![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"In a meeting with Journal Sentinel editors and writers, the county executive also said his long-term vision was to create a local economy in which fewer people would need public transit because more people could afford cars."
Streetcars hurt poor, Walker argues
They take bus funds, he says; Barrett derides 'conversion'
Editorial: More people in cars?
Saving the transit system is going to require bold, new initiatives to attract new riders. Light rail or some equivalent should be part of that mix.
~~~
I'm amused because a few days ago while on the bus down Wisconsin Avenue, I was thinking about how when they resurfaced the street last year, it should have included a rail for streetcars. Wisconsin Avenue is the perfect place for one. I thought this knowing only about the push for the Kenosha/Racine/Milwaukee commuter rail and the upcoming funding difficulties for the current Milwaukee city buses, but nothing about thoughts of streetcars being bandied about,
Walker is so incredibly off-the-mark with his thinking. Create an economy so that more people can afford cars? Guess what? Your better local economy doesn't solve the public transit problem. It creates a larger problem; it spreads the problem farther and spreads it on thicker. Even if more people can afford cars and decide they want to drive their own car for their daily commute (earth to Walker, many people have vehicles but find it cheaper and/or much less of a hassel to take public transport), there will still be a whole group of people who can't afford a vehicle. You'll never get 100% of people who need to go somewhere to have a vehicle. Besides, some people are incapable (handicapped, suspended driving license, etc.) of driving on their own and will continue to rely on the public transport that this idea would help to continue to errode funding for. Add to this the added congestion (and wear) on roads, the additional emissions, and so on, and look where "a local economy in which fewer people would need public transit because more people could afford cars" gets us.
Streetcars are a good addition. Certainly there is an expense in adding the line(s) to the public transportation options, but I don't buy into the thought that they only take away from the buses. Fold the option into the Milwaukee Country Transit System (MCTS) "dough," remove some bus services where the streetcar rails go (thus saving wear and tear on buses, diesel, etc.), and let the riders use a variety of travel methods and those best suited to where they are traveling to/from. In addition, as mentioned in one or both of the articles linked above, creating the additional transport would help grow the economy. [The people pushing the KRM commuter line are using this logic, so why is the logic backwards with regards to the downtown/city streetcar idea? Why does Walker want to put the cart in front of the horse (... er... economy in front of the car?) rather than put the streetcar in front of the economy?] Let better transportation lead the way to an improved Milwaukee and its surrounding counties.
Peace,
geek. ^_^
Streetcars hurt poor, Walker argues
They take bus funds, he says; Barrett derides 'conversion'
Editorial: More people in cars?
Saving the transit system is going to require bold, new initiatives to attract new riders. Light rail or some equivalent should be part of that mix.
~~~
I'm amused because a few days ago while on the bus down Wisconsin Avenue, I was thinking about how when they resurfaced the street last year, it should have included a rail for streetcars. Wisconsin Avenue is the perfect place for one. I thought this knowing only about the push for the Kenosha/Racine/Milwaukee commuter rail and the upcoming funding difficulties for the current Milwaukee city buses, but nothing about thoughts of streetcars being bandied about,
Walker is so incredibly off-the-mark with his thinking. Create an economy so that more people can afford cars? Guess what? Your better local economy doesn't solve the public transit problem. It creates a larger problem; it spreads the problem farther and spreads it on thicker. Even if more people can afford cars and decide they want to drive their own car for their daily commute (earth to Walker, many people have vehicles but find it cheaper and/or much less of a hassel to take public transport), there will still be a whole group of people who can't afford a vehicle. You'll never get 100% of people who need to go somewhere to have a vehicle. Besides, some people are incapable (handicapped, suspended driving license, etc.) of driving on their own and will continue to rely on the public transport that this idea would help to continue to errode funding for. Add to this the added congestion (and wear) on roads, the additional emissions, and so on, and look where "a local economy in which fewer people would need public transit because more people could afford cars" gets us.
Streetcars are a good addition. Certainly there is an expense in adding the line(s) to the public transportation options, but I don't buy into the thought that they only take away from the buses. Fold the option into the Milwaukee Country Transit System (MCTS) "dough," remove some bus services where the streetcar rails go (thus saving wear and tear on buses, diesel, etc.), and let the riders use a variety of travel methods and those best suited to where they are traveling to/from. In addition, as mentioned in one or both of the articles linked above, creating the additional transport would help grow the economy. [The people pushing the KRM commuter line are using this logic, so why is the logic backwards with regards to the downtown/city streetcar idea? Why does Walker want to put the cart in front of the horse (... er... economy in front of the car?) rather than put the streetcar in front of the economy?] Let better transportation lead the way to an improved Milwaukee and its surrounding counties.
Peace,
geek. ^_^