The Detroit People Mover. (AP Photo)
Advocates of the $64.6-million, 2.1-mile streetcar project often defend the transit line by pointing out Milwaukee is an anomaly among big cities without some type of rail system available to residents and visitors.
Moments after the Common Council approved the project in July, Mayor Tom Barrett said the streetcar would bring Milwaukee in line with other cities of similar stature.
Milwaukee, Barrett said, has to “make sure this city can compete with other municipalities, because we are the most densely populated city in the country that does not have a system like this. This is a significant step for Milwaukee.”
City officials, though, would do well to look closer at one of those aforementioned municipalities with a rail line.
The Detroit People Mover opened in 1987 to much fanfare, with a projected daily ridership of 67,700. An elevated 2.9-mile loop through Detroit’s downtown, the People Mover offers many parallels to Milwaukee’s planned streetcar project.
That should cause at least some concern, though, because the People Mover is a financial wreck operating under the prospect of shutdown. The system’s management board on Wednesday increased ridership fare by 50 percent. Even that increase might not be enough to keep the train moving into next year without cutting night and weekend service.
As it turns out, a 2.9-mile rail line covers relatively little ground in a major city. The People Mover, for instance, will carry passengers to stadiums where the Detroit Lions, Red Wings and Tigers play, but it won’t get them anywhere near other destinations, like the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Detroit Public Library or Wayne State University.
As one might expect, the People Mover is popular — and full — on game days, but a ghost train almost any time when there isn’t a major downtown event underway. The People Mover carried 6,071 passengers in 2010, or 61,629 fewer daily passengers than the city projected in the 1980s.
Detroit officials have floated plans to expand the People Mover so it would be more useful, but the Motor City has little capacity to pump $200 million into an already failing rail line.
Comparing the People Mover to Milwaukee’s planned streetcar, of course, is not apples-to-apples. Milwaukee has a more vibrant downtown with greater numbers of bars, restaurants, festivals and visitors.
But if the streetcar fails to expand beyond its initial 2.1-mile planned route, it could suffer from the same lack of route coverage as the People Mover.
Barrett says he has considered that possibility and is confident the streetcar would be a valuable resource even at a shade longer than 2 miles.
“Our preliminary designs for this were built on the assumption this would be all the money we had,” Barrett said. “Obviously, we’re going to do everything we can to get additional dollars from the federal government, because that’s the money that’s going to be spent on streetcars somewhere in this country.”
Even the initial streetcar route, city officials say, would drop off passengers within easy walking distance of 100 percent of downtown hotels, 90 percent of office and retail space and 77 percent of parking and housing.
Milwaukee also is starting out with much more conservative and reasonable ridership estimates. A study predicts 1,800 people would ride the initial streetcar route in 2015. The city also would charge $1 per ride, double the cost of riding Detroit’s People Mover.
As someone who lives downtown and enjoys — even prefers — rail travel, including the woebegone People Mover, I hope the streetcar project lives up to everything its proponents believe it can be.
But I also hope city officials keep an eye on Detroit.
The People Mover’s failure doesn’t necessarily forecast the future for Milwaukee’s streetcar. But it should give pause to great expectations.
Copyright © 2012, The Daily Reporter Publishing Company
Alright, who’s the unsigned author here? Tom Rubin? Wendell Cox, maybe? Or Randal O’Toole, perhaps? Come on already, there’s absolutely no correlation between the Detroit People Mover and any streetcar system anywhere. Except maybe that they both happen to run on rails, and the word ‘rail’ is enough to inflame these rabid anti-railers who have quiet ties to things like cars and buses and concrete roads, Unlike rail (which has kept its reputation clean without behind-the-scenes political or financial shenanigans), roads, paving and Big Oil spend big cash to influence voters and candidates. Anti-rail Scott Walker personally accepted an estimated $50,000 in campaign cash from the Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association in Orlando in 2010. Roadbuilders … the heirs to the National City Lines methods of the last century … are the most powerful special interest group in the state and give money to both political parties. Road builders also have the money to sway voters.
