similar to our recent assessment of county government), the Forum found that Milwaukee essentially is the only one that does not utilize a city-specific sales, income, hotel or food service tax to complement the property tax. Milwaukee officials increasingly have turned to increased fees (e.g. solid waste and snow/ice) as an alternative revenue source, but even that source is limited because of state policy prohibiting service fee revenue from exceeding the direct cost of providing the service and being used to support other aspects of city government.

Few would argue that relinquishing public sector control of critical assets is an optimal approach. But with state funding being cut, property taxes capped, and their hands largely tied on both the fixed cost and new revenue side, it was inevitable that city leaders would have to consider this option.

So, those who are rightly concerned that public-private lease deals could increase costs for users and allow profit motive to outstrip the public good must weigh those concerns against those associated with major cuts in government services and/or major increases in other fees or taxes. Indeed, decisions on privatization may come down to choosing the least objectionable of several undesirable options.

The ABCs of PPPs

The notion that government should even consider leasing public assets to the private sector evokes passionate debate. But whether or not one is disposed ideologically to support that strategy, it is clear that the number of public-private partnership (PPP) proposals will be increasing significantly in the near future - both locally and nationally - in light of the deteriorating condition of most government budgets.

That being the case, those on both sides of this issue would do well to consider a study released last week by the Pew Center for the States, succinctly described here on Pew's nonpartisan online news site.

The Pew study conducts a post-mortem on the largest PPP proposal in U.S. history - Governor Ed Rendell's plan to lease approximately 500 miles of the Pennsylvania Turnpike to a private company that would collect the tolls and manage the turnpike in return for an upfront payment of $12.8 billion. That plan died last fall when the winning bidders withdrew their proposal after continued inaction by the Pennsylvania Legislature.

The Pew researchers conclude the deal may have made sense for Pennsylvania, but it failed because of a series of strategic mistakes by Rendell and his administration. It offers several lessons for other governments contemplating PPPs - lessons that may be relevant for the City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County, both of which have floated ideas for significant PPPs (the city for a potential lease of its water utility and the county for a potential lease of General Mitchell International Airport). Those lessons include the following:

1. Don't oversell it. The Rendell administration planned to use $1 billion per year in investment earnings from the upfront lease payment to fund other infrastructure projects. While sound on the surface, the Pew study points out the governor's strategy assumed a highly unrealistic 12% rate of investment return. That cast doubt on the credibility of the entire deal, other aspects of which were accurately projected. Lesson for Milwaukee: don't try to sell a major PPP as the grand solution to the city or county's budget problems unless there are accurate numbers to back up such a claim.


2. Properly assess and explain the specific need for and use of lease revenues. The Pennsylvania plan generally proposed spending investment proceeds on highway needs, but it did not delineate specific projects nor compare projected annual revenues to projected annual highway expenditure needs. This contrasts with the approach utilized for the Chicago Skyway and Indiana Toll Road PPPs, which carefully laid out plans for spending lease proceeds. Lesson for Milwaukee: be specific about why the lease revenues are needed and how much of a dent they will make in the fiscal problems they are purported to address.


3. Establish and maintain a spirit of partnership and transparency among different branches of government. The Pew study notes that Pennsylvania legislators did not feel they were equal partners in the deal, the timing and precise details of which were dictated by the governor's office. Lesson for Milwaukee: in order to advance a major PPP proposal, leaders from both branches should be involved from the beginning and proposal details should be formulated and shared by staff and/or outside financial advisors who are trusted by both. Of course, that may be easier said than done in Milwaukee County, where extreme conflict exists between the two branches, but the recent cooperative effort to develop a pension obligation bond proposal provides an excellent model.


4. Do not couch the debate solely in terms of the impact on the existing financial crisis. Pew researchers explain that in Pennsylvania and most other states where significant PPPs have been debated, the focus has almost exclusively been on the generation and use of large upfront payments to address short-term fiscal needs, while long-term economic and environmental risks and benefits have been downplayed. Lesson for Milwaukee: leasing major public assets to the private sector generates legitimate concerns with regard to future costs for users and future control of decision-making. Rather than being trivialized by proponents of the deal, these concerns must be properly anticipated, laid out and explained to the public and accompanied by analysis detailing how they may be outweighed by perceived benefits.

