First of all, Scott Walker has directed spending of money set aside for MCTS capital on operations and maintenance. Needed equipment purchases have been put off indefinitely and the money spent. The whole fleet is being run into the ground. In effect, we have been eating our seed corn since Scott Walker came into office. This proposal is a magician’s trick, blue smoke and mirrors to cover up the totally incompetent way MCTS has been managed by his administration.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is more labor and maintenance intensive than Light Rail Transit (LRT). As the price of gas increases, which it is bound to do because of increased world demand, more people will take transit. As demand increases BRT, becomes more costly than LRT. With LRT you can increase the train size while maintaining the same level of labor. You can't "train" a bus. As ridership increases you are required to increase your labor cost at a far higher rate for BRT because you need separate discreet busses and bus drivers rather than more cars and the same number of drivers with LRT. Fuel cost will continue to raise, further making BRT more costly than the cheaper to propel electric powered LRT. Electricity can be produced from non-CO2 emitting sources such a nuclear, photovoltaic, and wind turbines.

The anti-rail argument is getting old and dated. Wendell Cox pointed to a list of cities as a justification for not building light rail here in his 1995 anti-light rail propaganda piece, “Light Rail in Milwaukee: Much Ado About Nothing.” Most of the cities on his list have since embraced light rail or are proceeding with light rail. These include:

* Houston, which dumped "BRT", and reinstates light rail transit plans in 5 corridors.
* Honolulu, which at this point is still moving forward on LRT.
* Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Seattle, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Portland have all since started, built, and/or expanded LRT systems.
* Although Austin rejected light rail in 2000, they have since build a commuter rail system using light rail like self-propelled cars and are now proposing a 6.5 mile streetcar system.

BRT only makes more sense than LRT if you hold to the irrational tenants of conservative faith as professed by Charlie Sykes:

* The price of oil is high because of speculators. (So much for unshakable conservative belief in the market place. Yes, the price has come down from its high, only because Americans are driving less.)
* If we drill the price will come down. (Best guess is that new oil will come on line around 2015, about the time China exceeds the United States in the absolute number of automobiles. Global increase in demand will eat any net increase in output, perhaps lowering the per barrel price by a few dollars less than it would have been. At the pump it will save cents over what it will cost with a continued drilling ban, but the cost of gas per gallon will still be dollars higher than it is now.)
* Global warming is the product a global conspiracy by fascist ecologists, so who cares how much oil we burn. (Please ignore 90% of the world climatologists behind the curtain and quote the great weatherman and conservative ideologue Jim Ott. Hate to disappoint, but weather is not climate. Talk to geologist not weatherman, the history of climate is in rocks, fossils and glacier ice.)

Our talk show follies will cost us. When the price of oil goes up people drive less. Without good inexpensive public transit, they buy less and they eat out less. The economy in regions without good public transit will suffer more from oil shock than those with good transit.

Rail based systems absorb higher ridership far better than bus only systems. This June Dallas LRT average weekday ridership was 69,861 rider-trips, up 14.2% over June 2007. Philadelphia-based Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) recorded a 54.2% light rail gain from January to March 2008 compared with the same three-month period of 2007.

Over the life of the system as proposed, LRT is cheaper than BRT. Yes, it costs more to build, but the cost amortized over the life of the system is lower. Since the federal government covers most of the capital costs, LRT will bring more money into the community. Since we, the tax payers of Milwaukee, pay for operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, we should prioritize lower O&M cost over capital costs. LRT has a lower operating and maintenance cost, is more reliable than BRT, it produces less pollution and CO2, and it can handle more riders. When you get beyond the ideology and look at the numbers, LRT is the best way to go.

Alderman Robert Bauman sent this email in response to my email announcement that I had published the above blog "BusStop by Bill Sell. Walker Seeking Funds for Rapid Bus Lines"

He copied all of the City alderpersons.

==================

Hold on here! What specific initiative?