The oft-quoted Randal O’Toole is funded by oil, asphalt, and pipeline money to lead a jihad against any/all rail transit. This anonymous article is aimed at those who seldom bother to look behind the curtain. Much of this anti-rail obstructionist talk is directly linked to powerful interest groups that stand to profit from halting rail transit, realizing that once people get to use rail, they like it and lessen their sole dependency on autos. And what the anti-railers fear most of all is that now since Milwaukee has finally joined the ranks of all the other cities that have rediscovered urban rail, there will someday be talk of expansion.
Brad, thanks for commenting. This is not an unsigned blog, as my name is at the top, on the right side of the header. We just launched the blog, though, so it’s possible the header alone is not an adequate way to attach my name to each post. We’ll take this into consideration.
I would dispute your assertion that I am among the “anti-railers” to whom you refer. I stated my fondness for rail travel in the post. I’ve lived in New York City, where I traveled almost exclusively by rail, and I regularly rode the People Mover while living in Metro Detroit. I’ve traveled from Milwaukee’s Amtrak station as recently as last weekend. I live downtown and go days at a time without driving anywhere. Given the choice, I would prefer to take a train instead of a car every time.
I concede in the post that the People Mover is not an apples-to-apples comparison to Milwaukee’s planned streetcar. Nonetheless, the People Mover is an example of how a downtown rail project can fail to provide a comprehensive route, making it a poor transportation option for most people.
My only point is that Milwaukee should consider the problems that have plagued Detroit’s People Mover as it presses forward with the streetcar project.
Thanks for clarifying, James; but you should know that on this particular internet server your name doesn’t appear anywhere except on your comment above.
James: I also do not see your name anywhere but in your post. That aside, I think a better comparison is the Milwaukee County Transit System, as well as the Chicago Meta system. They are both in financial trouble. Ridership on the MTS is at a all time low. The Meta on the other hand is high on riders, but completely mismanaged.
In my opinion New York and Paris’s subway system works because of there frequency, saturation of coverage, and speed. I can’t image it being replicated in a street car or even surface rail application.
Without doing a full scale system, anything else will be set up to fail from the start.
I think the reason the comparison doesn’t really work is that the Milwaukee Street Car will not be a loop, so it will in reality cover a larger area than the People Mover. The Street Car in Milwaukee will connect the area with the greatest population density (Eastside) to the area with the most jobs (Downtown)– so should have success right away. But, of course, to really solidify the initial line expanding it to North Avenue and eventually UWM is the key.
Brad, thanks for thinking of me, but, no, as James as pointed out, he is the author, not me.
Speaking as someone who was then the head of transit services at the firm that the Federal government hired to take a look at the Detroit People Mover before it opened, it was rather obvious that the biggest problems were poor management of a poorly conceived project. I agree that you cannot just take the Detroit experience and transfer it to Milwaukee — as James points out, there are huge differences between the Milwaukee and Detroit Central Business Districts, as well a the larger metropolitan areas.
You should however, look at Detroit as an example of what can go wrong when people try to have transit projects do things that transit projects just can’t do — and then try to implement the project without proper, experienced leadership, which means both professional management and public agency board members.
I suggest that, before taking action, you study other, similar projects. Among the failures (in the sense that they have failed to meet the original projections of their promoters), besides Detriot, also look at Jacksonville (another people mover), Kenosha (an interesting addition to the community, but at an average daily ridership of 154 for 2009, somewhat difficult to consider as a serious transportation system, Little Rock (328 daily riders to the Bill Clinton Library from downtown), and Galveston (shut down a few years back due to Huricane damage, but with 86 average daily passengers prior to the shutdown, …).