The lease or sale of public assets may not end up as a viable and appropriate part of the solution to pressing budget problems facing Milwaukee County and the City of Milwaukee. Still, as the Forum argued in a report issued last week as well as earlier commentary, the magnitude of those problems demands that this concept at least be debated. Leaders in both governments would benefit from examining the experiences of other states and municipalities where PPP proposals both have succeeded and failed.

A transportation finance concept with widespread appeal?

Governor Jim Doyle's apparent pronouncement that he is open to considering tolls to help finance transportation improvements in Wisconsin (which has since been qualified) was treated as front page news in yesterday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. While this may have been justified from a political perspective given the Governor's previous strong opposition to tolling, such open-mindedness actually would have put Wisconsin in the mainstream.

As the Journal Sentinel article noted, utilizing tolling mechanisms to more appropriately price the true cost of transportation infrastructure is a concept that has been advocated by conservative think tanks such as the Reason Foundation for years. More recently, the concept also has been touted by transportation industry interests (such as the American Road & Transportation Builders Association) who are concerned that increased use of fuel efficient vehicles has rendered the gas tax obsolete as a means of financing infrastructure needs.

But they're far from alone. A blue ribbon transportation policy commission and a commission on transportation finance - both authorized by Congress - have cited the need to relax or remove restrictions on tolls on federal interstates. Also joining the call for tolling have been groups advocating for more investment in mass transit, such as the Brookings Institution and American Public Transit Association.

What's that, you say - transit proponents pushing for highway funding sources? Therein lies one of the most interesting aspects of the movement to toll: it has shown signs of appealing to people on all sides of the political and transportation spectrums. The key is in the pricing aspect of tolling, i.e. the ability to use tolls not simply as a means of collecting additional revenue to pay for transportation projects but as a means to price use of the transportation infrastructure to reflect the true cost of such usage.

A 2006 report by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences argues that "an important opportunity exists today to create an extensive system of tolled expressways and expressway lanes …although such a toll program probably would not greatly increase the funds available for highways, it could expedite construction of critical highway improvements, provide a tool for managing congestion, and help gain public acceptance of road pricing.”

The "road pricing" scenario envisioned by the TRB would reflect the true cost of maintaining the road and highway infrastructure, a significant percentage of which today is borne by general taxpayers, not solely users. It also would incorporate the market-based principle of charging higher prices for use of the infrastructure during periods of peak demand. This approach not only would involve use of tolls but, more controversially, also use of GPS or other technologies to track and charge individuals for actual miles travelled, as opposed to taxing them for gasoline usage. Oregon has piloted the concept and is now considering broader usage.

With regard to its potential benefit for transit, the TRB argues that if subsidies for highway use were eliminated, transit would have the "market power" to increase fares and improve service without additional public support. In other words, if we started charging motorists the true cost of using the transportation infrastructure, then more people would opt for transit, which would improve the fiscal plight of transit systems and also allow them to increase their charges without losing riders.

Clearly, broader use of tolling and road pricing faces some legitimate policy hurdles, not the least of which are issues of privacy and fairness to low-income populations. Nevertheless, in light of the momentum these strategies are gathering at the federal level, an open mind might be a necessity.

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 has 46th worst traffic congestion in US

According to the National Traffic Scorecard, the Milwaukee region's traffic congestion ranks us 46th among the nation's cities. The national average travel time index is 1.13, meaning a trip takes 13% longer than if there were no congestion. Milwaukee's travel time index is better than the national average at 1.08, which means a trip around here takes 8% longer than if there were no congestion. This is up 1.4% from last year for our region.

The neat thing about the scorecard is that the travel time index is computed for each hour in the day. Can you guess when Milwaukee is most congested? Between 5 and 6 pm on Fridays, of course, like about everywhere else in the nation.

The scorecard also ranks the nation's worst bottlenecks. Our worst, US45 southbound at Highway 100, ranks 1,530th nationally and is congested 16 hours per week with an average travel speed of 19 miles per hour when congested.

The good news? We have only 4% of the total congestion of the worst city, Los Angeles. (LA's travel time index is 1.45.)

Planes, Trains and Automobiles

While southeast Wisconsin elected officials, advocacy groups and concerned citizens continue to passionately debate I-94 expansion, Milwaukee's bus system crisis and potential new commuter rail and light rail lines, another transportation issue is looming that could similarly rile people and significantly impact the region's economy. That issue is the future of General Mitchell International Airport (GMIA).