I assume you are talking about the plan to seek federal "new starts" funds to acquire new buses. This is a smoke screen and intended to show that he is doing something about transit when in fact he is doing nothing.

MCTS's main problem is its inability to cover increasing operating costs from its existing revenue sources. So far, Walker has refused to consider any increase in revenue that in anyway looks like a new or increased local tax. As a result the problem is getting worse as evidenced by significant cuts in service and increases in fares.

Buying new buses does not solve this problem. The federal money is limited to capital costs and cannot be used to cover operating costs.

So called "express bus service" or "Bus Rapid Transit" is also a smoke screen. Milwaukee has had such service for years. Routes 1, 2 and 3 along with some rush hour express service such as the 30X were all a form of BRT or express bus service. All of these routes have been abolished in the last 10 years. The freeway flyers are a form of express bus service or BRT that have been operating for years. These routes are poor performers since they carry relatively few passengers per bus hour--a key indicator of bus efficiency. That is why a premium fare is charged for freeway flyers. (Freeway Flyer service may indeed be among the next wave of cuts).

MCTS could establish express routes today. They do not need to buy new buses. Operating existing equipment on new or existing routes with fewer stops would significantly improve travel time--the primary goal of BRT. One option: MCTS could simply restore the BRT routes that have been cut over the years.

The problem of course is that adding new BRT routes adds to MCTS's operating costs. MCTS can't operate its existing routes structure much less cover the additional operating costs of new BRT routes regardless of what type of buses operate on those routes.

Without a fundamental restructuring of transit funding, adding new BRT routes is preposterous. It would simply add to the problem MCTS has now.

I suspect Walker is well aware of this fact, but he assumes most of the public is not aware therefore he can look proactive when he knows absolutely nothing will come of it unless the funding issue is tackled first. Since he has no intention of tackling the funding issue, the realilty is that any bus purchasing that happens will amount to nothing more than replacing existing equipment on the existing route structure. There will not be any new routes.

My main problem with Walker on this issue is his intellectual dishonesty. If he does not believe in public transit (as appears to be the case), and if he does not believe that public transit should be subsidized (which also appears to be the case), then he should say so and defend his position in the public policy/political arena. I am sure there are citizens who agree with this proposition. Maybe even a majority of voters in Milwaukee County.

Instead he runs around talking about BRT when it can never happen unless you: (1) believe in public transit and (2) believe that transit has to be subsidized.

Barrett, on the other hand, understands that financial reform must occur first (such as a regional transit authority) and he does believe in public transit and understands that it has to be subsidized. He has been willing to say so and defend his position in the public arena. This I can respect.

I hope supporters and advocates of public transit are not deceived.

Thank you, Mr. Bauman

I would suggest you read my entire comment on Walker's initiative.
http://www.uppitywis.org/busstop-bill-sell-walker-seeking-funds-rapid-bu...

I have published your thoughtful response to my email as a Comment to this blog.

I have no problem with your opinion. But they are only words. And like Walker's initiatives they are nothing new. I have made words like yours. You have made the same words in other venues.

But what we are looking for out here is not words, but action. Transit needs a leader. And a leader needs to act.

When I say "bring Walker to the table" I am speaking of a real table, not a metaphorical table. Call him up and tell him "we need to talk." Healing the rift he enjoys will benefit all of us.

If you wish to act, why don't you join us for the next four Mondays? Bay View Neighborhood Association's is calling for Transit-supporting bus rides, four Mondays in August. From Bay View to Downtown. 7:03 a.m., at Russell and Kinnickinnic. Arrive at City Hall, Wells and Wisconsin 7:24. Details: http://www.bayviewneighborhood.org/mondays-moving-milwaukee/

best
Bill Sell

This whole idea that Walker just found out about a "new" program where he could obtain money for BRT lines is a joke. It is the SAME program that the $91.5 million came from. New Starts (Very Small Starts is part of New Starts)...