Also look carefully at the streetcar systems that have done better. Portland, of course, with almost 10,000 daily riders, has more than half the national ridership; Memphis, with 2,800; Tacoma, with 2,400 (although it can be thought of, at least in part, as a free parking shuttle); Tampa, with 1,400 daily; and the Seattle South Lake Union Trolley (not its official name, but who can resist the tag line, “Take a Ride on the SLUT”), over 2,000 on a newly opened line.
Research these, then go to these places, get BOTH sides of the story in each, and learn what works, and what doesn’t.
Also, think about running bus replica trolley sevice on the proposd route before you start laying rails. If you find out that you didn’t get a bus route perfect the first time, it can be changed fairly easily, but if the rail lines are not laid in the right place, you’re stuck — so, run a bus line there first before you are out several million dollars per mile and see what you get.
Any questions, feel free to call on me.
Tom Rubin
If the goal of 655,000 riders is achieved at a $1
fare, the deficit would be close to $2 million.
If this route is so special, why not paint 4 new buses to look different than the Transport buses and run the same route for several months free.
Then we could see how popular the route is and how many people would use it.
The cost would be a fraction of the cost of the streetcar and if it fails it could be discontinued.
The cost of a new bus is approx. $350,000.
This project makes no sense at all.
Mr. Briggs name appears in the photo/graphic masthead for the blog. Nice graphic BTW,
It should be pointed out the route is the key. Poor route means poor ridership. As stated in the article and by Mayor Barrett this is a starter/start-up route. To make the streetcar a success it needs to serve a wide area of potential riders. Getting to UWM would help ensure this project be a success. The streetcar needs to be running to prove its’ worth. A good (but not complementary project) comparison would be METRA’s North Central line from the Loop thru Wheeling and ending in Antioch. Started as a small operation with five or six roundtrip trains per weekday, it has since expanded to limited weekend trains and additional daily trains. The public demanded the line many years ago and took many more years to come to fruition. I lived in Mundelein near the rails, hoping to ride these same rails to a job in Wheeling before the NC Line was even being considered. I just hope this line in Milwaukee will lead to the KRM line finally being built.
Tom Rubin writes “… think about running bus replica trolley sevice (sic) on the proposd (sic) route before you start laying rails.”
And Dick Natalizio writes “… why not paint 4 new buses to look different than the Transport buses and run the same route for several months free.”
Using that logic, let’s also dress every hard-playing Wisconsin high school football team in Green Bay Packers uniforms and let everyone in free and see if they’ll draw similar crowds.
Those bouncing, diesel-belching little rubber-tired minibuses that try so hard to look like streetcars are the Elvis impersonators of the transit world. (Ever once see a streetcar trying to look like a bus?)
Brad Jakubiak,
You don’t appear to even live here. Google shows you live in Royal Oak, Michigan. What skin do you have in this?
Oh, shucks, now my cover is blown. Serves me right for not hiding behind an invented anonymous name, like … well, like some people who post here.
Mr. Jakubiak, it is unfortunate that you appear to be so obsessed with what is still a preliminary proposal for a streetcar line in Milwaukee that your reponse to any discussion of it that is not to you liking is to attempt to attack or ridicule the people who offer constructive advice, or to correct your misstatements.
When your only tactic is personal attacks on those who do not agree with you, your lack of ability to respond to technical issues quickly becomes apparent to all … and becomes very tiresome.
If you ever do have any technical points to make, I will be most pleased to read them.
Tom Rubin
Mr. Tom Rubin, your powers of analysis are as notable as is your defense of the downtrodden. Perhaps you’d be willing to tell the readers where *you* live. We can stand together if the mileage-counter above takes offense.
Do you consider yourself an anti-rail activist?
Mr. Jakubiak, thank you for your remarks re “my defense of the downtrodden.”
