A solution for city's public transit

Retired businessman and philanthropist Michael Cudahy is among the local rail transit advocates, and his opinion piece appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel a week ago Monday.

Why a streetcar? Why not light rail?

First, light rail is nothing but a very heavy streetcar so the tracks must have a very deep foundation.

That oversimplifies, as you can see looking at Wikipedia on light rail and its differences from streetcars or trams. Or look at this Tucson transit study comparison [pdf].

Installation would cause big disruptions in Milwaukee and would cost way too much. Most cities that implement light rail are ones that already have some heavy track in place.

This disruption argument was also made against separating sewers rather than building underground storage for combined sanitary and storm sewer overflow. It's hard to see why streets can be closed for repaving or obstructed for utility work, but not for separating sewers or track-laying. By "heavy track in place" he apparently means using existing railway on its separate right of way. Where that's available, it's a point in favor of rail transit. Sharing the road with auto traffic was one of the disadvantages that lead to the elimination of streetcars in favor of buses. Why operate a railroad if the trains can still wind up stuck in traffic?

Then what's wrong with buses?

Not easy to explain. Some people just don't get it. It's subtle at first but quite obvious when you see examples of "rail-guided transportation" in action, as in Denver and Portland, Ore.

You see, to have a bus service from Point A to Point B, you only need to get a bus and hire a driver. To change the route is just as easy, so people like builders, real estate planners, developers, etc., just don't take bus routes very seriously.

You might have jitney service by getting a bus and hiring a driver. He ignores the system aspect of a bus system. The argument that bus service changes willy-nilly ignores the facts on the ground. Take a look at Mr. Cudahy's transit plan [gif]. Note that essentially the same routes, including his Phase II extensions, were served by streetcars 90 years ago and are served by buses today [pdf].

But install any kind of rail system, and they conclude, rightly, that those tracks are going to be around for a long time - so serious investments can be made along the route.

The argument that laying track makes streetcar service on that route permanent ignores the facts under the ground. Abandoned streetcar track lies under a layer of asphalt on many Milwaukee streets. For example, among the photos of Relics of the streetcar system is one of streetcar track exposed by repair work on Wisconsin Avenue downtown, as an MCTS bus passes by. Not long ago I saw pavement replacement work on South Howell Avenue that included not only removing streetcar track, but taking out the remains of the switches leading to what once was the electric interurban rail line to Kenosha.

I have personally examined the routes of the first phase and found very adequate street widths for the streetcar plan with the exception of north-south Farwell and Prospect avenues.

Despite his judgment on its width, Farwell had streetcar service long ago. I suspect that laying a new single track in its allegedly inadequate width will require removing paved-over abandoned double track. In any case, isn't Prospect Avenue at least as wide as West Wisconsin Avenue? I'd think the problem with double track on Prospect or Farwell is not pavement width but that they are now one way streets.