GMIA currently is updating its master plan, which includes construction of a third runway. Airport officials and others have billed this expansion as vital to efforts to add flight options, mitigate delays, and maintain GMIA's status as one of the most successful mid-size airports in the country. The notion of a third runway already has generated concern, however, from nearby residents and elected officials.

The Public Policy Forum recently hosted a discussion on GMIA's future featuring airport director Barry Bateman, Midwest Airlines executive Scott Dickson and Cudahy mayor Ryan McCue. The panelists agreed that more can and should be done to utilize the airport as an economic development tool, a concept being pushed hard by the Airport Business Gateway Association.

Interestingly, several participants also cited the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) commuter rail line as important to GMIA's future growth plans, a contention that also is being made in other metro areas across the country.

A recent article in USA Today cites at least a dozen cities that are building or planning rail systems that would connect airports to downtown areas, adding to the 10 that currently exist. Those plans are being driven for the most part by a desire to provide convenient alternatives for potential airport users.

Another recent article on Governing Magazine's web site discusses the value of airport rail links from an economic development perspective. The article notes that airports are becoming high end business centers in many metro areas, and that the users of such centers demand services that are accessible without use of a car.

It is critical to note that most of these other areas are considering light rail connections (as opposed to commuter rail) for their airports, which have the advantage of serving several downtown destinations and a greater number of station locations in between. Of course, light rail is far more expensive and, in Milwaukee, has been far more controversial. If commuter rail is to be seen as a tool for maximizing the potential of GMIA, logic would dictate that it must be accompanied by a seamless and highly convenient bus or streetcar connection between the downtown intermodal station and hotel destinations in order to make it practical for out-of-town visitors. Seamless connections also are critical at the airport terminal and other key station locations.

While the potential benefits of KRM to the growth of GMIA has not been one of its top selling points, trends in other metro areas suggest it could be. However, those touting the potential benefits of KRM to the growth of GMIA will need to carefully consider how to implement and pay for the other transportation connections that will be needed to make this a genuine asset for air travelers to and from the region.

Metro Milwaukee among safest cities for teen drivers

A report released by Allstate insurance company this month finds the metro Milwaukee area is among the "least deadly" places for teen drivers.

The study analyzed federal crash statistics, Allstate claims data, and U.S. Census data to score the 50 largest metro areas nationwide on their rates of fatal accidents involving teen drivers. Milwaukee ranked 45th, just behind Boston and ahead of Cleveland.

High speeds most often were the cause of these crashes, but drugs and alcohol can play a part, too. The study finds Milwaukee had the fewest drug-related crashes, at 0%, but relatively high alcohol-related crashes, at 11%. Speed was the contributing factor in over 40% of all fatal crashes involving teen drivers in metro Milwaukee.

In addition to ranking the metro areas, the study highlights the disparities in fatalities between rural and urban areas. Nationally, fatal accidents occur two times more frequently in rural areas than in urban areas, with 51.5 fatal crashes per 100,000 teens outside metro areas versus 25.4 such crashes per 100,000 teens in the metro areas. The pattern held true in Wisconsin, where the metro rate is 23.4 fatal crashes per 100,000 teens but the rural rate is 47 fatal crashes per 100,000 teens.

Despite being mostly rural, states like California, Utah, Oregon, and Washington had fewer than 24 fatal crashes per 100,000 teens, while Wisconsin's mostly rural nature resulted in a rate of 30.1 fatal crashes per 100,000 teens. Thus, certain state policies are thought to play a role in reducing fatalities. For example, while the lack of a seat belt was a contributing factor in a third of all crashes, in California the seat belt non-usage factored into as few as 7% of crashes in San Jose. All six California metro areas ranked at the bottom for unbelted fatalities.

The contributing factor found most often in Milwaukee? Lack of a seat belt, a contributing factor in 45% of fatal crashes.

At least the Park East isn't a tunnel...

...according to a recent article in the Boston Globe.

When Milwaukee tore down the Park East Freeway in 2002, it was the first city to remove a downtown freeway overpass for purposes of what was then called urban revitalization.

Yes, San Francisco had replaced the Embarcadero freeway with surface development a decade earlier, but not as a result of planning--an earthquake had done the demolition. Portland had torn up its Harbor Drive highway in 1974 to create a waterfront park and Boston was in the midst of the Big Dig in 2002. But Milwaukee was unique in purposefully removing and not replacing a key piece of highway infrastructure; and for doing so for the sake of economic development, not green space.

