So these kids up at UW-Madison, (well, OK so they aren't really kids) came up with a handy dandy map of what a Milwaukee subway system might look like, according to a blog on JS Online.
The map represents an interesting connectedness between southeastern Wisconsin communities, sort of remniscent of the KRM concept, but broader. And because there are college students involved, you know there's beer. Here's how this map idea got legs.
Meg Jones wrote:
Matt Forrest, a University of Wisconsin-Madison grad, was drinking suds with his friend Tom Shield at the Y-Not II Tavern last summer. Forrest and his business partner, Kate Chanba, met in a web map design class their senior year at UW and had recently opened Carticulate, a cartography business in New York that melds mapmaking with graphic design.
Now the subway is but a pipe dream, almost literally because this plan would be in direct conflict with the muck flowing through Milwaukee's deep tunnel system.
But we wondered what you thought of this hypothetical connected community?
I've been on rail systems in other cities and the subways in NYC. They're only practical because of surface congestion and no one who could would chose them over the comfort and convenience of being in a car. We don't have surface congestion here. By car it takes a little less than an hour and half to get from Milwaukee to Madison. By the time you get to and from the departure and destination points for HSR your trip time would be approximately the same. HSR has been rejected, repeatedly, as it should be. We could build long range roller coasters along the same routes mentioned in the subway study. They would cost a lot less, be something nobody else has, wouldn't be any less practical and would probably get more usage than a subway would. I think we should do that. Because it would be cool. And money's no object. It would pay for itself with tickets over time - because I said so.
There just isn't a need here. We are neither big enough, nor are our highways congestive enough to support such an idea. Look at the cost of the trolley in Milwaukee that will travel 2 miles, and you will see that such an idea is not practical. And as long as someone can get from point A to point B in a car, and have parking. The vast majority will continue to use that mode of transportation. It's all about independence.
I am not aware of a single year, in the last 37 years, in which ticket prices/fare-box revenue was sufficient to cover their operating costs,let alone the capital expenditures. I have not seen any reportage on the viability of the new "express service" (Red,Green,Blue) that travels some of the high density areas and stops half as much as "regular" service. If 'express service' does not attract sufficient ridership to cover operating costs a subway never will. Does anyone know if any of the 'Freeway Flyer' routes have ticket/fare-box revenue that covers operating costs?
I think you been riding the wrong kind of train..
The Freeway Fliers aren't running anywhere near full. When they start filling to capacity, then we can start thinking about running a train. If we cannot fill buses, there is no way we will come close to selling enough train tickets to cover the cost.
http://www.tmer.org/Section/History/The_Milwaukee_Electric_Railway_and_Light_Company/index.html http://www.r2parks.net/TMER&L.html
Frankly, I don't think mass transit is stupid. Right now, travel by private automobile is the most efficient and comfortable, but as parking in the metro area becomes more of a hassle and gasoline prices continue to rise, that will change. When it comes, it will have to be better designed than what we have now, though.
http://www.powerandlightdistrict.com/
Lets just have the registration/plate fee charge be inverse of the gas mileage. If the average car on the road travels 12,000 miles and gets 20 mpg, they consume 600 gallons of gas and pay $185.40, @ 30.9 cents/gallon, in Wisconsin fuel tax. They also pay a $75 yearly registration fee. Drive an electric car and you pay the current base registration $75 + $185.40 = $260.40;Chevy volt or Toyota Prius might pay $75 + $100 = $175; Austin Mini, VW Rabbit, Fiat 500 might pay $75 + 50 = $125. Keeping track of individual miles driven sounds like an expensive undertaking; it might cost more to manage than it would generate in net revenue, above a simple adjustment calculation for miles per gallon.
If people don't drive much, but own a low MPG vehicle, why should they be subject to the same tax as a person that owns the same vehicle, but drives many more miles? Wouldn't it be easiest to just tax gasoline and/or diesel fuel to accomplish your tax goal? If people drive less or have high MPG cars, they buy less gas (and pay less in taxes). No bean counters required...
Without going to the additional expense of reading everyone odometer or installing a government GPS,we need to assess those that have non-gasoline/ diesel or high mpg vehicles for their share of the roads. A modest increase in the 'fixed' component (registration fee), inversely proportionate to mpg, appears to be the most efficient and even handed.
So, with my example the all electric car(now paying zero) would be paying in lieu of the per/gallon rate as a registration fee increase. The high mpg cars would be 'making up' for their shortfall in per/gallon contribution with a slightly higher registration fee. No change in the registration fee for the low mpg vehicle, as they pay their share at the pump.
The problem with your Moonie nightmares is you want everyone to pay for what you use. Cars are a great idea because everything about them generates taxes through out their useable life. They pay their way just like the person who earns a living pays their way. If you don't like fossil fuel emmisions then walk or take a bicycle or get a horse. At least with the horse you can burn your horse sh*t in your huts fireplace or your non metal mined bot bellied stove for heat. I assume you don't use natural gas or electricity or wood for your heat either.