This is something that I have devoted a considerable portion of my career to, including service as the chief expert in the legal challenge that produced the greater transit benefit for low income peoples of color in recent U.S. history, the Consent Decree that settled Labor/ Community Strategy Center vs. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
This not only immediately stopped the eleven-year history of the lost of twelve million transit riders a year, but turned it around to eleven years of GAIN of twelve million riders/year (to provide some perspective, the net turn-around of about 24 million riders/year is equal to approximately half of MTCS’ recent annual ridership). Being part of the team that accomplished this is one of the proudest accomplishment of my 35 years in the transit industry and well worth to me the many thousands of hours I devoted to it, pro bono.
Certainly, I’m very willing to tell people where I live — Oakland, California — even though I am not exactly clear what this has to do with the current discussion, any more than your home in Royal Oak has direct relevance to how your comments should be evaluated (except, of course, as to the amount of local knowledge one might pocess).
No, I certainly do not consider myself “an anti-rail activist;” in fact, I have worked for about two dozen major rail transit agencies, including significant work on several rail transit systems and proposed new rail lines.
I am, however, very definately, anti-BAD-transit, just as I am very much pro-good-transit, in whatever mode they may happen to be, bus, rail, or whatever.
One thing that I find particularly unfortunate is when those without much knowledge or meaningful experience in public transit and related fields start with a project, and a particular type of transit, rather than beginning with the transportation needs and related matters such as urban form. This can — and, unfortunately, often does — lead to expensive projects that do not accomplish their stated objectives and utilize very significant taxpayer funds — funds that could have been utilized for far superior transit services and for other improvements to urban life. Proper planning for rail, or any other form of transit, begins with the needs and considers all feasible and practical options — fairly and professionally, with appropriate utilization of technical experts and the experiences of other communities.
If you care to review my original comments above, I believe that any fair reading would see these as an clarification and explanation of some technical issues related to streetcar installation and the interface with underground utilities, along with a proposal that, in my opinion, has worked well in other cities to evaluate the need and value of a streetcar system and its best routing — and not as “anti-rail;” just presenting facts, history, and professional opinion based on decades of experience.
You have commented directly on any of the points I made, except with an analogy of somewhat questionable applicability.
I will renew my offer to read any technical point on the streetcar proposal you would care to make and, as appropriate, comment. I suggest that, if you have actual technical comment on the proposed streetcar line, both your posts, and my responses, would be of far more value to those who are following this exchange than what has been added from your most recent ones.
Tom Rubin
I congratulate Milwaukee’s city council and related committees for moving this long-awaited project forward. The streetcar/rail-transit business is today in a national renaissance.
And it’s generally a *clean* business, and not known for political or financial shenanigans as is the paving lobby and Big Oil.
Roadbuilders give lots of money to both political parties. And there are those individuals who introduce themselves as “transit consultants” but who are in actuality funded by oil-related and paving money.
The very worst mistake any decisionmaking governmental body can do is to bypass doing background checks on consultants.
In the last decade an article, “Exposing Those Far-Right Propaganda ‘Think Tanks’”, said “Throughout the USA, public transportation is virtually under siege”, with “a veritable barrage of misinformation, directed especially against rail transit services and proposals, coming from so-called ‘think tanks’ with warm and fuzzy ‘heartland’-style or ‘academic’-redolent names …. Despite their ‘grassroots’ pretenses, these groups’ high intensity of pricey activities belie heavily endowed bank accounts: a steady stream of ‘surveys’, supposedly erudite research projects and reports, cash channelled into local anti-transit efforts, and visits by national ‘hired gun’ transit assassins …”
From what I’m gearing from the many comments in this blog…..
The proposed trolley line is too short, an incomplete even an unsupportable route, and misses a great many popular destinations.
I like trolleys. I’ll support an efficient trolley system that people will use for practical reasons.
This appears to be a toy system, planned to have Milwaukee feel better about how far it has deteriorated since they removed the extensive regional traction system 50-60 years ago.
All I have seen proposed for the last 60 years every time adds up to a meager 5-percent or less of the 1940-1950 system that was throughout the region. With plans to, maybe, expand to another 1-5 percent over the next couple of decades.