Now other cities like Seattle and Toronto are looking at our experience as they debate removing their aging downtown freeways. When economic development is the purpose, should the surface streets be improved to accommodate the traffic or should the overpass be replaced by a tunnel?

Boston's over-budget, over-deadline “Big Dig” project has caused cities to shy away from similar tunnel plans, while our own Park East experiment is being touted as a planning success. That may be premature, however. The Globe article failed to mention that there is not yet a fully developed Park East business district to affect traffic. After McKinley Boulevard is carrying the volume of traffic for which it was designed may be a better time for other cities to judge whether surface streets or a tunnel is the best way to go in such situations.

Profitable "Photo Cop" programs leave some seeing red

Mounted cameras that identify and ticket drivers that run red lights could offer revenue and safety benefits to Wisconsin cities – but legislators should consider the sometimes-negative outcomes that have taken place in other cities before green-lighting such a program.

A bill in the Wisconsin state legislature could open the door to a program some cities have nicknamed “Photo Cop.” If passed, Wisconsin municipalities could join the over-100 other U.S. cities that use cameras mounted on stoplights at key intersections to identify cars running red lights. Presuming that the driver of the car is also the owner, violators would get tickets in the mail. Car owners do not have to pay the ticket if they can prove after the fact that someone else was driving the car. While this system has benefits, other cities like Minneapolis have seen a spiraling series of problems stemming from their “Stop on Red” program.

In Minneapolis, the 12-camera program quickly began bringing in more revenue than initially intended from the $142 tickets. Among the monitored intersections, crashes dropped 16 percent after cameras were installed, versus a five percent drop city-wide.

Embarrassing information came out in the press that 14 Minneapolis police squad cars had been identified as running red lights in non-emergency situations. Some citizens had problems too – one video record shows a blue car running a light near a stopped red car, but the red car’s driver got the ticket in his mailbox and had to institute a lengthy fight to get out of paying it. (Similar tale here.)

Then the ACLU got involved, arguing that the program violates drivers’ constitutional rights and considers them guilty until proven innocent. In the resultant court case, the judge agreed that, while there is always authority to ticket drivers for violations, there was no authority to ticket the car owners, who may or may not have been driving the car at the time of the violation. After eight months of operation, 26,000 tickets, and more than a million dollars in revenue, the Minneapolis Stop on Red program was put on hold until appeals could be decided by a higher court. The cameras were officially shut down in April after a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling.

San Diego’s similar program hit scandal resulting in 150 separate lawsuits when it was alleged that Lockheed, which received a cut of every ticket for administering the cameras, had tinkered with the traffic lights without the city’s knowledge in order to shorten the yellow light time and drive up the number of tickets. A similar 2004 class-action lawsuit in Baltimore also claimed that yellow lights were unusually short at intersections with cameras.

While many cities found accident reductions with the cameras, a number of others found that the cameras sparked a significant increase in accident rates, presumably from drivers that slam on the brakes when they notice the cameras. Washington D.C.’s program generated $32 million in fines over six years from 500,000 tickets. An inquiry found that the rate of accidents at intersections with cameras increased after the camera was installed. The increased accidents were at the same rate or worse than at the 1,520 city intersections with traffic lights but no cameras. Critics claim that, while red light programs are flush with rhetoric about safety, such programs are more concerned with generating revenue.

At this point, no organization has registered to lobby against the bill in Wisconsin, but the Department of Transportation opposes it, predicting it will drive up the agency’s expenses.
Some elements to consider about the bill in the Wisconsin legislature:

• New sources of local government revenue are increasingly needed, especially given the public's anxiety about high property taxes.


• How do we know the program will increase safety? While cameras have reduced accidents in some cities, they appear to have increased accidents in others.


• Will the program be susceptible to lawsuits similar to the ACLU concerns in Minneapolis? How can we shape a program that does not have the same vulnerabilities?


• Will citizens be adequately protected from incorrect accusations? Will the system to dispute tickets be simple and streamlined for the wrongly accused, or overly burdensome? To what extent are drivers “guilty until proven innocent”?

As legislators weigh the potential positives and negatives of red-light camera programs, one hopes that they can see through the dollar signs to create a policy that, if passed, preserves safety and justice while generating revenue.