I just can’t think of such retarded and sluggish planning as being effective, nor wise.
I do live in Milwaukee, on the far west side. If the trolley was running on it’s proposed route today; I’d have no reason to go to it, nor ride it. I have no foreseeable reason to even go near it in at least the next few years.
Maybe in 20 years when they -might- have expanded it enough to reach places I now drive to.
Maybe……
By then, I hope to be driving a superconducting, ultrahigh efficiency electric-based automobile that runs for a month on a single charge and recharges itself from the on-board generator.
Perhaps some of the old electric trolleys will still be running around? and be completely obsolete years before then.
Mr. Jakubiak, thank you for your most recent posting.
As to your comments, “The streetcar/rail-transit business is today in a national renaissance.
“And it’s generally a ‘clean’ business, and not known for political or financial shenanigans as is the paving lobby and Big Oil.
“Roadbuilders give lots of money to both political parties.”
Speaking as someone who has spent 35 years in both transit and roadbuilding, I find these comments rather interesting, being that, to a large extent, the major transit project construction firms, and road construction firms, and the larger architecture/engineeing firms for both industries — are the same firms. Their interest is to make sales and profits — and they really don’t care very much if the project is transit or road.
If you are talking about political contributions from such firms, you might want to check out the politial contribution reports for local and state measures presented to the voters for both; I can assure you that you will find very significant contributions from such firms for highway projects and new road taxes, and for transit projects and new transit taxes.
While there are certainly some procurements and projects that appear questionable in both industries, in general, in my experience, the degree of such questionable activities is far more dependent upon the geographic area in question, and its long-term history of such activity, than the industry.
It is a bit difficult to conclusively prove that one of these transportation modes is more “unclean” than the other, but perhaps one way is to compare the projected results vs. the actual. In Bent Flybvbjerg et al, “Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects — Error or Lie?,” American Planning Association Journal, Summer 2002, https://mioga.minefi.gouv.fr/DB/public/controlegestion/doc/4Qualite_et_cdg/3%20Analyse%20co%FBt%20avantage%20co%FBt%20b%E9n%E9fice/Underestimating_cost_in_public_works_projects.pdf, the authors compare the results for 258 projects world-wide. Focusing on the U.S. road and rail projects, the 24 U.S. road projects came in at an average cost escalation of 8.4%, vs. the 19 rail projects at 40.8% — rail projects had an average cost escalation about 4.85 times that of rail.
Of course, it is improper to assume that all the cost escalation was due to dishonesty, from my own experience, a lot was due to incompetence — although, of course, these are not mutually exclusive.
As to your reference to “Exposing Those Far-Right Propaganda ‘Think Tanks’”, would you mind explaining why you mentioned it here? In this context, it is difficult to see it as anything more than an attempt at an ad hominem argument against just about anyone who might post something about rail transit that you do not view with favor. Rather than wasting your time, and everyone else’s, on such activities, you might wish to respond on the factual issues that have been raised — that is, if you have any capability to do so.
Once again, if you ever choose to post something of a factual, analytical, or logical basis, I will be happy to review it and, as may be appropriate, comment upon it.
Tom Rubin
The Detroit system appears to me to be an effort to have a considerably faster train than a streetcar. Building above ground makes it likely faster, but is very costly and it suggests that passenger will climb or be elevatored to the platform. A streetcar is meant to be more accessible for short hops, easy on and easy off. A short hop among dense sectors is a good bet.
The streetcar duplicates no bus route, but crosses all bus routes that ply downtown streets; making it a Connector, especially to the developable southern part of downtown, the third ward and fairly close to the events at the lakefront.
@Mike, you may like a plan for a complete system, but there are lots of folks who would faint at the price. The careful step-by-step approach may serve Milwaukee better. We are a skeptical city and it’s well that decision makers stick with a plan once formulated. This baby will grow and carries its weight.
Above, Tom Rubin quotes some rail-route ridership figures in some American cities , then adds “Research these, then go to these places, get BOTH sides of the story in each, and learn what works, and what doesn’t.”
Except that those rail routes Tom Rubin discusses are exactly that – routes – and those same cities have bus routes, too, though Tom Rubin singles out only those routes that are rail without bothering to count passengers on any bus routes. To me, that’s telling.
Of those cities’ rail systems that Tom Rubin may personally consider underperforming – even though those cities may disagree – consider how many would ride those same rail routes if instead a bus was used, come on.
Does anyone believe that Detroit, Jacksonville, Kenosha, Little Rock, Seattle, Portland and Memphis, Tacoma and Tampa and San Francisco and New Orleans and all the other American cities that have rail are as proud of their buses as they are of their rail systems?
And who’d ever brag that they came to Milwaukee and rode a *bus*?
Mr. Jakubiak:
Thank you for your response today to my posting of September 26th.
I will pass responding to your first comment on bus route ridership, as I do not understand the point you are making.
My point was, the actual ridership on the rail lines I cited has, in many cases,been far short of what the proponents had indicated when the projects were proposed. If you wish to comment on that, I would be most happy to review your comments.
You asked why I had not discussed bus line data, and then asked if the people in several cities, which you list, are as proud of their buses as they are of the their rail systems.
I am going to respond to both of these together, in the following manner:
Starting with Detroit, in 2010, according to the National Transit Database, their rail system carried 3.3 million passenger miles, while the two bus systems together carried 269.0 million — over 81 times as much.
For the other cities, the ratio’s are (all for 2010 unless otherwise indicated):
Jacksonville: 361 times as much.
Kenosha: 82 times.
Little Rock: 78 times.
Seattle: 5.6 times (I’m counting motor bus + electric bus vs. light rail, streetcar, and commuter rail).
Portland: 1.25 times (I’m including light rail, streetcar, and commuter rail).
Memphis: 59 times.
Tacoma: 58 times (for 2008; I had to go back there to get the right comparable data).
Tampa: 76 times.
San Francico: For San Francisco Municipal Railway, 2.2 times as much, comparing the total of motor bus and electric bus to the total of light rail plus cable car.
New Orleans: 8.8 times (I went back to 2003 to get a full year of pre-huricane data).
Now, I included every type of rail that existed for the specific cities (for San Francisco, I used only San Francisco Muni, as trying to add in the other two dozen or so transit agencies would be a lot more work that I’m prepared to — and really doesn’ appear to be in the spirit of your question, anyway). What is proposed for Milwaukee is streetcar, so the obvious comparison is to places that have streetcars.
From the ones on your list, the following have the type of streetcars that are proposed for Milwaukee and no other rail: Kenosha, Little Rock, Memphis, Tacoma (there is a commuter rail line from Tacoma to Seattle, but I counted its passener-miles with Seattle), and Tampa.
The following have “modern” streetcars AND something else: Seattle and Portland.
The following have streetcars of the good old type, that were mainline transit systems, not downtown circulator types: New Orleans and San Francisco. San Francisco streetcars have been, to a major extent,moved a long way towards current light rail standards.
Detroit and Jacksonville have automated guideway, which is quite a bit different from streetcar, except in one key aspect — streetcar and automate guideway are both, in many cases, a lot less transportation than they are some kind of urban development or tourism thing — I guess; that is often the justification, although how well that actually works is subject to question.
For the places where the ratio of bus to rail utilization is actually not measured in the dozens to one range, streetcar is a very minor contributor to the rail totals; it is light rail and commuter rail that are the vast majority of the rail totals.
Other than having done a great dal of travel around the U.S. for many decades as part of my transportation industry pactice, I make no claims to expertise in tourism — but I will observe that, if your motivation for promoting streetcars in Milwaukee is to attract tourists whoe will brag to their friends about their streetcar ride, you may wish to consider a career in a field other than tourism and economic development.
Thank you for your interest in urban transportation.
Tom Rubin